[count]

Why are the tractors any different from cars? If I buy a car, I can do anything aftermarket to it I want. If the car is in warranty, those mods do not allow the manufacturer to not continue to support it (well established case law), and the EPA doesn't care once it's been sold (individual states like CA might have issue, but those are with the owner, not the manufacturer, if it's been modified).

This is all well-settled in the automotive world, why is JD 'different'?

[hrktb]

Car manufacters is an interesting case.

Here in the EU Volkswagen has a different maintenance and repair policy depending on whether the car stayed in the network for revisions or not, and I think aftermarket changes would also matter.

They’re not refusing or blocking anything, just putting a price tag on consumer’s freedom to do what they want.

[war1025]

You are much more likely to call dealer/tech support for a tractor than you are for a car. It's the same reason enterprise software contracts are mainly just paying for support. If your business is on the line, you want it to work, and you want someone to fix it when it's not working.

Tractors are basically automated plant-production factories. They have tons of sensors and moving parts. If you want support from the people that made it, it's not unreasonable that they can dictate the terms of use in order to get that support.

[naikrovek]

> This is all well-settled in the automotive world, why is JD 'different'?

Because laws were passed in the US that specifically allow these kinds of things (like customer repairability and modification) for cars. Those laws do not apply to tractors.

[magduf]

Yes, actually, they do. The Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975 applies to everything, not just cars, even though it was really aimed at cars. But it applies to anything consumers might buy, whether it's tractors or TVs.

[NikkiA]

Because car manufacturers keeping the systems 'open' was mandated legally in 1990 and 2012.