undefined | Better HN

0 pointsTeever3y ago0 comments

Yeah but didn't they make a lot of money from support contracts before bullshit DRM? So isn't the difference between making a lot of money and a lot more emoney with DRM?

And if that's the case can't a defector break from the DRM paradigm and offer tractors without DRM so they still make a lot of money at a minimum, but likely more due to picking up more customers?

Like to put it in other terms can't they make up for the difference with increased volume, which drives down per unit production costs and takes money from John Deere?

Like why can't someone be the Kirkland brand of tractors?

0 comments

3 comments · 2 top-level

makeitdouble3y ago· 1 in thread

Knowing nothing about tractors, but there always was a strong push from vendors to not allow repairs by the user.

In the olden days it would be weird shaped screws and stickers with "warranty void" kind of bright red wording everywhere that would impact their bottom line. Then potential denial of repair or extra costs ("out of warranty") if they could find any plausible reason to attribute the issue to your intervention where you shouldn't touch.

I'd see the introduction of DRM as a way to enforce rules that were already there, more than a radical change to their business model.

So yes, I'd expect a lot of resistance to moving to right of repair.

radlad3y ago

> I'd see the introduction of DRM as a way to enforce rules that were already there, more than a radical change to their business model.

Voiding a warranty for DIY repairs is very different from making DIY repairs impossible.

Kalium3y ago

Tractors are durable goods. They are not replaced often. Becoming the Kirkland brand of tractors means taking a major hit to sales for years in the hopes that it comes back to you in decades. It means betting the entire tractor business on this, essentially.

You'll notice there are no Kirkland brand furnaces.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse