Ok, this is a pretty big name jumping onto the bandwagon. I wonder if it will be like IBM’s debut of the PC in 1981.
http://www8.hp.com/us/en/commercial-printers/floater/3Dprinting.html?jumpid=va_byvp82s73w
This looks like it could be a really big deal!
Probably commercial level only for the near future, though.
If that printers less than 50k I’ll be shocked.
For those that were around during those days, I suspect that not in the too distant future our current FDM printers are going to be like how Commodore Vic-20’s look today.
Announcements are easy.
Shipping affordable printers is hard.
Designing open printers with open consumables is impossible… For some.
The target pricing for the HP multi jet machines is expected to be into six figures according to some reports. They aren’t going after you Brook. they are trying to take on the big dogs of commercial additive manufacturing, specifically sintering.They may have one at CES. I understand it’s at least a year and a half out.
Up front, let me advise that I work for 3D Systems.
I looked through some material on this, and what surprises me the most is how very similar it looks to the existing 3D Systems (previously ZCorp) line of printers. Many of our printers in this line, ProJet 4500, ProJet 660, etc, even use HP print heads (HP10 & HP11).
They haven’t invented anything new here that I can see in the way of process, but it does sound like they are using their knowledge in print head design to expand on existing tech.
I’m interested in where they go with this, and how it improves the market.
I expect that both 3DS and Stratasys will do what they’ve done in the past and fight it with lawyers instead of engineers, at least at first. This is more of a machine tool than computer or office appliance in the area in which HP usually runs.
However, having a market cap of more than 10 times either 3DS or Stratasys they are well positioned at least in terms of finance, engineering and legal resources to compete. We’ll see how well they do.
dstevens, are you suggesting that a company shouldn’t protect its IP? I’m sure there will be work for the lawyers if any company is seen to infringe, but I can guarantee you, as an engineer, that we’re also working hard to innovate in the many different areas of 3D Printing.
@Tom_Sommerville Like other patent owners both 3DS and Stratsys use patents not only to protect IP but as a competitive weapon as do most other publicly traded companies, including HP. While I support the protection of IP if that is the wish of those that created it, I also see that the US patent system is broken and many times does not serve to protect and foster innovation as intended but used as a strategic tool regardless of if there is any infringement or not.
I’m actually happy HP is throwing their hat in the ring. I’m hoping it sparks more interest in the sintering method. Maybe it’s naive, but while resin is ramping up in the open source space, sintering has seen very little movement. As always, my heart is with the consumer market, but the pro market is benefiting from the surge as well. Eventually, there will be a narrowing of the gap between pro and consumer… That’s when it will really get interesting. Brand identity and brand trust weigh in heavily and it will take time to build a brand strong enough to be considered a threat… I mean, competitor. 
Brook
The problem, as I see it, is that the hobbiests are stuck with tech that’s easily producible in a home shop…a single nozzle, with a big, dumb, heater attached, and some way to push plastic past it. There’s just no opportunity for us to scale up a ‘glue powder together’ method of manufacture. Like @Tim_Sills states, there’s going to be the clunky, chunky, home market, and a 6 figure pro market, and I don’t see them joining until an HP makes a 1 meter cubed box with an oversized ink-jet head in it…and when they do, it’ll still be pushing the ‘charge what the market will bear’ model.
It’s not hard to lay down layers of powder then melt a design into them, it is hard however to produce a powder that’s perfect for the process.
Hopefully someone will put in the effort to open source a process for creating the materials.
Regarding full color prints, all that’s really needed is a per coordinate definition of material type/color. The difference between vector and raster images but in 3d.
It’s a lot easier to build and move an array of nozzles that are passing dry powder than it is melted plastic at 200C.
Gravity and a valve.
For single color prints, the work is already done and open source but the materials suck.