Quote Originally Posted by oninoshiko View Post
Update #51 includes about a minute's worth of time-lapsed 3d prints (a few models of varying complexity). A number of other videos on their channel also include timelapses. The complaint I always saw was that they could have somehow cheated, but between an unedited video (which had to be fairly simple, because the goal as an unedited video and anything more complex would have also been much longer), and the more complex time-lapse videos, I think we can say the thing works reasonably. I would like to be able to show some time-lapes of prints made by backers, unfortunately so few backers actually got units (and the ones that did appear to mostly be the non-usb version) that there aren't a lot of videos.

As we get the open-source version made, hopefully we can resolve that problem of not having videos from 3rd parties.

The problem I have here is you and others say you want an unedited video to prove it works. He makes an unedited video that proves it works, and now you're claiming that it doesn't count because it wasn't the object you wanted. That's moving the goalposts, and makes it hard for me to accept that anything they show you will ever appease you.
Thanks for trying to understand my point of view. That is indeed a good video and it does appear to show the Peachy properly functioning--but I still want to see a shot of the hardware actually in action with clear focus on the results and a description of the design choices incorporated into V1. Nothing is going to convince me it is worth shipping more than forthright discussion of it's shortcomings by the maker. It just needs to demonstrate that it is slicing an .stl or .obj file and then sending different instructions for every layer. I would be surprised if it didn't actually work given what we have been shown and told. That is why I find it surprising that we got such a lame demo as "proof."

I am pleased to note that the prints shown here are not perfect--it makes them believable, but I want to see the actual hardware producing them and then be able to clearly see strengths and weaknesses of the print.

I'm glad to see Rylan making an effort to see this project into the hands of people who would carry it on. I have bad feelings but I'm willing to set them aside and look at this in problem solving fashion. I appreciate that the impetus of "what next" with this project is coming from backers. The project has been sorely lacking community input, as anybody who was a beta tester can attribute. I don't think I saw a single print from a tester in that forum. It does seem that this has galvanized some community involvement. Hopefully, having a crowd of people actually able to access the source designs for this will move it forward more quickly now.

Whether or not the actual kits ever get distributed from Peachy, if it is worth building, then someone will be offering kits before long. I would like to see someone buy the company and assume the responsibility of distributing the promised kits. That may not be likely, as there seem to be more parts to buy than there are in inventory, and now that the technology is open source, the company's value is in the inventory and the brand--which has taken a hit.

If, however, Rylan is willing to commit himself to a project funded by someone else, in order to assure transfer of knowledge and competitive advantage over anyone willing to just stock and ship the BOM, then that might be of greater value. The parts can be manufactured and shipped by anyone willing (including Rylan) to build sweat equity in the company.

It is hard to see much money in R&D now that it is open source, but an improved V2 that built on a year or more open source development is a possibility and could help sustain the company.

I have been calling for others to help tell this story, and I'm glad to see the latest post on the Kickstarter page by Andrew Trapp. I'm not sure who he is, but at least he has a Kickstarter profile, and is obviously a backer. I'll post the whole thing here, but say for starters, that it is first of all his vetting of the character of Rylan (and Nathan) that I appreciate. I want to keep hearing that from every angle.

Additionally, I agree wholeheartedly with Trapp's request to just leave crowdfunding out of the solution. Do not look for a way out of this that depends of the goodwill of the public and not guarantee a return. I do not want to see the company sell off existing inventory, as he suggests, before rewarding backers. However, unless somebody puts up the cash, there may not be any other way to raise it.

I'm also glad to hear that legal and collection actions are pursuing and look forward to seeing how those are resolved. Anyway, here is what Trapp said:
"I had the unexpected pleasure of meeting with Rylan and Nathan two days ago and would like to add my comments to the rest of the backers.
First and possibly most importantly is Rylan's and Nathan's character - these two gentlemen are passionate, honest, and exhibit integrity. Both are remorseful of the situation, and are now only interested in getting what they have developed to this point out. They recognize that the most important lesson from this was not the missmanagement of money or the folly of trusting David, but saying "good enough." Obviously there was a lot of lessons learned, but they are clear on the resolution.
Second, I have held multiple prints from their machine and am thoroughly impressed regardless of the price, the prints developed are so close to being able to cast without any sanding. The printer is real, functional, and has very good resolution.
Third, just to answer some of the thoughts going around: regarding the laser certificates - it is not the laser that odd is the issue, it is the laser control board which also need the certificate. Without the certificate, the board cannot be imported into several countries; all they could ship would be the non-electrical stuff. Regarding legal issues - I cannot speak to specifics, but legal action is under way and methods to secure the money have also been initiated. Regarding the wages - people were employed by the funds, full-time, yes it was put down as wages, but it was all for r&d. A more accurate portrayal of the pie charts would be to change the wages to r&d, it isn't like they they paid themselves to do pr, marketing, or even sales; they have had one goal since this was known, to get a high quality product to the backers and make good on the promise.
Fourth, as a baker, I have waited as long everybody else for something. It has been three years and I'm at the point of getting something is better than nothing. If that means peachy sells their inventory to brand new people in order to eventually, one day, fill my order...screw the principle of being one of the first owners of a peachy printer because I gave money early, I just want one.
That is my vote, not to crowd source more money, sell what you have at a profit to purchase more materials and repeat until everybody gets what is owed.
I believe in the peachy team!"