

How a new manufacturing technology will change the world - charbonnelb
http://www.economist.com/node/18114327

======
krschultz
I've seen this column written about a thousand times. I just don't think any
of the authors have really worked with a 3D printer hands on.

I'm a mechanical engineer designing products on a daily basis. We have a
(really good) 3D printer and pump out amazing models all the time. Our's uses
a fairly strong plastic and allows for things like moving linkages and very
fine detail. The models are an amazing aid to communication and design. But
ultimately they won't change our manufacturing process - the materials are too
weak for our needs. So we make prototypes out of plastic and then the actual
manufacturing run will be metal.

That really points out the problem with these columns that suggest 3D Printers
are about to drastically change manufacturing. These 3D printers are only
really a manufacturing revolution to people pumping out plastic (or weak
powdered metal) products in low volumes (<1,000 units) and sizes between a few
mm and meter or two cube. That actually doesn't cover a whole lot of products
- the unit numbers are the thing that rules out most things you would think
of.

3D Printers are great in the design phase - but a contractor like Shapeways
will ultimately benefit the most from that.

Actual manufacturing of products was disrupted far more by CNC control.
Truthfully a 3D Printer for all it's fancy tech is just an extension of CNC
machining into building up from scratch instead of cutting down from stock.

CNC changed everything. You can CNC machine shapes that would have just been
impossible before, on a size scale that no 3D printer today can match. You can
use any material, and you replace REALLY SKILLED labor (a machinist) with a
machine. That was dramatic. The 3D printer is just small potatoes compared to
the change that has already happened over the last 30 years.

~~~
iandanforth
I must respectfully disagree.

I take your central argument to be: "3D printers won't ultimately change our
manufacturing process."

I take your main points to be: 1. The materials are weak and thus unsuitable
for most products and 2. The efficiencies of scale of traditional
manufacturing trump 3D printers in runs above 1k units.

Today your first point is true, however I use 3D printed parts as structural
components in my robots and they are sound. I suspect in general material
strength will increase until it meets the demands of how people want to use
it. I hope you wouldn't make the argument that it _can't_ increase in
strength. There will always be material properties that can't be replicated in
a fabber, but I do not know how many products in my life need these advanced
properties.

Your second point ignores the decentralized nature of 3D printing. In total,
yes, it will always be less efficient. But imagine a world where an Apple
product launch means access to a new fabber file. Everyone in the world with a
fabber could download and print the new product ... at the same time. No
centralized manufacturing and distribution network could match that.

Some additional hurdles you don't mention: Material cost. $6 a cubic inch (my
costs today) are really quite high. Material diversity. I need multiple
materials for many objects I'd like to print. Speed. It takes _hours_ to print
something of moderate size. If I can pop over to a store and get the same item
manufactured in the traditional way, I probably will.

Finally, if by any chance, someone reading this comment hasn't read "The
Diamond Age" by Stephenson, please do yourself a favor and pick up a copy.

~~~
grannyg00se
"imagine a world where an Apple product launch means access to a new fabber
file. Everyone in the world with a fabber could download and print the new
product ... at the same time. "

I can't imagine an Apple product that can be printed. Maybe you could print a
plastic copy of the enclosure for the product, but what you'd have in your
hand is a essentially a plastic design prototype. Which 3D printers are great
for. But how would you print the PCB, copper traces, pcb components, battery,
lcd display...etc.

------
nextparadigms
We need to stop thinking like everyone needs a "job", like a factory job or
being an employee of a huge corporation. Just because 80-90% of the working
population does that today, doesn't mean that's always been the case or that
it should always be the case. The Internet and decentralized businesses like
the ones enabled by 3D printing will help create a lot of entrepreneurs in the
future.

People need to think more in terms of how do I use the "cheap labor" (whether
by people, or automatized) to create my own business, and less in terms of
"let's ban cheap labor to protect our current jobs".

That being said, we should probably expect some new SOPA-like IP laws
supported by the big manufacturing companies that will want to "save jobs" and
make such technologies illegal.

------
masonhensley
Back while I was in undergrad, I interned for the VPs of engineering,
manufacturing and sourcing at a US consumer products company. (None of them
ever had an intern so I convinced them to reduce risk by sharing me.) Anyways,
the company I worked for relied heavily on contract manufacturing in China. I
was able to help encourage getting more prototypes printed here in the US for
evaluation instead of waiting for the factories to tool prototypes and saved
the company a bundle. The company lost a bunch of time and money shipping
prototypes back and forth before they could even get to the production
sampling stage.

I don't think that 3d printing is going to revolutionize manufacturing in the
US. If 3d printing revolutionized anything it will be product design.
Empowering designers to experiment and try new things without the fear of
having to retool the factory is going to produce some cool stuff in the
future.

------
pragmatic
Paper printers today are far from flawless. They consume a good portion of IT
time (in companies and for those of us who are the family tech support).

I'm a tad skeptical of a universal printer. The reliability to print anything
of a complex nature (beyond simple plastic molds) is a major concern.

Doing this at scale (putting this in each persons home) is a nice idea, I just
don't think it's reliable enough.

I hope I'm wrong.

Somewhat related: Some of Vigor Vinge's touch on the problem of the "universal
assembler" and how humanity couldn't substitute a universal assembler for a
specialist economy.

~~~
URSpider94
Beyond that, there's the problem of creating items to be printed, or even of
modifying existing items. For the most part, the proliferation of laser
printers and inkjet printers into homes has led to the creation of a lot of
disastrous-looking fliers with horrible fonts and banded,posterized, poorly
color-controlled photographs that quickly fade to blue.

Think for a minute about the photo-finishing industry. In theory, almost every
home with a computer and digital camera also has an inkjet printer capable of
producing photos. In practice, by the time you get the printer set up and
properly calibrated, buy the right paper from the store, and finish color-
correcting your images, it STILL COSTS MORE to print a snapshot at home than
it does to get it made by the local Target or Wal-Mart. The exception is for
pro or semi-pro artists who are printing canvas wraps or large-scale
enlargements, in which case the investment on a large-format inkjet becomes
pretty substantial.

The problem with the "maker proliferation" theory of society is that not
everyone wants to be a maker -- in fact, I'd argue that not even 10% of people
want to be makers. This is what the One Laptop Per Child project ultimately
found out -- even most curious children don't really want to hack their
computers, or build their own word processor.

If we end up with 3D printers in every home, I can guarantee that for the most
part, we'll end up with a lot of crappy, expensive Christmas ornaments and
paperweights.

~~~
gfodor
Think farther. Photos aren't a good example, since it's only one type of thing
you're creating, and you don't create them that often. This is more meta: it's
a device to create a wide variety of things, that you will likely be creating
often. One can imagine a world where the entire setup is simply a service,
like internet access, where the owner can partake in any balance of
consumption or creation they desire.

------
shimon_e
If the theory behind this article was true then tube socks would be made in
your local store as opposed to some factory in China. If the socks business
can't leave the factory, why do people think 3D printed good will leave?

All this progress will lead to is Chinese factories having smaller workforces.
I visited a sock factory with a work force of a few thousand people producing
few million socks per day. When you get to such scales your biggest cost is
management oversight, which is why manufacturing is going to stay in large
factories.

~~~
shimon_e
No real need for me to bring in China and socks. The same would be true
photos, business cards, and books.

------
jdeibele
Shoes seemed like a bad example of what could be made with 3D printing. Even
with advances in the current technology it would seem difficult to make
something as flexible as shoe leather.

The same is true of clothing, curtains, etc.

It does seem reasonable to go after Ikea: break something on your dresser or
desk? Use your own fabricator to print a replacement or get one tomorrow from
Kinko's (or the equivalent)

