Do you have a reference for that?
Not being combative. Just curious.
1 Like
Just to clarify, they never promised to open source all of their software, only the firmware. You might think I’m splinting hairs but I see the difference as significant.
8 Likes
I am very disappointed that Snapmarks have been discontinued. There were several projects I had planned around their use that they would have saved so much time with repeatability. To go back to manual placement, after having the automatic placement dangled in front of me, will leave a lingering resentment every time I have to do it.
Is there anyway we can bring back development of snapmarks? Or even leave it in Beta and just say it’s an experimental feature and we’re on our own with it?
2 Likes
Still catching up on a week out of the loop. But I agree with all said above about subscription services. This was one reason for my departure from Inventables Easel software when new features to the software were subscription based. Yes I know some levels were free (still may be?) up to a few uses but I didn’t want to get used to something that soon may start costing an unknown amount.
3 Likes
Glowforge firmware is user-flashable, so you’ve got both an escape hatch (if something happens to us) and a platform to experiment with. If you buy it, it’s yours – you should be able to do what you want with it.
There are a bunch of old threads in the forums. I believe most of us have given up hope of ever seeing a open ecosystem.
The firmware is all that matters, from my perspective and likely GlowForges (hence it is not open source).
At that point I would be able to work offline without their cloud software and have my privacy back for another device on my network. I do not need their scripts for server setup, database schemas, UI code, etc. At the end of the all their cloud software provides users with is a thin layer that translates svg data into a proprietary motion file and records it in a database somewhere, all of this is the easy part.
The firmware in the device itself is where all the magic happens.
2 Likes
Ah. You are talking about the firmware. Got it.
2 Likes
Maybe for your purposes but not GF’s.
The firmware does very little relative to the total work to process a file. It’s just responsible for communicating with the GF cloud, applying updates to itself and translating the motion files to motor controls.
The heavy lifting is done on the cloud software.
If you’re interested in running offline, you should take a look at what Scott did with the firmware release (GF did release it a year or so ago). Scott’s Openglow project is trying to do the reverse engineering and function replacement to enable fully independent use of the machine. He was using an open source laser control software app for all of the file prep & manipulation (Whisperer or Laserlight?) last time I looked but it’s been awhile.
7 Likes
I think you misinterpreted my prior message. My reasoning is that as with all software the only code that matters is the code the takes data however it was generated and then does something with it. Creating data in a known format is easy, doing something with data is hard.
To this point the GFUI is just a data input device that translates svg and raster data into a motion file, these applications are always the easiest to build and typically don’t contain much proprietary information that competitors or tinkerers would care about.
The firmware, on the other hand, takes that motion file, interprets it, and translates it into actions that control a laser. Anyone that has the firmware’s source code can easily reverse engineer the input and create a software package to generate the expected data, whether that be a command line tool, web server, Inkscape Plugin, Fusion 360 Plugin, etc.
It’s understandable why they wouldn’t want this. Some would argue that it would cost them any competitive advantage they have, others would argue that it creates a brighter ecosystem and attracts more makers.
I’ve been following Scott’s work since he started. I would prefer not to replace the hardware in my machine and just install custom firmware. I bought a great physical machine, I would just like the ability to enhance the software to make interacting with it more pleasant.
2 Likes
Okay, sure. If it’s the firmware you’re after, it’s been released for over a year (sometimes I think at Scott’s goading). Grab it and have at the reverse engineering process.
Scott started from the same position you are. He changed his approach for a reason. But maybe you’ll be more successful with a software play. I know there are aot of folks who are equally interested in running their GF off of the 'net.
Be good if you would keep folks updated because they’ll be a ready market to buy what you develop.
11 Likes
I do not see why they can not release snapmarks with out developing it further. I bought my Pro model in December 2018 and waited… and waited. If you are telling me that my machine does not have the capability of performing as well as machines manufactured before mine, then how can I recommend your product ever again?
This leaves a very bad taste in the mouths of those who drooled over them but never had them turned on. Bad form GF… bad form.
I see now, I think I must have missed that post.
After reviewing what they released, I think there is enough information to do what I want. 
3 Likes
I appreciate the feedback. The Snapmark experiment wasn’t intended to make people feel bad about their Glowforge - we’ve definitely learned a lot.
7 Likes
My understanding is that either snapmarks or the machine have to be tailored to make it operational, and that was easier for some machines than others.
If it requires individual focus to achieve it, then I could see a one-time charge to make it operational, but if it were subscription based it would be dead to me.
Same with the basic glowforge service, a subscription to keep it operational would have me eviscerate the control board and hack it back together with whatever would be needed to achieve local control.
5 Likes
You really should enable them for everyone. They’re clearly useful as they are, even if more work is needed. Pop up a warning and link to a guide if needed. But clearly they’re vital for repeatability. The ability to throw something on the tray and have it just cut out is exactly what your vision was in the first place.
Perhaps original GF models could get it, then in the future offer GF models that dont have it by default (maybe those future GF could be discounted), then have a store where “mods” can be bought…
2 Likes
You almost make it sound like the subscription service would be a benefit in disguise as the entire community would harder to make an open platform that anyone could expand upon. 
2 Likes
I expect a move to a subscription model would invigorate development of an alternative, but I doubt the entire community would pursue it.
The cost of a subscription I think would influence how many did what. I could probably swallow $5 a month… but that would also be contingent on the availability of an alternative.
8 Likes
Ive only had my GlowForge for a few days and already I am feeling like Snap Marks would have been really helpful but I am too late to the party. I like the idea of a subscription model to support development.
I absolutely loved Snapmarks until it stopped working well a few weeks ago. It has been a lifesaver.
I just did the calibration and that seems rather incredible. So…I will stay eager and ready to love this development. It can be a struggle to get your users to evolve with your team’s accomplishments. There are reasons for that 1) cost to change to a new workflow 2) improvements are sometimes degradations 3) we don’t all have one use model.
Thank you for continuing to invest in your installed base. I hope to cheer this feature loudly soon.
Oh…and I’m looking for the ability to follow a curved surface and maintain focus. Soon?
1 Like
I’m so glad it’s working for you! We don’t announce future development milestones or projects, I’m afraid.