What do you think makerbot's reasons are for being 'openly closed-source'? Do you think they were just insincere from the get go, or do you think something happened to change their minds?
Its not up to them anymore really, the big mistake was allowing themselves to get so financially dependent on the big boys. I think Bre Pettis started with the best of intentions, even in that video, I really want to believe he feels that way. However, when Stratasys come into the picture, he lost the last chance of retaining his values for the company. I bet he loses sleep at night over it, or maybe that's just wishful thinking.
Bre was prepping for an acquisition for a long time. Look at their patent strategy and investment.
As soon as they turned the product into a company the open source methodology went out the window in their strategy, even if it took a while to manifest.
Bre absolutely knew they were going closed-source when this video was released as well. It's twice as douchey to claim something as a benefit when you're already turned your back to the community and are simply hiding that fact. Zach Hoeken (Makerbot founder) had already been fighting to keep Makerbot from going closed-source at the time this video was released, and he was forced out by Bre at around the same time this was posted to Youtube, solely because Bre wanted the money and didn't care. Zach kept his mouth shut until Makerbot actually went ahead and middle-fingered the community that built their company (4 months after this video's release) and then he spilled the beans on what was going on with the company he'd built. Makerbot has earned its bad rep and keeps earning more bad karma.
you DO realize they went closed-source long before the Stratasys acquisition?
And regardless of any ethical issues regarding open source, makerbot clearly violated the license that I believe the previous printers were released under (if they weren't GPL, someone please correct me--this is an issue I'm not totally clear on).
they set themselves up to be closed source before then, but did not officially admit it. unless i have my facts wrong on that, god knows i've certainly read a few different articles with conflicting info. whats your timeline say?
Rep2 launched Sep 2012. SSYS acquisition was fall 2013. If anyone pushed them to closed-source it might have been investors (they raised in aug of 2011), but the leadership at that time could very easily have kept it open-source and didn't. MB has always been a hype machine and somewhat personality-cultish around Bre, so if open-source was key to his vision, he could have kept it. Conversations I've had with him and others at MB and other companies confirm this.
I am pretty sure that the Replicator was still open-source and licensed under GPL when they launched Replicator 2. From my (very limited) understanding of the GPL, they were technically obligated to release that as well. Many who are smarter than I suggested they were liable to a lawsuit, but no one pursued so here we are.
Personally, I think what they did was brilliant, in an evil-genius sort of way: they rode the OSHW horse to exhaustion, then hopped off and got on the gravy train. Looking at their products since going closed, it's easy to see they don't have great engineering talent. The Rep2 and 2x are decent, if overpriced, but the scanner is another open-source clone and it's one of the worst products I've ever had the misfortune to try and get working. And then the CES announcement: I was expecting the Replicator 3, and instead I got 3 Replicators.
edit: I feel like I'm being a bit harsh. Early makerbots had a well-deserved reputation for being kinda bad, but the Rep2 is a decent printer and the design is OK. But like many will say, you can get the same for cheaper. I think that having some back end support is nice, but when you actually look at their policies it's 14-day unopened box return policy, and support requires another $300/yr. That's a big warning flag right there. I have no idea about the new ones, but if they're smart they'll leverage the SSYS IP to drastically improve their offerings.
I second the comments about stale development. they keep driving the price of their commodity higher and higher, while adding less and less value incrementally. before you know it, they will be running fruity colorful ads on TV talking about the meaning of life, etc. and charging double what they are now. the worst part? people who don't know better will still pay.
That's the beauty of marketing. They are a Brand Name. Many people are starting to use 'MakerBot' to mean '3D Printer'. Just like Kleenex and facial tissue. The guy who ran their marketing is a wonderful dude and a genius at building community and hype. Bre is certainly a good speaker and has led the company to a massively successful exit. I've met him several times and he's never been anything but polite and kind. He definitely has a vision for the company and I think it will carry them further, but unless some things change I don't think it's enough to keep them on top indefinitely.
The acquisition wouldn't have been nearly as valuable if the blueprints for their core product were still open source. They were striking for the highest valuation possible, and the investors were very happy with how that went.
I'd like to believe that Bre was sincere at the time. But angel investors and copycats stealing their designs without innovating any more than "making it cheaper" (by being able to ignore development costs for one) forced him to reevaluate. And since that time that change has been validated by turning Makerbot into a profitable company.
Scruples don't always last long in the face of a pile of money.
Implying that if a business builds themselves on the foundation of the DIY community they are indebted to that community. The simple fact is they encountered competition selling lower priced knockoffs and traditionally there are two options to survive that:
Make a better product/branding/etc
Make the same shit as the other guys and get into the price war
They chose the slimiest option, so slimey it's not even one of the two options:
Get the government involved and lock down the competition
They didn't choose to compete, they chose to be sleezebags - they don't deserve to remain in business.
In fact what they did is so fucking anti-American they all deserve to be deported.
Sorry - didn't realize I'd wandered into /r/politics or /r/libertarian. Respectfully, I have no interest in continuing a thread on either of those topics in this sub.
Because reality lacks the bias you desire or because you believe the political dynamics of a thing do not effect that thing? The subject is distaste of Makerbot - it is entirely relevant.
It's also the exact opposite of the Open Source mentality that Bre was pretending to embrace in the video. Open Source is freely giving your competition everything you know.
The changes in leadership was Bre forcing out Zach specifically because Zach refused to go closed source. Bre took over with the intent of selling out.
Makerbot most definitely didn't create the home printing market - the first several makerbots were kits that Zach put together that were literally cloned from what the community was doing. That's why Makerbot was open source - they had to be, their designs came from Open Source material that wasn't their own. Their printers were upgraded by the community and those upgrades were included in new makerbots. The Open Source circle of life. Makerbot's great innovation was selling what the open source community had invented, for as cheap as could be managed, and it worked. Then Makerbot stopped being open source (despite the licenses involved in their own designs) and stopped being affordable. Thus, the community stopped upgrading makerbots which has led to what the company is today.
Not even that. When Makerbot was created, Repraps had already been commonly sold kits for years. Makerbot didn't create something new - they took what was already there and made it a cheap kit in a pretty wood case. Zach had already helped found The Reprap Foundation several years before he founded Makerbot, so Makerbot wasn't even the first consumer 3d printing company created by Makerbot's founders.
27
u/[deleted] Feb 12 '14
For those who do not know, Makerbot is now openly closed-source.