CHRIS DIBONA: Hi, everyone.
I'm Chris DiBona.
It's good to be here.
I'm here to introduce Chris
Anderson to you and the
offices that have VC'd in.
Since we do have a number of
offices VC in and because it's
the right thing to do, if you
have any questions, we do have
a microphone set up in the
middle of the room
here near the front.
So feel free to line up
and ask questions.
Chris will talk about the
parameters of question answering.
It's very important that
we get this right.
But I think he's pretty
open to whatever
you want to do there.
We do have some books available
at, what looks like,
a subsidized price over here.
And I think, Chris, you're
going to do signings
afterwards, if you're
up for that?
CHRIS ANDERSON: Absolutely.
CHRIS DIBONA: Yeah?
So his fingers have healed
since his long book tour.
I don't really need to introduce
Chris too much.
He worked at a couple of small
magazines, "The Economist,"
"Wired," "Nature?"
CHRIS ANDERSON: "Nature
[? of ?]
Science."
CHRIS DIBONA: "Nature [? of ?]
Science," those little things,
and is now currently wanted
for supplying national security
secrets in the form
of drones to the world.
No?
No?
Is that not true?
CHRIS ANDERSON: Not
wanted yet.
CHRIS ANDERSON: Not
wanted yet.
So that's good.
And maybe he'll talk about that
in his talk that he's
about to present today about his
new book, "Makers, The New
Industrial Revolution."
So Chris?
[APPLAUSE]
CHRIS ANDERSON: Thank
you, Chris.
This is my favorite
place to speak.
This is the one group where I
feel like I can just geek out.
And it'll be a good thing,
rather than the usual dazed
looks I get on this stuff.
So what I'm going to be talking
about today is, I
think, kind of a big deal.
This is basically the
industrialization
of the Maker Movement.
But I feel that it's the third
wave of the Digital
Revolution, PC, web, and
then the real world.
Bringing the web to the real
world seems like a pretty big
deal to me.
And what I'm going to do is walk
you through the evolution
of what is both the Maker
Movement and its ultimate
economic impact, what could be
an Industrial Revolution, and
then give you an example of one
bit of it in the form of
my incredibly geeky hobby turned
company turned God
knows what in the forms
of drones and
robotics and all that.
We're going to go from 3D
printers to open supply chains
and all that.
But let me just start with
one page of thesis.
And then this will be the
last text you see.
Basically, this is simply it.
20 years of finding a new way
to work together, of a new
innovation model.
Well, that's what the
web really is, it's
an innovation model.
Yeah, it's technology.
Yeah, it's infrastructure.
But fundamentally, what it
unlocked is a exciting way to
tap spare cycles, latent
energies, talents that weren't
otherwise tapped in the existing
innovation models and
change the world.
So we get it.
But that's on the world
of screens and bits.
And we live in the world of
atoms and real stuff.
And if we can just apply that
innovation model to everything
else, just think what
could happen.
We're starting to do that.
But before we do, I
just wanted to--
I used the word Industrial
Revolution on the
cover of the book.
And that's a big word.
Let's remember what Industrial
Revolution is.
The first Industrial
Revolution--
we'll have a little quiz here.
I'm going to give you
three centuries.
And you can tell me when you
think the Industrial
Revolution--
How many people think the
Industrial Revolution happened
in the 1700's?
How many people thought it
happened in the 1800's?
And how many people think it
happened in the 1900's?
OK.
The answer is 1700's, 1776.
Same year as the American
Revolution was the deployment
of the spinning jenny, which was
basically a spinning wheel
with multiple wheels.
Now we'd had spinning wheels
since fairytale times, castles
and princesses and all
this kind of stuff.
But what a spinning jenny did
is it used a foot treadmill
and then just spun multiple
wheels at the same time and
amplified human power and
basically continued the
movement of moving us from
muscle power to machine power.
And that was first driven by
feet, and then by water, and
then by steam, and ultimately
created the factory.
And so this is what
you imagined.
This is a mid-1800's factory,
textile mill in England.
Now this did amazing things.
Not only did it turn us from
beasts of burden to more using
our heads, but it also
concentrated
us around the machines.
Now this is a good thing
and a bad thing.
It's a good thing in that it
created the city, it created
urbanism and everything we now
celebrate with concentrated
populations.
It also vastly increased
quality of life.
This is what happened to life
expectancy as the factory was
created, as we moved
to cities.
It doubled life expectancy.
Now we think of rural England
as being pastoral and
wonderful and healthy and
all this kind of stuff.
But in fact, they had no access
to clean water, no
sanitation systems, the walls
were damp, and no access to
good health care, et cetera.
What cities offered, despite
the old dark, satanic mills
and all this kind of stuff, what
they actually offered was
sewage systems, clean water
supplies, health care,
education, all these
kind of things.
And they very quickly doubled
the life expectancy.
And this is what they did
to the population.
That's what concentrating us
around the tools of production
did to the population
of England and then
the rest of the world.
Now that's all good.
What was bad--
or not bad, but one of the
downsides of this is that,
basically, it focused production
around the things
that made sense for factories,
around massive
economies of scale.
So the things that got made
were the things that were
mass-produced.
Now that's great, if you
want cheaper spoons.
But it really limits
choice and variety.
And so we ended up with that
sort of Marxian construct of
power going to those who
control the means of
production and the man deciding
what gets made.
You just couldn't beat those
economies of scale.
Now that is, again,
no bad thing.
It improved quality of life
and gave access to
high-quality goods to everybody
or to many people.
But we did destroy the
cottage industry.
We did destroy craftsmanship,
artisanal construction.
And ultimately we ended up, as
that trend towards cheaper
labor continued, eliminating
many manufacturing jobs
outside of Asia.
That was the first Industrial
Revolution.
That took us from about 1776
to mid-20th century.
Then came, what we could call,
the second Industrial
Revolution, which is the
Digital Revolution.
Now I'm not showing
the mainframe.
And I'm not even showing
a personal computer.
Instead, I'm using a different
construct here, which is
called publishing,
if you will.
What I'm showing here is the
first laser printer, the Apple
LaserWriter from 1985.
It came out one year after the
Mac and cost about $2,500.
Now that created desktop
publishing.
And today, we think nothing
of desktop publishing.
But when that came out, these
more mind blowing words,
desktop publishing.
Now publishing was
a factory job.
To publish, you had to buy ink
by the barrel, buy paper by
the railway car.
You needed to have a printing
plant to publish.
And now you could do
the same quality
production on your desktop.
That's good.
That's impressive.
Hundreds of years of
professional skills and
publishing were turned into
a bit of software
and a button press.
But you couldn't really be
a publisher, because you
couldn't distribute.
You could make church
newsletters and missing cat
posters, but you couldn't
make millions and
get them out there.
And then, along came the web.
And "publish" turned into
a button that you
click on the screen.
And every time you press the
Publish button, whether it's
on your blog or whatever, you
don't think about it, but
you've basically turned what
used to be a industry run by
factories and professionals,
and you've turned it into a
single click.
But that act of democratizing
the tools of prototyping and
then the tools of distribution
basically took the publishing
industry and opened it
up to everybody.
And we know what happened.
That was the web and
the long tail.
And it changed the world.
OK, but you take those
two analogies
and now fast forward.
Rather than the laser printer,
we have the 3D printer.
This is the new Replicator
2 from MakerBot.
And it does the same thing as
a laser printer, which is to
say it takes bits on
the screen and
turns them into atoms.
Now a 2D printer takes bits on
the screen in turns them to
ink or toner or things
like that.
A 3D printer takes images,
polygons, designs on the
screen, and turns it into a
physical object that's built
up in layers of plastic
or other materials.
But once again, it
takes all the
complexity out of the process.
You don't need to know anything
about plastic or machining.
You just press a button and,
poof, out it comes.
OK, that's great for
making one or
two or three of something.
It's great for prototyping.
They call rapid prototyping.
But that doesn't make
you a manufacturer.
That doesn't make
you a factory.
The next step is actually less
understood, but probably more
exciting, and that is basically
cloud manufacturing.
The world's supply chains are
now impedance matched to the
individual.
Now what does that mean?
What I'm showing here is a
picture of Alibaba, which is
one site among many
which gives you
access to Chinese factories.
Over the past decade or a little
less than a decade,
three things have happened.
And I'm using Chinese factories
as one example,
though it extends beyond them.
Three things have happened
to Chinese factories.
First of all, the
web generation
has come into power.
They get it.
Opening a web interface is
the right way to work.
Number two, their own
manufacturing systems are
increasingly robotic and
automated, which means they
are very flexible.
They can make small batches.
And they can change the
design very quickly.
And number three, they realized
that serving small
batches, serving a niche
interest actually is a higher
margin business.
That's the way they get out of
the commodity trap is by
offering small batch, custom
bespoke services.
Now I know this because about
five years ago I was messing
around my kids, and we came up
with this really cool robot
blimp using Arduino and
some LEGO parts.
And really, blimps are lovely.
If you have kids, blimps
are just the best
thing to have around.
They're like fish.
And they sleep on the ceiling.
It's great.
And we posted the
designs online.
And people were like,
that's cool.
I just don't think I want to
go to DigiKey and get these
parts and solder them
together myself.
Could you please make a kit?
And we're like, OK.
And then we learned something
about kit making.
When you're buying the
components to a kit, don't buy
them retail, because then the
kit gets really expensive.
So I had to buy them
wholesale.
And there were motors, two
motors in particular.
And so it's like I want out to
Alibaba to find motors that I
could buy wholesale.
And it turns out that, although
they would sell me
motors wholesale, they actually
said, you know, it's
just as easy for us to custom
make them for you.
What specs would you like?
Shaft length?
Windings?
Motors?
Voltages?
And I was like, I don't
really know.
But they walked me through it
with a form I could fill out.
And then we did it.
And then I gave them my
credit card number.
And 10 days later, I got a box
of 1,000 motors with that
little greasy sheen, because
they'd just come out of the
factory and this foam
layer between them
with all these little--
it was all perfectly made
in a layer of plastic.
And I was like, oh my god!
I just got a factory
in China--
I got robots in China
to work for me.
And I didn't need anything
more than a credit card.
Now this may not seem like
a big deal to you.
But I used to live in China, and
I can tell you it didn't
used to be like that.
If you wanted a factory in China
to work for you, you had
to fly to Hong Kong.
You had to use a facilitator
or a finder to make an
introduction to a factory.
Much trust or lack thereof
went on there.
You then went across
the border.
You got that introduction.
You had a very awkward
meeting.
This involved then going
to dinner together.
You had eat fish eyeballs, kind
of a hazing ritual thing.
And then more drinking,
karaoke.
And this went on.
And then you had to get
a letter of credit.
And then a bank transfer.
And then like six months later,
after much negotiation,
you might get your samples.
And you had to be a company,
by the way.
And I had just done it in 20
minutes with a credit card.
And I'm just a guy.
And at that moment, I realized
that the world's supply chains
had opened up to
the individual.
And it's only gotten
better since then.
So now we have this way.
What the Maker Movement
represents, what this part of
the Maker Movement represents is
the web generation getting
to physical stuff.
And what that means is the
designs start on-screen.
They start with a digital
design, a CAD file, typically.
And it could be electronics.
It could be physical.
And you can print locally on
your 3D printer or laser
cutter or CNC.
Or you can print globally
by just uploading to
one of these services.
And the machines speak
the same language.
In the desktop publishing
era, it was PostScript.
So the machine on your desktop
spoke the same language as the
biggest printers in the world.
And now it's things
like [? Chico ?]
[? with their STLs. ?]
It's the same language,
scale agnostic.
So we now have a scale-free
manufacturing system.
And that is the enabling
technology of the
long tail of stuff.
OK, this is what I suddenly
realized when that
first box showed up.
I was like, oh my god!
I was meant to do this.
This is my grandfather.
His name is Fred Hauser.
I hadn't forgot about my
grandfather, but I'd forgotten
about this element of him
until this happened.
Fred Hauser was a Swiss engineer
who immigrated to Los
Angeles in the late 1920s
and worked in Hollywood.
Hollywood was a very mechanical
business in those days.
The film transport,
lots of gears.
The audio was lots of
gears and pulleys
and things like that.
And so it was a place for a
Swiss engineer good at gears.
But at night he was
an inventor.
And this is what he
invented, the
automatic sprinkler system.
So if you have an automatic
sprinkler system, you have my
grandfather to thank.
By the way, this is exactly what
a Swiss engineer would
invent if you put him in LA.
So LA is greening the deserts
with a sprinkler system.
And then the problem
is but you had to
turn them on and off.
And a Swiss engineer would just
put a watch on top of a
sprinkler systems.
And you know those dials
with the little pins
that you put in?
That's what he invented.
So cool.
That was great.
This was not so great.
This is what you had to
do to get into market.
You had a patent it.
And he hated patenting.
It was expensive.
He hated working with lawyers.
It took forever.
But after you patented it,
you could license it to a
manufacturer.
And this is what was made, the
Moody Rain Master, which
allowed you to hang out at the
beach while your garden
watered itself.
And this is a huge
success, right?
This is a great victory of
20th century invention.
His invention actually
made it to market.
He made some money.
This is good.
Almost nobody got this far.
But it's also a little tragic
in that he was an inventor,
but he wasn't an entrepreneur.
He never left his workshop.
He lost control of
his invention.
And it got made by
this company.
And they changed it.
And they kind of forgot
about him.
And I remember in the late
1970s, when I'd go visit him,
we went to see the factory.
He was proud that his product
was being made.
And it was clear they couldn't
quite remember who he was and
why he was there.
And somebody finally reminded
them that this was Mr. Hauser
who had invented the
sprinkler system.
And they were all very polite.
But it was clear they didn't
need him, they didn't want him
there, and that, once his
invention was done, that they
would take it from there.
Those who owned the factories,
those who owned the means of
production still controlled
the product.
I spent my summers with him.
And he taught me how to do
mechanical drawing, which I've
entirely forgotten
at this point.
And then he taught me-- this
was kind of magical--
how to use a metal lathe
in a machine tool shop.
One summer--
I think I was 12 this summer--
he said, this summer we're going
to make an engine, an
internal combustion engine.
And I was like, cool!
And he says, I've
ordered a kit.
So I show up and there's a
box there, sure enough.
And I knew what kits were.
I'd built model airplanes.
There were lots of plastic
parts and numbers and
instructions et cetera.
And we opened the box.
And there's these four blocks
of metal and a blueprint.
And I'm like, grandpa,
where's the engine?
And he's like, it's in there,
and we have to get it out.
And we did.
We did.
What a skilled machinist can do
is take blocks of metal and
put them on metal lathes.
And curly-cues build up around
your feet, just like a
sculptor cutting away
the bit of marble
that isn't the figure.
It's absolutely spectacular
and magical.
And you can see that you could
make anything, if you have
those skills.
My grandfather was not just an
inventor, he was a machinist.
And you need to be a machinist
to take your
idea and make it real.
And so I realized at that point,
as I was looking at
this box full of motors that
showed up from China, and like
I made that.
Oh my god.
I can't believe I can do that.
Why had I forgotten that I'd
spent my summers with grandpa
making stuff?
And I realized it's because
I'm not a machinist.
I didn't have those skills.
And I had no way to get my
ideas real, until now.
So when you get a 3D printer--
and my homework assignment for
any of you who have children,
but maybe even those that
don't, is get one--
it's mind blowing.
But when you get a 3D printer
or a CNC machine or a laser
cutter or just want to use
these services, all those
skills that you used to
need to have go away.
They're abstracted.
The software handles that.
And that barrier to entry of
making things real has
disappeared in the same way that
that Publish button on
Blogger et cetera took away
that barrier of entry of
having to own a printing
plant and understand
the publishing industry.
That is the magical thing here
is that, suddenly, there's
nothing standing between
ideas and practice.
And that step, right
now, is optional.
There's a movie that came out
a few years ago called, "A
Flash of Genius," that was kind
of a warning to those who
would pursue invention
in the 20th century.
This is about the invention of
the intermittent windshield
wiper, which is basically the
windshield wipers that pause
when it's not raining
very hard.
It's just a little
timer circuit.
And there's a picture
from the movie.
This is a guy, same
deal, just like my
grandfather, in his basement.
Comes up with the invention.
He too patents it.
But rather than license it, he
decides that he wants to be an
entrepreneur.
He decides he wants
to make it too.
He wants to control his
invention, understandably.
Unfortunately, it was
really hard in those
days to make factories.
So he mortgages his house.
And he starts building
a factory.
He rents some space.
Assembly lines come
in, forklifts.
1961, '62, '63, he's
still not finished.
And in the movie, they portray
the scene where he's at 1964.
He's leaving his still
unfinished factory.
It's raining.
He's a little dejected.
He turns the corner.
And the new 1965 Mustangs are
turning the corner to be
unveiled for the first time.
And their windshield
wipers are pausing.
And he realizes that his
idea has been stolen.
And he's ruined.
And his descent into
madness then fuels
the rest of the film.
And it's all very
entertaining.
But the message was,
don't dare do that.
Don't be an entrepreneur
in the physical space.
It's too hard.
You need a factory.
And factories are not for you.
So that's the way
it used to be.
And this is the way it is now.
Many of you may recognize
this.
This is TechShop, just
down the road.
This is the new factory.
What you have here is
basically the gym.
In the same way that a gym is
a place where, for a monthly
subscription fee, you get
access to machinery you
couldn't afford or wouldn't want
in your house, training,
other people who are doing the
same thing as an inspiration,
this is that for
manufacturing.
You have access to 3D printers,
CNCs, laser cutters,
software tools, traditional
machining tools, all
this kind of stuff.
They have trainers.
They have classes.
They have other people doing
inspiring things.
The guy here on the front is--
I don't know whether my laser
pointer here works--
the guy here in the front here
is doing the wireless control
module for the smart grid.
The guy right there is doing a
vapor deposition chamber for
synthetic diamonds.
In the back, they're building
a lunar lander
because, why not?
And what's great is, because
they start on screen as
digital files, they then do
some prototypes here.
And then they upload them to
the cloud, more or less.
And they can be manufactured
at any scale.
This guy, interestingly, his
wireless control modules, when
he's done with them, they say
ABB, which is a big Swedish
engineering firm, on them.
You probably think they're
made in a big Swedish
engineering factory,
but they're not.
They're made in small batches
by this guy and his team and
simply distributed by ABB.
But that's the power
of this model.
Because these designs start
digital, and because the tools
necessary to make them real are
so easy and accessible,
that you get this kind
of long tail effect.
You get this explosion of
entrepreneurship and
innovation happening in
using the web model.
This is a map of the current
spread of maker spaces or
hacker spaces.
A TechShop is a kind of
commercial chain.
Actually, interestingly, the guy
who runs TechShop used to
run Kinko's.
And if you think of it, Kinko's
was the publishing
industry turned into a
regionally distributed service.
And TechShop is the
manufacturing industry turned
into a regionally distributed
service.
And these maker spaces are
the same sort of thing.
They're places where you can go,
if you don't want to own
your own 3D printer, laser
cutter, you can just have
access to one in a shared
environment.
So these are spreading
everywhere.
And this is very exciting that
it's not all clustered in the
United States.
It can really happen anywhere.
And things like the Fab Labs
that came out of MIT are a
good example of this as well.
The funding model, of course,
is Kickstarter.
I don't really need to tell you
more about Kickstarter and
Pebble being one of the most
successful projects.
But basically, it does
three magical things.
The first magical thing
Kickstarter does is it moves
money forward in time.
When you think about it, the
traditional method of
manufacturing has got that whole
monetary flow all wrong,
which is, basically, you pay a
lot of money up front to do
your R&D and your prototyping
and your tooling.
And then you have to assemble
your components and inventory
your components.
Then you have to build
the devices.
Then you have to
warehouse them.
Then you have to put them into
the distribution channel.
Then they sell.
Then they go through this.
Then the money comes in.
Most of it gets taken away
by third-parties.
And then you get paid.
So you have to spend all
your money at the
front end of the process.
And you get some of it at the
back end of the process.
And by simply taking pre-orders,
they move the
money forward in time
to when you need it.
So that's great.
That's one thing.
Number two is market research.
As you know, you have to pass
your goal to get approved.
Now, in this case, the
goal was 100,000.
The kind of blew through
that one.
But if they hadn't, that
would have been a gift.
If you don't hit your goal,
that tells you the product
probably would not have sold.
And you just saved yourself
a ton of time
and money right there.
So free market research
is golden.
And number three--
and this is the most important
thing, I think--
is that it builds a community.
And this is a community
of customers,
but not just customers.
They're also co-participants
in the
product development itself.
So if that was you that followed
the Pebble watch--
how many here backed
the Pebble watch?
OK, a few of you.
Yeah.
I'm really looking forward
to this one.
Trust me, it'll come,
sooner or later.
[LAUGHTER]
To starter projects, they're
notoriously late.
That's part of the fun is just
listening to the explanations
of why things have
been delayed.
Very educational into the
learning process of
manufacturing.
So as those of you who backed
will remember, the community,
after they backed this product,
started making
suggestions.
We'd like it to be
more waterproof.
The four guys in Palo Alto
said, OK, we can do that.
They said, well, we'd like
it to be Bluetooth 4, not
Bluetooth 3.
Got you.
Done.
We'd like a new color.
Fine.
Done.
And what that means is that
now these customers have a
little bit of themselves
in the product.
They're not just buyers,
they're backers.
They are participants.
They are co-creators of
something that's not just a
watch, it's a movement.
It's something they
believe in.
And they become evangelists
and then marketers.
It's not just the moment of
backing, when you Tweet that I
just backed whatsoever on
Kickstarter, but also, because
they not only have bought into
this and made a bet on
something before it exists, but
also contributed, many of
them, to its essence, they
really want this to succeed.
And they will promote
it in a way that no
regular customer would.
So it's a simple thing,
Kickstarter, pre-orders,
threshold, comments.
And what is created is a crowd
funding model that is
perfectly suited for the
industrialization
of the Maker Movement.
What these tools mean, so in the
same way that that first
desktop publishing software and
that first printer meant
that you were a publisher, but
you have to get good at it,
and we made these horrible
messes of font, dog's
breakfast of fonts, and we knew
nothing about letting and
kerning and flow and
wrap-around, but we got
better, we learned, and
ultimately, we got pretty good
at it, we're right there with
CAD and manufacturing and
everything else.
It's like we're, small
d, designers.
Just like we became, small p,
publishers the moment we hit
that Publish button, we're
now, small d, designers.
And hundreds of years of
industrial skills and
education are now turned
into software apps.
I mentioned that my grandfather
invented the
automatic sprinkler system.
As kind of a thought experiment
I said, well, what
would grandpa do today?
How would he invent
the automatic
sprinkler system today?
And so this really was a
thought, I can remember,
because I don't even
have a garden.
So I just said, what
would an open
sprinkler look like today?
And I worked with a couple
of guys online.
And this is what we
came up with.
It is an Arduino-based internet
of things sprinkler.
And we started to ask questions
like, well, again,
how would you improve
sprinklers?
And well, obviously, sprinklers
should be connected
to the web, so if it's going to
rain tomorrow, it doesn't
water today.
Obviously, you should be able to
turn it off with your phone
or any other device.
Obviously, you should
be able to plug in
any sensor you want.
Obviously, it should talk to
other devices in your house.
Obviously, it should be open,
so anybody can build a
community around it or find
new applications.
By the way, it turned out that
we then made it and sold it.
It turns out the number one
customer for this is
hydroponic pot growers.
[LAUGHTER]
CHRIS ANDERSON: Who turn out
to have very demanding
sprinkler needs.
[LAUGHTER]
CHRIS ANDERSON: I had no idea.
But so this just an example of
what a guy who knows nothing
about sprinklers and a couple of
other people on the web who
had never met can do.
And I'm not saying this
is the best sprinkler.
It's certainly not the
only web-connected
sprinkler out there.
But the point is that we did
this in a couple of weekends.
And it's actually better than a
lot of the stuff you can buy
commercially.
And it costs like $70 And
there's no service fee for
access to the weather reports,
because it's the web.
So that was my introduction
into this whole thing.
And I was realizing, I really
have no business doing this.
And yet, here I am doing it.
I didn't have any business
ordering motors from China,
and there I was.
I didn't have any business doing
a sprinkler system, and
there it was.
And it's so easy.
And this made me realize that,
if I could do it, anybody can.
These are the tools
that we used.
CAD used to be super hard.
It's still not super easy,
but it's getting easier.
And they're free.
Autodesk 123D is one
free example.
And the reason I'm showing you
this is that there's something
that, again, is kind
of mind blowing, if
you think about it.
So in your word processor menu,
in Word or whatever, you
go to the File menu,
and there's an
item that says, Print.
And when you press Print, paper
comes out of this machine.
And we think nothing
of it, right?
It's a printer.
That's what they do.
Well, it is kind of magical, the
whole PostScript and atoms
into bits, sorry, bits
into atoms, and all
that kind of stuff.
But nevertheless, we're
used to it.
Well, of these CAD software
programs now have a menu item
that says, Make.
By the way, this was
the enclosure for
the sprinkler system.
This was my first CAD project.
It turned out my walls
were too thin.
But once I did it-- and this
took me like 20 minutes-- then
you go to the Make.
And then there's this software
wizard that walks you through
these choices.
Do you want to output it locally
on your own machine?
Or do you want to upload it to
a service in the cloud that
will do it for you in high
resolution with better materials?
Do you want to do it in
2D on a laser cutter?
Or do you want to do it
in 3D on a 3D printer?
How much you want to pay?
What kind of material properties
do you want?
What are the volume
considerations?
How big do you want to be?
There's some cost
aspects to that.
And so, basically, this kind of
stuff that used to be and
still is professional engineers,
entire industries
focused on walking you through,
they're focused on
doing this, of turning an idea
into a product, is now a
software wizard that's just
built into the program.
This is kind of,
again, amazing.
This stuff used to
be really hard.
And now it just walks
you through it.
And you put in your
credit card.
It's like Picasa.
Do you want to print your photo
locally on your own printer?
Or do you want to upload
it to a service to be
turned into a book?
It's your choice, print
one, print 100.
One's free, the other
has a credit card.
But it's really just a matter of
click here or click there.
And now we're doing the same
thing for manufacturing.
My daughters are one
of the big users of
all this in our household.
They're really into The
Sims, which is a
really cool video game.
It's basically a dollhouse.
You build a house.
You populate it with figures
and furniture.
And you design something
that's just right.
A lot of fun.
But we're kind of fascist when
it comes to video game time.
And they get two hours
per weekend day.
And when the two hours are up,
it's like, screen off.
You've got to go play
in the real world.
By the way, you have a real
dollhouse, so why don't you
play with that?
And they're like, yeah.
So it's not as cool.
Look.
We've been designing
this mad man
theme in our Sims dollhouse.
And our dollhouse furniture
is all wrong.
Dad, will you buy me some
new dollhouse furniture?
So I've heard that before.
And I'm usually pretty good.
No, but I wanted to do
a little research.
So I go on Amazon.
And it turns out the dollhouse
furniture is A, super
expensive, B, very little
choice, you can never get the
right style, and C, it's
always the wrong size.
It turns out there's
no standard size
in dollhouse furniture.
And you can't even tell whether
it's the right size.
And it turns out the houses
and the figures are not
actually scaled exactly
the same.
And very complicated.
And lots of disappointment
lies ahead.
However, we have a Maker box.
We have a 3D printer.
So we go to Thingiverse.
And this is the coolest thing.
This New York set designer, a
theatrical set designer, goes
by the name of
PrettySmallThings, has
uploaded the most beautiful
dollhouse furniture designs
for free on Thingiverse.
And we found a chair that
was just right.
And then we printed it out.
And then the four-year-old
painted it.
And they love their dollhouse
furniture now.
So if you're a toy company,
this should
fill you with terror.
We basically did
this for free.
The kids were super engaged.
They got exactly what they
wanted and, by the way, at
exactly the right size.
There's little sliders,
so you scale so it's
just the right size.
Then they made it their
own with the painting.
And they love this stuff.
They treasure it.
They actually take the doll's
furniture out of the dollhouse
and they put it on their window
sill, because they're
so proud of their dollhouse
furniture.
They don't feel that way about
stuff they buy at Walmart.
So is it better than the stuff
they buy in the Walmart?
No.
But it's righter for my kids.
And there's something
of them in it.
In the same way that buying
something from Kickstarter,
there's a little something
of you in it.
You care more about it than
you did from something you
bought in a store.
It's something that you 3D
printed and then maybe painted
or customized.
There's a connection
you have there.
You value this more than
something that's
mass-produced.
We've seen this before
in music, right?
The best music is
the stuff that
everybody else isn't into.
That's the story of the long
tail is that appealing to your
individual needs, appealing to
what defines you as a person
makes you value things more.
Artisanal food, we get it.
We're past one-size-fits-all.
And this is very much a
one-size-fits-one approach to
dollhouse furniture.
My boys, needless to say, are
into Warhammer 40K mechs.
Same deal, download the design,
print it out, paint
it, customize it.
Not as good as an official
Warhammer 40K mech, but
exactly what they want.
Now that's just in our house.
I don't know what the killer
app for 3D printers is.
But I do know that, when you
give a kid a 3D printer and
they have access to Thingiverse
and easy tools to
customize, that the imagination
runs riot.
And what these kids know is
that anything they could
imagine they can make real.
Right now, they can make it real
in plastic in one color.
Soon it'll be plastic
and multicolors.
Soon it will be much
higher resolution.
Soon it'll be multi-material.
Then they'll be able
to integrate the
electronics into it.
They'll be able to
print in metal.
We can see the way
this is going.
It's not going to take 20 years
to get professional
quality manufacturing
on your desktop.
We've been in the dot
matrix period.
We're now in the
inject period.
We're going to get better,
faster, because it's built on
the same technologies as
traditional printing.
You know how Apple's slogan,
when it released
the iPod, was "Rip.
Mix.
Burn." And that changed
the music industry.
The idea that you could take
music, professional music, and
you could rip it, bring
it into your computer.
Then you could change
it, mix it.
Then you could produce it.
Then you could make your
own CDs and distribute
them and burn them.
That idea, that sense of
control, that sense that the
tools of production now were
within your reach, that was
incredibly powerful.
And it was scary for
the music industry.
But it also unleashed this
explosion of creativity and
changed the music industry,
I think, for the better.
Adobe's slogan is "Rip.
Mod.
Make." And what does
that mean?
How do you rip physical stuff?
And the answer is called
reality capture.
Right now, what you're seeing
right there is an app which is
free on iPhone or IOS,
iPhone and iPad,
which uses the camera.
You just take pictures.
You move around an object
and go click, click,
click, click, click.
It sends the pictures
up into the cloud.
It stitches them together.
And then it generates
a polygon mesh.
It's scans reality.
We can now capture reality, at
relatively low resolution, but
they get better.
So 3D scanning, which used to be
really hard, is now a free
app in your phone.
And what you do with it is
you then output the mesh.
You then clean the mesh up.
And then you, of course, print
your head as a Pez dispenser,
as one does.
[LAUGHTER]
CHRIS ANDERSON: That's "Rip.
Mod.
Make," right?
OK, it's a trivial example,
but think how
powerful that is.
We don't have to learn CAD
tools, we can just capture
reality and fix it, make it our
own, adapt it, and then
print it in whatever
material we want.
We saw what it did to
the music industry.
Just imagine what this might
do to everything else.
Let's pull back.
What does this mean
for the world?
Was does this mean
for industry?
What does this mean
for the economy?
I started by saying that the
real revolution of the web was
the innovation model, the fact
that we were able to bring
everybody in and get them
to work together.
And we now have an opportunity
do this with physical goods.
I think what this creates is a
different kind of company.
The guy on the left here
is Ronald Coase.
He was the University of Chicago
economist who came up
with the, so-called,
Theory of the Firm.
In the 1930s, he was puzzling
over the question, why do
companies exist.
Why do we go to work under one
roof and for one company and
with one job description and
with an aligned mission?
Why do we do that?
Why have we created
the corporation?
And he came up with the theory
of transaction costs.
We work for a company.
You guys sit here and work for
Google, because it's the
fastest way to get
things done.
Transaction costs are the costs
of communicating with
each other.
And because each of you has a
role and responsibility, you
know who does what.
So Accounts Receivable is here
and Accounts Payable is there.
And you know how to find the
person to get stuff done.
That's great.
20th century thanks
you for that.
And it worked fine.
However, the guy on the right,
Bill Joy, one of the
co-founders of Sun Microsystems,
accepted that.
And he worked for a company.
But he did reflect on one of
the truisms, which is, he
said, "Whoever you are, the
smartest people in the world
don't work for you." This is
probably the one place in the
world where that's not true.
[LAUGHTER]
CHRIS ANDERSON: But it was
generally a truism, which is
to say, statistically speaking,
for any given job,
the smartest person in the world
is not the person who
has that defined role and
responsibility and is in the
cubicle next to you.
They're probably out
there somewhere.
They're probably in China or
India or whatever, but how are
you going to find them?
Right?
The transaction costs of finding
the statistically
smartest person in the world for
that job are too high, so
you settle for the
one you're with.
By the way, if you think about
it, this is probably true for
your spouse as well.
And we just--
don't go there.
You go absolutely crazy.
[LAUGHTER]
CHRIS ANDERSON: You know, the
odds of the perfect person for
you happened to grow up in your
town, so we love the one
we're with.
However, that's sub-optimal.
It's like what we do with things
like what school did
you go to, what grades did you
get, let me see your CV, your
track record, let's get the
references, are you available,
do you speak the right language,
do you have the
right visa, those are not
talent-optimizing.
They are basically
access-optimizing.
What we do is we're settling
for the safest
person in the world.
We know this person
can do the job.
And the 20th century talent
filters were largely oriented
around minimizing the difficulty
in finding someone
who could do the job.
But we didn't end up with
the right person.
We didn't end up with the
best person for the job.
So I wanted to end with a story
about my own little
adventure in this and how we may
have solved Joy's paradox.
This is the cover of "Make
Magazine," which is the Bible
of the movement, the
Maker Movement.
And my little adventure with
my children, starting with
blimps, went down
the rabbit hole.
I'll show you in
a few minutes.
But I ended up getting
into drums.
And I built a community.
And I met that guy there,
Jordi Munoz.
And I just want to tell a little
story about Jordi And
then we'll end.
And we'll take questions.
So my own adventure with this
started with trying to get my
kids interested in science
and technology.
I started a site called GeekDad,
which is now run by
other people.
But this is my eternal and
eternally unsuccessful quest,
to get my kids more geeky.
I've got five kids.
And every weekend I'd try to
find science and technology
projects that were fun for
them and fun for me.
So one Friday at the office at
"Wired," we got in a LEGO
Mindstorms kit.
And this was right before
they came out.
So we got one of
the first ones.
And we got a radio controlled
airplane.
I thought, best weekend
ever, right?
So on Saturday, we're going to
make a robot out of LEGO.
And on Sunday, we're going to
fly a plane in the park.
How could this go wrong?
This is Erin.
She was nine.
She's building the first
project of the LEGO
Mindstorms.
It's a tripod.
It's a three-wheeled robot.
And what you do is you put
together the robot.
And then you use this visual
programming language built on
[? LabVIEW ?]
to program it.
And there's Daniel, 11.
And he's getting ready to
push the button and see
whether it will work.
So what it does is it goes
forward until it sees a wall.
And then it backs up.
And my kids are like, you've
got to be kidding.
We've seen "Transformers."
We know what robots
are supposed to do.
Where are the lasers?
[LAUGHTER]
CHRIS ANDERSON: This is not a
death-dealing, three-story
killing machine.
Hollywood has ruined robotics
for children.
You cannot compete with CG.
So they were really
disappointed and
lost interest entirely.
And so I was a little
upset about that.
So I said OK--
that was Saturday-- on Sunday,
we're going to fly a plane.
This is the plane we got.
And so we went to the park.
And we'd seen YouTube videos.
And it looked awfully cool.
And this is what happened.
[LAUGHTER]
CHRIS ANDERSON: So I flew
it into a tree.
And if that weren't humiliating
enough, it was dad
climbing into the tree to get
it back, which is completely
mortifying.
And.
I had to bribe them
with ice cream.
And it was a bad scene.
And once again, they were
reminded that any time Dad
wants to do science and
technology projects, it ends
up as a disaster.
So I was kind of annoyed
about the whole thing.
And went for a run
to clear my head.
And I was out there thinking.
I was like, phew, that sucked.
A, the robots weren't
very fun.
They just ran into a wall.
And B, I can't fly.
I thought, god, I'll bet the
LEGO could have flown that
plane better than me.
And then I thought about the
sensors that came in the kit.
And it came with a gyro sensor
and accelerometer, it's called
tilt sensor, and a magnetometer,
which is called
a compass sensor, and a
Bluetooth connection.
And I was like, oh my god,
you could almost build an
auto-pilot out of this.
So I came back.
And I said, OK, kids,
one last thing.
We're going to build
an auto-pilot.
And this is what we
came up with.
And this is a LEGO auto-pilot.
It's got gyros, accelerometers,
magnetometers,
a RC interface.
It actually runs a
common filter.
I actually had to Google
common filter.
That was actually harder than
I expected to implement.
I knew nothing about this, but
it kind of almost worked.
We put it in a plane.
It actually kind of
flew on its own.
This we had posted on Slashdot
this is, I think, technically,
the world's first LEGO unmanned
aerial vehicle, UAV.
It's now in the LEGO museum
in Billund, which
we're very proud of.
The kids and I got to go to
LEGO, to Billund for that.
And we learned a
lot about this.
We learned A, that this stuff
is not that hard, B, that
what's going on with the
smartphone revolution, what's
going on in your pocket that the
revolution in MEM sensors
and ARM processors and GPS and
wireless and cameras and
memory and integration, all
this kind of stuff, this
driving a technological wave
that we've only seen the
beginnings of.
I just realized, thanks to
Mindstorms, that you can fly a
747 with this.
With the right app and the right
cable, you've got a--
not terribly well, I wouldn't
recommend it--
but you've got all it takes.
And that just as Jobs and
Wozniak realized that
original, what was it, an 8088
processor, et cetera, was
available, and relatively
cheap and easy to use.
And then you could, maybe, build
a computer out of it.
And that ended up with
the Apple II
and changed the world.
We're right there with
the guts of a
smartphone right now.
It has extraordinary
applications outside.
And being able to fly a plane
is just one of them.
Now, in the course of doing
this, we learned a lot.
We learned that auto-pilots are
considered cruise missile
controllers by the State
Department's International
Trade in Arms Regulations,
ITAR.
And that's by my nine-year-old
developing an auto-pilot and
putting it online that we,
technically, weaponized LEGO.
[LAUGHTER]
CHRIS ANDERSON: So it was quite
a learning process.
So what I did is I decided
to just learn in public.
So I started a community called
DIY Drones and just
basically shared my ignorance.
I knew nothing.
And I just kept asking dumb
questions like, what's a
common filter?
And digital electronics, and
analog electronics, and
aerodynamics, and dynamic
systems, and control theory,
and I knew nothing about this.
Everything I found, I shared.
And people kept answering
my questions.
And today, we're one of the
biggest robotics communities
in the world.
And people here at Google who
are probably members, and
Apple, and Microsoft,
and IBM, et cetera.
And by day, they do
awesome work here.
And by night, they do awesome
work in auto-pilots and
drones, et cetera, because
they're really into it.
And we ended up, by accident,
competing with
the aerospace industry.
This is what we do.
We make these auto-pilots
right now.
We work with ETH in Zurich.
The Swiss, by the way, turned
out-- thank you, grandpa--
turned out to be the leaders in
robotics, because all those
watch makers had extraordinary
mechanical skills.
And robots used to
be mechanical.
And now ETH and EPFL, which
are the two leading
universities-- it's like
the MIT and Stanford--
when I asked them to make that
connection, they say, well no,
the most important thing is one
is German-speaking and one
is French-speaking, so you can't
really make the MIT,
Stanford connection.
But anyway, they're
really good.
[LAUGHTER]
CHRIS ANDERSON: And so anyway,
we work with them.
And this is the stuff
we make now.
This is like military grade
auto-pilots which are built on
smartphone chips and
sell for $140.
The Parrott AR.Drone, which some
of you may have and is a
lovely piece of gear, it's a
quadricopter that you can
control with an iPhone
or an Android.
It's not really a drone,
I hate to tell you.
Drones are autonomous, fully
autonomous, automatic takeoff,
landing, missions, GPS
coordinates, et cetera.
Our drone is teleoperated.
It's remote control.
Unless you rip out the guts and
put in our stuff, and then
it's a real drone.
So that's where we're
going on this.
Just a little segue into why
this is happening now.
It turns out that these
multi-copters, these
quadricopters, are basically
solid state devices.
But they don't have any moving
parts, except for the motors
themselves.
But they were not possible
until about a decade ago,
because they're essentially
unstable.
You can't fly them manually.
You need a basic computer on
board to spin the props to go
clockwise, to go
counter-clockwise, and just
getting the math right.
It needs to happen at 400 times
a second, 400 Hertz.
But once you get it right, you
can do all sorts of amazing
configurations.
It's just math, right?
It's just these look-up tables
that can control any shape,
and how big a camera you want
to lift, whether you want to
have an open field of view for
a camera, whether you want
redundancy of motors,
et cetera.
This is just math.
And it's really kind of exciting
that you can now come
up with these extraordinary
and before impossible
configurations of aircraft and
fly them with an auto-pilot
that costs just over $100.
So we ended up with this.
We started with the
Arduino platform.
And actually, I have one of
the auto-pilots here.
Here, I'll just grab it here.
This is an auto-pilot
right here.
It's just a little box.
And you put this little
box in any vehicle.
And it suddenly becomes a fully
autonomous drone, and
including a car.
Not quite as good as your
autonomous car, but this one's
a lot cheaper.
[LAUGHTER]
CHRIS ANDERSON: You know, you
could put it in anything.
I don't have a boat up
there, but you can
do boats, et cetera.
But this is kind of magical.
This is basically a triple-core,
Arduino board,
GPS, lots of sensors,
et cetera.
You just stick this in any
vehicle, and suddenly it's
like a military grade UAV, minus
the weapons, of course.
And then you've got these
ground stations.
And you just point and
click waypoints.
And you give mission commands.
And it's scriptable.
And you can script it
in Python or just
manually like this.
And automatic takeoff, and
landing, and loiter, and
camera control.
And we have this cool Follow-me
function where you
have it in a box that looks
a little like this.
And let's say you're windsurfing
out there on the
bay and you're really
doing well.
And this is the GoPro
era, right?
You totally need this
on YouTube.
So what you just do is
you just push the
button in the box.
And your quadricopter with the
GoPro takes off from the
beach, comes out to you,
positions itself 30 feet
behind and 30 feet above you,
and then just follows you
around as you do your thing with
the camera focused on you
the whole time.
And when the battery
gets low, it flies
itself back to the beach.
That's the Follow-me function.
That's like the droids, you know
the personal droids in
Star Wars, right?
This is now possible.
There are people doing
it right now.
And this didn't come to
you from Boeing or
from Lockheed Martin.
It came to you from a community
of amateurs--
we all have day jobs but, by
this, we're amateurs--
working together using the web's
innovation model and
open platforms like Arduino.
So what we ended up
doing was being--
and we ended up part of the
Open Hardware Movement.
So MakerBot's open hardware.
And there's a number
of others.
But we realized that, by
accident, we'd figured out a
way, along with many others, to
industrialize the Maker Movement.
We give away the bits
in the community.
That software is all open.
And then we sell the atoms in
the form of hardware with a
robotic company.
We don't have the best
technology in the world, but
we have the cheapest technology
in the world.
And we have the best innovation
model, which is open.
And the ability to apply the
web's innovation model to
physical goods is the real tool
here, just in the same
way the technologists created
TCP/IP and HTML, et cetera.
But we, the regular people,
filled it with our ideas.
And that's right where
we are with hardware.
The technology is there
and easy and in place.
And now we can just fill
it with our ideas.
And the nice thing about
hardware is that there's no
crazy debate over the
business model.
The business model is you
sell products for
more than they cost.
Period.
That's it.
Business schools professors
keep saying, explain your
business model.
It's like, we sell products
for more than they cost.
[LAUGHTER]
CHRIS ANDERSON: We made
money on Day 1.
We actually sell it at 2.6
times the actual cost.
2.6, that cost is the Bill
of Materials plus labor.
And 2.6 is like this
magic number.
It's basically two 40% margins,
one for us, and one
for our distribution partners,
a wholesale and a retail
margin, if you will, 2.6.
2.6 times the Bill of Materials
is like an order of
magnitude cheaper than
closed-source, sometimes two
orders of magnitude cheaper.
It's not rocket science.
We learned it from other
people in the
Open Hardware Movement.
But it works great.
And the customers do the product
development for us.
They design the products
for us.
They then give it to us.
We then sell it back to them.
If it's not right, they
fix it for us.
If it needs customer support,
they do the
customer support for us.
They write the documentation.
They catch our bugs.
They do our regression
testing.
It's just wonderful.
[LAUGHTER]
CHRIS ANDERSON: Now, it's also
an incredible obligation and
responsibility.
Every morning, I wake up
to lots of customers
with lots of demands.
But the point is is that the
web's innovation model works
in the real world.
And we've seen what it does in
electronics, but just imagine
what it can do in
everything else.
So I just wanted to end
with that story.
Jordi, I told you about Jordi.
I showed you a picture
of Jordi Munoz.
And I just wanted to tell
you what happened.
So when we started DIY Drones,
it became clear that we needed
to make a company.
We put the files out there,
and we said, here.
Here's the PCB file.
Just have it batched.
And then order the components
from DigiKey
and then solder it.
Come on.
And people were like, could you
do that for us, because
that's actually kind of hard.
And we said, OK.
And so we started on the kitchen
table hand soldering.
And that was no fun.
And then we sent it to China
and realized that, when you
have to get economies of scale,
you have to order
1,000, which means that, if
it's wrong, you just have
1,000 dead boards.
And also, if you order 1,000
boards or 10,000 boards, you
actually have to sell them
before you change the design,
or else all your money is
sunk in dead boards.
And so we then brought
it back.
And we said, well, we'll do
our own manufacturing.
We'll start a factory.
And so we started it in
a garage, as one does.
There's Jordi on the right.
Oh, by the way, Jordi was the
guy who just was doing the
cool stuff in the forum.
He was flying a helicopter
with a Wii controller.
And he posted YouTube videos.
And he showed he could do it.
And so I'm like, that
guy is awesome.
He knows all the cool stuff.
He turned me on to Arduino.
And I said, Jordi, do you want
to start a company together?
And he said, sure.
I said, tell me a little
something about yourself.
And he turned out to be a
19-year-old from Tijuana.
He just graduated from
high school.
And today, he's the CEO
of 3D Robotics.
This is like a tiny corner of
one of our two factories.
We have one in San Diego
and one in Tijuana.
We've got something like
24,000 square foot of
[? pick-and-place ?]
lines and CNC machines
and 50 workers
right now and engineers.
And we put twice as
many drones in the
air as the US military.
Our drones cost $600 and are
made out of plastic.
And theirs cost $6 million and
are not made out of plastic.
[LAUGHTER]
CHRIS ANDERSON: But
still, we've got
15,000 of them out there.
And the military has 7,000.
And Jordi has built this
by basically buying--
the first [? pick-and-place ?]
we got on eBay.
And he looked up the
manual on Google.
And today, we're going for
ISO 9000 compliance.
And that was three years.
So that's the answer
to Joy's paradox.
10 years ago, when the editor of
"Wired" was going to start
a drone company, what are the
odds that he would end up with
a Mexican teenager
from Tijuana?
And yet, that was the best
person in the world for this
job, that he was the smartest
person in the world.
He failed all the 20th century
tests of talent acquisition.
He did not speak the right
language, come from the right
country, have the right degree
or any degree, have any
professional experience.
He would have failed.
He would not have worked.
Maybe your admission standards
have changed at Google, but by
and large, I suspect he would
have failed your tests.
And yet, he passed the test of
the web's talent discovery
model, which is that
he could do it.
And he showed what
he could do.
Actually, I asked him questions
like, tell me a
little something
about yourself.
But it didn't matter any more.
He'd already proven his
ability to do it.
And today, it turns out it's
the best in the world.
I thought I was picking him
because he knew a lot about
technology, and he was really
innovative, and he turned me
on to Arduino.
But in fact, his real
asset was that he
turned me on to Mexico.
We have a second plant
in Tijuana.
You may think of Tijuana as
being cheap tequila and drug
cartels, but it's the Shenzhen
of North America.
Every screen here was assembled
in Tijuana.
The Samsungs and the Sonys have
massive plants there in
the special economic zone.
Mexico graduates more engineers
than the United
States, 55,000 a year.
We are outside of the export
control zone in Tijuana.
We have access to ISO 6000,
9000, engineers and operations
managers who we could never find
or afford in San Diego.
Now I'm a maquiladora.
I'm a Mexican, high-tech
entrepreneur.
How did this happen?
But the answer is Jordi.
He taught me everything about
the stuff that really
mattered, which was how do you
bring manufacturing back to
North America.
How do you do high-tech,
but built on the
web's innovation model?
How do you compete with the
aerospace industry with a
bottoms-up, home brew computing
club model?
It turns out he knew that.
I didn't know I needed
to know that.
But he just knew that.
And because he'd proven himself
in the community, he
was the right person
to do it with.
So there's the answer
to Joy's paradox.
You don't find people, the
right people, on the web.
They find you.
You put your idea out there.
You start something.
You share your ideas.
And the smartest people
in the world will find
you for their reasons.
And ultimately, they turn out
to be the secret to this new
industrial model.
So with that, this is all
described and much more with
many other examples in the book
that came out last week.
But thank you, very much.
I'll take your questions.
[APPLAUSE]
CHRIS ANDERSON: Thank you.
MALE SPEAKER: So two questions,
if I could.
The first is, when do you see
more advanced materials and
potentially even molecular
synthesis being a feature of
3D printers?
The second is I, a little under
a year ago, saw this
coming too and bought
some stocks.
I bought 3D Systems at a pretty
reasonable [? P. ?]
CHRIS ANDERSON: Good choice.
MALE SPEAKER: But I think, if
there's other recommendations
that you have in terms of
companies that are going to be
paying off because of the trend,
actually, just the
prototype, and getting more
and more, not only for
individual makers, but also
probably replacing the lower
segments of production
manufacturing
as a whole as well.
CHRIS ANDERSON: Right.
OK, the second question first,
in terms of the other
companies that are
leading this.
Autodesk is doing tremendously
well.
They're really pivoting towards
and recognizing that
design is now a democratized
skill.
So it's going to end up in
curriculums and making it free
on Android and DEWA.
Actually, they're on
IOS at the moment.
But anyway, Autodesk
is a good choice.
3D Systems is doing good work.
MakerBot is not public.
You can't invest in
it at the moment.
But they're obviously doing
good work as well.
We also used Cellworks and
a couple of others.
But I would say buying Autodesk
is not a bad way to
expose yourself to this.
Your second question about the
materials, so right now, you
can upload your stuff
to services like
Shapeways or Ponoko.
You don't need to own
a printer yourself.
And they can print in a range of
materials, glasses, metals.
They can do titanium, gold
plated, et cetera.
On your desktop, I think the
next-- so right now, we're in
the one-color ABS plastic
and PLA, which is a
starch-based material.
You can now buy, pretty easily,
two colors, which you
can mix on layers, but
not intertwined.
Soon we'll be able to mix three
colors simultaneously.
So then you could put images
and shapes and texture or
color onto the objects.
So now you can simulate what you
can do with a combination
of injection molding
and stenciling.
Other materials are coming in.
Right now, the first thing
is to bring hard and soft
materials into the same mix.
The next thing is to bring
some of these simple
electronic layers.
And I say electronic, I really
mean electrical layers, so
wires, pretty in a
layer of wires.
It's going to be a little harder
to do multi-layers of
electronics.
Like semiconductors, I think,
would be very, very hard.
But you can start to see that
printed circuit boards are
going to be something that you
can actually print as well.
Then you go on.
Like there, you can start
bringing metals, et cetera.
Obviously, you're dealing with
thermal properties and
cooling, et cetera, so
it's non-trivial.
But the laws of physics don't
stand in your way.
Then you project way out.
And you start looking at
things like biology.
So right now, we can already
print with stem cells and
create things that are
biologically active.
You can print a kidney, but not
a working kidney, because
the vascular system's
not in there.
But you can kind of see
where this is going.
Maybe you're just printing
the matrix on
which the cells exist.
And then you infuse them
with live stem cells.
Anyway, I don't want to get
too crazy and scary there.
MALE SPEAKER: What's the
horizon, though, for the more
advanced materials?
CHRIS ANDERSON: I would say
that we're looking--
I would look at full color 3D
printing within five years on
the desktop and multi-material,
including
electrical circuitry, within
seven to eight.
MALE SPEAKER: Thank you.
CHRIS ANDERSON: Thank you.
MALE SPEAKER: What's the status
of getting mechanical
stuff made up out of
interchangeable parts?
It seems overly custom.
I'd like to make a design
and then send it out and
have it made up.
Just how that happened, the
same way, circuits are
happening now.
CHRIS ANDERSON: So I didn't
quite understand.
You said this was getting
mechanical parts?
MALE SPEAKER: Yeah.
Can I do mechanical CAD
and just have it sent
out and have it made?
And it's all known stuff
and it just works and
it's already solved.
CHRIS ANDERSON: Yeah.
Yeah, you can.
So right now, you can take your
CAD file and upload it to
Shapeways and being made in
any material you want.
If you'd rather have it
machined, rather than 3D
printed, there's other companies
like mfg.com, which
will basically do
CNC'ing for you.
Typically, you can have a single
file, which has all the
moving parts printed at the same
time, manufactured at the
same time, but those things tend
to be a little clunky.
So gears might want to be made
out of one substance and then
[? clothes ?] might want to
be made out of another.
MALE SPEAKER: No.
But like a service bureau
that makes the whole
thing for me, say.
CHRIS ANDERSON: Give me an
example of how complex the
product is.
MALE SPEAKER: An RC car.
CHRIS ANDERSON: OK, that's
really complex.
MALE SPEAKER: OK.
No.
Just skip the radio.
Just the car part, motors and
gears and wheels and chassis.
CHRIS ANDERSON: Even that
is relatively--
you can go to Thingiverse right
now and download all the
body parts of an RC car.
So they already have
that right now.
But you have to then buy a bag
which has the motor and the
radio parts.
So what you're describing, any
one of those things right
there is basically about as
complex as you can get.
You have lots of materials,
some of them are machined,
some of them are printed,
some of them are
injection molded, et cetera.
We haven't gotten to
the replicator yet.
You can't just say "watch," and
it will print it all out.
MALE SPEAKER: No, but
basically, I'm
thinking just a factory.
And I send them the design.
And they build it.
And back it comes.
CHRIS ANDERSON: So that is
actually something more like
Alibaba or mfg.com.
So take some mechanical
device, a clock work.
That, you'd probably send it to
mfg.com and get a quote, or
send to alibaba.com and
get a quote back.
And what you'd find is that it's
actually probably being
made with a combination of
manual and automated work--
largely CNC work, but they've
abstracted so much of it and
built it on standard materials
and you've uploaded your CAD
file so you have certainty that
they're going to make
what you want--
that it might as well
be automated.
And literally, two weeks,
three weeks
later, you've got it.
Yes, sir?
MALE SPEAKER: You talked about,
in the publishing
revolution, people figured
out fonts and kerning
and all this stuff.
But I don't think end users
figured that out.
It was just that the software
got to that point.
CHRIS ANDERSON: Yes.
Exactly.
MALE SPEAKER: And you alluded
to that with the 3D--
CHRIS ANDERSON: 123 CAD--
the 3D [INAUDIBLE]
MALE SPEAKER: Yeah, the 3D
scanner thing and then some of
the software.
But I was wondering what's
remaining for
it to really become--
where do you see that analogy
playing out where we all have
good enough software that prints
posters and prints
stuff for us, that we don't
think about it.
CHRIS ANDERSON: That's
a great question.
It's a really interesting
information problem.
So right now, what it does is,
right now, the wizards will
walk you through a relatively
simple process, which is,
basically, do you want to output
it on a 3D printer?
Or do you want to output
it in 2D in layers?
So you start there.
Then they walk you through
some material choices.
And this is based on both
structural considerations and
cost considerations.
Does he want it to be wood, or
cardboard, or plastic, or
metal, or glass, or whatever?
Then they walk you through some
volume-- you can make the
model a little simpler, remove
some internal surfaces and
reduce the cost and weight
and things like that.
So that's kind of where
they're at right now.
Now, when you go to high-end
CAD, then the CAD program
itself is able to do things like
complex fluid dynamics
and finite element analysis.
And they go through the physics
of the materials
themselves.
And they'll start to do
things like, well,
this wall is too thick.
It doesn't need to
be that thick.
And this wall is too thin.
Here's a flex point which
needs to be bolstered.
You might want to pick a
different material here, given
the strength considerations,
weight
considerations, things like that.
That's high-end stuff.
But it's increasingly within
a plug-in on some
of these free tools.
You can download CFD or finite
element analysis tools.
And then you'd move to the next
level, which is, let's
say you want to injection
mold something.
So it's very easy to
3D print your part.
You've got your prototype.
Then take the inverse
and CNC it.
Now you've got your mold.
OK, that's great, except for,
actually flowing plastic into
a mold is not trivial.
It's easy to put it in.
But the problem is that
plastic shrinks.
It basically goes
into one place.
And you want the shrinkage
to avoid distortion.
So guys who have been doing this
forever know exactly how
to design a mold so the plastic
flows perfectly and
then shrinks at an even rate
and you get high yield.
Right now, that's basically--
smart people have been
doing it forever.
But there's no reason why
it can't be software.
And I'm sure, if you have
enough money, there is
software out there that
does it right now.
But there's still an element
of craftsmanship that's in
manufacturing.
MALE SPEAKER: Thank you.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Hi.
I have a question as to how
accessible you think this
revolution really is, when we're
talking about people who
might not even have internet
connections, who don't have
$1,000 or more to buy a
MakerBot, and whether this
revolution may just exacerbate
the effects
of the digital divide.
CHRIS ANDERSON: Well, it's
certainly a lot more
accessible than it ever
has been before.
So one of the things that Neil
Gershenfeld at the MIT Media
Lab, or now, actually, the
Center for Atoms and Bits, did
with his Fab Labs was
specifically target Africa and
other places that didn't
have access.
It's largely because these are
people who really don't--
we have access to highly
manufactured quality parts,
because we have Walmarts
and all that.
They typically don't.
And so there's a notion of
self-empowerment in that.
Obviously, you have problems
like the technology is still
relatively expensive, you need
electricity, internet
connection is good, et cetera.
I think, electricity is kind of
a necessary element still.
But putting that aside,
let's just start with
the barriers to entry.
The barrier to entry
used to be you
needed machining skills.
You don't need that any more.
Then the barrier tended to
be you need this machine.
And now you can either afford
the machine, or you can have
access to it via a service.
Then the barrier to
entry was CAD.
CAD was super hard.
Check out Tinkercad, which is
a web-based CAD program.
It looks very toy-like and
game-like on the surface.
But underneath, actually,
it's run by a
former Google engineer.
FEMALE SPEAKER: It it free?
CHRIS ANDERSON: Sorry?
FEMALE SPEAKER: Is it free?
CHRIS ANDERSON: Absolutely
free.
Absolutely.
That's the point.
It's the web.
I wrote a book on
that as well.
[LAUGHTER]
CHRIS ANDERSON: But underneath,
it's got a very
powerful engine, basically a
polygon construction engine.
A lot of the arcane
language of CAD is
abstracted away in that.
And then, finally, Minecraft.
You don't think of Minecraft as
a CAD program, but it is.
And so I think the kids
really grab--
kids really understand 3D
spaces and polygons and
navigating these screen
environments.
And if you can navigate
Minecraft, you can basically
navigate a CAD environment.
And LEGO Digital Designer is
a good example of that.
One of the nice things about
LEGO is that is a smart
material in that the pieces know
how they fit together.
You can't put them
together wrong.
They snap into alignment.
And what LEGO Digital Designer
is, is CAD for LEGO.
But it allows you to create
relatively complex objects.
And kids are great at that.
So I think that a lot of the
intellectual barriers to entry
are falling.
I mean, obviously, you still
need a little money.
And you need electricity,
et cetera.
But the point is you can take
any computer lab today, add
two 3D printers, and now
it's a design lab.
And we have computer labs.
And we have art classes.
And the two don't
meet each other.
And yet, you put two to three
3D printers in the computer
lab, and now you've got that
synthesis of the two.
And you're not just making a
finger painting to bring home.
You're actually taking your
ideas and making them real and
learning skills that are
basically 21st century
competencies.
So I think that that's the real
exciting thing here is
that this is now, if it's easy
enough for kids to use, it's
easy enough for everybody
to use.
And fundamentally, growing up
knowing that you can make your
ideas real is going to create
the generation of innovators
that are going to drive the next
Industrial Revolution.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Thank you.
Really quick follow-up
question.
You alluded to your children
earlier on.
What was actually their
level of involvement?
I assume that they weren't the
ones drawing CAD diagrams or
anything like that.
CHRIS ANDERSON: So it's
a bit of a sore point.
Their level of involvement is
always they're very happy to
try something once with me.
But if it's hard, they lose
interest pretty quickly.
They love LEGO Digital Designer,
because they just
want play on screens.
And it's one thing we'll
let them do.
We won't let them play video
games all the time.
They tend not to
use CAD a lot.
Instead, what they do is they
download files from
Thingiverse and then
just modify them.
FEMALE SPEAKER: OK.
CHRIS ANDERSON: But given a
choice between anything on a
screen and not on a screen,
they'll do anything on a
screen if we'd let them.
So we call this educational.
And they'll do it.
FEMALE SPEAKER: OK.
Thanks.
MALE SPEAKER: Thanks a lot.
This was really, really
informative.
A couple of points, I guess.
One was an open question, which
is that, previously,
when you wanted to control
dangerous objects or drones
and so on, you had export
control norms and so on.
And now you're ending up in a
world where you've got to
control sale of machines that
could do anything from produce
really helpful houses to drones,
which could be loaded
with explosives.
And there's a big risk to how
do you moderate and control
this, at the same time,
keep the open model?
So one is what's your
thoughts on that?
CHRIS ANDERSON: So as you might
imagine, I get this
question a lot.
MALE SPEAKER: Yeah, I'm sure.
CHRIS ANDERSON: Open sourcing
drones, what
could possibly go wrong?
So the simple answer is that--
of course, this is true for
any technology.
You can misuse computers
as well.
We feel that we have an
obligation to do two things.
One is to promote best
practice, to promote
responsible use.
For example, you're not allowed
to fly drones in the
US National airspace for
commercial purposes.
But you can fly it
recreationally, as long as you
stay below 400 feet and within
visual line of sight, so that
you can provide that [? sense ?]
and be able to
stay out of the way of
[? mandated ?] aviation.
We know our technology can
fly beyond line of sight.
We know it can fly
above 400 feet.
We are hard core about
discouraging that.
Anybody posts a video doing
that, we come down on them.
We just bang on all the time
about safety and responsible
use and about the
FAA guidelines.
So that's one thing.
The second thing is that we
don't feel we're competent to
regulate or police this.
We think it's our obligation to
inform the regulators and
law enforcement agencies
about what's
possible and what's happening.
So what we do is we reach out to
the agencies out there and
we invite them in.
We tell our community
we invite them in.
I get a quarterly check
up with the FBI.
We're like, hey,
how's it going?
Everything's going fine.
And we say, if anybody starts
talking about something
dangerous, we will ping our
friends in the FBI ASAP.
If the FBI sees something that's
dangerous, we will--
and we disclose this.
We actually don't have
any information.
All we have is their
email address.
But we will disclose
the email address.
And I fly to Washington every
now and then to tell everybody
what's possible, so that the
people who we've entrusted to
protect us are informed
about what's possible.
And we're really transparent
about this with the community.
If somebody messes this up,
if somebody does something
dangerous, this is going to
be bad for everybody.
MALE SPEAKER: Yep.
CHRIS ANDERSON: And we're just
like, do it, do it in public.
We as a community have a
responsibility, if we see
something that we think is
dangerous or irresponsible, to
tell people about it.
But we don't feel that we can be
the ones who ultimately are
the police.
We're not going to restrict
the technology we release.
We're just going to inform the
responsible parties about
what's being released and about
what's been done so that
they can do the job.
MALE SPEAKER: The other
follow-up questions that are
related, but not connected, is
that, as you think about spare
parts as the entire change
that's going to happen over
the next 5, 10 or 15 years
of how production and
mass-customization is going to
happen, where do you see
people evolving in
their skill sets?
Because I think, for people who
grew up with CAD software,
or if they're engineers,
it's easy.
But for the rest of them,
they're away from that realm
of learning.
CHRIS ANDERSON: Yeah.
Well, I think, in the same way
that you don't think that
you're publishing when you
post to Facebook, I don't
think you're going to think
you're doing CAD when you do
reality capture of some object
and then make it cooler.
I think that, basically, the
opportunity is to abstract the
complexity and the professional
standards out of
this and just come up with a
new design interface, a new
design language that
allows people to
express themselves naturally.
MALE SPEAKER: And this is
for everyone else here.
As Googlers, there is the
Garage, which is our shared
working space, which also has
access to a 3D printer.
Which I found out about
today, morning.
CHRIS ANDERSON: Excellent.
Thank you.
MALE SPEAKER: Thank you
for coming to speak.
You just talked about the
Open Hardware Movement.
And you mentioned
MakerBot a lot.
And I'm sure you're aware that
they seem to have backpedalled
slightly on the Open
Hardware Movement.
And also some concern over the
language in Thingiverse's
agreements, to what you're
giving to them when you upload
your models.
Is that paranoia on the
community's part that
something's happening there?
Or is there something afoot?
And what does that mean for
the future of the Open
Hardware Movement?
CHRIS ANDERSON: Great
question.
Thank you, for raising that.
The answer is a little
bit of both.
So just the facts, for those
of you who aren't
familiar with this.
MakerBot is built on the RepRap
platform, which is an
open-source hardware and
software platform.
MakerBot was 100% open and, in
this latest version, had the
Replicator 2.
Just to put the facts on the
table, the biggest problem is
not that they've closed it.
The biggest problem is they
didn't say what they were
doing on Day One.
And so there was
some ambiguity.
And people suspected
the worst.
What they are actually doing--
oh, and by the way, the
Thingiverse thing was a
complete misunderstanding.
Those Terms of Service were in
place for a year already.
And that was just paranoia.
But here's what's actually
happening is that they've
looked at the product and they
said, what about this is
usefully open, which is
to say, we get open.
We understand that, if you give
something back, you get
more in return and that you
create a platform for which
innovation can happen.
But there's certain elements
that are just not really
practical for people.
So for example, their enclosure,
which is powder
coated steel, you need access
to machinery that regular
people don't have to do that.
And they didn't feel that that
was really adding a lot of
value was the enclosure.
Whereas, the circuit boards,
the electronics
themselves, are open.
They're actually the same ones
that were in the previous one.
Their software, their underlying
slicing engine,
which does their
Gcode, is open.
Their UI is not, on the grounds
that they want to have
some protection.
But they felt that the
underlying slicing engine was
the most useful one
to release.
So the big problem was they
didn't say that on Day One.
And so people freaked out.
So where they ended up is what
we call a hybrid model, which
is you open what you think is
most useful and really serves
the community best.
And you close just enough to
give yourself a competitive
advantage, so that you can build
a sustainable business.
And I think they got it right.
I'm not going to say they
got it 100% right.
But I think that a hybrid
model is probably the
right way to go.
So for example, on our drones,
our hardware is 100% open.
We release the [INAUDIBLE]
files.
Our software is 100%
open, GPL'd.
When we had laser cut stuff,
we released all those
as laser cut files.
We now have injection molded
arms when the designs are in
SolidWorks.
And we actually release the
dimensional drawings.
But we don't release the
SolidWorks files, because
you'd need an injection
molding machine and
SolidWorks, which costs
$5,000, to use this.
And we didn't feel that that
was adding a huge amount of
value, when we also
are constantly
ripped off by the Chinese.
Our license allows you
to use our stuff and
compete against us.
But it doesn't allow you to
violate our trademark and not
adhere to the terms
of the license.
So we're like, you know what,
these injection molder arms
are just going to make
it easier for the
cloners to rip us off.
And they're not adding a lot
of value to the community.
So that's where we drew
the line right there.
Now I'm sure there's someone
out there who thinks we're
betraying the cause and
we've violated the
ethic of open hardware.
But we feel that we made a
reasonable decision to build a
sustainable business.
And the truth is, actually,
nobody has complained.
Maybe they will now that
I've mentioned it.
[LAUGHTER]
CHRIS ANDERSON: But
so far, so good.
So I think that we're all
kind of navigating--
so I talk to [? Bria ?]
from [? Maker ?]
a lot about it.
So we're all finding our way
towards being mostly--
Raspberry Pi, for example,
is not open hardware.
They're open software.
And I think we had a good post
on Wired Design the other day
where a designer said, you've
got to sell out a little to
sell a lot.
Now that's not exactly the way
I would have phrased it.
But the point is is that we
didn't join a priesthood here.
We believe in open source
because it works.
We've done it.
We've got years of experience
in this.
We do it because it's a
practical way to build
innovation communities.
But we're not going to be
doctrinaire about it.
We're going to get the balance
right, so that we can serve
both our community and our
customers and, to be frank,
our investors, because
these are big
businesses now, at best.
And that involves being flexible
and evolving the
model as you go.
MALE SPEAKER: All right.
Thank you.
CHRIS ANDERSON: Thank you.
MALE SPEAKER: There's been
some rumblings about 3D
printing on a much larger scale,
like people printing
the walls to houses.
CHRIS ANDERSON: Yeah.
MALE SPEAKER: What do you think
is the timeline for that
becoming more mainstream.
And when can I print
out an apartment?
CHRIS ANDERSON: Good question.
So that is already possible.
There's already some demos.
I'm using poured concrete
and basically big heads.
Now there's one really
interesting demo.
One of the problems with the
house scale 3D printers which
pours it, you actually have to
build a 3D printer as big as a
house, or slightly
bigger, actually.
There's some really cool
demos involving
stringing wires from trees.
You basically just need three
points like a hammock, minus
one point, [LAUGHS]
I guess.
So you just string
wires from trees,
cables of various sorts.
And then you just
calibrate it.
And then you let the head
move on these wires.
And they have a three
dimensional axis.
And you've basically created an
in situ, ad hoc, one off 3D
printer for houses.
Now this is definitely
experimental lab stuff.
I wouldn't guarantee the
resolution of a 3D printer
locked to a tree, which can
slightly bend a little bit.
But you can kind of see
where this is going.
And originally they were doing
it as an experiment in
building, in making concrete
shapes that would be too hard
to make through traditional
casting or pouring techniques.
So this is kind of an
art thing right now.
And don't forget, you also have
to put in things like
rebar, et cetera.
So there is that.
I can't give you a timeline.
I've seen it work in Italy.
I don't know how commercial it
is at the moment, but I think
we're talking a matter of
single digit years.
MALE SPEAKER: Awesome.
Thank you.
CHRIS ANDERSON: Thank you.
MALE SPEAKER: Hi, Chris.
So how do you think this
revolution, the new Industrial
Revolution, applies to also
to food products?
We have these open source
communities that's creating
recipes all the time.
But every single person has to
know how to cook and have the
utensils, right?
So you have the spices and all
of the ingredients that make
food taste a certain way.
They can be printed
as well, right?
CHRIS ANDERSON: Sure.
MALE SPEAKER: So what
do you think?
CHRIS ANDERSON: Yeah.
So that's the Star
Trek replicator.
You know that tea, Earl Grey,
hot, that Captain
Picard asked for.
MALE SPEAKER: Yeah.
Japan has all these machines
where you can just decide the
flavors of stuff.
CHRIS ANDERSON: Yeah.
MALE SPEAKER: And it prints
out your food.
CHRIS ANDERSON: Well, you know,
we're already there in a
trivial sense.
The reason the first MakerBot
was called a cupcake is that
it actually could print icing
on a cupcake, because icing
tends to be like a fluid, that's
going to be a viscous
fluid that actually works
really well in
that particular extruder.
Or sort of.
Well, I actually never
got it working.
But chocolate is a nightmare,
by the way.
Oh, my god.
I had horrible experiences
trying to temper chocolate, so
it would go through
the 3D printer.
[LAUGHTER]
CHRIS ANDERSON: Anyway, so
again, there's a trivial
answer to this, which is, if
you've got something that
looks like a goo, any food that
looks like goo, you can
put it in a 3D printer.
Do you want to eat that?
I'm not sure.
The more complicated question
is, are you going to be able
to mix ingredients at the right
temperature, in the
right consistency, at the right
time, in a way that's
better than what you
can do by hand?
And obviously, if you go
into a cake factory--
if you go to a cake factory,
it's really amazing.
They're a mass of
CNC machines.
Basically, it's all automated.
Every cake could be decorated
uniquely with a [INAUDIBLE]
robot arm.
It's a beautiful
thing to watch.
I wouldn't call it a 3D printer,
but it's a complete
robot cake factory.
And they do mix it.
But that's a custom factory
with ingredients that are
really optimized
for that role.
You can't do it on
your desktop yet.
It's a good question.
What would be the first food
that you would actually-- like
a microwave oven that, rather
than putting the food the oven
and pressing the number, you
put a plate in the oven and
press the number.
And the food is generated
on it.
I don't know what that first
food's going to be.
MALE SPEAKER: Say, for
example, pastas.
You have all these sauces,
different types of--
I was just thinking about things
that are bulk already.
And you just mix different
ingredients.
CHRIS ANDERSON: Does somebody
in here know
anything about food?
[LAUGHTER]
CHRIS ANDERSON: Anyone want
to hazard a guess on that?
FEMALE SPEAKER: Here at Google,
we have our Google
[? supplies ?]
[? list. ?]
CHRIS ANDERSON: Yes.
That's right.
You have a robotic
food machine.
[LAUGHTER]
CHRIS ANDERSON: Yeah.
I wish I knew more about food.
My sense is that part of
food preparation is the
pleasure in doing it.
And so having a robot do it is
probably not so much fun.
But anyway, I wish I had a
better answer for you.
Any other questions?
All right.
Thank you, very much.
[APPLAUSE]
