more techs "get it" than you'd think.
i've never met one who was happy with it, and could all point to the same reason it wasn't a good machine. a lot of it is documented here in the archives of lab network history.
equally, the dentists i've spoken with have voiced similar concerns.
those who found fault with its naturally closed position bought open technology. those who found fault with results, found equipment that produced better results and threw money at it till it worked.
those who simply wanted added capacity went bigger.
there are many many faults in many many ways with the cerec system. its not a single problem that nails it all down.
the same token then applies to whichever other digital technology was purchased afterward; technology did not stop developing when the mcxl came out. cerec was simply the leader of chariside milling until that space populated with literally any other player. it was never a pinnacle of technological development even 30 years ago when it was new.
anyone who thought otherwise was drinking coolaid.
which brings us back to the topic - what value does a lab or clinic have who has bought into the coolaid and is now in default. objectively the only real fault was stagnation. that's sometimes not even a fault of the dentist or lab management, that can be even the local economy stagnating which forced closure.
its not an easy thing to nail down but it does help highlight the fact that despite the client list the lab or office equipment has an inherent value. but its value depends on who is evaluating it. a person who has no use or value for a cerec will not count it among assets except to be sold. a person who does value the cerec will count it among assets for production.
in one case the lab or clinic is de-valued, in the other, value is added.
and thank you.
