Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Restore full BambuNetwork support for Bambu Lab printers

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 344 posts

Re: Restore full BambuNetwork support for Bambu Lab printers

#231

Post by dspillett »

ghostpepper wrote: post #105

A lot of the distrust toward Bambu is because they originally announced cloud auth would be required even for printing locally in LAN mode, and only backpedalled on that when they saw the backlash. I'm not sure why their entire domain has been excluded from archive.org but you can still see the original post for now: https://blog.bambulab.com/firmware-update-introducing-new-au... -- Critical Operations That Require A…

> I'm not sure why their entire domain has been excluded from archive.org

So when they claim “we never said that” it is less easy to prove that to be an, erm, incorrect statement of truth.

It could be an accident due to over-doing scraper protection, but given the company's general behaviour of late I'm inclined to consider the negative interpretation more likely.

> but you can still see the original post for now: https://blog.bambulab.com/firmware-update-introducing-new-au...

I'd hazard a guess that that is not entirely the original post as it was before things erupted. There have been a couple of instances of materially changed posts.

Re: Restore full BambuNetwork support for Bambu Lab printers

#232

Post by Gormo »

p0w3n3d wrote: post #215
basilikum wrote: post #205

It's maddening that quite a few people are jumping to defend Bambu here. Principally if you sell a device with a certain functionality and you later modify that device later to remove that functionality that is called theft. It does not matter the slightest bit whether you break into someone's house to physically alter the device or whether you remotely install a malicious software update to do that. But what's even…

> later modify that device later to remove that functionality that is called theft. I've always been told it's called business. But I fully agree with you. Just wanted to note that this is the current business model both with hardware and software

> I've always been told it's called business.

The "business" ended when the sale transaction concluded. The fact that you were the seller in that past transaction doesn't entitle you to vandalize goods that now belong to someone else.

This is just crime trying to disguise itself as legitimate business, as scams often do.

Re: Restore full BambuNetwork support for Bambu Lab printers

#233

Post by xyzal »

basilikum wrote: post #205

It's maddening that quite a few people are jumping to defend Bambu here. Principally if you sell a device with a certain functionality and you later modify that device later to remove that functionality that is called theft. It does not matter the slightest bit whether you break into someone's house to physically alter the device or whether you remotely install a malicious software update to do that. But what's even…

You are on a venture capital run forum. A lot of people here would approve of this business model, as long as it brings in monies ...

Re: Restore full BambuNetwork support for Bambu Lab printers

#234

Post by dspillett »

basilikum wrote: post #205

It's maddening that quite a few people are jumping to defend Bambu here. Principally if you sell a device with a certain functionality and you later modify that device later to remove that functionality that is called theft. It does not matter the slightest bit whether you break into someone's house to physically alter the device or whether you remotely install a malicious software update to do that. But what's even…

> if you sell a device with a certain functionality and you later modify that device later to remove that functionality that is called theft.

It could be argued that it is not theft by various devious uses of legalise¹.

Personally I'd go with calling it, at best, deceptive sales practices (on the assumption that they knew they'd be moving this way long before they did), or possibly outright fraud if I'm in a less generous mood.

[FYI: Bambu A1 user for nearly two years, also have a Snapmaker U1, if I buy anything else it won't be Bambu unless their attitudes change. The A1/A1mini are still two of the best budget beginner printers IMO, though some clones come close, and I do recommend them if asked but with caveats around potential lock-in later and not believing promises due to a history of changed online posts, deliberately excluded from the WayBackMachine, and what to my understanding is an AGPL breach]

--------

[1] “There is a way to use the feature, so it isn't an attempt to permanently deprive”, or “you agreed to the possibility of such changes in the EULA”, and so on.

Re: Restore full BambuNetwork support for Bambu Lab printers

#235

Post by 15155 »

amelius wrote: post #206
basilikum wrote: post #205

It's maddening that quite a few people are jumping to defend Bambu here. Principally if you sell a device with a certain functionality and you later modify that device later to remove that functionality that is called theft. It does not matter the slightest bit whether you break into someone's house to physically alter the device or whether you remotely install a malicious software update to do that. But what's even…

I always put printers (2d and 3d) behind a firewall so they cannot reach the internet. This prevents auto-updates and surprises like disappearing functionality.

Which means the controversy in question would not apply to you whatsoever.

Re: Restore full BambuNetwork support for Bambu Lab printers

#236

Post by dspillett »

Gormo wrote: post #232
p0w3n3d wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> later modify that device later to remove that functionality that is called theft. I've always been told it's called business. But I fully agree with you. Just wanted to note that this is the current business model both with hardware and software

> I've always been told it's called business. The "business" ended when the sale transaction concluded. The fact that you were the seller in that past transaction doesn't entitle you to vandalize goods that now belong to someone else. This is just crime trying to disguise itself as legitimate business, as scams often do.

> The "business" ended when the sale transaction concluded.

Actually not, though not in a way that makes the rest of your post incorrect.

Various laws and regulations state that the seller has responsibilities to the buyer after the initial transaction has completed, one of which Bambu might¹ be transgressing by removing features that people we lead to believe were part of the product, and could reasonably expect to remain part of the product, at the time of the sale.

--------

[1] This has not been tested in court, and I'm no lawyer, take my idea of what is the case with a requisite serving of condiment.

Re: Restore full BambuNetwork support for Bambu Lab printers

#237

Post by Gormo »

kayson wrote: post #78
foxylad wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What users want... Take a step back. What users want is to be able to use the machine they bought the way they want. The outrage is because Bambu are doing a bait-and-switch: selling an autonomous 3D printer, but switching to a 3D printing service. Enshittification pure and simple.

I don't think they baited and switched? I bought my P1S before the whole LAN mode debacle and even then it was all or nothing on the cloud. I just went with the cloud because they were using some IGMP stuff for the local connection, but I had the printer on a separate VLAN and pfsense IGMP proxying was broken. A different way of looking at it is that Bambu is saying if you want to use their cloud you have to send eve…

> I don't think they baited and switched?

Technically true, because bait-and-switch refers merely to advertising an attractive product offer in order to lure people into a pitch for a different product.

In this case, they actually sold a product, then decided to maliciously alter the product after it was sold to modify its behavior. That makes this a much more serious offense, equivalent to trespass, vandalism, or possibly even burglary.

It's equivalent to selling someone a house that includes a secret entrance that you retain access to, so you can surreptitiously enter the house to steal the new homeowners' property after they've moved in.

Re: Restore full BambuNetwork support for Bambu Lab printers

#238

Post by dspillett »

bayindirh wrote: post #225
9cb14c1ec0 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once updated my Epson, and it started rejecting aftermarket ink. Fortunately there is a way to downgrade the firmware. Never buying a cartridge based inkjet printer again.

If you don't care about ink quality, then aftermarket ink is fine. However, if you want your pictures to last 10+ years under the sun, or being able to read what you have printed after some time, getting the genuine ink is the way. People think ink is simple. It is not . Anybody thinking otherwise, some points of pondering: - Why Xerox and HP run their own toner/ink labs to formulate their own ink down to molecule le…

> then aftermarket ink is fine

Then why don't they allow it, perhaps with warnings?

They don't block after market ink because of quality concerns, though they might claim so, they block it because they want to make more money from you themselves through ink sales. The common response here is “but they make a loss on selling the hardware!”, to which my response is “their bad pricing decision is not my problem”.

Re: Restore full BambuNetwork support for Bambu Lab printers

#239

Post by estimator7292 »

p0w3n3d wrote: post #215
basilikum wrote: post #205

It's maddening that quite a few people are jumping to defend Bambu here. Principally if you sell a device with a certain functionality and you later modify that device later to remove that functionality that is called theft. It does not matter the slightest bit whether you break into someone's house to physically alter the device or whether you remotely install a malicious software update to do that. But what's even…

> later modify that device later to remove that functionality that is called theft. I've always been told it's called business. But I fully agree with you. Just wanted to note that this is the current business model both with hardware and software

[dead]

Re: Restore full BambuNetwork support for Bambu Lab printers

#240

Post by barnabee »

joshuaissac wrote: post #223
barnabee wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have no rights to prevent people modifying and using AGPL software however they want. They should have no rights to control how people use hardware they bought. ToS for hardware should simply be unenforceable. People should have full rights to adversarial interoperability, even if it means modifying proprietary software or hardware. It always surprises me when people (on this site particularly) are more interest…

> They have no rights to prevent people modifying and using AGPL software however they want. AGPL software can be used and modified within the limits of what the AGPL permits. People can do that with their Bambu software running on their own hardware. That does not extend to using their proprietary BambuNetwork cloud service (somebody else's computer). The AGPL specifically mentions this scenario in section 6. There…

> That does not extend to using their proprietary BambuNetwork cloud service (somebody else's computer)

As I said, I believe people have a right to "adversarial interoperability", so I respectfully disagree

Post reply on HN