3 ms·

I don't think it's not so much hypocrisy as much as they want to protect their reputation. They can't control what third party software does so they don't want

I don't think it's not so much hypocrisy as much as they want to protect their reputation. They can't control what third party software does so they don't want people loading third party software that negatively effects their products thus negatively affects their reputation. I don't agree with it but I can see their angle.

MaysonL 10y ago
As opposed to what their first-party software does to the farmer's pocketbook (and their reputation). I think they're more interested in their service revenues.
tripzilch 10y ago
> I don't think it's not so much hypocrisy as much as they want to protect their reputation. Wanting to protect a reputation that they refuse to back up by actually providing the guarantees that this reputation represents is exactly the hypocrisy that is being pointed out here. Claiming a reputation without actually providing what the reputation is for, is ... well it's basically a lie, isn't it? As someone said elsewhere in this thread, it would be so much more honest if they'd just lease these things. All these controls on repairs, custom software, they make perfect sense for something that is leased, not sold.