I think the issue is that the market just didn't materialize, not dead as you say, but not nearly as big as it needed to become.

I think of Make as part of the O'Reilly Media story. The MO there for the last 35 years is to jump on emerging trends. When that trend blows up, the business does really well. It's probably easiest to see by looking at O'Reilly's conference history. OSCON, Strata, Web 2.0 where all hits with long shelf lives. Where 2.0, ETel, etc were interesting trends that didn't get big enough.

I was just leaving O'Reilly when Make was starting and the idea was that it might become the next Popular Mechanics. Make got traction, but not quite at the level where Maker projects were a normalized part of life. For all the comments saying 22 people was a lot of people, that's really not a very big company.

However, I think it's still such a great community and I love that Dale is finding a way to make it work. The phrase "rightsizing" has such bad connotations, but it shouldn't. There's a size business that fits the actual size if the Maker community. If they get that "right" then everyone can be happy.

>Nobody seems to be able to make the "gym model" maker space go here.

The problem as I see it is that a gym has specific outputs that you want from your time (ie: be stronger, lower heart rate, etc.). Given Bay Area salaries, it's probably always cheaper to just pay someone in the mid west to build something than to do it yourself. So there's no positive monetary output.

So a maker space's output is pure enjoyment and that doesn't scale as much with better equipment. You can do woodworking without a CNC machine and lasers and a metal lathe. You can 3d print for your projects at home instead of trying to use vacuum formers and sheet metal. Without having to deal with people and scheduling and driving.

The only advantage I see of a maker space is the community but that's more of a non-profit model rather than a for-profit gym model. Community is much easier to achieve with shared ownership versus renting from someone else. It also doesn't need fancy equipment but just enough for people to come together.

edit: Community is also harder when you have fifty different machines that cater to fifty different niches.

> The problem as I see it is that a gym has specific outputs that you want from your time (ie: be stronger, lower heart rate, etc.). Given Bay Area salaries, it's probably always cheaper to just pay someone in the mid west to build something than to do it yourself. So there's no positive monetary output.

Not only is this not true, but it's also not the point. The point is to do it yourself, and the Maker movement has always catered to that. Self-makers have always had to charge more for their crafts than mass produced models, citing scarcity and often component quality (especially true for digital electronics).

> The only advantage I see of a maker space is the community but that's more of a non-profit model rather than a for-profit gym model. Community is much easier to achieve with shared ownership versus renting from someone else. It also doesn't need fancy equipment but just enough for people to come together.

Which maker space was using a non-profit model?

>Not only is this not true, but it's also not the point. The point is to do it yourself, and the Maker movement has always catered to that. Self-makers have always had to charge more for their crafts than mass produced models, citing scarcity and often component quality (especially true for digital electronics).

So, like I said, it's about enjoyment and not monetary output.

>Which maker space was using a non-profit model?

Probably 90% of them in any area are non-profits, they're just small and don't have fancy machinery.

I was a Techshop member. There were, in fact, a number of folks who made made money. I wasn't privy to their finances so I don't know that TS-enabled projects were there primary income, but it was most certainly used by people doing contract work.

So was I (San Jose location.) One of their mistakes was requiring "classes" before using any equipment - then restricting the hours to 9 - 5. I phoned in a complaint but nothing was done.

Tip: the members who can afford it are working so they have disposable cash.

Also - the location was prime downtown. Better to find an industrial park.

It was weird seeing the active members making Stormtrooper costumes mainly.

The gym model doesn't work in the bay area because real estate is so expensive. No one wants to pay $300/m to be a member of a makerspace.

And if real estate is cheap then you have a giant garage filled with equipment that can fill almost all your needs.

Have you been to a makerspace? Most have, at a minimum, woodworking tools, metalworking tools, a laser cutter, and a CNC router. Very few people can justify buying all of those things for themselves. A high powered laser cutter alone is $10k+ for a decent Chinese model. A good professional model can run $30k+.

Your numbers are off by a lot. I bought a surprisingly capable 80W laser cutter for $3k on eBay and a lightly used X-carve for $2k. Many people spend more than that on upgrades for their car. Additionally, if you need less capabilities, you can get a 3D printer + laser cutter + cnc mill combo for not too much.

Sure, I go to one myself. Thing is that people rarely need all those things. The gym model works on 90% of members not actually using the space much. But in those cases they can just buy equipment themselves if they have space. Not equivalent and not all of it but good enough for their limited needs.

Also, you can get a usable laser cutter for $500 if you are willing to put in the hours to update the shitty Chinese components. $3-6k gives you a decent 40-45w one (Glowforge, etc.). Won't cut beyond 1/4" but that covers a lot of projects.

I don't think so. Certainly even if I had a big garage I'd balk at buying a woodshop.

Chinese made machinery (or used machinery from craigslist) is rather inexpensive (and good enough for non professional use) and $100+/month membership fees will add up over time. You can get some nice equipment for $5k which would be less than your dues for 5 years.

I've actually helped run a woodshop for a school as part of volunteer work back before I had a kid. It's a huge amount of work. Even if we pretend the machines are cheap (they aren't), then we're still talking about setting up a space that's safe to work in, cleaning it, maintaining the machines, properly powering them (if you get more than a few industrial machines your power provider will want to charge you differently because they consume power differently).

Even just a few desktop fabrication things are a lot of work to own and maintain. It's really, really nice to have a space you can go, do work, and then enjoy that without the cleanup and maintenance.

A basic table saw is $200 on Amazon, a miter saw is $200, drill press is $200, a planer is $500 but there's hand tools for that, etc. Low end but they'll work. Biggest expense would be dust filtration system if you don't want to vacuum constantly. There's probably more people with garage wood shops in the US than makers.

You keep assuming that you need industrial machines that can be used 24/7 to do these things when in reality you don't. You can use hand tools even but those take more time.

>I've actually helped run a woodshop for a school as part of volunteer work back before I had a kid.

I'd call that a professional space since it's used most of the time rather than occasionally.

> A basic table saw is $200 on Amazon, a miter saw is $200, drill press is $200, a planer is $500 but there's hand tools for that, etc. Low end but they'll work. Biggest expense would be dust filtration system if you don't want to vacuum constantly. There's probably more people with garage wood shops in the US than makers.

There's people with little baby jigsaws and a circular saw. Folks with actual lathes, CNC routers that could handle hardwood, actual band saws or full sized table saws? Not so much.

> You keep assuming that you need industrial machines that can be used 24/7 to do these things when in reality you don't. You can use hand tools even but those take more time.

No, I don't. A school shop maybe runs the machines for a few hours every other day. It's still expensive.

> I'd call that a professional space since it's used most of the time rather than occasionally.

Okay, well I'd call "$200 on Amazon, a miter saw is $200, drill press is $200, a planer is $500" a professional budget to most people in America, so let's call it even?

"Table saws in use in the United States: Estimates range between 6 million and 10 million... in any particular year, about one table saw in 229 will be in an accident that sends someone to the emergency room." https://www.popularwoodworking.com/article/table-saw-injury-...

TechShop had the sense to use only SawStop saws.

What is this comment meant to imply?

It's dead everywhere, because it never really existed. At least from the examples in my area, the "maker spaces" were operated like badly run city departments crossed with failing small businesses.. every mistake you could make in management combined with a holier than thou attitude, cronyism and favoritism, all wrapped up in a dangerous workshop in the name of the "movement".

I think there's room in the market for shared workspace, but it has to be done with a for profit model and competent management, maybe renting space like mini storage units do, but with tool leasing and set up to encourage 24/7 access and work (IE, not in a residential neighborhood not zoned for light industry).

It’s simply cheaper to buy equipment yourself.

A 40W laser cutter costs $300. AD 3D printer costs $300. An oscilloscope cost $500. A crappy CNC is not much more. Hot air rework station is $60. PCBs can be ordered in China for $10.

I buy these things as I need them.

The quality is way lower than what you can find at a maker space, but I don’t need the highest quality for a hobby experiment.

Which 40W lasercutter is 300 USD? The cheapest models I know (4040) are 800 USD + taxes.

Check out K40 laser cutters on eBay.

There are bottom of the barrel, pretty terrible, and often outright dangerous.

But typically go for less than $400.

I've heard cool things about noisebridge. I also know lots of people in the bay area who do maker type stuff. It's just more distributed.

The failure of IoT and consumer 3D printers also helped kill the Maker movement. Along with Pebble and countless other failed Kickstarter projects.

Hardware is hard. Best to stick with software based businesses.

Y'know, it was the arrival of IoT and consumer 3D printers (and drones, etc.) that really killed the maker movement for me. After Make Magazine started devoting every other issue to consumer products that cost $500 and up, I finally conceded that the Maker movement had become a firmly upper middle class pastime, and canceled my subscription.

I disagree with the "upper middle class” gripe.

Instructables is still resourceful if you don't like consumer product reviews. There are also tons of hacks on YouTube and build logs on forums.

I think a the maker inertia is killed by dwindling creativity, access to equipment and fear of losing out to Chinese competition if you intend on bringing your product to market.

*I could be wrong

TBH, of the 3 alternative reasons you present, I kind of view all of them as being somehow related to my gripe.

"Dwindling creativity" because all these expensive tools are creatively limiting. For example, 3D printing is cool, but, compared to lower-tech methods, it can also be a lot to wrangle. Once upon a time, if you needed to make a part, you'd hand-carve it, or cast a rough version and then finish it. There's very little between you and the act of creation. With 3D printing, you've got to worry about what kinds of shapes your printer can and cannot make, and have to spend a whole bunch of time on CAD, calibration, etc, etc. My own suspicion is that, oftentimes, the thing you're making is just a by-product, an excuse to play with the expensive toy.

"Access to equipment" -- yup. Once upon a time, DIY was about doing things on the cheap, and there was a lot more stuff being done with inexpensive hand tools, many of which could readily be acquired at estate sales and the like. Now you apparently need to blow a typical person's monthly entertainment budget on a makerspace membership in order to get access to laser cutters and CNC lathes.

"Bringing your product to market" just isn't a part of the DIY I originally loved. To me, DIY is a hobby you do for fun, and a creative outlet, not a yet another form of startup incubation.

What do you mean the failure of consumer 3D printers? 3D printers are now cheap, large, and reliable.

not sure what the other fellow meant, but when 3D printing first hit the scene, the hype was that we'd all be printing replacement parts for our broken appliances and what not. i'd bet my pants that there have been more Benchys printed than repair/replacement parts for consumer appliances.

It's hard to make parts for things that are designed to be unrepairable.

That said it's also hella not cost effective. I'm in $400 or more, and have only printed a few daily use items. My printed clothes dryer knob has been working great for a few years, and my printed curtain rod brackets are working fine so far this summer. The replacement button I made for my father's CNC lathe is working fine a few years in too. That said, being able to sketch something, bang it out in openscad, and have a part waiting for me on the bed the next morning is pretty magical.

Exactly. "consumer" is the important qualifier. Yes printers are relatively cheap and reliable, but even the most consumer-centric printers are far from "plug and play" last I checked.

When there is a printer that an "average" person can take from new-in-box to reliably printing Benchys in less than 24hours then consumer 3D printing will have arrived. We aren't there now, and I'm not sure when, if ever, we will be.

Pebble wasn't a failed Kickstarter project; it was a successful Kickstarter project that was then bought up and killed off by Fitbit.

"Pebble was losing money, with no profit in sight." - discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13161832

Well, right before they were bought, they were in deep financial trouble. They didn't reach the volume they planned to have. I would not say Pebble is a failed Kickstarter project, but they were going bankrupt. Ie. failing as a company.

Wrong. Pebble croaked and Fitbit got them on the cheap when they basically liquidated.