>No, what has happened here is that I have understood and rejected the framing of your point. Open source 2d plotters are trivial to find, as are open source printing presses of all sorts. By narrowing your framing to the one part of the market that is demonstrably broken and anti-consumer to try to score a cheap point, you're actually proving mine.

You are treating 3D printing as some sort of industry where the tool itself is the product. This is why you are bringing up 2D plotters and printing presses. I am treating it where the output is the product. This is what the mass market expects. This is entirely why desktop printers are mass market (you can find one lying around in most homes with a PC) and 3D printers are not. My original comment which you didn't actually read alluded to 3D printing being stuck in the "computer kit building era". PCs would never have become mass market if they were stuck in the kit building era.

>The reason you don't see open source inkjets and laserjets is because the technologies are patented, which is exactly the problem the open source 3d printing aims to defend against. Not because nobody wants to do it, or because it's a bad idea: it's because HP will sue you into the ground if you try. And that's the situation Bambu are actively trying to create for themselves.

The reason we don't see open source inkjets is that any printer produced would still not be a big enough of a market to appeal to the mass market consumer and there obviously isn't enough interest in the niche market to justify the cost. You would need to build up an ecosystem when the existing closed offerings are so mature that there isn't any benefit to be gained other than maybe "freedom" or control over the software. That has always been a niche position. Furthermore, there are obviously enough competitors in the market to not run into HP's patent issues so the reality is that there isn't enough of a motivation (ie. market size) to put in the effort or else someone (even Chinese companies that normally skirt patents) would have attempted it.

>So what? Buy crap, get crap. Again, the problem here is not the existence of a product that does not satisfy your personal needs. Why pick on your personal experience with the SV06 to tar the entire open source 3d printing sphere with the same brush? Why bring up the SV06 at all? Why bring up open source printing at all?

So now 300$ is crap huh? Lets just call it what I originally called it: a toy. That was being nice and honest to the open source bed slingers. You are the one being mean to them. My point was that it is not a tool normal people can rely on. My original comment that you didn't read said that it is a toy. What I mean by that is that its a hobby where you have to assemble it, constantly fiddle with it(software and hardware wise) to get any sort of consistent print and have to repeatedly retry or alter your object to suit the printer.

>It hasn't. That proves precisely nothing either way about open source vs closed source.

Well I know that it hasn't, that why I hope it does as it will make 3D printing mass market and just a regular occurrence in every household and these open source models will end up in the trash bin of history just like the PC kit machines of the 1970s.

Come on man, these open source 3D printers have been around for 10+ years. They were niche back then and they are still niche. Thats not going to change and shame on all the people bashing a company that at least introduced something that the "rest of us" can use without have giving up the rest of our lives thinking about it.