Just a little comment about the value of GlowForge 2.0.
Don’t feel as though a version 2.0 will be that much of a stretch from the product we will receive late this fall. If you think of the initial release date:
Initial beta and then production release (late 2015/1st qtr 2016) = GlowForge V 1.0
First production delay (June 2016) = GlowForge V 1.3
Next promised production date (December 2016) = GlowForge V 1.9
Any notable upgrade/improvements to a V 2.0 will be minimal - perhaps a greater Z depth, a 60W laser, and a better pass thru capability. But the operating software/hardware functions should be in place for the foreseeable future.
I agree, given the niche that Glowforge is trying to fill/create I think the first one (“1.0”) is probably going to be most of what any non-professionals are going to need. In addition to the few mentioned by @bmcgrain, a few areas I see room for improvement are…
Speed - faster is basically always better, at least in the eyes of consumers
Durability - there seems to be some question about how long the current model will run in hot climates
Laser tube life - a laser cutter with Glowforge’s software and a laser tube with a longer expected lifespan would be very appealing
What I’m hoping for for GF2.0 is the ability to have them take my 1.0 back and put a new bottom on it with adjustable Z height and a rotary attachment.
We got just about everything into this product that we wanted to. The stuff we left out was all tradeoffs. More power means a longer tube and a bigger box. More Z-axis means more space and a bigger box. Nothing wrong with that, but it’s not making things better - just different tradeoffs.
I’m sure we’ll find some tweaks that we need to add in time. But we’re not really excited about that. We’re really excited on building on the platform that we’re providing you.
That means building better software for many years to come, with features nobody’s ever seen before. And also - some tricks we’ve got up our sleeves for your existing hardware.
I can’t wait for what we get to do for you over the next few years.
I keep up with the updates. But still…I’m not exactly happy/content with how this entire ordering process played out. So to bring up a 2.0 before we’ve actually had our hands on the first product we ordered rubs me the wrong way a bit.
My initial thought behind starting this thread was to point out that the delay(s) which we have been somewhat disappointed with - may indeed lead to a far better product than what would have been delivered in early 2016 ir even by June. So that lead me to use the ANALOGY of a later (greater and better) version of what would have been Version 1.0 of the GlowForge. The hardware specs (cabinet size, Z depth, laser power, etc) are ‘set in concrete’ and I understand that - However, the software driven ease of use and capabilities have had the time to mature over these past many months. And, I dare say, will continue to be ‘tweaked’ right up until full-scale production begins. Can’t wait to get my hands on the final product - now get back to work!
I suspect that dan is busy doing everything that needs to be done “except” making our machine. Pretty sure he is not regularly involved in the day-to-day operations or technical details. There were a bunch of posts where he admitted not knowing current status or some significant detail and he’s smarter than that. (It wasn’t the information he would not provide, it was technical information he admitted to not knowing. Stuff the onsite project folks would have known through collaborative osmosis) That’s fine, every company needs a CEO. But it’s not the fun part.
Good point. I meant it more in a colloquial “he’s sounds like he’s working on making sure we get the current gen machine before worrying too much about the next gen,” but you are absolutely correct.
Being a cloud-based app, I would expect that the software gets a continuous upgrade cycle so production initiation won’t really have much of an impact on further improvements in software feature/functionality/usability.
Yeah, wasn’t really directing the answer at what you said. Just a convenient spot to say it. Some folks seem to think he is in the lab every day looking at a digital circuit analyzer or tweaking mirrors. I have no way of knowing, but guessing he’s in the office maybe a day or two a week making a lot of phone calls and pouring over paperwork that a sane person avoids. The rest of the time he’s probably elsewhere doing stuff related to the company but not necessarily project operations.
