The reason these tractors sell is they have positive ROI. That doesn’t justify the tying. But assuming they’re money losers will lead to poor decisions.
But if it does truly net me 90K additional profit (and thus the gross improvement is 179k, half of which is spent on the capital to make that improvement), then yes, that looks optimal.
but Deeres are still popular. turns out that all the complicated software stuff is actually helpful, and some farmers want to buy it. even if a bunch of people on the internet who've never touched a tractor in real life think they shouldn't.
Bunches of real working farmers agree as well. I've noticed that over time, I've been seeing fewer and fewer Deere tractors working the fields around here.
What we really need is a open sourced tractor protocol so if it breaks you can just slap a new chip there.
No farmer wants this. Good servicing beats open source in hardware, in farming and frankly most non-enthusiast spaces.
I want this, my neighbour wants this, his neighbour - who runs an older, pre-proprietary John Deere wants this. Farmers need their tractors to work and anything that helps there is a boon. While ag contractors may run the latest most modern equipment farmers tend to have a few tractors themselves which tend to be a bit older, a bit more run-down than those shiny new JD/MF/NH/Valtra (in Sweden and Finland)/etc. machines. They can still do with some of the nicer parts of the electromagic on those machines.
So... once those JDs go out of support, who knows? There may be a market for an aftermarket control box, one which pulls the machine out of the clutches of the mothership and puts it where it belongs, in the hands of the farmer. I have a proposal, just donate one of those machines to me and I'll rig up such a box. Not that my current 1982 UTB640DTC (a Romanian license-built/copied (it is a bit unclear) Fiat 640 with FWA and a front loader) has given up but still...
So, good servicing is fine if you can afford it but many farmers tend to their own equipment as well in which case the availability of parts and protocol specifications really comes in handy. Mechanical parts - that what used to define a tractor - tend to be readily available but electronics and specifications are a different story.
Saying "no farmer wants this" is the equivalent of saying that "no farmer wants the technical manual" for their pre-software-filled tractor. I bet it helps tremendously if you have the manual for your 1950 International Harvester Farmall MD and you want to keep repairing it. I have no idea how to repair tractors, nor do I own one or will probably ever own one but for some reason watching this was fun: https://youtu.be/7yuHIu1IfPw?list=PL-1mGLAjHPWy0BL-MO6MrSr-m... And somewhere in there (or maybe somewhere else on his channel) he shows these manuals, where to get them etc. Apparently even though some of the companies are out of business or no longer provide these themselves, there are re-prints of these and other companies that still make parts for these engines and tractors. The guy has a pretty small operation it seems and uses tractors mostly to make hay for his cattle but it looks like he's using that 72 year old MD as well as some other slightly (!) newer tractors to run his operation.
There is inherent distrust, but Deere and Case are close to pricing out/pissing enough customers. I am on the record they are sitting on the autonomous tractor tech (today) because the existing market they dominate is too lucrative. Could be their kodak moment playing out. We'll see.