Constructive discussion about replicator controversy

I made a wiki page for it. (edit: the 'please' was obnoxious, removed it.)

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/07/2012 05:03PM by Jasper1984.

Isn't the forum the best place to have discussions? Why a wiki?

Almost certainly a mistake to introduce such a controversial page. It will be impossible to even agree what the facts are. Any such article will inevitably be the opinions of the author, and would be better placed on a personal blog.

In order to be constructive, you need to state what the goals are. You wiki page contains bias and appears to be about "how do we help Makerbot?". I am not even sure that the whole issue is directly relevant to Reprap anyway. I think the open source principles of Reprap are already well defined by Adrian Bowyer, and the Makerbot affair doesn't impact them.

Because wiki pages are much better at documentation, can be usefully edited for longer. Especially if people make statements only useful in context, or whine. The discussion should take place here, useful distinguishable points go into the wiki.

Then edit it, add it change the wording without detracting anything. Try edit it so the guy you disagree with won't edit it again. We'll see if it works, i guess...

The goal is to document some things better, documenting what they do and do not open source makes what they release more likely to be useful. If no-one will look at the sources and use it, why open source it anyway? I strengthens the case against them not opensourcing stuff. Then again, maybe makerbot should do more of that themselves. Link to sources from the product page, or edit the reprap page themselves.(As long as they dont remove criticism, that is fine. Probably better if they put a note on the discussion.) That said, i am sure other companies don't link that way either.(But they might put it in the wiki.)

Another is to possibly get some consensus about sending an open letter. Maybe if they agree to opensourcing the stuff they closed source in, say, 2 years, I guess that helps them with still being able to claim 'opensourceness', but it helps us with the designs. I don't know which is better..

Quote

I think the open source principles of Reprap are already well defined by Adrian Bowyer, and the Makerbot affair doesn't impact them.

I have read some stuff on why it might be successful. But I do wonder why it apparently didn't apply to Linux,(the analogy with software and how it might end up is pretty strong) which is much more easily copied. Also dont remember reading about, for instance, what the dynamics is when venture capitalist anticipation becomes hype, and tonnes of money comes pouring in with strings attached. They might well try various sorts of lock-in, and the general public isn't that technically inclined, and usually operates on the one-line description on this. Which for the reprap, *isn't* 'a user-friendly printer'. The name Repstrap does better, marketing sucks, but that one-liner and exposure to the public is important.

The question is do we want to influence how all that will land, or not. And if the former we need to know what we want 3d printer companies to look like, to be realistic it, has to be successful and 'evolutionarilly stable'.

Economic activity is culture, and it is the ethical choices we make, and how we organize. IMO a world with 3d printers and freedom to print with them is basically better than a world without, however it lands.

The only thing that would influence a for-profit company is profit. If they can profit more with an open hardware design, then they will do it with or without a consensus letter, if you can even come up with one, from the reprap community.

I personally think that proposed wiki is impractical and it's better to keep the discussions in the forums for those who care.

To be honest, I have little interest in helping Makerbot become a better/more profitable company. The one area where private companies can "add value" is surely working out to how run their own business. They have 10 million bucks funding, they can surely develop their own business model! Nothing we say is going to influence them significantly anyway. You can lead people to the open source pool, but you can't make them drink.

Makerbot and others have signed up to the OSHWA, if they decide not to follow the licence they signed up for, either by their actions or creating "unspoken rules" which directly contradict the licence, there is nothing to be done. Even if we had voting rights, kicking them out of OSHWA would just result in the creation of a competing organisation with more "business friendly" conditions.

As for what useful stuff Makerbot have produced to help the open source idea pool, the answer is not much, apart from Thingiverse, which has well discussed issues. So it will be no great loss if Makerbot goes off their merry way to billion-dollar company status, leaving open source behind.

As Dr Boywer suggested, we should probably draw a line under the sorry mess that is Makerbot, not worry about how private companies may profit from the Reprap project, and just get on with moving the Open Source technology forward.

bobc,

If I can make a suggestion, we can also make a difference in whenever someone comes to one of us asking what 3D printer to buy (ie they don't want to build one), we point them to good solutions that are not Makerbot. We let them know of the lapse of trust and ethics that company has, and point them to one they can trust (ie for upgrades, documentation, support), even if it is closed.

I have said this other places, but when you start a company with a direction and ethics, loudly exclaimed (in order to earn community goodwill), then make a drastic change like MBI did, you show how trustworthy you are. You started by lieing to customers and the community at large, it is likely you will continue.

Now, with MBI, you can pay ~$400/yr to get what Bre was stated was a right of the customer, the ability to have knowledge on the design and ability to fix it if it breaks. Now they will sell you that ability to fix the printer, at the low price of ~20% per year.

I would like to see them shamed out of the market. That whenever a person talks to a friend with a 3D printer on which to buy, they get a resounding NO GO on the Makerbots. I also wish other OSHW companies were taking a stand against instead of with Bre on this move, it's almost as if they are testing the waters to see if the reaction of closing sources and walking away from OSHW will work.

Thanks for editting. Pretty stupid of me conflating replicator 1 and 2... Really, nothing?

Tom Igue does make a good point about attacking people who move away. Maybe they're right if they're really releasing zippo things.

Quote

So it will be no great loss if Makerbot goes off their merry way to billion-dollar company status, leaving open source behind.

If there is a billion-dollar/year closed 3d printer industry, dwarving that for open source, that would not be success.. If we're 'left behind', it is a loss.

Like pricecw said, we can try shame and helping people getting 3d printers try get some behavior, but we need to know a line between the promoted and 'dissuaded' companies. If there is no way to match our expectations and be successful, we can't point people hassle-free 3d printer, because the companies making them go under, or don't grow enough to actually make it hassle free.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/07/2012 03:17PM by Jasper1984.

I edited because none of the controversy is about the Replicator 1 or before. People acknowledge they once upon a time followed the OSHW philosophies. Since the controversy is about the Replicator2, pointing people to Replicator1 or cupcake is not helpful or genuine.

And I hold them more to their words, than my expectation. Had they formed a company and said we will make comercial, closed source 3D printers, I would have been fine with them. I would usually promote a good OSHW company ahead of them, but I wouldn't argue for their shaming either.

pricecw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If I can make a suggestion, we can also make a
> difference in whenever someone comes to one of us
> asking what 3D printer to buy (ie they don't want
> to build one), we point them to good solutions
> that are not Makerbot.

Unfortunately, that doesn't work. I know, because i've tried.
The only result i got was to be called a zealot, a 3d printing equivalent of a Mac fanboy and someone who doesn't understand the necessities of a "regular user who doesn't want to spend hours assembling or tweaking and wants a turn-key solution with support that works".

The discussion usually goes like this:
I'll buy a Replicator 2 -> Please don't, because reasons -> I don't care for reasons -> Then at least look into other printers -> Do any of them print at 100 microns? -> Yes, ALL of them -> I don't care, these don't really look like "real" companies.

At the OHS presentation he specifically said what was and wasn't open sourced. He probably could've been more clear by just making a list with links to sources. I added it to the wiki, and found some of the links of course.

@orcinus: Fact of the matter is the result. Then we do need to know what people want in a 3d printer. There is a market segment for tinkerers that can be served basically as is(well things are always developping, but along that line) by repraps. But that market will saturate if everyone opensource focusses on it.

There is a presumably a bigger segment that want things to work easily, and reliably. They also probably have some preconception of what it looks like. Probably they don't expect it to be put together with threaded rods, and it to be (physically)open with electronics clearly visible. Some of those preconceptions might be stupid but for that segment of the market, it is a design constraint nonetheless.(well, actually if you're not interested in developping it, you probably dont want it open..)

We can either whine about it or we can try make something that fits those people. Probably means something preassembled.

To sell stuff also have to have the aforementioned one-liner right, and get public attention. Or their imagination. They probably could have gotten away with just squares in this display, but 3d models catch peoples' imagination more.(Of course it might actually be useful as it gives people a sense of scale, but i am sure the mentioned reason is a large portion of why they do it.)

The OHS presentation was making excuses for himself and MBI. Those things he listed as open, were things already under an open license and could not be closed off without loosing them (ie the board built of the Arduino).

The arguements that because something is steel, people can't make it at home is BS. Maybe he can't make it at home, some can.

There are good non-MBI printers out and coming out. Some come as kits, others work out of the box. Any who won't listen, deserve when they have to spend ~$400/yr to fix their printer (which is also a good thing to point out).

Anyway, it appears that MBI doesn't like OSHW, and is striving to move away from it whenever and however it can. It appears that unless it benefits them, we won't be seeing much OSHW compatible devices are portions in the future.

Finally, this quote
"I think everyone who has been in involved in open hardware, or has been an employee of MakerBot, or contribute to MakerBot can see this machine as a win, for open hardware."
is a slap in the face of open hardware. There is no way this is a win for open hardware, it is a profound lose for anyone wanting to create a open hardware based business.