Mass media has now noticed the biggest problem in the additive manufacturing space: hype.
A detailed report in the New York Times describes the unfortunate saga of Desktop Metal that unfolded over the past five years.
If you’re not familiar, here’s a quick recap.
Before 2020, 3D printing of metal was possible, but extremely expensive, requiring complex machines, sophisticated workspaces, and unusual metal powder, all of which was very pricey.
Desktop Metal appeared in 2020 with an alternative system that supposedly could print metal parts at far lower costs, even in an office setting. This seemed to be the ideal solution for many, and promised huge numbers of customers that were otherwise financially locked out of expensive traditional systems.
That all sounds good, except there was one problem: the technology really didn’t work. Parts could be made, but their geometry wasn’t sufficient for many applications. Sales didn’t come because of this, and the company struggled through a series of survival maneuvers, but ultimately declared bankruptcy. Their assets were acquired during proceedings, so the technology is still alive. But it will never reach the potential promised at the beginning.
The impact of Desktop Metal went far beyond itself: their competitors wanted to keep up, financially, and raised money by going on the stock market. All of these moves caused hundreds of millions of dollars to pour into the AM space.
But those millions were based on a belief in the technology that turned out to be incorrect. Desktop Metal failed, but so did several other companies that rode the wave of enthusiasm.
Since the collapse, it has been incredibly challenging for smaller 3D print companies to raise money. Investors remember that hype and don’t want “another Desktop Metal” in their portfolio.
Within the AM community, most of this is well known, but outside folks don’t really know the story. If anything, they may have a hint that there was something wrong with the industry, and that people lost a lot of money.
But now we have the New York Times reporting on the story. This is perhaps the most well-read publication that has reported on the story since it happened, and clearly a lot more people will now know about the Desktop Metal saga.
At first, I feared that this would only add to the dismal state of AM investment, but the story is well written and explains that because of the Desktop Metal situation, things have changed in the industry. For example, they say:
“Today, the industry focuses less on moonshot products and more on making sure customers are getting good use out of the machines they already have.”
This is quite true. In my travels, I consistently see the well-run companies focusing on applications, not machine specifications. There’s a good reason for this: people don’t want the machines, they want the objects the machines produce. Achieve that, and you have a sale.
Sometimes lessons are learned by burning your fingers, and that’s what has happened here.
Via New York Times
