Quick question friend - that ag data gets sold into finance, for instance, at way higher monetary value than any value-add to ag output from those sensors for the farmer. Those farmers getting a cut of the sales?

Edit - looking around my ag town, that also hammers right to repair which is blocked by JD's DRM approach, I don't think they are getting a cut.

Edit 2 - > If the tractor is not online or the GPS isn't working the farmer will stay home to fix things

pretty sure you mean the farmer will go to the licensed JD repair outlet and get their tractor fixed by the local farm/car dealership, vs. themselves, which is how it always was before JD started this digital apprpoach.

The data is a zero sum game - the value to finance company is exactly equal to the loss in value to the farmer. Many farmers have carefully read the contract before opting in because they understand the cost to them if the data is shared to the wrong people. they will refuse to upload the data (and there are other options to buy from if they don't like what we do so overall Deere stands to lose more than gain by selling data to finance company) The people who have admin access to the database where the data is stored are registered with the SEC as not allowed to trade commodities.

You've completely missed my point, and your zero sum game comment is a tangent.

I'm pointing out how the farmer isn't getting a cut.

Another way of saying what you just did is the value to the finance company's buy is going straight to JD, and not to the farmer.

And that data is powering a massive commodities trading industry, with value at orders of magnitude ever higher than a farmer could hope to earn, even though the value is only, and fully, sourced from their work.

And the point is I doubt JD is bothering to consider or tell the farmer they could get a cut of the data from their own fields powering that value. When farmers and ranchers are losing their multi-generational livelihoods largely driven by other impacts from a digital world, it's a gross practice by JD, considering the farmer's work plays a key role in it.

Edit - I'm not going to veer into a back-and-forth on this, but I encourage you to ask a JD product manager about a farmer getting a data-sales cut, or maybe even try to force that across the company from your relative position, and see how that plays out.

AFAiK there is no data sales. Note that there is data from Europe subject to Europe's data laws - while we don't mix that data with non-europe data, all such data is treated the same.

Yes in theory we can do whatever evil you want to imagine. However realistically I don't see it happening. Getting caught selling that data means farmers lose trust and won't buy any more million dollar machines - sales of equipment is in the end worth far more than the data.

where do you think this data comes from - https://www.cmegroup[.]com/market-data/browse-data/agricultu...

More context:

"...Seba sees it differently. It’s one thing for Deere to use his data to make a better tractor. But, he said, Deere knows when he’s planting, and he’s convinced the company sells that data to weather companies and commodities traders. Deere denies that it sells aggregated farm data to traders. Nevertheless, it’s the billions of acres of data the company collects that allows it to enter into lucrative business partnerships with complementary companies, such as Dow DuPont, which depends on soil information to make nutrient and seed planting “prescriptions.""

https://thecounter[.]org/farmobile-farm-data/

> 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.

Those kinds of requirements are extremely anti-consumer. If farmers get benefit from that, then they will do it, pay you for it even. But making them do things is terrible. It’s just a way to control and get more money. It will take years but we will break through these coporate controls. Meanwhile, people will circulate hacks so they can fix their own equipment. With all due respect, you are wrong.

> John Deere collects a lot of opt-in data from tractors

How are you getting requirement from this?

Lol farmers absolutely want their tractor to work when the cell network doesn't what are you talking about. Sounds like you might have drank a little too much of the company koolaid. It's not surprising, I know engineers at Deere and it sounds like quite a toxic environment.

nobody said that farmers don't want their tractors to work when the cell network doesn't.

> farmers absolutely want their tractor to work when the cell network doesn't

Sounds like it works exactly the way you say it should:

> Farmers who don't get a good cell signal of course do work without getting data uploaded

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.