[steveklabnik]

The biggest thing that people forget when dreaming about 3D printers is that it doesn't making something from nothing: the materials have to come from somewhere.

Even once we get a printer that's easy enough for 'normal' people to use (hard) and a way for them to design the prints that go in the machine (hard) and we make them small and reliable enough that it's acceptable for normal people (hard) you _still_ have to have a big vat of plastic or whatever lying around, and feed it into the machine.

We've got a long way to go before 'a printer in every home' is reality, if it ever does.

My thoughts: it's like water. A big pipe of raw materials. Just imagine how long that'd take...

[rmc]

Even once we get a printer that's easy enough for 'normal' people to use (hard) and a way for them to design the prints that go in the machine (hard)

People won't be designing things themselves, they'll be downloading files and then pressing 'print' on their computer. It's like how people share funny pictures, links get sent around and viewed.

[Kliment]

Some of us are already doing that. Check thingiverse.com for example.

[Retric]

Reminds me of The Diamond Age aproximate quote "The windows where made of diamond, because as a simple carbon structure it was cheaper than glass".

[rbranson]

I think we are moving away from ownership and towards a more utility/service-oriented society, so I don't think a 3D printer in every home will ever become a reality.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

Why do you say this? I haven't seen anything that leads to believe that it's the case.

[KiwiNige]

These guys are working on it: http://reprap.org

An open source 3d printer design with the goal being to use it to print all the parts for then next printer.

[marshray]

It may be the problem is that we end up with too many of these things self-replicating all over the place like rabbits!

[marshray]

That's what IBM once thought about computers too.

[rbranson]

I don't think this is comparable. There is a large difference in dynamics between the utilization of a computer and that of a 3D printer. I would argue that IBM was largely right -- the vast majority of consumers do not use their computer in the way in which IBM intentioned to speak, as a calculator or database. Most of this work is performed as a utility and consumed over the Internet. The modern home computer provides something in functionality more resembling the telephone than a calculator.

The ONLY purpose of a 3D printer is to produce durable goods. Will there ever be a point at which an average consumer will need such a steady stream of durable goods that a dedicated 3D printer will become a necessity?

I don't need even need a home printer or copier really. The few times a year I actually need one, I can walk around the corner to a Kinko's or use the one at work. This also doesn't compare because a printed document is essentially a custom product designed by myself. And despite the prevalence of home printers, it's still vastly cheaper to print documents using mass production techniques. Unless I'm missing something, I don't see this changing, as durable goods are designed by domain experts and the mechanics behind economies of scale would apply even in the 3D printing realm.

Continued product convergence and ultimately nano-tech will further obsolete the necessity to have the large number of specialized, one-off durable goods required for the average household.

[Someone]

The ONLY purpose of a 3D printer is to produce durable goods.

Who says durable? The perfect printer is far away, but once you have one, you can get rid of a dishwasher and washing machine; you would just feed your printer the dirty stuff, and print whatever you need at the moment.

Even better, you could feed your furniture to your printer to make a different set of furniture for a party, or turn your car into a convertible for a week.

We will have to solve the energy problem, first, though.

[eftpotrm]

We will have to solve the energy problem, first, though.

First catch your hare indeed....

The energy implications of shredding and remanufacturing essentially the same items rather than cleaning them just makes me shudder. That really can't be efficient by any definition.

[marshray]

I'm don't think we really know yet what the energy requirements for these processes are.

Ever had something plastic melted (and burned) by the dishwasher? Why not just melt all of it and avoid dumping all the energy in that steaming water down the drain?

[marshray]

the vast majority of consumers do not use their computer in the way in which IBM intentioned to speak, as a calculator or database

The lesson being that this technology, like computers, holds nearly unlimited potential and yet it's still too early for us to predict quite how its going to be used.

If you ask someone thoroughly steeped in the status quo what it's good for, he's very likely to think of it as an extension of current economic properties. (faster, cheaper, sooner, more custom, etc.) He might even realize its potential to be "disruptive". That's where the Economist article is.

Once you start publicly speculating where the post-disruptive state might settle, then you become a science fiction author.

Will there ever be a point at which an average consumer will need such a steady stream of durable goods that a dedicated 3D printer will become a necessity?

Hang out outside a busy WalMart or Target some Saturday afternoon. There's your steady stream.

[patrickk]

Perhaps there will be a 'Kinkos' for all your 3D printing needs on every street corner sometime in the future. Head down there with your broken dinner plate or your foot measurements to have a custom item printed off as a replacement plate or custom shoe.

[marshray]

FedEx/Kinko's would be shortsighted if it were not, in fact, FedEx/Kinko's doing it.