3 ms·

Somewhat out there, but what about: a) by using the equipment you commit to providing a small percentage of profits from the job(s)/products/services that woul

Somewhat out there, but what about: a) by using the equipment you commit to providing a small percentage of profits from the job(s)/products/services that wouldn't have happened if the space/equipment/services didn't exist. b) attracting foot traffic proportionally subsidizes the rates in (a). The current model provides open-ended access to equipment for a fixed monthly rate. So any measurement of the value the equipment provides in terms of learning, experience, etc is basically being discarded. This makes a lot of sense from a purist "here's a giant pile of lego, go see what you build with it without any strings attached" perspective... but is it really the end of the world to wind the boundary on that margin back a few millimeters? For example Unity only imposes fees once revenue/funding is over $100K/yr - and (last I checked) this is only the case for interactive content, you can render (and profit off of) as much noninteractive video as you like. There's a recognition of the value of the product in there, alongside some *very* generous margins that arguably provide more than adequate "here's a pile of lego, go have fun" room to get lost in. Perhaps the argument is that the flat-rate subscription only works at eg Spotify's scale.

bhaney 4y ago
> by using the equipment you commit to providing a small percentage of profits from the job(s)/products/services that wouldn't have happened if the space/equipment/services didn't exist. I can't think of a decent way to calculate or enforce this. If I use a drill press at a makerspace to help build a prototype that I pitch to investors and start up a million dollar business, do I pay the makerspace a portion of my million dollars, a portion of the ~$100 I would have had to spend to get my own drill press, a portion of the $15 I would have had to spend to rent one, or a portion of the scummy feelings I would have gotten from buying one at home depot and returning it when I'm done for no cost to myself? If you just expect people to self-report how much value they feel they derived from the makerspace after the fact, then there's no real "commitment" happening and the whole situation is pretty identical to the current situation of good-will charity. If you don't, then you need some mechanism of reliably determining the outcome of the future given different conditions in the past.
- exikyut 4y ago
  I guess I was defaulting to imagining the percentage would be based on published earnings. I can see how that wouldn't realistically work in this case on second thought.
marcinzm 4y ago
That will just encourage the people doing more serious work to either buy their own equipment, setup a shared professional workspace or rent from another business off hours. In all cases they'd stop coming to the maker space. which robs the maker space of the most experienced mentors. If they're a small business with income then they can even take out a small business loan for the equipment. Unity's model works because you can't swap out Unity without a lot of time investment. That's not the case for commodity equipment.
- exikyut 4y ago
  Hmm. I think I assumed the existence of some sort of captive interest/leverage opportunity and was digging around blindly to try and find a path that leads there. I think that's called wandering when it works :) but this is a bit more nuanced :/

bhaney 4y ago

> by using the equipment you commit to providing a small percentage of profits from the job(s)/products/services that wouldn't have happened if the space/equipment/services didn't exist. I can't think of a decent way to calculate or enforce this. If I use a drill press at a makerspace to help build a prototype that I pitch to investors and start up a million dollar business, do I pay the makerspace a portion of my million dollars, a portion of the ~$100 I would have had to spend to get my own drill press, a portion of the $15 I would have had to spend to rent one, or a portion of the scummy feelings I would have gotten from buying one at home depot and returning it when I'm done for no cost to myself? If you just expect people to self-report how much value they feel they derived from the makerspace after the fact, then there's no real "commitment" happening and the whole situation is pretty identical to the current situation of good-will charity. If you don't, then you need some mechanism of reliably determining the outcome of the future given different conditions in the past.

exikyut 4y ago
I guess I was defaulting to imagining the percentage would be based on published earnings. I can see how that wouldn't realistically work in this case on second thought.

marcinzm 4y ago

That will just encourage the people doing more serious work to either buy their own equipment, setup a shared professional workspace or rent from another business off hours. In all cases they'd stop coming to the maker space. which robs the maker space of the most experienced mentors. If they're a small business with income then they can even take out a small business loan for the equipment. Unity's model works because you can't swap out Unity without a lot of time investment. That's not the case for commodity equipment.

exikyut 4y ago
Hmm. I think I assumed the existence of some sort of captive interest/leverage opportunity and was digging around blindly to try and find a path that leads there. I think that's called wandering when it works :) but this is a bit more nuanced :/