--- title: "The traps of corporate conformity" url: https://www.voxelmatters.com/the-traps-of-corporate-conformity/ date: 2024-12-06 modified: 2024-12-05 lang: en author: "Pawel Ślusarczyk" description: "Over the past 15 years, the additive manufacturing (AM) industry has experienced dynamic growth and increasing interest from both customers interested in the products and services offered by companies, and..." categories: - "Decision Makers" - "Editorials" - "History of 3D Printing" tags: - "Featured" image: https://www.voxelmatters.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/mouse-trap-2846147_1920-640x427.webp word_count: 1171 --- # The traps of corporate conformity Over the past 15 years, the additive manufacturing (AM) industry has experienced dynamic growth and increasing interest from both customers interested in the products and services offered by companies, and investors eager to invest their money, hoping for a decent return on investment. Unfortunately, these 15 years have been a real roller-coaster. The market conditions alternated between rises and falls. Enthusiasm and hope were replaced by desperation and disappointment. And then it all started over again. Today, we are once again in a downward cycle, which has been ongoing for about two years. Everyone is wondering why this happened and when it will end? ### The cycle ![Explore the roller-coaster journey of the additive manufacturing (AM) industry and understand the impact of corporate conformity.](https://www.voxelmatters.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/The-Traps-Pixabay-1.webp)Source: Pixabay Here is a simplified overview of the careers of the most important companies in the desktop FDM/FFF segment. I have bolded the common elements in their histories. For now, I am excluding the industrial 3D printer sector — we will return to it later. ### MakerBot Industries Ltd. - The company was founded in 2009 as a startup specializing in the production of amateur 3D printers of the FDM/FFF type. - It originated from the open-source and open-hardware movement, particularly the RepRap project created by Dr. Adrian Bowyer. - After four years of independent development supported by investment funds, it was acquired by Stratasys in 2013. - Integrated into corporate structures, it diluted both in terms of products and identity; still perceived as a consumer brand, it developed completely different industrial and educational devices. - It gradually lost its share in the global market. - Finally, in 2022, it was spun off from Stratasys and merged with the Dutch company Ultimaker, creating an international enterprise — UltiMaker. ### Ultimaker BV - The company was founded in 2011 as a startup specializing in the production of amateur 3D printers of the FDM/FFF type. - It originated from the open-source and open-hardware movement, particularly the RepRap project created by Dr. Adrian Bowyer. - After six years of independent development, NPM Capital, one of the largest investment funds in Europe, invested in it in 2017. - Over the next three years, its character significantly changed, transforming the company into a corporate enterprise. - It lost its original core values; its subsequent products became increasingly repetitive and predictable. - It gradually lost its share in the global market. - In 2022, it merged with MakerBot, creating an international enterprise — UltiMaker. ### Prusa Research a.s. - The company was founded in 2012 as a startup specializing in the production of amateur 3D printers of the FDM/FFF type. - It originated from the open-source and open-hardware movement, particularly the RepRap project created by Dr. Adrian Bowyer. - Throughout its career, it remained independent, consistently building its market position and expanding its product offerings. - Today, Prusa Research is among the fastest-growing European 3D printer manufacturers with a global reach. Do you see any correlations? Or maybe any significant differences? ### The Risks of Adopting Traditional Corporate Strategies ![Explore the roller-coaster journey of the additive manufacturing (AM) industry and understand the impact of corporate conformity.](https://www.voxelmatters.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/The-Traps-Pixabay-2.webp)Source: Pixabay Each of the aforementioned companies started as an innovative startup, breaking through existing norms and standards, delivering groundbreaking products and solutions. This contrasts with corporate values. Traditional corporations strive for standardization and efficiency, often at the expense of innovation. In the case of 3D printing technology, where innovation is key, adopting such strategies leads to technological stagnation. This is most clearly illustrated by the history of the original Ultimaker, where after the S5 model, they started resting on their laurels. Each subsequent 3D printer was an “upgrade” over the older model — without bringing anything truly original or groundbreaking. ### The decline of Open-Source ideals The driving force behind desktop 3D printers was the open-source community. It laid the foundations for all the subsequent companies in this industry. **But open-source is free. Open-source is not patented.** Corporations do not support open-source. It contradicts their DNA, which is geared towards generating and multiplying assets. Meanwhile, transitioning to closed systems and patenting solutions can restrict the free flow of knowledge and hinder technological development. This is why Prusa Research, which has never been tied to corporate governance, has been the main driver of innovation in desktop FDM/FFF 3D printing in both hardware and software since 2018. ### The Ghosts of ROI A startup needs money to grow. Investors provide it. But it’s never free money. Investors and corporate boards invest money, expecting quick returns. This can lead to short-term decision-making at the expense of long-term development. This leads to development that is predictable and safe. And that leads to a lack of flexibility. Moreover, corporations have complex decision-making structures, which slow down their response to changing market conditions and customer needs. This is completely contrary to the idea of 3D printing, whose advantages are flexibility and rapid adaptation. I wish UltiMaker the best, but a company manufacturing desktop 3D printers, with two independent centers in the USA and the Netherlands, will have a hard time keeping up with centralized Prusa Research, Bambu Lab, or Raise3D. ### What About the Industrial AM Sector? ![Explore the roller-coaster journey of the additive manufacturing (AM) industry and understand the impact of corporate conformity.](https://www.voxelmatters.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/The-Traps-3.webp)Source: Pawel Slusarczyk archive We leave aside the “old companies” that created this market in the ’90s and ’00s. Those were different times and a different context. These companies built and identified themselves completely differently from the beginning. What about the “new” companies? Desktop Metal, Markforged, Nexa3D, Velo3D, etc.? Should they also operate like startups, make everything open-source, and “support the community”? Well, the problem here is more complex. The simplest answer: of course, they shouldn’t try to be Prusa Research, but they also shouldn’t try to become another 3D Systems or Stratasys. Each of these companies was founded when consumer 3D printer companies were leading the way, and additive manufacturing was perceived differently than today. When the first wave of startups fell (Solidoodle, M3D, Printrbot, etc.), they were replaced by companies intending to jump to the forefront and stand alongside the old wolves building this market for 20–30 years. **Theoretically, they did everything by the book…** They invested a lot of cash in research, patented everything they could, and even acquired smaller companies to integrate their solutions. But they still ended up at the bottom, like their consumer predecessors. They still exist, but they are not healthy businesses. What should they have done differently? I don’t know… Maybe take a different, middle road? Slow down development? Raise money organically — from customers, not from investors and stock market people? Maybe then they would have more control over what they do? Maybe they wouldn’t have to sell out like Desktop Metal and Markforged sold out to Nano Dimension? ### Look at Formlabs. This company was founded around the same time as the rest. It started as a prosumer startup, and today it is at the forefront of medical and industrial devices and machines. Maybe Desktop Metal, Markforged and others shouldn’t have rushed to go public but instead should have observed and copied Maxim Lobovski? Damn, all three are from the same region in the USA. From the same state. Almost from the same city… So after all, it could have been done differently…? What if the answer is as simple as that?