Once again - I haven’t seen anything not already out there. The Glowforge is unique in its assembly, and perhaps it’s software - and definitely in its air filter, if they pull that off.
But the rest? Not so much.
The machines I build uses the RuiDa controllers. Here is what they can do: https://youtu.be/iq6QRhPC7c8
That video is from may, last year, btw.
Peter.
I agree with you in that it seems that GF keeps varying the grade of quality through “gold plating” the grade, feature creep, etc., rather than working to deliver the highest delivered quality within the grade of expectation that was set. And I agree with others the “reveal” of the GF head is not news that I think meets the crisis CX/UX strategic and tactical landscape they face.
The challenge is that the great early marketing, the GF focus for primary differentiation and innovation within the CX/UX space of lasering, ongoing nature of the funding, Dan’s and staff’s ongoing enthusiasm, and even our community comms have also helped create a high bar of customers who, if you surveyed them, I’d anticipate the data would show varied definitions of the quality grade promised/anticipated. This raises the stake for potential disappointments, and thus, I can sympathize with Dan trying to preserve as much quality “surprises” as possible to try to allay these great reputation and expectation risks they face.
I’m not sure why “feature creep” keeps coming up. It was explained that these features were included early on. They just weren’t revealed until now. Maybe I’m not understanding what people actually mean by “feature creep.” As I currently understand, it is when crap keeps getting added in as a product is being developed, often resulting in delays and over-complication of the thing. Does it mean something else?
One of the founders built a multifunction CNC in his garage prior to his involvement in Glowforge. If I recall it’s capability was a laser, plasma torch and router.
Dan announced the multifunction was always part of the original plan, and was one of the guarded features not revealed to the competition - until now.
It is not “feature creep”. The focus at this point is the laser, but bringing the design out of the hole with an eye toward compound functionality for the future is a brilliant move.
So thinking that the design somehow has affected delivery delay is mistaken.
I’m not really sure how you guys are spinning this removable head into such a big deal. They made a quick release for something that had to be removable anyways. Its easier for customers to install or replace should there be issues, and allows for potential expansions or quick upgrades. It’s not much extra work to convert a permanent connection into a quick release.
I for one love seeing thoughtful inclusions like this. In the long run it’s so much more efficient.
I agree - it’s a good idea if it works!
It is definitely not easy tho.
Alignment needs to be spot on - we are talking part hundreds of millimetres. Bouncing lasers off mirrors and through lenses is a fine way to get them astray. Keeping all lines parallel or perpendicular is a feat.
Peter
My k40 mirror head screws shake loose after a while and I have to constantly retighten them to make sure I don’t have to realign everything. If I had a well machined snap in module it would be a pretty big relief.
I’m glad to see these little pieces of engineering genius.
I bet with some careful engineering you could replace them with some rare earth magnets.
Well I keep not caring enough because I think my GF will be showing up shortly… 
we both know that just means you’re going to be using two lasers at the same time, so you might as well make the one as customized as you can 
I use my k40, but not a lot. Its got a lot of problems. The power supply is dying. The ventilation is pretty much nonfunctional. The cuts are inconsistent, the engraves suffer from terrible patterning due to power supply issues. I’m probably going to retire it or sell it when my forge arrives. Maybe keep it in the shed in case of emergency. It’s been great to have access to a laser in the meantime, but I’m soooo ready to get rid of it
My POV is that “feature creep” specifically refers to what is the contracted/chartered project prior to development vs. what is added to scope as the project moves along (and for what reasons). It is true what is defined in that may or may not get marketed to potential users. (But I also would argue such should be defined within contingent incremental product dev/management phases, not early if such a differentiable can’t be marketed for whatever reason real or perceived.)
However, Glowforge did announce in the original marketing a number of market-differentiable features of which something like a swappable head was not included. Some of these differentiables like variable autofocus over curved surfaces; full integration of the cloud use and print architecture (sharing, purchasing, etc); and compact air cleaning have yet to be demonstrated well in the wild through the beta testing process. Therefore it seems strange compared to these evidences that this product vision could be argued to have existed all along.
It is possible this scope change (if it was one) was added going through funding rounds to sell the idea of the go-forward vision of the initiative. If so, good on them for continuing to envision adaptations to the model for incremental purchases besides consumables.
But if so, this would be out of the scope of those original backers —I’m not one as the funding rounds made me more comfortable as a purchaser, who has been burned in crowdfunds before, to commit to purchase later than sooner— and I can sympathize with there being a potentially valid beef about the way things appear (feature/scope creep). And I don’t think it sells well to have a reveal for it (true feature creep or no) in the middle of the third major delivery crisis.
Accepting that it is not depends appears to me to rest on what trust and reputation equity Dan has with any individual supporter and the community at large.
I’m not sure I think of the removable head as feature creep even if it wasn’t envisioned at the beginning. They had to implement the positioning/registration of the head somehow, the possibility of removal for cleaning somehow, and a set of wiring to all the stuff in the head somehow. They just happened to choose this.
You’re correct about the definition of feature creep. However, it also includes features originally included that are expanded during the project.
Original Req: There shall be a report that displays the content of the event log.
The programmer creates a basic report. Then they’re asked to make it sortable by event id. Then they’re asked to make the interface to the sort feature more customer friendly. Then they’re asked to allow the customer to select the font used in the report’s title. Then the color of the font.
Some would argue all aspects of the event log report should have been spec’d. Others argue that “it’s a freakin’ event log,” and it shouldn’t have two days worth of labor going into specifications. The preceding was an aside, back to our regular posting.
I think the suspicion is that the “originally planned” features either grew in scope or weren’t originally planned. In my experience with projects, Dan’s explanation during the Q&A, that the development team thought they could finish in 3 months and then production would take 3 months but things happened, rings true. An embedded project, without feature creep and where things go really well, takes time. Too much time to those on the inside and an eternity to those on the outside.
As regards the removable laser head my opinion is that it was an original feature. The pre-order promotional campaign promised a laser cutter that could be plopped down in a suburban home and operated flawlessly, to make beautiful things, by someone whose technical ability stops at reading facebook notifications on their phone and possibly email. That the laser head appears easier to replace/install than an inkjet cartridge is in keeping with that promise. That there are a lot of purchasers who are far more technically competent than that and want a tool, preferably several months ago, doesn’t obviate the promises to those other customers. It also doesn’t change the fact Dan’s statement in June was awfully clear about when you could expect your unit.
I got their replicator 2 and after sinking a lot of money into it it is working really dependably. But I won’t get another MakerBot.
I’m going to start using this phrase as often as possible.
(Pssst! Just going to clarify that I was quoting @mjsbuddha and that is not how I feel. I.e. Not my quote. )
Go for it! I also use “Holy carp” as in the 
as often as possible. 
Dan has been very guarded across the year not to divulge all of the design innovations, as we hammered him for details, including who’s making it.
Perfectly reasonable not to allow any competition a peek at plans as development proceeds - not to mention any patent concerns.
Dan said it was part of the design from the beginning. I could be wrong, but I have no reason to doubt him.
I don’t feel that his inability to accurately predict the future was an attempt at deception.
But hey, I live an optimistic life, (mostly) because I choose that perspective as opposed to the alternative of pessimism, or being prematurely disappointed in the future.
I get that people have different priorities, but not everyone feels about it like you do. I’d much rather have a reliable, easy to use laser in 2 yrs than 100 faulty, difficult to use, unreliable ones immediately. I would enjoy the cheap ones at first, but my goal is to create things, not to fight and tinker with my tools to do it. The moment the laser takes more effort and energy than my creative process, I’d stop using it. I want to wake up in the middle of the night with an idea in my head, go to my laser and knock it out. I don’t want to work on the machine, get the cooling working and hope the software comes through. If it breaks, I want to have support. Oh, I’d rather not worry about it burning my house down too.