MakerBot Lays Off 20 Percent of Its Employees

Jason Koebler writes MakerBot fired roughly 20 percent of its staff Friday. Figures from 2014 placed the company's ranks at 500, meaning the cuts could equate to roughly 100 employees. The orders came from new CEO Jonathan Jaglom, Motherboard was told. Employees are apparently being led out of the company's Brooklyn office by security today. "It's about 20 percent of staff," a MakerBot representative, who asked not to be identified because she had not received approval to speak to the press, told Motherboard. "Everyone suspected that something would be coming with the new CEO, and that there would be restructuring coming."

Comments

Predictable

[DumbSwede]

They obviously they printed replacements

Re:Predictable

[pushing-robot]

You may want to check the STL file for that sentence.

Print a 3D job

[ls671]

Just found out MakerBot was a 3D printer maker.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Print a 3D job

[ls671]

working on 2D jobs...

In Other News

[MightyMartian]

And in other news, MakerBot CEO Jonathan Jaglom will receive a bazillion dollar bonus, and another ten bazillion dollars in stock options. It's predicted he will end his term as CEO by urinating and defecating and the smoldering corpse of MakerBot before seeking greener pastures to assrape and pillage.

When asked for comment, Mr. Jaglom replied "I'd just like to say fuck you all very much!"

Re:In Other News

[RabidReindeer]

Well, that's what makes America such a great country!

Re: In Other News

[Anonymous Coward]

In capitalist America, job quits you!

Re:In Other News

[Penguinisto]

You think it's just an American phenomenon... how naive of you.

Re:In Other News

[Anonymous Coward]

as long as the shareholders are happy on the ride down, who cares?

Re:In Other News

[msmonroe]

CEO Manual ---
Preface
Some studies have shown that CEO’s are typically Psychopaths, that seems like a really derogatory term and we may not know its definition. The important thing
is that this is not an English class and we don’t care about definitions. The one thing that you need to remember as you transition into your new role is to detach
yourself from the needs and wants of those who work for you. This way you can insure that you are only doing what is best for the company.
Chapter 1 – Let’s get going
Congratulations on getting a new Job as CEO! This is a big accomplishment in your life. Part of this new Job will be to optimize profits. The easiest way to
increase profits is by cutting costs and the quickest way to do this is to lay people off. Don’t worry you don’t need them anyway.
Pareto’s principle says that 20% of your employees do 80% of the work and that is exactly how many people you need to let go is 20%. This is because the lazy
80% aren't pulling their weight and by letting the productive 20% go you will empower those 80% to pull their own weight.
Don’t know who those productive 20% are? It doesn't really matter, any 20% will do.
You can even make a game of it. First start by making a list, then draw a polygon on it, where the lines meet the names, you have your 20%, maybe more if you lucky.
Chapter 2 – Go East young man
Outsourcing to India is the craze nowadays. Besides India being a type of food you can also send work there. Before picking up the phone and calling your local
Indian restaurant answer these questions first. Do you have programmers or a customer service number that people need to call? Great then you can outsource to India.
You are actually doing your employees a favor by outsourcing them. If they have been working at your company more than a few years, then chances are they
have gotten lazy and need to find a new job.
Your employees should have no problem training their replacements. This will also bring a multicultural flavor to your company.
You will also expose your customers to new people from countries where they will probably never travel. This will enrich their lives.
Chapter 3 – Go even Easter
India is not the only type of food that is good. Have you ever eaten Chinese? Chinese food comes from China which if you do any manufacturing is where you will
send it. If you haven’t heard by now, China is world known for manufacturing products that are higher quality and lower cost than anywhere else in the world.
Your customers will also thank you and since they are getting a far superior product, you will need to raise your prices by the same 20% that you used in Chapter 1 to cut your staff.

Re:In Other News

[msmonroe]

You know honestly it's a circle of life thing. Once the US becomes a third world country they'll start hiring again.

Re: In Other News

[DaMattster]

Very well said, sir! This is precisely why I stepped out of corporate America. My lifetime threshold for bullshit has been reached. The corporate life is vastly overrated,

Re:In Other News

[OneSizeFitsNoone]

This made my day.

Lets use correct terminology.

[SeaFox]

There's a difference between being fired and laid off (just ask your local unemployment office). But this summary seems to use the terms interchangeably.
Since a reason has not been given for the workers losing their jobs, either one could apply. But they aren't the same.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[Lead Butthead]

When you layoff 20%, it's just business (insert whatever reason that gives the top manglers bigger bonuses.) When you _FIRE_ 20%, it's big f_cking deal; a company has to be pretty screwed up to be firing 20% of its head count.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[crgrace]

If 20% are going at once, it is most certainly a layoff. It could be they are focusing on dead wood, or, and this is most likely, they had a mandate of 20% from each group, regardless of how strong each group was. I've seen some top flight engineers lose their jobs because of this type of scatter-shot layoff.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it really common practice now to have laid off workers escorted out by security?

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[JackieBrown]

Yes.

Laid off workers are not usually any happier losing their job than fired workers (even if there is a payout.)

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[jklovanc]

Yup. All it takes is one unstable employee picking up a box cutter and slashing people to cost a company millions. The court cases usually cite the company's lack of proper security when letting people go. This is yet another example of where procedures have to take worst case scenarios into account. In the general case it looks like overkill but in the worst case it is actually reasonable.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[ShanghaiBill]

There's a difference between being fired and laid off

Not really. Historically, "fired" meant you permanently lost your job, while "laid off" means you were furloughed but would be called back when more work was available. Today, "fired" is generally used to mean "terminated for cause", while "laid off" is generally used to mean terminated as part of a head count reduction or, in C-speak, "right-sizing". But mostly the two terms are used interchangeably. People use "fired" when they are being blunt, and "laid off" when they prefer a more euphemistic phrase.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[Lead Butthead]

keep in mind that these ex-employees could be printing firearms...

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[ShanghaiBill]

Is it really common practice now to have laid off workers escorted out by security?

It is fairly common. Sometime the terminatees will delete files, copy confidential information, or even sabotage equipment. I have seen all of these things happen, and was sometimes surprised by who did it. The polite quiet submissive people often have the most bottled up rage.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[rahvin112]

So it's better for them to do it in the parking lot?

Escorting people out is just STUPID. It's an MBA type policy by a bunch of asshats that don't give two shits about their employees. If your employer does it you should find another job because management is a bunch of inhuman scum.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. All it takes is one unstable employee picking up a box cutter and slashing people to cost a company millions. The court cases usually cite the company's lack of proper security when letting people go. This is yet another example of where procedures have to take worst case scenarios into account. In the general case it looks like overkill but in the worst case it is actually reasonable.

I'm sorry, I find that justification a load of bollocks. No company should treat its employees in this pathetic a manner.
If an employee wants to pick up a box cutter and slash people, they can do that at any time during their employment. What happens when employees get a bad review? Or an employee has any other kind of disagreement or conflict at work.

You either treat your employees as adults or you don't. A company's behavior towards its employees is a reflection on the company and especially its leadership. There are also many other companies that handle layoffs with respect and dignity and maturity. In many cases, the HR departments actually help the about to be laid off employees look for work, help them with referrals, or at least give them a few months' salary.

  Simply put, the new CEO is one of the worst examples of a leader that I can think of. In an ideal world, other employees would also vote with their feet and quit.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, if you don't already have copies of the companies "confidential information" and/or "incriminating information/emails" then you don't deserve a job.

I make sure anything that crosses my desk that is incriminating or embarrassing to the company gets copied to a thumb drive and a copy gets sent to my personal e-mail for later.

They come in handy when negotiating the severance package.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[rockmuelle]

As others have pointed out already in this thread: in the US, if you're laid off you can collect the unemployment insurance you've already paid for. If you're fired or leave voluntarily, you can't collect unemployment insurance.

I'm sure there are other legal differences, but as an employee, this is the important one.

If you are planning on leaving a job under good terms, it's always worth scheduling it around a layoff. You can tell your boss (discretely) and see if you can be laid off instead. The win for your boss is that two employees won't be lost (you plus the person who'd be laid off). The win for you is that you get severance and can collect unemployment.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[jklovanc]

So it's better for them to do it in the parking lot?

It is. There are fewer people in parking lot and fewer improvised weapons available. It also does not give time for the frustration to build while in the office and explode which could end badly. Someone screaming and yelling in a parking lot is much less of a danger than doing the same thing and attacking people in the office.

It's an MBA type policy by a bunch of asshats that don't give two shits about their employees

The opposite is actually closer to the truth. It is about protecting the remaining workers from the laid off workers. No one can predict what someone will do during a traumatic experience like being laid off.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[ClickOnThis]

There's a difference between being fired and laid off (just ask your local unemployment office).

AFAIK, the unemployment office treats fired and laid off the same way. What they might treat differently is a voluntary resignation. The resignation would have to be truly voluntary, i.e., you were not forced to resign in some way, otherwise it would be the same as being fired.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[Obfuscant]

So it's better for them to do it in the parking lot?

Assuming they're going to do it, yes. In a parking lot it is easier for people to run away, and it won't cost the company millions of dollars and put everyone else's job or life at risk.

It's an MBA type policy by a bunch of asshats that don't give two shits about their employees.

The company has a responsibility to the remaining employees, too. Once the disgruntled employee is off the premises the company can do nothing to stop his rampage, but while he is on-site they can -- which is to have security escort him off-site.

Since it is hard to tell who is going to be disgruntled enough to do something like that, and the result of getting it wrong for one who is is very serious, it's better to err on the side of caution.

If your employer does it you should find another job...

You're free to make your employment decisions based on whatever criteria you choose. The 80% of employees stuck in a building with one or more potential knife-wielding nuts shouldn't have to suffer from your freedom.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[cdrudge]

It all depends on how you define fired. If fired is used to indicate termination with cause, such as you were showed up drunk, fighting in the workplace, looking at porn, habitual late/no show, something with significant misconduct... then unemployment probably will be denied.

If you're terminated for no fault of your own, you likely can still collect unemployment. "No fault of your own" can still include things that were directly associated with you, such as low job performance, inability to perform the job, "just not working out", etc. It requires a deliberate misconduct that could have been prevented and is beyond an isolated accident or minor incident.

A little more detail...and things can change if you're under contract, a part of a union, or specifics in local labor laws.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[RabidReindeer]

That smells too much of the zero-tolerance, total-fear climate that typifies the USA these days.

If you have enough unstable employees that you need to be that worried, you were doing something major wrong long before "firing" time.

In any event, laid-off people aren't known for running amok in the parking lots. They come back later, heavily-armed and lay waste to the remaining employees (and customers).

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[kencurry]

I was modding but your post needs commenting on:

There are two sides here. The "laid off" worker is still a human being, and it may be that he will have a better career and life ahead than those left behind. To be treated with total lack of dignity at such a moment leaves an indelible impression; I know because it happened to me once.

So, what I am saying is that karma is a bitch, to treat those you are letting go badly will come back on those who perpetrate it.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[SeaFox]

It's suggested the new CEO has something to do with it. Perhaps he's doing a house-cleaning of folks who should have been fired for unrelated reasons long ago.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[Obfuscant]

To be treated with total lack of dignity at such a moment leaves an indelible impression; I know because it happened to me once.

How security treats you is a different issue than having them there to prevent trouble. This may sound like a 'zero-tolerance' afraid of your shadow approach, but since we already have a term for such reactions ("going postal") I think the precedent for trouble clearly exists and appropriate caution is justified. (We didn't have security at the place I worked, the task fell to a coworker, so it's happened to me, too.)

Once you can understand that, then thinking that the use of security is because they don't trust you specifically can be dealt with. You don't think that someone who locks the doors on their house is scared you are going to come rob them, do you?

It isn't about you. It's about the people who still work there who the company has some responsibility to protect.

I think there is a defining question here: were one of your fellow workers fired and the company allowed them to wander around the building, and they "went postal" and killed a couple of your friends, would you join in the lawsuit against your employer for failing to provide adequate workplace security? Would you think "Bob had a right to be in the building and the company isn't responsible in any way for allowing his rampage to happen", or would it be "they should have escorted him out"? If the people who Bob killed couldn't determine Bob was a danger (and stay away from him after he got fired), why do you expect an HR manager who doesn't know him very well to be better at guessing right?

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[Last Warrior]

Laid off workers sometimes get a severance package.

I've know people who opted for a severance package rather than staying with a company.
Id rather get some extra money on my way out the door than nothing at all.
I'd have to call bullshit on that.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[Penguinisto]

True - though most states usually sort that out at the unemployment office as either being fired "for cause", or just being fired. The latter means you can collect a check, while (in most states) the former means that you cannot.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[rahvin112]

Assuming everyone is a threat IS bad policy. You are telling EVERYONE that works there that you believe they are capable of hurting people because they lost a job. That's like finding urine on the floor in a bathroom and accusing the entire office of doing it.

It's wrong on every facet. But it does help people get used to the police state! Anyone that would support a policy like this is a jack booted thug loving bootlicker.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[rahvin112]

For all your attempts to justify it, the simple fact is the vast majority of these incidents of violence occur after the employee has been fired for a few days and comes back armed and with the intent to kill. There has never to my knowledge been an employee that shot and killed people at their work without first going home to retrieve the weapon.

By treating a dismissed employee as a "security threat" you are only debasing them and encouraging them to take the very action you are trying to prevent. It's this wrong headed view of things that is what is destroying major American companies. As I said this attitude is evidence of significant and far reaching problems with management in the company and any sane individual should move to new employment if they can. Because the stupid MBA's running the companies don't understand this the only way to help them understand it to vote with your feet. Eventually the best talent will congregate elsewhere and the stupid management will be the ones without jobs.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[tlhIngan]

Is it really common practice now to have laid off workers escorted out by security?

Depends on location. In the US, it's extremely common, potentially due to their more violent nature and the second amendment.

In a lot other countries, layoffs can take different schemes - they may provide notice of layoff - as in you're going to get a severance and all that, but it's a 2-week notice, and no, they're not going to buy you out, you're going to work those two weeks. Seems incredible, but a lot of companies do it because they want an orderly transition, and they do trust their employees enough to not be burning bridges. Some even go out of their way to help them find a new job (instead of just giving them the number of the employment agency) - and that includes counseling services. Heck, even benefits often continue for a few months after the layoffs (health insurance).

I don't know what it is about the US - perhaps their proclivity towards violence leads to basically shoving them out the door after the meeting is over - if you need any personal belongings, they'll fetch it for you and pack up the rest of your stuff.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[jklovanc]

Assuming everyone is a threat IS bad policy.

Assuming no one is a threat is worse policy. In the worst case scenario when security is present an ex-employee feels slighted. In the worst case scenario when security is not present someone dies. If someone does get killed due to inaction by the company then the person is dead and the company is liable.

You are telling EVERYONE that works there that you believe they are capable of hurting people because they lost a job.

No the company are telling people that there exists people who are capable of hurting others and the company does not have the ability to differentiate. The company will do everything to protect remaining employees and protect itself from litigation.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[Kyogreex]

I've seen some top flight engineers lose their jobs because of this type of scatter-shot layoff.

Assuming you're talking about a member of a flight crew, I'm not sure that's an apples-to-oranges comparison. FEs were layed off because they were no longer required on newer aircraft, not because of an arbitrary mandate.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[Kyogreex]

If it were me, having security escort me out would piss me off considerably more than just being laid off. Additional security isn't going to stop someone if they're belligerent enough.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[mtmra70]

I don't think you work in the US. If you are fired or laid off, you can file for unemployment. The government then decides if you can collect.

If you quit, you cannot collect unemployment, period. Also, the employer pays into the unemployment fund, not the employee.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[anagama]

Doesn't a layoff imply that you still have a job to come back to when business improves? As another poster mentioned, the question is not firing, but whether it was for "cause" or more to the point, whether it was for misconduct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

I see, I'm old enough to remember the older version of "layoff" -- in modern times, it just means fired not for reasons of misconduct.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[jklovanc]

Additional security isn't going to stop someone if they're belligerent enough.

It might will at least slow them down but not having security will definitely not stop someone. It is all about the company's due diligence. If things get to court the company has to show they did everything to avoid violence. In court, not having security present would be seen as lack of due diligence and the company would be held liable. Blame the issue on our litigious society.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[Mike Van Pelt]

Heh... yeah... One job, there were layoffs coming, and I had found employment elsewhere. When I handed my boss my notice, he handed it back and said "I never saw that. You're on the layoff list. You'd rather be laid off."

I'm in the US. I've been laid off a few times, not counting that one. One was "Here's a box, pack up your stuff and go", but no security escorting me anywhere. One was "You're going to be laid off three months from now, help get your tasks transferred to the people in the group who are staying." (They were getting rid of all Unix mail servers and transferring it all to MS Exchange, and I was the Unix mail guy, so...) The other was a ... really impressive severance package, if I signed the "I promise not to sue for age discrimination" letter. Oh, yeah, sure, no problem... there was an offer from another company, doing pretty much the same thing, in my personal email account before I got home. No guards or anything there, either, just come by the office and get my stuff whenever, I was "officially still employed" there for a couple of weeks, again getting appropriate knowledge transfer done. They did cut off my access to the network.

It's just business. Handle this stuff professionally, because you are a professional.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[Deadstick]

For want of a hyphen...

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[Deadstick]

He didn't ask how smart it is...he asked if it's a common practice, and it is.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[Anonymous Coward]

I was extremely sick one day at work and could barely function and afraid to walk out of my office or away from the garbage can. I called the local IT manager and HR to ask for help, the HR manager called me a cab, packed my jacket and backpack, gave me some garbage bags with paper towels in them, and escorted me outside to wait for the cab. I saw a few co workers on my way out and they passed me without saying a word or turned around and went the other way, I saw people outside coming back from lunch. That is the same thing they do when you are fired or laid off. HR escorts you outside to a cab. I had 15 text messages in the next few minutes from people asking why I was let go. Comical.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[thegarbz]

The CEO being new doesn't narrow things down much in this case.

Maybe the new CEO is getting rid of the bottom performing 20%.
Maybe the new CEO is reducing headcount by 20%.

Either case is common for new management, but both cases are handled very VERY differently from all sorts of legal perspectives.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[lgw]

in the US, if you're laid off you can collect the unemployment insurance you've already paid for. If you're fired or leave voluntarily, you can't collect unemployment insurance.

Can you point to a single state's laws that use that terminology? I've never heard of one. It's all about "fired for cause" vs "fired without cause". You may prefer the terms "fired" vs "laid off", but that's a newish meaning for "laid off".

What really matters to me is "do you get a respectable severance package?" You don't necessarily get one even if you're 'laid off", as some companies are really broke, and some are complete assholes.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[Kyogreex]

No need to be a dickparade.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[jklovanc]

Anyone is capable of hurting anyone else at ANY time.

True but being laid off is an exceptionally stressful time which increases the chance of violence. There are many reported instances of people going off during or soon after being let go. It is much more frequent than a during normal work. To compensate for the increased danger there is increased security.

then it's better to have armed guards surrounding the employees at all times while they're working, too.

No, at regular times you have security at their regular posts ready to respond to incidents.

You still refuse to see the liability angle. A company is going to do everything possible to avoid paying out millions of dollars for not following a simple procedure. It is not about making the ex-employee feel bad it is about reducing liability.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[Xyrus]

Is it really common practice now to have laid off workers escorted out by security?

It is fairly common. Sometime the terminatees will delete files, copy confidential information, or even sabotage equipment. I have seen all of these things happen, and was sometimes surprised by who did it. The polite quiet submissive people often have the most bottled up rage.

Have you seen my red swingline stapler?

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[aardvarkjoe]

Assuming everyone is a threat IS bad policy.

Not everyone. Just the ones who lost their job.

And their morale doesn't matter a whole lot to the company, anyway, since they're no longer employed there.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[SeaFox]

Management in a tech company can't identify the "bottom 20 percent", because every engineer does different work.

Isn't that, like, exactly how Microsoft used to run things? There was always a "bottom performing" person or persons, and it didn't matter if the worst was better than the industry average, they weren't good enough and got penalized for it.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[gzuckier]

Is it really common practice now to have laid off workers escorted out by security?

It's common practice to get invited in to chat with your boss, and to return to your desk to find that your id and password have been inactivated and you have like half an hour to clean out your desk before you are escorted to your car by security. there are some crazy folks out there.

they were pretty scummy.

[Lumpy]

They patented things that other people in the community designed and claimed them as their own. Makerbot may have been one of the first, but they ended up as scumbags.

Now there are a ton of other companies out there doing it better, Good luck to the new CEO, he's captain of a sinking ship.

Re:they were pretty scummy.

[Kagetsuki]

They also closed-sourced all the things they had open-sourced. I got one JUST before they did that and I've been not-so-happy with it ever since.

They betrayed "makers", open source, and their customers. They deserve a worse fate.

Peak 3d printer

[TWX]

Looks like we've hit peak 3d printer, at least as far as the near-term is concerned.

I'm wondering if this will be analagous to the daisy-wheel printer. For certain applications it's the best choice, but those are very few and far between, and are entirely based on fixed fonts and software made to do a standard set of rows and columns with fixed-width characters. They work great for printing multi-part forms and for where one wants text that's more readable than dot-matrix, but that's about it.

These first generation consumer-grade 3d printers are like that, but worse, because there's not much in the way of a business market compared to those paper printers. They were bought by businesses that specifically needed rapid prototyping, or they were bought by hobbyists that got into it as the latest craze. There's only so much of either, so once that small market is saturated there's less need for companies supplying whole printers.

Re:Peak 3d printer

[Hognoxious]

Looks like we've hit peak 3d printer

If we hit peak 3d printer articles then that'd be a good result.

Re:Peak 3d printer

[Nexzus]

We (the IT department of a regional government org) just got one, a Makerbot, incidentally. It was pretty pricy, about $8,000.

It's currently printing a model of the Willis Tower.

*facepalm*

Re:Peak 3d printer

[toonces33]

I knew we were at the peak when I saw a 3d printer for sale at Home Depot. Oooh - I can make a crescent wrench out of plastic. How ... useful?

Re:Peak 3d printer

[Wing_Zero]

Well, I for one am happy to have a physical location to bring a defective device back and get a replacement that day.

Re:Peak 3d printer

[Lead Butthead]

You can then print nuts and bolts to use with that printed crescent wrench.

Re:Peak 3d printer

[idontgno]

That way you can play the exciting and suspense-filled game of "what's going to break first while I tighten all of this down... the nut, the bolt, or the wrench?"

Or maybe you buy the $5 forged steel wrench, the 25 cent steel bolt, the 10 cent nut, and just 3d-print a fake penis.

Re:Peak 3d printer

[painandgreed]

They were bought by businesses that specifically needed rapid prototyping, or they were bought by hobbyists that got into it as the latest craze. There's only so much of either, so once that small market is saturated there's less need for companies supplying whole printers.

I'll disagree. They are getting to the point that they are moving from fast prototyping to small batch manufacturing. I'll probably never buy one, but I find myself using one more and more as I realize that when I want one of something for myself, I can have it made fairly easily. Another friend has a business out of designing jewelry and having it 3D printed out of sinistered metals. The tools and skills needed to create the needed designs to use them will probably prevent household adoption anytime soon, but I can see them getting more popular if only as a service.

Re:Peak 3d printer

[smaddox]

Already been done: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Peak 3d printer

[anagama]

I keep going back and forth on whether to buy one, but I'm tending toward "no" -- a makerspace opened up near me and they have half a dozen different 3d printers but it usually seems that at most, two are ever working at the same time. Despite that, I recently needed an object printed, paid $50 for the membership fee for a month, then spent 13 hours babysitting a print. On the first try, it jumped 2mm on the X axis about 15 minutes into the print. Stopped, restarted, and after spending all day watching it, it jumped 2mm on X axis again with about 30 minutes left on 12 hour print job. Then I had to pay $15 for my scrap plastic.

I was pretty non-plussed, so I tried one of the online printers -- the type which use the very expensive powdered plastic machines -- my piece cost $65 which is pretty pricey, but they came out exactly like I expected. About 20 of those prints would buy a printer, and it is hard to resist that logic, except when I think back to spending an entire freakin day to get garbage and the fact that most of the printers at the makerspace are usually offline because a needed part is on order.

I'm not really sure what my ultimate decision will be, but the promise of consumer 3d printing seems to be more than it delivers at present.

Re:Peak 3d printer

[mark_reh]

3D printers are not too expensive. You can buy a 3D printer for $300. How much cheaper does it have to be? No, price isn't the problem- they're too cheaply made. Why does it take some much arcane knowledge to get quality 3D prints? Is it because 3D printing is difficult, or is it because 3D printers suck? Every company in the business is trying to make them cheaper, as if THAT is what holds consumers back from buying printers. They keep taking things out and making them cheaper and cheaper and the result is that it takes a lot of tweaking to get a good print.

Why is autotramming such a hot topic among 3D printer hobbyists? Because they're getting tired of having to adjust the machine every time they start a print. Why is autotramming necessary? Because the printers are built like crap using stupid mechanical designs that cantilever all the axes and the print bed and/or they make the frames out of laser cut plywood or similar cheesy stuff. Adding an inductive sensor is cheaper than building the printer so that it doesn't require adjustments all the time.

Why do some designs use two motors to drive screws that lift the X axis? Because a second motor is cheaper than adding a belt, pulleys, and bearings that will ensure that the X axis will stay in alignment. The result is that people have to realign the X axis because it is easily knocked out of alignment.

How often is the cheapest solution to any problem the best solution? Consumers don't need printers to be cheaper. They need them to work. A lot of people pay $1500 for a machine to wash their clothes. If they'll pay that much for a stupid, uninteresting appliance, what would they pay for something as awesome as a 3D printer, if they could buy one that works?

this pisses me off about modern business

[crgrace]

Employees are apparently being led out of the company's Brooklyn office by security today.

This has always rubbed me the wrong way. These people worked hard for the company and then they get thrown away like garbage, or worse potential threats. Why can't we treat people with respect and understanding. It is a serious personal trauma to get laid off... I always thought the way security escorts you from the building was kind of a "kick-em-while-they're-down" dick move.

I got laid off from a company during the financial crisis (10% of my company was laid off). I was accompanied to my desk to pick up my jacket and I was out the door. I had to make a freaking appointment to collect my personal belongs from my desk the next day. Everyone in the office tried to hide while me and the other victims cleaned out our stuff (our logins were already disabled). I guess they thought they would catch whatever it was the killed us.

Re:this pisses me off about modern business

[MightyMartian]

"Christ, there goes one of those lepers..."

Re:this pisses me off about modern business

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to think they probably wanted to give you some privacy.

Re:this pisses me off about modern business

[jklovanc]

Don't take it personally. It probably is not about you. The company is just trying to avoid litigation if one of the laid off employees goes ballistic. The problem is that they have to treat everyone the same.

Put yourself on management's shoes. If security was not around and a laid off employee did go ballistic the company would be liable for any injuries. The court case would come down to the company failing to protect their employees from attack.

It is not about you. It is about some other person who is less stable and you just get treated the same. You get treated the same because managers are not psychologists. Even psychologists can not predict what a person will do during a traumatic experience like getting laid off.

I was accompanied to my desk to pick up my jacket and I was out the door. I had to make a freaking appointment to collect my personal belongs from my desk the next day.

That is caused by a resource issue. The first part was to get it over with as quickly as possible. It also gives you time to absorb the implications. The second part was to ensure that security personnel were available to escort you to and from your desk in case you do go balistic.

Everyone in the office tried to hide while me and the other victims cleaned out our stuff

That is probably "survivor's remorse". They don't want to see you because they don't want to think about why you got laid off instead of them.

Re:this pisses me off about modern business

[LazLong]

The policy of escorting employees off the property is SOP nowadays due to HR's fear of vindictive ex-employees causing havoc/damage to the company. Sure it is somewhat humiliating, especially if you've been employed for a long time and put alot of yourself into the organization. However, I understand the reasoning. And while I haven't had this happen to me exactly, I have had my admin privileges revoked when I was laid off. Sure it pissed me off at the time, especially as I'd been there for a long time and people should have known better than fear my retaliation. But, had I been vindictive, I could have caused a great deal of damage and idled a large number of people given a couple of minutes continued admin access to the systems, so I understand the reasoning and the necessity.

Re:this pisses me off about modern business

[Obfuscant]

It is not about you.

We need a car analogy. I know ... I lock my car doors every time I park. It's not about you. It's about the criminal who would walk off with some of my stuff that I have in the back seat if I didn't. And "The Club" on the steering wheel? Also not about you.

Unless you're a crook. Then it is about you, just like having security escort you out is about you if you tend to go postal on your coworkers.

Re:this pisses me off about modern business

[nblender]

It's fairly common for the company to let you grab your coat and lunch and accompany you while you walk out of the building. It's an awkward situation all around... At the place I'm currently working, they make appointments for you to return to clean out your desk during the evening hours, when nobody else is around.

Re:this pisses me off about modern business

[jklovanc]

Do you think any company can reliably predict how someone will react to being laid off?

Re:this pisses me off about modern business

[jklovanc]

Americans are weird sometimes!

So let me get this straight. You refused to leave the store thereby committing trespass. Then you picked up two employees and carried them out of the store. That would be assault and battery since you actually touched someone. I think you are the one that is weird.

Re:this pisses me off about modern business

[cdrudge]

If you're firing a single individual, that might work. When you're letting go of 20% of your workforce, or around 100 people, you probably are not doing it all at once. Making them do the employment walk of shame could be very demoralizing throughout the day for a very large layoff, not to mention tipping off the next guy to get called down to HR to go postal on his way down.

Re:this pisses me off about modern business

[Rastl]

When I was let go the HR person walked with me back to my desk; watched me shut down my computer (no doubt my accesses were already gone but I never checked); watched me pack up my personal stuff; and walked me to the door.

Was it pleasant? Of course not. But she was doing her job and I wasn't going to get upset about that. Had they made me come back to get my personal possessions I would have been much less than pleased and probably sent them an invoice for my time since I was doing work required by the company when I was no longer an employee.

Employers have to err on the side of caution. They have to protect their assets be they intellectual or physical. People who have been fired/laid off/let go can be upset and act in irrational ways. Better to be safe than sorry.

Re:this pisses me off about modern business

[spire3661]

When I see a Club on a steering wheel, i feel sorry for the owner. When i see security escort employees out like this, i feel sorry for the employer. They have lost their humanity.

Re:this pisses me off about modern business

[spire3661]

"But she was doing her job and I wasn't going to get upset about that."

If we cant blame those that personally execute the policy, who can we blame? She did it, its hers to own. Companies cant do this stuff if the employees refuse to comply with shit orders like this.

Re:this pisses me off about modern business

[Knee Patch]

I think it's weird that you think that "touching someone" is assault and battery.

Re:this pisses me off about modern business

[Obfuscant]

When I see a Club on a steering wheel, i feel sorry for the owner. When i see security escort employees out like this, i feel sorry for the employer. They have lost their humanity.

That you think someone who has tried to make his car a bit less likely to be stolen has "lost his humanity" is ridiculous. I would feel a lot sorrier for the people who weren't protected against a disgruntled ex-employee because the employer wanted to be "humane" to the killer instead of the people he employes.

Get over it. Security is there to keep anything from happening, not because they expect you specifically to go ballistic and start a rampage. They're there to meet a legal responsibility of due care that the employer has towards his employees.

Re:this pisses me off about modern business

[Obfuscant]

I think it's weird that you think that "touching someone" is assault and battery.

Picking someone up in a fireman-carry and carrying them outside the building is what the law would consider assault and battery. It's much more than "touching" them.

Re:this pisses me off about modern business

[jklovanc]

The reason I mentioned "touching" is that threatening is "assault" and actually coming into contact is "battery".

Re:this pisses me off about modern business

[blue9steel]

The problem is that they have to treat everyone the same.

Great, then lets see pictures of CEOs and other senior executives being escorted out of buildings.

Re:this pisses me off about modern business

[spiritplumber]

So what happens if you beat someone up using, as a blunt instrument, a series of power cells that share a casing?

Re:this pisses me off about modern business

[jklovanc]

Well, if you put your hands on me with hostile intent, you're implicitly giving me permission to return the favor.
This is a universal law that every child understands.

How does being given an escort imply laying on hands? Are you allowed to fight a police officer putting you in handcuffs while arresting you? I believe that is called resisting arrest and illegal.

Given that all I did was carry those people outside and then tell them that if we wanted to fight,...

All I see is them wanting you off their private property as is their right under the law. You have no right to be there and therefore were trespassing the instant they told you to leave.

I was if anything, too forgiving.

You really don't understand the law do you?

Re:this pisses me off about modern business

[jklovanc]

Yes the English language is strange sometimes.

Re:this pisses me off about modern business

[Knee Patch]

This thread is stale now, but I wanted to let you know that after I posted I went and looked up the legal definition of assault and battery. I now understand the context of your post and no longer think you are weird.

Re:this pisses me off about modern business

[jklovanc]

Thank you.

Re:this pisses me off about modern business

[Rastl]

She was following company policy. I don't think her job is worth getting worked up over basic security on employee termination. If it were my company I would want that same kind of thing.

How can I blame her for doing her job? The blame (if there is blame) falls on the management for creating those policies. She has no input on those policies so I should personally blame her for them?

You sound more like the kind of person who yells at their server when a restaurant won't do some special thing that you want. Or at the store clerk who won't take back a return outside of their policy. The front line people aren't the ones to take your abuse.

I was about to buy several makebot printers

[Anonymous Coward]

Not now. This company is going to fail hard with their drop in morale and the increased quality of competitors. No way am i going to buy from a company that looks like it's tanking.

Fucking bots

[NotDrWho]

They took yer jobs!

NOT fired! Laid off.

[LazLong]

OK, it's a pet peeve, but I hate it when people use "fired" for people let go through no fault of their own. One gets "fired" for fucking up, one is "laid off" due to someone else fucking up.

Maybe if their sales guys would follow up...

[XxtraLarGe]

I called Makerbot to get an education price quote on a printer & materials to compare with other 3D printer manufacturers. I had to call back 4 times before the guy actually sent me a quote, and all I wanted was a printer & 10 spools of filament. He was supposed to send me some sample prints as well, and never did. Needless to say, Makerbot lost any consideration for what is going to be our first of several purchases.

Re:Maybe if their sales guys would follow up...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a miserable douchebag.

Their machines are WAY too expensive

[Lucas123]

Companies like XYZprinting are eating Makerbot's lunch with machines that have just as good resolution, but cost a quarter of what Makerbot charges. You can no longer afford to charge premium, exorbitant prices for consumer-grade 3D printers.

Re:Their machines are WAY too expensive

[grumpy_old_grandpa]

In a few years, maybe they will follow the 2D printer business model: Sell the printer for $100, but the filament for the price of gold per gram.

Even Crassus was nice enough...

[Midnight_Falcon]

To decimate his soldiers to discipline them, meaning eliminating 10% of them; rather than get rid of 20% of them!

I knew it would come to this

[Tablizer]

"You've been replaced by your own robots"

Print the Legend (Documentary)

[nazrhyn]

While unrelated to this actual event, the documentary Print the Legend focuses on several companies, MakerBot included, beginning near their inceptions and through their growing pains. It is an interesting commentary on 3D printing, business and the legal hullaballoo surrounding the 3D printing of gun parts. It's available on Netflix.

By the end of the documentary, the direction MakerBot was headed seemed somewhat unhealthy; the remaining founder, Bre Pettis, had made several 180s at that point.

New CEOs always do layoffs

[WillAffleckUW]

It's how they "make their mark".

Doesn't matter if it's a good idea, the markets react positively to it, because everyone only thinks of this quarter, and maybe the next.

I hear China is putting 3D printers in all schools and universities nationwide.

Maybe if they picked up some Mandarin they might find a job?

makerbot

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me let you all in on a secret. I have seen what Makerbot has been doing. It is not right. I saw this coming a long time ago. You people who are trying to justify what has happened to the 100 employees that were all let go at once. I mean there were group meetings when this happened. You guys should know that you are defending a company that is knowingly selling a product that they know does not work. The developer informed them that it wasn't ready and they insisted on pushing the product out. Results are over 1000 returns only to be repaired and sent back out still in the same quality. Makerbot laid off their top workers. People who busted their asses in sickness and in health day in and day out. Yes some deserved the ax but many did not and they were the ones who refused to kiss management's ass who I must say could not nor had the knowledge of building the products. Sometime the ones that did messed up and blamed it on the subordinates. This was an unfair move because they weren't patient enough to perfect the products that were being sold to customers.

Yours truly

Fuck Slaverbot.

For all of you folks in civilized countries...

[mark_reh]

The gun nutz will tell you our society will be more "civil and polite" when everyone is walking around with a gun. The "walk of shame" that is done in the US when employees are terminated is a direct response to the wide spread and easy availability of easily concealed firearms, and is a perfect example of that "civil and polite" society they predict.

Re:Who?

[cowdung]

Check out this movie:

http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie...

Gives an interesting inside look at Markerbot and its main competition at the time.

never trust new ceos/ctos

[cheekyboy]

And guys remember, backup copy all IP/source code from companies weekly after a new ceo.

Setup your desktop in such a way, you can walk out and make it not boot the next day, Change bios settings to something that will fry the cpu/ram, save & power off.

Add backup admin accounts to all machines you can.
Change all SSL certificates to expire on 4th July.

sure, but a better model...

[Lead Butthead]

Sure they could do the inkjet business model. But why do THAT when they can charge you an arm and a leg for the printer, then chip the fillment and extort you for your first born?

This is how it goes

[Sir Holo]

Someone makes something great.

They are first-to-market.

Big Corp. buys them out, desiring only their IP.

All of the engineers who actually made the product (& company) valuable are fired.

Big Corp. squanders that first-to-market advantage to gain short-term profits.

Customers who've bought prior-generation products versions beg to have important improvements made to the line of tools.

Big Corp. ignores customer pleas while simply juicing the IP they bought, for every nickel they can get.

Big Corp. refuses to implement any improvements, new features, etc. because they can't. They fired the innovators and implementers to save on salary costs.

Yep, they essentially just find a ripe piece of fruit, and then juice it.

This is what small businesses in the US have been reduced to: fruit trees. Small companies take the risk of being inventive. When something proves to be valuable, it is bought-out, everyone fired, and the market for the product stagnates. I have been on both ends of this stick. I pleaded with a certain company, who sold a $650k tool, to make two minor engineering improvements that would essentially double the market for the device (it would be a tool for two markets, not just the one). These changes would have cost about $500 per tool. The end result? Well, since they had bought-out the small company that originally designed it, fired all the engineers and control-system programmers, the Big Corp. was literally incapable of implementing any improvements (or even bug-fixes) to the system. Recall that they fired all the engineers and programmers, and simply bought the IP and the market the small biz. had cornered.

To cap off this specific example — Another company that truly does innovate has, well, devised a tool that does "the thing" better, and costs 1/3 of what the Big Corp. is charging. They listened when I detailed to them engineering specs. for what customers needed in a next-gen tool. Well, the Big Corp. is about done juicing their piece of fruit, and this other company will soon take over the market . The Big Corp. made their millions, so they move on. I just hope that this "other company" isn't bought-out.

The sad result of this cycle is that American innovation in products is stagnated by Big Corps. that choose to simply juice innovative products, rather than actually improve them to grow the market. In the end, the customer & consumer lose. Oh, and the US as a whole.

Losers are America's lifeblood

[marxmarv]

If you don't want to do stupid human tricks for food, you have to move to a less civilized, more humane country.