3D Printing To Disappear?

Christopher Mims writes his opinion of 3D printing futures on the MIT Technology Review blog, where he suggests that 3D printing will never become a "mature technology that can reproduce all the goods on which we rely". He goes on to suggest that to believe so is a "complete denial of the complexities of modern manufacturing". 

 

We think Mims is right and wrong. He's right that today's 3D printers and even those envisioned for the next few years are (and will be) limited in capability. They print in a limited selection of materials with constrained physical properties and indeed that is problematic if you intend on using printed objects for general use. 

 

He's wrong that 3D printing will "go the way of virtual reality". To us, the signs are present: we have a technology gradually improving in capability, price and effectiveness with a great many people working on it. We have massive numbers of 3D capable people appearing, acquainted with 3D via design, gaming or entertainment. 

 

And there's something else.

 

Personalization. The 20th century was the period of mass production. Many identical cheap items were made for all purposes. Today people have become more demanding of objects that more precisely match their needs. And we call that personalization. 3D printing can achieve that, at least for an increasing subset of items. 

 

As people grow more accustomed to personalization, the percentage of 3D printed items will rise. If the percentage of 3D printed items rises, then it becomes more important, and does not "go the way of virtual reality". 

 

What say you? Will we become less interested in personalized objects in the future, or more so? I think you know what we think.

 

Via MIT's Technology Review

The Two Titans of Personal 3D Printing

After CES it now seems we have a two-horse race for the lead in personal 3D printing: MakerBot and 3D Systems. Both announced new printers (the MakerBot Replicator and the Cube), while 3D Systems added a comprehensive 3D community/store/service to compete with MakerBot's Thingiverse. 

 

But that's about where the similarities end. MakerBot's philosophy revolves around the idea of personal making and open source, whereas 3D Systems is more focused on consumers less capable of making - and their approach is less open source and has more capitalism involved. Thingiverse's repository is full of items free for the taking, while 3D Systems' Cubify store requires varying levels of payment for the 3D models. Different approaches for different audiences. 

 

Which approach will win? In the short term we think both, simply because the 3D printing market is basically wide open. The number of personal 3D printers sold to date is only in the low tens of thousands, while literally billions of people have never even heard about it, let alone use one. In the long term it may be that 3D Systems' approach may overtake MakerBot's simply because there are far more "non-makers" in the world. 

 

Regardless of who's winning, it will be an interesting race to watch in 2012. 

Did Our 3D Print Wishes Come True in 2011?

In January 2011 we posted a short list of three "wishes" for 3D printing in 2011. Now that 2011 has officially been placed on the expired list, we thought we check in on our wishes to see if any of them actually happened. Here's the results:

 

We wished for "A capable and assembled 3D printer for under USD$1500." At the beginning of 2011 that was indeed a wish, as most assembled 3D printers seemed to retail around USD$2500. That's all changed now, with several assembled options for USD$1500 or even cheaper. We thought this was an important wish as removing the assembly barrier would enable many more consumers to get into 3D printing. And it did. 

 

We also wished for "Commercial manufacturers enter the consumer market." 3D Systems had taken a small step by acquiring BitsFromBytes, but we wanted more. That sorta happened, but in an unusual manner: 3D systems acquired BotMill and ZCorp. BotMill is a consumer machine and ZCorp's technologies might migrate towards consumers in the future. Meanwhile, Stratasys and Objet, the two remaining industry commercial giants, continue to focus on industrial applications. 

 

Finally, we wished for "A consumer-oriented online market for 3D models." We wanted something different from the popular open source Thingiverse repository. It didn't seem to happen, so we did this one ourselves by inventing Mallyable! It's a new source for low-cost 3D models specifically designed for 3D printing. 

 

So yes, we got our wishes in 2011. What are yours for 2012?

Anil Dash on 3D Printing Futures

Entrepreneur Anil Dash recently posted his thoughts on the world of 3D printing as we find it at the end of year 2011. We agree with most of his propositions, which basically boil down to the fact that personal 3D printing is at the most early stages of development. Here are his positions and our thoughts: 

 

Stop Making Kits. Dash laments the fact that many of the current crop of personal 3D printers are in fact kits, suitable only for those who have the ability, interest and time to build them. We emphatically agree with him here, as there are vastly more people interested in using 3D printers over those who wish to build them. However, at this early stage it's essential that the builder community engages to develop the basics of the technology; the general public cannot. But yes, there will be a switchover at a future point where the "consumers" outnumber the "builders".  

 

Make Teleporters. Dash proposes each 3D printer come equipped with a 3D scanner to assist in gathering 3D content. Great idea, as 3D content makes 3D printers useful, but 3D scanning needs significant development as the 3D scanners of today typically produce very rough 3D models that require much tweaking by someone skilled in 3D modeling. An opening for a great software product here, perhaps? 

 

Avoid Ink Scams. Dash correctly points out that commercial 3D printer manufacturers of today make much of their revenue from sales of proprietary 3D print materials, just like the 2D paper printer manufacturers do. He wants to avoid the same scenario in a future 3D printer world, as we do. However, it's going to be a lot more complicated as the variety of printable materials increases. It's not like ink where the "output" is merely seen. Objects are not only seen but also touched, bent, heated, cooled and subjected many other torturous physical activities, all of which demand a wide variety of materials to match those characteristics. It's complicated and probably will be for a while.

 

Share Designs. Dash proposes personal 3D printers have a means of sharing designs to increase the content flow and thus usefulness. We agree, but point out there are a ton of ways to accomplish this, through sharing sites, purchased models or even prehistoric email. We're not too concerned about this aspect, since, like any other valuable data on the Internet, efficient ways of sharing will naturally emerge. And then be shut down by the authorities, of course. 

 

Standardize Software. Dash correctly points out that there are scant few standard formats in the world of personal 3D printing these days, aside from the barely usable STL format used by many devices. While there are efforts to improve STL, that's only part of the software standardization question. Machines must somehow reflect their physical configuration back to the software so that appropriate actions can be taken - and there's little action there as far as we know. We think personal 3D printing's software lifecycle is its single biggest barrier these days. Hardware has improved immensely, but the software is still a mess. 

 

We think the equation should be straightforward: easy to operate, assembled 3D printers plus easily found 3D content plus inexpensive material should generate a large industry. The key is highly lubricated software between those aspects. 

 

Via Dashes

Unfold Imagines Streetside 3D Printing

Several design firms specialize in doing amazing things with 3D printing and one of them is Belgium-based Unfold. Their new concept is streetside 3D printing. What? Yeah, it's exactly that - a street vendor that prints arbitrary stuff on demand. Not hot dogs, but objects.  

 

Possible? Technically yes, but we suspect the clientele might get a little impatient while awaiting their Winged Unicorns as current 3D printers don't produce objects quite fast enough. 

 

Yet. 

 

Via Unfold.be and Popup City

The Economist Discovers 3D Printing's Killer App

There is perhaps no bigger promoter of 3D printing within the mainstream media than The Economist magazine. Recently they visited the gigantic Euromold conference where many 3D printer manufacturers exhibit their wares - and applications of their tech. 

 

What impressed The Economist was the link between 3D print design and the biological. We've written about this before, but it seems that the concept was much more widespread at Euromold. Here's the Big Idea: 

 

3D Printing permits you to easily make materials that have complex internal patterns. 

 

Why is this so important? It turns out that the zillions of years of bio-evolution identified the best structures for a wide variety of uses. And most of them involve differentiated innards, unlike the common mono-internal-structure manufacturing methods we use today. The difference is that 3D printers can produce complex materials as easily (or in some cases more easily) than standard mono-structures. 

 

So be on the lookout for things made with incredibly strong and lightweight components, fresh out of the printer.

  

Via The Economist

The Cambrian Explosion of 3D Printers

Another new and innovative 3D printer kit available on KickStarter. Venture funding starts up another 3D printer factory. And then we read Rachel Park's blog post. She reported on her experience at Euromold, where even more low-cost personal 3D printers emerged. That got us thinking about explosions. Cambrian explosions. 

 

But, you ask, what is/was a Cambrian explosion? Some 530 million years ago, give or take, something amazing happened on our planet: The Cambrian Explosion. It was an era where multicellular life truly expanded into an incredible variety of shapes and forms. Fossils from this era are very peculiar, with invariably bizarre body plans that often provoke a "what the heck were they thinking?" reaction. 

 

What was happening back then? Evolution took its course, as many approaches to multi-cellular life were attempted and only the best designs survived. From this era we gained such design features as body symmetry, four (or six or eight, etc.) main appendages, head on top, and so on. 

 

The same thing happens in a new technology, when many different approaches are attempted, but only the most useful and effective survive. Well, sometimes "most funded" also applies here, but you get the idea. 

 

This week saw the introduction of quite a few personal 3D printers. Each has a uniqueness believed to be the key feature to win over the market. Who will win? We'll only know after evolution takes its course.  

 

It's life all over again. 

 

Via RPES and Wikipedia

More People Get 3D Printing

Blogger John Geraci's recent post shows his newfound understanding of the future of 3D printing: he gets it. John's blog talks about "innovation & entrepreneurship in New York City and beyond", and this led him, we suspect, to Brooklyn-based MakerBot, the well-known manufacturers of the Thing-O-Matic personal 3D printer and previous models. From there he wrote a post on MakerBot's disruptiveness, and then had a revelation of the implications of widespread 3D printing:

 

So imagine not even having to know how to design something in order to manufacture it. Imagine not ever needing to get something in the mail from UPS. Imagine stores not needing to actually manufacture things at all – they just send a blueprint, and the end user just pops that blueprint into their printer and bing, there’s the product. (I guess “store” is the wrong word in that case – as would be “manufacturer” – so what do call the designer/seller of things then? The designer? The company? The brand?).

 

We believe that sort of thing will ultimately happen, although not for some years. Why? It's starting already with more than just MakerBot: many other companies are starting up in the space with room for all to succeed. John also asks some provocative questions that we've been wondering about, too: 

  

• What happens to manufacturing in this case?
• What happens to shipping and delivery?
• What happens to stores and companies?
• What happens to brands?
• What happens to the price of goods?

 

We would add a few more questions:

 

• What happens to CO2 when shipping decreases?
• What happens when you can personalize your purchases/builds? (size, color, texture, name, anything!)
• What happens when your possessions (or even you yourself) are scanned and replicated?
• What happens when weapons are easily fabricated anywhere, anytime from a mere digital model? 
• What happens when food is 3D printed?

 

We could go on, but you get the idea: Change. Lots of it. Coming your way. 

 

Via John Geraci