So, FDM is only for "low accuracy prototypes"?

[Perry_1]

@PepCo_Parker Not to answer for them, I will tell you that 3dhubs in the past found that uploading a model to start the process had much more stickiness than enquiries, so that may explain why they de-empahsized that method of contact to the point it is hard to find.

[Perry_1]

Yes, that is terrible wording. I think they may be willing to change that.

There was discussion about adding some copy around “if additional tolerances are needed…”

------------------

I can’t imagine, after looking at your hub, why you would be fine with your hub being called Prototyping Only and your plastics as being called Prototyping Materials. Make no mistake, all these changes were made en masse as part of a holistic marketing image to denigrate FDM printing, to emphasize the SLS and SLA hubs. I would think you would object to all of it.

[champion3d]

Here’s a feature suggestion (which I will also post over at the user voice page) https://3dhubs.uservoice.com how about you also let hubs access a widget like the “order print” button that let’s us also put “send enquiry” or along those lines. I would put this on my personal website as i do the 3D Print Order widget already, which is front and centre. How about that to encourage more enquiries through 3D Hubs which as hub owners we could then get more conversion over time by welcoming these enquiries and explaining and answering any questions potential customers have, which means they are more likely to then place an order. I often get questions sent direct to my email address but I would happily replace my contact form with a 3D Hubs enquiry button.

[btdevine]

Definitely agree that there needs to be some change in the wording here. If I were a customer who knew nothing about 3D printing, I would most likely not choose this option.

[Steelmans]

@Filemon Any chance we could meet for a few minutes today? Earlier is better than later for me.

[Steelmans]

@Perry_1 Sorry I had to leave the meeting. I honestly thought it would be done in 30 mins. I didn’t realise we would be discussing so much stuff. The bit I most wanted to change was the “Prototyping” wording. I still believe that “General Purpose Plastics” title and “Fast and Affordable parts” would be way more accurate. What was the outcome with this?

[Filemon]

Interesting thoughts @PepCo_Parker @champion3d - it’s true what @Perry_1 points out that inquiries generally don’t ‘convert’ well and we’ve seen the normal order process perform better. Certainly can’t hurt to review the enquiry flow though to see if we can improve performance. will put it up for discussion on our end. thanks again!

[Filemon]

Thanks for joining the call @Perry_1 (and others of course).

Indeed, we will discuss the FDM dialogue message today / tomorrow on our end and will adjust (or even remove). Will keep you posted on that.

Completely open to adjusting the FDM guidelines as well, where a majority of Hubs feel it should. For this I’d need specific suggestions (for example the ‘typical dimensional accuracy’), so feel free to post / mail me about those.

Finally, for the “Prototyping Plastics” designation we have to wait for the variation experiment to end. Also, other variations are lined up for the next few months where, for example, FDM is simply called “FDM”. It’s really too early to tell what’s the best decision here.

Thanks again and let’s stay in touch.

Filemon

[Steelmans]

@Filemon I think you were trying to fix something that wasn’t broken. “Prototyping Plastics” isn’t only insulting, it is incorrect! It doesn’t matter if the data says it works because it is wrong to claim that the actual plastic is just for prototyping. A waste of a test due to incorrect terminology… ABS is not just a prototyping plastic. Polycarbonate isn’t a prototyping plastic…

They are “General Purpose Plastics”!!!

I just Googled “Prototyping Plastics” to get a list but unsurprisingly I couldn’t find one because nobody groups plastics by just one application. Apart from 3D Hubs which Google gave this link… https://www.3dhubs.com/material-group/prototyping-plastic

The prototyping plastics page also stated “rigid plastics”. What about flexible filaments available on FDM?

Also the comment “Prototyping Plastics are printed using Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) technology” is incorrect. Is this assuming that nobody uses SLS for prototyping? I know that many people use SLS for prototypes including myself in the past. The term “Prototyping Plastics” is just wrong!

I can’t seem to get over this. The information about FDM is full of errors and misconceptions.

[Filemon]

Hi Simon, I scheduled a call today at 17.30h Amsterdam time. that’s my only possibility for today. If preferred, we can reschedule for tomorrow as well

[Steelmans]

Lets stick with that time. Thank you.

[BoozeKashi]

This seems to fit along the lines of 3D Hubs interest in moving toward commercial printers and away from small shops. No one should really be surprised. The fact that they made this move to push most of the “little guys” aside without a word, and now are reluctant to change that stance is just further evidence of what is fairly common industry knowledge. It has even been reported by 3D Printing media sources.

It kind of seems like they are trying to drive us away on purpose. The new quality guidelines we just agreed to, then turn around and imply our product is inferior? What the…?

Then this whole business of using repeat customers as a way to determine if we show up in results?

Hmm.

[Perry_1]

The outcome of the meeting did nothing to change my mind that they are NOT listening to our issues on this. @filemon continues to cling to his “testing” meme and I did not feel he was listening to our concerns, or the concerns of most of the hubs that I am discussing this with whose voice I was trying to put forth.

I still feel 3dhubs is really is not listening to how we feel about “protoyping” and “prototyping materials”, or is unwilling to see why we feel it is so bad.

[Perry_1]

As I said in my first post the day this thread started, this change was done specifically to move customers to higher margin means of printing and has little to do with anything else. @filemon continued to use his canned phrase “No fewer FDM orders”. He posted that exact phrase here in this thread, and repeated it several times during the call, with that exact wording. This wording is designed to make us feel better. We shouldn’t. I don’t trust the “test” or the wording of “No fewer FDM orders.”

I personally think misleading the market will cost customers, and that 3dhubs is attempting to harvest the growth of the market by pushing customers away from FDM. “No fewer FDM orders” is a pretty bad goal, and easy to hit. What he will not say is “Hey, this is working, because 3dhubs is getting customers to move to higher $ prints from FDM” when that is the real goal, or they would not have made this change, and would have responded to our feedback on it, and would have shown some loyalty to us.
Again, they are not listening, or hubs are not protesting enough. (Pointing out again that most of the hubs are not going to see most of this, so the voice of those that hang out on talk should be considered a relevant sampling…)

​If people don’t really, really protest, I think it is here to stay. This will drive competitors, split the market, etc.
There are a lot of other things they won’t say out loud, or in public.

[PepCo_Parker]

Perry I don’t mean to be rude, but being bluntly honest I think you’re beating a dead horse here. You’ve starting coming across somewhat hostile and I honestly don’t think it’s doing anything to strengthen your point other than obfuscating this chat to the point that it’s hard to have actual discussions on what can be done about the matter. If I had any advice it would be to just step back and take a breath for a second. I understand you are frustrated, but repeating the same thing over and over is in reality accomplishing nothing. That being said this extends out to everyone on these forums, they’re meant for collaboration. I just think you should lay back on your comments towards @filemon and @3DHubs and give them some time to react. It’s not something that can be impulsively done, they have to consider all the options, if it’s worth their time, then troubleshoot solutions, fease them out, get them approved, and then implement.

[PepCo_Parker]

Perry I don’t mean to be rude, but being bluntly honest I think you’re beating a dead horse here. You’ve starting coming across somewhat hostile and I honestly don’t think it’s doing anything to strengthen your point other than obfuscating this chat to the point that it’s hard to have actual discussions on what can be done about the matter. If I had any advice it would be to just step back and take a breath for a second. I understand you are frustrated, but repeating the same thing over and over is in reality accomplishing nothing. That being said this extends out to everyone on these forums, they’re meant for collaboration. I just think you should lay back on your comments towards @filemon and @3DHubs and give them some time to react. It’s not something that can be impulsively done, they have to consider all the options, if it’s worth their time, then troubleshoot solutions, fease them out, get them approved, and then implement.

[Perry_1]

@PepCo_Parker Thank you for not being rude and being bluntly honest, while offering your opinion. I am doing the same, and have the right to do so.
I would like to point out I was answering a specific question that was directed specifically to me. I was not beating a dead horse, but was answering a specific request for an opinion.

@filemon is a big boy. He can take it, so can I. He even said to continue the discussion here on the phone call, if you recall.

As for repeating myself, that is a legitimate form of protest on a forum when responses are sparse. Collaboration requires response.

I have no intention of stepping back. Do you recommend the same for @Steelmans whose question I was answering? And other hubs that show lost business in this thread? Do you suggest they step back for several months?

You state going back to the other wording is something that can not be impulsively done. I must disagree, they can change back from the at any time, otherwise it would be a pretty poor test.

Silence will get us nowhere. Sorry. The last time this type of change was made, it floated into thread history pretty rapidly, and was simply ignored. I am just trying to keep this from happening again.

I have been exceedingly civil, but sometimes facts and opinions can be difficult to read, particularly when you are questioning someones motives, as I have done here. My goal is still honorable, to protect our market, and to prevent 3dhubs from making what I consider to be a very big mistake. My motivations are clean.

BTW, hostile is inaccurate. Angry is accurate.

[PepCo_Parker]

I’m not saying to step back*and do nothing*, but I do know if this was a group of people collaborating, one person constantly bringing up the same points without taking a break quickly tires and frustrates others. In this situation, the issue ends up being people have to scroll for several minutes to sift through all the repetition to get to the progress. You are right that you were answering a specific question, but the answer was essentially just a repeat of your other post and summaries. This is a very active forum, and it’s great to see collaboration, but I do believe there comes a point where it is in excess and is not benefiting the cause in a positive manor. That being said, I am no god, I am not 100% right 100% of the time, and this is just my opinion. At the same time, I know it is now almost impossible for me to follow this thread and get any meaningful information from it, as well, my email is filled with notifications that I have to sift through as I didn’t unsubscribe from the forum in time.

[Perry_1]

I would add that ABS as prototyping plastic is silly, many final objects are ABS, including the mouse I am using, I would think.

Also, it is wrong and confusing because the other cards have not changed. So prototyping as a result shows in several of the other cards. Its just bad wording. I agree, a test to see if no fewer FDM orders is what is being measured, they are in fact testing something that is just wrong. If the data shows FDM orders went up, it would no less wrong.

“I can’t seem to get over this” Don’t get over it. Stay vocal.

[Perry_1]

@PepCo_Parker

I have much respect for you, your input, and your continued help with others here in “Talk” who need help from experienced hubs. You are great!

And you and I, in general, do not disagree on the many of the issues here, so disagreeing on the effectiveness of repeating points, particularly in response to new posts is not so bad. I do have a tinge of protest in my motivations, as well.

Also, I think you were off the thread for awhile, if I recall, so reading it from top to bottom, instead of how it occurred naturally over two weeks, it certainly reads much worse! Plus, if we do not respond, the thread will disappear, something we should not be willing to let happen, at the cost of it being unwieldy.

After this is all over, I hope you resubscribe. The forum really does need folks like you.