It's like I can see into the future... - MakerBot Operators

The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Message from discussion It's like I can see into the future...
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of christopher.h.fen...@gmail.com designates 209.85.219.52 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.52;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <02235365-21f4-4364-8a5b-137e84ba2f1e@googlegroups.com>
References: <35109efd-3886-4183-a384-4823b6073d93@googlegroups.com>
	<42b20593-a60c-4dd1-b55d-19660b742989@googlegroups.com>
	<02235365-21f4-4364-8a5b-137e84ba2f1e@googlegroups.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 10:00:53 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOCU2hnktStuJ+BZiv6wuF3b-X-80A8TQfpn20COBZntK=6...@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [MakerBot] Re: It's like I can see into the future...
From: c f <christopher.h.fen...@gmail.com>
To: makerbot@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8fb1f096e65ce204ca4ac8a3

--e89a8fb1f096e65ce204ca4ac8a3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Being an open-source hardware company is just an incredibly hard balancing
act in terms of business model. The market itself is now kind of split
between a gaggle of fairly similar open-source rep-rap machines, makerbot
somewhere in the middle, and then companies like 3d systems that are big
companies but trying to figure out a consumer strategy that doesn't
cannibalize their commercial market.

The reprap companies all seem to have a couple things in common - they all
probably have quite low volumes, quite few employees, and they rely heavily
on the community for doing development (for creating a software stack, new
hardware designs, etc.). They've gone the for 'low-overhead' model, so they
don't have huge costs to recoup through their hardware sales (but their
products are hard to differentiate, and to some degree they're at the mercy
of the community).

Companies like 3D systems probably have huge overhead costs (teams of
engineers with families to feed, etc.), and have recouped that historically
by selling high-margin printers to businesses with money. They're trying to
figure out a consumer strategy, since competition from places like MBI is
probably starting to hurt sales of their ~$10k printers.

MBI started out in the first category, but got enough traction selling kits
that they could actually hire engineers, get some production economies of
scale, invest in marketing, etc. They're in NYC, and they have ~150
employees, so their overhead is easily an order of magnitude or so higher
than any of the other reprap companies - that unfortunately means they have
to actually recoup their non-trivial development costs by selling their
machines for a profit. This is where the open-source part gets hard - most
of the reprap-style companies are basically in a race-to-the-bottom
price-wise. Being open-source is easy if your volumes are too low for
anyone to bother cloning you, and much of what you're releasing source to
was developed by someone else. There is even a nice bonus for your
customers, as low-volume production methods kind of force your designs to
be 'accessible' for tinkering (think laser-cut wood frames).

People keep bringing up the Tangibot, but these guys (http://www.mbot3d.com/)
are the real problem with MBI staying open-source. If they can ramp up
production a month after MBI releases a new machine, there is no way MBI
could recoup enough of their NRE costs to stay profitable. As you move to
more advanced production methods (think precision welded frames,
high-density multi-layer circuit boards, etc.), your 'source' becomes
things that provide almost no value to your customers but enormous value to
companies like Mbot3D, since it shaves months off of their development time
and a ton off of their costs. They used Megtron-6 instead of FR-4 for their
circuit boards to improve signal integrity? Great, I'll just call up
foxconn and have them make me one . . .oh wait.

As a hardware engineer and ToM-owner, I'm perfectly okay with their 'we'll
figure out how much we can share and still stay in business' attitude.


On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 2:57 AM, Doogiekr <doogi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I signed up for being a dev... and I hope you are right... I have always
> liked MBI and I hope they stay somewhat the same. I understand the need to
> protect what they make so clones are more difficult (not that it will stop
> it from happening), but if they do go completely closed source, and start
> focusing on profit (especially when many of the advances came from the
> community to begin with) I may go a different way.
>
>
> On Saturday, September 22, 2012 3:07:04 PM UTC+9, Elbot wrote:
>
>> In an interview he did for a youtube video a year ago, he said that his
>> biggest headache is how to have intellectual property to protect while not
>> stifling innovation. Perhaps he was going to patent (closed source) but
>> license liberally for all those who want to innovate, not just copy.
>>
>> I will try to find that video and post it here....
>>
>> I think it is too early to get upset at Bre yet. Go apply on his website
>> to be a "licensed developer" and see how it goes. If it doesn't go well,
>> then post. If it goes well, then, post. Either way, let us know how it
>> goes.
>>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "MakerBot Operators" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/makerbot/-/RaBE38yDY9sJ.
>
> To post to this group, send email to makerbot@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> makerbot+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/makerbot?hl=en.
>

--e89a8fb1f096e65ce204ca4ac8a3
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Being an open-source hardware company is just an incredibly hard balancing =
act in terms of business model. The market itself is now kind of split betw=
een a gaggle of fairly similar open-source rep-rap machines, makerbot somew=
here in the middle, and then companies like 3d systems that are big compani=
es but trying to figure out a consumer strategy that doesn&#39;t cannibaliz=
e their commercial market. <br>
<br>The reprap companies all seem to have a couple things in common - they =
all probably have quite low volumes, quite few employees, and they rely hea=
vily on the community for doing development (for creating a software stack,=
 new hardware designs, etc.). They&#39;ve gone the for &#39;low-overhead&#3=
9; model, so they don&#39;t have huge costs to recoup through their hardwar=
e sales (but their products are hard to differentiate, and to some degree t=
hey&#39;re at the mercy of the community).=A0 =A0 <br>
<br>Companies like 3D systems probably have huge overhead costs (teams of e=
ngineers with families to feed, etc.), and have recouped that historically =
by selling high-margin printers to businesses with money. They&#39;re tryin=
g to figure out a consumer strategy, since competition from places like MBI=
 is probably starting to hurt sales of their ~$10k printers. <br>
<br>MBI started out in the first category, but got enough traction selling =
kits that they could actually hire engineers, get some production economies=
 of scale, invest in marketing, etc. They&#39;re in NYC, and they have ~150=
 employees, so their overhead is easily an order of magnitude or so higher =
than any of the other reprap companies - that unfortunately means they have=
 to actually recoup their non-trivial development costs by selling their ma=
chines for a profit. This is where the open-source part gets hard - most of=
 the reprap-style companies are basically in a race-to-the-bottom price-wis=
e. Being open-source is easy if your volumes are too low for anyone to both=
er cloning you, and much of what you&#39;re releasing source to was develop=
ed by someone else. There is even a nice bonus for your customers, as low-v=
olume production methods kind of force your designs to be &#39;accessible&#=
39; for tinkering (think laser-cut wood frames). <br>
<br>People keep bringing up the Tangibot, but these guys (<a href=3D"http:/=
/www.mbot3d.com/">http://www.mbot3d.com/</a>) are the real problem with MBI=
 staying open-source. If they can ramp up production a month after MBI rele=
ases a new machine, there is no way MBI could recoup enough of their NRE co=
sts to stay profitable. As you move to more advanced production methods (th=
ink precision welded frames, high-density multi-layer circuit boards, etc.)=
, your &#39;source&#39; becomes things that provide almost no value to your=
 customers but enormous value to companies like Mbot3D, since it shaves mon=
ths off of their development time and a ton off of their costs. They used M=
egtron-6 instead of FR-4 for their circuit boards to improve signal integri=
ty? Great, I&#39;ll just call up foxconn and have them make me one . . .oh =
wait. <br>
<br>As a hardware engineer and ToM-owner, I&#39;m perfectly okay with their=
 &#39;we&#39;ll figure out how much we can share and still stay in business=
&#39; attitude.<br><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 =
at 2:57 AM, Doogiekr <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:doogiekr@gmail=
.com" target=3D"_blank">doogi...@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>I signed up for being a dev... and I ho=
pe you are right... I have always liked MBI and I hope they stay somewhat t=
he same. I understand the need to protect what they make so clones are more=
 difficult (not that it will stop it from happening), but if they do go com=
pletely closed source, and start focusing on profit (especially when many o=
f the advances came from the community to begin with) I may go a different =
way.</div>
<div class=3D"im">
<div>=A0</div>
<div><br>On Saturday, September 22, 2012 3:07:04 PM UTC+9, Elbot wrote:</di=
v>
<blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PA=
DDING-LEFT:1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote">In an interview he did for a youtube =
video a year ago, he said that his biggest headache is how to have intellec=
tual property to protect while not stifling innovation. Perhaps he was goin=
g to patent (closed source) but license liberally for all those who want to=
 innovate, not just copy. <br>
<br>I will try to find that video and post it here....<br><br>I think it is=
 too early to get upset at Bre yet. Go apply on his website to be a &quot;l=
icensed developer&quot; and see how it goes. If it doesn&#39;t go well, the=
n post. If it goes well, then, post. Either way, let us know how it goes. <=
br>
</blockquote>

<p></p>

-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;MakerBot Operators&quot; group.<br></div>
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/d/msg/makerbot/-/RaBE38yDY9sJ" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.c=
om/d/msg/makerbot/-/RaBE38yDY9sJ</a>.<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5=
"><br>
=20
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:makerbot@googlegroup=
s.com" target=3D"_blank">makerbot@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:makerbot%2B=
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com" target=3D"_blank">makerbot+unsubscribe@google=
groups.com</a>.<br>

For more options, visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/g=
roup/makerbot?hl=3Den" target=3D"_blank">http://groups.google.com/group/mak=
erbot?hl=3Den</a>.<br>


</div></div></blockquote></div><br>

--e89a8fb1f096e65ce204ca4ac8a3--
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
Account Options
