Manufacturers owns your stuff by claiming you only licence the firmware.

[PlainName]

They physical hardware is yours. You aren't licensing the hardware, just the right to use the software.

In theory, maybe, but in reality the hardware isn't going to do anything without the software, and you aren't going to find any replacement. If, by a miracle, there was replacement software, you wouldn't be able to get spares for the hardware. There is also the small matter that the hardware is essentially a carrier for the software - you pay the big money for all the cleverness, not so much the metal (otherwise you'd've bought a cheaper non-JD tool).

[zilp]

The economic argument makes perfect sense. Up the tax on food producers, make food more expensive.

Given that I explained how it really doesn't make much sense: Can you explain what the error is in my explanation?

Subsidies are a bad idea in general. I don't want my taxes going directly into UK farmer's pockets but it's better than them going abroad.

Why is that better? Especially so given your premise that cutting the foreign aid would drive up food prices in the UK?

[AVGresponding]

What takes the piss is the government are paying £536 million a year to foreign farmers, who compete with British farmers. If they want to save money, then they need to stop paying that. It will save them even more than because it'll make British farms more competitive and they'll get more income tax as a result.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1979140/farmers-foreign-aid-fury

You are seriously citing a tabloid as a source?

Like, you are aware that tabloids have a strong tendency to scandalize and emotionalize things rather than having a reputation for accurate reporting? In particular, that they tend to leave out information that would be important for actually understanding an issue, and instead just cherry pick aspects that get people who aren't familiar with a topic riled up?

Now, as before, I am not familiar with details of what is going on in the UK, so I can't really comment on the specific issue, but just going on what you wrote about it: You do realize that "making British farms more competitive" is economically equivalent to "making food in the UK more expensive", right? So, your suggested course of action might well end up with the state saving £500 million, but also with citizens spending £1000 million more on food. Now, obviously, I have no idea about the concrete circumstances in the UK, especially so given that others in this thread seem to suggest that this is all about tea, which maybe isn't even grown in the UK anyway ... but the point is that that's the kind of background information that you'd need to actually be able to judge whether this really is a scandal or just manipulative reporting. Also, whether it is a scandal might very well depend on who you are. If you are a farmer, you might well like the idea of people paying more for your products. If you are not ... maybe not so much?

The "source" quoted is a well known right-wing reactionary hack-rag. I wouldn't trust them to tell me the sky is blue (this is the UK, so it's definitely going to be grey). The figures they present do not match the ones found in the source they themselves quote, which is this one: https://devtracker.fcdo.gov.uk/
No real surprise, a tabloid chip wrapper taking things hugely out of context in order to elicit indignant xenophobic rage in their microcephalic readership.

What would be far more useful to farmers is legislation to prevent the supermarkets bullying them on prices (which we have), and to then enforce said laws (which doesn't happen).

[Zero999]

The economic argument makes perfect sense. Up the tax on food producers, make food more expensive.

Given that I explained how it really doesn't make much sense: Can you explain what the error is in my explanation?

Subsidies are a bad idea in general. I don't want my taxes going directly into UK farmer's pockets but it's better than them going abroad.

Why is that better? Especially so given your premise that cutting the foreign aid would drive up food prices in the UK?

The fact remains the same: increase taxes for food producers, prices go up.

If the government want to save money, they could just cut foreign aid.

Reducing spending generally saves more money than increasing taxes, because the latter also cost money to collect. Cutting 500 million in foreign aid, will save much more money than increasing taxes by the same amount.

[tszaboo]

They physical hardware is yours. You aren't licensing the hardware, just the right to use the software.

In theory, maybe, but in reality the hardware isn't going to do anything without the software, and you aren't going to find any replacement. If, by a miracle, there was replacement software, you wouldn't be able to get spares for the hardware. There is also the small matter that the hardware is essentially a carrier for the software - you pay the big money for all the cleverness, not so much the metal (otherwise you'd've bought a cheaper non-JD tool).

There seems to be a very organized push to turn farming into a subscription service. Everything from seeds, fertilizers to equipment is now an uphill battle. I mean they say that seed saving, a practice that pretty much responsible for the entire human civilization is violation of "intellectual property laws". We all know these huge conglomerates that force these (in my opinion) unlawful practices on farmers.

All this is going to be the downfall of these companies. John Deere almost budlighted itself with their DEI campaign, the only reason they survived that is that replacing this equipment is difficult. I think we are not far away from a world where the farmer will just buy a tractor from China because it's being sold at fraction of the cost without the preaching and the subscriptions.

[PlainName]

I think we are not far away from a world where the farmer will just buy a tractor from China because it's being sold at fraction of the cost without the preaching and the subscriptions.

Initially. Once they gain traction the subscriptions will follow.

Few of years ago I bought a DJI mobile gimbal. Returned straight away once it became apparent that one couldn't actually use it without activating it online. I mean, what on earth does it need activating for? It's a bloody gimbal with control buttons and all that. Shouldn't need a connection to anything, never mind activation. But without activating it did nothing whatsoever. And people fall over themselves to buy quite expensive DJI kit 

[lokin4areason]

this has been going on for year(s) and decade(s) . . .

esp. w/ software ( windows for instances )

as mentioned , its trying to gain traction and they are trying to get their paw(s) in every or anything that they can that makes coin ( esp. in their pockets )

[zilp]

The fact remains the same: increase taxes for food producers, prices go up.

Given that I have already epxlained that that is not how it works: Can you explain what the error in my explanation is?

If the government want to save money, they could just cut foreign aid.

Reducing spending generally saves more money than increasing taxes, because the latter also cost money to collect. Cutting 500 million in foreign aid, will save much more money than increasing taxes by the same amount.

How did you determine that?

[shabaz]

Farmers couldn't have believed there would be zero impact to them if they voted for Brexit, which many of them were dumb enough to do. There was guaranteed to be a financial impact to them, possibly more than for most other vocations. Now, successive governments will have to deal with the mess long into the future, to ensure farming doesn't suffer excessively. Therefore it seems very reasonable that some farmers will have to contribute a bit more, if they inherit large amounts of assets compared to the average person. Same for fishermen, they too ought to have known they would be impacted massively, and now they have to leave it to the adults to deal with, while Express readers continue to whinge, about foreign aid!

[SiliconWizard]

Farmers couldn't have believed there would be zero impact to them if they voted for Brexit, which many of them were dumb enough to do. There was guaranteed to be a financial impact to them, possibly more than for most other vocations. Now, successive governments will have to deal with the mess long into the future, to ensure farming doesn't suffer excessively. Therefore it seems very reasonable that some farmers will have to contribute a bit more, if they inherit large amounts of assets compared to the average person. Same for fishermen, they too ought to have known they would be impacted massively, and now they have to leave it to the adults to deal with, while Express readers continue to whinge, about foreign aid!

What does it have anything to do with the topic, your guess is as good as mine.

[SiliconWizard]

V-Zug has introduced subscription-based features for their dishwashers:

https://www.digitec.ch/en/page/a-plan-for-doing-the-dishes-v-zug-charges-extra-for-special-functions-35179