If we look at our past, we can see how making custom machines, incessantly watching ourselves, and our inability to rescope shaped our industry. We have also looked at the banana industry. There, we see that an incredible genetic diversity, variety, and global adaptation of many different banana cultivars have gone to waste. Instead, a global industry with the same practices exists, selling to very few large supermarket customers at volume in a price band, to end customers who expect the same result all the time, no matter the season. The commodity banana is a clone, and all the large banana firms are clones of one another.

The large fruit companies, such as Dole, Chiquita, and Del Monte, are therefore stuck between a few big customers with one single product. They can consistently produce profits, but are always beholden to the few immense supermarket groups. They have to adopt a clone-based system to maintain their economy and consistency before a consumer expects a single taste of banana everywhere, all the time. They all push advertising, invest in new farms, and negotiate, but they’re in essence stuck. Now, competition in this market is limited as well, so it may be a nice place to get stuck. And this may be a success for some, but it also exposes them to inordinate risk.

Banana Like

I’d maintain that we are in effect building a banana-like market for ourselves in industrial 3D printers. We’re seeing a degree of strategic replication in production solutions for New Space and defense that is alarming. The same systems are sold to the same few customers. And all are tied to US government funding for additive and money available for new space. This means that running afoul of a single official or getting caught out by a single budget rule could cripple companies. The same types of systems with the same high cost structures are emerging as well. Shaped by the same types of customers, production solutions are emerging that are customized in methodology and overall design to these customers.

Polymer & Metal

In polymer and metal lower-cost systems, from sub-$500,000 to $15,000, we can see an awful lot of replication as well. Everyone is focusing on defense, national markets, or a particular workflow solution. These people may excel at targeting this customer group, but overall, economics will be constrained. Furthermore, your performance will be tied to the additive’s growth in this segment. We’ve seen how risky this has been before. At one point, metal additive was growing quickly in the dental field. Overinvestment and a move towards trendy non-3D printed zirconia crowns crippled the industry and led to its collapse. It turned out that everyone was making the same parts for the same few customers, and this was a house of cards. This may happen again.

There is also a lot of regulatory risk. With a lot of focus on 3D printing in medicine, much of the imagined profitability of our industry would come from a small set of rules made by a small group of people governing the use of 3D printers in hospitals and the printing of implants. At the same time, a major public issue with a 3D printed medical implant would shatter many people’s futures. With the Australian track bike breaking publicly, we almost had a moment where a whole industry wouldn’t ever trust us again. Such a scenario could happen again, but much more disastrously.

On vat polymerization, by and large, everyone is either making super low-cost systems or small, productive dental/industrial ones. There’s very little in resin development that most people undertake. Formlabs’ focus on resin and software has made them, in effect, unsassailable (so far). Other big players have abandoned their total control approach in favor of a “we’re open kind of” approach, which means it won’t be the perfect solution for you, but at least it will be more expensive. On desktop Material Extrusion, everyone is still trying to be Bambu Lab. Bambu-like machines are emerging from all serious competitors, and by and large, the strategy is about the same. This will ensure that we have one or two winners on the desktop. At the same time, no one is focusing on cheaper machines, more rugged ones, or ones that work very differently.

All Markets

Across all markets, we can see companies specializing in niches. But an awful lot of effort has gone into the under-the-weather/under-the-water automotive industry in the West, medical, or defense. So even firms that appear diversified tend to face the same risks as larger firms. Paradoxically, large firms with diversified machine offerings, large firms with end-to-end manufacturing solutions, small niche firms, and firms that make custom machines are all selling to the same limited customer base.

There are only a limited number of approaches to the market, and the focus is on workflow for only a small set of people. There are only a handful of companies specializing in marine 3D printing. One or two firms specialize in energy markets. There’s no remote infrastructure solution for 3D printing polymers, metals, or concrete (save the Fieldmade solution). There are 3D printing boat companies, but no 3D printing boat interior companies. There’s no website where I can submit a requirement and have them print a large-format metal or polymer part. No one offers a complete plastic-to-filament recycling solution. There’s still no CAD for kids, save for TinkerCAD.

Same Same but Same

It seems that we’re all trying to target the same customers, in the same way, with similar products. What can you do to be different? What multi-billion dollar market has no one touched? Would you like to be the 3D Printing service or consultancy specialized in nuclear energy? Yes, yes, you completely would, and I’ll wager that it’s a much better business than the one you’re in. Maybe you can become a specialized consultancy for polymer marine parts? Or for underwater vehicles? Or you could just be a leader in subsea generally? Or maybe you can specialize in repairing metal energy infrastructure? Or you could specialize in 3D printing concrete in the ocean. There is just so much out there that is far more solid, profitable, and long-lasting than the fleeting opportunities everyone is chasing in tandem.

Strategically, it is my fear that we are seeing a lemming-like 3D printing market developing, where strategic replication and an incessant focus on ourselves are making us brittle and locking us into a world where only a few companies are set to dominate. This is unnecessary and wasteful. Many players would be much better off targeting new multi-billion-dollar markets that tolerate margin, where trust matters, with an established need, where they would have no competitors. Summing it up like that makes a lot of what is happening sound silly, leaning towards the suicidal.