MakerBot's bold bet that 3D printers would become common
Makerbot's big problem was that their machine sucks.  Low-end 3D printers just aren't very good. The weld bonds between layers of ABS filaments are too weak, and the objects break easily. They often break during building, just due to thermal expansion. 3D printing requires better temperature control of the process than Makerbot ever achieved.<p>TechShop used to have some MakerBots, but they've been replaced by better machines.  Materials costs are too high, though; the Form I and Form II use a working fluid that costs $130/liter.  (This is a bit like the inkjet printer ink problem.)  They also go through build tanks fairly fast; the working fluid in its solid form builds up at the bottom. But the build quality is excellent.<p>The "maker revolution", such as it is, is driven by laser cutters. They're accurate, fast, reliable, work on large sheets, and have no consumables.<p>The Next Big Thing is supposed to be desktop waterjet cutters. The Wazer, though, is apparently very slow, and may use more garnet per cut than the big waterjets. Wazer also glosses over the problem that waterjets generate a sludge composed of water, shattered garnet, and whatever you're cutting.  You have to pay to get rid of that stuff.  Waterjet cutting is a good industrial process, but not office-ready.<p>(On a vaguely related note for maker types: does anyone know of a good low-cost surface mount reflow oven?   The common low-end T962 has a big hot spot in the middle of the heating area and will scorch boards when used at lead-free solder temperatures.  Yes, there are fixes, but I want something that works out of the box.)