3 ms·

Tl;dr capitalist market worship, and “whether or not you’re open, you can get out competed, and yes a 1:1 clone is just competition bro, sorry you’ve contribute

by chomp 4y ago

Tl;dr capitalist market worship, and “whether or not you’re open, you can get out competed, and yes a 1:1 clone is just competition bro, sorry you’ve contributed to the community but somehow the clone company doesn’t have to do r&d and they wind up with lower costs, such is the market” Sorry for the reductionist take but something about this article irks me. Surely there’s room to complain about the expense of giving in a growing room of takers. In software we have the wonderful AGPL. I can see why Prusa wants something to help grow an open source hardware community without rewarding takers.

SequoiaHope 4y ago
Based on other language in the article (talking about bourgeois character and suggesting the solution is socialization) I don’t think your read is a fair one. Even Marx understood capitalism’s power to lower prices, it’s just that there are other side effects to capitalism that lead to issues. Also you cannot “help grow an open source hardware community” with closed source hardware.
- 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
  My take on the article is the same as chomp’s. >Průša incorrectly states that "there are 1:1 clones of hardware or software on the market that do not bring anything back to the community". But the cloners do bring something to the community, namely lower prices. The author either fails to realise or simply doesn’t care that the lower prices come at a cost. Relying on cheap Chinese clones is an evolutionary dead end. They aren’t going to open source their hardware ever. You also can’t get lower than free on open source software. So all the Chinese forks will essentially get closed. Prusa is stuck and doesn’t know a way out. They built their brand on being open, but that will surely force them out of business.
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    Yep and I think this is missing a big chunk of the conversation because they were open. Even if they weren't, there would have been clones and the clones would have shamelessly copied the non-open product as well. This is a problem with our global manufacturing system in general, not a problem with three printers specifically. You can't invent and sell anything right now because it will be immediately stolen and turned out for next to nothing. The answer to this is generally stronger patent protection and international trade deals that recognize the damage is a sort of copy cloning does.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
      I’ve gone the other way. I’m starting up a robotics non profit that gives everything away for free and solicits donations for support. [1] We’re bootstrapped by a philanthropist who wants to see this become a reality. With this model, people all over the world can benefit from our work. If we tried to go the route with patents and traditional funding, we’d end up designing a farming robot which only works well for large farms in California and would be too expensive for most of the people we want to serve. Patent protection in many ways slows down innovation. 3D printer development was pretty static for the first 15 years and only advanced significantly after the patents expired. Then people all over the world contributed ideas on how to make better 3D printers for cheaper, and in ten years the price went from $25,000 to $250. Under patent the price only ever dropped from $50,000 to $25,000. So you can see how open innovation produces a lot of value. The “problem” with this is that the value is hard to capture. This is what Prusa is experiencing today. Your solution is to lock down information harder and use the threat of legal action to restrict the spread of ideas. Unfortunately this creates a system where people in wealthy countries are constantly doing engineering for things which could benefit people in poorer countries, if only they were cheaper. Clones allow for cheaper versions to be made locally in the poorer countries where their labor costs are lower. But with widespread patent harmonization most countries can’t legally clone important goods, so they go without. What we can do in the wealthy countries, instead of locking down ideas, is to explore new way of organizing our companies and projects. Countless people make a living asking for donations on YouTube. We see more engineering projects supported by this model, including Godot ($15k per month in donations) and Blender ($185k per month in donations). This kind of open innovation can allow engineers to pay their living while producing products that are open for all. Imagine how much benefit the rest of the world would see if all of our MRI machines, manufacturing equipment, and other vital technology was open source? For me it is imperative to find a way to make it work. Abandoning this would to me mean that I have failed those people that need my skills most. Those whose lives would be forever changed with increased access to advanced technology. I can not lock down my work and keep it out of their hands. They deserve better. [1] https://community.twistedfields.com/t/january-2023-update-new-vehicle-design-metal-shop-motor-controller-motherboard/343 https://community.twistedfields.com/t/january-2023-update-ne...
bsder 4y ago
> Sorry for the reductionist take but something about this article irks me. Surely there’s room to complain about the expense of giving in a growing room of takers. In software we have the wonderful AGPL. I can see why Prusa wants something to help grow an open source hardware community without rewarding takers. Every product now tries to have a cloud component with encryption. People like the article author are why.

by chomp 4y ago

SequoiaHope 4y ago

Based on other language in the article (talking about bourgeois character and suggesting the solution is socialization) I don’t think your read is a fair one. Even Marx understood capitalism’s power to lower prices, it’s just that there are other side effects to capitalism that lead to issues. Also you cannot “help grow an open source hardware community” with closed source hardware.

2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
My take on the article is the same as chomp’s. >Průša incorrectly states that "there are 1:1 clones of hardware or software on the market that do not bring anything back to the community". But the cloners do bring something to the community, namely lower prices. The author either fails to realise or simply doesn’t care that the lower prices come at a cost. Relying on cheap Chinese clones is an evolutionary dead end. They aren’t going to open source their hardware ever. You also can’t get lower than free on open source software. So all the Chinese forks will essentially get closed. Prusa is stuck and doesn’t know a way out. They built their brand on being open, but that will surely force them out of business.
- bioemerl 4y ago
  Yep and I think this is missing a big chunk of the conversation because they were open. Even if they weren't, there would have been clones and the clones would have shamelessly copied the non-open product as well. This is a problem with our global manufacturing system in general, not a problem with three printers specifically. You can't invent and sell anything right now because it will be immediately stolen and turned out for next to nothing. The answer to this is generally stronger patent protection and international trade deals that recognize the damage is a sort of copy cloning does.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
    I’ve gone the other way. I’m starting up a robotics non profit that gives everything away for free and solicits donations for support. [1] We’re bootstrapped by a philanthropist who wants to see this become a reality. With this model, people all over the world can benefit from our work. If we tried to go the route with patents and traditional funding, we’d end up designing a farming robot which only works well for large farms in California and would be too expensive for most of the people we want to serve. Patent protection in many ways slows down innovation. 3D printer development was pretty static for the first 15 years and only advanced significantly after the patents expired. Then people all over the world contributed ideas on how to make better 3D printers for cheaper, and in ten years the price went from $25,000 to $250. Under patent the price only ever dropped from $50,000 to $25,000. So you can see how open innovation produces a lot of value. The “problem” with this is that the value is hard to capture. This is what Prusa is experiencing today. Your solution is to lock down information harder and use the threat of legal action to restrict the spread of ideas. Unfortunately this creates a system where people in wealthy countries are constantly doing engineering for things which could benefit people in poorer countries, if only they were cheaper. Clones allow for cheaper versions to be made locally in the poorer countries where their labor costs are lower. But with widespread patent harmonization most countries can’t legally clone important goods, so they go without. What we can do in the wealthy countries, instead of locking down ideas, is to explore new way of organizing our companies and projects. Countless people make a living asking for donations on YouTube. We see more engineering projects supported by this model, including Godot ($15k per month in donations) and Blender ($185k per month in donations). This kind of open innovation can allow engineers to pay their living while producing products that are open for all. Imagine how much benefit the rest of the world would see if all of our MRI machines, manufacturing equipment, and other vital technology was open source? For me it is imperative to find a way to make it work. Abandoning this would to me mean that I have failed those people that need my skills most. Those whose lives would be forever changed with increased access to advanced technology. I can not lock down my work and keep it out of their hands. They deserve better. [1] https://community.twistedfields.com/t/january-2023-update-new-vehicle-design-metal-shop-motor-controller-motherboard/343 https://community.twistedfields.com/t/january-2023-update-ne...

bsder 4y ago

> Sorry for the reductionist take but something about this article irks me. Surely there’s room to complain about the expense of giving in a growing room of takers. In software we have the wonderful AGPL. I can see why Prusa wants something to help grow an open source hardware community without rewarding takers. Every product now tries to have a cloud component with encryption. People like the article author are why.