An idea for a funding model for Duet firmware - discuss.

A Former User

This post is deleted!

o_lampe

@arnold_r_clark said in An idea for a funding model for Duet firmware - discuss.:

By excluding people from having a voice/opinion with regards future direction is in effect penalising them.

I agree, but eg. offering a discount for subscribers would be equally penalising IMHO.
As long as everyone has the same access to new products/updates, no one is hurt. It would be unfair, if subscribers would get the latest firmware a month before others.

deckingman

@arnold_r_clark said in An idea for a funding model for Duet firmware - discuss.:

............. To play devils advocate one could say that it should be common sense and good business practise to have already factored into the cost of the equipment the cost of future hardware/software development, and actually such development should ideally be considered a must as without natural product/software development a product is just going to stagnate and sales will eventually dry up so it could be a chicken and the egg thing.

All true. But, also playing Devil's advocate, being Open Source throws a great big spanner into the works. Because you take a guess at future sales volume, work out the development costs, amortise that cost over the number of units you expect to sell and arrive at a price. Then along come the cloners who have no development costs, and who then turn out cheaper units which everyone buys instead. So you can't be open source and also use future sales to fund further development. Well maybe you can, but if sales are down due to cloners, then so too is the revenue that you can put into development. Hence the idea for an additional source of revenue whilst maintaining the open source philosophy.

MaxGyver

@deckingman

I really like your idea to enable users to support the developers/development financially besides buying genuine Duet3D Products.
Although, I am not sure how the incentives for the user should look like. On one hand, I kind of dislike the idea of putting features behind a paywall, but on the other, some features like the mentioned added security features make mostly sense if you run the printer outside your home network. This would be the case for schools, maker spaces or companies.

Furthermore, the incentives would have to be excellent in order to earn enough money to support the development, since providing this incentives may cause additional work/cost.

[...] In contrast to RepRap firmware, updates are regular (monthly), contain extensive additional features, and largely "just work".

In this Point, I partly disagree: We have almost monthly beta updates with new features. (If you can live with some bugs here and there)

The Problem with the Duet Hardware Ecosystem is that it is a premium product compared to what is available on the hobby/maker marked.
With a premium price, many users also expect a premium service, as well as expecting everything to work out of the box. And this can be very tricky. More than once there were people on the forum that had a tantrum because their “expensive” board did not work as expected or an (beta) update did lead to unexpected results.

The team behind Duet3D plus all the plugin developers, forum moderators and other volunteers that contribute community and to the development are doing an amazing job creating an ecosystem that offers enormous flexibility and unbeatable value for money.

@o_lampe said in An idea for a funding model for Duet firmware - discuss.:

@deckingman If I'd subscribe (long term subscription), I'd like to vote regards future directions or to-do list priority. A regular poll limited to subscribers.

Since I do not have the skills to support the development. I would be very happy to support the development in this way. The polling would also highlight the needs of machine manufacturers (like myself) and power users.

Cheers
Max

deckingman

@o_lampe said in An idea for a funding model for Duet firmware - discuss.:

................... It would be unfair, if subscribers would get the latest firmware a month before others.

What if that firmware was a beta? Would it still be unfair if non-subscribers only got to receive stable firmware, while subscribers got to try out "use at your own risk" beta versions? I have no view on this - just posing the question.

But having said all this, there doesn't have to be an incentive at all. There are many YouTubers who get donations in one form or another, just for doing what they do. But I think some sort of incentive might attract more subscribers.

zapta

@deckingman said in An idea for a funding model for Duet firmware - discuss.:

So what do other people think? Good idea? Bad idea?

Having an avenue to donate to RRF/Duet, other than purchasing products, would be nice. I once asked about it and the answer was that none was available.

As for RRF, it's main challenge is its extremely low Bus Factor. Basically it relies on a single super smart, super productive, super helpful contributor which is non sustainable long run, and I don't think contributions will change much. Compare this with the Klipper project for example which seems to attract a wider group of code developers, maybe because it's based on an easier to develop platform (SBC) or maybe because it's not tied to a specific brand.

RRF is great, and I voted for it again with my new printer, but its future is not clear and support can be practically stopped at any moment.

My 2c.

A Former User

This post is deleted!

deckingman

@maxgyver said in An idea for a funding model for Duet firmware - discuss.:

In this Point, I partly disagree: We have almost monthly beta updates with new features. (If you can live with some bugs here and there)

Therein lies the rub. I'm not being critical of Duet - I think they do a reasonable job with the resources at their disposal. You say, there are "almost monthly beta updates (with bugs)" but contrast that with regular monthly stable updates (without bugs) and you see what could be achieved with more resources.

TBH, when I look back at the many hundreds of hours I've spent testing beta firmwares and release candidates over the years, some of which have wrecked my machine, I'd much rather have donated the price of a cup of coffee a month to by-pass that grief and have stable firmware updates.

MaxGyver

@deckingman said in An idea for a funding model for Duet firmware - discuss.:

TBH, when I look back at the many hundreds of hours I've spent testing beta firmwares and release candidates over the years, some of which have wrecked my machine, I'd much rather have donated the price of a cup of coffee a month to by-pass that grief and have stable firmware updates.

I strongly agree

deckingman

@arnold_r_clark We'll wait and see if E3Ds approach works. I doubt that the cloners will take much notice of patents. The cynic in me thinks that any money E3D save by trying to prevent cloners, will be more than absorbed by the legal fees they will have to pay to try and ensure compliance. (The lawyers will of course make a packet).

Marcossf

We, as a company, would have liked to have had some Duet3D services related to the development of products based on Duet3D boards and firmware, directly from their creators.

A value-added service, which we would gladly pay for, as we do with all our developers, but with the advantage of being able to develop our products more efficiently and faster, well supported, with clear savings in the learning curve and uncertainty.

I understand that it is a different line of business and that they would have to think about how to continue helping altruistically the rest of makers and amateurs.

These value-added services for "OEMs" would be an important source of income for a small company. Just look at the developments made by E3D-Online for manufacturers such as Ultimaker, Lulzbot, BCN3D, Prusa, etc. Behind these synergies, new ideas and R&D developments often emerge that we do not doubt are economically profitable for the parties.

As @deckingman said, this is an opinion, an open proposal, we do not intend to tell anyone how to run their company.

droftarts

@marcossf said in An idea for a funding model for Duet firmware - discuss.:

We, as a company, would have liked to have had some Duet3D services related to the development of products based on Duet3D boards and firmware, directly from their creators.

We do this already. We work with OEMs a lot. Please get in touch with @T3P3Tony or @dc42 to discuss your requirements, by emailing sales@duet3d.com

Ian

Marcossf

@droftarts said

We do this already. We work with OEMs a lot. Please get in touch with @T3P3Tony or @dc42 to discuss your requirements, by emailing sales@duet3d.com

Ian

We asked for this several times in the forum. This is new for us. We'll contact them soon. Thank you Ian.

zapta

@arnold_r_clark said in An idea for a funding model for Duet firmware - discuss.:

to combat the cloner's maybe it is time for Duet3D to follow E3D's lead who have been forced into protecting their business's financial future by putting protection systems in place to prevent cloner's from stealing their work,

I don't think that China has much interest in Duet3d's designs at this point. They are charting their own course now with products such as SKR, Spyder, and Octopus which complement independent firmware packages from Klipper and others. Same goes with other 3D printer components. They follow the journey that Japan and South Korea had in the past, from crappy cheap clones to quality self designed products and market dominance.

jens55

Oh boy, a great thread!
First a shout out to Home Assistant - great product. Their donation/subscription model must be low key or I am too cheap because I was not aware that I could support them. I will need to look into that.
Octoprint is totally supported by donations. I believe the incentive there is a regular video from Gina, the person that does the development to her subscribers. It's basically a regular status update - this is what we are doing, this is where we going etc etc..
I have sent her a few dollars here and there when I was using Octoprint on a regular basis.
In both of the above cases, the developer has no actual product they are selling so donations are essential.

The problem with open source is limited income which in turn causes limited resources and in a lot of cases it ends up that one person carries the vast majority of the load. This is a big problem because of the probability of burnout and what I call the 'bus factor'. 'Bus factor' is my scenario if the primary person suddenly is no longer available (hit by a bus or, these days, Covid).

This is my incentive for donating .... giving some resources to the developer to off-load some tasks to other people and possibly to strengthen the base of the product in case shit hits the fan for some reason or other.

My support to Duet is based on buying their product but I agree that other/additional avenues should exist.

I do not require a 'reward'. The project moving ahead and being on solid footing is my reward. I do not give on a monthly basis but rather on a 'when I feel like it' basis. While this makes for an unpredictable revenue stream, the hope is that it averages out with may contributors.
I have seen a number of great projects fall apart or going 'closed source' and it generally kills the project for me and I end up moving elsewhere. It always feels a bit like betrayal but a lot of times the core person just burns out and going closed source offers better rewards for the thousands of hours put into the project (or the funds to hire people to help)

Anyway, a thumbs up to the idea of being able to donate additional money if one feels like it.

deckingman

@jens55 said in An idea for a funding model for Duet firmware - discuss.:

.............First a shout out to Home Assistant - great product. Their donation/subscription model must be low key or I am too cheap because I was not aware that I could support them. I will need to look into that...........

They call it home assistant cloud. Here is a link which will take you to further links. https://www.home-assistant.io/cloud/

It gives you secure remote access to the UI, integration with both Google Home and Amazon Alexa, Webhooks, TTS and a bunch of other stuff. There is also a 30 day free trial. TBH, I'd donate $5 a month just to support them, (but the additional "goodies" are nice to have).

A Former User

This post is deleted!

JoergS5

I want to add my view to the discussion:

subscriptions are in my view double-edged: often a donator expects a hidden or visible win. If I were the Duet team, I would instead preserve my freedom. Of course there are successful examples of subscription models, but I would try the other possibilities first.
a success model is linux, and viewing why they have success could lead to new ideas like more consulting, training offers or added services with value, independent of the core hardware and firmware. Increased cooperation with other companies (tools, automation, webshops etc.) is also a possibility.
IMHO the best possibility to support the Duet team is to buy genuine Duet hardware and try to help them with support and development. The Duet hardware has superior quality like quality electronics, thick PCB copper layer, highly intergrated drivers and other interfaces etc. This should perhaps be emphasised even more.

zapta

@arnold_r_clark said in An idea for a funding model for Duet firmware - discuss.:

A key word search for Duet products on Aliexpress just threw up 14 pages

"I cherry picked and found a pattern"

Try search Aliexpress for 3d printer controller board and check the ratio between western and Chinese designs.

That's also the vibe I got in Voron circles, the hot boards are Chinese (SKR, Spider, Octopus, etc).

They are catching up, fast, as the Japanese and the South Korean did.

hackinistrator

I think , at some point open source becomes pointless .
And , i think RRF already reached that stage .

Lets take marlin for example (i didn't use RRF at its early stages) , i remember the days when i tweaked the code to add sensors / change thermistor tables and other settings and felt like a superman .

Or the days when some of us tweaked android phones with custom firmware builds .

It was fun and all , but today at this stage , i never touched RRF source code and never tweaked it .
Same for my android phone , last time i had a phone with an open bootloader was about 10 years ago .

After years of development , the software grows so big , complicated and feature packed that it becomes a real pita / needless to touch it .
So whats the point of the software to be open source at this stage ?
its only relevant to about 0.001% of total userbase , probably less.