| > your software I was an intern. I wasn't anywhere near the engine controller software. > And no, Deere shouldn't fix that under warranty. It's the same with cars. You can do that trick to a Honda with a resistor in-line to the MAF sensor and it will run the car lean, giving the illusion of more performance while wearing out the engine and burning the combustion chamber way too hot. Should Honda fix that? No way! Should Honda let the customer do it anyway? Of course they should! Should Honda share the schematics with the customer so they not only realize that it's a bad idea, but also know WHY it's a bad idea? Yes. Looks like we agree here. > It's strictly to protect Deere. We also agree here. > Engine horsepower, for example, can be increased by a software update. > How do you see this as an asset? I explained this further in another comment. > Yeah, you don't sound like a shill or anything. I explicitly stated my bias in the first line. |
I am interested in this bit:
The expensive configurations subsidize the base configurations.
This idea is common now. Rigol scopes often perform well above spec. CNC machinery has unlockable features. Other examples are not hard to find.
Does this literally mean companies who do this sort of thing sell at a net loss, or not?
A net loss would warrant the word subsidy. Anything else is not really a subsidy at all.
Which is it?