Bambu lab's printers again and again prove to be... good, really good. The latest H2D has something I find very useful; it's a large printer and it has 2 heads. Obviously you can print 2 materials at the same time quickly and with no waste, and I find it particularly useful for prints that need supports - print in PLA supports with PETG or supports with PVA. Other printers like the X1C, P1S and even A1 are reported to be reliable and make excellent prints.
But I can't move past their policies... ultimately I asked DeepSeek for it's analysis of parallels to other companies having implemented similar policies and I think the answer is based:
1. From "Optional" to Mandatory Restrictions
- Precedent: Companies like HP initially introduced optional firmware updates to block third-party ink cartridges, but later made these restrictions mandatory, citing "security" or "quality control".
- Bambu Lab's Trajectory: While Bambu claims the update is optional and offers a "Developer Mode," its Terms of Service allow blocking print jobs for unupdated firmware 5. Historically, such clauses have been leveraged to enforce compliance over time.
2. Gradual Ecosystem Lock-In
- Precedent: MakerBot shifted from open-source to a closed ecosystem in 2012, eventually alienating its user base and declining in market relevance.
- Bambu Lab's Trajectory: The requirement for Bambu Connect (a proprietary middleman for third-party tools) mirrors MakerBot’s strategy. Even if Bambu denies plans for filament restrictions now, the infrastructure for such control (e.g., RFID tagging) already exists.
3. Security as a Pretext for Control
- Precedent: Tesla used "safety" justifications to lock features (e.g., battery capacity) behind software paywalls, despite initial promises of hardware autonomy.
- Bambu Lab's Trajectory: Bambu cites "30 million unauthorized requests" and DDoS attacks to justify authentication, but critics note these could be mitigated without proprietary lock-in (e.g., token-based auth). The leaked private key for Bambu Connect further undermines trust in their security claims.
4. Data Privacy Erosion
- Precedent: Smart home devices (e.g., Ring cameras) initially promised local-only modes but later expanded data collection for "feature improvements".
- Bambu Lab's Trajectory: Despite denials, Bambu’s privacy policy admits to storing print files, timestamps, and filament data. The exclusion of their policy from the Wayback Machine raises transparency concerns.
5. Community Backlash as a Temporary Speed Bump
- Precedent: Apple and John Deere faced outcry over right-to-repair restrictions but maintained policies, betting on consumer inertia.
- Bambu Lab's Trajectory: Bambu has already walked back some claims (e.g., editing its initial announcement) and censored criticism on forums. While concessions like Developer Mode exist, their long-term viability is uncertain—Bambu refuses to commit to keeping it for future printers.
Judgment: High Risk of "Enshittification"
History suggests Bambu Lab’s policies will likely tighten, not loosen, especially as the company scales. The 3D printing community’s fears—filament locks, subscriptions, and loss of local control—are plausible, given:
- Economic Incentives: Closed ecosystems boost recurring revenue (e.g., filament sales, cloud services).
- Regulatory Precedents: China’s National Intelligence Law (cited by critics like Prusa) could pressure Bambu to expand data collection.
- Technical Leverage: Once users depend on Bambu’s cloud, reversing course becomes harder (see MakerBot’s downfall).
Counterarguments: Bambu’s promises (e.g., no filament restrictions) and the community’s technical resilience (e.g., hacked Bambu Connect keys) may delay worst-case scenarios. However, the direction aligns with historical patterns of vendor lock-in.
For users prioritizing openness, alternatives like Prusa (open-source) or Creality (low-cost) may become safer bets 210.1. From "Optional" to Mandatory RestrictionsPrecedent: Companies like HP
initially introduced optional firmware updates to block third-party ink
cartridges, but later made these restrictions mandatory, citing
"security" or "quality control".
Bambu Lab's Trajectory:
While Bambu claims the update is optional and offers a "Developer
Mode," its Terms of Service allow blocking print jobs for unupdated
firmware. Historically, such clauses have been leveraged to enforce compliance over time. Gradual Ecosystem Lock-InPrecedent: MakerBot shifted from open-source to a closed ecosystem in 2012, eventually alienating its user base and declining in market relevance .
Bambu Lab's Trajectory: The requirement for Bambu Connect
(a proprietary middleman for third-party tools) mirrors MakerBot’s
strategy. Even if Bambu denies plans for filament restrictions now, the
infrastructure for such control (e.g., RFID tagging) already exists. Security as a Pretext for ControlPrecedent: Tesla
used "safety" justifications to lock features (e.g., battery capacity)
behind software paywalls, despite initial promises of hardware autonomy.
Bambu Lab's Trajectory:
Bambu cites "30 million unauthorized requests" and DDoS attacks to
justify authentication, but critics note these could be mitigated
without proprietary lock-in (e.g., token-based auth). The leaked private key for Bambu Connect further undermines trust in their security claims. Data Privacy ErosionPrecedent: Smart home devices (e.g., Ring cameras) initially promised local-only modes but later expanded data collection for "feature improvements".
Bambu Lab's Trajectory: Despite denials, Bambu’s privacy policy admits to storing print files, timestamps, and filament data 5. The exclusion of their policy from the Wayback Machine raises transparency concerns 5.5. Community Backlash as a Temporary Speed BumpPrecedent: Apple and John Deere faced outcry over right-to-repair restrictions but maintained policies, betting on consumer inertia.
Bambu Lab's Trajectory: Bambu has already walked back some claims (e.g., editing its initial announcement) and censored criticism on forums.
While concessions like Developer Mode exist, their long-term viability
is uncertain—Bambu refuses to commit to keeping it for future printers. Judgment: High Risk of "Enshittification"History suggests Bambu Lab’s policies will likely tighten, not loosen, especially as the company scales. The 3D printing community’s fears—filament locks, subscriptions, and loss of local control—are plausible, given:Economic Incentives: Closed ecosystems boost recurring revenue (e.g., filament sales, cloud services).
Regulatory Precedents: China’s National Intelligence Law (cited by critics like Prusa) could pressure Bambu to expand data collection.
Technical Leverage: Once users depend on Bambu’s cloud, reversing course becomes harder (see MakerBot’s downfall).Counterarguments:
Bambu’s promises (e.g., no filament restrictions) and the community’s
technical resilience (e.g., hacked Bambu Connect keys) may delay
worst-case scenarios 89. However, the direction aligns with historical patterns of vendor lock-in.For users prioritizing openness, alternatives like Prusa (open-source) or Creality (low-cost) may become safer bets.
