I recently wrote a guest blog post for Inside 3DP looking at what radical transformation means in manufacturing and why additive manufacturing does not meet the expectations we’ve set for it.
I’m really tired of this nonsensical political debate about printing of weapons. Let’s get something straight, 3D Printing allows anyone to make anything they want. As easily as I was downloading illegal MP3s in middle school, people will be able to download and print physical items. No government, no organization and no army is going to be able to block this from happening.
The future of 3D printing offers individuals around the world immense powers of creation. From current materials we can easily print to biological and chemical materials that will one day be commonplace too. Talk about powerful weapons.
Let’s, as a society, stop trying to block things we don’t understand and talk about reasonable ways to achieve our shared objectives (keeping guns out of the hands of people who are dangerous or otherwise not fit to have them). Let me propose a simple law:
- Every gun in the United States should be licensed by the government. Similar testing as a driver’s license.
- If you are caught with a non-licensed gun you are severely fined. Minimum jail sentences for certain kinds of weaponry.
Does this stop the psychopath from printing some dangerous weapons and planning a mass killing at a school? No, but I for one cannot think of a single thing that would prevent that. Even today without a world filled with cheap 3D printers.
In the meantime I’m going to go print a one-shot gun and shoot it in a controlled, safe, environment for fun. Printing guns isn’t just for gun-toting republicans, this Independent (but mostly Liberal) Jewish boy wants to do it too.
Now shit’s constantly hot, on my block, it never fails to be gunshots
-2Pac (My Bloc)
Last week I wrote about how startups wanting to leverage 3D printing to attack existing markets need to think about the technology. This week, it seems reasonable to start talking about the ecosystem developing around the entire 3D market. The support structure for creating content and distributing content has been booming and feeds the raw material for the printers.
3D scanning is currently time-consuming and inaccurate. Scans often fail and certain items don’t scan well, compounding the problem. Small items can be scanned accurately using a $2k desktop scanner in 15 seconds to 3 minutes depending on the resolution. The larger the item the longer the scan takes and the less accurate it becomes. Adding small movements, poor lighting or reflective materials throws the technology off pretty badly. A scan I did of my foot with a detailed desktop scanner took ~15 scans. Each scan took about 3 minutes of me holding my foot still and the resulting 3D model is still not perfect.
Luckily there are some new technologies that leverage Kinects, Leap Motion Controllers and other lower cost 3D sensors to do quicker scans. Arden Reed for instance is using Kinects to do full body scans in just a few seconds.
This technology is absolutely critical to the ecosystem because it enables people with no design skills to get 3D design files (replacement parts for instance). More interesting to me, it allows us to start customizing add-on products to the world around us. You cannot customize something to work with other things unless you know what the other things look like (insoles, clothing, medical devices, jewelry are all relevant examples)
Creation (Digital design)
For years the only way to create 3D models was through cumbersome software that required specific, high-learning-curve, skills. This has limited the power of creation to those super interested in the technology and prevented the power of the crowd to directly drive content creation. This has begun to change, albeit slower than a lot of people would like. On the one hand you have new technology like Sketchup and Tinker CAD which make it easier for people to start designing in 3D. On the other hand you have educational Preston Middle School in colorado which is specifically teaching students to build 3D models and shows them how to print them. Will some future generation be considered the “3D printing natives” and truly democratize the power of creation in whole new ways? Mainstream companies are jumping on the bandwagon and offering custom solutions that leverage 3D printing, like eBay’s Exact app.
Sharing & Distribution of Content
Do any of you remember what we were using to share video and music in the 90s before Youtube and Spotify? It was the Wild West of applications, from Napster to email (and burned CDs). It’s exactly the same today for 3D models. We know that companies like Youtube are incredibly powerful because they are the intermediary by which people consume and share their content. Many companies are trying to solve this problem from a variety of angles. The manufacturing companies, and the outsourced printers, have competing services. Shapeways has a marketplace where every item can be printed and mailed to you, Makerbot has Thingiverse where any item can be downloaded for free. Then you have startups like Sketchfab which is taking a more “utility” approach to the problem by providing a place to host 3D models and rock-solid software that makes viewing the files online fast and pain-free. Previously if you want to view 3D models time-consuming plugins were needed and each file took a lot of time to load. Now you can simply upload your content to Sketchfab and then use their code to embed your file anywhere across the web. Their catalog of 3D models are browsable on their site too, and they’ve got some amazing things in there.
All of the things we just spoke about develop the content pipeline that feed the printers. We’re approaching a point where access to 3D designs and printers is widespread. The content pipeline is set to explode. Another problem that people, like 3D printing manufacturers, are running into is that workflow management software for 3D fabrication facilities blows chunks. The model where you create thousands of unique pieces at the same time is the antithesis of a traditional manufacturing facility. Managing orders, post-production, packing and quality control are all completely different. I’ve not seen a single company with creating this software for sale as their sole purpose. Josh is taking the Parts Press idea in this direction now. It’s an opportunity to be the glue that 3D fabrication facilities run on.
I’m searching for today, instead I found tomorrow.
– Lil Wayne (Nightmares of the Bottom)
Additive manufacturing technologies like Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) and Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) are enabling enhancements to way we manufacture physical goods. The biggest issue is that few companies have found and commercialized products that can be mass-manufactured profitably using today’s 3D printing technologies. Either they need to be able to produce the parts at a lower cost or with features that aren’t possible with traditional manufacturing techniques. Much like when the iPhone first came out and there were very few applications, it took years for an “application layer” to emerge which leveraged the technology to create value in different verticals.
People are experimenting with different 3D printed products now, from fashion to aviation and everything in between. There are a few use cases where 3D printing has advantages over traditional manufacturers:
- Need for customization – We’re talking about where customization is either required or adds significant value. Braces, hearing aids, prosthetics, art and orthotics are all good examples. Bad examples include coffee mugs and iPhone cases, customizing as a novelty is not a long term competitive advantage.
- Designs that can only be made with 3D printers – Complex meshes, intricate internals and other features are sometimes only possible with additive manufacture. This art piece is a good example. When those features also add a competitive advantage to the product, then it creates real differentiation.
- Cost effective – In some cases, 3D printing is actually cheaper than traditional manufacturing. This is rare, but will be less so as the technology develops.
Obviously I think Sols is a perfect fit in buckets 1 & 2 and probably fits in bucket 3 against some of our competitors products (but not all). I’d love to hear about other products that people think are a fit.
It seems like every time you come up
something happens to bring you back down
Unless you’ve been living under a rock, it’s been pretty difficult to avoid all the news about 3D printing. Each day there is another article on how people are harnessing the power of additive manufacturing in amazing ways. From ultra-strong casts, to a prosthetic face, giving a man his fingers back and saving dying babies with innovative new splints. Hidden in these articles is an invasive use of language that injects doubt into the viability of the technology. When I read titles like “Is the future here or is it just paper thin progress” it doesn’t exactly inspire confidence. In articles singing the praises of the new technology you have asides like “but will this technology be able to do ___ and ___.” and other kinds of conjecture. Instead of debating what the technology can and cannot do, the amazing thing is covered and then the author challenges the world to come up with something else. As if each new use is a miracle, that the technology is living beyond it’s stated life cycle already.
The issue I have is that it’s proving intellectually difficult for journalists to accept the widespread disruption that 3D printing offers. They don’t use the same language of doubt with other technologies like Gene Therapy.
Let’s start using new terminology and inspiring a world where people have access to make anything they can imagine with the push of a button.
Case I wake up in the morning and it’s all gone
Best believe I’ma get it right back
Thats the hustler in me I know you like that
– Young Jeezy (Leave You Alone)
With 4th of July upon us, I felt it was time to be a little more public about my next moves. As many of you know, I’m in the process of moving to NYC to launch a new company. There is a deep love in my heart for Colorado, and Boulder in particular. In many ways, my closest friends and family have found it hard to believe that I’d leave a place that I love so dearly. At the end of the day there are 3 reasons that I’m going: 3D printing, a new startup opportunity, and family/friends.
For many years, I’ve had a fascination with the intersection of the physical and digital worlds. How do things we create digitally get manifested in the real world. Card Gnome was my first experiment. Over the last couple years, and more intensely over the last few months, 3D printing has become an obsession. NYC is the epicenter of this new technology. Not just for the US, but for the world. Makerbot, Shapeways and 3D Systems are 3 of the largest players in the space and all have headquarters in the NYC metro area. Stratasys, the other behemoth from Israel, recently acquired Makerbot to be it’s consumer brand and they aren’t moving from NYC. Makerbot and Shapeways even have their manufacturing facilities within the city limits. 3D printing changes the manufacturing cost calculus, allowing producers to optimize for geography rather than labor costs. What better location than metro NYC to show the world that labor cost optimization is dead.
About 1 month ago I was doing due diligence on a company that I was interested in and met Kegan Schouwenberg. She is an amazing entrepreneur and the former head of US operations for Shapeways, a true thought leader in 3D printing. She had this crazy idea that she could use 3D scanning and printing to create custom orthotics that aren’t just functionally better, but are better looking and easier to buy. She’s an industrial designer by trade and was looking for a business partner to handle distribution and business operations. I was really intrigued and after about a month of thought have decided to join full time as a founder and COO for the new business we’re calling Sols.
Lastly, my family and many of my friends still live in the tri-state area (Philly, NJ, NYC) and I’ve been neglecting those relationships for many years. I can’t remember a time when I was close enough to home for casual visits since I left for college and I’m looking forward to being closer. My heart is stil in the outdoors and NYC and its environs just cannot fulfill that need (although I’m still going to try). My hope is that in the future I’ll be able to move back to Colorado (or California) where I’ll have easier access to the backcountry adventures that I love.
At the end of the day, I’m not “leaving Colorado”, I’m just living in New York for a little bit. If you are around Boulder next week on the 11th I’ll be doing happy hour drinks at the West End Tavern starting at 4pm. Come say hi.
He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious.
– Sun Tzu (Art of War)
In my vision of the future, the world of manufacturing is optimized for geography rather than labor cost. In addition to in-home systems, there will also be a network of local manufacturing facilities (think Kinkos) with high end machines and trained staff. Manufacturing is one of the world’s largest industries and this shift will be seismic, disrupting traditional supply chains and opening up new business opportunities.
The question for the entrepreneurs is what part of the industry to be in and which will take the lionshare of the profits. It’s a complex question which I’m still working out in my own head. Here are some of the different models and my thoughts on each:
- Equipment manufacturers – How do the patent portfolios of the established players inhibit the market for new entrants? Are there new technologies that emerge that surpass the capabilities of patented technologies?
- Raw material suppliers – How will demand for new raw materials shift the market and distribution for commodities. Will it create new commodities?
- Equipment repair services – Service contracts for independent manufacturing facilities and home systems. This would likely look a lot like the classic service contracts that GE Aviation and Energy sell as add-ons to their systems. GE Energy and Aviation built their businesses by selling the machines at cost and profiting on long-term service contracts and financing deals. Will today’s equipment manufacturers monopolize this market or will there be space for 3rd parties to provide services?
- Equipment financiers – Will the current manufacturers offer in-house financing or be content letting a 3rd party lender (or many lenders) into the space. Personally I think they’ll create preferential partners in order to remain focused on their core competency in a fast moving space.
- Outsourced manufacturers (distributed versions of Foxconn) – Margins are razor thin for contract manufacturers already, will that change in the 3D printed era? If this is a game of sheer volume and efficiency you’ll need to get into the game before an Amazon (Shapeways?) monopolizes it and their efficiencies of scale are insurmountable.
- Real estate holdings – Will there be a resurgence in prices for industrial zoned property?
- Workflow software – Software packages that run the manufacturing facilities workflow that is optimized for large runs of unique products going to unique places.
- Glue – There will be a software layer that sits between product companies and makers and the facilities that produce their items. There is no use in a digital supply chain if the communication process is still manual!
With the market in its infancy and growing 12x over the next decade, it’s the right time to entrepreneur’s to be thinking about these different models. Some of these businesses aren’t executable until the market is more developed, so the real question is how do you build something now that is profitable and be in the right place to profit as the market evolves. Feel free to reach out to me if you have some thoughts or want to talk about these ideas.