I can print a lot better those files with my form 2
A big part of the decision for me was the use of the strong laser, requiring overall lower reactivity resin. I’m prototyping musical instruments, which you’re going to touch a lot. It’s not like a player slobbers all over them, but the low odor and reduced potential for irritation seemed like a plus. However, I am irritated they do not currently have a biocompatible resin for the Form 3 standard. Other printers can swap dental resin in and out no problem.
The quality control for consumables is admittedly pretty bad. I’ve had tanks with big seams across the window, underfilled/leaking resin cartridges, and resin shipped very near its expiration date. Formlabs support has corrected these issues every time, but I’m starting to get frustrated.
If I had to get another high-precision resin printer, I would definitely be looking at what else is out there.
The Tough 1500 is also skin safe, there was a blog article some time ago (https://formlabs.com/blog/tough-1500-certified-for-skin-contact/).
Are there btw any technical differences between the 3 and 3B or is it just a certification thing of the processes and factories?
When I last talked to a sales person she pretty much admitted to me that it was a sales thing, she couldnt tell me what was actually diffrent between the two in terms of hardware and to everything I asked if was different she replied with a no.
In the end i outright asked her if it was simply a sales gemic to earn more on buisnesses that was forced to buy the 3B model, she laughted and said she couldnt possible comment on that but her voice preetty much told me what her answer would have been…
No, the hardware is identical (aside from color). But the non-B one is gimped such that it won’t print with the settings for biocompatible resins (unless you have a pre-November 12, 2019 unit).
That’s a little, what’s the right word, teasing… I don’t need these, I just wondered why my Form 2 can print the medical resins (I have some Dental SG which came with the printer that I print random stuff with) and the Form 3 magically can’t print them anymore and there has to be an extra machine.
I have no clue how these biomed certifications work, but it’d be fun to discover that in fact all available materials would pass that testing (they said in the blog post, that possibly more materials would pass at least that skin-safety test but they aren’t tested).
[…]
As Tough 1500 Resin’s performance meets many of the requirements for consumer products and wearables production, Formlabs evaluated parts printed with this material for skin contact safety per growing customer requests. Other Engineering and Standard Resins may also pass similar testing, but this has not been evaluated at this time. […]
Let’s just call it like it is: a product placement decision.
Someone at Formlabs decided they could milk more money out of customers who use bio (dentists, biomedical research labs, etc). And I’m sure they’re right; those customers tend to have deeper pockets. The purported rationale is there are substantial costs encumbered in the certification process (which is true) and those users should bear a larger portion of those costs (nevermind the premium pricing of the associated resins). Note the ordinary Form 3 price did not decrease.
If the bifurcation had been introduced at the time of the initial Form 3 product announcement, I don’t think anyone would have batted (much of) an eye. It’s not unusual to differentiate product models as such. Instead, the decision didn’t come until fairly late in the game - well after Form 3’s started shipping. It created a bit of a bind (and maybe potential legal liability) in that customers had already been promised biocompatibility. So they maintained the ability on existing printers, which were now denoted “Early 2019” models, but removed it for subsequent sales. Insert corresponding wordplay on the marketing side that may have created ambiguity over whether there are any mechanical differences between the machines (there aren’t).
Keep in mind around this time Formlabs already had low-cost SLA printers from manufacturers in Asia nipping at its heels, eating some of their low-end market share (even offering faster print speeds). The writing was on the wall: desktop 3D printing was on its way to becoming commoditized. I think they decided to lean into more “premium” markets with higher barriers to entry. They undertook a strong push into dentistry - a ripe market they’d already gotten a taste of in earlier forays - increasing the number of dental resins, forming a specialized unit and spending a lot of time and floorspace pitching that application at their user conferences.
They were also enduring some production pains - significantly delayed resin support and quality complaints from users of the new Form 3, the Fuse was still delayed, and I’m sure the 3L had birthing pains. Leading up to this they were growing their headcount and hiring fast. Maybe a new product manager or beancounter did the math and found the 3’s were being sold at a net loss (once you consider everything e.g. support and warranty service) and they needed to do something to increase their margins.
Either way, I don’t think it’s surprising they’d differentiate for the more lucrative market. I just think the 3B split was poorly timed, creating confusion and disappointment among customers. It was unfortunate for us hobbyists who maybe would have preferred they increase the resin price a bit but leave us the option of using it. I do credit them for honoring the bio capability on existing printers. When it came to the 3L / 3BL they didn’t do that, and a few of us were ticked off after having been assured beforehand when we forked money over to our sales reps (and I think from some of the early literature) it would support it.
This is just my observation and take on it. Hopefully it doesn’t come across too critical, I’m actually a fan of Formlabs printers and really want them to continue to cater toward the hobbyist user / desktop professionals. There are a few other lingering promises for the Form 3 series, such as Open Mode, which I’m hoping they eventually deliver on (which might even provide an unofficial / uncertified way to play with some of those bio resins).
3 Likes
I agree with almost everything you said, except for this part. even if these things were manufactured in the US, with US Components, considering the quantities they sell, the manufacturing costs would still not exceed $1500.
As it is, these printers are made in China, using Chinese sourced components and labor, then shipped by sea in bulk (by the container), I would venture to say the cost of these units in less that $600. So, unless they are paying millions of dollars for advertising and trade shows, I doubt that they sell anything at cost or loss. Then to sweeten the pot, their selling prices for resins and other consumables are stratospheric.
So, no, their decision to split the product had nothing to do with them loosing or not making any money. It’s all about milking a ripe market. But they’re not the only ones.
how do you know if your model is pre-november 2019?
i have abrand new unit at home that i have bought as new but not taken into use yet, is there a way to see if the orginal buyer have bought it before november 2019?
See the screenshot in my last post. When you open up the printer information dialog in Preform, it will say “Early 2019” beside the printer model.