Fwd: [MakerBot] Re: It's like I can see into the future...
34 views
Skip to first unread message
Bryan Bishop
Sep 22, 2012, 11:17:38 AM9/22/12
to Open Manufacturing, Bryan Bishop
From: Jordan Miller <jrd...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: [MakerBot] Re: It's like I can see into the future...
To: "make...@googlegroups.com" <make...@googlegroups.com>
Tangibot as an excuse to move closed source is a logical fallacy.
There's exactly zero reason going closed source will protect the
design from being stolen or reverse-engineered and sold elsewhere.
Going closed source only hurts the community.
jordan
On Sep 22, 2012, at 10:44 AM, Mike Dupont
Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: [MakerBot] Re: It's like I can see into the future...
To: "make...@googlegroups.com" <make...@googlegroups.com>
Tangibot as an excuse to move closed source is a logical fallacy.
There's exactly zero reason going closed source will protect the
design from being stolen or reverse-engineered and sold elsewhere.
Going closed source only hurts the community.
jordan
On Sep 22, 2012, at 10:44 AM, Mike Dupont
<jamesmi...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 4:39 PM, c f <christophe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 'we'll release the parts most interesting to customers rather than
>> competitors' model would be coo
>
> competitors can be customers too, releasing any sources to anyone is
> basically publishing them.
> Be careful of discriminating against some customers, it gets tricky.
>
> mike
>
> --
> James Michael DuPont
> Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
> Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com
> Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org
> Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3
> Free Software Foundation Europe Fellow http://fsfe.org/support/?h4ck3rm1k3
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MakerBot Operators" group.
> To post to this group, send email to make...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to makerbot+u...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/makerbot?hl=en.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MakerBot Operators" group.
To post to this group, send email to make...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to makerbot+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/makerbot?hl=en.
> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 4:39 PM, c f <christophe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 'we'll release the parts most interesting to customers rather than
>> competitors' model would be coo
>
> competitors can be customers too, releasing any sources to anyone is
> basically publishing them.
> Be careful of discriminating against some customers, it gets tricky.
>
> mike
>
> --
> James Michael DuPont
> Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
> Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com
> Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org
> Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3
> Free Software Foundation Europe Fellow http://fsfe.org/support/?h4ck3rm1k3
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MakerBot Operators" group.
> To post to this group, send email to make...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to makerbot+u...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/makerbot?hl=en.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MakerBot Operators" group.
To post to this group, send email to make...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to makerbot+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/makerbot?hl=en.
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
Bryan Bishop
Sep 22, 2012, 11:22:58 AM9/22/12
to Open Manufacturing, Bryan Bishop
bleh delayed open source
* Makerbot seems to be coming out with a new model every 9-16 months,
with the first 6-8 months or so after release being significantly
backlogged. So, release and publish to their website the core design
files for the printer 6 months after release, and the remainder of the
design for non-core components/enhancements 3 months later (9 month
total) under an open source license. This would include firmware. If
necessary, businesses could purchase the latest and greatest hardware
and the community could develop/modify against the prior generation -
since most of the hackers/makers are not going to be buying a new
printer every year..this should work fine. 6-9 months is not a
horrible amount of time - it's not ideal and might slow down makerbot
development but it would allow the community to keep going forward
while makerbot gets its $.
* Release code for all user/desktop software within 3 months of
release...code is one of the hardest things to delay, and since this
is one area where makerbot is benefiting as much from the community as
they might be giving...3 months seems like the best compromise.
* Free email support and parts that can be purchased at reasonable
cost for all models released within 3 years. Three years is normally
the minimal expected lifetime of any capital expense. Minor delays in
stocking older parts would be fine...but no makerbot owner should have
to worry about not being able to get a replacement part for any
printer that breaks within 3 years of purchase.
* Makerbot can charge extra for the ability to call in to their
support, to get quicker responses to questions, to get replacement
parts expedited, and/or down the road for training or certification of
some kind (Authorized Makerbot Repair Tech?)
The above I think would be a fair balance....although technically,
even if google is getting away with it, there are some open source
purists who think that open-source does not allow for delayed
release....but makerbot should be able to get away with it if they
made the policy clear and kept to those commitments.
Matt
--
https://www.twitter.com/deploylinux
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MakerBot Operators" group.
To post to this group, send email to make...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to makerbot+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/makerbot?hl=en.
From: Matthew Marlowe <ma...@professionalsysadmin.com>
Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: [MakerBot] Re: It's like I can see into the future...
To: make...@googlegroups.com
Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: [MakerBot] Re: It's like I can see into the future...
To: make...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 7:39 AM, c f <christophe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A delayed-release model or a 'we'll release the parts most interesting to
> customers rather than competitors' model would be cool.
What I would find to be a good solution to the current conundrum:> A delayed-release model or a 'we'll release the parts most interesting to
> customers rather than competitors' model would be cool.
* Makerbot seems to be coming out with a new model every 9-16 months,
with the first 6-8 months or so after release being significantly
backlogged. So, release and publish to their website the core design
files for the printer 6 months after release, and the remainder of the
design for non-core components/enhancements 3 months later (9 month
total) under an open source license. This would include firmware. If
necessary, businesses could purchase the latest and greatest hardware
and the community could develop/modify against the prior generation -
since most of the hackers/makers are not going to be buying a new
printer every year..this should work fine. 6-9 months is not a
horrible amount of time - it's not ideal and might slow down makerbot
development but it would allow the community to keep going forward
while makerbot gets its $.
* Release code for all user/desktop software within 3 months of
release...code is one of the hardest things to delay, and since this
is one area where makerbot is benefiting as much from the community as
they might be giving...3 months seems like the best compromise.
* Free email support and parts that can be purchased at reasonable
cost for all models released within 3 years. Three years is normally
the minimal expected lifetime of any capital expense. Minor delays in
stocking older parts would be fine...but no makerbot owner should have
to worry about not being able to get a replacement part for any
printer that breaks within 3 years of purchase.
* Makerbot can charge extra for the ability to call in to their
support, to get quicker responses to questions, to get replacement
parts expedited, and/or down the road for training or certification of
some kind (Authorized Makerbot Repair Tech?)
The above I think would be a fair balance....although technically,
even if google is getting away with it, there are some open source
purists who think that open-source does not allow for delayed
release....but makerbot should be able to get away with it if they
made the policy clear and kept to those commitments.
Matt
--
https://www.twitter.com/deploylinux
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MakerBot Operators" group.
To post to this group, send email to make...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to makerbot+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/makerbot?hl=en.
Bryan Bishop
Sep 22, 2012, 1:44:28 PM9/22/12
to Open Manufacturing, Bryan Bishop
Seriously??
If they wanted to be open source, they would have just said "yes, of course it will be open source!" instead of what Zach so eloquently called "a load of corporate double-speak bullshit that has come to characterize my interactions with MakerBot in recent memory."
On Saturday, September 22, 2012 1:09:55 PM UTC-4, Mike Dupont wrote:
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 7:07 PM, ddurant wrote:> ? They don't want to be open source any more. That's it. It's done.
that is what i would like to establish, is this a solid fact? please
provide a link.
thanks
mike
--
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com
Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org
Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3
Free Software Foundation Europe Fellow http://fsfe.org/support/?h4ck3rm1k3
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MakerBot Operators" group.
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/-/q3_A9g9vNacJ.
To post to this group, send email to make...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to makerbot+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/makerbot?hl=en.
Bryan Bishop
Sep 22, 2012, 4:54:38 PM9/22/12
to Open Manufacturing, Bryan Bishop
From: ddurant <ddur...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 3:27 PM
> Do any of the dozen-or-so odd reprap companies actually
> drive development of any of the reprap electronics, software, etc.?
Are you asking if they feed back into RepRap? Dunno. I'd guess Jo Prusa's new company will be feeding something back. He's got a big OSHW logo tatooed on his arm so he's sorta into it. With Whosawhatsis at Deezmaker now, I'd guess they'd be contributing, too.
RepRap itself is about self-replication so derivitives that are trying to be 3d printers but not necessarily self-replicating 3d printers probably don't directly feed back into RepRap. That's not the same as not giving anything back to the community in general, though.
> Ultimaker seems like it might be the 2nd biggest competitor to MBI, but given
> the lack of available clones for their stuff, it appears they're maintaining the 'profit
> through obscurity' model that worked for MBI pre-replicator.
Not sure what you mean. There have been several Ultimaker clones, both on ebay and a short-lived company called BlueBot or something. Ultimaker does need to get better organized with their files but I think it's all out there.
As for Ultimaker giving back, they have been big supporters of the Kamermaker project which is said to be open source. No sources yet but they just turned the thing on for the first time last week. Nobody, AFAIK, has done a project like that before so if they do open it up (and there's no reason to think they won't) there will be lots of new information about scaling 3d printers up to levels not seen before..
On Saturday, September 22, 2012 1:22:56 PM UTC-4, cf wrote:
There stance at the moment seems to be "We're still trying to figure out what we can/can't release and still stay in business." For makerware, for instance, they seem to be keeping the GUI proprietary but releasing source for their slicing engine and stuff (basically all of the back-end), which (although maybe not to the purists) is a bit different than "Everything is now closed forever! Muwhahaha!"
Do any of the dozen-or-so odd reprap companies actually drive development of any of the reprap electronics, software, etc.? From a business-model perspective, Solidoodle, printrbot, etc. all seem to go the 'keep our overhead as low as possible' route, which makes it difficult to distinguish themselves in a useful way (and makes it difficult to scale up to larger volumes), as well as difficult to invest much in development. Ultimaker seems like it might be the 2nd biggest competitor to MBI, but given the lack of available clones for their stuff, it appears they're maintaining the 'profit through obscurity' model that worked for MBI pre-replicator.
If their alternatives are 'stay a 5 person company that sells kits from a garage, so no one cares enough to clone you', 'make well-made 3d printers accessible to a large community of less skilled people, but keep the insides closed to delay cloning', or 'keep it open, but have it made by dirt-cheap labor somewhere to keep your costs down' (which is probably not a great way to compete with clones), I'm okay with the 2nd option.
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Mike Dupont <jamesmi...@googlemail.com> wrote:
I dont know how to make a successful business myself, otherwise I
would make one. I can say that I have been successful using FLOSS in
my work and in my life and I can pay the bills, that is some form of
success.
can someone please summarize what is going on with this MBI openess. I
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Jack Coats <ja...@coats.org> wrote:
> Now, can MB turn their business to 'closed but open' model? It will
> be interesting to see. I just hope they don't go 'fully closed', but
> it is their business decision. All we can do is to let our ideas and
> opinions be known, and let them make their decision.
understood that the new machine is not going to be open, is that true,
because I based my statements on it. can someone tell me what the deal
is?
thanks
mike
--
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com
Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org
Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3
Free Software Foundation Europe Fellow http://fsfe.org/support/?h4ck3rm1k3
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MakerBot Operators" group.
To post to this group, send email to make...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to makerbot+u...@googlegroups.com.
--
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/-/kOftDtPVR9cJ.
To post to this group, send email to make...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to makerbot+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/makerbot?hl=en.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages