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

[Perry_1]

@PepCo_Parker Yeah, you missed the thread where that was “discussed.” 3dhubs announced it, and folks objected, gave suggestions, etc. (to be fair, I did not mind it. I didn’t see the whole hidden agenda at the time).
Anyway, they published it, with total disregard to their vendors.

THEN the added the “let me help you with choosing a material”
AND added a warning at checkout suggesting that customers should use a different material with a higher margin.
------------------

Then they did this prototyping materials thing. As I said in my first response 3 days ago, THIS IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE regardless of what we say. It is policy now.

[Perry_1]

Much as it is going to KILL ME in this discussion to take 3dhubs side on this, they also have an investment in every order. They build and maintain the software, and every process that happens on AWS costs them processing costs.

Additionally, look at it this way. Before you got that order, 3dhubs had to pay support costs, development costs, advertising costs, electric, rent, interest, etc. Then, they had to repeat some of those costs to deal with a customer for the refund, and they take a hit with their processor or paypal. So to say they literally have 0 time and 0 effort is wrong.

Also, if the print is bad, and should have been good, they have an opportunity cost. That is, they lost their commission on that sale, lost future prints from that customers, and any customers who may have been referred by that customer.

Which is why I did not object at the time to any guidelines that HONESTLY AND CORRECTLY inform the customer of downsides, because every customer costs them money, and every unhappy customer or refund costs them money.

However, many hubs objected and made GREAT SUGGESTIONS, and they just ignored those vendors. WE have been unable to get them to listen to their hubs. THIS is the BS part. They just went ahead an implemented. It turns out, this was a hidden agenda on their part to denigrate FDM.

THEN they added the “let me help you choose materials” at the start, “Maybe you should consider a different HQ vendor” just before OUR customer finishes the order, and finally denigrated the description of what we do, by calling it “prototyping”. They did this in secret.

[Filemon]

Hi again all, as this thread becomes bigger and hard for me to reply on each comment, I’d like to suggest to jump on a call next week to discuss the matter and work towards some next actions together.

Please let me know if you’re available on:

• Tuesday, March 21, 12h New York time (GMT-4)

I’ll add you to the invite once you’re availability is confirmed.

@cobnut @Perry_1 @Steelmans @Enza3D @PepCo_Parker @Zapaer

Please let me know!

Thanks again,

Filemon

[Perry_1]

@PepCo_Parker Thanks for agreeing with me. However, I was not saying to not point out the downsides. Just do so in an informative and positive way. For example, with Resin, rather than say “extensive exposure to UV light” which (besides being nonsensical) sounds bad, when it really isn’t. How about “HQ Resin is made with light. Long term exposure to UV light is not good for the part. This can be mitigated by painting the object in cases where extended exposure to UV light or sunlight (for those that dont know) is expected.”
SLS Nylon instead of Cavities within design, go with “Modelers should design holes where cavities occur, so nylon can escape those cavities during the process” More informative, less negative. Much better than a big red minus sign.
Full Color Sandstone instead of “intricate features” say “Sandstone is less smooth, and small intricate features could be lost during the FULL COLOR process” emphasizing that hey, you are going to get full color!!
I cant find the one that said Longer Lead times. But what if it said HQ printing takes longer than lower resolution printing, and requires more human interaction during the printing phase, so HQ printing has longer lead times.

All more informative, none of which degrades that material or FDM.

Finally, as for the tolerances, that was sold to us as a means of lowering the expectations for customers, who may be unaware of just how FDM works. They say they were getting a lot of complaints. Rather than listen to suggestions, they just threw that out there. It could certainly be worded as "Tolerances on less expensive, fast printers are not as close as tolerances on higher quality printing methods. We guarantee prints will not have tolerances beyond +/- 1% or 1mm.

This is the kind of input they ignored.

[Perry_1]

You would be amazed at the number of folks that ask about that. I have my own reasons for why it is there, but suffice it to say I cut that boat on my large CNC machine.

[cobnut]

Good for me @Filemon, although I’ll need to stoke up on coffee…

Jon

[Perry_1]

No, you are incorrect. Referring to a different hub, at this time, does indeed hurt your ranking. It affects your ratio of of archived orders to completed orders, an important ranking. See below…

This is more of my voice of the customer diatribe. If they asked US how to increase HQ prints, we could have told them to let US push orders directly to a partnering hub, wiithout hurting our rankings.

Instead they went negative…

I can’t find the actual posting here on talk, because searching talk can be a tough thing for me. But I think it was the same post where the 3dhubs person said they have to check with programmers to find out why a hub is ranked a certain way above or below another hub, that they could not tell how it was done.
You can view the statistics on the BETA rankings in your hub dashboard. I rank way above on reviews, response time, and every other metric than the top 10% of all hubs. I rank below on that metric, even though I probably helped them!

[Enza3D]

Ah, ok thanks for the info. I did not know that, but I suppose it doesn’t matter much anyway seeing as I’m not going to print orders better suited for someone else anyway. Definitely not a good way to foster improved print quality though.

[Perry_1]

I will be on the call.

But I ask 3dhubs and the hubs to continue the discussion in the open here as well, as will I.
Everyone here deserves to have their voices heard on this, as they are directly affected because the change is still up. Perhaps some others from 3dhubs can help with the discussion here.

I would encourage you to do the call sooner. A week is a long time in internet time. Google has this already. I would think you would want to head off some bad headlines that inevitably are coming on the 3dprint news sites and forums.

You don’t want to see headlines like “3dhubs redefines 3d printing as low quality prototypes” or “3dhubs decides their primary business is now low-tolerance prototype materials.” Or worse headlines, which I am NOT going to post here.

[Enza3D]

We won’t be able to make (that’s during business hours), but would like to hear how it goes.

[imagine3dps]

That’s not cool at all. Is it time to check out other options? I’ve been here for 3 years and I would hate to leave, but what can we do?

[Perry_1]

I am all up for doing it anytime you can be available.

[Perry_1]

You make an excellent point that I had missed. This wording is incorrect. My FDM printers can actually guarantee much better.

It really should say 3dhubs can only guarantee a certain tolerance. What it really should say is something positive, like “3dhubs guarantees a maximum tolerance of +/- etc.” which is much more positive.

I think you understand the wording just fine, but probably not the reasoning. 3dhubs is trying to move customers from FDM hubs to higher margin printers. They made several changes to the site to do this, including the tolerances wording, a “let me help you choose a material” when a customer arrives, a “let me recommend a higher quality print” when the customer goes to complete the order, and labeling FDM printing as prototype quality with prototype material. This was done in secret, without asking us about it, warning us, or getting feedback prior to the print. They are doing this even to repeat customers. Their history on this, and their response in this thread would indicate that this is going to be the policy, regardless of what we say.

[PepCo_Parker]

I agree that this wording is totally wrong. It’s both misleading and just flat out false. That’s not the highest quality FDM machines can guarantee, it’s what 3D Hubs is guaranteeing. I’m really starting to dislike this relationship of words being put into our mouths.

I like the automated messages system, but I don’t like that we still don’t have an option to change or set exactly what we want the messages to say. (Referring to the automated messages that post when a new order is requested). That’s just another example of tools that I think we should have at our disposal, but despite that being brought up several months ago (Right when that feature, another thing left unspoken between hubs, came promptly out).

[Perry_1]

This was caught by a hub, where a customer from the their personal website pushed the order to 3d hubs, the customer was shown the tolerances warning, and then they showed the customer how they could get a better print in SLS and SLA from another hub. Because this was unconscionable, once this came to light, 3dhubs removed it.
However, I asked if this was also removed when a repeat customer, who we have earned the right to keep, comes to the hub. This has not been answered.
DONT LEAVE. POST YOUR POSITION, perhaps with something more descriptive or even stronger than “thats not cool at all”! It is important to be heard.
What can you do? Well, if they dont fix it, there will be a vacuum formed in the industry, because nothing opens the door to competition like ruining your brand and hurting your base.

[Perry_1]

That wording does exactly what 3dhubs wants it to do.

[Zapaer]

That time works for me.

[Steelmans]

Thats a long way off for me to plan ahead. Put me on the list and I’ll do my best to make it.

[Steelmans]

In the meantime, where have all the orders gone?!?!

[imagine3dps]

I’d like to be on the call as well.

Mark