David, Charles, List,
I guess when I put out the position announcements on the list, I did not
count on my company becoming the object of so much speculative commentary.
The commentary thus far for the most part has been done without benefit of
any understanding of our company and how it operates. Just to set the
record straight, 1) we are not a service bureau. In fact several service
bureaus are currently considering our program. 2) we guarantee a 24 hour
response time to our owners. I won't go into how we deal with conflicting
demands, but we have the issue covered. 3) Our quality is and will always be
the best. This is attributable to employing only the best and most
experienced people and offering the most advanced technology. 4) we manage
equipment under long-term contracts. As a result, our owners have a very
predictable cost structure, but we do allow owners to withdraw from the
program if they are unhappy with the service.
As a courtesy, I would think it would be appropriate for people to submit
requests for information about a company that is a member of the list,
before making commentaries about their service or business. My company
would be very happy to respond to any information request from anyone on the
Thank you for your consideration,
From: Charles Norton <email@example.com>
To: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: Fractional Ownership
>David & List,
>It's kind of like having a Service Bureau that you can't fire. If a user
>is unhappy with the "ABC Service Bureau" it's not particularly difficult to
>find a replacement if the quality, service, or support is unsatisfactory.
>At 10:26 PM 08/31/1999 -0500, you wrote:
>>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
>>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
>>From: Marshall Burns <Marshall@Ennex.com>
>>To: ATiburon@aol.com <ATiburon@aol.com>; firstname.lastname@example.org
>><email@example.com>; firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>
>>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?
>>>>Lockheed Martin Aero Sys
>>> I'm sure your question is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but the fact is
>>>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
>>>one that will allow smaller companies to take advantage of the same
>>>capabilities without needing to cost-justify the whole $800,000. The idea
>>>similar to the advantages that one gets from using a fab shop (i.e.
>>>bureau) but with some additional advantages related to actual, partial
>>>ownership versus merely contracting time on the machine. My guess is that
>>>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
>>> These comments are based on my reading of Ron Jones' several postings
>>>this list in the last couple of months. I have not been privy to the
>>>Replicators business plan, nor am I affiliated in any way with the
>>> Ross Perot became the richest man in America (at one time) by
>>>company (EDS) that provided time sharing on mainframe computers. Perot's
>>>business model was quite different from both Jones' and from a fab
>>>Perot bought time on computers owned by large companies and resold that
>>>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
>>>accessible to a broader base of users. I'm looking forward to seeing how
>>>this works out.
>>>Ennex Corporation, Los Angeles, USA, (310) 824-8700
>>>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/
>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 - 22:52:32 EEST