I think this is a reaction to the incredibly locked down ecosystem that most of these mfgs are pushing.

However, the tech exists for a reason and is not inherently bad, the issue is the lock-in, the lack of choice and interoperability.

IMO, there is plenty of space for an OEM who can play nice with others, offer an open (and vibrant ecosystem), and keep users coming back by choice, not by lock-in.

> However, the tech exists for a reason and is not inherently bad, the issue is the lock-in, the lack of choice and interoperability.

These low-tech tractors could become a hot bed for open source experimentation. Nothing stopping someone from sticking a tablet on the dash. You could run GPS harvesting optimization software or some webthing locally. Could be cloud or clever DiY farmers could run their farm off a local instance on a small machine using a WiFi AP atop the barn or whatever.

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".

"Downtime — the thing that actually costs a farmer money during planting or harvest — shrinks dramatically when you don’t need a factory technician with a laptop to diagnose a fuel delivery problem."

---------------

Tractors aren't cars. It isn't merely inconvenient if they are unavailable at crucial times, so ease of repair is critical. Farmers have always done as much of their own maintenance as possible. John Deere has spent a lot of time taking away the reliability and ease of repair that farmers need in order to give them "advanced" features they don't need.

Farmers who want advanced capabilities might now look to build them on top of no-tech tractors with open-source solutions rather than trusting John Deere again. That way, if the "would be nice" tech has problems they can rip it off and get the harvest in without it.

This is probably not this companies vision but it does seem interesting if companies sell "dumb" machines and then consumers can BYO electronics. Like an agricultural version of comma.ai.

Not sure how much appetite there is for that but half price + 5 grand in off the shelf electronics seems like something margin sensitive farmers would do.

>> However, the tech exists for a reason and is not inherently bad, the issue is the lock-in, the lack of choice and interoperability.

The marketing excuse for the tech might be features or efficiency, but the reason for the tech is lock-in and minimising product lifetime.

The days when manufacturers had friendly, cooperative relationships with their customers are long gone :( Can we bring them back? I hope so, but am not hopeful.

I disagree. While those are great points, I don't think that's the primary reason -- and maybe we're actually saying the same thing.

This tractor will last 50 years (and maybe more). Your grandchildren will be able to still use it. That longevity is the primary reason farmers would be super interested in this.

Some jobs (like mucking a barn for example) don't require a high-tech tractor. Sometimes you just need a workhorse that you can trust will start, run and do the job. Every single time. I still see farmers running old minneapolis-moline tractors from 100 years ago!

That’s part of the issue. But packing a tractor (or car) with electronics and computers does make it inherently harder to work on—even if it’s not locked down.

Note that that OEM would still have to deal with the minefield of patents created by the John Deere's of the world. I once worked for a company that had to work around an electronic circuit patent to detect a pulse. That was it, that was all it did. But if you used a standard differentiator circuit to detect the pulse created by a optical sensor watching for falling seeds you would violate the patent.

So a prerequisite might involve fixing the patent system...

Software or hardware, the lock-down for dollars will blow back.

John Deere has lost so much good will among farmers due to their lock-in efforts, it's wild. Unfortunately, many farmers are stuck with them because the only tractor dealership within a reasonable distance is John Deere.

> However, the tech exists for a reason and is not inherently bad, the issue is the lock-in, the lack of choice and interoperability.

The problem is computers and software enable lock-in, because of their flexibility and communications capability. Get rid of them, and you make lock-in much more difficult (or even impossible if you use "standard" parts).

Also, computers and software are complex, and that complexity is not physically visible. If you want something you can completely understand, it's probably a good choice to simplify by cutting them out completely.

Do you work in the agricultural industry? Farm equipment is expensive, farmers will maintain the equipment as long as possible, which is a long time. Manufactures such as John Deere have tried to make it not possible for farmers to do self repair.

https://youtu.be/EPYy_g8NzmI

Ultimately the “lock in” boils down to “when this breaks someone has to pay to fix it”. Automation and tech makes the galaxy of things that can break much larger, and the pinpointing of “who should pay to fix this” much harder. “Lock in” feels like an attempt to simplify toward “only we can fix it”, with the downsides of cost and time.

Maybe not inherently bad, but clearly not inherently necessary or useful if they're already getting so many inquiries from farmers. Could just be that the tech doesn't offer enough meaningful value when the core mechanical functionality can be achieved at a lower price.

Just call it what it is, greed. The idiots at John Deer thought strangling their customers to death was a good business model.

The fact tractor isn't locked in means 3rd party equipment have a chance instead of having to sit in locked in garden of a given vendor.

Not sure they needed to go all the way to mechanical injection tho, this is just literally burning money away

What if an OEM did the IBM thing and published open specs and software, spawning a whole industry? It's a shame the incentives don't seem to be there for it.

And there's also a place for OEMs who make the bare machines like this, and other people sell electronics to add!

Framework tractor when

It's not only the lock-in, as the document says, its about limiting the downtime.

Sailboats have the similar issue:

When are are in the middle of the pacific and get an egine problem, you want the engine to be low tech enough to be able to fix, or at least patch, yourself with minimum parts.

Yanmar switched its whole lineup of engines to ECU around 2014, but the one without ECU are very much sought after for the above reason.

For the farmers I know the price tag is the first thing they were looking at. So much grumbling about how Deere is using software to egregiously pad the price tag. Looking at a tractor that is going to take 5 or 6 years to pay off instead of 15 is tempting. Sadly Trump is absolutely going to slap a 400% tariff on these if they are even allowed to be imported.

Unfortunately it's doomed as soon as you read "startup". Why? There are two possible outcomes:

1. This fails, goes away and we're back where we started; or

2. They take the bag and sell to John Deere, who then locks down the tractors in the same way to force you to buy support, official parts and so on. And that'll happen. It's a bait-and-switch so somebody can get rich.

The only solution to this is collective ownership or some other non-profit structure so a handful of owners can't sell out and cash in.

Look to Spain's Mondragon Corporation [1] for inspiration.

[1]: https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/how-mondragon-be...

The tech is inherently more expensive though. So if you want to undercut on price you have to cut costs somewhere.

[dead]