I see a lot of work done in making 3D printers accessible to the point of having one in every home, but I wonder if any home improvement stores have considered having them on-site and using it to gain foot-traffic to buy the additional parts needed to complete the object.
It's not legal to print ten-year-olds in 2D, much less 3D.
Joking aside, while a cool idea, I don't think it's really aimed at the right market. I wouldn't mind having a cheap 3D printer for quick prototyping, but for children, the physical experience of molding and shaping a new creation is an important part of their mental and physical development.
At ten years old, kids' brains are still locking down key motor and spatial reasoning skills.
This seems like a device more suitable for teenagers-and-up.
I'm no expert, but I gave my 4 year old nephew a set of GeoMag, and he was copying stuff from the manual (he can't read yet, but I can see the pictures), and doing a reasonably good job of it.
I was programming at 9, and using animation tools around the same age (very simple stuff). Kids are really good at specialising, so if they find 3d modelling interesting, they'll learn it, especially with such a simple tool like 3Dtin.
I think we shouldn't underestimate what each successive generation is capable of doing, riding on the wave of the previous generation.
We need the inverse: place some real object in a box and get back 3D specs to reproduce. Then kids (that includes all of us, too) can make stuff in Play-doh then make more durable copies.
I'm pretty sure we've had 3D scanners since before 3D printers, but I don't recall off-hand how cheap they are. But great idea for a kids application with playdough.
Yeah, you're right. Look at what people can do with just two Kinects; all you really need is enough pictures of the object from different surrounding points to construct a 3D representation that looks alright.
Forget ten year olds, I'm 32 and I want one!
When I looked at the first page, I thought "nice idea, but ideas are worthless". Then I looked at the second page, and you guys have put a lot of research in it, it's really thought out well. If the price is right, let's say < 200 USD, I'm in the market. For my kid, of course.
One day you'll be able to buy one for <$200, but not this one. Just having one available at $600-$800 will be huge. Imagine if the rich kid in your neighborhood had one of these when you were growing up.
I'm curious about operational costs though. Even if the initial investment is within reach of well-to-do middle-classers, dropping $60 every time little Jimmy wants to "print" his latest robot model could get old really, really quickly.
I don't see on the "Making of Origo" page anything about what material they're using, but ABS plastic isn't that expensive, especially for small models. They also ask (but don't answer) "What if it could recycle its own material?", so little Jimmy will have to pick and choose which robot models to keep around, but could in principle make a new one without a huge investment in substrate.
Well, ABS is kinda expensive if you're buying it in spools from Makerbot: about $45/kg. That's around $5 per toy, if they're smallish, or around the cost of a toy you'd buy. It's not saving you money, anyway.
That's pretty good info. I don't think $45/kg is to terribly bad. I think a lot of it will come down to who ends up funding/owning the devices and the supplies. If they go for the "razorblades" (or maybe more appropriately injket printer ink) profit model, things could go pretty poorly. Let's hope there are at least a few players that decide to keep things sane.
Not unreasonable. But can "drafts" be printed from cheaper materials?
10 year olds often struggle with forethought and impulse control. They can be great visualizers, but details and abstractions are often challenges. So the ability to cheaply print a rough draft, from which they can see and fix flaws, would be nice.
The copy on the page seems to be a bit ahead of itself, as long as you are in the vaporware stage I think it is premature to say that "none will be as easy to use as I will. None will be as reliable or work as hard for you".
The video caption on vimeo says it is 'ready for immediate launch' but the origo home page says it is 'just an idea'.
Making statements about the reliability of something that is still in the idea stage is premature. Though it is admirable that reliability is high on the list of priorities.
This is rapidly becoming one of my personal catchphrases: "Goals aren't results." There is something wrong with talking about your goals as if they're a foregone conclusion.
I think makerbot industries has a better marketing angle, price just above a grand, aimed at tinkerers to create.
Unless the goal of origo is to print in a re-printable material, their target market shouldn't be for a piece of the play-dough market comprised of elementary school kids.
I can easily say i wouldnt buy either, i just dont have the need. If i was going to prototype something i would probably use shapeways.com or another 3d printing service.
3D printers are already a reality. As is easy-to-use 3D modeling software: http://www.spore.com/ is a game where you did your own 3D modeling to create critters.
3D printers are a reality, but $600 3D printers that are low maintenance and come assembled and ready to go are certainly not.
I don't see anything on the Origo site suggesting they've solved the problems that have kept the UP!, the assembled MakerBot Thing-O-Matic, and other assembled home 3D printers above $2000. I also don't see evidence that they've made any breakthroughs in reliability or ease of use, or really anything more than renders and prose.
