[parineum]

That price is absurdly exaggerated and the part is also misleading (an oil filter).

> "The tech came out and it took him a couple hours to diagnose that there was one small sensor out. And that one small sensor, I think it was a $120 part."

Two hours of labor to diagnose and then however long the replacement took + the cost of the part. $120 doesn't seem overpriced for that.

The time it must take to get a limited pool of technicians to drive out (40 miles) and do that work is probably the real issue. The price seems completely reasonable.

I agree that right-to-repair should be a thing but you're grossly exaggerating the situation.

[cogman10]

Sorry but you are misreading the cost. The part itself is $120. The fee for the tech to travel there wasn't specified.

[parineum]

The article doesn't specify that and the quote is an offhand remark from the farmer himself. I read that more as "... and it cost me $120" as if that was the bill he paid at the end.

However, it is unclear but I think my point still stands, a $120 piece of electronics is an order of magnitude less than a $1000 non-electronic, non-mechanical oil filter.

[cogman10]

The labor is a major part of the cost and a major reason for the lawsuit in the first place.

JD is charging anywhere from $130 to $210/hr [1] for labor. That is my point. And that $120 part can only be replaced by their technicians which means that while the part itself might be reasonably priced, the labor is forced.

That's what was being said about that part, it's a cheap part which you have to spend a lot of money on the labor to install it. The farmer spent from $380 to $520 to install that part. Not exactly that far off the $1000 mark.

> The tech came out and it took him a couple hours to diagnose that there was one small sensor out. And that one small sensor, I think it was a $120 part."

[1] https://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=115102...