Josef Prusa’s recent warning that “open hardware 3D printing is dead” has sent shockwaves through the maker community. As someone deeply invested in the 3D printing ecosystem, I find myself reflecting on what this means for our community, for innovation, and for the future of desktop manufacturing. The clash between open source stalwarts like Voron and Prusa versus the closed-loop approach of companies like Bambulab represents more than just a business model debate—it’s a fundamental question about how we want technology to evolve.
The Current Battlefield
The 3D printing landscape in 2025 presents a stark contrast. On one side, we have the open source community—Prusa Research struggling to maintain its principles while watching market share erode, and the Voron project thriving as a grassroots movement. On the other, Bambulab has captured significant market attention with their polished, closed-source machines that “just work.”
The numbers tell a sobering story. Chinese manufacturers filed an explosion of patents starting in 2020, with companies like Bambulab aggressively patenting technologies that many argue were developed by the open source community. Meanwhile, Stratasys’s patent lawsuit against Bambulab threatens fundamental features like heated beds and purge towers—technologies that have become standard across the industry.
Patent Activity in 3D Printing
Tracking the shift from open innovation to patent proliferation (2019-2024)
The Innovation Engine: How Open Source Built Modern 3D Printing
To understand what we might lose, we need to appreciate what open source has given us. The RepRap project, started by Dr. Adrian Bowyer in 2005, didn’t just create a 3D printer—it sparked a revolution. From that single project came:
- Klipper firmware (2014): Revolutionized printer control with features like pressure advance and input shaping, enabling speeds and quality previously thought impossible
- The Voron project: Pushed CoreXY designs to their limits, with the community developing innovations that commercial manufacturers later adopted
- Countless improvements: From better cooling solutions to advanced bed leveling systems, nearly every major advancement in desktop 3D printing emerged from open collaboration
The innovation didn’t happen in corporate R&D labs—it happened in garages, makerspaces, and online forums where enthusiasts freely shared their discoveries. When Klipper introduced input shaping in 2020, it wasn’t a proprietary feature locked behind a paywall; it was a gift to the entire community that lifted all boats.
The Price-Performance-Usability Triangle
Price
The economics are undeniable. A Bambulab P1P can be had for around $400-600, while a comparable Prusa MK4 costs $1,099 as a kit. Building a Voron 2.4 will set you back $750-1,500 depending on your choices. For many users, especially beginners, the price difference is decisive.
Speed
Modern CoreXY machines from both camps achieve similar speeds—500-700mm/s is now standard. The Bambulab X1C, Prusa CORE One, and well-tuned Voron 2.4 all deliver comparable performance. The difference isn’t in raw speed anymore; it’s in how you get there.
Usability
This is where the divide becomes most apparent. Bambulab machines arrive 99% assembled and printing within an hour. They’re appliances—beautiful, functional appliances that hide their complexity behind sleek interfaces. A Voron requires 20-40 hours of assembly and deep technical knowledge. Prusa sits in the middle, offering both kit and assembled options with excellent documentation.
The Hidden Costs of Closed Systems
The convenience of closed systems comes with strings attached:
Support and Longevity
When your Bambulab printer breaks, you’re dependent on a single company for parts and support. Proprietary components, custom connectors, and closed firmware mean that when Bambulab moves on to the next product or if they cease operations, your printer becomes a paperweight.
Contrast this with open source machines. RepRap printers from 2010 can still be maintained and upgraded today. Every Voron part is commercially available from multiple suppliers. Prusa provides full documentation and even CAD files for their machines.
Innovation Stagnation
When companies can patent obvious improvements and lock down their platforms, innovation slows. The Bambulab ecosystem is what Bambulab decides it should be. There’s no community developing revolutionary firmware features, no ecosystem of mods and improvements, no collective problem-solving.
The open source community gave us pressure advance, input shaping, and adaptive bed meshing. What innovations will we miss when tinkerers can’t access and modify their machines?
Data and Privacy
Closed systems often require cloud connectivity and proprietary software. Your designs, your usage patterns, your innovations—all potentially visible to companies whose interests may not align with yours. The recent Bambulab API lockdown, restricting third-party software access, shows how quickly open platforms can become walled gardens.
The Community Factor
Perhaps the most significant difference is community. The Voron Discord is a hive of innovation with thousands of members helping each other, developing new features, and pushing boundaries. The Prusa forums represent decades of collective knowledge. These communities don’t just provide support—they drive the entire industry forward.
Bambulab has customers; Voron and Prusa have contributors. This distinction matters when you’re troubleshooting at 2 AM or dreaming up your next modification.
A Path Forward
The future doesn’t have to be binary. We can have both convenience and openness, but it requires conscious choices:
For Manufacturers
- Respect the commons: If you build on open source, contribute back
- Provide repair documentation: Even closed designs can be repairable
- Support standards: Use standard components where possible
- Enable tinkering: Provide APIs, documentation, and modification points
For Users
- Vote with your wallet: Support companies that align with your values
- Learn the basics: Even if you buy closed, understand your machine
- Contribute: Share your experiences, designs, and solutions
- Educate: Help newcomers understand the importance of openness
For the Community
- Keep innovating: The best response to closed systems is better open ones
- Document everything: Knowledge shared is knowledge preserved
- Welcome newcomers: The future of open source depends on growing the community
- Build bridges: Not everyone needs to be a hardcore tinkerer
The Real Question
The question isn’t whether open hardware 3D printing is dead—it’s whether we’re willing to let it die. Every purchase decision, every forum post, every shared design is a vote for the future we want.
Yes, Bambulab makes excellent printers that have pushed the entire industry forward. But let’s not forget that they stand on the shoulders of giants—open source giants who asked for nothing in return except that knowledge remain free.
The user comments on Hackaday’s take on Josef Prusa’s article show a community that isn’t ready to give up. From discussions about Voron builds to debates about patent law, it’s clear that the maker spirit is alive and well. Perhaps reports of open source’s death have been greatly exaggerated.
Conclusion: Choose Your Own Adventure
In the end, the choice is personal. If you need a reliable tool that just works, a closed system might serve you well. If you want to be part of something bigger—a community that values knowledge sharing, innovation, and the right to repair—then open source is your path.
But remember: today’s convenient closed system is tomorrow’s obsolete appliance, while today’s open design is tomorrow’s platform for innovation.
The future of 3D printing won’t be determined by patents or market share alone. It will be shaped by thousands of individual choices—choices about what we buy, what we build, and what we share. The tools we use shape the work we create, but more importantly, they shape the community we become.
Choose wisely. The future is still printing.
What’s your take on the open vs. closed debate? Have you built a Voron? Bought a Bambulab? Still running a trusty Prusa? Share your experiences and let’s keep this important conversation going.
fantastic insight unbiased and so much information I also stand in the middle ive been in the 3d sector for over 9 years way back when u had to assemble every nut and bolt on rhe printer and dam those days were so exciting. now I have huge numbers of machines all differnt brands some open source some closed. yes the closed are great out the box and are solid work hourse but the open source machines are the staple of learning the ins and outs of printers learning what is at fault and how to correct it. and above all else it is the route to interact and connect to fellow users the whole reason printing became avalible and so widely used, community and were ideas come alive.
What can I add which was not already written in this awesome article or in Martin’s (UnderTheHotend) comment.
I’m also sat in the middle as I have both OpenSource and closed 3D printers.
All the same, I have to admit that I have a clear preference for OpenSource machines just for their longevity, adaptability and scalability. I’d tend to say that a closed printer is a simple tool, or rather a consumer item: you buy it, you unpack it, you use it and then some time later, you get rid of it because it no longer meets your expectations and you can no longer upgrade it.
In short, I don’t share the opinion that the world of OpenSource 3D printing is dead, it will continue to live on and bring great advances. Why do I think so? Quite simply because I’ve been working in IT for several decades, and although I use a lot of closed-source software, I expressed the same opinion several years ago, when people predicted that the world of OpenSource computing would soon come to an end, and today this world is still very much alive and kicking.