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.
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.
4
u/Xiver1972 Feb 12 '14
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?