|
| Good news, but until everyone else starts using ISO 11783, it really is of no value yet.
All or most mfg's may be using part(s) of the ISO bus (mainly its BUS structure), but they certainly aren't using it to communicate a common/compatible signal, nor are they using/adopting the ISO 11783 data dictionary format, which will virtually enable a seamless transfer of all sorts of data, without conversion, from one opposing brand's system to another.
Until you can connect a Greenstar 2 virtual terminal onto the sensory harness of an Ag Leader yield monitoring system and run it on any brand of combine, or use the new color CaseIH virtual terminal with Greenstar or AG-Chem, or use an AGCO GTA virtual terminal to control the seeding rate, etc. of a CNH, Kinze or Borgault planter or seeder using JD APEX software to program it, etc., etc., etc., then and only then will the ISO 11783 become the standard.
To date, there has been far to much posturing (((by all sides))) to allow the ISO 11783 to evolve at a rate necessary to be of any use. The ISO 11783 committee(s) is/has become a victim of its own demise and Deere has continued to develop its wholistic Greenstar system that ties almost every virtual facit of its core and non-traditional products together for multiple applications and industries, making any sort of change away from it so inconvenient that it pays (unfortunately) to remain green. Reactive closed minds are the ones at fault here...too many who thought their system was better than everyone else's and none of them were/are working quite as good as they should. As a result, Ag/Precision Farming Information Technology systems will probably never reach an economy of scale for any of the major mfg's, resulting in profit and acclerated growth in technology. So why not head deeper outside of the industry to get low cost progressive technology? The cost of upstart? It wouldn't be so bad if there was a standard in place! Deere probably has no plans to make a profit off this type of technology as much as they are using it as a marketing tool.
Don't worry, the ag industry knows all too well how simple it would be to go to an open architecture for computer assisted farming, just like the desk-top computer industry has, but why? There are only a handful of players compared to the desk-top industry, where shorliners and OEM's can make as much revenue, if not more, than the mainliners. Most ag shortliners and OEM's can't hold a candle to the big ag machinery mfg's, therefore, most shorline and OEM creativity ends of getting sold off to the big mfg's in order to survive. And, most of that creativty gets shelved by the big mfg. for a rainy day or to prevent a coup attempt.
The ag machinery business needs a breath of fresh air, some new blood (competition) to keep them honest. There are a few out there, but it's going to take some time. Mergers and acquisitions (consolidation) most certainly is not the answer...just look at what's happening to CNH.</p>
Edited by Land_Surfer 9/16/2006 16:36
| |
|
AGCO ISOBUS
