Final Negotiations on FD/FUD

Shapeways prints 5-15 of my dice a month at the moment. I ordered 7 last month but usualy I order 0. Who they print for? anyone that wants it(often Kevin Cook of dicecollector.com )

Yes we pay no service fees. But that is the beauty of shapeways model. It costs them nothing to host our shops, costs them nothing to store are files. The only thing that costs them money is there staff, shipping and printing costs which they only print after an order so they always get there money for those things(unless they screw up a model but that is a risk in all businesses.)

I do not begrudge shapeways any setup fee they deem necessary if it means my model will come back wax free(hasn't happened yet) but they should try to implement a auto spir system to cut down costs to all. I am game to rewrite my code to fit there system for $0.10 a model. You save $4 to $4.90 per extra model ordered which would fix most peoples complaints I think while keeping shapeways costs down.

I think the real problem with FUD is the material is not stable yet. I have a few models on order which I hope to electroform in Gold but I would not want it the way it comes direct from shapeways.

Shapeways SOS
https://qrh.me/*SSOS

Sorry but this is just wishful thinking. Whatever the advances in RP machines there is always going to be a problem with producing small objects. The sheer physical difficulty of cleaning, sorting and packing a box full of miniature pieces is always going to either attract a premium price, as in the case of FUD, or by setting minimum size requirements, e.g. detail. SW have given us a 2 month trial to show us what their machines are capable of, and now it is up to us to be innovative with our marketing to maximise our profits.

The way I see it is that while SW has a $25 minimum order I want to make my minimum price such that the customer spend all their $25 with me and not be tempted to go off and buy things from rival producers. This means that I have to make multi item packages that will sell for a minimum of $12-15. I'm trialling some of these at the moment :
pallets
Luggage Barrows

The $5 start up charge ultimately alters the bottom line price of the material, and most of the posts in this thread are voicing opposition to that pricing model. Regardless of how the pricing is structured, it makes the material cost more than the older ones. I actually would prefer a higher volume cost with no startup fee. I'm used to paying a LOT more for SLA though so my opinion may be bias.

I'm not arguing that people shouldn't post their opinions or suggestions for improvement. Quite the opposite really. Rather I'm trying to impress the importance of voicing intelligently written and constructive comments that are actually usable by shapeways to form a basis for modeling a revision in pricing structure. A lot of people in this thread have done that. Some have not.

Since shapeways actually reads the threads posted here, we have a unique opportunity to have an intelligent and positive discussion to help inform revisions to policy. My posts have only voiced my opposition to the seemingly "whiny" nature of some of the posts. For that I apologize. I myself will do a better job at suggestions in the future.

A few of the posts leading up to the video I posted. Almost half of the posts on that first page before I posted the video were not constructive. As mentioned earlier, I think people had setup profit margins based on the trial price and expectations that it would remain there or be cheaper. You have to alter your pricing based on the raw cost.:

https://www.shapeways.com/forum/index.php?t=msg&&th=5 627&goto=29610#msg_29610

https://www.shapeways.com/forum/index.php?t=msg&&th=5 627&goto=29570#msg_29570

https://www.shapeways.com/forum/index.php?t=msg&&th=5 627&goto=29623#msg_29623

https://www.shapeways.com/forum/index.php?t=msg&&th=5 627&goto=29630#msg_29630

https://www.shapeways.com/forum/index.php?t=msg&&th=5 627&goto=29633#msg_29633

https://www.shapeways.com/forum/index.php?t=msg&&th=5 627&goto=29570#msg_29570

https://www.shapeways.com/forum/index.php?t=msg&&th=5 627&goto=29635#msg_29635

https://www.shapeways.com/forum/index.php?t=msg&&th=5 627&goto=29570#msg_29570

I wasn't under the impression I had to quote everything, Lefty. As I've already said, your initial post is what made me take offense. It's statement to the effect that Shapeways just GAVE me something at no cost of time, effort, and yes money offended me and that implication still does. I've already stated I was sorry if I miss read your intent as antagonism. To me your commentary on costs charged me by Shapeways is moot. As I said it's a barter, in bartering money doesn't change hands. They get the right to print my 3d projects on demand for me or anyone else, in exchange I get the resources to have my 3d concepts printed in the first place. Shapeways' makes a profit off of those 3d designs even before any markup fee is paid to me. They profit and I profit. In nature that would be symbiosis, but in business that's called a partnership and it's not just given away. If I don't design something someone wants or my designs are too expensive to sell then neither of us makes a profit and ultimately the business fails.

I agree mctrivia it would reduce costs and make both camps happy. At least for the time being, I'm sure something else would make someone upset but that's the way of the world.

BillBedford, I don't think its wishful thinking that materials will advance and that prices will be changed in the future. While I disagree with this pricing decision Shapeways has shown both a desire and drive to innovate so I'm sure they'll address this market area eventually. I'm patient, it's more practical for me to design for the more cost effective materials whenever possible and wait for something else come along than for me to adopt a design method for something I won't be able to sell.

I'm not sure I interpret as much of this discussion as whining as you do, phildlight. Yes those who disliked the decision commented that the new pricing didn't meet their expectations. While it doesn't suggest a solution outright it does call to attention the fact that an issue exists. Which ultimately is why we keep commenting here isn't it? Personally I think it's reasonable to say you disagree with the decision without sighting obsessive detail regarding how to perfectly solve it. If this thread had nothing but 1 or 2 people commenting it would be easy to say this was an isolated band of people but the more people who say something the more seriously Shapeways will take it. That's not counterproductive whining at that point.

There you go again. It really doesn't matter how good machines get, if the likes of Shapeways have to produce lots of small, similarly shaped object and they only have the Mk1 standard human eyeball to distinguish them, then they are going to charge a premium to cover the extra cost of dealing with masses of small objects.
Of course it's whining. Partly because Shapeways have form for this sort of thing. They had to put on a set up charge for WSF to deal with small objects, and for Detail they upped the minimum wall after about a year, so suddenly a whole load of models became unprintable.
But mainly this is whining because if people are foolish enough the build their price structure on a Two Month Trial Period Introductory Offer, then they only have themselves to blame when reality kicks in and prices inevitably find their stable level.

BillBedford- Here, Here!!

@Lefty while I personally appreciate the encouraging tone, I think some people feel like what's happened is being rubbed in their faces. Thank you for the moral support while the team grapples with things, but let's make sure everyone feels welcome sharing.

There are a lot of angles to this situation, and I'm glad we're hashing them all out. Sure, initial reactions from some people were harsh, because they were surprised. It wasn't the most fun day at the office, but it was important. I'm hoping now we can move primarily into a constructive conversation.

One of the things I think we (the Shapeways team) learned from this was that we might have needed to be more clear about the temporary (2 month) trial. Sure, we said it. But maybe we needed to underscore the fact that everything with this material was subject to change. Each and every material we introduce involves unknown unknowns, and we use the trial periods to uncover those unknowns. Perhaps we should loop the community in on the ups and downs a bit more as well.

When it comes to material prices, some of you have speculated earlier in the thread that you believed we thought we'd be able to jack up the cost and because of the demand for FUD, everyone would just take it. While that's mostly been laid to rest, I can tell you from firsthand experience, that's not why the startup cost was implemented. It was exclusively because it became absolutely clear that we needed to do it in order to continue covering our basic business costs, to make it possible to continue offering FUD in the first place. Shapeways is not a company that's oriented around charging the maximum possible price, and the people putting the final decision into place weren't happy that we needed to go in this direction.

@BillBedford and @dynath, you guys are both right. On the one hand, when someone creates 3D designs the size of rice grains (and they did), and we rely on the human eye to identify and pack it, the human cost skyrockets. However, material developments in 3D printing are happening fast, many of which are being spearheaded by Shapeways, and it's a reasonable speculation that prices may not stay this high forever. Sure, they're not changing tomorrow, but at Shapeways, we know we don't want the FUD situation to remain this way indefinitely.

What a ride. Further thoughts?

Thank you Ana, I'm glad shapeways continues to listen even when the community is in disagreement.

One angle I haven't heard discussed is with regard to startup fee on larger models. I think it's clear that the $5 fee is there to help offset the time required to deal with tiny parts. Does this mean that there is less time required on larger parts? If so, it would be nice if the $5 fee was assessed based on the print volume of the part in question.

I don't know how possible it would be to implement, but more of a sliding scale for assessing a startup fee would be beneficial to some. Something where a grain of rice would incur a $5 fee, a pea sized print would have a $3 fee, a peanut sized print would be a $1 fee and anything above wouldn't incur an extra fee.

I know the people who want to print grains of rice for $0.20 each in separate files wouldn't be happy but that's unrealistic. It would help with cost on already more expensive larger parts though. Most of the discussion has been about parts that used to cost $1.89 now costing $6.89 (not a real example) but what about parts that cost $13 and now cost $18? If those larger parts aren't the reason for the $5 fee, then why charge it for them?

For me, as I mentioned earlier, the other issue is the wax residue. While I might buy one of my own models, and deal with the cleaning of wax residue myself, that model is unsaleable to my general customers unless it comes wax free.

Therefore, the price charged, even if it includes the startup fee, is unrealistic, if the model has not been properly cleaned, i.e. a half finished model.

I can strengthen up my models to withstand vigorous cleaning, but I am not sure it is worth my valuable time, if those models continue to be delivered to my customers covered in wax. So for me, FUD is presently not reliable enough except for personal use, with or without the startup fee.

But pieces that used to cost $13 don't cost $18. They now cost $15.27 in FUD and 15.83 in FD. This is because the per/cc price has been reduced. Pieces that used to cost over $24 in FUD or $29 in FD are now actually cheaper than they were.

Bill, im talking about post trial pricing. Currently if a part would cost $13 it costs $18 with the startup fee. Trial pricing is irrelevant at this point.

Phil,

Did you consider that maybe Shapeways $5 startup fee for FUD is an average fee set for all models regardless of size or number of components?

It could be that in reality a 1cc model with 3 seperate parts should be $10 and a 3cc 1 piece model should be $3 etc.

Or it could be, Shapeways know how many models at a total volume will fit into one print run, it is the overall handling and clean-up time for the whole print run that's being accounted for, not just individual models.

Any which way, I don't think anyone here could find a comparable price for the same material.

Paul

I've have been charged £40 per 2.5mm in the z + VAT, that's about $70, for a build that is 127 x 178mm. If you can get more than 15 pieces in to a 127 x 178 x 2.5 mm volume then this is going to be cheaper than Shapeways. However they won't do drop shipping and charge carriage.

You're exactly right, the $5 fee is per file regardless of volume or number of parts. That's exactly what I'm arguing against. Could we get a more granular approach to pricing so that the fees are more appropriate where they need to be?

What isn't clear is whether the $5 fee is to cover cleaning cost per order, or is it the collective assessment of the fee to cover the generally higher overhead for the material? If it's the later then the argument for granular additional fees is moot.

Interesting... please could you send me a PM with the details.

Cheers,
Paul