RE: [rp-ml] Zcorp!?

I don't think it would be in 3D system's interests to try to stop RepRap
even if they could. The world of open source does not destroy money
making ventures Adrian (sorry to urinate on that idealistic bonfire) it
merely creates and proliferates both new and existing markets. The very
markets that non open source organisations will then capitalise from.
Just think how much computer hardware and ancillaries have been sold to
linux users over the years. Giving things away free does not nor will it
ever remove or even reduce the necessity for money and financial
exchanges.

Jez.

-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Bowyer [mailto:A.Bowyer@bath.ac.uk]
Sent: 22 November 2011 14:06
To: Jeremy Pullin
Cc: rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi
Subject: Re: [rp-ml] Zcorp!?

No matter how much 3D buy, they can't stop RepRap. RepRap is not
something that
is amenable to control by purchasing.

We think there are now more RepRaps and RepRap derivatives (including
Makerbots
etc) in the world (starting to grow from Number One in 2008) that there
have
been proprietary 3D printers sold since the technology was invented 30
years ago.

3D own Bits from Bytes and BotMill, both RepRap derivatives, of course.
But
trying to buy up all those will be like trying to drink the sea...

Yours

Adrian

On 22/11/11 10:19, Jeremy Pullin wrote:
> To be honest this is nothing new. 3D systems have made their position
to
> buy their way to world domination for a while. Twenty two company
> acquisitions so far and no doubt more to come. The most surprising
> element of this is the size of companies that 3DS are now buying. As
> business strategies go though every one of us has seen this many times
> just think of the way that companies such as Volkswagon and BMW have
> gone around snapping up companies like a red neck snaps up road kill.
We
> have had the same in the metrology market with Hexagon Metrology
> attempting to............................how do I put this without
> getting in the s**t again? Oh yeah 'establish and consolidate market
> dominance through acquisition'. Just to be clear here these are
> observations and in no way a criticisms.
>
> I have to agree totally with Bathsheba's comments regarding innovation
> introductions. As a company becomes larger it has more resource for
> development so it would be easy to conclude that more new stuff would
be
> coming out of it but the truth is that it starts to suffer from 'large
> company syndrome' where controls and measures put into place to
control
> development activities become so large and unwieldy that they suck
> resource away from development itself. For example, Jenifer Lopez may
> well be a good dancer but just think how amazing she would be if she
> didn't have to drag that enormous backside around with her. This is a
> problem that might now affect 3DS and their acquired companies ( I
meant
> large company syndrome there by the way not J Lo's bum)
>
> There are now basically just four options for others the 3D printing
> market which are compete, cover yourself in patents, sell out or get
> out. Being in an area which 3DS are not in is becoming more and more
> difficult as they buy up more and more technologies in more and more
> markets. The 'whinge and moan about unfair monopolies or little guys
not
> standing a chance against the big guys' strategy is not on that list
and
> so is not a viable option. In a sense 3D systems are growing through
the
> power of the dollar rather than the power of expansion through
business
> growth but it is growth nevertheless and a diversification of product
> range brings added security from single technology declines. I also
> think there is another reason for the need to grow here and that is to
> prepare for the entrance of the real big boys into the market HP being
> but a single example of this. There may well be companies which in the
> additive manufacturing world are considered big but in the big wide
> world are still tiny. The $137m paid by 3DS for ZCorp might sound like
a
> large acquisition in the AM world but would barely cover the monthly
> bill for toilet rolls in truly global companies.
>
>
> Jez Pullin.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi [mailto:owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi] On
> Behalf Of Ed Tackett
> Sent: 21 November 2011 23:47
> To: b@bathsheba.com; rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi
> Subject: RE: [rp-ml] Zcorp!?
>
> As always enlightening.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi [mailto:owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi] On
> Behalf
> Of Bathsheba
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 2:30 PM
> To: rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi
> Subject: Re: [rp-ml] Zcorp!?
>
> On 11/21/2011 10:49 AM, G. Sachs wrote:
>> Looks like it (and Vidar digitizers). Boy, that's really
consolidating
>> the market into 2-3 players. Not really good, is it?
>
> I can see why they wanted to do it, but I agree: this can't be good
for
> the market.
>
> Stop me if I'm wrong, but what I observe in this field is that
technical
>
> innovation takes place when companies are founded or enter the field,
> and only then. Since I started doing this in the mid-90's, I can
think
> of no game-changing innovation that took place in an established 3DP
> company. I don't mean incremental improvements, but when a whole new
> process is invented, bringing with it new applications, changing the
> cost structure, novel material category...something that brings in a
> whole horde of brand new uncaptured customers.
>
> Within existing companies the layers get a bit thinner, the support
> structure algorithms get a bit better, on a big day a new material is
> added. The most exciting thing I remember from an established company

> was when ZCorp got color. Stereolithography doesn't seem too
different
> to me from what it was when I first heard of it 20 years ago. Yes
it's
> incrementally better, but the fundamentals -- layers, supports, type
of
> material -- don't get fixed. People who are invested in SLA don't see

> these things as problems. Better parts, different parts, must come
from
>
> somewhere else.
>
> On the one hand, it's better for the industry if there are small
> companies springing up. On the other hand, nobody's going to start a
> small company if it doesn't have an exit path, and it's traditional in

> this era for that exit path to be "selling out to the 800-lb gorilla".
>
> Gripping hand, RIP ZCorp. I'll miss you guys. I believe there would
be
>
> no consumer market today without what ZCorp did: they invented the
> cheaptastic concept model.
>
> Personally, ZCorp was the company that looked at my very first CAD
model
>
> -- and it was total crap -- and say hey, we're new here too, nothing
to
> lose, let's act like this is a customer and see what happens.
>
> It's a while since we've done business, but those were great days.
>
>
> Well, here's to the next big thing. I will bet you a dollar it comes
> from a company that, right now, no one reading this knows the name of.
>
> -Bathsheba

-- 
Best wishes
Adrian
Dr Adrian Bowyer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Bowyer
http://reprap.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email and any attachments are confidential and are for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you must not use or disclose the contents to any other person. Please immediately notify the sender and delete the email. Statements and opinions expressed here may not represent those of the company. Email correspondence is monitored by the company. This information may be subject to export control regulation. You are obliged to comply with such regulations.

Renishaw plc (company number 1106260), Wotton Travel Limited (company number 01973158), PulseTeq Limited (company number 4392865) and Renishaw Advanced Materials Limited (company number 04632041), are companies registered in England and Wales with a registered office at New Mills, Wotton-under-Edge, Gloucestershire, GL12 8JR, United Kingdom, Telephone +44 1453 524524. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------