3D Printer market from $288m to $5.7b by 2017 - Gartner

Consumer and enterprise 3D printer shipments are growing at 95.4% and revenue at 81.9% from 2012 through 2017 according to IT industry analysts Gartner. 

In a new report Gartner predicts that "The 3D printer market will grow from $288 million to more than $5.7 billion by 2017 as consumer 3D printing hype accelerates 3D printer purchases by enterprises worldwide". 

Forecast: 3D Printers, Worldwide, 2013

A peek inside TCT Show + personalize 2013

Wonderful little film, courtesy of RepRap BCN3D with our thanks:



More coverage from TCT Live

GE hangout in the Future of 3D Printing

GE Global Research recently hosted a Google Hangout on the Future of Additive Manufacturing. Summary:

• GE is the largest user of metallic AM in the world - largest fleet of 3D Printers for prototyping, tooling, end user parts, 600 engineers signed up in AM programs
• Opens up a whole new world for designers, convergence of design, materials and manufacturing collaborations
• Kick starting the "3rd Industrial Revolution" where the "Process is the Product"
• Driven by millions of people who are part of the 'Maker' movement as well
• Beginning of a democratization of 3D Printing "Craftmanship" via access to platforms, content creation, participation and connection "Virtual to Actual"
• GE creating ecosystems around AM to explore potentialities, especially "Software meets hardware"
• Terry Wohlers "So excited by unprecedented change"  29% growth in 2012 but a number of challenges remain "People are confusing the results from $1500 systems with the $1m systems" 
• GE acquired Morris Technologies using AM, GE learning limitations and potentialities
• Media coverage over last 2 years - leading to household term - widespread interest
• Opportunity to use AM for real production parts, e.g. GE fuel nozzles, lightweight topologically optimized parts
• Future: multi-functional, multi-material components: integration of additive and subtractive in one process
• Manufacturing Innovations at NAMII seeing shift to production parts and lower cost processes, need for AM Quality / Process Control
• Sectors: aerospace, automotive, bio-medical ... broadening to motorsports, fashion, clothing, food, architecture, art ... mass customization
• Need for Workforce Training ("People to understand") for AM ... there is a move to make this a part of direct mainstream manufacturing ("People are getting excited")
• Nylon parts in structural applications for over a decade
• Patient specific medical devices and surgical instruments
• Metals are an exciting area - commercially and industrially viable in ferrous and non-ferrous and in some cases ceramic - purity and density
• Conductivity and embedded smarts
• 3D Systems seeing opportunity for mash ups between Additive and Subtractive - multi-functional components
• What are the limitations? Larger parts, residual stresses, big leap to end user manufacturing, part longevity compared to 'prototype' short life parts ... "Not direct replacement of existing parts ... economics does not work unless parts are re-designed and simplified in the design software for AM production" 
• GE "Subtractive may increase as a result of AM" 
• Research grants for multi-functional processes .... e.g. sensors embedded in functional structures, , multiple disciplines working together "3D printing a great tool to excite and energize engineering students ... to think in 3D dimensions"
• Better software tools need for multi-functional, multi-material, AM design
• GE very interested in 3D Printing of ceramics ... ceramics today requires heavy, complex and expensive infrastructure and a lot of process knowledge ... GE AM printing piezoelectric ceramic materials for medical imaging e.g. ultrasound probes ... new products now in trials 
• 3D Systems excited by ability to process many types of ceramics, finer powders/details for variety of applications including consumer
• Avi: "Empowering start ups is a game changer" ... scale-able desktop manufacturing for entrepreneurs "The train has left the station" 
• GE looking for talent in the community, ecosystems ...
• GE eye is towards 3D printed rotational / moving parts ... repair and service parts close to the end user or consumer ... but GE will never give up on quality, assurance, part performance, safety, reliability, toughness, strength, peace of mind every time for every part ... "It's a new technology, a new physics" 
• Wohlers: New standards ASTM.org F42 on AM, ISO/TC 261 will accelerate adoption 
• DIY'ers, makers, engineering students 'geeks' and 'hobbyists' are adopting low end AM
• May not see families turning out parts with home printers, but will use 3D Printing services (gifts) and some educational products (kids niche similar to Lego Mindstorms)
• Moving towards multi-functional components, e.g. a 3D printed DC brushless motor - some process interrupt e.g. magnet insertion - but "We have an entire electro-mechanical system, fully 3D printed, break it off the support structure and it works, spin the rotor, shaft, motor works"  (http://keck.utep.edu/ or via YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pghZG1Neyc0)
• GE final comments "AM will be just another tool just like introducing lasers into machining. It will not replace everything. We will always need machining. Does allow for new designs. There will be a shift but not as dramatic as some think."
• Wohlers: "Cannot predict the future."

3D Systems still Acquiring

The 3D Printing industry is still consolidating. 3D Systems [NYSE:DDD], noted for their acquisitive nature, are still acquiring today.

In August '13 the company acquired CRDM a UK provider of rapid prototyping services. Also in August DDD snapped up TeamPlatform a cloud based platform for managing 3D projects and services. And in July Phenix Systems were acquired. Phenix specialized in very fine metal powder direct laser sintering. And in May RPDG was acquired a leading US provider of Rapid Prototyping and Manufacturing services.

A long history of acquisitions precede these latest announcements.

The rate of 3D Systems's acquisitions (there were sixteen in 2011 alone) has raised eyebrows. 3D Systems is consolidating the industry. The company are snapping up interesting software (Geomagic, Bespoke Innovations), critical processes (ZCorp, Phenix), leading services (RapidForm, RPDG), consumer platforms (MyRobotNation, FreshFiber) and more.

Why is this happening?

Why are these innovative companies not able to stand on their own two feet?

Isn't 3D Printing the next industrial revolution? Or as 3D Systems CEO claims "As big as the steam engine! As big as the computer! As big as the Internet!".

And it's not just 3D Systems who is acquiring. Their main competitor Stratasys [NYSE:SSYS] acquired Makerbot Industries in June 2013. Makerbot are the flamboyant manufacturer of arguably the most popular consumer 3D Printer on the market today: the Replicator and the Replicator 2. These were preceded by the Thing-O-Matic introduced in September 2010 at the NYC Maker Faire. Even a healthy dose of venture funding could not save them. In August 2011 the company announced that they had received $10M venture funding from the Foundry Group. The acquisition by Stratasys was just two years later.

Why did Stratasys, who had previously only targeted industrial sectors, need to acquire Makerbot? Purely and simply it had nothing to do with innovation or new product development. Stratasys just needed something with which to compete against 3D Systems' own consumer products, the Cube and the CubeX.

Compare the history of Makerbot with the perseverance and innovation over five decades of a company such as Apple Computer Inc. It is ironic that some industry observers were comparing the young Makerbot Industries to the early Apple Computer. The comparison was meaningless. Makerbot grew out of the RepRap movement and Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) of common or garden thermoplastics. It was already a commodity technology. 100s of similar RepRap inspired devices were being created by one man band innovators. Stratasys could have created its own products easily. So why did Stratasys pick MakerBot? It was because of the brand awareness created by charismatic CEO Bre Pettis. He virtually defined the company with his deep 'maker community' roots. This is what had attracted VC funding for Makerbot prior to the acquisition by Stratasys. The technology was already in the wild. The story illustrates how the industry has become obsessed by acquisition as a source of growth, as opposed to product innovation.

Take another example. Objet Geometries was an innovative Israeli company who dominated in multi-material and mixed-material photo-polymer 3D printing. They defined the standard for realistic product prototypes. Yet even they failed to make it on their own. The company merged with Stratasys at the end of 2012. They name now refers to the product line only.

These examples are not of big sharks acquiring little fishes. They are not even examples of competing products. When 3D Systems acquired ZCorp it did not do so in order to take out an unwelcome competitor. ZCorp was a unique process which added to the existing 3D Systems portfolio. Similarly, when Objet merged with Stratasys there were no competing in-house products which had to be disgarded. Objet, like ZCorp, was as different from Stratasys' existing processes as ZCorp was from 3D Systems legacy stereolithography products.

Why are good companies with good products finding it hard to go it alone? 3D Systems and Stratasys now oversee sizable portfolios. They can certainly help individual products to find new customers using age-old 'cross selling' techniques (sharing customers lists and the like) but boosting sales and marketing is not the only reason. The numerous different 3D Printing processes can be considered a set of niches within niches. They are pieces of a larger puzzle.

When an industry consolidates it is a sign of commoditization. Everyone who knows AM knows it is not a new technology but has been maturing for decades as a set of discrete and very different technologies. The media may view "3D Printing" as the Next Big Thing, but industry insiders know otherwise.

What's new are the services innovations. Customers are demanding end-to-end processes and total solution providers in both consumer and industrial settings.

The Additive Manufacturing industry is at an inflection point. 3D Systems and Stratasys are still acquiring product companies in the hope of controlling patents, gaining unique processes and buying into market share. But the larger trend playing out is the race for the customer's attention via compelling services. This is why 3D Systems is buying into services via RapidForm, RPDG and CRDM and others.

The future of 3D printing is 3D services. Let the 3D Service Innovators win!

To be clear: we don't mean servicing products, i.e. maintenance, upgrade, materials.

Look to companies such as Shapeways and iMaterialize as great examples of 3D Services. Such companies don't sell (nor service) 3D printers. Instead they offer simple amenity: a transformative customer experience with comfort and convenience). When a creative 3D designer signs up to the Shapeways or iMaterialize service they are instantly transformed and become their own production line, factory floor, distribution channel, shop and retail outlet.

If you want a picture of the future of 3D printing, think 3D experiences, services and transformations, not 3D printers.

Also see "3D Printers or 3D Services?". 

3D Services or 3D Printers?

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers" is a remark attributed to Thomas J. Watson, chairman of IBM, in 1943. As we now know, computers turned out to be rather more ubiquitous. A similar quote was made in 1946 by Sir Charles Darwin (grandson of the famous naturalist), then head of Britain's National Physical Laboratory, where research into computers was taking place. He wrote: "it is very possible that ... one machine would suffice to solve all the problems that are demanded of it from the whole country."

These pioneers were entranced by the ability of their primitive yet gargantuan machines to perform any conceivable calculation. At that time, Watson and Darwin could not have considered the relationship between future computing products, their applications and value-added services.

Jump forward to today. We each have a 'super-computer' in our phone. Yet IBM's server business is ailing, Google is made of commodity hardware and 70% of IBM's revenue is now in technology and business services.

How many 3D Printers does the world need? Who will own them? What will they be used for?

Shapeways has 50 printers. As of June 20, 2012, the company has printed and sold more than one million user-created objects.

With this in mind, watch in awe as Alexis Ohanian takes a tour of Shapeways and speaks to 3D designers, engineers and operations experts as they explain the story behind one of today's biggest 3D Services companies.

Search this blog for more articles about Shapeways

Is '3D Printing' a set of niches within niches? Roll on 3D Services

Analyzing the 3D Printing marketplace is not so easy. The term '3D Printing' is largely a media invention. As we have stressed before, '3D Printing' refers to a dizzying array of very different Additive Manufacturing (AM) technologies (layer by layer, drop by drop, voxel by voxel) sharing little in common. It is not unreasonable to suggest that many of these techniques are still very much niche technologies. That may change rapidly in the future. Today, however, even companies with viable 3D printing products appear not to be able to make it on their own.

Phenix Systems is the latest casualty. The company, like so many before it, has been acquired by 3D Systems, the aggregator of the nascent additive manufacturing industry. Founded in 1986 the giant of the AM industry still only has 1000 employees today.

Why this new acquisition in a long list?

Phenix Systems manufacture a range of Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS) 3D Printers. DMLS is one of over thirty very different 3D Printing approaches. Yet even within the narrow field of DMLS there are many specialist processes. Phenix can 3D print chemically-pure fully-dense metal and ceramic parts from very fine powders with a granularity of 6 to 9 microns. Materials include stainless steel, tool steel, super alloys, non-ferrous alloys, precious metals and alumina for a variety of aerospace, automotive and patient specific medical device applications. That sounds like a huge deal. Perhaps not. Despite owning patents in this area, Phenix decided they could not make it on their own and have thrown in their towel with 3D Systems [NYSE: DDD].

Why this continuing AM industry consolidation?

Phenix Systems DMLS 3D Printers

Is it that the market for what Phenix do is just too specialized? Is it that their products only make sense if developed and marketed under a broader banner? Is it that 3D Systems sought controlling patents in this area and made an offer that Phenix could not refuse? Or is it a sign of 3D printer product commoditization?

The acquisition of Phenix Systems by 3D Systems continues a past pattern, buying up specialist companies to flesh out a solution portfolio. It highlights the nature of this marketplace: a set of niches within niches.

In such a market, customers want services, not products.

AM users do not want to buy a slew of different 3D printers to cover all possible needs, materials and processes. Nor do they want to buy into an expensive 3D printer (and everything else required to operate it) only for it to become obsolescent when a new model comes to market offering higher resolution or material stability! Companies looking to re-engineer their manufacturing to take advantage of AM don't want products, they will seek out a trusted relationship with an end-to-end solution provider, a partner who offers rich AM process options and a consistent tool chain, with integrated software.

What the media call "3D Printing" should really be called "3D Services".

What the Phenix story and others like it show is that 3D printer makers simply cannot make it on their own. Why is this?

There is no standard 3DP platform upon which to innovate new products via innovative applications. With no standard platform, 3D printer makers cannot prosper as other companies invest and create applications for them to run on their platform. This is why comparisons between "3D Printing" and the early days of the computer industry are null and void. There will be no Apple, Microsoft or Amazon of 3D Printing. Additive Manufacturing's growth is not product centric. It is a complex ecosystem of niche products, set within a broad services innovation framework.

For all of these reasons the growth curve of the 3D printing industry will not look like the exponential growth curves and hyper valuations of the digital computing industry. Rather, it will look more like the Information Technology (IT) services industry: slow and steady steers the ship.

Further: As 3D printers become more and more a commodity item, it won't be possible for 3D Systems to buy up every company on the block. Just as in the computer services industry there will be a range of services and solutions providers for every pocket and every sector of the market. They will compete not on ownership of 3D Printers and 3D Printing patents, but on what every mature industry competes on: customer service and alignment with customer needs.

Wikipedia on 3D Systems

Who is right about 3D printing? Foxconn or GE?

We live in strange times. Just as Foxconn CEO Terry Gou says that "3D printing is a gimmick and has no commercial value", GE CEO Jeff Immelt says he would love to 3D print jet engines ... or at least some of their largest parts.

“We make a turbine blade that is made of some of the most expensive high-heat material in the world,” Immelt said. “We put that blade through the fabrication process and the excess material is essentially waste.”

GE hopes to one day use the technology to create engine parts in a more efficient and less costly way. It would also cut down the time to design and develop an engine by half. “We’re a company that wants to own our supply chain,” he said. “This is going to be a great place to put capital.” And as we reported GE is making plans to grow better fuel nozzles.


Why these differences of opinion?

3D Printing is all about materials. Foxconn is one of the world's largest electronics manufacturing companies. It is harder to see the relevance of Additive Manufacturing to Foxconn at this stage. For GE, however, the laser sintering of powered metals has many applications.

We've said it a hundred times before 3D Printing is not one technology. There are over thirty different processes, each optimized to different kinds of materials, and they share little in common. While there could be some convergence in the far future, expect these differences to continue to generate differences of opinion about the industrial significance of 3D printing.

And that's why any analysis of the impact of 3D printing on a certain industry depends on detailed and current knowledge of the available and reliable additive manufacturing techniques.