Posted on

The Maker Movement Unmade? Part 4: Attack of the Clones

Read parts one, two and three of this series. 

Determining a definitive cause of the economic misfortunes of some companies in the open source hardware and maker spaces might prove difficult. However, there was one factor that did seem to clearly impact the desktop 3D printing industry was a flood of low-cost 3D printers from overseas, particularly China.

Starting around 2011 or 2012, clones of open source 3D printers, specifically the MakerBot Replicator, began to appear in the U.S. market. In some cases, the machines were of lesser quality than the originals and, in others, they performed on par or better. In most cases, they were less expensive. Among the earliest copycat brands were Wanhao and FlashForge, which sold the Duplicator and Creator replicas respectively.

At first, it may have seemed as though these Chinese companies were only in the 3D printing business to turnaround a quick profit by taking advantage of open source designs. In part, such skepticism likely stemmed from the different attitudes towards intellectual property, which has resulted in the so-called “pirating” of Western-designed (but often Asian-manufactured) technology.

On the left, the MakerBot Replicator 2. On the right, the Wanhao Duplicator 4.

However, over time, we learned that some of these brands were following in the same maker spirit as their Western counterparts. As Vice General Manager Frank Hua writes on the Wanhao About Us page, “Several Roommates used all [of] their pocket money and bought one Thing-O-Matic from Makerbot. This precious awesome machine brought these college students great enthusiasm [for 3D printing] and help[ed] these budd[ies pursue] their dream. On 1st Oct, WANHAO [replicated] the Thing-O-Matic and named it DUPLICATOR ONE. This 1st Generation Made In China 3D printer has combined most of the advantage[s] of RepRap and Makerbot, and upgrade[d] the extruder to [a non-block] one.”

While the open source aspect of a variety of Chinese models has sometimes been called into question, a number of companies continued to innovate and improve on their foundational copycats. Today, Wanhao has a broad range of 3D printers, including SLA, DLP and FFF. FlashForge products were so well-received that the German engineering multinational Bosch began selling its own version of the FlashForge Creator Pro under its Dremel power tool brand.

As of 2017, China had the most makerspaces in the world, thanks to the government’s Made in China 2025 initiative. The program, launched in 2015, aims to shift the country’s focus from manufacturing low-cost goods for the rest of the world to designing and making high tech products and services for the domestic population. In some cases, this has led to thriving labs of innovation, while in others, the result has been the creation of empty lounges without fabrication equipment.

Xue Yujie at Sixth Tone argues that the stagnation of the maker movement in China is in part due to government pressure for makerspaces to spin out startups and patents. Adafruit points out that similar outcomes can occur with venture capital firms in other parts of the world when too much money is poured into a project and the focus is on forced growth, rather than organic growth.

Electronics at a Shenzhen market. Image courtesy of The Long + Short.

An article in The Long + Short, however, frames the concept of “making”, in the makerspace sense of the word, somewhat differently. The authors describe in the detail the Chinese city of Shenzen, the once-quiet fishing town that now manufactures about 90 percent of the world’s electronics, including pirated goods. Whereas the word “shanzhai” once referred to counterfeit goods, the authors suggest that it now represents the pinnacle of open manufacturing.

With open air markets selling everything from scraps (“reels of resistors, bags of PCB boards, iPhone volume buttons by the bucket”) to complete products (“3D printers, drones of all sizes, and fake Apple watches with bonus features like front-facing cameras”), the city is constantly “making”. These goods are not just mass manufactured products for the rest of the world, but even “niche, often culturally specific products no big companies bother with.”

The authors highlight the hoverboard as a paragon of shanzhai innovation in that the self-balancing scooter had no single inventor but was created in a collaborative fashion online and through informal manufacturing networks. Once it became popular, over 1,000 factories began to produce the item without concern for branding.

It was this same open ecosystem that may have contributed to the transformation of the desktop 3D printing industry and maker movement. The Long + Short authors also highlight how quickly product development can occur in Shenzhen, where the components needed for a prototype can be found “at the market around the corner, or more likely ordered to your exact specification as soon as you want it… Build your prototype, head to the assembly line to push out 10,000 of them, put them out to market, see what sells.”

3D printing, in general, is pitched as a tool for speeding up the design cycle, but, in the case of a massive contract manufacturer, owning the means of production itself speeds up the entire manufacturing process that much more. Located just off the coast of the Chinese mainland on the island of Taiwan, New Kinpo Group oversees the making of such name brand goods as HP printers and Dyson Vacuums, as well as its own line of products.

da Vinci 2.1 AIO 1 with built-in 3D scanner.

At CES 2014, the manufacturing giant unveiled its first desktop 3D printer, the da Vinci 1.0, under its new 3D printing brand, XYZprinting. With a price of $499, the system was among the least expensive on the market at the time. As the stocks of major 3D printing companies like 3D Systems and Stratasys started to crash, XYZ’s printer line began to blow up, including low-cost SLA and DLP systems, as well as FFF 3D printers with price tags as low as $169.

Just as in the case of the Shenzhen electronics manufacturers, New Kinpo Group is able to move quickly from design iteration to manufacturing. The variety of systems sold by XYZprinting to this day is extremely broad, including many variations on the same model (with wi-fi or without; with LCD screen or without; with all-in-one 3D scanner, laser engraver and full-color inkjet printhead or without). The company is consistently able to showcase new technologies, such as food 3D printers, with which it can test market readiness and then decide whether or not it will release them.

Based on one report, at one point, XYZprinting boasted more printer sales than any other company in the market, likely overwhelming the competition. As a result, other manufacturers may not have been able to keep up. Brook Drumm, for instance, remarked in a post-Printrbot interview that “cheap Chinese-made printers, AND Amazon.com selling them, AND Americans choosing to buy them – it all contributed significantly to Printrbot’s demise.”

After the 2014 stock bubble, the 3D printing industry began to experience more growth in the industrial segment with the consumer sector seemingly entering a decline. With that dynamic in the works, XYZ has since decided to shift focus on industrial and professional printers, as well. All of this played into this author’s perception that perhaps the maker movement had started to die off.

However, based on communications with a number of prominent members of said movement, ranging from RepRap luminaries like Richard “RichRap” Horne to former Silicon Valley execs like Carl Bass, it hasn’t died—just transformed.

Read parts one, two and three of this series. 

The post The Maker Movement Unmade? Part 4: Attack of the Clones appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Posted on

The Maker Movement Unmade? Part 2: The Roots of the Maker Movement

With the shaky ground that Maker Media (now Make: Community) stands on, this author was prematurely ready to signal the end of the maker movement. However, we have already received feedback from a number of people in the world of open source hardware who suggest that, while the Make: brand may have run into issues, the larger movement it still thriving. We will provide those comments in a follow-up article as a means of diagnosing the current state of the maker community.

American and Australian soldiers in the reading room of the Ballarat Mechanics Institute in 1942.

Before we get into the future, however, it’s worth looking at the history of the hacking mentality and makerspaces. Depending on how far back you want to go, we could back to the 19th century and Mechanics’ Institutes, which joined libraries, labs and lecture halls. Funded by industrialists, these facilities were meant to provide the working class with a place to gain skills that would aid them in the workplace.

This sort of acceptable form of tinkering, however, seems to be part of a lineage distinct from the sort of unauthorized hacking that would play an important role in the creation of makerspaces much later. As broken down by author “Maxigas” in the Journal of Peer Production, we can distinguish between more-or-less sanctioned makerspaces (or “hackerspaces,” as they were earlier called) and unsanctioned hacklabs (the terms used by the author only to keep the two traditions separate).

Hacklabs blended different movements that developed from the 1970s. In Europe, this included the leftist autonomous movement, which developed with the idea that the working class could create its own power structures separate in response to the State and capital. Communists and anarchists within this fight appropriated physical spaces and real estate to challenge the establishment, a practice known as squatting.

Also in the 70s, the miniaturization of electronics enabled budding tech enthusiasts to computers from kits, like the Altair 8800. Inspired by phone phreaks who experimented with public telephone networks a decade before them, hackers worked individually or often in clubs to program their own software with a philosophy dedicated to the freedom of information and sharing of knowledge.

With the development of technology, another activist tradition developed nestled in the roots of squatting, but dedicated to intervening in cultural spaces. The practice of culture jamming emerged as a form of media activism characterized by pirate radio stations, then video broadcasts and eventually internet-based works.

Maxigas describes the emerging ideology in this way: “Many media activists adhered to some version of Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony, taking the stand that cultural and educational work is as important as directly challenging property relations. Indeed, this work was seen as in continuation with overturning those property relations in the area of media, culture and technology.”

Forte Prenestino. Image courtesy of Spotted by Locals.

In turn, squatting and media activism blended, as squats served as urban hubs for internet access as well as locations to orchestrate culture jamming. These became hacklabs, which emerged roughly between 1995-2005. An interesting example is Italy’s Ultralab, established at the occupied fortress of Forte Prenestino in Rome.

Whereas these sites were dedicated to a countercultural mode of living and challenging society, Maxigas describes hackerspaces (later also called “makerspaces”) as less subversive than hacklabs, as the concept of hacking became institutionalized (like the creation of the Electronic Frontier Foundation) and more integrated into mainstream society. An example of an early second wave hackerspace, would be C-base, founded in 1995 in Berlin as a community center for free internet access.

By the late 2000s, hackerspaces had proliferated extensively, with lectures around the world, as well as established media, inspiring this proliferation. In 2007, Cologne’s C4 hackerspace gave a talk called “Building a Hackerspace,” which inspired “Building Hacker Spaces Everywhere: Your Excuses are Invalid” the next year in the U.S. Hackerspaces.org was founded in 2008, with 72 hackerspaces listed.

Maxigas summarizes the formation of hackerspaces by saying: “the emergence of hackerspaces is in line with a larger trajectory in the hacker movement, which gradually has gained more institutional structures. The turn towards the physical (mainly through utilising micro-controlers) marked the point when hackerspaces became widespread since development and collaboration on such projects is greatly facilitated by having a shared space. While most discourse and innovation in the community was focused on the organisational form rather than the political content of hackerspaces, such less defined and more liberal-leaning political content allowed the movement to spread and forge connections in multiple directions without losing its own thrust: from companies through civil society to a general audience.”

At the same time, the philosophies of hacklabs and hackerspaces/makerspaces are quite different. Hacklabs were born out of a tradition of leftist activism and, at least according to Maxigas, see inclusion of women, sexual minorities and the disabled almost as inherent to the creation of the space. Whereas hackerspaces/makerspaces have tended to be made up of male, well-educated, white and more affluent members with a more narrow philosophy focused on freedom of information and innovation, rather than challenging the status quo. At the same time, due to their integration into society at large, hackerspaces have proliferated more widely than the more societally challenging hacklabs.

The growth of hacklabs vs. hackerspaces, based on data taken from hacklabs.org and hackerspaces.org. Image courtesy of Maxigas.

The creation of MAKE: Magazine in 2005 seems to lay at the intersection between second- and third-wave hackerspaces. Perhaps it represents the conclusion of the second and beginning of the third wave, which included the introduction of the term “maker”, the launch of Maker Faires, and the media frenzy that coincided with the introduction of 3D printers, microcontrollers, consumer drones and more.

So, we might refer to this third wave, in which hackerspaces were commercialized and branded, as the “maker movement.” We will look at the commercialization of the maker revolution more in the next part of this series and explore the extent to which that commercialization may have played a role in the unmaking of certain portions of the maker movement.

The post The Maker Movement Unmade? Part 2: The Roots of the Maker Movement appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Posted on

The Maker Movement Unmade, Part 1: Maker Media

For those of us who were drawn into the world of 3D printing because of the seemingly limitless possibilities of open source hardware, there is an obvious sense that something has died. It would be hard to attribute the gaping hole left by the once vibrant maker movement to a lack of zeal on the part of its members, so one wonders what exactly happened to kill off the DIY revolution that was supposed to completely change the way we live our lives.

To understand how exactly the maker movement was unmade, we will be investigating various players involved, exploring the RepRap forums, and, hopefully, hearing from some of you to learn of any behind-the-scenes machinations meant to unmake open-source machines (if such scheming exists beyond this paranoid author’s mind). We’ll begin with Maker Media.

The company was started in 2005 with the publication of MAKE: magazine, in which readers were guided through some of the most ingenious DIY or DIWO (Do-It-With-Others) endeavors imaginable. Just a year later, the first Maker Faire was launched just outside of San Francisco, giving these see-to-believe projects the physical space that they deserved.

Over the course of 15 years, Maker Media became more than a brand, but the symbol of a revolution in thinking and living in which it was possible to join together with a community and craft enjoyment out of scraps and off-the-shelf materials. And not just in the U.S., but all over the globe, with over 240 Maker Faires taking place in over 40 countries in 2017.

A marshmallow cannon at the White House “Week of Making”

Maker Faires and Mini Maker Faires popped up everywhere from China, Australia and Spain to the UK, Italy and Chile. There was even a Maker Faire hosted at the White House in 2014, meant to underscore the potential of U.S. youth as well as a revitalization of the country’s manufacturing prowess, previously outsourced for cheap labor.

At the same time as the success of the revolution continued, the company that had sparked the movement began to falter. In January 2016, Maker Media laid off 17 employees. In 2019, eight workers were let go in March before the rest of the staff was fired in June, at which point the company ceased operations.

This came despite the fact that the company’s largest Maker Faire, in the Bay Area, met its sales targets and maintained 125,000 paid subscribers to its magazine. However, according to TechCrunch, “high production costs in expensive cities and a proliferation of free DIY project content online had strained Maker Media.” Corporate sponsors were no longer as enthused, with Microsoft and Autodesk declining to sponsor the 2019 Bay Area event.

Maker Media may be down but is not entirely out. In July, it was reported that Dougherty had revived the company using his personal finances, hiring back 15 of the 22 fired staff members and relaunching MAKE: as a quarterly (from six issues a year to just four). It continues to license its logo to Maker Faire events.

Reborn as Make: Community, Maker Media now offers subscribers access to the digital magazine, members directory, a community platform and exclusive videos. If the company is fully revived, subscribers will also have access to maker and makerspace directories, Maker Faire ticket giveaways, chat forums with staff and guest MCs, and “a voice in the direction and causes of Make: Community.” Make: Community is also seeking “Corporate Members,” who will benefit from “priority access to innovating professionals, makers, and consumers” in the Make Community Network.

Even Dougherty seems unsure about the survival of his brand. He told a small meetup in Oakland, “I’d be happy if someone wanted to take this off my hands.” So, at this point, it’s more than a little unclear about whether or not Make: Community will be able to continue forward.

MakerBot 3D printers in reverse chronological order of development.

The flatlining of Maker Media was just one almost-death among the death of many maker movement symbols, including Printrbot and RepRapPro Ltd. Just a month ago, LulzBot nearly kicked the bucket. Throughout this journey, we’ve also had our innocence lost, with Kickstarter not only hosting countless disreputable projects, but even engaging in union busting. Then, of course, we saw MakerBot and Ultimaker leave their maker roots in the search for industry profits.

So, what happened exactly? As Open Works founder Will Holman suggests, are even DIY-ers just not fit enough to really work with advanced components manufactured by big corporations?

Before a death knell was even sounded, Evgeny Morozov described a number of fatal flaws in the maker movement in the New Yorker. For instance, perhaps there never really was a countercultural movement to begin with, but rather a rearrangement of or tinkering with the existing parts of capitalist consumer society. Or maybe moneyed interests saw a profitable opportunity in the Making and co-opted the movement, thus sucking it of its lifeforce and destroying it. Or maybe all of the above.

As we explore the other victims undid with the unmaking of the maker movement, we hope to answer these questions and fill in the blanks in our picture a bit further.

The post The Maker Movement Unmade, Part 1: Maker Media appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Posted on

X-Carve Demo with Inventables

Thanks to the guys at Inventables, we were able to test out the X-Carve in their office in Chicago. The X-Carve is a cool piece of machinery in different ways. I had the pleasure of conducting an interview with the CEO of Inventables, Zach Kaplan, a while ago. It was a fun conversation overall and it got me thinking more in terms of the entrepreneurial economy. Kaplan then extended an offer for me to test out the X-Carve machine in their office at a later date. I then gladly set up a time to do so, and I learned a lot about the machine itself.

I have various experience with technology and machines. I work out of a Makerspace in Chicago called Pumping Station One, so new technology and machinery does not necessarily intimidate me. It does take a little bit of time to learn the nuances of any machine though. Before I was able to come in and test the X-Carve, I had to learn how to use the software associated with it to upload images that were to be carved out later. I chose a project that would require a little more complexity than a simple, quick carve on the machine. I try to do difficult projects early on when I am working with technology or new mediums. It allows for a rapid learning curve, and one starts to see the benefits and limitations of a device.

Image result for x-carve

X-Carve

In order to carve an image into specific material on the X-Carve, it is necessary to operate the accompanying software it uses, which is called Easel. For anyone new to manufacturing, it is simpler to navigate than some of the software packages I have used for similar CNC operations with different devices. The biggest benefit of this software is that is web-enabled. This allowed me to work from anywhere on a design that could be carved on a machine. This design can be carved when it is linked through Easel to any X-Carve device via WiFi. The interface is nice and maneuverable. The biggest issue with it would be the learning curve still involved with bit sizes used for various carving. For a new person using the platform, it would be intimidating to learn the specific drill bits required to do carves at a precise level. Fortunately, I had the assistance of people at X-Carve to learn, as well as previous experience with CNC machines.  For someone completely new to this type of work, it would take a bit of time to learn all of these things. I’d estimate a full week would be enough to get someone up to speed on the various materials and bits associated with them based on the thickness of material. From there it would just be an ongoing learning process.

Branding Material

The project that I wanted to carve was a marketing piece. I wanted to carve a two-colored acrylic circle that had a logo for an online clothing store I created. It also would have a QR code attached on one side of it. Ideally, the QR code would then take someone to our Instagram page. The concept was a bit difficult to pull off. It required a strategy called flip milling. We had to specifically create a jig that would allow the piece to be flipped and rotated in place for carving done in the same position of the material. This is a little bit more complex than some materials, such as a laser cutter that may cut the material first and then one may be able to manually flip the object. The flip milling allowed us to have a very accurate carving done on the front side and back side of our object. I was able to learn how to do this project specifically through the help of the Inventables team themselves. This means that a good amount of the learning curve was reduced, but I am not sure how that may work for a person who is not able to have the same type of advantage.

The project did not take long to create as it was a small circular disk that had about a  2 cm radius. The overall carving took around 30 minutes. This includes the various setup that we needed to do for flip milling and general maintenance of the X-Carve. Like any other machine, there are certain intricacies that we must understand about our device. This is where having the X-Carve team to help with the project was great, but I would suggest for anyone using the X-Carve should consult various YouTube videos for different projects and future self-driven learning. There are a lot of possibilities that can be made with this device that I am not even aware of. Overall it was a great experience to get all of these tips and a completed project with the Inventables team. Unfortunately, the QR Code didn’t work. But I will work on this project more and see how we can get a QR Code scanning circular image.

The post X-Carve Demo with Inventables appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Posted on

Interview with Mark Wrigley of Elektric-Works

Mark Wrigley

Inspired by the Apollo moon landings, Mark Wrigley embarked on a career in physics in the early 1970s. Initially specialising in optics and infra-red pyrometery his social skills soon took his career into program management, sales, marketing and product management. He is a great communicator and can transcend boundaries with his ability to explain technically complex issues to a wide audience. Operating at the forefront of disruptive technological change, he participated in the explosive growth of the mobile digital communication industry. In 2011 he set up his own company; Elektric-Works which explores the way disruptive technology and making can empower individuals and startups.

Give us some background and how it has influenced your career.

Firstly, I like social mobility. When I was a child my grandfather was a coal miner. He had the ethos of education being the gateway to a better life. It led me to working in physics. With 3D printing I want to show people that technology is a great thing. I find disruption amazing as well. When I was doing my physics degree, digital was not heard of at the time. Throughout my career I have seen stuff that changes the game completely. It is amazing to see how these technological advances make changes to the industry.

What benefits do you see in terms of being creative in the artistic sense and tech sense?

When people say art it is a form of communication. It may be that you are communicating emotions. Art is a sophisticated way of communicating. If you leave some of us physicists to only communicate it may become too boring. I always gravitate to ultra realism.

Mark Making

Talk about some of your outreach work you do?

I started doing it 7 years ago. I do stuff with the institute of Physics. We generally are at science fairs with various experiences. We try to make things oriented toward teenagers. We want to make engaging experiences. This is how we are able to incorporate maker events. People sit down and build projects and it is engaging. This gives people a tangible thought process on this type of work. We have an ethos of addressing people that are disadvantaged. About 3 years ago I became the chair of the Yorkshire branch. I was a trustee before this time.

What are your thoughts on the Maker Movement?

It is interesting. The term maker gets used for a lot of things. I came across it 4 years ago. To me I think of laser cutting, 3D printing, raspberry pi’s, and various things. There are two ways it has developed. Anyone who can make something thought of themselves as a maker. This refers to any type of artform. I have mixed feelings as it brings people in to a technical maker movement ideal as well. The word is getting diluted. My partner is part of a committee that set up a makerspace in her hometown. I have to say that some maker events are just something to do with your kids. I think that dilutes things. I would rather be in a place where makers inspire people.

Pikon Device made by Mark

How important is passion to the work you do?

I was 25 years and I read the book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. The book talks a lot about gumption. It even talks about a gumption trap. It is important to be filled with quality. This stayed with me a lot. I see it a lot in society that people are not excited about things. I feel privileged as I have done my grind doing the 9-5pm work to be financially stable. There is a fear factor people have and it stops them from pushing for their dreams.

Moon Photo Taken by Mark

What are some things that you want all makers to know?

It is important to embrace disruption. Whatever is new can be used in a bad way, but it also can be used in beneficial manners. Because I am a physicist, I work on learning life and the universe. It is important to understand existence. There is an ethos that embodies exploration.

How did your science career fuel your sense of exploration?

I think it went the other way. When I got into physics I had large questions about consciousness. When I got into my career I got more into the application of my degree into specific things. This is what allowed me to appreciate disruption. I got into instrumentation at the time PCM and Digital became a thing. In the back of my mind, I am always impressed and in awe of scientific discoveries being made. I have started with large goals and then I have come down to certain specifics. If I look at my career in reverse, there is no way I could have predicted certain things like mobile communication. I just have a curiosity. I think the human species has multiplied due to this curiosity. This applies to science and new technology.

Posted on

Interview with Zach Kaplan of Corazon Capital, mHUB and Inventables

Zach Kaplan

Zach Kaplan is the founder and CEO of the company Inventables, a 3D carving company offering a powerful machine, intuitive software, and unique materials that make carving easy and inspiring. Kaplan is also a member of the board of directors for mHUB, Chicago’s first innovation center focused on physical product development and manufacturing, and a founding partner at Corazon Capital. He has a vested interest in the entrepreneurial economy that can be afforded through 3D printing and product manufacturing as his company helps to enable entrepreneurs within this field.

Give us a bit of info on your background?

I got started in digital manufacturing at Glenbrook North High School.  That experience inspired me to get a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.

What was your first experience as a maker?

My first experience as a maker was probably playing with construction toys as a child.  We had LEGOs, Construx, and cardboard brick blocks. The first electrical project I remember was a soldering an autonomous robot together in 6th grade.

Chicago has deep roots in manufacturing, what effect has that had?

Manufacturers in Illinois account for 12.6 percent of the total output in the state, employing 9.5 percent of the workforce. Total output from manufacturing was $103.75 billion in 2017. In addition, there were 572,700 manufacturing employees in Illinois.  I think that has helped us build an ecosystem to advance digital manufacturing.  

Chicago has been the center of gravity for digital manufacturing.  We’ve shown a lot of leadership when it comes to the growth in the movement. The Museum of Science and Industry was one of the first to have a fab lab.  Chicago was the first big city to build a large scale makerspace in a library. Pumping Station One started in 2009 before it was fashionable to build a makerspace or hackerspace.  Today mHub and DMDII are buzzing with activity and have brought together the traditional manufacturing industries, the startup community, with digital manufacturing technology. It’s a great place for Inventables to be.

X-Carve by Inventables

As a member of the board of Directors at mHUB, what excites you about developments within Chicago and the additive manufacturing sector as a whole?

mHUB was a glimmer of an idea 5 years ago when we first started talking about it at the GE Garage during Chicago Ideas Week. Today it’s a 63,000 square-foot facility that contains 10 fabrication labs, including electronics, plastic fabrication, metals, textiles and rapid prototyping, as well as a microfactory for small production runs.  What excites me is it’s buzzing with activity.

You have a manufacturing background but also have involvement within the VC world as a founding partner at Corazon Capital. Could you give some insight on what it means to go from an entrepreneur to an investor?

Going from an entrepreneur to an investor happens pretty organically.  As you go on your entrepreneurial journey other entrepreneurs start asking you questions or for feedback on fundraising.  I gradually started getting more and more deals sent to me and eventually started investing. Corazon has a team of people and I’ve become a venture partner.  My role is to help identify investments, evaluate them, and help other founders in our portfolio by making introductions or sharing my experiences. In terms of my own investment thesis I like to invest in people working on problems in big markets where the product is just starting to be defined.  At Corazon we invest in seed and early stage deals so the product is still evolving.

What advice do you have to people who are working with startups in the additive manufacturing space?

Fail often to succeed sooner.

What advantages does Chicago have in terms of the global maker scene?

Chicago is well connected in the global maker scene because of O’Hare airport.  Almost every city is a direct flight away. We sometimes take that for granted living here.  We have McCormick Place which brings the IMTS (International Manufacturing Technology Show).

International Manufacturing Trading Show

What are some trends to watch out for within the maker world?

Low cost distributed digital manufacturing with CNC machines is going to dramatically increase over the next 5 years.

 

Posted on

The Entrepreneurial and Maker Community

Maker Movement

What is the maker movement? The maker movement is a unique combination of artistry, circuitry, and old-fashioned craftsmanship. This is not new to us a society. Societal advancement has been predicated on people being able to create inventions that take us to the next level. We progress as humans due to our ability to make tools. I believe though that the recent resurgence of the maker community points toward some interesting implications overall for the global economy. In this article, I will point out my thoughts on the maker community as it relates to entrepreneurial activity as well as the global economy.

With the invention of 3D printing, people are able to create objects and parts with their imaginations. It takes a little bit of time to either find a part, or draw a part for production. With a couple of button presses we are able to create simple and complex geometries. These can then be leveraged for larger scale projects. People have the autonomy to build products for themselves and not need to be tied to any corporation that is making things. So what is important about that previous statement? Well, it shows that there can be a market for those who are able to create. There is a subtle shift when one learns that the means of production can be shifted from a large manufacturer to a consumer even if this is on a small scale. That leads naturally to people and smaller organizations questioning the status quo. This then can lead to entrepreneurial thought processes and new innovation.

2019 is the lowest global growth since the Financial Crisis

According to the United Nations, global growth is expected to remain at 3.0 percent in 2019 and 2020, however, the steady pace of expansion in the global economy masks an increase in downside risks that could potentially exacerbate development challenges in many parts of the world, according to the World Economic Situation and Prospects 2019.  The global economy is facing a confluence of risks, which could severely disrupt economic activity and inflict significant damage on longer-term development prospects. These risks include an escalation of trade disputes, an abrupt tightening of global financial conditions, and intensifying climate risks.

Here are some even more fascinating statements from the United Nations:  In many developed countries, growth rates have risen close to their potential, while unemployment rates have dropped to historical lows. Among the developing economies, the East and South Asia regions remain on a relatively strong growth trajectory, amid robust domestic demand conditions. Beneath the strong global headline figures, however, economic progress has been highly uneven across regions. Despite an improvement in growth prospects at the global level, several large developing countries saw a decline in per capita income in 2018. Even among the economies that are experiencing strong per capita income growth, economic activity is often driven by core industrial and urban regions, leaving peripheral and rural areas behind. While economic activity in the commodity-exporting countries, notably fuel exporters, is gradually recovering, growth remains susceptible to volatile commodity prices. For these economies, the sharp drop in global commodity prices in 2014/15 has continued to weigh on fiscal and external balances, while leaving a legacy of higher levels of debt.

I am going to analyze the following statements and relate them to the maker and entrepreneurial world:

  1. The global economy is facing a confluence of risks, which could severely disrupt economic activity and inflict significant damage on longer-term development prospects.
  2. Despite an improvement in growth prospects at the global level, several large developing countries saw a decline in per capita income in 2018. Even among the economies that are experiencing strong per capita income growth, economic activity is often driven by core industrial and urban regions, leaving peripheral and rural areas behind.

 

The first statement above refers to an underlying fear of global economic recession or depression from my analysis. The risks that this statement refers to are downside risks. Downside risks refer to estimations of a security’s potential to suffer a decline in value if the market conditions change, or the amount of loss that could be sustained as a result decline. Essentially if global growth stagnates and regresses, we do face global regression and depression possibilities. So why is this important for the maker community?

Democratized Product Development

Democratization of skills and making abilities is crucial for people within a depression or regressed state of economy. Jobs are cut thin during this time period for different institutions within global recessions. Those who are still very fortunate are the people who have the ability to create or make products as they can now be more efficient as well as build products that serve people at cheaper rates, as well as help to build up their own businesses. This can then lead to the market economy over time correcting itself. Then the cycle continues over time.

As outlined earlier in this article, I believe society progresses as innovation and inventions progress. This refers directly to the maker movement. In the times before an economic regression or depression, individuals who can leverage their skills to create are in less trouble than people who do not have these skills. The makers have the ability to transform society. Being able to create with the imagination and a couple of tools is the new means of production within the world. With individuals able to iterate with 3D printing, open source software, and a variety of info, it can revitalize an economy as these people may be employing others in the future due to their ability to create. Creation and innovation lead to a ripple effect. Value creation ensues when new products are made. We serve society when we are able to make. Hence it is important that makers are seen as the main drivers of the market economy if they decide to make their products for others and not just for themselves within their own environments. The ability to use items such as a 3D printer is immense. People and organizations in the maker community can now build. They are the ones who have the power in the market. If one wants to be ahead of the curve in terms of the macro-economy, it would be a strong argument for one to be versed in 3D Printing as the past, present, and future has always lied within people who control the means of production.