3 ms·

That is fine and great. But there is a big difference between a farmer who has a system to, lets say set time for watering and can control, repair (the pipping

That is fine and great. But there is a big difference between a farmer who has a system to, lets say set time for watering and can control, repair (the pipping for that system is run of the mill PVC and they can source parts from suppliers for other parts of the system), and operate each set of equipment without it needing to reach out to some company's API, but another piece of equipment the won't work if it can't phone home and proprietary parts that can't be gotten from a supplier.

kube-system 3y ago
Supplier lock-in is definitely a concern I agree with. But many modern farms do make a fair use of external data that does inherently require an external connection.
- tcmart14 3y ago
  And I think that is fine so long as it no longer becomes a requirement of the standard function of the equipment. I should be able to buy a tractor and use it as a tractor with a reduced feature set that doesn't rely on external systems, but it can still accomplish the base set of features a tractor needs, even if not optimal. And the parts the require external data are opt-in and not required for basic functionality. Which is the fear. You bought the tractor or piece of equipment, but it is useless without also all the other subscriptions. Taking the sprinkler. I make a sprinkler system. You buy the system and can work with with your own local manual settings, no extra fees, no external communication required. But you can pay me a, lets say $15/month subscription and I will control it using AI/ML and historical data to try to control it in a way to maximize it's use and output. I think that is fine so long as your allowed to cancel the subscription and set your own basic settings and it can operate. And most parts are easily sourced and replaceable.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    > And I think that is fine so long as it no longer becomes a requirement of the standard function of the equipment. Sometimes it is, not arbitrarily, but as a matter of how the technology works. For example, the link I posted above. Yes, those tractors can be manually driven like a 1980's farm tractor without guidance, but that's kind of impractical because profitably operating a farm often depends on those features.

kube-system 3y ago

Supplier lock-in is definitely a concern I agree with. But many modern farms do make a fair use of external data that does inherently require an external connection.

tcmart14 3y ago
And I think that is fine so long as it no longer becomes a requirement of the standard function of the equipment. I should be able to buy a tractor and use it as a tractor with a reduced feature set that doesn't rely on external systems, but it can still accomplish the base set of features a tractor needs, even if not optimal. And the parts the require external data are opt-in and not required for basic functionality. Which is the fear. You bought the tractor or piece of equipment, but it is useless without also all the other subscriptions. Taking the sprinkler. I make a sprinkler system. You buy the system and can work with with your own local manual settings, no extra fees, no external communication required. But you can pay me a, lets say $15/month subscription and I will control it using AI/ML and historical data to try to control it in a way to maximize it's use and output. I think that is fine so long as your allowed to cancel the subscription and set your own basic settings and it can operate. And most parts are easily sourced and replaceable.
- kube-system 3y ago
  > And I think that is fine so long as it no longer becomes a requirement of the standard function of the equipment. Sometimes it is, not arbitrarily, but as a matter of how the technology works. For example, the link I posted above. Yes, those tractors can be manually driven like a 1980's farm tractor without guidance, but that's kind of impractical because profitably operating a farm often depends on those features.