It's like I can see into the future...

[neoteric]

Read my posts in this thread.... with Bre's response in the middle. 
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!searchin/makerbot/neoteric$20and$20competition/makerbot/Z8f1ffYlAM0/pRVCsLJUq5kJ 

It was posted one year ago....

I didn't get all the points there, but I got a few of them.
Interesting to watch this all play out.

[neoteric]

BTW, reposting this is not beating up on Makerbot.  I feel sorry for Bre right now.  

As I posted on the makerbot blog.

Bre. Here is what you wish you could say out loud:

“I built a business that included utilizing open source hardware and software.
I did that very well, probably better than anyone else.
I had a great philosophy of open source in my business model.
I built a brand.
I now have a brand, employees, responsibilities, and shareholders.
I am now between a rock and a hard place, as being an icon of open source might be dichotomous to protecting my brand, employees, responsibilities and shareholders.
Nothing I say today is going to make anyone happy, least of all me.”

[Doogiekr]

Just read through the original post, and I kinda like Bre's answer... my problem is they are doing it again... and maybe worse this time (closed source)

[Elbot]

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.

[Doogiekr]

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.

[c f]

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.

--
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 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.

[Jack Coats]

I would like to see MBI develop a 'eventually open' license.

Some software companies have worked this way for a long time
so it is demonstrated to be sustainable.

Develop hardware/software with a 'delayed open' point.
For every generation of hardware/software developed, the
hardware/software 2 generations ago are 'opened'.

We already see some small commercial groups that use MBI buy
a new printer or so as soon as it is available and dump old ones
on the market as used but working printers.

This would allow continued commercially paid innovation, but
it does block the open source community from the 'latest and greatest'.

I have long wished M$ would accept this model, or cell phone/tablet
manufacturers, or like the Kodak flip camera (if I remember the name
right) but they would rather terminate the software/hardware
rather than allow it continue living open source.

Just my 0.02 quatloo

[Mike Dupont]

On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Jack Coats <ja...@coats.org> wrote:
> I would like to see MBI develop a 'eventually open' license.
>
> Some software companies have worked this way for a long time
> so it is demonstrated to be sustainable.
>
> Develop hardware/software with a 'delayed open' point.
> For every generation of hardware/software developed, the
> hardware/software 2 generations ago are 'opened'.

Yes that would not really be a change in the license, but a change in
the publishing policy. Android does that as well it seems, dropping
source dumps on regular basis if they fee like it and otherwise not
publishing small changes.




--
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

[c f]

A delayed-release model or a 'we'll release the parts most interesting to customers rather than competitors' model would be cool. They just need a way to significantly delay the time between releasing a new model and having nearly identical clones popping up.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MakerBot Operators" group.

[Mike Dupont]

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

[c f]

To clarify, I didn't mean "release all sources to just your customers", I meant "release the parts of your design that a customer is most likely to care about, and keep the things only a competitor is likely to care about secret."

There is obviously a lot of gray area here, and maybe there isn't much room to do that sort of thing, but things like exact construction details/specs for things that can basically only be done in a production/factory setting (the way the LCD on the replicator is done might be a good example, as I think it is something weird like wire-bonded parts blobbed in epoxy so they don't need a package). A modding-minded customer might be interested in the digital interface to the LCD, but not the actual construction details (which a factory in Shenzhen could probably take and start pumping out replicator LCDs by tomorrow afternoon). 

[Jordan Miller]

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

[Mike Dupont]

the idea of open source hardware is to protect the buyer. If the
company goes under then the sources must be available. In order for
this to work you would need a source escrow, thus increasing the
costs, and that third party would hold the sources. Holding the
sources hostage until they are paid for is not really the right idea.
Buying a copy of the binaries without sources is not a good idea.

mike

[Jack Coats]

I think it would be considered as 'still under development' and kept
un-released other than binary,
until they desire a release.

I am no expert on GPL, but there has been precedence if I remember
right, on passing out beta binary
and delaying sources.

But if they do this, I would suggest have an external private
repository (possibly controlled by a law firm as their repository
agent) that would guarantee release of source IF something happened to
the company and it might otherwise not be available, or after 3 years
(just a number I made up) of deposit, unless release allowed earlier.

This will also have a side effect of there being more 'branches' to
the software going in 'un-controlled' directions by volunteers wanting
'new stuff' earlier than public release. It also would block
volunteers from being able to continue to contribute under a system
like the current model.

Just my thoughts.

[Mike Dupont]

On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Jack Coats <ja...@coats.org> wrote:
> I am no expert on GPL, but there has been precedence if I remember
> right, on passing out beta binary
> and delaying sources.

well if there is no one to request it then it is not an issue,
also if you are the original author no one can say much. The Customer
might be able to try and hold you to the license, and you would have
time to respond anyway.

> But if they do this, I would suggest have an external private
> repository (possibly controlled by a law firm as their repository
> agent) that would guarantee release of source IF something happened to
> the company and it might otherwise not be available, or after 3 years
> (just a number I made up) of deposit, unless release allowed earlier.

yes a source code escrow, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_code_escrow

[Jack Coats]

Agreed, it will harm the community by going closed source. I guess
they could close 'part' of the hardware if it wasn't based on GPL'd
hardware at all.

I think I saw on Grock Law some storage company suing RedHat over
using a patented algorithm. And RedHat is counter suing on the behalf
of GPLed mount software that the initial plantif used and is releasing
as binary only and is publicized as being closed source. ... This
tells me just like developing initial Linux kernel VS SCO, you must be
very careful when trying to ensure software is being opened/closed to
ensure you do independent development and you can prove it.

[Matthew Marlowe]

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:
* 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

[Jack Coats]

I could see also using a 'preferred access' (meaning 'paid access')
model to get earlier access to 'full details'.

All if this is addressing the conundrum of 'how to make money with
open source' that has been a problem for years for many budding
entrepreneur that really would rather be 'open' but they have problems
with others 'making money off their brow' (even if they don't mind the
hacker/DIYer using the stuff).

That seems to be the issue MB is hitting.

My advice is to do like Digium or consultants do. Digium produces
high quality hardware that allows PBXes to be built with relative
ease. They are also huge supporters of Asterisk the PBX software that
can use Digium hardware (and others). But with Digium supporting it
(including developers on their payroll) the Digium hardware seems to
get supported 'first' (not a corporate policy, just an external
observation). Without Asterisk, Digium wouldn't be where it is in the
market, IMHO.

Consultants that may re-sell hardware but mainly make money on 'value
added' software and services seems to be the other way.

RedHat has a different model that is hard to replicate. They do the
'consultant' and 'value added software' thing very well, but they also
'control' the RHEL and Fedora Linux distributions for the most part.
Their big $$ seem to come from RHEL licenses and support. All
together they have added a LOT of value to Linux while making money on
OSS software.

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.

[Mike Dupont]

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.

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.

can someone please summarize what is going on with this MBI openess. I
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

[ddurant]

What the heck are you guys talking about? They don't want to be open source any more. That's it. It's done. Even if they did reverse direction (again) it would only be because they caved to pressure, not because they it's the direction they wanted.

 

Personally, I think what's really going on is that they're worried about some injection-molding company taking open source plans and churning parts out by the 1000s for pennies, which is a lot different than the laser-cut-plywood cost model. We've always known that injection molding is insanely cheap, once you get it moving. MBI doesn't want to be the ones to get it moving. Given their record of how much they take from open source vs. how much they put back in, this should not surprise anybody.

[Mike Dupont]

On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 7:07 PM, ddurant <ddur...@gmail.com> 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.

[ddurant]

Seriously??

 

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

 

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:

[Mike Dupont]

Yes, this is more like fixing misinformation with disinformation. But,
ok, so basically this is not going to be open source, that is the new
deal I guess. So I was not overeacting before, I had understood that
they are locking things down, but then I was told it was not so, now I
feel more confident.
thanks,
mike

> --
> 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.

[c f]

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.

[lassikin]

I bought into replicator because it was an open source clone that came pre-assembled, tested and with implied support. That is, I consider it a patent tiptoeing for hobbyists clone of the earlier products in the field, from stratasys etc - not original research to be protected as such.

A product that I could get the tech sheets for and that would possibly provide upgrade routes, which would provide business to MBI from even sales of the clones, as source of spares and printing material.

But seriously, for a 150 guys company the sw could be better. it's SW improvements I'm looking/waiting for now, especially for dualstrusion. Anyhow, they already sold replicator1 with the same ease of use lingo as the new one, they could have avoided some serious flak by keeping the ui source open(that's the closed part) and by providing drawings for the steel frame - because it's seriously easy to copy the frame design once you have access to one(and the cooler fan isn't a fresh innovation) - and those are the closed parts of the design. they're not gaining anything by keeping them "closed" except flak right now.

one closed source part that I could live with and give them props if they provided it would be a gcode visualiser, the only one I've seen around is mac only.

-Lassi

[Aaron Double]

Yes,

That visualizer is very pleasant… heh.

Aaron

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/makerbot/-/-a0ibAZ659cJ.

[ddurant]

> 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.. 

[Rob Myers]

On 09/22/2012 03:31 PM, Mike Dupont wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Jack Coats <ja...@coats.org> wrote:
>> I would like to see MBI develop a 'eventually open' license.
>>
>> Some software companies have worked this way for a long time
>> so it is demonstrated to be sustainable.
>>
>> Develop hardware/software with a 'delayed open' point.
>> For every generation of hardware/software developed, the
>> hardware/software 2 generations ago are 'opened'.
>
> Yes that would not really be a change in the license, but a change in
> the publishing policy. Android does that as well it seems, dropping
> source dumps on regular basis if they fee like it and otherwise not
> publishing small changes.

That doesn't help users who want to fix or mod their hardware/software
as soon as they receive it rather than corporations who want to clone it
as soon as they can, though.

- Rob.

[Mike Dupont]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Rob Myers <r...@robmyers.org> wrote:

Yes that would not really be a change in the license, but a change in
the publishing policy. Android does that as well it seems, dropping
source dumps on regular basis if they fee like it and otherwise not
publishing small changes.

That doesn't help users who want to fix or mod their hardware/software as soon as they receive it rather than corporations who want to clone it as soon as they can, though.

Does MBI own all the code they publish? do they have the rights to change the license ? 

from the other thread it is only part of the code that is being withheld. 

If they own all the rights to the code, they can publish it when they want as long as the buyer is informed before. There is nothing to force people to publish their own source code, except perhaps a competitor.

On the point of the cheap foreign competitor, first of all if someone is going to produce it cheaper and faster then let them. Makerbot should be happy to source parts cheaper and focus on innovation. I think that makers are interested in buying more reliable and innovative things, no? 

mike

[Jordan Miller]

why would you want to fix your printer? if it breaks down just throw
it away and buy a new one. it's so easy!

I am willing to bet a ton of the 150 employees joined MakerBot
*specifically* because MakerBot used to be committed, at it's core, to
open source. Sux for them.

jordan

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MakerBot Operators" group.

[Aaron Double]

http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Makerbot-Reviews-E480203.htm

I would say Yup.

Aaron

[Rob Myers]

On 09/25/2012 05:27 PM, Mike Dupont wrote:
>
> Does MBI own all the code they publish? do they have the rights to
> change the license ?
> from the other thread it is only part of the code that is being withheld.

It is the part used to actually control and interact with the system. So
it's a pretty important part.

It is also the only part of the previous generation of software that I
have actually had to patch so far.

> If they own all the rights to the code, they can publish it when they
> want as long as the buyer is informed before. There is nothing to force
> people to publish their own source code, except perhaps a competitor.

I am not a competitor. I am a user of the hardware and software.

I paid for it, I own it, I wish to be free to fix and modify it.

That's what free-and-open is about.

> On the point of the cheap foreign competitor, first of all if someone is
> going to produce it cheaper and faster then let them. Makerbot should be
> happy to source parts cheaper and focus on innovation.

A race to the bottom is a strategy, but it's not necessarily a winning one.

Particularly when a company built its reputation on other values.

> I think that
> makers are interested in buying more reliable and innovative things, no?

They are interested in making things. Proprietary hardware and software
work against that.

- Rob.

[Martin Galese]

Wow.

That is harsh and really sad to hear.

Martin Galese

[Mike Dupont]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Rob Myers <r...@robmyers.org> wrote:

On 09/25/2012 05:27 PM, Mike Dupont wrote:

Does MBI own all the code they publish? do they have the rights to
change the license ?
from the other thread it is only part of the code that is being withheld.

It is the part used to actually control and interact with the system. So it's a pretty important part.
 It is also the only part of the previous generation of software that I have actually had to patch so far.

ok, so basically in the next version they will abandon you and leave you in the dumps.

If they own all the rights to the code, they can publish it when they
want as long as the buyer is informed before. There is nothing to force
people to publish their own source code, except perhaps a competitor.

I am not a competitor. I am a user of the hardware and software.
I paid for it, I own it, I wish to be free to fix and modify it.

That's what free-and-open is about.

Yes, but  that was the previous version. Now they, MBI is broke, they are forced to take on all type of new capital (read debt), and they new p0wnrs say : all this open source stuff is nice, but I want my money back with 30% interest.

 

On the point of the cheap foreign competitor, first of all if someone is
going to produce it cheaper and faster then let them. Makerbot should be
happy to source parts cheaper and focus on innovation.

A race to the bottom is a strategy, but it's not necessarily a winning one.
 Particularly when a company built its reputation on other values.

but as far as I can tell MBI was not succeeding.

 

I think that
makers are interested in buying more reliable and innovative things, no?

They are interested in making things. Proprietary hardware and software work against that.

I agree there, and I support free software. I am just trying to point out the right of a company to fail and go away. basically MBI is exercising that right, they are failing as an open source company and coming back as a new one with new rules. 

I have see other companies do the same, 

mike

[Aaron Double]

I have always subscribed to the theory that you rate a person by how they treat their underlings.

Aaron

[ddurant]

> I have always subscribed to the theory that you rate a person by how they treat their underlings.

 

Now I'm curious, Aaron,.. Do you call people that work for you 'underlings'??? Personally, I've always preferred the term 'minions' but that's just me.

 

:P

[Aaron Double]

When I had people under me, I called them coworkers: now as a contractor for other people, I call the people under me Imaginary Friends :_(

I have cabin fever right now… since I work from home.

Aaron

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/makerbot/-/Dor6PPB-2JIJ.

[geneb]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, ddurant wrote:

>> I have always subscribed to the theory that you rate a person by how they
> treat their underlings.
>

> Now I'm curious, Aaron,.. Do you call people that work for you
> 'underlings'??? Personally, I've always preferred the term 'minions' but
> that's just me.
>

If they're really, really good at what they do, the should be called Evil
Minions. :)

g.

--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.

ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!

[c f]

A 'cheap foreign competitor' that is literally cloning your machines gets the bulk of its 'savings' from not having to cover non-recurring engineering costs, not necessarily just their dirt-cheap manual labor (which certainly adds to the savings, but probably less than most people think). So no, MBI probably shouldn't be happy that someone found out they can undercut them by not having to pay engineers to design things (and still gaining the benefit of that engineering expertise). This need to cover engineering/design costs seems to be lost on many people when they think about why things cost as much as they do (especially when you are not shipping millions of units).

--

[Luis E. Rodriguez]

http://www.glassdoor.com/Overview/Working-at-Apple-EI_IE1138.11,16.htm 

Luis E. Rodriguez

Are you a Maker?

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Mark Cohen <markc...@gmail.com> wrote:

http://www.glassdoor.com/Overview/Working-at-3D-Systems-EI_IE2061.11,21.htm

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Aaron Double <aad...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Aaron Double]

http://www.glassdoor.com/Overview/Working-at-Stratasys-EI_IE3760.11,20.htm

[Sean Tu]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:18 PM, ddurant <ddur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have always subscribed to the theory that you rate a person by how they treat their underlings.

 

Now I'm curious, Aaron,.. Do you call people that work for you 'underlings'??? Personally, I've always preferred the term 'minions' but that's just me.

 

:P

I've always liked the title peon form the original WarCraft series :-) 

[mathisyo...@yahoo.com]

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 2:28:52 PM UTC-4, Mark Cohen wrote:

Work work

On Sep 25, 2012 2:15 PM, "Sean Tu" <sst...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:18 PM, ddurant <ddur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have always subscribed to the theory that you rate a person by how they treat their underlings.

 

Now I'm curious, Aaron,.. Do you call people that work for you 'underlings'??? Personally, I've always preferred the term 'minions' but that's just me.

 

:P

How one acts when no one is "watching" has always worked for me.

Reading the glass door stuff was sad.   Why do 2 of my 3 favorite companies/products (MBI and Apple) do this stuff?  Will there be suicide nets in Brooklyn soon?  At least valve (apparently) does things right (if on their own schedule- HL3 please Mr. Newell) 

 

[mathisyo...@yahoo.com]

rereading that it came out more brutal than I meant.