2 Major flaws with this business model in this arena. . .
The ability of the "owners" to control the costs.
The ability of the "owners" to control quality.
Owner A wants parts in 2 days but owner B needs to have something run in
0.001" layers. Someone has to give. This concept is the commercial
equivalent to some of the universities' consortiums. Why belly up to the
bar with $200,000 and not have a machine in your facility? Will this be a
true "co-op" with profits being shared by the owners? Or will it be a
service bureau with fractional owners paying $X per hour for machine usage.
In that case tomato-tomato. (That saying doesn't work nearly as well when
typed -- tomAto, tomAHto).
**********************************************************
David K. Leigh ph (254) 933-1000
Harvest Technologies fax (254) 298-0125
Rapid Prototyping Services www.harvest-tech.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Marshall Burns <Marshall@Ennex.com>
To: ATiburon@aol.com <ATiburon@aol.com>; rjones@sharedreplicators.com
<rjones@sharedreplicators.com>; rp-ml@bart.lpt.fi <rp-ml@bart.lpt.fi>
Date: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: Job Posting
>><< Shared Replicators is pioneering Fractional Ownership Programs for
>>top-of-the-line industrial rapid prototyping equipment. Currently, the
>>company is marketing shares in SLA7000 solid imaging systems. >>
>>
>>Is that the only way someone can afford one of those?
>>Andy Scott
>>Lockheed Martin Aero Sys
>
>
>Andy,
>
> I'm sure your question is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but the fact is
that
>while there will be major companies, including probably yours, that will
>belly up to the bar for the 7000 because of its enhanced performance
>characteristics, the Shared Replicators business concept is an interesting
>one that will allow smaller companies to take advantage of the same
>capabilities without needing to cost-justify the whole $800,000. The idea
is
>similar to the advantages that one gets from using a fab shop (i.e. service
>bureau) but with some additional advantages related to actual, partial
>ownership versus merely contracting time on the machine. My guess is that
it
>would be similar to the difference between having a time-share deal in a
>resort versus staying in a hotel. There will be pros and cons of each way
of
>doing business.
>
> These comments are based on my reading of Ron Jones' several postings
on
>this list in the last couple of months. I have not been privy to the Shared
>Replicators business plan, nor am I affiliated in any way with the company.
>
> Ross Perot became the richest man in America (at one time) by starting
a
>company (EDS) that provided time sharing on mainframe computers. Perot's
>business model was quite different from both Jones' and from a fab shop's.
>Perot bought time on computers owned by large companies and resold that
time
>to smaller companies. It was a different business model, but its intended
>impact was similar to that of both the fab shop and Shared Replicators:
>reduce the cost of ownership of expensive new technology, thereby making it
>accessible to a broader base of users. I'm looking forward to seeing how
>this works out.
>
>Best regards,
>Marshall Burns
>
>Marshall@Ennex.com
>Ennex Corporation, Los Angeles, USA, (310) 824-8700
>www.Ennex.com
>
>
>
>For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
>
For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 22:52:31 EEST