Friday, November 28, 2014

3D Fantasies

NEW YORK – How will 3D printing change the world? Today, you can read about jewelry and custom can openers, much as three decades ago you could have read that the personal computer would enable people to keep their recipes organized. Of course, PCs became much more useful than that. Many entrepreneurs and small businesspeople can now run their entire operations on a computer, and people keep their recipes not only organized, but also online. They also track their workouts, monitor their babies, and amass huge collections of digital friends (for better or worse).

The Internet changed the balance of power between individuals and institutions. It enabled millions of people to have jobs without having bosses. Instead, they have agents – such as TaskRabbit or Amazon Web Services or Uber – who match providers and customers.

I think we will see a similar story with 3D printing, as it grows from a novelty into something useful and disruptive – and sufficiently cheap and widespread to be used for (relatively) frivolous endeavors as well. We will print not just children’s playthings, but also human prostheses – bones and even lungs and livers – and ultimately much machinery, including new 3D printers.

So, even as custom-manufactured goods become cheaper and people talk about local manufacture as well as local foods, other goods may get more expensive if we do it right. “Juan got his wife Alice a real wooden chair for her birthday!” you might hear. But their daughter Mika got a reprinted chair made from the same old materials plus a little more, marking her growth from her last birthday. Only the size and the filigree on the back are different, reflecting her new interest in space travel; last year, it was horses.

Like computers and the Internet, 3D printing will affect business and behavior around the world and across industries. Already, there is a growing number of shared 3D printing services, enabling you to print something of your own design or use (a customized version of) designs that you can find in online catalogues or order through 3D design shops.

Over time, these print shops will replace thousands of stores carrying millions of items, some of which sit around for months waiting to be bought. They will print goods using designs from online services that offer designs for both open-source, free-design goods and branded goods that may not seem very distinct except for a logo.

Indeed, branding and intellectual property issues will become increasingly “complicated” for hardware, just as they are now for software and content. Many people will have to shift from controlling design to offering better services to make money, or perhaps band together under a particular brand known for some other quality.

Materials may come to be one such differentiator, as illustrated by a startup called Emerging Objects. As in the world of content and software, new design brands are likely to emerge and die more quickly; the pace of change will increase and it will be harder to stay on top for long.

Outside the world of manufacturing, where mass-produced goods may still have a substantial cost advantage over custom-printed ones, 3D printing will have far greater impact downstream, in the market for spare parts and replacements, where demand is less predictable but more precise. (If you want a widget, any widget will do, but once you have widget 94303, only part 94303A will satisfy you.)

One early example is, which makes house keys on demand. The user needs one original, which he registers by inserting into the KeyMe kiosk; he can then store that design anonymously in KeyMe’s database, with unique access to it via his fingerprints and email (but with no reference to a physical address). Then, when he loses the key or needs a spare, he can get a new copy at any location with a kiosk – of which there will soon be many, the company hopes.

The cost in money (let alone convenience) is a fraction of that for going to an ordinary key maker – especially at the hours when such emergencies usually occur. KeyMe does not actually use 3D printing; it cuts them out of blanks the “traditional” way, but uses the same kind of electronic design representation that a 3D printer would. In fact, I consider it a brilliant forerunner of the overall impact of 3D printing – making the occasional production of cheap copies of a specific item easy and available anywhere, anytime.

Today, for example, many businesses are devoted to managing and storing spare parts. Each location needs to carry thousands of different spare parts because it is not clear which ones will be needed where. But, in the future, if something breaks, you will be able to take it over to the 3D print shop to be reprinted. Better yet, the shop may be able to reuse the materials in your broken part – saving the costs and environmental burden of throwing things away, shipping them somewhere, and so forth.

Consider Apple power cords (the item that I lose most often), which are a huge source of profit for all involved. That will change - hallelujah! Of course, my reduced cost will be someone else’s reduced revenue – and not just Apple’s.

One big loser in this world will be the freight business (along with junkyards, logistics companies, and centralized recycling operations). When things can be made, used, broken/worn out, and recycled closer to home, the need for transport is reduced dramatically. Recycled materials do not need to be delivered to centralized processing centers and then forwarded to factories. Products will not need to be made in those factories and then shipped to customers or to inventory centers.

Right now, US inventories held by manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers are valued at around $1.7 trillion – or about 10% of annual GDP. This includes many things that cannot be 3D-printed (anytime soon, at least), but it does hint at how much stuff is just sitting around.

In the short run, this means greater efficiency and more and speedier recycling, happening locally rather than centrally. In the long run, 3D printing will allow more efficient use of physical resources and faster diffusion of the best designs, boosting living standards around the world.

  • Contact us to secure rights


  • Hide Comments Hide Comments Read Comments (4)

    Please login or register to post a comment

    1. CommentedNathan Coppedge

      By an idea's originality, I mean in a kind of objective way, like (1) Is there evidence that anyone else has thought of it before (using the internet and terminology as a standard guide): add, and (2) Is the idea reviewed or modified from someone else's idea?, subtract and (3) If a modified idea, whether from a reviewer or historical development, does the idea offer an original function or perspective? If not, it will be assumed that the idea is 'unmodified' or 'unoriginal', and therefore must fit into a modular, structural, or services framework.

    2. CommentedNathan Coppedge

      Another concept to bring up is a new definition of 'open corporation': a corporation that predominantly hires non-employees. These corporations could do something like run walk-in portfolio reviews for hundreds or thousands of candidate idea-holders. The company would have a platform, i.e. a general management software, manufacturing, and distribution system, which could make money on a wide variety of ideas. The profit would allow a one-time payment to the idea-holder based on a mark-down of the value of the idea. However, for the corporation, the ideas would be a permanent source of income, and would sometimes attract investors. Most of the money would stay in the pockets of the corporations, while idea-holders would be more satisfied than the unemployed.

      The system could be run like a walk-in Starbucks (fast-food-type corporation), where some of the idea-holders would be transient and short-term. If there was considerable turn-over, some walk-in idea-holders could be low-pay temps who review portfolios for additional, modified ideas. What would motivate idea-holders the most is if there was a fixed, increasing pay-scale for certain types of ideas, not based on marketing, but rather based on originality, complexity, and functionality. In this way, the idea-holder doesn't feel manipulated, and becomes more dynamically engaged in the process of ideas, more like an employee, but without what I will call the 'employment disincentive'. A lot of people want small amounts of money more than once, from competing corporations. This is more of a consumer-employment paradigm than a market-level one. Therefore, it does not pose many budget problems.

      Someone may say, the internet does the same thing at no expense. But recently there have been a lot of proprietary issues that would not arise if huge number of people signed waiver forms, and had limited time commitment. The motto might be 'best of all possible worlds' (call it by philosophical jargon if you must). Part of the value of the open corporation is to create new vocabularies which stimulate consumption. In this and other ways, the platform can be used to generate market-friendly systems, databases, and problem-sets which consist of information rather than products. The systems, databases, and problem-sets can then be applied to products at no expense.

    3. CommentedNathan Coppedge

      In reference to economical modularity, the value is that materials can be stocked and bought in bulk. One of the only major types of factors in reducing costs in manufacturing (others might be cheap labor and cheap process).

    4. CommentedNathan Coppedge

      Greater modularity would probably reduce printing costs in 3-d printing, assuming there is not a dependence on any one printing source.

      I worry that 3-d printing creates too much reliance on a specialized, small-scale printing method, that is only used piecemeal, and not by mass-production. But I guess these same machines can be used by major manufacturers. At that point it just looks like a question of economics, which supposedly is already resolving in the favor of 3-d printing.

      Another question, is the question of free-economy in the sense of cheaply available goods. Like Dyson says, currently there is a high reliance on real estate, but in the near future it may be more like an atomizer/ generator that makes specialized parts in a local 'manufacturing shack'.

      What are the implications, aesthetically? Perhaps it integrates well with mobile citizens, who need a new cellphone at the airport, or perhaps someone who wants to design their own clothes, or personalize a consumer product. Some of this is stuff that was formerly done only on a digital level.

      The real industry question, is does it work for mass-manufacturing construction materials and other modular parts, and what is the environmental impact, if someone thinks everything is made out of plastic? Perhaps aluminum will become even more popular. The other question, is does it fulfill the dreams of consumers? Can it make anything new? Is it actually fast printing, (ala waiting at an airport or bus stop)?

      The mobile citizen will want fantasies fulfilled, but he will also want the technique to be useful in the broad context of corporations and industrial materials.

      Is it really this useful? Or is it sort of like screen-printing meets melted plastic? I think by the time some of these questions are answered, there will be less excitement, and more hidden charges.

      But if the dream of the mobile citizen could be fulfilled on the path to atomizers, it may involve a lot more than just a printer. It will involve specialized applications and mass manufacturing as well.