Puck and shark fin on the roof ?

[Wpg_Ram]

19 2500 Big Horn ... Canadian truck ... just wondering what does what on the roof ? I have both up there. No Sirius, nothing fancy, the small cheapy radio, no wifi ... so what’s the purpose of having both ? What do they do ?

 

[Wpg_Ram]

Should have added, no nav, no steering wheel controls. Most basic setup you can get in the truck

 

[Jsrunnlus]

68359005AA is simply described as (radio) [fin] antenna. 68276410AB is described as satellite radio [puck] antenna.

 

[Frank]

A lot of manufacturers install some optional hardware and turn it off via electronics (or lack thereof) because it's cheaper than the costs associated with a more complex assembly and inventory process. Roof mounted antennas (or at least housings) are a good candidate for that, they are cheap and require a hole in the sheet metal for mounting and wiring. Simplifies stamping to make one version of a cab instead of taking the line down to change over to no radio/no hole.

 

[Wpg_Ram]

68359005AA is simply described as (radio) [fin] antenna. 68276410AB is described as satellite radio [puck] antenna.

so the fin is needed to get local radio and the puck does nothing on my truck ? Not gonna mess with it, just trying to figure it out

 

[Wpg_Ram]

A lot of manufacturers install some optional hardware and turn it off via electronics (or lack thereof) because it's cheaper than the costs associated with a more complex assembly and inventory process. Roof mounted antennas (or at least housings) are a good candidate for that, they are cheap and require a hole in the sheet metal for mounting and wiring. Simplifies stamping to make one version of a cab instead of taking the line down to change over to no radio/no hole.

that completely makes sense ? Still weird though

 

[Frank]

that completely makes sense ? Still weird though

If that's not weird enough, some of the European luxury brands are "renting" those options to you via subscription. I hope that doesn't take off.

 

[Wpg_Ram]

If that's not weird enough, some of the European luxury brands are "renting" those options to you via subscription. I hope that doesn't take off.

sirius radio in Canada is already selling subscriptions for $12-25 per month (I 100% refused to pay and they kept calling every month on my old truck trying to sell it. Was sooo happy to get rid of it and not have to worry about it with this one)

 

[Frank]

sirius radio in Canada is already selling subscriptions for $12-25 per month (I 100% refused to pay and they kept calling every month on my old truck trying to sell it. Was sooo happy to get rid of it and not have to worry about it with this one)

No, I mean you pay a fee to have the adaptive cruise control or heated seats available for a year and then they are taken away until you renew.

 

[Jsrunnlus]

Last time I checked in the U.S. version even the stripped down Tradesman with Uconnect 3 head unit has the option to activate SiriusXM.

 

[Distillusion]

No, I mean you pay a fee to have the adaptive cruise control or heated seats available for a year and then they are taken away until you renew.

This happens in the US, sorta. Tesla sells you a car and enables options you pay for. You sell the car to someone else, Tesla disables the options. Basically, you purchased a "software license subscription" with a one-time cost, that only applies to the current owner. The smart used-Tesla buyer wouldn't pay you as much as you paid for the car, because they'd lose some of the software features/options. This would be equivalent to disabling the Towing Tech or Safety groups in a Ram, or maybe disabling power mirrors, backup cams, or other features that are wire-controlled.

 

[Wpg_Ram]

No, I mean you pay a fee to have the adaptive cruise control or heated seats available for a year and then they are taken away until you renew.

That’s just insane ! How are they okay with that ? !

 

[Wpg_Ram]

This happens in the US, sorta. Tesla sells you a car and enables options you pay for. You sell the car to someone else, Tesla disables the options. Basically, you purchased a "software license subscription" with a one-time cost, that only applies to the current owner. The smart used-Tesla buyer wouldn't pay you as much as you paid for the car, because they'd lose some of the software features/options. This would be equivalent to disabling the Towing Tech or Safety groups in a Ram, or maybe disabling power mirrors, backup cams, or other features that are wire-controlled.

I would be super angry if I bought a car with heated seats just to find out there were no heated seats

 

[Frank]

This happens in the US, sorta. Tesla sells you a car and enables options you pay for. You sell the car to someone else, Tesla disables the options. Basically, you purchased a "software license subscription" with a one-time cost, that only applies to the current owner. The smart used-Tesla buyer wouldn't pay you as much as you paid for the car, because they'd lose some of the software features/options. This would be equivalent to disabling the Towing Tech or Safety groups in a Ram, or maybe disabling power mirrors, backup cams, or other features that are wire-controlled.

In Europe I believe some of them are time-based and not one-time non-transferrable. I rented an S-class sedan in France two years ago and I had prompts on the computer screen (that dwarfs our 12") to enter card information to pay for upgrades and extra content or something along those lines. This is a $100k+ car and they still want to nickel and dime you. Seemed tacky to me, but so did driving around in such an expensive car...hood winked by the rental counter.

 

[MikeXM]

That’s just insane ! How are they okay with that ? !

There is no other choice... you want this car, you play with their rules. If that's not okay with you, get another brand.
That will be true until they all switch to that business model.
Just talk to any farmer with John Deere equipment about their rights to repair their own farm equipment!!! It is not going in the right direction for the end-user that's for sure...

 

[Frank]

There is no other choice... you want this car, you play with their rules. If that's not okay with you, get another brand.
That will be true until they all switch to that business model.
Just talk to any farmer with John Deere equipment about their rights to repair their own farm equipment!!! It is not going in the right direction for the end-user that's for sure...

Good think the Federal Trade Commission has our best interests at heart

 

[UglyViking]

There is no other choice... you want this car, you play with their rules. If that's not okay with you, get another brand.
That will be true until they all switch to that business model.
Just talk to any farmer with John Deere equipment about their rights to repair their own farm equipment!!! It is not going in the right direction for the end-user that's for sure...

I don't want to take a pro john deere stance here, because it's a real tricky situation and not as cut and dry as it seems. Yes people should be able to repair the items they own, but to what extent? If you say there is no extent does that mean you should have access to the full database of code in order to make modifications and such to your equipment? That is why companies like Apple are stepping in, they are tech companies and if they are forced to open source their software in a sense they lose a huge competitive advantage.

Now, perhaps I'm missing something specific but my understanding is that farmers are arguing that they should have access to that code in order to make repairs on their tractors. If I'm somehow missing something please correct me. I'll be the first to admit I've not spent a ton of time digging into this but there are usually 2 sides to a story.

That said, the whole subscription model pisses me off to no end. Not only are companies banking on planned obsolesce but they are now trying to gouge us to pay for subscriptions to items we own?

 

[Frank]

I don't want to take a pro john deere stance here, because it's a real tricky situation and not as cut and dry as it seems. Yes people should be able to repair the items they own, but to what extent? If you say there is no extent does that mean you should have access to the full database of code in order to make modifications and such to your equipment? That is why companies like Apple are stepping in, they are tech companies and if they are forced to open source their software in a sense they lose a huge competitive advantage.

Now, perhaps I'm missing something specific but my understanding is that farmers are arguing that they should have access to that code in order to make repairs on their tractors. If I'm somehow missing something please correct me. I'll be the first to admit I've not spent a ton of time digging into this but there are usually 2 sides to a story.

That said, the whole subscription model pisses me off to no end. Not only are companies banking on planned obsolesce but they are now trying to gouge us to pay for subscriptions to items we own?

We have anti-trust laws to address these situations, they just aren't applied fairly the more money gets involved.

This isn't opening source code. Manufacturers create tools for dealerships (who are separately owned business entities) to work on the software. The act of restricting who can have those tools is illegal under current laws if the basis for that decision is solely based on forcing customers to favored business partners. In autos it's really hard to argue this is being done for a more innocent reason because there is a long precedent of independent shops buying specialty tools and taking manufacturer specific training. And there is plenty of data to test if dealers' margins are being squeezed on inventory (favoring the mfg) with the "payback" of forcing customers to go to them for service. I used to do this for a living, you want as much profit as you can as a mfg but you have to keep the dealer network healthy as well and forcing service is a way to both come out ahead.

I acknowledge that once those software tools are in the wild, people do get a hold of them and alter code. Sure, that is a legitimate concern if people are changing things, breaking something, reloading configs and taking it in for warranty work. But there are really easy steps to safeguard against that and appropriately void warranties and I believe we are starting to see some of that.

Favoritism is the problem. You open up the tools to independent shops and individuals at a comparable price as dealerships then it's all above board. Otherwise it's illegal in the US. Unfortunately the deeper pockets tend to win so the whole issue will probably stick around until it goes far enough for long enough to garner a huge class action suit and set some boundaries.

 

[UglyViking]

@Frank ah, so the issue is that John deere owners can't even have access to diagnostics? Assuming we are talking about something like an obd2 scanner then I agree, if it's something else I'm cautious.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[MikeXM]

I don't want to take a pro john deere stance here, because it's a real tricky situation and not as cut and dry as it seems. Yes people should be able to repair the items they own, but to what extent? If you say there is no extent does that mean you should have access to the full database of code in order to make modifications and such to your equipment? That is why companies like Apple are stepping in, they are tech companies and if they are forced to open source their software in a sense they lose a huge competitive advantage.

Now, perhaps I'm missing something specific but my understanding is that farmers are arguing that they should have access to that code in order to make repairs on their tractors. If I'm somehow missing something please correct me. I'll be the first to admit I've not spent a ton of time digging into this but there are usually 2 sides to a story.

That said, the whole subscription model pisses me off to no end. Not only are companies banking on planned obsolesce but they are now trying to gouge us to pay for subscriptions to items we own?

Intellectual property should remain to the owner. 100%. That is not what my point is.
John Deere is using "software" to lock everything mechanical so you have to go through their service. It is not about technology. It was 100% made to force you to get service from them. They created the perfect excuse to lock you in and software was the key. That is trash business.
Very similar to ink printers companies who tried to force you to buy only their chipped cartridges. Now the chinese were able to bypass these restrictions and you can buy cheap cartridges on Amazon. But who's gonna risk it on a $800K tractor when your yearly income depends on it?