file-sharing network
Posted by joebonaparte
|
Re: file-sharing network May 12, 2008 09:25PM |
To me, one of the things that will determine how valuable this system really is is the ease with which different fabable designs can be shared. The percentage of people willing to spend the time to design their own complex 3D objects is actually relatively small. I think that sometimes we forget this, because those people are vastly overrepresented in this project and on this forum (and I commend every one of you! >
<).
To me, a servicable analogy is software for computers. Though there are probably billions of people worldwide who use computers and the software that runs on them in their everyday lives, what percentage of those users are actively involved in generating new programs to fulfill their own needs, let alone those of others? 10%? 5%? 1%? At any rate, it is a small fraction (although again, one way overrepresented on this board, luckily!).
Anyway, although I'm too young to remember this, I once read a book that described, among other things, how programs were shared between hobbyists back before computers became mainstream, and certainly before the internet existed. If there's anyone who knows more about this than I do, feel free to correct me. Users would hold "swap meets" periodically where they would bring in software that they considered valuable, and trade it with that acquired by other enthusiasts in the area. Generally, it was expected that when someone brought a program home, they were responsible for making another copy or two of it on whatever medium it was stored (paper tape, 5-1/4" floppy, whatever) and bringing it back to the meeting, in this way ensuring that everyone who wanted the software could get it. People would sometimes attend meets further away to see what wares were available there, in this way aiding the propagation of software across a larger area. This is of course not the most efficient system!
With a lack of coordinated planning, I'm afraid that the market for 3D designs will begin to fall into a similarly inefficient system. Of course, designing a repository of objects is made easier by the Internet, which makes sharing much simpler. However, it is still possible for the market for models to break down into a bunch of private, limited "swap meet"-like sites that limit the growth of the project by raising the entrance barrier (you have to know the quirks of 7 places to look when seeking a model, not 1). I guess what I'm saying is that it would be best if the RepRap project got on this and made an efficient, easy to use site, which would make spin-off ones much less likely to form.
<).To me, a servicable analogy is software for computers. Though there are probably billions of people worldwide who use computers and the software that runs on them in their everyday lives, what percentage of those users are actively involved in generating new programs to fulfill their own needs, let alone those of others? 10%? 5%? 1%? At any rate, it is a small fraction (although again, one way overrepresented on this board, luckily!).
Anyway, although I'm too young to remember this, I once read a book that described, among other things, how programs were shared between hobbyists back before computers became mainstream, and certainly before the internet existed. If there's anyone who knows more about this than I do, feel free to correct me. Users would hold "swap meets" periodically where they would bring in software that they considered valuable, and trade it with that acquired by other enthusiasts in the area. Generally, it was expected that when someone brought a program home, they were responsible for making another copy or two of it on whatever medium it was stored (paper tape, 5-1/4" floppy, whatever) and bringing it back to the meeting, in this way ensuring that everyone who wanted the software could get it. People would sometimes attend meets further away to see what wares were available there, in this way aiding the propagation of software across a larger area. This is of course not the most efficient system!
With a lack of coordinated planning, I'm afraid that the market for 3D designs will begin to fall into a similarly inefficient system. Of course, designing a repository of objects is made easier by the Internet, which makes sharing much simpler. However, it is still possible for the market for models to break down into a bunch of private, limited "swap meet"-like sites that limit the growth of the project by raising the entrance barrier (you have to know the quirks of 7 places to look when seeking a model, not 1). I guess what I'm saying is that it would be best if the RepRap project got on this and made an efficient, easy to use site, which would make spin-off ones much less likely to form.
|
Re: file-sharing network May 14, 2008 05:27AM |
It's okay if it's not the average computer user is not designing and developing things for his computer. We have a lot of good and free software anyway.
Just about anybody I know has a nephew or boy in the neighborhood that can help them with computer problems or knows how to write HTML.
In computer science a lot of code is often generated during a University course. Some of this code is published with free licenses. The fun thing is, that a lot of high quality GPL'd software originates there (not the majority, but still). For more complex object, I can imagine Industrial Design and Engineering studies will be a nice source of better quality parts. These people would like to see their products in the homes of other people. Besides, the world may start looking different during there career: more and more people will get access (direct or indirect) to 3D printers and could print their products. That's why I think it may help if these people who actually study to create designs will also generate money to be able to keep doing that.
I'm hesitant to say that we necessarily need to do this by a pay-per-print (or other) scheme, because of the following:
In Holland or perhaps another country, the blood bank wanted to increase the amount of blood that was donated. They decided that they would add a financial compensation. Instead of more, less people gave blood, because those people that had been giving blood for free did that for other reasons that money and disliked the notion of doing such a thing 'for the money'. I'm sure that for a certain people dislike a 'doing it for the money' mentality, but that's only a smaller proportion. We could let commercial designers use this system commercially together with the GPL designers (I dislike having many places to go to). There will be a supply and demand marketplace in which rare parts that are expensive someone could create a non-proprietary 'clone'.
I personally would at least build the system so people could write design contests with real prize money (or at least lots of supplies and goodies). Facilitating or even allowing full commercialization (does DRM sound nice?) would definitely be something we should think twice about. But we should not down-right reject it as well.
When I was 12 I was already generating money with the computer by doing graphical work, only a couple of years later I added webdesign and scripting to that. This became a real business at 16 years age. I'd love to see kids earn some money through 3D CAD and that this adds to the vertical mobility of the youth around the world. But designing is not the only way to earn money through RepRaps. A print shop that actually prints (and often also assembles) the stuff for the local community could also earn its money. Or those who implement 3D printing at companies that couldn't afford commercial machines that had limited material options and no extensibility (to use it in a production process instead of prototyping).
The site would need an API so people could post 'configurators' of multiple parts such as the parts for custom designed flat pack furniture where the connecting bits are plastic or otherwise fab-able. If someone is good at making such a wizard in which someone can draw a 'general (higher level) design' the software will generate the BOM and build instructions of that. Those shops will be able to get closer to interacting with end-users, because the average end-user will not work in industrial/complex CAD software.
A SourceForge-like system seems to me a good option. People don't need to question whether the license is an approved free license. Companies can still earn money on customization of the software/object and services (printing capacity). Companies that manufacture anything from this SourceForge-like system should give some of their earnings to the designers, though. Personal users I would like to see it different. But do we, can we and should we want to enforce policies? Maybe just the license is enough to cover it, a creative commons ShareAlike-non-commercial could be an option with the owners of the work making exceptions (commercial production contracts)...
Sorry you had to read all that. The idea is really taking shape but some of these questions bother me at night...
Regards,
Erik de Bruijn
[Ultimaker.com] - [blog.erikdebruijn.nl]
Just about anybody I know has a nephew or boy in the neighborhood that can help them with computer problems or knows how to write HTML.
In computer science a lot of code is often generated during a University course. Some of this code is published with free licenses. The fun thing is, that a lot of high quality GPL'd software originates there (not the majority, but still). For more complex object, I can imagine Industrial Design and Engineering studies will be a nice source of better quality parts. These people would like to see their products in the homes of other people. Besides, the world may start looking different during there career: more and more people will get access (direct or indirect) to 3D printers and could print their products. That's why I think it may help if these people who actually study to create designs will also generate money to be able to keep doing that.
I'm hesitant to say that we necessarily need to do this by a pay-per-print (or other) scheme, because of the following:
In Holland or perhaps another country, the blood bank wanted to increase the amount of blood that was donated. They decided that they would add a financial compensation. Instead of more, less people gave blood, because those people that had been giving blood for free did that for other reasons that money and disliked the notion of doing such a thing 'for the money'. I'm sure that for a certain people dislike a 'doing it for the money' mentality, but that's only a smaller proportion. We could let commercial designers use this system commercially together with the GPL designers (I dislike having many places to go to). There will be a supply and demand marketplace in which rare parts that are expensive someone could create a non-proprietary 'clone'.
I personally would at least build the system so people could write design contests with real prize money (or at least lots of supplies and goodies). Facilitating or even allowing full commercialization (does DRM sound nice?) would definitely be something we should think twice about. But we should not down-right reject it as well.
When I was 12 I was already generating money with the computer by doing graphical work, only a couple of years later I added webdesign and scripting to that. This became a real business at 16 years age. I'd love to see kids earn some money through 3D CAD and that this adds to the vertical mobility of the youth around the world. But designing is not the only way to earn money through RepRaps. A print shop that actually prints (and often also assembles) the stuff for the local community could also earn its money. Or those who implement 3D printing at companies that couldn't afford commercial machines that had limited material options and no extensibility (to use it in a production process instead of prototyping).
The site would need an API so people could post 'configurators' of multiple parts such as the parts for custom designed flat pack furniture where the connecting bits are plastic or otherwise fab-able. If someone is good at making such a wizard in which someone can draw a 'general (higher level) design' the software will generate the BOM and build instructions of that. Those shops will be able to get closer to interacting with end-users, because the average end-user will not work in industrial/complex CAD software.
A SourceForge-like system seems to me a good option. People don't need to question whether the license is an approved free license. Companies can still earn money on customization of the software/object and services (printing capacity). Companies that manufacture anything from this SourceForge-like system should give some of their earnings to the designers, though. Personal users I would like to see it different. But do we, can we and should we want to enforce policies? Maybe just the license is enough to cover it, a creative commons ShareAlike-non-commercial could be an option with the owners of the work making exceptions (commercial production contracts)...
Sorry you had to read all that. The idea is really taking shape but some of these questions bother me at night...
Regards,
Erik de Bruijn
[Ultimaker.com] - [blog.erikdebruijn.nl]
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.