I talked to one of the lead designers for a while at ces- great guy and wildly talented. The models are beautiful! I was so impressed, I was ready to start downloading and printing models for me and my son. But alas, the models only work on a Makerbot. I own Printrbot, so my printers are reprap’s and Printrbots. I was bummed. Then I thought, wait, I still have my beloved cupcake (gathering dust, but it still works), so I suggested I could use that… But, no. They don’t work with that either. The artist was a little sad to break the news but we both understood the business thinking behind it. Proprietary systems are a walled garden. Those inside the garden are happy, they forget they are trapped. iTunes is similar, but not as bad anymore, you get to keep your songs and even listen to them on other devices. I expected Makerbot to roll out proprietary filament, closing the loop completely, they say they won’t. Time will tell. The models sort of achieve the same thing, but is slightly more palatable since there are still free models. I asked the designer if he was worried that a Makerbot scanner owner would scan a drm-ed model and post it. He didn’t think it would be a problem since it is illegal. I predict it will happen very soon. I guess selling stls instead would make reposting quite common. They will have to police the uploads to avoid this, and I am sure takedown notices will follow. Someone is bound to “crack” the format somehow, rebuilding the stl, but sounds hard. I think its likely that others may design original close copies that are technically legal, but I guess imitation is the highest form of flattery. Shapeways is sort of similar, but charges for prints to be made and shipped out. They share revenue with the author. I asked Makerbot if I could design something and have it be sold to share in the revenue. They said no, it’s entirely for in house designers.
So calling it the iTunes of 3d printing isn’t quite right. It’s an iTunes that doesn’t allow artists to post music, they hire artists to post work owned by the company alone. This limits adoption and growth. Yes, it’s an ecosystem, but a very limited one. I dont think its an incentive to buy a Makerbot. Would you buy an iPod if they had no music from other labels, but only offered a few songs they wrote themselves? The free music made by independent artists may entice some, but it may give you pause that no independent artists will get paid.
So no incentive for artists to give away files, other than exposure or good will, and little incentive to pay the MakerBot tax to gain access to a very limited catalogue of exclusive files.
In the end, I don’t think it’s too compelling, but it’s only the beginning. Having the infrastructure in place leaves them lots of runway to change and adapt to market demand. There is a very real cost involved with providing the thingiverse service, so it makes good business sense to try to monetize somehow. Maybe they will have an all you can eat subscription service. Maybe they will invite in any artist to play and share revenue. Maybe paid storage for your models. Or some sort of b2b strategy. Or ads?
Judging from recent comments, some are offended and others don’t mind. It could end up causing a chilling effect for those on the fence of what bot to buy. Some will be drawn to it for simple ease of use. The verdict is still out, but this is certainly a watershed moment. Lines have been drawn both for opensource hardware lovers and proponents of open files. Choose your path.
-brook