From: Steven Pollack (StevenP@DigitalJeweler.NET)
Date: Tue Mar 05 2002 - 22:23:55 EET
Alright, maybe I am being dense but why is it in 3D Systems financial interest to limit the material choices when they appearantly just let a marketing arrangement for various materials expire? My understanding is that they were selling a variety of materials. I could understand if they did not profit from the other materials that they would want everyone buying theirs but they were profiting from the variety they were selling.
It's like taking a modern automobile factory and turning back the clock to the days when the only color choice was black. Why go backwards?
Plus, I could see how they would have more of a say if the material was integral like in the ModelMakerII but isn't the vat of resin fairly seperated from the mechanical parts of the SLA system?
----- Original Message -----
From: Elaine Hunt
To: rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: Price Reduction
At 01:14 PM 3/5/2002 -0600, you wrote:
Elaine,
Why is 3D Systems moving to a one material system and in what way does this affect the owners of their machines ability to use other materials?
3D acquired DTM and DTM systems are licensed for a particular material... DTM sued one user who tried to use material from another manufacturer, I believe. One could reason that since 3D bought RPC that they plan the same operation with their SLAs. This is pure conjecture on my part but several of us moldie oldies had the same thoughts. It will be interesting enough to see how 3D handles removing Ciba material from an established base that they pushed and installed. In the past they have hinted at loss of maintenance, no material support and other venues to keep users on the Ciba bandwagon. 2002 should prove the be the year of resin litigation and who wins will describe the market for the next decade.
Elaine
For more information about the rp-ml, see http://rapid.lpt.fi/rp-ml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 20:13:31 EET