Why is John Deere so opposed to letting farmers fix their stuff?
John Deere is trying to block the agricultural Right to Repair in Nebraska—which affects all of us, not just farmers. When farm equipment goes down in the middle of the season, it can cost farmers a harvest and the rest of us a meal. Everyone that eats has a horse in this race.
And Deere is rigging the race. They have filled Nebraska’s unicameral legislature with their proxies attempting to block the passage of LB543, the Right to Repair for Agricultural Equipment. They are telling senators that Deere & Co. supports farmers repairing their equipment, but they don’t support the “right to modify” When pressed, they proclaim that farmers can already fix 98% of their equipment, so there isn’t a problem for legislators to address.
Hogwash. Within the supposed 2% of repairs that Deere blocks are many problems that can take a machine down 100%. Fixing 98% of something rather than 100% is a farce. Limp mode can be a death sentence for a crop. when a simple problem during key times takes the machine down 100%, not 98%.
Plus, repair is not modification. Most farmers have no interest in doing anything with their tractor beyond the job it was designed to do—they just want it to be in good working order. So why is Deere bending the ears of nearly every Nebraskan senator, to keep farmers away from 2% of repairs? Why are they fighting 5 antitrust lawsuits ? What is Deere protecting so fiercely?
It's likely that the answer is just money—hidden in all sorts of pockets in plain sight. Repair in many industries is a high margin business, and monopolies on repair feed the margins. A Virginia dealer told Farm Equipment magazine that service accounts for three times the net profit of equipment sales, even though it makes up just a sixth of equipment sales’ gross profit.
Subscription revenue for Deere’s proprietary “Service Advisor” diagnostic software is undoubtedly high—one dealer sells the package online for $8500 for the first year (note the emphasis that this subscription provides diagnostic codes but will not authorize farmers to repair their own equipment). Without the ability for a farmer to buy an alternative set of diagnostic tools, it’s also a monopoly. I suspect, as a former lessor, that Deere influences the used market for trade-ins around the world.
Not to mention that keeping repairs in house gives Deere a lock on data being harvested from every piece of equipment in real time. Many credit Deere’s stock rebound during the pandemic to their investment in “smart farming” equipment, including planters that pick the best spot to stick seeds based on past yields, and sprayers that have weed-destroying algorithms. Blocking agricultural Right to Repair lets Deere keep a monopoly on the data that their new Chief Technology Officer manages.
Farmers want to use the modern tools that have so much promise to improve yields and reduce labor costs. But while Deere reaps the profits of these tools, farmers are left holding the bag. For the sake of a repair and data monopoly, Deere is happy to pay lobbyists and lawyers. They’re happy to ignore some angry farmers. That anger, though, is justified: When a farm must wait weeks for a Deere repair technician, that can mean a lost harvest—and a lost harvest can mean a lost business.
It’s up to all of us—the farmers and the eaters—to make sure that farmers are restored true ownership of their equipment so that they can keep their equipment working 100% of the time, not just 98%. They’ve bought their tractors. Why can’t they repair them? Tell your legislators anywhere in the world that you want them to pass Right to Repair legislation now.