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

[Perry_1]

“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?

[Perry_1]

"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. " Historical precedence indicates otherwise.

With honest respect to your suggestion, I would say 3dhubs is more likely to change as a result of many, many hubs voicing their issues here, in the open. Or do both public and private. I try to be more positive in public, because I have had a lot of respect for 3dhubs and what they have accomplished so far. I tend to be more negative in my direct email to customer support.
My responses today are not nearly as strong as I would like them to be, but I HATE people who are mean on open forums. You can read my responses in the past on these forums to folks that fire a one-off hate posting about some printer, vendor or 3dhubs.
I have been more negative today as this affects my reputation both on the hub, and off. 3dhubs has relabeled what I do for a business.

[Filemon]

We’re running an A/B/C test. I can’t change the test halfway as that would remove all possibilities of a significant test. I do hear your points and agree we should consider alternative copy. We aim to reach significance early next week, after which we can implement changes (or drop this variant all together if it doesn’t perform well).

In the near future we hope to automate metrics such as estimated price and speed, both on which FDM will score well. Also, the current positioning as “fast and affordable” highlights the 2 most important aspects why most customers use 3D printing. My view is thus a little bit more nuanced on how ‘bad’ FDM is currently positioned. Again, the data confirms this.

[Steelmans]

I’m not sure if you were asking me but I’ll give my replies to your questions…

1. What is the ratio between your prints that are end user items vrs. protoypes?

I don’t have an exact figure but I know the number of prototypes are low. More recently I have been printing more and more finished enclosures for direct re-sale. I find the “Prototyping” tag insulting.

2. Have you gotten poor reviews, and if so, what have you done about it?

​I have received a few poor reviews but these were mostly due to me trying to help the customer by printing the impossible rather than declining the order. I do explain to the customers but unfortunately this led to some poor reviews anyway.

3. Now that 3dhubs has lowered expectations, resulting in higher reviews for hubs that do worse prints, do you feel at all slighted?

This has always been the case. Many people are impressed with 3D printing regardless of the quality. Why not raise expectation to widen the gap between poor hubs and good ones?!?

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,?

You answered your own question here. Labeling FDM as low quality is bad for 3D printing in general. I don’t think my Cubicon Single Plus at 100 microns can be classed as low quality in a scale of 3D printing.

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)

Of course, with almost every order.

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.

It won’t matter who has an edge if FDM is treated this way. It will end up being “SLS Hubs” with a lot of stagnant FDM hubs for users that don’t mind getting one order a month.

7. What is the most significant factor in determining whether a customer chooses your hub?

Unfortunately… price! Look at the listings, nothing else distinguishes between hubs apart from price (and a very small number next to the stars).

[Perry_1]

You solicited questions. I have a few up there that are still waiting for answers.

1. Why did you folks not get input from us on wording?

5. Why did you choose the word prototype, (meaning a test, a sample, an experiment, not final “proto=first type=item”)?

I am adding:

6. How are you measuring the performance, as in, what are the metrics for success? For example, do you consider this a success if lower quality prints get better reviews, which you have stated is the outcome for the changes on the checkout page?

7. Do you think we might view this as a poor outcome, as some of us have worked very hard to earn the ratings and thus the rankings we deserve?

8. Your response indicates disdain for our opinion. Did you consider that maybe our views are also nuanced?

I am trying to be fair to you.

[Perry_1]

@Steelmans Yup, was directed to you. Thanks for taking the time!

[Enza3D]

SLA is generally not a good choice for mechanical prototyping, and I say that as an owner of a Form2. Even the new engineering materials are more brittle than thermoplastics, and there’s no reason to choose SLA if the part is of a reasonable size and detail level (unless it is going to be used as a master for a mold). There’s some real potential with Formlabs new PP simulating resin, but it’s still got ways to go before it can compete with ABS, PETG and Nylon. For anything with snap fits, press fits, etc. I would almost never recommend SLA over FDM unless there was a very good reason for it.

A well tuned FDM machine should have no issue reproducing a well designed part within reasonable tolerances, and that should be fine for most makers/hobbyists (engineering design companies should know the limitations of FDM and have built appropriate tolerance into their prototype/design). No printer, is going to achieve the same accuracy as a machined piece, and if that’s what a customer wants, they shouldn’t be on 3D Hubs in the first place. If that’s our benchmark, all 3D printers are “low accuracy”, and I agree with whirlybird that it’s misleading for certain customer bases. I don’t necessarily think it was intentionally meant to be hurtful to FDM Hubs (they make this site a pretty chunk of change as well), but it definitely could stand to be reworded as it can/will confuse customers new to 3D printing.

[Enza3D]

Perry,

I’m not from 3D Hubs (just a Hub here, like the rest of you) but I do a lot of work (and work in) the engineering development and design industry as my day job. The use of the word prototyping is, as I see it, fully accurate for the target market 3D Hubs is trying to appeal to (commercial industry). While a lot of the orders you print may not be for prototyping, in the engineering/design/industrial world, FDM printing’s primary application is only for prototyping. It’s a cheap and fast way to turn around multiple iterations of a design within a company, and allows for moderate levels of functional testing. It’s not a big deal if an FDM printed part breaks because they’re cheap and you can have a new one in a few hours.

That being said, FDM prints are not an accurate reflection of a tooled or machined parts functional properties (SLS is a better for that) and don’t work as well as SLA models do for product demonstrations to clients. SLS printing allows for uniform material properties, which is not possible with FDM printing, and SLS materials are closer to what you’d expect from a final product (after mass production) than an FDM print is. If you want a pre-production model to show off to a client, SLA is a much better choice than FDM, as it’s surface finish is very smooth without a lot of post-processing and carries tighter tolerances. Each type of 3D printing process has it’s specific use, and generally, FDM is a good first run prototyping choice but that’s about it (in terms of the design cycle); FDM printing allows you to get a good feel for a part/what should be tweaked about the design, and generally how it’s going to break, without having to shell out a pretty chunk of change for an SLS print. I understand you (and many others) are primarily FDM Hubs so this is viewed as damaging/offensive, but you also have to understand how 3D printing is viewed in industry, especially if this is the direction 3D Hubs is going in. It’s simply a tool for designers and a means to a final product, but an FDM print (or SLA or SLS print, generally) is not the final product in itself.

If this is the direction 3D Hubs wants to go, then I understand why things are worded as they are. Bigger companies and professional appeal mean more profit for the company, and better growth opportunities. I can’t speak for whether or not this is the right direction for 3D Hubs to go in though, especially seeing as a lot of orders here (at least for me) are not from design companies but are from makers/hobbyists or people looking for custom trinkets. I am a bit concerned that this wording will alienate that group of customers and turn them off to the idea of FDM printing.

[Perry_1]

@Enza3D Good to hear from you. I always expect the best from you, and honestly thank you for your response. Below my first comments, I will respond to the FDM for prototyping statements you make. But I don’t want to get off track here by spending too much time arguing the reasons why any particular customer set will want to choose FDM or SLA etc.

SO FIRST, Filemon in this thread says that although it appears they are steering customers away from FDM, that is not the reason for the change. Its not a statement that specifically says they are NOT moving away from FDM, but it is a positioned by him as the indicator.

So, we would like to know what went into this decision, which they made without informing us. We see 3dhubs attempting to influence what FDM is used for. And we disagree that the problem they say they are trying to solve is going to be solved by their actions. We also see that one of their outcomes is to raise the reviews for those who would otherwise have poor reviews, which only harms those hubs who have been doing a good job. Finally, we also want to know if any input we put in will result in a change. That is my main issue here.

But since you cannot speak to any of that, and have offered your opinion, which I respect, on what prototyping is, I will give my opinion on that. SO:
I do a lot of prints for businesses, and many are not prototypes. I work with industries who need a part fast, and trust my ability to deliver a high quality print. Sometimes there are budget constraints. They may also need a working plastic hinge, or many, many copies of the same print. None of this would be called prototyping. This is in reference to industry.

Numbers wise, however, most of my FDM prints would not be for industry, and I would have a hard time believing most 3dhubs prints are for industry. As such, I don’t want those non industry people thinking they are receiving prototypes. It demeans the quality of FDM printing for those of my customers who want a good print, and are utilizing the advantages of FDM printing, which go beyond price.

" I understand you (and many others) are primarily FDM Hubs so this is viewed as damaging/offensive, but you also have to understand how 3D printing is viewed" To assume that I do not understand how 3D printing is viewed in industry implies I don’t work in industry, which is an incorrect assumption. Your statement only adds to the narrative that FDM is somehow less, and since I am an FDM hub, I must not work with industry. This is dead wrong. I am a leading consultant in my paying profession to industry. In fact, some of the largest industry in the US.

You say you cannot speak for 3dhubs, but you seem to believe they are trying to place themselves as more for industry, and higher quality, higher margin prints. Why would you believe this? Perhaps it is 3dhubs own actions that created this belief. Which is why this was the first question that was asked, and it was denied.

We are suspect of this, because what they did without our input, and are apparently continuing to do while ignoring us so they can run some test, harms our business reputations. DLP and SLA are great technologies. You know this, and I agree with some of your points, obviously. But FDM is not just prototyping.

[Perry_1]

As a side note, prototyping creates a picture in the minds of the customers, and while all the other descriptions for the cards accurately describe the process and materials, FDM is the only one with a results oriented label such as “prototyping.” For example, they don’t refer to SLA prints as “Sales Presentation” quality. The tense and content on the other cards do not match the tense of the card for FDM. They do not paint a picture of a USE case. Only FDM, “prototyping”.

[Enza3D]

I like this idea, and think it would really help customers who are new to choose something. Just list a couple of common applications under the title of the material and that’s way more helpful for a customer who doesn’t know the difference between each technology. It’s how most other websites break this down anyway, so why reinvent the wheel?

For FDM:

“Title - General Purpose Plastic”

“Common Applications - Small Volume Production Runs, Prototyping, Electronics Enclosures, Outdoor Use, etc.”

For SLA:

“Title - High Detail Resin”

“Common Applications - Jewelry Master, Visual Presentation, Dental, Mold Making, etc.”

And so on for each of the material. If I had no idea what 3D printing was, I personally would find this way more helpful than a very short pro/con list.

[Enza3D]

Perry,

I apologize if I generalized too much in my post; I am referencing the product design and development industry, where FDM is generally just a great tool for us engineers for prototyping. I did not say that because you were an FDM hub that you do not work with industry and I did not mean that to be offensive; FDM is huge in the industry I am referring to, just not as means of production for final products. It’s just not efficient to 3D print thousands of pieces when the pieces can be injection molded in seconds, but injection molding is expensive and the cost isn’t justifiable below a certain volume. Small scale production can utilize FDM for final production runs, and it’s a great avenue for makers and entrepreneurs due to how affordable and comparatively fast it is (especially versus the cost of tooling for molding). I’m planning on releasing some kits for various products this year geared towards makers, and most of those components will be FDM printed or casted with my small system for that. In my post, when I say FDM is mainly for prototyping I am exclusively talking about the market I think 3D Hubs is trying to break into, not the education sector (where FDM printing is incredible) or the open source industry, or really anything outside the commercial, mass-production product design/development industry.

I do believe they are pushing towards a more commercial customer base, because that’s where the money is and at the end of the day, 3D Hubs is a company. Implementation of print quality standards, emphasis being placed on “HD” materials (there’s 12 material options under “Materials” and only 2 of them are non-commercial machine options), and some other small changes here and there all imply to me the 3D Hubs wants to snag the commercial/industrial base better than it currently does. I can’t fault them for it, especially seeing as 3D printing is getting so cheap (I can pick up an Anet or Monoprice printer for sub-$200) but I don’t know if it’s the right move. As you said, most orders here are not industrial/commercial orders. They’re from makers, students, and hobbyists who want the unique connection you get with a Hub (which you don’t get from Stratasys or other large print shops) and I am concerned they are going to push too far from that base with changes like this.

[Vienna3DPrint]

@3DHubs: You better acquire more print jobs for us. thx

[Filemon]

Thanks both, it is indeed true that we’re trying to appeal to a more professional audience. We believe that this doesn’t move us away from makers at all as the features we’re developing should benefit both.

@Enza3D’s explanation on why we use the word “prototyping” for FDM is correct. It will appeal to a more professional audience. I also strongly feel this does not marginalize FDM at all, as the intended audience is looking for exactly that, prototyping. For the non-professional audience, price is always the key factor, which we’ve also clearly tried to indicate for FDM. Therefore, we expect FDM will not decline because of this (as said, I do agree some copy could be more nuanced)

[Filemon]

1. We’ve discussed with a lot of experts as well as a good amount of Hubs, which were all supportive of the change. It’s not standard practice we ask all Hubs for input on changes.

5. See @Enza3D description above, which is accurate. We feel it appeals to a more professional audience (without harming existing audiences) and also differentiates FDM clearly from both SLA, mostly visual without mechanical props, and SLS, best mechanical props. Also here @Enza3D has mentioned good points.

6. We implemented the FDM guidelines already to prevent a decline in print quality. I can confirm this is working. Success means high conversion numbers, for a variety of materials, without decline in terms of absolute numbers.

7. I completely understand your view. Therefore I’ve intended to put data arguments forward (see earlier comment) with the goal of taking away that concern. Also, to be clear, 3D Hubs cannot benefit from any change if it does not benefit our Hubs.

8. I apologize, fear that’s a result of not being a native. Was not intended that way.

I do hope this answers your questions.

[MikeD]

I like your markups, and perceive the same change with less new customers and repeat customers even telling me they don’t want to go through 3d hubs.

[Perry_1]

@Enza3d I appreciate your response. Your first sentence mentions product design. This is a small segment of what 3dprinting is. The bulk of your paragraph then discusses several examples of the use of FDM, none of which are prototyping.

As for your second point, there are many material options for FDM, including TPU, Nylon, etc. My printers are not cheap sub-$200 printers. When I am done modifying them so they print perfectly, they are an investment that can buy 8 cheap printers. I guess I don’t fit into the new model. Be very clear, with 3dhubs changing the rankings by massaging the marketing so that bad prints get better reviews, they are directly minimizing my efforts on 3dhubs, and moving poorer quality competitors upwards in the rankings.

[Perry_1]

You are slowly getting around to it, but just can’t come out and say it. You finally admitted that it is indeed true 3dhubs is trying to appeal to a more professional audience. From there we can assume you are trying for higher margin prints. One small step from there - 3dhubs admits that they chose “Prototyping” because it denigrates FDM and therefore it helps with that goal!

What do you know, my original reply to the OP is complete.

Now if I can just get 3dhubs to admit that this is now the policy, and nothing we say is going to change that, then BOTH my original points that I posted will be shown to be true.

[Perry_1]

1. “discussed with a lot of experts as well as a good amount of Hubs” Please ask some of the experts and hubs you discussed this with to join the discussion here, otherwise this is just a straw man “people are saying this…” argument.
“It’s not standard practice we ask all Hubs for input on changes.” Well, it should be. It’s called “voice of the customer.” Its the only thing that prevents a competitor from taking your market away. You also refer to this as “the change.” Meaning it is now policy, not a test. If I could just get you to admit it!
You did not answer my question, which was “Why did you not get input from US on this change?” Your answer that it is not standard procedure is indefensible on such a broadly sweeping change, that affects the greatest majority of your existing hubs.
5. “without harming existing audiences” is not the same as not harming existing hubs. This change harms your best hubs, who print the best quality, and in the materials your FDM market serves.
6. “We implemented the FDM guidelines already to prevent a decline in print quality” Actually, that’s the opposite of what you said the results were. You said “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.” This means you made changes to what customers should expect. You did nothing to prevent a decline in print quality. In fact, lowering the expectation means better reviews for poorer prints, better rankings for poorer prints, creating additional competition for high quality FDM hubs. You have not done anything to increase the quality of prints. You cant say you are lowering customer expectations and getting better reviews, and then say its increasing the quality of the prints. You are saying that because we told people they are going to get bad prints, they are happy, so they must be getting better prints. This is faulty logic that assumes a correlation between two poor connections, and I know you are smarter than that.
7. I don’t think you “completely understand my view” as you say. Following that up with saying “the data” supports you is another straw man argument. Since I have stated I am suspect of the motives of 3dhubs here, and you have no way of actually sharing any data, this is an invalid statement. Directly, you failed to answer the specific question. Let me rephrase it: “Please tell me specifically how your data shows that an FDM hub with hundreds of prints and perfect reviews will benefit from these changes” Saying your data shows that customers are returning to hubs, that reviews are going up, everybody wins, etc. is not a metric we can trust. “A rising tide lifts all boats” is fine. But not in business. I want you to explain how your data outcomes are different from my views, specifically. You said it raises the reviews for poorer prints. If you don’t answer this, all your other statements are an attempt at calming us down, when you are really trying to denigrate FDM in the marketplace in an attempt to get higher margin prints.
8. How did you intend it?

Finally, stop saying you are going to “do more nuanced copy.” If you don’t say you are removing Prototyping, stop sugar coating it. The truth is, this policy is here to stay, regardless of the input.

[Enza3D]

I know it’s a small segment, but that (product design, engineering development) is the market I think 3D Hubs is trying to get into and therefore, that is who they are catering to with these changes. They have already cornered most of the other markets I mentioned, hence the changes we are seeing here.

I did not say your printers are sub-$200 printers (non of mine are either, especially my Axiom), what I am saying is that it is now very cheap to buy FDM printers (and the material for them thanks to eSun and other Chinese manufacturers) versus a few years ago, when really only established companies could afford them. So why spend more than $200 on a Hub order when you can buy a printer for that price (especially if a maker/hobbyist plans to do a lot of printing)? Obviously, there’s no guarantee of any print quality with that route (especially with the cheaper machines), but makers/hobbyists who have time to learn the ropes are taking that path more and more frequently. In my experience over the last few months alone, that income source (the maker/hobbyist) is drying up a bit due to the the low cost of FDM machines. I can definitely see that being a motivating factor here, and agree with you that is not necessarily being implemented properly if this is the path they plan to take.

FDM hubs and FDM prints make up a huge portion of 3D Hubs (based on Hubs’ own data, here 3D printing trend report | Hubs), and pushing changes that hurt these Hubs will negatively impact 3D Hubs themselves. Looking for new user bases is a very important part of growth, as you know, but it can’t be done at the cost of the original base and the Hubs themselves, which is where I think all these issues discussed here are stemming from.