3-D printing: The next desktop revolution

I suspect there are more than a few readers who remember how printing and publishing changed dramatically in the 1980s as desktop computers and print-ready files displaced phototypesetters and camera-ready artwork. Many of us went from the hazards of darkroom chemistry to that of workstation ergonomics; I remember being unceremoniously lifted from the comfort of my paste-up boards, horizontal camera and film processor and dropped into the world of SyQuest disks, Apple system “bombs” and PostScript (infinite-loop) errors.

Steve Jobs Press Conference January 23 1985
Steve Jobs at the press conference where the first desktop publishing system was announced on January 23, 1985.

Actually, the birth of desktop publishing (a term coined by Paul Brainerd of Aldus Corporation) and its disruptive impact can be traced to a specific date. On January 23, 1985, at a press conference following an annual stockholder’s meeting of Apple Computer, Steve Jobs announced the first desktop publishing system. It consisted of the following component technologies:

  • Personal computer (Apple Macintosh)
  • Page layout software (Aldus PageMaker)
  • Laser printer (Canon/Apple LaserWriter)
  • Page description language (Adobe PostScript)

It is safe to say that few understood the meaning of what happened that day. For the first time, text and graphics were placed on a page simultaneously and imaged on paper as reproduction “copy” or as a final printed sheet. The breakthrough of desktop publishing was that it was possible for just about anyone—with a modest investment—to become a publisher. The full impact of desktop publishing would be realized over the next decade as it transformed several industries and was a significant element in the evolution of the World Wide Web.

Chris Anderson MakersWith the benefit of hindsight, Chris Anderson (author of The Long Tail and former editor of Wired magazine) discusses the long-term implications of the desktop phenomenon in his book Makers: The New Industrial Revolution. “Remember, at that time publishing used to mean manufacturing in every sense of the word, from the railways that brought huge rolls of paper and barrels of ink to the printing plant … Taking publishing out of the factories liberated it. But the real impact of this was not in paper, but in the idea of ‘publishing’ online. Once people were given the power of the press, they wanted to do more than print out newsletters. So, when the web arrived, ‘publishing’ became ‘posting’ and they could reach the world.”

Today Anderson believes that we are living through a similar paradigm shift. But this time it is in the world of physical objects and the making of things. Today’s Maker Movement—the design and manufacture of things by individuals instead of industrial corporations—is with personal computers, CAD software and desktop 3-D printers and other equipment like laser cutters and CNC machines.

Form 1 desktop 3-D printer
Desktop 3-D printers take geometric data from CAD software and fabricate objects out of liquid plastic or resin

Distinct from the desktop printers that produce 2-D black and white or full color images on sheets of paper, a 3-D printer uses electronic geometries and turns them into objects that you can pick up and hold in your hand. Desktop 3-D printers usually extrude molten plastic in layers of liquid or powder resin. They can typically put down plastic material in thin layers (.33 of a millimeter) in processes like fusion deposition modeling (FDM), stereo lithography (SLA) or selective laser sintering (SLS).

3-D printers are an “additive” manufacturing technology; they build up objects from nothing, layer by layer. This is distinct from older industrial techniques—like “subtractive” routers and mills—in which spinning raw material is cut or ground away to reveal the object. Although they are newer and undergoing rapid development, additive 3-D printers have the advantage of producing little or no waste in the production process.

3D Print Sales Chart
Market size by 3-D printing sector application in US$ million

According to a recent report by IDTechEx, large-scale 3-D printing surpassed revenues of $1 billion in 2012 and growth is expected to quadruple by 2025. Industries that are heavy users of 3-D printing technologies are medical and dental, automotive and aerospace. The promise of the 3-D print is that it opens up inexpensive variability and complexity to the mass manufacturing process. For example, 3-D print used in the manufacture of prosthetics and orthopedic implants makes possible mass customization based on patient CT or MRI scan data.

Some believe—including Chris Anderson—that the digital Do-It-Yourself (DIY) and Maker Movement are generating a much bigger market than that of the large-scale commercial applications. The aggregate value of the design and manufacture of entirely custom products in medium to small (or even single) quantities is potentially greater than the manufacture of mass consumer products where each item is identical.

This is a business concept that everyone in the printing industry is very familiar with. We have been dealing with the economics of the digital print for two decades and understand very well that the cost per unit of a digital print product (custom) versus conventional offset printing (mass production). The cost per unit in digital print is “flat,” i.e. it do not rise or fall based upon a decrease or increase in quantity or a change in complexity, whereas the cost of the setup (make-ready) of a traditional offset print project is amortized across the entire print run.

chrischarts.indd
The relationship between the cost per unit and the quantity of mass manufacturing (injection molding) versus digital fabrication (3-D printing).

Anderson explains it this way, “Digital fabrication inverts the economics of traditional manufacturing. In mass production, most of the costs are in up-front tooling, and the more complicated the product is and the more changes you make, the more it costs. But with digital fabrication, it’s the reverse: the things that are expensive in traditional manufacturing become free.”

We can rightfully question Chris Anderson’s assertion that digital desktop fabrication heralds the beginning of new industrial revolution on the magnitude of that which occurred in the nineteenth century. However, there is no doubting his commitment. Anderson recently left his position after more than ten years as editor of Wired magazine to become full-time CEO of the firm he founded called 3D Robotics that manufactures unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

As we think about the meaning of 3-D printing technology today, it is important to reflect back upon the desktop revolution of the 1980s. We should recall that many in the publishing industry viewed the nascent desktop system—inspired by Steve Jobs of Apple, Paul Brainerd of Aldus and Chuck Geschke and John Warnock of Adobe—as not measuring up to the professional requirements of the day. Many who initially dismissed desktop publishing as a fad and resisted the transition away from mechanical graphic arts technologies would later live to regret that perception.

The promise of 3-D printing is significant. Perhaps Chris Anderson will not be alone in the migration from the printing and publishing industries to that of digital fabrication, DIY manufacturing and the Maker Movement.

Eduard Hoffmann: 1892 – 1980

Eduard Hoffmann
Eduard Hoffmann

It is a fact of typographic history that the font Helvetica exists today because of Hamburgers … but not the food “Hamburgers.” Eduard Hoffmann, the creator of the ubiquitous typeface, knew the word “Hamburgers” contained the complete range of character attributes in the alphabet; he knew that from this one word the quality of a typeface design could be evaluated, that the features of its anatomy could be examined.

And so, early on in the design of the precursor to Helvetica—called Neue Haas Grotesk—Eduard Hoffmann of the Swiss-based Haas Type Foundry wrote to his designer and confident Max Miedinger, “But our first priority is the word ‘Hamburgers.’ It is the universal type founders’ word that contains all the varieties of letters.”

Helvetica is probably the most successful typeface in all of history. It is everywhere, all the time and there are reasons for this: Helvetica is neutral and easy to read; its different weights and styles effectively embody almost any meaning or message. Helvetica is plain but it is also modern and timeless.

Helvetica came about when typography and printing technology were moving from the metal casting, mechanical and letterpress era to the electronic phototypesetting, word processing, laser imaging and computer age. It rode atop this transformation and became the first truly international typeface. By the mid-1960s, Helvetica emerged as a global standard for public signage, corporate identity and communications.

Sampling of Helvetica Logos
A sampling of corporate identities that use Helvetica.

Regardless of one’s personal opinion of the esthetics and usefulness of Helvetica today, its creation and development—the people who developed it and how they developed it—is one of the most important accomplishments of twentieth century graphic arts.

Eduard Hoffmann was born on May 26, 1892 in Zurich, Switzerland. As a student, he studied technology and engineering in Zurich, Berlin and Munich with a specific interest in aviation. In 1917, the 25-year-old Hoffmann took a position under the direction of his uncle Max Krayer at Haas’sche Schriftgiesserei (Haas Type Foundry) in Münchenstein, Switzerland and made a commitment to the profession of typography. In 1937, Eduard became co-manager of the company with Krayer, and after his uncle’s death in 1944, became sole manager where he remained until his retirement in 1965.

As early as 1950, Hoffmann made a decision to introduce a new sans serif typeface into the Swiss market that could compete with those coming from the other European countries. The origins of san serif typefaces date back to the late eighteenth century where it was used with an embossing technique to enable the blind to read. The first fully developed sans serif (also known as grotesque or grotesk) made its appearance in Germany around 1825 and a French type founder first used the term sans serif (without decorative extensions) in 1830.

The sans serif types that Hoffmann wanted to compete with originally became popular and successful in the late nineteenth century. This was true of Akzidenz Grotesk of the Berlin-based H. Berthold AG type foundry, for example, which was originally designed in 1896. But there were neo-grotesk faces that had since entered the market, Bauer’s Folio and Frutiger’s Univers for example, that threatened to eclipse Hoffmann’s venture.

In 1956, as grotesk font use was surging in Europe, Hoffmann thought the timing was right to attempt a specifically Swiss variety. He contacted Max Miedinger, who had been a salesman and type designer at the Haas Type Foundry for the previous ten years, and wrote “he was the only man to design a new typeface for Haas.”

Max Miedinger
Max Miedinger

Miedinger’s role in the process was decisive and many credit him more than Hoffmann for the creation of Helvetica. It is true that Miedinger made the original hand-drawn letters of the alphabet. But the esthetic component was only one side of the value that Miedinger brought to Haas. It was his in-depth knowledge and relationship with the customers of the type foundry that made Miedinger indispensible to the success of Neue Haas Grotesk and later Helvetica.

Miedinger had access to some of the most brilliant Swiss graphic artists as well as advertising representatives from major Swiss corporations—the chemical firm J.R. Geigy AG among them—and through a painstaking and collaborative development process headed up by Hoffmann, Neue Haas Grotesk took shape.

Throughout 1957 and 1958, the two men collaborated back and forth, fine-tuning each character. The record of the exchange between Hoffmann and Miedinger has been preserved and can be followed in detail in the book, Story of a Typeface: Helvetica forever. The book includes photographic reproductions of the letters the men wrote to each other as well as Hoffmann’s project notebook.

Eduard Hoffmanns Helvetica Notebook
A page from Eduard Hoffmann’s Helvetica notebook dated November 27, 1957.

Hoffmann knew that designing a great typeface was not only about the beauty and logical construction of each individual character, even though this was an important aspect. Each character had to fit together with all the other characters in the various combinations that make letters into words. There was also the technical question of how the typeface would look at different sizes and once it was printed with ink on paper.

As Hoffmann explained in 1957, “praxis has shown that a new typeface cannot be correctly and objectively evaluated until it is in printed form. But even then, it is quite curious to find that a letter might be very satisfactory in a word, while seemingly quite out of place in another context. This makes it necessary to consider its design anew, which usually leads to unavoidable compromises.”

Once they were satisfied with the basic letterforms and had designed enough weights and sizes—at that time, the Haas Type Foundry was punch cutting, engraving and typecasting by hand thousands upon thousands of individual characters in metal—the men took their product to market. With the help of some well-designed promotional brochures and an initial buzz at the Graphic 57 trade fair in Lausanne, Neue Haas Grotesk became a hit. By 1959, about ten percent of the printers in Switzerland were carrying it.

Haas Type Foundry Engraving
The engraving room at the Haas Type Foundry. Lintoype ceased the type casting operations at Haas in 1989.

The Haas Type Foundry was majority-owned by the German firm D. Stempel AG. In turn, Stempel was in a contract with the multinational Linotype Corporation for the production of machine manufactured metal type forms. In order to expand the appeal of Hoffmann and Miedinger’s typeface and to bring it to the world of mass production typography, especially in the US, Linotype’s marketing department pushed for Neue Haas Grotesk to be renamed.

Linotype initially suggested that it simply be named Helvetia (Latin for Switzerland). Hoffmann felt that, although it was distinctly a Swiss product, the typeface could not have the exact same name as the country. He came up with Helvetica, which means “The Swiss Typeface,” and all involved accepted the new name developed by its creator.

Into the 1960s, Helvetica gained spectacular popularity and was adopted as the “in-house typeface” of various international corporations, many of which still use it to this day. Commentary on the significance and social driving force behind the success of Helvetica has often referred to post-war economic expansion. There was a thirst in the 1950s within the creative community for visual clues that conveyed optimism about the future. Designers wanted an excessively modern look that helped to put the bad memories of the first half the twentieth century far behind. For many, Helvetica accomplished this goal.

In 1971, Eduard established a foundation with the aim of creating a museum dedicated to the printing industry. In 1980, in the former Gallician paper mill on the Rhine, the museum opened with Hoffmann’s collection of papers on the history of the Haas Type Foundry as one of its main attractions. Eduard Hoffmann died in Basel, Switzerland on September 17, 1980.

PIA forecast for printers: Industry transition in a slow-growth economy

ChartingAPath

On February 15, I received an email from Printing Industries of America President and CEO Michael Makin announcing a special report. Mr. Makin said the report “is designed to help you assess the key trends impacting the economy and print markets over the next 12–24 months.” He added that the special report assists companies “design strategies and tactics to help your firm take advantage of coming opportunities and address potential challenges.”

I downloaded “Charting a Path for 2013-2014: A Special Report”—written by PIA Senior Vice President and Chief Economist Dr. Ron Davis—and read it over carefully. Below is a summary of the report followed by a few of my own thoughts and observations.

Economic environment

In the introduction, Dr. Davis points out that the report had to be delayed pending the outcome of the government’s “fiscal cliff” discussion at the beginning of the year. Davis says the debate resulted in a “question mark” on fiscal policy. Therefore the PIA forecast on the economy as a whole is for “restrained expansion as the economy’s natural bias for growth trumps unresolved fiscal policy choices.”

PercentChangeinGDPThe first section of the report reviews the recent economic past. A chart of “Percent Change in Real GDP” shows a marginally upward trend since the first quarter of 2010, with growth hovering around 2%. Dr. Davis says, “The economy continues to improve, but at a very modest pace … a rate just above stall speed, making the return to recession a distinct possibility.”

Turning to the printing markets, according to the current PIA definition of the industry, it includes “printing and related support activities (Economic Census code 323) plus printing related media (Economic Census code 511).” Based on this, the printing industry represented $158 billion in annual shipments in 2011, there are approximately 48,000 establishments employing over 1 million people. The printing industry is the most geographically dispersed industry in the US with a significant presence in all 50 states. The bad news is that even with this expanded definition of the industry, “establishments and employment have declined for both categories.”

The negative pressures on the printing industry are a combination of a weak economic climate and what PIA calls, “significant challenges from a very competitive environment—both among printers and between print and other media.” At the conclusion of the section on the economy, the report notes a very important transition point, “For the first time ever, marketers spent more on digital advertising than print advertising in 2012.”

Printing firm performance

The second section of the document deals with financial performance during and since the Great Recession of 2007-2009. PIA printing firm data known as the Ratios shows that the industry as a whole exited the recession in 2010 and that trend continued in 2011. The report says, “These results put a hard end to the economic downturn, dispelling fears of the return to recession.”

ProfitTrendsStill, the picture of the past two years is not same for all firms. In 2011, profitability was lowest on average for all small to medium firms (under $10 million in annual sales) and better for larger firms ($10 million and up), but none of the categories were greater than 2.9% profitability. The entire industry has yet to return to pre-recession profitability numbers, even the most successful companies.

Other elements of financial performance focused on changes in major cost items, productivity trends and profitability by product specialty. According to the PIA ratios, industry profit leaders in 2012 “did not experience an increase in productivity … This unexpected result may have occurred due to the Profit Leaders’ slight reduction in the wages paid per employee either dropping slightly or staying the same, which might correlate to more production employees with fewer overtime hours.”

Sales vs. profitability

The third section of the report draws a correlation between sales and profitability. Dr. Davis uses something called a “profile performance quotient” to characterize firms based on demographic and geographic criteria. The quotient is a comparison of the overall industry averages to the particular category average.

SalesandProfitPQbyProcessThis section shows a clear indication of the sales and profit potential of digital printing (both toner and ink jet based) as well as flexographic printing. It also reveals that the sales and profit performance quotients for both sheetfed offset and web offset were particularly low.

An important finding in the PIA analysis is that “sales and profit performance often track in opposite directions—at least for the demographic characteristics examined. As many printers have discovered, chasing sales may have a negative impact on profit if you don’t keep an eye on other factors that provide a competitive advantage.”

Looking ahead

The last three sections of the report are devoted to: a.) What to expect over the next two years (2013-2014), and b.) What printing firms should be doing now to align themselves strategically with these trends.

The report says that over the next two years the PIA’s forecast “calls for a continuation of the slow economic growth that we have experienced over the past year—around 2 percent adjusted for inflation.” Print related media will continue its steady decline but at a slower rate of 2 percent each year instead of the 4 percent more recently.

According to the PIA the keys to success in the environment over the next two years is the same as it has been over the past few years:

  • Know the place of print within the economic cycle
  • Know your print segment’s life cycle and competitive environment
  • Keep in tune with changes in prices, sales volumes and costs
  • Check your strategy against the development of print product function
  • Develop your staff and stay focused on “attitude”

The next decade

The concluding section of the PIA forecast goes into a projection for the industry through the year 2021. There are two scenarios presented. Depending on how the industry is defined (either as just “Commercial Printing & Related Support Activities” or this plus “Print-related Media”), the industry is project to either grow in size from $82.8 billion to $89.8 billion or contract from $158.6 billion to $143.6 billion over the next 8 years.

“The reason why adding print-related media into the model causes overall sales to decline is that this sector accounts for 49% of total industry sales and 95% of ‘print-related media’ services the function of print intended to inform and communicate, which is forecasted to decline by 4% per year over the next ten years.”

The bright spots in the decade ahead forecast are in packaging (product logistics print) and print intended to market, promote and sell. In these categories, both economic forecast scenarios show similar growth rates by 2021.

Thinking it through

In my opinion, the PIA’s economic forecast is ambivalent. Perhaps this reflects the contradictory nature of the environment: on the one hand, the recession has reached a “hard end,” but, on the other hand, economic growth will be very slow and uncertain due to the federal budget deficit and the government’s response to these problems. This outlook does not instill a sense of confidence for business owners to take risks when industry profits—even though they are rising—are still below prerecession levels.

Meanwhile, the PIA report shows that opportunities for digital print and media offerings bring promise for printers. Customers are rapidly adding more data driven, mobile and online marketing and communications at the expense of their traditional offset print programs. Printing companies that have found the means to move into these product and service areas and, at the same time, have managed to keep the fixed costs of their offset business under control are well positioned today.

The business environment remains complex: printing firms must continue to navigate the combined impact of slow or stalling overall economic growth and the transition of the industry from traditional to digital systems, products and services. The PIA report provides important insights into this process.