Your code is deliberately user-hostile. Farmers aren't trying to hack their tractors for the sake of it; they need to hack the parts of your code that prevent them from performing routine maintenance. Replacing a fuel pump is not going to turn a tractor into a rampaging death machine.
You are using spurious safety arguments to justify profiteering. Software lock-outs are being used to prop up a business model, just like the chips in printer ink cartridges.
If product owners are given the ability, they will gladly retune the engine software to output more power, and defeat aftertreatment systems, both to the breaking of emissions laws, and the detriment to the environment. It's a tricky business trying to lock down only parts of the software. Once the cat is out of the bag, all bets are off, to mix my metaphors, so manufacturers err on the side of caution. It's not PURELY to screw the customer. ;-)
Yes - you can change the windshield wipers, replace the fluid, change the tires. You may not be able to replace the battery or any of the high voltage electrical system yet. Although if you are experienced in high-voltage maintenance, you may be able too. See this[1] description of one fix that your "software" would prevent.
Your comparison to Tesla doesn't get better just by repeating it a few times. If your Tesla breaks down you wont have any problem to get a comparable replacement car. Much luck to get a replacement for your tractor during harvest season.
>Your comparison to Tesla doesn't get better just by repeating it a few times
Your hand-waving also does precisely zero.
>If your Tesla breaks down you wont have any problem to get a comparable replacement car
What does this have to do with anything? I want to work on something I bought; isn't that what we're arguing about? The availability of a replacement is a straw man. Why are you apologizing for other companies that do precisely what is being described in the article?
While I think you have a valid point about Tesla's availability, this is a "Tu Coque". I mean, regardless if Tesla does/does not do it, this is considered bad and bringing Tesla in the discussion does not change nor challenge the validity of this view, only, maybe, reveal a little hypocrisy or favoritism in the audience.
>While I think you have a valid point about Tesla's availability, this is a "Tu Coque". I mean, regardless if Tesla does/does not do it, this is considered bad
>reveal a little hypocrisy or favoritism in the audience.
Precisely my point in bringing it up. Someone, who apparently worked at John Deere, offers an opposing view and some clown shouts him down like a bully. Why should anyone listen to the arguments of hypocrites?
If you're against this sort of thing, you're against it.
> Why should anyone listen to the arguments of hypocrites?
Because even though they might be hypocrites the may offer good arguments. And while I understand the point of the JD employee myself (I also work writing software for vehicles) and I think he speaks honestly, I think that goods should be easy to fix and all the means fo this should be at the disposal of whoever needs it. Reconciling safety and the need for open software (because this is what is basically boils down to), right to repair and right to modify is a real issue. One that should not be invalidated necessarily by personal traits of a subset of supporters of either side.
> I want to work on something I bought; isn't that what we're arguing about?
This might be what you are arguing about, but then you are in the wrong discussion. Farmers complain that they have to wait for an authorized JD mechanic to fix even the most simple stuff. And during harvest time they just can't wait.
Your code is deliberately user-hostile. Farmers aren't trying to hack their tractors for the sake of it; they need to hack the parts of your code that prevent them from performing routine maintenance. Replacing a fuel pump is not going to turn a tractor into a rampaging death machine.
You are using spurious safety arguments to justify profiteering. Software lock-outs are being used to prop up a business model, just like the chips in printer ink cartridges.