Isn’t this what X1Plus is?
Having the X1Plus integrated directly into the printer’s hardware would be ideal, rather than relying on a clip-on solution tied to the original firmware. While I’m interested in some features of the X1Plus, I’ve already submitted a support ticket requesting more graphical enhancements, particularly for calibration and other features. I believe it’s possible for them to protect the elements they’re concerned about while still allowing customized firmware. Time will tell!
Is there a P/A series equivalent? As that would be needed also.
There is not, it’s entirely different hardware.
Don’t worry. You are not the issue here but you should really stop feeding him.
No, not really. X1Plus is more of an interface enhancement than a complete firmware. X1Plus still depends on the “base”, closed source firmware from Bambu for all major functions, like motor and temperature control. When you install or update X1Plus, that base is downloaded from the Bambu servers, and written to the SDcard. The printer boots from the internal (v1.6, or “R”) firmware which transfers control to base firmware on the SDcard. If that firmware is looking for authorization from Connect, I expect it will still do so with X1Plus.
I am still glad to have the extra conveniences and printer access of X1Plus, and if I can never again update the Bambu part of the firmware (v1.08.00.00) I will still be content. I am happy running in LAN mode most of the time anyway. I’ve chosen to keep the internal firmware (v1.06) from even checking for updates, and I have backup SDcards with X1Plus installed with V1.08.00.00 in case a card fails.
I’m not confident that Bambu will continue to allow “downgrading” to the rootable internal firmware, or the download to SDcard of newer firmware. If there is a new version of X1Plus employing the 1.08.03 firmware, I will be sure to try it. If I don’t like it, I can just pop in the old card without authorization requirements.
I’m starting to wonder if the discussion is about the security of a hobbyist’s toy 3D printer, or a nuclear reactor! “Safety First!” 
If our LAN’s hacked we’ve got much bigger problems than a stupid printer going haywire. And “Bambu Connect” running on your compromised machine within that LAN ain’t gonna save it.
Good luck hacking my printer while it’s turned off when it’s not in use, by the way.
I think you got the wrong person quoted. It’s not me the one that hacked anything 
But i agree with you 100%
No I was just adding weight to your point, and didn’t want to “feed” some of the ridiculousness that has already taken place in this thread. I think you understand what I mean.
Gotcha. It’s late and i didn’t get the whole context. Got to go sleep
Well, unless it burns down your house.
But then, didn’t we all learn to never leave a 3D printer running without sitting next to it, for this very reason?
This is why I also never got the whole “cloud” stuff. If I have to sit next to the printer for safety reasons anyway, then why would I want to view the camera feed over anything else but the LAN?
Yeah, I was responding directly to your comments. When looking at the Bambu labs ecosystem they have closed design printers, that use closed design parts (some that are swappable like nozzles and build plates, closed end filaments, and a slicer that is effectively “closed in”.
Due to the slicer being customizable by adding user presets, an end user can opt to use parts, filaments, or printing profiles that are outside of those closed areas.
Orcaslicer is a completely separate program/entity. It exists to provide an open space for any hardware, parts, filaments, and slicer changes.
When a user opts in to operating outside of that closed ecosystem, even if it’s just to run a calibration from within Orcaslicer, they are operating that hardware in an unapproved manner.
This is where the burden would then be on the user to demonstrate that them opting in to operating the hardware in a manner that is not within the approved warranty structure did not cause the failure.
Turning these things on is a modification, even if it feels inconsequential, it is the user openly stating that it’s POSSIBLE that the device will be used in a way that is outside the scope of its original design.
Ultimately, I do not foresee Bambu Labs denying warranty on parts solely due to the developer mode being checked. I would definitely expect them to implement some form of fault log submission requirement for warranty claims.
That’s not how warranty works pretty much anywhere - the side providing the warranty has to demonstrate how you operating outside of the specified parameters caused the damage in order for the warranty to be declined. That’s why ‘warranty void if seal broken’ stickers are not enforceable. You can disassemble the whole printer if you want, and then claim it doesn’t work and ask for help/fix/replacement within the warranty period and the manufacturer would have to either comply or to prove that you, with your unqualified ‘servicing’, caused the said damage in order to deny your warranty.
Of course, the level of proof the seller/manufacturer has to provide to deny the warranty differs from market to market - in the US there is Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act
, in the EU there is a set of Consumer Guarantee Directives pretty much stating the same, I’m fairly certain other markets have similar protections as well.
I don’t think I agree that just using Orca rises to the level of a “modification”. I’m not even sure BL would go that far. Is there a place where they say that BS is the only slicer we should be using? They’ve been allowing us to use other slicers even since well before this firmware update came along.
And I see @zwerko’s response above - I have the same understanding/belief, at least in the US.
Nothing is perfect, but normally hardware has built-in safety features to prevent truly catastrophic failure.
I wonder if the manufacturer of an IoT toaster would have concerns like this. Do they require the owner to install Toaster Connect to secure the toaster?
You’re correct. At least in the EU, blanket warranty void clauses could be challenged as anti-competitive. Liability for product safety cannot be waived arbitrarily by the manufacturer. The seller is forced to demonstrate that :
- the third-party component directly caused the fault;
- the third-party modification results in a fundamental breach of safety or compliance standards.
They are also obliged to follow standards, but other than that, it is up to the third party to find out if their software or hardware doesn’t pose risks and to do it with new firmware releases. And to the user to decide whether to take the risk or not.
Since I have been sent a wildly abusive PM which I believe was a reaction to the use of the word “toy” here, I should clarify that I’m not mocking what anyone chooses to make with their devices. I’m not interested in making anyone feel bad about their hobbies and wouldn’t do something like that.
And although I do tend to use my printer (mostly) for practical stuff and solving problems, I was thinking of my own printer as a “toy”, with myself as the hobbyist! This stuff for me is a luxury, not a business asset. So yeah - definitely nothing to do with judging or especially mocking anyone else.
I actually hate when people look down on others like that, so I felt it necessary to append this…
When I was a child, rc car was a toy, paper airplane was a toy. When I was a bit older, my 100cc motorcyle was a toy. And now, digital multimeter and portable oscilloscope are my toys.
What’s wrong with calling those as toy? Isn’t toy something that you value and appreciate?
Yeah, that’s exactly how I use the term. haha
Yeah, it’s just a matter of what one defines them: one might call them toys , while others might call them tools… with a smaller group calling them c.ra.p or nonsense or simply useless stuff . It’s just a matter of perspective. Some play with it, while others make a living out of it.