They largely do. For example, the famous 18650 which powers all kinds of devices from power banks to laptops to cars.
If what you’re referring to is their common inclusion into proprietary battery packs, there are some technical reasons for that difference, like cell balancing, safety protections, etc. While it could be possible to engineer some (but not all) of these concerns out of the equation, you’d end up with a more expensive larger and heavier product.
For starters, it's not aftermarket! since the tractor belongs to JD, and it is licensed to the customer, and it failed to work because a wire got wet (shitty design), and only JD can determine and repair it ... that should be JD's cost, not the owner's.
>harsh truth
A harsher one: JD has a monopoly and is using it to strangle its own small business customers. Feels good to see it get run past Sherman - better to see it get run over.
> that should be JD's cost, not the owner's.
I modded my car and it didn't void the warranty. I can goto the dealership, 3rd party, or repair it myself. I can swap out nearly everything for non OEM parts.
If tractors were able to be classified as cars for warranty and such - such that the people who make modifications to them are liable for damages caused by the device (rather than the manufacturer), there wouldn't be as much of an issue.
As it is, if you are able to modify the emissions controls for a tractor and the manufacturer doesn't try to make it impossible to do that, the EPA goes after the manufacturer instead of the owner or operator.
In the mean time, see if you can legally make any changes to your car's catalytic converter and replace it with a pipe.
I'd argue they are industrial safety-critical equipment.
> In the mean time, see if you can legally make any changes to your car's catalytic converter and replace it with a pipe.
Nobody goes after Subaru when people run catless. This is a silly strawman.
Exactly - the government doesn't go after Subaru when people remove their catalytic converter because the car isn't industrial equipment. The EPA does go after tractor manufacturers and distributors when it is possible to modify a tractor to remove its diesel particulate filters and similar.
https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/tractor-supply-company-inc-s...
> According to the charges, the company's engine software controls the timing of fuel injection into the combustion chamber, causing the engine to emit excessive amounts of NOx while the truck is running on the open road. However, the company's engine software is designed in such a way so that these emission levels do not show up on the federal test.
What do any of these have to do with end users modifying their equipment?
You don't. There's something called freedom and personal responsibility. Unfortunately the corporations and governments seem quite determined to take them away from us.
This is my concern too, but, I think way more broadly than you.
I love the idea of right to repair. I agree on a fundamental level, this is your device, you bought it, you own it, you should be able to do with it as you please.
What I don't agree with is creating additional regulatory or legislative burdens on companies. I have a number of concerns with doing so, but, philosophically I don't see it as the government's right to unduly interfere in apple (or samsung, or john deere's) right to sell me a product I want to buy.
More directly, I am worried about right to repair stifling innovation and competition. I could easily see a regulatory body require all phone's have user-replaceable batteries and that is not something which I fundamentally want in a phone. It has tradeoffs which I don't want to make.
That said, I think companies like Apple refusing to sell genuine replacement parts at any price is egregious.
However, I also think the government forcing private companies to disclose things like engineering or repair manuals which contain secret/trade information is equally egregious.
All of this is a long way around to saying that while I love the concept of right to repair, the devil is in the details and I haven't seen anyone really enumerate the details of what they'd actually like to put into law.
Am I wrong and is there anyone with actual proposed legislation?
Small rant about those since I missed the earlier thread today: It's even worse. They are stupidly expensive yes, but even if you source them yourself they will cost you another 100 dollar/euro/pound to "enable". It's DRM for batteries and serves no real purpose except price gouging. If you rip out the 18650 cells (which are in almost all detachable models which is the majority) and replace them you have to re-enable the device. If the battery somehow drains "completely" and you are able to get it out of safe mode, which is quite possible since the battery isn't actually dead, you have to go to a dealer and pay the surcharge as well. There are plenty of good second hand models available which are useless due to the battery DRM since the price of the battery will be about 3-5 times the bike.
> So how do you guarantee something third-party will do what it claims to? If you use bad RAM chips in a Macbook, the consumer is going to blame Apple not whoever supplied cheap, shoddy parts (for the record, I hate soldered in RAM).
Just like when your car goes to a garage and doesn't work afterwards: the person who 'fixed' it. I can't get it in my head why people think this will be different for other things than cars.
If this is a counterfeit Apple charger, then yes. If this is a charger that was purchased from Apple as the distributor, then yes.
However, if this was a 3rd party charger purchased from a street vendor or online merchant (that has difficulties with counterfeit products) that could be used for anything from the cat water fountain pump to an Apple iPhone - then no.
Earlier today there was a thread about e-bike battery prices (tl'dr they're ridiculous expensive). I really wish rechargeable batteries had interchangeable form factors like normal batteries. I can't help but feel that if AA batteries were invented today there's no way there'd be a standard form factor.
But this issue is complicated. As much as first-party parts and accessories cost too much, there can be deadly consequences with shoddy third party products [1]:
> In July, a Chinese woman died after being electrocuted from a charging iPhone 5. Later that week, another man in China suffered a similar injury from a charging iPhone 4, leaving him comatose. In both cases, the victims were using an unofficial third-party adapter to charge their device.
So how do you guarantee something third-party will do what it claims to? If you use bad RAM chips in a Macbook, the consumer is going to blame Apple not whoever supplied cheap, shoddy parts (for the record, I hate soldered in RAM).
As an aside, I was unsurprised to see in this article this is a small farm. The harsh truth is that family farms and small farms in general are a dying way of life and just aren't competitive with industrial-scale agriculture. You can't fight the incoming tide forever.
[1]: https://appleinsider.com/articles/13/11/28/thai-man-dies-aft...