Actually it is in the list under “online creation tools for users which interact with all the above”. Maybe the ratio will change, but lots of social services are easy to use in itself and that is where they see this ratio. I think that a lot of users are less interested in the creation or modification aspect of content and rather are passive in their usage. Now if passive means they just buy what is out there, it is not bad in itself.

Of course Shapeways mission is to enable anybody to do personal fabrication. We do not know how it will pan out. Maybe the ratio will change or maybe not. Let’s see.

Where you go wrong in your reasoning is in your definition. You define the rule as “Let’s define the steps as 100% browse 3d printed goods, 10% buy 3d printed goods, and 1% make 3d printed goods.”.

I would define it as: 100% buy, 10% modifies existing designs, 1% creates new designs.

In my last paragraph I actually hinted that it will change over time, because the demographics of the internet will change. I agree that better tools will engage a larger group of users. Time will tell.

And Thingieverse is an example of a repository for sharing between ‘consumer/users’ and between user and designer.

Be interesting to know the ratio of the consumer/user sector to the groups you have listed and how this will change (increase/decrease) in the future.

Let’s define the steps as 100% browse 3d printed goods, 10% buy 3d printed goods, and 1% make 3d printed goods.

First, the 10% will likely increase to 50% or 75% as the industry grows and buying a 3d printed good is as seamless as buying a SKU at Walmart.com or Walmart retail. This would be further aided if Amazon, for example, gets into the business of selling 3d printed goods.

Second, the 1% will likely increase to 10% with a combination of globalization and design software becoming easier. 

Globalization: 3d design of consumable goods will become a mainstream profession for people in developing countries, especially India and China, if there is an efficient marketplace for them to sell their designs.

Software enablement: How many people use Photoshop? Only professionals and hobbyists. But how many people use MS Paint? I would wager a decent size of the population who have computers have dabbled in MS Paint. If 3d design software is made to be as easy as MS Paint to create real, valuable 3d printed objects, the creation will increase. We are already seeing steps in that direction with Autodesk 123D and other tools.

The implication is that not only are there more designers and more purchasers, but a greater volume of 3d printed goods purchased, making the overall size of this industry quickly a multi-billion opportunity in the next five years.

Would you agree?

http://on3dprinting.com

I expect a transition phase to occur where products are assembled from 3D printed components and mass-produced components. At some point the balance will tip towards local manufacturing and assembly.

Thanks for your reply. For a simple product like an iPhone case, I totally agree with what you’re saying. But how about for an iPhone itself? The complexity of such a product changes the arguments, I think. The argument for local manufacturing, for instance, becomes much more complicated when the product is a complex assembly.

Matt

Let’s assume you are making an iphone case. The next version of the iphone has a slightly different dimensions. The adaption of the design can be quite simple. The durability and applicability of the design has already been proven in a previous iteration. So a trial run of 1 or 2 can suffice to validate the design. With 3D printing that is easy.

In my vision 3D printing makes it possible to a) manufacture on demand and b) manufacture locally. This will simplify the whole supply chain. Also see my other post on that topic.

Of course there are barriers to overcome. CE and FCC certifications are a great example. But I am confident that they will adapt over time.

The level of effort for designing iterations versus batch sizes will have an impact on the gross margin of a product. It will depend per product type what makes sense. It is hard to generalize across the board on this, but I do feel strongly that 3D printing as a manufacturing technology makes it possible to do so.

Thanks for the feedback!

I totally agree with your closing comments, that 3D Printing “allows for quick iterations of designs and enables sharing or reuse of
product designs. Designers can cooperate more closely with customers on
the product design and can quickly react on changes in the market or
environment.” Those are the things that excite me, as a designer, about the growth of these technologies. But with my pragmatic head on I see some issues with some of your statements…

You show a six-stage product creation process, and rightly say that the process is long. But how much time does 3D Printing save? Assuming that a manufacturer already uses 3D printing technologies in the Prototyping phase, the only place you save time is in the Manufacturing phase. Stages 1, 2 ,3, 5 and 6 still take the same amount of time, at least until the ‘download a file and print it at home’ scenario becomes a reality. Plus, as you say, where 3D printing excels is in low volume production runs. But for anything other than small cosmetic changes, each new product will have to go through stages 1, 2 and 3 again. So designing and manufacturing 100 pieces of 100 different designs is probably going to take a lot longer than 10,000 of 1 single design.

I’m not sure about the Lean Product Design model either. Perhaps for very simple products – a vase maybe? But for anything more complex, no way is a manufacturer going to move to the Manufacture and Distribute phases without going through the Prototyping and Test phases. And there’s also the (legally unavoidable) Approval phase – CE, FCC etc. Lean Product Design works for software (though you only have to look at the anger sparked by a game that’s poorly tested before launch to see it’s not the best way to generate brand loyalty), but for physical products? I’m not sure, but I’d like to hear your thoughts…

All the best,
Matt