He bought the printer in February and charges $15 for every ounce of plastic that is used to print something.
So far, only about four customers a month come to print on the machine. They use it for small, personal jobs, just as you would use a copy machine at your local library. Griffiths has made dice, model airplanes, and bride and groom cake toppers from 3-D models of the real people. “We had a couple people coming in to get little car parts made for old cars, windshield wipers and stuff for their pickups,” he says.
The trickle of customers hasn’t dampened his faith in the technology. Griffiths says he plans on upgrading soon to a ProJet 1500, a higher-end printer that sells for $14,500.
“If it takes us five years to get this thing to where people are coming in and using it all the time, that’s okay,” he says. “Ten years from now they’ll have these in Walmarts.”
It’s difficult to imagine. But, then again, 40 years ago the idea that you could print ten identical copies of a resume probably didn’t even occur to most people.
They just went on punching out every letter on a typewriter.
Subscribe to Txchnologist’s daily email.
Copyright 2012 Txchnologist, a digital magazine presented by GE that explores the wider world of science, technology and innovation. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
See what we're tweeting about
7 Comments
Add CommentUh... no, we wouldn't type out each copy - we used to photocopy them instead. Xerox has been around for a while, y'know. 50's I believe. Before that...? Ok, ok, type 'em out - a good point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting article; I just wish we won't have to wait as much as five (or ten) years for this to happen...
carbon paper.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHugh beat me to the obvious one, but I guess this writer is a LOT younger than me. In school, most of the tests I took were mimeographed. THAT was the mass printing technology that was really widespread before copy machines became affordable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith regard to the printer, I have no problem with trying to produce the MakerBot for less, but having something developed by individuals for open source efforts mass-produced in China is offensive in the extreme. I seldom wish failure on someone, but I sincerely hope this wrong-headed effort crashes and burns. Besides, one of the main goals of this movement is that to the greatest extent possible, the printer be able to produce copies of itself. This is supposed to be about "making" not buying from China.
I second Bob on the concepts of auto-replication and "making" not importing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd be happy with having 3-D printers at Kinko's, and having the software needed to draw, in pseudo 3-D, what I want. I'd also be happy with a directory to show that most of what I want is probably already available somewhere nearby, perhaps needing reasemmbly. If the printers are private, what new kinds of weapons are going to be perhaps mass-produced?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this3D printing will be a niche market for many years to come. There is very few practical applications for such a device in the home. Some business can possibly make use of one but that will not make a mass market for the devices. The biggest problem with these machines is the software. As a graphics artist who specializes in 3D design, I can only say that the average computer user has absolutely no idea how complicated 3D design really is. Unless you want to use copyrighted designs that you have to purchase and then are only licensed for non-commercial use, you are going to need software that cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars and you are going to have to spend years mastering the software so you can create intricate designs good enough to rival engineered mass produced parts already on the market.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe examples given in the article are really lame. You could spend hours trying to design and print a drywall anchor that costs 10 cents. The same goes for a key that costs a dollar to copy on a key duplicator and if that key is made of easy melt plastic, good luck getting more then a few uses out of it. Don't forget, just to make that key you will need another device to measure and map it to a tolerance of a thousandth of an inch.
Just try and design a 3D animal for a lamp shade sometime. Unless you have access to designs other artist spent hours or even days perfecting, it simple isn't all that easy.
I am not trying to say we will never have the technology to make a economical 3D printer, but take a look around at ant flea market or second hand store, there is literally millions of perfectly good 2D photo printers for sale simple because most people just don't have the time to bother printing out pictures they can view much better on a big screen TV, or for that matter the camera they took the pictures with.
The fact of the matter is that until businesses and home owners come up with a practical application beyond the novelty market at the county fair, this technology will never be more then a pipe dream.
Current technology for "home use" is limited. The machines require programing and the materials are not very durable or strong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is 3D tech using metal powders that is more durable. Perhaps not as strong as molded or forged, but strong enough for certain uses.
To bring the cost down through advancing the techniques of creating the machines is a good start.
Lets go a little farther out on the limb. Suppose a company offers a modified home version of high-end 3D printing machinery not for purchase, but rental. The maker sells access rights to other companies. For example, a car manufacturer creates the program to duplicate your car key in metal deposit. If you have the machine the car company can pay a fee to the maker of the machine to electronically put the specs onto your machine to duplicate your car key. If your key gets lost or stolen, you can then electronically ask your car dealer to create a duplicate on your home machine. If not entirely as durable as the original, it could get you through long enough to having that 3D print duplicated at a key shop later.
The consumer doesn't pay the full cost of the machine, it remains the property of the company producing it. That company makes it's money off licensing rights to other companies.
Party planners sending specs to create plates and silverware for the occasion. (Possibly recyclable materials the homeowner gets credit for.) A small part to fix a home device (many people would pay a small mark-up rather than drive around to find the part.) Sculpted artwork - if it's in the catalog, why spend the gas, buy on line. Guitar picks! Stakes to mark bulb plantings. There are many things companies can offer as incentives and benefits.
The point is that the cost of the equipment doesn't have to be born by the homeowner. The equipment is rented to them. The manufacturer gets reimbursed through contracts with other companies that use the technology to help the homeowner. There might even be various subscription plans available to the homeowner.
Once the technology is there to use, uses will be created that provide financial benefit.
The public is drawn to the easy life. They don't pay for the printer, just the item with a small mark-up.
If they are savvy enough to program it, so much the better for them. But the way to push this is not through just lowering the cost to buy the machine. It is through creating the uses for it.
The guy who "invented" toothpicks gave them away until people expected to have them available. Then he had a market.