While this is true, for many customers who aren't technical (in a computer sense, since they may have significant highly technical expertise in another field, such as agriculture), "tech" (meaning computers) just means what we'd call anti-features since from their vantage point everything with a computer (or with "tech") isn't respecting their ownership rights. And, even among people who understand the distinction, there's a reasonable expectation that computers embedded in products that don't specifically market otherwise will have such anti-features.

So, even if computers in and of themselves are completely valid in such product categories saying "No Tech" (which means "no computers") is a great way to market to people who really just want to avoid anti-ownership anti-features.

Lastly, I find it mildly amusing that a tractor (which is very clearly a form of technology, in the traditional definition of the word where fire and printing presses are technology too) is now being marketed as having no technology.

The problem is computer technology in its current state is fundamentally hard to trust. Without reading the source code and knowing the full source of all external services, and hoping the terms of service or external source code don’t change in the future, you really can’t trust anything. There is no authority that can guarantee “this will always work until it physically breaks, and even then be repairable”. Conventional parts and circuits can be more easily repaired and even reverse engineered if needed.

The issue that breaks the camel's back isn't just the cost of the repair--it's that farmers can't find enough service people during harvest time.

The timeliness of the repair is more important than anything at harvest time. Farmers have to be able to repair their own equipment or risk suffering an egregiously expensive loss.