[stevecalifornia]

I have yet to see how this thread will go but I imagine there will be some population that sees this as a malicious attack on 'right to repair'. My take from behind the scenes on these kind of things is that this is likely 'until we have the tools and processes to handle the work stream originating from this one state in this one country, we should disable the feature'.

[csours]

Disclosure: I work for GM, everything expressed here is solely my own opinion.

I think people see car companies as a huge monolith with nearly limitless resources. I can see where this comes from, but those resources are split into silos, and those silos have limited capacity. Especially for companies like Subaru, which is actually pretty small comparatively. They may have done a cost-benefit analysis and decided that the investment was not worth the money they get from selling those option packages.

---

On a broader level, I think right to repair can be perceived as a feature, but many executives have a default negative stance on openness.

I think of it like the GM LS engine. If you're at all familiar with car modification, you've heard of the LS Swap - people changing the engine that came with their car for a larger, more powerful, more versatile GM V8 engine. The LS swap ecosystem grew because the engines were relatively cheap, relatively easy to work on, and relatively reliable (your mileage may vary). Imagine if GM executives had tried to lock down the engine swap environment.

[resoluteteeth]

It's interesting to note that this exactly what John Deere has been claiming about repair software for their tractors: they're just really busy working on making it available ASAP.

John Deere has actually been saying this (that they're working on it as fast as they can and it will be ready any day now) as they stall for years and refuse to actually make their software available to purchasers, even though the software itself actually already exists, since dealers have it, and they could literally just hand people copies with zero additional work.

[csours]

What if John Deere viewed user serviceability as a competitive advantage? Why don't they now? If they changed their view today (or 5 years ago, etc), what challenges would they face? How much technical investment would each of those challenged take?

I've been thinking about assumptions so deep you don't even realize they are assumptions. If an organization assumes a dealership model, and works that way for 50 years, all sorts of decisions are made that make it hard to go direct. People joining the org naturally go along, after a while they just don't think about alternatives.

It's REALLY hard to hold ideas that don't make sense in your head; you ask your leadership "Why do we do this" and you come to some conclusion based on what they say, but it's resolved. Like untying a knot, you have to leave a lot of loose ends unresolved if you want to change deep assumptions, and that is not mentally rewarding for most people.

[duped]

That assumes they have the rights to distribute the software to their customers, it's not always so cut and dry when you have vendor libraries to deal with.

[LordDragonfang]

John Deere had a net income of 5 billion in 2021. If it genuinely takes them five years to figure out how to license software with that kind of cash flow, they need to fire their CTO.

[miohtama]

The variation of ”right to repair” was also what started the freedom of software movement in 80s and later led to the creation of Linux. If it’s your device then you should have 100% control over it.

[nickff]

>"If it’s your device then you should have 100% control over it."

Should you get the source code to all software running on it, along with all the relevant documentation and a right to modify it as you see fit? Without that, it's not really full control.

[pdonis]

Yes. That has been the position of free software advocates for as long as the free software movement has existed.

[artful-hacker]

I don't really know about source code, but at the very least, you should have access to any crypto keys, code, passwords or other such thing needed to modify it. Furthermore, reverse engineering any aspect of the thing and sharing the specifications you have discovered should not be illegal.

[ziml77]

Absolutely. I think all software being libre is a tad extreme, but we shouldn’t be locked out of being able to run what we want on the devices. Especially once they’re no longer supported.

[Mezzie]

What you should have is the option to chose to only run software whose source code/documentation/etc meets your needs.

Also that the devices' uses should be up to their owners, not their manufacturers. Devices are tools, not services.

[UnpossibleJim]

Are there "hacked" (read, opensource) software versions of the software available for these farm machines, or is it illegal to produce open source software for such "proprietary" pieces of machinery?

I haven't been keeping up with the "Right to Repair" movement as close as I should have, I'm afraid, and I'm not sure how far down the rabbit hole it goes. Does it drop down so far as to touch the software that runs the machine systems on these, or is it purely mechanical?

EDIT: At this point in my life I should be able to spell =(

[rodgerd]

> If it’s your device then you should have 100% control over it.

Yeah, but you also don't have the "right" to run your device on shared public spaces with your modifications that make it substantially more dangerous to other users of the same public space.

[nybble41]

I'm fine with that so long as the burden of proof rests on those claiming that the modifications make the device "substantially more dangerous"—keeping in mind that the most dangerous component of any vehicle tends to be the one sitting in the driver's seat.

[rodgerd]

The idiot in the driver's seat is likely the idiot who thinks that lowering their car by cutting the coil springs is a good idea, and will be the same idiot who thinks that messing with the ABS logic is sensible.

[nybble41]

Perhaps, but so what? The existence of certain dangerous modifications does not imply that all modifications would be dangerous. If you mess with the ABS logic (or anything else) and the modifications contribute to an accident then you're obviously going to be liable for that. On the other hand you could simply install a custom infotainment unit or some third-party or DIY heated seats, in which case I see no reason to preemptively ban the vehicle without clear evidence that the modifications pose a threat to other users of the road.

A reasonable compromise would be to require any modifications to be disclosed at registration, but with a policy of approving them by default unless there is a good, evidence-based reason to think that they pose a significant risk.

[bluedino]

> Imagine if GM executives had tried to lock down the engine swap environment.

At least if they did, you could build one with 100% aftermarket pieces.

[mywittyname]

I think, in this particular situation, it's more that Subaru themselves don't really know how to approach fixing these safety systems. From my experience these systems are fickle-beta-hot-garbage-heaps brand new. I bet they see right to repair bills as a way for the general public to gather evidence that they've known this all along.

Of course, this doesn't really address the issue of people buying cars from out of state. But who knows, maybe we'll see "Massachusetts Cars" be a thing in the Subaru world for their lack of broken factory features.

[anothernewdude]

When it came to screwing the customers they weren't left waiting to figure out how.

[GekkePrutser]

Well if that's the case they really should have considered the optics better.

Also, "who cares it's just one small state in one country" is not a very nice thing for a company to express either.

Either way it's a bit of a middle finger to the affected customers IMO.

[kasey_junk]

It’s not a middle finger necessarily. While I have no automotive industry experience I’ve definitely been in situations where I was prohibited from being able to provide customer value adding capabilities to systems due to compliance issues, either lack of clarity of the requirements, added compliance costs making the feature untenable or compliance mandated deadlines not meeting estimated delivery times.

It feels terrible to do but there isn’t much choice.