I’ve just noticed that the presentation of materials on the order page has changed. Instead of “General Purpose Plastics” (if my memory is correct), the first selection is now “Prototyping Plastics”. Worse, much worse, the description strongly suggests not only that FDM is only for prototyping, but that all such prints are “low accuracy”. See below:
So, if you’re a potential customer and you see this, how likely is it that you’re going to choose FDM? Not only is anyone who’s looking for a finished product (of which I’ve had many customers) now going to think FDM is only for prototypes, so will choose SLA, but anyone looking to prototype is going to think FDM prints like congealed toothpaste.
From what I can see this is going to have an enormous impact on those of us that print FDM. Of course, it’ll probably mean a big increase in SLA orders, which tend to be of higher value and commission, but I’m sure that’s coincidental to 3DHubs.
Well, I did not get the email from them asking for input, I did not see any questions about how this might affect us on “talk”, I did not see this as a request from hubs on their input page, and did not see this coming on the changelog.
And face the fact early on in this discussion, just like the FDM guidelines, the “can I help you select a material” dialogue that appears when a new customer gets to 3dhubs, and all the other changes: that all the discussion you want to put into this will fall on deaf ears. There will be no change to this policy. 3dhubs knew it would not be well received, so they did it without discussion from hubs, on talk, or in the changelog.
Feel free to suggest different wording, to discuss why a customer who orders a raspberry pi case wont know what to do now, or how FDM is actually a better material for a final print in many cases than SLA or DLP, or any other logical feedback. They will not change the new policy.
I encourage you to post your opinions, as will I, but be very clear, they will not change this.
Also, be very clear on the fact that because of the thousands of printers doing work for 3dhubs, but only about fifteen will comment on the issue here, this new policy is the law of the land.
I print only using FDM and I have succeeded in printing details that are much much finer than 1-2mm as they say on their website now. See the print attached, it is a super small part for a swimming pool pump that came out well printed at 200 microns vertically at 50mm/s at 100% infill since it was so small, it worked perfectly for the client. The light green and pink are the originals and the others are FDM printed on a Witbox 2.
Yes, I have a big issue with this as well. I am convinced that this is affecting my order volume and might explain some confusion from customers. The current part entry experience seems to do everything to steer a customer away from FDM printers. Do you not want FDM printers on 3dHubs? I just printed a replacement light bezel for a high end kitchen range - the customer liked the FDM print at 0.1mm layer height better than the original part. This was not a prototype and was a retail replacement part.
The wording needs to be changed to not steer customers away from viable options, I think it would be better to have “select a finish” listing part detail spec level and more prominent finish pictures to select materials from versus general terms that have limiting connotation.
Also the flow to get a part entered and estimated has become much more complicated in my opinion. I just tried to upload a part to test the experience and couldn’t get through the flow because colors and layer heights listed in my hub were not showing. I find it very confusing.
I understand your perspective.But FDM can be used for finished products but most of the time it’s used prototyping. Considering that a majority of Hubs print in PLA and ABS and not specialty material like ULTEM or PEEK (which are used as finished products), I can see why 3D Hubs would list FDM as a prototyping solution. In terms of surface finish, FDM prints typically require post processing to make the layers less visible this includes using epoxy, sanding, and etc.
Whereas with SLA it’s just a matter of UV curing and then you have a finished product. Also there is the fact that FDM simply cannot compete with the dimensional accuracy of SLA. Each printing method has it’s pro’s and con’s.
We should also keep in mind that 3D Hubs has a materials selection tool, which helps customers choose the appropriate printing method and material.
Also for most customers price is the strongest determining factor, which so far FDM dominates in terms of affordability. So independent of how 3D Hubs chooses to describe the 3D printing methods, I doubt it will have a significant impact on the FDM portion of the 3D printing market at least for the near future. (SLA printers and resin could become more open source and affordable with new innovations and companies popping up).
Your comment made something clear in my mind too - 3D Hubs has set forth a guideline for FDM prints and that is what they guarantee. As we all know it’s ±1 mm or 10% (whichever is larger). That is what they will guarantee to a customer, and anything else is between the Hub and the customer, but 3D Hubs is not financially on the hook if something doesn’t meet the customers standards but is within 3D Hubs guidelines. So the guidelines listed in the material selection tool are based on that, not on what a Hub can actually produce. +/- 1mm (or 10%) is low accuracy by most standards, so I do see where they’re coming from and it’s not really incorrect. What would be better is just putting that in the material blurb; something like “Higher accuracy can be achieved but should be discussed with the Hub before printing” would (in my opinion) negate a lot of the issue here.
I do not wish to be disagreeable, but I must disagree. The statement that “most of the time it’s used for prototyping” this is simply not the case. Most of the prints on 3dhubs are FDM, and most of them are NOT prototypes.
You said"I can see why 3D Hubs would list FDM as a prototyping solution. "
No, you cannot see why, if that is why you think they are doing this. They are listing it as a prototyping solution as a means of trying to get customers to consider higher margin prints. It has nothing to do with the fact that most orders are FDM, and are not prototypes. I just looked at my last 300 prints. 3%, stretching it, can be considered prototypes. All FDM. This is all about 3dhubs hitting some internal targets for increasing the profitability of their platform. It has nothing to do with pushing a customer in the right direction for the customers’ needs, in fact, probably they are doing the opposite. If you think this is anything more than the slow release of changes that attempts to get more per print, you are not seeing the real reason 3dhubs is doing this.
You said “In terms of surface finish, FDM prints typically require post processing to make the layers less visible this includes using epoxy, sanding, and etc.” Nope. Not the case. It is very rare for my customers to decide they need to post process.
Look, this is about money. That’s it. This is not about listening to the voice of the customer, the hubs, etc. This is about attempting to get more margin from the customer. Its about trying to label FDM as not only lower quality, but flat out less desirable.
If they wanted to listen to our opinion on this, they would have asked, announced the coming change, etc. This is about trying to upsell the customer, period. They have the data. They know that most FDM prints are not prototypes, but products for end use. They are on a slow burn of releasing changes that control the narrative of “FDM is not so nice…” They are trying to reset their business model in a slow way, so as to not have a revolt on the FDM side.
"What would be better is just putting that in the material blurb; something like "Higher accuracy can be achieved " Again, this, and other better wording would be nice. We have suggested better wording on these issues before. 3dhubs is not going to listen to us. When you say it would be better, you mean for the hubs and for the customers. But not better for 3dhubs the company. They want to push FDM slowly downward, to increase the margin on the prints.
@cobnut thanks for raising your concern, allow me to quickly explain.
From our customer research we’ve learned that the biggest issue they face when using 3D Hubs is low print quality. Specifically for FDM prints. We’ve found that this is mostly caused by unrealistic customer expectations concerning FDM. Especially professionals who are used to injection molded parts which are then compared against FDM. Some very high potential customers state this is the key reason they don’t use 3D Hubs more often.
As such, the goal for 3D Hubs should be two-fold:
increase FDM quality standards to a higher but realistic level (hence the guidelines)
setting more realistic customer expectations
We started with the latter by adding an excerpt to the checkout a few weeks ago, that highlights FDM limitations. What we’ve found is that, if exposed to these limitations, no fewer FDM orders are made, but print quality ratings do increase. In short, it appears that the excerpts succeeds in setting customer expectations better.
The new cards in the checkout (only shown to a small group of customers btw) aim to do the same. The data so far seems to indicate it’s working, no fewer FDM orders, but increasing print quality ratings (not yet significant though).
So, even though I understand it looks like we’re sending people away from FDM, the data shows differently. Customers choosing FDM are currently happier customers, meaning they will come back more often which benefits all Hubs.
Our long-term vision is, and has always been, to build a distributed platform that can deliver reproducible quality parts. See our original manifesto. At this point, 3D print technologies still have their limitations which we should communicate clearly. My personal belief, is that over time the technology will evolve into a fully reproducible technology and this will no longer be necessary.
Hope this explains our reasoning. Happy to answer any further questions.
Hi @Filemon thanks for the response. I do appreciate that customer expectations are an issue; that is clear from the quality guidelines as discussed. However, I feel that the precise wording used in the new cards is overly critical of FDM potential quality and likely to dissuade potential FDM users. Imagine you’re completely new to 3D printing and you want a final use part, maybe a Go Pro mount, for example. Would you choose the option that’s “low accuracy”, with a “rough surface finish”? Would you even consider that option if the entire card is labelled for “prototyping”? I wouldn’t. If the data suggests there’s no reduction in FDM orders, then we’ll all be happy, but it would be surprising.
Perhaps some consideration could be given to alternative wording that still manages customer expectations, but which isn’t so much of a potential deterrent to customers for whom FDM would be a good solution.
Since the largest distributed manufacturing website in the world decided to label FDM printing as low quality prototyping, it affects my whole business, not just my business on 3dhubs. Thus, I have some questions.
1. Why did you folks not get input from us on wording?
2. Are you going to just implement this regardless of our discussion here?
3. Now that you know we feel bad about it, are you just going to leave it up or are you going to take it down?
4. Is there anything we can say to get you to change the wording off prototyping?
5. Why did you choose the word prototype, (meaning a test, a sample, an experiment, not final “proto=first type=item”)?
I am not really interested in a bunch of feel good answers. “Happier customers mean more business” is hardly a data metric. I am looking for specific answers to specific questions.
“This is the policy now, we will look at the data, and if it fits our internal goals, we will be happy with it. We are not listening”
How about working on some copy changes NOW, as a result of OUR INPUT. You have to be loyal not only to your own data, your own internal goals, but to THE HUBS!
If more Hubs want to get these changes, please communicate this with 3D Hubs staff.
Not just through the forums, but contact support and get in touch with actual staff.
I am sure once there is enough demand, and 3D Hubs realizes that Hub owners are not happy with the wording, they will make an adjustment.
But I also see Filemon’s point, the wording is not going to change the demand for the FDM parts on a global/macro level.
At the end of the day, most users are very price dependent, so they will naturally go for FDM. Then once you have them you can educate the customers on the extensive applications and possibilities of FDM printing.
“no less valid than 3D Hubs interpretation” Consider that your input is probably more valid, as you are a customer facing business that deals directly with the customer, and would therefore have a better idea of what happens between a hub and a customer.
As a hub that has over 300 prints, and great reviews, I want to hear your real opinion!
1. What is the ratio between your prints that are end user items vrs. protoypes?
2. Have you gotten poor reviews, and if so, what have you done about it?
3. Now that 3dhubs has lowered expectations, resulting in higher reviews for hubs that do worse prints, do you feel at all slighted?
4. Do you print outside of 3dhubs, and if you do, do you think this will affect your business generally, now that what you do has been labeled as low quality prototyping,?
5. Do you work with your customers on resolving issues, generating expectations, determining materials, etc.? (this question is unfair, as I already know the answer from reading your reviews)
6. As 3dhubs continues to push expectations for FDM printing to the lowest common denominator, what do you feel your edge will be over hubs that do not do what you do.
7. What is the most significant factor in determining whether a customer chooses your hub?
