TangiBot the unapologetic Makerbot Replicator clone

[www.kickstarter.com]

I wonder if he even built the one in the video or if it's just a Replicator that he bought and changed the badges.

For how much money he's asking for, this is a pure cash grab, pure and simple. And - the guy was affiliated with CriCut, a company that had a history of suing the crap out of 3rd party vendors that made software to talk to their machines.

[blog.openbeamusa.com]

-=- Terence

Billy, He built it himself. A few parts were printed on a Makerbot but he self sourced it, just like Bre brags anyone can do.

Terence, is that company open source? Do you think he was the one making the calls to sue people from the R&D department?

but he says its atually a makerbot but cant call it that because he didnt license it.....

I like how he lies on the page that Makerbot HAS to be open source because they use other people's designs. Not even close to true for the hardware. While they borrow ideas like everybody else, the actual designs are original to the best of my knowledge.

If this is successful, I wonder if future Makerbots will remain open source?

---

www.Fablicator.com

Andrew Diehl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like how he lies on the page that Makerbot HAS
> to be open source because they use other people's
> designs. Not even close to true for the hardware.
> While they borrow ideas like everybody else, the
> actual designs are original to the best of my
> knowledge.
>
> If this is successful, I wonder if future
> Makerbots will remain open source?

IMHO The MakerBot folks will stay open source.

RepRap "All Father" Adrian Bowyer owns (or owned) a portion of MakerBot. He invested in Bre and the gang at the beginning. If he still owns and influences MakerBot in anyway, it is likely to stay open source. (fingers crossed)

it's shit like this that makes me seriously wonder if putting my printable granule extruder up on thingiverse is actually worth it, i mean seriously whats the point ??

kickstarter should have a blanket ban on this kind of stuff unless it has been improved in some way, anyone re badge a printer for crying out loud?

do we really need to have a new variant/clone of the current opensource 3d printers on kickstarter every 5 mins.....

selling repraps printrbot and lasercut makerbots/replicators on ebay is one thing but this is obscene,

i wouldn't blame the good people at makerbot if they did all their future printers as closed source, and licensed out the source,

thejollygrimreaper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> do we really need to have a new variant/clone of
> the current opensource 3d printers on kickstarter
> every 5 mins.....

Obviously there's enough demand, and I don't see this as a bad thing. It gets more people involved in the world of open source 3D printing. As long as they follow the rules of open source, i.e. giving attribution, then there is no problem.

Idolcrasher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> IMHO The MakerBot folks will stay open source.
>
> RepRap "All Father" Adrian Bowyer owns (or owned)
> a portion of MakerBot. He invested in Bre and the
> gang at the beginning. If he still owns and
> influences MakerBot in anyway, it is likely to
> stay open source. (fingers crossed)

He invested in them at the beginning because they were actually contributing to the RepRap project. He has a rather different opinion of them now.

---

Help improve the RepRap wiki! Just click "Edit" in the top-right corner of the page and start typing. Anyone can edit the wiki!

I don't see the TangiBot as damaging to makerbot or the RepRap cause.

I think that anything delivers 3D printing into the hands of more people pushes the community forward.

A clone of an existing product is not the most "glorious" way to make it happen; but hey, it will probably work.

Idolcrasher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't see the TangiBot as damaging to makerbot
> or the RepRap cause.
>
> I think that anything delivers 3D printing into
> the hands of more people pushes the community
> forward.
>
> A clone of an existing product is not the most
> "glorious" way to make it happen; but hey, it will
> probably work.

I agree, by all means clone them put a different name on them, sell them on ebay..... however it's still not supposed to be there even by kickstarter guidlines,

%%%%%%%%%%%%% taken from the kickstarter website %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1. Funding for projects only. A project has a clear goal, like making an album, a book, or a work of art. A project will eventually be completed, and something will be produced by it. A project is not open-ended. Starting a business, for example, does not qualify as a project.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% taken from the tanigibot page
Pledge $10 or more
2 Backers

When the project funds a company website will be launched. You will be listed on that website as a donor who was there from the beginning. You will be listed as a Bronze Donor.
Est. delivery: Sep 2012

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5

if kickstarter ignores this maybe i should stick my granule extruder up there for the purposes of starting a buisness and also ask for $500,000

Sounds like a "Me too" situation.

1/3 off soon gets lost when he needs to expand.

Where is the unique offering if it is the same?

I was just watching Dave (That Crazy Aussie Guy) on Youtube today who was talking about the unwritten rules of Open Hardware and rule #1 is you don't copy you innovate. Make it better in some way not just copy but tell that to the gadzillion Chinese with their "One Hung Lo" complete ripoffs of all sorts of stuff. Heck, some of them rip off Arduino and even replicate the darn thing down to the custom printing on it. Very hard to tell if you have a legit made in Italy one or made from a "One Hung Lo" piece of junk rip off everything company.

We can't let them deter the movement though.

Dark Alchemist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was just watching Dave (That Crazy Aussie Guy)
> on Youtube today who was talking about the
> unwritten rules of Open Hardware and rule #1 is
> you don't copy you innovate. Make it better in

The idea that there are "unwritten rules" is very wrong, and very bad. If it is not written, it is not a rule. The rules of Open Hardware are in the licence text, and nowhere does it say "you must not copy, only innovate". The open licences explicitly allow commercial copying. If it was the intent do disallow copying under certain circumstances, then I think the authors of the licence are smart enough to write that in. It is not a loophole that people are exploiting.

The problem here is not that companies will close up IP to avoid copying, instead of releasing open source; they do that anyway. We can't do anything about. The problem is that companies will use open source and not share the modifications, for fear that they will be criticised for "exploiting" open source, which is allowed under the licence.

If you don't like the way OpenSource licences allow commercial copying, create some new ones. But castigating people who use the licence as intended does not further any objectives, and just creates bad feeling. Writing "shame on you" on peoples comments pages you don't like is amazingly juvenile.

I tend to agree, the license is what the license is.

On the kickstarter front I'm still waiting for the first large kickstarter project to take the money and run, and watch what happens when the lawyers get involved, I think the kickstarter people open themselves up to a lot of liability by vetting the projects.

> The problem here is not that companies will close
> up IP to avoid copying, instead of releasing open
> source; they do that anyway. We can't do anything
> about.

Not actively turning people away by defending only the letter of the law and not the spirit is something that can be done. Society has many unwritten rules and being unwritten does not make them invalid.

> But castigating people who use the licence as
> intended does not further any objectives, and just
> creates bad feeling.

The license is the way it is for a reason. That does not mean it was intended for cloners to exploit. How does it create "bad feeling?" Bad feelings towards the cloners? Who are you talking about?

> Writing "shame on you" on peoples comments pages you don't like is amazingly juvenile.

You should hear me talk about the evils of patents. Now those are some amazingly juvenile comments from the heart.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/13/2012 03:56PM by billyzelsnack.

bobc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dark Alchemist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I was just watching Dave (That Crazy Aussie
> Guy)
> > on Youtube today who was talking about the
> > unwritten rules of Open Hardware and rule #1 is
> > you don't copy you innovate. Make it better in
>
> The idea that there are "unwritten rules" is very
> wrong, and very bad. If it is not written, it is
> not a rule. The rules of Open Hardware are in the
> licence text, and nowhere does it say "you must
> not copy, only innovate". The open licences
> explicitly allow commercial copying. If it was the
> intent do disallow copying under certain
> circumstances, then I think the authors of the
> licence are smart enough to write that in. It is
> not a loophole that people are exploiting.
>
> The problem here is not that companies will close
> up IP to avoid copying, instead of releasing open
> source; they do that anyway. We can't do anything
> about. The problem is that companies will use open
> source and not share the modifications, for fear
> that they will be criticised for "exploiting" open
> source, which is allowed under the licence.
>
> If you don't like the way OpenSource licences
> allow commercial copying, create some new ones.
> But castigating people who use the licence as
> intended does not further any objectives, and just
> creates bad feeling. Writing "shame on you" on
> peoples comments pages you don't like is amazingly
> juvenile.
Who wrote that and where?

I 100% disagree with you and I do agree with what Dave said with his unwritten rules. The only people who would dislike rule #1 are the thieves or basically entire China who has been stealing IP and tangible items for decades. Want a cheap knockoff of a purse, or anything, that will fool your friends? Go to China and do shopping for one day.

I think the written rules are there to ensure the growth of a project or community while the unwritten rules are there to ensure that the community stays as a community of helping individuals.

It is not illegal for someone to cut in line while waiting for your coffee but it's an unwritten rule that you have to wait for your turn. Common courtesy will tell you to follow those unwritten rules.

royco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the written rules are there to ensure the
> growth of a project or community while the
> unwritten rules are there to ensure that the
> community stays as a community of helping
> individuals.
>
> It is not illegal for someone to cut in line while
> waiting for your coffee but it's an unwritten rule
> that you have to wait for your turn. Common
> courtesy will tell you to follow those unwritten
> rules.
Yep.

For anyone interested here is the video [www.youtube.com]

When two of the main contributers to the open source reprap movement blatently copy a commercial product for the hotend, UP!, then I dont think you can call out someone who at least acknowledges what he is doing.

Makerbots are expensive for what they are and competition is good and the backbone of the opensource movement. Keeps everyone honest.

My $0.02:

The Tangy-bot has more of a sour taste for me.

The profits associated with the race to the bottom, can't put food on the table for long.

Hopefully, it will not reach funding.
If it does, we can all watch as the comments pile on for delivery and updates, and status and why and what and when and etc.

I wouldn't wish upon my enemies Kickstarter's relentless onslaught of masters to serve.

Dave

I'm interested to see how the community of consumers reacts to his business plan...

Personally - I feel like what he's doing is lazy at best. He clearly has enough experience and education to offer something better, but as he stated - it's so much easier to just make a money grab first. My partner and I have been working on developing an entire new printer package + electronics for the last 6 months and if this funds first - it's rather insulting and demoralizing.

I'm just waiting for someone else to point out that he's intentionally undercutting US jobs by shipping them to Asia. The only justice of the whole thing will be when his overseas contacts decide they don't need him anymore once they have all the manufacturing molds and information and undersell his own design instead.

#1 Rule is "Don't Replicate Innovate".

JazzyMT Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm interested to see how the community of
> consumers reacts to his business plan...
>
> Personally - I feel like what he's doing is lazy
> at best. He clearly has enough experience and
> education to offer something better, but as he
> stated - it's so much easier to just make a money
> grab first. My partner and I have been working on
> developing an entire new printer package +
> electronics for the last 6 months and if this
> funds first - it's rather insulting and
> demoralizing.
>
> I'm just waiting for someone else to point out
> that he's intentionally undercutting US jobs by
> shipping them to Asia. The only justice of the
> whole thing will be when his overseas contacts
> decide they don't need him anymore once they have
> all the manufacturing molds and information and
> undersell his own design instead.
I whole heartedly agree with you my friend.

robert wise Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When two of the main contributers to the open
> source reprap movement blatently copy a commercial
> product for the hotend, UP!, then I dont think you
> can call out someone who at least acknowledges
> what he is doing.

makerbot and makergear?

not makergear

Dark Alchemist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> #1 Rule is "Don't Replicate Innovate".

"Don't Replicator™, RepRap!"

---

--
-Nudel
Blog with RepRap Comic

Nudel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dark Alchemist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > #1 Rule is "Don't Replicate Innovate".
>
> "Don't Replicator™, RepRap!"

LOL

I don't understand whats the difference between the TangiBot and the Replicator versus the Arduinos and the knock-offs like the Tosduino and the OSEPP that's sold at fry's? Is it how he went about selling it on Kickstarter? Or something else? I don't agree with what he is doing, but what makes it different?

I'm not sure there's any one thing that's really offensive - I think the collection of issues is what put people off and even then it may have only been "just enough". Personally I'd rather see new and exciting projects on Kickstarter that foster innovation. A bargain sale price for an existing product may be appealing to someone who already knows what they want and hasn't quite pulled the trigger yet, but it's not terribly interesting to the rest of us. These party fouls all put together don't help his cause either:
1) High total investment - do you really need a half million dollars to get started? This probably raised eyebrows the most honestly.
2) Zero innovation - it IS actually part of the open source theology to improve costs to the consumer by competing on manufacturing, but that's only a small part of it - offering nothing else when he clearly could is disappointing to several in the community.
3) Typical unsubstantiated claims of superiority. If you're going to improve on manufacturing quality and price, that's great, but it seems like everyone is claiming to be the latest and greatest without any specific reasoning or evidence. If he's outsourcing to a facility halfway around the world - it's hard to imagine how he plans to do all that on the very FIRST shipment of units, but maybe he has an extensive quality assurance plan he's didn't explain sufficiently. Either way it hasn't helped his credibility.

To his credit - Matt has at least had the smarts to be very cool headed and rational about responding to the critics. I have a feeling he probably could successfully pull off a decent business, but I'd prefer he invested more of his own expertise and effort into the design first. Since the campaign is doing so poorly at this point, he might not have a choice either way.

JazzyMT Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not sure there's any one thing that's really
> offensive - I think the collection of issues is
> what put people off and even then it may have only
> been "just enough". Personally I'd rather see new
> and exciting projects on Kickstarter that foster
> innovation. A bargain sale price for an existing
> product may be appealing to someone who already
> knows what they want and hasn't quite pulled the
> trigger yet, but it's not terribly interesting to
> the rest of us. These party fouls all put
> together don't help his cause either:
> 1) High total investment - do you really need a
> half million dollars to get started? This
> probably raised eyebrows the most honestly.
> 2) Zero innovation - it IS actually part of the
> open source theology to improve costs to the
> consumer by competing on manufacturing, but that's
> only a small part of it - offering nothing else
> when he clearly could is disappointing to several
> in the community.
> 3) Typical unsubstantiated claims of superiority.
> If you're going to improve on manufacturing
> quality and price, that's great, but it seems like
> everyone is claiming to be the latest and greatest
> without any specific reasoning or evidence. If
> he's outsourcing to a facility halfway around the
> world - it's hard to imagine how he plans to do
> all that on the very FIRST shipment of units, but
> maybe he has an extensive quality assurance plan
> he's didn't explain sufficiently. Either way it
> hasn't helped his credibility.
>
> To his credit - Matt has at least had the smarts
> to be very cool headed and rational about
> responding to the critics. I have a feeling he
> probably could successfully pull off a decent
> business, but I'd prefer he invested more of his
> own expertise and effort into the design first.
> Since the campaign is doing so poorly at this
> point, he might not have a choice either way.

whats offended people more than anything is that he's gotten on kickstarter with a rebadged printer, asking for a heap of money, with nothing more to offer than a lower price and promises of better quality while at the same time breaching the the kickstarter guidlines and rules! , he is using it to start a buisness and as a herd mentality sales platform

the implication just by being on kickstarter is that you are offering somthing new and innovative, even if you put it up in point 50 text on the page that it's a clone, the implication is there regardless just by where it is,
by rebadging somthing , you are publiclly implying that it is your design regardless of weather it is or not,

he has clearly broken the kickstarter rule and guidlines and kickstarter should have removed it by now, however they seem to be relatively un-caring about their own rules and more about the money they may make out of it themselves,if any or just the interest ,

what would be been a more proper approach to it is to put it up as a replicator clone, on ebay and the various forums,

his ability by the way to "handle" critical responses, is nothing more than very simple sales spin, every sales person can do it off the cuff there is nothing new about it,

I'd be very interested to see what the guys at maker-bot have to say,