3 ms·

An important distinction for sure. I wonder if this will make academic jobs more competitive with corporate jobs at those levels. Side question, but where is

An important distinction for sure. I wonder if this will make academic jobs more competitive with corporate jobs at those levels. Side question, but where is the line drawn between something being considered "robotics" vs. something else? For example...is a Nest a robot? If it controls the temperature in my home by regulating various valves and such, isn't that robotic, even if the device isn't physically moving from thermostat to thermostat to change the temperature?

Animats 11y ago
It matters that robotics isn't making money yet. Google has a big automatic driving research operation, but to make money from it, they will have to get into the auto business in a big way. That's a huge, risky investment. Also, making cars has lower margins than search ads, which means Google's stock would go down if they did that. Google could become a parts supplier to Detroit, but that's not very profitable. All the big carmakers already have their own automatic driving systems. Cadillac has one developed with CMU which is almost as good as Google's. It's hard to see how Google turns automatic driving into a big moneymaker. Google isn't a patient company. They kill off products and research that don't pay off within a few years. At some point, they may "put more wood behind fewer arrows" and dump automatic driving. They've done it before. Google hasn't historically spent big outside their core business area. Google Fiber is still just a few demos, and that's been going on for years now. Uber is in a better position. They're in the transportation business. They're losing their labor lawsuits and will end up buying cars and hiring drivers. As a high-volume car buyer, they can get car companies to put their self-driving technology in the cars they buy. For Uber, automatic driving adds to the business model.
- shostack 11y ago
  While the question on profitability and margins still exists, I think there are some fairly obvious monetization angles for Google with self-driving cars. A couple off the top of my heads: - Freeing up all that additional time lets people use their devices to browse the internet which leads to more ad revenue - Knowing that an AdWords ad engagement results in physically driving a customer to my retail location helps prove the value of "clicks-to-bricks" in a huge way that is worth a lot to big advertisers (speaking from experience). - Licensing the technology and having access to all of that data can be leveraged for some very interesting targeting capabilities. - Defensively, it keeps them in a position of power over auto makers, Tesla, Apple, etc. Also, Google Ventures has a significant investment in Uber, so if Uber succeeds, in some ways Google succeeds.
- L_Rahman 11y ago
  > Google has a big automatic driving research operation, but to make money from it, they will have to get into the auto business in a big way. That's a huge, risky investment. Also, making cars has lower margins than search ads, which means Google's stock would go down if they did that. This argument assumes that Google would want to generate from the sale of the car itself. Such a scenario seems unlikely to me. The car is simply a new platform - like the web and mobile devices - for Google to deploy their service layer on top of and collect more user data and deliver more ads.
mikepurvis 11y ago
Terminology like "mobile robotics" or "mobile manipulation" can help clarify that the system is doing perception, mapping, autonomous navigation, etc, in additional to the domain-specific tasks dictated by the application. These phrases also to distinguish from classic industrial manipulation, where everything is bolted to the floor.
- mturmon 11y ago
  I think a more common phrase is "autonomous robots" -- meaning that the robot is able to do its job on its own -- being equipped with the systems you mention, perception, mapping, movement planning, reasoning about goals.

Animats 11y ago

It matters that robotics isn't making money yet. Google has a big automatic driving research operation, but to make money from it, they will have to get into the auto business in a big way. That's a huge, risky investment. Also, making cars has lower margins than search ads, which means Google's stock would go down if they did that. Google could become a parts supplier to Detroit, but that's not very profitable. All the big carmakers already have their own automatic driving systems. Cadillac has one developed with CMU which is almost as good as Google's. It's hard to see how Google turns automatic driving into a big moneymaker. Google isn't a patient company. They kill off products and research that don't pay off within a few years. At some point, they may "put more wood behind fewer arrows" and dump automatic driving. They've done it before. Google hasn't historically spent big outside their core business area. Google Fiber is still just a few demos, and that's been going on for years now. Uber is in a better position. They're in the transportation business. They're losing their labor lawsuits and will end up buying cars and hiring drivers. As a high-volume car buyer, they can get car companies to put their self-driving technology in the cars they buy. For Uber, automatic driving adds to the business model.

shostack 11y ago
While the question on profitability and margins still exists, I think there are some fairly obvious monetization angles for Google with self-driving cars. A couple off the top of my heads: - Freeing up all that additional time lets people use their devices to browse the internet which leads to more ad revenue - Knowing that an AdWords ad engagement results in physically driving a customer to my retail location helps prove the value of "clicks-to-bricks" in a huge way that is worth a lot to big advertisers (speaking from experience). - Licensing the technology and having access to all of that data can be leveraged for some very interesting targeting capabilities. - Defensively, it keeps them in a position of power over auto makers, Tesla, Apple, etc. Also, Google Ventures has a significant investment in Uber, so if Uber succeeds, in some ways Google succeeds.
L_Rahman 11y ago
> Google has a big automatic driving research operation, but to make money from it, they will have to get into the auto business in a big way. That's a huge, risky investment. Also, making cars has lower margins than search ads, which means Google's stock would go down if they did that. This argument assumes that Google would want to generate from the sale of the car itself. Such a scenario seems unlikely to me. The car is simply a new platform - like the web and mobile devices - for Google to deploy their service layer on top of and collect more user data and deliver more ads.

mikepurvis 11y ago

Terminology like "mobile robotics" or "mobile manipulation" can help clarify that the system is doing perception, mapping, autonomous navigation, etc, in additional to the domain-specific tasks dictated by the application. These phrases also to distinguish from classic industrial manipulation, where everything is bolted to the floor.

mturmon 11y ago
I think a more common phrase is "autonomous robots" -- meaning that the robot is able to do its job on its own -- being equipped with the systems you mention, perception, mapping, movement planning, reasoning about goals.