Making 3D printers without liking 3D printing
3DP War Journal #49
Can a film studio run by someone who doesn’t like watching movies make good films? Can a car company whose CEO doesn’t enjoy driving produce good cars? Can a 3D printer manufacturer whose boss doesn’t use 3D printers make good 3D printers?
As many of you already know, since the beginning of June I’ve been working with Bambu Lab Europe, responsible for the development of the AM market in Central European countries (in short – from Poland to Greece):
In my view, this has one key consequence – when writing my articles and opinion pieces, it’s no longer appropriate for me to directly criticize companies that may be perceived as competitors (regardless of whether they actually are...).
No, no one has forbidden me or told me to do this – I’ve just decided on my own that it’s the right thing to do.
That said, I still think I can talk and write, you know... “in general”…
So “recently” there was another 3D printer launch by a certain well-known manufacturer.
Once again, there were no surprises – neither in terms of functionality, nor in the overall consistency of the product line’s development.
Once again, it’s basically the same thing as before, just slightly tweaked. “Evolution instead of revolution,” blah, blah, blah...
Which is generally a bit sad, considering that this company’s products were once truly revolutionary and set the direction for the entire industry.
But at some point, that changed – it all stopped.
Instead of unrestricted, spontaneous innovation, there came a stable, precisely engineered evolution.
The focus shifted to efficiency, profitability, and repeatability.
And of course: scalability – of production, processes, and user satisfaction.
As a result, each new machine became less different, less unique, less distinct from the others. A copy of a copy of a copy. Like AI creating content based on content it has generated itself...
How did it happen? What changed?
Well... the people in charge changed.
The 3D printer guys were replaced by the Excel sheet guys.
Now we move into the “general” part...
Why is it that some AM companies, after years of market dominance, suddenly start to decline?
Well, there are many reasons – and I wrote about one of them last week, in the debut episode of a new series called AM Survivor:
In short, it’s about companies losing their direction and getting lost in countless variations of strategy, ultimately heading nowhere. I highly recommend reading it.
But this piece is about something else – about people who start running AM companies without really having a clue what additive manufacturing even is.
Historically speaking, every 3D printer manufacturing company was founded by a technology enthusiast, a tinkerer, a maker, a hacker, a designer, an engineer, etc.
The fate of these companies has typically followed one of three paths (I wrote about this back in April, in an article about companies' approaches to marketing):
The company remained under the control of the founder-engineer, who, unable to scale it, either quickly failed or remained a niche player, limited operationally to a single country or region.
The company landed in the hands of a business genius, who inflated it with free investment fund and stock market money—only to eventually drive it into the ground.
The company stayed with the founder-engineer, who turned out to also be a capable businessman (or surrounded himself early on with smart partners and advisors).
But there’s also a fourth option – a kind of hybrid of the second scenario:
The company, managed by investment funds or publicly traded for years, has its leadership replaced with their own people – experienced technocratic managers with 10, 20, or even 30 years of experience “in other industries.” They are given one and only one task: increase shareholder value.
Let’s spell that out again: not to increase revenue, not to increase sales, not to grow market share – but to increase shareholder value.
In theory, this clever phrase encompasses all the previously mentioned objectives, but in practice… it doesn't. Those goals are implied, but not actionable.
What is increased shareholder value?
Profit, which translates into dividends – but profit doesn’t have to come from higher sales, it can also result from lower operating costs.
A higher stock price – which can be achieved in many ways: through acquisitions, patenting innovations, or simply “growing margins year-over-year or quarter-over-quarter.”
In other words, a publicly traded company (or one with dispersed ownership) can have very different objectives than a traditional manufacturing firm, where net profit is the ultimate measure of survival.
Such a company can rely on various forms of external financing, including emergency capitalization. And even if that fails, the losses are spread across many shareholders – not just one founder.
To manage such an organization, you need someone with strong skills in financial management, human resources, and someone who thrives in corporate governance environments.
This person is not expected to know how to operate a 3D printer, understand differences in material properties, design 3D models, or prepare files for printing. In fact, that list would sound absurd and even laughable in the context of a CEO of a large, publicly traded company.
Right?
So how does the CEO of this publicly traded company know whether the new 3D printer about to launch on the market will be a hit or not? Perhaps from their technical advisors or long-time employees? But are they right? Is their evaluation of the new machine accurate?
And what if, during their first year in office, the CEO surrounded themselves with their own people – individuals (good buddies) they know from previous companies and trust completely? And those new people also lack experience and knowledge in 3D printing, but they “know how to run a large manufacturing company or a publicly traded corporation.”
So who’s right then?
Well, of-course the CEO and his court of sycophants and yes-men are right. The ones whom he brought into the company to replace the disappointed and dissatisfied old guard (engineers who left or were fired for causing unrest).
Or maybe – the CEO thinks – instead of taking risks with launching new machines or developing new technologies, it would be better to just buy other companies that are already doing that?
Expand the portfolio, make the offering more comprehensive, and – increase shareholder value?
I believe that one of the biggest mistakes made when managing AM companies is treating 3D printing like any other traditional manufacturing technology. Assuming that if something works in CNC machining or injection molding, it will also work in additive manufacturing.
That manufacturing is just manufacturing.
But just as these are completely different processes, the methods of managing them must also be different. The CNC or injection molding market has a defined value. Meanwhile, as stated by the Second AM Market Law:
A successful company in the 3D printing industry will always be smaller and less profitable than a successful company in another industrial sector.
Knowing this, we need a different strategy and different tools to achieve it. Understanding that an AM company will have a harder time than a CNC company means you cannot use the same management and strategizing methods.
But to understand that, you have to know 3D printing. You need to understand its capabilities and limitations. You simply have to know the field – in practice, not just in theory!
You have to live and breathe 3D printing!
That’s extremely hard to achieve, and it’s rare to find a manager who combines strong business competencies with a genuine passion for the technology itself (in practice, not in theory).
And that’s exactly why so few manufacturing companies achieve major market success.
#7. Zortrax suspended from NewConnect Stock Exchange
Zortrax S.A. failed to publish its 2024 annual report on time (the deadline was the end of May), and today the NewConnect stock exchange announced the suspension of trading in the company’s shares. While this is not an extremely dramatic event, it is unfortunately yet another incident that adds to the increasingly concerning picture of the company.
Just a week ago, I reported on the launch of a token issuance aimed at recapitalizing Zortrax. The official website is already live (token.zortrax.com), but the sale begins today.
READ MORE: www.3dprintingjournal.com
#6. Formlabs has opened office in China
Maybe you know, maybe you don’t, or maybe you’ve just never thought about it—but Formlabs has been manufacturing its 3D printers in China for years. The headquarters is in Boston (business development and R&D), but the actual production takes place where Donald Trump would rather it didn’t. Last week, the top executives of Formlabs (Maxim Lobovsky, Nick Graham, David Lakatos) celebrated the opening of an official office in Shenzhen. It’s not only highly symbolic but, in a way, prophetic.
READ MORE: www.3dprintingjournal.com
#5. EOS wants to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045
EOS has announced its newly approved science-based targets (SBTs) to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045. Aligned with the SBTi’s Net-Zero Standard, the plan includes a 42% reduction in Scope 1 and 2 emissions and a 25% cut in Scope 3 by 2030, reaching 90% reductions by 2040 and 2045, respectively.
Measures include electrifying its vehicle fleet, using 100% renewable energy, and developing sustainable materials like recycled AlSi10Mg. CEO Marie Langer emphasized: the company’s commitment to Responsible Manufacturing and climate leadership within the additive manufacturing industry through a planet-people-performance approach.
READ MORE: www.voxelmatters.com
#4. IperionX awarded $99M contract by US DoD
IperionX has secured a U.S. Department of Defense SBIR Phase III contract worth up to $99M. The deal enables federal agencies to order titanium components made with IperionX’s patented technologies, supporting U.S. defense manufacturing, job creation in Virginia, and reduced dependence on foreign titanium supply chains.
READ MORE: www.voxelmatters.com
#3. German CR-3D has launched FieldRACK
German CR-3D has launched FieldRACK, a compact 3D printer built for harsh or mobile environments. Designed for 19-inch racks, it features a heated chamber, high-temp extruder, HEPA filter, vibration suppression, and no mandatory cloud use. The installation space of the FieldRACK measures 210 × 205 × 250 mm and can be actively heated up to 60 °C. For mobile operation, the FieldRACK offers a mechanically decoupled design with integrated vibration suppression. This means that the print quality is maintained even if the printer is moved by a vehicle or set up in an unstable location.
READ MORE: www.3druck.com
#2. Pollen AM introduced its fastest and largest 3D printer to date: the Pam Pro
At TCT 3Sixty, French manufacturer Pollen AM introduced its fastest and largest 3D printer to date: the Pam Pro. Designed for industrial users, the Pam Pro prints at speeds up to 0.5 m/s — six times faster than the previous Pam o2 model. It features a large 680 x 680 x 500 mm build volume and supports pellet-fed materials like PLA, TPU, TPE, PP 15GF, and PA 15GF, offering significant cost-efficiency.
An optional IDEX configuration enables multi-material or mirrored prints. With automated calibration and AI diagnostics, the Pam Pro emphasizes ease of use. The first 50 units ship from September to December.
READ MORE: www.tctmagazine.com
#1. UltiMaker launched S6 3D printer
UltiMaker has launched the brand new S6 3D printer. According to manufacturer, the S6 offers print speeds up to 500 mm/s and advanced motion control via the Cheetah planner, delivering prints 4x faster than the S5. It supports dual extrusion, offers two build plate options, and maintains full backward compatibility with the S5 ecosystem.
With over 300 supported materials, cloud-based integration via Cura and Digital Factory, and an extended 24-month warranty, the S6 aims to streamline workflows and scale production effectively, all while being manufactured in the Netherlands.
UltiMaker’s S6 is an upgrade for existing users and industry professionals, however, in today's highly competitive desktop AM market—dominated by low-cost, high-speed Chinese brands like Bambu Lab, Creality, and Elegoo, and challenged further by Prusa's new CORE One—UltiMaker must fight an uphill battle.
READ MORE: www.fabbaloo.com