Print me a Stradivarius

How a new manufacturing technology will change the world

See article

Readers' comments




I currently work for Materialise and we have been in the business of 3D printing for 20 years. Although this article touches on some of the basics of this technology, it has already gone much further than people imagine. The materials are getting stronger, better, and more varied, the printers are getting larger and faster (our Mammoth machines can print objects of 2meters) and the software behind the technology is mind blowing.

Materialise has already printed King Tut (just look for King Tut and Materialise on youtube) has an award winning line of design products under the label .MGX. Also, for those that seem to think that the software is not yet advanced enough to come close to understanding the complexities that go into the greatest of all violins, our software has already been used to study just that (just plug "stradivarius and Mimics" into google). The same software is being used for medical purposes, and personally, if I ever need a new knee or hip, I am happy that my company exists.

And for the person that says that we will never be able to print a shoe... do a search for the "Melonia Shoe" which was also printed here and which is currently nominated for the Brit Insurance Design Award 2011.

After 20 years people are finally starting to notice 3D printing...but an article like this does not yet do justice to how incredible this technology already is.


I am reminded of the sunny predictions for computer aided machining/manufacturing some 3 decades ago. Generate a 3D model, slap a block of material in the machine, and viola a precision part. Convey a bunch of these to an assembly robot, and Bob's your uncle. Somehow it never put the assembly lines out of business.

While marvelous devices, like their CAM or CNC cousins, fabbers have severe limits on the materials and shapes. And unlike CAM, they don't fit multiple parts together. I expect these will gradually be overcome, but not anytime soon.

Nor do they eliminate the basic design costs. These are considerable. Complex designs especially need amortization over a lot of units to be profitable, even if the production cost is near zero.

Fabbers are useful additions to the manufacturers toolkit, but hardly the next great wave of manufacturing.

Jaime A Sanchez

Well...I came across this technology in 1999. Solid metal deposition. From Sandia Laboratories.
It was spun off into the private sector as a small business, Optomec. Companies from Mattel to Callaway Golf gave this serious consideration. in short, it works using spherical powder. Said powder can be of H13 tools steel for example that is sprayed directly into a laser that begins to "build" a widget from the "inside out" if you will. The results are tremendous in that the finished product displayed stronger qualities in tensile and elongation strength.

Callaway Golf determined that it load a 7-iron into the computer in the morning and actually "swing the club" late that very afternoon. Mattel determined that is could create dyes for a Barbie doll with cooling channels lined with copper to draw heat but could also create these channels with curves to fit the torso of the doll. All told, Mattel claimed that it could shave about 13 seconds off the plastic injection process of each barbie torso. This apparently equated to several million-dollars in savings.

The technology is extremely effective in manipulating titanium as well.


3D printing is not a form of manufacturing which rids us of a labour force. In fact, it can bring about the creation of new jobs and opportunities. The designs that are printed are not created by a computer, they are created on a computer, utilising the creative talents and skills of people who have already taken advantage of the job openings created in this sector.
There is also the mistaken assumption that products are emerging from these printers finished and perfect, without the need of human intervention. People are needed to run the machines, to remove the products from the machines, to remove the supporting structures (which most 3D prints are built with) and remove the traces of these supports. The parts then need to be treated, finished some more, in many instances, coated, painted, assembled...all by hand.
Digital files also do not always mean a perfect print. People are needed to work on the files, find the errors, adapt the file and then decide if it is ready for printing...and the more files that are coming through and the more products are being printed, the more people are needed to do some of the fixing because sometimes it takes a human touch working in collaboration with strong software to make sure that the best designs are made.
Therefore, I don't see this technology as bringing about the end of a labour force, instead it is creating new opportunities and perhaps better opportunities than those offered by traditional mass production.
I work in the world of additive manufacturing and seeing my company expand exponentially all around me all over the world. Take a look at, the locations where we are found, the technology we are involved in...and most importantly, look at the job vacancy section of the website, because I guarantee there will always be new positions showing up as this technology takes off.

Andrew @ Realise

This is an odd article. It's half 20 years out of date and half over sensationalising the future, which seems to have whipped up an awful lot of ill-informed hysteria and fantasy in the comments. Amongst these there are a few sensible voices from people who know about the reality of manufacturing and rapid prototyping.

I've been a product designer for 15 years, running my own consultancy for the last 10 years. I won't repeat the physical realities of rapid prototyping (additive manufacturing) technology because other people have already done that well here - particularly "Our Man from Materialise".

Most people don't realise how eye-wateringly expensive it can be to launch a consumer product. Making things in low quantities is very expensive, so to compete against the vast choice of cheap stuff around you are generally forced down the same mass manufacture route to market products at a price that people will buy them. Even a simple small product could easily take £1/4 million to launch including the development costs, the tooling and setup, the cost of initial stock and the marketing. So an individual entrepreneur is locked into a route that they need to make darned sure the design is right, that you've got deals with retailers and big marketing budgets all in place before you invest in the tooling and stock. This creates huge financial and knowledge barriers for the average person, and probably requires the added headache of raising investment, which generally skews the whole design process.

On the other hand look what has happened on the internet when the cost of trying and developing new ideas drops dramatically, combined with a new global channel to connect with your audience of customers and partners. It makes it possible for things like facebook to happen.

We've seen it happen in our business that 3D CAD, Rapid prototyping and the internet (with sites like Alibaba for example) have already made it just about possible for the bravest of individuals to launch thier own products.

If the cost of one-off manufacturing drops and the quality improves far enough, we'll reach the point that individual entrepreneurs can afford to create revolutionary products to sell at a fraction of the cost of a conventionally produced mass market items. Better still this enables them to self fund the development and marketing from sales, quickly improving the product as they go and ramping up marketing. This is the classic boot-strapping approach that the internet has enabled for services. And I would then expect to see a similar explosion of diversity and radical innovation that wasn't possible through the mass-market system of selling goods before.

Do you think this is a terrible future, involving massive loss of jobs? I see it as a huge shift which will cause loss of some control of the market by the mega corporations in the same way that's occurred in other sectors, but overall I think it will create a lot more jobs and wealth.

Bring it on I say.


I see a lot of people being somewhat dismissive of the technology as fairly limited. I guess they don't remember the IBM 360 with 16K** core memory (ram) made of ring magnets on a wire frame. It was introduced in 1964, just 46 years ago.

**Some had less, some more.


Ever had to print something several times before it came out right? Either because errors were noticed after the fact, your boss told you to do something differently, or just because the printer screwed up? Before you knew it you had a pile of print rejects just to get one perfect document.

I have a feeling that this won't be much different and it will create mountains of garbage. A system of effective and efficient recycling for defect prints needs to co-evolve alongside this new technology.


My wife had a white, porcelain filling created in 3D within a matter of 3 hours. The dentist cleaned her teeth, took a snapshot, and designed the part on her computer before clicking "print." Needless to say, it only cost $1,000 Cdn and was well worth the thrill.

Matthew Boulton

RM is often touted as the next industrial revolution or, in this article, “a technological change so profound will reset the economics of manufacturing." While such claims are common, there has been NO attempt to quantify the potential impact of rapid manufacturing upon the global economy.

Indeed, RM is a truly disruptive technology and will likely change our consumption habits and provide higher quality products to many. But, its impact on global manufacturing will be minimal.

The real value of RM lies in customization. Many products, including medical devices and high-performance sporting goods, stand to benefit enormously. But, a vast majority of manufactured products derive little advantage from customization---in fact, many products thrive on standardization.

How many people need custom screws? Or custom chassis for their cars? Or customized brake pads? Or customized refrigerator pumps? Or customized I-beams for construction? These products demand standardization to ensure quality and reparability.

Products which do benefit from customization are typically high-end consumer products (ie medical devices, jewellery, and high-end sporting goods) or high performance products with small production volumes (ie F1 or Airplanes). All of these are predominantly manufactured by OECD economies, so the notion that RM will 'rescue' western manufactuing is quite unfounded.

For example: the number 1 and 2 producers of hearing aids are Germany and the USA---and the number 1 and 2 consumers of hearing aids are the US and Germany. Indeed, it is great news if people in either country can make their own hearing aids with a custom fit and improved performance, but it does not changes the economics of global trade.

In the end, Germany will continue to make high performance machines and Bengal will continue to make low-end textiles. China will continue to make cheap plastic watches and Switzerland will continue make expensive luxury watches.

For a full review of how RM may impact global trade, see the following:


Toy companies have been chomping at the bit for years, waiting for the technology to reach the end user.

Houses will be built with 3D printers. 3D printers will print 3D printers - and computers.

And, far into the future, you'll be able to print replacement organs for yourself.

Ain't technology wonderful?


If anything has been clear in the past couple years, it is that the traditional form of mass production is not working for the economy either, not the mention the environment. I do not think that the protection of long assembly lines will bring about advances in society any faster than the technology being proposed in the article.

Yes, hundreds of workers if not thousands of workers will lose their jobs if the entire industry switches over to customized, technology driven additive manufacturing, but I think this is an overreaction and oversimplification of the impact this technology will have on how we provide the world with products. Additive manufacturing will not mean the end of traditional production. Traditional production will always be cheaper when we are talking about millions of the same products being churned out to fill our Happy Meals or Kinder Surprises.

What this technology gives us is the opportunity to have better products that better fit our needs. At Materialise, we helped a company get their jaws of life onto the market in an affordable way, because investment in a long assembly line was not feasible for a product with such a limited market ( And this is just one example of many. Not every product produced has to have mass appeal and has to be replicated thousands upon thousands of times. This technology allows for more jobs by giving people with a good idea with limited range the chance to start their business and get their product to those that want it. Because their designs are digitized and on file, they can also be ordered and printed when needed, cutting down on unneccessary production.

As for those mass produced products, there will always be long assembly lines putting those things together, but with the better prototyping opportunities offered by additive manufacturing, these products can be tested and tweeked until a way is found to waste less material, and allows them to be put together faster and with less stress on the workers. Additionally, they can be market tested to see if the products are even wanted before they are made by the millions, rejected by the masses, and end up in a landfill.

I appreciate that you are not against the technology, but merely doubt the ability of the economy to adapt to such a drastic change. But looking around me and the state that the economy is in, I think perhaps we need a drastic change and should welcome any advancements which bring with them the promise of increased efficiency, lower costs, and the chance for small players to enter a marketplace which is dominated by those that can afford to invest in the long assembly lines...lines that won't be going away anytime soon.

Dr. Frost

Oh come on people, show some more enthusiasm. This is exciting technology and I am sure its usefulness and availability will develop over time.

Until then, I will be happy to design and fabricate my own fiendishly clever plastic bricks in my basement and give Lego a run for their money.



This is the most overwrought hype I have seen in a very long time. These are not new technologies, but ones that have been in a slow development process for some time. To suggest that we will be "printing Stards any time soon" is a totally fatuous statement. This sort of nonsense is really beneath the standards that we have come to expect from The Economist.


If you want to see 3D printing in action, like making/inventing things and are in Seattle, check out

Metrix Create:Space is a shop where you can hang out and use the Internet, drink a coffee and make anything you want. It's a high tech workshop/cafe with laser cutters, 3D printers and a plethora of tools. Our goal is to enable you to make anything, and give the community of makers in our city a comfortable place to work that doesn't destroy their kitchen table.

Energy Enthusiast


Luddite! Labor-saving technology is precisely what made the developed world developed, as it raised workers' productivity and hence their incomes.

D. Sherman

Once again a useful new technology is over-hyped by a writer following the old newsman's adage, "simplify and exaggerate". Yes, 3D printing is interesting. It's great for prototypes, especially of plastic parts. As costs come down, it will probably make small production runs of complex parts feasible. It may make certain exotic and expensive military and aerospace parts possible, if still expensive. What it will never do is replace high-volume low cost manufacturing methods like injection molding and die stamping for high-volume products. Yes, there's a niche for low-volume products, but it's only a niche. The mass-produced thing will always be cheaper, and many things are just fine mass-produced. In short, it's a neat technology but it won't change the world any more than ink-jet printers changed the way newspapers are produced.


"We're all ruined!" The naysayers are out and about. These would be the same people who bemoaned the coming of the printing press & other technological breakthroughs, the same people who never had any part in developing anything.


WOW! The Economist really needed to pass this by a practicing or at least academic engineer before they published it.

1. A "blueprint"? I think the term you are looking for is 3D computer-aided design model.

2. Yes, for a handful of applications rapid prototyped parts are OK. However, we are a long way off from making violins or anything else. The strength of the material just isn't there compared to products formed by say casting. You also get significant directional effects based on the way the part is built.

Finally, for those of you asking: a cartridge of ABS material (a common plastic) goes for about $250 for 900 cubic centimeters. The rough breakdown is $270/kg.


This technology could be a game changer for this century. The effect on reducing transportation costs is staggering; think carbon fuel exhaust and the impact on oil pricing. Inequities in trade balances with the Far East and Europe/North America will reverse as increases in domestic manufacturing become a reality. This technology will also have a very positive effect on domestic employment in the developed world and negate the economies of scale required to supply developing countries. The sooner , the better!



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

