> I don't think they would be writing this blog post if their "go ahead:
> clone us" strategy was working as well you imply

I think a bit more context might be helpful.

When the MK4 was launched I went online to see what people were saying about it. I came across a few youtube videos and blog postings that lambast Prusa, pointing out that they are not cutting edge, accusing Josef Prusa of wanting to dominate the low cost market and then not being able to agree with themselves if Prusa copies too much or too little of what other people have come up with.

I think the blog posting has to be seen as a response to this criticism. Not that their business model isn't working. Because so far, it has worked great. I ordered a new MK4 as soon as it became available, knowing full well that there are cheaper printers and more ambitious printers out there. But I want a Prusa because I know it will _work_. And if it doesn't work, Prusa will stand by their product and help you make it work.

To me that's actually worth paying more for. If at the same time I can support open source, the choice isn't really hard. I'm not a 3D printing enthusiast. I don't care if the filament sensor isn't the most clever solution there is. I only care that it actually works. I need a 3D printer that I can fire up and which will print what I've designed with a minimum of hassle. I don't want to dick around with my 3D printer. I want a reasonably priced product that works, and if it doesn't, a company behind it that will fix things.

When watching the critics two things struck me. The first was that they are 3D printing enthusiasts. They care about the technology and who came up with what idea more than they care about understanding the product. The second was that they do not understand product engineering. Engineering a product isn't about what ticks boxes on paper - it is about produces a good product. Novelty is cool, but novelty that doesn't improve the product is pointless waste.

If you look at a Prusa i3 Mk3 it looks flimsy and mechanically dodgy. Especially when I compare it to my Makergear M2, which is built like a tank. My first reaction when I used a Prusa i3 Mk3 was "this printer works unreasonably well". I hadn't expect it to outperform my M2, which consists of a much better frame, quality linear rails and the stiffest extruder gantry I have seen on any printer.

But the thing is, my Makergear M2 is a bad purchase. The company behind dropped the ball on all the important details. From the build plate, which is an afterthought that doesn't even come with a working mechanism for affixing it to the XY-carriage, the lack of effort that went into the firmware, the poor stepper controllers, to the Z-axis adjustment which is a laughably bad design.

Worse yet, after spending 2-3 times as much money buying an M2, the company kind of abandoned it. Without ever refining it to where it is a proper product. Am I ever going to buy another Makergear product? Of course not. The value for money is atrocious. You have to be a 3d printing enthusiast to fix the product so it works half way decent. They have come up with a few upgrades, but they haven't addressed many of the things you have to deal with every day.

After the first time I tried a Prusa i3 Mk3 we bought several of them at my previous job. The Makerspace I'm a member of has a whole fleet of them. And at every single prototyping company I've been at, there is usually a printer farm consisting of lots of Prusa printers. Not because they can't afford "better" but because it is what the engineers prefer to use. Because they work.

When companies that make tons of money and can afford to buy any 3D printer they want still choose to buy a bunch of Prusa printers, it is worth asking why this is.

You don't always need to be ahead of the curve to serve your customers. You just need to make a better product and provide better support. Or even a product that works properly. Prusa does that. A lot of their competitors, including the clone-makers and more ambitious products very often don't.