[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?

[eftpotrm]

Well, you're dumping waste heat either way, and at too low a difference to ambient to be efficient to extract, but while I'm not an expert in the energy usage of 3D printers, I find it very hard to believe that reducing an item to granules and then recreating it from the same granules can be particularly energy efficient from the perspective of information theory.

The other side which I should have considered before is that if the purpose of this is cleaning (as was originally suggested), reducing the item to parts to reassemble without first cleaning it will result in contaminated build components and a lower quality physical product, but with the contamination spread liberally through the item rather than being on the surface where it can be more easily cleaned away.

[marshray]

This is probably far enough away that we can get a little handwavey about little details like contamination.

What if instead of a water heater you had a plastic heater in your house? What if it had some section where the temp was high enough to kill organisms or used other means?

Still it seems like I'd want to give them a quick rinse-off first.

Perhaps everyone's eating utensils will end up some shade of brown. :-P People would likely want some very dark pigments added. Or "junior! we told you not to put Froot Loops in the dishmelter again..."

Or maybe the stuff just gets hauled off for recycling where it can be re-purified efficiently in large scale processes.

[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.