4 ms·

(Plethora Founder/CEO here) No - we aren't fucking kidding you, RebootTheSystem - we actually are making it a lot easier! ;-) We usually find the most resista

(Plethora Founder/CEO here) No - we aren't fucking kidding you, RebootTheSystem - we actually are making it a lot easier! ;-) We usually find the most resistance to our ideas from within the industry itself and among people with experience, which is why it's not changing. It's like the cab drivers complaining about Uber. We've got a ton of great customers (world class names, to people in their garage) who love us and our revenue is growing like crazy. That's how I know we're on to something. If making hardware was solved, why isn't everyone able to execute on it? Why is iterating physical products so slow and expensive? We were able to easily raise money because VCs saw the hardware startups struggling. There is so much room to go in making manufacturing / physical engineering easier - Moore's Law has barely made a dent in manufacturing. I'm excited for our journey ahead!

rebootthesystem 10y ago
> Why is iterating physical products so slow and expensive? Because you are moving molecules, not electrons and the cost of mistakes can range from financially crippling to causing a company to go bankrupt to killing people. Example: Takada Airbags. Do you really think it matters one iota if they had better rapid prototyping or a better version of Proto Labs or a better CAM software package? Or, how about manufacturing a VW car? How many billions are they losing because of software? How significant do you think eliminating the machinist (or whatever) might have been in this case? Or how about these issues: https://goo.gl/5QHpz4 https://goo.gl/5QHpz4 The resistance you are seeing is from people who exist well outside the echo chamber you are in. I mean, listen to yourself, you are comparing Moore's Law to manufacturing? Again. Are you fucking kidding me? Please get that out of your head. Funding? Funding means nothing. Funding doesn't mean an idea or a product is good or will be successful. It just means you were good at selling what you wanted to do to investors. And, in some cases, absolutely clueless investors (not saying that's the case here). That's it. Again, you are in an echo chamber. Funding means nothing. Fan boys mean nothing. Here's a list for you: https://www.cbinsights.com/blog/biggest-startup-failures/ https://www.cbinsights.com/blog/biggest-startup-failures/ Many more like that one. Look, where you lose someone like me is when you start to spew this nonsense about Moore's Law and manufacturing or the software engineering process and manufacturing. > It's like the cab drivers complaining about Uber. Another nonsensical example. And, yet again, this betrays your lack of understanding of the problems faced in real product manufacturing. And your other comments showcase your disdain towards those who, unlike you, have been busy making real progress in a range of industries, from consumer electronics, to brick manufacturing to medical, aerospace and everything in between. Manufacturing is always progressing because it is often the largest portion of the cost of getting a product to market. And so, the motivation to optimize manufacturing for cost, speed, efficiency, reliability, throughput and quality has been there for centuries. One could not be competitive to day with the processes and tools used 20 years ago. Yet you somehow reduce the totality of the manufacturing problem to "we need to CNC machine prototypes as fast as software teams iterate code". Who gives a fuck? Really? That problem is solved, to a large extent, by both technologies and companies. I can 3D print complex parts in metal while I sleep. I can have a complex 5-axis parts machined perfectly and in my hands in three days and at a reasonable cost. You are creating a solution for a non-existing problem. I just don't see it. Want to solve a real problem? Solve all the nagging friggin problems in 3D printing plastics. From speed to quality to dimensional accuracy and repeatability and more. There are real problems that need solving in that industry. The other stuff, what you are talking about, is a waste of time and money. Anyhow, we obviously disagree. I wish you the best.
- nickpinkston 10y ago
  Having a growing list of real customers isn't an echo chamber. It's reality and means we're solving a real problem. Hardware isn't hard because it's physical. It's hard because there's still a lot more progress left to go. There are no physics limits to making it orders of magnitude better on many dimensions. We just need to revitalize a stagnant industry. "Moore's Law to manufacturing" means taking the gains of computers and applying them to manufacturing where they're vastly under applied. Visit IMTS or Fabtech and you'll see how behind everything is - machines and software designed 10-30 years ago. Plethora is more than putting CNC machining on the internet. It's a new way of thinking about manufacturing. About taking the analogies of software and porting them to the manufacturing world. We've made a debugger, compiler, simulator, etc. for manufacturing CNC machined parts, but that's 1% of what we'll do. In the end, I suspect you're reacting to our optimism about radically changing a system - which I find funny for a user with the handle "RebootTheSystem" :-) Have fun out there.
  - rebootthesystem 10y ago
    Let's just agree to disagree. Keep my posts. You'll understand just what I meant when you fail. Or when you have to make a significant pivot because your original assumptions were wrong (and, they are). I visit IMTS every year. Progress is significant and steady. Many years ago I tried to lead a "movement" to stop using G-code and go with something that made much more sense to me. I wanted something closer to a modern programming language, something that, in my mind, worked better. In the end I failed because of a simple reason: I wanted a solution to a non-existing problem. Yeah, G-code is "unrefined" and cave-man-ish but, in the greater context of things, G-code is an insignificant part of the equation. It's a solved problem. And I was trying to solve it all over again. That's just one example. You are beating your head against a wall. It's really funny to read your comments about machines and software designed 10 to 30 years ago. First of all, you are wrong. These systems are always being improved. Every year. The problem you don't seem to understand is that manufacturing isn't like buying a bunch of PC's and upgrading them every year. I can't throw away a dozen Haas CNC machines of different types every two years to adopt someone's hair-brained scheme. I can't dispose of my very expensive automated SMT assembly and optical inspection lines because some kid in Silicon Valley decided they want manufacturing to be hip. No sir, this isn't a hobby. If you want me or anyone else to shift into new equipment just because the UI is cooler, well you lost right there. If you, on the other hand, came up with, as you said, "orders of magnitude" better manufacturing, well maybe you have something. You do know that an order of magnitude is 10 times better and "orders of magnitude" is at least 100 times better, right? See, this is where you lose me. The only way I can put such a statement is that is it ignorant of reality to an incredible degree. Naive beyond description. Just what do you think people have been doing for the last 30 years? Waiting for you to come along while using stone-age tools to manufacture product so you could make things 100 times better? Again, echo chamber. I don't think you understand just how incredibly stupid some of these things sound to someone who lives in the real world making real products with real modern manufacturing. You really don't have a clue, do you? OK, here's another challenge for you. Since you seem to be focusing so much on IMTS and arcane CNC machines. Show up at the next IMTS with a next generation CNC vertical machining center and lathe of your design. Demonstrate how your hardware and software combination is "orders of magnitude" better than prior approaches. I'll let you slide and say, just show me an improvement of 10x. That's it. Show me how you can make things 10x better by designing new machines with new software. Your statement was "you'll see how behind everything is - machines and software designed 10-30 years ago.". OK, great. Show-up at the next IMTS and be the beacon of light with machines and process that is at least 10x better. Of course, I fully expect the exact opposite to be the case. If you attempt to do such a thing you will soon discover just how little you know about manufacturing and how much more you have to learn. I feel sorry for your investors. As for your "growing customer list", it'd be very interesting to learn who they might be. I have a feeling I know. As for "rebootthesystem". Well, you are reading too much into that. It's just a name, not a cult. What you have is a cult. I am all for driving progress but it has to be in the realm of the plausible. One requirement there is to create attainable solutions for real problems. This isn't about old school clashing with new ideas. I know you and your team are painting my feedback as "typical old-fart who doesn't understand". Have a good time laughing at my expense. No problem. I have exactly zero problem with developing ground breaking modern solutions and questioning everything in the process. That is exactly what I do each day. And, guess what, manufacturing isn't where the problems are. Could it be better? Sure. 10x better. That is impossible. 100x better? C'mon, get real.

rebootthesystem 10y ago

> Why is iterating physical products so slow and expensive? Because you are moving molecules, not electrons and the cost of mistakes can range from financially crippling to causing a company to go bankrupt to killing people. Example: Takada Airbags. Do you really think it matters one iota if they had better rapid prototyping or a better version of Proto Labs or a better CAM software package? Or, how about manufacturing a VW car? How many billions are they losing because of software? How significant do you think eliminating the machinist (or whatever) might have been in this case? Or how about these issues: https://goo.gl/5QHpz4 https://goo.gl/5QHpz4 The resistance you are seeing is from people who exist well outside the echo chamber you are in. I mean, listen to yourself, you are comparing Moore's Law to manufacturing? Again. Are you fucking kidding me? Please get that out of your head. Funding? Funding means nothing. Funding doesn't mean an idea or a product is good or will be successful. It just means you were good at selling what you wanted to do to investors. And, in some cases, absolutely clueless investors (not saying that's the case here). That's it. Again, you are in an echo chamber. Funding means nothing. Fan boys mean nothing. Here's a list for you: https://www.cbinsights.com/blog/biggest-startup-failures/ https://www.cbinsights.com/blog/biggest-startup-failures/ Many more like that one. Look, where you lose someone like me is when you start to spew this nonsense about Moore's Law and manufacturing or the software engineering process and manufacturing. > It's like the cab drivers complaining about Uber. Another nonsensical example. And, yet again, this betrays your lack of understanding of the problems faced in real product manufacturing. And your other comments showcase your disdain towards those who, unlike you, have been busy making real progress in a range of industries, from consumer electronics, to brick manufacturing to medical, aerospace and everything in between. Manufacturing is always progressing because it is often the largest portion of the cost of getting a product to market. And so, the motivation to optimize manufacturing for cost, speed, efficiency, reliability, throughput and quality has been there for centuries. One could not be competitive to day with the processes and tools used 20 years ago. Yet you somehow reduce the totality of the manufacturing problem to "we need to CNC machine prototypes as fast as software teams iterate code". Who gives a fuck? Really? That problem is solved, to a large extent, by both technologies and companies. I can 3D print complex parts in metal while I sleep. I can have a complex 5-axis parts machined perfectly and in my hands in three days and at a reasonable cost. You are creating a solution for a non-existing problem. I just don't see it. Want to solve a real problem? Solve all the nagging friggin problems in 3D printing plastics. From speed to quality to dimensional accuracy and repeatability and more. There are real problems that need solving in that industry. The other stuff, what you are talking about, is a waste of time and money. Anyhow, we obviously disagree. I wish you the best.

nickpinkston 10y ago
Having a growing list of real customers isn't an echo chamber. It's reality and means we're solving a real problem. Hardware isn't hard because it's physical. It's hard because there's still a lot more progress left to go. There are no physics limits to making it orders of magnitude better on many dimensions. We just need to revitalize a stagnant industry. "Moore's Law to manufacturing" means taking the gains of computers and applying them to manufacturing where they're vastly under applied. Visit IMTS or Fabtech and you'll see how behind everything is - machines and software designed 10-30 years ago. Plethora is more than putting CNC machining on the internet. It's a new way of thinking about manufacturing. About taking the analogies of software and porting them to the manufacturing world. We've made a debugger, compiler, simulator, etc. for manufacturing CNC machined parts, but that's 1% of what we'll do. In the end, I suspect you're reacting to our optimism about radically changing a system - which I find funny for a user with the handle "RebootTheSystem" :-) Have fun out there.
- rebootthesystem 10y ago
  Let's just agree to disagree. Keep my posts. You'll understand just what I meant when you fail. Or when you have to make a significant pivot because your original assumptions were wrong (and, they are). I visit IMTS every year. Progress is significant and steady. Many years ago I tried to lead a "movement" to stop using G-code and go with something that made much more sense to me. I wanted something closer to a modern programming language, something that, in my mind, worked better. In the end I failed because of a simple reason: I wanted a solution to a non-existing problem. Yeah, G-code is "unrefined" and cave-man-ish but, in the greater context of things, G-code is an insignificant part of the equation. It's a solved problem. And I was trying to solve it all over again. That's just one example. You are beating your head against a wall. It's really funny to read your comments about machines and software designed 10 to 30 years ago. First of all, you are wrong. These systems are always being improved. Every year. The problem you don't seem to understand is that manufacturing isn't like buying a bunch of PC's and upgrading them every year. I can't throw away a dozen Haas CNC machines of different types every two years to adopt someone's hair-brained scheme. I can't dispose of my very expensive automated SMT assembly and optical inspection lines because some kid in Silicon Valley decided they want manufacturing to be hip. No sir, this isn't a hobby. If you want me or anyone else to shift into new equipment just because the UI is cooler, well you lost right there. If you, on the other hand, came up with, as you said, "orders of magnitude" better manufacturing, well maybe you have something. You do know that an order of magnitude is 10 times better and "orders of magnitude" is at least 100 times better, right? See, this is where you lose me. The only way I can put such a statement is that is it ignorant of reality to an incredible degree. Naive beyond description. Just what do you think people have been doing for the last 30 years? Waiting for you to come along while using stone-age tools to manufacture product so you could make things 100 times better? Again, echo chamber. I don't think you understand just how incredibly stupid some of these things sound to someone who lives in the real world making real products with real modern manufacturing. You really don't have a clue, do you? OK, here's another challenge for you. Since you seem to be focusing so much on IMTS and arcane CNC machines. Show up at the next IMTS with a next generation CNC vertical machining center and lathe of your design. Demonstrate how your hardware and software combination is "orders of magnitude" better than prior approaches. I'll let you slide and say, just show me an improvement of 10x. That's it. Show me how you can make things 10x better by designing new machines with new software. Your statement was "you'll see how behind everything is - machines and software designed 10-30 years ago.". OK, great. Show-up at the next IMTS and be the beacon of light with machines and process that is at least 10x better. Of course, I fully expect the exact opposite to be the case. If you attempt to do such a thing you will soon discover just how little you know about manufacturing and how much more you have to learn. I feel sorry for your investors. As for your "growing customer list", it'd be very interesting to learn who they might be. I have a feeling I know. As for "rebootthesystem". Well, you are reading too much into that. It's just a name, not a cult. What you have is a cult. I am all for driving progress but it has to be in the realm of the plausible. One requirement there is to create attainable solutions for real problems. This isn't about old school clashing with new ideas. I know you and your team are painting my feedback as "typical old-fart who doesn't understand". Have a good time laughing at my expense. No problem. I have exactly zero problem with developing ground breaking modern solutions and questioning everything in the process. That is exactly what I do each day. And, guess what, manufacturing isn't where the problems are. Could it be better? Sure. 10x better. That is impossible. 100x better? C'mon, get real.