3 ms·

I also hold this unpopular opinion : the maker movement has ultimately failed. I am not fully certain why, but think social factors are partly to blame. What I

by pyb 4y ago

I also hold this unpopular opinion : the maker movement has ultimately failed. I am not fully certain why, but think social factors are partly to blame. What I saw (in the UK) was that the new generation of middle-class, hobbyist makers weren't interested in engaging with and learning from the historical, working-class manufacturing sector.

jehb 4y ago
Would you mind expounding upon this comment? Against what goal did it fail to deliver? I think I was more hopeful a decade ago than I am now that we'd see more decentralized manufacturing and more home-grown innovation, but I'm not sure that these were ever realistic expectations.
- pyb 4y ago
  I realize my comment is way too terse to make sense to anyone other than myself, this should be a blog post!
- legitster 4y ago
  I think to OPs comment, tinkers at the turn of the century were able to turn curious scientific discoveries into huge consumer product segments. Radio, film, automobiles, etc all basically grew out of hobbyists at home. It seems like makers in general focus too much on self-reliance and making personalized goodies than actual creation.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    I don't want to sell cars or radios. I want to make the things I need for myself.
  - jwagenet 4y ago
    I think the problem comparing to the last turn of the century is the cost of real innovation is much higher (ignoring that most “hobbyists” in that time period were quite affluent). A key difference would be that many foundational technologies were ripe for discovery then, but we are now in the optimization phase.
tw98521358 4y ago
Probably the same v reason the internet of knowledge failed. Walled gardens, and Soe spam.
h2odragon 4y ago
Sharing your "maker experience" with anyone else quickly leads to liability concerns and insurance costs. Someone can injure themselves on your property, despite all you can do to prevent it, and it can still be your financial responsibility. catastrophically so in some cases. Given that doorstop the "maker movement" hasn't failed; it just hasn't launched into an actual movement. its still a hobby for individuals.
Animats 4y ago
> the maker movement has ultimately failed. I know. I went to the wake. After the TechShop failure, the TheShop failure, and the Maker Faire failure, there was a meeting in Sunnyvale where some of the people responsible made excuses. There was a speaker who'd bought the remnants of Heathkit. But they'd gone retro, re-issuing old kits.[1] TechShop used the business mode of a gym - people sign up, pay a fixed monthly fee, and show up occasionally or not at all. It didn't work. Gyms can get away with way overselling memberships. Most people come a few times a week, max. Usually less. Gym equipment is rugged and not complicated. None of this is true of a workshop. The people who will pay $100-$200 a month want to use the shop. For some, it's their primary workplace. Machine tools are maintenance-intensive and have many consumables. So the operating costs per customer are far higher. TechShop, as we customers found out in the bankruptcy, was never profitable. The San Francisco location was said to be, but that's because it was assigned the revenue for the other two bay area locations. The business model was very Silicon Valley - lose money while growing, plan to dominate the industry and eventually make a profit. Didn't work. It's not impossible to do this, but you need cheap land. This usually means some kind of subsidy, often being part of some publicly-funded facility such as a library or school. [1] https://shop.heathkit.com/shop https://shop.heathkit.com/shop
karmicthreat 4y ago
Founded one with some others in grand rapids, mi 8+ years ago. From a social perspective it was fantastic. But nobody wanted to pay what was needed to even keep the light on. Very few people were making money out of the space. That is pretty much needed to justify 100$+/mo.

by pyb 4y ago

jehb 4y ago

Would you mind expounding upon this comment? Against what goal did it fail to deliver? I think I was more hopeful a decade ago than I am now that we'd see more decentralized manufacturing and more home-grown innovation, but I'm not sure that these were ever realistic expectations.

pyb 4y ago
I realize my comment is way too terse to make sense to anyone other than myself, this should be a blog post!
legitster 4y ago
I think to OPs comment, tinkers at the turn of the century were able to turn curious scientific discoveries into huge consumer product segments. Radio, film, automobiles, etc all basically grew out of hobbyists at home. It seems like makers in general focus too much on self-reliance and making personalized goodies than actual creation.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  I don't want to sell cars or radios. I want to make the things I need for myself.
- jwagenet 4y ago
  I think the problem comparing to the last turn of the century is the cost of real innovation is much higher (ignoring that most “hobbyists” in that time period were quite affluent). A key difference would be that many foundational technologies were ripe for discovery then, but we are now in the optimization phase.

tw98521358 4y ago

Probably the same v reason the internet of knowledge failed. Walled gardens, and Soe spam.

h2odragon 4y ago

Sharing your "maker experience" with anyone else quickly leads to liability concerns and insurance costs. Someone can injure themselves on your property, despite all you can do to prevent it, and it can still be your financial responsibility. catastrophically so in some cases. Given that doorstop the "maker movement" hasn't failed; it just hasn't launched into an actual movement. its still a hobby for individuals.

Animats 4y ago

> the maker movement has ultimately failed. I know. I went to the wake. After the TechShop failure, the TheShop failure, and the Maker Faire failure, there was a meeting in Sunnyvale where some of the people responsible made excuses. There was a speaker who'd bought the remnants of Heathkit. But they'd gone retro, re-issuing old kits.[1] TechShop used the business mode of a gym - people sign up, pay a fixed monthly fee, and show up occasionally or not at all. It didn't work. Gyms can get away with way overselling memberships. Most people come a few times a week, max. Usually less. Gym equipment is rugged and not complicated. None of this is true of a workshop. The people who will pay $100-$200 a month want to use the shop. For some, it's their primary workplace. Machine tools are maintenance-intensive and have many consumables. So the operating costs per customer are far higher. TechShop, as we customers found out in the bankruptcy, was never profitable. The San Francisco location was said to be, but that's because it was assigned the revenue for the other two bay area locations. The business model was very Silicon Valley - lose money while growing, plan to dominate the industry and eventually make a profit. Didn't work. It's not impossible to do this, but you need cheap land. This usually means some kind of subsidy, often being part of some publicly-funded facility such as a library or school. [1] https://shop.heathkit.com/shop https://shop.heathkit.com/shop

karmicthreat 4y ago

Founded one with some others in grand rapids, mi 8+ years ago. From a social perspective it was fantastic. But nobody wanted to pay what was needed to even keep the light on. Very few people were making money out of the space. That is pretty much needed to justify 100$+/mo.