The problem with the 15% number is how many are actually using it to manage their farm versus just on checking it out or using the weather/markets features? The guys (dozen or so) I've spoken to about it are just using it for weather/markets.<p>A second problem is web-/app-based farm management solutions place at loggerheads two qualities of good farmers: 1) progressive use of technology to increase profitability; and 2)the natural resistance to tell anyone what they've paid for inputs (land, machinery, seed, fertilizer) and what they're being paid for outputs.<p>Farming is a business, and by giving out too much information, farmers risk being out-maneuvered by their competition. Whether the competition be another farmer discovering what's being paid for cash rent and offering $5/acre more, or a hedge-fund gathering up real-time planting and yield information to play the CBOT/CME.<p>On a personal note, I've been involved in farming for 45+ years. My dad 80+ years. When explaining taking the information about the farm and crops and giving it to a company, my dad--who's never used a computer in his life--just stopped me and said: "That information is a new commodity they'd be getting for free to take and sell, and we'll never see a penny of it. "<p>Something for farmers to consider.
The thing I wonder about is their rainfall accumulation feature (I haven't tried it so don't know the details).<p>They say you don't have to go check rain gauges. That using government weather station data and some sort of calculations, it is possible to show how much rain fell on a field.<p>Now this may very well be possible. But if it is I wonder how it's done (yes, I know they explain it...but I still wonder). And I wonder how accurate it is. Maybe it's accurate enough. But I'd love to see some side by sides with actual rain gauges. Government weather stations are not that close together and rainfall can vary even hundreds of yards apart. It would really suck to claim X inches of rain fell on a field so no water is necessary, when in reality it didn't happen. It seems like this could cause claims of reduced crop yields for which the provider is responsible. But maybe this works exactly as claimed. I don't know. If it does work as claimed it's an amazing feature.<p>It's a cool project for sure. One downside I see is that they are basically asking farmers to hand over their budgetary and production data (to be fair, Farmlogs says this data won't be sold). Having known some farmers, I see this being an issue with many and there will be a significant portion that will never use the product for this reason. On the other hand, many apparently will, so good for Farmlogs.
This is not a huge accomplishment, they've become a totally free app and are VC backed, so basically instead of having real paying customers, they are getting farmers onboard by not charging anything.<p>Basically, I'm guessing they are hoping that Monsanto or John Deere or some other giant AG company buys them for however many millions of dollars.<p>This might be a valid strategy, but it sucks for the farmer because they don't have an incentive to build a truly valuable product that people will pay for. There is a huge difference when you build something people pay for vs something they use because it's free.<p>When you build a free product, the end user is not a customer, they are the product. I wonder how many farmers like being the product and not the customer.