MakerBot Going Closed Source? 182
An anonymous reader writes "A year after a windfall $10 million in venture capital, and after a community stir over one man's attempt to Kickstarter a project to manufacture the open source Replicator with a lower price tag, it appears that MakerBot Industries is going closed source on their new model 3d printer, the Replicator 2. Josef Prusa, core developer of the widely known RepRap printer (the basis for previous MakerBot models) has confirmed the sad news, with a stunned tweet, and is organizing an 'Occupy Thingiverse,' to protest the apparent theft of others' work."
time to fork the project (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
How did Libre/OpenOffice win? Microsoft Office is still the most widely used, and best, office suite. Hell, even Apple's office apps are better than Libre/OpenOffice.
I meant out of the closed and open branches of the fork. not that would be the best in the world.
Re: (Score:3)
How exactly is OpenOffice,org closed source?
Re:time to fork the project (Score:4, Informative)
OpenOffice in the hands of Sun/Oracle was a very close development community, not close source, but extremely closed to accept contributions
Re: (Score:2)
Because Oracle bough it. And companies are evil all the time. So if it was open source, they will close it Tommarow...
But I think they were saying OpenOffice vs StarOffice.
Re:time to fork the project (Score:5, Informative)
>But I think they were saying OpenOffice vs StarOffice.
I would guess he meant exactly what he said: LibreOffice vs OpenOffice
Oracle was being a complete jackass about OO.o, so most all the contributors abandoned it and formed LO. After that, Oracle realized there was no point to holding on to it, so they donated OO.o to Apache. It lives on there, but is moving at a glacial pace compared to LO.
Re:time to fork the project (Score:4, Informative)
Ever hear of StarOffice? It was a proprietary, free-as-in-free-beer office suite in the late 90s that was acquired by Sun. Sun opened the source around 2001, which became OO v1. It continued to release proprietary versions of OO as "StarOffice" until it was acquired by Oracle, which released a single version rebranded as "Oracle Open Office" in 2010 then promptly axed the project.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
LibreOffice is reasonably good. Apple's office apps are Microsoft's Apple Office app. It has two advantages, being free of cost or subscription and it's open source.
No, it doesn't have the number of users or integration with other tools, but it works (well) for many user's applications.
Re: (Score:3)
LibreOffice is reasonably good. Apple's office apps are Microsoft's Apple Office app.
I believe they were referring Apple's iWork suite of office apps. While they are still lacking compared to MS Office (even the Mac version) I would agree that it is still better than OpenOffice/LibreOffice (and I really do try to use it).
No, it doesn't have the number of users or integration with other tools, but it works (well) for many user's applications.
Overall I like OO/LO as they've done a lot of work to make it work like MS Office (similar icons/menus, etc..), but it's biggest draw back is that it still doesn't handle MS Office documents correctly. At work I invariably have to revert back to MSO because the formatting i
Re:time to fork the project (Score:4, Informative)
Although there was some truth to this, much of this is mythological these days. I save to doc and docx with LO, and no one has been the wiser. Admittedly, they're not highly formatted with lots of font changes and document template disciplining. Nonetheless, no one has been the wiser for at least a couple of years now.
Wholesale changeover? No. I'm not even expecting that. I've also used MS Office on Apple.. but never used iWork apps as they weren't known for document interchangeability with the Office hegemony. Perhaps they were; if so, I was unaware.
Re: (Score:3)
Although there was some truth to this, much of this is mythological these days.
My main issues are with presentations where the text/images end up being outside the slide area (this happens both directions) and graphs not displaying (entirely or incorrectly) in spreadsheets (Excel -> LO, I can't say I've seen issues going the other way). Documents work fine unless images are added or pages are split into columns, then the formatting goes to hell on them too (again both directions).
Re: (Score:3)
As long as Microsoft continues to do upgrades, they'll pull compatibility a step ahead. I don't know if the formats change by accident, or on purpose. Document interchangeability has been a huge problem for Microsoft-- and therefore for others that don't use Microsoft products.
This will likely always be the case, as getting everyone to the table is impossible because in the end, everyone's ideas are different and there is no compelling market reason to make them behave.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Then I switched to Open Office.
And?! I need closure on this anecdote!
Re: (Score:2)
Then I switched to Open Office.
And?! I need closure on this anecdote^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hevent
call 1-800-OBVIOUS for a course about reading between the lines or 1-800-MCKAY for a course to improve sarcasm/irony skills.
Re: (Score:2)
Then I switched to Open Office.
And?! I need closure on this anecdote^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hevent
call 1-800-OBVIOUS for a course about reading between the lines or 1-800-MCKAY for a course to improve sarcasm/irony skills.
Or google I need closure on that anecdote [google.com] to unwhoosh yourself . . .
Re: (Score:2)
or 1-800-MCKAY for a course to improve sarcasm/irony skills.
Ironically, I was being ironic.
Re: (Score:2)
Then I switched to Open Office.
TO BE CONTINUED...
Re:time to fork the project (Score:4, Interesting)
The interesting difference here is the barrier to entry: The Replicator 2 is a physical object. It needs a supply chain, and shipping arrangements, and a manufacturing base to fork it. (Instead of in pure software where the only thing besides the people you need is some web hosting.) So, it'll take others quite some time to set up a fork of reasonable size and quality, and a fair amount of money.
Should be interesting to watch the fallout of this.
Re: (Score:2)
Will it?
I thought there were competing 3D printers for consumers out there, just that MakerBot was the most famous/popular?
Re:time to fork the project (Score:5, Insightful)
There are competing groups, but MakerBot was a sweet spot on openness, cost and ease of construction. That made the MakerBot Cupcake extremely popular. I have a Cupcake derivative that I built. I sourced some parts from MakerBot, others elsewhere, and fabricated some myself.
You can now buy a closed-source 3D printer much cheaper elsewhere. You can build a completely open source printer (see the RepRap project) and customize it exactly to your needs.
MakerBot is now offering a nice 3D printer (the Replicator 2) at much higher cost than its original sweet spot, but with all the disadvantages of a purely commercial product (no longer open and eminently hackable). Previous designs are still open, so they are free to go this way with their new printer if they like.
Now, however, they're alienating their best buyers/contributors at the same time they are pricing themselves too expensively for folks that want a low-end turnkey system. When they took venture capital I think they backed themselves into this corner. Too bad... I think they approached open source 3D printing honestly and enthusiastically and contributed greatly to its progress. The venture capital forces them to become much more commercial, but their open yet accessible approach is what made them so popular to begin with. It's a no-win situation.
Re: (Score:3)
The interesting difference here is the barrier to entry: The Replicator 2 is a physical object. It needs a supply chain, and shipping arrangements, and a manufacturing base to fork it. (Instead of in pure software where the only thing besides the people you need is some web hosting.) So, it'll take others quite some time to set up a fork of reasonable size and quality, and a fair amount of money.
The funny thing is that a few weeks ago, someone tried to create a fork [kickstarter.com], but he got slashed pretty badly by the community and his Kickstarter campaign failed. I suppose this guy has a second chance now.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The funny thing is that a few weeks ago, someone tried to create a fork [kickstarter.com], but he got slashed pretty badly by the community and his Kickstarter campaign failed. I suppose this guy has a second chance now.
He didn't get funded because it seemed pretty scammy, especially considering the guy wanted half a million dollars.
From the KS, answering what he plans to do with all that money:
Raw Materials, Production and Quality Assurance.
QA? Was he planning to hire dedicated QA people?
Shipping and receiving.
Funny, I can receive packages for free.
Planned losses on international shipping.
Are they actual, realized losses? If you know they're coming, why not adjust prices on the front end?
Customer service portal.
FOSS.
Full time support staff (phones, email, and technical).
How many? Are you included? What is the "technical" contact method, exactly?
Replacement parts inventory.
Should be built into the price of the replacement parts.
Brick and mortar location for supporting and servicing the TangiBot.
Office pa
Re: (Score:2)
The guy that did that had a few too many "trust me"s in his video, while also mentioning makerbot quite a bit. He didn't change anything on the design, he was merely looking to source the mass manufacturing to china and pump out the same product makerbot has. Open source isn't about jacking other peoples ideas and racing to the bottom of the profit ladder, it's about making improvements, and that guy didn't make ANY.
Re:time to fork the project (Score:4, Insightful)
"jack - Take (something) illicitly; steal"
Pretty sure there's no theft there. Stop giving the RIAA/MPAA ammunition ;)
More importantly, though...
I don't remember seeing any such language in open source licenses. Most of them do explicitly explain that it's okay to take the open source material and sell it. Some licenses require the source to be made available when distributing products based on it. Some require you mention the license in question.
Can you cite one which actually states that you can't "race to the bottom of the profit ladder" using the sources?
I'm sure it's seen as a 'dick move', but then those who believe that should be prohibited should be working to change the license applied to the material.
That said, the project did fail so those most likely to back the project already made their choice clear.
Re: (Score:2)
I am quite sure no open-source license has a clause that says "to redistribute this program you must improve it first.".
Re:time to fork the project (Score:4, Informative)
The interesting difference here is the barrier to entry: The Replicator 2 is a physical object. It needs a supply chain, and shipping arrangements, and a manufacturing base to fork it. (Instead of in pure software where the only thing besides the people you need is some web hosting.) So, it'll take others quite some time to set up a fork of reasonable size and quality, and a fair amount of money.
Should be interesting to watch the fallout of this.
you mean like this :)
http://www.mbot3d.com/ [mbot3d.com]
?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if the 3D software community is anything like XDev, it'll be about 2 days after launch when the Replicator2 is rooted and CyanogenMod's equivalent is available for loading.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not the software design which is being closed-sourced. (At least, not alone.) It's the design of the box itself - previous Makerbots you could download the plans for every part, get them printed/lasercut/etc. whereever you choose, and build one yourself. Or submit changes to make it work better, which many did.
Rooting it is irrelevant, really - the software on the box can be flashed over, no problem, IIUC. You still don't have access to the design work for the device itself - which was possible bef
Re: (Score:2)
If msoffice does one thing and libreoffice does another, people will assume that libreoffice has a bug, even if its something blatantly and provably wrong like an incorrect/inaccurate calculation.
That said, when they implement something like this it would be much better if they made it an option, so users can choose.
No surprise (Score:2, Informative)
I tried contributing to a FOSS game - there I found out there are ten times as many leechers looking to appropriate code (w/o citation) than there are talented people willing to write it. Then they started discussing commercial licensing and i called it quits.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, abuse like that does seem to plague stuff like this.
The idea of FOSS seems great, but the actual execution often times leaves something to be desired.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I prefer the AGPL3 license. The spongers don't bother me. The theives (those who close code that was written by others) do.
N.B.: This is a personal preference. If you prefer the BSD-style license, it's perfectly valid. (And there ARE circumstances where I find it preferable. I was just listing my general preference.) But I notice that projects with a GPL style license tend to attract more contributors than those with the BSD style license. And that licenses that allow the code to be closed
Re: (Score:2)
Nexuiz, what I can extract from that is that the commercial variant is just a clone made by a company, which tried to get some momentum out of the name, Quote from Wikipedia: "It uses CryEngine 3 and it is based on the original free game called Nexuiz (which is described as Nexuiz Classic by IllFonic)." But Nexuiz uses a modified QuakeEngine and is placed under GPLv2, so the clone can only be a new developed...well, clone.
Planeshift, I don't know anything about the background, but the official explanation w
How else can you get DRM? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't get it. (Score:4, Interesting)
The people moaning are interesting to watch.
If you think there's a licensing violation, sue their asses off.
If you licensed loosely such that it allows such things, sure it's morally a little dubious but they are doing nothing "wrong".
It's no worse than someone taking Firefox, changing the name and selling it off as something else. If they offer a better product by doing so, then isn't that precisely what the "evolution" of open source code is all about? But they haven't even USED your code (or you have given them permission to use your code in a closed-source way).
It's like saying you're giving your book away for free and then when lots of people download it whining about how it took you a lot of effort to write it.
I don't get the argument here. You licensed liberally, or they re-invented your licensed code. Surely imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
I think people are just annoyed that others have worked out a way to make money from something that they have voluntarily given away.
I'm all for open-source. I have contributions in open-source software. I write some of my own (crappy) software too. I'm hardly a nay-sayer here. But if what they did is illegal, sue them. If it's not, well any idiot could have done what they did and made the same money by the same method, including the original authors.
What, exactly, is the problem here apart from feeling hard-done-by on something you explicitly allowed to happen?
Re:I don't get it. (Score:4, Informative)
I think the issue is they presented it as one thing initially to garner support and monetary donations then now that they have that are changing it to be more beneficial to them directly.
Re:I don't get it. (Score:5, Informative)
Have you ever had intellectual property stolen before, and talked to a lawyer about it? Unless you've got really deep pockets, you can't afford it. Because you're a small guy — not even in the country in this case — and they're well-capitalized by guys with very deep pockets who can afford the sort of well-connected lawyer who bills at $500 an hour and up. It doesn't matter how thoroughly you can document the whole thing, or that what you developed is absolutely essential to what the thief is selling. Unless you've got at least 10s of 1000s of dollars to speculate on the outcome in court, you can't even get into court with good enough representation to prevail.
Depending on the courts as first line of defense is impractical. The courts belong to the big players, not the common folk. Especially in New York — where I once watch the opposing attorney openly, in court session, bribe the judge for a favorable outcome. Community opinion is sometimes the only defense we've got, especially if we can use the press to force thieves back into something like compliance with GPL licensing and the spirit of the movement.
Re: (Score:2)
well, bitching and moaning is the only thing to do.
you see, lots of people bought their devices because they were promising to be an open company and stay that way and now they're trying to turn (at least in the media) to Apple of 3d printing.
how well they pull it off remains to be seen.
but I would have been more interested in stuff that pushes the envelope, like more sophisticated dual materials printing.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're all saying, basically, is a company told you what it "intended" to do and you gave it money on that basis, with no written contractual-type agreement, and then bitch when it didn't happen like that? Sorry, my sympathy lies elsewhere.
And for all those that point out the expense of litigation, I point out that there's nothing to litigate because they HAVEN'T broken legally anything yet. And if they did, of course it costs to sue, but if you're right you'll get it back (and there are people an
The cat is out of the bag already (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes they are douchebags (lets get that out of the way). But, this is not rocket science technology we are talking about. The DIY fabricator movements exists already and has tremendous momentum. Yes they were very visible and will continue to be so but in the eyes of the community it is a fail (for being greedy DBs) so any innovation will continue to happen without them. Its not like they have any chance of success, between the other DIY projects that are out there, the existing momentum in the community,
Re: (Score:2)
We already have the latter, it is called the GPL. You can't take contributions that belong to someone else and are GPLed license and close them up. The GPL should just be expanded to cover hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
It does happen, but things like this often need contributions to survive. Look at WINE vs CEDEGA.
This - The reason for the GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
I have not been able to glean what open source licence this project used, but for sure it was not the GPL. But THIS TYPE of misappropriation of code is the reason the GPL ought to be used for any kind of community project like this.
If you use an open source licence that allows the code to be taken and closed then don't cry when others figure out how to profit from your work and deny you the fruits of your own frickin' labor.
Kurt
Re: (Score:2)
I believe it's OpenHardware, so its license is CC-BY-SA - in theory they can't lock
Re: (Score:2)
There's a problem here. What you say is true if ownership remains vested in the contributors, but often, and for many different reasons, some quite reasonable, the project wants to own the copyright to any code that it accepts. In that situation, management of the project can, at any time, decide to close the project. When that happens then the only answer is to fork the project.
So I don't know that the original code wasn't under a GPL license. For that matter, I don't even know that the code has been c
Make it cheaper... (Score:2)
If it's cheap, far more people just aren't going to care about the license. Raspberry Pi is a good example- Yes, like the masses, I got one. Getting pretty frustrated now with the poor (nonexistent) documentation on the hardware, particularly with respect to the mechanical aspects of the design. I'd love to be proven wrong. Fact is, it's cheap and available, so it's popular.
Make a 3D printer really cheap and/or really easy to use, and the demands for open source are quickly drowned out by the sounds of peop
Re: (Score:2)
Fact is, it's cheap and available, so it's popular.
So's yo hypothetical momma, but that doesn't mean you have to be happy about the situation.
Re: (Score:2)
what makerbot did here was make it more expensive, and their device was already on the more expensive scale of the hobby printers. so by making it more expensive they labeled it as prosumer.. except that in cameras hobby cameras cost more than prosumer :). and do more.
prusa kits are starting at 800 bucks. ultimaker kits are like 1200euros.
"Closed Source" Hardware? (Score:2)
What does he mean the hardware is going "closed source?"
I have a commercial gantry for doing CNC plasma cutting. It's only 2'x2'. But nothing is stopping me from a bigger table utilizing the same design, same parts, and so on. My table certainly has never been "open source" in any way. But I can see it in front of me and that's as good as open.
The only thing that matters in here is the software. As long as it is open source, or there are good open source software solutions available, then there's no pr
Re: (Score:2)
they didn't release entire sw stack this time, parts of their makerware program are closed source.
and they used to publish parts diagrams and such.
Still a good company (Score:4, Interesting)
Hi. I use the Makerbot Replicator professionally to make equipment for my lab. I'm also a member of the Makerbot Google Group [google.com], who largely share my views:
(1) Good on them for going closed source. The Makerbot people have done a lot of work advancing the state of the art in consumer-level 3D printing technology. And they're being copied all over the place: there are kickstarters for near-identical models with shittier manufacturing that undercut their business. This is exactly what patents are made for, to protect innovation! And Makerbot Industries held off going closed source until they were forced to. Ultimately, I want Makerbot Industries to stay alive and keep being able to sell stuff so they can keep their R&D going. Also, they're great advertisers for 3D printing technology, and they're helping it gain mass appeal. More power to them.
Closed source or not, 3D printing puts a ton of power in the hands of ordinary people. Who cares if the printer is patented?
(2) People are feeling betrayed and that is really, really sad. See Occupy Thingiverse [thingiverse.com] for details. I really hope this doesn't end Thingiverse. But it is creating awareness of the Thingiverse license agreement, which I suppose is a good thing.
(3) GOD DAMN THAT THING LOOKS AWESOME. I can't help but want the Replicator 2, it's gorgeous. It looks like the design idea here is "it does less stuff but does it better" - there's no ability to print ABS and no dual extrusion, but if it works as advertised, getting good prints out of it will be much easier.
(4) It's almost annoying how fast they iterate. The original Replicator came out in January, and this thing's already out? WTF? I've barely had time to play with the previous one, and now the support community will be split between the two models. So it'll be harder to find info on the Replicator and not on the Replicator 2.
(5) I don't know if I'll continue to support Makerbot Industries so much. Truth be, before this annoucement I was already considering a cheaper non-Makerbot 3D printer (e.g. the truly open-source RepRap). If Makerbot is going closed source all the way, that may be enough of a push to get me to buy something else. I'd be willing to pay more to support the open-source ideal.
In short, if they're going pure capitalist, then I'm going to do the same to them.
Re: (Score:3)
Good on them for going closed source. The Makerbot people have done a lot of work advancing the state of the art in consumer-level 3D printing technology. And they're being copied all over the place: there are kickstarters for near-identical models with shittier manufacturing that undercut their business. This is exactly what patents are made for, to protect innovation!
Protect innovation? Sounds like stifling competition to me. And here I thought that patents were supposed to promote the sciences and useful arts; can you show me where it says innovation in here? [wikipedia.org]
How can you laud competition on the one hand and promote the rights of the first-to-market on the other? Those things stand in clear opposition to each other.
Re: (Score:2)
(1) Good on them for going closed source. ... If Makerbot is going closed source all the way, that may be enough of a push to get me to buy something else.
5)
Wait... what? So, let me paraphrase: "Yay on closed source! Now, get out of my way while I find something open source..."
Re:Still a good company (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait... what? So, let me paraphrase: "Yay on closed source! Now, get out of my way while I find something open source..."
Yep! Turns out I can like both open-source and closed-source products. Open-source is a dream come true for flexibility and innovation, whereas closed-source products are generally more reliable and polished. Both have their place.
Re: (Score:2)
The Garlic Press Test (Score:2, Troll)
When I can design and build a durable and functional garlic press with a 3d printer, I'm buying one.
Until then, I'm just an interested spectator.
There is no "closed source" hardware in this space (Score:2)
Mr. 3-D printer.. meet Mr. sledgehammer and Mr. Sawzall.
no big deal (Score:2)
The real 3D printer lawsuit (Score:2)
If Vegas was offering odds, I'd but $50 down it will happen within two years. Hell, it's probably already codified in the ongoing Top Secret trade pacts that all our wonderful governments are negotiating on ou
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Hypocrites (Score:4, Informative)
Giving to a Kickstarter is a donation. They are under no obligation to do anything for you and any promises of rewards or timelines are not enforceable. So many people are not realizing this and as KS gets more popular it's going to cause big problems. OUYA got $9 million and they could bleed the money out over the next 2-3 years (good luck expecting to see anything in 04-2013) and walk away giving nothing back.
tl;dr
If you gave KS money don't expect a refund because they didn't meet their goal.
Re: (Score:2)
How does Kickstarter handle fraud?
I read a while back about one where half way through some girl found her project was too hard and started writing gibberish about the Sun telling her psychically to stop work, etc... people got pissed and wanted refunds since she obviously was not doing her part.
Re: (Score:3)
How does Kickstarter handle fraud?
I read a while back about one where half way through some girl found her project was too hard and started writing gibberish about the Sun telling her psychically to stop work, etc... people got pissed and wanted refunds since she obviously was not doing her part.
technically kickstarter doesn't handle that as fraud.
you get the money and it's up to you to use it.
Re: (Score:2)
So I could make one saying w/e (some sympathetic thing about cats and bacon) and just take the money and "run"?
Re: (Score:3)
In venture capital circles, you only get to do that once, if that. Takes work to come up with something that they will believe in enough to fund. If you're faking it, they'll see that before you get any money. If you're good enough to fool them, then once you take the money and run without even an honest try, your reputation is ruined and no one will ever talk to you again. You won't have an easy time keeping the money either. You may even have trouble staying out of jail for fraud.
Maybe Kickstarter
Re: (Score:2)
I am curious about that too...
Al it'll take is a few high profile scams and their reputation will be ruined.
Re: (Score:2)
IDK if they would be idiots...
They could make the same presentation to a capital investment firm that would fund it 100% and if they did not deliver the firm would have legal recourse.
But since it's being presented to thousands of users who only fund it a little bit they have no recourse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it a contract to a degree?
They make those incentives like; $1 gets early access to beta, $10 gets free copy and below benefit, $100 gets free shirt and below benefits.
Re: (Score:3)
How does Kickstarter handle fraud?
they tax it :)
Re: (Score:2)
How does Kickstarter handle fraud?
They don't. That's the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's only if the *funding* fails to reach it's goal. Assuming the funding goal is reached nothing but the integrity of the recipient obligates them to use that money for their stated goal. Or so I understand it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd buy one because I don't have the skills or resources to make one myself. I am one of many.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Open Source sometimes makes money... Sometimes it doesn't
Having an Open Source model reduces your sources you can make money from the product.
In the case of what makerbot sure you may buy his thing now... But because the source is open, a Chinese firm takes the code and makes a perfectly compatible one at half the price? By making your stuff too open it allowed your competitors to get an advantage over you.
Sorry real life isn't like Barney. You need to get the balance of what is good for you and what is g
Re:Hypocrites (Score:5, Insightful)
Not being Open Source can also cost you money.
I for one will not be buying this device for this reason. I am looking into 3d printers, and like most folks who do at this point I am a geek. Hardcore Geeks are the target audience for this device, pissing them off might not be a good idea.
Re: (Score:3)
The Chinese company will just as gladly dump ROMs and clone a closed source product.
The difference is now the Chinese product is more appealing as they probably will stick to standards to keep things cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
Open Source sometimes makes money... Sometimes it doesn't
That goes for all business. Some are good at it, some aren't.
Notoriously Open Source Sparkfun.com had $18.4M in revenue in 2010, undoubtedly more by now.
Even when Makerbot was supposedly "Open Source", good luck finding actual sources in the form of suppliers, CAD drawings, specifications, tolerances, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really need a 3d printer, or is it just a toy?
Re: (Score:3)
Geeks and engineers should have a 3D printer if they do modeling of any kind. Civilians should have them if they're artists or designers, or like to create. And I hope for an open code/free-like model of licensing app code to go with it, 'cause the closed model doesn't evolve the code quickly enough, or ensure portability to varying OS releases quickly.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Do you really need a 3d printer, or is it just a toy?
Your question reminds me of questions people asked when I bought my first computer in 1982. "Why in the hell would anyone need a computer?" Compared to today's computers it WAS a toy -- but an incredibly useful toy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hypocrites (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who creates code through their own effort is welcome to keep it closed, if they like. Appropriating the work of others, contributed on the understanding that the project would be open, is another matter altogether.
webcast fail (Score:5, Informative)
their webcast was really badly done in regards of it's audience.
95% of people watching it were people who already had 3d printers, some makerbots, some repraps and so on. the speech was aimed at people who didn't weren't familiar with makerbot.
yet, they acted as if makerbot exists in a vacuum(no mention of reprap, of the things used to print parts for the first mbi devices or any previous models from them even). the new model is more expensive too - and support is extra cost(!) despite it being more expensive than the last model. it also does less(no abs support on the model that's coming to sale this year, it only supports the pla plastic). it was hype, hype and more hype.
there was _no_ technical discussion about the device on the announcement, if the electronics and such are the same as previous replicator or not(they claim the new one does 0.1mm layers, but the old one did too). they didn't even tell if the new sw stack works with the old replicator(it does, didn't have time yesterday for test prints though). there was no discussion of if they have some newer extruder technology or innovations(they don't seem to, electronics don't seem to have changed either).
the new model seems to be aimed at taking market from cubify and other closed system 3d printers, but it costs more than their older model.
the new sw is _mostly_ open source too though - since it's just the UI that's new and what it does is tie together open source components. it offers less flexible configuration options than the (buggy) replicatorg sw though when it comes to preparing the print. the 3d viewer is prettier though.
the countdown was on for so long that people were expecting a rostock style printer or at least something significantly different and certainly cheaper(usually you would do that, design something cheaper if you don't add features), certainly not them turning away from open to "prosumer" version of their existing device at a higher pricepoint, replicator1 was already expensive enough. if it's their time to start churning profit(and they weren't with the old pricing?) then it doesn't bode too well for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...so she took the open source route?
Re:Hypocrites (Score:5, Interesting)
You can love someone and fuck another guy. And you can say you love someone but then ditch them just because they fucked another guy. If your interest in a girl revolves around having her *not* do certain things, isn't that a little self-serving in itself?
Adultery has been scientifically demonstrated to create as much pain as severe physical trauma. I don't have a link handy, but it was posted on slashdot in the last few months.
When you cheat on your spouse, the choice you're being presented with amounts to "Would you be willing to have your spouse suffer the pain of being hit by a moving car to participate in this shameful activity?"
If you think it's possible to love someone as you put them through that, you don't know what love is.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the AC's point is that there isn't necessarily a requirement in a relationship of being monogamous.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, being cheated on sucks, and proves your partner is unwilling/unable to keep their oath (assuming such an oath was made of course) Death is a rather disproportionate response though. People do shitty things to each other sometimes, it's just one of those facts of life we have to deal with.
One such shitty thing is that we built a culture that holds sexual monogamy to be the norm/ideal, when the reality is that there's not one single sexually-monogamous species on the planet. Many species make life-lo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That assertion depends a lot on the license. Which I don't know. I'm presuming that what they're doing is legal.
But another question is where are they going to find customers? AFAIK these printers are primarily interesting to the very community that they are alienating. And they aren't yet providing any needed function. So there's *NO* captive market.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to support the "pirates" position, I couldn't say whether it's actual hypocrisy or two different groups being vocal, but this case is actually more the situation copyright laws were originally created for. Not to stop Joe Sixpack from making a copy for a friend, but rather to stop a commercial entity from selling copies without paying royalties to the creator.