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

Alberta startup sells no-tech tractors for half price

wheelfront.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

801–810 of 814 posts

Re: Alberta startup sells no-tech tractors for half price

#801

Post by brigandish »

pocksuppet wrote: post #682
brigandish wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're proposing a binary version of "hurt", they are proposing a spectrum. If a regulation hurts company A but it will survive whereas company B, A's main and essentially only competitor stopping A from a monopoly, will go out of business from that regulation, you know that company A won't fight it.

Then it doesn't hurt company A. It helps company A. They have more money with the regulation than without.

If I participate in a boxing match can I:

a) be hurt

b) win

Consider whether this is a binary or a multiple choice question (and even whether any choices need be made).

Re: Alberta startup sells no-tech tractors for half price

#803

Post by [deleted] »

kube-system wrote: post #799
alexashka wrote: post #798

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are factually wrong. 'Global slavery index' is not a credible source, even according to Wikipedia. I'm sorry I spent 2 minutes of my life looking it up - I should've known better. This conversation is over. I can't trust you to not throw random crap a google search produces that supports your fantasy that I then have to spend brain cells to debunk.

Then pick a different one. Which measure did you use to come to your conclusion? I suspect you didn't use one at all, because I am not aware of any measure of "slavery" that correlates positively with any measure of investment activity. Labor practices and protections are much better in countries with high economic investment.

[deleted]

Re: Alberta startup sells no-tech tractors for half price

#805

Post by [deleted] »

infogulch wrote: post #140
stackskipton wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OEM can change their mind at any moment and there is always going to be an MBA rubbing their hands together thinking about all the money that can be made. This needs to be solved at government level with right to repair laws and requirement for open standards instead of believing in magic of "free market".

Government regulations weren't necessary for Framework to make the most open laptop product line in history which includes a the 'Pro' 13" laptop chassis which is both backwards and forwards compatible with components that were sold 5 years ago on day 1.

[deleted]

Re: Alberta startup sells no-tech tractors for half price

#806

Post by crazygringo »

erikerikson wrote: post #685
crazygringo wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, no. I don't like the modern business strategies but they are what they are. The only reason many consumer televisions are as cheap as they are is because they're being subsidized with advertisements. It's the same thing with the razor and blades model, where the razor is sold at a loss and the profit comes from the replacement blades. Or the game console model, where the console is much cheaper than an equi…

Huh. You're definitely authoritative on your intention. Thanks for setting the record straight and pointing out my error. I'm confused about how you can look at all the less (or anti) functional, more expensive, disposable/fragile crap companies are producing and defend it. I've seen so much waste and stupidity in companies, so much unnecessary and artificial complexity, and so much generated information asymmetry. I…

I'm not defending it. I literally prefaced my comment with saying I don't like it.

But it is reality. It's not some story being told to excuse or distract. It's just how certain business models work.

And yes, companies have waste and stupidity because human beings aren't perfect and managing companies is actually really hard. That doesn't change anything about which business models are viable and which ones are not. At the end of the day, your profit has to come from somewhere.

Re: Alberta startup sells no-tech tractors for half price

#807

Post by FpUser »

adev_ wrote: post #774
FpUser wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"f this startup can capitalize on that, they do have a market." $100K-$200 is very expensive for many. better find used old one

> 100K-$200 is very expensive for many. better find used old one It is true. But the stock of old repairable tractor will soon or later run dry. The price of some of these are currently increasing on the secondary market. If you told me 20y ago, that the old rusty tractor in the neighbour Grand'Pa's storage would be an appreciating asset, I would have laugh.

>"But the stock of old repairable tractor will soon or later run dry."

Then some other country will come up with the alternative. It is insane that piece of very old and simple tech has such a price tag. There are whole bunch of countries that have cheap enough metal to come up with the alternative

Re: Alberta startup sells no-tech tractors for half price

#808

Post by bakies »

rootusrootus wrote: post #724
bakies wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are brainwashed into thinking a pickup truck is the only practical car even though it's the opposite. It's not just EPA regulations, it's what people want.

It’s not brainwashing, a modern four door pickup is the very definition of practical for most of the US. The only thing it doesn’t do well is park in tiny spots, which describes a fairly small fraction of the US.

It's all down sides compared to an suv unless you're hauling dirt. The reason it doesn't fit in a parking spot is because the cargo is impractical. Not weather proof, can't put seats down, more space to accommodate the poor design, bedliner is worse than trunk lining. Putting a wall in the middle of the vehicle is horrible design

Re: Alberta startup sells no-tech tractors for half price

#809

Post by erikerikson »

crazygringo wrote: post #806
erikerikson wrote: post #685

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh. You're definitely authoritative on your intention. Thanks for setting the record straight and pointing out my error. I'm confused about how you can look at all the less (or anti) functional, more expensive, disposable/fragile crap companies are producing and defend it. I've seen so much waste and stupidity in companies, so much unnecessary and artificial complexity, and so much generated information asymmetry. I…

I'm not defending it. I literally prefaced my comment with saying I don't like it. But it is reality. It's not some story being told to excuse or distract. It's just how certain business models work. And yes, companies have waste and stupidity because human beings aren't perfect and managing companies is actually really hard. That doesn't change anything about which business models are viable and which ones are not.…

It seems to be that your top comment implicitly asserts that model is the one in play with Deere and the like (that they are loss leadering) and that it is necessary. Although I recognize you stated a dislike, that is what I was responding to. I suspect (but don't know not working for them or their CPA firm) that isn't the model in play but that they are implementing these policies strictly to increase profits. There's been a lot of duopoly and duopsony in the economic environment of farmers and I believe Deere had been flirting with/skirting abusive business behaviors for awhile now.

As is shown by the popularity of these alternatives, they are making a worse product at a higher price and augmenting it with abusive business policies to extract even more from farmers while many farms and farmers are failing and dropping like flies.

I suspect an adjacent part of it is anger by the population of farmers that used to actually be Deere's core market that have been fired as customers (without being told) as Deere chases the bigger customers and the economic wisdom of being a customer has disintegrated.

Re: Alberta startup sells no-tech tractors for half price

#810

Post by jcgrillo »

simplyluke wrote: post #530
vondur wrote: post #124

This is great, if there is some real competition, then we can see John Deere will have to figure out how to compete. Either with lower prices or less lock in.

> if there is some real competition They can't scale this model up because they legally have to use rebuilt engines from the 90s to do it to get around modern diesel emissions regulations. It's illegal to build this kind of engine in the US new, there's no way to compete with Deere's scale.

[dead]
Post reply on HN