XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics, sci.electronics.design
In sci.physics Jeff Findley wrote:
> In article , jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
> says...
>>
>> In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
>> > "David Mitchell" wrote in message
>> > news:r5mdnSw3tNBsJvjEnZ2dnUU78S_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>> >>
>> >>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >>> In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote:
>> >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>> OK, what "stuff" would people be making at home?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Jewellry, utilities, tools, gadgets.
>> >>>
>> >>> Could you be any more vague?
>> >>
>> >>Yes. Yes I could.
>> >>
>> >>Things. People will make things. All of the things.
>> >
>> > I suspect 3D printing at home will be as successful as the personal
>> > computer. I mean everyone knows they're useless at home and we'll only
need
>> > a few major mainframes.
>>
>> Personal computer use in the home is dropping with increased use of smart
>> phones for those important tasks such as posting on twitter and facebook.
>
> The original point was that the original "personal computers" were
> hideously expensive, very hard to use, and didn't do a whole lot. There
> absolutely were a lot of people who said "I'll never need one of those"
> back in the early 1980s. Yet they can be found (in desktop or laptop
> form) in the vast majority of houses in the US because the price
> dropped, they became much easier to use, and they could do a lot more
> (i.e. high speed Internet versus acoustic modems and BBSes),
>
> Besides, smart phones prove the point AGAIN! When the original Apple
> iPhone came out, it didn't have it's "killer app" which was the App
> Store, so the orignal wasn't terribly functional. On top of that, cell
> data service at the time was slow, slow, slow, so even surfing the
> Internet was painful with these new "smart phones". But again, the
> majority of phones I see today are now "smart phones". They're cheaper,
> more functional (more apps), and the cell data networks are quite good
> these days.
>
> New technologies keep getting cheaper and more accessible for
> individuals to use all the time! It's a pretty safe bet that the very
> same thing will happen with 3D printing.
New technologies will not make aluminum or plastic cheaper.
Printing speed is limited by basic physics.
Most people can not be bothered to make their own bread or biscuits on
equipment they already own.
3D printers for home use are already less than $200; how many people do
you know that have one?
>> > Which reminds me, I need to tell my friends who own 3D printers and
> printing
>> > parts to fix things at homes, tools, and tool holders and all manner of
>> > things that I never would have thought of myself that they're wrong and no
>> > one will effectively use a 3D printer at home.
>>
>> How many people do you know that own 3D printers?
>
> That's today. We're talking about the trending of the technology.
The trending of the technology for home use is anybodies guess; my guess
is that it will be trivial and hobbiests just like the people that own
machinery like drill presses and milling machines.
>> I know about a dozen people that own things like welders, milling machines,
>> drill presses, and lathes but no one that owns a 3D printer.
>>
>> > Honestly, it's pretty damn presumptuous to claim that there's no future to
>> > 3D printing at home. I suspect 10-20 years from now we'll be laughing at
>> > such claims. Like computers, it will continue to improve. It'll get
faster,
>> > more capable, capable of using more materials, etc.
>>
>> Since no one in this thread has made that claim, your post is nonsense.
>
> That sure as hell seems to be what you're arguing.
Maybe to the typical internet generation knee jerker that immediately
responds with anger and bile to what he THINKS was said as opposed to
what was actually said.
--
Jim Pennino
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
