1:12 it should be illegal to burn perfectly good unused stuff. If they want money, they could just remove the brand tags from the unsold inventory and sew in a cheaper subbrand tag and sell it off for cheap or donate it. It would not even be 1% extra to the expenses.
You are amazing! You have criminally low sub and view counts on these videos for the quality. Please do not get discuraged and keep up the awesome work! You are amazing!
Could this process be adapted to carbon fiber manufacturing with a hardening process directly after weaving ? Like continuous 3D printing something like a first stage rocket or airplane body ?
You could have simply said, “You have probably seen 3D printing, we have built a 3D weaving factory that can print clothes on demand!” This is how we do it. Done!
I bet your attention span is about five seconds. When learning about a new company, you don’t want a five second explanation. I enjoyed learning about this company, if it’s not your type of video you can leave.
Zara started with Nearshore manufacturing and still uses it in Europe. Then there is Trigema in Germany which is highly vertically integrated which produces in Germany. To sell me the idea, I would need to have someone sell it wearing the clothes itself.
I think the idea is mostly good, but the scale is where they aren't correctly focused. Bring the size down to something smaller that occupies a shop in a mall. Go in, get measured, choose a style, gets made and picked up a day or less later.
I agree and open source it! Creating and sharing clothing models sounds very cool. Sizing should be super accurate as well. I might start build the app.
It can't get miniaturized until they work through the big robotic process automation first. THEN you can scale it down to a hundred creels instead of three thousand and you have a machine that can fit inside the back room of a boutique shop. It will take a hundred times as long to build something than this machine will, but it will be completely custom - maybe going from a few minutes to a whole day. The key will be in the software that can take full body measurements into account. We will finally go back to true custom-fit clothing at a reasonable price.
Wow. Can't wait for them to be bought out in 2 years time by Shien for $2 billion, have them switch to using only plastic fibers, and produce cheaper/shittier clothes faster so we can throw it out even faster. An increase in efficiency never leads to a reduction of resources required (jevon's paradox).
But being able to produce virtually on demand does. Instead of guessing at what will sell and inevitably having to overcommit on lines that don't pan out this could massively reduce the overproduction problem itself. I 100% agree that consumer behaviour is the other side of this that definitely needs to be addressed, but I must say this at least seem to give companies a way to not produce clothes that will never even be bought in the first place.
@@noone-ld7pt Exactly, overconsumption is a human problem, not a technical one. I hope this does well, but it won't stop the giant corporations that already exist.
@@TaylorQuade considering his mission is sustainability, this will most likely not happen though, and even if it does, it will still be more sustainable. nothing is perfect.
Problem isn't with Shein itself as a company.. problem is with many women (yes it's pretty much like 95% women) that buy cheap clothes and regularly.. and a lot of it.. like every week.. and then they throw out pieces that they don't like, because their wardrobe is full. This happens so much that they had to invent new ways of how to collect these clothes from the landfills.
I helped promote a short doc called Unravel about the Traid textile recycling scheme a few years ago - essentially this model already existed years ago but used textiles were/are being shipped abroad to India etc to unravel them manually and then made into carpets etc.
The full automation process from order to delivery in clusters is fantastic, but I'd be very wary of protecting the key technologies - Chinese regime corporate spies operate all across the US (especially in fashion); naturally they should not at all even consider building a factory inside China's sphere of influence or they can kiss it all goodbye.
Fast fashion will never be sustainable. Never. The whole reason it's bad, aside from human suffering, is the garment waste (end consumer). Fast fashion is fundamentally a problem of overconsumption. Saying in the video that you want to maintain current consumer patterns and profit off unsustainable consumption patterns is such a bad take. A waste of good technology if you just want it as a money mill.
But one cannot change the consumer behavior of the masses. The masses will never adapt their behavior. Unless you dictate them what to do, which is basically Armageddon for a liberal democratic society. So the solution always lies in innovation, the solution is always about persuading the consumer by providing an even better experience or product. Going forward this better experience/product has to also be sustainable then
@@davidkorn5253if previous generations conditioned masses to be over consumers and to waste - then we can condition them not to. It is NECESSARY and MANDATORY to do so, unless you want us all to die along with this planet.
@@davidkorn5253It has nothing to do with the consumer, and everything to do with capitalism itself. The pursuit of profits at all costs is the hallmark of capitalism. If consumers purchased less, the manufacturers would make less money...something no company will ever consider. We only know growth capitalism, not sustaining capitalism. Profits must rise ever higher, or a company is considered stagnant and is abandoned. No amount of profit is ever enough. It will not stop until we have completely and utterly destroyed the earth.
everyone has their own fashion habits. though as they evolve over the decades, this machine proves a robust capacity to deliver goods effectively. also regardless of sustainability, I just would like to see less sweatshops in asia.
another great video. i've been super curious about garment automation since I learned how difficult it was a few years ago. this looks super cool. very interested in how it can reduce co2 and waste. also curious if it would make it easier to sell clothes that are custom sized to each person, which means everyone can get the clothes in a size that fits, and the fits will all be perfectly tailored to each person. cheers
would also be cool to pair this with the latest garment recycling technologies. imagine being able to give some old clothes and have them used to make new clothes on the spot. if people are bringing a variety of clothes, could produce some really interesting fabrics while being a model of sustainability.
I recently had a chance to work with a group from Uganda. There, used American garments are literally dumped. A small percentage are purchased and worn by the population. The rest are dumped in large landfills which leak toxins from dyes and such which cause environmental damage. Furthermore, there is no local fashion industry. Clothes is no longer made in Uganda. The group hoped to stop the cycle and create jobs, especially for women. In the early 20th Century, most clothes was made at home. Then workrooms grew. Finally New York City dominated the industry. So when JFK suggested sending just 2% off shore, only New York protested. Fast forward to now, New York still makes some clothes but a vast majority are made overseas.
Multiple thoughts: - it still requires some manual labour according to him. Making it possibly still make more sense to place it somewhere with low labour costs. - making something more efficient does not mean reducing total ressources spent. - if this does succeed, I wonder what will happen to Bangladesh, where a lot of clothes get produced. To just say that these are underpaid, thus somehow abused laborers is not how most economists would describe it. In fact, it's clear that Bangladesh was able to make such economic gains in recent years because of its garment industry. Obviously this makes sense however. And I'm very looking forward to the interview.
What happens to Bangladesh garment works? What happened to all those communities that raised horses when cars took over? Bangladesh is just like everywhere else, subject to improvements and change. They can't hold on to their same economy forever. No need to worry about them, and no need to worry about what will happen to coal miners or oil workers or fruit pickers when robots get capable. Who cares? They'll find more work if they make an effort. The world is getting richer with more opportunity overall.
@@charliedoyle7824 So you are saying that being disrupted has no negative local consequences? Because this was my whole argument. I'm not saying that this won't increase global wealth. And besides, what country is it that you speak of that has solely focused on horses and carriages? There's a difference between disrupting a whole country or just an industry. To illustrate this. Textile automation in the first industrial revolution did decrease living standards on the Indian subcontinent significantly - and for generations - by shifting it to the UK. Away from a place where it had a major role in the economy. Of course, 18xx is not 20xx, but I highly expect there to be serious economic issues as a result of this. About the history of the textile industry: It is often the most labour intensive industries that enable the poor to work themselves out of poverty. Because their labour is the cheapest. So it makes economic sense, both for them as well as for others, to allocate it to the labour intensive industries. The textile industry has forever, up until today, been a (no, THE) prime example to this. Whether you think of poor immigrants to the US in the early 20th century, poor in Europe up until mid 20th century, poor in Hong Kong up until the 80s and then later in Mainland China or today countries like Bangladesh. There is a strong pattern here that has repeated itself over time. Poor have used this industry as a stepping stone to work themselves out of poverty. Among economists, an ongoing debate exists as to whether or not it will serve yet another area with low labour costs. Or if it will be automated first. Typically, lower developed parts of Africa are being thought of here. Whether or not it will do so depends on whether it will remain labour intensive. So what is being deactivated in this case is a well established function for alleviating poor out of poverty. Lastly. Notice how your "who cares" is different from how the founders describe themselves and their mission. Vastly different. Shouldn't that give you some bewonderment? And I know that this isn't a word. But at least you now have something to be bewondered about. Bewonderer.
@@InfoSopher I guess you need to work out how to deal with technological change by thinking out loud. The problem is, you are saying things that have no effect, because there is no world mechanism to decide which technology gets to make clothing, and where it gets to be made; unless you live in North Korea, that is. My "who cares" has no effect on the world's garment workers, so my opinions don't really matter. I just try to push back on naive techno-phobes like you who have a poor grasp of what's happening and what to do about it. And I'm not sure what you mean by the "founders". What I'm telling you is, if a new manufacturing system comes along that is better, it will win out, and it would be insane to try and stop it. All educated people can see what's coming, and know what to do about it. And there are many similar examples of industries on the verge of huge disruption, such as truck/car driving jobs being automated away, programmers, call-center workers and millions of other data workers getting disrupted by AI, fossil--fuel workers becoming dinosaurs, etc. Trying to put a finger in every dike to slow down progress is just an idiotic nonstarter. Your examples of Hong Kong and China undermine your whole position. They both used low-tech labor-intensive clothing manufacture as a short-term stepping stone to much higher-income industries. Had they taken your advice and stayed at the bottom of the manufacturing chain, they would be moribund, but they have been smart enough to get out in front of the change. If Bangladesh is so broken that they can only do the world's low-value manual textile manufacturing, forever, with no ability to move up the ladder by investing in education and more sophisticated manufacturing and services, then that means they have terrible leadership and ideas; and yes, Bangladesh does have god-awful leadership. There is no world body to save them if they just sit there and cry about robots and AI taking their beloved 20th-Century sweat-shop jobs. And I doubt the people of Bangladesh are quite as helpless and stupid as you think, apparently incapable of noticing what they need to do. The world is full of recent examples of how to climb the economic ladder: Israel, Taiwan, S. Korea, China, Eastern Europe, India, Mexico, Vietnam, Chile, and plenty more. I grew up in a broken rust-belt Pittsburgh-area town that had the first aluminum plant in the U.S., called New Kensington. It was called the Aluminum City, but in 1970 Alcoa closed it and started a domino effect of other steel mills nearby closing, and the town is still on its knees, with less than half of its population of 1960. I have no sympathy at all for that place, because they have had every opportunity to re-invent themselves, with Carnegie Mellon and Pitt nearby, and a Penn State New Kensington campus in town. But the idiots who run the town just don't have a clue how to do anything, and any ambitious young people move away. I am certain that I could lead a re-invention of the town in a decade if I were so inclined. There are so many opportunities for products and services that are needed in the country and world, and surely there are enough semi-rich people around town to start an investment fund that gets supported by the city by providing cheap manufacturing space and school programs, as well as state and federal funds to grab; the whole downtown is a ghost town that could be cheaply re-purposed. But their mindset is, they are all just looking for a job, and if they start a business, it's a pizza place or hair salon; and their schools have always been a joke. They deserve no sympathy; the government shouldn't declare that delapidated aluminum plants must stay open to support the idiots who can't think of anything else to do. BTW, that's exactly how the Soviet Union was run, along with Cuba presently. Another big disruption that is coming pretty soon is how we produce meat. Apparently Meatball-Ron, the governor of Florida, agrees with you because he just signed a new law banning cultivated meat in Florida, to "save our meat farmers". Is that the kind of idiotic thinking you are talking about, banning the future to prevent anybody from having to deal with reality and progress?
the main costs for this type of model of production is energy cost w some labour component, so countries like Albania and Costa Rica could be attractive
@@charliedoyle7824 Let's not argue past each other. You are reading things into what I write that aren't there. Have I written that this tech ought to be prevented? No. Have I written that labour intensive work ought to be anything but a temporary state for a society? No. This is what you wrote: "Your examples of Hong Kong and China undermine your whole position. They both used low-tech labor-intensive clothing manufacture as a short-term stepping stone to much higher-income industries. Had they taken your advice and stayed at the bottom of the manufacturing chain, they would be moribund, but they have been smart enough to get out in front of the change." Compare that to what I wrote: "It is often the most labour intensive industries that enable the poor to work themselves out of poverty. ..... Among economists, an ongoing debate exists as to whether or not it will serve yet another area with low labour costs. Or if it will be automated first. Typically, lower developed parts of Africa are being thought of here. Whether or not it will do so depends on whether it will remain labour intensive. So what is being deactivated in this case is a well established function for alleviating poor out of poverty." I even used the same term "stepping stone" as you did in the "..." section: "Poor have used this industry as a stepping stone to work themselves out of poverty." Likewise, you're asuming to talk to someone that isn't there either. I'm in many ways the complete opposite of what you imagine. I come from a family that - in 3 generations since the mid 19th century - has been strongly involved in technological progress and all that comes with it. Both the good and bad. What I'm saying then are 2 things: a) 1. Low skilled, labour intensive industries have historically played a major role as a stepping stone for poor societies. Enabling workers to finance a better education for their kids. 2. There are still low skilled economies that could make use of ways out of poverty. 3. We are automating more and more of these types of industries. 4. The more we do that (3.), the less these industries will serve as a function for alleviating poverty. To the extent that we need to find a replacement - and to my knowledge we don't have one - or live in a world with areas that will be forever unskilled and poor. Your examples: Israel, Taiwan, S. Korea, China, Eastern Europe, India, Mexico, Vietnam, Chile Israel: 1) Had a highly educated population coming from Europe involved in its founding. With a millenia old tradition of valuing education. 2) It further had significant outside help due to its unique historical situation. (US assistance, Germans building up infrastructure in the early years, good will by most wealthy nations etc.) 3) A large, highly educated "diaspora" (not quite the right term here I know) with a good economic network that was able to help it. Including many that dominated the garments industry at the turn of the 20th century in areas such as Prague (Austria-Hungary garment center then) and New York. S. Korea and Taiwan: 1) Both were deeply affected by institutions built up during the Japanese imperial time (e.g. educational systems, state institutions, land reforms etc). 2) ... as well as huge US inflows coming from industrial requirements during the Vietnam war. Two factors that played a major role in enabling them to become what they are now. And neither of which can easily be transplanted somewhere else. China and India both made and make massive use of unskilled labour in exporting industries to work their way up. They also both received significant assistance by other societies. Although China historically made better use of that, particularly in education. Eastern Europe: 1) EE received and receives huge transfers from the EU. Even some of the countries not in EU. 2) Many Eastern European countries had a great technical education system even during communist times. East Germany (take a look at where German fabs such as the new Intel fab or the ones from Global Foundries are located in Germany and read up on the GDR's efforts to keep up with Western semiconductors to illustrate this), Russia, Ukraine and the Czechs come to mind. So they already had at least this institution. Meaning that these countries don't serve as good examples for unskilled labour working itself out of poverty. 3) There was huge migration into EU from EE, leading to large remittances back into these countries. 4) Many of them gained unrestricted market access. Being able to export any and everything into the Schengen Zone. This isn't something that is easily going to be available for some of the poor countries that still exist. 5) Largely German companies built a lot of factories in these countries, making use of both skilled and unskilled labour. Mexico and Vietnam are clearly examples for countries using unskilled labour (in the manufacturing industry) to work themselves up. In Mexico, remiitances also played a massive role in helping people (particularly the kids of migrants) get out of an uneducated and thus unskilled state. Chile under the Chicago boys too focused on export driven, unskilled labour fueled growth. (mining, ag and forestry) And in fact, such exports still play a major role. Conclusion to the examples: - Quite a few of the countries you've mentioned never were in the situation of having to work their way up using only unskilled labour and thus do not serve as examples that would be able to illustrate your point. - Those that were largely dependent on unskilled labour either profitted massively from external support of various kinds (instiutional, ressources, diaspora) or had some access to a means of making use of their unskilled labour pool. Meaning that a society with largely unskilled labour is going to have to find a way of making use of it. Unless it gets massive help from the outside. Or has something to export. This in turn requires access to labour intensive industries, such as the textile industry. I've heard a number of economists talk about this over the years and it does correspond to the consensus among economists as far as I understand. It may be possible for an individual living in an advanced society to make use of alternative options. Moving somewhere else. Or learning from more skilled people in the same language-sphere. But this is not as easily done in most poorer economies. Just imagine your old hometown would have had a border that you were not allowed to cross and the people outside all spoke a different language. Would you then too have made the way you did make? b) The communcation of the company I find contradicts itself. They make claims that don't hold up to scutiny. Generally, as an (here undercover) technoturtle myself, I'm allergic to people taking credit when it's not justified. Because then resources get allocated where they ought not to go. Or for the wrong reasons. This includes any form of greenwashing, socialwashing, racialwashing, techwashing, whitewashing or any kind of washing for that matter. All of these are strategic communications used by companies to manipulate: distort reality, at times into the opposite of what it actually is. 2. E.g. I disagree with the notion, which is stated by the founder in the video here, that there would be a negative correlation between efficiency gains and environmental impact of a technology. Jevon's paradox is a well established logical economical reality that runs counter to this idea. 3. Another such statement by the founders effectively amounts to "we are -aspirationally- automating away 75 million low-paid jobs and thereby helping the workers, because who would want to have these jobs anyway?". (I've watched some YT vids on their channel. They make heavy use of such notions.) However, helping workers by disrupting them would only make sense, if: 1) these workers would not be willing to take these jobs out of their own free will. Pointing to the notion that they represent a good option for them, given their circumstances. Meaning that taking away this option leaves them with the options they previously didn't choose. Which one thus may well regard as probably being worse options. For if they were not, why wouldn't they have already choose them? 2) some of the efficiency gains of the new tech would be spent on effective ways of getting these workers into a better situation. E.g. upskilling. Notice that b) is not a critique of the tech or company, but the argument used in the communication by the founders. I myself am somewhat allergic to it. As I've already come into contact with some of these forms in my own path through life. E.g. I am aware how utterly devoid of innovation some of the big tech companies really are. While portraying themselves as drivers of progress. In reality, these are just monopolies that need to be dismantled in order to free the resources (in the form of highly educated labour) that they take up. (Personally, I've one story in particular of a significant product improvement - that you've probably used yourself already PS: The problem with your argument regarding your hometown is that you are saying that it would be easy, if it were easy. - It would be easy, if responsibility for it succeeding would not lay elsewhere. - Reality is, that likely many coming from Pittsburgh will think like that. In particular those that leave or consider doing so. But without talking to each other, they end up believing that their way of looking at the situation is unique. It's a bunch of reasonable people thinking of each other as total idiots. Each and everyone telling themselves that if only others would think like them, it would all be easily changeable. The implication of which being: passivity.
Love the new video quality, but the editing has lost something. Before these episodes were longer, less slick and very meaty... now they seem like long advertisements and less meat. All these companies have discoveries. Some are proprietary, but a lot of them are things people in their sphere know that are public but that are not more widespread. I would prefer the 40 minute interview with the nerd who touches on several aspects of technology to this which really didn't say anything concrete, all aspirational. I can't learn anything from this and I can't evaluate the company as an investment from this. But if I ever get a chance to put money in terraform labs, I will... that video was the perfect example of what I love(d?) about this channel. "What do you know that everyone else thinks is false" is a famous Peter Theil question... would be great to get your subjects to answer it.
Trying to be less cutty and let the founders talk more versus cut-cut-cut (fake), increasing amount of technical details is good. In general though editing long episodes well every week is extremely hard. Can't do it for every episode.
Make the content you enjoy, the way you enjoy it. You will never please everybody. So many UA-camrs talk about how chasing the algorithm or bending to all the whims of their followers just burns them out
The issue is that clothes made from plastics are cheap, and durable, but every time you wash them, they produce a lot of microplastics that can’t be filtered out. Also, clothes like these, can’t be recycled.
Although tech is amazing and their innovation is impressive, Feels like replacing tools in entire fabric industry feels like a pipe dream.. companies won't replace their tools when a shiny new thing is on the market... they have long term contracts, highly trained and experienced employees... i maintain 30y old COBOL Mainframes in a IT firm when smartphones are more powerful than that....
the Idea is great but but right now there are billions of tons of clothes that are still good put in garbage dumps, making them last longer won't mean that people will use them longer and making them cheaper means that people may not care if they get tossed out as much.
It would have been nice if he had talked less about "sustainability" and been more honest about what they actually do-mass manufacturing without mass manufacturing.
@@s3_build - Was that the machine that you blurred out with sfx? You can see why he makes the comparison with an illusionist. Just go ahead and show the process. It it really has 30k plus moving physical components, it is unlikely that the average youtuber will be able to recreate one in their basement. You would probably get a lot of interesting suggestions for improvements though.
Startups tend to hold their tech very close to the vest with good reason: If they didn't someone could come along and copy it before the company gets off the ground, even if they just saw it on UA-cam. UA-cam is a public site, not a private conference. They would be foolish to show the details of their tech here. If you want to know more about it because you're a *serious* investor candidate, contact them, show them the money, and they'll have you sign an Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) and *then* show you their tech. As Jason says, the proof of what they say they can do is in the clothing shown in the video.
@@christopherd.winnan8701 It has nothing to do with the "average youtuber" doing it in hsi basement, DUH. It has to do with industrial corporate espionage. Was this not immediately obvious?
wont be cheaper then $1 hr in in china, one string breaks systems gos down , that string gets tangeled in other strings, looks like a maintenance nightmare. but maybe they worked that out..
I don't get why people put upward inflections at the end of their sentences when they aren't questions. It sounds like you're asking a question, but it ends in a period. You just sound confused.
very cool approach and idea, but they underestimate just how many poor people are out there willing to sacrifice their time for pennies. that will always be the hurdle to clear. can robots be cheaper than what the most poverty stricken population is prepared to do. when we hit that point the same would be true for things like food production and energy distribution. maybe we can become a post-scarcity society at that point.
- What are you doing? - 3D knitting. - Can you show us something? - No, it's a secret. We won't show you anything, but for the next half hour, you're going to hear how cool it is.
really wish you showed examples of finished clothes
sooooooon!
1:12 it should be illegal to burn perfectly good unused stuff. If they want money, they could just remove the brand tags from the unsold inventory and sew in a cheaper subbrand tag and sell it off for cheap or donate it. It would not even be 1% extra to the expenses.
They would bypass the law by "wearing" the clothes once
You are amazing! You have criminally low sub and view counts on these videos for the quality. Please do not get discuraged and keep up the awesome work! You are amazing!
I think he might be ai
Could this process be adapted to carbon fiber manufacturing with a hardening process directly after weaving ? Like continuous 3D printing something like a first stage rocket or airplane body ?
Pretty sure Rocket Lab is doing this exact thing for their Neutron design.
Lexus showed it off a carbon fiber loom in 2011, this video is a repost they pulled the original ua-cam.com/video/kttvDaUIWCs/v-deo.html
Be spoke Armor
You could have simply said, “You have probably seen 3D printing, we have built a 3D weaving factory that can print clothes on demand!” This is how we do it. Done!
I bet your attention span is about five seconds. When learning about a new company, you don’t want a five second explanation. I enjoyed learning about this company, if it’s not your type of video you can leave.
Zara started with Nearshore manufacturing and still uses it in Europe.
Then there is Trigema in Germany which is highly vertically integrated which produces in Germany.
To sell me the idea, I would need to have someone sell it wearing the clothes itself.
I hope they will be successful!
I think the idea is mostly good, but the scale is where they aren't correctly focused. Bring the size down to something smaller that occupies a shop in a mall. Go in, get measured, choose a style, gets made and picked up a day or less later.
I agree and open source it! Creating and sharing clothing models sounds very cool. Sizing should be super accurate as well. I might start build the app.
@@JobeRobertsYes to the OP and yes to you 👍
It can't get miniaturized until they work through the big robotic process automation first. THEN you can scale it down to a hundred creels instead of three thousand and you have a machine that can fit inside the back room of a boutique shop. It will take a hundred times as long to build something than this machine will, but it will be completely custom - maybe going from a few minutes to a whole day. The key will be in the software that can take full body measurements into account. We will finally go back to true custom-fit clothing at a reasonable price.
Wow. Can't wait for them to be bought out in 2 years time by Shien for $2 billion, have them switch to using only plastic fibers, and produce cheaper/shittier clothes faster so we can throw it out even faster. An increase in efficiency never leads to a reduction of resources required (jevon's paradox).
But being able to produce virtually on demand does. Instead of guessing at what will sell and inevitably having to overcommit on lines that don't pan out this could massively reduce the overproduction problem itself. I 100% agree that consumer behaviour is the other side of this that definitely needs to be addressed, but I must say this at least seem to give companies a way to not produce clothes that will never even be bought in the first place.
@@noone-ld7pt Exactly, overconsumption is a human problem, not a technical one. I hope this does well, but it won't stop the giant corporations that already exist.
@@TaylorQuade considering his mission is sustainability, this will most likely not happen though, and even if it does, it will still be more sustainable. nothing is perfect.
Problem isn't with Shein itself as a company.. problem is with many women (yes it's pretty much like 95% women) that buy cheap clothes and regularly.. and a lot of it.. like every week.. and then they throw out pieces that they don't like, because their wardrobe is full. This happens so much that they had to invent new ways of how to collect these clothes from the landfills.
@@Aldraz why are you blaming it on women????
massive greatness. senaha.
we am very proud of yourself ourselves great son
os
Magnificent 🎉 This is what I imagined only in my mind and it came true 😊 Keep it up❤
Great idea for doing away with scrap waste... We still need a lot more recycling of garments that people toss into the trash.
I always wondered when someone would do this with a circular loom. I mean, there's a few good reasons no one has, but maybe they can figure it out.
Another great episode!
Great in what aspect? They're literally just saying they're cool and nothing more.
I think that this is absolutely Brilliant!
I helped promote a short doc called Unravel about the Traid textile recycling scheme a few years ago - essentially this model already existed years ago but used textiles were/are being shipped abroad to India etc to unravel them manually and then made into carpets etc.
The full automation process from order to delivery in clusters is fantastic, but I'd be very wary of protecting the key technologies - Chinese regime corporate spies operate all across the US (especially in fashion); naturally they should not at all even consider building a factory inside China's sphere of influence or they can kiss it all goodbye.
This type of technology is my current favorite thing to dig into
looking for a job? :)
@@kevinmartin3808 absolutely
What a killer idea.
seamless clothes is the best part
@0:50 it says Inudstry Instanity not "Industry Insanity" lol
a *very* exciting project
9:00 How does and 'americas' and 'europe' gigafactory contribute to decentralising fashion?
Your channel is superb! I'm hoping you get a big influx soon :)
Damn, we didn't find out what the big red countdown clock means 😂
it's to our next main milestone! We're big on all sprinting towards the same thing. Every minute counts. 😉
yes. as well recycling at a great vibe. wear it once, recycle it, it am okay. as well premium everything
Where are the spools, the thread from?!
I'm voting for you! You're competing with such difficult industries, including labor that borders on slavery....
Great video man. Do Air Company next in Brooklyn
Fast fashion will never be sustainable. Never. The whole reason it's bad, aside from human suffering, is the garment waste (end consumer). Fast fashion is fundamentally a problem of overconsumption. Saying in the video that you want to maintain current consumer patterns and profit off unsustainable consumption patterns is such a bad take. A waste of good technology if you just want it as a money mill.
But one cannot change the consumer behavior of the masses. The masses will never adapt their behavior. Unless you dictate them what to do, which is basically Armageddon for a liberal democratic society. So the solution always lies in innovation, the solution is always about persuading the consumer by providing an even better experience or product. Going forward this better experience/product has to also be sustainable then
@@davidkorn5253if previous generations conditioned masses to be over consumers and to waste - then we can condition them not to. It is NECESSARY and MANDATORY to do so, unless you want us all to die along with this planet.
He’s just tryna make clothes in a simpler way, there’s no way that won’t improve the efficiency of the industry.
@@davidkorn5253It has nothing to do with the consumer, and everything to do with capitalism itself. The pursuit of profits at all costs is the hallmark of capitalism. If consumers purchased less, the manufacturers would make less money...something no company will ever consider. We only know growth capitalism, not sustaining capitalism. Profits must rise ever higher, or a company is considered stagnant and is abandoned. No amount of profit is ever enough. It will not stop until we have completely and utterly destroyed the earth.
everyone has their own fashion habits. though as they evolve over the decades, this machine proves a robust capacity to deliver goods effectively. also regardless of sustainability, I just would like to see less sweatshops in asia.
another great video. i've been super curious about garment automation since I learned how difficult it was a few years ago. this looks super cool. very interested in how it can reduce co2 and waste. also curious if it would make it easier to sell clothes that are custom sized to each person, which means everyone can get the clothes in a size that fits, and the fits will all be perfectly tailored to each person. cheers
would also be cool to pair this with the latest garment recycling technologies. imagine being able to give some old clothes and have them used to make new clothes on the spot. if people are bringing a variety of clothes, could produce some really interesting fabrics while being a model of sustainability.
And higher customization potentially. How can someone invest?
I recently had a chance to work with a group from Uganda. There, used American garments are literally dumped. A small percentage are purchased and worn by the population. The rest are dumped in large landfills which leak toxins from dyes and such which cause environmental damage. Furthermore, there is no local fashion industry. Clothes is no longer made in Uganda. The group hoped to stop the cycle and create jobs, especially for women.
In the early 20th Century, most clothes was made at home. Then workrooms grew. Finally New York City dominated the industry. So when JFK suggested sending just 2% off shore, only New York protested. Fast forward to now, New York still makes some clothes but a vast majority are made overseas.
Multiple thoughts:
- it still requires some manual labour according to him. Making it possibly still make more sense to place it somewhere with low labour costs.
- making something more efficient does not mean reducing total ressources spent.
- if this does succeed, I wonder what will happen to Bangladesh, where a lot of clothes get produced. To just say that these are underpaid, thus somehow abused laborers is not how most economists would describe it. In fact, it's clear that Bangladesh was able to make such economic gains in recent years because of its garment industry.
Obviously this makes sense however. And I'm very looking forward to the interview.
What happens to Bangladesh garment works? What happened to all those communities that raised horses when cars took over?
Bangladesh is just like everywhere else, subject to improvements and change. They can't hold on to their same economy forever. No need to worry about them, and no need to worry about what will happen to coal miners or oil workers or fruit pickers when robots get capable. Who cares? They'll find more work if they make an effort. The world is getting richer with more opportunity overall.
@@charliedoyle7824 So you are saying that being disrupted has no negative local consequences?
Because this was my whole argument.
I'm not saying that this won't increase global wealth.
And besides, what country is it that you speak of that has solely focused on horses and carriages?
There's a difference between disrupting a whole country or just an industry.
To illustrate this. Textile automation in the first industrial revolution did decrease living standards on the Indian subcontinent significantly - and for generations - by shifting it to the UK. Away from a place where it had a major role in the economy. Of course, 18xx is not 20xx, but I highly expect there to be serious economic issues as a result of this.
About the history of the textile industry:
It is often the most labour intensive industries that enable the poor to work themselves out of poverty. Because their labour is the cheapest. So it makes economic sense, both for them as well as for others, to allocate it to the labour intensive industries. The textile industry has forever, up until today, been a (no, THE) prime example to this. Whether you think of poor immigrants to the US in the early 20th century, poor in Europe up until mid 20th century, poor in Hong Kong up until the 80s and then later in Mainland China or today countries like Bangladesh. There is a strong pattern here that has repeated itself over time. Poor have used this industry as a stepping stone to work themselves out of poverty.
Among economists, an ongoing debate exists as to whether or not it will serve yet another area with low labour costs. Or if it will be automated first. Typically, lower developed parts of Africa are being thought of here. Whether or not it will do so depends on whether it will remain labour intensive.
So what is being deactivated in this case is a well established function for alleviating poor out of poverty.
Lastly. Notice how your "who cares" is different from how the founders describe themselves and their mission. Vastly different. Shouldn't that give you some bewonderment? And I know that this isn't a word. But at least you now have something to be bewondered about. Bewonderer.
@@InfoSopher I guess you need to work out how to deal with technological change by thinking out loud. The problem is, you are saying things that have no effect, because there is no world mechanism to decide which technology gets to make clothing, and where it gets to be made; unless you live in North Korea, that is.
My "who cares" has no effect on the world's garment workers, so my opinions don't really matter. I just try to push back on naive techno-phobes like you who have a poor grasp of what's happening and what to do about it.
And I'm not sure what you mean by the "founders".
What I'm telling you is, if a new manufacturing system comes along that is better, it will win out, and it would be insane to try and stop it. All educated people can see what's coming, and know what to do about it. And there are many similar examples of industries on the verge of huge disruption, such as truck/car driving jobs being automated away, programmers, call-center workers and millions of other data workers getting disrupted by AI, fossil--fuel workers becoming dinosaurs, etc. Trying to put a finger in every dike to slow down progress is just an idiotic nonstarter.
Your examples of Hong Kong and China undermine your whole position. They both used low-tech labor-intensive clothing manufacture as a short-term stepping stone to much higher-income industries. Had they taken your advice and stayed at the bottom of the manufacturing chain, they would be moribund, but they have been smart enough to get out in front of the change.
If Bangladesh is so broken that they can only do the world's low-value manual textile manufacturing, forever, with no ability to move up the ladder by investing in education and more sophisticated manufacturing and services, then that means they have terrible leadership and ideas; and yes, Bangladesh does have god-awful leadership. There is no world body to save them if they just sit there and cry about robots and AI taking their beloved 20th-Century sweat-shop jobs.
And I doubt the people of Bangladesh are quite as helpless and stupid as you think, apparently incapable of noticing what they need to do. The world is full of recent examples of how to climb the economic ladder: Israel, Taiwan, S. Korea, China, Eastern Europe, India, Mexico, Vietnam, Chile, and plenty more.
I grew up in a broken rust-belt Pittsburgh-area town that had the first aluminum plant in the U.S., called New Kensington. It was called the Aluminum City, but in 1970 Alcoa closed it and started a domino effect of other steel mills nearby closing, and the town is still on its knees, with less than half of its population of 1960.
I have no sympathy at all for that place, because they have had every opportunity to re-invent themselves, with Carnegie Mellon and Pitt nearby, and a Penn State New Kensington campus in town. But the idiots who run the town just don't have a clue how to do anything, and any ambitious young people move away.
I am certain that I could lead a re-invention of the town in a decade if I were so inclined. There are so many opportunities for products and services that are needed in the country and world, and surely there are enough semi-rich people around town to start an investment fund that gets supported by the city by providing cheap manufacturing space and school programs, as well as state and federal funds to grab; the whole downtown is a ghost town that could be cheaply re-purposed. But their mindset is, they are all just looking for a job, and if they start a business, it's a pizza place or hair salon; and their schools have always been a joke.
They deserve no sympathy; the government shouldn't declare that delapidated aluminum plants must stay open to support the idiots who can't think of anything else to do. BTW, that's exactly how the Soviet Union was run, along with Cuba presently.
Another big disruption that is coming pretty soon is how we produce meat. Apparently Meatball-Ron, the governor of Florida, agrees with you because he just signed a new law banning cultivated meat in Florida, to "save our meat farmers". Is that the kind of idiotic thinking you are talking about, banning the future to prevent anybody from having to deal with reality and progress?
the main costs for this type of model of production is energy cost w some labour component, so countries like Albania and Costa Rica could be attractive
@@charliedoyle7824
Let's not argue past each other.
You are reading things into what I write that aren't there.
Have I written that this tech ought to be prevented? No.
Have I written that labour intensive work ought to be anything but a temporary state for a society? No.
This is what you wrote:
"Your examples of Hong Kong and China undermine your whole position. They both used low-tech labor-intensive clothing manufacture as a short-term stepping stone to much higher-income industries. Had they taken your advice and stayed at the bottom of the manufacturing chain, they would be moribund, but they have been smart enough to get out in front of the change."
Compare that to what I wrote:
"It is often the most labour intensive industries that enable the poor to work themselves out of poverty.
.....
Among economists, an ongoing debate exists as to whether or not it will serve yet another area with low labour costs. Or if it will be automated first. Typically, lower developed parts of Africa are being thought of here. Whether or not it will do so depends on whether it will remain labour intensive.
So what is being deactivated in this case is a well established function for alleviating poor out of poverty."
I even used the same term "stepping stone" as you did in the "..." section:
"Poor have used this industry as a stepping stone to work themselves out of poverty."
Likewise, you're asuming to talk to someone that isn't there either. I'm in many ways the complete opposite of what you imagine. I come from a family that - in 3 generations since the mid 19th century - has been strongly involved in technological progress and all that comes with it. Both the good and bad.
What I'm saying then are 2 things:
a)
1. Low skilled, labour intensive industries have historically played a major role as a stepping stone for poor societies. Enabling workers to finance a better education for their kids.
2. There are still low skilled economies that could make use of ways out of poverty.
3. We are automating more and more of these types of industries.
4. The more we do that (3.), the less these industries will serve as a function for alleviating poverty. To the extent that we need to find a replacement - and to my knowledge we don't have one - or live in a world with areas that will be forever unskilled and poor.
Your examples:
Israel, Taiwan, S. Korea, China, Eastern Europe, India, Mexico, Vietnam, Chile
Israel:
1) Had a highly educated population coming from Europe involved in its founding. With a millenia old tradition of valuing education.
2) It further had significant outside help due to its unique historical situation. (US assistance, Germans building up infrastructure in the early years, good will by most wealthy nations etc.)
3) A large, highly educated "diaspora" (not quite the right term here I know) with a good economic network that was able to help it. Including many that dominated the garments industry at the turn of the 20th century in areas such as Prague (Austria-Hungary garment center then) and New York.
S. Korea and Taiwan:
1) Both were deeply affected by institutions built up during the Japanese imperial time (e.g. educational systems, state institutions, land reforms etc).
2) ... as well as huge US inflows coming from industrial requirements during the Vietnam war.
Two factors that played a major role in enabling them to become what they are now. And neither of which can easily be transplanted somewhere else.
China and India both made and make massive use of unskilled labour in exporting industries to work their way up. They also both received significant assistance by other societies. Although China historically made better use of that, particularly in education.
Eastern Europe:
1) EE received and receives huge transfers from the EU. Even some of the countries not in EU.
2) Many Eastern European countries had a great technical education system even during communist times. East Germany (take a look at where German fabs such as the new Intel fab or the ones from Global Foundries are located in Germany and read up on the GDR's efforts to keep up with Western semiconductors to illustrate this), Russia, Ukraine and the Czechs come to mind. So they already had at least this institution. Meaning that these countries don't serve as good examples for unskilled labour working itself out of poverty.
3) There was huge migration into EU from EE, leading to large remittances back into these countries.
4) Many of them gained unrestricted market access. Being able to export any and everything into the Schengen Zone. This isn't something that is easily going to be available for some of the poor countries that still exist.
5) Largely German companies built a lot of factories in these countries, making use of both skilled and unskilled labour.
Mexico and Vietnam are clearly examples for countries using unskilled labour (in the manufacturing industry) to work themselves up. In Mexico, remiitances also played a massive role in helping people (particularly the kids of migrants) get out of an uneducated and thus unskilled state.
Chile under the Chicago boys too focused on export driven, unskilled labour fueled growth. (mining, ag and forestry) And in fact, such exports still play a major role.
Conclusion to the examples:
- Quite a few of the countries you've mentioned never were in the situation of having to work their way up using only unskilled labour and thus do not serve as examples that would be able to illustrate your point.
- Those that were largely dependent on unskilled labour either profitted massively from external support of various kinds (instiutional, ressources, diaspora) or had some access to a means of making use of their unskilled labour pool.
Meaning that a society with largely unskilled labour is going to have to find a way of making use of it. Unless it gets massive help from the outside. Or has something to export. This in turn requires access to labour intensive industries, such as the textile industry. I've heard a number of economists talk about this over the years and it does correspond to the consensus among economists as far as I understand.
It may be possible for an individual living in an advanced society to make use of alternative options. Moving somewhere else. Or learning from more skilled people in the same language-sphere. But this is not as easily done in most poorer economies. Just imagine your old hometown would have had a border that you were not allowed to cross and the people outside all spoke a different language. Would you then too have made the way you did make?
b) The communcation of the company I find contradicts itself. They make claims that don't hold up to scutiny.
Generally, as an (here undercover) technoturtle myself, I'm allergic to people taking credit when it's not justified. Because then resources get allocated where they ought not to go. Or for the wrong reasons. This includes any form of greenwashing, socialwashing, racialwashing, techwashing, whitewashing or any kind of washing for that matter.
All of these are strategic communications used by companies to manipulate: distort reality, at times into the opposite of what it actually is.
2. E.g. I disagree with the notion, which is stated by the founder in the video here, that there would be a negative correlation between efficiency gains and environmental impact of a technology. Jevon's paradox is a well established logical economical reality that runs counter to this idea.
3. Another such statement by the founders effectively amounts to "we are -aspirationally- automating away 75 million low-paid jobs and thereby helping the workers, because who would want to have these jobs anyway?". (I've watched some YT vids on their channel. They make heavy use of such notions.)
However, helping workers by disrupting them would only make sense, if:
1) these workers would not be willing to take these jobs out of their own free will. Pointing to the notion that they represent a good option for them, given their circumstances. Meaning that taking away this option leaves them with the options they previously didn't choose. Which one thus may well regard as probably being worse options. For if they were not, why wouldn't they have already choose them?
2) some of the efficiency gains of the new tech would be spent on effective ways of getting these workers into a better situation. E.g. upskilling.
Notice that b) is not a critique of the tech or company, but the argument used in the communication by the founders.
I myself am somewhat allergic to it. As I've already come into contact with some of these forms in my own path through life. E.g. I am aware how utterly devoid of innovation some of the big tech companies really are. While portraying themselves as drivers of progress. In reality, these are just monopolies that need to be dismantled in order to free the resources (in the form of highly educated labour) that they take up. (Personally, I've one story in particular of a significant product improvement - that you've probably used yourself already
PS: The problem with your argument regarding your hometown is that you are saying that it would be easy, if it were easy.
- It would be easy, if responsibility for it succeeding would not lay elsewhere. -
Reality is, that likely many coming from Pittsburgh will think like that. In particular those that leave or consider doing so. But without talking to each other, they end up believing that their way of looking at the situation is unique. It's a bunch of reasonable people thinking of each other as total idiots. Each and everyone telling themselves that if only others would think like them, it would all be easily changeable. The implication of which being: passivity.
Have you guys considered a subscription service for clothing?
So many people buy clothes, wear them once, and then return them. Shops really ought to just offer a borrowing service.
Where is your final comment, like in the other videos? I liked how you put things in context
Love the new video quality, but the editing has lost something. Before these episodes were longer, less slick and very meaty... now they seem like long advertisements and less meat.
All these companies have discoveries. Some are proprietary, but a lot of them are things people in their sphere know that are public but that are not more widespread. I would prefer the 40 minute interview with the nerd who touches on several aspects of technology to this which really didn't say anything concrete, all aspirational. I can't learn anything from this and I can't evaluate the company as an investment from this. But if I ever get a chance to put money in terraform labs, I will... that video was the perfect example of what I love(d?) about this channel.
"What do you know that everyone else thinks is false" is a famous Peter Theil question... would be great to get your subjects to answer it.
Trying to be less cutty and let the founders talk more versus cut-cut-cut (fake), increasing amount of technical details is good. In general though editing long episodes well every week is extremely hard. Can't do it for every episode.
Make the content you enjoy, the way you enjoy it. You will never please everybody. So many UA-camrs talk about how chasing the algorithm or bending to all the whims of their followers just burns them out
@@s3_build "increasing amount of technical details is good" - Plus one.
Is there not already lots of seamless machines already used by companies like GymShark
do they use solution dyed textiles?
The issue is that clothes made from plastics are cheap, and durable, but every time you wash them, they produce a lot of microplastics that can’t be filtered out.
Also, clothes like these, can’t be recycled.
such a great video
Although tech is amazing and their innovation is impressive, Feels like replacing tools in entire fabric industry feels like a pipe dream.. companies won't replace their tools when a shiny new thing is on the market... they have long term contracts, highly trained and experienced employees...
i maintain 30y old COBOL Mainframes in a IT firm when smartphones are more powerful than that....
Nice guy but can we see the clothing up close?
That’s a very quiet factory. lol
love it
Too much wordy PR, and not enough footage of the process.
I learned much more about 3D weaving from other much less hand wavy videos!
the Idea is great but but right now there are billions of tons of clothes that are still good put in garbage dumps, making them last longer won't mean that people will use them longer and making them cheaper means that people may not care if they get tossed out as much.
would be really cool if they could create it in a single pice, not e.g three pieces for a t-shirt
It would have been nice if he had talked less about "sustainability" and been more honest about what they actually do-mass manufacturing without mass manufacturing.
We have this thing. Trust us, you can't say it. This is the same as a magician saying close your eyes
I'm going to make something disappear
??? The clothes shown in the video were made by their machine 😂
bro what is your problem get a life
@@s3_build - Was that the machine that you blurred out with sfx?
You can see why he makes the comparison with an illusionist. Just go ahead and show the process. It it really has 30k plus moving physical components, it is unlikely that the average youtuber will be able to recreate one in their basement. You would probably get a lot of interesting suggestions for improvements though.
Startups tend to hold their tech very close to the vest with good reason: If they didn't someone could come along and copy it before the company gets off the ground, even if they just saw it on UA-cam. UA-cam is a public site, not a private conference. They would be foolish to show the details of their tech here. If you want to know more about it because you're a *serious* investor candidate, contact them, show them the money, and they'll have you sign an Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) and *then* show you their tech. As Jason says, the proof of what they say they can do is in the clothing shown in the video.
@@christopherd.winnan8701 It has nothing to do with the "average youtuber" doing it in hsi basement, DUH. It has to do with industrial corporate espionage. Was this not immediately obvious?
wont be cheaper then $1 hr in in china, one string breaks systems gos down , that string gets tangeled in other strings, looks like a maintenance nightmare. but maybe they worked that out..
90% polyesther and 10% cotton... US Plastic Fashion
If you can make me a pair of pants that will not ride up my as$ I'm sold.
I don't get why people put upward inflections at the end of their sentences when they aren't questions. It sounds like you're asking a question, but it ends in a period. You just sound confused.
10 min ago I'm in
very cool approach and idea, but they underestimate just how many poor people are out there willing to sacrifice their time for pennies. that will always be the hurdle to clear. can robots be cheaper than what the most poverty stricken population is prepared to do. when we hit that point the same would be true for things like food production and energy distribution. maybe we can become a post-scarcity society at that point.
Guy should maybe start by wearing his own clothes
Cool technology wasted on a poor vision and fallacious rhetoric, sad to see.
- What are you doing?
- 3D knitting.
- Can you show us something?
- No, it's a secret. We won't show you anything, but for the next half hour, you're going to hear how cool it is.
I am scared, if it works, it will push Bangladesh out of business.
enough hippy green earth bs show me the product buddy
Jokes on you. 2 in 5 Teslas destroy themselves.
It is pretty crazy that there are 2 million Teslas out there that destroyed themselves! Did not know that.
@HRBJHDno, me neither
Rewear your clothes and don't buy new ones. Problem solved.
Cool sounding idea but video too long for nothing to show and not much said
dude has some pronunciation problem and speaks like a teenager, i have to concentrate real hard to understand what's he saying.
yo what is S3's twitter?