A few things can go wrong with the ”product” model:
- If we target a specific problem - a “caveat” in some medium or big brand’s product - this caveat could be fixed, and we will be out of business;
- There will be things we can’t control, like a marketplace policy change, demand dropping for some reason, and so on;
- If we stumble upon something lucrative/interesting and are not savvy enough to scale quickly, someone else may outcompete us quickly, by using a method like injection molding.
- We will be in a much broader, much more competitive market.
When making a product, a 3d printer is merely used as a "first step tool", which ideally (if product-market-fit has been found) should be replaced by a "more efficient" mass production method (casting or injection molding).
3d printers can be used as a primal tool, but if we stumble upon something that has scaling potential, there is a lot more sense to make it into mass production (drastically cheaper unit, better quality).
In my experience, many companies prefer to delegate this "first step" to 3d services (it was a substantial part of our pipeline).
That is what a 3d printer is truly good at, and that is what it was made for.
And demand will only grow, as we covered earlier, plus we control the rules and the offer.
And we can pivot much more easily, by slightly tweaking the offer.