Definitions & Terminology Have Always Been Problematic in 3D Printing — Now it’s All About the Genre

When I first started writing and editing about rapid prototyping way back when – one of the major benefits of using the tech for prototyping applications (which, incidentally, does still stand today) was time-to-market. That’s to say getting a successful product to market first and maximizing the business returns of doing so. I remember writing about the impact of being first and the ‘me-too’ products that followed. There were often debates about whether being first or being an ‘improved me too’ product was best. Obviously you had to factor in branding and marketing and the quality of the product.

It has struck me recently that this is where 3D printing actually is now – with the printers themselves and the services and ancillary products springing up around the sector too. There are really rather a lot of them now. And it probably goes without saying that not all of them can survive. I’d say we are not too far off saturation point either – the pinnacle of the hype cycle, and we surely must be there or there about, has seen hoards of individuals and small start-ups create original and not-so-original 3D printing business models around the potential, the reality, and at least some of them, the hype. As the trough of disillusionment beckons, we are likely to get clearer visibility on the companies that will be in this for the long haul and the many more that won’t survive and will move on to bubbles new.

It is even getting quite difficult to categorise the genres of the business as they grow and/or emerge — I used to be able to differentiate really easily — hardware, software, service and materials. With some companies doing more than one thing, still easy. Now, though, there are hardware manufacturers that offer services; services that resell hardware; services within services; 3D Content repositories — some with 3D printing services or affiliated to them others without; as of today there are also services that offer APIs; and, of course, one or two that try to do it all – not quite sure what I’m going to call them.

It’s getting messier and messier. I’m not a fan of mess, generally, but this is all quite good fun as I try to figure it all out and label everything in an appropriate and understandable way — mostly for me, which will maybe help you!?  

I’ve also just been made aware of another, let’s call it service, launching this month (no specific date).  Been asked to hold off on covering it for a day or two, but news to follow early next week.

The upshot is that 3D printing is exciting, it offers much and will continue to do so, I believe. The companies that try to do business around it however, will need to be flexible and accommodating to survive the ups and the downs as they happen. 

A Timely Dose of 3D Printing Reality?

Anyone that knows me or follows me here or on any of the various social media channels that I haunt, knows that I think 3D printing is a pretty great technology. It's true, I absolutely do. From the earliest days of rapid prototyping I have grasped, promulgated and maintained the potential of the technology most of us now call 3D printing.

I have never doubted that this technology is capable of amazing things, and today we are seeing more and more proof of what it can do. From ground-breaking medical applications that have changed individual lives for the better and industrial applications that are challenging century old 'laws' of manufacturing through to the singularly aesthetic with new forms of art and design, 3D printing has made a difference.

 In the future I believe it will do much, much more.

However, I am guilty of adorning rose-tinted glasses from my view point. It's been levelled at me before, I dare say it will be again. As a commentator and general by-stander, I do like to think I understand the reality of the 3D printing processes, what it involves, particularly the industrial grade systems that process powder  — it is a time consuming endeavour that requires highly experienced operators and it is NOT anywhere near a plug and play activity. Similarly, at the other end of the spectrum, even a cursory glance at the 3DP forums frequented by hackers and makers with their own entry-level 3D printers will inform you that commitment, patience, trial & error and sometimes just sheer devotion are necessary traits to PIY (print-it-yourself).

So what has prompted this recap post about the realities of 3D Printing?

A rather brutal, but it has to be said, welcome dose of reality from 3DPConfidential. Highly recommended reading, if you haven't seen it already. If you put the ranting nature of this post aside for a minute, coming as it does from one, disillusioned employee of a 3D printing service provider, there are some stark points addressed in this post that should really make his employers sit up and take notice. And indeed, any leaders of companies that are building their business model around 3D printing.

First, a service business based on 3D printing needs to address the people-technology interface. If experience and expertise are overlooked — which they often seem to be — it will ultimately be to the detriment of the brand, which, in this case the '30-somethings' are working so hard to build. Branding is important, of course it is, but it is only skin deep. If there is nothing of substance behind the brand it surely has a short shelf-life?

Second, there also seems to be an issue with priorities — the web development vs the in-house printing capabilities. Juggling business demands necessarily involves prioritising, cost saving and balance. If this post is right though — it seems the balance is all wrong within this particular business.

Back to the nature of the post and the person behind it. I have no idea at all who the individual is, they absolutely need to keep their identity under-wraps to keep posting. I can make an educated guess at the organisation, but without hard evidence, I'm not for sharing here. The post, though, is obviously written by someone dealing with the realities of 3D printing day in and day out, someone on the frontline that makes 3D printing work for the "'community' of designers, online shop ownder and creative 'collaborators'" as testified by hands ingrained with nylon powder. The reference to "kids" in their thirties, while a tad patronising, would also suggest this person has age and experience under their belt. All of which points to someone worth listening to and learning from.

I have heard many others [all front line users of the tech] talking along similar lines in my time, but never anything this public. Whoever 3DPConfidential is, I admire their temerity. One can only hope that the powers that be sit up and take note?  

3D Printing Mobile Developments and Motivation

When the news broke just before the weekend that Nokia was embracing 3D printing in an outward facing way, that’s to say for its consumers (of the Lumia820) rather than in-house for its own product development processes, it went viral pretty quick. The excitement was almost palpable.

It was a notable development particularly because it is a large OEM, albeit one that has lost a great deal of market share to Apple and Samsung in recent years, that has taken the first step towards customization enabled by 3D printing. It’s really just a baby step, but it is headline grabbing (something the company needs) and Nokia will go down in history as one of the first big companies to do it. While 3D printed phone covers have proved to be one of the consumer success stories for the tech to date, it has been largely in the hands of 3^rd party service providers.

Talking of which, I found it particularly interesting that two such 3^rd parties — i.materialise and Sculpteo — picked up on the news pretty quick, downloaded the files and produced some test prints. They were quick to share.

I found myself wondering about the motivation, with a couple of conclusions. As specialists in this field, who better to test the process and the 3DP files offered by Nokia — and more specifically, the results. They have the expertise and knowledge of 3D printing that is still a prerequisite for successful results and imparted that to the community and world at large. On the other hand, this ‘sharing’ was also a great way of advertising their services and their ability to produce the Lumia820 covers for all those that want them 3D printed but don’t have their own 3D printer — and let’s face it, that’s probably most of Nokia’s customer base!

i.materialise’s “myth-busting” post on this is here, while Sculpteo’s somewhat more positive take on it is here. 

3D Printing Avarice

Been a while since I was here, but just need to vent so please bear with!

Read this earlier and it made me grumpy.

The suggestive bias made me cross not to mention that there are plenty of questions, there is no new information and definitely no answers.

I think it is safe for us all to assume today that 3D Printing is here, that the sector is going to grow significantly, that there are business opportunities available with money to be made and that there are many, many applications of the technology that have not been thought of yet. Some of these applications will be for the benefit of many and some will be to the detriment of a few, personally I still think there is a killer app to come that will prove to be the tipping point. It is all going to play out one way or another, but it’s getting harder to swallow the financial predictions, which once upon a time I saw as a positive indicator. I suppose they still are, but these days they just serve to wind me up because it just whiffs of greed!

Does your heart soar or sink when you read that the market will be worth x billions in 5 years or xx billions in 10 years etc? The articles are cynically directed at VCs and similar, trying to get their attention, bring it all about faster than it otherwise might.

No one actually knows.  

And really, apart from the greedy, who cares?

I much prefer stories that centralise 3D printing people and/or applications and/or innovation, but that’s just me.

I know money makes the world go round. I know I can't change/stop it. I know this type of post makes very little difference. But, saying it out loud does just make me feel a little bit better! 

On a happier note – I have started my Christmas shopping and most of my f&f are getting 3D printed gifts this year :-)

Hey Good Looking: Replicator 2 from Makerbot

After the countdown and the subsequent announcement, it's time for the dissection to begin.

My initial thoughts are as follows, but this is probably not for 3D printing geeks.

I think it's safe to say that the overall response to the new Makerbot Replicator 2 desktop 3D printer has been positive. For a start it would be hard to repel the sheer enthusiasm and positive energy that Bre Pettis, Makerbot's CEO, exudes when he talks about the Replicator 2 (or anything Makerbot-related come to that). He's a believer — through and through.

Once I FINALLY got my computer to behave I was able to watch the video announcement (still haven't seen the real-time announcement mind you) that was posted to the Makerbot homepage. But that wasn't before reading the brochure a couple of times. Taking it all in, I have to say it is all one very cleverly composed message with great imagery, as well as charm, personality, style and, most importantly of all, a compelling product.

This new 3D printer has been purposely designed and developed to have style AND substance. If you think about it, Makerbot has rarely been short of substance in the market segment (mid-lower end) it operates in. In terms of product, it has sometimes been accused of lacking style. I'm thinking of the CNET Makerbot versus Cube face-off and comments from a wider audience that it's a garage tool rather than a consumer product for the home. In contrast, the Cube from 3D Systems oozes style but lacks substance.

This is not just a product announcement; it is, I think, a gauntlet throwing exercise to the rest of the 3D printing market. I've mentioned 3D Systems, but watching the video there was also a direct reference to MCOR's 3D printing process. As Bre waxed lyrical about the 100 micron layer thickness and what this meant in terms of parts that could be used directly off the machine without sanding or post-processing, he qualified this by saying each layer was as fine as a layer of paper. As if that wasn't enough, the video supplies a visual image as he speaks — flicking through a ream of A4 paper.

Then he went on to pull a bright blue owl off a Replicator 2 build platform to highlight the resolution capabilities. Why blue when talking about resolution? Check out MiiCraft, a machine that is all about fine resolution — all the marketing material uses bright blue parts built on that machine.

Twice, at the beginning and at the end, Bre states with emphasis that the Replicator 2 "sets the standard in desktop 3D printing."

Couple of notable points, the Makerbot only processes one material — PLA. But not just any old PLA, it is optimised specifically for the Replicator 2 and Bre referred to over and over as "Makerbot PLA filament."  This is a brave move - a few people weren't impressed, but the reasoning behind it can't be faulted — it's biodegradable and it also reduces energy consumption by 32% compared with the 1st gen Makerbot 3D printer. Also, the build volume for the Replicator 2 sees a 37% increase over it's ancestor. This is good going and one of the consistent demands from users. That was never going to be a bad move. 410 cubic square inches in all, which converts to 12"x6"x6" (xyz). The software is no longer open source either, which got tongues wagging — the makers are not happy about this. But for a serious commercial operation, I don't think this is a bad thing, and it means that Makerbot can build some distance from clones like Tangibot. The open source / closed commercial operation is always going to be a sensitive one — but professional buyers need reassurances and open source methodology, despite its many benefits, just does not offer assurance.

What was unanimous, was that without fail, everyone watching and listening wants to see parts for themselves. That includes me. We know they'll be at Makerfaire next weekend, what I'd like to know is if they'll send some test pieces over to TCT Live next week?

Anyone from Makerbot reading this ...... pretty please?

3D Printing and RPES Catch Up

Not quite sure what happened to summer, but it's been a busy one. I don't even really know where to begin to catch up here on my own blog - I have been so caught up writing for other people.

Actually, that's where I'll start, with a mini bibliography of my recent published work, just so you know I'm not making this up! ;-)

Obviously there are the posts on Personalize — all 18 of them:

Also, I started a series on Engineering.com about 3D printing and barriers to adoption. That started out as a single post but developed a life all of its own — thanks must go to contributors: Kevin Quigley, Russell Beard, Jez Pullin, Rachel Trimble, @RichRap and Magnus Bombus!

First three have been published, and I think the last one is scheduled for next week.

Part 1, looking at costs of 3D printing is here; part 2 covers materials and surface finish/accuracy and can be found here; and part 3, published today, covers 3D data and is here.

I've also conducted and written up some interviews for Innovate3D & CADdigest. Some inspiring stuff going on:


BeautyBit™ – a Broken Nail Leads to an Invention


Inventor Profile: Julie Hyde Edwards’ re-Contour™


North American Eagle Using Modified Jet Fighter in Land Speed Record Bid 

There has been the TCTLive Conference on 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing to finalise and prepare for. Just in case, it's next week (25th/26th Sept) at the NEC, Birmingham UK.

Plus have you seen all the news lately, so many new 3D printers — right across the board — from ExOne and Sigma Labs with new metal systems. New entry level machines include the Pandabot, Eventorbot and the HYREL. There's a really interesting new one coming next Wednesday from Formlabs too — this one is causing much excitement as a few details start to leak. I've been promised more info by the end of the week — I'll share here if my source comes through!

And then of course there is the big announcement from Makerbot in approximately 5 and a half hours. The pre-announcement announcement that is so de-rigeur these days came with a slight twist as the cover of Wired Magazine — depicting Bre Pettis holding the latest gen Replicator — was "leaked". It was a nice touch, I have to say.

I have an announcement of my own to make soon too, but fear not, it won't be pre-announced!

I hope to see some of you in person next week .... take a deep breath, TCT is always a wild ride!

3D Printing: Constraints Don't Have to Mean Limitations

An interesting communication came my way from Crucible just recently, announcing a set of guidelines that the organization has developed for Designing for 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

The announcement gets straight to the point, with an interesting truth: “The perception that these [additive] processes are free from any production constraints remains largely unchallenged. The reality is that — if cost, time or waste matter to you — additive manufacturing / 3D printing processes DO have constraints.”

Because 3D printing is widely (and correctly) associated with new design freedoms in terms of complexity and geometries, it is often perceived as having no constraints at all. This is a mistake that Crucible is hoping to eliminate for users, particularly users of DMLS (Direct Metal Laser Sintering).

Crucible has contributed to the ‘SAVING’ project and as a result, has produced a set of guidelines aimed at achieving best practice with the process. “Most of the guidelines are aimed at making designers aware of the basic facts regarding design with DMLS, like rule number 1 — any downward facing horizontal surface will require support structures to be built and then removed, wasting time and money. The important point to note is that these are not limitations, provided you work with them — just as draft angles are not necessarily a limitation of injection moulding.”

This is an important set of guidelines in my opinion – which will hopefully go someway to supporting new and existing users of additive technology and help them avoid disillusionment when, as can happen, the reality does not always live up to the hype they have heard. The reality is that these processes are capable of great things, but as with anything worthwhile – it takes understanding and effort.

I salute Crucible for this announcement. Nice one!