When we open the discussion of “agency” or self determination regarding IoT, the context is deep and wide. A pain point for many potential customers is the concept of “vendor lock-in.” Vendor lock-in is a state where you are so committed to a particular toolstack, or process, that “switching cost” becomes prohibitive. You are forced into an uncomfortable “wag the dog” position, where a vendor can control your choice of actions and limit your freedom of use.
Most experienced management teams are very focused on avoiding these traps. Usually because they have been burned already by the saccharine smile of “all-in-one solution” software sellers. It creates a dynamic of distrust, but it is a little more than that. This tactic is often an intentional ploy from (usually large) market players looking for monopolistic positions.
Our “right to repair” headline comes from John Deere’s interaction with its customer base, independent farmers. A group traditionally opposed to the principles espoused by “proprietary screws,” “device lockouts” or “vendor clouds.” It is not just John Deere, though. We’ve been watching this trend in computer hardware and software for a long time. This time it just supersized to big, green, agricultural machines.
At its surface, the “right to repair” debate is about farmers fixing tractors, phone users swapping batteries, and hackers jailbreaking their own devices. In domestic settings, planned obsolescence is a running joke, in the same vein as “my phone is listening to me.” Your phone is listening to you (because that data can be sold) and products are built to a particular timeframe (to increase profits), but that agenda is not what is sold to you. “Unless we fight for the idea that function belongs to the user, not the vendor...” the concepts of tinkering, adapting and repurposing are reframed as liabilities.
For customers the key value of any tool is how it functions in their specific use case. The value of your data stream and where it goes is typically not part of the initial point of vendor-purchaser communication, but it should be. Who owns the data and how it can be used is a fundamental question. It is not arbitrary.
The old principle of “caveat emptor” – that the buyer is responsible for checking the quality and suitability of goods before the purchase, still applies. That is exercising “agency” at the most suitable time; before you’ve put your hand in your pocket. Consumer sovereignty is the economic principle that buyers, via their purchasing decisions, determine the demand for goods and services, or their “chosen ends.” If you don’t define the ends, then the Machiavellian will define both “means” and “ends.”
Ask yourself; why is it not practical to repair your phone? Why has E- Waste become such a problem in such a short time? Why are the same corporations that create it, offering to “fix” it? Why can’t you replace the battery in your perfectly functional laptop? If we care about your privacy, why is “all cookies” the default setting?
