News itemAuto makers could be forced by law to open their computer codes to allow the owners a non-dealer option for repairs. http://www.patriotledger.com/opinions/x1916876377/COMMENTARY-Right-to-repair-bill-shifts-control-from-dealer-to-owner
      – BorgClown, 2009-09-16 at 06:46:00   (34 comments)

On 2009-09-16 at 06:46:37, BorgClown wrote...
Is this good or bad, Mr. Chavo del ocho?
On 2009-09-16 at 09:40:29, DigitalBoss wrote...
Why does the federal government feel like it should step in and write laws like this? Let the marketplace decide things like this. People will stop buying cars that have these closed systems, and the auto makers will be forced by the consumer to change. The government has no business butting-in. Buyer beware!
On 2009-09-16 at 09:45:54, DigitalBoss wrote...
The buyer always has the power (control) in his hands. If you don't like the product, don't buy it. That is where you have way more strength and power than the silly government.
On 2009-09-16 at 09:56:28, BorgClown wrote...
You're talking about an hypothetical utopia, where consumers understand and use their power to strike back. In the down-to-earth, real world, is this bad for the consumers?
On 2009-09-16 at 09:58:57, BorgClown wrote...
If average Joe can buy a Volvo for a couple of thousand less than a VW, do you think he'll be savvy enough to foresee that VW is mor open in the long term? I think he'll just spend the saved money elsewhere.
On 2009-09-16 at 10:29:10, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Hmm, well ordinarily I'd say that the codes are the property of the manufacturers. But the article is saying that the code is malicious - it's being used to force people to spend more money at a dealer. Yet the problem of course is that you cannot prove that it's malicious whilst it's closed, so how can people decide which cars to buy or refuse to buy? I'd say a middle ground would be to have some oversight - i.e. manufacturers have to open their source to an independent regulator. But it's better for everyone if the code is simply open, except of course if it's the software for things that have nothing to do with maintenance, like SatNav and telephony.
On 2009-09-16 at 10:34:12, BorgClown wrote...
It refers to the computer codes to reset warnings or tune the engine, the secret handshakes between your car and the dealer computers. I don't think the software code is being made open source.
On 2009-09-16 at 10:34:57, BorgClown wrote...
Maybe a printed manual or a web page is all that's needed.
On 2009-09-16 at 10:41:20, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I do think that opening up the codes makes sense. I did have this problem myself 2 cars ago. There was a problem with a sensor, and the independent dealer I took it to decided to unplug the engine management unit... left it that way overnight, causing it to lose its entire history. So basically they charged me £70 to delete all my car's data. When I took it to the proper dealer, they only charged me £10 to reset the computer and fix the sensor. Unfortunately the car wasn't the same, since it relied on the engine history to adjust itself and that was gone. So I had to sell the car, unhappy with the way it was running. I do think that the official dealers to a much better job, but I've been paying them a lot of money for annual services and not everyone can afford to do that.
On 2009-09-16 at 10:54:04, BorgClown wrote...
Well, that's true. Not all local mechanics are good, even more, most of them are untrained about recent vehicles. You have to shop around. That was outrageous though, charging seven times the dealer fee for nothing.
On 2009-09-16 at 13:42:27, DigitalBoss wrote...
No, I am talking about the real world and a free market. Buyer beware.
On 2009-09-16 at 13:46:50, DigitalBoss wrote...
I drive a 1993 Honda Accord. It has 160,000 miles on it and has only scheduled maintenance done on it. It gets 33 miles per gallon around town and about 38 on the highway. I also use the dealer for all service. The dealer that I use is very honest and affordable. If I were not happy with the car or the dealer, I would switch and find a different model of car, and a different reasonable dealer. Fuck the government, they will just screw it all up.
On 2009-09-16 at 13:53:55, DigitalBoss wrote...
Believe it or not, before the Honda Accord that I have now, I had yet another Honda Accord. For basic transportation you cannot beat them. It was a 1988 model that had 340,000 miles and everything still worked on it. It was sweet. I thought is was going to run forever. Some dumbass hit me and totalled it. Now, my motorcycle is a different story. Honda makes really good bikes, but I will have a Harley-Davidson, thank you.
On 2009-09-16 at 14:08:38, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I had a Nissan Micra before, which I bought for reliability. Unfortunately it was pretty uncomfortable, and I thought I'd be stuck with it for years to come. Until someone in a van did a U-turn in front of me when I was going at 60 mph. http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/ljhaywood/CarCrash Now I have a Peugeot 1007, which is fabulous - a spacious small car with remote-controlled Sesame Doors. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEC8r884XS4
On 2009-09-16 at 17:05:42, Thelevellers wrote...
Wow. Thosed doors are awesome! :D Good choice, for that alone... :) What if the ONLY option on the market is not what you want Boss, and you need the item? What market forces help there? As fopr the open code, I'm all for it, if it weren;t for the obvious fuel efficiencies etc that modern engines have I'd be all for returning to the days when you could machine new engine parts in your garage! :)
On 2009-09-17 at 04:08:08, BorgClown wrote...
Peugeots have a bad name here, supposedly because they're expensive to repair. Maybe it's expensive just because the parts come from Europe. Cool car nevertheless.
On 2009-09-17 at 04:14:56, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: Your real world is different than mine it seems. Average people are fools, if only for lack of information or education. I don't know where you got such faith in free market anyway, institutions can royally fuck things up whether they are private or public, car dealers being a blatant example. Only one, Ford, did things right. And did them right despise being such a regulated industry. Your free-market utopia wouldn't have saved the car companies from greed and bad CEOs.
On 2009-09-17 at 13:40:38, DigitalBoss wrote...
I think other car companies have done things right: toyota, honda...Most people are fools yes. Most of that has to do with government education and government dependance. The reason things got so screwed up in our marketplace is because we do not have a free market now...The government has bastardized it all, so no one knows how fucked up it actually is. We need to get back to a free market. Buyer beware. The stupid shall fail and hopefully learn from their mistakes. Individual responsibility. Make good decisions in your life and work smart and succeed.
On 2009-09-17 at 13:42:05, DigitalBoss wrote...
Can you define the word "greed".
On 2009-09-17 at 13:43:42, DigitalBoss wrote...
I do not care if the car companies were saved. I say let them fail.
On 2009-09-17 at 18:30:58, Thelevellers wrote...
I would say greed means wanting more than you need? Maybe.
On 2009-09-17 at 19:19:29, DigitalBoss wrote...
Ok. Who is it that will tell me when I have more than what I need?
On 2009-09-17 at 20:17:13, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: The context will tell you.
On 2009-09-17 at 20:35:13, DigitalBoss wrote...
Who is there to tell the car companies that they are being greedy? People are in business to make money, greed has nothing to do with it.
On 2009-09-18 at 03:08:37, BorgClown wrote...
Right, and food is there to be eaten, who are we to question bulimics? Greed is a disease, a compulsion for having more and more, a palliative for character flaws who the greedy one tries to hide behind a successful facade. You put it well, assholes fit my examples because greedy people are assholes. You can become rich without being greedy, and without thinking the fastest way to fuck people up for money.
On 2009-09-18 at 03:10:55, BorgClown wrote...
Unfortunately very, very few people do that. Most of us are deep in the the idea that if something isn't expressly forbidden by law, it's fair game to do it for money regardless of ethics.
On 2009-09-18 at 03:15:30, BorgClown wrote...
FUUUUUUU, answered the wrong topic.
On 2009-09-18 at 13:00:46, DigitalBoss wrote...
You as the buyer have the right to determine if someone is trying to sell you a load of crap. Buyer beware is an age old saying. You as the buyer have the right to determine if someone is greedy, and if so, to not buy from them. It is your personal responsibility, not the government's.
On 2009-09-18 at 13:01:37, DigitalBoss wrote...
I say, if they can get away with it, it is your fault, not theirs.
On 2009-09-18 at 19:01:15, Thelevellers wrote...
Just gonna note that you haven't answered my question yet, DB: What if there is only one option, which you need? What can market forces do there?
On 2009-09-19 at 00:48:35, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Level: I don't think you understand, I don't think the government should be able to tell a car manufacturer how to build their vehicles, much less open their code, or even how much they can pay their employees. The government needs to butt out, period.
On 2009-09-19 at 01:09:45, BorgClown wrote...
I suppose DB is also in favor of monopolies, who by definition corrupt free market because they take freedom of decision from the equations.
On 2009-09-19 at 09:51:57, Thelevellers wrote...
@DigitalBoss: I understand that point, but you were saying that the consumer is stupid if they don;t make informed chpoices - I was asking how your magical free market can help smart cunsumers when there's no choice in the market, and so no competition?
On 2009-09-19 at 09:52:21, Thelevellers wrote...
@BorgClown: That is precisely what I want to know, I guess... :)