Is Autodesk Spark really "open"?

So Autodesk has been advertising its Spark project for a while now.
Autodesk Spark

They say its the "first open 3D printing software platform", right at the top. What a slap to the people who have developed the reprap world.
Take a look at their page, as they make it sound like they have taken over the 3d printing world.

Then try getting at anything technical. You cannot. You must contact them and wait.
They have not responded to my message from the web page, though Carl Bass did respond to my email asking why they have not posted anything an average person can get to.
I'm not saying they don't have anything, they obviously do since you can buy their slick resin based printer for $3000 that does 100 layers per mm (!) at decent speed, but low build volume so far.

Has anyone gotten to anything that could be considered open? I know there are different open licenses, but to hide things is another level.
If they had an automated account creator, that would be fine. You are at their mercy though.
If not, they need to hear that we don't like them throwing around words the way they do, as they have a big name and it mocks the efforts of people doing real shared open projects.
Hopefully they just live up to their huge advertising and make the stuff open...

My .02 worth... Autodesk is absolutely making it the first open 3D printing platform. However it's not the open that you and I and anyone else in the open source hardware mean. My reading makes it sound more closed than open. I foresee anything that's made or distributed within the "open" 3D printing platform to be locked into their tools (or tools that are compatible to their specs). They'll release their specs, and allow software to communicate via their specs for printing. However I fully expect that those open specs to be closed, proprietary, encumbered, or otherwise exclusively available only to Autodesk to really use in order to maximize their value and investment, to the detriment to any of their competitors.

In other words, I expect their openness to allow you to use their tools to print to their printers objects from their community, but if you're using a different printer, different software, or different repository you're going to have to jump through all these hoops so that you adjust to their openness.

cdru: If "open" doesn't mean open, what does it mean? In other words, what do they mean by putting that on their site?

intentions of making it open are one thing, but when you see they have developed a printer from it, and are selling that printer before posting the design?
They went out of their way to make it simple and clear their stuff would be available, and its not.
Is it an easter egg somewhere on the site?

Quote
epicepee
If "open" doesn't mean open, what does it mean? In other words, what do they mean by putting that on their site?

That's exactly the question. Apparently, "open" means, you can come in and buy something. Like a store door.

I'd hold back a bit with repeating their marketing slang. Using their wording means to support them, because only occasionally interested people don't see the difference. Then you'll hear stuff along the lines "RepRap claims to be open, but look at Autodesk, they're open, too, and you get nothing, so don't trust RepRap." If their offerings are closed by any kind of open source or open hardware definition, call it what it is: CLOSED.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Quote
epicepee
cdru: If "open" doesn't mean open, what does it mean? In other words, what do they mean by putting that on their site?

I read it as open as in their is (or will be) some type of a published specification that allows for some degree of interoperability or compatibility within their ecosystem. I do not believe for one second that their design or software will be even close to what the community would call an open design where the entire product is detailed and could be duplicated and/or enhanced upon with derivative works being able to be legally produced. I predict that their "openness" of their hardware will consist of basic dimensional data and crude CAD files that try to make it seem like they are embracing the community, but in reality they are just thumbing their noses at it by saying it's open.

They are clearly avoiding the word '-source' in combination with open. It's just open. No idea what is means, it's a bit abstract.

---

http://www.marinusdebeer.nl/

Reminds me of the TUG 2003 Type panel.

Someone asked what the "open" in OpenType meant. Got a good laugh when I answered, "Open for business."

Spark is different than Reprap in that it's an end to end platform under a common API and toolset. It's meant for developers and manufacturers, not specifically for DIY or end users. To participate in the Ember (the machine is called Ember) early release program they want you to be a commerical user. in fact the TOS of the deal specifically forbids home use, including home office at this point. That's due more to issues with FCC and EU certification more than the desired demographic. I've been told specifically by Autodesk that the goal is for developers to build on the platform for their use and as a basis for a starting design, not for Autodesk to get into the printer hardware business. Autodesk is not getting into the printer business as much as they are releasing the platform as a proof of concept. Thier interest as a company seems to be to drive subscriptions to design software and as a business model for the platform develop and work with others to develop more varieties of SLA materials. At this point the long game of the 3D printing market, commercial or consumer is in the material sales and design software or providing models to print. Lower end machines are becoming commodity items in the way microwaves and TVs are now.

The platform for the hardware and process is a DLP SLA. It's nothing like a Reprap. Reprap is not an integrated platform but a collection of many times disparate designs in the toolchain and hardware. That is one of the things that makes Reprap special but it's also the thing that leads to the most fragmentation and as a result a decelerated pace of development.

I've had a chance to see the platfom up close in addition to being accepted into the "Explorer Program". It will be open in that the design of the machine and the code and API of the platform will be available to developers. I can't get any specifics on the license except that it will be available for commercial use with no restrictions. It's not aimed at you guys. in fact most DIY types won't be able to either source the components or fabricate the specific design of the Ember in a way that would make it attractive compared to just buying a Form One, FSL3D or even an Ember. The processes in the fabrication of the Ember appear to include stamping, injection molding and machining. IOW processes that are out of reach for most DIY hackers. My interest is to take the DLP SLA and see if it can be ported to a more economical and DIY friendly design so that someone that was a member of a place like Techshop could build one. That was the basis for which our company qualified for the program. There have been several open source (or proproting to be open source) SLA projects in the last year but they have had varying degrees of success. The process isn't nearly as easy to implement as deposition modeling which leads to many of the issues with these proposed machines. I don't know of any of those projects that are shipping in quantity or have fully fleshed source and independent builds using that source.

Its great that Autodesk has figured out some cool process, and are making it available to select business partners.
I'm not picking on the good things they have done, and are doing there.

I am picking on their marketing, and to say this project is open, with the huge generic logos they did (see attached), is slimy.
The only way they get away with it is no one knows what the spark thing is because it is so closed.

Autodesk always claims ignorance on their marketing "the project technically is open, so whats the problem?"
They need an asterisk by everything marketing does these days.
* = "Our interpretation of reality. When we want your opinion we will give it to you."

the crazy thing is the technical people are the opposite, super logical and as honest as they can be.
I'm sure the technical team that is doing Spark is amazing, peoiple we all would love to work with.

Quote
jmaeding
Its great that Autodesk has figured out some cool process, and are making it available to select business partners.
I'm not picking on the good things they have done, and are doing there.

I am picking on their marketing, and to say this project is open, with the huge generic logos they did (see attached), is slimy.
The only way they get away with it is no one knows what the spark thing is because it is so closed.

Autodesk always claims ignorance on their marketing "the project technically is open, so whats the problem?"
They need an asterisk by everything marketing does these days.
* = "Our interpretation of reality. When we want your opinion we will give it to you."

the crazy thing is the technical people are the opposite, super logical and as honest as they can be.
I'm sure the technical team that is doing Spark is amazing, peoiple we all would love to work with.

I think you would do well to get a more informed opinion on what Autodesk is doing. You are using what you want Autodesk to be saying to support your position instead of actually trying to find out what they are doing. Your conclusions are without merit and while you are are entitled to an opinion, yours is not well informed on this subject.

The project has not had a public launch yet. It's always been scheduled for first quarter 2015 release. The platform specs aren't available to anyone just yet nor are the pre release machines though you can see it firsthand and ask questions in person at various events like CES. The public will be able to get the info on the platform just as they will be able to buy the machine. The limitation is for the pre release machine only, not the full platform. They encourage those to hack and look at it when it's released but the reality is it will be so deep that most will not be effectively able to implement much of it. For example unless you are making code level mods to your firmware (other than the config files), it's likely not going to have much benefit for you unless you are using someone else's package. Same with hardware. The implementation is going to be more involved than a rod and hardware based FDM machine.

All too often, marketers use words that are misleading or words that are ambiguous or polysemic. Since the term open-source is so ubiquitous in the computer world, when one sees the word open, naturally will associate it with open source.I do not trust companies and corporations use this type of shadowy marketing tactic. I bet once they get their "open" platform 3d printer off the ground, they will make their proprietary filament and charge an arm and a leg for it.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2015 10:10PM by rich1812.

Quote
vegasloki
The platform specs aren't available to anyone just yet nor are the pre release machines though you can see it firsthand and ask questions in person at various events like CES. The public will be able to get the info on the platform just as they will be able to buy the machine.

So in other words, the platform is not open...or free. But is being marketed as such. Gotcha.

Since I talked to Carl Bass about this, I really don't think more information is needed.
I explained to him that his plain and clear web page that says open free, connected, then a pic of a 3d printer, is not pre-launch.
He said they might add some info on timing of upcoming available stuff.
They seriously waited to be called on their claims. Their game is clear.

Or...if they want to claim ignorance..."it technically is open, so big logos saying open are ok"....then they must really think we are brainless.

They just need to be honest and clear, not be stretching the truth and vauge.
They also need to respect the engineers making the tools and things. I'm sure they roll their eyes when they see pages like the Spark one.
But Autodesk does that ALL the time, this is nothing new.

The funny thing is in my industry, they jumped the gun by calling their Civil program "Civil3D". They would have called it BIM Civil or something with BIM in it if they had waited a year or so. The ironic thing is that their program is no where near the level of modeling in Revit or real BIM programs, so they accidentally named it appropriately.
Those that know BIM, understand that 3d modeling is just "dumb" solids. But poor Autodesk is dying to call Civil3D a BIM program. Just another thing I have to call them out on

I always thought I knew a lot about CAD & Co, but what is "BIM"?

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Have you ever heard of Google?

---

Bob Morrison
Wörth am Rhein, Germany
"Luke, use the source!"
BLOG - PHOTOS - Thingiverse

Quote
rhmorrison
Have you ever heard of Google?

Yes. Thank you. Such 3 letter acronyms usually produce a lot of different results, but nothing reliable. It is actually "Building Information Modeling"?

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Autodesk makes their money from AutoCad (and add-ons like Civil3D), Revit, Inventor, Maya, and special effects progs.
I would love to see the pie chart of that income distribution, I wonder if its available since they are publicly traded.

They make nothing from these little ventures, and likely lose money on them.
They love to use them to get credibility. "If they are hip with 3d printing, they must have their act together, so maybe what they are going the right direction with this or that...".

They just went too far with this spark web page IMO.

BIM is a term brought about by modeling progs like Revit and Archicad. They are not CAD programs, you do not draw lines and arcs in them, only objects.

What has happened though, is the lovely marketing folks have decided anything that 3d models anything is BIM.
Its rediculous, as we have 3d modeled projects for years, and do now, but the items are dumb solids and triangles.
Some of the stuff is parametric and does know what it is, but not nearly to the level of Revit or maybe Inventor models.

I program for our company and have written our own "Civil3D", and it works on the acad clones too like Bricscad.
In a year or so it will be to the level of Revit. We cannot wait for Autodesk as they have the guns, but not the leaders to know what to conquer.

I think it's a bit naive to get all upset because a huge corporation is trying to muscle in on a potentially burgeoning growth industry....what do you expect them to do?

If you want to get technical, they didn't say OPEN SOURCE anyplace I saw and if it IS closed code wise, but they give it away (they did say FREE), then I'll be wiling to try it when it becomes available.

You can hate on the 500 lb. gorilla but if he's giving out bananas, I'm at least going to taste one.

I guess I expected exactly what they did, this is Autodesk.
Does not mean the king is not naked. Well, maybe he has a speedo on.

The word OPEN SOFTWARE has meant many things, one of the earliest - and furthest from Open Source as we would understand it , was that the specification of the API would be SOLD to anybody who PAID - even direct competitors.