Bre and others talking about open/closed source on youtube

Bre and others talking about the situation on youtube
[www.youtube.com]

Closed is Open
Open is Closed
2+2=5

Sadly, Pettis comes across as disingenuous, hypocritical and cynical. "Sorry guys, thanks for the free stuff, but I need to make money". His view is shared by a lot of people who don't understand Open Source. Ideas are valuable, which is why the closed model allows protection. People just can't get their head around the idea of "giving away" something valuable, but that is the essence of Open Source. For investors and share holders, giving away value is anathema to business principles.

There were several comments at the OHS summit about building "million dollar open source companies". The measure of success is now $$$, not contribution to open source. Chris Anderson described Open Source principles as "religion" and "doctrinaire". There was also talk about the good parts of Open Source - free R&D, good community, and the bad parts - cloning (ie. freedom of use). The question was how to turn Open Source into a one way street to benefit business.

He also used the military phrase "no battle plan survives first contact with the enemy", which is quite telling. Principles are all very well, but when it comes the the practical matter of fighting a war, or making money, some of them might have to be abandoned.

I expect that companies like Makerbot will continue to be signatories to OSHW, but in name only. They will also mine the community with Thingiverse. I also expect that a group of open source businesses will try to get the OSHW license to be revised to make it more like a closed model, allow patents, non commercial clauses etc.

The fact that other speakers (other Open Source business men) generally supported Makerbot, rather than reiterate Open Source principles, suggests that the "Open Source" Hardware Alliance days are numbered.

[www.gnu.org]

Apparently Bre thinks that hackers and makers can't work with metal

Seems like he believes that hackers and makers don't have tangible skills... A hacker/maker is but an artist with access to safety paper scissors

I understand they want to make money now; that doesn't mean they didn't get to where they are now by drawing on the loyalty and emotional synergy of the open source community...

More tact was needed in the delivery of this change in dogma to their fans.

A plan on how they intend to support the open source community in the future would have been nice -> and no, "we still have cardboard RepStraps for sale" does not count as a plan to support the OSHW community.

Much as a Rocket with many stages tosses away smaller booster rockets as it propels itself into orbit; MakerBot has jettisoned the OSHW community on its rise to corporate enterprise.

At least Pettis doesn't claim the Replicator 2 is open source.

In the open source software arena I've seen a lot of companies going closed from open source. The only way to get rid of this is to show how open source works better, is superior to keeping things closed.

Talking about idealistic principles doesn't matter; what matters is their revenue, and only the revenue. So you can show either how being not open cuts their revenue in the face of open competition or you can show how they leverage their revenue by being open.

To be honest, I see neither happen. People are waaay to much into "why build it, if you can buy it cheap?". As long as people prefer to buy, and I consider some 90% of all RepRappers to think this way, they sustain MakerBot-type business models. Sad, isn't it?

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

bobc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sadly, Pettis comes across as disingenuous,
> hypocritical and cynical. "Sorry guys, thanks for
> the free stuff, but I need to make money". His
> view is shared by a lot of people who don't
> understand Open Source. Ideas are valuable, which
> is why the closed model allows protection. People
> just can't get their head around the idea of
> "giving away" something valuable, but that is the
> essence of Open Source. For investors and share
> holders, giving away value is anathema to business
> principles.
Agree 100%.

Traumflug Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> People are waaay to much into "why build it, if you can buy
> it cheap?". As long as people prefer to buy...
Exactly and this is what drives the whole consumer market and why the world is so tied to China that makes things so cheap you couldn't even purchase a single part in the entire item that would cost less. Look at the dollar stores, with 99% of their items from China, that sell Solar Powered items and hell, I can't even purchase a battery for 1 dollar that is in the item so don't even think it would be cheaper to make. Now, the problem is that while it is less expensive to just buy it if you made it (and most people do not have the knowledge nor time to make anything these days) the quality would rival anything you buy in the dollar store (thinking about my Solar Powered items for instance).

That 1 dollar solar rock or solar walkway light would cost me about 5-6 dollars to make not including the battery but it would be of a better quality and last way longer (the solar powered rocks lasted me about one season).

---

_______
I await Skynet and my last vision will be of a RepRap self replicating the robots that is destroying the human race.

Unfortunately Dark Alchemist your anti china rants will not change anything except make others wary of you.

I don't get what your aim is? Hopefully you have rid your home of all chinese made items. If you do I am sure we wont hear from you again (given most computer and smart phones are made in china). If you dont your further rants have an air of hypocrisy.

Although you will be happy playing with your wooden home made chess to kill time.

Did the chinese and indian population steal you job?

harvey moon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unfortunately Dark Alchemist your anti china rants
> will not change anything except make others wary
> of you.
>
> I don't get what your aim is? Hopefully you have
> rid your home of all chinese made items. If you do
> I am sure we wont hear from you again (given most
> computer and smart phones are made in china). If
> you dont your further rants have an air of
> hypocrisy.
>
> Although you will be happy playing with your
> wooden home made chess to kill time.
>
> Did the chinese and indian population steal you
> job?
Look, the truth hurts doesn't it? What did I say that was untrue? Nothing that's what.

Look, people, just because you don't like that I said something, like the above, that is 100% true doesn't mean I am wrong. Open your damn eyes and tell me what in a USA dollar store can you build for a dollar? Look at all of the chains it had to go through from the manufacturing, the raw materials, the supply chain of shipping the item to your country, the labor costs, then the retail markup and you tell me can you make anything as cheap in costs AND cheaply made? I know everyone I personally know looks for anything not made in China and when they find them they buy them even if they cost slightly more because of the lesser quality made Chinese items (not counting all of the lead that is in these products including food). Could China make better quality items? Of course they could but then they would lose their strangle hold on the world as people would see a dollar made Chinese item or a dollar made local item and people would buy the local item.

Fact is the studies were already done and the quality went to hell in a hand basket when we started asking for cheaper priced items because something has to give. So the corporate thugs decided to get it made in Taiwan then made in China and when China runs its course and starts to eliminate its human rights violation and the workers start to make a decent wage (which they have already begun to demand) the corporate thugs will move to another country. I hear from my Chinese contacts that it has a problem not too dissimilar from the USA where our Mexico is your Vietnam. Cheaper labor and many jobs are starting to go over there and already I am starting to see made in Vietnam on some of the items I see in the stores.

Nope, no hate for the Chinese but a lot of hate for the corporate thugs that keep reducing the quality of these items because they want to make more profit and the consumers bitch and moan they want lower prices. You can't have quality and cheap prices regardless where it comes from.

Now as far as doing away with all of my China made goods if I could I would, and do when possible, but how many items do you have at your local store that is made locally? That is an extremely rare thing in any country today but tomorrow it will be VIetnam or whatever slave labor the corporate thugs can pillage.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2012 08:52AM by Dark Alchemist.

---

_______
I await Skynet and my last vision will be of a RepRap self replicating the robots that is destroying the human race.

Bre is basically claiming his company needs the income, and copies might lessen it. but the questions are clearly:

1) basically the question if it is true. Both on the budget side and the side that copies are taking away income.

2) if true, didn't they expand the company, knowing this would happen? Or did they just trust there wouldn't be any.

Also, i dont think Bre comes out as 'disingenuous, hypocritical and cynical' to anyone not very informed about the subject.

More importantly in general: Can't you(/we, but i will feel a bit bad saying it without having made a printer) take a more constructive approach to it?

The chief reason Open Source is not succeeding as a business plan (as in - not getting accepted, not as in - not working) is because it's horribly horribly unresearched economy- and accounting-wise. Yes, it can work, but try explaining that to your accountant and you'll see what i mean.

The problem gets more pronounced the bigger the company gets. It's the same with VC - they'll invest in an Open Source start-up if and only if they're sure it will eventually morph into a closed source one, after accumulating enough IP (see under: MBI). And whether you like it or not, the whole market and economy are currently playing by those rules. The whole idea of investing into something without having a guaranteed *direct* revenue from it is completely and utterly alien to most people.

And that's just the beginning of it...

I've been applying a sorta "karmic" principle to everything i do "commercially" for quite a while now (none of it RepRap related). I do things, then ask for money, not the other way around, thinking people think like me (or will at some point start thinking like me) and will simply feel like assholes for not paying for a product they're using or holding in their hands. I often let the other side make their offer first, instead of setting a firm price-point myself straight away, thinking it's in the other side's interest to pay me honestly if they want a quality product and a healthy business relationship. I do favours expecting to get favours in return, at some unspecified point down the road. I give my know-how freely (what little of it i have) expecting people will give back when i need theirs.

Guess what. It *does not work*. At least not yet. I'm not giving up on it, but i've grown a rather skeptical and grim viewpoint on it over the years. And I'm not terribly surprised others do give up on that line of thinking eventually.

What i hate about this whole deal is the double-speak and using Open Source as a marketing keyword.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2012 10:59AM by orcinus.

orc: You know I agree as your karmic stance is like the donate now button on so many products and you know most will tell you they don't even make enough to keep the server up. So, with things like that how is OS/OHW going to make any money?

---

_______
I await Skynet and my last vision will be of a RepRap self replicating the robots that is destroying the human race.

That's the thing. It won't. Open Source works in the long run (at least that's what i - maybe naively - believe).
In the short run, it's a money and time sink.

I'd really really like it if world consisted of Manfred Macxes from Charlie Stross' novel Accelerando. Quoth:

Quote

... a freelance “venture altruist,” giving away patentable high-tech ideas in exchange for endless handouts while looking forward to the day when nanotech-programmed smart matter surpasses humanity in intelligence and productivity.

Unfortunately, not only does world currently not work like that. It sometimes seems to me the universe doesn't either

orcinus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's the thing. It won't. Open Source works in
> the long run (at least that's what i - maybe
> naively - believe).
> In the short run, it's a money and time sink.
>
> I'd really really like it if world consisted of
> Manfred Macxes from Charlie Stross' novel
> Accelerando. Quoth:
> ... a freelance “venture altruist,” giving
> away patentable high-tech ideas in exchange for
> endless handouts while looking forward to the day
> when nanotech-programmed smart matter surpasses
> humanity in intelligence and productivity.
>
> Unfortunately, not only does world currently not
> work like that. It sometimes seems to me the
> universe doesn't either

QFT and QFE!

---

_______
I await Skynet and my last vision will be of a RepRap self replicating the robots that is destroying the human race.

@orcinus: to be honest, the 'karmic' approach seems a bad one.. Neither the customer, nor you knows what the deal is. The customer might not even have a good estimate, he might be embarrassed about giving too much aswel. Imho better to be upfront about the costs and price..(note: this is a little off topic)

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2012 11:28AM by Jasper1984.

Just because something doesn't always work out in a market economy does NOT make it not viable as a product, service, device, whatever. A market economy is not for everything and not everything is part of a market economy, one example: You don't see too many parents putting their children up for adoption because child rearing is not profitable. Likewise you don't see too many friendships or relationships breaking up because it does not generate cash flow. That's because in our culture a market economy in these areas is taboo and sometimes viewed with disgust. It's all cultural bullshit, many cultures have done things, or made products, or distributed goods in viable ways outside of a market economy.

Gift Economy
Subsistance Economy
Planned Economy
Market Economy

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2012 12:27PM by Kt.

Answer me this about global capitalism, if you support it.

Tell me why a Chinese person is not worth less than a person from a richer society like US or Europe.

Same hour of work producing the same item with less pay, their time is worth less therefore they are worth less. If you subscribe to this system you acknowledge this belief every day in the products you buy.

Kt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Answer me this about global capitalism, if you
> support it.
>
> Tell me why a Chinese person is not worth less
> than a person from a richer society like US or
> Europe.
>
> Same hour of work producing the same item with
> less pay, their time is worth less therefore they
> are worth less. If you subscribe to this system
> you acknowledge this belief every day in the
> products you buy.
Agreed, but lets not forget this mindset has made China a very rich nation and their very own government allows it and actually encourages as any demands for a raise, or to be paid what they are worth, is met with severe punishment and even death in some cases. So, I applaud those Chinese that are standing up for their rights more and more knowing it could end them up in a very very bad place or even dead. This is why a lot of companies see Vietnam as the new China they can rape and pillage.

---

_______
I await Skynet and my last vision will be of a RepRap self replicating the robots that is destroying the human race.

Kt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just because something doesn't always work out in
> a market economy does NOT make it not viable as a
> product, service, device, whatever.

I know, i know...

That's why i wrote (clarification emphasized):
"The chief reason Open Source is not succeeding as a business plan (as in - not getting accepted, not as in - not working)..."


Jasper1984 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @orcinus: to be honest, the 'karmic' approach
> seems a bad one.. Neither the customer, nor you
> knows what the deal is.

I'm painfully aware of that. That's one of the reasons i've been tempted to ditch it for quite a while now.
That's one of those "does not work at first" things that can suddenly show emergent behavior and start working after a while.

Here's the thing. When it worked, it usually worked either with old-time friends, or, the person i was doing business with eventually became a friend.
As sobby and hippieish as that might sound

And yeah, we're straying in off topic territories. Sorry about that, i'll stop now.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2012 01:05PM by orcinus.

Look at the free services that Google provides. (not that those services were generated by open source projects)

Google has a fairly unconventional stratagem of pulling people into its circle with free services, and then makes money with advertisements and other indirect means.

I am fairly certain that an OSHW company can attract people into "it's circle" with its "good will" and "rapid innovation" and monetize the process with advertisements or other indirect means --> I feel like this was in essence the THINGIVERSE strategy up until they closed the Relicator 2.

I honestly thought there would be no stopping them.

Now, MakerBot just seems like a cheap knock off of Stratasys... I don't know if they will flourish or run out of customers; it will be interesting to watch.

I am sure they are banking in the fact that there is no real competing interest in the cheap, professional 3D printer arena.

There is only one source of competition now... a fractured group of Hobbyiests.... us.

Idolcrasher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is only one source of competition now... a
> fractured group of Hobbyiests.... us.

And that's the part that worries me. And the reason why i keep suggesting a more aggressive (but still largely defensive) approach to protecting the RepRap IP and community.

Some interesting responses on the thread here [groups.google.com]

"Openwashing" seems to be the counter-part to greenwashing. Make one product that uses a little less energy then claim to be "green".

I guess it was naive to think that businesses would use Open Source Hardware as anything other than a marketing tool, and to cherry pick bits that are useful to the bottom line, while ignoring the rest. People who stick their head up and point out when these companies are not sticking to Open Source principles that they have signed up to are "zealots", and even are "giving Open Source a bad name".

The hypocrisy is that these so-called OSHW companies say that they don't like the Chinese "carbon copy" tactics. The Chinese attitude is generally "if you don't like it, tough", yet they are quite happy to exploit OSHW for free R&D and as a marketing tool, and to anyone who complains say "if you don't like it, tough". Nothing gets in the way of making money.

If companies close up their IP, it's disappointing, but doesn't affect Reprap. What is more disturbing, though perhaps inevitable, is companies claiming patents on things that were previously available to the community. This is the really bad thing that Makerbot have done, which has been largely overlooked.

That is what I was saying bobc they have opened the door to something I don't like as you mentioned.

One thing I will say is just like the green thing you mentioned companies use that to lure you in and Energystar too. Funny thing is I watched a product go from less watts (amperage) listed on my washing machine to the next model being Energystar and it took way more. Oh, gotta watch Organic too as a lot of it is a sham even with laws in certain states saying you must meet blah blah they are still cheating and the state laws can't go to other states to see their farms, and monitor them, to make sure they really are the organic.

Nope, never ever trust a suit.

---

_______
I await Skynet and my last vision will be of a RepRap self replicating the robots that is destroying the human race.

Dark Alchemist,
by having one product it makes what you say hypocritial. Like a vegetarian who still eats pork sausages.

China can make quality goods, iphone, its just people who buy demand cheaper and cheaper so the ones placing the orders, not the chinese, demand cuts in quality.

Some companies, apple, want a quality product and china makes these well. Yes qc has to be stricter to ensure quality.



Unfortunately on topic, Bre justifies his stance because he employs people. Problem is he employed people initially by making and promoting an open source machine. Without open source he would have no people or business to worry about.

harvey moon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dark Alchemist,
> by having one product it makes what you say
> hypocritial. Like a vegetarian who still eats pork
> sausages.
>
> China can make quality goods, iphone, its just
> people who buy demand cheaper and cheaper so the
> ones placing the orders, not the chinese, demand
> cuts in quality.
>
> Some companies, apple, want a quality product and
> china makes these well. Yes qc has to be stricter
> to ensure quality.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately on topic, Bre justifies his stance
> because he employs people. Problem is he employed
> people initially by making and promoting an open
> source machine. Without open source he would have
> no people or business to worry about.
As I said people want cheap and don't use Apple on a pedestal as they had many human rights violations in their manufacturing plants over there that Steve Jobs knew about and turned a blind eye to. Besides their cost is something like $1.50 to $5.00 to make one of those so at those costs you tell me people aren't hurting YET an Iphone is 500-700 dollars (again greed).
Yeah, those workers in China are sure singing the praises of slavery cause you know there are tremendous amounts of Human Rights being violated and pollution equal to the entire planet at once all for what? Power.

I do not despise, nor hate the Chinese people I sympathize with them but I do absolutely hate the Red Chinese govt for all the pain they are allowing and craping on our planet for their devious reasons (wealth which brings eventual power). This is why the govt over there squashes any type of union talk or you may end up dead just for asking for a living wage. Why? Because they know wage increases and a better living environment would push the companies some place else and they need that money.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2012 10:12PM by Dark Alchemist.

---

_______
I await Skynet and my last vision will be of a RepRap self replicating the robots that is destroying the human race.

Dark Alchemist Wrote:
> Besides their cost is something
> like $1.50 to $5.00 to make one of those so at
> those costs you tell me people aren't hurting YET
> an Iphone is 500-700 dollars (again greed).

it cost far more than this to make an iphone. This should give you a better idea of the costs associated with their manufacture.
[news.yahoo.com]

Not a fan of apple or some of it's business practices just want to correct this info.

---

__________________________________________

I'm newly registered on this forum but I have been following/reading up on/researching 3d printing for 3 years or so.
My Reprappro mendel should be in my hands by the 19/10/12

Well, the main stream media in the states was spouting 4 dollars when the Human Rights violations hit the fan (was slightly before his death and lots after) so I bet that was for the ipod? So many I things they sell it is hard to keep track but even still 4 dollars for a 200-300 dollar ipod goes back to what I was talking about which is just sad.

$167.50 and an unlocked Iphone 5 costs here about 700 dollars (it is insane) so the Iphone5's new camera and new A6 raised its costs a fair bit I see but here is the thing where is the labor cost of assembling in that or do we no longer count those souls?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2012 10:36PM by Dark Alchemist.

---

_______
I await Skynet and my last vision will be of a RepRap self replicating the robots that is destroying the human race.

Is the 167.50$ cost as Apple sees it (they buy the components like the screen, ICs from other companies which make their profit too).
Or is 167.50$ the total cost of materials and labor for all components before any profits are made?

Probably the former.
There is a difference between the two.

Kt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is the 167.50$ cost as Apple sees it (they buy the
> components like the screen, ICs from other
> companies which make their profit too).
> Or is 167.50$ the total cost of materials and
> labor for all components before any profits are
> made?
>
> Probably the former.
> There is a difference between the two.

The story makes it out like the latter.

---

_______
I await Skynet and my last vision will be of a RepRap self replicating the robots that is destroying the human race.

Human rights are the last thing to change when countries are developing. America and the Uk had the same problems at the time of their industial revolutions.

Give the chinese some time and wages etc will get better. I am sure they are better off now then they were before but still have some way to go.

You can do your bit by not buying chinese goods, no matter what the reason. If that makes you feel better.

The irony is that you are saying this on a forum whose main machine mainly makes useless plastic widgets. Not only that the design is such that the aim is to make even more plastic making widget machines as easily as possible.