Right to Repair

"But one major manufacturer has not budged. John Deere, the 180-year-old maker of tractors and other agricultural equipment, still requires proprietary software and tools to complete any repair, forcing farmers to use its authorized dealers and technicians."

Sounds like management studied at the Volvo Institute

See

. Deere figures prominently in the list of problem children.

Joe Gwinn

Without more detailed information, it's hard to cast judgement.

Just how *much* should an owner/operator be able to do in maintaining/repairing a product that they've purchased (vs. leased)?

Surely, they should be able to repair/replace a flat tire. Broken *mechanism*. Oil change/filter.

OTOH, should they be able to isolate a fault to a particular ECU? Or, in the case of an obvious fault, repair at the *component* level (vs. a board swap)?

And, if the device is designed as an *entity* -- instead of a bunch of individual FRUs with predefined functionality -- then how much assistance should the manufacturer be required to provide in reintegrating that repaired/replaced subassembly/subsystem?

I suspect there will eventually be a secondary market developed to replace "proprietary" modules/assemblies with aftermarket offerings -- and legislation to facilitate such "competition". So, a stubborn manufacturer may find himself (and his dealers and technicians) dealt out of the loop.

[I suspect the lifespan of a megadollar bit of kit is considerably longer than a few growing seasons so being deprived of "maintenance income" for those long periods might pressure the dealers and technicians to pressure the manufacturer -- *or* violate their licenses with the manufacturer in order to remain viable]

Don WHY wrote: =================

** Plenty of detailed info available re Deere and their loaded game playing on u-tube and elsewhere.

Is looking at it too painful for a brainless POS like YOU ? Is making wild guesses your *only* talent and joy ? What a f****ng asshole you are.

...... Phil

Not really.

Either manufacturers are hostile towards people repairing their own equipment or they are not.

Anything they want to and have the capability to do so.

Why shouldn't someone be able to repair an ECU if they have the capability to do so?

Or asked another way, what is the justification to prevent a qualified person from making the repair themselves?

That's the quintessential warranty void sticker problem.

IMHO individuals should be able to acquire the same parts that manufacturers make available to authorized repair centers. Similarly, the same information should be made available.

So the manufacturer can charge 10x what the repair parts are worth, and makes sure that nobody else can supply them.

The obvious defense is to buy tractors from someone else.

Anyone who thinks Deere is THE problem is either naive or too stupid to merit being called an idiot!

How much should the design of the item be driven to make repair possible? Should we ban the use of solvent welded cases? ASICs? Trade secret

*processes* (which may be essential to the fabrication of a functional product)?

Don't you, the consumer, have the ability to BOYCOTT devices (and manufacturers) that don't allow you the freedom you'd like? Shouldn't the manufacturer be able to boycott the consumers that want to violate THEIR freedoms to innovate?

So, all source code, schematics, components that are available to the manufacturer should be available to the consumer, right?

You are free to retrieve the ECU from the vehicle and tinker away at will with it. If you have the capability to repair it, you should be able to do so, right? If your vehicle catches fire, don't be upset if your insurance company declines your claim (and don't even think of suing the manufacturer!)

What you're espousing is that the manufacturer should have to *enable* you to make those repairs... that "capability" includes more than just your innate skillset.

Go ahead and do so! But, why should the manufacturer have to facilitate that? You can reverse engineer YOUR item and repair or upgrade it. (you likely can't disseminate that information or profit from it, depending on license terms).

I can deencapsulate chips and sort out what's inside to better understand (or mimic) a particular design. I don't "whine" that the manufacturer forced me to use that level of "capability" to do so!

What should the manufacturer's turn-around time be for "spare parts"? Must he make them available to you "overnight"? (surely, you want to minimize your down time) Should he be responsible for maintaining a "will call" window so you can just drop in and pick up those items to avoid shipping costs/delays?

I wrote a contract for a client, some years ago. The issue of "spares" came up: "what are the FRUs that should be available for purchase?" (note the issue of COST didn't even surface, at that point). We settled on placing no constraints on what the client could *ask* for. But, also placed no constraints on the price that could be charged or the lead time!

If "spares" becomes an issue, then we likely need to revisit the design to see WHY you need them!

So, the manufacturer does away with "authorized repair centers". Everything is returned to the factory for repair. And, because EVERYTHING is being processed in that one location, the backlog is even longer! Now, what leg are you left standing on?

HP adopted the idea of replacing the entire printhead on their inkjets instead of reinking. So, customers end up paying more for ink -- because they have to buy a new printhead in the process! Some of their printers put all of the "value" in a "bag" on the rear of the printer. No doubt, their "service" procedure is: run standard tests; if fail, remove electronics from bag at rear and discard remainder. Again, customers end up with a lower quality product (effectively higher cost).

I've seen companies sell "chipped" vials of distilled water (really? do you think the hospital buying that device doesn't have a source of distilled water available?). They can argue it is for "quality control" (i.e., to ensure the accuracy of the results) but you'll note that there's a helluva markup in that water! (and, no way around it)

What do you do when the device you "purchased" relies on a *service*... and the manufacturer decides to no longer provide that service? Your device is not "broken" -- it just doesn't work, anymore!

Should the manufacturer be forced to making available the "parts/technology" necessary for re-establishing that service (from an alternate provider).

I've watched *tens of millions* of pounds of eWaste intended for landfills over the past two decades just "discarded" because some "change" has made those items no longer usable (the 2GHz computer is too slow for the newer OS -- which is required for the most recent APPLICATION updates; the smart TV no longer supports the more modern codecs; a cap/FET in a power supply has gone south; the magnetics required for the XY drivers are too costly, etc.)

These things *can* be fixed -- with relatively modest skillsets. But, doing so *economically* (at least with the US wage structure) is just not practical. "Main board" quits in your TV? Some guy will sell you a "pull" (i.e., not even NOS!) for $100-200 -- plus a couple hundred dollars for labor -- and give you a 30-90 day warranty (likely only on the part, not the labor!). So, your $1000 TV cost you $300-500 to repair. And, the guy is *so* confident in his repair that he'll only give you 90 days "peace of mind".

Who the hell is going to go down that road?

We want items to cost less. And, never fail.

And, the guy who has no interest in repairing his devices doesn't want to spend a dime (or any TIME) accommodating those who do! (why do I have to pay more so someone else can repair theirs?)

In pharma, "best practices" have manufacturers making a lot of the design/installation of their products available to the purchaser. Much of this because of validation requirements. But, it also affords some ability to do minor repairs (replace an Opto-22, rewire the field, etc.).

OTOH, they're not going to let you tinker with the design of the hardware or the software -- that's their IP and you are likely not qualified to do so (it is relatively easy to design something that far exceeds the ability of an *informed* user to understand in its entirety -- do you want to go to the FDA and explain how your modifications don't make the product less trustworthy?).

In gaming, tampering with the internals of a machine is likely cause for dismissal -- and "decertifying" the machine.

These folks know the lay of the land and have baked that into their business practices/costs.

Just like "consumers" plan on replacing their phones periodically. Or, TVs. Or, cars. (c'mon, damn near ANYONE can do an oil change; why doesn't EVERYONE?)

Focusing on Deere is folly. The 2 million farmers in the US represent a prominent "special interest". But, the other 330 million citizens are similarly burdened and lack that megaphone.

How keen would *you* be to open your design to the *few* who will "save" from your efforts? What if the farmer -- not some UNauthorized agent -- was required to make the repair? How vocal would he be in requiring this information? (he's objecting to the stranglehold Deere has on "repair centers")

Those are legitimate questions.

Questions which are independent of of owners having access to the same parts and documentation that repair technicians have access to.

Not all options are even remotely equal. Take internet connectivity in many places in the U.S.A. You can have cable internet that's upwards of ten times the speed of DSL internet which is itself tens of times faster than dial up internet. As such, the choices aren't remotely comparable.

I don't think so.

They may want to not sell to the reverse engineer. But I believe they are required to treat all customers equally. So sell it to everybody, including the reverse engineer, or nobody.

No.

There is a huge difference in what's available to the manufacturer vs what's available to authorized repair technicians. Repair technicians don't have source code or custom chip schematics.

Yes.

It depends what components are involved. My hacking of the infotainment system doesn't have anything to do with a manufacturing defect causing the wheels to fall off.

I'll sue the manufacturer for the faulty wheel design.

I'll also defend what I did / didn't change in court if I need to. Desoldering components from the stereo head unit face plate and soldering them onto a custom face plate to fit in a custom dash is independent of software bugs that cause bad radio data to brick the infotainment system.

No, I am not espousing that the manufacturer enable anything differently than they are doing already.

The manufacturer is already either making things possible for authorized technicians to repair things, or they are not.

I'm espousing that I should have access to the same things that the authorized technician has access to.

I'm not saying what is field serviceable and what is not. That's still up to the manufacturer.

See above.

I'm not asking the manufacturer to facilitate anything that they aren't already doing.

Treat the dealers and end users as a single line of consumers and prioritize based on volume of parts sales.

What's the difference in the manufacturer shipping a part to a dealership vs my house? Assuming that the recipient is paying for the part and the expedited shipping.

That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

You can ask me. I may tell you the truth. I may say "because I / my boss want them". I may not tell you. Maybe I'm choosing to use them as targets at the shooting range or as a boat anchor. Why do you care if I'm paying you for the parts?

Nope. I never said nor implied that.

The factory is effectively a really big authorized repair center. It doesn't matter /where/ the authorized technicians are located or who employs them. Someone has access to parts and directions to repair them. Those parts and directions should be available to anybody that wants them.

Independent of cost and lead time.

The same one pointing to the authorized technicians.

And yet I've seen people successfully refill HP ink jet cartridges.

I avoid those types of devices like my life depended on doing so and I recommend that friends and colleagues do the same.

They should make the same thing available to the end user that is available to authorized technicians.

I absolutely agree with that statement.

That is a symptom of a different problem. A problem that I think is exacerbated by manufacturers refusing to make parts and manuals available to end users that are already available to authorized technicians.

I have, multiple times.

I know multiple other people that have done so too.

Some of us will buy a "for parts" unit that has obvious damage in an unrelated component. E.g. the back light is out on the TV but the picture is still visible. Then do the pull and the push ourselves.

I don't mind if some items cost some higher amount. I have a realistic understanding that things fail.

I'm not asking him to.

You don't have to pay more so someone else can repair theirs.

You /may/ have to pay more because the manufacturer made some changes and is passing the cost on to you. -- The /manufacturer/ made a decision to do something. Why the manufacturer made that decision doesn't matter. Either you will pay the manufacturer's price, or you won't. It's your choice.

And that seems to have worked out well in my opinion.

They are going to have to try really hard to physically stop me. Especially when I have the thing in my possession.

Intellectual property has very little standing at stopping me from drilling out rivets.

People do things all the time that they aren't qualified to do. The lack of qualification doesn't stop them.

I don't need to understand something in it's entirety to replace a power supply.

It behooves me to understand the part that I'm messing with.

It depends what the thing is and what I've done to it.

There's also the very likely fact that I'm not trying to peddle my modified version, much less with any warranty or guarantee.

Yes.

Certification is it's own special thing.

I'm free to purchase a slot machine and mess with it in my house so that I always win if I want to. I can't get that slot machine certified for use in a casino.

Yes, manufacturers know what they have been able to get away with and likely will be able to continue getting away with and some of them make decisions that are hostile to their end users. That's their choice. But exercising that choice seriously calls into question their morality.

It's "Right to Repair", not "Requirement to Repair". The right to do something does not mean that you must do it.

Also, "damn near" is far from an absolute.

I believe everything that I've said is vendor agnostic.

There is also a significant difference in the price of the items the 2 million farmers are interested in vs most of 33 million citizens.

Again, I'm not advocating for the design to be opened or altered in any way, shape, or form.

I am advocating for the existing design to stay as is and for the existing repair documentation / tools that are already available to authorized technicians to be available to my neighbor.

The root of my stance is equality between the authorized technicians and the general public who wish to repair things themselves.

If the repair process requires a $333 tool to remove part of the dash board, and anybody that wants the tool can buy the tool, then okay.

The equality, as in the availability of the existing tools and existing documentation, is the most important thing.

The local car dealership isn't going to troubleshoot a component level failure in your car's CPU. They will replace the CPU module. They will follow manufacturer provided directions on how to remove, replace, and re-configure it. Some newer CPUs will need to be paired with other components in the car.

Again, a right to do something is significantly different from requirement to do something.

Miranda Rights informed people of their right to silence (read: to shut up and not incriminate themselves). They do not /require/ people to be silent.

I have the right to walk into my backyard naked as the day I was born. I am definitely not required to do so when I take the puppy outside at

03:00 to go to the bathroom.

And this is

on a good day!

You suspect a lot and seem to have looked for little information. On of the major clubs Deere uses is to prevent any repairs involving board swaps because they have copyrighted firmware on them. Yup, the DMCA in action!

Deere is a major Dickc when it comes to repair. They want to crush the secondary market for parts just as they want to prevent users from doing any of the work.

Yeah, give that try! It's like the autos that are going to subscription features you have to pay to continue access. Several companies have done this and it is the new trend. It won't be long before you have no choice.

Grant Taylor wrote: ==================

** You omit an important third player.

The "non authorized" repair business whom Deere is trying to cancel. Owners have every right to chose them in preference to participants in a company run MONOPOLY on service.

Right to Repair = free competition on repair work and all the benefits that owners will derive from same.

Authorized repairers are needed for warranty work, done free. Typically they make little money from this.

However, what they *want* is to monopolize all later, out of warranty work and charge like a wounded bull. Having the factory refuse to supply their competition is the key to this scam.

Goes on here in Australia with electronic items - but is illegal under our consumer laws. Dumb excuses include:

1. The part is out of stock - permanently.
2. The manual or schematic is covered by copyright.
3. You need to pay up front and it will take 6 months to get.
4. You are not equipped to do such high tech repairs.
5. You operate too close to one of our repair agents.

etc ad nauseam....

..... Phil

Obvious, but only AFTER you bought THESE tractors. The Deere folk probably charge for training/licensing their 'authorized' folk, and without pay-in-advance and a year's financial commitment to being authorized, they're going to claim that the owners oughtn't repair their wonderful machines. The 'licensing' of software required for restarting the repaired units is just a legal dodge to make this a contractual issue instead of an improper restraint of trade.

It amounts to a restraint of trade by suppliers who are too big to be boycotted. Authorized repair agents in your neighborhood means dealers who do warranty repair and are are therefore tethered to the large manufacturer anyhow. Owners, who aren't on a leash, aren't welcome.

Or, talked to a fellow farmer (in the case of tractors) who's bought one. Presumably, consumers aren't complete idiots! Especially with big ticket items!

I'm sure the "owners" aren't interested in making the repairs. They, instead, want other "non-affiliated" vendors to be able to compete with the "authorized repair centers" -- presumably at a lower price.

Note that the manufacturer also has a reputation to defend. People talking about problems they've had (with "off-brand" repairs) can harm that reputation (are you likely to preface your description of your experience with "I hired some non-authorized repair center to make this repair, much to my chagrin"? Will your audience hear that and attribute your problems to the repair center? Or, to the

*product* being repaired?)

But not illegal. Is it illegal to inflate the cost of a drug 1000%? Or, just immoral?

Or, who have a product that excels in some manner over the competition. If you want a Harley, you *wait* for whatever delivery time the factory quotes. And, have less leverage wrt price.

If you want a Jap bike, you likely have a different experience!

Again, owners don't necessarily want to make the repairs. They just don't want to be reliant on the authorized repair center (who KNOWS they have an exclusive arrangement in their territory) yet want to be able to benefit from the features, reliability, etc. of the product!

If I want to buy a Lexus, I have one choice of dealership, locally. Should we legislate that ever car manufacturer have at least two dealerships (owned by separate entities) in every metropolitan area? To keep prices down?

[Buy a Kubota tractor, instead! It's not like Deere (or Apple or Google or...) have a monopoly! Your problem is *wanting* the Deere (or iPhone, etc.) and resenting some of the other issues that are consequential to it's purchase]

This is the crux of your argument, throughout. So, I'll address it in one place.

If you write legislation to that effect, a manufacturer sidesteps it by purchasing all of the "authorized repair centers" so they are now *part* of the manufacturer's organization.

Or, simply shedding that "network" entirely.

[Of course, those authorized repair centers can likely sue for the "harm" incurred -- they previously had something of value (exclusive repair rights in their territory) and have been deprived of that.]

Or, changing the parts/jigs/documentation that it makes available to them (likely, these are "Property of Manufacturer" and not the service center so reclaiming them is legally possible)

[Detroit has extensive documentation regarding the internal settings of their various ECUs. I suspect much of that isn't made available to dealers -- because the dealer has no need to make many of those tweeks! They are available -- under the table -- to folks who customize "crate engines" for, e.g., racing... where, e.g., you may want to change the timing profile wrt engine RPM, etc. to optimize power output in a certain range. CT had a law on the books that required manufacturers to make available *schematics* for their products. See how far you get claiming that as your *right* as a consumer!]

If you claim the manufacturer is now an "authorized repair center", does he have to make available all of his staff that might be *consulted* by the folks actually doing the repairs? E.g., if a tech makes an ask of the design engineer on a product, should Billy Bob's Tractor Shop have access to that same tech/resource? Is "staff" different from "documents"? Aren't they both "reference materials"? "On page 27 of the manual, it says 'Consult Engineering'" What a great way to lower the cost of that profit center! :>

What if the manufacturer starts treating FRUs as disposable items? After all, it's YOU who will be paying the replacement price, not them! Now, do you require the manufacturer to make available to the customer all of their MANUFACTURING DOCUMENTS, jigs, etc.?

Or, requiring units to be returned for repair/replacement?

Or, charging outrageous prices for parts (that you can't source anywhere else!)

[We charged $2000 for an ASIC used in an arcade piece. The entire GAME could be purchased for $2000! (so, silly to charge MORE than that for the chip!)]

Or, not offering *any* repair parts! There is nothing that says a manufacturer must *remain* in a business -- or business segment. Then what do you do? Hope someone else makes a copycat product?

[We sold a product that relied on a $5K license from another vendor. Vendor stopped making that license available. What recourse do we have? Can we FORCE him to sell us another license? Or, does *he* have control over his sales policies??]

If the manufacturer considered "locking things down" to be essential to its business plan, you can bet their lobbyists (pre-legislation) and lawyers (post-legislation) will have sorted out how to maintain this capability. Things might be different in the EU but the US favors unbridled capitalism. There's nothing FORCING the user to buy THAT particular product! If you were foolish enough (or desperate enough) to make that decision, then that's *your* problem. "Want a time-share in Miami?"

"If we reincorporate in MX, are we still subject to these requirements?

Are none of the countries that export to the US market immune? Will there be linguists proofing Chinese documents to verify they are comprehensible after translation into English? Will they also have to make available Spanish language versions?? What liability for the accuracy of those documents?

Or, developing new products where part of the product is *licensed* (not sold) to the user. (who owns the battery in your EV?) There are no user serviceable parts within -- return to factory for repair or replacement (all the service center could do is forward your component to the factory)

SWMBO's vehicle came with a trial Sirius license. Did we end up having to pay for some hardware in the vehicle even though we never bought a subscription?

Likewise, it came with real-time traffic monitoring, for a few years. Wanna bet that this vehicle is still providing data to that service to report on traffic conditions where we are driving? Were we compensated for this, in any way? What happens if I short out the antenna so the car can't phone home?? Do I have the *right* to do that? Even if some other aspect of the vehicle stops working??

Legislation may "level the playing field" (between authorized repair centers and "others") -- but, at a level that is more costly to the end user than it is, presently! The authorized repair center won't care if they have to pay more for parts/services -- they will just be passing those costs on to the consumer, just like the *unauthorized* repair centers.

So, the $1000 part with $200 of labor isn't much cheaper than the $1000 part from the "unauthorized service center" with the $50

*discounted* labor! Gee, look at how much better this is over that $600 repair, previously!

Increasingly, manufacturers want to cling to customers AFTER the sale. Whether that is through repairs, services or "other" (e.g., upgrades). Weening them of this idea is likely going to be tough. Do you write legislation so all Nest products *retain* their functionality even if Google abandons that market? What if Google spins off that business unit and then kills it? Should a manufacturer be required to fix a design flaw in a product -- even if it's "just software"? Should I be able to get software updates for every such appliance for N years after purchase?

And, most consumers seem to just go along with these new policies without a whimper. "Want access to my personal data, for free? OK" "Want to *rent* me music? OK" "Want to peek at my credit score before disclosing it to me? OK" The classic role of The Market is a give-and-take between suppliers and consumers. If the market's "price" is too high, you go elsewhere.

Europe has a different approach.

But, if a supplier has an exclusive product and you *want* it, then they have you by the balls.

No, you only have that "right" if your back yard is secluded. We've had folks prosecuted for doing otherwise, here. (I make a point of always being able to claim I am no more "exposed" than if I was swimming in a backyard pool. And, certainly less exposed than many women/girls parade around "in public"! :-/ )

Part of the issue from the manufacturer's side is the enormously intrusive regulatory environment, that they fear will make them liable for other people's bodges and screwups.

For instance, the EPA has forced diesel tractors and harvesters to comply with Tier 4 emissions regulations, even though (a) there's significantly increased risk to life and limb from fires resulting from the far higher exhaust system temperatures; and (b) they're out in the middle of nowhere, not in Manhattan.

(I work with a fire control company that has to cope with that stuff.)

In general I'd like to see the law amended to make clear the limits of the manufacturers' liability for other people's repairs and modifications. Some of those harvesters cost nearly a million bucks apiece.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

I believe I spoke to -- what I'll call -- in-housing repairs to the manufacturer.

In short, all people, trained or otherwise, employed by the manufacturer or otherwise, should have the same opportunities to parts / documentation / tools.

The manufacturer has the prerogative to change something frequently so that the old thing will no longer work.

If service technicians have access to it, lay people should have access to it too.

I do.

Staff is decidedly not part of my aforementioned list of parts / documentation / tools.

Tech as in technician, no. Resource as in document, yes.

I could see a business case for staff to provide consulting or training at an hourly rate.

Absolutely.

I would call that a bad document.

However said bad document should be made available to authorized technicians as well as do it yourselfers.

I think there is also an opportunity for a class action lawsuit if the manufacturer purposely starts updating all documents to be 'Consult Engineering' type.

That doesn't change anything in my opinion.

Manufacturing is decidedly different than service / repair.

Since I'm discussing service / repair, that means that manufacturing is out of scope to me.

If the (in-house) authorized technicians are also required to return the units for repair / replacement, then so be it.

Again, this is a slippery slope that would likely end up in a class action lawsuit.

There would probably have to be strict division between the authorized technicians that take components out of the larger unit, ship them off to the manufacturer (down the hall), and install the new / repaired component.

Do it yourselfers should also be able to ship components off to the manufacturer (across town), and install the new / repaired component.

How is that different than we have now?

Also, as long as it's the same for authorized technicians and do it yourselfers, then so be it.

I would be very careful doing something like that. That seems to be opening yourself up for a lawsuit.

I agree. Despite my dislike for it.

Probably not very many. Almost certainly not any good ones.

Nope.

Yes.

The same availability apply equally to both authorized technicians and do it yourselfers.

Maybe. Maybe not.

I'd bet that they have a plan. Only time will tell if that plan will hold up.

I'm routinely depressed if not distressed by this fact.

Nope. Yes there is. And it depends.

See my comments about cable internet vs DSL vs dial-up elsewhere in this thread.

This seems to be the purview of class action lawsuits, especially if there is evidence that the manufacturer exploited a (monopolistic) market advantage to coerce consumers to buy their product.

I would counter with how are you doing business in country without an established point of presence?

I would argue that any parts / documentation / tools that you make available to authorized technicians in country must be made available to do it yourselfers in country.

I dislike the idea of no in country repair centers. But that's an issue that's outside of what I consider to be right to repair.

My opinion is that all countries should be treated the same. Sadly, I expect politicians will have different ideas.

That's immaterial to my stance. The existing parts / documents / tools available to authorized technicians, whatever quality they are, should be made available to everybody.

If someone has to translate a document from one language to make use of it, that's on them as the user of said document.

That's a different issue.

That's a farce in my opinion.

If there are authorized technicians, possibly located in the factory, in this country then the parts / documents / tools that they have access to should be made available to do it yourselfers.

You purchased what the manufacturer sold to you. If you didn't use all of the capabilities of it, that's on you.

Maybe. There are privacy concerns that cause me to not say probably.

That's out of the scope of right to repair.

I don't know.

Try it and find out.

Right to repair is the union of a right and repairing something. So I think "repair" is extremely germane. There's a good chance that "repair" will only extend to as designed and constructed by the manufacturer.

As such, altering the design / operation contrary to the manufacturer's intent probably doesn't qualify as "repair".

Now we get into do you actually /own/ the vehicle? Or is there some form of lease like you were alluding to?

If you /own/ the vehicle, then I think you have the right to do just about anything you want to, including altering it from the original manufacturer's intention. Possibly by disabling the ability to report traffic information.

If you completely own it, sure. If you don't completely own it, then things get murky really fast.

I question the veracity of that statement and believe that it opens manufacturers up to class action lawsuits.

One of the first things that the manufacturer will have to defend is why something that used to cost $600 now costs $1000. They had better have a VERY good explanation. Lest they be guilty of what is effectively price gouging.

The best way I've found / heard of to retain customers, is to provide them with value, even if it's only a perception.

I know many people that will pay a higher price for parts & service from a dealership if they feel value from and like they can trust the dealership.

Nope.

You write legislation that 1) clearly explains that the hardware is dependent on a subscription service and 2 that said subscription service will be available for (at least) a specified amount of time (be it X number of months / years or until Y date).

Google has the right to do that as a business as long as it's beholden to the second clause above.

Failure to do that falls back on traditional breach of contract problems and solutions.

I have heard discussion about legislation for both of these very things.

There is a derogatory term for this, "sheeple".

There also various legal actions afoot related to this.

Yes. I give you money and I take the product to do with it what I please.

Baring monopolistic complications, agreed.

I'm lumping non-authorized repair businesses in with the owners / do it yourselers.

I see no need to distinguish the different groups that are outside of the authorized technicians / manufacturer.

** Sure - but did not MENTION that anywhere.

Farmers are a rare example of long time DIY repairers.

** Well - even important differences will disappear if one *chooses* to not see them.... What other things are you choosing to ignore ?

...... Phil