Received: by 10.58.249.106 with SMTP id yt10mr67239vec.36.1348106341912; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:59:01 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: milwaukeemakerspace@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.221.0.70 with SMTP id nl6ls1430229vcb.5.gmail; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:59:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.35.104 with SMTP id g8mr44407vdj.19.1348106341489; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:59:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:59:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Ed Hagopian To: milwaukeemakerspace@googlegroups.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <505A7049.40406@airsoldier.com> References: <505A28EA.20709@gmail.com> <20d021f2-29c6-4ccd-85da-0e6b7a37c6d4@googlegroups.com> <3bb26fad-4601-47ee-9e51-a01ce6982fbe@googlegroups.com> <505A7049.40406@airsoldier.com> Subject: Re: [MakerSpace] Makerbot releases Replicator 2 and new NYC Store MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_296_15577375.1348106341266" ------=_Part_296_15577375.1348106341266 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_297_17263282.1348106341266" ------=_Part_297_17263282.1348106341266 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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. On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 8:24:30 PM UTC-5, haveblue wrote: > > 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. > > > On 9/19/2012 8:00 PM, Ed Hagopian wrote: > > 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. > > > > ------=_Part_297_17263282.1348106341266 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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.

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 8:24:30 PM UTC-5, haveblue wrote:
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.


On 9/19/2012 8:00 PM, Ed Hagopian wrote:
> 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.
>

------=_Part_297_17263282.1348106341266-- ------=_Part_296_15577375.1348106341266--