I have the Lack enclosure on the floor at the moment, giving it a tummy rub. (OK I’m installing the new filter - more on that elsewhere).
Anyway, I’m looking at my smoke detector and the led lights and the thermostat to kick turn on the fan to try to keep the temp below 30 ish for PLA, and the concealed wiring and the switches in the legs, for lights and fan, and I’m wondering what’s it got that the Prusa one doesn’t? 
It is at least open source. So it could be added by anyone. But my guess is that it is already in there (if undocumented). Skew correction is a software feature, not a mechanical one. So there’s no reason to remove it from newer printers. Assume it has it.
Thank @jeffeb3 I do like that it is open source. But not looking forward to paying that kind of money and then having to change the firmware all around if its not already enabled.
When I get closer to pulling the trigger I will reach out to them and find out for sure.
I just saw this article about concerns about the open source direction they are going.
As the articles says: You are not voiding the warranty any more by breaking the seal and they have the hacker board. So they are trying to be as open as possible without other companies being able to steal their hardware. You can see what Bambu tried with Makerworld (and succeeded, it seems to me). Prusa’s MMU for instance is still lightyears ahead of Bambu when it comes to the filament change times, I would not want to give that up, to be honest.
Prusa is trying to be as open as possible with out going under because of being ripped off. You can also repair the printer fully, have great support, the STLs, and don’t have to be online.
Yea, I don’t think they’re doing anything wrong here. Running a business while trying to be as open as possible seems like quite a challenge.
I am curious about that - I love the idea of open source as a means of community development of any product, but I am not a zealot and seriously don’t get how it can be sustained in any business model in the long term in an era when blatant and wholesale copying of everything is the norm.
Business has changed, perhaps the open-source idealists have to recognise that and change too?
I have seen vitriolic personal attacks on Jo Prusa because the specification of the Mk3S screws are not documented, yet the same people have lauded other manufacturer’s products which by and large are a conglomeration of pre-existing technology, as “innovative”.
Surely any company is entitled to some sort of mid ground? Somewhere between fully open source and patent wars?
Why can’t a company support the principals of open source, sharing useful tidbits but retaining proprietary information in order to remain in business?
But two can play the copy game - here’s Prusa’s Bamboo prototype unveiled yesterday at formnext! It’s worth clicking on the link.
(David - @PrusaGuy is on Prusa’s content team and a modelling specialist - but I’m not sure that the main man didn’t have a hand in this)
And now I gave Elongated Muskrat a click to his platform. FFS. 
Sorry, I tried to embed the video to prevent that ignominy, but couldn’t figure it out easily.
There’s a small community of “influencers” there which talks to one another self-importantly so I drop in to watch the fights! 
HAHA - this is great!! They have a great sense of humour - much needed these days.
Serious question - from the Tech Radar review of a Mk4s (linked above) the accuracy test was as follows - this has no context for me, but an average error of less than 0.1mm seems fine. (There’s no mention of skew).
What accuracy are you chasing/achieving?
Dimensional accuracy - score of 5
Target 25 = X: 24.89mm / 0.11mm Error | Y: 24.93mm / 0.07mm Error
Target 20 = X: 19.89mm / 0.11mm Error | Y: 19.92mm / 0.08mm Error
Target 15 = X: 14.97mm / 0.03mm Error | Y: 14.94mm / 0.06mm Error
Target 10 = X: 9.87mm / 0.13mm Error | Y: 9.84mm / 0.16mm Error
Target 5 = X: 4.92mm / 0.08mm Error | Y: 4.86mm / 0.14mm Error
X Error Average = 0.092
Y Error Average = 0.102
X&Y Error Average = 0.097Fine Flow Control - score of 5
Fine Negative Features - score of 5
Overhangs - score of 5
Bridging - score of 5
XY resonance - score of 2.5
Z-axis alignment - score of 2.5
Adding up the totals gives a final score of 30 out of 30.
Wow, that took me two views to understand why it was a “Bamboo prototype”. 
I guess it’s time to get my eyes checked again. Lol.
Doing anything wrong? Not not technically.
Indeed.
Since they will no longer release source, they’re now no longer eligible to sell to me, and as of re-reading all their materials I will no longer recommend them.
Not because their printers aren’t quite good, but absent the open source aspect I now consider their cost/benefit to be WAY below the other closed source but more affordable brands.
Bummer.
Thanks for the warning. I avoid giving anything to Melon Mush or his companies as much as possible.
Can you explain to me please, what you mean by all that? I am not wanting to get into an argument about brands, but I am completely puzzled by what you intend to do with the “open source” hardware, that you can’t do because it’s not documented down to the last screw.
Given that you can replace every component of a Prusa Machine with or without strict open source documentation, you can even customise the firmware if that’s your thing, what exactly is the problem? I keep hearing comments like this but have no clue what they mean.
The other “closed source but more affordable” brands can’t be modified in any way, and in some cases not repaired either (or economically repaired), so what is the cost-benefit over a lifetime?
My puzzlement if you like, stems from the fact that my “less affordable” (but still half the price of my phone), printer has not had one failed print in the 540 hours since I’ve owned it, and altruistically I am happy to pay a small premium to a company which invests so much in true open source software that “more affordable” brands can simply cut and paste, rebrand and move on without so much as a nod.
I am however, prepared to change my mind!
I’m not a lawyer, but from what I’ve read (again has to be taken with a grain of salt) - tinkering with your Prusa won’t void the warranty and support eligibility for those part of the printer that are still in stock condition. I think other brands would claim that any modification will break all of the warranties. (Even though this is not legal in some countries consumer laws)
With the exception of the board - it’s sealed - you are allowed to break the seal and do what you will, but if you cause subsequent damage it may not be covered, but yes that’s the very clear understanding.
I’m hoping @MakerJim will shed some light on what the real problem is.
I wouldn’t go there, and really appreciate that here in the V1 forums we can participate in educated debate while remaining civil.
Replacing components is important, but that isn’t the issue here.
Not now, and not in the future- they’re going closed source (Proprietary).
That means I can’t -study- and learn from the sources. That’s a big part of their appeal for me. (Same was true originally for mw with the Lulzbot printers back in the day. They’re still open source so I like that- but they’re hideously expensive for what they are.)
Josef had a post about it his thoughts as linked below where he laid out what was coming…
Prusa did get a little better recently when they announced that breaking the “appendix” or whatever they call it (protected low-level firmware loading on their controller) will no longer void the warranty like it used to. That’s trending in absolutely the wrong direction and it makes clear what they intend to do long term.
This is Prusa’s choice, which I respect. Once they are in that position, though, they are a a $1200 printer with good features in a world where $400-$600 printers are extremely competitive and even $300-400 do a reasonably good job feature for feature.
Prusa making this change won’t stop the clones. It’ll eventually mean that the clones codevelop in their own ecosystem, continuing to push progress forward. Prusa will be just another proprietary supplier.
It continues to be difficult to walk the path of open source. Part of my job in the professional world is teaching students and partners how I do what I do (building interplanetary spacecraft)- this openness is pretty important to me. I have enough NDAs, media access policies, and export regulations to comply with professionally. I don’t want or need that in my hobbies.
It isn’t really better in other brands. I just picked up a Flashforge A5M, and that is also not supported with full source in the designs. (but also hackable in that folks doing it are releasing their work independent of FlatshForge). It’s certainly not perfect. But it was $300, not $1200.
Biqu (BTT) are somewhat horrible with releasing sources and are getting progressively worse with support. They’ve also flipped from my “OK to buy” to being neutral and trending towards recommending against.
To put the final comparison on this: what I’d pay for qty 1 Prusa One printer can buy 4 A5Ms.
Taken all together, I think I’ve put Prusa in the correct category. I still tell folks that if they want to buy a printer and print stuff. Prusa works as does Bambu or even FlashForge. It’s just not the clear choice and rather is now a clear “avoid” for me. I will no longer advocate that Prusa is my recommendation based on access to source code and sharing- as they don’t offer that any longer.
From what I’ve seen, the A5M does not work very well though for the price. And none of those are open source. Prusa is as open as it gets without going bankrupt, I don’t really know what more one can expect.
Take, for example, the LowRider: Ryan said himself that if a Chinese company were to copy it, he’d be broke in a jiffy. My takeaway: The only chance he’d have then is to develop the boards and make them closed source so that he can stay in business with the boards at least.
A company always needs to find a balance. What I said above: Prusa’s MMU is way faster than the Bambu colour changers and wastes a lot less material. I would not want to give another company this technology when they took what they can get in the past but give nothing back.
