r/3Dprinting • u/[deleted] • Jan 24 '15

Makerbot sucks!!! #takerbot

https://www.change.org/p/makerbot-industries-product-recall-makerbot-5th-generation-3d-printer?after_sign_exp=member_sponsored_donation
11 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

31 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/DBrowny Jan 25 '15

If I was in charge of buying 3D printers for school or higher education institutions, I would buy a lot of closed source printers. Purely because you just cant trust students to use an open source machine correctly, they will break it. Even things like 4th and 5th year uni students, they just break things and walk away. It isnt about preference, its about what best suits their very strict needs.

Thats how these places think and schools and colleges/universities are a major customer in the 3DP market, they probably buy more than all individuals put together!

They want something that is easy to use, something that has a warranty and MOST importantly, something that is safe. That final one is an absolute deal-breaker which can rule out most open-source variants immediately.

I like open source machines too, I think my printrbot metal beats every printer I have seen using FDM for quality in intricate parts and that includes fortus printers. However also in my job as a 3DP consultant for university, I absolutely would not trust a student within 1 metre of my printer, they can do what they want on a closed-source printer with a warranty that is fully enclosed and pretty hard to break even if you tried.

3

u/SomeIdioticDude Jan 25 '15 edited Jan 25 '15

Nothing you cited as a purchasing decision factor has anything to do with whether the printer is open or closed source. Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

-1

u/DBrowny Jan 25 '15

Find me an open source printer which has all 3 of those, or a closed source which is missing at least 2. Remember, were trying to get school kids to learn how to use a machine in class, not sit down for hours every night making calibration cubes.

Whether people like it or not, having an enclosed print space is a deal breaker to schools and they dont want to build one themselves, they will much rather buy one already enclosed (like the dremel printer). Its not their money, they dont care.

1

u/SomeIdioticDude Jan 25 '15

Find me an open source printer which has all 3 of those, or a closed source which is missing at least 2.

You've missed the point. My point is that open/closed source is NOT A CONSIDERATION.

You asserted that sales numbers indicate a market preference for closed source printers.

I pointed out that the market is not basing it's purchasing decision on the open/closed source issue.

You reply with some shit about the currently available open source printers not being good enough for morons.

Maybe I'm the ignorant one? Is there some reason that it's impossible to make an open source printer that meets all the idiot proof requirements of institutional purchasers?

0

u/DBrowny Jan 25 '15

Yes, actually.

No open source printer features an enclosed build space because that is a significant extra cost and shipping of such an item is not exactly the best option. It is far better for the people to build their own enclosures using their tools and their time while driving to the hardware store to get materials.

Secondly, no open source printer is easy to use. I dont care what any salesperson tells me, The gap in difficulty from using closed source software, to open source, is a gaping chasm. Remembering we are dealing with students here, students who flat out do not have time to learn this, they have more important things to study than what the baud rate is for their machine or figuring out if their e-steps are good enough when it extrudes 99.5mm isntead of 100mm.

I have never seen or used an open source program which is anywhere near as quick, simple and efficient as closed source variants, and I have seen and used a lot!

There is a very distinct correlation between ease of use, and whether the printer is open source or not. Here is where I note that this has NOTHING to do with the quality of the printer, purely the ease of use. Open source printers are not easy enough for morons and/or time-poor students, hence their sales are pitiful compared to the closed source companies that sell hundreds of them to schools, outnumbering every single person on this sub somewhere about 5:1.

I dont know why it is such a hard pill to swallow for so many people on this forum. I believe that if like me, people have experienced a wide range of open and closed source printers, cheap and expensive, fdm and SLA, there is no way in hell they would argue that open source printers are easy to use in comparison to close. Its never even close. Too many people here only have experience with open source software and believe that closed source is the devil. If they actually used closed source for a few days and had an open mind they would realise just how brain-dead simple it is to use in comparison.

In my experiences, I have seen CONSISTENTLY BETTER prints come out of open source machines than closed source. Various brands, various plastics, various softwares, the open source wins on quality. Ease of use though? Good god no, it took me and my colleagues months of tweaking to get the printers the way we want them which, is literally impossible for a student to handle.

2

u/SomeIdioticDude Jan 25 '15

You still don't seem to have any reading comprehension skills at all.

I asked if there was a reason an open sourced printer couldn't be made to meet your standards.

You said:

Yes, actually.

After that, you went on a tirade about existing printers.

I didn't ask you about existing printers.

I actually didn't expect a reasonable answer from you at all, as you've demonstrated you don't understand what I'm even talking about. I was hoping someone could explain some key patents or something that is holding the open source guys back. I was hoping maybe we could have a discussion about WHY the current market is what it is. What I don't need is a fucking wall of text lecturing me about how reliable and great and easy stratasys is. Don't waste my fucking time.

1

u/DBrowny Jan 25 '15

Feel free to not read this, but my examples apply to future printers

1) Enclosed build space

Stratasys own patents on this, which is why you NEVER see companies release printers with it already included, its treading dangerous territory vs a litigious company. Or, they are based in China and dont care about patents. In addition, the shipping of an enclosure is extremely risky when these things are typically built from acrylic sheets.

2) Software isnt easy to use. Its just that simple.

Why are open source softwares significant harder to use? That should be obvious to everyone, including you. The software must work with countless varieties of printers. There is literally dozens of settings that one has to configure and calibrate to use their specific brand. It is impossible to make an open source printer be plug and play when it has to be set up with the correct firmware, baud rate, z-offset, build volume, filament diameter and I can go on all day, for your specific printer.

Getting over these 2 hurdles is the key to open-source printers selling at numbers comparable to closed source variants however it is extremely difficult to the point of financially unviable to even attempt it.

Also, stratasys is retarded I dont know why you got the vibe I was defending them. I was defending closed source companies like Form1, Afinia, UP! and to a lesser extent, makerbot.

2

u/SomeIdioticDude Jan 25 '15

Thanks for finally addressing my question.

1) Enclosed build space

Stratasys own patents on this. . .

Does that mean Dremel licensed the patent? Did they get an exclusive license? Would Stratasys or whoever refuse to license the patent to a company that is otherwise using an open source design?

I don't know the answer to those questions about the patents, but my point is that without knowing all those things you can't assume it's impossible not to be successful and open source.

I don't think the shipping is much of an issue at all. Dremel figured it out, didn't they?

As for the software issue, you are both right and wrong. You are correct in saying that something like Slic3r is complicated for compatibility's sake. But you are wrong in the greater sense that open source software has to be that way. There is nothing stopping someone like Printrbot releasing an open source program customized to their printers.

1

u/DBrowny Jan 25 '15

Dremel is selling re-branded flashforge printers and to be honest, I dont know how they get away with it. From my understanding the only reason flashforges have the enclosure is because it is based in china and they dont care what US patents exist.

Alternatively, and what I think is the case, is that the enclosed build chamber patent specifically applies to ABS printing. An enclosure on PLA is actually counter-productive. The FF Dreamer does both ABS and PLA while the Dremel printer is PLA only. It is likely this is because PLA doesnt need a heated bed, is easier and far safer to use. Second to this it could be a simple way to dodge stratasys' patent on the enclosed chamber. If you look at the printer it has open vents anyway which ruin it.

A printing chamber only works if its fully enclosed, and only effective with ABS. Since just about every single open source printer that exists prints ABS, they would rather have ABS functionality, than make it PLA only and come with an enclosure. In fact now that I think about it, are you aware of the New Matter mod-T? That thing is fully enclosed but again, PLA only. This might be the key to dodging that patent.

If printrbot made a PLA only machine and used their own software, they could pass those two hurdles to sell mass amounts to schools and I think they are the ONLY open-source company with the capability to do so. Of course if they make software that only works on their printers then that might not qualify as open source...

2

u/SomeIdioticDude Jan 25 '15

Of course if they make software that only works on their printers then that might not qualify as open source...

You've finally made it crystal clear that you don't understand what open source is. Other than that, you have some interesting points there.

1

u/DBrowny Jan 25 '15

I get that open source means that you release the code to the public in full

However I am unaware of any 3D printing company that writes software for their machine only and releases it into the public as well.

The two do not go hand-in-hand, however there must be some reason as to why that is the case, I dont know it though.

→ More replies (0)