No. They’re NOT the same. And I’m not asking for “all of the software and tooling.” That’s silly. The error diag info is in there. The car already gives me info. But it’s just purposely limited. (FWIW, I don’t even like buffered gauges. Just give me real numbers).
I get your logic. But I disagree with it. Ratchets and Tech II’s or Techstreams or yada are like apples and basketballs. Like I said. We won’t see eye to eye. And I’m ok with that.
I agree completely. It would be easy today for them to leverage the infotainment system to provide access to not only the diagnostic data but provide bi-directional control as well. They only pay to write that software once- no external hardware would be needed. As mentioned, it is purposely not provided.
This concept is not new. Even back in the early days of PCs, there were proprietary functions and capabilities that MS did not share with everyone. Their published interfaces excluded this capability so they could advantage their preferred partners and give them an edge over the competition.
For me, this idea of ownership of hardware extends to the subscription model many manufacturers are now trotting out. I bought the car. It came with hardware installed. I don’t believe it is right to restrict my use of it to a subscription. I get the argument being made, comparing to something like XM radio. The car comes with the ability to receive satellite radio but you have to pay for the service. That is a “soft” service. A heated seat or steering wheel is a hardware service… it doesn’t need any ongoing effort to provide it once it is installed…
If I understand your argument, since this is the information of age, and today’s cars run on information, those who own the information have the right to charge the car owner for it. The question remains, who owns the information? IMHO Aa ball joint press is fundamentally different from a scan tool and its software. The ball joint press is generic. It can be used to press ball joints on a 72 Ford, but also many other cars. Likewise, it can be used to press anything, not just ball joints. One other difference, unlike a press, there’s very little incremental cost to the manufacturer of the scan tool. The main cost is for the development, i.e. the software the Gerber files for the printed circuit boards. The usefulness of the scan tool and software is specific to the car. That doesn’t mean the manufacturer should be required to give it away for free , but if they did it might well increase sales. .
Well…I can own a ball joint press but the adapters I use for a Ford are different than the adapters I use for a Honda or a Sprinter. I can own a scan tool/programming equipment but the software I use for a Ford is different than a Honda or a Sprinter.
My opinion is that I bought the car, the car came with information, therefore I own that information. But that applies once. I bought the tires on the car too, but when they eventually fail I will need to buy new ones. It doesn’t make sense for me to buy a tire machine and balancer to perform a service that may need to be done two or three times over the life of a car, just like it doesn’t make sense for me to buy a scan tool and subscription to do a repair that may need to be done once or twice. But nothing is stopping me from doing so.
Bottom line, when your car is broken and I fix it, I use three things: replacement parts, tools and equipment, and labor. Of those three, the scan tool/software fits best under tools and equipment. And none of those three has to come from the dealer.
When is the last time you needed a scan tool / software to diagnose a bad ball joint? Never… Tools needed to diagnose stuff and tools needed to service/replace stuff are not the same.
I think it applies to all info in the system the whole time that I own it - so it doesn’t apply only once. If my car throws an error code, that’s not info that was in there when I bought it. But it’s still MY info about MY car. And the car holds the info. And the car’s comm systems are capable of giving me the actual diag info. They’re just designed not to in the same way that a buffered gauge is designed to not give me a real number.
I don’t want any free tools with my car purchase - and certainly not to make repairs. (Diagnosing an issue and making a repair are NOT the same thing). I just want cars that will give me complete info - not just an “idiot light.” Or even worse - not even a light when there is a problem. (GM is great at that). Just equip the thing to show me the codes and PIDs and whatnot. And I’m not making an argument about what’s “right/wrong.” Just about what I want. I want a diag mode. Manufacturers don’t. They want you to “take it to the dealer service department.”
Yeah. We get it. You’ve been clear about that. And making it out to be like software and ratchets are the same is the view of someone who makes their living as a pro mechanic. (And nothing wrong with that!) You have all manner of makes and models from all manner of years in and out all day. And in your world computer and ratchets are the same. In my world, they’re not. At any given time, I have a handful of cars in the family “fleet” - all of which are capable of giving me real diag info, and none of which that will. But I can use the same ratchet on all of them.
If everything was as standard as generic OBD2 codes, I likely wouldn’t be in the convo. Not because I still don’t want my cars to provide me access to my own info. But just because I wouldn’t need a new proprietary software package (and/or “update”) every time I ended up with a different car. For pro mechanics, it’s just an accepted norm, and normal part of doing business (like getting a new ball joint press or whatever). But maybe it shouldn’t be. Maybe you should also get tired of having to unnecessarily spend money every time there’s some new software thing just because manufacturers want to keep people - including indy mechanics - out of the loop.
Many years ago an engineer friend of mine invented a new method for the design of a scientific instrument. When it worked, it worked better than the traditional method; even better, it was less expensive to make than the traditional method. The problem was that when it didn’t work, it was nearly impossible to figure out why. There were no commercially available electronics diagnostic tools available that had the needed capability. So his invention was never put into production. That’s sort of where we diy’ers are now, there’s no affordable electronic tool to allow us to service & diagnose our newer computerized cars. We diy’ers can’t bleed the brakes or even just get the readiness monitors into the complete state on many newer cars.
An argument could be made that very few car owners do that sort of home-brew work on their cars, so it isn’t an actual problem. For those diy’ers who want to to that, they can always eschew newer cars & buy older cars. hmmm? … well, maybe.