3D Printing Intrigue, Opinion and New Ventures

So much time out of the office over the last two weeks has lead to a bit of a backlog and lack of posts. Time away has been for various reasons: meetings, exhibitions and a week of R&R with the family over half term. All good then, batteries recharged and a ton of work to plough through.

It's been an interesting couple of weeks, to say the least. A couple of meetings have thrown up some very intriguing information, which, on pain of death, I am not at liberty to share. In some ways this is really VERY frustrating for me but then, as the kind of person that reads the last page of a book first, I do like knowing what's coming. And there is lots on the horizon, some things are about to come into view and others may take a little longer.

Here's a couple of teasers: First, I heard about a really interesting twist on entry level 3D printing capabilities. Essentially two existing 3D printing capabilities, that would not make anyone's pulse race particularly as they have been available for a while, are being brought together in a way that, I think, might just set the cat among the pigeons. I also think it might even make the most cynical sit up and take notice. Another compelling intimation was the result of a culmination of much industry networking by a long-standing member of the 3DP community. Can't wait for the cat to be let out of the bag on that one.

Ok, ok enough with the riddles.

What can I talk about sensibly? Well, my visit to the capital for PDM 2012 was a good day, not least because it actually felt like summer on that day. Much cosier than previous editions of the show (I was last a visitor in 2010) PDM 2012 was not without its attractions & exhibitors I spoke to seemed impressed with the quality of the visitors. I think everyone was pleased to hear that the show is returning to Telford next year though.

I had very interesting conversations with old friends and new. Stopped by the Objet stand of course and caught up with the guys from IPF and Tritech 3D — I know I've said it before, but it's worth saying again — they really do do a good job and are a great team for advocating 3D printing in general and Objet in particular. The 3D printed pen they gave me was in my possession for all of a few hours before it was summarily claimed by my daughter. On the upside her D&T teacher and product design classmates are all very impressed — there is talk of a school design project as a result.

PDM also threw up a thought-provoking conundrum that I have been pondering for some time — what's happening inside the 3D Systems universe? Talking to the guys at John Burn, resellers of the 3D Systems' Bits from Bytes brand, it was fascinating to get their take on the mid-range 3D printing market. John Burn has a traditional history within the manufacturing sector and the addition of the 3D Touch 3D printer to their portfolio is proving to be a successful initiative as they introduce new and existing clients to the technology. Really lovely guys that have bought into the idea of 3D printing being an extremely useful tool in the manufacturer's tool box. But then talking to an ex ZCorp person (there are rather a lot of them now, unfortunately) the word is that sales of ZCorp tech is down, way down! The figure I heard was 45%. This is appalling, and I really struggle to understand why and how such a great 3D printing technology is being allowed to sink like this by a company that has the resources to make it fly? I continue to ponder ...... if anyone has any thoughts on this, would love to hear them. On or off the record.

I also want to thank Harry at John Burn for pointing me to a SpaceClaim demo. It's been a while since I have stood through a CAD demo, but I am so glad I did. I was mightily impressed with what I saw and heard, particularly in view of the user accessibility and the price for education and the licensing of seats in schools. Nice job, and thanks to Tim and Daniel from Physical Digital for patiently answering my (probably inane) questions.

Then I caught up with old friend Dave Bennion of Ogle Models & Prototypes. This is a great company that I have watched evolve from my earliest days in this industry. Again, it is not ALL about 3D printing for them, it is about combining these fabulous advanced technologies with traditional model making skills. The emphasis, always, is on quality models and 3D printing is an enabler for this. Also fascinating to hear that Ogle is looking at a consumer facing joint venture, again, fully enabled by 3D printing. Keep an eye out for Selassi - beautiful.

Mid-afternoon at PDM I took a phone call from my old boss - Mr Duncan Wood. He took me off guard somewhat when he asked if I would be interested in working with the team on the new PersonaliZe media platform for the next few months. Well, you may have seen the final result of that conversation yesterday? If not, my first blog post for them is now live.

Exciting times!

All Change Again - And a Personal Epiphany

While I have been kept busy, fruitfully so, I had been thinking that things have been pretty quiet across the 3D printing universe recently.

Silly me.

It all started kicking off again last week. The first announcement came from (surprise surprise) 3D Systems (3DS), which announced on 10th April that the company had acquired My Robot Nation. It caused a bit of a stir because many had assumed that the 3DS spending spree was on hold while its numerous other acquisitions were consolidated into the business. Obviously, 3DS are not yet where they want to be, and, after short respite, the acquisitions are go again.

My Robot Nation (MRN) is a relatively new start-up, a consumer facing business, engaging its customers in customised design and supplying the 3D printed results. It's a good fit with 3DS, the new owners of ZPrinting, as the MRN interface produces full colour digital models that are printed on ZPrinters. The whole business, including the founders who were originally from the gaming industry, will be folded into the Cubify division of 3DS to further develop its reach and consumer interaction. Like I said, a nice fit.

This news was followed on Monday by a much more potent, albeit previously forecast, announcement from Stratasys and Objet, in that the two companies are set to merge to form the largest 3D Printing vendor company visible on the sector's landscape. Valued at $1.4 billion, this new company, to be called Stratasys Ltd, has really grabbed people's attention in a number of ways. First and most obvious is the sheer size and scale of the new operation. The share prices of both Stratasys and Objet increased by 25% and 20% respectively within 24 hours, so the response is largely positive. Furthermore, the combination of these two technology bases, complementary for the most part, will also bring together two of the very best R&D departments within the 3D printing sector. I think we will see some very interesting developments from this. A few on the twittersphere had seen this one coming after the news broke a few weeks back that Objet was on the market, myself included. The prediction now is that Stratasys Ltd will need to introduce &/or acquire metal capabilities to firm up its standing in terms of a fully comprehensive 3D printing technology portfolio. My hunch is that we won't have to wait too long for this to happen.

All in all though, I think this is a positive merger, a combination of two of the most operationally successful 3D printer vendors. And it should be noted that my language here is a reflection of the language used by both Stratasys and Objet in their corporate releases about this venture. Both were at pains to convey a mutual coming together, never once was the word acquisition used. I thought that was quite telling in itself! 

This particular announcement also set tongues wagging about the consolidation within the 3D printing sector, with bets being taken on how long before only the two largest companies are left standing. Either that, or one of the truly vast electronic/tech companies joining the party properly. If you didn't catch that, it was a reference to HP's half-hearted dalliance with Stratasys to date. Personally, I don't think the 3D printing sector will ever be reduced to just two dominant companies. I certainly hope not anyway.

And then on Tuesday came a further announcement from 3D Systems, which on that day, acquired Paramount Industries. Headed up by Jim Williams, Paramount is renowned for its use of 3D printing technologies for additive manufacturing applications, most notably in the aerospace and medical industries. Indeed Jim is a veteran user of additive tech, and has been working in this field since the origins of rapid prototyping way back when. Offering complete design to manufacturing services, Paramount will fit right into the 3D Systems corporation, alongside Quickparts & 3Dproparts, with specific emphasis on manufacturing capabilities. It is another nice fit, but I can't help but wonder how many more companies can and will be accommodated under the 3DS umbrella?

As things continue to change, and they will, as the consolidation takes a shape of its own and awareness increases apace, I should just mention that I had my own epiphany (finally) on the terminology around this industry. I was mid debate with a couple of people (Al Dean, Kevin Quigley and Jim Woodcock) about how 3D printing is different to additive manufacturing, and should be defined so. Al, who is never one to pull his punches, argued that they are all 3D Printers, "bang, done!" I was arguing that a "3D printer" is not the same as an "additive manufacturing" machine. I used the analogy that a Vauxhall Corsa is not the same as an Aston Martin. Kevin then commented, I think in agreement with me, that similarly an £800 CNC machine is not the same as a £500k CNC machine. Which is when it hit me — fully, completely and overwhelmingly. A Corsa is NOT the same as an Aston Martin, but they ARE both cars. An £800 CNC machine is NOT the same as a £500k CNC machine, but they ARE both CNC machines. A Makerbot is NOT the same as an EOS P700 but they ARE both 3D printers. The differences between 3D printers comes from the capabilities offered, the applications they serve and the users that employ them. Therefore, context is vital, but responsibility for this must fall to the marketing & branding by the machine vendors as well as commentators and journalists.

It really is that simple. And that is exactly what this industry needs — simplicity with context.

The 3D Printing Landscape Changed Dramatically Today

Not to overlook everything that has gone before, 3D Systems has announced its largest — and most significant — acquisition by far today, namely Z Corporation, arguably the most dominant vendor in the personal 3D printing sector.

My past blog posts that have mentioned 3D Systems have had mixed reactions, in the main supportive but with the occasional blasting, and in one case, a lost project. But hey-ho, that's life. I'm entitled to my opinions and I will defend that principle until I write my last word. However, taking a step back, I have to concede that my posts have been all about the company and strategy, with very little mention of the technologies. 3D Systems was founded on Stereolithography (SLA), indeed the company developed and commercialised this process in 1987. And one of the company's earliest acquisitions was DTM, which brought Selective Laser Sintering within 3D System's remit. These two technologies are two of the four earliest additive manufacturing processes, the others being Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) developed, commercialised and still belonging to Stratasys; and Laminated Object Manufacturing (LOM), which was developed by Helisys and died a death in the 90's until resurrected in a different form by MCor a few of years back.

So, why the history lesson? Well, as the shock waves reverberated across the 3D printing industry — and I confess my chin hit my chest at precisely 3.15 GMT when I read the original post from ZCorp and subsequently the press releases from both ZCorp & 3D Systems, and it stayed there as I tried to investigate a little further — a number of interesting theories emerged. It should be noted that ZCorp was unable to comment beyond the information in the press release. By far the most striking theory, for me anyway, came from Randall Newton (@gfxspeakRSN) who said, and I quote "3D Systems has to grow or die. Stratasys/HP is going to be a monster. That's IMHO" I wasn't the only one to see the truth in that opinion, and the more I thought about it, the more I could see how this has been developing for years.

Historically, it has been developing since the very beginning. 3D Systems and Stratasys have always been the two big names in Rapid Prototyping and subsequently Additive Manufacturing and now 3D printing, with superior processes (along with DTM until it was acquired, and EOS still). They have always been in competition, and now it seems like this competition is heating up more than ever before. However, since the advent of the 3D printing synonym, which has been so positive for the whole industry and mainstream awareness, these two companies have implemented very different strategies. Stratasys, after the initial HP announcement, which, incidentally, created a similar furore as was seen today, has quietly gone about its business, but it has occurred to me from time to time that with the power of HP behind it there has to be something serious bubbling beneath the surface. Randall's comment today brought that to the fore once again. 3D Systems on the other hand has gone for broke on the media front line, with a constant stream of acquisitions. It seems, however, that these two companies will continue to compete on a global and greatly increased scale. Personally I think this is great news. There are some concerned voices, G. Sachs on the RP-ML is an example, that worry that this deal is "really consolidating the market into 2-3 players." 

I don't see it this way — well not yet anyway — it may get to that if the acquisitions continue. There is still a wide range of additive processes from independent vendors available on the market and keeping the competition alive. At the top end of the market there are the metal processes — DMLS (EOS), EBM (Arcam), LENS (Optomec), Laser Cusing (Concept Laser), and SLM (Renishaw, previously MTT) — these certainly have had a huge impact on additive manufacturing applications and will remain competitive. I am very optimistic to see what Renishaw does with SLM in particular! Also, at the low end of the market there are a host of vendors — some strong, some not so much and some too new to tell. But enough of them to keep the competition alive. In the mid range also there are still some very strong players — Objet, Envisiontec, Fcubic & Mcor.

So what does Z Corporation bring to the 3D Systems Corporation that it didn't have before. Well, Z Corp's greatest assets in terms of its 3D printing technology are the full colour capabilities in producing models and the price/performance ratio. In addition, this acquisition brings a whole scanning/digitising brand with it in the form of the Zscanners; not to mention Contex Group (the holding company that is selling Z Corporation) is also selling VIDAR Systems Corporation to 3DS. Vidar is an optical imaging technology company that specialises in dental and medical imaging, which will allow 3D Systems to drill down much deeper into these vertical markets and offer an appealing & comprehensive range of products & services.

Furthermore, beyond the technology itself, Z Corporation is, I would say, the best known 3D printing brand (remember the wrench video), with excellent reseller channels, good turnover and a very impressive client list — all of which will further strengthen 3D System's balance sheet. The cash outlay is steep, $137 million, but initial reports suggest that the 2010 Zcorp revenue will be immediately credited to 3D Systems once the deal is completed.

Questions are being asked about branding and identity, and Deelip Menezes, himself a recent acquisition of 3DS, has indicated that ZCorp will probably continue to function as it does now, just under the 3D Systems banner, with little more than a logo change. Other recent acquisitions would back this up — Bits from Bytes (BfB) and Freedom of Creation (FoC) are both doing this.

My one serious concern (or maybe I should be a tad more optimistic) is that ZCorporation is a company with an excellent marketing strategy and engaging personnel. I'm not going to go over old ground here, but I really really hope that doesn't change. In fact, I would be delighted, truly happy, to see 3D Systems utilise this particular asset across the whole corporation!

3D Systems is at it again, 2nd time this week.

After a 10 day break over Easter I have had a monster couple of weeks, working silly hours and the blog has, unfortunately, been low down on the list of priorities to fulfil.

Anyway, woes aside, it has been pretty easy to follow the comings and goings with twitter etc. And much tweeting has been dedicated to the antics of 3D Systems. Over the last two years, this Additive Manufacturing company has seriously upped its game — acquiring competitive and related companies left, right and centre. So much so, that it has almost become a joke between many of the commentators focused on this space. But the latest acquisition, announced earlier today by Deelip Menzies, whose own companies were recently acquired by 3DS, was not one that could have been predicted easily. Shock is reverberating all round.

3D Systems has now acquired Freedom of Creation. A company synonymous with depicting the capabilities of additive manufacturing by way of a gallery of high-end (and very expensive) products manufactured with AM processes. The products from FoC are invariably inspirational, aspirational and, quite simply, gorgeous.

I can easily see the gains from 3D Systems' side by bringing this brand into its fold, what I am struggling with is what on earth were Janne et al thinking? Probably money. Personally, I'm not convinced it will help the brand, but then, I've been wrong before - happy to admit it.

And ....

From my knowledge of FoC, I'm pretty certain that selective laser sintering (EOS) is (or rather, was) their preferred process. I wonder if this motivated 3D Systems in any way?

3D Systems Buys Bits from Bytes — A Significant Manoeuvre for 3D Printing?

On Tuesday the news broke that 3D Systems had acquired Bits from Bytes (BfB). This strategic move is not surprising in itself, and is precisely the sort of acquisition that 3D Systems is renowned for — and seemingly very good at. I'm thinking back to the middle of last year when 3D Systems acquired Desktop Factory.

So the company has bought up two low-end 3D printing manufacturers and all of their IP in just over 12 months.

I suspect the dust is settling all round — the news has been spread far and wide across all the usual distribution channels, but there has been surprisingly little commentary on this. It's taken me a few days to formulate my own thoughts into some sort of order on this news, and it's definitely not clear cut yet, but here goes ....

Despite the surface similarities of the two acquisitions there are also some huge differences. The Desktop Factory machine, despite clever marketing had never actually reached the market, it was more about acquiring R&D and a very good marketing professional (Cathy Lewis, formerly CEO at Desktop Factory, is now the marketing spokesperson for 3D Systems). Bits from Bytes on the other hand has been shipping 3D printers — the Rapman kit and latterly the plug & play BfB 3000 — through various global channels to some acclaim for two years, with an ever increasing order book.

My first ruminations were on the motivation for these acquisitions. Call me cynical, but I could not help but wonder at first if the company motive was to buy the low-end 3D printer vendors to suppress sales, and protect market share within the whole additive manufacturing (AM) industry. 3D Systems does have a reputation for being aggressive and pretty closed off to journalists and customers alike. But although hard to interact with, it is hard to deny the success the company has achieved with additive technologies. I have come around to thinking that there were probably different motivations for each acquisition rather than one holistic subversive conspiracy!

Desktop Factory was hitting the headlines at a similar time to the 3D Systems V-Flash 3D printer — both hailed as the answer to the industry's needs in terms getting a foot on the AM ladder. Indeed the prospects of both were great but neither ever seemed to fulfill the promised potential. For Desktop Factory lack of financial backing and some technical / production issues prevented the company from actually reaching the market. The technical problems may yet be resolved, but the Desktop Factory concept has still not materialised into a working machine for sale. For the V-flash — well no one ever did get to the bottom of why the launch date kept getting postponed. However, the machine did finally filter through, but lost some credibility as a result; plus the market dynamic had shifted significantly too with the arrival of working 3D printers under £5000, namely the Makerbot, RepRap and RapMan. Since then there have been more changes with the arrival of the UP! 3D printer and the BfB 3000.

So why has 3D Systems bought Bits from Bytes (BfB)? Well, as stated, 3D Systems is very protective of its position in the AM industry. It is one of a very small minority of AM vendors that occupies space selling across the whole spectrum of machines — low to high end. Stratasys is the other, but does not have a product offering under $10,000. I suspect that the V-Flash has not met expectations — internally or at large — and therefore the BfB product line was an attractive proposition in that it was a ready-made, working solution. It has been bought as a going concern, and the 3D Systems announcement asserts that the Bristol, UK-based BfB facility will be undertaking business as usual. The 3D Systems website has the BfB machines on its product selector feature already too — and they are the only machines offered under $5000. Not something the company could offer last Monday!! I can't see the BfB brand disappearing as too much is invested in it, but based on historical performance I don't think it will remain without some sort of 3D Systems trademark for very long either.

This is beyond a doubt a significant development in the 3D printing arena. How far it will penetrate remains to be seen, but with the competition heating up things are getting very interesting again.

Clever, Canny or Just Cynical and Gimmicky?

So 3D Systems and some of its distributors are offering trade-in deals for a ProJet 3D printer.

The logic of replicating a very successful business model is undeniable, whereby users of 3D printers can 'trade-up' to a ProJet. Beyond the logic of the idea and the gimmicky rhetoric, which goes something like this:

For a limited time only, we will credit you up to US$15,000 toward the purchase of any new ProJet 3000, or a new ProJet 5000 3D Production System when you trade-in your existing 3D printer.

... the reality is that the customer will be surrendering their exisiting 3D printer for up to $15,000 off a new ProJet, that costs in the region of $60,000.

Furthermore, 3D Systems also lists the equipment brands that can be traded in:

• Stratasys
• Dimension
• Objet
• Z-Corp
• Envisiontec
• 3D Systems' InVision series 3-D modelers. 

Obvious choices perhaps, but it begs the question, if this offer works, and even one person takes it up, what will 3D Systems do with the old machine(s)??? 

Any suggestions?