4 ms·
>>The material cost, not including the printer, is under $1. That's like equating the value of broken-beyond-repair automobile transmission in a slag pile (~$5
by chillingeffect 12y ago
>>The material cost, not including the printer, is under $1.
That's like equating the value of broken-beyond-repair automobile transmission in a slag pile (~$50 worth of steel) with a brand new transmission installed in your car (~$5000).
...or comparing the value of several grams of beach sand (~$0.01) with an Intel i7-990x cpu ($1499).
- sophacles 12y agoNot a reasonable analogy. The 3d printer is a general purpose tool, reusable for many many purposes, therefore should not be considered in the material cost. Much like hammers and saws. The cost of the tools, if you want to be fussy about project cost in an accurate way, should be amortized over every single use of the tool for the duration of your ownership of it. For example do you go to (e.g.) lifehacks and tell them that the "make shelves for $n" is an inaccurate price, because it doesn't include rent/mortgage to have a wall or the cost of a the screwdriver, drills, and saws?
- chillingeffect 12y agoIn the context of lifehacks, the direction of the communication is the website telling an individual "you can do this with your labor, your tools and $n in money." In these "microscrope-for-a-dollar" posts, the communication context is different. It's misleading a mass audience that these devices can actually be made for the amount. There is no implicit assumption of the individual user of the microscope doing the labor nor using their own tools. The same holds true in my analogies.