I'm genuinely surprised it took this long for someone to finally make a repairable, low-tech tractor. Good for them! Hopefully bigger companies will follow suit when they see the demand in action....
I'm genuinely surprised it took this long for someone to finally make a repairable, low-tech tractor. Good for them! Hopefully bigger companies will follow suit when they see the demand in action.
Also, special shoutout to this line:
For years, people who don’t understand the repair monopoly issue—that John Deere controls the parts production and distribution for its tractors, the software that runs its tractors, the diagnostics for its tractors, and the repair guides for its tractors—have said that farmers should simply vote with their wallets and buy tractors from a different company. The problem has been that, until now, there hasn’t really been an alternative company that doesn’t have similar repair practices.
This is my biggest gripe with people saying "vote with your wallet" or "just don't buy it" whenever people complain about a product. Sometimes, there are literally no alternative options. It's either that product or nothing, or in some cases the options are worse. Just because something's more polished than the other pieces of shit on the market doesn't mean it's not a turd.
People stick with bad products and services out of necessity, not because they want to. Often when a better option arises, they'll immediately ditch it. Just wish more idiots would understand that rather than be condescending.
When I worked on a commercial vegetable-breeding farm in Australia a few years ago, we were using a lot of older tractors, like vintage Lamborghinis. But we were breeding vegetables in small plots...
When I worked on a commercial vegetable-breeding farm in Australia a few years ago, we were using a lot of older tractors, like vintage Lamborghinis. But we were breeding vegetables in small plots (an acre or two at most for our largest crops), rather than growing them at scale, so we didn't need a lot of the modern technology that most farmers now require.
Weirdly enough, we also used a whole lot of Victorian-era machinery — from tractor-pulled (originally horse-drawn) cast-iron seeders to massive wood-and-cast-iron, belt-driven seed-sorting behemoths we outfitted with modern motors. Modern technology just isn't built for the scale we were growing at. And many of our crops were so tiny, we were working them the really old-fashioned way (e.g., bouncing seeds on a tray to winnow them).
There is a difference between technology used antagonisticaly toward the user and technology that is there for a purpose other than that. But a lot of technology that would be genuinely useful is...
There is a difference between technology used antagonisticaly toward the user and technology that is there for a purpose other than that.
But a lot of technology that would be genuinely useful is better avoided due to the potential abuses it makes possible.
And unfortunately technology is routinely used antagonisticaly, in large part due to abysmal tech literacy rates.
Also what is a no tech tractor? Even a horse drawn plow is technology. I genuinely don't find these kinds of exagerations helpful.
It's like a chemical free food! There are some really good benefits of tractors with software that can map the field and ensure you don't accidentally run over crops because everything is planted...
It's like a chemical free food!
There are some really good benefits of tractors with software that can map the field and ensure you don't accidentally run over crops because everything is planted just so.
It just sucks it's locked down by for-profit companies like that, because they're far too expensive to make
But also as someone whose washer and dryer connect to an app for some unknown reason, I would indeed like dumber stuff
Other (in my opinion) amazing things that technologically loaded farm machinery can do: Sprayers can be fitted with a camera system that, when paired with individual nozzle control, can shut off...
Other (in my opinion) amazing things that technologically loaded farm machinery can do:
Sprayers can be fitted with a camera system that, when paired with individual nozzle control, can shut off the spray when it isn't needed and only turn the spray on when it detects weeds. This saves money on chemicals while also lowering the amount of chemicals that wind up uselessly getting sprayed on otherwise "clean" ground
Downside: JD, the biggest company to my knowledge using this technology, charges a subscription fee for using it. The fee goes up the faster you want to drive the sprayer. Plus, JD knows how much chemicals cost, so they can hover at a price point that's saving you money, but a fraction of what you're saving on unused chemical.
Tractors can steer themselves, which allows the operator to focus on other things, which could include keeping an eye on the machinery to make sure everything is running the way it's supposed to or maybe watch downloaded episodes of TV shows and play games on a Steam Deck.
Also the auto steer thing makes it so that you can plant between last year's crop residue, which allows the plants to grow without having to work their way through old, deteriorating crop residue.
Source: am a farmer and it's currently spraying season
The downside to all of this is that more often than necessary, farmers have to get service calls out to the machine if anything goes wrong. Farmers could swap out that one sensor that's gone bad and isn't even necessary to keep the tractor running, but now you have to spend $250+ just to get someone out to the tractor to hook up a laptop and press two buttons and leave. I'm so glad we don't run JD equipment but that kind of thing is happening with more and more brands
Yeah it's some decent shit that if it weren't a subscription based huge $ model it would be better. The fact the fee is tied to your speed not a monthly cost or something is diabolical.
Yeah it's some decent shit that if it weren't a subscription based huge $ model it would be better.
The fact the fee is tied to your speed not a monthly cost or something is diabolical.
This is technically outdated information, since I'm operating on info I heard last year, but I have no reason to believe it's not still accurate. The subscription charge is actually based on area...
This is technically outdated information, since I'm operating on info I heard last year, but I have no reason to believe it's not still accurate.
The subscription charge is actually based on area NOT sprayed, since the technology is saving you money that you would have been spending on the chemicals getting applied. But there are different tiers of the subscription that were locked to maximum application speeds.
JD truly is the Apple of the farming world, complete with the diehard fanboys that couldn't possibly fathom the implication that their beloved brand nearly singlehandedly destroyed an entire industry because of greed.
I think that "no tech" isn't too much of an exaggeration here, since a big part of the problem is manufacturers adding unnecessary electronic technology to otherwise mechanical designs. And at...
I think that "no tech" isn't too much of an exaggeration here, since a big part of the problem is manufacturers adding unnecessary electronic technology to otherwise mechanical designs. And at this point, I usually see "[X] tech" as short hand for more advanced and electronic technology. I mean, we generally refer to the career field involving computers as "the tech industry". "Low tech" might be a better fit (and I think the article's actual text uses that more), but the title got the point across to me instantly: farmers want tractors that don't have freaking software.
Come to think of it, there's not really a proper word to describe more advanced, electronic-heavy technology. "Computerized" doesn't really feel that fitting since some products don't really have a computer inside them. Similar thing going on with "digital". We have plenty of "smart" products, but that's largely used for branding and doesn't necessarily mean electronic technology is involved.
Huh. Wonder if we'll ever develop a proper word for it. "Technology" is pretty broad by definition, but we rarely use "tech" to talk about the simpler forms these days. At least, not in common conversation.
I'm genuinely surprised it took this long for someone to finally make a repairable, low-tech tractor. Good for them! Hopefully bigger companies will follow suit when they see the demand in action.
Also, special shoutout to this line:
This is my biggest gripe with people saying "vote with your wallet" or "just don't buy it" whenever people complain about a product. Sometimes, there are literally no alternative options. It's either that product or nothing, or in some cases the options are worse. Just because something's more polished than the other pieces of shit on the market doesn't mean it's not a turd.
People stick with bad products and services out of necessity, not because they want to. Often when a better option arises, they'll immediately ditch it. Just wish more idiots would understand that rather than be condescending.
When I worked on a commercial vegetable-breeding farm in Australia a few years ago, we were using a lot of older tractors, like vintage Lamborghinis. But we were breeding vegetables in small plots (an acre or two at most for our largest crops), rather than growing them at scale, so we didn't need a lot of the modern technology that most farmers now require.
Weirdly enough, we also used a whole lot of Victorian-era machinery — from tractor-pulled (originally horse-drawn) cast-iron seeders to massive wood-and-cast-iron, belt-driven seed-sorting behemoths we outfitted with modern motors. Modern technology just isn't built for the scale we were growing at. And many of our crops were so tiny, we were working them the really old-fashioned way (e.g., bouncing seeds on a tray to winnow them).
There is a difference between technology used antagonisticaly toward the user and technology that is there for a purpose other than that.
But a lot of technology that would be genuinely useful is better avoided due to the potential abuses it makes possible.
And unfortunately technology is routinely used antagonisticaly, in large part due to abysmal tech literacy rates.
Also what is a no tech tractor? Even a horse drawn plow is technology. I genuinely don't find these kinds of exagerations helpful.
It's like a chemical free food!
There are some really good benefits of tractors with software that can map the field and ensure you don't accidentally run over crops because everything is planted just so.
It just sucks it's locked down by for-profit companies like that, because they're far too expensive to make
But also as someone whose washer and dryer connect to an app for some unknown reason, I would indeed like dumber stuff
Other (in my opinion) amazing things that technologically loaded farm machinery can do:
Sprayers can be fitted with a camera system that, when paired with individual nozzle control, can shut off the spray when it isn't needed and only turn the spray on when it detects weeds. This saves money on chemicals while also lowering the amount of chemicals that wind up uselessly getting sprayed on otherwise "clean" ground
Downside: JD, the biggest company to my knowledge using this technology, charges a subscription fee for using it. The fee goes up the faster you want to drive the sprayer. Plus, JD knows how much chemicals cost, so they can hover at a price point that's saving you money, but a fraction of what you're saving on unused chemical.
Tractors can steer themselves, which allows the operator to focus on other things, which could include keeping an eye on the machinery to make sure everything is running the way it's supposed to or maybe watch downloaded episodes of TV shows and play games on a Steam Deck.
Also the auto steer thing makes it so that you can plant between last year's crop residue, which allows the plants to grow without having to work their way through old, deteriorating crop residue.
Source: am a farmer and it's currently spraying season
The downside to all of this is that more often than necessary, farmers have to get service calls out to the machine if anything goes wrong. Farmers could swap out that one sensor that's gone bad and isn't even necessary to keep the tractor running, but now you have to spend $250+ just to get someone out to the tractor to hook up a laptop and press two buttons and leave. I'm so glad we don't run JD equipment but that kind of thing is happening with more and more brands
Yeah it's some decent shit that if it weren't a subscription based huge $ model it would be better.
The fact the fee is tied to your speed not a monthly cost or something is diabolical.
This is technically outdated information, since I'm operating on info I heard last year, but I have no reason to believe it's not still accurate.
The subscription charge is actually based on area NOT sprayed, since the technology is saving you money that you would have been spending on the chemicals getting applied. But there are different tiers of the subscription that were locked to maximum application speeds.
JD truly is the Apple of the farming world, complete with the diehard fanboys that couldn't possibly fathom the implication that their beloved brand nearly singlehandedly destroyed an entire industry because of greed.
I think that "no tech" isn't too much of an exaggeration here, since a big part of the problem is manufacturers adding unnecessary electronic technology to otherwise mechanical designs. And at this point, I usually see "[X] tech" as short hand for more advanced and electronic technology. I mean, we generally refer to the career field involving computers as "the tech industry". "Low tech" might be a better fit (and I think the article's actual text uses that more), but the title got the point across to me instantly: farmers want tractors that don't have freaking software.
Come to think of it, there's not really a proper word to describe more advanced, electronic-heavy technology. "Computerized" doesn't really feel that fitting since some products don't really have a computer inside them. Similar thing going on with "digital". We have plenty of "smart" products, but that's largely used for branding and doesn't necessarily mean electronic technology is involved.
Huh. Wonder if we'll ever develop a proper word for it. "Technology" is pretty broad by definition, but we rarely use "tech" to talk about the simpler forms these days. At least, not in common conversation.
Of course people are fine with new tech, so long as you don't make it cheap or, in the cast of tractors, maliciously lock them out of it.