5 ms·

I predict that they'll eventually get what they're asking for: The ability to service their equipment with whoever they want. As a consequence, though, the in

I predict that they'll eventually get what they're asking for: The ability to service their equipment with whoever they want. As a consequence, though, the initial price of the equipment is going to go up. And then they'll be complaining that they can't even afford to get started. I honestly think they should be able to get it repaired wherever they want. But it's not actually going to fix all their problems, it's just going to shift them around.

libertine 5y ago
>As a consequence, though, the initial price of the equipment is going to go up. What would be the arguments for this price increase? Because if they are factoring in servicing into the price of the equipment, then I think that would be even more serious case of planned obsolescence (if we can even use that term here...). Maybe then someone will pick up that inefficiency and develop a new brand of affordable equipment - if the US gov. would allow that of course.
- RandomLensman 5y ago
  I would not put that into the planned obsolescence category necessarily. Factoring in the lifetime value of a customer doesn't imply that. On heavy machinery there are/can be parts that just really wear down/need maintenance. One of the questions is how profitable is the manufacturing, sell, and maintenance of farm equipment (for example)? Maybe some of the wallets redistribute between buyers, sellers, and maintenance firms - maybe not if the economics are poor. If the profits were to come mostly from maintenance, then pricing could not just stay where it is (absent new market entries creating downward pressure).
  - libertine 5y ago
    >If the profits were to come mostly from maintenance, then pricing could not just stay where it is (absent new market entries creating downward pressure). I just can't wrap my head around that. I mean, if that was the case then probably asset depreciation/wear should be reframed in accounting/finance, because not only they lose value but they have a added cost (arguably planned, since it's part of the pricing structure and business model of that equipment). In the end you're just paying to rent parts that will need to be replaced and paid for, because the equipment won't work without it and they can only be serviced by X player... farming equipment became just extremely large printers, where buy them cheaper to then get looted on refills?
    - throw0101a 5y ago
      >> If the profits were to come mostly from maintenance […] > I just can't wrap my head around that. How do you think the automobile industry works? Supposedly most dealerships make their money in the service centre.
      - Turing_Machine 5y ago
        To the extent they make money at all, many open source projects make it by providing service and support.
    - RandomLensman 5y ago
      Hypothetical example (might not be how it works with farming equipment): sell the combined harvester at cost, then have profits on a maintenance contract (note: might not even be the parts themselves that create the profit). With complex modern machinery, maintenance and repair is something that really matters (downtime costs money) and depending on the equipment, it is something where the manufacturer has a real edge, for example, in large industrial machinery. Not talking about some trivial upkeep here. The asset depreciation/wear side would only be with the buyer, not the seller. So if the buyer where show a balance sheet, then maybe there is something to argue about - not sure what farms do or don't do from an accounting perspective (or need to do). Not everyone needs a balance sheet drawn up. This is not too dissimilar from selling a gaming console at a loss/at cost and making the money on the games, I reckon.
      - libertine 5y ago
        >With complex modern machinery, maintenance and repair is something that really matters (downtime costs money) and depending on the equipment, it is something where the manufacturer has a real edge, for example, in large industrial machinery. Not talking about some trivial upkeep here. That's why documentation, schematics, software should be accessible by anyone who wants to fix this type of equipment. It's the difference between a mechanic going up to your farm, plug the equipment to the PC, run the diagnostic, replace part, instead of you have to call a truck, pay for the shipping of the equipment to the closest authorized dealer, and then have it looked up -> this second options costs way more time/money. But if things are getting so complex you need to haul equipment that weight tons back to the factory, then is that complexity sustainable at all?
estaseuropano 5y ago
I'd love to see some evidence that the producers aren't profitable without this lock-in. Of course they might raise prices and blame it on the right to repair, but I simply doubt that the tractor is not already sold at a profit.
- perryizgr8 5y ago
  > I'd love to see some evidence that the producers aren't profitable without this lock-in. If the business were profitable without the lock-in, other players would be competing with John Deere on this. Nobody is, that tells me the lock-in is needed to sustain the business.
  - AlotOfReading 5y ago
    There are literally hundreds of tractor manufacturers.
    - perryizgr8 5y ago
      Then why are people so concerned about John deere? Just buy from a manufacturer who doesn't do these shenanigans.
      - AlotOfReading 5y ago
        Because there's an entire ecosystem of tools/extensions for each manufacturer with 6 and 7 digit price tags that aren't portable between them, not to mention training and contractual obligations, etc. Swapping everything all at once is not generally viable.
        TheParkShark 5y ago
        So all of the manufacturers are doing this? Why is only John Deere (Apple and Tesla for some reason) brought into this? If it’s a industry wide problem in farming shouldn’t we be discussing the issue in farming and not just three companies, two of which aren’t in the AG business?
TheRealDunkirk 5y ago
In a REAL capitalistic market system, this situation offers a GOLDEN opportunity for a competitor to introduce an easily repairable option, with better service options. But the truth is that there are precious few markets left in the US that you could consider to be "free." Meanwhile, the conservatives decry any sort of change to what we have as SOCIALISM, as though that were the dirtiest word they could utter.
- TheFreim 5y ago
  What's stopping someone from becoming a competitor (besides initial $$$ investment which will always be costly)?

libertine 5y ago

>As a consequence, though, the initial price of the equipment is going to go up. What would be the arguments for this price increase? Because if they are factoring in servicing into the price of the equipment, then I think that would be even more serious case of planned obsolescence (if we can even use that term here...). Maybe then someone will pick up that inefficiency and develop a new brand of affordable equipment - if the US gov. would allow that of course.

RandomLensman 5y ago
I would not put that into the planned obsolescence category necessarily. Factoring in the lifetime value of a customer doesn't imply that. On heavy machinery there are/can be parts that just really wear down/need maintenance. One of the questions is how profitable is the manufacturing, sell, and maintenance of farm equipment (for example)? Maybe some of the wallets redistribute between buyers, sellers, and maintenance firms - maybe not if the economics are poor. If the profits were to come mostly from maintenance, then pricing could not just stay where it is (absent new market entries creating downward pressure).
- libertine 5y ago
  >If the profits were to come mostly from maintenance, then pricing could not just stay where it is (absent new market entries creating downward pressure). I just can't wrap my head around that. I mean, if that was the case then probably asset depreciation/wear should be reframed in accounting/finance, because not only they lose value but they have a added cost (arguably planned, since it's part of the pricing structure and business model of that equipment). In the end you're just paying to rent parts that will need to be replaced and paid for, because the equipment won't work without it and they can only be serviced by X player... farming equipment became just extremely large printers, where buy them cheaper to then get looted on refills?
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    >> If the profits were to come mostly from maintenance […] > I just can't wrap my head around that. How do you think the automobile industry works? Supposedly most dealerships make their money in the service centre.
    - Turing_Machine 5y ago
      To the extent they make money at all, many open source projects make it by providing service and support.
  - RandomLensman 5y ago
    Hypothetical example (might not be how it works with farming equipment): sell the combined harvester at cost, then have profits on a maintenance contract (note: might not even be the parts themselves that create the profit). With complex modern machinery, maintenance and repair is something that really matters (downtime costs money) and depending on the equipment, it is something where the manufacturer has a real edge, for example, in large industrial machinery. Not talking about some trivial upkeep here. The asset depreciation/wear side would only be with the buyer, not the seller. So if the buyer where show a balance sheet, then maybe there is something to argue about - not sure what farms do or don't do from an accounting perspective (or need to do). Not everyone needs a balance sheet drawn up. This is not too dissimilar from selling a gaming console at a loss/at cost and making the money on the games, I reckon.
    - libertine 5y ago
      >With complex modern machinery, maintenance and repair is something that really matters (downtime costs money) and depending on the equipment, it is something where the manufacturer has a real edge, for example, in large industrial machinery. Not talking about some trivial upkeep here. That's why documentation, schematics, software should be accessible by anyone who wants to fix this type of equipment. It's the difference between a mechanic going up to your farm, plug the equipment to the PC, run the diagnostic, replace part, instead of you have to call a truck, pay for the shipping of the equipment to the closest authorized dealer, and then have it looked up -> this second options costs way more time/money. But if things are getting so complex you need to haul equipment that weight tons back to the factory, then is that complexity sustainable at all?

estaseuropano 5y ago

I'd love to see some evidence that the producers aren't profitable without this lock-in. Of course they might raise prices and blame it on the right to repair, but I simply doubt that the tractor is not already sold at a profit.

perryizgr8 5y ago
> I'd love to see some evidence that the producers aren't profitable without this lock-in. If the business were profitable without the lock-in, other players would be competing with John Deere on this. Nobody is, that tells me the lock-in is needed to sustain the business.
- AlotOfReading 5y ago
  There are literally hundreds of tractor manufacturers.
  - perryizgr8 5y ago
    Then why are people so concerned about John deere? Just buy from a manufacturer who doesn't do these shenanigans.
    - AlotOfReading 5y ago
      Because there's an entire ecosystem of tools/extensions for each manufacturer with 6 and 7 digit price tags that aren't portable between them, not to mention training and contractual obligations, etc. Swapping everything all at once is not generally viable.
      - TheParkShark 5y ago
        So all of the manufacturers are doing this? Why is only John Deere (Apple and Tesla for some reason) brought into this? If it’s a industry wide problem in farming shouldn’t we be discussing the issue in farming and not just three companies, two of which aren’t in the AG business?

TheRealDunkirk 5y ago

In a REAL capitalistic market system, this situation offers a GOLDEN opportunity for a competitor to introduce an easily repairable option, with better service options. But the truth is that there are precious few markets left in the US that you could consider to be "free." Meanwhile, the conservatives decry any sort of change to what we have as SOCIALISM, as though that were the dirtiest word they could utter.

TheFreim 5y ago
What's stopping someone from becoming a competitor (besides initial $$$ investment which will always be costly)?