Very interesting article about the perceived value of 3D printable designs and what customers are willing to pay, and pay for, in this emerging market.
http://3dprintingindustry.com/2015/01/23/the-secret-sauce-of-3d-printable-design-sales
I recall a neighbour of mine showing interest while I was building my printer. When I asked him what aspect of 3D printing appealed to him he replied “As a software team leader I am interested in applying DRM to model sales and monetising the process”. He was quite shocked that my attitude was the complete opposite of his i.e.I believe in sharing models freely.
The big issue I see with monetised marketing of models is assuring quality. The designer can show nice renders and images of prints made by him (no doubt on a high-end printer) but if the model does not translate to an acceptable print for an end-user with average hardware or printing skills then disappointment will surely be the end result.
I think the article made the point that aesthetically high quality models can command a decent price but it neglected to mention that overall printability of the design should be a significant factor.
They argued that DRM allows for less expensive models, but they don’t say DRM also allows for models to be priced higher. Makerbot’s digital model store prices a dinosaur skeleton model at about the level of a pretty good model kit of the same. And there’s the cost of material and machine time. As yet, Makerbot’s models only run on their machine and software.
The article also mentioned model integrity, but being able to alter models to your needs and tastes is part of the hobby as well.
I’ve yet to buy a model. I’m not against people selling models but I don’t expect to use 3D printing software, firmware or models that are part of the DRMed chain to allow for the protections they offer the model designer, in part because such a tool chain restricts my choices in which software I can use to make use of the model.
One of my biggest gripes with DRM is it is only as good as the authentication mechanism. Case and point: I once had a lot of WMA files (music) purchased from Microsoft (MSN music). I had the files backed up, so when I copied them to my new PC I expected them to work. They didn’t.
And there was no way to recover the license file because Microsoft had no recovery mechanism, and by then had ‘retired’ the site (read: screwed all their customers).
I had a similar problem with Xbox live video purchases. One day, they just stopped working. Apparently, they discontinued their relationship with the content provider(s). But I had purchased these videos–not rented or leased them.
Then there is the potential problem of the authentication source going out of business. With no way to authenticate, your purchased material simply stops working.
I’m not sure what the best solution to this problem is, but now I refuse to buy files with DRM on them if I intend to have them for a long period of time.
On a more upbeat note, this is a great article. I find it interesting, but perhaps not surprising, the Hobby and DIY category sold the most. I’m guessing the people who spent money in this category were probably mostly makers who understand the value of the time and hard work that went into the models, and were willing to pay to avoid having to do the work themselves, or as a thank you to the designer who saved them the effort of doing so. For the latter, I suspect having adequate pricing (read: $20 or less) makes it easier to say “thanks!” to the designer than if it was say, $100+.
After one test with authentise I’m leaning towards : no drm ever