|
|
|
|
|
by Johnny555
1922 days ago
|
|
Nits being picked higher up are not germane. Isn't that a key distinction? Users can create unlimited designs of their own and print (or whatever it's called) them as many times as they want. The restriction is on importing external files, but once those are imported, there's no restriction on printing them. So users have unlimited use of their machines which they paid for and own, but metered use of pattern imports using the cloud software that they license but do not own. I think it's slimy business move and even unethical to charge for what was once free, but I'd be surprised if it's found to be illegal. |
|
Secondly, the data involved in the entire process being open means we don't have to talk about these silly things. And that is what an unlimited looks like.
Actual open machines that take open data, are limited. Ones that are not open, that do not take open data are in fact quite Limited.
And I didn't say anything about legal. It probably is, and I'm sure they're team vetted it too.
I am all for revisiting what is legal and what is not, and or how we value things so Market forces determine that in a better way too. I don't care how it goes.
I care very much about machines being limited by software.
And be really clear, if there is preferred software for use with the machine, and it adds some real value of some kind, that's all fine and good. The perfectly Fair way to compete, and people will benefit from that value.
That isn't what's going on here.
The fact that the operation data stream isn't open, creates artificial value, but they're trading on. That'll ultimately comes at the expense of anyone who bought into this.
The real standard should be a decade from now someone finds one of these in a dumpster fixes it up and can drive it with whatever tools they feel like to make the data that they need.
Meta: I use voice input on this one sorry for the random capitalization typos.