Study Finds 3D Printers Pay For Themselves In Under a Year

Lucas123 writes "Researchers using a RepRap open source 3D printer found that the average household could save as much as $2,000 annually and recoup the cost of the printer in under a year by printing out common household items. The Michigan Technical University (MTU) research group printed just 20 items and used 'conservative' numbers to find that the average homeowner could print common products, such as shower rings or smartphone cases, for far less money than purchasing them online at discount Websites, such as Google Shopper. 'It cost us about $18 to print all [20] items... the lowest retail cost we could find for the same items online was $312 and the highest was $1,943,' said Joshua Pearce, an associate professor in the Materials Science and Engineering Department at MTU. 'The unavoidable conclusion from this study is that the RepRap [3D printers] is an economically attractive investment for the average U.S. household already.'"

Comments

China

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Does this mean 3D printers put China out of business? (Well not completely of course - though you can print the iphone case, you still can't print the iphone yet, but the little accessories and nicknacks make up a huge chunk of the Chinese exports.)

Re:China

[c0lo]

Does this mean 3D printers put China out of business?

You wish... what it actually means: China will be the number one 3D printer manufacturer.

Just wait 'til companies catch on

[Opportunist]

If you thought the whining of the content industry concerning the illegal copying of imaginary property was loud, this will be deafening.

Re:Just wait 'til companies catch on

[AlphaWolf_HK]

I don't think the cries would come from any one industry or group, but from several.

A lot of these designs that they use are rather simple, and somebody could come up with them on their own without much effort, so I don't think it would be an intellectual property thing. However the complaints would arrive thus:

Retail stores, who usually see most of their profit come from accessory markup decline.
UPS/USPS/Fedex shipments decline (as a result of the above from online retailers)
Labor unions that represent assembly line workers as well as the above workers might see loss of union dues.

I think what you'll see against 3d printers is more akin to what is going on with the rideshare service: Environmentalists will complain that they are energy hogs, health "experts" will complain about the dangers of nanoparticles, 3d printers can be used to print dangerous objects (i.e. the liberator.) These arguments will be used by lobbyists representing the above industries (as well as gun control-type groups) to try to regulate the crap out of their usage, regardless of whether they are actually dangerous or not.

At which point society reaches a crossroads:

The question will come down to whether or not people see having reduced need for labor as being a good thing. Personally I always see it as being a good thing. I've frequently said I'd rather live in a world where my income is $10 an hour and my lunch costs $4 than being in a world where my income is $20 an hour and my lunch costs $20. In the later scenario, although I have more income, I am in fact poorer by every definition. Technology makes you wealthier, even if it might reduce your income - it makes nice stuff available for cheaper or available easier. Cheaper stuff means somebody got paid less to make it.

And it shows: Today's "poor" are wealthier than they've ever been. The poor in America now frequently own personal computers, cell phones, blu-ray players, playstations, big screen TV's, and don't have any problems paying for food. Recall during the 80's how only the filthy rich had a car phone or a TV larger than 40" (with a picture quality that is crap by today's standards) and the kid with the rich parents had both a sega and a nintendo. Don't confuse wealth with money - the notion that income disparity is creating more poor and killing the middle class is a flawed one, because it's simply moving the goalpost based on a single number on a spreadsheet and completely ignores everything else that should properly define the word "poor" (material possessions being one of them.)

Re:Just wait 'til companies catch on

[DerekLyons]

Today's "poor" are wealthier than they've ever been. The poor in America now frequently own personal computers, cell phones, blu-ray players, playstations, big screen TV's, and don't have any problems paying for food.

You've obviously never actually been poor or have been around actual poor people, and thus have a very deranged and clueless view of how poor people live.

BS

[mwvdlee]

In order to recoup the ~$1,000 cost of the printer and save $2,000 on household items in a year, you'd need to buy $3,000 on household items a year in the first place.
Excluding the cost of plastic and electricity ofcourse.

And not just any household items, but only household items that are made of relatively weak plastic and don't have to look smooth.

How many shower curtain rings, spoon holders and smartphone cases do you buy every year?

Also; how fast should a 3D printer be in order to produce that amount of items in a year?

Re:BS

[longk]

Not to mention the man hours needed to make technical drawings for all these objects. So far I've only seen Nokia release drawings for covers.

SHOWER RINGS!?

[Dahamma]

Seriously... shower rings. Yes, that's the future of 3D printing that will save the world.

But I can't fault the summary, the article is even worse: "It blows my mind you can print your own shower curtains and beat the retail price," said Joshua Pearce, an associate professor in the Materials Science and Engineering Department at MTU.

So now printing a couple 1" diameter pieces of hard plastic more or less equates to an entire shower curtain? Seriously, go Michigan Technical University, your academic rigor speaks for itself! And in all of my years of eating I never even realized I needed a "spoon rest", but apparently I'll save up to $2000 by printing my own vs whatever barbaric technique I have been using to somehow keep my spoon on the table.

just no

[bloodhawk]

'The unavoidable conclusion from this study is that the RepRap [3D printers] is an economically attractive investment for the average U.S. household already.'"

No, the unavoidable conclusion is these researchers have no clue as to what the average householder uses and further more they are financially inept when it comes of where and how to shop for said items.

Re:Apropos lowest retail cost

[c0lo]

... I think the 3D printer would take a long time to break even.

Unless... mmmm... unless our friends start selling 3D printers at lower prices. Probably in a year or two.

Re:Apropos lowest retail cost

[Dunbal]

Without considering that a set of shower rings can last 5 years or more... I think this study is obviously bogus. I honestly can't think about any bunch of stand-alone plastic items I spend $2000 on every year.

The benefit is in custom parts

[thegarbz]

I have had a long hard think about 3D printers and I could not come up with one, NOT A SINGLE ONE, example of where I would 3D print something which I could just buy commercially and be better off. Why would I want a phone case made of a single colour plastic when there's a plethora of cases on the market with fancy designs, colours, custom grips, etc.

For me the desire for a 3D printer is not replace things I buy but to make things I can't. Custom cases for projects, little stands and holsters for things, the indexing latch on my 20 year old coffee grinder for which there's no longer a replacement part (though a screw through a piece of wood is working fine at the moment). I could do so much with a 3D printer, and I will once the price comes down further, as it has been for the past few years.

Re:Apropos lowest retail cost

[derGoldstein]

Yep. At which point forget reprap, makerbot, and all other similar designs. They'll figure out how to manufacture these things the same way that inkjet printers are manufactured:
1) A handful of injection-molded parts that can be manufactured at 10 cents a part, and at a rate of tens of thousands per-day
2) Super-dedicated electronics with just a couple of significant ICs -- the logic chip (probably some MCU initially, and eventually an ASIC) and the motor-driving chip
3) Optimized motors which they buy in groups of 100,000 from another manufacturer in the same province
4) compact, light-weight designs so that they can pack countless units into a single shipping container

All this aristocratic "Look at me! I spent $2000 on a Makerbot!" bullshit will disappear. Oh, and just like printers -- the most expensive part will be the "ink".

Re:Apropos lowest retail cost

[derGoldstein]

This is an article that's deigned for SEO. Anyone with any inkling of how these things work and the quality of the products would call BS instantly. An iPhone case? You can get a beautiful, highly-detailed case for your phone for $2 on ebay, but you're going to opt for a rough, "pixelated", bad-fit 3D-printed one? This study would only apply if you looked for the stupidest possible way to buy things -- the equivalent of buying a soda in a movie theater.

Re:Apropos lowest retail cost

[N1AK]

And you think they are the people who are going to buy a 3d printer, search and find the templates they need and print it themselves?