Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Startups Push 3D Printers As Industry Leaders Falter

Posted by samzenpus on from the little-guy dept.

gthuang88 writes: Given the hype around 3D printing, you'd never guess that established leaders like 3D Systems and Stratasys have seen their stock fall by 75 percent in the last year. Big companies like HP, Amazon, and Boeing are getting into the field, too, but startups are still where a lot of the action is. Now Formlabs, a Boston-area startup, has released a new 3D printer that is supposed to be more reliable and higher quality than its predecessors. The device uses stereolithography and is aimed at professional designers and engineers. The question is whether Formlabs---and other startups like MarkForged, Voxel8, and Desktop Metal---can find enough of a market to survive until 3D printing becomes a more mainstream form of manufacturing.

20 of 101 comments (clear)

  1. Given the hype around 3D printing ... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

    ... and that right there is why this is a "No Shit, Sherlock" moment. Stock fell 75%. /sarcasm You don't say!

    3D Printing is still too expensive, and a niche market for the general masses.

    1. Re:Given the hype around 3D printing ... by TWX · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I just don't find enough uses for it to justify the floor or bench space for the machine. In subtractive manufacturing where one takes away material I can work in metal, plastic, and wood. I can cut, plane, sand, shave, drill, tap, or die-cut, and if I pick up one of those tabletop mills, I could mill and otherwise create channels, and these can all be done in three different materials.

      Right now the only practical material I could work with on a 3d printer is plastic, and even then I'm limited to particular types of plastic. Plus, due to the texturing left by most 3d printers I'd have to plane, sand, shave, drill, tap, or die-cut anyway.

      I can see design firms that need to rapid-prototype parts using 3d printers, before they ultimately design molds to cast the final plastic parts in. I can even see a few very specialized applications where the technology makes more sense, especially for one-offs, but otherwise 3d printing isn't mass-production.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Given the hype around 3D printing ... by mlts · · Score: 3, Insightful

      3D printers remind me of the beige box PC industry in the 1990s, bicycle parts makers in the 1990s (with everything CNC machined and anodized), and the inexpensive MP3 player market.

      What I see is that a bunch of little guys are going to fight amongst themselves, and as soon as there are a few big players, some big company will swoop in, buy them out, and own the playing field, either a single company, or 2-3 firms (just like how paper printing is now, with just a relatively few companies offering models.)

      One can be creative with 3D parts, but there is a limit that the plastic from the current generation can handle. At best, it is something to make to hone an injection mold from so "real" parts can be manufactured. Plus, the parts are rough, so they need sanded and coated with something like Smooth-On's epoxy if using them directly for a task.

    3. Re:Given the hype around 3D printing ... by vyvepe · · Score: 2

      I just don't find enough uses for it to justify the floor or bench space for the machine. In subtractive manufacturing where one takes away material I can work in metal, plastic, and wood. I can cut, plane, sand, shave, drill, tap, or die-cut, and if I pick up one of those tabletop mills, I could mill and otherwise create channels, and these can all be done in three different materials.

      The problem is that a cheap 3dPrinter can do shapes which would require 5-DOF CNC. These are very expensive. So you can use only plastic in a 3d printer but you can do very complicated shapes. With a cheaper 3 DOF CNC you can use also wood or metals, but the shapes you can produce will be simpler.

    4. Re:Given the hype around 3D printing ... by TWX · · Score: 2

      What are those shapes though, that can't be done subtractively without the expensive 5-axis machine, or can't be cast in some less expensive process? Think of the complexity of a cylinder head or engine block, where there are coolant passages, oil passages, mounting bosses, machined precision valleys, machined precision chambers, and often with modern automobiles, two distinct materials (steel/hardened seats for valves, steel or iron sleeves for aluminum engine blocks) and other difficult characteristics that are much easier to produce through casting and machining than they are through additive methods, and don't require five-axis machines to finish.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    5. Re:Given the hype around 3D printing ... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's difficult to justify the cost, both monetarily and learning curve, rather than farming the work out to a machine shop. I worked at a startup that manufactured very expensive widgets and we used a machine shop to fabricate our parts only assembling them in house. They are right down the road, so we used them for many prototypes also. You really have to do economics when doing engineering. If he shop is making 10% profit on something that is 5% of your business, how many parts do you have to sell to justify doing it yourself?

    6. Re:Given the hype around 3D printing ... by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

      I just don't find enough uses for it to justify the floor or bench space for the machine. In subtractive manufacturing where one takes away material I can work in metal, plastic, and wood. I can cut, plane, sand, shave, drill, tap, or die-cut, and if I pick up one of those tabletop mills, I could mill and otherwise create channels, and these can all be done in three different materials.

      The problem is that a cheap 3dPrinter can do shapes which would require 5-DOF CNC. These are very expensive. So you can use only plastic in a 3d printer but you can do very complicated shapes. With a cheaper 3 DOF CNC you can use also wood or metals, but the shapes you can produce will be simpler.

      This is a myth perpetuated by the new breed of maker: the hipster arduino connected to a led maker. With a 3-axis mill I can mill a mold for almost any practical shape. Any tool, almost any part, etc.

      (BTW: I called this hype correctly more than two years ago on slashdot :-))

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    7. Re:Given the hype around 3D printing ... by TWX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Really? Creating discrete sand form negatives, then gluing those sand form negatives together, then filling the finished form with molten metal, letting it cool and harden, then removing the sand is a very niche market?

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  2. Hype is a reason by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Given the hype around 3D printing, you'd never guess that established leaders like 3D Systems and Stratasys have seen their stock fall by 75 percent in the last year

    Hype is the reason the stocks were overinflated to begin with. It was easy to predict. These companies business model was rapid expansion via buyouts, but the problem is that the technology is evolving and improving, which de-values the technology they acquired.

    1. Re:Hype is a reason by thoromyr · · Score: 2

      Ignorance of the market gets modded insightful? Other than Stratasys buying Makerbot (a single purchase), what leads you to say that Stratasys' business model was "rapid expansion via buyouts"? You should also inform yourself about the value of Stratasys vs Makerbot. Yes, Stratasys paid a lot more for Makerbot than it was worth, but that amount is dwarfed by Stratasys' value. They were not, and are not, anywhere close to the same league.

      For the record, Stratasys' strategy has been to sell outdated technology at hyperinflated prices. Buying Makerbot in no way qualifies as rapid expansion, it was only a minor purchase for political reasons. Makerbot had nothing, other than cachet, that Stratasys needed or could use. In fact they have proceeded to "stratays-ize" the Makerbot lineup.

      Your comment about technology devaluation may sound nice, but is utterly irrelevant. Stratasys technology has been outdated for a *long* time and has absolutely nothing to do with "acquisitions" or "rapid expansion".

      Stratasys problem is that they are having a harder and harder time convincing corporations to pay tens of thousands of dollars (or more) for machines based on twenty year old technology.

  3. One would hope so by dlenmn · · Score: 2

    has released a new 3D printer that is supposed to be more reliable and higher quality than its predecessors.

    I'm glad they haven't started to release products that are less reliable and lower quality than its predecessors; that's the sign of a mature field...

  4. Re:3D printed goatse by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  5. 3D printing is like photo printing by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To me, 3D printing is very similar to photo printing. Most people don't print enough that it makes sense to have their own printer at home. Just like there are some people who are really into photography, and own their own photo printers, or even their own dark room, there are enthusiasts who really want to build their own stuff that would really get a use out of a 3D printer. But the majority of people who just want to print off a new battery cover for their remote control, or knob for the clothes dryer would be much better off just going down to the local Walmart or Costco and getting them to print out the object, just like they currently do with photos.

    I'm not going to spend $200+ on a photo printer when I could easily get better prints by going down to Walmart and getting pictures for 10 cents a piece. Similarly, I'm not going to spend $500 on a 3D printer when I could go down to Staples, Home Depot, Walmart, Costco, or whoever is providing the service and get access to a much higher quality 3D printer. Even my local library has a 3D printer I can use for the cost of the consumables.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  6. Re:3D printed goatse by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Funny

    He left himself wide open to that one.

  7. "mainstream manufacturing"? Don't hold your breath by enjar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is no way that 3d printing will hold a candle to "mainstream manufacturing". Many manufactured parts are made very quickly, and at scale. If you take common plastic molded part, they are likely to be running cycle times of under a minute and have multiple parts coming out of the mold simultaneously. Sure, the mold and the injection molding machine aren't cheap, but they can pound out a lot of copies of your plastic part for a long time and get the unit cost down really low. You will also get better surface finish and appearance than a 3d printed part, as well as having little or no waste (depending on mold design/part geometry) and very consistent material properties in your part.

    This doesn't even get into manufacturing things made out of metal. I know there are various cool 3d printers that are using lasers and other stuff to make metal parts, but that's not going to hold a candle to the manufacturing processes that give you many of the common metal things you use every day, or that you rely on every day (think of all the manufactured metal things in a car, bus, or even a bicycle).

    3d printing has a number of applications for one-off parts, prototyping and low volume work. It's definitely a great thing, the first company I worked for in the 90's paid out the nose for a Stratasys machine because they recognized the value of the tool for prototyping and getting to market faster -- but the 3d printer in no way would have ever made production parts. I'm sure people will dream up new and novel ways of using the technology, but it's going to be a long time before 3d printing ever supplants traditional volume manufacturing methods and techniques, if ever.

  8. Re:Mainstream form of manufacturing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Correct. And further, they'll never sell more than 640K of them...

  9. Re:3D printed goatse by rubycodez · · Score: 2

    you're all just digging a deeper hole for yourself

  10. Re:Mainstream form of manufacturing? by rubycodez · · Score: 2

    the prototyping space has had superior alternatives for over 20 years. the fad type 3D printers are toys, the real ones have been around for a loooong time

  11. just f*cking stop it by joss · · Score: 2

    How many non-news articles can you possibly print about 3d printing.

    I worked for 3d systems in the 90s, it was fun and vaguely novel back then. I have been hearing about this stuff like its the next new thing for over 2 decades, and what are the fantastic advances we've had during that time.. no, don't tell me, please, seriously, don't. We don't get 5 articles a week about virtual reality, or jetpacks, or flying cars,

    --
    http://rareformnewmedia.com/
  12. Re:Mainstream form of manufacturing? by bkmoore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    3d printing will _never_ be a mainstream form of manufacturing.

    First of all, mainstream manufacturing uses multiple manufacturing methods, such as milling, casting, forging, deep drawing, injection moulding, stamping, bending, etc. You use the best method for the application and desired quality and quantity. At best 3D printing could supplement traditional manufacturing methods, such as for making custom parts in very low quantities. But the idea that 3D printing could be a viable alternative for several or most traditional methods is ludicrous and a sign that a lot of 3D fans don't really understand manufacturing and have spent too much time in design studios and too little on the factory floor.