Monthly Archives: September 2012

The Prusa i3 Is A RepRap That You Can Flat Pack

You may or may not already know who Josef Prusa is. If you’re reading this…odds are you know.

He’s taking his “3rd Iteration” (i3) RepRap to the Open Hardware Summit, and the coolest thing is that it breaks down into two flat sections!

Finally it’s easy to travel with a 3D printer. Don’t print on your desktop, print WORLDWIDE! [from Josef Prusa's twitter]

For those who are interested in the ever increasing diversity of the RepRap family tree, the i3 seems to be based mostly on the design of Nop Head’s Mendel90.

There isn’t much information available at the moment, but it looks like Prusa has created some special components, particularly in the extruder. Here are some notes, and the github. And here it is printing a giant vase…

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Raspberry Pi Super Computer (With Legos)

The Raspberry Pi is a $35 single board computer.

If you network a lot of computers together you can use them like one giant computer. If you’re 6 you can hold them all together with Legos. Check out Professor Simon Cox’s group at Southampton University; they put Legos and Rasberry Pis together to form a supercomputer and documented the process so you can make one yourself (2-64+ nodes).

additional links

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Makerbot’s Lawyer Explains Thingiverse Terms Of Use

Apparently Makerbot’s in-house lawyer has more important things to do than explain legal jargon to the public.

In a concise and coherent post, Rich McCarthy explains how Makerbot has structured their legal relationship with Thingiverse contributors. The short of it is that they are using roughly the same terms as sites like Youtube.com, they make no claim of ownership on anything uploaded to Thingiverse, and whatever license you attach to your work (like Creative Commons) they respect.

Well…that’s it. I don’t like doing tiny posts, so here is Josef Prusa explaining how to use the “new” Makerware program with old “unsupported” Makerbot printers.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The First Replication Of The First Open Source Tractor

Open Source Ecology (OSE) is trying to create an open source alternative to all of the industry and infrastructure that a modern civilization requires.

They got a little bit closer to that goal when two high school students followed the documentation provided on their website and produced an independent copy of OSE’s LifeTrac and the Power Cube that provides it with hydraulic pressure. This is D & H Tractors discussing the process.

The OSE blog post.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Amp Hour #114

I think this episode of The Amp Hour is a nice segue from Makerbot’s open/closed source fiasco.

After an introduction about winter and new jobs they discuss the Replicator 2 and Pettis’ abysmal message control. Then they talk about how Kickstarter has recently changed their rules for hardware projects.

In the blog post Kickstarter Is Not a Store we find that Kickstarter is getting a little tired of the vaporware shenanigans that have been going on.

Today we’re introducing a number of changes to reinforce that Kickstarter isn’t a store — it’s a new way for creators and audiences to work together to make things…Today we added a new section to the project page called “Risks and Challenges.” All project creators are now required to answer the following question when creating their project: “What are the risks and challenges this project faces, and what qualifies you to overcome them?”

Product simulations are prohibited. Projects cannot simulate events to demonstrate what a product might do in the future. Products can only be shown performing actions that they’re able to perform in their current state of development. Product renderings are prohibited. Product images must be photos of the prototype as it currently exists.

Offering multiple quantities of a reward is prohibited. Hardware and Product Design projects can only offer rewards in single quantities or a sensible set (some items only make sense as a pair or as a kit of several items, for instance). The development of new products can be especially complex for creators and offering multiple quantities feels premature, and can imply that products are shrink-wrapped and ready to ship.

There’s discussion about not allowing simulations over on Core77.

It’s possible that Kickstarter changed their rules in response to the LIFX LED lightbulb project. They asked for $100,000 and with 50 days to go they already have $1,311,863. However, they are claiming to be able to build and ship an LED lightbulb, which is something that established manufacturers have failed to do for a long time. It looks like Kickstarter is trying to protect themselves (and their users) from the implication that a project is much farther along then it actually is. Understandably they don’t want people dumping a million dollars into a project that simply can’t go anywhere because of the laws of physics. Reuters really took a magnifying glass to the LIFX project and their analysis wasn’t pretty.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bre Pettis Of Makerbot Tries Again (Emphasis On Try)

If anyone was suffering under the illusion that Makerbot had suddenly become an evil company that was plotting evil and evily being evil, then Pettis’ new post should put those fears to rest.

Pettis, on behalf of Makerbot, tried to rephrase his original message to the community.

For what it’s worth (I’ve never run a million dollar business), I agree with Makerbot’s business decision(s). The hacker community just isn’t big enough, by itself, to allow Makerbot to grow. Also for what it’s worth (I won’t pretend to speak for anyone else), I agree with Makerbot’s ethical decision(s). Open source means releasing your work for other people to do with as they will. There are no takesies-backsies. If you were a big enough person to use an open souce license (or no license) in the first place then don’t suddenly become a small person when somebody actually does something with the work you released.

What I have a problem with is the thing that illustrates that Makerbot actually IS fumbling their way through uncharted terrain: even with all of his experience as a teacher, and a geek-media personality, and the face of Makerbot, and with a couple days of feedback…Pettis still can’t figure out how to talk about the Replicator 2 being closed source.

  • He can’t decide if the Replicator 2 is “groundbreaking” because it’s brand new or if it’s exactly the same as the open source Replicator with a few minor alterations for mass production
  • He regularly conflates ethical decisions with financial ones
  • He implies that the customers who bought Cupcakes and whatnot when the Makerbot founders were eating Ramen don’t respect the machines because they’d rather “break” them than use them to make other things
  • He plays lip service to valuing the discussion, but only quotes people who agree with him
  • He has been intimately involved in open source hardware, and business, for as long as anyone relevant but he can’t come up with any specific “wonderful benefits” of corporate/community collaboration
  • Finally, he expresses a desire to be credited with “love and support for the sharers of the world” but also wants credit for making the Replicator 2 (and the implication is all subsequent printers) “more user friendly but less hacker friendly”

This shouldn’t be interpreted as a condemnation. I think these contradictions illustrate that Makerbot really is unsure of its position, both economically and philosophically. There are some real issues here. But, Pettis’ failure to deal with them clearly comes of as Machiavellian. I still put enough trust in Makerbot and Pettis to assume that they aren’t being Machiavellian, but apparently they jumped over that shark in the eyes of a significant percentage of the community.

I don’t think it was really the closed product that did it; I think it was the bush-league way Makerbot handled (and is still handling) the community’s concerns. There’s no way they would have done this much damage to their reputation on purpose; the only plausible explanation is that they are legitimately confused.

I think this quote sums it up, “If we are not entirely clear, it’s because we are searching ourselves!

However, Pettis should probably find someone else to write his Open Hardware Summit speech.

An interesting bit of history is this interview with Make Magazine right after that infamous $10M of VC funding. For what it’s worth, here is what Pettis had to say at the time:

  • Does funding change the commitment to open source hardware?
  • The funding doesn’t change our commitment to being open source. Why would we change a winning strategy?…In the future, people will remember businesses that refused to share with their customers and wonder how they could be so backwards…I think people worry on our behalf that as an open hardware company, we’ll get knocked off and undercut. First of all, that happens all the time to businesses that are not open hardware. In order to be truly competitive, we’ve got to keep rocking it!
  • What do the investors believe they are investing in? Since open source hardware “gives away” some of the IP usually associated with investments, do they understand that others could make MakerBots too?
  • The investors are investing in us as innovators and our ability to execute on a vision. Being open source means that our users are our best collaborators. Open source hardware is a viable business model!
  • The usual goal for VC firms is to have the company they invest in get acquired or go public. Where do they want to see MakerBot go? Where do you want MakerBot to go?
  • Our plan is to make the world a more innovative place filled with MakerBots.
  • Now that you’ve got “real money” at play, are you worried about people coming after you over patents? Is MakerBot mostly patent-free? Or are we going to see a good chunk of that 10 mil go towards lawyers? Before, you likely weren’t worth the trouble, but now?
  • It’s going to be hard to figure out how to be an open hardware company that lives in the open source future while protecting ourselves from the proprietary ways of the contemporary patent system.
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Definitive Makerbot Open vs Closed Source Discussion

I did my best to document all the different points of view that are relevant to the open source hardware world but are spread all over the interwebs.

The original Makerbot founders.

This post got big, fast. Really big. After the jump you can find key quotes from Bre Pettis, Zachary Smith (Hoeken), Adrian Bowyer, Josef Prusa, etc.

Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bre Pettis Responds To Comments

It looks like damage control is the first thing on today’s to-do list. Bre Pettis responded to many of the comments on his original blog post.

His overall point seems to be that he’s not going to be, or can’t be, more specific because there just isn’t a clearly defined business model for what they’re doing.

Folks really want a black or white answer, but in my experience, it just doesn’t work that way when combining open source, hardware, and business. There is an open hardware definition, but it’s a far throw from a business model.

I’m not convinced that open source hardware is actually a business model.

I’d rather experiment and develop a business model that shares obsessively while still being sustainable and creating jobs…

I totally get that people wish we would fail or die trying. You are catching us at a moment where we are trying to figure out how to share as much as possible without failing

I used to think that open source automatically meant winning. I’m not convinced that is all it takes any more. I believe that tenacity, growth, collaboration, hard work and being able to compete with non-open competitors are all critical in being sustainable as a business.

There is an open hardware definition, but there isn’t a clear business model. Sorry for the orwellian feel, I’m trying to be clear about where we’re at and the challenges we have.

 

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

An Ex-Founder Of Makerbot On Open Vs Closed

Zachary Smith (aka Hoeken) was on of the three original founders of Makerbot. He’s posted a response to the recent scuffle over the release of the Replicator 2, Josef Prusa’s public questioning of its open source credentials, and Bre Pettis’ “load of corporate double-speak bullshit” response to the community.

Check it out…it’s a little depressing (and not just because of the sad kitten).

 In 2009, I invited my friends Adam Mayer and Bre Pettis to go into business with me building 3D printers. Thus, MakerBot Industries was born. Fast forward to April, 2012 when I was forced out of the very same company.

MakerBot was built on a foundation of open hardware projects such as RepRap and Arduino, as well as using many open software projects for development of our own software. I remain a staunch supporter of the open source movement, and I believe the ideals and goals of OSHW remain true.

I’m trying to contact people to find out what the real scoop is but so far nobody is talking, and my ex-partners are not returning phone calls or emails. It certainly doesn’t look good.  The best information I have found is a load of corporate double-speak bullshit that has come to characterize my interactions with MakerBot in recent memory.

For me, personally, I look at a move to closed source as the ultimate betrayal…I had assumed that Bre would continue to follow the principles that we founded the company on, and the same principles that played a major part in the success of our company. Moving from an open model to a closed model is contrary to everything that I stand for, and as a co-founder of MakerBot Industries, it makes me ashamed to have my name associated with it.

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Guide For Defeating Procrastination by Alex Vermeer

Open source revolves around The Project.

Without projects, there wouldn’t be an open source movement. If there’s no project then there’s nothing to be open about in the first place. Additionally, the projects are usually something new and interesting. That’s great for producing the motivation to finish, but a lot of the time “new and interesting” leads directly to the unknown. A learning curve, or a delay, can turn a promising project into something permanently on the back burner.

Alex Vermeer has put together a beautifully simple poster that is based on The Procrastination Equation. Basically, expectancy and value are good, impulsiveness and delay are bad, and the poster has a ton of different strategies for increasing the good and decreasing the bad.

Here’s what it looks like…

And here’s where you can download your own copy. Vermeer released it under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 license for Canada.

You can also buy a physical poster here.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers