[danboarder]

From the article: "3D printing is really a subset of autonomous technology and robotics."

Interesting to pick up on how she maps investments across "innovation themes" like robotics, AI, etc admittedly without deep domain knowledge herself, depending on the input of analysts.

[wearywanderer]

> "3D printing is really a subset of autonomous technology and robotics."

I'm confused, is this an objectionable statement? A lot of people seem to treat 3d printing as something truly special and unique, but actually 3d printing is a form of CNC; additive rather than subtractive like a CNC mill, but a form of CNC nonetheless. It's a technology firmly rooted in a broader tree of established technologies.

I guess some people think of these machines as printers foremost, and thus perceive a huge conceptual jump or paradigm shift from 2d desktop inkjets to 3d printers. If somebody comes from a computer background rather than a manufacturing background, it's easy to see why this framing might be chosen. But I don't think that's the right way to look at 3d printers. Rather, 3d printers are the synthesis of two already well established concepts in manufacturing: making things by adding material, and controlling machines using computers.

Edit:

> Wouldn't 2D printers then also be a subset of autonomous technology and robotics?

The modern familiar forms of 2d printers are such a subset, yes (and I never implied otherwise.) These machines were preceded by other forms of 2d printing which are not autonomous but were nonetheless mechanical. They were also preceded by autonomous forms of 2d printing that didn't fit inside your living room, but were nonetheless familiar technology to the general public (because everybody knows books exist.) I believe this is the reason 2d printing is generally considered more mundane than 3d printing, which is treated like sci-fi technology that came out of left field. Again, understanding the historic context of these machines gives us insight into the reasons they are perceived the way they are.

[alfl]

I've recently been thinking about this in the context of web technology (revisiting some ideas from the 90s that didn't pan out then, but can be repurposed now).

Your point here about CNC and additive versus subtractive manufacturing is also near to my hobbyist interests.

Extending the idea a bit, I suspect the history of social changes that resulted from the advent of the printing press are an entryway into understanding the public's reaction to social media today.

Aside from living through the history, can you recommend a way to build more of this knowledge? If it's a matter of being widely read do you know of something like a survey introductory text?

I will google more, but thought I'd ask.

[rriepe]

Wouldn't 2D printers then also be a subset of autonomous technology and robotics?

[jazzyjackson]

From one angle, by looking at the bill of materials comparing a inkjet and makerbot, they both look like robots

But from another angle, printing and publishing paper is a different industry than manufacturing objects, so the distinction is in their context

[smoldesu]

By that logic, all cars are really just a subset of human-operable motorized transport devices. It's much less impressive if you look at it that way, right?

[wearywanderer]

> human-operable motorized transport devices

Also known as 'automobile' or 'motor vehicle.' Cars are really just a subset of automobiles. It's less weird when you phrase it like that, using established terminology, right?

[smoldesu]

And now we've come full circle. That was my original point: we can abstract technologies like this into their original components, but it doesn't do any good to do so.

[wearywanderer]

What you call "abstract technology to their original components", I call understanding the historic context of technology.

I think there is a lot of value in understanding that context. Without looking at that historic context, people are more likely to let their imaginations run wild and inadvertently come to believe things that aren't true (a significant portion of the general public believe Henry Ford invented cars...) or come to view technologies with an unwarranted level of awe and tunnel vision (the way 3d printing seems to be viewed by some, as mystical Star Trek replicator technology that came out of nowhere.) More generally, if people don't understand the true historic context of technology they become more likely to believe things that aren't true about technology. There is inherent value in dispelling myths and providing historic context for technology does exactly that.

And why is it important to break a technology down into it's constituent fundamental traits or properties? Because almost always the historical context of a technology includes technologies that did not share the same name. If you're talking about the history of cars but limit the scope of your consideration to things called cars, you won't get back much further than the 1890s. But if you break the concept of a car down, it becomes clear that you need to consider the history of wheeled vehicles and the history of motorized vehicles. Self-propelled traction engine are one of the conceptual predecessors to the machines we now call cars. They share 'abstract concepts' with cars (a wheeled vehicle, not on rails, which can move around under its own power), but not a name. Traction engines aren't cars, but are important historic context for cars. If you aren't willing to consider the abstract attributes that constitute a car, you cannot consider the true historic context of cars.