After the excitement of last week, the advanced manufacturing funding scene has been relatively quiet, apart from the the 3D-printed rocket exploits of prominent venture capitalist Steve Jurvetson. That said, there were a couple stories worth noting:
On January 5, 3D Systems announced that they had acquired London-based botObjects, designers and manufacturers of the CubePro C, a color desktop 3D printer. When botObjects first announced the launch of their new printer in 2013, their claims of full-color 3D printing caused both excitement and disbelief in the additive manufacturing community. When the printer was finally revealed, botObject showed that it could achieve a color filament solution for PLA (plastic) extrusion using a five-color cartridge system. Each of the five filaments are a primary color (cyan, magenta, yellow, black and white) and by mixing in specific ratios (pre-deposition), the printer can print all the colors of the rainbow. It represents significant innovation beyond essentially open-source extrusion printing and is a good case study for value being created in the wake of Stratasys‘ original FDM patent expiration.
On December 19th, metamaterials startup Echodyne announced a $15 million Series A investment round led by Bill Gates and Madrona Venture Group. As the fourth spinout from Intellectual Ventures, Echodyne is seeking to commercialize novel metamaterials-based radar technology, whose origins trace back to research at Duke University and UC San Diego. The investment demonstrates the building of commercial momentum for the technology and is good impetus to define and discuss metamaterials, identifying why they will be important, especially in the context of advanced manufacturing:
The exact definition for metamaterials can vary depending on the source, but it is important to realize that the term “metamaterial” does not refer to one specific material, but rather to a design concept for materials.
Within the past few days, various news sources have reported that two new additive manufacturing startups, Voxel8 and Impossible Objects, have received venture funding from Braemar Energy Ventures and OCA Ventures, respectively. While Cambridge (MA)-based Voxel8 is focused on printing embedded conductors, wires and batteries, Northbrook (IL)-based Impossible Objects is targeting composites, such as carbon fiber, fiberglass and kevlar. Their material palettes might be quite different, but the theme of the investments strikes the same note: there is much to be gained from the ability to print varied and complex materials.
After examining the Full Stack and Reinventing the Hardware Startup, Manufacturing Disruption continues to explore emerging venture capital opportunities in the additive manufacturing space by taking a look inside traditional manufacturing companies. A number of large companies, such as Lockheed Martin and GE Aviation, are already embracing the technology, but countless others are still waiting.
On December 8th, I started a series of posts introducing strategies that startups / venture capital firms can employ in the additive manufacturing (3D printing) space, beginning with The Full Stack. In part two, I introduce how additive manufacturing is poised to make (and in many cases, is already making) hardware startups more viable for venture capital investment, while unlocking scientific discoveries in our universities’ research labs.
Despite all the media hype that has been associated with 3D printing, news stories alone do not create good venture capital opportunities and although the area can boast a few notable exits, it ranks far behind the VC bread-and-butter investment areas, such as software and social networks. As part of my MBA at London Business School, I investigated the venture capital opportunity associated with additive manufacturing and I believe there are four themes with significant VC/startup promise that will emerge from additive manufacturing in the coming years.
In the coming series of posts, I’ll overview each strategy, starting with going after Chris Dixon’s full stack:
The term “disruptive technology” is frequently (over) used when describing any new gadget or invention and the popular press’s description of additive manufacturing is no different. With a number of printer manufacturers targeting the consumer market, 3D printing has been hyped as a game changing technology, however, very little rigorous analysis has been undertaken in order to determine whether or not additive manufacturing can be accurately described as a disruptive technology. Rather than deferring to popular media hype, it is useful to refer to Clayton Christensen’s (who coined “disruptive technologies”) definition from “The Innovator’s Dilemma”:
Although the recent acquisition of cloud-based 3D design and publishing startup, Lagoa, has yet to generate significant headlines (neither company have officially announced the deal on their respective websites), La Presse.ca and Techvibes are reporting that the US CAD giant has paid $60-62 million for the young, Montreal-based Lagoa.
The deal represents another notable acquisition-exit for an advanced manufacturing service/software company. Although the details of the deal and the previous venture-backed investment rounds are not available, I’ve gone through the exercise running some conservative estimates to better understand how the venture capital community should regard the transaction:
A second, separate force that I want to highlight with this site is the force of innovation that […]
Manufacturing Disruption 