6 ms·
Not all that different than commercial aircraft. If Boeing cuts you off from software updates or replacement parts then your ailiner is basically worthless and
by sandworm101 5y ago
Not all that different than commercial aircraft. If Boeing cuts you off from software updates or replacement parts then your ailiner is basically worthless and unable to fly within a month. Many agribusinesses are probably fine with this as a tradeoff for the decreased manning of an autonomous tractor. JD might say that the small farmers who dont like the arrangement are not its target market.
- walrus01 5y agoIf you have a 747-400 those updates come on 1.44MB floppies
- OnlineGladiator 5y agoI wasn't sure if you were joking or not. https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/11/21363122/boeing-747s-floppy-disc-updates-critical-software https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/11/21363122/boeing-747s-flop...
- xxpor 5y agoThat was probably a major upgrade from the -100!
- jxf 5y agoA farmer owning a $250,000 tractor is a very different thing than a pilot owning a $250,000,000 aircraft. I would say that there is a much greater expectation that a farmer should be able to repair their own tractor, for example.
- halpert 5y agoThe GP’s point was these are probably targeted towards very large industrial farms.
- vvanders 5y agoI would agree, if we're talking CUT/SCUT you're in the realm of something that is easily serviceable(and the market doesn't really do DRM/lock-out currently) however these are different scale machines that are much pricier(just a quick glance looks like higher end 8Rs can start at 600k).
- sandworm101 5y agoI havent met a farmer who owns his own working tractor at this scale. They are almost universally owned by the farmer's business entity. Any farmer operating as a sole propietor, and is in the market for a $500k tractor, needs legal advice asap. These are industrial machines, not household appliances. Wait, maybe Jeremy Clarkson bought that lambo tractor under his own name. But it is more likely that his production company owns it.
- chii 5y agoirrelevant who the legal owning entity is. The fact is, a pilot did not purchase the plane with his own money, and is working for a giant corporation that can negotiate a contract with another giant corporation. A farmer, esp. a small scale private farmer, is not in the same position to negotiate a favourable contract as American Airlines would to Boeing.
- petre 5y agoThe aircraft operator could be leasing the aircraft as well, in which case the lessor (typically a giant financial org) has a contract with the aircraft manufacturer. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_lease https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_lease
- pksebben 5y agothis is not a piece of equipment suited to a small scale private farmer, though. this machine is for someone to whom acreage represents a block on a spreadsheet.
- syedkarim 5y agoThis statement is not accurate. Everyone summer I visit my friend's farm in central Illinois. Three people are responsible for farming 1000 acres. I've seen tractors and combines that are the size and cost of the 8R in the shed. This is a very normal and common family farm (though incorporated). Many of the farms in the area are this size and operated by private farmers.
- deleted 5y ago
- trembonator 5y ago
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoThe power balance is different. Boeing vs United Airlines is a somewhat uneven contest, but it's not like John Deere vs. some farmer with 4000 acres in Nebraska.
- quartesixte 5y agoSomewhat uneven? It’s been known that certain models of planes only exist because airlines demanded Boeing to make them. It’s a pretty even fight, and because of the existence of Airbus, the airlines actually have a slight advantage. Look at what happened when Southwest casually mentioned they might be thinking about adding A320s into their fleet. Sent Boeing scrambling.
- mshroyer 5y agoI'm not in either of these industries, but I suspect a major difference is that an airline owning a jet has a lot more leverage against potential malfeasance by the manufacturer than the average farmer has against John Deere.
- nexuist 5y agoBoeing can't afford to make missteps like this because Airbus will eat their lunch. I don't think JD has a duopoly partner to keep itself in check.
- hadlock 5y agoJohn Deer has many more competitors than Boeing; farm equipment runs at slow speeds using off the shelf industrial diesel engines, and never (intentionally) leaves the ground or exceeds 30mph. Most medium sized countries have tractor factories, as they're essential for food production for the population.
- smallerfish 5y agoIt looks like they have one significant competitor, New Holland (i.e. Cnh Industrial): https://csimarket.com/stocks/competitionSEG2.php?code=DE https://csimarket.com/stocks/competitionSEG2.php?code=DE, and two smaller that are worth mentioning: Massey Ferguson (Agco), and apparently Emerson (though I couldn't find which brands they own at a quick kagi'ing.) Boeing actually seems to have more diverse competition, including Lockheed, Northrup, etc (although they're dominant in the commercial airplanes segment, where airbus isn't mentioned, so maybe these stats are US market only): https://csimarket.com/stocks/competitionSEG2.php?code=BA https://csimarket.com/stocks/competitionSEG2.php?code=BA
- matthias509 5y agoCase International Harvester https://www.caseih.com https://www.caseih.com is also a big player.
- 5y ago
- raverbashing 5y agoThis is a disproportionate comparison Flying your modern aircraft doesn't depend on a lousy app that requires your "username and password" and probably doesn't even know what a pwd salt is. And if it goes down you can still fly (or keep flying). You won't get cut out of replacement parts unless you're in a sanctioned country (and they do have ways of sourcing the parts). Yes the agribusiness are ok with this, they know how to handle it (but you'll bet they'll have a lot of angry calls and lawsuits in some cases). Small farms on the other hand...
- speedgoose 5y agoIf they can make an autonomous tractor, I guess they can follow the state of the art for authentication.
- hkt 5y agoYou'd think, but in my experience (devops engineer) that's a generous assumption of some frighteningly large companies.
- StreamBright 5y agoThere are few airlines who could purchase an airplane from Boeing while there are millions of farmers who could purchase a traktor. Corporate greed is endless and every single corporation wants to sell subscription services while denying right to repair.
- quartesixte 5y agoBut the thing is that airliners have the right (and expectation) to repair their own planes, with Boeing and Airbus running a very extensive repair/service arm of their businesses. Upkeep of certain parts of the plane (engines, computers, cabin interior features) are actually also the responsibility of the sub-vendor who makes it. There also exists an extensive ecosystem of after-market repair shops and a vested interest by regulators to keep all ships airworthy to put a check on Boeing deciding to make access to a critical software update contingent on any kind of pressure sales tactic via user agreements.
- throwaway894345 5y agoThe key bit here is that the customers of the airlines are subject to tight regulation. In most right to repair debates, no one is proposing comparable regulation on farmers or car owners or etc.
- quartesixte 5y agoTrue. You cannot even repair an airframe unless you are certified as a repair station by the FAA so there is no real right to repair at all.
- throwaway894345 5y agoSimilarly, how much do you want third parties tinkering with your airliner’s software systems? Obviously the risk envelope for an airliner is narrower than farm equipment, but farm equipment still kills plenty of people. Automotive is probably an even better example—do you want third parties tinkering with the software systems in your car? What about other cars with which you share the road? I’m not opposed to right to repair, but I don’t think proponents have seriously considered the practical implications for mission critical systems.