Loft: Your collaborations with major brands like Google, Adidas, and The North Face have shaped your e-textile expertise. What inspired your entry into wearable technology development? Given your role as a thought leader at the nexus of technology, design, and usability, would you discuss your shift from research and development to product-focused outcomes?

‍

Madison: My journey into wearable technology began somewhat unexpectedly. Originally interested in design, I found myself disillusioned with design school as it wasn't what I anticipated. This prompted a shift towards research and development, which aligned more with my interests. During this period, I also wanted to create a website, leading me to take programming classes in Ruby on Rails, which sparked my interest in hardware. Combining this with my design background, particularly in textiles, steered me towards e-textiles and wearables. This path was largely shaped by pursuing personal interests and finding a niche where I could add unique value. Our aim is to become more product-oriented, largely influenced by our funding journey. Initially, we didn't fully understand our market or focus areas, so engaging in R&D was crucial for identifying viable opportunities. We're now transitioning towards being a product company, and I'm optimistic about our progress over time.

‍

Loft: It's fascinating that you've worked with major brands often on bespoke projects. How did you transition the insights from these custom collaborations into more productized solutions or components within an ecosystem? I'd love to hear about your journey from creating tailored developments to offering pre-qualified, ready-to-implement products. Could you share your experience with this evolution. You've managed to transition from this model to scaling e-textiles for mass production, bringing them closer to mainstream use. What was the hardest part of making this scale change? How did your R&D efforts help overcome these challenges?

‍

Madison: The journey has been very procedural, evolving slowly, step by step. Initially, projects like those with Google and North Face were bespoke—crafted one at a time by hand. When we attempted to make just two, the challenge of manual labor and lack of reliable, robust materials became apparent. Early on, options like DuPont and Intexar were the only printed electronics solutions available, but they were reluctant to provide samples for small-scale prototypes. This limitation led me to explore creating our own solutions, delving into materials research that could potentially lead to scalable products. Each step, from developing a single prototype to finding a new material, required considering who else might need this material and under what conditions it would perform optimally. This process involved continuous R&D, cost engineering, and revisiting client requirements, making the journey an adventurous one.

‍

However, one of the most significant challenges has been pinpointing viable markets. While e-textiles are often associated with clothing and wearables, the reality is that most apparel companies are not willing to invest in innovation, nor do they see substantial profit in embedding electronics. This realization shifted our focus to sectors with electromechanical needs, such as automotive interiors, medical devices, and robotics—markets not typically associated with e-textiles but where the real opportunities lie. Understanding these markets and their needs has been the toughest part. Having customers allows us to engage in the exciting aspects of our work; without them, the opportunities to innovate are severely limited. This ongoing challenge of market identification and adaptation is what we continue to work on, striving to fully unlock the potential of e-textiles.

‍

Loft: Can you share some insights on your key challenges in scaling e-textile technology, particularly in maintaining performance while ensuring production scalability. Loomia has brought e-textiles to specialized vertical markets such as mobility, robotics and med tech. How did you break into these industries, and how did you learn about their specific test requirements? Additionally, how did you navigate the challenges associated with achieving regulatory compliance in these fields?

‍

Madison: Our focus in the medical sector has primarily been on wellness-related products, as we're not involved in medical devices. However, our deeper engagement in the automotive industry has introduced us to extensive testing requirements—each component can come with a 50-page booklet outlining numerous tests necessary for implementation. This aspect, coupled with the industry's tight margins, makes cost engineering particularly challenging. Our entry into these specialized markets was gradual. Often, it involved discussions with potential customers who would consider a project with us, share their testing specifications, and sometimes, despite not proceeding with the project, leave us with valuable insights. Although it was disappointing when projects didn't materialize, it provided us with crucial specifications that set a baseline for future engagements.

‍

There's no secret formula to our progress; it's a combination of time, hard work, and strategic engagements like Plug and Play.

‍

A significant boost came from participating in the Plug and Play program in California, which led to our first serious automotive industry conversation. We continue to learn and adapt through each interaction. Many of our current clients were contacts we made years ago, who initially thought our solutions were not ready or too costly. Persistently working on these relationships has been key to eventually gaining their trust. There's no secret formula to our progress; it's a combination of time, hard work, and strategic engagements like Plug and Play.

‍

Loft: You mentioned the collaboration between your R&D team and external testing labs for qualifying materials. Given the complexity of prototyping soft materials, especially those integrated with electronics, which are notoriously difficult to prototype in small volumes compared to hard materials, how did you manage this challenge? Did you expand your team to include testing engineers, or was this handled entirely by your R&D team?

‍

Madison: Our approach to prototyping and testing, especially given our budget constraints, primarily involves our R&D team along with some external testing. For instance, we're currently working with Dekra for personal testing and running a certification test for one of our products. Internally, we maintain minimal testing setups, such as a thermal couple set and a heater validation setup, and generally send more developed products to third-party labs for comprehensive testing. I want to highlight the contributions of our development team, CTO and our Fabrication and R&D Manager. They've developed innovative techniques for handling soft and floppy materials in repeatable ways, which is crucial because these materials are challenging to work with. If you don't follow the established processes, it's difficult to achieve consistent and accurate outcomes.

‍

This focus on manual skill is a critical hiring criterion, reflecting the unique demands of our work with e-textiles.

‍

Our hiring process is tailored to ensure that our team possesses the necessary skills for this precise work. During the later stages of hiring, we send a box of components to candidates to observe their hands-on capabilities. It's essential for us to employ individuals who are not only skilled but also have excellent dexterity and hand-eye coordination, as the handling of these materials is neither intuitive nor easy. This focus on manual skill is a critical hiring criterion, reflecting the unique demands of our work with e-textiles.

‍

Loft: What advice would you offer to the next generation of entrepreneurs in the wearable tech industry? For developers interested in wearable innovation who might be considering specializing in the field, what degree, specialization, or focus areas would you recommend?

‍

Madison: The realm of e-textiles is distinct from other hardware wearables like the Aura Ring, and my advice would cater specifically to those interested in e-textiles. If you're drawn to fashion and tech and aspire to work with e-textiles, it's crucial to recognize that the fashion industry offers limited opportunities for this technology. Most fashion companies don't have a substantial need for e-textiles, with some exceptions in niche areas like heated clothing. For those keen on incorporating technology into apparel, I recommend focusing on passive materials. If your interest lies specifically in e-textiles, align your training with markets that show promise, such as medical, automotive, robotics, and VR.

Pursuing a degree in Material Science and Electrical Engineering or Mechatronics would be beneficial—make sure to integrate textiles into your personal projects, as this combination is highly desirable in our industry. Alternatively, if you're inclined towards medical devices, consider studying Biomechanics, again incorporating e-textiles into your projects. For those with a design orientation, Industrial Design could be a great fit, allowing you to work with various materials and develop product concepts centered around e-textiles. These pathways reflect the current market needs and where I believe significant opportunities exist for aspiring professionals in the e-textiles sector.

‍

Loft: Considering the long-standing promise yet limited market success of fashion wearables, such as those attempted by Ralph Lauren and Under Armour, what do you think has prevented these products from gaining significant market adoption? Is it more a case of the industry seeking applications for its innovations rather than responding to existing market needs?

‍

Customers have high demands for clothing and garments, and the technology struggles to meet these demands.

‍

Madison: "I'd also love to hear your opinion on this. In my view, customer demand for clothing and garments is extremely high, and the market struggles to meet these demands. Whenever I discuss this with clothing producers, they appreciate the technology but are hesitant about incorporating batteries, which are essential for powering electronics. They tell me that their customers are unwilling to accept garments with visible or bulky batteries. Customers have specific expectations for how clothing should function and feel, and they often reject options that are either too expensive or uncomfortable, both common issues when adding electronics. Given these high demands, it seems the industry is unable to meet customer needs without significant investment in development, which isn't justified by current market dynamics. What are your thoughts on this? I'd appreciate your perspective."

‍

Loft: I believe we have not reached the technology horizon for wearable batteries to enable universal use-cases for general adoption. We might still be a decade or more from creating truly unobtrusive wearable technologies, like thin-layer batteries integrated into garments for heating or embedded computers and sensors. However in markets where there's a critical need for such innovations, users might accept certain compromises, such as bulkiness or discomfort. However, in less critical applications, people are likely to reject wearables that don't meet their standards for comfort and functionality. The future development of wearable technologies, especially considering the potential to future-proof market opportunities will reducing the size of batteries over time. Given that technology often follows a trend similar to Moore's Law, battery capacity could double and size could halve every 3 - 5 years which will ultimately make  a general purpose etextile solution more viable in the next decade. The real opportunity for wearables today lies in specific vertical markets rather than general, widespread use, similar to the niche adoption of VR glasses for commercial applications, where they can enable specific task that would otherwise be impossible.

‍

Madison Maxey: Absolutely, that's an excellent point. For instance, if someone is on a critical mission where they might physically freeze, dealing with a battery becomes worthwhile to ensure survival. Similarly, the Zoll cardiac arrest vest is another prime example. If there's a risk of spontaneous cardiac arrest, wearing a vest equipped with batteries that can resuscitate you on demand is a life-saving measure. However, such devices wouldn't be universally adopted by everyone; they're specifically valuable for those at high risk. Wearables, particularly those integrated into clothing, really capture people's imagination, which can sometimes be mistaken for actual market demand. For example, when I mention that we manufacture auto interior components, it usually doesn't excite people much. In contrast, if you talk about creating smart shirts that perform innovative functions, people often react with enthusiasm, intuitively believing that it's a great idea. So there's also a lot of noise in the market driven by this excitement, where the interest seems more based on feelings rather than practical demand. How do you differentiate between genuine market needs and the hype in such an emotionally influenced market?

‍

Loft: It seems like the e-textile industry resembles an iceberg, where the visible peak represents the appealing, high-tech wearables that capture everyone's attention, while the bulk, containing the real business opportunity lies in the less glamorous subcomponent level where complex problems are solved? This might be fascinating for tech enthusiasts but often leaves the general public uninspired. We, as humans, often seek to humanize technology. A garment, being a fundamental cultural object that has been with us for centuries, naturally prompts us to want it to be smart. However, the technology required to make garments smart is still not advanced enough to overcome the inherent challenges that such an innovation would present.

‍

Generally speaking, the challenge often lies in the fact that no one is really investing in advancing the technology to a consumer level

‍

Madison: Yes, I agree with your analogy of the iceberg; it's a very apt visual. Generally speaking, the challenge often lies in the fact that no one is really investing in advancing the technology to a consumer level. For instance, funding from entities like the DoD is aimed at specific applications with different demands. It seems that any technology with sufficient financial backing will eventually reach its potential. However, with garment-based wearables, there appears to be a kind of ping-pong game where garment industry players expect technologists to solve certain problems, and technologists respond by saying they'll solve these problems if they're adequately funded. Then, the garment side hesitates to provide funding until these issues are resolved. Somebody has to break this cycle and foster collaboration between these groups to advance wearable technology!

‍

Loft: DoD funding can indeed drive technological advancements! Companies like Bose and Apple initially benefited greatly from programs like SBIR, which provided them with the necessary funding to develop their technologies. If a company like Loomia selects the right SBIR project and pushes it forward, it could eventually lead to consumer adoption. However, this process tends to take a longer time because it requires fulfilling the specific needs outlined by the DoD, which might not align perfectly with a company's own roadmap. How do you view the impact of such government-funded initiatives on private sector innovation and consumer technology development?

‍

Madison: In my role as a business owner, I find that it isn't good business to focus solely on fulfilling the specific needs of industries like the DoD, because it limits broader market engagement. That's what I mean by the 'ping pong game'—until there's a truly viable opportunity, I won't pursue an SBIR just to solve a niche problem. Instead, I'll use SBIR resources to address issues that directly affect my auto customers, as that's where my business currently thrives.

‍

Loft: It makes sense. Aligning your company's roadmap with customer needs is crucial for longterm technology adoption. If they align, perfect, but without proper funding, it's challenging to progress. It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation. Thank you for the insightful conversation. As we wrap up, where do you see the next major breakthrough in wearable technologies in the next years?

‍

Madison: I believe the nearest term opportunity lies in heated apparel, assuming battery placement and chemistry can be optimized. I think this market has significant potential for growth. In the e-textile space I'm more excited about developments in robotics and automotive. There seems to be a real opportunity to make an impact in these industries.

‍

Loft: Thanks for this great and truly insightful conversation!

‍

‍