Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

John Deere Announces Strategic Partnership with SpaceX

deere.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 170 posts

Re: John Deere Announces Strategic Partnership with SpaceX

#131

Post by bluGill »

ysavir wrote: post #111
bluGill wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Farmers do not want that. John Deere collects a lot of opt-in data from tractors. That is the owner of the tractors chooses to upload that data because they get value from it. If the tractor is not online or the GPS isn't working the farmer will stay home to fix things as the data is too valuable to risk not having it uploaded. (you can export the data to USB, but that is a hassle). Farmers who don't get a good cell…

> That is the owner of the tractors chooses to upload that data because they get value from it. Because John Deere is the best provider of this value, or because John Deere is the only provider of this value?

They can always buy from Ag Leader or Trimbal - two competitors I can name without looking, I know there are a few more, but I'd have to look them up.

Re: John Deere Announces Strategic Partnership with SpaceX

#132

Post by randomdata »

lm28469 wrote: post #109
turing_complete wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's so great about a family farm? We're much better off without 90% of the population being poor, self-subsistence farmers.

The thing is research tend to show pre industrial revolution poor farmers had a better time than our modern poors. Unless we consider owning lots of gadgets makes someone rich

As a tech nerd, the gadgets are why I started farming. I'd definitely be poorer (in the enjoyment of life sense) without them.

Re: John Deere Announces Strategic Partnership with SpaceX

#135

Post by johnboythrowway »

bluGill wrote: post #72
mathgradthrow wrote: post #34

It is of incredible strategic importance that tractors not become "online only". Some fucking John Deere licensing server should not become a single point of failure for the nations agriculture.

Farmers do not want that. John Deere collects a lot of opt-in data from tractors. That is the owner of the tractors chooses to upload that data because they get value from it. If the tractor is not online or the GPS isn't working the farmer will stay home to fix things as the data is too valuable to risk not having it uploaded. (you can export the data to USB, but that is a hassle). Farmers who don't get a good cell…

I work for a Deere competitor. We have a closed-loop system where we implement our tech in the cab, the farmer (securely) uploads their planting information to us in real-time, and we advise on yield management. As in - ways for them to make more money and use less chemicals and water during the growing season. It doesn't go to Wall Street or anyone else.

We also benefit because that data goes back to the seed scientists and advises on which hybrids work in which environment and which do not.

We use LTE and Wifi to get this data home but having Starlink in the cab is a nice idea. Especially in parts of the world (you mean there are farms outside the US?) where connectivity is minimal. Everyone here bitching about the right-to-repair issue, right or wrong, misunderstood the press release.

Re: John Deere Announces Strategic Partnership with SpaceX

#136

Post by dogman144 »

tastyfreeze wrote: post #82
voakbasda wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Small family farming is already dead unless (a) you are willing to turn a large fortune into a small one or (b) you are willing to live in poverty.

Farmers in every generation of my family's existence in the US. The current ones are decidedly not poor. Maybe not a lot of free time but not poor.

This is my experience as well. Ranchers and farmers that are established are quite wealthy. Maybe sometimes that's paper wealth or paired with seasonal debt up to their eyeballs. Also probably some extremely single-threaded dependencies (JD and JD authorized repair outlets, seed strains, etc).

Re: John Deere Announces Strategic Partnership with SpaceX

#137

Post by randomdata »

ysavir wrote: post #115
turing_complete wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's so great about a family farm? We're much better off without 90% of the population being poor, self-subsistence farmers.

Wouldn't the desired alternative be to have adequately wealthy, good quality of life farmers? Why do you start from the position that farming is undesirable, and extrapolate that people shouldn't farm? Why not examine the barriers preventing a practical family farm?

> Wouldn't the desired alternative be to have adequately wealthy, good quality of life farmers?

Not realistic if 90% of the population were farming, as asserted before. Quality of life has risen dramatically over the last century or two exactly because people are no longer bound to the fields and are able to do and create other things. Put them back in the fields and where is the wealth and quality of life going to come from?

Re: John Deere Announces Strategic Partnership with SpaceX

#138

Post by dogman144 »

turing_complete wrote: post #71
PedroBatista wrote: post #31

John Deere & SpaceX , a match made in hell. Hopefully the world will end before they spice up their marriage and extend the offer to Tesla. Technically it makes some sense, but most of the push is because for more "data, intelligence, cloud, AI" in order to get more "value" to big agrobusinesses or anyone who can pay to stay in the party. Agriculture is already a massive business only a few gigantic corporations can…

What's so great about a family farm? We're much better off without 90% of the population being poor, self-subsistence farmers.

Family farms != self-subsistence farmers?

I encourage you to consider what happens to the interior of the country when family ag-businesses go away for fully automated CorpoFarms. Paris/Berlin are showing an example currently.

Re: John Deere Announces Strategic Partnership with SpaceX

#139

Post by tcmart14 »

kube-system wrote: post #126
tcmart14 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

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.

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.

Re: John Deere Announces Strategic Partnership with SpaceX

#140

Post by throwaway11460 »

Larrikin wrote: post #81
iancmceachern wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not really tractors. They sell land prep, crop sowing, and harvesting solutions. It's not like a car. These things are used for a few weeks a year, and if they don't do their job during that time the farm looses all their income for the year. A better way to think of them is like construction equipment that you rent. Even big construction companies rent their equipment.

Why can't the farm have the server on premise instead of needing a subscription. So somebody can say they're meeting their KPIs and request more money?

I sell software and services to farmers. Running an on premises server that their business depends on is way beyond their capabilities. Our company tried that, it failed horribly, and the farmers blamed us. They want us to provide it as a service that always works, however it's made they don't care, just pay.
Post reply on HN