[zelon88]

> Engine horsepower, for example, can be increased by a software update.

How do you see this as an asset? Deere designed a part that's capable of doing something and your software chokes that back unless they poney up.

In manufacturing we have the same thing. You buy a CNC machine that comes equipped with 16mb of memory, but only 2mb is usable. If you want all 16mb (which already exists soldered to your motherboard) you need to pony up thousands of dollars for a 16 digit code that unlocks the added memory.

And you're trying to tell me that by requiring the manufacturer to share that code is bad for the consumer? Yeah, you don't sound like a shill or anything.

And no, Deere shouldn't fix that under warranty. It's the same with cars. You can do that trick to a Honda with a resistor in-line to the MAF sensor and it will run the car lean, giving the illusion of more performance while wearing out the engine and burning the combustion chamber way too hot. Should Honda fix that? No way! Should Honda let the customer do it anyway? Of course they should! Should Honda share the schematics with the customer so they not only realize that it's a bad idea, but also know WHY it's a bad idea? Yes.

Your argument is straw man. If you didn't have secrets you wouldn't need DRM. DRM doesn't protect anyone except the edge-case of idiots who shouldn't mess with the tractor even if you gave them the repair manual anyway. It's strictly to protect Deere.

[dang]

> Yeah, you don't sound like a shill or anything.

That breaks the site guideline against insinuation of astroturfing and so on. Would you please review them and follow them when posting here?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

Also, please don't jump on someone just because you disagree with them and have strong feelings on a topic. bricej13 posted an interesting comment. You're welcome to disagree, ask questions, make counterpoints, etc., but please do so in a spirit of good conversation.

[bricej13]

> your software

I was an intern. I wasn't anywhere near the engine controller software.

> And no, Deere shouldn't fix that under warranty. It's the same with cars. You can do that trick to a Honda with a resistor in-line to the MAF sensor and it will run the car lean, giving the illusion of more performance while wearing out the engine and burning the combustion chamber way too hot. Should Honda fix that? No way! Should Honda let the customer do it anyway? Of course they should! Should Honda share the schematics with the customer so they not only realize that it's a bad idea, but also know WHY it's a bad idea? Yes.

Looks like we agree here.

> It's strictly to protect Deere.

We also agree here.

> Engine horsepower, for example, can be increased by a software update.

> How do you see this as an asset?

I explained this further in another comment.

> Yeah, you don't sound like a shill or anything.

I explicitly stated my bias in the first line.

[ddingus]

:D Deere always takes a beating on this topic.

I am interested in this bit:

The expensive configurations subsidize the base configurations.

This idea is common now. Rigol scopes often perform well above spec. CNC machinery has unlockable features. Other examples are not hard to find.

Does this literally mean companies who do this sort of thing sell at a net loss, or not?

A net loss would warrant the word subsidy. Anything else is not really a subsidy at all.

Which is it?

[bricej13]

Good catch, using the word 'subsidize' was probably a bit sloppy on my part. I don't know whether the base configurations are sold at a loss or not.

In a highly-competitive market I suspect that they would, but maybe not in a less-competitive market.

[ddingus]

:D