No, this is like the crusty machinist who knows just how to wiggle his hips and shake his elbow to get a 1/2 thou on the worn-out bridgeport in the corner.
FDM should let engineers make prototypes without bothering that guy (whose time is probably 3x more valuable than theirs, even if his pay doesn't reflect it). This sounds like the printer is just a more compact version of the worn-out mill.
Plus you have to account for the printer's quirks right in your 3d model which is annoying and error-prone. (Yes, I know every package has a way to segregate those changes, etc. but still.)
The RepRap project and the derived printers tend to share the opposite philosophy - the original idea was to print parts for more printers, so naturally parts were designed to be 3D printed. The RepRap logo is a compromise design for part holes without support (no longer necessary, though).
Most RepRap owners ('hobbyists') are using the 3D printer as the end manufacturing method, not just for prototypes, so this is a pretty reasonable tradeoff. Note that the original article fell into this category - the 3D printed part was not a prototype, but a jig used in production. (looking at that part, it could have been designed to not require any support material at all)
FDM should let engineers make prototypes without bothering that guy (whose time is probably 3x more valuable than theirs, even if his pay doesn't reflect it). This sounds like the printer is just a more compact version of the worn-out mill.
Plus you have to account for the printer's quirks right in your 3d model which is annoying and error-prone. (Yes, I know every package has a way to segregate those changes, etc. but still.)