Will Lower 3D Printer Prices Aid Growth?
This guest article is written by A1 Technologies CEO Martin Stevens. London-based A1 sells the low-cost RapMan 3D printer, along with other low-cost 3D scanning and haptic touch modeling products.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of Martin Stevens. Also, factual content has not been independently verified. No payment has been made to or from Martin Stevens or A1 Technologies for the appearance of this guest article.
**********
Since the earliest origins of 3D Printing there have been many discussions, articles and reports generated about the ‘revolutionary potential' that this technology offers to the world at large, and more specifically, to the world of manufacturing. The technology emerged commercially more than 20 years ago when it was
|
|
However, in the last two decades, the technology, which encompasses numerous processes, has undergone significant developments that have seen the market itself grow extensively.
There can be no escaping the fact that the technology has been disruptive and offers many advantages to companies that employ it - reduced development time, reduced development costs, much faster time-to-market overall and greater design freedom are just some of the demonstrable benefits.
However, despite this, growth and widespread uptake has been relatively slow based on the perceptions that the technology itself has not fulfilled its potential and that it has remained financially prohibitive.
In reality, improvements to the technology have seen it exceed many of the original expectations, and the final frontier - that of cost - has been largely overcome, as competitive platforms can be bought for under £2000 ($3,250 USD).
All 3D Printing processes are based on the same principle - building parts additively, layer by layer, at the sub-millimetre scale. This is a very different approach to manufacturing parts and/or prototypes, when compared with the traditional methods of milling, moulding, casting or machining.
From the beginning, additive processes created a stir within product development circles, offering a revolutionary way to create prototypes that could be used for concept generation, reducing development times and offering a real competitive advantage.
Subsequent developments in the processes themselves and the materials that can be used have seen huge improvements in prototyping capability, allowing users to test the form, fit and function of their products as well as the emergence of a host of new applications such as rapid tooling, rapid casting, and the production of end use parts - additive manufacturing - eliminating costly tooling altogether.
As a result of the developments and growth of the additive manufacturing market, it has now fragmented somewhat, with two specific focus areas - processes that are dedicated to prototypes to radically improve product development and stimulate concept innovation, and processes dedicated to manufacturing and directly producing complex, repeatable components and products. This is reflected by some of the larger additive platform vendors that have restructured with separate divisions to focus on the different markets. Other vendors fit into one category or the other.
Today, the term 3D printing typically covers the prototyping market, but universally accepted terminology is still not in force.
Many of the original additive processes have become market leaders, namely stereolithography (SLA) from 3D Systems; laser sintering (LS) from EOS and 3D Systems; and fused deposition modeling (FDM) from Stratasys, with MTT, Arcam and Concept Laser contributing very competitive additive manufacturing systems more recently.
Needless to say, the competitive market landscape of 3D printing has changed dramatically over the last 20+ years - the success stories can be matched step for step by the demise of some of the other original vendors, together with a typical number of mergers and acquisitions.
Furthermore, the last two decades have also seen the emergence of other competitive 3D printing platform vendors, including Z Corporation, Objet Geometries, EnvisionTec, Sintermask, Solidscape, Solido and MCor Technologies.
The Holy Grail for the 3D Printing vendors is to develop a ‘one solution fits all' process, but as yet this does not exist, and in reality is unlikely to. To date, all of these processes each have advantages and disadvantages in terms of their working parameters for specific 3D printing applications based on accuracy, surface finish, speed, etc. For any (potential) user, comparing and contrasting is the best way to select the right process for a given application.
However, there is one disadvantage that all of these processes share - they all require a fairly hefty capital investment. Mid-range 3D printers cost in the region of £30,000 ($48,775 USD) - a price that would make any company think twice. Entry level 3D printers have generally been around the £10,000-15,000 ($16,260 - 24,390 USD) mark, still enough to warrant considerable budgetary debate.
Throughout 2008 and much of 2009 there was a great deal of talk about the emergence of a sub-£5000 ($8,130 USD) printer - with two primary contenders: one from Desktop Factory and also the V-Flash from 3D Systems.
Unfortunately, neither of these materialized on spec. Desktop Factory was unable to fulfill the considerable research and development it invested, and the company was bought by 3D Systems last year. 3D Systems did eventually launch its V-Flash platform, but it is currently retailing around £9000 ($14,630 USD).
But this is where it gets interesting. Early in 2009, A1 Technologies launched the RapMan 3D printer, a competitive, entry-level platform that is available in kit form for £750 ($1,220 USD) and a ready-built, sturdier platform for £2000 ($3,250 USD).
The reaction to the RapMan has been mixed - until people actually see it working, at which point they are impressed by its ability. Prior to seeing a RapMan, ironically, it is the price that seems to generate skepticism from a high proportion of people.
Another misperception is that the RapMan has been confused, both in the press and in general debate, with some of the (excellent) open source channels for developing accessible 3D printers, namely the RepRap and Fab@Home projects.
An easy-to-use, economical 3D printer is what this market has been waiting for, and we at A1 are pleased to offer it. History is likely to show that this is the key to unlocking the widespread commercial uptake of 3D printing.
Want to comment on this guest article? Visit our 3D Printer Forum.
Want to read more? Visit our 3D Printer Archive.
Posted by admin on Tuesday, 26-Jan-2010 13:56 PM
Interview: Objet Continues to Grow, Innovate
If you were to source the 3D printer that has the best combination of material selection, office compatibility, and part accuracy, performance and finish, you'd probably pick an Objet Geometries printer. The Israeli company is an innovation leader - owning over 50 patents and patents pending - and is the only company that offers a 3D printer that will perform multiple-material part building.
This month RapidToday interviewed Gilad Gans, Objet's executive vice president of marketing, sales and business development. Following is an edited transcript.
RapidToday: How much has Objet been growing in recent years?
Gans: Objet Geometries Ltd is a privately held company and as such we aren't at liberty to disclose our financials. We are proud to report that despite the difficult economic situation worldwide, we continue to be very strong financially. Our customers are spending their money differently in 2009 but overall we have seen an
 The Objet Connex500 uses a patented PolyJet Matrix technology to print multiple materials simultaneously |
RapidToday: Did Objet suffer much from the recent recession?
Gans: 2009 was a very challenging year for the 3D printing and rapid prototyping industry, and for Objet as well. Maintaining sales volumes and convincing our customers to focus on technologies and capabilities that would help them to position themselves better when the crises ends were major tasks.
In comparison to many others, Objet has suffered less as it has maintained a strong revenue stream from consumables, primarily from resins. While some segments have been using less resin, others have increased their resin consumption - ironically as a result of recessionary pressures - as they are using our solutions to save money. Doing more in-house prototyping decreases their ‘cost-of-error' and enables faster time to market - the two things that really matter during a recession.
RapidToday: How big is the company today?
Gans: Objet Geometries employs three hundred people across our seven locations worldwide.
RapidToday: What is the top ambition of Objet? Be the 3D printer unit volume leader? Transform product development and manufacturing? Introduce more 3D printer innovations than any of your competitors?
Gans: Objet's aim is to be recognized and respected as the premier provider of 3D printing solutions. We believe that the way to achieve this is to continue to leverage the high standard of quality that Objet is known for due to our PolyJet and PolyJet Matrix Technologies and to continue to develop new materials for use on all our platforms, across the board.
RapidToday: Who do you see as your biggest competitor? Z Corp? 3D Systems? Roland CNC? Someone else?
Gans: Every one of our competitors has a solution for niche segments of the broad market that we cover. However, we don't believe any of their offerings are as inclusive as our range of 3D printing solutions. We see the biggest challenge, not just for Objet but for all the players in our space, is to increase market awareness. As more and more businesses see the advantages that 3D printing can bring, all of us will be able to grow. There is ample room for all of us.
RapidToday: What 3D printer capability does your average customer most value? Multiple material printing? Model quality? Material selection? Something else?
Gans: PolyJet and PolyJet Matrix technologies offers value in different ways for many different segments. For example, while one industry may place a premium on model quality, another may be more focused on overmolding capabilities, and for another high accuracy might be the most important capability. The most important point here is that Objet provides value to all of these segments, from automotive, toys, equipment, sporting goods, education, and medical, to industrial, defense and jewelry and many more.
RapidToday: Does Objet have much luck selling 3D printers in low-labor-cost countries like China and India?
Gans: The value of Objet 3D printing solutions is in their high quality and advanced capabilities that other technologies can not provide, rather than in a low price offering. While we do have a number of high end solutions, it is important to note that we also have affordable smaller size printers, such as the Alaris30 Desktop 3D Printer and the Eden250 3D printer.
It is noteworthy that in countries traditionally considered to very cost-sensitive, like China and India, our solutions are valued precisely because of their quality and capabilities and our unit sales are high. In fact, China is our third largest customer in terms of units sold.
RapidToday: If a company employs a full-time model maker, how quickly would you anticipate they would get payback by replacing him and buying an Objet machine?
Gans: We are proud that in almost every instance the return-on-investment for using an Objet 3D printing system is quick. We hear back from customers who report that after approximately three months the cost of the machine has been fully recouped by savings and/or increased business.
RapidToday: Do some customers use Objet 3D printers for low volume manufacturing?
Gans: Yes, companies who do low volume manufacturing also benefit from Objet 3D printers. The range of applications is very wide, including silicone molding and rapid tooling. In fact, one of our strongest competitive advantages is the post-processing capabilities our models offer, which enable sanding, painting, metal coating and more. The wide variety of materials within the FullCure® family enables low-volume manufacturing of parts that would use different types of rigid and flexible elastomers, with varied hardness values.
RapidToday: Does Objet use a similar business model as 2D printer manufacturers - sell the machine at cost or near cost, and earn the profit on the sale of resin?
Gans: This model is not being used in the 3D printing industry and most, if not all, companies depend on their machine sales for profit generation.
RapidToday: Does being headquartered in Israel give Objet an advantage over other 3D printer manufacturers?
Gans: Being headquartered in Israel enables us to take advantage of the special skill sets in a wide array of engineering and science fields that are available here. Israel has a huge pool of professionals with experience in inkjet technology, algorithms, chemistry, mechanics and software who work at a very high level. So yes, I believe our location gives us an advantage.
RapidToday: Do you plan to open a South America or Australia office?
Gans: We are continuing opening local offices where we see the need and the benefit. Recently we opened offices in Mexico, Japan and increased our presence in China.
RapidToday: What do customers want Objet to work on next? Lower cost of printers or material? More capability? Better usability? More materials? Something else?
Gans: All these things are wanted by different segments. We believe that our customers would like to see us work on all of the above and we are even recruiting people with experience in varied markets to better understand and tailor solutions for specific segments.
RapidToday: What percent of sales goes back into R&D? What R&D is Objet currently working on?
Gans: We plan to continue investing heavily in infrastructure and R&D to help drive our ongoing growth. Over the next year or so we will be developing new products in our Eden and Connex families of 3D printers, as well as new model materials -- all designed to meet our customer's changing needs and take advantage of emerging opportunities.
RapidToday: Where does the name Objet come from?
Gans: combination of "object" and "jet". The "jet" part of the name refers to the jetting of the Objet materials, similar to the way inks are jetted in an inkjet document printer.
Want to comment on this interview? Visit our 3D printing forum.
Want to read more? Visit our 3D printing archive.
Posted by admin on Monday, 30-Nov-2009 20:36 PM
STL 2.0 May Replace Old, Limited File Format
Since soon after it was developed, people in the rapid prototyping field have talked about replacing the industry-standard STL file format. Yet it has endured for 22 years.
Still, the pressure for change builds. And now there is a mechanism that may allow it to happen. The ASTM Committee on Additive Manufacturing Standards (F42) had its first meeting in July, and agreed to form a task group to recommend a new file format standard, dubbed STL 2.0.
 The ASTM process may allow for the replacement of the STL file format |
As Lipson tells it, STL endured so long for one reason: it's not over-complicated. "The beauty of it is it's very very simple," he says. "You can code it up very quickly and you can read or write to it very simply. For years, simplicity outweighed any other drawbacks, but the balance is beginning to change."
Now, with the advancing capability of additive fabrication systems, simple isn't sufficient anymore, and the problem is growing. "There are new technological capabilities that the format doesn't address," Lipson says. He notes the "obvious" new needs (multiple materials, color, microstructure requirements) as well as "more subtle" ones:
- Better accuracy in representing curved surfaces
- Surface texturing requirements
- Buildability verification (leak patching)
- Inclusion of metadata (e.g. authorship and copyright information)
The STL file format doesn't just lack these capabilities, it also has a few inherent problems: file size is excessive, file security is limited, and it can't detect or fix errors (especially unintended holes) in the part to be built.
Origins
The STL format was developed by the Albert Consulting Group (Albert-Battaglin Consulting Group today) for 3D Systems in 1987 for moving 3D CAD models to its stereolithography apparatus (SLA) machines. STL files use linked triangle facets to describe the surface geometry of a three dimensional object. The STL format allows for both ASCII and (smaller) binary representations. STL is an acronym of Standard Tessellation Language.
Over the years, a number of companies and individuals have proposed changing the standard, but to no avail. Instead, system manufacturers have developed their own proprietary standard to optimize the capability of their equipment. Z Corporation uses ZPR, a file format that accommodates properties such as color and texture. Objet Geometries uses its ObjDF format for its multi-part multi-material Connex 3D printers.
Of course, a whole software and service industry has grown up around repairing and otherwise manipulating STL files. Software packages include the Materialise Magics RP suite, SYCODE's OpenRP, Virtual Grid's VRMesh Design, TransMagic's STL PRO, and Robert McNeel & Associates' Rhino, among others.
This industry, combined with STL-based software investments made by hardware manufacturers, has created a constituency that is invested in the status quo. "The biggest challenge is reaching a consensus and adoption by industry," concedes Lipson.
Input
To help generate consensus, Lipson is soliciting input via an online survey and discussion group. He plans to keep the survey up for "a couple months."
RapidToday talked to Lipson one week after the launch of the survey. Already, he had received 130 completed surveys. "The response is better than I was hoping for," he says.
Following a quick review of the results so far, Lipson noticed a top concern for the new format: It should be a non-proprietary open format. "Making it open format will make it future-proof," Lipson says. "It will be something that can grow and can be backwards and forwards compatible."
He also adds a personal opinion: "Keeping it simple is key."
Lipson plans to present the results of the survey November 9-10, 2009 at the Committee on Additive Manufacturing Standards meeting at ASTM International headquarters in West Conshohocken, PA. From there, he hopes to have a draft out by March, 2010, followed by two months of discussion, and a finalization by mid-2010.
"In terms of developing code, we'll see if someone on the task force will volunteer to do it," Lipson says. The group has about 20 members.
Want to comment on this article? Visit our Rapid Prototyping Forum.
Want to read more? Visit our Rapid Prototyping Archive.
Posted by admin on Friday, 30-Oct-2009 12:30 PM
> GIS 3D Printing Made Easier With Software
> New Online Marketplace for RP & RM Debuts
> Advances Made in Mega Freeform Construction
> Additive Companies Run Production Parts