MakerBot Lays Off 20 Percent of Its Employees 177
Jason Koebler writes MakerBot fired roughly 20 percent of its staff Friday. Figures from 2014 placed the company's ranks at 500, meaning the cuts could equate to roughly 100 employees. The orders came from new CEO Jonathan Jaglom, Motherboard was told. Employees are apparently being led out of the company's Brooklyn office by security today. "It's about 20 percent of staff," a MakerBot representative, who asked not to be identified because she had not received approval to speak to the press, told Motherboard. "Everyone suspected that something would be coming with the new CEO, and that there would be restructuring coming."
Predictable (Score:5, Funny)
They obviously they printed replacements
Re: (Score:2)
You may want to check the STL file for that sentence.
Print a 3D job (Score:2, Informative)
Just found out MakerBot was a 3D printer maker.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Print a 3D job (Score:4, Funny)
working on 2D jobs...
In Other News (Score:4, Insightful)
And in other news, MakerBot CEO Jonathan Jaglom will receive a bazillion dollar bonus, and another ten bazillion dollars in stock options. It's predicted he will end his term as CEO by urinating and defecating and the smoldering corpse of MakerBot before seeking greener pastures to assrape and pillage.
When asked for comment, Mr. Jaglom replied "I'd just like to say fuck you all very much!"
Re: (Score:3)
Well, that's what makes America such a great country!
Re: In Other News (Score:2, Funny)
In capitalist America, job quits you!
Re:In Other News (Score:5, Insightful)
You think it's just an American phenomenon... how naive of you.
Re: In Other News (Score:2)
never trust new ceos/ctos (Score:3)
And guys remember, backup copy all IP/source code from companies weekly after a new ceo.
Setup your desktop in such a way, you can walk out and make it not boot the next day, Change bios settings to something that will fry the cpu/ram, save & power off.
Add backup admin accounts to all machines you can.
Change all SSL certificates to expire on 4th July.
Lets use correct terminology. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a difference between being fired and laid off (just ask your local unemployment office). But this summary seems to use the terms interchangeably.
Since a reason has not been given for the workers losing their jobs, either one could apply. But they aren't the same.
Re:Lets use correct terminology. (Score:5, Interesting)
When you layoff 20%, it's just business (insert whatever reason that gives the top manglers bigger bonuses.) When you _FIRE_ 20%, it's big f_cking deal; a company has to be pretty screwed up to be firing 20% of its head count.
Re:Lets use correct terminology. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's suggested the new CEO has something to do with it. Perhaps he's doing a house-cleaning of folks who should have been fired for unrelated reasons long ago.
Re: (Score:2)
The CEO being new doesn't narrow things down much in this case.
Maybe the new CEO is getting rid of the bottom performing 20%.
Maybe the new CEO is reducing headcount by 20%.
Either case is common for new management, but both cases are handled very VERY differently from all sorts of legal perspectives.
Re: (Score:2)
Management in a tech company can't identify the "bottom 20 percent", because every engineer does different work.
Isn't that, like, exactly how Microsoft used to run things? There was always a "bottom performing" person or persons, and it didn't matter if the worst was better than the industry average, they weren't good enough and got penalized for it.
Re: (Score:2)
True - though most states usually sort that out at the unemployment office as either being fired "for cause", or just being fired. The latter means you can collect a check, while (in most states) the former means that you cannot.
Re:Lets use correct terminology. (Score:4, Insightful)
If 20% are going at once, it is most certainly a layoff. It could be they are focusing on dead wood, or, and this is most likely, they had a mandate of 20% from each group, regardless of how strong each group was. I've seen some top flight engineers lose their jobs because of this type of scatter-shot layoff.
Re: (Score:2)
For want of a hyphen...
Re: (Score:1)
Is it really common practice now to have laid off workers escorted out by security?
Re:Lets use correct terminology. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes.
Laid off workers are not usually any happier losing their job than fired workers (even if there is a payout.)
Re: (Score:2)
Laid off workers sometimes get a severance package.
I've know people who opted for a severance package rather than staying with a company.
Id rather get some extra money on my way out the door than nothing at all.
I'd have to call bullshit on that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yup. All it takes is one unstable employee picking up a box cutter and slashing people to cost a company millions. The court cases usually cite the company's lack of proper security when letting people go. This is yet another example of where procedures have to take worst case scenarios into account. In the general case it looks like overkill but in the worst case it is actually reasonable.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
So it's better for them to do it in the parking lot?
Escorting people out is just STUPID. It's an MBA type policy by a bunch of asshats that don't give two shits about their employees. If your employer does it you should find another job because management is a bunch of inhuman scum.
Re: (Score:2)
So it's better for them to do it in the parking lot?
It is. There are fewer people in parking lot and fewer improvised weapons available. It also does not give time for the frustration to build while in the office and explode which could end badly. Someone screaming and yelling in a parking lot is much less of a danger than doing the same thing and attacking people in the office.
It's an MBA type policy by a bunch of asshats that don't give two shits about their employees
The opposite is actually closer to the truth. It is about protecting the remaining workers from the laid off workers. No one can predict what someone will do during a traumatic experi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Assuming everyone is a threat IS bad policy. You are telling EVERYONE that works there that you believe they are capable of hurting people because they lost a job. That's like finding urine on the floor in a bathroom and accusing the entire office of doing it.
It's wrong on every facet. But it does help people get used to the police state! Anyone that would support a policy like this is a jack booted thug loving bootlicker.
Re: (Score:3)
Assuming everyone is a threat IS bad policy.
Assuming no one is a threat is worse policy. In the worst case scenario when security is present an ex-employee feels slighted. In the worst case scenario when security is not present someone dies. If someone does get killed due to inaction by the company then the person is dead and the company is liable.
You are telling EVERYONE that works there that you believe they are capable of hurting people because they lost a job.
No the company are telling people that there exists people who are capable of hurting others and the company does not have the ability to differentiate. The company will do everything to protect remaining e
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone is capable of hurting anyone else at ANY time.
True but being laid off is an exceptionally stressful time which increases the chance of violence. There are many reported instances of people going off during or soon after being let go. It is much more frequent than a during normal work. To compensate for the increased danger there is increased security.
then it's better to have armed guards surrounding the employees at all times while they're working, too.
No, at regular times you have security at their regular posts ready to respond to incidents.
You still refuse to see the liability angle. A company is going to do everything possible to avoid paying out mil
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming everyone is a threat IS bad policy.
Not everyone. Just the ones who lost their job.
And their morale doesn't matter a whole lot to the company, anyway, since they're no longer employed there.
Re: (Score:2)
So it's better for them to do it in the parking lot?
Assuming they're going to do it, yes. In a parking lot it is easier for people to run away, and it won't cost the company millions of dollars and put everyone else's job or life at risk.
It's an MBA type policy by a bunch of asshats that don't give two shits about their employees.
The company has a responsibility to the remaining employees, too. Once the disgruntled employee is off the premises the company can do nothing to stop his rampage, but while he is on-site they can -- which is to have security escort him off-site.
Since it is hard to tell who is going to be disgruntled enough to do somethin
Re:Lets use correct terminology. (Score:4, Insightful)
That smells too much of the zero-tolerance, total-fear climate that typifies the USA these days.
If you have enough unstable employees that you need to be that worried, you were doing something major wrong long before "firing" time.
In any event, laid-off people aren't known for running amok in the parking lots. They come back later, heavily-armed and lay waste to the remaining employees (and customers).
Re:Lets use correct terminology. (Score:5, Interesting)
There are two sides here. The "laid off" worker is still a human being, and it may be that he will have a better career and life ahead than those left behind. To be treated with total lack of dignity at such a moment leaves an indelible impression; I know because it happened to me once.
So, what I am saying is that karma is a bitch, to treat those you are letting go badly will come back on those who perpetrate it.
Re: (Score:3)
To be treated with total lack of dignity at such a moment leaves an indelible impression; I know because it happened to me once.
How security treats you is a different issue than having them there to prevent trouble. This may sound like a 'zero-tolerance' afraid of your shadow approach, but since we already have a term for such reactions ("going postal") I think the precedent for trouble clearly exists and appropriate caution is justified. (We didn't have security at the place I worked, the task fell to a coworker, so it's happened to me, too.)
Once you can understand that, then thinking that the use of security is because they don'
Re:Lets use correct terminology. (Score:5, Insightful)
For all your attempts to justify it, the simple fact is the vast majority of these incidents of violence occur after the employee has been fired for a few days and comes back armed and with the intent to kill. There has never to my knowledge been an employee that shot and killed people at their work without first going home to retrieve the weapon.
By treating a dismissed employee as a "security threat" you are only debasing them and encouraging them to take the very action you are trying to prevent. It's this wrong headed view of things that is what is destroying major American companies. As I said this attitude is evidence of significant and far reaching problems with management in the company and any sane individual should move to new employment if they can. Because the stupid MBA's running the companies don't understand this the only way to help them understand it to vote with your feet. Eventually the best talent will congregate elsewhere and the stupid management will be the ones without jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't ask how smart it is...he asked if it's a common practice, and it is.
Re:Lets use correct terminology. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup. All it takes is one unstable employee picking up a box cutter and slashing people to cost a company millions. The court cases usually cite the company's lack of proper security when letting people go. This is yet another example of where procedures have to take worst case scenarios into account. In the general case it looks like overkill but in the worst case it is actually reasonable.
I'm sorry, I find that justification a load of bollocks. No company should treat its employees in this pathetic a manner.
If an employee wants to pick up a box cutter and slash people, they can do that at any time during their employment. What happens when employees get a bad review? Or an employee has any other kind of disagreement or conflict at work.
You either treat your employees as adults or you don't. A company's behavior towards its employees is a reflection on the company and especially its leadership. There are also many other companies that handle layoffs with respect and dignity and maturity. In many cases, the HR departments actually help the about to be laid off employees look for work, help them with referrals, or at least give them a few months' salary.
Simply put, the new CEO is one of the worst examples of a leader that I can think of. In an ideal world, other employees would also vote with their feet and quit.
Re: (Score:2)
Additional security isn't going to stop someone if they're belligerent enough.
It might will at least slow them down but not having security will definitely not stop someone. It is all about the company's due diligence. If things get to court the company has to show they did everything to avoid violence. In court, not having security present would be seen as lack of due diligence and the company would be held liable. Blame the issue on our litigious society.
Re:Lets use correct terminology. (Score:5, Funny)
keep in mind that these ex-employees could be printing firearms...
Re:Lets use correct terminology. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it really common practice now to have laid off workers escorted out by security?
It is fairly common. Sometime the terminatees will delete files, copy confidential information, or even sabotage equipment. I have seen all of these things happen, and was sometimes surprised by who did it. The polite quiet submissive people often have the most bottled up rage.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Come on, if you don't already have copies of the companies "confidential information" and/or "incriminating information/emails" then you don't deserve a job.
I make sure anything that crosses my desk that is incriminating or embarrassing to the company gets copied to a thumb drive and a copy gets sent to my personal e-mail for later.
They come in handy when negotiating the severance package.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it really common practice now to have laid off workers escorted out by security?
It is fairly common. Sometime the terminatees will delete files, copy confidential information, or even sabotage equipment. I have seen all of these things happen, and was sometimes surprised by who did it. The polite quiet submissive people often have the most bottled up rage.
Have you seen my red swingline stapler?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Depends on location. In the US, it's extremely common, potentially due to their more violent nature and the second amendment.
In a lot other countries, layoffs can take different schemes - they may provide notice of layoff - as in you're going to get a severance and all that, but it's a 2-week notice, and no, they're not going to buy you out, you're going to work those two weeks. Seems incredible, but a lot of companies do it
Re:Lets use correct terminology. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a difference between being fired and laid off
Not really. Historically, "fired" meant you permanently lost your job, while "laid off" means you were furloughed but would be called back when more work was available. Today, "fired" is generally used to mean "terminated for cause", while "laid off" is generally used to mean terminated as part of a head count reduction or, in C-speak, "right-sizing". But mostly the two terms are used interchangeably. People use "fired" when they are being blunt, and "laid off" when they prefer a more euphemistic phrase.
Re:Lets use correct terminology. (Score:5, Insightful)
As others have pointed out already in this thread: in the US, if you're laid off you can collect the unemployment insurance you've already paid for. If you're fired or leave voluntarily, you can't collect unemployment insurance.
I'm sure there are other legal differences, but as an employee, this is the important one.
If you are planning on leaving a job under good terms, it's always worth scheduling it around a layoff. You can tell your boss (discretely) and see if you can be laid off instead. The win for your boss is that two employees won't be lost (you plus the person who'd be laid off). The win for you is that you get severance and can collect unemployment.
Re: (Score:3)
It all depends on how you define fired. If fired is used to indicate termination with cause, such as you were showed up drunk, fighting in the workplace, looking at porn, habitual late/no show, something with significant misconduct... then unemployment probably will be denied.
If you're terminated for no fault of your own, you likely can still collect unemployment. "No fault of your own" can still include things that were directly associated with you, such as low job performance, inability to perform the j
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you work in the US. If you are fired or laid off, you can file for unemployment. The government then decides if you can collect.
If you quit, you cannot collect unemployment, period. Also, the employer pays into the unemployment fund, not the employee.
Re: (Score:3)
Heh... yeah... One job, there were layoffs coming, and I had found employment elsewhere. When I handed my boss my notice, he handed it back and said "I never saw that. You're on the layoff list. You'd rather be laid off."
I'm in the US. I've been laid off a few times, not counting that one. One was "Here's a box, pack up your stuff and go", but no security escorting me anywhere. One was "You're going to be laid off three months from now, help get your tasks transferred to the people in the group who ar
Re: (Score:2)
in the US, if you're laid off you can collect the unemployment insurance you've already paid for. If you're fired or leave voluntarily, you can't collect unemployment insurance.
Can you point to a single state's laws that use that terminology? I've never heard of one. It's all about "fired for cause" vs "fired without cause". You may prefer the terms "fired" vs "laid off", but that's a newish meaning for "laid off".
What really matters to me is "do you get a respectable severance package?" You don't necessarily get one even if you're 'laid off", as some companies are really broke, and some are complete assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between being fired and laid off (just ask your local unemployment office).
AFAIK, the unemployment office treats fired and laid off the same way. What they might treat differently is a voluntary resignation. The resignation would have to be truly voluntary, i.e., you were not forced to resign in some way, otherwise it would be the same as being fired.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't a layoff imply that you still have a job to come back to when business improves? As another poster mentioned, the question is not firing, but whether it was for "cause" or more to the point, whether it was for misconduct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
I see, I'm old enough to remember the older version of "layoff" -- in modern times, it just means fired not for reasons of misconduct.
they were pretty scummy. (Score:5, Interesting)
They patented things that other people in the community designed and claimed them as their own. Makerbot may have been one of the first, but they ended up as scumbags.
Now there are a ton of other companies out there doing it better, Good luck to the new CEO, he's captain of a sinking ship.
Re:they were pretty scummy. (Score:4, Interesting)
They also closed-sourced all the things they had open-sourced. I got one JUST before they did that and I've been not-so-happy with it ever since.
They betrayed "makers", open source, and their customers. They deserve a worse fate.
Peak 3d printer (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm wondering if this will be analagous to the daisy-wheel printer. For certain applications it's the best choice, but those are very few and far between, and are entirely based on fixed fonts and software made to do a standard set of rows and columns with fixed-width characters. They work great for printing multi-part forms and for where one wants text that's more readable than dot-matrix, but that's about it.
These first generation consumer-grade 3d printers are like that, but worse, because there's not much in the way of a business market compared to those paper printers. They were bought by businesses that specifically needed rapid prototyping, or they were bought by hobbyists that got into it as the latest craze. There's only so much of either, so once that small market is saturated there's less need for companies supplying whole printers.
Re: (Score:3)
If we hit peak 3d printer articles then that'd be a good result.
Re: (Score:2)
We (the IT department of a regional government org) just got one, a Makerbot, incidentally. It was pretty pricy, about $8,000.
It's currently printing a model of the Willis Tower.
*facepalm*
Re: (Score:2)
I knew we were at the peak when I saw a 3d printer for sale at Home Depot. Oooh - I can make a crescent wrench out of plastic. How ... useful?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I for one am happy to have a physical location to bring a defective device back and get a replacement that day.
Re: (Score:3)
You can then print nuts and bolts to use with that printed crescent wrench.
Re: (Score:2)
That way you can play the exciting and suspense-filled game of "what's going to break first while I tighten all of this down... the nut, the bolt, or the wrench?"
Or maybe you buy the $5 forged steel wrench, the 25 cent steel bolt, the 10 cent nut, and just 3d-print a fake penis.
Re: (Score:2)
Already been done: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They were bought by businesses that specifically needed rapid prototyping, or they were bought by hobbyists that got into it as the latest craze. There's only so much of either, so once that small market is saturated there's less need for companies supplying whole printers.
I'll disagree. They are getting to the point that they are moving from fast prototyping to small batch manufacturing. I'll probably never buy one, but I find myself using one more and more as I realize that when I want one of something for myself, I can have it made fairly easily. Another friend has a business out of designing jewelry and having it 3D printed out of sinistered metals. The tools and skills needed to create the needed designs to use them will probably prevent household adoption anytime soon,
Re: (Score:2)
I keep going back and forth on whether to buy one, but I'm tending toward "no" -- a makerspace opened up near me and they have half a dozen different 3d printers but it usually seems that at most, two are ever working at the same time. Despite that, I recently needed an object printed, paid $50 for the membership fee for a month, then spent 13 hours babysitting a print. On the first try, it jumped 2mm on the X axis about 15 minutes into the print. Stopped, restarted, and after spending all day watching i
Re: (Score:2)
3D printers are not too expensive. You can buy a 3D printer for $300. How much cheaper does it have to be? No, price isn't the problem- they're too cheaply made. Why does it take some much arcane knowledge to get quality 3D prints? Is it because 3D printing is difficult, or is it because 3D printers suck? Every company in the business is trying to make them cheaper, as if THAT is what holds consumers back from buying printers. They keep taking things out and making them cheaper and cheaper and the re
this pisses me off about modern business (Score:5, Insightful)
Employees are apparently being led out of the company's Brooklyn office by security today.
This has always rubbed me the wrong way. These people worked hard for the company and then they get thrown away like garbage, or worse potential threats. Why can't we treat people with respect and understanding. It is a serious personal trauma to get laid off... I always thought the way security escorts you from the building was kind of a "kick-em-while-they're-down" dick move.
I got laid off from a company during the financial crisis (10% of my company was laid off). I was accompanied to my desk to pick up my jacket and I was out the door. I had to make a freaking appointment to collect my personal belongs from my desk the next day. Everyone in the office tried to hide while me and the other victims cleaned out our stuff (our logins were already disabled). I guess they thought they would catch whatever it was the killed us.
Re: (Score:2)
"Christ, there goes one of those lepers..."
Re: (Score:1)
I'd like to think they probably wanted to give you some privacy.
Re:this pisses me off about modern business (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't take it personally. It probably is not about you. The company is just trying to avoid litigation if one of the laid off employees goes ballistic. The problem is that they have to treat everyone the same.
Put yourself on management's shoes. If security was not around and a laid off employee did go ballistic the company would be liable for any injuries. The court case would come down to the company failing to protect their employees from attack.
It is not about you. It is about some other person who is less stable and you just get treated the same. You get treated the same because managers are not psychologists. Even psychologists can not predict what a person will do during a traumatic experience like getting laid off.
I was accompanied to my desk to pick up my jacket and I was out the door. I had to make a freaking appointment to collect my personal belongs from my desk the next day.
That is caused by a resource issue. The first part was to get it over with as quickly as possible. It also gives you time to absorb the implications. The second part was to ensure that security personnel were available to escort you to and from your desk in case you do go balistic.
Everyone in the office tried to hide while me and the other victims cleaned out our stuff
That is probably "survivor's remorse". They don't want to see you because they don't want to think about why you got laid off instead of them.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not about you.
We need a car analogy. I know ... I lock my car doors every time I park. It's not about you. It's about the criminal who would walk off with some of my stuff that I have in the back seat if I didn't. And "The Club" on the steering wheel? Also not about you.
Unless you're a crook. Then it is about you, just like having security escort you out is about you if you tend to go postal on your coworkers.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think any company can reliably predict how someone will react to being laid off?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
When I see a Club on a steering wheel, i feel sorry for the owner. When i see security escort employees out like this, i feel sorry for the employer. They have lost their humanity.
That you think someone who has tried to make his car a bit less likely to be stolen has "lost his humanity" is ridiculous. I would feel a lot sorrier for the people who weren't protected against a disgruntled ex-employee because the employer wanted to be "humane" to the killer instead of the people he employes.
Get over it. Security is there to keep anything from happening, not because they expect you specifically to go ballistic and start a rampage. They're there to meet a legal responsibility of due car
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Americans are weird sometimes!
So let me get this straight. You refused to leave the store thereby committing trespass. Then you picked up two employees and carried them out of the store. That would be assault and battery since you actually touched someone. I think you are the one that is weird.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's weird that you think that "touching someone" is assault and battery.
Picking someone up in a fireman-carry and carrying them outside the building is what the law would consider assault and battery. It's much more than "touching" them.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason I mentioned "touching" is that threatening is "assault" and actually coming into contact is "battery" [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes the English language is strange sometimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you put your hands on me with hostile intent, you're implicitly giving me permission to return the favor.
This is a universal law that every child understands.
How does being given an escort imply laying on hands? Are you allowed to fight a police officer putting you in handcuffs while arresting you? I believe that is called resisting arrest and illegal.
Given that all I did was carry those people outside and then tell them that if we wanted to fight,...
All I see is them wanting you off their private property as is their right under the law. You have no right to be there and therefore were trespassing the instant they told you to leave.
I was if anything, too forgiving.
You really don't understand the law do you?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that they have to treat everyone the same.
Great, then lets see pictures of CEOs and other senior executives being escorted out of buildings.
Re: (Score:2)
The policy of escorting employees off the property is SOP nowadays due to HR's fear of vindictive ex-employees causing havoc/damage to the company. Sure it is somewhat humiliating, especially if you've been employed for a long time and put alot of yourself into the organization. However, I understand the reasoning. And while I haven't had this happen to me exactly, I have had my admin privileges revoked when I was laid off. Sure it pissed me off at the time, especially as I'd been there for a long time and
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're firing a single individual, that might work. When you're letting go of 20% of your workforce, or around 100 people, you probably are not doing it all at once. Making them do the employment walk of shame could be very demoralizing throughout the day for a very large layoff, not to mention tipping off the next guy to get called down to HR to go postal on his way down.
Re: (Score:1)
When I was let go the HR person walked with me back to my desk; watched me shut down my computer (no doubt my accesses were already gone but I never checked); watched me pack up my personal stuff; and walked me to the door.
Was it pleasant? Of course not. But she was doing her job and I wasn't going to get upset about that. Had they made me come back to get my personal possessions I would have been much less than pleased and probably sent them an invoice for my time since I was doing work required by the
Re: (Score:3)
If we cant blame those that personally execute the policy, who can we blame? She did it, its hers to own. Companies cant do this stuff if the employees refuse to comply with shit orders like this.
I was about to buy several makebot printers (Score:3, Insightful)
Fucking bots (Score:3)
They took yer jobs!
NOT fired! Laid off. (Score:2)
OK, it's a pet peeve, but I hate it when people use "fired" for people let go through no fault of their own. One gets "fired" for fucking up, one is "laid off" due to someone else fucking up.
Maybe if their sales guys would follow up... (Score:4, Interesting)
Their machines are WAY too expensive (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
sure, but a better model... (Score:2)
Sure they could do the inkjet business model. But why do THAT when they can charge you an arm and a leg for the printer, then chip the fillment and extort you for your first born?
Even Crassus was nice enough... (Score:2)
I knew it would come to this (Score:1)
"You've been replaced by your own robots"
Print the Legend (Documentary) (Score:2)
By the end of the documentary, the direction MakerBot was headed seemed somewhat unhealthy; the remaining founder, Bre Pettis, had made several 180s at that point.
For all of you folks in civilized countries... (Score:2)
The gun nutz will tell you our society will be more "civil and polite" when everyone is walking around with a gun. The "walk of shame" that is done in the US when employees are terminated is a direct response to the wide spread and easy availability of easily concealed firearms, and is a perfect example of that "civil and polite" society they predict.
This is how it goes (Score:2)
Someone makes something great.
They are first-to-market.
Big Corp. buys them out, desiring only their IP.
All of the engineers who actually made the product (& company) valuable are fired.
Big Corp. squanders that first-to-market advantage to gain short-term profits.
Customers who've bought prior-generation products versions beg to have important improvements made to the line of tools.
Big Corp. ignores customer pleas while simply juicing the IP they bought, for every nickel they can get.
Big Corp. refuses
Losers are America's lifeblood (Score:2)
If you don't want to do stupid human tricks for food, you have to move to a less civilized, more humane country.
Re: (Score:2)
Check out this movie:
http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie... [netflix.com]
Gives an interesting inside look at Markerbot and its main competition at the time.