Glowforge release

[Rich Harman]

This thread is good for a chuckle for me... ...If you print anything on one side only, that's 2-dimensional printing.

Of course nothing tangible exists in two dimensions. If it is composed of matter, it is three dimensional. So both my laser printer and my ink jet printers are in fact, technically, 3D printers - more-so than my FDM "printer" and even more-so than the Glowforge.

[David Somers]

And lets not forget that our lasers always take time to do their work, some more than others of course! So my inexpensive Chinese laser, which clearly is 3D by our definition, can easily be called a 4D printer because it involves time! I can even control the amount of time involved by varying the power output and speed! 4D! Wow!!! <grin>

[Doug Griffith]

You MADE a conclusion, which I quoted...

Oops, I pointed out reality. Please show me where those documents exist. A couple sentences in the FAQs don't cut it since the aforementioned documents themselves are referred to in the terms.

[Matt McCoy]

...except to note that, since it states that the product itself need not comply with all (any?) of the applicable laws in whatever jurisdiction the purchaser resides in, one cannot expect the warranty itself to do so. You sort of have to wonder why they even bothered to put that on the web site.

If this is what you are referring to, here's what is actually stated:

"GLOWFORGE DOES NOT WARRANT THAT ANY PRODUCT COMPLIES WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAWS OR REGULATIONS IN ANY PARTICULAR JURISDICTION. TO THE EXTENT NOT PROHIBITED BY APPLICABLE LAW..."

My interpretation is:

"It is your responsibility to determine whether your use of the Product complies with local laws, regulations, and ordinances. For example, Glowforge makes units available with air filters, but you are still responsible for determining whether the air filter meets the standards required by the laws in your jurisdiction. You may request information about the Product from Glowforge to assist you in making your determination, but Glowforge will not be liable for errors in that information or for your determination. If you do not have sufficient information to determine whether your use of the Product will comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and ordinances, then you should not offer to purchase the Product. If you rescind your offer prior to our acceptance of it, we will refund to you the full amount you paid in connection with your offer. You must also use the Product in strict accordance with the user documentation provided together with the Product."

So the "Refund Policy" won't be published until units start shipping. The "Terms of Service" is not published yet either (only the "Terms and Conditions for Online Offers to Purchase" is). The "Limited Warranty" is not published either (the page doesn't even exist - 404 error). Note that there is a distinct difference in how the verbiage is referred to ("these Terms" vs. "Terms of Service") throughout the terms. If the unavailable "Terms of Service" is violated, the unavailable "Refund Policy" based on the unavailable "Limited Warranty" applies...

"Glowforge will be providing the details of its limited warranties for Products on Glowforge’s website at glowforge.com/warranty before Glowforge requests your shipping address and accepts your offer to purchase. By providing your shipping address to us, you acknowledge and agree that you have reviewed the limited warranty for the Product you offered to purchase, and that you accept that limited warranty."

You can request a refund at any time. When the units are ready to ship, Glowforge will ask for an address and publish its final warranty conditions. You can choose to accept and then provide your shipping address or decline and ask for a refund.

[Dave Sheldrake]

All the best for you and your family Dave. There are two models: Basic (Class 1) and Pro (Class 4). Does this theory still apply and how does that affect their largest market (U.S.)?

Cheers Matty,

No idea to be honest, I know it affects import and export within the EU in a big way but I'm not up on US regulation of industrial equipment

[Jason Hilton]

No, you said this, which is a statement of fact, and therefor a conclusion:

So the only way to not own a possible brick is to request a refund before units start shipping. After that, you get what you get.

Oops, I pointed out reality. Please show me where those documents exist. A couple sentences in the FAQs don't cut it since the aforementioned documents themselves are referred to in the terms.

[Art Mann]

Pardon me if I repeat a previous post on the subject but calling the Glowforge a 3-D printer is precisely the same thing as calling my table saw a 3-D cabinet maker or my CNC router a 3-D box maker. I think it is deceptive and downright stupid to call any flat space marking or cutting machine 3-D. Below is a picture of my new 3-D house printer.

DWS535_1_500X500.jpg

[Doug Griffith]

No, you said this, which is a statement of fact, and therefor a conclusion:

Jason, you're arguing semantics and avoiding the subject. It's OK to be wrong.

[Mike Chance in Iowa]

Jason, you're arguing semantics and avoiding the subject. It's OK to be wrong.

Quoting Larry the Cable Guy .... Now that's funny right there. I don't care who you are. That there is funny.

[Clark Pace]

Jason, you're arguing semantics and avoiding the subject. It's OK to be wrong.

If anything I would call it 2D or maybe 2.5d. More of a CNC term though. Not a laser.

[Nigel P. Jones]

Below is a picture of my new 3-D house printer.

Bravo, sir. Good one.

[Jason Hilton]

Jason, you're arguing semantics and avoiding the subject. It's OK to be wrong.

No I'm not, I'm quoting you verbatim and you're calling it semantics. It's OK to admit that you're wrong.

[Matt McCoy]

They're aware that some won't like the name. From a recent interview:

"A bit off-topic from the crowdfunding campaign, but I have to ask: Does it drive you crazy to call a laser cutter a 3d laser printer?

Tony Wright : A tiny bit! That was another big discussion. Calling this a “Laser Cutter / Engraver” would’ve been a terrible decision if our goal is to sell this to consumers. Any time we demo’d the Glowforge to people who’d never used a laser cutter, they’d later say, “I really liked that laser printer of yours!” Pretty soon we stopped correcting them. We knew this would annoy some grumpy old school makers, but we’ve been surprised at how few of them are bothered by it. It was a calculated bet that costs us a few sales today, but gave us a category name when we’re talking to laser neophytes – which will be an increasing percentage of our customer base."

[Doug Griffith]

No I'm not, I'm quoting you verbatim and you're calling it semantics. It's OK to admit that you're wrong.

Jason, you are the master of quoting verbatim and using it as a diversionary tactic to avoid the original question. It's entertaining and boring at the same time. Let's go back to the beginning.


You followed this:

So the "Refund Policy" won't be published until units start shipping. The "Terms of Service" is not published yet either (only the "Terms and Conditions for Online Offers to Purchase" is). The "Limited Warranty" is not published either (the page doesn't even exist - 404 error). Note that there is a distinct difference in how the verbiage is referred to ("these Terms" vs. "Terms of Service") throughout the terms. If the unavailable "Terms of Service" is violated, the unavailable "Refund Policy" based on the unavailable "Limited Warranty" applies.


So the only way to not own a possible brick is to request a refund before units start shipping. After that, you get what you get.

With this:

Your conclusion isn't supported in any way based on the available information (which you posted), and that's the problem with this whole discussion. You're all making sky-is-falling judgements based on no information.

Please tell me what I concluded that is wrong. "you get what you get" maybe?

[Jason Hilton]

Jason, you are the master of quoting verbatim and using it as a diversionary tactic to avoid the original question. It's entertaining and boring at the same time. Let's go back to the beginning.


You followed this:



With this:



Please tell me what I concluded that is wrong. "you get what you get" maybe?

You said this:

"So the only way to not own a possible brick is to request a refund before units start shipping. After that, you get what you get."

The "So the only way to not own a possible brick is to request a refund before it starts shipping" is a conclusion you reached based on not being able to read the warranty and return policy because said policies are not available. It's an erroneous conclusion. Your argument is a logical fallacy, assuming that since a policy isn't available it must be the policy you believe. So you're wrong. Or more appropriately, you're not right, because you can't make that statement as true since you countered it in your own post by stating that those policies are not available to evaluate. You're wrong and you proved it yourself.