4 ms·

A lot of the adoption curve comes from the economics too. The same thing 10 times cheaper is a revolution itself. We had 3D printers in the 80s, but 3D printe

by mahyarm 10y ago

A lot of the adoption curve comes from the economics too. The same thing 10 times cheaper is a revolution itself. We had 3D printers in the 80s, but 3D printers starting becoming a lot cheaper only in the past ~5 years. 1870 PV cells were a pretty piss poor energy source, the real revolution happened in the last 10 years when they started to become an economic competitor.

bsder 10y ago
> We had 3D printers in the 80s, but 3D printers starting becoming a lot cheaper only in the past ~5 years. Unfortunately, SLA-based printers mostly suck and, unlike most software things, can't actually evolve to get better due to material constraints. However, now that the SLS patents have expired, we're starting to see useful 3D printers at useful price points. Being able to print a robust plastic (nylon) and not having to worry about creating supports for narrow parts are big deals. Of course, SLS is a little less hobbyist friendly because of the powder handling.
- PietdeVries 10y ago
  I think the article is complaining too much... True, it takes 30 years for an idea to grow to something useful, but that is not because nobody cares (or think you are nuts) - the idea just hasn't gotten to a final, usable form. Carter can put solar cells on the Whitehouse, but to no use. The cells will, compared to today's solar cells, hardly generate any power and cost way too much. Same for the car, the personal computer, the mobile phone and the plane: there was simply no market and no use for the average Joe to actually buy it...
  - digi_owl 10y ago
    Pretty much. It seems more like someone complaining that their VC driven, get rich quick, startup scheme petered out before they could cash in. And is looking for external scapegoats rather than asking if the scheme really had a chance in the first place.
bayofpigs 10y ago
That's right. The main reason for the drop in 3D printer prices is a key patent expiring in 2009. That's when the revolution began for those not already in manufacturing.

by mahyarm 10y ago

bsder 10y ago

> We had 3D printers in the 80s, but 3D printers starting becoming a lot cheaper only in the past ~5 years. Unfortunately, SLA-based printers mostly suck and, unlike most software things, can't actually evolve to get better due to material constraints. However, now that the SLS patents have expired, we're starting to see useful 3D printers at useful price points. Being able to print a robust plastic (nylon) and not having to worry about creating supports for narrow parts are big deals. Of course, SLS is a little less hobbyist friendly because of the powder handling.

PietdeVries 10y ago
I think the article is complaining too much... True, it takes 30 years for an idea to grow to something useful, but that is not because nobody cares (or think you are nuts) - the idea just hasn't gotten to a final, usable form. Carter can put solar cells on the Whitehouse, but to no use. The cells will, compared to today's solar cells, hardly generate any power and cost way too much. Same for the car, the personal computer, the mobile phone and the plane: there was simply no market and no use for the average Joe to actually buy it...
- digi_owl 10y ago
  Pretty much. It seems more like someone complaining that their VC driven, get rich quick, startup scheme petered out before they could cash in. And is looking for external scapegoats rather than asking if the scheme really had a chance in the first place.

bayofpigs 10y ago

That's right. The main reason for the drop in 3D printer prices is a key patent expiring in 2009. That's when the revolution began for those not already in manufacturing.