Any open hardware like that would be extremely to "EEE" (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish). Just look at how Android (AOSP) went from a nice, open ecosystem, to a "technically still open source" pile of mandatory proprietary garbage (Gapps, Play Services, SafetyNet and whatever key attestation-based lock-in is coming next...).
There's no way a small open hardware company can compete with industry giants that are backed by armies of patent lawyers and overseas child labor. This is simply not something capitalism is designed to sustain and therefore requires (admittedly tasteless) things like mandatory standardisation and certain user freedoms (to modify, repair, resell...). Sadly, this issue is not technical, but entirely political.
That's true. Unless the user assembles the device himself there is no way for a small company dedicated to opensource to survive. Unfortunately I absolutely dislike assembling manufacturer provided kits. You can't really review a kit because any potential problems could be caused by incorrect assembly. Scummy manufacturers have an easier time to get away because they don't have to promise a final product.
If you get stuck halfway because of bad instructions that's on you to figure out.
I’m replying to everyone individually so I apologize for repeating myself, but wouldn’t Prusa 3D printers prove your point wrong? The company has grown quite a lot year over year. They acquired a company that designed SLA printers and open sourced it. They directly compete with clones. And then there’s all the open source software projects which survive despite zero sales revenue.
Prusa 3D printers are open source and they are able to directly compete on the market with clones. In fact Josef Prusa is quite happy with the clones.
And then there’s a wealth of examples in open source software on how the engineering can be sustained. Blender is a great example - they accept donations from industry and users and they pull in $2m a year. The raspberry pi foundation is supported by industry players and hardware sales.
All of the examples are things aimed at technically skilled users, which is a pattern you see very often with successful ope source projects.
RasPi is obviously aimed at developers, Blender also covers the more techy part of the 3D world and 3D printing as a whole are a very "techy" hobby. We are willing to accept certain shortcomings (price, UX, stability...) in exchange for other things we value (openness, repairability, being able to hack on it...) - the average person doesn't care about any of the latter. Free software can at least win some people over on price, but hardware can't be free.
I am yet to see a successful open hardware project aimed at the average consumer. System76 is as close as anyone and even they mostly target developers, with maybe Fairphone being second, but neither are even close to the market share of even the smallest of their competitors.
To be clear: I love all of those projects, do what I can to support them and really hope they keep going, I just don't see them competing with industry giants any time soon - and maybe that's a good thing.
There's no way a small open hardware company can compete with industry giants that are backed by armies of patent lawyers and overseas child labor. This is simply not something capitalism is designed to sustain and therefore requires (admittedly tasteless) things like mandatory standardisation and certain user freedoms (to modify, repair, resell...). Sadly, this issue is not technical, but entirely political.
reply