Live data from Hacker News

A Reply to Josef Průša

blog.thea.codes

21–30 of 157 posts

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#21

Reciprocity is a recurring issue in open-source, and I don't take the doom-and-gloom take, or the pretty optimistic take of this author. It's happened many times in both software and hardware (ElasticSearch, Arduino), and while it does help make your company a standard... it also can severely hurt the original company. What's the point of being the standard, if you've been hurt by it instead of benefiting? Obvious ex…

For the sake of discussion, let me ask you why you prefer to employ people in one country over another. The Chinese company is also employing people.

Presumably, the Chinese employees are not paid or treated well. But that is not a given. Nor is it a given that the Italian employees are paid or treated well.

How about we bar the sale of any product domestically unless its manufacture has been certified to conform with local regulations regarding labor, environmental protections, etc.? Thus, a U.S. company would have to pay to get certified before they could sell in Italy. And they would have to pay for surprise inspections, etc. to assure compliance. An Italian company would also have to be certified and subject to surprise inspections, but might not have to pay for those directly if Italian taxpayers are willing to cover the costs. For that matter, they may also choose to cover the costs for Chinese manufacturers.

If you are objecting to the unfairness of having to compete under different rules, let's address that. If the complaint is that one party pays for the R&D while another party reaps the profit, let's address that. These are not the same issue. If the complaint is that people prefer to pay less for an inferior product, that is also a different issue.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#22

If you want to share designs, but you want reciprocity and you want to retain some control, then I wouldn't bother with "licenses" as we have them in the software world - as in "I drop this here, stick a license on it, and someone can grab it and use it under these terms, without ever talking to me". Rather, offer people the option to sign a little contract in order to use it. Keep the barrier as low as possible, an…

That's fine for serious business endeavours, but absolutely kills one-man-band experimentation at the margin, which is the only interesting bit in the first place.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#23
This is a thoughtful reply but I found saying

"I believe Prusa has succeeded because of its community, not because of its printers."

a bit harsh. If they hadn't made good printers there would be that community in the first place.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#24

This is a thoughtful reply but I found saying "I believe Prusa has succeeded because of its community, not because of its printers." a bit harsh. If they hadn't made good printers there would be that community in the first place.

I think the point is that a bunch of companies make or made good printers, and Prusa stands out because of their community.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#25
post #24

This is a thoughtful reply but I found saying "I believe Prusa has succeeded because of its community, not because of its printers." a bit harsh. If they hadn't made good printers there would be that community in the first place.

I think the point is that a bunch of companies make or made good printers, and Prusa stands out because of their community.

I have often considered buying a Prusa, and it was because their printers are good quality and low fuss, the community has literally never been a driving force.

Perhaps you could replace community with ecosystem in that sentence.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#26

Reciprocity is a recurring issue in open-source, and I don't take the doom-and-gloom take, or the pretty optimistic take of this author. It's happened many times in both software and hardware (ElasticSearch, Arduino), and while it does help make your company a standard... it also can severely hurt the original company. What's the point of being the standard, if you've been hurt by it instead of benefiting? Obvious ex…

There is a conflation of ideas here. Arduino was not created to stand for Italian manufactoring or fair wages.

> The Arduino project began in 2005 as a tool for students at the Interaction Design Institute Ivrea, Italy, aiming to provide a low-cost and easy way for novices and professionals to create devices that interact with their environment using sensors and actuators.

The main Purpose was "easy and low-cost access to create devices". By that measure Every chinese Clone has helped in that purpose. The fact that their Original Arduino was produced in Italy to also support local Business was secondary to the main purpose and it can be said that it was in conflict with the main purpose. Sure 35 Eur is not much for Italy, but a cheaper product reached a much more wider audience who starts with cheaper products and then gains enough knowledge to appreciate the why of the original. (better quality control, better parts, more reliable etc). All this factors come after you have dipped your toes, for which the clones has been a crucial factor.

The same holds true for Prusa. Most of the comunity of Prusa came initially from the reprap project, Prusa has benefited from their open Ideas and refined them and I know many in the community who have chosen Prusa instead of cheaper Variants only as giving back for them being open (though not exactly open development)

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#27
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is that a bunch of companies make or made good printers, and Prusa stands out because of their community.

I have often considered buying a Prusa, and it was because their printers are good quality and low fuss, the community has literally never been a driving force. Perhaps you could replace community with ecosystem in that sentence.

Perhaps the value of the community is this widespread belief in the quality of their printers (even if deserved - you still gotta hear about it). In a marketing sense the community was the _only_ driving force.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#28
I can see why Prusa is annoyed that people clone his designs and then sell them for cheaper. The end result is not truly the value that his company provides; it's all the careful tweaking of the firmware to make it work perfectly every time that probably accounts for 80% of their engineering cost, and it hurts when someone takes that from you. (Compare the out of the box experience between an i3 and an Ender 3, for example. Absolutely nothing stopping Creality from making it perfect like Prusa, but I bet most Ender 3 users don't get a decent print until they self-tweak settings that should be correct from the factory.)

Having said that, I think what hurts Prusa the most is their inability to keep up with demand from the US. The cheap clones win because they're still cheaper after Amazon same-day delivery. With Prusa, ordering a 3D printer is a "if you're really lucky, you might have one in a couple months" situation. This is costing them way more revenue than people cloning their motherboards. If they could sell to the US market efficiently, they would be making so much money they probably wouldn't even realize a couple of Aliexpress stores were selling outright clones.

(I indeed started my 3D printing adventure with a cheap printer that shipped to me overnight. And regretted every moment with that god awful piece of shit. At that point, I knew it was time to get something good, and it was well worth the 3 or 4 months I waited for an i3. But, most people give up much sooner than me.

I'm also going to insert a random story here; I ended up rebuilding that printer with my own design for most of the parts, saving only the enclosure and motion system. After probably 60 hours spent on that project, it still prints terribly because the design of the bed is intrinsically flawed. The original manufacturer works around that by having you manually level the bed at 20 mesh points, and then printing a 30 gram raft over the course of an hour to give your actual print a level bed. It is just terrible, and that's why I like Prusa. It doesn't do that.)

To me, Prusa has 3 selling points; they test their stuff before shipping it, the printers manufacture themselves (which gives you a feeling that they are accurate and reliable over time), and the entire stack is open source. If they remove one of those value props, I don't know if they're Prusa Research anymore. They're just one more anonymous manufacturer in a race to the bottom.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#29
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is that a bunch of companies make or made good printers, and Prusa stands out because of their community.

I have often considered buying a Prusa, and it was because their printers are good quality and low fuss, the community has literally never been a driving force. Perhaps you could replace community with ecosystem in that sentence.

By the way when did Prusa become known for their printers? I was around when Ultimaker 2 was considered the best in a "Just Works" kind of way and Lulzbot was the choice for the more tinkerer/hacker-aligned user.

I stepped away from FDM printers and onto Formlabs' STL printers around when U2 ruled (not exactly a move to greener pastures, they're closed-source all the way), seems like a lot has changed since I left as no-one is even mentioning Ultimaker or Lulzbot. I'm just kinda disappointed and bummed to see Ender of Creality and other Chinese printers enjoying increasing prominence considering their flagrant and persistent GPL violations.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#30

If you want to share designs, but you want reciprocity and you want to retain some control, then I wouldn't bother with "licenses" as we have them in the software world - as in "I drop this here, stick a license on it, and someone can grab it and use it under these terms, without ever talking to me". Rather, offer people the option to sign a little contract in order to use it. Keep the barrier as low as possible, an…

> If "the Chinese" want to clone your product, then you are often out of luck anyway. Although that is not entirely true anymore, my previous company fought in China against clones and IP theft a couple times and won. But you need to have a local presence, a local subsidary that can hire lawyers etc.. If you are just outsourcing production to third parties then it gets problematic.

This is the take I think people are missing. If you are in a spot where "the Chinese" or any other company can cut you out, then I'm in the box that you are producing anything unique. Which was/is not true for Prusa, since even though there are clones that can be had by 1/4th of the price; people sure trust the name of Prusa to order directly from them. This is why they are the most sold printer of all time, their name is a mark of quality.

I think the main problem that now started to get them all fired up is the rise of other companies who can also provide that experience (buying something out of the shelf and start printing with it without turning this into a fully fledged hobby to learn the mechanics). Bambu Lab not only did innovate on it but also started to provide that convience for the same price, obviously they had to go cheaper in order to start obtaining market share but with true innovation they can still sell advanced printers that are maybe 1.5X in price but 2-3X worth in the capabilities compared to the Prusa (while also providing cheaper options). Now the game is who is going to dominate which sector (low end consumers [price] / high end prosumers [innovation]). If I were Prusa I'd try to aim high but not sure how well equipped are they to catch up to other printers.

Post reply on HN