Ann, this is a sign of a maturing industry. I am sure there are technology improvements ahead, but that will take larger scale. The devices are also getting larger and more capable. I saw one at a shop I thought was a toy. The case was wood, like an old pinball or pachinko machine. It works fine, but looks tentative, shall we say.
People also underestimate the cost and importance of marketing and distribution.
Not only does smaller and more affordable help design teams with in-house rapid proto-typing, it also helps small businesses, and inventors. I can't wait until I get one, already have several items to print.
I really like Origo's small for kids/everyone 3D printer. I followed the "Origo" link and shared it with several children. I'm guessing this will be on a wish list soon.
I for one think that it is fantastic that companies in this arena are merging. As you mentioned, this is a relatively new technology. Often, new technologies will spawn many small companies - all paying high overhead and incurring major expenses to bring their product to market. In our own company, we have been researching 3D printers but can't justify the high prices. Through university programs, I have gained extensive knowledge of the Objet line of printers and can attest that they create some of the finest quality "prints" - the resolution is incredible and the medium options are extensive. Many companies however, often can't justify the high expense of these systems - often in the 6 figure range (plus medium and maintenance). By merging companies and maturing the technology, prices are sure to come down and make this equipment much more commonplace in engineering, research, and design.
You stated in your article that the two companies will remain much as they were before. Still, I look forward to seeing any new products that they produce during the next few years. With what seems to be exponential growth in the quality and quantity of printers on the market, it is a very exciting time for this field.
@A.Peeples: I agree with you completely. I think that the ability to consolidate sales and marketing arms and potentially leverage some internal R&D expenditures can help the combined companies--this one, Stratasys and Objet--and the other big merged player--3D Systems and ZCorp--really push the technology to the next level and get the price down on more consumer-friendly offerings. I think we are just at the tip of the iceberg of what's possible.
Stratasys is doing the buying and their Co-Founder and CEO Scott Crump will become chairman of the combined company, but the CEO is an Objet guy--David Reis. The board has four representatives from each company, so ... even though Stratasys bought, it sounds like both are surviving--for now, any way.
I loved our Objet printer that we had at our company. I agree with A.Peeples, it was tough to beat Objet for the finely detailed and beautiful models that we would get out of it. Also, the material properties were a relatively good representation of typical flexural properties we would see in the final production part. One very important thing to note is the ease of cleaning and maintenance (which I think many people overlook when purchasing 3D printers). As long as the printheads were quickly cleaned after every job, it was very reliable. Also, washing the part down with water after is was removed from the machine was done with relative ease.
Yes, it was expensive and we tried to be prudent when making models...but it was a great machine and served our department very well. Glad to see Objet partnering with another complimentary player.
@Greg: Thanks for the real world perspective on use of these products and their various strengths. Your point about the cleaning and maintenance of these machines is important. I've talked to other users who mentioned the same thing. While computers and office printers need maintenance, I believe it's a big more extreme with these 3D printers, especially when you're using them as a tool to create functional parts to highly specified tolerances. As you point out, it definitely needs to be a factor in the evaluation process to see if A) your organization has what it takes to support a 3D printer so it can be used effectively, and B) which 3D printer is the best fit for the constraints of your engineering department.
Yes Beth, well said. To build on your point, for the Z-Corp machine we had a dedicated technician who was specifically trained on operation and maintainence. For the Objet, operation and maintenance was simple enough where any of the engineers could perform these duties. When purchasing these systems, it's good to factor in how much human resource time each type of machine will require.
@Greg: So your company had a dedicated techician just to support the 3D printer maintenance? Is that all he or she did? That strikes me as a huge investment that companies need to consider when going down this path.
@Beth, Sorry I wasn't more specific. I meant to say that only this technician was qualified to operate this machinery (the others in the department did not operate this Z-Corp machine). He did many, many other things during the day and operation and maintenance of the Z-Corp machine was only a small part of his day (so a full-time technician was not needed). However, when we wanted to get parts, we had to go through him, so his presence at the office was needed.
In retrospect, it would have been better to train 2 or more on this machine to solve this issue. However, as I mentioned earlier, operating and maintaining the Z-Corp machine was more involved than using and maintaining the Objet printer (so we tended to use the Objet machine more when he was not at the office).
Also wanted to mention Z-Corp's strengths too. We used this process and found it did a very good job of quickly making manufacturing and inspection fixtures for our new product assemblies (in addition to creating the actual components themselves). This process was better for simulating large, rigid parts such as die castings or machined plates.
Due to the dust creating nature of this process, we had to put this equipment in a separate room, away from other delicate machinery. However, the Z-Corp process was a good, cost-effective option when making larger rigid parts. I think their partnership with 3D will also work well and produce some good synergies.
Prosthetic limbs and other artificial body parts have come a long way in the last 10 to 20 years, and many on the market and under development today can restore nearly the same functions as the human body parts they’re replacing, or even improve them.