US Farmers Are Being Bled By the Tractor Monopoly (bloomberg.com) 248
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: As tractors become as complex as Teslas, agricultural equipment manufacturers and their authorized dealerships are using technology as an excuse to force farmers to use the authorized service center -- and only the authorized service center -- for repairs. That's costing farmers -- and independent repair shops -- dearly. John Nauerth III, a farmer in remote Jackson, under pressure to plant, waited a costly "two or three hours" for an authorized dealer to show up at his farm to plug in a computer and diagnose the problem. Worse, the dealer didn't have the repair part -- and independent repair shops, excluded from the repair monopoly, didn't either. "Right now, you're at the mercy of the dealers," Nauerth said. "Good thing is we figured out a way to get it running with a two-by-six piece of plywood."
It's not cheap. In Nebraska, an independent mechanic can replace a John Deere Co tractor transmission. But if the farmer wants to drive it out of the mechanic's garage, a Deere technician must be hired for $230, plus $130 per hour, to show up to plug a computer into the tractor to authorize the part, according to Motherboard. Making matters more difficult, equipment manufacturers and dealers have been consolidating for years, reducing the number of techs and increasing the distance they must travel. Gary Wertish, president of the Minnesota Farmers Union, which supports Minnesota's Fair Repair bill, cited this problem as especially costly. "It can be 50 miles to the nearest dealership," he explained in a phone interview. "If independent repair businesses could do the work, that'd solve a lot of problems, especially in the spring and fall." The report highlights the Minnesota Fair Repair bill that will be debated in the state's House of Representatives in the coming weeks. The Fair Repair legislation is one of many currently in consideration across twenty U.S. states. It "requires that manufacturers of equipment with embedded electronics -- everything from a tractor to an iPhone -- must make available repair manuals, parts and tools to independent repair businesses that it makes available to dealerships and other authorized repair businesses," reports Bloomberg. "It must also provide the means to reset software locks disabled during diagnosis and repair."
It's not cheap. In Nebraska, an independent mechanic can replace a John Deere Co tractor transmission. But if the farmer wants to drive it out of the mechanic's garage, a Deere technician must be hired for $230, plus $130 per hour, to show up to plug a computer into the tractor to authorize the part, according to Motherboard. Making matters more difficult, equipment manufacturers and dealers have been consolidating for years, reducing the number of techs and increasing the distance they must travel. Gary Wertish, president of the Minnesota Farmers Union, which supports Minnesota's Fair Repair bill, cited this problem as especially costly. "It can be 50 miles to the nearest dealership," he explained in a phone interview. "If independent repair businesses could do the work, that'd solve a lot of problems, especially in the spring and fall." The report highlights the Minnesota Fair Repair bill that will be debated in the state's House of Representatives in the coming weeks. The Fair Repair legislation is one of many currently in consideration across twenty U.S. states. It "requires that manufacturers of equipment with embedded electronics -- everything from a tractor to an iPhone -- must make available repair manuals, parts and tools to independent repair businesses that it makes available to dealerships and other authorized repair businesses," reports Bloomberg. "It must also provide the means to reset software locks disabled during diagnosis and repair."
Sweet (Score:5, Insightful)
Open repair!
Re:Sweet (Score:5, Insightful)
Why wouldn't you? If they're are being bled of money, it means everyone has to pay more for food. Including the poorest in the society.
Re:Sweet (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is a "tractor monopoly" then it is of the US's own making - here in NZ, which is heavily agriculturally orientated, there are more than a dozen farm machinery brands with high street sales lots, John Deere being just one of them.
Farming is so embedded in normal culture here that farm machinery sales lots share the same status as consumer car lots, and advert segments on radio regularly include agricultural or farm orientated adverts (which can be a bit odd, when you are listening to some decent 1970s rock and suddenly theres an advert for abattoir services or sheep dip services).
So if theres an issue with John Deere and there are no alternatives, thats the problem that should be resolved, because its not that way elsewhere.
Re: (Score:3)
"Monopoly" doesn't mean what the summary writer thinks it means.
Re: (Score:3)
They're closer than you are.
Protip: technical words derived from Latin or Greek don't necessarily mean what you get by literally translating them.
Re: (Score:1)
So, are any of those NZ tractor manufacturers interested in selling in another, larger market?
True, it's about as far away from NZ as you can get, while staying on the surface of the planet but that's not as big a problem as it might seem. Shipping costs are not the barrier to trade that they once were.
For that, you now have to look to national capitols, where there is usually a plentiful supply of trade barriers, and people ready to make more.
Re: (Score:2)
When I Googled "Tractor", under the "Shopping" tab I see brands like Massey Ferguson, Branson, Ford, International Hydro, Case, Kubota, ...
Are these not competitors of John Deere? I'm asking seriously - I'm not a farmer and have no idea really.
Re: (Score:3)
When I Googled "Tractor", under the "Shopping" tab I see brands like Massey Ferguson, Branson, Ford, International Hydro, Case, Kubota, ...
Are these not competitors of John Deere?
Massey, Case IH (they merged) and New Holland are all viable competitors to John Deere. Kubota is a newer player in the high-horsepower space and may not quite be there yet, but their smaller equipment has a solid reputation so I'd imagine they'll pick up a good chunk of market share.
I agree it's a very... erm, flexible definition of "monopoly."
Re: (Score:1)
There is why it is called Monopoly
Irrelevant how they got there, now they are Capitalism's dream, ordering the market for maximum unearned income.
Re: (Score:1)
None of which addresses why the farmers are buying John Deere tractors instead of unencumbered tractors from other manufacturers.
I mean, I'm not a farmer and I knew years ago that it would be daft to buy John Deere.
Shit, where's the farmer showing some innovation and selling self-driving plough kits for unsophisticated mechanical tractors?
Re: (Score:2)
They're not referring to a monopoly in ag equipment manufacturing. They're referring to the monopoly in repair once you've bought the equipment. The system will respond to unauthorized controllers on the bus by, for example, reducing engine power. At this point you need to call the dealer to authorize the replaced parts. During busy planting and harvest times downtime on these very expensive machines leads to real and significant loss of income.
Re: (Score:2)
The big problem is do Massey Ferguson, Branson, Ford, International Hydro,etc. also limit the ability of independent repair shop to do repairs on their equipment. The example in the summary mentioned John Deere but that doesn't mean the problem is limited to that one manufacturer.
Re:Sweet (Score:5, Interesting)
If there is a "tractor monopoly" then it is of the US's own making - here in NZ, which is heavily agriculturally orientated, there are more than a dozen farm machinery brands with high street sales lots, John Deere being just one of them.
Farming is so embedded in normal culture here that farm machinery sales lots share the same status as consumer car lots, and advert segments on radio regularly include agricultural or farm orientated adverts (which can be a bit odd, when you are listening to some decent 1970s rock and suddenly theres an advert for abattoir services or sheep dip services).
So if theres an issue with John Deere and there are no alternatives, thats the problem that should be resolved, because its not that way elsewhere.
Oh, there are alternatives. Some US and Canadian farmers have been 'downgrading' to Belorussian tractors, no computers, no DRM and you do not get raped on spares prices. I'm sure that problem will soon be solved by 'Tariff Man' with one of his signature easy-to-win trade wars.
Re: (Score:2)
How about just refurbish older John Deeres? I have a 1971 3020 my dad bought new. I can still pull a plow with it. For about $5000 it could be made good as new, ready for another 12,000 hours of work.
Deere's 4440 and 4850 were some of the best tractors ever made. Newer ones have too much plastic and electronics.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, Belarus is an absolute monarchy with a mixed economy that has a comparatively large public sector.
Sort of Saudi Arabia, but without oil and islam.
integration != monopoly, fucktard (Score:2)
There's no such thing as a horizontal monopoly.
There's no such thing as a vertical monopoly either.
Re: (Score:2)
So unicorns exist, or there wouldn't be a word for them.
Explain why, when you type "horizontal and vertical monopolies" into google, the hits that come up are about integration.
A bakery owning a flour mill and some wheat farms doesn't make it a monopoly - horizontal, vertical or oblique.
Re: (Score:2)
it means everyone has to pay more for food.
When you buy a loaf of bread, about 5 cents goes to the wheat farmer.
Including the poorest in the society.
Well, they don't vote, so it is no wonder the politicians ignore this issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Just a minor clarification on:
It is more accurate to say: Well, republicans close down polling places in poor areas, reduce early voting, put up barriers like ID for people who don't drive, and generally purge voter rolls in a variety of ways so fewer poor folks vote, there by allowing the politicians to be unaccountable to the working class and working poor in general.
Re: (Score:2)
Every single America state has ID-cards for non-drivers.
The problem is that if you are poor, don't drive, and work for cash, there is no particular need to have one, or carry it with you, or replace it if it is lost.
Illegal in Canada (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tied selling is also illegal in the United States, but that doesn't appear to be what this is. This is more John Deere refusing to sell, lease or license its repair equipment and supplies to independent vendors, forcing you to use it as your sole source of service. I doubt that counts as tying, because you don't purchase service in advance, tractors don't break down at predictable intervals, and you're in no way required to repair yours when it does break down.
Re: (Score:3)
This is more John Deere refusing to sell, lease or license its repair equipment and supplies to independent vendors, forcing you to use it as your sole source of service.
Yup, and they're using the DMCA to do it.
Those in the 6th circuit could at least rely on the 6th circuit's decision on Lexmark v Static Control Components in a legal fight, since the ruling listed several industries and simply declared that the DMCA did not protect them, including replacement parts for vehicles, engines, and tractors specifically.
Sadly, that was not taken up nationally. Lock-out codes are quite effective at destroying the ability to repair or service your own equipment, and third party s
Re: (Score:2)
Typical definition language includes "Tied Selling Tied selling may take three forms. First, it may involve a requirement by a supplier that the buyer acquire a second product from a supplier as a condition of being supplied a first and usually highly desirable product (the tying product). A second form involves the requirement that a customer refrain from using or distributing, in conjunction with the tying product, another product not manufactured by the supplier. The final form of tied selling is to off
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's legal if you're leasing the product though. And a lot of newer farmers(last 15 years), can get a better loan rate if they're leasing particular brands of products. This is how JD has been getting around this in Canada. Farm credit has been a big business for decades, on top of that even the automakers - all of them, do this if you get a credit line through their own financing services.
Re: (Score:2)
Third world nations are starving. But it isn't due to lack of food in the world. It's due more to authoritarian governments not delivering donated food. Or transportation.
So why wouldn't you side with farmers?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Um you should be allied with farmers on everything that impacts them. Without farmers we all die. Farmers are the life blood of the human population. Without them, nothing and I mean NOTHING else that humans do exists. No buildings, no materials, no manufacturing, no clothing, nothing. You'll be reduced to a few tribes of hunters/gatherers living in huts without farmers.
The great news is the 1%'ers will be some of the first to perish without farmers.
The people who you should be against are the supplier
Same with automobiles (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, EPA rules, not copyright (Score:1, Interesting)
Obama's EPA decided that any software modifications were a "defeat device" against emissions control systems, and consequently, only dealers can have the private keys to make software changes, and parameters are clearly software. This isn't a "copyright" thing, it's an EPA overreach.
As to the "don't buy John Deere" argument? Well, that same regulatory burder prevents everyone from mass producing tractors that don't meet emissions requirements, which effectively requires a complex ECU, which in turn requires
Re:Nope, EPA rules, not copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
It's EPA rules being gamed by manufacturers as a way of sticking it to farmers using copyright. In exactly the same way, so many of the "for your safety" legal restrictions on the healthcare market were passed at the behest of pharma companies, device manufacturers, hospital associations, and state medical boards to keep competition out and prices high.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What are unintended consequences, and how often does well-meaning (benefit of the doubt and all that) rule-making result in them?
Re: (Score:2)
What are unintended consequences, and how often does well-meaning (benefit of the doubt and all that) rule-making result in them?
These aren't unintended consequences though, they're deliberate. Tractors weren't the only thing, so were semi-trucks. Go ask O/O truck drivers, the Obama administration were also the guys that blocked rebuilding truck engines if they "didn't fall into line of new EPA regs." These actions were punitive, and specifically benefited front line manufactures of various products made in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it always the ACs who mention commentators by name, but won't identify themselves?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
I used to use a third party to fix my car, and they had the identical diagnostics/maintenance computer that the dealership had. If something required a software tweak, they could anything the dealer could, same diagnostics, etc.
I thought for some reason at least with cars, car manufacturers had to make computer diagnostics equal to their dealerships available to independent repair places. I don't think it solves the larger economics, since the manufacturer is still charging a kind of tax.
I'm inclined to si
Suck it up, buttercup (Score:4, Interesting)
This is the result of teaching Milton Friedman style ethics to EVERY MBA student, we have cut our own throats by tolerating this debasement of people for profits.
Friedman argued that a company should have no "social responsibility" to the public or society because its only concern is to increase profits for itself and for its shareholders and that the shareholders in their private capacity are the ones with the social responsibility. He wrote about this concept in his book Capitalism and Freedom. In it he states that when companies concern themselves with the community rather than focusing on profits, it leads to totalitarianism. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Suck it up, buttercup (Score:5, Insightful)
Well Friedman like everyone else only has partially valid points.
But totalitarianism is not a product of anything other than pure human fucking greed and meddling. It can come from capitalism, socialism, communism, anarchism, free-markitism, really any thing you can think of.
People need to stop looking at ism's as solutions to problems... they are not. Ism's should be though of as ways humans like to introduce problems or better yet, the label we use to identify a problem. Capitalism? where there is your problem... Socialism? that is an even bigger problem. The real problem is being married so much to singular ideals that you also get their bad parts.
We should be borrowing a little for every isms that is out there because like a stopped 12 hour clock they are correct two times a day.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with your suggestion is that while seemingly arguing for an evolutionary, trial-and-error approach, you are actually being ideologically dogmatic.
Just like a successful market-based system is a product of evolution and tinkering, so is a successful regulatory environment. States, governments, laws, and regulations also evolve. You state that people cooperate through a free market, which is true (not only by competition however, because they do actually a lot of very straightforward, non-competit
Re: (Score:2)
There are some folks, up in the mountains, who would.
The problem with this type of argument is that those people would eventually form their own type of local government, supplying some of these services, and paying into that system.
Which would become a competitor to the actual government. sort of a low key succession.
And we all know how that works out in the end.
A great Mont Perelin Society member! (Score:1, Interesting)
One of the greatest!
FYI: Mont Perelin Society is a Swiss group of over 500 (!!) think tanks, founded in 1945, aiming at creating a fascist world, where there is no by-the-people state, corporations own everything, there are no taxes for them, and there is no social safety net either. A world of dog-eat-dog psychopaths running wild in a anarcho-libertarian society.
Yes, I wish it was just a craazy conspiracy theory too.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to spread FUD about an organization, at least learn how to spell its name. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Your response to a post that merely pointed out a typo does much to damage your credibility. You were not accused of spreading FUD and you were not asked for sources.
Instead you've assured that I will not be opening random PDFs from some bloke's website because your own actions mean that I can't trust you or them.
Wrong again. Still peddling RWNJ propaganda. (Score:1)
Nope, Marxism is about forcing capitalism out by making the government force workers to own the means of production, because capitalists won't LET people self serve and will lie cheat and lastly force people to remain capitalists. Facism, however, is rightwing. Always was and always will be. Marxism isn't "Everything in the State. Nothing outside the State." and facism you claim is. Fair enough, but since Marxism isn't that, then it isn't marxism.
Also marxism is a type of socialism: state socialism. There's
Re: (Score:2)
I so wish I had points! And for an AC too!
Re: (Score:2)
Friedman argued that a company should have no "social responsibility" to the public or society because its only concern is to increase profits for itself and for its shareholders and that the shareholders in their private capacity are the ones with the social responsibility.
This type of corporate structure doesn't currently exist in the US. Common shareholders have no influence on corporations. Elections for board directors and proposals are a sham equaling the election shams in China and Russia. It's fortunate for corporations that most people don't know how corporate elections are rigged.Thus, in companies, the executives are the only ones potentially capable of corporate social responsibility. However, expecting corporate decision makers to sacrifice personal financial
Re: (Score:2)
I've owned shares in a number of large corporations, and there have been heated battles for control of the board in a couple. Despite owning only a small number of shares, the competing sides spent gobs of their own money lobbying me to vote for them, and I voted for the underdog, who nobody expected to win, and yet he did win.
My experience is otherwise. The elections that I've participated usually only listed an option to vote for the board-nominated candidates with no other option. In many corporate elections, the board gets to make ballot decisions for ballots that aren't returned. For many companies, the non-board originated proposals that actually win are only officially considered to be suggestions. Other companies have rigged the vote so that a few shareholders (looking at you, Google) have all the official power, but
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, Friedman also thought that anyone should be able to practice medicine, and that the market would weed out the bad doctors.
For someone who received the Nobel Prize, he was a fucking moron...
Re: (Score:1)
Friedman's perspective on this would be that it's a problem caused by government over-regulation. Remove the DMCA and the legal penalties for reverse-engineering the encryption that enforces John Deere's anti-maintenance features, and one or more competitors will crack it. Bidding between them will then drive the price of "authorised" maintenance access down to near zero. Ideally John Deere, knowing this would happen, wouldn't make the effort to implement anti-features in the first place.
If that all fail
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Perfect karma for assholes like you would be to homeless and not have anyone offer to help you. Government subsided food, government subsided homeless shelters, churches, or any individual donations.
Or what bitch, you believe they all should die. And cheap pricks like you deserve everything.
Re: (Score:2)
there's a few barriers to entry on these kinds of goods
huge amounts of capital needed for production (economies of scale to make the damn things affordable)
distribution networks
supplier networks
patents
governmental red tape (emissions/safety/licensing -- not necessarily bad, but definitely over-zealous, and disproportionately impact the little guy starting out.)
it's not as simple as opening a cupcake shop because the one up the street is too expensive.
The problem with capitalism is that there's a positive fe
Re: So, let me get this straight.... (Score:3)
Capitalism is not voluntary. The ownership of the means of production by the few is enforced by the violent coercive power of the state.
Re: (Score:2)
So you fought off a strawman with your own strawman? It's strawmen all the way down.
A warlord is a government; it's authoritarian. (Score:1)
Other AC got it right. Somalia was communist; it collapsed; an authoritarian form of government known as a warlord arose in the power vacuum.
That has nothing to do with libertarianism.
Re: (Score:1)
whoosh
The point about Somalia is that it does not have a functioning government, and since you have no "violently imposed monopoly" (what you called government earlier) robbing people at gun point, then it _must_ be paradise for you.
Of course, warlords, etc... step into the void and LITERALLY take peoples goods at the end of a gun, which is exactly what happens whenever you do not have a government in place, a fact that totally destroys all of the flowery lies that libertarians love to jabber on about.
Spoil
Re: (Score:2)
If I don't like the goods or services of a business, then I don't fund that business. Try not funding your government's stupid ideas, and see what happens.
If you don't like a business it's very easy not use them. If you don't like the gov that's one thing but try not using their stuff and see how far you get.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to fund your government.
If you don't like the goods and/or services that a business is offering you said that you don't fund that business so I assume you go elsewhere to get your items. Like wise if you don't like the goods and services your government is offering you can stop funding them and get your items elsewhere (i.e. you can move to another country where you like the goods/services offered).
You may say that you don't have to move if you stop paying for a business' services so you shou
Re: (Score:2)
Blame personal injury lawyers (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Blame personal injury lawyers (Score:2)
Pay a few percent extra up front for a massive decrease in total lifecycle cost. Sounds like a good deal.
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming the current model isn't 'pay now and pay later'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
hopefully the dingus who was trespassing on the farmers property and shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Sounds like a business opportunity. (Score:1)
Put your money where your mouth is: Quit buying products that don't work for you.
I bet you'll find out the problem has its roots in anti-capitalistic policies of government.
The answer is simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't buy any more tractors from John Deere Co Buy your tractors elsewhere.
Re: (Score:3)
John Deere's bread and butter isn't Grandpa Joe buying one tractor. It's Monsanto that wants "TaaS" (Tractor as a Service) where they lease a dozen vehicles, if one goes down for a day they charge back the down time.
A Tesla is simple (Score:3, Insightful)
What's with this ridiculous lead in:
As tractors become as complex as Teslas
Teslas are much simpler than conventional cars or tractors.
Re: (Score:1)
Teslas are much simpler than conventional cars or tractors.
How many lines of code does a 1930 Farmall have? How many did the model T have?
Why don't the farmers create their own? (Score:2)
They could have the Chinese make tractor parts according to their own specification, then have them assembled the the USA. Problem solved.
Is it a question of leadership?
Re: (Score:2)
Because they are too busy farming. That is back breaking, all day long work.
The real question is why hasn't any other company stepped up to fill the gap? The answer is likely one of patents and monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they are too busy farming. That is back breaking, all day long work.
And their nights are busy looking for love on farmersonly.com - they simply don’t have time to set up another business.
Re: (Score:2)
I posted this above, but its worth repeating here as well - here in NZ, John Deere is just one of many many brands that are available on high street farm machinery sales lots, including plenty of Chinese brands.
Theres no need to have the parts specially made, just find out why John Deere has no competitors in the US, because they seem to have a wealth of competitors here in NZ.
Re: (Score:2)
John Deere has all the same competitors in the US.
The article author doesn't really know what the word monopoly means. He uses it to mean that a company has a monopoly on the software they created and on updating the licensing terms for the automation software they sold bundled with their physical product.
Re: (Score:2)
I welcome our subscription overlords! (Score:2)
Subscribe to tv, movies and magazines.
Now companies think things like tools and infrastructure are ok too.
Oddly, it was this whole mindset that launched the PC era, and the use meters on our computers, printer and copies went away.
talk to the hand (Score:2)
It's more than a rebranding (Score:5, Informative)
Overblown (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Not overblown, a matter of software freedom (Score:2)
All software proprietors are monopolies. Nobody is allowed to alter, distribute, or study Microsoft Word, a proprietary word processor, for example. The same applies to any proprietary software regardless of purpose or size. Some proprietary software is so restrictive the proprietors prohibit merely running the program under certain circumstances (DRM is all about imposing this on users—time restrictions, location restrictions, and more). These restrictions e
Re: (Score:2)
A small correction: nobody but Microsoft is allowed to do these things to Microsoft Word.
I would care (Score:1)
But most farms are run by corporations or wealthy families and the US government subsidized farming anyway.
The myth of the poor rural farmer is mostly that now.
Correction: (Score:2)
It was John Dearly:
That's costing farmers -- and independent repair shops -- dearly. John Nauerth III, a farmer in remote Jackson, under pressure to plant, waited a costly "two or three hours" for an authorized dealer to show up at his farm to plug in a computer and diagnose the problem.
Punish tractor manufacturers (Score:2)
As a protest, we should all stop eating food. This would reduce the demand for tractors and teach lesson to tractor manufacturers.
Re: (Score:2)
Citizens United ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... grants monopolies permission to throw unlimited amounts of money at the political system.
When that happens in countries other than the US, we call them "bribes," and "corruption."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
First, there are no actual monopolies discussed in the article, despite the headline.
Second, Citizens United just recognized that people have an existing free speech right to do things like make a movie about a politician without the government being allowed to ban them. There was no "permission" for the individuals involved. We don't need the government's permission to do things which the government hasn't been given our permission to make laws restricting. In this case, that's doubly reinforced by the phr
Re: (Score:1)
Corporations ARE people. Several people. Banded together for a common purpose. Besides, people are the only known species, plant or animal, with the capability to fill out the paperwork.
Re: (Score:2)
Flame on. I got karma to burn:
No, corporations are explicitly not "persons" or people. They might employ suck said meat sacks, but they are not one. I wish you people would stop spouting the ramblings of a law clerk for the 1880's in a railroad case. This has never been given in the constitution and has never been address in court. The "assumption" of the Citizens United case was based off this erroneous clerk:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The full definition is not so clear, but explicitly does not
Big Tractor Is Evil (Score:1)
This is not going to help (Score:4, Insightful)
As complex as Teslas? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The drive train is mechanically much simpler, but the rest isn't.
If it was that simple, the market would be flooded with sub-$30k Tesla equivalents, with only the battery justifying a price point of more than $10k.
A Tesla car is full of sensors and computers and a million gadgets justifying its status as a luxury car. Sure, it is simpler than a typical luxury sedan but the drive train is just a small part of its complexity at that point. It is definitely more complex than say, a Toyota Hilux.
The competitive value of complexity (Score:2)
There is a well known aspect of complexity, namely that as you enhance the product to produce more value, it becomes more complex.
Another aspect which is not about function at all, the competitive aspect of complexity appears to become increasingly important. Complexity locks people out and it locks competitors out. It also increases the cost of the product which is good for business. Safety and environmental regulations make the product more expensive and push out the small players so the market leaders ar
Bloomberg late to the story (Score:2)