u/Lilias_artgroup

This is the lastest report from The Verge.

Bambu tone softened overnight

“Our intention from the start was to reach out and find a path forward together. We regret that our communication did not land that way. That was not the outcome we wanted, and we are committed to doing better on that front,” Bambu tells The Verge. While the company told us on May 13th that it would “hold a firm line on how our cloud service is accessed by third-parties,” that firm line softened a day later: “Rather than escalating conflict, we are focusing on strengthening our own infrastructure and protection measures moving forward.”

Grey area exists in AGPL when combining with cloud services

However, Kyle Mitchell, an independent tech lawyer who’s studied the AGPL, tells The Verge it’s quite possible that Bambu doesn’t need to share everything that touches its open-source code, particularly when we’re talking about cloud services.

“The AGPL, because of the problem it was written to solve, and because of the way it was written, doesn’t clearly say that if you change a program that you share to work with a web or cloud service, that you have to share all of that web and cloud service alike too,” he tells me over the phone.

Even with a plug-in, there is some degree of technical separation, he says — though Heather Meeker, a prominent open-source licensing expert and attorney, says a plug-in would at least “generally be part of Corresponding Source.”

Mitchell says Bambu’s statement to The Verge “goes right at the uncertainty,” the parts of the law that aren’t automatically clear and would have to be clarified by the courts — and for better or worse, the courts have not meaningfully weighed in on the text of the AGPL. “How broad the source code sharing requirement goes — there’s very little law to answer these questions,” Meeker confirms.

Says Mitchell: “There are no definitive answers to be found, just positions to take, which are just predictions about what courts would do.”

My A1 suffered a critical motherboard failure (melting/burning smell). After weeks of stalling, support made me return it. It arrived at their German warehouse on May 8th. Today they broke their own 7-business-day SLA only to tell me: "We don't have any new printers in stock, wait until next week". Stuck without a machine for over a month for a fault that is 100% theirs.

Hi everyone,

I'm posting this here because I am absolutely furious and I need to warn the community about how Bambu Lab is handling serious RMAs.

Here is the timeline of this logistical disaster:

The Incident: My A1 experienced a critical hardware failure. The motherboard components melted with a strong chemical burning smell. A literal fire hazard.

The Warranty "Favor": Support admitted the fault. They initially offered me a new motherboard and 2 spools of PLA if I repaired this dangerous machine myself. I requested a safe, full replacement unit. They treated this as a "special favor" and retracted the offer for the 2 PLA spools.

The Return: I shipped the defective unit back. According to tracking, it was delivered to their German warehouse on Friday, May 8th.

The Ghosting & Broken SLA: Bambu’s policy states inspections take up to 7 business days. Today, May 20th, the deadline expired. When I pushed for updates, they escaleted the ticket to a "specialist team" and dropped a bomb: they don't even have replacement units available in the warehouse right now.

They literally made me ship my printer back knowing they couldn't replace it immediately, forcing me into indefinite downtime (it has already been over a month total).

I have just sent them a final notice: if I don't get a valid tracking number or a full refund within 24 hours, I am initiating a formal chargeback with my bank and filing a report to the European safety authorities (RAPEX).

Is it normal for a company of this size to accept returns without having replacement stock ready? Has anyone else been lied to like this?