I read this in the voice of an IBM mainframe sales person in about 1980, when confronted with an Apple II.
More seriously, today's 3D printers are mere toys compared to what a future atom-scale assembler could do. But they are clearly useful to some people and fun for other right now.
The Microcomputers of the '70s and '80s absolutely were toys back then too, by comparison with the bigger iron available at orders of magnitude higher prices. But they were useful, and they started us on the road to volume production that allows me to have a supercomputer in my pocket and a half-dozen supercomputer-class portable machines hanging around my home office. Not to mention all the audio gear I have built around processors ranging from a Z80 though modern microcontrollers to some very powerful DSPs.
Perhaps 3D printers are toys. But they are wonderful toys that will take us to interesting places.
So, what do people need custom physical objects for? Especially rigid stuff? Generally things are rigid either because the application they serve requires the structural rigidity, or because the application they serve requires chemical properties that produce rigidity as a side-effect.
If something doesn't have to be rigid, then there are real cost advantages to having it be flexible (such as ease of packing and shipping).
So, I ask again: what are common, small, rigid objects which are too expensive now (because of production, transport, or rapid wear)? Eyeglass frames are one thing I can think of. Orthodontic retainers are another.
Truly, as I think about all the smallish, plastic things that are available in stores, the only thing that comes to mind as an effective use of 3D printing is to pirate children's toys. Those usually are marked up dramatically because of licensing costs with the movie/TV companies, but otherwise, they're just cheapo plastic. If you can print them at home for a fraction of the cost, and then sell to your friends as well, that could be very interesting...
It would be hard for movie companies to enforce against you, because it's physical peer to peer, and there's no way to trace the artifact back to its producer.
> the only thing that comes to mind as an effective use of 3D printing is to pirate children's toys.
That is as solid an argument as suggesting that the only use for a camera is to pirate artwork. Or the only point of digital media is to pirate other people's work.
If I had kids, the opportunity to design and make toys of our own design might be compelling enough (particularly if you could get a 3D printer for $250 or so).
But, like early microcomputers, we may not have found the killer app yet. Right now, we are at the blinkinglights stage of 3D printing. These things are incredibly primitive, but they are still fun for some people and useful for others. Give it some time, and something interesting will happen.
Comments
I read this in the voice of an IBM mainframe sales person in about 1980, when confronted with an Apple II.
More seriously, today's 3D printers are mere toys compared to what a future atom-scale assembler could do. But they are clearly useful to some people and fun for other right now.
The Microcomputers of the '70s and '80s absolutely were toys back then too, by comparison with the bigger iron available at orders of magnitude higher prices. But they were useful, and they started us on the road to volume production that allows me to have a supercomputer in my pocket and a half-dozen supercomputer-class portable machines hanging around my home office. Not to mention all the audio gear I have built around processors ranging from a Z80 though modern microcontrollers to some very powerful DSPs.
Perhaps 3D printers are toys. But they are wonderful toys that will take us to interesting places.
Just because it happened for personal computers isn't a guarantee that it will happen with home 3D printers.
It's nice to be excited about this tech but you need to pay attention to what potential customers are saying, too.
We need to find the Visicalc of home 3D printing.
So, what do people need custom physical objects for? Especially rigid stuff? Generally things are rigid either because the application they serve requires the structural rigidity, or because the application they serve requires chemical properties that produce rigidity as a side-effect.
If something doesn't have to be rigid, then there are real cost advantages to having it be flexible (such as ease of packing and shipping).
So, I ask again: what are common, small, rigid objects which are too expensive now (because of production, transport, or rapid wear)? Eyeglass frames are one thing I can think of. Orthodontic retainers are another.
Truly, as I think about all the smallish, plastic things that are available in stores, the only thing that comes to mind as an effective use of 3D printing is to pirate children's toys. Those usually are marked up dramatically because of licensing costs with the movie/TV companies, but otherwise, they're just cheapo plastic. If you can print them at home for a fraction of the cost, and then sell to your friends as well, that could be very interesting...
It would be hard for movie companies to enforce against you, because it's physical peer to peer, and there's no way to trace the artifact back to its producer.
> the only thing that comes to mind as an effective use of 3D printing is to pirate children's toys.
That is as solid an argument as suggesting that the only use for a camera is to pirate artwork. Or the only point of digital media is to pirate other people's work.
If I had kids, the opportunity to design and make toys of our own design might be compelling enough (particularly if you could get a 3D printer for $250 or so).
But, like early microcomputers, we may not have found the killer app yet. Right now, we are at the blinkinglights stage of 3D printing. These things are incredibly primitive, but they are still fun for some people and useful for others. Give it some time, and something interesting will happen.