Slashdot Mirror
MakerBot Going Closed Source?
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. Whenever this has happened the opens source fork wins (Mambo vs Joomla, LibraOffice vs OpenOffice - which then went open itself, etc.)
Just goes to show their hearts were never in it to begin with and that it was merely self-serving, and when it no longer suited their interests.... well here ya go.
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.
How are people supposed to lock down an open source platform, and stop this being a truly disruptive technology? Won't somebody PLEASE thing of the rent seekers!!!??
pretty positive to weed out douchebags early on
This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
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.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
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?
the point of interest in this product is its fundamental principal that it is open. so some dimwit comes along with 10 mill and say hey ill steal that idea and get rich. well uhm no. you will burn through 10 million and make i'ts present organizer very comfortable (i don't blame him a bit either). next door the rap rip will pick up where they left off. if he thinks he can steal rap rip's new effort then i suppose they will have to deal with the wrath of of the contributors to the new forked project who i am sure are at least loosely related to some lawyers some where. this is proof that you do not have to be smart to have money. note to investors: open source is not a playground for capturing, stealing, and exploiting the work of stupid altruists...
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, and the mounting pressure from offshore vendors who will jump in with both feet, these guys are doomed.
The broader issue is this acceptance of closed source as the only alternative to being able to commercialize any project. It happens all the time. Somewhere between the original intentions (good or not) of starting a project and the decision to go closed source is the interjection of greed whether it comes from VC money, internal greed, whatever, which screws things up every time. The open source community needs some form of credo and logo that people can attach to their projects , the 'we will never be douchebag' or 'always open source' credo and logo so people will at least think about it before they rip off everyone else's hard work and for the community it shows a clear (more visible anyhow) commitment to remain open source.
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
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 people actually using it.
I bought a Replicator 1 because it was open source. I was all happy and stuff. now I'm all mad and angry.
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 problem.
Sure the designs and plans have been shared in the past, but hardware is by definition open source and, thanks to first sale doctrine, is yours to reverse engineer to your hearts content once you buy it. So just have someone buy a replicator 2 and figure out what's so special about it. The only protection a business has over hardware is patents. And that really only protects a business from another business or money-making venture. But nothing stops you from implementing a patented idea for personal use, such as a fancy extruder nozzle system. Patents are public after all.
freely-available dragon dongs and greased up Yoda dolls FOR ALL!
I don't see Adrian Bowyer on here complaining...
How can it be theft when the original creator(s) are not being deprived of their work? Oh right, this is just the hypocrisy where pirates are overly pedantic when it comes to copyright infringement on proprietary works but it's always called "theft" and "stealing" when the software/hardware/etc. is FOSS.
Don't let the supercilious "works for me!" GP get you down with his unsupported allegations that MS Office document import works in OOo/LO.
Sure, maybe if all you have is a "Hello World!" document pasted into word from Notepad. If there is any style complexity to the document, ppt, whatever, then OOo/LO import is garbled horribly. I've spent hours fixing poorly imported headers, footers, tables, lists, section breaks, etc.
Sometimes I even fire up a VM to check what the document is supposed to look like in MS Office. Other times, I already know because I've seen the hard copy/presentation/whatever.
And, yes, I already have all the fonts. I'm on a Mac with LibreOffice 3.5.1, you see. Not that it matters much: the Linux and WinXP versions weren't any better when I last tried them.
Hi. I use the Makerbot Replicator professionally to make equipment for my lab. I'm also a member of the Makerbot Google Group, 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 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.
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.
Mr. 3-D printer.. meet Mr. sledgehammer and Mr. Sawzall.
What would Richard Feynman do, if he were here right now? He'd do some math and he'd follow through!
I will just get the replicator 1 up and running, then torrent all the prior releases and replicate future replicator versions for free.
The lawsuit I have no doubt that is coming down the pike is an automotive or consumer electronics corporation suing the end-user, printing service (if involved) *and* the 3D printer manufacturer for theft of IP and 1000% profits for the 'copying' of some cheap-ass, proprietary - but necessary - part.
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 our behalf.
I've owned/operated a makerbot for almost 2 years now and have gotten to know the company pretty well. I'm confident that they are headed for some serious trouble. AFAIK prior machines were designed without the input of a certified engineer (and I doubt that has changed), which meant that there were many very basic mistakes made: lack of static drain lines, absence of strain relief, operating components at or beyond the limits of spec, using cheap ATX PSUs for 12v instead of 24v bench supplies, etc. They were able to get away with this because their customers were hackers/makers who were happy to troubleshoot and tear things down, often without even contacting the company; I'm STILL putting in tons of work (at least 100 hours in the past month) trying to get my printer to be reliable, and even still mostly enjoying the process. But now they are obviously courting your everyday folk, presenting the machine as plug and play. I can tell you with a glance that the machine is nowhere near the complexity required for that much to be true, and can also say from plenty of experience that makerbot as a company has a history of stretching the truth into outright lies; for instance, the Automated Build Platform of the ToM was presented as giving one the ability to run prints serially (which they were selling hard, and was the thing that sold me), but the feature was never even implemented on the software side. Not that it would have mattered, the ABP was a total disaster due to, surprise, design oversights and rapidly abandoned, to be replaced with a setup conceived by a user without even attribution (to my knowledge, though I'm sure reprap got there first). If it weren't for the freely shared insights of Ed Nisley, an actual engineer (site: softsolder.com) and a handful of other users, makerbot's printers would still be just occasionally somewhat reliable. The reality is that 3D printing isn't ready for everyday folk just yet for only ~$2k; the closest small printer from a well established company is the Stratasys Mojo and it costs $10k. As usual makerbot is severely lagging, there are many far more exciting developments (many more than essentially none) going on in the open source printing world. My new printer is a reprap, and I'm sure it will put the replicator2 to shame.
I've owned/operated a makerbot for almost 2 years now and have gotten to know the company pretty well. I'm confident that they are headed for some serious trouble. AFAIK prior machines were designed without the input of a certified engineer (and I doubt that has changed), which meant that there were many very basic mistakes made: lack of static drain lines, absence of strain relief, operating components at or beyond the limits of spec, using cheap ATX PSUs for 12v instead of 24v bench supplies, etc. They were able to get away with this because their customers were hackers/makers who were happy to troubleshoot and tear things down, often without even contacting the company; I'm STILL putting in tons of work (at least 100 hours in the past month) trying to get my printer to be reliable, and even still mostly enjoying the process. But now they are obviously courting your everyday folk, presenting the machine as plug and play. I can tell you with a glance that the machine is likely nowhere near the complexity required for that much to be true, and can also say from plenty of experience that makerbot as a company has a history of using marketing as an excuse to stretch the truth into, well, lies; for instance, the Automated Build Platform of the ToM was presented as giving one the ability to run prints serially (which they were selling hard, and was the thing that sold me), but the feature was never even implemented on the software side. Not that it would have mattered, the ABP was a total disaster due to, surprise, design oversights and rapidly abandoned, to be replaced with a setup conceived by a user. If it weren't for the freely shared insights of Ed Nisley, an actual engineer (site: softsolder.com) and a handful of other users, makerbot's printers would still be just occasionally somewhat reliable. The reality is that 3D printing isn't ready for everyday folk just yet at ~$2k; the closest small printer from a well established company is the Stratasys Mojo and it costs $10k. So my guess is that makerbot will succeed in getting less technical customers, and then severely suffer the consequences, compounded by having lost to reprap a good share of the customer base they built selling kits. Also, I should point out that as usual makerbot is severely lagging, that there are many far more exciting developments (well it's not hard to be more than essentially none) going on in the open source printing world. My new printer is a reprap (mendelmax, really dig the rostock though), and I'm sure it will put the replicator2 to shame.
the most powerful intellect is that unbounded by indubitable preconception
MakerBot has a patent on their automated build platform. See here:
http://www.google.com/patents/US8226395
-Jeff Moe (jebba)
1. MS Office has been around for a long time
2. They make a ton of revenues off it, study usage patterns, have a ton of people working on it full time to quash bugs and add features
3. It's a native Windows app, most people use Windows.
4. People don't like learning new things.
5. MS Office in some form comes on about every new PC.
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2840073&cid=39954625
They've always looked like a commercial operation to me. I've been reading the Make blog for a long time, almost as long as it existed and it didn't take long for them to start pushing their commercial products. Unfortunately a lot of "open source" hardware companies behave the same. Calling your product Open source -it should be open design, really- is a nice buzzword to appeal to geeks, but as soon as someone actually tests this by exploiting it (and making this possible is the whole point of open source), they shut it down. Hypocrites.
I don't get the "occupy thingiverse" thing. Sure, the Replicator 2 is a closed source bit of hardware, so they're not publishing the drawings for the parts, so you can't just go ahead and make your own in your own machine shop. As far as I can see, that just means "either buy it, or don't". If you choose not to buy it, then maybe check out the Ultimaker (I own one, and I like it a lot).
The thingverse angle is what confuses me. I've read and re-read the legal terms, and can't see anything wrong with them. Here's a exerpt:
3.2 License. You hereby grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to Company and its affiliates and partners, an irrevocable, nonexclusive, royalty-free and fully paid, worldwide license to reproduce, distribute, publicly display and perform, prepare derivative works of, incorporate into other works, and otherwise use your User Content, and to grant sublicenses of the foregoing, solely for the purposes of including your User Content in the Site and Services. You agree to irrevocably waive (and cause to be waived) any claims and assertions of moral rights or attribution with respect to your User Content.
That looks to me like a pretty standard web site license - that is, "we can do what we want with your content to make our sites work". I can't see how this allows Makerbot Industries to "steal" anything from you.
There is one thing which I can understand in all this though. If you've made a modification to the Replicator and submitted it to Thingiverse, then you've effectively made that Creative Commons. If that modification ends up in a product without attribution, then you may have a legal claim against the manufacturer. However, all they'd need to do is ship the product with a sheet of paper saying "the widget is a derivative of a design by Joe Bloggs" and then they've attributed and they're in the clear. If this happens with the Replicator 2, then I can imagine you might be a bit peeved, but I'm not sure they'll have done anything wrong.
So as a thingiverse contributor, I'd like to understand where does this "they can steal my stuff" thing come from?