At 7:15 +0100 19/7/97, Carl Fruth wrote:
>for our company as an EOS customer ( and some other) it sounds not so
>good that 3D systems gets the majority of EOS.
>I see some big problems:
>1. everything will get more expensive!
EOS stereolithography equipment is currently about 30% cheaper than a
similar 3D product. The same applies to their plastic sintering technology
vs. DTM. Obviously, there are sound reasons for these differences.
>2. the EOS stereolithographie will break down ( i donīt think that two
>similar stereolithography machines from the "same" manufacture will stay
>on the market.
You bet. If the deal goes through, EOS stereolithography processes will
disappear rapidly. 3D wants to acquire (has acquired?) them so as to wipe
out the competition, at least in Europe, and to acquire sintering
technology. But what's to stop the Japanese from moving into the void? I
can also see DTM teaming up with one of them, or maybe even with Aaroflex,
to ruffle 3D's feathers...There will also probably be some highly qualified
people looking for work who aren't going to stand by idly and watch 3D take
the lion's share of the market.
>3. new technologies in this field getīs less
I guess there's something in this. Wasn't the Zephyr recoating a direct
result of the 3D/EOS patent dispute? What other technologies resulted from
the competition between EOS and 3D?
And if the deal goes through, 3D also gets sintering technology, which
should provide the market with stimulation, maybe including some
development of Keltool, which also uses sintering. What happens if 3D
starts selling sintering machines in the US?
Doesn't look so bad to me........
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 22:39:55 EEST