N80
Super Member
I agree. the cost of the machine really shouldn't have anything to do with it. The cost of the machine should mostly be covered by the profits from selling whole tractors. By the time a tractor model is outdated, the machine should have paid for itself and production of replacement parts should not have to cover the bulk of machine costs.
If a company (any company) figures in the profits from _replacement_ parts into paying for the bulk machine costs (and I'm sure plenty of them do) they open themselves to charges of designed obsolescence, gauging and making parts that are easily damaged in order to cover expenses. I know all this goes on in board rooms and accounting offices, but I certainly have less respect for companies that do it. I know that this is a major factor in the auto industry. Does not seem to have worked to well for the big 3 American firms.
When a headlight lens costs $150 bucks it maked you wonder why your $20,000 didn't actually cost $120,000!
If a company (any company) figures in the profits from _replacement_ parts into paying for the bulk machine costs (and I'm sure plenty of them do) they open themselves to charges of designed obsolescence, gauging and making parts that are easily damaged in order to cover expenses. I know all this goes on in board rooms and accounting offices, but I certainly have less respect for companies that do it. I know that this is a major factor in the auto industry. Does not seem to have worked to well for the big 3 American firms.
When a headlight lens costs $150 bucks it maked you wonder why your $20,000 didn't actually cost $120,000!
