> In addition, creating software from scratch specifically for the given hardware delivers better overall value for the end users.
That much makes perfect sense, and I would imagine that something as novel as a new metal 3D printer like this would want custom software to drive it as well. That doesn't prevent that custom software from being Open Source. And when you're talking about a product like this, in this price range, designed to support manufacturing with very tight tolerances, clones (and adoption of such) seem quite unlikely, even less so if they keep innovating with it. I'd rather see the "stickiness" provided by support, rather than software.
Because inevitably, software written by a single vendor for their hardware always feels very particular to their workflow, not integrating with anything they didn't anticipate, and not allowing much flexibility. And CAD workflows are exactly the kind of area where everyone has their own set of customizations they want to be able to do. I'd like an Open Source library and an API, not an opaque kiosk.
> I'd rather see the "stickiness" provided by support, rather than software.
I’d rather see the product just works not requiring much support. Ideally, not requiring any support at all. This works OK for consumer electronics. I don’t see why industrial hardware can’t be designed the same way.
> not integrating with anything they didn't anticipate
Desktop software often solves the interop problem by supporting open file formats on input. For 3D printing, the de-facto one is STL. You can export this format from every CAD or 3D modeling software.
> I'd like an Open Source library and an API, not an opaque kiosk.
I prefer opaque kiosks. Opaque kiosks just do their job. Good ones do it well. Libraries and APIs require substantial amount of time to RTFM, integrate, debug integration, update integration with API updates, and so on.
Also, not everyone is a programmer. I can use APIs and libraries when I need to, but most people just can’t. For an average Joe, these things are useless. Even harmful: creating good libraries and APIs has costs (documentation, examples, developers support); these resources might have been spent on useful features instead. The equation changes if the product attracts large user base and third-party developers start using these APIs to create value. But market for 3D printers is currently very small, i.e. this is unlikely to happen.
That much makes perfect sense, and I would imagine that something as novel as a new metal 3D printer like this would want custom software to drive it as well. That doesn't prevent that custom software from being Open Source. And when you're talking about a product like this, in this price range, designed to support manufacturing with very tight tolerances, clones (and adoption of such) seem quite unlikely, even less so if they keep innovating with it. I'd rather see the "stickiness" provided by support, rather than software.
Because inevitably, software written by a single vendor for their hardware always feels very particular to their workflow, not integrating with anything they didn't anticipate, and not allowing much flexibility. And CAD workflows are exactly the kind of area where everyone has their own set of customizations they want to be able to do. I'd like an Open Source library and an API, not an opaque kiosk.