Re: [rp-ml] terminology and all that...

From: Tom Richards (
Date: Thu Aug 11 2005 - 19:08:43 EEST


3D modeling, 3D model, 3D modeler

Covers: carve, sculpt, print polymers, print powders, CNC machine, hologram,

Best Regards, Tom Richards, Metallurgist

----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>; <>
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: [rp-ml] terminology and all that...

> In a message dated 05-08-09 13:01:43 EDT, you write:
> <<
> So let me ask other people on here to chime in on this issue. What
> terminology do you think is best in the long run for the technology that
> makes physical objects automatically from a digital description and raw
> materials. I suggest that we look at answers in the form of a list of
> three
> terms, one for the field of technology, one for the verb meaning to make
> something with the technology, and one for the machine that does it. So I
> suppose some of the choices are:
> Rapid prototyping, rapid prototype, rapid prototyper
> RP, RP, RP device or RPer
> Desktop manufacturing, desktop manufacture,
> desktop manufacturer or DTMer
> Solid freeform fabrication, SFF, SFFer
> 3-D printing, 3-D print, 3-D printer
> Digital fabrication or fabbing, fab, fabber
> >>
> Dear Marshall:
> Surveying ouselves is surveying the wrong people. It's preaching to the
> converted or taking in each other's laundry.
> Go outside and ask the first 20 people you see on the street to define any
> of
> those terms - right out of the blue. The only one they have a prayer of
> getting right is 3D printing and its variants. This is not a semantic
> problem,
> nor one of taxonomy or technology. It's marketing 101. See, for example
> Ries
> and Trout, Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind - written more than 20
> years
> ago and still a good summary.
> Like Sheba, I loathe the very sound of the word "fab." It might have been
> gear in the 60's, but it's uncoolly retro and cacophonous to my ear. I
> find it
> and its variants repellent, and more importantly - it's thoroughly
> meaningless
> to John Q. Public. If this field is ever to progress and become
> meaningful to
> a broader audience, that's who you must reach. R.I.P. - F.A.B.
> In a message dated 05-08-09 13:01:25 EDT, you write:
> <<
> But, oops, this is interesting. Looks like I misread your message, Ed.
> Somehow I thought on first reading that you were suggesting taking Offset
> Fabbing open source. I see now that you were just talking about making a
> kit
> for it. Well, that's interesting too, but let me follow through on what I
> thought you were talking about in the first place.
> >>
> What precisely I was trying to express is that you have the pieces to
> attack
> an interesting and existing market. If it's true that Stratasys and Z
> Corp
> are selling a quarter to a third of their products into the educational
> marketplace, that's big enough to attract a bottom feeder that can quickly
> come in and
> provide something well below today's entrants. It might even be the
> impetus
> to drive those guys lower in price and substantially widen the market.
> I'll leave it to others to speculate about where all this is leading 10 or
> 20
> years hence. It's not that I don't speculate about tomorrow, it's just
> that
> for me tomorrow is - well - Friday. I'm much more interested in what will
> happen Friday than what will happen 10 years from Friday. Friday is
> almost here,
> after all, and there's a fairly good probability I'll participate. If I
> were
> you Marshall, I'd take Friday off to speculate on what I could be selling
> by
> Saturday.
> Open source? How does Red Hat make money? Do they? I don't follow the
> open
> source movement closely. There are a lot of other ways of attacking the
> problem
> of getting something like the above to market, though. But I leave that
> as
> an exercise for the students.
> Regards,
> Ed
> Ed Grenda
> Castle Island Co.
> (email)
> The Worldwide Guide to Rapid Prototyping

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Mon Jan 02 2006 - 08:09:17 EET