Makers

Makers Plot Summary

Introduction

Imagine a world where the power to create physical products is no longer the exclusive domain of large corporations with massive factories, but instead rests in the hands of individuals with little more than a computer and a vision. This transformation is already underway, driven by the same digital revolution that changed how we create and share information through the internet. Just as the Web democratized publishing and communications, a new class of "desktop manufacturing" technologies is now democratizing innovation in physical goods. The transition from bits to atoms represents one of the most significant economic and cultural shifts of our time. Through the rise of 3D printing, open-source hardware, crowdfunding, and online manufacturing marketplaces, individuals and small teams can now design, prototype, finance, and distribute physical products globally without the traditional barriers that once made manufacturing the exclusive domain of large companies. This revolution is empowering a new generation of inventors and entrepreneurs who are reimagining products, reinventing business models, and potentially revitalizing manufacturing in ways that could reshape our economies and communities.

Chapter 1: The First Wave: Traditional Manufacturing and Its Limitations

From the 1750s through much of the 20th century, manufacturing followed a model defined by standardization, scale, and centralization. The traditional manufacturing paradigm, which reached its apex with Henry Ford's assembly line, was built around producing identical products in massive quantities. "Any color you want as long as it's black" wasn't just Ford's famous quip - it encapsulated an entire economic philosophy where standardization was the key to affordability. This model emerged from the original Industrial Revolution, when James Hargreaves' spinning jenny and other innovations transformed textile production in England, creating factory-based manufacturing that would eventually replace craftsman-based production across most industries. The economic logic was compelling: large-scale production drastically reduced per-unit costs, making previously luxurious goods accessible to the masses. This democratization of consumption fueled economic growth and improved living standards, but at the cost of variety and personalization. By the mid-20th century, manufacturing had coalesced around massive factories employing thousands of workers, churning out millions of identical products. Companies like General Motors, General Electric, and General Mills dominated their industries through economies of scale, integrated supply chains, and capital-intensive production facilities. The barriers to entry were formidable - starting a manufacturing business required enormous investments in equipment, facilities, and labor. The limitations of this model became increasingly apparent as the global economy evolved. Mass production excelled at making standardized products cheaply, but it was inflexible, slow to adapt to changing consumer preferences, and required increasingly large markets to sustain. The long development cycles and enormous tooling costs meant that innovation was cautious and incremental. Small-batch production remained prohibitively expensive, creating vast "manufacturing deserts" - products that were technically possible but economically unfeasible because they couldn't support mass-production economics. These constraints shaped not just business but culture itself. The uniformity of mass production led to a uniformity of consumption, where consumer choice was limited to what massive corporations decided was worth making. The very notion of what was "manufacturable" was defined by what could sell in quantities of millions, not thousands or hundreds. This left countless needs unmet and ideas unexplored - the dark matter of manufacturing potential that traditional models couldn't illuminate.

Chapter 2: The Digital Revolution: When Bits Transformed Production (1970s-2000s)

The seeds of manufacturing's transformation were planted during the digital revolution that began in the 1970s. The development of computer-aided design (CAD) software started to change how products were conceived and engineered. Previously, product design required physical drafting and the creation of physical prototypes at each iteration. CAD systems allowed designers to create, modify, and test products virtually, dramatically accelerating the design process and reducing its cost. By the 1980s and 1990s, computer numerical control (CNC) machines began transforming factory floors. These computer-controlled cutting and milling devices could follow digital instructions to shape materials with precision previously impossible for human machinists. Meanwhile, industrial robots were increasingly deployed for repetitive assembly tasks. The combination of CAD software and computer-controlled manufacturing equipment created a digital thread running from conception to production. What made this period revolutionary wasn't just the digitization of existing processes, but the profound philosophical shift it represented. Physical products were increasingly understood as information embodied in material form. As former Wired editor-in-chief Chris Anderson observed, "Hardware is just software expressed in atoms." This reconceptualization opened the door to treating physical products more like digital ones - as information that could be shared, modified, and iterated upon. The internet accelerated this transformation by enabling distributed collaboration and knowledge sharing. Design files could be transferred instantly across the globe, allowing engineering teams to work together regardless of location. Global supply chains became increasingly digitized and accessible, with online B2B marketplaces like Alibaba connecting manufacturers with customers worldwide. What had once required a team of procurement specialists and international brokers could increasingly be done with a credit card and a web browser. However, during this period, the benefits of digital manufacturing remained largely within established companies. The equipment remained expensive, often costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, and required specialized training to operate. The software was similarly costly and complex. While digital tools had transformed production, they hadn't yet democratized it. Manufacturing remained a game for professionals with substantial resources. The groundwork was being laid, however, for a more dramatic shift. As computing power followed Moore's Law to become exponentially cheaper and more powerful, manufacturing technology would eventually follow. The tools of production were becoming more accessible, setting the stage for a new generation of creators who would approach manufacturing with a digital native's mindset - collaborative, iterative, and open.

Chapter 3: The Democratization of Tools: Desktop Fabrication Emerges

Around 2005, a profound shift began as manufacturing tools started following the same trajectory that transformed computing: from expensive institutional equipment to affordable personal devices. The RepRap project, initiated by Dr. Adrian Bowyer at the University of Bath, introduced the concept of a self-replicating 3D printer that could make many of its own parts. This open-source approach catalyzed rapid innovation as hundreds of contributors worldwide improved the design, dramatically reducing costs and increasing capabilities. MakerBot Industries, founded in 2009, built upon this foundation to create consumer-friendly 3D printers. The original MakerBot Thing-O-Matic, while crude by today's standards, represented a watershed moment - a manufacturing device that cost under $1,200 rather than tens of thousands of dollars. These early desktop 3D printers were the manufacturing equivalent of the first personal computers: limited compared to their industrial counterparts but revolutionary in placing production capability directly in the hands of individuals. The tools of digital fabrication expanded beyond 3D printing. Laser cutters, which precisely cut materials based on digital designs, became more affordable and accessible through community workspaces. Desktop CNC machines allowed precision milling and cutting on a hobbyist budget. Arduino microcontrollers and other electronics platforms simplified the process of creating interactive objects and embedding intelligence into physical products. The democratization of these tools enabled a new relationship between people and the objects in their lives. No longer limited to what mass manufacturers decided was worth producing, individuals could create precisely what they needed or imagined. As Neil Gershenfeld of MIT's Center for Bits and Atoms eloquently put it, "The killer app for digital fabrication is personal fabrication - not to make what you can buy in Walmart, but to make what you can't buy at Walmart." Community workshops called "makerspaces" or "fab labs" emerged worldwide, providing access to these tools without requiring personal ownership. TechShop, founded in 2006, pioneered a gym-membership model for workshop access, while hundreds of community-based makerspaces opened in libraries, schools, and community centers. These spaces weren't just about tool access but also knowledge sharing and collaborative learning. The impact extended beyond hobbyists to education and entrepreneurship. Schools began incorporating digital fabrication into STEM curricula, teaching students to design and create rather than just consume. Meanwhile, entrepreneurs found they could prototype products quickly and inexpensively, dramatically reducing the cost and risk of hardware innovation. The gap between having an idea and creating a functional prototype collapsed from months or years to days or hours.

Chapter 4: Open Source Hardware: Communities Replacing Corporations

The democratization of manufacturing tools coincided with a profound shift in how products could be developed. Drawing inspiration from the open-source software movement, hardware creators began embracing collaborative development models that were previously unimaginable in the physical world. Arduino, launched in 2005, exemplified this approach. This simple microcontroller board wasn't just a product but a platform that invited modification, improvement, and extension by its users. Unlike traditional product development, which happens behind closed doors by professionals employed by a single company, open-source hardware projects harness the collective intelligence of global communities. Designs are shared freely, allowing anyone to use, modify, or improve upon them. Thousands of volunteers contribute improvements, identify and fix bugs, create documentation, and expand capabilities - all without central coordination or financial compensation. The results have been remarkable. The Arduino platform has spawned hundreds of derivatives tailored for specific applications, from wearable electronics to agricultural monitoring. It has been used in everything from hobbyist projects to NASA equipment. Similarly, the RepRap 3D printer project evolved through thousands of community contributions into increasingly capable and affordable machines, with each generation improving upon the last through distributed innovation. This collaborative approach dramatically accelerates development cycles. When Limor Fried (known online as "Ladyada") designed the open-source MintyBoost USB charger through her company Adafruit Industries, community members quickly contributed improvements, identified lower-cost components, and translated documentation into multiple languages. Within months, the design had evolved through more iterations than would have been possible with a traditional closed development process. Open hardware created new business models that differed fundamentally from traditional manufacturing. Companies like Adafruit, SparkFun, and Seeed Studio built thriving businesses by sharing all their designs openly while selling physical products and kits. Rather than relying on patents and secrecy for competitive advantage, they competed on community engagement, quality, service, and teaching. By 2011, open hardware companies were generating over $50 million in collective revenue - proving this approach could create sustainable businesses. Perhaps most significantly, open hardware transformed the relationship between companies and customers. In traditional manufacturing, consumers were passive recipients of products designed by others. In open hardware communities, the line between producer and consumer blurs. Users become co-creators who identify needs, suggest improvements, and even contribute directly to development. This "democratization of innovation," as MIT professor Eric von Hippel calls it, taps into the latent design capabilities distributed throughout society rather than concentrating them in R&D departments.

Chapter 5: The Global Factory: Manufacturing Without Boundaries

By the 2010s, the final piece of the new manufacturing paradigm fell into place: democratized access to production capacity. Just as software developers could rent server capacity in the cloud rather than building their own data centers, hardware creators gained the ability to tap into global manufacturing infrastructure without massive capital investments. This transformation removed the final barrier between makers and the market. Services like Shapeways and Ponoko emerged as "factories in the cloud," allowing anyone to upload digital designs and receive professionally manufactured parts in materials ranging from plastic to titanium. PCH International's Highway1 accelerator helped startups navigate the complexity of overseas manufacturing. Alibaba.com and similar platforms made it possible to source components and contract manufacturers directly, without traditional intermediaries or import-export expertise. This new manufacturing ecosystem operated at any scale. A designer could prototype a product using desktop fabrication tools, then seamlessly transition to low-volume production through service bureaus, and finally to mass production through contract manufacturers - all coordinated through digital platforms. The capital requirements at each stage were a fraction of what they had been in the traditional manufacturing paradigm. The geography of manufacturing also transformed. While large-scale production remained concentrated in manufacturing hubs like Shenzhen, China, smaller batch production became increasingly distributed. A product might be designed in London, have its electronics manufactured in Shenzhen, its case produced by a 3D printing service in the Netherlands, and final assembly done in small workshops near its primary markets. This "distributed manufacturing" model reduced shipping costs and allowed greater responsiveness to local market needs. Startups exploited this new paradigm to challenge established players across industries. Pebble, founded by Eric Migicovsky, used digital tools to design one of the first successful smartwatches, financing it through Kickstarter and manufacturing it through Asian contract manufacturers previously accessible only to large corporations. Similarly, Square created its credit card reader through the combination of digital prototyping and lean manufacturing approaches, allowing it to rapidly iterate designs while minimizing capital requirements. Even established manufacturers began adopting elements of this approach. Ford's innovation lab used 3D printing to rapidly prototype vehicle components. General Electric embraced "FastWorks," a methodology incorporating rapid prototyping and iterative development into industrial manufacturing. The distinction between "maker" approaches and industrial production increasingly blurred as large companies recognized the value of agility and openness. The most profound impact of this global, on-demand manufacturing network was its leveling effect. Small teams could compete with multinational corporations because they had access to the same production capabilities. An individual maker with a brilliant idea could scale from prototype to global product without building factories or raising massive capital. Manufacturing ceased to be defined by ownership of physical assets and increasingly became about orchestrating networks of specialized capabilities.

Chapter 6: Financing Innovation: From Crowdfunding to Market Success

The traditional path for hardware entrepreneurs involved a grueling gauntlet of pitch meetings, venture capital negotiations, and bank loans before a product could reach consumers. This capital-intensive approach favored established players with track records and connections, while excluding many potential innovators. Beginning around 2009, however, a financial revolution emerged alongside the manufacturing revolution, creating new pathways to bring products to market. Crowdfunding platforms, most notably Kickstarter (launched in 2009), fundamentally altered the hardware financing landscape. Rather than seeking investment capital before manufacturing, creators could present prototypes directly to potential customers and take pre-orders to fund production. The Pebble smartwatch, which raised over $10 million from nearly 69,000 backers in 2012, demonstrated the power of this approach. Similarly, the Oculus Rift virtual reality headset raised $2.4 million on Kickstarter before eventually being acquired by Facebook for $2 billion. Beyond simply raising money, crowdfunding provided market validation and community building. Products that succeeded on these platforms demonstrated proven demand before a single unit was manufactured, dramatically reducing the risk of production. Backers became emotionally invested in the projects they supported, offering feedback, suggestions, and enthusiastic word-of-mouth marketing. The public nature of campaigns also attracted media attention and distributor interest that would have been impossible for unknown creators to generate otherwise. New investment models emerged to complement crowdfunding. Hardware-focused accelerators like Highway1 and HAXLR8R provided a combination of seed funding, mentorship, and manufacturing expertise specifically tailored to the challenges of physical products. Venture capital firms developed specialized hardware investment strategies, with funds like Bolt focusing exclusively on connected hardware startups. Even crowdfunding platforms evolved, with Kickstarter introducing "Hardware Studio" to help creators navigate manufacturing challenges. The result was a more diverse and vibrant hardware ecosystem. Products that would never have justified venture capital investment could find sustainable paths to market through community support and pre-orders. Businesses could start small and grow organically rather than requiring massive upfront investment. The Maker Movement began generating not just interesting prototypes but viable companies that created jobs and economic value. The rise of Maker-focused marketplaces completed this ecosystem. Etsy, which grew to over $2.8 billion in annual sales by 2016, provided a global platform for craftspeople and small-batch manufacturers. Tindie emerged as a marketplace specifically for electronics and hardware created by independent makers. These platforms connected creators directly with niche audiences worldwide, eliminating the need for traditional retail distribution which had historically favored mass-produced products. Together, these financial innovations created what entrepreneur Eric Reis calls "the hardware revolution's missing piece." The combination of democratized tools, open development models, accessible manufacturing, and new financing pathways made it possible for anyone with a good idea to bring a physical product to market. The result was an explosion of innovation addressing needs that mass manufacturing had previously ignored.

Chapter 7: The Economic Reset: Jobs, Skills and Future Manufacturing

The manufacturing renaissance catalyzed by the Maker Movement suggests a fundamentally different industrial future than either continued decline or simple resurrection of 20th-century models. Instead of massive factories employing thousands of low-skilled workers, the emerging landscape features distributed networks of smaller-scale production facilities leveraging automation and digital fabrication to serve niche markets with personalized products. This transformation raises profound questions about employment. Traditional manufacturing jobs have steadily declined in developed economies for decades, with automation eliminating many routine tasks. However, the Maker economy creates different kinds of jobs: designers who create customizable products, engineers who develop next-generation fabrication tools, technicians who maintain increasingly automated production systems, and entrepreneurs who identify and serve specialized markets. Educational systems are evolving in response to these changes. Schools are incorporating digital fabrication into curricula, teaching not just technical skills but the design thinking and entrepreneurial mindset needed in this new landscape. Organizations like First Robotics and the Digital Harbor Foundation engage young people in making, building a pipeline of talent comfortable with both digital tools and physical creation. Community colleges are developing programs specifically targeted at the intersection of design, fabrication, and entrepreneurship. The economic geography of manufacturing is also shifting. While mass production of commodity goods remains concentrated in low-cost regions, smaller batch manufacturing is returning to consumption centers. Cities like Brooklyn, Portland, Detroit, and Pittsburgh have seen resurgences in local manufacturing, often in renovated industrial buildings. These urban manufacturing hubs combine digital fabrication capabilities with traditional craft skills, creating products that blend technological sophistication with artisanal quality. Environmental considerations further shape this evolution. Distributed manufacturing reduces transportation costs and carbon emissions. Digital fabrication produces less waste than traditional subtractive methods. On-demand production eliminates the need for massive inventories of finished goods. The maker ethos also emphasizes repair and modification rather than disposal, extending product lifecycles. While challenges remain, particularly around material recycling, the overall trajectory points toward more sustainable production models. Perhaps most significantly, the Maker Movement represents a shift in our relationship with material goods. Rather than passive consumers of standardized products, people increasingly participate in the creation, customization, and improvement of the things they use. This participation creates deeper connections to material culture and potentially counteracts the disposability mindset of consumer society. As traditional manufacturing jobs continue to decline due to automation and globalization, the Maker economy offers a complementary path forward - one that leverages human creativity and specialized skills rather than competing on labor costs. While it won't replace mass production, this parallel manufacturing ecosystem creates new economic niches and opportunities that simply didn't exist in the industrial paradigm. The future of manufacturing will likely be a hybrid landscape, combining the efficiency of global mass production with the creativity and responsiveness of Maker-driven innovation.

Summary

The Maker Movement represents nothing less than a fundamental restructuring of our relationship with the physical world. Throughout human history, the ability to create sophisticated objects has been constrained by access to tools, knowledge, and capital. The democratization of manufacturing technologies is rapidly dismantling these barriers, allowing anyone with an idea to transform it into reality. This transformation mirrors what happened with information when the internet emerged - creativity and innovation were unleashed from institutional constraints, creating an explosion of new possibilities. The implications extend far beyond hobbyist tinkering or even entrepreneurship. As manufacturing becomes increasingly accessible, distributed, and responsive to individual needs, we're seeing the emergence of a new economic paradigm that could address some of our most pressing challenges. The combination of local production, customization, and digital collaboration points toward more sustainable, inclusive, and resilient manufacturing systems. The Maker Movement isn't just changing how things are made; it's changing who gets to make them, why they're made, and what impact they have on our world. By putting the means of production into more hands, we're distributing not just economic opportunity but agency itself - the power to shape the material world to better serve human needs.

About Author

Loading...

Chris Anderson

Chris Anderson was named in April 2007 to the "Time 100," the newsmagazine's list of the 100 men and women whose power, talent or moral example is transforming the world. He is Editor-in-Chief of Wired magazine, a position he took in 2001, and he has led the magazine to six National Magazine Award nominations, winning the prestigious top prize for General Excellence in 2005 and 2007. He is the author of the New York Times best-seller The Long Tail, which is based on an influential 2004 article published in Wired, and runs a blog on the subject at www.thelongtail.com. Previously, he was at The Economist, where he served as US Business Editor, Asia Business Editor; and Technology Editor. He started The Economist's Internet coverage in 1994 and directed its initial web strategy. Anderson's media career began at the two premier science journals, Nature and Science, where he served in several editorial capacities. Prior to that he was a physics researcher at the Los Alamos National Lab."

Read more

Related Books by Chris Anderson

Loading...

The Long Tail

Chris Anderson

Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of More

★★★½☆3.8