Communicating Vessels: Four 3D Printing Markets – 3DPrint.com

Of late, I’ve been considering the 3D printing market not as a single, unified industry but as four distinct markets, each with its own needs. Rather than segmenting the market by printer size or technology, I now view it based on uses, sectors, economic utility, and the specific requirements of a 3D printing setup.

I currently conceptualize the market as a set of communicating vessels. Just as in a series of communicating vases, where an increase in fluid levels eventually balances across all vessels, our markets are interconnected through overall investment, talent, interest, education, research, and adoption. Each vessel, however, is unique in shape, filling at different rates and to varying degrees. While one segment may seem to grow more rapidly or require more resources, ultimately, equilibrium is reached across all sectors.

Despite their differences, these markets influence one another, yet they demand distinct approaches, technologies, architectures, and skill sets.

Courtesy of Wikipedia, we can see how this works. While attention may be focused on desktop 3D printers, this momentum will ultimately benefit the industrial market. SLA may advance in specific applications, but in doing so, it will drive research, materials development, media coverage, and learning—factors that will, in turn, propel FDM and emerging technologies. These new technologies may appear to grow slowly at first, but they will eventually reach equilibrium.

Bambu’s success, therefore, benefits the entire industry, just as we should all hope for the continued progress of companies like 3D Systems and Nano Dimension. This common #fAMily approach is not driven by naive idealism but by cold, hard business logic. The additive industry exists in a world of the unmakable, occupying only a rounding error within the global manufacturing industry. As we advance, we expand the boundaries of the makable  and strengthen our shared ecosystem.

This mindset was common in the 1990s and remains prevalent among many in the industry. For those who believe that dental, mSLA, or concrete 3D printing operate in isolation, the reality is likely quite different. Yes, your go-to-market strategy must be precise, and your company may cater exclusively to a niche market. You could even rebrand away from 3D printing entirely. Your solution should be tailored to your customers, delivering clear, mutual value to a well-defined audience—and you should pursue that audience relentlessly.

Still, your success will either be fueled by or contribute to the collective progress of countless other companies within the industry. Imagine that you believe that. What then would the four very distinct 3D printing markets be?

New Defense

Rocket Lab uses 3D printing to make its engines. Image courtesy of Rocket Lab.

The defense, aerospace, naval, new space, and other regulated industries are encompassed within this market. Here, the specific needs of key customers permeate the industry. Government stimulus, oversight, and goal setting play a significant role. Jingoism, nationalism, presidential policies, tariffs, security, nearshoring, friendshoring, national security, and “Made in…” initiatives are paramount.

Data security, corporate security, secrecy, compliance, lobbying, confidentiality, reliability, repeatability, and traceability are critical in this sector. If I could give a company in this industry some advice, it would be: get an admiral on your board, visit Dam Neck and Dahlgren, push for higher temperature capabilities, remember that dialectic is good but dielectric is better, and buy the biggest flag available.

This sector revolves around high-temperature materials, OD steels, ceramics, conductive materials, multimaterial and gradient parts, laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) for metal, directed energy deposition (DED), niobium, tungsten, satellites, RF components, and all that jazz. It’s a world of Beltway bandits and long drives through Virginia horse country, filled with more acronyms than an overzealous investment banker trying to outmaneuver both Swiss regulators and foreign tax authorities.

The ultimate player here is Nikon SLM Solutions, which has made larger machines possible—and built them in the U.S. Other notable firms include nScrypt and companies focused on nano and electronics printing. If it’s a Chinese firm, it will sell almost exclusively to Chinese companies, while Western firms will primarily cater to the U.S. market.

Serial Manufacturing

Medical instruments 3D printed with the new 17-4PH stainless steel material from Xact Metal. Image courtesy of Xact Metal.

The market here consists of standardized machines that have become commodities. Whether it’s a 20″×20″×20″ desktop FDM system or a quad-laser powder bed fusion machine printing aluminum, there is little real differentiation between vendors. The focus is on optimization—reducing scrap rates, leveraging software to track profits, and scaling manufacturing, typically using common materials such as titanium or Inconel.

Companies in this sector rely on optimized equipment and often develop elaborate proprietary settings, materials, processes, post-processing steps, or workflows. While the machines themselves are largely identical, differentiation comes from soft skills, algorithms, and software. Some businesses produce only a few part numbers, while others operate in high-mix, low-volume manufacturing. Generally, whether a company identifies as a contract manufacturer or a service provider, it tends to produce a wide variety of parts across multiple adjacent sectors.

Examples of companies in this space include Knust Godwin’s 3D printing division, desktop 3D print farm Slant3D, and Jawstec. Here, machines are swapped in and out as needed, but the geometric and material variability still make standardized machines built to industry standards the most practical choice.

This is a world where efficiency matters—where people get excited about OEE, operational excellence, Six Sigma, cobots, high-flow nozzles, sieves, machine vision for sorting, and a dedicated workforce willing to work nights.

If I could offer advice to businesses in this segment, I’d ask: How can you automate? How can you use Full Control to optimize G-code? How can you secure cheaper powder? How can you produce your own material? How can you improve recycling?

Specific Variable Manufacturing

Gantri and Zellerfeld manufacture goods, lamps and shoes respectively, using essentially one material, with geometries that are largely uniform. Bego exclusively prints bridges and crowns, while other companies have spent decades using a single material and machine to produce variations of the same hearing aids. In this sector, a player focuses on a specific industry, part, core geometry, material, and machine model. Here, highly optimized workflows are critical, and a proprietary material—developed in-house or specifically for the company—can provide a competitive edge.

A deep understanding of design and market-specific knowledge, whether in footwear or aircraft interiors, is essential. This business revolves around making teeth, mouthguards, hearing aids, concrete planters, light fixtures, and connectors. Success requires expertise in niche standards, such as MRI connector regulations or the precise properties of satellite RF components. Companies specialize in areas like heat exchange, exemplified by Conflux, or motion control, as seen with Domin. While products may be highly variable, custom, or unique, they remain iterations of the same core design.

Going out on a limb, I’d argue that in this sector, deep sectoral and client understanding outweighs overall efficiency and flexibility. Custom materials, geometries, and part-specific finishing take precedence. Companies here will likely develop dedicated material lines to produce proprietary materials tailored to their applications. Many have already built their own automation software and fine-tuned geometries. In this space, secrecy is paramount—firms will closely guard entirely custom machines engineered to print a single geometry repeatedly with unmatched precision.

DVD Players

Many of you may not remember DVD players, but they were essentially Netflix, except you had to feed them discs—a shiny plastic thing now more commonly used to keep birds from flying into windows. Think of it like a PlayStation for movies.

Initially, DVD players were expensive, catering to the often-overcharged audiophile community. Over time, they became cheaper and cheaper until they were being sold in grocery store bins and Walgreens for $20. These no-name brands were “good enough”—you plugged them in, and they worked.

That complete commoditization is what I believe will happen to the rest of the market. This will be a “run, but don’t forget to breathe” phase, where commodity machines emerge at nearly every price point across all technologies and sizes.

Conclusion

What do you think? This is highly speculative and envisions a market where much of it becomes fully commoditized, another segment remains excellence-driven but only partially commoditized, a third consists of completely customized production lines, and the rest is dominated by high-tech machines for the Air Force and similar industries. This scenario should be a cause for concern for many. But do you think it’s likely? What seems more probable?