eafpres, thanks for your comments. I agree, SLS printers for metals (there are also versions used with plastics) will not be available anytime soon for small jobs and prototyping. That said, I reported this precisely because it shows that metal production parts are possible and actually being achieved, something that many people don't yet believe, probably because they think 3D printing means applications like making your own plastic jewelry.
When the only fast modeling choice was SLAs and the equipment to do them was expensive, service companies jumped in.
When more technologies came along (SLS, etc.) they upgraded first and offered more services.
There surely is a spot where the same companies offering proto plastic parts etc. will jump in and offer metal parts, before the use of the machines becomes widespread.
We are a long way from an SLS printer on every desktop, so there is plenty of room in the market.
I've been critical of all the loose uses of definitions of 3D printing to the point it has become an overused buzz term. Trade press has glorified misguided attempts to "go to production" becuase everyone is so excited. Well, printing Ti that is as good or better than a cast and annealed part makes it for real. There are definitely applications for either proof of design, early entry into validation (think of all the things you need to validate in automotive or aerospace that require "production intent" parts), or one or a few offs (say, F1 race teams, satellite builders, the LHC, etc.--big budget, only need 1 or 10, would like to be able to change late, etc.).
This one has my vote--the price will be determined by the market.
The possible trend I asked a rhetorical question about was very specific: whether makers of high-end, industrial metals 3D printing machines would release smaller, simpler versions for universities, as this company has. Whether they will or not--and whether this therefore becomes a trend--remains to be seen. Regarding MIT's work, the link you gave goes to another comment you made, but not to MIT's work. Can you give us links to their work?
This isn't the start of a trend, in the true definition of the word. I've mentioned here before that MIT is working on digitizing materials and assemblage as the next generation of AM and 3D technology.
It's a progression of a much larger trend. How soon will we be able to say "Tea, Earl Grey hot" in a posh British accent and have it appear? I don't know....
(I'm pretty sure that EVERYONE here gets the Star Trek reference)
Aside from where the technology came from, the other big difference here is the materials. This is metals, not plastics. They are not made for consumer applications, not likely available in small quantities, and sure as heck aren't cheap.
Yes, but...prices coming down as volumes go up doesn't usually happen as fast in the industrial/commercial sector as it does in consumer products, and especially as it does in electronics. We've have all been trained to think in terms of high-volume consumer electronics, and that model simply doesn't apply to non-electronic, non-consumer products, technologies and markets.
What should be the perception of a product’s real-world performance with regard to the published spec sheet? While it is easy to assume that the product will operate according to spec, what variables should be considered, and is that a designer obligation or a customer responsibility? Or both?
Biomimicry has already found its way into the development of robots and new materials, with researchers studying animals and nature to come up with new innovations. Now thanks to researchers in Boston, biomimicry could even inform the future of electrical networks for next-generation displays.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.