I don’t really understand why the incorrect chamber temperature display in Creality Print still hasn’t been fixed.
https://github.com/CrealityOfficial/CrealityPrint/issues/640
Does anyone have any information on this?
I’m not sure if this was a rhetorical question, but I’ll bite. If you’re intention was to get Creality to respond by posting here, that’s a 1 in a million odds. They don’t participate in these kinds of posts. Why should they? It will only make them a target.
Ask yourself these questions:
- Will this bug materially affect future printer sales? Answer: Probably not.
- Will correcting it materially increase printer sales? Answer: Probably not.
There’s your answer. Creality has little commercial incentive to spend engineering resources fixing something that isn’t measurably hurting its bottom line.
If you want to understand a mindset that seems particularly relevant to Creality, look up the Chinese concept of “Chabuduo” (差不多). Roughly translated, it means “close enough” or “good enough.” It’s an illuminating perspective on the tolerance for corner-cutting that can emerge when commercial expediency takes precedence over quality.
In the West, we’ve institutionalized a variation of this thinking through the concept of MVP, or minimum viable product. Strictly speaking, MVP is about validating a product with minimal investment, not accepting defective software. But the commercial temptation is obvious: why spend more money improving something customers are already willing to buy?
Today, walk into a venture capital firm pitching a product or service without a credible MVP strategy, and you’ll have a difficult time convincing anyone to fund it.
That’s not to suggest Chinese companies can’t innovate or deliver exceptional engineering. DJI is an outstanding example, and former DJI engineers went on to establish Bambu Lab, which proceeded to school much of the established 3D printing industry.
The difference isn’t Chinese engineering capability. It’s corporate culture, management priorities, and the level of mediocrity a company believes its customers will tolerate. And let’s be honest, today, consumer apathy reigns supreme and companies take every advantage of that.
Creality doesn’t have an engineering talent problem. It has a problem with the standards it apparently considers acceptable. And until shipping unfinished software starts costing it printer sales, there’s little reason to expect those standards to change.
And let’s not forget, Creality didn’t develop its slicer from scratch. Creality Print is a fork of OrcaSlicer, which itself was forked from Bambu Studio, which descended from PrusaSlicer and ultimately Slic3r. Creality inherited years of open-source development and engineering work, yet still manages to ship software with unresolved defects.
To be fair, much of the slicer industry builds on existing open-source projects rather than starting from scratch. But that makes Creality’s shortcomings even harder to excuse. Prusa is pushing ahead with its impressive new PrusaSlicer 3.0, while the community-driven OrcaSlicer team continues delivering meaningful features and quality-of-life improvements.
The irony is that independent developers and open-source contributors are demonstrating a greater commitment to software quality than a major printer manufacturer that profits from their work.
I never seen a problem or heard of the problem in Android app or Windows application.
But like many companies in China they don’t really care about macOS.