I see nothing in your comments to suggest there is grammar inconsistency. If it had instead said "Sick Codes has jailbroken a 4640 Universal Display", which mai

I see nothing in your comments to suggest there is grammar inconsistency. If it had instead said "Sick Codes has jailbroken a 4640 Universal Display", which maintains identical grammar, I doubt we would be here. What you have actually suggested is that the subject selection isn't consistent. I am not sure a strong case has been made for that, though. We can found countless examples of people referring to an object by the name of the business who produced it. This is very common when the individual product lines are not well known, and especially when the branding of the business is what is front and centre. Furthermore, the message was written to describe a set of photos, so what detail was lacking in the words was made up in the images. If you are familiar with Deere's product lines, you can plainly see it is a 4640 that is being referred to. If you are not familiar with Deere's product lines, you know it's not a plow, all while the device calls itself a "John Deere". A branding fail on John Deere's part, perhaps, but the words are consistent with what is shown.