|
|
| Re: New price structure [message #34818 is a reply to message #34811 ] Wed, 21 September 2011 19:22 UTC |
  |
|
Nope! There will not be a minimum order size anymore.
Product Manager
Twitter: @nliang
|
|
|
| Re: New price structure [message #34819 is a reply to message #34818 ] Wed, 21 September 2011 19:27 UTC |
|
|
yah to no minimum order. Boo to Changing prices before implementing CSV Input. That is a rediculous amount of work to adapt for new pricing scheme
Follow me on twitter http://twitter.com/mctrivia or my blog at http://4ddice.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
| Re: New price structure [message #34827 is a reply to message #34825 ] Wed, 21 September 2011 19:45 UTC |
|
|
well that would be great. Mentioning something like that before releasing price change notice may stop a few people from having heart atacks. Without CSV that would be a good 20+ hours work.
Follow me on twitter http://twitter.com/mctrivia or my blog at http://4ddice.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
| Re: New price structure [message #34844 is a reply to message #34827 ] Thu, 22 September 2011 00:09 UTC |
|
|
$19.99 for shipping to the rest of the world? My orders will become VERY expensive... 
I believe most of my customers are from US and Europe so they may not feel that. But all the test prints that I order for myself...
|
|
|
| Re: New price structure [message #34845 is a reply to message #34844 ] Thu, 22 September 2011 00:26 UTC |
|
|
maybe shapeways can offer a testing service. Say $3 will photograph in high quality for you. $5 will do some simple tests. Then instead of shipping they recycle the print. May be worth it for some people.
Follow me on twitter http://twitter.com/mctrivia or my blog at http://4ddice.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
| Re: New price structure [message #34846 is a reply to message #34844 ] Thu, 22 September 2011 00:34 UTC |
|
|
Thanks Stannum,
Please direct any questions here or to the blog so that everyone can find them easily and we can respond to any feedback.
I will try and generate a few case studies on pricing.
Attached is a spreadsheet with all pricing and a calculator, enter cm3 to get a price for your models, also a column for mark-up if you want to test that too.
UPDATE: See Later iteration of spreadsheet now attached
[Updated on: Thu, 22 September 2011 05:59 UTC]
Duann Scott, Designer Evangelist, Shapeways
|
|
|
|
| Re: New price structure [message #34851 is a reply to message #34847 ] Thu, 22 September 2011 01:47 UTC |
|
|
Hi bluelinegecko
This change does reflect the cost of production, at 3cm3 stainless steel matches the current price, after that it is cheaper.
Calculating the postage means that bigger orders will lower your shipping cost. I am also unsure about the shipping calculations for Ponoko as a comparison. In my experience within the US something of that scale would cost a minimum of $9 to ship? Unless there have been some changes.
Duann Scott, Designer Evangelist, Shapeways
|
|
|
| Re: New price structure [message #34853 is a reply to message #34810 ] Thu, 22 September 2011 01:57 UTC |
|
|
Taking current prices:
start cm3
Alumide 1.5 1.99
Antique Bronze Glossy 0 * 12.|10.|9.|8.
Antique Bronze Matte 0 * 12.|10.|9.|8.
Frosted Detail 5. 2.39
Frosted Ultra Detail 5. 3.49
Full Color Sandstone 1.5 0.99
Gold Plated Glossy 0 * 23.|11.|10.|9.
Gold Plated Matte 0 * 20.|11.|10.|9.
Grey Robust 0 2.50
High Gloss Black Glass 5. 6.99
High Gloss White Glass 5. 6.99
Milky White Matter Glass 5. 5.99
Sandstone 1.5 0.99
Silver 20. 20. (min 1 cm3)
Silver Glossy 30. 20. (min 1 cm3)
Stainless Steel 0 10.
Transparent Detail 0 2.77
White Detail 0 2.89
Black Detail 0 2.9
White Strong & Flexible 1.5 1.5
White Strong & Flexible Polished 1.5 1.75
Black Strong & Flexible 4. 1.78
Dark Grey Strong & Flexible 4. 1.99
Indigo Strong & Flexible 4. 1.99
Red Strong & Flexible 4. 1.99
* Each band billed differently and accumulative:
1 cm3 minimum | 1st-5th | 5th-10th | above 10th
(8 cm3 will be A + B*4 + C*3 + D*0)
The results are that:
- No matter how big the model is, prices increased for TD, WD, BD, both Silvers & all Glass (and then add shipping increase).
- No matter how big, base prices are the same for Alumide, FD & FUD, but shipping is extra so prices increased by that amount.
- The rest is variable depending in volume and destination. For example WSF is cheaper above 65-200 cm3 (for non dense items), Robust above 17-44 cm3 or SS above 6.25-13 cm3. Best seems to be Gold Plated Glossy with 1-2.27 cm3.
Corrections and extra examples welcome.
|
|
|
| Re: New price structure [message #34854 is a reply to message #34851 ] Thu, 22 September 2011 01:59 UTC |
|
|
Yes, bigger orders will lower my shipping costs and when I order my own models in the future I will surely place larger orders. But this greatly affects my co-creators. All of my sales have been single orders through them, so that effectively raised those potential customer prices 25-33%.
Even if I chose to take orders through ebay/etsy, etc and have the items shipped to me to save on shipping, the price will be just as high for me to ship the items out to my customers directly.
I still don't understand the pricing as it relates to gold plated/bronze/stainless. I would think the post processing would cost more than $1.5 - $3.00
How about giving free shipping or a discount on the handling fees to co-creators items only?
[Updated on: Thu, 22 September 2011 02:05 UTC]
|
|
|
| Re: New price structure [message #34858 is a reply to message #34854 ] Thu, 22 September 2011 03:39 UTC |
|
|
Larger orders is a logical step, and one thing has to be enabled or given as option with this new structure: all-or-nothing orders. If one item is cancelled, automatically cancelling the full order was a reasonable action, now even more so.
Say you order a handful of items and all but one or two are unprintable, or maybe half of them. That is pretty common when testing. Before it was just waiting for enough items for 25 again, now if you are unlucky it would mean paying shipping for every one or two, negating the incentive to group items and hit the declared target of efficiency.
|
|
|
| Re: New price structure [message #34860 is a reply to message #34846 ] Thu, 22 September 2011 05:10 UTC |
|
|
Eh? I've just downloaded the spreadsheet in the above post but the cost (column "E") appears to be a fixed figure and not calculated from the volume.
I'm using Libre-office, but I'll double check on the computer downstairs with MS Office when I get up.
Tom
|
|
|
| Re: New price structure [message #34863 is a reply to message #34860 ] Thu, 22 September 2011 05:58 UTC |
|
|
Hmm, weirdness.
Export from google docs, worked in (ahem) apple numbers
Let me retest,
Formula is easy B2+C2*D2
copied down it should work.
Let me know how you go.
Duann Scott, Designer Evangelist, Shapeways
|
|
|
| Re: New price structure [message #34865 is a reply to message #34863 ] Thu, 22 September 2011 10:08 UTC |
|
|
Will multiple objects per file be allowed ?
(Especially for all the "Detail" materials...)
[Updated on: Thu, 22 September 2011 10:13 UTC]
|
|
|
| Re: New price structure [message #34872 is a reply to message #34851 ] Thu, 22 September 2011 12:55 UTC |
|
|
| duann wrote on Thu, 22 September 2011 01:47 |
Hi bluelinegecko
This change does reflect the cost of production, at 3cm3 stainless steel matches the current price, after that it is cheaper.
Calculating the postage means that bigger orders will lower your shipping cost. I am also unsure about the shipping calculations for Ponoko as a comparison. In my experience within the US something of that scale would cost a minimum of $9 to ship? Unless there have been some changes.
|
Except all my models are less than 2cm3, I'm selling jewelry, not airplane parts. Not to mention import fees and UPS fees for orders larger than about $35-$40. So this really does hurt my bottom line tremendously. I'm still not clear how it costs the same to handle a small model as it does large ones. I would think it takes less time and effort to print and finish smaller objects than large bulky items.
http://www.eyephoriadesign.com
http://www.shapeways.com/shops/eyephoriadesign
http://www.etsy.com/shop/eyephoriadesign
|
|
|
| Re: New price structure [message #34878 is a reply to message #34863 ] Thu, 22 September 2011 13:49 UTC |
|
|
|
I'd suggest a line for WSF with > 10% density, for the discount. I'm not sure how many people this affects, though (I'm borderline, myself).
|
|
|
| Re: New price structure [message #34879 is a reply to message #34872 ] Thu, 22 September 2011 13:51 UTC |
|
|
Hello,
first of all I want to say that I like the systematic of the new price system. So it is clear for each customer for what he pays.
Of course I dislike that you increased the cost for most materials. But if it is necessary to fit your afford than it has to be done.
As you claim now handling cost for all materials I highly wish that you invent an (semi-)automatic sprue system. 3D printing is a flexible technology and it should still be possible to order a collection of small items for a reasonable price.
I can create bulks of my products, but than the flexibility for the customer is lost and he is limited to products of one designer. That cannot be the idea of 3D printing.
So on you have to check my designs every time I upload a new bulk collection, whereas with a server side sprue system the items in the shops will not change each order. Also you can arrange the items so that they fit optimal the production space in the printer. The handling costs will reduce for you and also for the customer.
At least as long as your site updates will be in this quality, I am not willing to design sprues in my bulk packages. Because I have no benefit of it, only more design time and higher volume.
King regards
Michael
|
|
|
| Re: New price structure [message #34880 is a reply to message #34872 ] Thu, 22 September 2011 13:56 UTC |
|
|
| roofoo wrote on Thu, 22 September 2011 12:55 |
Except all my models are less than 2cm3, I'm selling jewelry, not airplane parts. Not to mention import fees and UPS fees for orders larger than about $35-$40. So this really does hurt my bottom line tremendously. I'm still not clear how it costs the same to handle a small model as it does large ones. I would think it takes less time and effort to print and finish smaller objects than large bulky items.
|
As far as the handling, small parts have several difficulties. Finding them in the powder, most smaller items have smaller details so cleaning excess material is more difficult in all materials. imagine trying to dye, or glaze these things that are so tiny, imagine with silver and stainless, how fragile the green parts are. You have to be even more careful with a tiny piece not to break it than a larger piece.
The Mad Moder
michael@shapeways.com
|
|
|
| Re: New price structure [message #34907 is a reply to message #34810 ] Thu, 22 September 2011 19:43 UTC |
|
|
I don't have the luxury of time to spend an evening browsing my new pricing, and all the threads relating to the new page layout. Two questions, please. How do I account for the 10% discount on WSF, and WHERE is the figure for volume on the new page layout? How can I insert cm3 when I don't know what it is?
This is all very, very confusing for someone who can only afford a few minutes each night on the Shapeways site. I haven't the time to re-learn everything. I love the new arrangement of the renders and/or photographs. Everything else is too complicated and confusing. Whatever happened to KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid)?
Many thanks.
|
|
|
| Re: New price structure [message #34910 is a reply to message #34907 ] Thu, 22 September 2011 20:13 UTC |
|
|
There's a slider on the upper left of the page "Edit Page" that you have to click to show volume, which appears right next to the dimensions. Inconvenient, isn't it?
From what I understand, the volume discount for 10% density or higher will work the same as now, but with a lower rate, so the price will be $1.50 + $1.40 * (volume up to 20 cm3) + $0.70 * (volume above 20 cm3).
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New price structure [message #34937 is a reply to message #34810 ] Fri, 23 September 2011 04:25 UTC |
|
|
Sorry if I missed it, are multiple parts per file ok?
Well, you guys made me feel better about the download files being corrupt and unusable, I'll have to wait for the 1st to order silver anyways. 
|
|
|
|
| Re: New price structure [message #34962 is a reply to message #34961 ] Fri, 23 September 2011 12:16 UTC |
|
|
probably 1 per stl like it was before in WSF and other materials that had the startup cost.
Follow me on twitter http://twitter.com/mctrivia or my blog at http://4ddice.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
| Re: New price structure [message #34969 is a reply to message #34961 ] Fri, 23 September 2011 12:57 UTC |
|
|
| roofoo wrote on Fri, 23 September 2011 12:14 |
How will the new pricing affect items like earrings that come in a pair? Is that going to be one handling fee or two?
|
It will be the same as now. One startup/handleing fee per pair.
[Updated on: Fri, 23 September 2011 12:57 UTC]
The Mad Moder
michael@shapeways.com
|
|
|
| Re: New price structure [message #34982 is a reply to message #34969 ] Fri, 23 September 2011 13:25 UTC |
|
|
Reading between the lines about multiple parts per file - Shapeways would obviously prefer to discourage this as multiple parts increase the time spent handling each model dramatically.
I'm aware of this as I sell several sets of dice and miniatures (up to ten in a set) and I've had occasion to have a model rejected because of it having too many parts.
This led to a short discussion by email of the problem, and the likely outcome is that Shapeways is going to begin rejecting models that consist of too many disconnected parts (IIRC the limit may well be twelve separate parts, although with the new pricing structure they may reduce this.)
I can see the need for Shapeways to make a public decision about this (rather than the 'Gentlemans agreement' mentioned in the last Shapeways Live.)
[Updated on: Fri, 23 September 2011 13:27 UTC]
|
|
|
| Re: New price structure [message #34987 is a reply to message #34810 ] Fri, 23 September 2011 15:00 UTC |
|
|
If only one part per model becomes enforced, then it more-or-less kills a huge proportion of their customer base. (A reasonable upper limit would be acceptable, of course; a dozen seems fair - but that is for me, not other folk, of course.)
For one, it will kill a lot (if not most of) the miniatures modellers, myself included: there is no point using Shapeways if it becomes far more expensive than metal. (How can you do tanks, for instance, if you are obliged to do the turret and hull as seperate models?) If you can economically only use it for master creation - well, frankly, there are far better services out there for that job. There has been a really burgeoning starship modelling community, but Shapeways is looming very close to losing nearly the entirety of it at it's current rate (as well as getting all the bad publicity fall out).
(And Shapeways cannot be unaware of it, given that they are releasing that 3D random starship generator - though the existance does make it seem like they don't really quite understand the market there.)
And what about stuff like Oskar's puzzles, which have a reputation enough that even I, someone who is soley interested in miniatures, have heard of? For what I can gather from his shop (without seeing the 3D images, thanks to the delightful new product page) they are either composed of multiple pieces (as a kit or in-situ) or sprued together... And I can't imagine that even if they are sprued they can be easy to clean. (Or does that sort of thing get a pass because it's already expensive?)
At the end of the day, if Shapeways wants to function as a universal 3D printer service, it's going to have to grit their teeth and realise that people are going to want small things printed, sometimes. It's part of the job. Shapeways is in a good position now because it is about the only one who is cheap, and getting a reputation. When it loses that advantage, when other companies start to follow suite (and it's inevitable they will) or the price of the machines themselves and the reliablity comes down (and it's well on it's way, sometimes within the next 2-5 years), there will be no reason to stick with Shapeways if they can't offer a competative service.
(There's already a miniatures company in England that's somehow producing (solid) 1/72nd and 1/144 vehicles at half the price of what it would cost in WSF from Shapeways but with a finish closer to WD. (No, I don't know how they are doing that. I suspect they have access to an industrial-engineering grade machine (i.e. one that does something like Formula One prototyping or something.)). Point is, it's coming steadily.
[Updated on: Fri, 23 September 2011 15:29 UTC]
|
|
|
| Re: New price structure [message #34994 is a reply to message #34987 ] Fri, 23 September 2011 16:09 UTC |
|
|
Hey guys,
First, you all propose interesting points and difficult questions. There's no magic solution for this. The truth is, that printing individual pieces does make it incredibly difficult to sort and thus raise the cost in labor.
Second, we don't want to inhibit any creativity of our community. Reasonable bundling (puzzles, sets, earrings) does make sense. We don't want to penalize you guys for creating sets that makes sense. There are people, though, who bundle together a few items that should be distinct to get around the start up costs. Unfortunately, these in the end, will raise the price for everybody because the costs as a whole will increase at an imbalanced rate to the revenue.
In the end, we are working on tools to better detect distinct parts and will charge accordingly. However, we also recognize that certain items are natural sets (ie earrings) and are conceptually "one item." Rather than just raising the price for everybody, we will also come out with some suggestions on how to create sprues that lower labor (there are ways of creating sprues that actually adds to handling labor and having a lot of people bundle sprues in a way to makes it more difficult to handle also raise the cost for everybody), and how to create cages for loose parts. If there are any other brilliant ideas on bundling, please let me know.
I hope that addresses some of your questions.
Thanks,
Nancy
Product Manager
Twitter: @nliang
|
|
|
| Re: New price structure [message #34999 is a reply to message #34810 ] Fri, 23 September 2011 16:26 UTC |
|
|
I personally, make quite a lot of things in bulk packs as, if I were to do them individually, the start-up cost would exceed the material cost and they would be priced out of the market.
I'm re-selling them , individually or in pairs on eBay, but after I've treated them myself ( I've dyed or painted them , sometimes assembling with other non-Shapeways parts)
I've tried sprueing these parts together but was unable to get a decent answer as to whether this was a good idea or just made it harder to handle.
After most of them arrived here with the sprues broken or missing completely I've now abandoned using them.
So far no one has ever contacted me to say I've been putting too many models in one STL file.
Tom
|
|
|
| Re: New price structure [message #35002 is a reply to message #34994 ] Fri, 23 September 2011 16:38 UTC |
|
|
| nancyliang wrote on Fri, 23 September 2011 16:09 |
In the end, we are working on tools to better detect distinct parts and will charge accordingly. However, we also recognize that certain items are natural sets (ie earrings) and are conceptually "one item." Rather than just raising the price for everybody, we will also come out with some suggestions on how to create sprues that lower labor (there are ways of creating sprues that actually adds to handling labor and having a lot of people bundle sprues in a way to makes it more difficult to handle also raise the cost for everybody), and how to create cages for loose parts. If there are any other brilliant ideas on bundling, please let me know.
I hope that addresses some of your questions.
Thanks,
Nancy
|
I don't see how you can even begin to do that without human effort and arbitarily assigning weight to certain types of product. I don't see how you can fairly assign a split. If you say, yes, earrings and puzzles are allowed to be in multiple pieces, but badges or miniatures aren't?
And are you really suggesting that the folks making earrings, for example, are going to have to start using sprues or cages? In metal, with the wall thickness of those materials? Sprues in plastic is all well and good but I imagine in metal they'll be a nightmare to remove (unless you are going to spend the time to do it yourselves, rather than the end user.)
Not too mention that, once again, this means increased cost to the customer (not so much to me, as I work in the cheap stuff but it'll be quite considerable for those wanting metal.) And not having sprues is an advantages of 3D printing in the first.
|
|
|
| Re: New price structure [message #35017 is a reply to message #35002 ] Fri, 23 September 2011 20:13 UTC |
|
|
So where does chain malle come into the equation?
Imagine, I submit a 800 ring chain maille model, the software picks it up as 200 individual models joined by 600 links... or worse, it could be the other way around. Obviously, WSF or FUD only (metals are a no no)
Now ^ that was a stupid example... but?
'Adapt & survive' is my catch phrase for the week - that's what Shapeways are doing with the restructuring... gotta go with the flow, sink or swim and all that.
|
|
|
| Re: New price structure [message #35087 is a reply to message #35017 ] Mon, 26 September 2011 03:00 UTC |
|
|
I went to order another copy of my heart ornament, in order to test the Co-Creator platform to make sure I understand how that works before someone else decides to buy one.
I was a little surprised at the price of the stainless steel for my model. My earlier order cost about $40, since the model is nearly 4 cm3. This order comes to $50.
Another oddity: Every single price is rounded to the nearest 5 cents.
This is a screenshot from the spreadsheet I created when the new pricing model was announced. I copied the column for 4 cm3 from the old and new models ("old" and "new' columns, respectively). I also copied down the current price I see for my model. This is the "current" column.
So, what happened? I'm willing to assume an error on someone's part, as this does not seem to represent what was communicated last week.
One important note: The error shows up on that particular model (which is a co-creator), but not on the other models I checked, which are still using the old pricing structure.
|
|
|
| Re: New price structure [message #35094 is a reply to message #34810 ] Mon, 26 September 2011 06:08 UTC |
|
|
Puzzles are actually reasonably easy to handle. With WSF it is possible to build a sinterbox around them which keeps the parts contained - it's sort of a wire mesh box. Cleaning is quite easy and is done with the parts contained in the sinterbox so it hardly is any more work than cleaning one model.
However, Shapeways does not ship the parts inside of the sinterbox and counts all the parts by hand. If a part goes missing it's apparently a lot of work to figure out which one it is - this is apparently the worst of handling puzzles.
I think that trying to write software that detects multiple parts is a waste of time. I think you should rather do a manual check which also allows you greater flexibility in allowing some leeway.
You might allow a first-time customer to make this mistake once, sending out the order along with a warning "please don't do this again". For experienced designers you would just refuse to print a multi part model.
There are two things that annoy me about the current WSF pricing:
- The incentive to hollow parts unnecessarily. I make all my puzzles with 0.7mm hollow parts while the actual cost for making solid parts is very tiny. This is annoying because I would prefer solid parts (nicer feel, weight, less work to design) but the pricing greatly discourages it.
- The fact that with the startup fee, we're forced to stack parts in one file (or do the high poly/composite model thing). The truth is that counting the parts and figuring out which ones are missing would be infinitely easier if we could just supply the parts one model per part instead of one model per puzzle. Though obviously amending this would need some way to make a part group of various models so customers can order easily.
|
|
|
| Re: New price structure [message #35135 is a reply to message #34847 ] Mon, 26 September 2011 16:07 UTC |
|
|
| bluelinegecko wrote on Thu, 22 September 2011 01:01 |
Stainless Steel. (2.5 cm3)
Shapeways current pricing (2.5x$10/cm3)
$25 + $0 shipping
Shapeways NEW pricing
(2.5 x $8/cm3 = $20 +6.00 handeling fee = 26.50
+6.50 shipping (U.S. assuming 1 model bought) = $33.00 (a 32% price increase)
PONOKO's pricing (non member)
(2.5 x 10.53/cm3 = 26.33 + $5 shipping = $31.33 total)
PONOKO's pricing (prime membership)
(2.5 x 10.10/cm3 = 25.25 + $0 shipping = $25.25 total)
|
*AND* Ponoko ships by mail, not UPS, (I've only used them once so I assume that's still the case) and THAT alone would save me a minimum EXTRA $14 charge from UPS at my door!
Glenn
Glenn ------ My Website Third Dimension Jewellery
|
|
|
| Re: New price structure [message #35427 is a reply to message #35135 ] Thu, 29 September 2011 17:41 UTC |
|
|
sadly ill have to consider another options like imaterialize and ponoko.
I was really really happy with the service of shapeways even thought the last orders were delayed...
I dont like that changes and ill start production in another company even considering they are still a little more expensive.
bye shapeways
|
|
|
| Re: New price structure [message #35438 is a reply to message #34810 ] Thu, 29 September 2011 18:09 UTC |
|
|
this is what you are doing:
forcing us all to put multiple parts into one file to save money if our files are small.
you were already doing this before with many of your materials. now you are doing it on all of them.
the result of your "philosophy" is that you are NOT a retailer, you are a wholesaler. you only make affordable small products when we order multiple parts in the same file. not even the same order.
what this means for me: i will never place an order without putting many parts into one file. fine, this new pricing structure WILL save me money, because i will basically be cheating the system. you will be removing sprews from 20 rings for the price of 1. OK with me. maybe not so OK with you, as i doubt this is your goal.
this is exactly the same a having a handling charge per material in an order rather than per part. you seem to allow this, so why not be honest about it? if you implemented a handling fee *per material* in an order rather than *per file*, i wouldn't have to upload a new file every time i made an order. all you're doing is wasting my time and your server space making me upload a million files.
you're not looking at the big picture. the result of this price change will not be the one you are looking for.
as for the rest of you- if you still want to sell through your printer, try the company out of new zealand. but i suggest merging parts into one file and selling on a site where everything ISN'T 3D printed and your stuff can have more impact.
|
|
|
Search
It might even be a CSV...
