4 ms·

There’s no money in 3D printing

21 points by iamwil 14y ago

evincarofautumn 14y ago
I use the arrow keys to scroll when reading web pages. This site uses JavaScript to add behaviour to the arrow keys for a reason I cannot fathom. Web developers, please avoid JavaScript at all costs. Unless you know precisely what you are doing, you will only mess up a user’s experience. As for the actual article, this: “3D printing will be poised to suck the value out of manufacturing.” Sounds like a good thing to me. If we make all our own jobs obsolete, then our economic model will have to change so that we don’t starve to death in the ensuing abundance and leisure. Of course, just because manufacturing and, say, agriculture can be done by automatons doesn’t mean they should be. Even if some can’t fathom it, a lot of people genuinely enjoy getting their hands dirty. Will they be allowed to farm for pleasure when the robots do all the necessary farming?
- JacksonGariety 14y ago
  This is correct.
- dbz 14y ago
  I simply left the webpage after scrolling up and down a few times in confusion with my arrow keys. I don't believe I've ever missed important content after leaving from a webpage that can't give me a proper user experience.
- cabalamat 14y ago
  > I use the arrow keys to scroll when reading web pages. This site uses JavaScript to add behaviour to the arrow keys for a reason I cannot fathom. What would be useful is a web browser that simply refuses to change the behaviour of common idioms (such as down arrow).
- greggman 14y ago
  Unfortunately google also overrides the cursor keys on search results. I hate it. But it puts the site in question in good company :(
- green7ea 14y ago
  I know what you mean. I use hjkl to navigate (vimium). Many sites who are careful about not overriding arrow keys don't imagine someone using other keys to navigate.
- mistercow 14y ago
  Another annoying "feature" of the page is that ctrl-f is overridden to take you to their FeedBurner page. Why that would ever need a keyboard shortcut is beyond me, but assigning it to ctrl-f is just crazy.
  - PJones 14y ago
    And it breaks the back button when it does it.
zhouyisu 14y ago
There's no money in 3D printing, and also, no money in everything since everything can be made by this Universal Making Machine. This article's argument is nonsense. If the Universal Making Machine is made, not there's no money but money can be abandoned. One can use this machine to get anything he want, so why we need money anyway?
- evan_ 14y ago
  Raw materials would still cost something, or at the very least electricity would cost something. Services would still cost something, and you can't print an internet.
  - waterlesscloud 14y ago
    "you can't print an internet" Why not?
jivatmanx 14y ago
"Just a little heads up. In the long run there is no money in 3D printing." It's a basic principle of economics that all mature, competitive market segments have 0 profit. I thought this was common knowledge. The generalized nature of 3D printing is what can/will make it so competitive, as opposed to manufacturing equipment which is very specialized to a specific industry, and therefore much more likely to be monopolized by a single company.
zachrose 14y ago
I thought the remark about Mexicans was rather tasteless.
digitalboss 14y ago
The money made to be made (and saved) is based off the prototypes of products created using 3D printing that are mocked up and tweaked, before the designs are handed over to a production line to mass produce. 3D printing has created a useful and affordable process for engineers/creatives/etc to mock up products that would've otherwise been very expensive to outsource, especially with the back and forth between vendors to modify designs.
DanBlake 14y ago
Rather silly article on many fronts. Not everyone has enough cash to get the machine. Those who do, can profit off their downpayment by renting or selling the goods it makes. To say that model wont turn a profit is silly. Its a rather old business model... (landlords, rentacenter, new car leasing, etc..)
frogpelt 14y ago
Don't we already have enough discarded plastic floating around the earth without giving the whole world access to their own miniature plastic manufacturing plant?
RRRA 14y ago
I think we've already heard this type of argument about the world needing 3 computers or that the FOSS world is not going to make any money or ... come on...
ukoki 14y ago
"There's no money in 3D printing" I'm skeptical. For example, developing seeds is another industry potentially vulnerable to the "customers could become the producers" dilemma but Monsanto is doing pretty well. Similarly you can use Microsoft products to download, crack and freely reproduce Microsoft products - but they're not doing too bad either. I wouldn't underestimate the combination of legislation, monopolies and/or powerful branding. All it would take is for your Acme 3D Printer to have its own a Acme 3D Template Store and a large market share.
- amalag 14y ago
  Monsanto is not a good comparison because they force you to buy seeds from them the next year. You are not allowed to collect seeds from the plants you grow and they will sue you. And our judicial system agrees with Monsanto because we think DNA is patentable. This will hit the supreme court in February. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which ruled that "once a grower, like Bowman, plants the commodity seeds containing Monsanto's Roundup Ready technology and the next generation of seed develops, the grower has created a newly infringing article." Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037589_monsanto_saving_seeds_farmers.html#ixzz2H8Nfro7c http://www.naturalnews.com/037589_monsanto_saving_seeds_farm...
dan-k 14y ago
This article is poorly thought out and has little-to-no conception of the difference between theory and reality. For example, many things cannot be made in smaller pieces and then assembled, so size could become a huge barrier to adopting 3D printing for something like, say, construction. Not to mention the energy that such a machine would use. 3D printing will lead to lots of changes in design and democratization of production, I'm sure, but there's still a bigger picture that's completely absent from this article's consideration.
jstultz 14y ago
It seems to me that the same logic could be used to argue that there is no money in software. I think we can all agree that's pretty bogus, right?
columbo 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Needful_Things http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Needful_Things I see the future of 3d printing as the golden era of the service industry. I want a semi-portable laptop with a mechanical keyboard and e-ink display. This would be my ideal rugged travel laptop for doing work. I really like how e-ink looks when I write code and I like the clickity-clackity of my mechanical keyboard. But I don't want this to be some hodge-podge mixture of almost-fitting components. It should open and shut like a car door, not a cardboard box. I also have a strange clothing size, everyone does for that matter. Maybe I'm a 1/4 inch between the sizes. My shoes never fit correctly and my hats are either too tight or too loose. I also want to design my house in a specific way. Right now my bookshelves end a foot before the wall when I would really like them flush. The same for my couch, coffee table and television. I also want something to hold all of my daughter's drawings, a nice ornate book with her name engraved on it, maybe I'll even pay someone to take some of her drawings and carve them into the book itself. How many wants do people have that can be serviced when you are willing to take someone with talent (a 3d designer) and a universal making machine? My dream e-ink laptop is worth $2000 to me, the parts are probably in the ballpark of $250, that leaves a nice profit for the designer. My little book for my daughters drawings would be worth a few hundred. If all you can do is print out forks the maximum amount of money you can buy is related specifically to the number of forks you can sell. However, if you can build the random things that people want that they cannot find in stores, well you'll have a very sustainable business on your hands.
- smokel 14y ago
  A downside of customizing products is that you have to think about and describe what you actually want. Personally, I would prefer somewhat less freedom of choice, and more free time :) An interesting read might be "The Paradox of Choice" by Barry Schwartz (2004).
  - rogerbinns 14y ago
    You are assuming customisation remains static. One solution I can think of is a site (eg bestforks.com) that has 2 fork choices - you pick one and you are done. (The web means that you can show different catalogues to each user.) Another solution is that they figure out the customisations automatically. For example stand in your room (eg kitchen) and take panoramic photo/video. Based on that it is possible to figure out appropriate colours, sizes and other design criteria (eg sleek/simple versus ornate). Again it can offer you one or two right choices. Yet another brings people back into the process. You have a "design/customisation consultant" and they make the choices/customisation for you.
wlievens 14y ago
This is all very theoretical, but makes no sense in reality. This guy should take a look at the complexity in manufacturing for instance an image sensor, and then think twice about his "universal maker".
- cbennett 14y ago
  haha, very much agree agree. his initial arguments about a 'universal printer' diluting the market in time seem to hold more water in the realm of hypothetical machines than real ones (for some reason the mental image of self-replicating Universal Turing Machines with a printing functionality came to mind :P) in reality, there a number of principles in the realm of material physics that might constrain a machine simply 'printing itself'. In the near and medium terms, 3D printers that transform 3D CAD renderings into smaller objects will command a real market niche. In the long term, we will be talking about molecular fabrication (matter compilers a la "Diamond Age")-- but that is a whole other ball game :p
  - wlievens 14y ago
    Yes indeed. I work in the image sensor business (writing test software) and it surprises me when I hear that it's often times next to impossible for a sensor design to be reliably produced in another fab.
dccoolgai 14y ago
That's like going back to 1971 and saying "there's no money in computers".
- fixedd 14y ago
  You can use SOFTWARE to copy SOFTWARE, so noone will make any money on it.
  - kybernetikos 14y ago
    Yup. In the absence of government sanctioned monopolies, software will tend towards free, and it's already amazing what software you can get for free. There'll always be niches, where people will make money creating bespoke software, but the kind of software that everyone uses will eventually be free, because once someone creates something free and sticks it on github, it doesn't get lost, it can only go in one direction - better.
    - forgottenpaswrd 14y ago
      "because once someone creates something free and sticks it on github, it doesn't get lost, it can only go in one direction - better." Well, it could follow different directions, like "bloated", or like GNOME "better for us, but not for you", or "easier to maintain, but slower"
zeynalov 14y ago
I'm dentist. Dentists pay dental labors billions of dollars yearly to print their teeth. Did you hear about CAD/CAM teeth? We don't model teeth manually anymore, we use 3d printers instead. There are also other industries where 3d printers are used intensively.
dasil003 14y ago
One glaring flaw (among many) in this article is not recognizing the distinction between money and value. I'm not really bullish on 3D printing, but I'll give the author the benefit of the doubt and assume that 3D printing is going to pan out in all its consumer-fetishist glory and drive the cost of manufacturing everything to zero + raw materials. That doesn't mean the value has been removed, it means everyone gets a lot more stuff, which is a big part of where the value of money comes from anyway. This is a good thing because it theoretically allows us to pursue higher goals in the same way that mechanization allowed us to abolish slavery. Obviously this changes the economy and there are winners and losers, and I believe humans might have a hard time evolutionarily in a world where work is no longer required, but it's ridiculous to single out 3D printing as some sort of profit black hole that winks out of the GDP the minute it hits the market. Any and all industries are subject to obsolescence either by their own doing or external factors. The recursive aspect of 3D printing just makes it fun to pontificate about longwindedly.
bradshaw1965 14y ago
This... Well, theoretically such a machine could be worth billions but actually you’d probably sell a few to research institutes and then one to a commercial company and then it is game over for you. sure sounds like I think there is a world market for maybe five computers. I've got no predictions on the future world wide market for 3D printing, but big predictions on future tech are usually wrong.
- kybernetikos 14y ago
  Not really. He's not saying that there would only be a few of them deployed, he's saying that once you've deployed a few, those few will be used to make more, and you won't be able to sell yours for more than the cost of materials, since anyone who has already bought one from you can undercut you. I think this will not be a real problem for a really long time, but it's actually an audacious vision rather than a too limited one.
  - bradshaw1965 14y ago
    You're correct in the quote being the inverse in intent. It's still a big call on a nascent tech. Big calls on nascent tech tend to be wrong.
- zxcdw 14y ago
  > This sure sounds like ... I thought of the same. Although the quote itself can't be attributed to Watson or anyone else for that regard, what the quote says used to be true. During the time, in 1943 there indeed was not much more market for a computer than the about five pieces of them. I'm curious to learn what Google has in mind. They surely employ lots of groundbreaking people when it comes to futuristic technology. Kurzweil and Norvig alone make a huge impact.
InternalRun 14y ago
So much cognitive dissonance in this thread...
forgottenpaswrd 14y ago
I disagree completely. This is like saying that because mainframes were being replaced by personal computers, there was not going to be money with them, when in fact the opposite thing happened with Apple being one of the biggest companies in the world. Computers like the Rasperry Pi cost now $45 and are more powerful that million dollar IBM machines of the past. The same is going to happen with expensive industrial equipment like laser cutters, 3d printers or metal discharge model making tools as patents expire. Different quantities, different margins, but a business after all.
- greggman 14y ago
  I think the guy has a point but I agree it's premature. It's like saying their us no point in making printers for computers because eventually we'll be a mostly paperless society. His point seems correct that ultimately you'll just use the 3d printer you have to print another 3d printer. But that day is a long long way off. There's at least 10 or 20 years ahead for companies to make money selling 3d printers.
justincormack 14y ago
There is a much more interesting set of scenarios about how 3D printing might work out economically here http://jacobinmag.com/2011/12/four-futures/ http://jacobinmag.com/2011/12/four-futures/
czbond 14y ago
The author's arguement makes grand leaps of logic that sound great - but won't hold up in the short term of the next 10 years. In 30 years, the price of such a service will become a commidity - like our ink jet printers today. The author uses language that could easily be used in the same vein as describing the creation of the Earth as a non-event.
pazimzadeh 14y ago
But you have to get the raw materials for somewhere. Who will be the Akamai of 3D printing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akamai_Technologies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akamai_Technologies
Zenst 14y ago
I disagree with the articles conclusion. It does make some good points about costs and how a dedicated tool is better but if we just go back a little in time and look at laser printers and other types of home printing over using a comercial print shop and you see alot of parralels, ink cost being one that still holds with us today, even with `major` players in the feild. Another way to look at this is people today spend alot of money on craft tools and materials and we even have dedicated shopping channels for such products. Finaly I think if you look at the cost of lego brick and the respective volme of 3D ink, then I suspect you will see that 3D ink works out very comparable and cheaper in many area's. People spend a lot of money on Lego and with that alone the market for 3D printers has a place. Not saying rip of Lego bricks but that people like to play and create things and whilst Lego is targeted at children it still endures with many a adult. Initialy with the costs of a good printer that can use robust 3D ink we will see your local printers embacing the new avenue and many other outlets offering a 3D printing service. The home consumer market will grow, costs will drop but. As I said with the initial introduction of laser printers and other printing types, initial they were expensive, but only got better and cheaper and permuated into more purchsing budgets/needs over using your local print shop. With markets most people will work out the direction and then end up dooming it all as it does not happen as quickly as they can think about it. Markets are funny slow beasts that operate on various timelines and with new technology the initial market is the niche that opens the crack or not into larger markets. I certainly see a larger market given the ever expanding craft market and with the same insight into how laser printers started and ended up at, let alone coloured printing, which was many years ago the work of a dedicated print shop. ALso worth remembering that industry today has milling machines and flow-jet which will take a solid block of metal and turn it into your defined shape. 3D printing is not metal and with that is targeting different markets and we are a long way from the univeral replicator perception most seem to think 3D printing is. That is a long way off, heck how long has it taken to get the perfect monitor, close but still not there as a ideal. But they sell and with that the ability for somebody to print out a 3D object be it a chess set, replacement part for some broken plastic bit in a product that you can't replace without purching the entire module/section. Many DIY tasks would have a use for such an item, even customised plastic washers, so many usable area's even with todays technology. So that is why I disagree with the conclusions as they are based upon a ideal with todays limitations impossed and not taking into account printing technology adoption within markets historicaly, let alone the bleed over markets in craft, DIY and many more others will probably be aware of. For me the acid test is when you can print out a plate, knife and fork and use them to eat with practicaly and saftly as good as disposable cutterly today. Then we have a robust enough technology that consumers will start to embrace if the price is right. I also expect the 3D-ink's will follow inkjet prices, but the printers will carry a margin until the saturation is at the level which enables a large company to make enough margin on the ink over the printers. It will be when all printers end up offering more or less the same functionality at various price points at comparable levels to other manufacturers.
pixl97 14y ago
I guess that means there is only a market for one lathe[1] and one milling machine[2] since when you buy one, you can then make your own. Anyway, a universal machine maker would likely run of nano technology, and once we reach that level of technology, all bets are off. The game changes and suddenly a lot of businesses are buggy whip manufactures. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lathe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lathe [2}https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milling_machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milling_machine

21 points by iamwil 14y ago

I use the arrow keys to scroll when reading web pages. This site uses JavaScript to add behaviour to the arrow keys for a reason I cannot fathom. Web developers, please avoid JavaScript at all costs. Unless you know precisely what you are doing, you will only mess up a user’s experience. As for the actual article, this: “3D printing will be poised to suck the value out of manufacturing.” Sounds like a good thing to me. If we make all our own jobs obsolete, then our economic model will have to change so that we don’t starve to death in the ensuing abundance and leisure. Of course, just because manufacturing and, say, agriculture can be done by automatons doesn’t mean they should be. Even if some can’t fathom it, a lot of people genuinely enjoy getting their hands dirty. Will they be allowed to farm for pleasure when the robots do all the necessary farming?

JacksonGariety 14y ago
This is correct.
dbz 14y ago
I simply left the webpage after scrolling up and down a few times in confusion with my arrow keys. I don't believe I've ever missed important content after leaving from a webpage that can't give me a proper user experience.
cabalamat 14y ago
> I use the arrow keys to scroll when reading web pages. This site uses JavaScript to add behaviour to the arrow keys for a reason I cannot fathom. What would be useful is a web browser that simply refuses to change the behaviour of common idioms (such as down arrow).
greggman 14y ago
Unfortunately google also overrides the cursor keys on search results. I hate it. But it puts the site in question in good company :(
green7ea 14y ago
I know what you mean. I use hjkl to navigate (vimium). Many sites who are careful about not overriding arrow keys don't imagine someone using other keys to navigate.
mistercow 14y ago
Another annoying "feature" of the page is that ctrl-f is overridden to take you to their FeedBurner page. Why that would ever need a keyboard shortcut is beyond me, but assigning it to ctrl-f is just crazy.
- PJones 14y ago
  And it breaks the back button when it does it.

zhouyisu 14y ago

There's no money in 3D printing, and also, no money in everything since everything can be made by this Universal Making Machine. This article's argument is nonsense. If the Universal Making Machine is made, not there's no money but money can be abandoned. One can use this machine to get anything he want, so why we need money anyway?

evan_ 14y ago
Raw materials would still cost something, or at the very least electricity would cost something. Services would still cost something, and you can't print an internet.
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  "you can't print an internet" Why not?

jivatmanx 14y ago

"Just a little heads up. In the long run there is no money in 3D printing." It's a basic principle of economics that all mature, competitive market segments have 0 profit. I thought this was common knowledge. The generalized nature of 3D printing is what can/will make it so competitive, as opposed to manufacturing equipment which is very specialized to a specific industry, and therefore much more likely to be monopolized by a single company.

zachrose 14y ago

I thought the remark about Mexicans was rather tasteless.

digitalboss 14y ago

The money made to be made (and saved) is based off the prototypes of products created using 3D printing that are mocked up and tweaked, before the designs are handed over to a production line to mass produce. 3D printing has created a useful and affordable process for engineers/creatives/etc to mock up products that would've otherwise been very expensive to outsource, especially with the back and forth between vendors to modify designs.

DanBlake 14y ago

Rather silly article on many fronts. Not everyone has enough cash to get the machine. Those who do, can profit off their downpayment by renting or selling the goods it makes. To say that model wont turn a profit is silly. Its a rather old business model... (landlords, rentacenter, new car leasing, etc..)

frogpelt 14y ago

Don't we already have enough discarded plastic floating around the earth without giving the whole world access to their own miniature plastic manufacturing plant?

RRRA 14y ago

I think we've already heard this type of argument about the world needing 3 computers or that the FOSS world is not going to make any money or ... come on...

ukoki 14y ago

"There's no money in 3D printing" I'm skeptical. For example, developing seeds is another industry potentially vulnerable to the "customers could become the producers" dilemma but Monsanto is doing pretty well. Similarly you can use Microsoft products to download, crack and freely reproduce Microsoft products - but they're not doing too bad either. I wouldn't underestimate the combination of legislation, monopolies and/or powerful branding. All it would take is for your Acme 3D Printer to have its own a Acme 3D Template Store and a large market share.

amalag 14y ago
Monsanto is not a good comparison because they force you to buy seeds from them the next year. You are not allowed to collect seeds from the plants you grow and they will sue you. And our judicial system agrees with Monsanto because we think DNA is patentable. This will hit the supreme court in February. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which ruled that "once a grower, like Bowman, plants the commodity seeds containing Monsanto's Roundup Ready technology and the next generation of seed develops, the grower has created a newly infringing article." Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037589_monsanto_saving_seeds_farmers.html#ixzz2H8Nfro7c http://www.naturalnews.com/037589_monsanto_saving_seeds_farm...

dan-k 14y ago

This article is poorly thought out and has little-to-no conception of the difference between theory and reality. For example, many things cannot be made in smaller pieces and then assembled, so size could become a huge barrier to adopting 3D printing for something like, say, construction. Not to mention the energy that such a machine would use. 3D printing will lead to lots of changes in design and democratization of production, I'm sure, but there's still a bigger picture that's completely absent from this article's consideration.

jstultz 14y ago

It seems to me that the same logic could be used to argue that there is no money in software. I think we can all agree that's pretty bogus, right?

columbo 14y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Needful_Things http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Needful_Things I see the future of 3d printing as the golden era of the service industry. I want a semi-portable laptop with a mechanical keyboard and e-ink display. This would be my ideal rugged travel laptop for doing work. I really like how e-ink looks when I write code and I like the clickity-clackity of my mechanical keyboard. But I don't want this to be some hodge-podge mixture of almost-fitting components. It should open and shut like a car door, not a cardboard box. I also have a strange clothing size, everyone does for that matter. Maybe I'm a 1/4 inch between the sizes. My shoes never fit correctly and my hats are either too tight or too loose. I also want to design my house in a specific way. Right now my bookshelves end a foot before the wall when I would really like them flush. The same for my couch, coffee table and television. I also want something to hold all of my daughter's drawings, a nice ornate book with her name engraved on it, maybe I'll even pay someone to take some of her drawings and carve them into the book itself. How many wants do people have that can be serviced when you are willing to take someone with talent (a 3d designer) and a universal making machine? My dream e-ink laptop is worth $2000 to me, the parts are probably in the ballpark of $250, that leaves a nice profit for the designer. My little book for my daughters drawings would be worth a few hundred. If all you can do is print out forks the maximum amount of money you can buy is related specifically to the number of forks you can sell. However, if you can build the random things that people want that they cannot find in stores, well you'll have a very sustainable business on your hands.

smokel 14y ago
A downside of customizing products is that you have to think about and describe what you actually want. Personally, I would prefer somewhat less freedom of choice, and more free time :) An interesting read might be "The Paradox of Choice" by Barry Schwartz (2004).
- rogerbinns 14y ago
  You are assuming customisation remains static. One solution I can think of is a site (eg bestforks.com) that has 2 fork choices - you pick one and you are done. (The web means that you can show different catalogues to each user.) Another solution is that they figure out the customisations automatically. For example stand in your room (eg kitchen) and take panoramic photo/video. Based on that it is possible to figure out appropriate colours, sizes and other design criteria (eg sleek/simple versus ornate). Again it can offer you one or two right choices. Yet another brings people back into the process. You have a "design/customisation consultant" and they make the choices/customisation for you.

wlievens 14y ago

This is all very theoretical, but makes no sense in reality. This guy should take a look at the complexity in manufacturing for instance an image sensor, and then think twice about his "universal maker".

cbennett 14y ago
haha, very much agree agree. his initial arguments about a 'universal printer' diluting the market in time seem to hold more water in the realm of hypothetical machines than real ones (for some reason the mental image of self-replicating Universal Turing Machines with a printing functionality came to mind :P) in reality, there a number of principles in the realm of material physics that might constrain a machine simply 'printing itself'. In the near and medium terms, 3D printers that transform 3D CAD renderings into smaller objects will command a real market niche. In the long term, we will be talking about molecular fabrication (matter compilers a la "Diamond Age")-- but that is a whole other ball game :p
- wlievens 14y ago
  Yes indeed. I work in the image sensor business (writing test software) and it surprises me when I hear that it's often times next to impossible for a sensor design to be reliably produced in another fab.

dccoolgai 14y ago

That's like going back to 1971 and saying "there's no money in computers".

fixedd 14y ago
You can use SOFTWARE to copy SOFTWARE, so noone will make any money on it.
- kybernetikos 14y ago
  Yup. In the absence of government sanctioned monopolies, software will tend towards free, and it's already amazing what software you can get for free. There'll always be niches, where people will make money creating bespoke software, but the kind of software that everyone uses will eventually be free, because once someone creates something free and sticks it on github, it doesn't get lost, it can only go in one direction - better.
  - forgottenpaswrd 14y ago
    "because once someone creates something free and sticks it on github, it doesn't get lost, it can only go in one direction - better." Well, it could follow different directions, like "bloated", or like GNOME "better for us, but not for you", or "easier to maintain, but slower"

zeynalov 14y ago

I'm dentist. Dentists pay dental labors billions of dollars yearly to print their teeth. Did you hear about CAD/CAM teeth? We don't model teeth manually anymore, we use 3d printers instead. There are also other industries where 3d printers are used intensively.

dasil003 14y ago

One glaring flaw (among many) in this article is not recognizing the distinction between money and value. I'm not really bullish on 3D printing, but I'll give the author the benefit of the doubt and assume that 3D printing is going to pan out in all its consumer-fetishist glory and drive the cost of manufacturing everything to zero + raw materials. That doesn't mean the value has been removed, it means everyone gets a lot more stuff, which is a big part of where the value of money comes from anyway. This is a good thing because it theoretically allows us to pursue higher goals in the same way that mechanization allowed us to abolish slavery. Obviously this changes the economy and there are winners and losers, and I believe humans might have a hard time evolutionarily in a world where work is no longer required, but it's ridiculous to single out 3D printing as some sort of profit black hole that winks out of the GDP the minute it hits the market. Any and all industries are subject to obsolescence either by their own doing or external factors. The recursive aspect of 3D printing just makes it fun to pontificate about longwindedly.

bradshaw1965 14y ago

This... Well, theoretically such a machine could be worth billions but actually you’d probably sell a few to research institutes and then one to a commercial company and then it is game over for you. sure sounds like I think there is a world market for maybe five computers. I've got no predictions on the future world wide market for 3D printing, but big predictions on future tech are usually wrong.

kybernetikos 14y ago
Not really. He's not saying that there would only be a few of them deployed, he's saying that once you've deployed a few, those few will be used to make more, and you won't be able to sell yours for more than the cost of materials, since anyone who has already bought one from you can undercut you. I think this will not be a real problem for a really long time, but it's actually an audacious vision rather than a too limited one.
- bradshaw1965 14y ago
  You're correct in the quote being the inverse in intent. It's still a big call on a nascent tech. Big calls on nascent tech tend to be wrong.
zxcdw 14y ago
> This sure sounds like ... I thought of the same. Although the quote itself can't be attributed to Watson or anyone else for that regard, what the quote says used to be true. During the time, in 1943 there indeed was not much more market for a computer than the about five pieces of them. I'm curious to learn what Google has in mind. They surely employ lots of groundbreaking people when it comes to futuristic technology. Kurzweil and Norvig alone make a huge impact.

InternalRun 14y ago

So much cognitive dissonance in this thread...

forgottenpaswrd 14y ago

I disagree completely. This is like saying that because mainframes were being replaced by personal computers, there was not going to be money with them, when in fact the opposite thing happened with Apple being one of the biggest companies in the world. Computers like the Rasperry Pi cost now $45 and are more powerful that million dollar IBM machines of the past. The same is going to happen with expensive industrial equipment like laser cutters, 3d printers or metal discharge model making tools as patents expire. Different quantities, different margins, but a business after all.

greggman 14y ago
I think the guy has a point but I agree it's premature. It's like saying their us no point in making printers for computers because eventually we'll be a mostly paperless society. His point seems correct that ultimately you'll just use the 3d printer you have to print another 3d printer. But that day is a long long way off. There's at least 10 or 20 years ahead for companies to make money selling 3d printers.

justincormack 14y ago

There is a much more interesting set of scenarios about how 3D printing might work out economically here http://jacobinmag.com/2011/12/four-futures/ http://jacobinmag.com/2011/12/four-futures/

czbond 14y ago

The author's arguement makes grand leaps of logic that sound great - but won't hold up in the short term of the next 10 years. In 30 years, the price of such a service will become a commidity - like our ink jet printers today. The author uses language that could easily be used in the same vein as describing the creation of the Earth as a non-event.

pazimzadeh 14y ago

But you have to get the raw materials for somewhere. Who will be the Akamai of 3D printing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akamai_Technologies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akamai_Technologies

Zenst 14y ago

I disagree with the articles conclusion. It does make some good points about costs and how a dedicated tool is better but if we just go back a little in time and look at laser printers and other types of home printing over using a comercial print shop and you see alot of parralels, ink cost being one that still holds with us today, even with `major` players in the feild. Another way to look at this is people today spend alot of money on craft tools and materials and we even have dedicated shopping channels for such products. Finaly I think if you look at the cost of lego brick and the respective volme of 3D ink, then I suspect you will see that 3D ink works out very comparable and cheaper in many area's. People spend a lot of money on Lego and with that alone the market for 3D printers has a place. Not saying rip of Lego bricks but that people like to play and create things and whilst Lego is targeted at children it still endures with many a adult. Initialy with the costs of a good printer that can use robust 3D ink we will see your local printers embacing the new avenue and many other outlets offering a 3D printing service. The home consumer market will grow, costs will drop but. As I said with the initial introduction of laser printers and other printing types, initial they were expensive, but only got better and cheaper and permuated into more purchsing budgets/needs over using your local print shop. With markets most people will work out the direction and then end up dooming it all as it does not happen as quickly as they can think about it. Markets are funny slow beasts that operate on various timelines and with new technology the initial market is the niche that opens the crack or not into larger markets. I certainly see a larger market given the ever expanding craft market and with the same insight into how laser printers started and ended up at, let alone coloured printing, which was many years ago the work of a dedicated print shop. ALso worth remembering that industry today has milling machines and flow-jet which will take a solid block of metal and turn it into your defined shape. 3D printing is not metal and with that is targeting different markets and we are a long way from the univeral replicator perception most seem to think 3D printing is. That is a long way off, heck how long has it taken to get the perfect monitor, close but still not there as a ideal. But they sell and with that the ability for somebody to print out a 3D object be it a chess set, replacement part for some broken plastic bit in a product that you can't replace without purching the entire module/section. Many DIY tasks would have a use for such an item, even customised plastic washers, so many usable area's even with todays technology. So that is why I disagree with the conclusions as they are based upon a ideal with todays limitations impossed and not taking into account printing technology adoption within markets historicaly, let alone the bleed over markets in craft, DIY and many more others will probably be aware of. For me the acid test is when you can print out a plate, knife and fork and use them to eat with practicaly and saftly as good as disposable cutterly today. Then we have a robust enough technology that consumers will start to embrace if the price is right. I also expect the 3D-ink's will follow inkjet prices, but the printers will carry a margin until the saturation is at the level which enables a large company to make enough margin on the ink over the printers. It will be when all printers end up offering more or less the same functionality at various price points at comparable levels to other manufacturers.

pixl97 14y ago

I guess that means there is only a market for one lathe[1] and one milling machine[2] since when you buy one, you can then make your own. Anyway, a universal machine maker would likely run of nano technology, and once we reach that level of technology, all bets are off. The game changes and suddenly a lot of businesses are buggy whip manufactures. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lathe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lathe [2}https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milling_machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milling_machine