A Bubble? Or Are We Just Calling It That?

Visual History of Bubbles

The term “bubble” has been constantly and loosely used to describe the current tech industry.  Most commonly, it has been used to describe any short-term price actions.  But what does it really mean when we say there is a bubble?  Can we even identify a bubble as it occurs?  What caused its initial formation?  And what catalyst will be the needle to “pop” it?  Or will it ever pop and if so, is it always a bad thing?  These questions are recurring with each bubble that’s formed throughout history and mostly answered in retrospect.  Coming out of the most recent real estate bubble and financial crisis, individuals are overly cautious of bubble signs and are quick to conclude that a bubble exists.  As such, volatility is high and valuations become unstable, but these may not indicate a “bubble” exists.

In the current environment, we observe high valuations for startups surrounded by an uncertainty about not just their profitability but also their top-line growth, new valuation metrics to evaluate fundamental value, investors that include institutions and the public, looser monetary regulations regarding funding, ease of access to capital and large follow-on investments.  Wow, with that said it sounds like I should just end this post and conclude BUBBLE!! But….Back up. First, what is a bubble before we decide we are in one, and are we in danger if we are in one?

Spoiler: My definition of a bubble supports my belief that bubbles cannot be labeled in the present.

I define a bubble as a speculative process, in which high valuations of an asset or market continue to be undeserved in the long run by evaluation of its business performance, independent of economic factors.  As such, in a bubble the overvaluation is purely attributed to individuals and institutions collectively driving up asset values with their expectations of achieving a profit from future price increases and the long-term growth potential of the asset, without fully understanding the invested asset and despite concerns about increasingly significant deviation from the intrinsic value of the asset.

Snapchat’s $3.2 billion valuation and $50 million investment by hedge fund Coatue Management in its Series C, BlackRock’s recent $10 billion investment in Dropbox, and increasing equity crowdfunding platforms, suggest that we are indeed experiencing inflated valuations from an influx of capital into the industry.  I believe at the heart of this phenomenon is a financing effect, in which low interest rates, modern yield pigs and a depressed fixed income market are boosting institutional funds and encouraging riskier investments.  Individual appetites are also riskier as a result.  Additionally, with revisions to the JOBS Act, such that startups are now able to advertise their fundraising process and sell equity to qualified investors from the general public, early-stage investing is becoming more public, allowing more investors to take on a higher level of risk with investments in startups.  But to conclude this financing effect has led to a bubble creation, we will need to understand investment rationales.  Unfortunately, that’s not possible to do for an entire industry; however, we can gain some insight on the rationale by evaluating the businesses themselves.

Everybody’s favorite example: Snapchat

Snapchat had no revenue and was only 2-years old when it was valued at approximately $3 billion.  Investors attribute the high valuation to its large user base of ~4.6 million and app usage, building in expectations that Snapchat will be able to monetize on this user base.  Sounds familiar?  Ah yes, what I like to call the “Facebook mentality”.  But unlike Snapchat, Facebook was already generating revenue in its first year (2004).  According to its S-1, Facebook made $382,000 in 2004, $9 million in 2005, $48 million in 2006 and $153 million in 2007, with no net loss.  Based on the table below, 2-years old Facebook was valued at approximately $900 million, based on an offer by Yahoo that was turned down.  With Snapchat, it appears that despite uncertainty of its revenue generating abilities and a recent hack that exposed the personal contact information of its users, the company along with many others is optimistic of a higher valuation than that of its $3 billion bid from Facebook.  Although this example strongly supports the argument that a bubble is forming in the young tech space, according to our definition, this is not yet a bubble until we can conclude that Snapchat is unable to generate the expected revenue to support its valuation, and speculation was the main driver of value, not the business or market environment, and that many other companies in the industry are achieving valuations in this way.  So you’re still not allowed to say bubble yet!

Slide1

Slide2

Looking at other players in the tech industry, we see that Snapchat and similar companies are more like outliers rather than lead indicators of the space.

Another favorite example: 3D Printing

Last year, there were a number of acquisitions and IPO’s in the 3D printing space that excited valuations and brought the technology mainstream.  ExOne went public in February, closing at $26.52 a share compared to its opening price at $18.  Stratasys acquired MakerBot for $403 million.  Voxeljet went public with its stock priced at $13 but closed at $28.83.  These days, it’s almost impossible to not hear people discuss the potential of 3D printing (especially if you’re friends with me!).  But with such fast growth and share prices of listed companies skyrocketing, investors immediately assumed a bubble was in the making and fled, sending prices plummeting and bringing down valuations.  Such was the case last week with 3D Systems Corp slashing its profit estimate in fear of bubble signs, sending its shares down as much as 28 percent as well as other 3D printer makers.  Although these trends may follow certain theories such as Jean-Paul Rodrigue’s, in which a take-off is followed by a first sell-off from investor uncertainty about continued growth, these price volatilities do not serve as indicators for a bubble, rather they reveal cautious investors.

Anatomy of a Bubble

Looking back at the beginning of the .com bubble, the internet was a revolution with unclear boundaries for its growth and money flooded the idea from all angles.  Focus quickly became on returns from quick exit strategies rather than the sustainability of the business.  And there was great uncertainty about the profitability of many of the companies and the market capacity.  However, when we look at the 3D printing industry, we see that there are clear paths for its growth and ability to achieve profitability.  The technology’s adoption spreads across almost all industries, from aerospace to biotechnology to fashion, and has already shown signs of profitability.  I believe 3D printing will significantly alter manufacturing, enhance business processes and create new business opportunities.  These fundamental drivers will allow for the sustainability of 3D printing.

The aggressive funding into the industry should not be confused as excessive investment.  I believe capital injection into 3D printing is helping companies in the space invest more into the technology to allow it to scale, achieve profitability and grow the market; 3D printing is a capital-intensive industry.  Finally, compared to the first quarter of 2000 when ~159 internet IPOs were completed, there were only 4 publicly listed 3D printing companies at the end of 2013, with 2 IPOs occurring in 2013.  I believe the limited number of public 3D printing companies is also a driver for price increase as individuals seek opportunities to invest in 3D printing but are limited to the 4.  I believe the current high valuations will be justified by subsequent performance of the industry in the next few years and extreme price volatility is a short-term phenomenon as the industry is still in its youth, and therefore, I do not believe a bubble is forming in the 3D printing industry.

Evaluating the larger tech industry, I break it down into 2 parts.  The first part consists of the Snapchats of the world and the second consists of companies that have proven revenue-generating businesses (i.e. Dropbox, One Kings Lane, Etsy, Twitter, Amazon) but may be currently overvalued because of their growth potential in an identified new market.  The first are what I believe are “fads” and naturally the result of an ever-changing technology industry that is fueled by curiosity, innovation and excitement; they do not provide a lasting utility.  Many of these “fads” will disappear after a first sell-off or a change in the economic environment (i.e. interest rates rise).  The second part comprises of companies that have the potential to disrupt the current landscape and introduce efficiency or utility to individuals.

And now, to finally get to the point, I don’t think we are necessarily in a tech bubble, but are seeing a lot of attention around some fads; however, we need to be cautious and observe what is being funded, understand why it is being funded and question if funding would have occurred given a different economic environment.

So, nope, still can’t say bubble!

But go ahead and call this a bubble…

This is a Bubble

Manufacturing Then and Now. Made in U.S.A.

“If you control your factories, you control your quality. If you control your distribution, you control your image.”

–Bernard Arnault, Chairman and CEO of LVMH Moët Hennessy – Louis Vuitton

Offshoring-vs.-Reshoring-the-Business-Perspective

Poor factory conditions and illegal subcontractors are ongoing issues that have not been properly or effectively addressed.  Since the 1,127 deaths from the collapse of the Rana Plaza garment factory in Bangladesh in April (the worst in Bangladesh history), few changes have been enforced at the more than 4,500 garment factories in Bangladesh.  Just recently, a factory fire in Dhaka killed 9 workers.  Countries with heavy manufacturing activity struggle to enforce factory standards and are careful to make policy decisions that could negatively impact profitability and workforce headcount.  The pressure for these countries to maintain low costs, which involve restricting workers’ rights, and to sustain their export-led growth is the direct result of offshore manufacturing.

The golden years for offshore manufacturing are retiring as costs abroad are rising due to more expensive labor and energy costs.  Manufacturing cost differences between China and the U.S. have dropped from an 18% discount in 2003 to only around 7% this year.  A number of companies have shut down their factories in China as a result of increasing labor costs and moved their operations to Southeast Asia, India and Mexico (e.g. Addidas, GE, Nike, Lenovo), where the cost gap has remained fairly unchanged since 10 years ago.  However, companies are now finding more challenges than cost in countries like Cambodia and Bangladesh, specifically illegal subcontracting, dangerous factory conditions, protests and quality control issues.

Illegal subcontracting is the result of orders that are too large to be filled by a single contracted factory.  Portions of orders are subcontracted to smaller factories to help meet tight order deadlines.  This has not only resulted in quality decline and product inconsistency, but also poor labor conditions because of the lack of monitoring and oversight of these factories.  Corruption from this practice has even extended to prison facilities, where inmates are found producing goods to fulfill a small order to be sent back to the main factory.

Recent fires and deaths at illegal factories have increased concerns from brands, factory owners, governments and human rights organizations.  Increasing foreign involvement in offshore manufacturing has resulted in a push for a wave of initiatives to regulate and transform the current factory conditions and processes at these manufacturing sites.  This month, the International Labour Organization has announced the return of the Better Factories Cambodia program (2001-2005), in which factory conditions will be publicly reported.  Bangladesh has also introduced an inspection program this year in response to the numerous factory deaths.

Companies also recognize the threat to their businesses if they do not respond to illegal manufacturing activities and poor labor conditions.  Recall the global boycott against Nike in the 1990’s for its sweatshops in Asia.  Today, protests are still ongoing in Bangladesh as workers demand for better pay and working conditions and represent those who died in the Rana Plaza collapse.  Companies will need to invest in factory supervisors to facilitate manufacturing abroad and become more involved in the inspection process to ensure worker safety and rights as well as prevent future violent protests that would paralyze production and delay order requests.

As factories are forced to improve their factory conditions, improve workers’ rights, increase wages and invest in skilled inspectors, manufacturing costs in those countries will rise.  The increasing burden and costs of manufacturing abroad have given rise to the opportunity to reshore U.S. manufacturing.

New technologies, materials, systems and processes are transforming the manufacturing environment in the U.S. to become one that is more automated and able to support mass customization.  This is the New Manufacturing Economy.  Technology and new platforms are entering at every stage of the production process to improve the efficiency and accuracy of development from design to finish and to ensure high quality products are delivered to the buyers.  And already, many of the advanced manufacturing solutions, such as 3D printing (To learn more about 3D printing, see my previous post: 3D Printing is the New Black) and robotic technologies, are becoming cheaper and more effective, providing more incentive for manufacturers to produce locally.  Having a local manufacturing process also allows companies to react quickly to consumer demands and market trends, and increase speed to market.  And with a recent revival of an interest in craftsmanship, more individuals are interested in becoming makers of their own ideas and are looking for local manufacturers to produce smaller quantities of their own designs (outsourcing manufacturing requires large orders and does not support individuals interested in sampling their various designs).

New technologies are simplifying the production process and making manufacturing more transparent.  The adoption of advanced manufacturing solutions will not only allow companies to achieve lean manufacturing and improved product quality, but also allow them to adapt their factories to the safety and needs of their workers’.  Moreover, issues can be more easily addressed if local, compared to having to hire independent, oversea factory advisors and deal with local governments and foreign policies.

Below are a few of my favorite companies that are disrupting manufacturing today:

Maker’s Row

Maker’s Row is an online marketplace that connects product-based businesses or designers with American manufacturers.  The platform separates the manufacturing process into 6 stages for the user to choose from: ideation, drafting, materials, sample-making, tooling and production.  After choosing a stage of the process, a collection of manufacturers are recommended to the user.  Included with each manufacturer listed are its contact information, capabilities, hours and location, target customers, and reviews.  Maker’s Row has both standardized the selection method for a manufacturer and customized the manufacturing process for its users.

See this video to learn more about Maker’s Row: bit.ly/1azQlnC

maker's rowmaker's row 2

Shapeways

Shapeways allows individuals to make, buy and sell their own products, creating a platform for online boutiques specialized in 3D printed products.  Shapeways is enabling individuals to become designers and merchants of their own ideas.

See this video to learn more about Shapeways: http://bit.ly/QqPxb

Shapeways

3D Hubs

3D Hubs is a collaborative production platform that enables 3D makers to connect with local 3D printer owners and print customized products locally.  The company allows owners to earn money with their 3D printer by joining the Hubs listing in their city.  Each Hub determines its own printing price and 3D Hubs facilitates the print order process and collects a 15% commission on the price for each customer quote. Talk about speed to consumer!  The company is building a global network and growing local communities around 3D printing.  The network currently has over 500 3D printers spread across 200 cities.

Interested to see a partnership between 3D Hubs and Shapeways…

See this video to learn more about 3D Hubs: http://bit.ly/1cqMV7Z

3d hubs

Sight Machine

Sight Machine uses networked cameras, vision algorithms and cloud computing to control quality, manage spot inspections and perform process analyses.  The software allows a company to determine why parts are failing, identify trends and variations, and track relationships among scores of parameters. The company’s products and services work in the plant and across the supply chain to improve production, quality control and efficiency.  Sight Machine is automating the inspection process and helping streamline assessment and operational management tasks.

See this video to learn more about Sight Machine: http://sightmachine.com/product

JOOR

Joor is an online wholesale fashion marketplace that provides a digital platform to help streamline communication, discovery, and transactions between designers and retailers.  Brands can feature their collections, search for potential boutiques and manage all of their orders online.  Boutiques are able to access real-time information on a brand’s sales team and inventory availability.

Earlier this year, the company had more than 40,000 retailers and 600 brands using the site, including Diane von Furstenberg, Rag & Bone and Zappos, compared to 250 brands and about 7,500 boutiques back in 2011.

See this video to learn more about JOOR: http://vimeo.com/58486006

joor2 joor

 

Sources: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303818704579089810120675896.htmlhttp://pulitzercenter.org/reporting/asia-bangladesh-rana-plaza-tragedy-building-collapse-death-garment-factory-faulty-inspections-dangerous-conditionshttp://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/2012/07/10/offshoring-vs-reshoring-the-business-perspective/http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/world/asia/bangladesh-factory-fire-caused-by-gross-negligence.html?ref=asiahttp://techcrunch.com/2013/07/25/online-fashion-marketplace-joor-raises-15m-in-series-b-funding/http://yourstory.in/2011/11/joor-facebook-of-fashion-ecommerce/,

3D Printing is the New Black

There has been a lot of discussion around 3D Printing this year as it evolves from a prototyping tool to a manufacturing solution and expands its presence into new industries.

What is 3D Printing?

3D printing, also called additive manufacturing, is the process of creating a three-dimensional solid object from a digital design.  The digital model is sliced into many layers (layers are thinly sliced, horizontal cross-sections of the future object) and descriptions of the slices are sent to the 3D printer to create the respective layers exactly to specification.  The layers are then combined in a number of ways to create a 3D object.

Main 3D Printer Technologies

Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) is the process of creating three-dimensional objects by fusing small particles of plastic, metal, ceramic, or glass powders using a laser.  The laser scans the cross-sections of the object generated from a CAD file or scan data and traces it onto the bed of powder.  The laser then heats the powder, transforming it into solid form.  After completion of each layer, the powder bed is lowered, a new layer of material is applied on top, and the process is repeated until the object has been printed.  The idea is similar to layering a cake! (Video example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbtu3wBJ-pY)

Stereolithography is the process of converting liquid plastic into a solid object using a stereolithograph apparatus machine (SLA).  There are four parts to the SLA: a tank filled with liquid photopolymer or liquid plastic, an adjustable platform, an ultraviolet laser and a computer that controls the laser and platform.  Similar to other processes, a digital model is sliced into many layers to be read by the 3D printer.  The UV laser paints one of the layers onto a thin layer of liquid photopolymer above the platform.  The liquid hardens upon contact with the UV laser, forming a layer of the future object.  The process repeats, building a new layer on top of the existing ones, until the object is formed. (Video example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygHVVKkJWlI)

Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) is the heating of thermoplastic material to a semi-liquid state and then extruding it onto a platform based on the design specifications.  The models is drawn line by line and after a layer is drawn, the platform lowers to allow the printer to start a new layer above the existing ones. The idea is similar to a hot glue gun.  (Video example: http://vimeo.com/14292165)

In choosing one of the above technologies, the following factors are considered: speed of machine, cost of 3D printer, cost of printed object, and cost and choice of materials and color capabilities.

The Future with 3D Printing

dezeen_3D-printed-buildings-on-moon-by-Foster-and-Partners_1

An artist’s rendering of the 3D printed lunar base (Credits: ESA/Foster+Partners).

The 3D printing market was just $1.7 billion in 2011 but is expected to reach $3.1 billion worldwide by 2016 and $5.2 billion by 2020.  According to Lux Research, the 3D printed part market had a $777 million base in 2012.  3D printed prototype parts in aerospace totaled $315 million and automotive applications amounted to $428 million.  The two major players in the market are 3D Systems (NYSE:DDD) and Stratasys (NASDAQ: SSYS).

3D Printing is growing fast, expanding from corporations to small businesses to consumers and being used across a range of industries, including healthcare, aerospace and fashion.  As 3D printing costs decrease (we can expect price attrition as more suppliers for both 3D printers and materials suppliers enter the market) and the speed and accuracy of the technology improves, 3D printing will become more common or even dominant in supply chains.  A supply chain with 3D printing will involve customized production, more local distribution centers (printed at a local site) and low transportation costs, ultimately significantly reducing lead times and reducing the carrying cost of inventory.  Such a disruption in manufacturing would bring home many offshore productions and allow companies to vertically integrate.  Additionally, with lower production costs, consumer surplus would increase because of a more competitive market, in which high quality products would be standardized and premium players in the industry would be forced to price their products to the smaller players.

One of the more exciting applications of 3D printing is printing 3D organs.  Already, scientists have been able to create 3D-printed bionic ears, bioplastic windpipes and 3D-printed kidneys and livers.  Currently, scientists are able to scan and create a digital model of your body part, develop a mold of the body part and use a bio-printer to layer living cells into the mold.  The future in printing replacement organs will involve more sophisticated printers that are able to capture more detail, print with more accuracy, and create replacement organs on a routine basis.  I am optimistic that some day we will be able to supply the thousands of requests for a replacement organ.

The fashion world has been quick to embrace 3D printing as well.  This past year, Malaysia hosted the first Asia 3D Print fashion show themed “Birds”.  The runway was dominated with bird-influenced 3D printed accessories and apparel.  It won’t be long until Adriana Lima and Alessandra Ambrosio are seen wearing 3D printed angel wings at future Victoria’s Secret fashion shows.  The process of creating a final product from a fashion design will be made flawless with technology’s ability to capture the finite details of a sketch and produce it to the exact specifications.  Additionally, apparel can be body conforming with 3D printers getting closer to producing fabric-like materials.  Maybe the future for Zappos and other online retailers is to allow us to scan our feet or bodies using a webcam and deliver a customized shoe or dress to our door, eliminating the fear of missized footwear and apparel when purchasing online.

3D printing has the potential to produce the complex tools and products demanded across all industries.  I believe it will be some time before we are able to print our own bicycles or furniture at home as the cost of 3D printing materials still outweigh the total cost of purchasing manufactured goods, but I do believe that changes in manufacturing processes and the availability of printed goods for sale or for use in various industries will be more immediate.  Already, we are able to upload our own 3D file onto a website and have it printed and delivered to us.  You can also start your own online 3D store that sells your 3D creations.  3D printing encourages us to be innovative as it provides us with the ease of transforming our complex ideas into tangible products.

The Concerns with 3D Printing

Legal issues are bound to arise in response to the types of products being produced (e.g. firearms and drugs), an emerging new wave of piracy/growing black market and the ethics of printing replacement organs.  Copyright laws will need to be evaluated to ensure that the protection of 3D designs and objects are encompassed in the laws.  But how will ideas related to 3D designs and processes be protected?  According to the U.S. Copyright Act: “In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.”  Although 3D printing offers a promising future, there are many questions that need to be answered before expanding its application.

My Top 3D Printing Companies!

Protos Eyewear (https://crowdfunding.protoseyewear.com/3d-printed-eyewear-tailored-to-fit-you) creates custom fit 3D printed eyewear.  In the future, customers will be able to scan an image of their face using a webcam and submit the image to receive a pair of customized frames (with or without prescription).  Early bird custom fit frames and lenses were selling at $199.  The company is currently in the funding process.

Protos Eyewear

Continuum (http://continuumfashion.com/N12.php) allows its customers to design their own apparel online and manufactures personalized garments for them using its 3-D printers.  Customers are able to create their own fashion designs using CONSTRVT, an online destination for individuals to create their own 3D fashion designs.

Continuum Dress

Organovo (http://www.organovo.com/) designs and creates functional human tissues using its proprietary three-dimensional bioprinting technology.  The company created the first 3D printed miniature liver this past year.

TeVido (http://tevidobiodevices.com/) is an early-stage life sciences/biotech company using 3D bio-printing of live cells to build custom implants and grafts for breast cancer reconstruction.  TeVido is developing a 3-D printing process that could fabricate breast tissue to be used in breast reconstruction after a lumpectomy using a women’s own fat cells, as a potential alternative to months of filling the void left by a lumpectomy with a series of fat injections that can be further slowed by reabsorption into the body; or just doing, which can leave breasts disfigured and asymmetrical.

Shapeways (http://www.shapeways.com/) allows individuals to make, buy and sell their own products, creating a platform for online boutiques specialized in 3D printed products.  See how it works: http://www.shapeways.com/about/how_does_it_work

Shapeways

Sculpteo (http://www.youtube.com/user/Sculpteo) offers an online 3D printing service to both individuals and professionals.  It also offers color 3D printing and a range of materials to choose from.

Formlabs (http://formlabs.com/products/our-printer)  spun off from the MIT Media Lab in 2011 to develop a high quality, low cost 3D printer.  The Form 1 3D printer uses stereolithography to make precise models and other physical objects out of photoreactive liquid polymer.  The Form 1 3D printer started as a Kickstarter project and received six times its $100,000 goal in just one day, topping $1.4 million in one week.  The company has recently announced that it will begin shipping its printers.

form 1

Makerbot (http://www.makerbot.com/) is a global leader in desktop 3D printing.  In 2011, MakerBot had 21.6% market share of all 3D printers.  Makerbot was recently acquired by Stratasys in a $604 million deal.

rep2_carousel_470x410_1

3D Printing Milestones in 2013:

January: 3D Systems announces acquisition of Geomagic, Inc. for $55 million in cash.  Geomagic is a software development company focused on 3D software and technology for design and engineering. The company was founded in 1997 by Ping Fu and Herbert Edelsbrunner (Read: Ping Fu’s Bend, Not Break)

February: President Obama supports 3D printing in State of the Union address.  “[3D printing] has the potential to revolutionize the way we make almost everything.”

March: Architect Francis Bitonti and fashion designer Michael Schmidt designed a 3D-printed dress for Dita Von Teese.  The dress is made from 17 different pieces and 3000 joints and is finished with 12,000 hand-placed Swarovski crystals.

Dita Von Teese shows off her 3D printed dress, by Bitonti and Schmidt.

April: Organovo 3D print tiny replicas of human livers that perform most functions of a real liver.

May: Princeton scientists developed a 3D-printed Bionic Ear and Staples announced it became the first major retailer to sell personal 3D printers (The Cube made by 3D Systems).

3D Printed Organs

June: Stratasys acquires Makerbot for $403 million to enter the consumer 3-D printing space and Makerbot partners with Microsoft.  Windows 8.1 will include 3D printer support and MakerBot 3D printers will sell in Microsoft Store retail locations.

July: Malaysian fashion designer Melinda Looi and Belgian 3D printing studio Materialise launched Asia’s first 3D printed fashion show.  The theme of the show was “Birds”.

First 3D Printed Fashion Show in Asia

August: NASA announced to launch the 3D Printing in Zero-G Experiment next year, in which a 3D printer will be sent to space to build parts on-demand in space.  NASA aims to solve the difficulty in resupplying or providing materials in space.

More to come!

Comment below or tweet me @tiffanydstone on your thoughts on 3D Printing and what you believe the future of it will look like!

Sources: http://computer.howstuffworks.com/stereolith2.htmhttp://www.livescience.com/38190-stereolithography.htmlhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelhennessey/2013/08/07/3-d-printed-clothes-could-be-the-next-big-thing-to-hit-fashion/?utm_campaign=techtwittersf&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialhttp://3dprintingindustry.com/2013/08/14/3d-printed-dress-of-pia-hinze-features-in-muuse-x-vogue-awards/http://www.economist.com/node/18114221http://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2013/07/3-d_printers_are_creating_ears.htmlhttp://www.luxresearchinc.com/blog/2013/06/the-3d-printed-part-market-will-grow-to-8-4-billion-in-2025-but-materials-suppliers-need-to-see-the-small-print/http://www.bionews-tx.com/news/2013/06/12/texas-biotech-startup-tevido-biodevices-developing-3-d-printing-technology-for-breast-reconstruction/