Macs were $2500 in 1984, but a lot more useful, even with a 9" black and
white monitor. I made a living with one for years. I don't think I
could say the same thing for a domestic robot.
By the early 1980s computers were already common in business and were
useful tools with demonstrable application and cost-savings. I don't
think there's any comparison here.
-- Gordon
Hi all
I have to agree with Gordon on the cost point. This is a great robot but
cost is a major factor in the market place. If you could earn money with
one of these in a manufacturing environment say, it may be worth the
money but as a home help it does look expensive. Another problem is the
idea of tele-operation. If the robot was able to wash up on its own
then this may be useful, but if it has to be told how to wash up, where
each plate is. When to pick it up. When its clean. Were to put it to
drain etc by a tele-operator then that lessens its value.
It looks like the same old problem robots have been coming up against
for years. We need AI of a sufficient standard to use the hardware
designs available to us to their fullest extent.
Until AI has reached this standard all the robots built for this sort of
environment have to be focused on one "simple" task. ie: vacuuming or
grass cutting. I think this is the one thing that is holding robots back.
I don't know if its possible to create an AI brain in the current
computer hardware architectures we have or if we need a new type of
computer to achieve this. I don't think anybody knows what AI really is.
We know what we want it to do just not the methods to be able to do it.
I think a break though in AI will jump start the personal robotics
industry but until then I feel it is a dream.
Just my personal opinions which looking at my current creations probably
aren't worth a lot ;)
Rob
btw. When I stated the "simple" tasks don't get me wrong. I have not
built a robot that could mow the lawn yet and would love to be able to
do so, BUT i suspect washing up is FAR more difficult that grass cutting.
I'm happy if mine stops before it hits the wall and drives in a straight
line :)
<snip>
Just checked it out on Amazon.
It made my head hurt :)
Its available second hand in the UK for about £7:00 including delivery.
Its on order as I type.
I suspect it will be above me but I'd love to understand a bit about how
the brain works.
Weather it is possible to build a brain like system in silicon I don't
know, but may be this book holds the answer.
Thanks for the pointer.
Rob
I briefly saw an article about someone building memory systems on this
model. I'll see if I can find it next week, maybe there's an online copy.
-John O
I was at a robot conference called Robobusiness and the AI question
was presented to Keenan Wyrobek from Willow Garage
(www.willowgarage.com). Keenan basically said that the experts believe
AI doesn't exist yet for complex tasks so the initial focus of their
PR1/2 robot would be on some form of teleoperation for manipulations.
You can see some pretty cool videos at their website.
My view is that we need to get a capable/affordable platform in the
hands of all the great programmers out there in order to advance the
field. Imagine telling the contestants of the DARPA Grand Challenge
that they have no access to robotic vehicles for development and
testing. This surely would have slowed things down. In fact, I heard
that the Stanford team that won basically got a robotic vehicle from
VW so they could focus solely on the software side.
Danh
The point I was trying to make, and obviously I missed the mark, is it
is not necessarily the price that turns people off but the usefulness.
We need to worry more about what it does than what it costs. Cost must
be kept in mind but function has a lot more to do with it.
Then we need to consider marketing!. The Amiga computer ran circles
around both the Mac and the PC when it came out but a lack of support
and ZERO marketing killed it. The computer was a great tool and was
followed by many but good old Commodore shot it in the back due to
poor support and total lack of marketing.
I believe the key to success is finding the RIGHT NICHE and fill it
with a quality product even if it costs a bit more to start. At this
point trying to duplicate "Data" of Star Trek is not a realistic
target but what about something simpler but functional. Maybe a home
bar tender, a intelligent "stand up" wheel chair, who knows....
FWIW a MAC II when it came out] I believe listed for like $4999 and a
IBM PC was a touch more with it's whopping 5 meg hard-drive :) Then
the Taiwanese got involved :).
Monty
Gordon:
Most people have forgotten what the home brew computer market was
like before the IBM PC made its debut. The main hobbyist period
for personal computers was from early 1975 with the MITS Altair
through mid-1981 with the IBM PC. During that time people would
buy boards from places like Jade Electronics and Priority One
Electronics, solder them together and build an S100 bus machine.
The machines could not do much. I think that is the period of
robotics that we are entering. The volumes and margins were low,
and people saved money by building it themselves - Heathkit style.
Shortly after the IBM PC, the business model changed and volumes
went way up and the hobbyist influence went way down.
By the way, the Readybot is designed to do both semi-automated
tasks and be teleoperated. I would state that its goal is to
be the S100 bus of hobbyist robotics.
Lastly, with inflation, the $2500 Mac 128K in 1984 would cost
$4929 in 2007 (almost double.) A $5K platform in 2007 would
have cost $1235 in 1975. Hobbyists were willing to spend a
couple of thousand dollars on a personal computer (that did not
do very much) back in 1975. BTW, I used the inflation calculator
at:
<http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
to get these numbers.
I have no false expectations about what a robot like ReadyBot
can do (not much), but it can be another mile post in the long
road towards useful general purpose robots.
-Wayne
If that's the case the period has lasted some 30-40 years. I'm not
contesting the idea that we're still in an exploratory phase, but
comparing this kind of robotics with PCs misses the mark, IMO.
The main reason for the disparity is that after the hobbyists, the early
adopters of commercial PCs (IBM PC, Kaypro, etc.) MADE money on them.
IOW, they spent money to make money. They used them in business, or even
to start a business. Markets are different when a discretionary product
is consumed for its own benefit only, which would be the case of a
domestic robot. Except in very narrow cases, how can you justify its
expense?
Because the market is not likely to be energenic unless the price is
fairly low (under $1,000 or so retail) you just won't see many companies
making the R&D investment. Without the investment we'll lag behind on
things like sturdy platforms with arms and hands that can do at least
what a toddler can do, affordable vision, reasonable safety (i.e. very
strong but not too heavy), and other features needed to propel this
forward.
Well, the PC legitimized it, but there were already lots of business
users with even the Radio Shack TRS-80. That was the first computer I
used to write articles with, and again, I was making money with it.
There's no way I could have justified the expense for the sake of a toy,
even to myself, let alone my wife.
Agree, and lots of us spend that much on robots today, small and large.
Hobbyists have a different perspective than the mainstream market.
I'm just as much a fan of robotics as the next person here. But the
problem I have making too large a leap into tech that doesn't yet exist,
at a pricepoint anyone can afford: I've found it discourages people from
getting in - and especially staying in - this field.
It's like research on nuclear fusion for power. We know how it works and
what we need, but we're just not there yet in creating a containment
vessle to tame the thing. As a result it largely remains a fantasy as a
means to deliver electrical power. (The violent explosion part we have
worked out pretty well, unfortunately.)
On the other hand, there are MANY robot markets that are workable today,
with present technology, and at prices those markets are willing to pay.
For example, security, law enforcement, and military are all willing to
pay fairly high prices for a working telerobotic device. The US gobment
is willing to put money into DARPA Grand Challenge because it sees good
potential for autonomous vehicles (less robots and more like a car
version of airplane drones, but we can call them 'bots just the same).
I'd be happy if I see a domestic robot take the market during my
lifetime, but it might not happen. Lots of other robotics challenges
will be met by then, and it's important to keep the potential for
success in focus.
-- Gordon
Lots of people make the analogy. There is no particular reason
why we have follow the exact same path and time-line of the PC.
I just wanted to point out that the personal computer hobbyist
era lasted ~6.5 years.
I would claim that there was plenty of product development going on.
There were 100's of S100 boards developed, marketed and sold, for a
profit.
People purchase things because they are fun. It is a hobby!
How much money do people spend on hobby boats, cars, and even
planes?
If you go back to old copies of Byte and Kilobyte magazine, it was
littered with ad's for hobby grade products that people developed
and sold for money. Today, flip through the pages of Servo and Nuts
and Volts. Products are being developed and sold for a profit.
The reason why I chose the PC as the demarcation point, is because
shortly after the PC was released, the hobbyist marked more or
less imploded. After the dust settled, there was Apple and PC
architecture. The rest were swept into the corner and forgotten --
Commadore, TRS-80, H89, Acorn, Pet, Cromenco, etc. all gone.
People were buying Apple-]['s to run Visi-Calc, the killer ap.
of the PC industry. People ask what is the killer ap for robotics,
and I do not know.
We are in total agreement here.
I agree. I have watched people decide to spend 100's of hours
to develop a robot sub-system that is readily available for $10-$20.
Sometimes I shake my head in wonder at how cheap amateur robotics
people. Part of it is your fault for writing the book "Robot Builders
Bonanza" and showing how much could be done on budget. ;-)
[snip fusion]
No argument.
I have no idea how long it will take. I am just stating that hobbyists
have can continue to dabble in this area.
-Wayne
Musing...in the 50's when the modern idea of a human-like robot really took
off, the futurists predicted all sorts of work-saving devices that would
give us all the leisure time we wanted. Push a button and dinner comes out
of a thing. Push another button and the house is cleaned. Etc. Some of that
isn't too far from what I have now, but today as a society we're all getting
weak and fat, and slowly realizing that the idea of sitting on our asses
every non-working hour isn't so good for us. ;-)
But, the ide of the human-like home robot lives on. A guy I work with, who
not coincidentally managed the development of the Heros, talks like
Gordon...40 years now and we still don't know what they're going to do.
I want a robot that doesn't forget to take out the trash on Mondays. I want
one that chops onions, garlic, and celery, but doesn't take 20 minutes to
clean. Since I was a kid I dreamed of one that would stir the pot when
making real pudding. :-) I want one that will play catch with me, and my
son. In my house, I want HAL, not Rosie. I can get HAL...
:-)
-John O
Wayne,
Assuming your last sentence was intended to read "how cheap amateur
robotics people [are]":
I can only speak for myself with any certainty, but I'll guess that
I'm not alone in seeing a difference between "acquiring capability"
(through purchasing) and "gaining understanding" (from building
something and trying -- and trying and trying <grin!> -- to make it
work). I don't see these as exclusive; in fact, I suspect that
anyone who spent hundreds of hours making his own IR-based wheel
encoders is more than a little likely to spend $20 for "off the
rack" the next time he wants one. <grin!>
Ah, well, I have to agree with you there. Any justification I feel
I need for my electronics and construction budget will begin with
the phrase "Gordon made me do it!" <grin!>
Frank McKenney
--
It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your
calculations. -- J. R. R. Tolkien
--
Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates
Richmond, Virginia / (804) 320-4887
Munged E-mail: frank uscore mckenney ayut mined spring dawt cahm (y'all)
Yes, I know, and the comparison has never proved itself out. *I* even
used the comparison in the mid 1980s when I was pitching my original
book, but I was wrong. After several decades at least some of the
predictions should have come true by now.
What we have are two very distinct genres, the hobbyist market that
tinkers with robotics because (as you say) it's fun, and the BUSINESS of
creating a home robot. Danh was saying we have all the technologies now,
which to a point is true, but not at prices anyone but the very well
heeled can afford.
To get the prices down we need scale, as was done with PCs. But robotics
is vastly different than PCs: Scale in robotics is FAR more difficult to
achieve than board-level electronics, and Moore's Law simply does not
apply. We can't expect manufacturers to create precision metal gear
motors of the type needed for higher-end robots for a buck a piece.
Motors are made in high quantity now for all types of industry, and they
continue to be expensive. Why? The parts that go into them are
expensive, and constructing them takes more than a fab line at a board
sweatshop. We know a lot of the cost (and weight) of a our hobby robots
go into motors, and many of us use motors that they made in large
quantity.
There will simply never be a market for domestic robots unless the price
gets to a point where its value encourages interest. The value of a
domestic robot is in direct proportion to the capabilities afforded by
its construction. The type of construction needed to produce a robot
that can actually do useful work (and hence "earn its keep") is
significant.
So what we end up with is a zero sum game: we can't have low-cost
domestic robots until they are cheap and do useful things, and the only
way they can become cheap is large scale, which won't happen because
apart from a few vacuum robots they just don't do useful work.
Contrast with PCs: even the early computers with 64K RAM and a
calculator chip for a brain could do Visicalc, a "killer app." For the
PC, the killer app didn't take a lot of hardware. This is why the
PC-robot comparison falls flat.
So, says I, it's better to take all this effort and build a robot that
SOMEONE WILL ACTUALLY BUY! I've already talked about the high end, but
on the low end there's still the hobby market, the toy market, the
technophile market (try in 3-4 years because of the economy), and the
growing service market for specialized mid-level bots for things like
well inspection, pest and vermin control, and so on. These are (or can
be) just as exciting as a domestic bot, yet the probability of someone
actually managing to build a successful business with one is far
greater.
Success even in a hobby keeps you interested; decades of false promises
just make you look for another career path. This is why I'm not keen on
spending lots of time on a so-called domestic robot as I think the whole
thing becomes a kill joy. ("Gee honey, but look, it fetches me a beer so
I don't have to get up out of my chair!" Yeah, right!)
-- Gordon
Gordon:
I think we are talking to cross purposes here. I keep talking about
the hobbyist market and you keep talking about the high volume
business market.
As far as I am concerned, the hobbyist robotic market is alive and
well. People are designing, marketing and selling products to that
space. I have no idea if these products are profitable, but they
are unlikely to be able to pay for advertising if there is not some
positive revenue coming in. I could care less if they are high
volume.
People are already selling hobbyist robotic platforms in the
$500-$2K range. RoboOne robots are a perfect example.
My statement is that if somebody designs and markets a domestic
robotic platform for $500-$2K, robotics hobbyists will buy them.
Period.
The ReadyBot domestic robot platform <http://www.readybot.com/
can easily be redesigned to sell in the $1K-$2K price point.
When I did a marketing study at the last HBRC meeting, a few
hands went up at $2K and a dozen or so hands went up at $1K.
-Wayne
I would buy a capable robot for $2,000 if it had useful arms (Readybot
is the closest thing). In contrast, if the Whitebox Robotics robot
were $2,000 instead of $6,000 I still wouldn't buy it because it's
nothing more than a PC on wheels with a webcam. It's like trying to
sell the benefits of a maid service for the home but all the maids are
missing arms!
Danh
Danh
Arms aren't the issue. I know Gordon has commented that the physical
aspects of robots aren't progressing like computers did, but I really
don't think that is the issue. A lack of adequate physical ability is
not limiting the practical home robot. The ability to open doors, grab
things, and roll around on wheels is already available. Even the arm
is not necessary for jobs like vacuum/mop/mow.
The reason we don't have practical home robots is the lack of software
that can deal with the unpredictable human world. I have a Roomba, but
it really needs to learn that it shouldn't eat the sock on the floor.
Of course, for the Roomba there are sensor limitations for detecting
socks. But, I think the omission of a camera to see the sock is not
because the camera is too expensive. Rather, it is because the
software to reliably identify the sock (extension cord, carpet
tassels, etc) does not exist. Once the software is created, it can
copied a zillion times at low cost.
Joe Dunfee
Home computers inexpensively replicated tasks that had been
proved to be possible (for others than just NASA) in mainframe
computers.
Professional/commercial robotics hasn't reached the point
where they can do the things we expect of a home robot yet,
so hoping for home versions is too optimistic. Commercial
robots have a very limited environment, and limited function
within that environment.
The analogy with home computing simply doesn't hold.
Clifford Heath.
And the word is "inexpensively." You nailed it on the head, Clifford.
Sure, the software and hardware for a home robot probably does exist,
though there seems to be some disagreement here. But if it does exist,
it does not exist at a price that makes it practical. If you can't
afford to build it, it might as well not exist. It's out of your reach
one way or another.
The battle bot TV programs showed perfectly what you could do with
enough money. On one program (forgot which one) there was some
hydraulically operated referee bot that was 2-3X the size of the others,
and probably cost a small fortune to make. No contestant robot could
take it on. With enough money you can do just about anything.
In past messages I've brought up the notion of business and economics
for a reason.
Also remember that the lack of a product of an obvious idea doesn't mean
everyone else has overlooked something. If a functional (key word here)
home robot doesn't exist, despite there supposidly being the technology
for it, there must be a reason. What could that reason be?
-- Gordon
Well, that wasn't my point. Quite the opposite actually.
A home robot has to be able to do fifty different useful
things in a fairly unconstrained environment. Not even NASA
has built a robot that's that capable, let alone industry.
Until the industrial capability exists, it cannot be made
inexpensive.
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.