A couple weeks ago, I was curious to read yet another article about the much-heralded 3D printer revolution, "Crystal Ball Gazing: Amazon and 3D Printing." Only later did I realize that my skepticism from the outset betrayed my own confirmation bias that any remotely bibliocentric 3D printing story is based on the fallacious premise that ABS extruders will someday be as commonplace as inkjet printers. I happen to share TechCrunch columnist Jon Evans' opinion that additive manufacturing will not reprise the rise of 2D printing: 3D printing is not just 2D printing with another dimension added on. Yes, the names are very similar, but their uses are not even remotely analogous. We may reasonably conclude, therefore, that 1) 3D printing will not recapitulate the history of 2D printing, 2) as soon as you make an argument along those lines you lose all credibility and look like an idiot.
Evans' rant is a fair assessment to be sure, but it has little to do with the gist of the opinion piece, which postulated that Amazon is uniquely positioned to pioneer an on-demand 3D printing business model. VC Theodore F. di Stefano writes: I'm not sure if Amazon would venture into manufacturing, but we do have a new industrial revolution on our hands today... Why would Amazon be interested in 3D printing? My guess that Amazon might be interested is because it is currently adding warehouses throughout the United States with a not-so-long-term goal of being able to offer same-day delivery to its customers. With warehouses strategically located throughout the country, it would be able to set up 3D printing facilities within them, thus making three-dimensional products (manufactured products) conveniently available to major population centers.
From the outset, di Stefano clearly states that he admires Amazon not for selling boatloads of books but for extending its business model to include virtually every consumer product imaginable, and for investing in physical infrastructure in kind, citing their network of warehouses as a viable spaces for local fabrication. Jeff Bezos' billion-dollar idea, after all, has far surpassed its original domain of books, and as a web company that deals in physical inventory, Amazon's economy of scale marks a unique opportunity for distributing 3D-printed white label products... assuming, of course, it's profitable. This, of course, is di Stefano's hypothesis, where Amazon is less a bastion for publishing (2D or three) and more a massive online marketplace.
And to bring the argument full circle, design veteran Kevin Quigley actually made a similar point in an excellent essay contra blind optimism regarding 3D printing for the masses (which I've referred to before). Quigley recapitulates a personal history of digital fabrication to arrive at the conclusion that 3D printing will never be efficient (read: inexpensive) enough to come anywhere near the adoption rates of 2D printers. Rather, he speculates that the technology might be best suited for a megaretailer like IKEA... reaffirming di Stefano's case for Amazon.
Yet Evans' point stands:...use cases, adoption rates, economic impact, etc., will be nothing like those of the 2D printers you know and love (or, more likely, hate). Yes, even though the names are so similar... please stop using that ridiculous and thoroughly inaccurate analogy.
In this sense, Amazon's unmatched scale is precisely why it doesn't make sense for them to pursue 3D printing—the technology is best suited to small batches of niche or otherwise custom production runs. A far-reaching distribution network is not perquisite; rather, accessibility is paramount.
Which leads us back to Phillip Torrone's suggestion that we ought to "rebuild and retool public libraries and make 'TechShops,'" per the title of a March 2011 blogpost on Make. "To me, public libraries—the availability of free education for all—represent the collective commitment of a community to their future... a commitment to educating the next generation. [As such,] the role of a public library should also adapt over time, and that time is finally here." While reality has been slow to catch on—Make subsequently noted that Cleveland listened, as did Reno; we recently reported on Adelaide following suit—it's worth reading, as Torrone certainly makes a very thorough argument for repurposing the public stronghold of the printed word.
Nevertheless, other commentators remain skeptical: in a blogpost entitled "Could 3D Printing Save the Public Library System?," public library manager Ian Anstice assumes that the advent of 3D printing is a foregone conclusion:3D printers are going to be cheap. Really cheap. Cheap enough that everyone who wants one is going to have one. There'll be no need for libraries to provide them for the poor because everyone will own them, like the ubiquitous smartphone... Perhaps there was a time when it would have made sense for libraries, therefore, to provide 3D printers to the populace but that time has already effectively gone even before most of us were really aware of the possibility. 1
Hyperbole aside, we're right back where we started: that there may or may not be some deep connection between publishing in two dimensions and producing in three.2 Amazon may only be a superficial signifier for books, but the notion of 'rebuilding and retooling' public libraries points to a more fundamental question of the cultural value of information versus empirical objects, and how these things are created and consumed in kind. (NB: In the interest of time, I've refrained from perusing the 245 comments on Torrone's post, but I'm sure this issue crops up there.)
A more accurate analogy, perhaps, is that of an industrial revolution: although I'm ambivalent about the grand scope of this characterization, it's rather more true to the spirit of the paradigm shift.3 In a felicitous 'meta' twist, we recently wrote about Josh Harker's Anatomica di Revolutis, commemorating this very movement, and the three videos in the appendix of his project page are pitch-perfect vignettes about the so-called Third Industrial Revolution. (The unembeddable Economist clip covers a lot of the same ground as the Shapeways one, embedded below; check out Chris Yonge's 20+ minute TEDx Talk if you're curious to hear more.)
So when will 3D printing really catch on?4 Your humble editor invites you to sound off in the comments.
Create a Core77 Account
Already have an account? Sign In
By creating a Core77 account you confirm that you accept the Terms of Use
Please enter your email and we will send an email to reset your password.
Comments
Also, Metals can be 3d printed, and the parts can have properties comparable to cast parts. It is rad, but again, expensive.
This will have a big impact in mold design. Being able to print a metal mold for a plastic part might be competitive compared to other methods like spark erosion, and as an added bonus complex cooling channels can be designed into the mold that would not otherwise be manufacturable.
Consumers want actual products that you can use. The only products that consumers could have today would have to be made completely out of one material that happens to be "printable" (in one type of plastic or metal using EDM). Admittedly they could make a product out of more than one material if they were willing to assemble it. This poses two big problems, making products out of more than one material using a 3D printer and access to more printable materials. Until these problems are solved, I don't think we will have
The next issue is time. It take a long time for items to be made due to the setting time of the printed material and layered nature of the manufacturing process. This means it will take longer to produce a complex product from a 3D printer than it will be to ship it from an assembly line to your door. And if the manufacturing time of 3D printing is reduced then the structural integrity will be reduced to to the effect the the speed of cooling has on material properties.
The way I think 3D printing will be initially rolled out is for casings and enclosures. Consumers will be able to choose from a vast array of cases or enclosures for their given product, provided by designers or them. These cases will be made out of one material initially and be able to suit the consumers taste or space envelope. How many people will be bothered to find the perfect design that fits their personality and setting though?
Another will be for replacement parts. The public will be able to go to a replacement part supplier (in B&Q for example) to get a replacement part for a product that they have. Initially this could be for cooking hob dials for example. Product manufacturers would sell this as part of their guarantee "Replacement parts available at any B&Q" However as soon as the replacement parts are located deeper inside the machine a technician will be required to fix their machine.
I could go on and on about this topic as many of my friends could testify for. I find the 3D printing movement exiting for engineers and designers. We will have to rethink what is possible from a manufactured single part and how to implement this effectively into the products of the future.
People don't want to DESIGN all their own stuff. They want to get products that have already been designed and maybe make a few tweaks and customize it to themselves.
So I agree: the author doesn't seem to have much experience with 3D printers by himself, nor did he really bother to update his knowledge on the subject. It's only new technology skepticism, which is very common with scientists (and wide public). But anyway good read, some arguments are still interesting, when we put aside the completely incorrect stuffs.
When these can use something besides plastic (nanocellulose? Some kind of silk-derived material?) I'll be more enthused. But I look at desktop fabrication like desktop publishing, where just because you could use 64 fonts on a page doesn't mean you should. Just because we can make a raft of stuff from plastic doesn't mean we need it. I get the idea of replacement parts and keeping things running long past the manufacturer's interest but how does the need for replacement parts tie into short-term thinking/planned obsolescence or simple technological progress?
Maybe 3D fab extruders as a middle step, to create a mold from which real durable parts are made, is an alternate path. Or couple accessible milling equipment with high-tech ceramics where the worked material is not as difficult to work as metal but can be transformed into something of the same strength. But more plastic gewgaws are not what we need.
Has for the author, I think he has misgivings about the price of 3d printers and the price to run them, currently, one could build a extrusion deposition 3D printer with accuracy that is both improvable and useful(unless your trying to print mirrors without requiring rework) for under $500, the reprap's are the best example of this. Printing cost's about 15 cents per cubic inch vs what they cost years ago which was around $15, 3D printers will never be on the level that everyone will have one but it will be accesible enough that everyone, given some effort, can have one if they wanted one.
In that respects its similar to a library in that everyone has access to a large collection of books but not everyone has their own large collection of books.
replacement parts are great... but we live in a world where iphones will cost 25.00 in 5 years. and we just love to dump dead plastic and parts onto chinese landfills...
new materials.....? maybe.... and i blogged about Amazons possible interest in parts making the day of the investment made in makerbot...long tails for most products are a delusion of tech writers.... has anderson ever really been shown right a decade after any WIRED proclamation?... Im still invested in PUSH tech:)
strange change machines from 1971 anyone?... but then again, Hasbro/Disney is predicated on making 12" into 3.5 inchs every few years.....
just like nature;) ask old men.
designers, cheaper new tools await... just beware when the "wisdom of the crowd" decides they are a medium, not a hammer.