The whole point of the original article is that changing technologies are allowing smaller scale businesses to enter markets that were previously denied to them. It's _not_ about changing how existing hobby industries work. The author has failed to look beyond the hobbyist examples used in the Wired article.<p>It's also about being able to enter niche markets that larger manufacturers aren't interested in. There are plenty of markets that require a high standard of complexity in both design and manufacturing, yet are too small for larger companies to care about. As the cost of both drops, so it becomes more viable.<p>Also, despite the author's disparaging remarks, being able to do small scale runs in China is significant, because not so long ago this was _inconcievable_ for many businesses.<p>It's fair to bash Wired for the hyperbole -- it's not a revolution yet -- but Giz's critique is shallow and doesn't address the basic argument; that the lowered cost has increased access to equipment and skills for industrial design and manufacture. That this change will lead to greater numbers of smaller businesess operating in new niche markets, or markets otherwise previously denied to them because of scale.