iRobot

Disaster Response, DARPA Style

by EricWind

DARPA announced that their robotics challenge this year will be for disaster-response robots:

Natural and man-made disasters have caused suffering for people around the world, in past ages, today, and surely tomorrow. The devastation of disasters such as Fukushima, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and the Chilean Copiapó mine collapse all serve to highlight our fragility in the presence of unforeseen events. Often, subject matter experts are available with the knowledge to prevent further damage, yet are unable to get close enough to complete their mission – be it from nuclear contamination, intense pressure, structural instability, or many other threats to human safety. Our best robotic tools are helping, but they are not yet robust enough to function in all environments and perform the basic tasks needed to mitigate a crisis situation. Even in degraded post-disaster situations, the environment is scaled to the human world, requiring navigation of human obstacles such as doors and stairs, manipulation of human objects such as vehicles and power tools, and recognition of common human objects such as levers and valves.

Registration information is available here.

Last August, IEEE Spectrum published a blog from a robot operator in the Fukushima disaster. It is an interesting diary for robot enthusiasts and casual readers alike.

Why Is It So Hard To Make Robots?

by EricWind

Gary Marcus explains why we haven’t seen full-featured Rosie-type robots around the house yet:

The two biggest challenges to making general-purposes robots are, as they always have been, hardware and software. Neither challenge is insuperable, but both are harder than one might think. On the hardware side, there are now lots of robots that can do incredibly cool things. One robot runs faster than the fastest human, another dances Gangnam style. Still another, PR2, folds towels and fetches beer. The catch is that, at the moment, each new robot is like a proof of concept. The ones that are fast and physically powerful, like AlphaDog, a quadruped robot, and the headless but amazing PETMAN, are, for now, still dependent on hydraulic actuators powered by industrial-strength pumps and gasoline engines; they work fine in a laboratory-test environment, but you wouldn’t want one roaming around your home. Others, like Baxter and PR2, are capable of fairly sophisticated movements, but at speeds that are still too slow to be practical around the home. It might take five minutes just for PR2 to grab you a beer.

How much longer it might take:

In virtually every robot that’s ever been built, the key challenge is generalization, and moving things from the laboratory to the real world. It’s one thing to get a robot to fold a colorful towel in an empty room; it’s another to get it to succeed in a busy apartment with visual distractions that the machine can’t quite parse. Likewise, the demo of a robot running at cheetah speed is amazing, but it’s conducted on the flat, level ground of a treadmill, not in the uneven territory of the real world. “Film and fiction have raised everyone’s expectations about what robots may be able to do,” Tandy Trower of Hoaloha Robotics and formerly of Microsoft Robotics, said. “I don’t believe we are anywhere near affordable, safe, manipulation on a mobile robot that can generalize such features into consumer operations for at least ten to twenty years.” The iRobot founder Rodney Brooks’s predictions were remarkably similar.

iRobot Sells Former Competitor’s Product

by RayRenteria

What has become a milestone in the evolutionary timeline of robotic market development, iRobot sued its former competitor Robotic FX to death last year.  At the center of the battle was the Robotic FX version of a robot called The Negotiator which allegedly violated U.S. Patents 6,263,989 and 6,431,296 that relate to robot platform and mobility.  Robotic FX is no more but apparently iRobot believed The Negotiator was a pretty good idea, despite having called it a “knock-off” of the Packbot.

Yesterday, iRobot announced the launch of a new member to its robotic product line.  The robot? (drumroll please) The Negotiator.  From the outside, the robot seems largely unchanged:

iRobot's Negotiator

Robotic FX Negotiator

We’ll likely never know what kind of software changes were made but the external design looks remarkably similar to its Robotic FX namesake.

To the victor go the spoils of legal war.

Sources:

iRobot Launches New Robot to Address Growing Public Safety Market

by RayRenteria

iRobot Negotiator Provides a Cost-Effective, Basic Reconnaissance Robot to Public Safety Organizations

Bedford, Mass., August 6, 2008 – iRobot Corp. (Nasdaq: IRBT) today announced the introduction of the iRobot Negotiator, a low-cost tactical robot designed to meet the basic reconnaissance needs of public safety professionals.

After the success of the company’s iRobot PackBot 510, iRobot heard from public safety organizations throughout the country asking for a basic reconnaissance robot that fit within their budget needs. It is in response to these inquiries that iRobot is offering Negotiator.

While the PackBot 510 with First Responder Kit focuses on missions requiring a larger robot with more advanced capabilities, Negotiator will provide basic reconnaissance to a much broader group of public safety professionals, including police departments, fire departments and domestic security experts. The iRobot Negotiator is highly mobile, able to climb stairs and easy to operate. Depending on the customers’ needs, the robot may also be outfitted with a civil response kit and a range of add-on accessories, enhancing its reconnaissance and chemical detection capabilities.

“We are excited about the potential of iRobot Negotiator for a range of public safety professionals, including law enforcement personnel, domestic security officers and counter-terrorism forces,” said Joe Dyer, president of iRobot Government and Industrial Robots. “There is growing support and demand for unmanned ground robots as people recognize the difference they make by offering life saving ‘eyes on’ benefits to teams in the field. We believe that the low entry price point for iRobot Negotiator will help make it accessible to local, state and federal agencies that would not have been able to afford a robot otherwise.”

Designed for different scenarios than the company’s current PackBot line, the first production units of iRobot Negotiator will be available for purchase in the fourth quarter of 2008. iRobot is committed to Negotiator, which will be backed by iRobot’s world-class quality and customer support.

“We are putting the full weight of iRobot behind this product, offering excellent production, quality and service,” continued Dyer. “Negotiator will play a significant role in helping to resolve situations successfully, while keeping public safety professionals at safe distances.”

iRobot has delivered more than 1,600 PackBot robots that make a difference everyday by conducting dangerous missions that keep first responders and warfighters out of harm’s way.

About iRobot Corp.
iRobot is a provider of robots that perform dull, dirty or dangerous missions in a better way. The company’s proprietary technology, iRobot AWARE™ Robot Intelligence Systems, incorporates advanced concepts in navigation, mobility, manipulation and artificial intelligence. This proprietary system enables iRobot to build behavior-based robots, including its family of consumer and military robots. For additional information about iRobot, please visit www.irobot.com.

For iRobot Investors
Certain statements made in this press release that are not based on historical information are forward-looking statements which are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. This press release contains express or implied forward-looking statements relating to, among other things, iRobot Corp.’s expectations concerning management’s plans, objectives and strategies. These statements are neither promises nor guarantees, but are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond our control, which could cause actual results to differ materially from those contemplated in these forward-looking statements. Existing and prospective investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date hereof. iRobot Corp. undertakes no obligation to update or revise the information contained in this press release, whether as a result of new information, future events or circumstances or otherwise. For additional disclosure regarding these and other risks faced by iRobot Corp., see the disclosure contained in our public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission including, without limitation, our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Contact:
Elise Caffrey
Investor Relations
iRobot Corp.
(781) 430-3003
ecaffrey@irobot.com		 Nancy Smith
Media Relations
iRobot Corp.
(781) 430-3323
nsmith@irobot.com

iRobot Continues Strong Growth Trend

by RayRenteria

If iRobot is a bellwether for the future of personal robotics, then the market is not just hype.  iRobot’s second quarter revenue increased 43% over the same time last year with profits totaling $16.5M, or about 24% of Q2′s $67.2M revenue.

“In the second quarter we achieved our 16th consecutive quarter of year-over-year revenue growth despite increasing economic headwinds. Our strong revenue performance drove first half results that were substantially better than the guidance we provided for the period,” said Colin Angle, chief executive officer of iRobot. “The company performed well in a difficult environment. The second quarter and first half results demonstrate the resiliency of our business in an unstable economic market,” he added.

That’s good news for any company, especially when it’s the 16th consecutive quarter of growth.  There are those who worry that iRobot’s place in the robotics marketplace is precariously balanced on the heels of the Future Combat Systems initiative which provides iRobot with a substantial portion of its revenue.  Fortunately, iRobot is as good with business as it is in building robots.

In the second quarter, total home robot revenue increased 143 percent year-over-year. International home robot revenue was up more than five times the level of Q2 2007 and comprised approximately 40 percent of total home robot revenue in the quarter. Sea Glider

iRobot also sees a new market opportunity in the push for offshore oil drilling.  They announced a sole licensing agreement with UW TechTransfer at the University of Washington to commercialize Autonomous Underwater Vehicle Seaglider technology.  This OEM deal marks a milestone in the next generation of robot market development and a desire to make the business successful.   Less mature organizations suffer fromt he not-invented-here syndrome.  It’s clear that iRobot is aiming and heading for success.

References:

Three Questions for Colin Angle – iRobot

by JonasLamis

SciVestor spoke with Colin Angle, co-founder and CEO of iRobot Corporation. We asked him about how iRobot will change the world, the importance of Moore’s Law, and why the business community should be interested. We also got his take on the state of the emerging robotics industry.

Colin Angle on the Business(es) of Robotics

by JonasLamis

Blogging from RoboBusiness in Pittsburgh this week. Much to my disappointment, the Convention Center does not have wireless access, so blog postings are coming out when possible.

Colin Angle, Co Founder and CEO of iRobot spent 45 minutes romping through robotics market business concepts. He presented 21 (I only captured 20 for some reason) – with a detailed to very quick take on each as to its viability.
He ranked each of his concepts on a 2 by 2 chart with the horizontal access representing Revenue Potential (can you see the concept), and the vertical access representing Margin Opportunity (can you make money at the concept?)

Case 1: Industrial cleaning machines

$80B in 2000 in North America cleaning tile (hard floors)
It’s hard to beat the labor costs. You need huge space to be cost effective. Colin spent a year on this space and documented a 42% savings over conventional labor, but business models around replacing human labor are fraught with risk. There is huge gaming by cleaning companies, and lack of objectivity by building supervisors. iRobot is not involved in this market, but Intellibot is working in it.

Case 2: Aggressively priced home cleaning robots

The Roomba and it’s kin dominate this market. The price point anchored to price of vacuum. There are lots of iRobot copies – especially in Korea. The marketplace is competitive and margin challenged.
Total 2007 domestic vacuum market – $2.4 B. Robots have captured 5%. (Homeworld business review)

Case 3: Expensive home robots

Popular in Korea. Much skepticism. In some markets, consumers enter with a base model (Cars, watches, grills etc) and over time some upgrade to a premium product. This has not yet been demonstrated in robot vacuums.

Case 4: Robot Pets

American consumers spend billions on their pets. Is there a market for expensive robot replacements? Furby (cheap) sold 40 million units. 20M of which were sold to adults for adult use. However the expensive Quiro and Aibo were not successful, and Pleo just out.
[As an aside, Bob Christopher, the CEO of Ugobe – maker of Pleo – scratched his appearance at RoboBusiness. And thank goodness as I was up against him in the same time slot ?]

Case 5: Robot Toys

Treat robot like toy industry. You do not have special treatment because you are a robot. New companies succeed by pushing costs to the factory. If you can show up at the factory in China with a design on the back of a napkin, and convince them to build it for you and you will buy it from them if they are successful, you might be able to be profitable. The average cost to develop a new toy is less than $40,000, and 85% don’t make it past their first anniversary.

Case 6: Above Ground Oil Storage Tank Inspection

Here is another area where Colin claims to have spent way too much time. He built a product that should have been successful. After all, regulates mandate regular self-inspection. However he discovered that the regulations are not taken seriously. Companies that operate Above oil tanks rely on “self insurance”. They build in safety berms if there is a tank rupture, and decommission the tank prior to the end of it’s known good lifespan. If there is a rupture, they pay the fine.

Case 7: Military UAV

Unmanned aerial vehicles is a growing market. It has a high price point expectation and over 100 companies involved.

Case 8: Unmanned Underwater Vehicle

Also a high price point expectation, this market is small but growing. A key is the relative lack of obstacles to run into. There are less than 10 companies in this market.

Case 9: Military UGV

The military unmanned ground vehicle market is a key market for iRobot. There are moderate barriers to entry and a relatively low price point compared to UAV and UUV. Challenges exist in both ruggedness and obstacle avoidance. This market has moderate growth opportunities according to Colin.

Case 10: Knock off Military robots

Not a good strategy. Colin had to vent about the RFx controversy. His observations: Steal iRobot IP, get sued, RIP.

Case 11: Oil Well bore robots

Colin was very excited about this market. The biggest, oil reserves are in deep water and Robot boring and exploring robots enable something new. I’d expect to see iRobot make a play in this market.
[I missed case 12]

Case 13: Vending machines

The most successful robots of all time.

Case 14: Material Handling

Material Handling robots are making a comeback. The offer concrete measures of performance. Very interesting implementations by KIVA systems, Seegrid, and Atheon.

Case 15 – Virtual presence robots

An emerging market. Builds on the notion of personal video conferencing. Can be applied to both home (jump into your kids robot to talk to them) and business (doctor interviews a patient and checks vitals from 1000 miles away).

[Aside – I saw a presentation later in the day about TraumaPod – the operating room of the future. It had a heavy telepresence capability. I’d look for Intuitive Surgical to make noise here.]

Case 16: Animatronics robots

Disney themeparks have it as a central theme. How about blending animatronics and vending?

Case 17: Medical Robots

A growing market. Look at the success of Intuitive Surgical and others.

Case 18: Exploration and Recovery robots

A fun concept, but not much money in it for the hobby or academic explorer market. But…

Case 19: Commercial Exploration and Recovery

Has been very lucrative for the few teams that have deployed robots to go after ship wrecks. But definitely not a commercial market.

Case 20: Audio / Video robot

Do you want your ipod and speakers rolling around after you? [Aside – perhaps it as a role in LifeLogging?]

Case 21: Asteroid mining robots

A scifi vision. But Google is on the way to the moon.

Conclusions and a couple of prescient comments from the man who co-founded the personal and military robotics industries:
• Don’t be seduced by the cool side of Robotics? Who gets paid more, the salesman or the janitor? Value tied to what they produce. (Sex robots).
• There are very interesting things happening in the manufacturing space, and iRobot will be talking about that in the future.
• Medical / Vending / UAV highest current revenue vs. margin opportunity.
• Is your goal to create a robot that does new things or does things differently?
• Incrementalism leads to very slow adoption.
• Is it an industry? Seems like a technology enabler for existing and new industries.

Observations of Adoption Trends in Robotics

by RayRenteria

Selling products to businesses is a relatively quantifiable endeavor. A business customer calculates the cost of his investment and compares it to his projected increased revenue. If his revenue exceeds his cost then the purchase is deemed to have been worth the investment. The higher and sooner the return, the better the investment. Most of the work in selling to businesses is in determining and negotiating the formula for calculating the return on investment because the currency of a business deal is money.

Such is the case with selling manufacturing robots. Manufacturing robots provide automation. With automation, a business can produce more products more quickly and with consistent quality. Typically, the cost of the investment is overtaken by profit at some point in time.

So where does that leave personal robots? Personal robots represent a new class of robots that are front runners for becoming man’s new partner. What’s that worth? Our findings indicate that robots with no specific function still have a ways to go before consumers will pay for animatronic companionship.  Conversely, robots with capabilities that allow us to justify the investment will be quicker to get adopted. Capitalism, it seems, will be the primary driver for adoption of personal robots into society.

Evidence

iRobot stumbled upon human-robot attachment when its home service robot, Roomba, began evoking emotional responses in its owners. A great article by Joel Garreau depicted multiple instances of soldiers bonding with their Military robots in life and death contexts. In the following 2×2 matrix, we’ve plotted the relative position of various classes of robots based on their functional and emotional value.

Robot 2×2 : Emotion vs. Function

Robots with higher pure functional value tend to be consumed by businesses. Classes with less function and less emotional value typically fall into the hands of hobbyists who would take issue with the assertion that these robots evoke little emotional attachment.

Projected on the chart is the belief that anthrobots, or humanoid robots, will yield relatively high emotional value with limited functional value. David Levy, a brand new PhD., defended his dissertation on October 11th where he contended that humans and robots will be sharing intimate relationships in the near future. He projected the adoption curve of these robots in the following graph:

Levy Graph

Observations like the ones we’ve made about human responses to the child-like robot named CB2 concur with Dr. Levy’s prediction that humans may generally become profoundly disgusted with life-like anthrobots before they’re accepted into mainstream culture.

Military and Home Service robots provide both function and emotional value. Although toys are doing well financially, they don’t offer much function. Their relatively low cost is an investment parents are willing to make. My dad once told me that buying one of his bikes actually meant the purchase of countless smiles and games of cops and robbers for the children of his customers. A child’s happiness, he went on, was neatly packaged on two wheels for $79. That’s a deal.

Two Predictions

  • We believe that robots who have both a function and can tap into or facilitate human emotional situations will perform the best. Telepresence robots are first in line because their price point has gone down, mitigating the risk of investment we should realize good performance in Christmas of ’07.
  • Competitors in the Home Service robotics sector will emerge in the wake of iRobot’s floor and gutter cleaning robots and have a particularly strong showing Christmas of ’08.

This Time, It’s For Real

Humans have been saying that robot culture is right around the corner for decades. Our observations of trends, and falling prices indicate that this time, it’s really happening.

References:

Formal Study and Military Anecdotes Observe Human-Robot Attachment

by RayRenteria

When I discovered Joel Garreau’s article Bots on the Ground, I couldn’t believe what I was reading. He described a scenario where a new kind of military robot was being demonstrated to an Army colonel. The robot was long and segmented with many legs and designed to step on and trigger land mines. It was designed by famed BEAM roboticist Mark Tilden whose robots can perform with primitive behaviors toward a larger goal even if they become damaged. The robot was successfully detonating land mines, losing pieces of itself as it moved along to the next mine. When the observing colonel saw the last vestiges of a robot apparently struggling to make its way to the next land mine, the colonel stopped the demonstration and declared the whole thing as inhumane. Here’s an excerpt:

Finally it was down to one leg. Still, it pulled itself forward. Tilden was ecstatic. The machine was working splendidly.

The human in command of the exercise, however — an Army colonel — blew a fuse.

The colonel ordered the test stopped.

Why? asked Tilden. What’s wrong?

The colonel just could not stand the pathos of watching the burned, scarred and crippled machine drag itself forward on its last leg.

This test, he charged, was inhumane.

Garreau went on to share other stories about soldiers who have named, promoted, and in some cases award Purple Hearts to their robots.

Given the aggressive push to introduce more robots into the military, the interactions between humans and their robots in the armed forces has become more common than one might find in civilian life. Observations such as the ones Garreau describes are likely an indication of what we as civilians can expect when the per-capita of robot-to-humans becomes similar to that in the field.

One example of a group with robots comes from the popularity of the Roomba floor cleaning robot from iRobot. A study from Georgia Tech formally observed and documented the bond between Roombas and their users.

Some interesting observations included

  • A person’s introduction of his robot to his parents
  • Bringing the Roomba along on travels
  • Cleaning the floor for the Roomba

There were other incidents of anthropomorphizing but none were very surprising. The tendency for humans to want to name and bond with their mechanical counterparts dates way back. Just think about the bond seafaring captains have had with their ships.

The recent study and Garreau’s observations indicate a readiness to accept robots into human life. The introductions of iRobot’s ConnectR and Erector’s Spykee indicate that business is ready to deliver.

Sources:

Two Telepresence Robots Merging into The Mainstream

by RayRenteria

It looks like Meccano woke up.

At the Digital Life show in New York last week, the Spykee demo guys were seen and heard discussing the value of being able to conduct business in New York while “on your computer in Paris.” Clearly, most eight-year-old boys aren’t going to find this next-generation concept of telecommuting as compelling as the neon-like green light tubes that wrap Spykee or the ability to spy on a sister and her friends during a slumber party.

In our writeup, Missing the Point with a Potentially Game Changing “Toy,” we asserted that the low cost and durability of this technology convergence was going to have a big impact on the consumer robotics world. Based on the monologue in the video, it seems that Meccano is starting to believe that. Unfortunately, their message feels like an afterthought. The UI controller screens still look like a video game console and you still have to put Spykee together from a kit of 200 pieces.

iRobot nailed it from the beginning.

While we were appreciating and criticizing Spykee, iRobot was busy working on their own telepresence robot–ConnectR. When it was announced at DigitalLife last week, it was expressly touted as a “virtual presence” robot with working adults in mind.

Here, we take the opportunity to make a side-by-side comparison of the two technologies:

iRobot ConnectR

Erector Spykee
Sold as a complete system. Sold as an easy-to-assemble kit.
Marketed as a serious quality-of-life improvement technology. They target adults generally, and target working parents specifically. Being marketed as a “spy toy” for older kids and young teens.

iRobot ConnectR
Spykee
Controller UI:
ConnectR Controller		 Controller UI:
Spykee Controller UI
The iRobot ConnectR controller UI is a very simple console with a very mature design. Various functions are in different screens in order that the user has controls for the task at hand. The Spykee controller UI is cool–as it should be if one were targeting young kids wanting to play with his robot. It’s functional but it has all the problems of a typical one-screen-does-it-all application. Considering the (original) target audience this UI is good. It looks like a game.
Communication protocol based on proprietary “Virtual Presence Network.” Communication protocol based on popular Skype technology.
Automatically finds docking station to recharge when batteries are low. Automatically finds docking station to recharge when batteries are low.
Price: $499
The fine print says that the price includes one year of Virtual Presence Network suggesting the need for a subscription later.		 Price: Right around $300

It’s unclear if ConnectR is programmable; however, iRobot has an established development platform called “Create” and it seems very reasonable to expect that they would soon introduce a client-side development environment that could enable ConnectR to be opened up to application developers looking to build on that platform.

It’s easy to envision a Web 2.0 UI that sits on somebody’s MySpace or Facebook page that invites visitors to jump into Spykee and have an immersive conversation with the owner of the page. Spykee is built on the Open Source Skype technology which suggests that a documented controller API is just around the corner. I suspect there are discrete commands that are IM’ed to and from Spykee by the controller UI which should make it relatively easy to hack. What’d I’d really like to see is a sanctioned document maintained by Meccano that describes this method. Until then, I can’t declare Spykee programmable.

Both robots have a place in the market. The adults that are targeted for the ConnectR trust the iRobot brand and the company’s experience in robotics. It’s an investment akin to a businessperson buying an IBM PC as opposed to an Apple in the early 80′s.

In spite of Meccano’s new push to sell Spykee to adults, kids will buy it. Parents will buy it for them. And the kids will play with their Spykee. He looks cool and Meccano has substantial experience in building durable toys that can take the torture that young children can dish out.

The fact that both companies came up with such similar ideas is a validation of the demand they perceive exists in the market. Ultimately, this fact and the release of these products has progressed human-robot interaction one more step.

iRobot Unveils Telepresence Robot

by RayRenteria

iRobot ConnectRToday at Digital Life, iRobot unveiled its new “Virtual Visiting Robot” named ConnectR (pronounced “connector”). iRobot is positioning this robot squarely in the telepresence market making value statements very similar to those we wrote about several weeks ago. Unlike the marketeers at Erector (via Meccano), iRobot is not targeting children ages eight and up with the ConnectR. They’re not even targeting hobbyists or research institutions. They’re targeting commonfolk who work. Their pitch?

    • Participate in family moments even though you’re working late.
    • On a business trip? Read your kids a story and see their faces light up
    • Join the fun from near or far
    • Throw a party from a thousand miles away
    • Tell Fido he’s a “good boy” even while you’re on vacation

      The robot was available to a limited audience under a pilot program where customers committed to providing feedback on the robot’s performance. Under that program, ConnectR was available for $199. There was a limited quantity and it was quickly exhausted. The robot will be made available to the rest of us for $499 in mid-2008.

      Microsoft and Tmsuk Create Robotic Alliance: Showtime?

      by RayRenteria

      Several days ago we learned that Microsoft is creating a technical alliance with Japan robot player Tmsuk (pronounced “tim suck”) to establish a standard robotics platform. It represents the first time a strategic relationship has been established between a major software platform maker and a robot manufacturer. At stake is the effort to bring robots into the mainstream and fulfill Bill Gates’s vision of a A Robot in Every Home.

      It’s easy to map parallels between the evolution of the personal computer and the progress of robotics. In their early days, both were used mostly to impress friends with the engineering prowess required to make the machines do cool tricks. When Apple introduced its version of the personal computer it was a spreadsheet application that caused the explosion of mass adoption by consumers. That big bang has yet to occur in robotics primarily due to the lack of standard platform for application developers. The guys who designed the first spreadsheet application didn’t know squat about building computers. The robotics industry must reach the same panacea where robotics application developers don’t have to know squat about robots in order to build a killer app.

      It isn’t for lack of trying, though. Several platforms have been made available over the last decade but none thus far has been established as the standard platform for robotics. On the contrary, the continued addition of a new robotics platforms has further compounded the problem.

      • 1996 Webots is developed by Microcomputing and Interface Lab to be spun out as Cyberbotics in 1998.
      • 2001 Version 1.0 of Player, Stage, and Player Tools is introduced.
      • 2002 Sony introduces its OPEN-R architecture with the popularity of the now-defunct Aibo robot dog.
      • 2002 Evolution Robotics is founded and later introduces its platform and now flagship product, ERSP.
      • 2002 The first version of OROCOS is released.
      • 2005 MIT introduces YARP [pdf] (“Yet Another Robot Platform”) which encapsulates OROCOS.
      • 2005 (?) OpenJAUS made available. Touts self as “Military-Ready.”
      • 2006 Gostai is spun out of Ensta’s Cognitive Robotics Lab in Paris. They introduce Universal Real-time Behavior Interface, or URBI, which started development as early as 2004.
      • 2006 iRobot makes AWARE 2.0 available to 3rd party developers.
      • 2006 Microsoft releases Microsoft Robotics Studio.
      • 2007 Skilligent goes GA with its module. Note: Skilligent says they’re an add-on and not a platform. According to their webiste, “Skilligent! is a software component that can be integrated with various robotic platforms.“
      • 2007 CLARAty “reusable robot software” is made available by NASA.

      What makes Microsoft Robotics Studio stand out of this crowd is the platform abstraction experience the company has with its operating system and, most importantly, Microsoft’s desire to evangelize the technology and establish a standard in the industry.

      Now that Microsoft has this opportunity with Tmsuk, it must be successful. This initiative has white-hot spotlight of attention on it. Tmsuk is a member of the Japan Robot Association which is comprised of 48 members with household names such as Fuji, Mitsubishi, and Yamaha. Success with Tmsuk surely will follow by a push to spread into peer companies within the association which it will need to do in order to gain critical mass.

      By American standards, Tmsuk is a relatively small company. As of March of this year, Tmsuk had a little over 1045 million yen (~$9M) in capital with around 30 employees. It’s unclear to me how they make their money. They have some humanoid robots designed as receptionists and most recently have introduced robots that look like the exoskeleton Sigourney Weaver wore in Alien. The latter represents a more practical and likely marketable technology that the company says it’s having trouble selling. Still, the company obviously has staying power. It’s been around since 2000 and is showing no signs of slowing down.

      So, what now?

      Either Evolution Robots and iRobot drop their own software and adopt Microsoft’s platform (good luck with that) or the Japanese robots whose brand names are already familiar to us will be tomorrow’s application base for the next generation of American software developer. The Japanese listened to Deming because they got his message. They became masters of efficiency and quality in the automotive industry. Tmsuk’s willingness to drop it’s proprietary software from its robots and invest in Microsoft is a modern-day sign that they get the value of having a homogeneous platform. It’s possible that Tmsuk will become the Toyota of robotics and Microsoft will sell tons and tons of robotic platforms.

      References:

      [Exclusive] Rodney Brooks Keynote at Singularity Summit

      by JonasLamis

      The Singularity Summit is a two day event happening this weekend in San Francisco. The event is being hosted by SIAI, the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence. This event is follow-on to last year’s Singularity Summit 1 conducted at Stanford.

      Keynoting the event this morning was Rodney Brooks , of CSAIL and iRobot fame. Brooks spent his presentation discussing his perspective on the Singularity, and how Robotics (in particular the robots of iRobot and MIT) are advancing the science of Singularity enabling technologies.

      Several times, Brooks referenced Arthur C. Clarke. He referenced Clarke’s quote of how technology capability is generally over estimated in the short-term, and underestimated in the long-term. This, Brooks believes is the most accurate perspective of what the Singularity is, and when it will come about.

      Regardless of The Singularity, Brooks makes a persuasive case that “the future needs AI and robotics”. He referenced demographic trends – the aging global population, as the primary driver for a coming explosion in personal robotics. Brooks sees a near term future filled with venture financing and government funding to backfill the workforce of an aging and wealthy populous.

      Brooks makes the case for applying exponential growth models to robotics. He used the iPod as a metaphor for exponential growth – forecasting that the iPod will hold the contents of the Library of Congress by 2013 and all movies ever made by 2020. In fact Brooks postulated the price / performance ratio for the iPod is calculated as:

      $400 = 2 ^(year-2003) x 10 gigabytes

      Brooks applied the model to autonomous robotic vehicles and referenced Stanford. He showed a video of a 1978 Robot cart that autonomously navigated 20 meters in 6 hours. Then noted that Stanley drove itself the length of the race in 6 hours in the Darpa Grand Challenge. He indicated that this means that the distance of autonomous guidance has doubled every 2 years.

      Regarding iRobot:

      • Brooks confirmed that there more than 2.5 million IRBT consumer robots have be purchased.
      • Confirmed that there are 1000 Packbots in the field. He mentioned that this is out of a total of 5000 robots in the theaters of Afghanistan and Iraq.
      • He clarified that there are no armed Packbots in the field. He referenced the Talon as the primary platform currently being used for armament. He asked a rhetorical question about “when should robots have autonomous weapon targeting”?
      • He showed a set of pictures of a destroyed Packbot named “Scooby Doo” by its handler that was credited with over 15 disarmaments of IEDs.
      • He responded to a question about whether it was an ethically good idea to be developing AI and advanced robot platforms for the US Government. He deflected the question and stated that scientists must be mindful of the impact of their inventions.
      • Brooks was asked about why IRBT stock took a hit when it was announced that they are raising their R&D spending on commercial applications. He again deferred to comment specifically, but did note that he believes that there is a crisis in spending in R&D in the US. “This is a real issue, as companies get beaten down for putting money into R&D”. He notes that he has an article on this topic being published on xconomy.com on Monday.
      • Regarding emotional attachment to iRobot robots: Emotional attachment not a factor in military space. But is in home space. Where is Facebook for Robots? “Projection onto these devices that they don’t really deserve from a rational point of view, but we are not rational human beings.”

      Regarding CSAIL Robots:

      • He spent time showing off the various emotional responses of Kismet. He discussed the visual attention system and illustrated the 3D emotional matrix used by the bot.
      • He also showed videos of Domo, a thesis project from Aaron Edsinger. Ednger has a new company in San Francisco called Meka Robotics, based on Domo research. A key concept is awareness of forces. Many movies of Domo are available on YouTube.
      Proud Member of the Robohub Community

      Enter your email address to subscribe to Robot Central and receive notifications of new posts by email.

      Our Tweets