Stratasys and Makerbot to Merge

2 of the largest 3D-printer makers, Stratasys and Makerbot are going to merge:

[phys.org]


Is this a good or a bad thing for consumers?

I don't think anyone really cares what happens to MBI.

What will be interesting is what happens to Thingiverse. How quickly will it be monetized?

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

That deal has been floating around for a month or two. It's a buyout, not a merger. Stratasys will control Makerbot though they'll leave current Makerbot management in place. I don't see any impact on the Reprap community either good or bad. Of those that may want to print, most consumers aren't interested in building a machine, they'd rather buy one. What it will do is accelerate the the growth into the consumer space. My guess would be Thingiverse will be monetized like Ponoko or Shapeways where they'll offer prints of the designs. If your designs or files are hosted on Thingiverse you've already assigned them a perpetual license. They'll likely offer something like 3DS does with Quickparts as a jobber RP shop.

John Biggs has an interesting (to me, anyway) piece on Techcrunch about the deal and compares Makerbot to Apple.

Quote

Many will say that Makerbot sold out. Many will complain that the company lost open source roots. Many will claim that there are better printers out there. None of these claims are absolutely false, to be clear, but things are not as cut and dry as we like to think. Makerbot took something simple and made it amazing. They sold when they had to, especially considering issues with quality control and support, and I trust Pettis will bring the open source ethos to Stratasys headquarters and tell them it’s off limits. 3D printing isn’t new, just as computing wasn’t new when Apple hit the scene. Makerbot, like Apple, made it accessible.

[techcrunch.com]

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/19/2013 08:07PM by vegasloki.

I almost just passed out from laughing so hard!

Quote

...and I trust Pettis will bring the open source ethos to Stratasys headquarters and tell them it’s off limits.

This guy needs to go do his homework. Pettis traded in his "open-source warrior" badge the instant he took VC funding. Now his employee nametag reads "Bre Pettis, whore".

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

I believe that Makerbot where inspired by Reprap. So in that sense there is a comparison to Apple, where the inventive genius who did the work (Steve Wozniak/Adrian Bowyer) is left out of the picture while the ruthless and ambitious Steve Jobs tramples over everyone to get the fame and pots of money. The original roots of Apple being indie chic eventually abandoned as the company turns into an unethical monster, as Makerbot turn from open source to corporate monolith. Well done Bre Pettis *claps*

I think Bre claimed "we have to think about our employees and their families". Will those employees be taken care of or now be abandoned? From what I have heard, Makerbot employees are treated pretty shabbily anyway.

We have an answer to the question posed at the open hardware summit : how do open source companies get to be $100 million companies? Answer: sell out to a closed source company. I kind of suspected that some of the open hardware companies probably don't care about open source, they are just using it as a marketing device while it is convenient but the goal is really to make as much money as possible.

I guess that all the patents and thingiverse etc owned by Makerbot now go to Stratasys. These big companies have a reputation for being aggressive with their IP. So much for saying "don't worry, Makerbot is not really evil they are just having to face practicalities of business and becoming a bit closed source". The problem is that once something is owned, it can be bought and sold, and while the first owner may be benevolent, the next one might not be.

Hopefully there is a lesson there. If you are not open, you are closed.

Mr Bowyer has Makerbot stock so he's probably not overly worried

Ben

Quote

I kind of suspected that some of the open hardware companies probably don't care about open source, they are just using it as a marketing device while it is convenient but the goal is really to make as much money as possible.

Never forget: being open source isn't a religion, but a business model. Even if your profit is "having fun".

Also, making money is the single reason why companies exist at all. If the founder were altruistic, he'd found a non-profit organisation. ... which doesn't mean non-profit organisations are neccessarily altruistic.

Quote

Mr Bowyer has Makerbot stock so he's probably not overly worried

True, but compared to the 10M funding MakerBot got, it's probably not much.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Quote
bobc
These big companies have a reputation for being aggressive with their IP.

I hope everyone here understands that had Stratasys really wanted to be aggressive with their IP, they would have shut down the RepRap project before it ever got started.

Please see this thread from 2008 for some background on the relation between Stratasys and RepRap. As Forrest Higgs (core member at the time) said:

Quote
Forrest Higgs
I'd personally appreciate it if you all didn't antagonise the people at Stratasys. Nothing is to be gained by doing so and a considerable amount of good will is likely to be lost. We have a good working relationship with them and would would like to keep it that way.

Traumflug Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Never forget: being open source isn't a religion,
> but a business model. Even if your profit is
> "having fun".


It's certainly that way now but in the beginning Stallman was pretty adamant about restricting the commercialization of GPL licensed wares by some of the terms of the GPL. That lead some to license under BSD or MIT. The irony is that for proporting to be "free" the original GPL was fairly restrictive. Those days are gone and many realize that a profit model needs to exist and work toward models that are beneficial to both users and business.

For those intent on demonizing Makerbot and Pettis they can't have it both ways. Some complain about the delays in product and the working conditions (which are common in a busy startup) but then chastise him for initiating a move to further capitalize the company. Manufacturing on that scale takes a tremendous amount of money and talent. It's not something that can easily be bootstrapped without outside infusions of capital. The DIY/maker/hacker/tinker culture is distinctly different from the mass production of consumer widgets (which is what Makerbot is these days) and the culture will survive and I'd say even grow and flourish in the current environment.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/20/2013 04:07PM by vegasloki.

You also have to wonder if they did not sell, if they would be worth more in a year or less. Remember that Facebook did not sell when offered a billion dollars, and that was a shocking move at the time.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/20/2013 05:16PM by rsilvers.

---

[www.matter-replicator.com]

We have to consider; who are the consumers?

MakerBot/Bre's mission has always been to get 3d printers into the hands of as many people as possible. I question that goal. What do we gain by more people having 3d printers? More people can download files from the internet and print them. Great?

A strength of RepRap is that it sets barriers for the user that necessitate a certain level of curiosity and skill. It's these folks that can figure out how to use inexpensive 3d printers for real, meaningful purposes.

So, yes, the merger will benefit the inexpensive 3d printer market for "consumers." It, or some similar action, was also inevitable, so regardless of how I feel about it... What I feel is most important is that we continue to expose the technology to people who can truly use it for technological and societal gain. These machines are much more than entertainment. We can excite youth, we can make things that do other things, and we can make more, better machines. The trouble is that none of that is easy. Making widgets from thingiverse, while I do believe there is value there, is easy and is largely a form of entertainment for many MakerBot customers. This merger is good for them.

If anything, this is a call to action for all of us to work harder. Is it bad for RepRap? Not necessarily. It's not up to MakerBot to decide the fate of 3d printing.

Fun reading.

[files.shareholder.com]

Slide 12 is interesting.

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

Whatever happens to MBI will have zero affect on reprap. They have a completely different customer base. If stratasys buys them, they'll have access to a cache of patents, but I doubt that stratasys would be getting into the $200 3d printer business with this move. They could even just close MBI down to protect their super expensive printer business.

Yes, all the MBI owners/managers will get a huge paycheck. Show of hands, who would turn down a couple million in the bank? The forums are full of advertisements from people trying to accomplish the same. Not like Linus is driving a beat up honda civic either.

The issue with thingiverse is that there is nothing else that even comes close to it as an alternative. The most popular things have at 10ish thousand downloads, minus multiple downloads, minus bots and minus people who never printed it, so it's not even catering to a huge audience. If ownership is the issue, don't upload designs there. If the license changed from the time a design was uploaded, there can be a case made in court.

The Bre dude obviously knows that there will soon be changes in the market. Either due to the $200 makibox style printers becoming available, or companies like HP/Epson/... getting into the business. This move makes complete sense, especially since they have to write paychecks to their employees every two weeks.

Stratasys/MBI can't harm reprap, we can build whatever we want in our basement as long as we are not selling products with their patents.

The Makiboxes haven't yet shipped and until they do (and be proven to work) they aren't a factor. It appears that Buford and Lam having the same sorts of issues that Pettis had/has at Makerbot. I don't see the $200 price point being sustainable even from Hong Kong. I'd think the low end price point for Makerbot will be around $1000 or so (think Cube) with most of the machines (and likely the margins as well) on the $2k-$3k Replicators.

What's wrong with monetizing thingiverse? My site was built with the sole purpose of being a paid thingiverse:
[www.createthis.com]

I think paid software always has a place in the ecosystem. Open Source can't be everything to everyone. Some of us need to pay the mortgage.

That said, I'm a little bummed out by the merger. I think it basically means Makerbot will never infringe on Stratasys's other product lines. Innovation probably died with the deal.

--
Jesse
[www.diyservo.com]
[www.createthis.com]

For the record i think Zach Smith(Hoeken) is the closest analogy to Wozniak. (Not that the analogy is very close)

What VCs and companies do is incorporate things into the mainstream. Incorporate it into the status quo, and any ideals or ideas how to actually do things be damned. And it is not like democracy is an alternative to change those things.

Quote

Yes, all the MBI owners/managers will get a huge paycheck.Show of hands, who would turn down a couple million in the bank? The forums are full of advertisements from people trying to accomplish the same. Not like Linus is driving a beat up honda civic either.

What do i need to do for that million? AFAIK Linus didnt sell out much for his money. Frankly if i had a company, i'do s rather keep it smaller rather than use VC funding in a way that will require being 'bought out', or use some method of power to actually make enough money to satisfy them. That is, assuming VC funding even works that way; as long as you keep them happy you're in control.

Maybe i have too high standards about peoples' behavior, and my attempt at actually beneficial behavior is pointless. (Yes you bring up what you think is good, but that aint that good if you're not a fan of consumer&subordinating society.)

The restrictions in the GPL are there to make sure it doesnt all get taken without giving back. So yes, if you're closed source, GPL might aswel be closed source to you. Thats the fucking point. Hell, if the number of authors is managably low(all must agree), you might even be able to get the software in different license from them. (Of course you cannot revoke GPL licenses already given.) Its called dual licensing.

The most important thing now.. How much does it cost to run a thingiverse-like website, just the hardware, for instance? What is the rationale for -for instance- supporting slic3r, basically what does it take to get enough to support the website? Note that quite a bit of the software is already there. fabfabbers looks pretty good already, just need comments, uploading directly, probably thingtracker .json files, and maybe some form to give feedback indicating you printed it.

Note: ideas like thingtracker could decentralize the stuff, so people could just use their own websites, but for many potential users, i think that lacks convenience. But i'd be nice if the convenient websites supported it, so people have choice and websites(if multiple) interconnect to each other well.

Jasper1984 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
The most important thing now.. How much does it
> cost to run a thingiverse-like website, just the
> hardware, for instance? What is the rationale for
> -for instance- supporting slic3r, basically what
> does it take to get enough to support the website?
> Note that quite a bit of the software is already
> there. fabfabbers looks pretty good already, just
> need comments, uploading directly, probably
> thingtracker .json files, and maybe some form to
> give feedback indicating you printed it.
>

Just the hardware, isn't a huge cost, at least initially. The cost is really in developing and supporting.

As I mentioned in another thread, if people think FabFabbers can step in here, in a way that's both acceptable to reprappers, while at the same time providing a hosting service for people that just want the convenience, I'm happy to look into that.

I think the valid concern people have is having their models/data locked up (which is why I went the GitHub syncing route). I keep thinking about doing an open source Kickstarter project, the aim being an open source hosting solution, but where the Kickstarter pledges are for, say , a year's hosting of a central repo.

The aim also would be for some kind of open meta data - Gary's Thingtracker for instance.

I believe this will have an effect on reprappers and it is this. If you have done your homework, and have become successful in obtaining consistent, reliable output, and you understand the math, the electronics and the mechanics of these machines fluently, you, in a couple of years, will have a high paying job opportunity, anywhere you are or want to be. Stratasys has no intention of sweeping fdm under the carpet, they know they need to expand their model because at this point, everybody that has a hundred grand to plunk down on a printer has pretty much done so. There are things you can't do in powder, such as creating precise controlled voids or embedded materials. Let's face it - if they put a toll booth in front of the thingiverse, it will spur those of us who really are serious about this to hone our cad skills, and make things we really want. I would predict that in the next 10 years, additive processes will account for at least 15% of manufactured goods, and realign markets to locally produced goods as shipping costs rise. Those of us on this forum who really care about the hobby now will be very marketable in various segments of this market, So if Bri becomes a billionaire, good for him. Those of you old enough to remember will recall that those present at the start of the PC industry, those in the right place, did pretty well for themselves under the skirts of the pirates of Silicon Valley.