BOTACON 0 - Emerging Open Hardware Ecosystems

  • 1,876 views
Uploaded on

This is @erikdebruijn's talk at BOTACON 0 in New York, December 2010. …

This is @erikdebruijn's talk at BOTACON 0 in New York, December 2010.

I talk about the non-rival nature of information and how a culture of sharing enables the emerging phenomenon of open hardware.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,876
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
9

Actions

Shares
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Do you want to work in a system that is rooted in rivalry and the creation of artificial scarcity? Or Do you want to contribute to a world of plenty, where access is not restricted, where there's continuity of your ideas, and which invites others to co-mingle their ideas to make it awesome?
  • This talk, as an exception will be from non-tech point of view. For my master's I've done some research on a community that I really love, the RepRap project, and very closely related to that are the Makerbot and other bot-communities. So, I'm going to talk a little bit about my conclusions. Thanking you for your time!
  • Start by thanking you for your time. Lot's of RepRappers and Makerbotters have participated in the survey.
  • Cover sheet To what extent is the open source development methodology also applicable to physical object design To approach this, this requires is to understand the following...
  • “ He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.” This property of idea's, information and even software is much more important today than in the days of Thomas Jefferson
  • Information GOODS, information, software, and – CAD files. Who should society make responsible for producing idea's, knowledge and software? Private firms, or public institutions like this university? State / private firms A central question becomes:
  • ONE answer was given Jospeph Schupeter: “ If one wants to induce firms to undertake R&D one must accept the creation of monopolies as a necessary evil.” Neccesary? Assumption that is challenged more and more evidence. vH and my own.
  • If producers have the control to restrict the spreading of value to everyone,.... limiting other companies from offering, or limiting the spreading of information goods
  • NEXT
  • ...some people will pay for it, so they can keep developing other, profitable, products. Kinds of products they develop most -> large & low-risk markets. For highly original idea's, market acceptance is uncertain.
  • The reasoning is, in short: In order to develop idea's, a company needs to be able to make money through exclusion. society grants a temporary monopoly But, are firms to only ones with good ideas? They look for large markets, certainty to sell products. Can they earn money if there is no legal protection? It appears, yes. But is this for-profit, firm centric and market motivated the only source of idea's?
  • Many people with idea's out there
  • What would REALLY be perfect? If they could GIVE their idea's away for free, to everyone! What would be perfect?
  • And of course this is a many-to-many type of interaction If they collaborated and could build on each other's ideas Vary on: motives, knowledge, experience and live in diff. Environments So, for participating in open source development, what do these motives look like?
  • Crime is committed. But the same logic applies to socially constructive behavior. How do they relate to open source development So let's start with the motives...
  • Does the ability to profit have a role? If so, it's usually subordinate to other motive, like competence, relatedness and meaning. And profit motives can significantly diminish creativity and innovation. Diverse motives = robust
  • Comparing Mendel's Law ;) and Moore's Law might seem like comparing apples and oranges, or 3D printers and transistors. Still, we're talking about quantities with emergent characteristics.
  • Endogenous to the community. Money? Community Access to knowledge, spreading workload, etc. Infrastructure Fabricators Sharing platforms A commons of physical designs
  • Access to knowledge, access to collaborators allowing you to spread the workload, resources Next: Infrastructure (repositories, wiki's thingiverse, etc.)
  • These machines have allowed more than 10.000 of open source objects to materialize.
  • Modularity – work independently, reuse, transparency Granularity – tasks that match the varying level of ambition of participants

Transcript

  • 1. Question Do you want to work in a system that is rooted in rivalry and the creation of artificial scarcity? Or Do you want to contribute to a world of plenty, where access is not restricted, where there's continuity of your ideas, and which invites others to co-mingle their ideas to make it awesome?
  • 2.
    • Emerging Open Hardware Ecosystems
      @ErikDeBruijn
  • 3. Thank you!
  • 4.  
  • 5.
      “ He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.” - Thomas Jefferson
  • 6.
      With today's internet
  • 7.
      How can we best provide society with goods?
      “ If one wants to induce firms to undertake R&D one must accept the creation of monopolies as a necessary evil.” - Schumpeter
  • 8.
      Producers and exclusion
  • 9.
      Producers and exclusion
  • 10.
      Producers and exclusion
  • 11.
      How can we best provide society with goods?
      Firm based producers
  • 12. Alternative: Be Open
  • 13.
      How can we best provide society with goods?
      Global collaboration
  • 14.
      How can we best provide society with goods?
      Global collaboration
  • 15.
      How can we best provide society with goods?
  • 16. Behavior = motives + means
  • 17. Diverse Motives
    • Profit?
    • 18. Competence / Challenge
    • 19. Relatedness / Community
    • 20. Meaning
  • 21.
      Community growth
      4~5 x
      Moore's Law
  • 22.
      Community growth
      4~5 x
      (log scale)
      Moore's Law
  • 23. Proliferation of OS Fab. Equip. RepRap & derivatives Industry Giant (Stratasys) R&D manpower > 1000 people (145-182 FTE R&D) 100 people ~100 FTE R&D R&D expenditure $ 384,000 – 478,000 ~ $ 7.5 mln. Yearly growth 2005-2010: 400–600% Yearly growth & decline 2006-2009: -17%–17%
  • 24. The means
  • 25. The means to do Open Design
      • Money?
      • 26. Community
      • 27. Infrastructure
        • Fabricators
        • 28. Sharing platforms
        • 29. A commons of physical designs
  • 30.
      • Online proposal for an open source standard construction kit
      • 31. Extruded aluminum beam
      • 32. Suitable for mass production: high up-front costs
      • 33. Crowdfunded by 132 people
      • 34. > 17k in pledges received in months
  • 35.
      Community
  • 36.
    • Infrastructure: Open and affordable fabricators
  • 37.  
  • 38. A commons of physical design iPhone Dock? A replacement buckle? A tiny violin? A whistle? (with pea inside) Art, gifts? Caps for LED-candles?
  • 39. The means to do Open Design
      • Money?
      • 40. Community
      • 41. Infrastructure
        • Fabricators
        • 42. Sharing platforms
        • 43. A commons of physical designs
  • 44. Collaboration
  • 47. Take aways
    • Participate in creating the future
    • 48. ...through a global, decentralized collaboration
    • 49. ...while gaining the skills of the 21 st century
  • 50. Thanks!
    • www.erikdebruijn.nl
    • 51. @erikdebruijn
    • 52. Http://thesis.erikdebruijn.nl/master/
    Ultimaker.com Contact me: