Climate Fieldview

[MBgrower]

Completely unnecessary.

[tweety]

Um, yes. They would be more then willing to pay for it. All the data will be available to them, for a price. And since you are paying to give it to them, well their overhead starts out pretty low.

Why do you think EVERY company has a data system?

And why can't farmers see this!!!!!

[Jay-mo]

So, I buy my inputs from about 3 or 4 different retails. (I know, I have many options in my area). You're saying they all have direct access to my future Climate account?
For instance, I call up a retail. for a price on N. They go over to their desk, log into my Climate account and "holy moly, this guy pulled off some 100 bushel wheat and 60 canola last year, jack the price of N for this sucker".
Is this correct?

[jazz]

For those wearing the tinfoil, you do know that your own fields are likely getting weekly flyovers the same as subscribers? Thus enabling new subscribers to get up to 3 years of historical info on their fields.

Maybe true, but they don't know what I am doing on my field because I don't tell them.

Say this service tells you that you need a little different formulation on some back 40. You waltz in and buy the product, they assume you put it on get the results then they harvest your information.

Compare this to say I go in and talk to my rep about some field, don't tell him where it is, what part of it etc. How is he going to know anything about the results.

[jazz]

You guys realize that you are signing on to a service that you pay for to develop a super intensive management system where you will run over to every little pot hole and try to fix its problem. While you learn the risks and rewards from this approach, this system sits back and harvests the results, bundles that information and then will sell it world wide and give you nothing for it. You are creating a new business model for free and one that you will have to compete with in the future. Its nuts to sign on to this. Facebook did the exact same thing. They should be paying you $3 an acre for this service.

[BreadWinner]

I think all this data gathering is just another monthly bill, first you try it for free then you pay. I just threw the land line phone out the window and it is amazing how good it feels not to come home and check messages. All the data you gather from those fields will be no different than the 1000s of digital photos you have stored away on data cards. Put a extra few bucks in fertilizer instead and you will be further ahead.

[tweety]

You seem pretty sure of these claims?
If I do give it a try it won't even be setup through any retail or input supplier, never mind them having access to it.
Or are you making these statements as a general trend of where things are headed? If that's the case then we're screwed whether we use it or not.
If you're really so worried, just calibrate your yield monitor to show bullshit that only you know the actual fudge factor. Am I right?

As soon as it hits that ipad, they have everything. Why do you think it needs a sim card?

It will head that way as long as farmers keep making sure it heads that way. And they will. If you actually read the "lack of privacy" policy you can see it has changed from Climate data only to shared with Bayer. And that you agree and understand that policy can change any time.

Alexa and Siri have demonstrated that privacy is no concern for most people. Farmers will be no different, not even for their own business. The bigger the farmer, the better - that's you SF3

Ask them to pay you for that data. See what they say. Do you trust Bayer?

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/2018/05/14/merged-bayer-monsanto-corner-market-farm-data-and-software/607604002/

[Jay-mo]

I like the idea of being able to try many different things on my fields, from seeding rates, fertilizer, foliars, different varieties without all the extra work.

I don't completely dismiss the privacy concerns but from what I can tell Climate is using aggregated anonymous data. I know, take their word for it.

[Jay-mo]

No where's near the same, they don't know the variety, what was sprayed, what weeds you have, your soil test your dot dot dot. Besides, if they already had it, they wouldn't need to give you a ridiculous carrot like climate.

It's not tinfoil, its ignorance on what the specific data is being used for which is not to help you in any way. It will be used for differential pricing, when you make more, you will be charged more for your inputs. Eventually it will be the only way you will be able to buy inputs.

So go ahead, pay subscription fees to give all your data instead of being paid for it. They are counting on your naivety.

You seem pretty sure of these claims?
If I do give it a try it won't even be setup through any retail or input supplier, never mind them having access to it.
Or are you making these statements as a general trend of where things are headed? If that's the case then we're screwed whether we use it or not.
If you're really so worried, just calibrate your yield monitor to show bullshit that only you know the actual fudge factor. Am I right?

No where's near the same, they don't know the variety, what was sprayed, what weeds you have, your soil test your dot dot dot. Besides, if they already had it, they wouldn't need to give you a ridiculous carrot like climate.

It's not tinfoil, its ignorance on what the specific data is being used for which is not to help you in any way. It will be used for differential pricing, when you make more, you will be charged more for your inputs. Eventually it will be the only way you will be able to buy inputs.

So go ahead, pay subscription fees to give all your data instead of being paid for it. They are counting on your naivety.

Some people don't understand that they become the product when they subscribe.

[SASKFARMER]

Looking into it.

[tweety]

Sooo, none of the comments above are coming from actual experience?
Thanks for the insight.

For those wearing the tinfoil, you do know that your own fields are likely getting weekly flyovers the same as subscribers? Thus enabling new subscribers to get up to 3 years of historical info on their fields.

No where's near the same, they don't know the variety, what was sprayed, what weeds you have, your soil test your dot dot dot. Besides, if they already had it, they wouldn't need to give you a ridiculous carrot like climate.

It's not tinfoil, its ignorance on what the specific data is being used for which is not to help you in any way. It will be used for differential pricing, when you make more, you will be charged more for your inputs. Eventually it will be the only way you will be able to buy inputs.

So go ahead, pay subscription fees to give all your data instead of being paid for it. They are counting on your naivety.

[Jay-mo]

Sooo, none of the comments above are coming from actual experience?
Thanks for the insight.

For those wearing the tinfoil, you do know that your own fields are likely getting weekly flyovers the same as subscribers? Thus enabling new subscribers to get up to 3 years of historical info on their fields.

[brs]

The two things that I find would be beneficial are the delta t for spraying and probe for available soil moisture. A person would know whether to drop dress for more crop or leave well enough alone and get what u get.