I, as EasyM states, am a "little guy". I have no problem with manufacturer's having to develope new technology to meet new government standards. I also have no problem with them passing their costs onto dealers who in turn pass them on to users. The problem I have is when they lock out anyone else from accessing the information needed to repair the new technology. If a user is trapped into using only a dealer for repairs, then a monopoly is in place. This then dictates to the user the downtime & price of repairs. The user cannont make an informed decision on what brand of equipment to buy because only with experience can the dealers service & pricing be found out. Imagine what it would be like to buy a new car & have no service options other than the dealer you bought it from. I don't think any one of us would enjoy that senario.

If the monies spent on developing the technology is really the issue- then the dealers could charge a fee to access the information to recoup their costs. I believe this would only happen if they were forced to, as having a monopoly would be much more profitable.

As far as small companies not discussing risks with customers, I take issue with EasyM. Maybe some don't, but I most certainly do. I've never risked ruining a warranty for my customer, as that would ruin the trust my customer has with me. If I can run my business with less overhead & pass that savings onto my customer, that's what free enterprise is all about. Some companies like having full service dealers, some don't. I don't think any company would like being forced to only have 1 option.