Restore full BambuNetwork support for Bambu Lab printers

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Project and Repo Context

  • Repo restores “BambuNetwork” cloud support to OrcaSlicer, after Bambu blocked it.
  • Several commenters think it’s essentially a clone of the earlier, legally-threatened repo.
  • Squashed git history is criticized as bad for provenance and security; people recommend using forks with full history.
  • A right-to-repair foundation is now hosting it, explicitly to be able to withstand legal threats.

Cloud vs LAN/Developer Modes

  • Bambu printers now have:
    • Cloud mode: remote app, monitoring, cloud slicing, but requires Bambu Studio/Bambu Connect and routes via Bambu servers.
    • LAN/Developer mode: local token/API key (MQTT/FTP/RTSP) for direct printing, but disables official cloud features like mobile app access.
  • Enterprise/pro models reportedly support simultaneous cloud and LAN without the tradeoff, showing the limitation is artificial.

User Needs and Frustrations

  • Many want full local control plus remote monitoring: sync filament states, push jobs over LAN, and still use the phone app and camera when away.
  • Some are happy in LAN-only mode with VPN/Tailscale/Home Assistant, but others see this as extra burden versus first‑party features they originally had.
  • Losing advertised functionality (or having to trade functionality for privacy) is described as unacceptable, even if workarounds exist.

AGPL and Legal Issues

  • Bambu’s slicer is based on AGPL code; the disputed plugin reused unmodified AGPL code (e.g., user-agent handling) to talk to Bambu’s cloud.
  • Bambu sent legal threats claiming the fork was “impersonating” their client; critics say this adds forbidden restrictions to AGPL use.
  • Some argue Bambu may restrict access to their cloud, but not distribution of AGPL-based client code; others see the C&D as intimidation.

Trust, Motives, and Enshittification

  • Strong distrust due to:
    • Attempted requirement of cloud auth even for LAN printing, later walked back after backlash.
    • Edits to blog posts/ToS, removal from archive.org, and earlier warranty/lock‑in controversies.
  • Speculated motives: data collection, future subscriptions, regulatory compliance, or market capture, with some pointing to parallels in printers, NAS, and IoT.
  • Broader theme: local network support is part of genuine ownership; removing or degrading it post‑sale is seen as theft, fraud, or “enshittification,” even if technically legal.