4 ms·

The video mentions they've only been working in the 3D printer world for less than a year. So now they know how to fix "all the problems" to make 3D printing av

by pxlpshr 14y ago

The video mentions they've only been working in the 3D printer world for less than a year. So now they know how to fix "all the problems" to make 3D printing available to the masses? The leadership page doesn't give me a lot of confidence in that blanket statement. Regular 2D printing isn't something that's been easy for most people after 20 years of modern computing. It's a toss up whether or not software, hardware, or user error.. For that reason, I think 3D printing will be a hobbyist thing for another 5 years at least. The delta between a PandaBot and a high-quality MakerBot 2 with a good reputation is only about $1,000. Thats not much for a die-hard hobbyist, or rich geek wanting a new tech toy to fiddle with. The MakerBot 2 is on its second iteration, designed and built by a thought leader, and looks really fucking impressive compared with the 2-tower and unprotected print head design of the PandaBot. When people want to bring devices to the masses, they need to consider what that means. How many kids may stick a pencil or finger into the moving parts when Dad isn't paying attention? Or what about my maid who's spraying dust repellant around my desk? How are you going to fight warranty issues on things nearly impossible to prove, and for which you're not protecting against via thoughtful product design? In effect, you've reduced costs to make the PandaBot accessible to a class of people who aren't really your customer, and that cost-cutting meant the removal of key parts that truly make a device ready for the masses. Like protecting the 'auto calibrating' head. I think it's great you're working on that goal but expectations seems a little disconnected from reality (from my perspective).

anigbrowl 14y ago
In effect, you've reduced costs to make the PandaBot accessible to a class of people who aren't really your customer And you know this how? I've been surprised at the consistent hostility of some people on HN to innovating on price. This is the same mentality that led to the US car market going temporarily insane and assuming that everyone wants the biggest SUV possible.
- chc 14y ago
  It's because, in practice, most so-called price innovation is of the form "I just bought 2 million sticks of butter for $1 million. I think I'll sell them for 25¢ apiece." Being unprofitable or even just barely scraping by is not actually innovative, but too often that's what passes these days. (I'm not saying PandaBot is that way. I'm just offering a reason for the pushback against "innovating on price.")
- tptacek 14y ago
  That wasn't fair. Pricing so close to COGS that you can't sustainably deliver the product isn't price innovation, nor is pricing so low that COGS forces you to deliver an inferior product; the comment you're responding to took pains to spell out why this particular 3d printer price didn't make much sense. The consistent hostility towards low prices on HN is based on this site's manifest tendency to underprice things, or to calculate price from cost or from pie-eyed notions of how big their addressable markets are.
  - ghein 14y ago
    Product Manager again. Total units shipped is incredibly low in 3D printing such that there are very few economies of scale. A certain Brooklyn firm has shipped 13,000. Ever. They have massive share of total and annual global shipments, including the highest of high end industrial printers. We think that the technology is ready to drive this to a seriously large audience. Our COGS benefits from using the global supply chain and designing for manufacturing. It also benefits from scale. Sperry-Burroughs used to hand assemble a few products, then the world changed. We're not priced to hand assemble in Brooklyn and would never make money doing so. But there are other, very high quality and proven, options.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    But Tom, what basis do you have for suggesting they can't sustainably deliver the product? I don't know whether this is the case, I'm waiting to find out. But I'm perplexed by the assumption that they can't, and thought the grandparent comment assumed its conclusions. I don't agree on the inferior product angle; that assumes someone else should define what the minimal acceptable functionality is. I don't necessarily think the PandaBot is directly competitive with the Makerbot- I'm sure corners have been cut to achieve that low price. But I don't necessarily need everything that the Makerbot does. It seems to me that as a technology is refined, you have the choice of adding more features, or keeping more limited features and lowering the price - that's what I'm referring to as price innovation. Consider that the Thing-o-matic was $1200 or so, and people were happy with that at the time of release (3q 2010, IIRC). So the new Markerbot is a lot better, but it's also nearly twice the price. The PandaBot is offering something similar but simpler for $800-ish, which doesn't seem wildly unrealistic to me given the 2-year interval. I can see from the Kickstarter page that it's more of a no-frills product - one which requires more user supervision and safety-awareness, for example - but the tradeoff is that it costs less. I'm not sure whether I'd buy one (since it would be more of a hobby than a tool purchase), but being under $1000 is a big factor in any purchase decision.
nnnnni 14y ago
There are a number of Reprap variants that print better than the Replicator 2 for less than half the price.
- trentlott 14y ago
  Examples?
  - d1plo1d 14y ago
    The Prusa Mendel sells for $799 on Makergear and can print at 1/10 the layer height of a Replicator 2. Thats the same price as the Pandabot (well, give or take $1), the advantage of the Pandabot is that it auto-calibrates and is excessively easy to assemble. Although the official spec lists a 100 micron layer height, technically, I see no reason why a Pandabot couldn't print at the same resolution as a Prusa Mendel. Having seen both a Pandabot and a Prusa Mendel in person the electronics and hot end are similar enough that there is really no reason they couldn't achieve the same 10 micron resolutions on the PandaBot. Sources: - http://www.makergear.com/products/3d-printers http://www.makergear.com/products/3d-printers - http://blog.reprap.org/2011/12/001-layer-height-on-prusa-mendel.html http://blog.reprap.org/2011/12/001-layer-height-on-prusa-men...
Chaotic 14y ago
>The video mentions they've only been working in the 3D printer world for less than a year. The design lead said that he's being working with 3D printers since 2008. It's at 30 seconds into the first video.
- d1plo1d 14y ago
  Exactly, this comment should really be higher up. Liav, the designer of the PandaBot, was one of the first people in Canada to build a RepRap Darwin. The year Panda Robotics took to develop the Pandabot is the result of many years of prior 3D printer experience on Liav's part.
andyjsong 14y ago
> Regular 2D printing isn't something that's been easy for most people after 20 years of modern computing. It's a toss up whether or not software, hardware, or user error.. For that reason, I think 3D printing will be a hobbyist thing for another 5 years at least. The delta between a PandaBot and a high-quality MakerBot 2 with a good reputation is only about $1,000. Thats not much for a die-hard hobbyist, or rich geek wanting a new tech toy to fiddle with. This a very interesting statement. Couple it with the news that HP will not be profitable till 2016, [1] why doesn't HP slap on an extra axis to their printers and make them extrude ABS instead of ink? Granted, they might not get the demand they want in the short term, but they are setting themselves up for something bigger later down the line. They have the infrastructure, distribution, know-how, and cash. What's stopping them from cornering the desktop 3D printing market? [1] http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/10/hp-ceo-were-screwed-for-the-next-few-years/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/10/hp-ceo-were-screwed-...
- nickpinkston 14y ago
  HP actually has IP around 3DP and until recently sold Stratasys machines under their private label. I say recently because it was shown that HP sucked at selling them and ceded its territory back to Stratasys. Also - some companies (ZCorp / ProMetal) use HP print heads to deposit less viscous materials for powder bed 3D printers
  - andyjsong 14y ago
    So I went to the Stratasys site and saw that there entry level printer was $10k, would this be the equivalent of a Ferrari vs. a kit car conversion? Why doesn't Stratasys make a Honda Civic of 3D printers?
    - wmf 14y ago
      From their perspective, $10K probably is the Honda Civic of 3D printers. They probably see all the low-cost stuff as "toys" that aren't usable for "real work". It's just the innovator's dilemma part infinity.
    - 14y ago
ryanmacleod 14y ago
Architecture student here. There is actually a large consumer base for a product exactly like this. I know many other architecture students that have spent more than the cost of a PandaBot (as well as months of hard work) building a RepRap printer to keep on their desk and use in studio. And we keep things (like models) far more fragile than this printer on our desks all the time. Halfing the price of a comparable printer (MakerBot) is in fact a huge price difference (and therefore, a huge motivator for purchase) for people like students.
guelo 14y ago
Only $1,000 difference? Makerbot's Replicator 2 is approaching triple this price at $2200. Makerbot is moving upmarket into the semi-proffesional market and abandoning the hobbyist and student market leaving an opening for sub-thousand dollar robots like this one.
- ecaron 14y ago
  In fairness to Replicator 2, the output versatility looks scores more impressive than Panda's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o6pcbhylmQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o6pcbhylmQ. I suppose it all depends on the hobbyist.

by pxlpshr 14y ago

anigbrowl 14y ago

In effect, you've reduced costs to make the PandaBot accessible to a class of people who aren't really your customer And you know this how? I've been surprised at the consistent hostility of some people on HN to innovating on price. This is the same mentality that led to the US car market going temporarily insane and assuming that everyone wants the biggest SUV possible.

chc 14y ago
It's because, in practice, most so-called price innovation is of the form "I just bought 2 million sticks of butter for $1 million. I think I'll sell them for 25¢ apiece." Being unprofitable or even just barely scraping by is not actually innovative, but too often that's what passes these days. (I'm not saying PandaBot is that way. I'm just offering a reason for the pushback against "innovating on price.")
tptacek 14y ago
That wasn't fair. Pricing so close to COGS that you can't sustainably deliver the product isn't price innovation, nor is pricing so low that COGS forces you to deliver an inferior product; the comment you're responding to took pains to spell out why this particular 3d printer price didn't make much sense. The consistent hostility towards low prices on HN is based on this site's manifest tendency to underprice things, or to calculate price from cost or from pie-eyed notions of how big their addressable markets are.
- ghein 14y ago
  Product Manager again. Total units shipped is incredibly low in 3D printing such that there are very few economies of scale. A certain Brooklyn firm has shipped 13,000. Ever. They have massive share of total and annual global shipments, including the highest of high end industrial printers. We think that the technology is ready to drive this to a seriously large audience. Our COGS benefits from using the global supply chain and designing for manufacturing. It also benefits from scale. Sperry-Burroughs used to hand assemble a few products, then the world changed. We're not priced to hand assemble in Brooklyn and would never make money doing so. But there are other, very high quality and proven, options.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  But Tom, what basis do you have for suggesting they can't sustainably deliver the product? I don't know whether this is the case, I'm waiting to find out. But I'm perplexed by the assumption that they can't, and thought the grandparent comment assumed its conclusions. I don't agree on the inferior product angle; that assumes someone else should define what the minimal acceptable functionality is. I don't necessarily think the PandaBot is directly competitive with the Makerbot- I'm sure corners have been cut to achieve that low price. But I don't necessarily need everything that the Makerbot does. It seems to me that as a technology is refined, you have the choice of adding more features, or keeping more limited features and lowering the price - that's what I'm referring to as price innovation. Consider that the Thing-o-matic was $1200 or so, and people were happy with that at the time of release (3q 2010, IIRC). So the new Markerbot is a lot better, but it's also nearly twice the price. The PandaBot is offering something similar but simpler for $800-ish, which doesn't seem wildly unrealistic to me given the 2-year interval. I can see from the Kickstarter page that it's more of a no-frills product - one which requires more user supervision and safety-awareness, for example - but the tradeoff is that it costs less. I'm not sure whether I'd buy one (since it would be more of a hobby than a tool purchase), but being under $1000 is a big factor in any purchase decision.

nnnnni 14y ago

There are a number of Reprap variants that print better than the Replicator 2 for less than half the price.

trentlott 14y ago
Examples?
- d1plo1d 14y ago
  The Prusa Mendel sells for $799 on Makergear and can print at 1/10 the layer height of a Replicator 2. Thats the same price as the Pandabot (well, give or take $1), the advantage of the Pandabot is that it auto-calibrates and is excessively easy to assemble. Although the official spec lists a 100 micron layer height, technically, I see no reason why a Pandabot couldn't print at the same resolution as a Prusa Mendel. Having seen both a Pandabot and a Prusa Mendel in person the electronics and hot end are similar enough that there is really no reason they couldn't achieve the same 10 micron resolutions on the PandaBot. Sources: - http://www.makergear.com/products/3d-printers http://www.makergear.com/products/3d-printers - http://blog.reprap.org/2011/12/001-layer-height-on-prusa-mendel.html http://blog.reprap.org/2011/12/001-layer-height-on-prusa-men...

Chaotic 14y ago

>The video mentions they've only been working in the 3D printer world for less than a year. The design lead said that he's being working with 3D printers since 2008. It's at 30 seconds into the first video.

d1plo1d 14y ago
Exactly, this comment should really be higher up. Liav, the designer of the PandaBot, was one of the first people in Canada to build a RepRap Darwin. The year Panda Robotics took to develop the Pandabot is the result of many years of prior 3D printer experience on Liav's part.

andyjsong 14y ago

> Regular 2D printing isn't something that's been easy for most people after 20 years of modern computing. It's a toss up whether or not software, hardware, or user error.. For that reason, I think 3D printing will be a hobbyist thing for another 5 years at least. The delta between a PandaBot and a high-quality MakerBot 2 with a good reputation is only about $1,000. Thats not much for a die-hard hobbyist, or rich geek wanting a new tech toy to fiddle with. This a very interesting statement. Couple it with the news that HP will not be profitable till 2016, [1] why doesn't HP slap on an extra axis to their printers and make them extrude ABS instead of ink? Granted, they might not get the demand they want in the short term, but they are setting themselves up for something bigger later down the line. They have the infrastructure, distribution, know-how, and cash. What's stopping them from cornering the desktop 3D printing market? [1] http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/10/hp-ceo-were-screwed-for-the-next-few-years/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/10/hp-ceo-were-screwed-...

nickpinkston 14y ago
HP actually has IP around 3DP and until recently sold Stratasys machines under their private label. I say recently because it was shown that HP sucked at selling them and ceded its territory back to Stratasys. Also - some companies (ZCorp / ProMetal) use HP print heads to deposit less viscous materials for powder bed 3D printers
- andyjsong 14y ago
  So I went to the Stratasys site and saw that there entry level printer was $10k, would this be the equivalent of a Ferrari vs. a kit car conversion? Why doesn't Stratasys make a Honda Civic of 3D printers?
  - wmf 14y ago
    From their perspective, $10K probably is the Honda Civic of 3D printers. They probably see all the low-cost stuff as "toys" that aren't usable for "real work". It's just the innovator's dilemma part infinity.
  - 14y ago

ryanmacleod 14y ago

Architecture student here. There is actually a large consumer base for a product exactly like this. I know many other architecture students that have spent more than the cost of a PandaBot (as well as months of hard work) building a RepRap printer to keep on their desk and use in studio. And we keep things (like models) far more fragile than this printer on our desks all the time. Halfing the price of a comparable printer (MakerBot) is in fact a huge price difference (and therefore, a huge motivator for purchase) for people like students.

guelo 14y ago

Only $1,000 difference? Makerbot's Replicator 2 is approaching triple this price at $2200. Makerbot is moving upmarket into the semi-proffesional market and abandoning the hobbyist and student market leaving an opening for sub-thousand dollar robots like this one.

ecaron 14y ago
In fairness to Replicator 2, the output versatility looks scores more impressive than Panda's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o6pcbhylmQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o6pcbhylmQ. I suppose it all depends on the hobbyist.