No. We don’t want to stop its race to the bottom. The whole point is to make it accessible to everyone. If larger players get into it, fine. They have the power of large scale production which can make these machines accessible to everyone. Inexperienced builders already have a hard time tuning their machines correctly, and you’ll have better software developed in the meantime. The more people in this, the better.
The bottom is where all the action will be.
So, expiring patents leading to more competition leading to crappy products??? Seriously???
I think by the bottom they mean poorly made printers.
@Phil_Nolan , nobody is racing to make poorer quality printers. The “race to the bottom” always is in regards to price. Look at what it did to desktop printers. They’re super cheap, and very high quality, using a minimum of parts. The author is an idiot.
The punk err kid that wrote that article thinks that Apple is quality. It may be better than most of the hardware sold today – but it is not what I consider quality hardware.
Quality hardware == the durable and lasting construction of the original IBM PC, first Compaq Desqpros, or original Apple ][.
None of the crap sold by any of the OEM’s today is “quality hardware” – that includes Apple.
Yeah, that last sentence worries me a bit - he wants 3D printers to be more like Apple. Like, with all-proprietary connections to the world around it and a DRM engine that could make the NSA envious? No thanks.
The main issue i see with “the race to the bottom”, especially once big manufacturers try to cash in (cough Cubify), is vendor-lock-in with filament. FDM printers are still going to use round extruded plastic for at least a good while, but manufacturers could make you pay for that DRM chip that allows you to actually use any of that filament, just like with today’s 2D printers. Could the @Electronic_Frontier do something about that once it becomes an issue?
Terrible article. It lacks even a basic understanding of how markets work. It also smacks of elitism, or a better word would be tech hipsterism. “I was into 3D printers before they went mainstream”
Just as a hint, you guys should really check out the background of the author of the article… “[Biggs] is the former editor-in-chief of Gizmodo.com”
@ThantiK So he is a good editor and…? lol
Gizmodo…good…hahahaha
Editor: We need something about 3D printers, right now !
Writer: But I’m going on vacation tomorrow !
Editor: I don’t care !
Writer: ok I’ll just copy-paste some sentences here… TADA !
The first paragraph was a bunch of sensationalist crap. Not that this is the major flaw of the article itself, but I read the 3D Systems patent that the Form1 infringed on. That patent was not really about SLS, although I guess it could apply. From my understanding, the patent was about SLA minimum cure depths and a technique to capture thin features that may fall under the minimum cure depth. It’s something I can’t explain easily and requires actual reading. Either way, their attempt to link the Form 1 patent case with SLS patents expiring was pretty lame.
I also like the plug about Makerbot having “an attention to detail…” I don’t have any first hand experience but what I’ve seen is that the Makerbots require some TLC before they really get up to par.
Gell-Mann amnesia effect…
Those who want quality will pay for it. It’s as simple as that.
We have a problem in America right now with people who assume that even the cheapest item must do what it is advertized to do. Consumer protection has spawned a generation of idiot consumers. So the problem is that so many people fail to even consider quality, that quality products can no longer reach the sales levels required to bring economy of scale to manufacturing. You have two choices: multiple brands of cheap crap or one or two brands of very (very) expensive quality. And that’s if you are lucky. This article really misses the point the title suggests it will address… or that I hoped it would address. How does a mfgr show people that it’s competition, while minimally capable, is cheap junk?