Engineer Matt Strong has generated strong controversy in recent days. Here's why: he's cloned the MakerBot Replicator, dubbed his version the TangiBot, and thrown it up on Kickstarter. His intent is to start his own "world class" company by undercutting MakerBot on price by about a third. In Strong's words:Just to be clear, there is nothing illegal, sneaky or underhanded going on here. Everything is legal and fair. Makerbot also used other people's open source designs when they created their business. This is simply the way open source designs work. Welcome to the world of open source.
First thing to jump out at us: it's an option to pay MakerBot for licensing rights to use their name. Strong mentions he's opted not to. However, he uses the word "MakerBot" 23 times in his written Kickstarter pitch.
That seems like a bit much to us, but the other issues are less clear-cut. Commentary on Strong's Kickstarter page has been robust, with some taking him to task and others in strong support. One commenter says doing a part-by-part design knockoff is shameful; Strong claims he's made unspecified manufacturing improvements. Others are lambasting MakerBot and accusing them of price gouging. Still others veer into personal territory, accusing Strong of not having the requisite amount of passion to be a valid member of the digital manufacturing community.
Strong has kept a cool head and gamely answered with lengthy responses, even as the comments continue to pile in. Some have questioned his ability to deliver, which doesn't seem quite fair to us. On the other hand, another commenter has repeatedly asked technically specific questions that Strong never outright addresses, instead deflecting them with answers that incorporate mention of quasi-relevant personal hardships he has undergone. (I find that's usually not a good sign, but that is my personal opinion.) Other question marks appear when you find the link to his resume abruptly went dead after a commenter had some questions about a company listed on there.
All of those things could be explained away by Strong, and I can't call any of them damning; but the spirited and ongoing debate on that comments page does not appear to be helping his cause. At press time he had about $15,000 towards a $500,000 target with 24 days to go. Hanging in the balance is the possibility of a less expensive 3D printer, and the results of a community-wide debate on what "open source" really means.
We highly recommend you read the actual comments and decide for yourself here.
(Note: This post has been revised by removing a quote incorrectly attributed to Strong that was in fact made by a commenter. Our apologies for any confusion caused by the misattribution.)
I’m a lapsed industrial designer. I was born in NYC and figured I’d die there, but a few years ago I abandoned New York to live on a farm in the countryside with my wife. We have six dogs.
Create a Core77 Account
Already have an account? Sign In
By creating a Core77 account you confirm that you accept the Terms of Use
Please enter your email and we will send an email to reset your password.
The 3D Printer Cloning Controversy: Debate Rages over Matt Strong's TangiBot
It's true that Makerbot's stuff is ultimately based on early RepRap designs, but their first printer, the Cupcake, was considerably altered and brought many new ideas to the table, in the spirit of fostering innovation. If I'm not mistaken, Makerbot's designs inspired Ultimaker and Printrbot (the latter being a successfully funded Kickstarter project).
If Strong happened to change the design to enable that 30% price difference without compromising quality or materials, then it's kosher in my book if he shares the new design with the community. Thus far, it doesn't seem like that's the case, or if it is, it doesn't look like he's willing to share (which again, might or might not be forbidden under the Replicator's license).
Open source hardware is still uncharted territory, rife with peril and opportunity. Arduino has run into similar issues. Phillip Torrone has written about that on the Makezine blog.
http://blog.makezine.com/2012/04/18/soapbox-counterfeit-open-source-hardware-knock-offs-101/
This is not competition. This is predatory business practice. He has built nothing new, and he's not transparent about what he's doing, nor does he feel he has an obligation to be transparent to his backers. These are all warning signs for a Kickstarter project. I've wrote in detail why I personally think it's a bad idea here:
http://blog.openbeamusa.com/2012/08/11/how-not-to-win-friends-and-influence-people-on-kickstarter/
Basically, the only "innovation" is that he's taking someone's hard work and moving it to a country where the labor wage is 1/5-1/10 of what it is in the US. His contract manufacturer will do all the heavy lifting and from the looks of it he'll pocket a tidy sum in the process. And at the same time, he's doing this at the cost of defunding MakerBot Industries, whom - regardless of what you think of them and their machines, have done a lot of educational outreach and publicizing 3D printing to make it mainstream.
Don't get me wrong - I think the Makerbot is quite overhyped and quite expensive for what it is. That being said, I don't consider knocking off their design - thus inheriting all the flaws - is the answer.
If he had made improvements to the design, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But the fact that this is the best he can do *right now* makes me think that this is the best he can do, period.
He mentions wanting to add in a color touch screen control to future designs. Why doesn't he just make his project the control unit and help make 3D printing easier for all?
Don't be a leech Matt Strong and perhaps don't spend so much time talking about all your past work in your video. I get it you designed paper cutters.