Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 ph34r wrote:
No. If you know anything about 3d printing you would know that 1. it cannot produce as smooth results as injection molding and 2. such machines that are capable of coming close are out of the price range of the household and will remain so for an extended period.

The high end ones are less than a human hairs difference in matching the oringinal item, and as for price thats what they said about computers, color tvs, microwaves, dishwashers, cell phones...could go on all day. If your only thinking about right this second yeah, but I bet in 10 years they will be 200 or so, or whatever crazy inflation is.

I just worry about traditional sculpture. To me that's far more of an art form than sitting at your pc and connecting polygons together in 3dmax. (This is coming from a graphic artist who uses a pc for his work and considers traditional paint and pencil art a class above him. Before you start hating.)

 ph34r wrote:
No. If you know anything about 3d printing you would know that 1. it cannot produce as smooth results as injection molding and 2. such machines that are capable of coming close are out of the price range of the household and will remain so for an extended period.

I reckon that they can produce better results than most of the finecast purchases I have made.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 helium42 wrote:
As the technology evolves, miniature companies will also have to evolve in order to stay relavent. One possible future scenario could be a miniature company that sells yearly subscriptions to it's 3D renders for home printing. Revenue will likely be much lower, but overhead would also be incredibly low. A miniature company with this type of business model need not manufacture models of it's own, store stock in warehouses, employ labor to oversee production or logistics. They can continue to have their own stores, but instead of selling models, they can operate as gaming clubs and offer tables and terrain, and run tournaments/campaigns to players who pay membership dues. I suppose they could still sell hobby supplies such as paint and tools in their stores as well.

By then everybody on this forum will have died of old age.

I think you overestimate how soon this technology will be viable for this sort of thing.

 ph34r wrote:
No. If you know anything about 3d printing you would know that 1. it cannot produce as smooth results as injection molding and 2. such machines that are capable of coming close are out of the price range of the household and will remain so for an extended period.

People said that about CD players, and subsequently home CD-R recorders. In 1990 a home CD-R rig started at $35K. In 2 years that price was down to $10K, and by '95 it was under $1000. 17 years later you can buy an OEM brand new CD-R/DVD-R combo burner drive for $17 out the door.

Again, no one thought computers would have mass appeal or even a practical use in homes. That prediction was based off of the computers CURRENT uses back in the day. The functionality of computers evolved into more tasks than just databases and numeric calculations.

Given history, if the usefulness of a 3d printer grows from where it is now, the price 20 years from now could very well be pennies on the dollar. CD-R's are 0.00048571428% of the price they were just 22 years ago.

Higher end printers are currently $20k, with entry line printers at $300-500.

Orock wrote:

 ph34r wrote:
No. If you know anything about 3d printing you would know that 1. it cannot produce as smooth results as injection molding and 2. such machines that are capable of coming close are out of the price range of the household and will remain so for an extended period.

The high end ones are less than a human hairs difference in matching the oringinal item, and as for price thats what they said about computers, color tvs, microwaves, dishwashers, cell phones...could go on all day. If your only thinking about right this second yeah, but I bet in 10 years they will be 200 or so, or whatever crazy inflation is.

The reason computers, colour TVs, microwaves, dishwashers, cell phones and every other common household gadget came down drastically in price is because they had common household applications, which increased demand significantly, that gave the manufacturers a reason to investigate ways to make them more affordable.

The common household isn't going to need a 3D printer unless, as someone said earlier, it can print a sandwich. Anything it can print, like a spare part, is going to be far less effective as cheap parts you can get at a shop.

Glorioski wrote:
I just worry about traditional sculpture. To me that's far more of an art form than sitting at your pc and connecting polygons together in 3dmax. (This is coming from a graphic artist who uses a pc for his work and considers traditional paint and pencil art a class above him. Before you start hating.)

Computer art is just another form of art. It is of no less import than other traditional methods of expressing art. 3D printers will not kill sculpture in my opinion.

Computers *were* designed for ubiquity? They are now, but "640kb is all you'd ever need".

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/3d-print/

Although in this case it is used in a very specialized case, giving a little girl the ability to use her arms, it shows the advancement of 3d printing.
It's remarkably very fluid in it's ability to produce different things as and when required.
The fact that you can even print PCBs (ish) on the buggers shows that you can get very wonderful results, if only people knew how electricity worked. Maybe visual programming software to help the everyman.
With the advent of the Raspberry Pi and governments attempting to get more children into STEM, it seems to be likely that children would be able to design, print and then use wonderful stuff.

We know not what the future holds, for we are not there. I, for one, am looking forward to it. However I am sad that I am not there to enjoy it, like consumer space travel et al.

 -Loki- wrote:

Orock wrote:

 ph34r wrote:
No. If you know anything about 3d printing you would know that 1. it cannot produce as smooth results as injection molding and 2. such machines that are capable of coming close are out of the price range of the household and will remain so for an extended period.

The high end ones are less than a human hairs difference in matching the oringinal item, and as for price thats what they said about computers, color tvs, microwaves, dishwashers, cell phones...could go on all day. If your only thinking about right this second yeah, but I bet in 10 years they will be 200 or so, or whatever crazy inflation is.

The reason computers, colour TVs, microwaves, dishwashers, cell phones and every other common household gadget came down drastically in price is because they had common household applications, which increased demand significantly, that gave the manufacturers a reason to investigate ways to make them more affordable.

The common household isn't going to need a 3D printer unless, as someone said earlier, it can print a sandwich. Anything it can print, like a spare part, is going to be far less effective as cheap parts you can get at a shop.

helium42 wrote:

Glorioski wrote:I just worry about traditional sculpture. To me that's far more of an art form than sitting at your pc and connecting polygons together in 3dmax. (This is coming from a graphic artist who uses a pc for his work and considers traditional paint and pencil art a class above him. Before you start hating.)

Computer art is just another form of art. It is of no less import than other traditional methods of expressing art. 3D printers will not kill sculpture in my opinion.

It's not about importance it's about skill. If 5 million people had the ability to sculpt like Micael Angello during his day then nobody would have batted an eyelid when he produced David.

I don't doubt they become better and cheaper, it's the way of all technology, and if the interest is mass market then this will happen much faster. But I just can't see what most family homes would need one for. Unless there's a huge leap in the technology, you won't be able to make parts strong enough to replace screws and the like in machines or churn out car parts or make kitchen utensils, and even then who will rather have a 3D printer sitting around filling up their living room just to make the occasional plastic screw or spoon? It'll only ever be for glorified art projects. Is there really the demand for that so great it'll push for rapid improvements in the technology to make it mass appeal?

Anyone can order a "print" of the David statue. Replicating works of art has been around for quite a while. This doesn't change that.

By that logic, photography dilutes 2d art by making it to where anyone can have it. Or photoshop detracts from the artistic legitimacy of oil painting...

2d art takes little to no skill to replicate. All you need is a camera and printer.

3d art is no different. People have been doing that forever.

Would you feel better about people replicating things if it took more work? Work and effort =/= skill. I can recast pieces all day and it takes me no sculpting skill whatsoever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I don't doubt they become better and cheaper, it's the way of all technology, and if the interest is mass market then this will happen much faster. But I just can't see what most family homes would need one for. Unless there's a huge leap in the technology, you won't be able to make parts strong enough to replace screws and the like in machines or churn out car parts or make kitchen utensils, and even then who will rather have a 3D printer sitting around filling up their living room just to make the occasional plastic screw or spoon? It'll only ever be for glorified art projects. Is there really the demand for that so great it'll push for rapid improvements in the technology to make it mass appeal?

And yet again, you sound like a computer geek from the '70s(not meant to offend by any means). They couldn't see why a practical home use for a large database system. And then people starting using computers for things other than data storage.

Just because 3d printers have a narrow scope of use now doesn't mean that someone won't invent a new use for them, like sandwiches.

Yes, the current use and scope of 3d printers isn't ideal for mass appeal. But current use isn't really the issue.

 Aerethan wrote:
Anyone can order a "print" of the David statue. Replicating works of art has been around for quite a while. This doesn't change that.

By that logic, photography dilutes 2d art by making it to where anyone can have it. Or photoshop detracts from the artistic legitimacy of oil painting...

2d art takes little to no skill to replicate. All you need is a camera and printer.

3d art is no different. People have been doing that forever.

Would you feel better about people replicating things if it took more work? Work and effort =/= skill. I can recast pieces all day and it takes me no sculpting skill whatsoever.

It's got nothing to do with replicating it. I'm saying when a guy sitting at a computer for a few hours can make a model which when cast looks exactly the same as a model sculpted by hand over days upon days, the effort and skill of the sculptor is completely lost on the consumer. Nobody is going to be paying the latter guy when the former guy can do it faster and cheaper...thus traditional sculpture fades away.

There's so many examples people can cite to prove/disprove this point it's ridiculous.

Kinko's didn't go out of business when home printers became commonplace, and nobody thought they'd need a home computer. Face it, we'll just have to wait and see.

Additionally, people tend to forget that it will be businesses putting out these machines, and we all know how corporations are protective of their IP and profits. Just because someone can "pirate" their minis doesn't mean it will be effective, efficient, or even legal.

I can see 3D printer becoming more popular but it would require a massive shift in the way we go about things as a general population.

We are at heart a consumer society, not really manufacturers. The idea of waiting while you print a hammer doesn't really gel with the way we are at the moment. Then what do you wait while the nails are printed? That sounds a bit silly I know but if your printer were not able to create all of your components quickly and in one go you will inevitability have to go to the shops anyway.

If you own a 3D printer and you have to go to the shops anyway ten why not just get the hammer there and save the cost of the printer.

In reality I think that the most popular this tech will get is if we start seeing 3D printing services on the High/Main Street. So Staples now gets a 3D department for print on demand items, say ordered online and picked up the next day. Handy if you are i a small town or way out in the sticks. I would struggle to see any commercial venture offering an object copying service, legally they could be on difficult ground.

Another possible use could be military. I'm guessing a semi portable machine to produce spares would be a massive boost logistically especially when off the beaten track. This is what might really drive the tech forward.

Umm, in the realm of miniatures, they already do that. GW does at least. They do physical rough sculpts, then refine them in CAD for use in a sprue. They also do resin printing for 3ups.

And how is digital sculpting any less "art" than physical? Surely art doesn't have more merit based on medium of expression.

Watching the video of the guy designing armor for Lord Inquisitor shows that plenty of effort and skill go into digital sculpting.

Also, traditional minis sculpting won't really go away, it will shift. GW might do away with it, but then mom and pop shops will hire on those sculptors for freelance work.

When technology offers faster, more efficient methods of doing something, then the old schoolers will either adjust, adapt, or die off. That is the nature of everything we do.

To say that 3d sculpting is less "art" than traditional sculpting is bunk.

 Aerethan wrote:
Umm, in the realm of miniatures, they already do that. GW does at least. They do physical rough sculpts, then refine them in CAD for use in a sprue. They also do resin printing for 3ups.

I'm well aware companies already do it. What is your point?

 Aerethan wrote:
And how is digital sculpting any less "art" than physical? Surely art doesn't have more merit based on medium of expression.

Watching the video of the guy designing armor for Lord Inquisitor shows that plenty of effort and skill go into digital sculpting.

I think if any digital "sculptor" claims their work takes as much effort as physical sculpting they are having dellusions of grandeour. Like I said I'm a pc based graphic artist myself and I know what traditional artists do is ten times harder.

 Aerethan wrote:
Also, traditional minis sculpting won't really go away, it will shift. GW might do away with it, but then mom and pop shops will hire on those sculptors for freelance work.

I think a small company would be the last place paying the hours of an expensive physical sculptor when some kid with 3dmax can do it for less.

 Aerethan wrote:
When technology offers faster, more efficient methods of doing something, then the old schoolers will either adjust, adapt, or die off. That is the nature of everything we do.

And this is a shame, that is my point.


...also putting the word "art" in quotes when your trying to say I'm saying anything is "less art" than something else is a little odd when I never said anything of the sort. What is or isn't "art" is completely subjective subject which has nothing to do with what I'm saying here. I'm talking about a craftsmanship which is dieing out. That is all.

I think if any digital "sculptor" claims their work takes as much effort as physical sculpting they are having dellusions of grandeour.

So artistic value is determined by method of production?

No one said that digital art was harder. Both take skill, albeit different skill for the most part. But then, artistic value is 100% subjective.

Digital art is no less art than a bronze statue.

EDIT: after reading your edit.

Techniques die out when new ones are invented. That is the nature of technology. Those who did things one way must adapt to the new techniques of their field or they will just die out of that field. That has been the case since the beginning of ever.

All technological advances are the result of someone finding a better/faster/more efficient way to accomplish a task, be it record keeping, sculpting etc.

 Aerethan wrote:

I think if any digital "sculptor" claims their work takes as much effort as physical sculpting they are having dellusions of grandeour.

So artistic value is determined by method of production?

No one said that digital art was harder. Both take skill, albeit different skill for the most part. But then, artistic value is 100% subjective.

Digital art is no less art than a bronze statue.

See you're still going on about this artistic value bs. I never even mentioned artistic value until you brought it up.

And you are right, consumers often don't care HOW something was made. As such, the sculptor should realize this, and start working with the more efficient techniques since no one would appreciate him doing things the hard way.

Techniques die out when new ones are invented. That is the nature of technology. Those who did things one way must adapt to the new techniques of their field or they will just die out of that field. That has been the case since the beginning of ever.

All technological advances are the result of someone finding a better/faster/more efficient way to accomplish a task, be it record keeping, sculpting etc.

 Aerethan wrote:
And you are right, consumers often don't care HOW something was made. As such, the sculptor should realize this, and start working with the more efficient techniques since no one would appreciate him doing things the hard way.

Right. And is it a crime for me to feel sadness at the fact this is happening to sculpture? Why do you feel the need to berate me for it?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
What does an average household need a 3D printer for? Mass producing lawn gnomes?

3D printing is a win win for consumers and manufactures. Say a part breaks in the house, could be anything. You don't have to leave the house to get repair parts. When something isn't working around the house, one of the first things most folks do, is look up on the internet what happened. Is this a frequent thing, or just something random. If it's broke on me this way, it likely broke on someone else the same way. With a 3D printer in the house you can also bust out the right part, or disposable one time use tools. The makers of said parts don't need to stock those parts anymore, or invest in their associated inventory, transportation, and retailing costs.

Like anything else, no one is naive to think this industry won't take some time to develop, but I'm seriously thinking 10 years max. Of course there will be early adopters like anything else new, but it'll catch and develop with consumers and gain a lot of traction very fast. The technology isn't anything crazy, it's just a logical next step in technology.

If 3D printers do benefit consumers, it'll be because GW use them and in doing so cut manufacturing costs.

 Testify wrote:
If 3D printers do benefit consumers, it'll be because GW use them and in doing so cut manufacturing costs.

You assume that by cutting costs prices will drop. That won't be the case with GW ever. They will cut costs, maintain prices, and see yet another profit margin increase. If anything, they'll raise prices to cover the cost of the printers.

 MisterMoon wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
What does an average household need a 3D printer for? Mass producing lawn gnomes?

3D printing is a win win for consumers and manufactures. Say a part breaks in the house, could be anything. You don't have to leave the house to get repair parts. When something isn't working around the house, one of the first things most folks do, is look up on the internet what happened. Is this a frequent thing, or just something random. If it's broke on me this way, it likely broke on someone else the same way. With a 3D printer in the house you can also bust out the right part, or disposable one time use tools. The makers of said parts don't need to stock those parts anymore, or invest in their associated inventory, transportation, and retailing costs.

Like anything else, no one is naive to think this industry won't take some time to develop, but I'm seriously thinking 10 years max. Of course there will be early adopters like anything else new, but it'll catch and develop with consumers and gain a lot of traction very fast. The technology isn't anything crazy, it's just a logical next step in technology.

But what are you going to make your parts out of? To make anything useful you need a certain number of spools of material. Some materials are good for some applications, whilst terrible for others (you can print a glass, but don't try using the same material for a hammer. You can print a shoe, but it requires vastly different materials to printing a photo frame). This means that, in order to print anything vaguely useful, a consumer needs to have multiple materials on hand. These cost money, and space. Especially money if you look at the way that home printers are commercialised today: cheap printer but ridiculously expensive inks. So a person has say 6 different materials at home to be able to print from. Oh no, another problem: colour. You can't always effectively inject dye into a white base like you can with inks, and some dyes won't work with some materials. So a person now has 6 materials by 4 colours (at least), and this requires a sizeable unit; and then, each printing consumes a large amount of material, and you'd rapidly deplete your supplies.

Someone above mentioned plastic forks: it costs me $1 to buy a pack of 100 plastic forks. With current prices on materials, it would cost you $1 per fork, and this price will likely only INCREASE as the consumables get commoditised.
In terms of repair parts: I agree that the spare parts business is a huge viable industry for 3D printers. But not from the home. The likelihood that you will have the correct materials/colours to construct whatever part you've lost are low. I don't think I've seen 3D printed parts ever put under a lot of stress either, but I have a gut feeling that the layered production process creates relatively brittle products.

And finally, printing is slow and gets slower the more detail you want to have, with even 250 microns looking and feeling very grainy. It might be quicker to print out one plastic fork or door handle, but by the time you get to 3 you're much better off going to the shops.

The 'print shop' is where I see the technology going. Its where it still is at the moment for a large amount of printed products, and I currently see a lot of people abandoning their home printers and going back to print shops. Various office supply stores, KMart/Wal-mart etc can afford to have the large volumes of materials required, and take online 'orders' to pick up the next day. The logistics of materials for home consumers are just infeasible, no matter how much the price of the printer itself comes down.

CD-R's in the late '90s cost about $6ea. Those are now $.16 each.

The materials prices will drop if the demand for them rises. It's not a finite resource like oil or metal. Synthetic materials always drop in price when demand rises, provided more than one or two companies make them. CD-R prices might have stayed at $6 if only a single company made them. Competition breeds lower prices. When the printer drops in price, so will the materials for it.

And who's to say that a company won't develop an "overall" material that covers the majority of uses? At one point in history metal was the only thing you could mass produce most products with. Toys and other consumer goods were either metal or wood. Then someone invented plastics, and a billion uses for them were found.

At this point in world history, you can't start saying that things are impossible. Damn near every part of your life in the modern world would have at one point been considered impossible. And yet here we are.

 Aerethan wrote:

 Testify wrote:
If 3D printers do benefit consumers, it'll be because GW use them and in doing so cut manufacturing costs.

You assume that by cutting costs prices will drop. That won't be the case with GW ever. They will cut costs, maintain prices, and see yet another profit margin increase. If anything, they'll raise prices to cover the cost of the printers.

Depending on how much would saved, they definitely would pass the savings on. GW don't get a sadistic kick out of rising prices.

 Testify wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

 Testify wrote:
If 3D printers do benefit consumers, it'll be because GW use them and in doing so cut manufacturing costs.

You assume that by cutting costs prices will drop. That won't be the case with GW ever. They will cut costs, maintain prices, and see yet another profit margin increase. If anything, they'll raise prices to cover the cost of the printers.

Depending on how much would saved, they definitely would pass the savings on. GW don't get a sadistic kick out of rising prices.

Are we talking about the same GW?

You have to realize, GW is publicly owned. They have shareholders to account to. Shareholders NEVER want to hear that prices were lowered, especially when prices could have stayed the same only now with a higher profit margin. GW shuts down stores just to APPEAR profitable to shareholders. They will never lower prices just because costs went down. GW didn't lower prices when the economy tanked and people started buying less, which is a legitimate time to lower prices to maintain SOME kind of income. Instead, they have raised prices every year for a while now, completely disregarding the economy and peoples ability to afford more toys.

GW would look at 3d printing like this:
1. It costs X amount of money to buy Y number of printers
2. It costs X amount of money to run Y number of printers
3. X number of printers will save us Y amount of money over Z time.
4. How do we pay for X printers without showing LESS or NO growth in a single quarter(heaven forbid)
5. I know!!! Price raise to maintain profit margins while using the overages to pay for X printers.
6. X printers now generate Y% more in profit than we were making last quarter. Job well done, we didn't have to pay a dime to make more money.

The market will change, the companies will adapt or die. The only question is "In how much time?"

 Aerethan wrote:

Are we talking about the same GW?

You have to realize, GW is publicly owned. They have shareholders to account to. Shareholders NEVER want to hear that prices were lowered, especially when prices could have stayed the same only now with a higher profit margin. GW shuts down stores just to APPEAR profitable to shareholders. They will never lower prices just because costs went down. GW didn't lower prices when the economy tanked and people started buying less, which is a legitimate time to lower prices to maintain SOME kind of income. Instead, they have raised prices every year for a while now, completely disregarding the economy and peoples ability to afford more toys.

You think that when a company's sales drop, they should lower prices?
And you actually expect to be taken seriously?

Despite the fact that GW's profits have remained consistantly high despite doing the opposite of what you've said, you actually expect to be taken seriously?

Can you not dissasociate your annoyance at price rises, which is fair enough because no one likes paying more, from the world as a whole? Companies need to make money to survive. If you don't like that, vote Communist Party.

 Aerethan wrote:
CD-R's in the late '90s cost about $6ea. Those are now $.16 each.

The materials prices will drop if the demand for them rises. It's not a finite resource like oil or metal. Synthetic materials always drop in price when demand rises, provided more than one or two companies make them. CD-R prices might have stayed at $6 if only a single company made them. Competition breeds lower prices. When the printer drops in price, so will the materials for it.
And who's to say that a company won't develop an "overall" material that covers the majority of uses? At one point in history metal was the only thing you could mass produce most products with. Toys and other consumer goods were either metal or wood. Then someone invented plastics, and a billion uses for them were found.
At this point in world history, you can't start saying that things are impossible. Damn near every part of your life in the modern world would have at one point been considered impossible. And yet here we are.

Technology prices are difficult to quantify because of the immensely changing nature of the field (Moore's Law and all that). Continuous comparison to CDs is completely vacuous, as CDs by now have been superseded by at least 5 new generations of technology: DVD, Blu-ray, portable HDD's, flash drives, and cloud storage/streaming. A large number of computers these days don't even come with an optical drive at all. Nobody wants CDs any more. Competition will breed lower prices, but for the printer-consumable industry there seems to be two options that have been followed in the past: Cheap supplies and expensive printer, or cheap printer and expensive supplies. Expensive being a relative term, but today it costs about as much to by ink as it does for a completely new printer. The companies making the printer will decide which bit they want to commoditise.

You won't get an 'overall' material. Materials engineering is a very complex subject, and 'things' all use a huge variety of different materials specific to their needs. Think colour, weight, flexibility, rigidity, elasticity, hardness, heat and electrical conductivity, reflectiveness, translucency, opaqueness. An example of this is in ultrabooks (super thin laptops). Nearly all of these are housed in metal (magnesium-aluminium alloy). This is because for plastic to have the same strength, it needs to be 3-4 times the thickness of the metal. Steel could be thinner still, but weigh a lot more. Finally, housing the entire device in metal wreaks havoc with the wireless communications, so it must be very carefully designed with 'wireless windows' made out of plastic. There are advances in synthetic materials all the time, but no amount of engineering will produce a material which has all of the properties needed to print everything in your home: and I very much doubt that you'll be able to find a material which is flexible enough to print a shoe (rubber) but also strong enough to make a bolt (steel).
I'm not saying things are impossible (well, except for an 'overall' material). But there are plenty of cool technologies which were invented years ago but have not yet, and never will, make it into household items beyond a handful of enthusiasts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Testify wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

Are we talking about the same GW?

You have to realize, GW is publicly owned. They have shareholders to account to. Shareholders NEVER want to hear that prices were lowered, especially when prices could have stayed the same only now with a higher profit margin. GW shuts down stores just to APPEAR profitable to shareholders. They will never lower prices just because costs went down. GW didn't lower prices when the economy tanked and people started buying less, which is a legitimate time to lower prices to maintain SOME kind of income. Instead, they have raised prices every year for a while now, completely disregarding the economy and peoples ability to afford more toys.

You think that when a company's sales drop, they should lower prices?
And you actually expect to be taken seriously?
Despite the fact that GW's profits have remained consistantly high despite doing the opposite of what you've said, you actually expect to be taken seriously?
Can you not dissasociate your annoyance at price rises, which is fair enough because no one likes paying more, from the world as a whole? Companies need to make money to survive. If you don't like that, vote Communist Party.

Its fairly basic economics that there is an optimum point and which to price your goods. It might be hard to find, but it exists. An increase in prices leads to a decrease in volume sold, but more profit on each item (neglecting economies of scale). Similarly, a decrease in price = increase in volume but decrease in profit for each item. Solve for x and price there. If you analyse the financial reports and factor in the yearly price adjustments, GW has been losing sales volume over the last few years, and the majority of profit increases have been coming from non-core business sectors. If GW were a bigger fish, investors would be worried right now (see, Groupon).

That being said, it isn't that common for a business to reduce costs in order to pass the reductions on to the consumer. Costs are reduced for the purposes of raising profits, which will reposition the optimum price slightly lower than it was before, but not much.