How Document Printers Are Like Additive Manufacturing Machines
The document printing industry has experienced a long and vibrant life.
By Terry Wohlers, President, Wohlers Associates
The document printing industry has experienced a long and vibrant life.
It originated with expensive industrial systems, and over time,
migrated to organizations of all sizes. This occurred in a big way when
printers became digital and driven by desktop computers. Eventually,
document printers found their way into homes for personal use as well
as for home-based business applications. For years, I have noticed
parallels between the document printing and additive manufacturing (AM)
industries, and expect similarities, and some distinct differences, in
the future.
Document
printing began in earnest in the 15th century with the Guttenberg
printing press. The German inventor did not create printing, although
he is acknowledged as the inventor of the modern process. It led to
printing systems of many types and sizes for a wide range of
organizations. It was not until the last 25 years or so that the
document printer began to find its way into homes in developed nations
around the world. The personal computer can be credited with this
advancement.
Similar to most document printing of today,
additive manufacturing is driven by digital data. The primary
difference is that document printers produce a single layer of output,
whereas AM systems produce multiple layers, one on top of the next, to
create the output. Some AM systems even use inkjet printing technology,
including print heads and cartridges literally sourced from HP (hp.com)
and other manufacturers.
Additive manufacturing originated in
the late 20th century, which is much later than document printing, but
it has not taken as long for it to develop into a mainstream process at
many organizations. The first AM systems were slow, expensive, and
difficult to use, and the quality of output was not nearly as good as
what can be achieved by today’s systems. The same can be said about
document printers.
We are now seeing professional AM systems
priced in the $15,000 range, as well as experimental, research, and
educational kits and assembled AM systems for $750 to $4,000. These
systems are being installed in the smallest of organizations, as well
as in some homes. Note that the systems being installed in homes are
not being used as some had envisioned years ago. They are not being
used to reproduce broken parts for appliances or home accessories. Why
not? Because these very low-cost systems do not offer the quality, nor
do they offer a wide choice of material types or colors necessary for
those tasks. Instead, it is believed that they are being used mostly by
engineers, engineering students, and other “technical types” that like
to create and build stuff experimentally. Inexpensive design software
such as Rhino and even Google SketchUp has helped to accelerate this
movement.
Consumables for AM systems are also beginning to
follow the path of document printing. Some AM system manufacturers are
producing sizable revenues on the sale of proprietary materials. As
part of their consumables strategy, they are developing systems that
expect the customer to purchase the materials from them, and them only.
This is not unlike what the document printer companies have done to
create recurring revenues. Prices of 3D printers1 continue to decline
to the point where the manufacturers are willing to forego some profit
on the machine because they expect to more than make up for it in
consumable sales. Selling relatively inexpensive 3D printers helps to
grow an installed base into which they can sell consumables with a very
good profit margin. The manufacturers of document printers have been
doing this for many years.
Some believe that this business
model is solid long term for the AM system manufacturers. Generally, I
believe it has been good for the manufacturers of document printers,
but I’m not so sure it will work, long term, for the AM companies.
Nearly 90% of the AM systems sold in 2009 are considered 3D printers,
but they are also manufacturing systems because they build parts that
go into prototypes and even end-use products. If you consider
conventional manufacturing processes, such as injection molding, blow
molding, and CNC machining, the materials come from third-party
suppliers. The customer is free to purchase the materials from a wide
range of sources at competitive prices.
If the AM system
manufacturers hope to compete in the manufacturing arena, I believe
they will need to open their material systems similar to conventional
processes. Exceptions are prototypes, custom parts, and very small
production runs because they do not consume much material. For larger
jobs, high material prices will become an obstacle to growth, even when
you consider the time and cost savings of not requiring any tooling.
For
now, there’s uncertainty as to whether the AM consumables will follow
the document printing model or the manufacturing model. HP entered the
AM business earlier this year when it announced an agreement with
Stratasys (stratasys.com). My guess is that it’s banking strongly on
the document printing consumables model. And other document printer
manufacturers that are considering the AM market are thinking in a
similar way. TC
_________________________________
1
According to ASTM International Committee F42 on Additive Manufacturing
Technologies, 3D printing is the fabrication of objects through the
deposition of a material using a print head, nozzle, or another printer
technology. The term is often used synonymously with additive
manufacturing; in particular associated with machines that are low end
in price and/or overall capability.