
Mink Is A 3D Printer For Makeup - denzil_correa
http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/05/mink-is-a-3d-printer-for-makeup/
======
fembot__
They don't appear to have a website. I tried to look them up after the
techcrunch event here in NY and it seems that that was the first time anyone
had ever heard of them.

That said, I actually disagree with hagbardgroup. If Choi can pull this off, I
think it would open up the world of custom makeup to a huge market of people
far beyond the "home-brew" makeup hobbyists. The idea of putting on a fall
outfit and being able to print out the perfect shade of mauve without getting
in my car and going to Walgreens and spending $12 is pretty incredible. I
think a lot of women, even those outside the target age bracket, would find
this product useful.

~~~
vm
Website: [http://gracemink.com/](http://gracemink.com/)

------
minimaxir
Original TechCrunch source: [http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/05/mink-
is-a-3d-printer-for-ma...](http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/05/mink-
is-a-3d-printer-for-makeup/)

The comments on that article are very interesting, as they assert that the
product isn't finished and the demo was extremely hacked together.

~~~
dang
Thanks. We switched to that url from [1] as a more original source.

1\. [http://www.elle.com/news/beauty-makeup/3d-makeup-
printer](http://www.elle.com/news/beauty-makeup/3d-makeup-printer)

------
hagbardgroup
Dumb question: what's the matter with the home makeup brewing methods that
have been used for centuries now?

If you know women in the home-brew makeup/perfume/beauty community, it seems
like they're already well served without needing a printer. The same people
who would know enough to buy a printer also know enough to buy pigment from a
craft shop. The market that isn't that clued in reads Seventeen or Elle and
overpays for Revlon at Walgreens because they're low-information consumers.
The low-information consumers are already buying Revlon because they don't
know any better and don't want to know any better.

I think what'd be more interesting is a machine that serves the small
manufacturers better, which can make small batch runs more profitable and
reduce reliance on larger manufacturers.

~~~
bsenftner
There is an interesting story with the UK company "Lush". They were an early
commercial player in the create your own makeup scene, with a main appeal of
creating the cosmetics in-store, to order and while customers watched. Sorta
like a gourmet chef. Lush was never able to get FDA or whatever approval for
that type of 'unsanitary and unsafe' business model, and their US based
counterpart is a sad reseller of bath products in fancy packaging. I expect
the larger cosmetics industry keeps a firm hold on any home brewing of makeup
with a mixture of regulation, and FUD.

~~~
hagbardgroup
Yup. Lush is an amazing shop. I know lots of women who buy soaps and such
almost exclusively from there.

------
cw3
I really don't understand the attention Choi is getting with this. After
watching her on stage at Techcrunch, and seeing how vague she is with the
actual implementation, it's pretty clear to anyone paying attention that she
simply painted a printer and pretended to print a makeup pod. My girlfriend
even remarked how it looked exactly like a Bare Escentuals pod off the shelf.
She basically got all this attention with an idea and no actual
implementation.

To me, this would be the same as someone going up on stage and saying they've
created a food printer, stuck a Subway sandwich in there and pretended to
"print" it. If I were to do that, I'd be laughed off the stage instead of
getting so much press and acclaim.

Her ability to convince the world was perhaps because this idea seems simple
enough that we just might believe it (although I have to think printing a dye
on a substrate you can apply to your face is a VERY hard problem.)

Not that I give much weight to Techcrunch as it is, but it saddens me to see
so many other companies that worked so hard and actually built real things get
overshadowed by an HBS MBA who built a weekend hack reminiscent of many high
school science fairs efforts.

I really really hope she proves me wrong.

------
telot
Why where makeup at all? The whole beauty-industrial-complex seems so ripe for
destruction, and not disruption. My wife wears zero makeup, and I find she's
ridiculously hot. Lets face facts: 1\. Most makeup is not good for your skin
2\. Makeup is deceitful (you're not showing your true self to the world =
deceitful) 3\. It's an enormous financial burden (especially for single
women).

~~~
jedberg
Do you shave? I'm just going to assume you do and then ask you why you choose
to deceive the world about your hair growth.

It's the same thing. It's not actually good for you (removes a natural defense
for your skin), it's deceitful and it's a financial burden (you have to buy
razors and supplies).

Human beautification is a many thousands of year old tradition -- it's as much
a part of being a human as expressing oneself through language.

~~~
serf
that's a pretty false analogy, if you care to compare the sexes there are men
that wear makeup as well.

facial hair can be a potential fire hazard, and is often considered to be too
unhygienic for food workers. Both are reasons for an employer to request your
continual shaving.

Do similar problems arise for cosmetics and the people that wear them? I don't
wear cosmetics, but I don't believe that there are any overlapping laws which
restrict their use such as the rules that food handlers must abide by.

~~~
jedberg
While you've brought up perfectly valid points, you didn't actually refute
anything I said.

Yes, some people are required to shave for their job, but most are not and
still do. Some women are required to wear makeup for their jobs, but most
aren't and still do.

Regardless, my initial arguments still apply to all the cases where one is not
required by one's job.

