Makerbot releases Replicator 2 and new NYC Store

[Mike Massie]

It's blacked out and it's $2K - http://store.makerbot.com/replicator2.html

[Jim Rawson]

They must be watching our board

 

 "The powder-coated steel is also resistant to changes in temperature and humidity, making it adaptable to your work space".

[Have Blue]

About time!  The Replicator 2 is only a single extruder machine and only does PLA, though - gotta step up to the 2X for ABS and dual extruders:  http://store.makerbot.com/replicator2x.html

On 9/19/2012 3:07 PM, Jim Rawson wrote:

They must be watching our board

 

 "The powder-coated steel is also resistant to changes in temperature and humidity, making it adaptable to your work space".

--
 
 
 

[Adam Cohen]

Nice..They need to add window panels and a heating system to keep the interior temperature up.

[Pete Prodoehl]

The steel rods of a Prusa or Aluminum extrusion of a Mendel Max should
also be resistant to changes in temperature and humidity as well, right?

tl;dr: We stopped using wood.


Pete

> --
>
>
>

[Brent Bublitz]

Nice. I like this machine 67% more without the wood frame. I always
thought that was one of their weaknesses for the price. Now if they
would only offer a trade in on older units.

> --
>
>
>

[Tom Gralewicz]

Aluminum has a fairly high coefficient of expansion, so its not normally used for precision machines (23 PPM/C)

Steel is pretty good (10.8 PPM/C)

Glass (borosilicate) is down at 3.3 PPM/C

Now if you can make your parts out of quartz, well then you are down to 0.33 PPM/C

How about Zerodur?  0.02, its a type of glass used to make telescope mirrors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zerodur

(I actually have a small cylinder of this stuff)

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Pete Prodoehl <ras...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

--
Tom Gralewicz
Miller Electronics Recycling
(414) 380-1716
www.deadcomputers.com

[Jesse]

I'm most excited about the Makerwear upgrade, they say it's 20X faster than Replicator G! I hope we can still sell the 2 Replicator 1's we still have at the store, although the dual extrusion is still a desirable trait regardless of it's finicky nature. Btw, we should have a unit in a month or 2 at the store, I'll bring it to a Tuesday meeting once it arrives. 

Jesse

[Ed Hagopian]

$2100 bucks? I'm very disappointed considering you can get to .01mm on a prusa for a 3rd the price. I love what they've done so far to get 3d printing in the hands of the masses, and I have a world of respect for Bre. But this is the wrong direction if they want to win the mindshare and market share.

http://blog.reprap.org/2011/12/001-layer-height-on-prusa-mendel.html

[neeboy]

you gotta pay the R&D people somehow...

[Have Blue]

Plus, Makerbot offers something much closer to a turnkey solution (with support) than a Prusa.

I'd compare Makerbot to a Mac and a Prusa to a pile of Slackware CDs - one is fine to tinker with yourself, but when your mom asks which one she should buy, well...

--
 
 
 

[Ed Hagopian]

I guess. I choose to follow the Free R&D of everyone on the various forums for the Prusa, MendelMax, and Ultimaker. I can also repair my printer if it breaks and even improve on it myself. This is a Mac computer, closed source, given to you how they think you wanted it. Not even close to the ethos they started with. The power of the consumerization of manufacturing lies in that with open source software and open source hardware, everyone can instantly improve or evolve everyone else's designs as soon as they upload them, and its instantly spread through out the world via the Internet. I could forgive them if they lowed the cost on the 1700 replicator. It just feels like they sold out. I welcome being convinced differently.

[Vishal Rana]

While these are rumors at this point, there is some talk that this version might be closed source.

Vishal

--

[Have Blue]

Hey, I won't try to convince you differently - look how open/hackable
the Apple II was, just as Woz intended. Compare to what Apple products
have become - closed black boxes that are not to be tinkered with. Even
Zach Smith seems to have become disillusioned by the closed development:
http://www.hive76.org/hoeken

I prefer the 'free love' ethos of the RepRap side myself, but I'm very
happy that Makerbot is there to deliver the technology to a much wider
audience. Plus, we have Makerbot to thank for hiring Skimbal to do
nothing more than design cool stuff that happens to be 3D printable - I
don't think that would have happened in a pure RepRap-ish world.

In the end, we're a much richer 3D printing world with Makerbot than
without, IMHO.

[Have Blue]

Jesse, as a retailer, what's your take on 'closed' Makerbot vs. 'open' Mendel?  Have you had enough customers yet to start getting an idea of what customers like?  I'd think the Replicators you already have should still sell - the dual extrusion is a huge plus in my opinion, but I view everything through Stratasys-colored glasses...

Also, as long as I'm rambling on about 3D printing, anyone have access to this article on the effects of moisture on ABS filament?  http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6268999&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D6268999

--
 
 
 

[jason gessner]

Slackware CDs? I remember staying up all night in high school formatting Slackware floppies!

--
 
 
 

[Have Blue]

I was tempted to type 'floppies', but I wasn't sure if the young'uns knew what those were  :-)

--
 
 
 

[Ed Hagopian]

I absolutely agree that they are a fantastic company, and deserve to be around, and deserve to be successful. I can't fault them any of that, nor would I want to. However, if this system turns out to be closed source, as this comment seems to indicate from hackaday:  http://hackaday.com/2012/09/19/introducing-the-makerbot-replicator-2/#comment-790238 then they'll be acknowledging that really now they are just in it for the money, which is a sad commentary on the open source movement in general. We all have to eat, sleep somewhere and try to put our kids through college I guess... But I don't see their maker roots in any of this, which is really what the heart of hobbyist 3d printing is all about.

[Ed Hagopian]

When my mom asks me which one to buy, I'll tell her a Printrbot. 

[Have Blue]

Don't like your mom very much, eh?  :-)

--
 
 
 

[Ed Hagopian]

Interesting article on one of the founders Zach Hoeken leaving.

http://www.hive76.org/hoeken 

Noteable quote - "The people with the money call the shots." 

and apparently his next interest is CNC mills. Awesome.

[Have Blue]

Wow, and that's from Josef himself.  I certainly hope that it's not the case.  If it is, the Tangibot project will likely go from villain to hero as a result.

On the flip side, if they have gone closed-source, you can bet that there will be lots of people reverse engineering the stuff.  Heck, my love/hate relationship with Stratasys machines exists primarily because poking at their closed-source innards is downright fun.

--
 
 
 

[Ed Hagopian]

I like her enough not to drop 2700 bucks for something that spits plastic. This isn't Stratasys we are talking about. And if it was about resolution, give the DLP UV Resin printers another 12-18 months.

[Have Blue]

Fair enough - I've steered my own mom to the ultra-budget Linux route before.  In the end, 3D printing is most certainly not yet at the point where it is generally "mom ready".  Well, unless your mom is handy with a soldering iron and a command line compiler...

--
 
 
 

[Ed Hagopian]

Really at the end of the day, I think the biggest innovations come in the slicers. It's fairly straight forward to make anything 3-axis aware, and leverage GCode, but getting it from a model to that GCode is what really make things like Slic3r and Marlin impressive.

[Ed Hagopian]

Concrete is only 12... Interesting. Concrete 3d printer anyone?
http://blog.makezine.com/2012/04/12/the-concrete-lathe-project/

[Kevin Crowley]

It weighs ~1300lbs

needs just under a 1/3 yard of concrete

bed is 4'x4'x9" minus the 6"x6" pillars that yields 3'x3' theoretical working surface
(of course you lose some of that because inside of that has thickness)

Height of bed is 3'

Assuming availblity of rebar, mesh and concrete this could be built from the scrap pile at the space in a day.

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Ed Hagopian <edhag...@gmail.com> wrote:

Concrete is only 12... Interesting. Concrete 3d printer anyone?
http://blog.makezine.com/2012/04/12/the-concrete-lathe-project/

--

[Pete Prodoehl]

Agreed... Obviously I chose a RepRap because I felt it was the best
choice for me, and I think it makes sense that the Makerspace has a
Makerbot Replicator, which is probably more "user friendly" to people
that some weird RepRap might be.

I wonder if their new software will support our 1st gen Replicator, and
how much better it is than Replicator G. Also, it appears this new
software is not open source... urgh.


Pete

[Joe Kerman]

the software, and hardware, are closed-source, specifically :(
http://pastebin.com/wAsbWqh6

> --
>
>
>

[Joe Kerman]

I also wasnt aware that Zach, one of the founders, was "pushed out"
and wont say much except "it didnt end on a good note"
http://www.hive76.org/hoeken

[Adam Cohen]

This goes to a point I made earlier.  Open source will never make a piece of hardware ubiquitous.  It takes a well funded organization to make that happen.  Investors will never buy into an open source design. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Joe Kerman]

They didnt /need/ investors. they were making hundreds of thousands of
dollars, and were extremely profitable.

they got greedy, and went for the VC money (and as a result will
easily make millions upon millions of dollars)

the capitalist in me, and the hippie in me are very conflicted :P

> --
>
>
>

[Adam Cohen]

And you will soon be able to buy a 3d printer at Wal-Mart.  The hackers loose, but everyone else wins.

[Kevin Crowley]

Looks like Thingiverse, a division of MakerBot, is trying to do a facebook and claim all of your intellectual property.

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Adam Cohen <adam.cohe...@gmail.com> wrote:

And you will soon be able to buy a 3d printer at Wal-Mart.  The hackers loose, but everyone else wins.

--
 
 
 

[Pete Prodoehl]

How do we lose?

As long as the RepRap movement continues, and promotes the idea of open
source / open hardware / 3D printing, I think we'll be OK.

Windows and Mac OS X didn't make Linux lose... (Depending on your
definition of "lose" of course.)


Pete

On 9/20/12 11:58 AM, Adam Cohen wrote:
> And you will soon be able to buy a 3d printer at Wal-Mart. The hackers
> loose, but everyone else wins.
>
>

> --
>
>
>

[Ron Bean]

Adam Cohen <adam.cohe...@gmail.com> writes:

>This goes to a point I made earlier. Open source will never make a piece
>of hardware ubiquitous.

That depends on what you mean by "ubiquitous".

Limor Fried's open-source "Xoxbox" design is so ubiquitous that she was
once asked to prove that she designed it, and didn't just copy it from
all the other copies out there.

Also, her "mintyboost" design gets copied into the power supplies for
all sorts of things.

I think you're confusing the idea of one specific product (Makerbot)
with the idea of lots of very similar products (all 3D printers). A
single open-source product will never dominate a market, and won't
prevent closed-source products from existing. But that's OK.

(BTW it's arguable that the original IBM PC was effectively
open-source-- it's a pretty straightforward implementation of a design
from the 8088 data sheet. Some people were disappointed that they didn't
make any improvements to the design.)

[Ed Hagopian]

I give you example A: The Wheel. Your argument is invalid. :) I kid I kid.

There is the printing press as well, originally fashioned by hand, changed the world. 

Arduino too if your looking for modern equivalents. 

Various farm implements... I think maybe the statement could be revised to, "Open source will never make a piece of hardware monopolistically profitable, if that is the creators intent."

I agree with you that most investors looking for a profit will have a hard time buying into open source design. Unless your Linux.. That seems to have worked out ok for RedHat. And VMWare...

[Ed Hagopian]

The concept is so crazy it might work. Wonder how cheap you could get it down to, the frame is not a trivial part of any 3d Printer, and then you'd just have rails (2 inch steel pipe maybe?) and then the motors, electronics and extruder if you went PLA or the extruder and HBP if you wanted ABS.

[Kevin Crowley]

The cost really depends on how cheap you can get the concrete.I figure 50 bucks if you mix your own.  I would have to go back to some engineering texts and check with an engineer friend on the reinforcement to get a firm price.

--
 
 
 

[Ed Hagopian]

http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:30808

Occupy Thingiverse. Man this is getting worse by the second and the alleged reports of how Bre is saying it takes lawyers and time to make the verbiage not confusing is ridiculous. I won't be hosting anything on Thingiverse until this is resolved, github just needs a little interfacing loving and it'll be a fine replacement.

[Ed Hagopian]

http://www.makerbot.com/blog/2012/09/20/fixing-misinformation-with-information/

Read the comments, especially the one from Bre. Thingiverse appears to for now at least be ok to host on but I'm still going to just hang out and see.

Basically don't start a business under the guise of open hardware if at some point you plan on having 150 employees whose livelihoods depend on you making money first, open source hardware second. Ideology goith before the fall.

[Pete Prodoehl]

Do you think they planned to have 150 employees?

The started out as three guys at a hackerspace interested in 3D printing
and the RepRap development. It grew from there, and as we can see, not
in the direction all the founders believed in. Bre was (is?) a very open
guy. I've known him since 2005 and have always thought highly of him,
and I'm sure this latest round of controversy is not easy to navigate.

I still want to give MakerBot some benefit of the doubt. We'll see what
happens in the coming days/weeks.


Pete

[Adam Cohen]

Don't hate on Makerbot for closing up.  If they wanted to grow (hell even survive at this point), this is the only option.  Just be happy that a maker business is really doing it!  I really want one of those sweet machines.

[Pete Prodoehl]

I don't hate them, but this is being looked at as a moment that could
define the future of open hardware... can a company grow and be
successful while *still* being open? Or is the only way to grow and be
successful to close up?

MakerBot took a lot from the RepRap movement, and many who contributed
to MakerBot when they were part of the community feel betrayed by their
latest moves.


Pete

> --
>
>
>

[Vishal Rana]

I am not hating on them for closing up. But my expectations for the product's usability went up considerably.

I am willing to give open source products more of a break. Now that the new model is 2k+, I expect it to be plug and play. If I buy this product, I don't want to spend a lot of time "screwing" around with to commission and maintain it. 

If they can accomplish that, while hopefully lowering prices in the future, IMO that could be a sustainable business model. 

Also, I don't think it will be too long before their design is reverse engineered. Probably < 1 month after people start receiving the 2's.

Vishal

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Adam Cohen <adam.cohe...@gmail.com> wrote:

Don't hate on Makerbot for closing up.  If they wanted to grow (hell even survive at this point), this is the only option.  Just be happy that a maker business is really doing it!  I really want one of those sweet machines.

--
 
 
 

[Brent Bublitz]

I think they could handle it better by continuing to have at least one
model that is open source. I think many people feel that because it
started as open source and took many bits and pieces as well as ideas
and support from the open source community that they do have a
responsibility to continue supporting the open movement.

If they close their entire line, it will be seen as a "Thanks for the
help" and kick to the curb for everyone that got supported them and
helped them get to where they are. They are trying to grow as a
business and with all the competition coming up fast and with most of
it being cheaper than what they are offering, they need to tread
lightly with the community they have.

> --
>
>
>

[Matt Czapar]

Anyone else see Sparkfun's article today that is a thinly veiled Makerbot controversy commentary?

http://www.sparkfun.com/news/963

" Maybe you think I'm naive. Maybe you think an open source company can't be scaled above 150 people. That's fine, I'm sure patents will work for you. "

--

[Brent Bublitz]

That was a pretty effective slap at Makerbot. He has a lot of very
valid arguments.

> --
>
>
>

[Adam Cohen]

I can almost assure you that the new Replicator electronics and software do not contain designs or code for the RepRap project. I would think they would have to do a redesign to get out of the creative commons license problems.

[Pete Prodoehl]

I think what companies want from open source is all the good parts: community, contributions, a sense of ownership from their customers, but what they don't want is someone just blatantly taking their work and selling it cheaper. (See "Tangibot")

Think of how the open hardware community stepped up to condemn Tangibot as a knockoff with little added value. MakerBot won't get that sort of support again if they close up.

Maybe there should be a sort of open hardware license that like the Creative Commons NonCommercial license... It still grants the users plenty of rights, but would prevent other companies from just duping open hardware products for cheaper.

In theory anyway, there's probably a lot of holes in this idea.

Pete


(Sent from a mobile device.)

> --
>
>
>

[Adam Cohen]

I would like to offer a relevant counter-example to open source, where patents are truly worthless: China.  That country will never innovate until it gets its IP law in order!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/opinion/friedman-in-china-we-dont-trust.html 

[Vishal Rana]

http://www.makerbot.com/blog/2012/09/20/fixing-misinformation-with-information/ 

The comments under this blog posting from Bre has a lot of good discussion; including answers from Bre to the questions that are raised.

This will be an interesting look into the future of OSHW.

Vishal

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Adam Cohen <adam.cohe...@gmail.com> wrote:

I would like to offer a relevant counter-example to open source, where patents are truly worthless: China.  That country will never innovate until it gets its IP law in order!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/opinion/friedman-in-china-we-dont-trust.html 

--
 
 
 

[Have Blue]

I think it would have been even better to have created a separate
division (or at the very least, a wholly new model name) for any
not-fully-open-source offering.

In reading through information on the MakerWare software, it looks at
though the slicer itself is still open source, and the only component
that is closed is simply the GUI wrapper. Still, this deviation from
open source purity will undoubtedly lose a great deal of goodwill from
the 3D printing community. I've never purchased anything from them
myself, but have recommended their stuff to many people on the basis of
their community and open source nature. Now, well... "have you
considered a PP3DP UP! printer? They have really good filament..."

[Pete Prodoehl]

They probably love the Replicator name too much, but imagine if they had
come out with a new machine, closed source, more expensive, but still
sold the Replicator (1) as open hardware. Closing up slowly maybe would
have made more sense, but... I guess they just wanted to do it quick.

So is this their progression?

1. Sell open source 3D printer kits.
2. Sell open source 3D printers fully assembled.
3. Sell closed source 3D printers.

Well that's depressing.

I didn't buy a MakerBot but went the RepRap route instead, mainly
because I'm cheap, but I've always appreciated what MakerBot did for the
3D printing community, but yeah, if they close up I can't see saying
anything kind about them in the future.


Pete

[Pete Prodoehl]

"At MakerBot, we take open source seriously. It’s a way of life for us."

-- Bre Prettis, MakerBot Industries, March 2010

http://www.makerbot.com/blog/2010/03/25/open-source-ethics-and-dead-end-derivatives/

On 9/21/12 2:05 PM, Have Blue wrote:

[Ron Bean]

>http://www.makerbot.com/blog/2012/09/20/fixing-misinformation-with-information/

This brings up another issue--

It's not clear to me that biggerism is a worthwhile goal. There will
always be big companies and small companies, and companies that grow
slowly over decades. But IMHO, venture capital seems like the least
interesting way to grow a business.

Also, Makerbot's early adopters aren't necessarily their target market.
That's a tricky transition for any company.

[Adam Cohen]

"It's not clear to me that biggerism is a worthwhile goal."

You can see the competition in this space is nothing short of fierce. Its grow or die man, or at least get relegated to small specialty products.If you want 3d printing to be significant in your lifetime, its gotta scale.  You gotta take the money.  

[Ron Bean]

>You can see the competition in this space is nothing short of fierce. Its
>grow or die man, or at least get relegated to small specialty products.If
>you want 3d printing to be significant in your lifetime, its gotta scale.

I don't think the technology is there yet, at that pricepoint.
It's like the early CP/M era computers-- they sold a lot of them, but
they weren't powerful enough to be common appliances. Even the first IBM
PC wasn't there yet, and 3D printing is not to that stage yet.

[Ed Hagopian]

That was effing awesome.

[Ed Hagopian]

Why in Gods green earth would they ever reform? A willing to wager a cold beer that they actually enjoy their lax IP laws on the grounds that it has dramatically helped their overall economy. In fact there was an article I read about how a worker who worked for a bra underwire factory went to another factory and rebuilt the machine from memory, and modified it enough that there was no way to try and protect a patent on that. Even with the endless iclones that have come out, Apple still is the second biggest market cap company in the world... When your stuff is good, it's good, and will sell, regardless of your model. Now will it sell as much? Will you get three houses instead of two? Maybe, maybe not. I don't envy Bre with the kind of decisions he is having to make under the pressure of VC money who are at the end ofthe day, calling the shots. But I really really hope in the end he makes the right call.

[Ed Hagopian]

VC capital is a great way to sell out. If you are looking to make money, then fine, if you are looking to MAKE, then no, no thank you.

[Ed Hagopian]

If you want YOUR 3d printer that you SELL to be significant and make you a crap ton of money then yes, take the VC. But the RepRap is synonymous with hobbyists and consumer grade 3d printing right now, and how much has Prusa made it? Nothing, if anything. And yet look at what he has created.

[Ed Hagopian]

http://hive.slate.com/hive/made-america-how-reinvent-american-manufacturing/article/the-steve-jobs-of-useless-plastic-trinkets 

Ouch. I don't have much history of the author other than a quick glace at his twitter feed which seems to confirm his general doucheyness.

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:09:00 PM UTC-5, Ed Hagopian wrote:

Interesting article on one of the founders Zach Hoeken leaving.

http://www.hive76.org/hoeken 

Noteable quote - "The people with the money call the shots." 

and apparently his next interest is CNC mills. Awesome.

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 3:19:11 PM UTC-5, Adam Cohen wrote:

Nice..They need to add window panels and a heating system to keep the interior temperature up.

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 3:04:25 PM UTC-5, Mike Massie wrote:

It's blacked out and it's $2K - http://store.makerbot.com/replicator2.html

[Ed Hagopian]

RELEASE THE  http://www.makerbot.com/blog/2012/09/26/our-lawyer-explains-the-thingiverse-terms-of-service/ HOUN...... Oh... Ok.. Nevermind....

They still broke my heart. But at least they didn't run over my dog too. Besides, really what other 3dPedias are there out there?

[jason gessner]

How did that post break your heart?

--
 
 
 

[Ed Hagopian]

I mean MakerBot broke my heart by going closed source on the Rep 2, but at least it doesn't appear they are taking over Thingiverse as a tool to get free model they can turn around and sell with no attribution.

[jason gessner]

ah, gotcha.

--
 
 
 

--

-jason

[Pete Prodoehl]

I assumed he meant MakerBot closing up their source, etc.


Pete

--
 
 
 

[Kevin Bastyr]

We can all imagine you singing this song to the replicator 2:

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=p2Rch6WvPJE&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dp2Rch6WvPJE

--
 
 
 

[Pete Prodoehl]

But just look at what $249 or $749 can get you!

  http://www.flickr.com/photos/jabella/8007708608/

  http://www.flickr.com/photos/jabella/8007710528/

They do give attribution to the Thingiverse user who uploaded it.


(Pro-tip: dig through that guy's stream for some Nerdy Derby cars.)


Pete

--
 
 
 

[Jesse]

To answer your question, Have Blue, most of the people buying printers now are businesses, and they prefer a turn key solution for a higher price tag rather than spending time on it (it's all a trade-off on time) and therefore don't care if it's open or closed: It's whatever works more reliably.

We are beginning to understand that the market for 3D printers has changed drastically ever since the Replicator 1 (Not the Replicator 2...yet). Ironically, the difference is that consumers are no longer the target market for Makerbot, businesses (of all sizes) and entrepreneurs are the new market because they will spend the extra money to justify some type of savings down the road. One of our large manufacturing customers don't mind spending an extra $450 for a Replicator 2, single-extruder, because they care more about looks than features, and admitted it, because they have to show off their equipment to their customers as well.

The 3D printing trend started with consumers (hobbyists), now it's businesses, and I believe next it will come back to consumers once it has caught on. Consumers don't get it yet (IMHO it's because there's no "Killer app" for people to realize the potential of desktop fabrication), and they won't get it until they start using a 3D printer at their work day-in and day-out, that's how inkjet printers caught on.

I'm rambling, but the fact is that Makerbot is no longer the company we know and love, regardless of how likeable Bre and the gang are, because they got greedy with VC funding, like you said. They didn't even tell our company (an authorized reseller) that there was a new printer in development, and now we're stuck with inventory (which is part of the reason we're getting out of the retail space, different story for a different day). But I think the problem is our hopes were too high, they have to feed their family like everyone else.

My question is: Why can't they just patent anything and everything, and still release the hardware plans? This will keep it OSHW so anyone can build one for personal use, and still prevent douches like Tangibot from ripping them off. Am I missing something here?

Jesse

[Pete Prodoehl]

Well, my business bought a RepRap (ok, I own my own business, so that doesn't totally count...) But yes, the idea of a printer that "just works" and has support, and looks nice, and has name recognition are all important things for a company to have, especially one that has customers they want to impress.

You know, that's the thing about this open hardware debate. I would think a good number of hobbyists/hackers/makers/RepRappers would be fine with the idea of releasing all source files for personal use, but if you want to go commercial, perhaps over a certain volume/dollar amount, then you talk about licensing. This would still allow the makers to do things that wouldn't (in theory) threaten the livelihood of the company that designed and creating the hardware, and allow people who are set on making tons of money a way to pay back the creators. It won't please everyone, but might be the kind of compromise that would work for MBI.

I'll be really interested to see what happens after the OHS this weekend.


Pete

--
 
 
 

[Have Blue]

Jesse, are you guys getting out of retailing the 3D printers themselves, or everything?  I think there's still room (and hopefully demand) for a local supplier of filament, nozzles, and consumables in general.  Look at the Stratasys dealers - they don't actually stock the printers (they just have a single demo unit and then get new ones direct when a customer orders), but they do tend to stock the common consumables.

As far as patenting, I don't know that there's anything revolutionary that Makerbot has come up with.  The whole reason that they can sell machines at all is because the key FDM patents were granted to Stratasys and have now expired.

--
 
 
 

[the_digital_dentist]

My question is: Why can't they just patent anything and everything, and still release the hardware plans? This will keep it OSHW so anyone can build one for personal use, and still prevent douches like Tangibot from ripping them off. Am I missing something here?

I don't think there's anything new or unique in their machines to earn them a patent.  Moving some sort of print head in Cartesian coordinate space is not a new idea.  Using belts and or screws to do so isn't new.  Using stepper motors under computer control isn't new. Extruding plastic through a hot nozzle isn't new or unique.  

If you think you have something that's patentable you have to pay lawyers to file for the patent for you and it takes time to get the right to claim patent pending so people won't copy your stuff before your patent is granted.  In the meantime do you keep your machine under wraps while the competition races ahead, or do you put it out there as quickly as possible to capture as much of the rapidly growing market as possible?

Then, if you get a patent, there is still the problem of enforcing it, and the problem of countries that don't respect intellectual property laws.

Be careful about denigrating Makerbot's competitors- you may one day decide you want to deal their product.  Their machine is lower cost leaving more potential profit for dealers, and the dealers can add value by providing tech support that the Chinese maker can't/won't/doesn't.

[Joe Kerman]

And the rest of the still-patented 3d printing technologies are
getting away with being duplicated on open source printers, because
they dont have the cash or marketshare to be worth suing. Bre once
gave a talk (at open source hardware con) about how stratasys sends
them letters every year, saying if they ever make a significant amount
of money, they will sue them for the patents they are convinced they
are still violating. and that makerbot has products due to be
delivered in 2017, as soon as other patents expire. They clearly
convinced the VC's that they arent violating patents, or could win in
a court battle. Im very curious if we will see that at some point in
the future.

What really burns my ass is the concept that they "needed" to close
source to "survive". They were doing well enough with open source
hardware to attract $10m in VC funding, and front page new york times
articles. Its so painfully obvious that they got greedy. Its not
rocket science that you can make more money with closed hardware, than
open. But to say that an open source hardware business is
"unsustainable", when they were perhaps the MOST sustainable open
hardware business, is BS that stinks so bad it makes me angry.

Commercial 3d printers that cost thousands of dollars are barely worth
paying attention to. Theyve been around for 20+ years. and while a
cheap one is kind of neat, the open source 3d printing revolution is
the game to watch.

> --
>
>
>

[Jesse DePinto]

We have actually decided to close up shop, however we still intend to set people up with printers and train/calibrate/debug them for the same price they're sold for online: We are still partners with Makerbot regardless of the controversy, and we are now teaming up with the new Object-Stratasys merger company to sell higher end machines as well. Unfortunately, we will no longer plan to sell materials, spare parts, etc. due to the fact that we are avoiding any type of physical inventory (did I mention we're stuck with 2 Replicator 1's?).

There were many reasons for this change, but it came down to the fact that 3D printers are hard to sell retail (which makes me doubt that the Makerbot store will succeed for another 2 years or so). However, 3D Creations is still alive, just in the middle of a huge pivot, we are no longer doing the "Lean startup" approach.

We are transitioning to more of a corporate consulting role for 3D printing and 3D scanning, along with pursuing development our own product line - The Desktop 3D Scanner. We are developing plans for our inexpensive, easy-to-use 3D scanner that complements the size and function of desktop 3D printers. We firmly believe that THIS is the "killer app" that will propel the consumer 3D printing industry.

While on the subject, I'd love to hear your initial thoughts/reactions/criticisms.

Jesse

--
 
 
 

[Pete Prodoehl]

Is an open source hardware business sustainable when you want to sell to the "average consumer" and not the "hobbyists and makers"?

Sadly, it seems like MakerBot didn't want to find out, and just decided that hobbyist and makers are fine to get started, and even contribute to your growth, but the real money is in consumers who don't know anything about open source, or community, or sharing, and just want a damn appliance. (Insert some bits about Apple here.)

To be honest, I knew that MakerBot was cooking something up in private (didn't we all?) but I really figured it would be a resin-based printer, like the B9Creator or the Form 1. I guess they got beat to that punch...


Pete

[Tom Gralewicz]

My question is: Why can't they just patent anything and everything, and still release the hardware plans? This will keep it OSHW so anyone can build one for personal use, and still prevent douches like Tangibot from ripping them off. Am I missing something here?

Because you can't selectively enforce a copyright (the protection you would have on the software and designs).  If you don't actively enforce it against all   violators, you give up your right to enforce it against anyone.

The only way to make it work would be to explicitly licence each user one at a time.

 

--
Tom Gralewicz
Miller Electronics Recycling
(414) 380-1716
www.deadcomputers.com

[Pete Prodoehl]

Also interesting... the Form 1 on Kickstarter is at $764,180 but with only 525 backers...

  http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/formlabs/form-1-an-affordable-professional-3d-printer/backers

And Bre is one of them. :)


(I'd love to see a site that shows the ratio of dollars to number of backers.)

Pete

On 9/27/12 2:31 PM, Joe Kerman wrote:

[Pete Prodoehl]

Hey Jesse, I hope the pivot works out...

I know that I asked about filament, but that's tricky for MM members, because some people print ABS and some do PLA, some do 3mm and some do 1.75mm, that creates a whole bunch of combinations, which means more stock, or not stocking it. When you told me you sold the MakerBot filament my first thought was that it doesn't help me, as I need 3mm, and I use ABS. (Also, MBI filament is a bit overpriced for my budget.)

Of course use makers/hackers are used to bitching about local stores like Radio Shack and sourcing all our stuff online for cheap, and we don't need hand-holding, so I know we weren't really your target audience. I think you could do really well though with corporate customers and consulting. Every news story and new product/company in the 3D printing space will help you out by spreading the technology. Write about every new thing on your web site... become the local domain experts on it.

I'm interested in your 3D scanning tech as well... once you have something we'd love to see a demo of it. And as for the MKE 3DP Meetup, feel free to take the lead and set the next one up if I don't get around to it. You guys probably have more to gain from it than I do.

One more thing... We'll have our Replicator 1 at Gallery Night tomorrow night. If someone wants to find out more about it, should we have them call you?


Pete

--
 
 
 

[Jesse DePinto]

Yeah we'll take charge on the 3D printing meetups, we're currently cooking up ideas with Bucketworks because they're currently opening up a manufacturing space on their ground level for member use. I believe this would be ideal for 3D printing meetups, since it's more of a community outreach than anything.

Yes, we would love for you to point the Replicator inquiries to us. Thanks! 937.829.3720

--
 
 
 

--

Jesse DePinto | Mechanical Engineer

Phone | 937.829.3720

    

[Dustin DuPree]

Dang, I didn't even get a chance to check out the store yet!!! Oh well, I have a feeling that you're new ventures (both of them) will be a lot more fruitful! I think you're absolutely right about the "killer app" that is missing. Whenever I rave to family and friends about 3d printing they all look at my like I'm crazy, holding my plastic space shuttle "toy" and talking about "the future." Not only is the current generation of "consumer" equipment too flakey for non-techies, but working up a printable model of something useful requires a significant amount of time, especially if you're starting from square one with 3d modeling. 

I've used a few different types of 3d scanners, and they all have their quirks too, and they all cost thousands of dollars. None of the 3d scanning software I've used has been able to scan something and spit out a printable model, or even provided the tools to create one. I've always had to do significant post-production in blender (hole filling, removing floating polys, etc). So if you can create a scanner that targets the DIY market with tools geared toward 3d printer output... you'd definitely have something special!

- Dustin

--
 
 
 

[the_digital_dentist]

3D printing won't be a consumer item until it works reliably, unattended, and there's a big catalog of stuff to print ready to go.  Thingiverse is nice but the STL files still have to be sliced, requiring the 3D printer user to know something about programming or at least to be willing to learn a slightly complicated process.  Having to fiddle around with software and hardware is just too much effort for most people.  Printing has to be as simple as selecting an item from a catalog and hitting the print button to make one, then taking the completed object out of the printer.

[Have Blue]

What you describe (select an item from a catalog and hit the print
button) sounds a great deal like the Cube. Whether or not it's actual
ease-of-use measures up to that goal, though, I don't know...

Unfortunately, that level of simplicity also relegates what it prints to
'knick-knack' status, which annoys me. I want to see people accept 3D
printing as a viable small scale production system for utilitarian
objects - not additive manufacturing's version of the Easy Bake Oven
(i.e. a toy novelty).

> taking the completed object out of the printer. --
>
>
>

[Pete Prodoehl]

When I finished my RepRap about 5 months ago, I started every print with my eyeballs about 10 inches from the build platform, watching carefully to see if it would work, and constantly checking on prints, or just straight out watching them. I was always convinced something would go wrong... and sometimes it did!

Lately this is my process: turn on RepRap, load the G-code file, hit print, wipe the bed clean and walk away. Sure, I do slice my STL files into G-code of course, but I've gotten to the point where I can basically hit "print" and it'll work. I did a two hour print the other night and I had to leave the house for an emergency. I came back a few hours later and the print was done. Magic!



Pete

On 9/27/12 9:25 PM, the_digital_dentist wrote:

3D printing won't be a consumer item until it works reliably, unattended, and there's a big catalog of stuff to print ready to go.  Thingiverse is nice but the STL files still have to be sliced, requiring the 3D printer user to know something about programming or at least to be willing to learn a slightly complicated process.  Having to fiddle around with software and hardware is just too much effort for most people.  Printing has to be as simple as selecting an item from a catalog and hitting the print button to make one, then taking the completed object out of the printer. --
 
 
 

[Ed Hagopian]

Amen Pete. 

This revolution, the revolution we really should be thinking about, isn't one about patents, or ease of print, or having a viable business model. People are forgetting the bigger picture here, which is that people who never had the skills to manufacture, are quickly (and when I say quickly I'm talking about over the period of about a decade now) going to be able to fabricate whatever they want, whenever they want, which includes the parts for their printers. This stuff right now I grant you is hard, but it's only hard the first time. It's like software. Once it's written, and figured out, it's done, and can be copied an infinite number of times, and spread instantly out to the internet. And then it can be modified to suit your tastes. This really is this era's PC computer club of the late 70's. The difference is that you have this technologies evolution strapped to a rocket sled because of the internet. Where you might have 10-20 people in a club working on their hobby computers and improving them slowly you have the entire internet and all the people who are interested about this subject to move things along. Makerbot is 3 years old, the RepRap in general is roughly 7 years old and see how far we've come in just that time in regards to accuracy, speed, etc. We have people printing blood vessels with this stuff:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VHFlwJQIkE And how much do you think it'd cost otherwise to do that? This really truly is the next "big" thing when it comes to consumers and I LOVE the fact I'm a part of it in some way.

[Have Blue]

Amen Ed.

The comparison to the homebrew computer club circa late 70s has been made by myself and others.  Which thrills me - here we are at the birth of a technology, the personal 3D printer.  Not only do we know that it's going to be huge, but we get to be a part of its genesis!  If that isn't reason enough to mess with 3D printing, then I don't know what is.  30 years from now, people will come up to you, starry-eyed, and say "wow, what was it like?"

--
 
 
 

[Jesse]

No doubt it's exciting stuff, and an exciting time to be a hacker. Here's my opinion: Makerbot is helping propel the open source hardware movement regardless of whether or not they make open source products. The idea of 3D printing means that atoms can now be shared online in the form of STL's and online collaboration will be an inevitable future of 3D printing, and if Makerbot democratizes closed source 3D printers to the world then so be it.

https://barcampmilwaukee.org/blog/can-open-source-business-model-survive

In the spirit of open source, I decided to share my thoughts on Barcamp's blog along with facilitating a open/closed source business model discussion at Barcamp this weekend. Any thoughts on how to prepare for that?

Jesse

[Ed Hagopian]

http://blog.makezine.com/2012/09/28/bre-pettis-ohs-challenges-of-open-source-consumer-products/

Very interesting read from Bre. Doesn't answer the VC question of influence - whose motivation is return on investment, not return on openness. But still, he handled himself well enough.