14 ms·

Rethink Robotics shuts down

137 points by ph0rque 8y ago

dang 8y ago
A related article is at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18143815 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18143815.
fermienrico 8y ago
I work in robotics field and I always thought that collaborative robots were cool in trade show booths but beyond that they had limited use. I've not seen many of these things used in our industry (semiconductor) or any other friends who work in various industries. ABB lead the campaign on these as if they are going to revolutionize manufacturing lines where humans & machines will work together. That never happened just like 3D printing never shook the world as it promised it would.
- riazrizvi 8y ago
  The problem here does not seem to be with collaborative robots, as much as execution, with Universal Robots outcompeting them. Honestly the friendly face UI seems to be gimmicky. I suspect more practical features were under prioritized.
- chrisweekly 8y ago
  > "just like 3D printing never shook the world as it promised it would" Additive orthopedics are a pretty big deal to people who need, say, an ankle replacement. And it's way too soon to say something like that, at least absent a "yet" modifier.
  - jsemrau 8y ago
    While 3D printing found home on a value adding niche, it's still far away from what could be done with the technology.
    - ethbro 8y ago
      Honestly, the biggest thing holding 3D printing back seems to be lack of broad access to co-op hackerspaces with top-of-the-line machines. And I don't mean in SF. I mean in Small Town, Kansas, sponsored by the local high school, library, and whoever else. Buying one for home use is a dalliance for the upper middle class. But democratized access to technology would be far more effective. Sharing an actual structural, metal 3D printer seems so much more useful than having 20x plastic-only home machines.
      - jonathankoren 8y ago
        Of course, there's always Shapeways.
    - antoniuschan99 8y ago
      I used to think so but it's much closer than you think. My side project we're using a Prusa Mk3 for an end use part and the quality and cost is amazing. A lot of other people are doing the same. There are so many types of material too now.
- javiramos 8y ago
  I work on 3D printing and I can tell you - 3D printing is profoundly impacting a variety of industries. It’s been amazing to see the growth and development in the past 3 years.
  - aetherson 8y ago
    Yeah, I think the thing with 3D printing is it's a powerful industrial technology, but the idea that every home would want a low cost 3D printer was badly wrong.
    - XenophileJKO 8y ago
      It's just not good enough yet. It just can't make enough products using a variety of materials, fast enough and with little user involvement. When a turn key solution is available where the average person just clicks to "print" a product, that equation changes. I feel like this is a technology that isn't a consumer product until suddenly it is.
      - tranchms 8y ago
        Check out Carbon3D and Velo3D. Two companies I work with in the Bay Area who are changing the game.
- jlarocco 8y ago
  Although consumer 3D printing hasn't gone anywhere, industrial 3D printing is gaining traction. For example, I recently toured the Moots bicycle factory and was surprised to learn their rear dropouts are 3D printed titanium. http://moots.com/moots-3d-printed-flat-mount-dropout/ http://moots.com/moots-3d-printed-flat-mount-dropout/
- Symmetry 8y ago
  We have URs in a warehouses doing piece picking. They're not the right solution for very structured environments like a semiconductor plant but for medium structured environments like a warehouse they can make a lot of sense. And frankly collaborative arms are just so much easier to develop on that it might be worth it to use them for that even if your final product is going to use a full industrial arm. You're going to make a mistake in your collision checking routine at some point.
seibelj 8y ago
Wow they had a lot of positions open before they closed, was always tempted to apply. Sad for the Boston robotics scene and the larger commercial robotics industry.
transfire 8y ago
Sad news. It's one of those things that will eventually take off -- and not too far in the future. So to me it just goes to show that today's markets are very sub-optimal, overly favoring short-term returns.
ehead 8y ago
What companies will scoop up all the talent that was there? Can anyone speculate about what Rodney Brooks will do next?
javiramos 8y ago
I was an intern at Rethink (back then, Heartland Robotics) 2010~2011, it was an exciting place to work at. There were ~10 employees when I joined, and ~40 when I left. One of the early product mistaked they made was focusing way too much on low-cost. They compromised many necessary performance specs (repeatability, speed etc.) just to be able to make the robot out of plastic. They eventually pivoted to their second generation robot, Sawyer, which was made out of casted metal components. This gave the robot much better performance but I guess that it was too late.
- gisely 8y ago
  I would really love to hear why performance specs you mention are still necessary for robotics applications. Repeatability and speed certainly seem useful industrial robotics applications, but low cost also seems critical to enabling broader use of robots. I am particularly interested in the possibility that modern algorithms (e.g. deep reinforcement learning) can compensate for not having completely repeatable behaviors from a robot by using sensory feedback to create behaviors that reliable despite their variability. Additionally, materials with higher elasticity (e.g. plastics instead of metal) might allow some previous impossible efficiencies, e.g. by storing potential energy in the links and then releasing it at the right time. Is it just too soon for these sorts of approaches?
  - blt 8y ago
    Basically, yes. Deep RL has the potential to make high accuracy/repeatability unnecessary, but it's still in the research lab setting.
  - LeifCarrotson 8y ago
    Compromise on stiffness and rigidity in a servo system means the thing jitters about like a squirrel on speed. Robots need to be smooth, and there's precious little you can do in your controls to compensate for system instability. Precision comes along almost for free once you have that rigidity. They didn't get the basics right. Special sauce on top needs to have a solid foundation. And that's why I have an Aubo robot in my conference room today, and why I was able to tune in a 250kg payload 1995-vintage ABB on Tuesday, while these guys are shutting down.
crsv 8y ago
Two bridges into a down round on their series E, these guys have been bleeding money for years. The VCs gave them ten years to find a sustainable path and they just never took off. This is just how it goes. It’s probably for the best, and 10 years in any venture is a fair shot.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
syntaxing 8y ago
Kind of sad to see them shut down. Been following them since the Baxter robot came out. Unfortunately, the current market just does not have a high demand for highly flexible robots. Most of the fully automated lines are highly specialized lines. Company invest hundreds of millions, with the expectation of maintaining the line for years. It's usually simpler and cheaper to use standard actuators with multiple stations rather than a complex robotic arm. However, the couple of applications from Universal Robotics and Kuka is pretty cool to see.
TFortunato 8y ago
Sad to see them go. I spent just under a year there ~2 years ago doing embedded systems, right before some big layoffs, and I really had a great time there. It's a great group of people, and I wish them all the best. Judging by the amount of recruiter calls and emails I got today after the news broke (apparently working off my old resume!), I think these folks will land on their feet!
mengibar10 8y ago
How do they compare to Boston Robotics. My understanding they were pursuing different use cases. Former is more about doing repetitive work and latter is more to do movement and carrying stuff. Although Rethink's robot look much primitive to Boston's robots, however may be what they're trying to achieve is much more complicated?
- GeorgeTirebiter 8y ago
  Boston Dynamics? https://www.bostondynamics.com/ https://www.bostondynamics.com/
  - mengibar10 8y ago
    Yes, Boston Dynamics. Why the downvote? Why this belligerency?
- URSpider94 8y ago
  Boston Dynamics is focused on building free-moving legged robots. ReThink was focused on building industrial robots (think robot arms) that can easily be trained/retrained to do a wide variety of tasks and that can co-exist with humans (torque sensors tell them when they’ve hit something unexpected and tell the arm to stop before it crushes you). The idea was that smaller manufacturing settings could use them side by side with human workers, and that a single arm could be retrained frequently as tasks change over time. This is compared to traditional industrial robots which have to be completely cordoned off from humans lest they run into them, and which require extensive programming to execute a new task.
  - mengibar10 8y ago
    Thanks for the explanation.
notnot 8y ago
Isn't making a robot that looks like a human to replace a human's job a bit like making a mechanical horse to fulfill our transportation needs? Having worked with robotics for years I can say the amount of setup work that goes into installing fully-functional hardware and software and getting a robotic process running smoothly is enormous. The basic idea is that everything, the robot, all the hardware, all the firmware/software, the end-effector, the workpieces, the sensors, etc. is rigidly-defined and over-spec'd so that with all the tolerance stackup and after all the integration and process debugging work you set it and DON'T CHANGE IT for as long as possible. The chaos that ensues from one little component changing it's behavior can be enormous. The notion of "smart" robots that you can just slap down or that can just handle all sorts of unknowns and adjust themselves to changes to me always seemed like a really, really big challenge, maybe not as challenging as a driverless car but definitely more of a "general AI" problem. I'm sure someone has coined the term but there must be some kind of "uncanny valley" of intelligence: a little intelligence (e.g. the PID controllers that actually run robots) is great, a lot of intelligence (fully-blown general AI) is great (if you can get it), but what's in the middle may not be worth the while. Getting the answer correctly 99% of the time doesn't work if you need 99.9% success rate. From an investment standpoint I would be looking for companies with a REALLY specific well-defined problem that "medium AI" could solve rather than someone who's claiming to take medium AI and apply it vaguely/generally. I guess that's my take away from this: work on specifying the problem before you work on the solution.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- beambot 8y ago
  Hence, cobots.
- rytill 8y ago
  "Medium AI" is definitely useful, as long as you have the correct interfacing and apply it to the correct problems. Obviously you can't just slap it onto an AI-complete problem and have medium AI perform well enough to ship. We are probably roughly in agreement here, but I disagree that in reality there's a significant uncanny valley effect. It's just hard for those not in the field to intuit about the capabilities of medium AI.
zplizzi 8y ago
I have been working with the Sawyer arm for the past few months and it's a really nice piece of hardware - far better than the Universal Robots arms that it competes with, while being a similar price. The software is also far ahead of the crappy 2000's era interface of the UR arms, and they have a nice ROS-integrated SDK for people who want to go farther with it. I was really disappointed to see them shut down as we were hoping to buy several more in the next few months.
latchkey 8y ago
Interesting that one of the top articles today is about finding the Apple II LOGO source code. One of the authors of the code is Patrick G. Sobalvarro, who also happened to be president of Rethink.
Animats 8y ago
The trouble with the thing was that about all it could learn was how to pick up something from one place and put it somewhere else. That's useful, but there are already lots of other robots which do that, including ones with fast vision systems. Baxter robot, finding and picking up simple un-oriented objects and moving them.[1] Slowly. Festo robot, finding picking up simple un-oriented objects and moving them.[2] Fast. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T91R-TPXwg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T91R-TPXwg [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH_t_1-tl40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH_t_1-tl40
sabalaba 8y ago
A CEO's job is to set the overall vision, recruit amazing talent, and make sure there's money in the bank. If a company wants to change the world, they can't forget #3. In fact it's probably the most important because #1 and #2 are not possible without #3. So, how does one raise $149.5M and fail? The Fatal Pinch. https://avc.com/2010/08/what-a-ceo-does/ https://avc.com/2010/08/what-a-ceo-does/ http://www.paulgraham.com/pinch.html http://www.paulgraham.com/pinch.html
Animats 8y ago
It's not that the concept is a failure. It's that Rethink, the company, is a failure. Universal Robotics in Denmark is doing something very similar, but they have over 25,000 installed robots and distributors in 50 countries. They also have a robot arm that is a nice piece of mechanical engineering, and retains its precision over a very large number of cycles. The coming thing is robots as a service, paid by the hour. Hirebotics offers that. They own the robots. They set them up. They fix them. You pay them for each hour of use, like an employee. Vision for robots today works well for semi-structured situations. If you know what the parts look like, and can see the parts and target location reasonably well, you can probably get a vision system to guide a robot arm to put things where they're supposed to go. The fixturing no longer has to be so rigid that a robot can do the job blind. The systems that do this are often just convolving a stored image of the target against a camera image of the area that contains the target. This is 1970s technology, but we have enough cheap compute power now to make it work fast.
noonespecial 8y ago
>Rethink will now be selling off its intellectual property and patent portfolio... Hopefully they sell to someone who intends to put them into practice and not some troll so these patents don't become another toxic ip spill the industry will spend the next 20 years navigating around.
tranchms 8y ago
I sold Baxter and Sawyer robots. They were shit. The creators had no idea about market fit. You’re selling this thing to controls and automation engineers who are familiar with programming on PCs and pendants. ReThink had this ridiculous face for “emotional feedback” that forced you to also do all your programming there. It was clunky and kinda cheap (Sawyer was upgraded, and more solid). Baxter was slow with terrible repeatability. And it did not come with native ports for external controls or communication. There was no way to integrate with an existing automated system, no digital IOs or Ethernet. You had to get a third party distributor to manufacture at their panel shop and jury rig something together for extra cost. Not to mention that UX was terrible and clunky and not intuitive. It’s suppose to be easy to use, easy to program, that anyone can just role it up to an existing operators position and teach it in five minutes and you’re up and running. Wrong. As mentioned, the only interface was the obnoxious swivel screen, and the only programming controls were... dials with a push button, one located on each arm and one on the back. Yes, you had to scroll through menus and across pages to select and modify programs in endlessly confusing menus that literally made you regret ever getting involved with the company. Yes, it had some nice collaborative safety features built in, some patented titanium s joints that flexed for safety like tendons yet maintained nice accuracy. But no one cares about your fancey safety features if it’s nearly impossible to use, and fails to seamlessly integrate into existing systems. This is a classic mistake. Build something epically fancy, but totally worthless to 90% of the people that would use it, because it just doesn’t play well. Learning curve is too high. It’s not plug and play/ fails to understand industry compatibility requirements, or it’s too niche. Because I sold these things, I quickly learned they were terrible. However, Universal Robots were on the right track from the get go. They were coming from the industrial automation world, they understood market fit. They made a device that was easy to use, intuitive, that leveraged existing programming methods and incorporated some collaborative programming technology in tandem. Maybe their gear mechanisms weren’t as safe, but they passed all the requirements, so what did it matter in the end? Fancy safety joints were NOT the most important selling point for collaborative robots. Reducing downtime to increase output and profits is, and that means easy integration and quick programming. Not to mention UR was just a robot arm, and not this wacky monstrosity of a machine and wheeled based (which was optional for ReThink but not really). And UR was super compatible. It was basically like conventional single arm robot with servos slowed down and given fancy torque feedback algorithms and some sensors for safety and tracking. The guys who started ReThink were out of their depth. Just some academics who had some success making commercial robots who expected an entire industry to conform to their fanciful dreams of robots with dopey emoting faces working along side their human comrads. Just pissed money away. And the thing is, they were one of the first, and positioned to be one of the best. Collaborative robotics is a massively growing field as humans and machines work in ever closer proximity. But ReThink totally choked. Had the wrong design engineers, with no industry experience. They failed to understand industry needs and existing automation culture and prevailing systems infrastructure. This company is a classic case study on how to completely botch the opportunity of a lifetime because of failing to understand existing market fit.
YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
Aaaw. That's Rodney Brooks' company! I warmed up to the crazy old coot, thanks to his recent series of articles on AI and machine learning [1]. It's very unfortunate that his company tanked. I hope he starts something new, soon. ____________ [1] https://rodneybrooks.com/blog/ https://rodneybrooks.com/blog/ That's a treasure trove of knowledge on AI with a generous dose of personal, um, perspective, but from a gentleman who has a very, very long career in the field. Do read his stuff if you fancy yourself "knowledgeable about AI".

137 points by ph0rque 8y ago

dang 8y ago

A related article is at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18143815 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18143815.

I work in robotics field and I always thought that collaborative robots were cool in trade show booths but beyond that they had limited use. I've not seen many of these things used in our industry (semiconductor) or any other friends who work in various industries. ABB lead the campaign on these as if they are going to revolutionize manufacturing lines where humans & machines will work together. That never happened just like 3D printing never shook the world as it promised it would.

riazrizvi 8y ago
The problem here does not seem to be with collaborative robots, as much as execution, with Universal Robots outcompeting them. Honestly the friendly face UI seems to be gimmicky. I suspect more practical features were under prioritized.
chrisweekly 8y ago
> "just like 3D printing never shook the world as it promised it would" Additive orthopedics are a pretty big deal to people who need, say, an ankle replacement. And it's way too soon to say something like that, at least absent a "yet" modifier.
- jsemrau 8y ago
  While 3D printing found home on a value adding niche, it's still far away from what could be done with the technology.
  - ethbro 8y ago
    Honestly, the biggest thing holding 3D printing back seems to be lack of broad access to co-op hackerspaces with top-of-the-line machines. And I don't mean in SF. I mean in Small Town, Kansas, sponsored by the local high school, library, and whoever else. Buying one for home use is a dalliance for the upper middle class. But democratized access to technology would be far more effective. Sharing an actual structural, metal 3D printer seems so much more useful than having 20x plastic-only home machines.
    - jonathankoren 8y ago
      Of course, there's always Shapeways.
  - antoniuschan99 8y ago
    I used to think so but it's much closer than you think. My side project we're using a Prusa Mk3 for an end use part and the quality and cost is amazing. A lot of other people are doing the same. There are so many types of material too now.
javiramos 8y ago
I work on 3D printing and I can tell you - 3D printing is profoundly impacting a variety of industries. It’s been amazing to see the growth and development in the past 3 years.
- aetherson 8y ago
  Yeah, I think the thing with 3D printing is it's a powerful industrial technology, but the idea that every home would want a low cost 3D printer was badly wrong.
  - XenophileJKO 8y ago
    It's just not good enough yet. It just can't make enough products using a variety of materials, fast enough and with little user involvement. When a turn key solution is available where the average person just clicks to "print" a product, that equation changes. I feel like this is a technology that isn't a consumer product until suddenly it is.
    - tranchms 8y ago
      Check out Carbon3D and Velo3D. Two companies I work with in the Bay Area who are changing the game.
jlarocco 8y ago
Although consumer 3D printing hasn't gone anywhere, industrial 3D printing is gaining traction. For example, I recently toured the Moots bicycle factory and was surprised to learn their rear dropouts are 3D printed titanium. http://moots.com/moots-3d-printed-flat-mount-dropout/ http://moots.com/moots-3d-printed-flat-mount-dropout/
Symmetry 8y ago
We have URs in a warehouses doing piece picking. They're not the right solution for very structured environments like a semiconductor plant but for medium structured environments like a warehouse they can make a lot of sense. And frankly collaborative arms are just so much easier to develop on that it might be worth it to use them for that even if your final product is going to use a full industrial arm. You're going to make a mistake in your collision checking routine at some point.

seibelj 8y ago

Wow they had a lot of positions open before they closed, was always tempted to apply. Sad for the Boston robotics scene and the larger commercial robotics industry.

transfire 8y ago

Sad news. It's one of those things that will eventually take off -- and not too far in the future. So to me it just goes to show that today's markets are very sub-optimal, overly favoring short-term returns.

ehead 8y ago

What companies will scoop up all the talent that was there? Can anyone speculate about what Rodney Brooks will do next?

javiramos 8y ago

I was an intern at Rethink (back then, Heartland Robotics) 2010~2011, it was an exciting place to work at. There were ~10 employees when I joined, and ~40 when I left. One of the early product mistaked they made was focusing way too much on low-cost. They compromised many necessary performance specs (repeatability, speed etc.) just to be able to make the robot out of plastic. They eventually pivoted to their second generation robot, Sawyer, which was made out of casted metal components. This gave the robot much better performance but I guess that it was too late.

gisely 8y ago
I would really love to hear why performance specs you mention are still necessary for robotics applications. Repeatability and speed certainly seem useful industrial robotics applications, but low cost also seems critical to enabling broader use of robots. I am particularly interested in the possibility that modern algorithms (e.g. deep reinforcement learning) can compensate for not having completely repeatable behaviors from a robot by using sensory feedback to create behaviors that reliable despite their variability. Additionally, materials with higher elasticity (e.g. plastics instead of metal) might allow some previous impossible efficiencies, e.g. by storing potential energy in the links and then releasing it at the right time. Is it just too soon for these sorts of approaches?
- blt 8y ago
  Basically, yes. Deep RL has the potential to make high accuracy/repeatability unnecessary, but it's still in the research lab setting.
- LeifCarrotson 8y ago
  Compromise on stiffness and rigidity in a servo system means the thing jitters about like a squirrel on speed. Robots need to be smooth, and there's precious little you can do in your controls to compensate for system instability. Precision comes along almost for free once you have that rigidity. They didn't get the basics right. Special sauce on top needs to have a solid foundation. And that's why I have an Aubo robot in my conference room today, and why I was able to tune in a 250kg payload 1995-vintage ABB on Tuesday, while these guys are shutting down.

crsv 8y ago

Two bridges into a down round on their series E, these guys have been bleeding money for years. The VCs gave them ten years to find a sustainable path and they just never took off. This is just how it goes. It’s probably for the best, and 10 years in any venture is a fair shot.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

syntaxing 8y ago

Kind of sad to see them shut down. Been following them since the Baxter robot came out. Unfortunately, the current market just does not have a high demand for highly flexible robots. Most of the fully automated lines are highly specialized lines. Company invest hundreds of millions, with the expectation of maintaining the line for years. It's usually simpler and cheaper to use standard actuators with multiple stations rather than a complex robotic arm. However, the couple of applications from Universal Robotics and Kuka is pretty cool to see.

TFortunato 8y ago

Sad to see them go. I spent just under a year there ~2 years ago doing embedded systems, right before some big layoffs, and I really had a great time there. It's a great group of people, and I wish them all the best. Judging by the amount of recruiter calls and emails I got today after the news broke (apparently working off my old resume!), I think these folks will land on their feet!

mengibar10 8y ago

How do they compare to Boston Robotics. My understanding they were pursuing different use cases. Former is more about doing repetitive work and latter is more to do movement and carrying stuff. Although Rethink's robot look much primitive to Boston's robots, however may be what they're trying to achieve is much more complicated?

GeorgeTirebiter 8y ago
Boston Dynamics? https://www.bostondynamics.com/ https://www.bostondynamics.com/
- mengibar10 8y ago
  Yes, Boston Dynamics. Why the downvote? Why this belligerency?
URSpider94 8y ago
Boston Dynamics is focused on building free-moving legged robots. ReThink was focused on building industrial robots (think robot arms) that can easily be trained/retrained to do a wide variety of tasks and that can co-exist with humans (torque sensors tell them when they’ve hit something unexpected and tell the arm to stop before it crushes you). The idea was that smaller manufacturing settings could use them side by side with human workers, and that a single arm could be retrained frequently as tasks change over time. This is compared to traditional industrial robots which have to be completely cordoned off from humans lest they run into them, and which require extensive programming to execute a new task.
- mengibar10 8y ago
  Thanks for the explanation.

notnot 8y ago

Isn't making a robot that looks like a human to replace a human's job a bit like making a mechanical horse to fulfill our transportation needs? Having worked with robotics for years I can say the amount of setup work that goes into installing fully-functional hardware and software and getting a robotic process running smoothly is enormous. The basic idea is that everything, the robot, all the hardware, all the firmware/software, the end-effector, the workpieces, the sensors, etc. is rigidly-defined and over-spec'd so that with all the tolerance stackup and after all the integration and process debugging work you set it and DON'T CHANGE IT for as long as possible. The chaos that ensues from one little component changing it's behavior can be enormous. The notion of "smart" robots that you can just slap down or that can just handle all sorts of unknowns and adjust themselves to changes to me always seemed like a really, really big challenge, maybe not as challenging as a driverless car but definitely more of a "general AI" problem. I'm sure someone has coined the term but there must be some kind of "uncanny valley" of intelligence: a little intelligence (e.g. the PID controllers that actually run robots) is great, a lot of intelligence (fully-blown general AI) is great (if you can get it), but what's in the middle may not be worth the while. Getting the answer correctly 99% of the time doesn't work if you need 99.9% success rate. From an investment standpoint I would be looking for companies with a REALLY specific well-defined problem that "medium AI" could solve rather than someone who's claiming to take medium AI and apply it vaguely/generally. I guess that's my take away from this: work on specifying the problem before you work on the solution.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
beambot 8y ago
Hence, cobots.
rytill 8y ago
"Medium AI" is definitely useful, as long as you have the correct interfacing and apply it to the correct problems. Obviously you can't just slap it onto an AI-complete problem and have medium AI perform well enough to ship. We are probably roughly in agreement here, but I disagree that in reality there's a significant uncanny valley effect. It's just hard for those not in the field to intuit about the capabilities of medium AI.

zplizzi 8y ago

I have been working with the Sawyer arm for the past few months and it's a really nice piece of hardware - far better than the Universal Robots arms that it competes with, while being a similar price. The software is also far ahead of the crappy 2000's era interface of the UR arms, and they have a nice ROS-integrated SDK for people who want to go farther with it. I was really disappointed to see them shut down as we were hoping to buy several more in the next few months.

latchkey 8y ago

Interesting that one of the top articles today is about finding the Apple II LOGO source code. One of the authors of the code is Patrick G. Sobalvarro, who also happened to be president of Rethink.

Animats 8y ago

The trouble with the thing was that about all it could learn was how to pick up something from one place and put it somewhere else. That's useful, but there are already lots of other robots which do that, including ones with fast vision systems. Baxter robot, finding and picking up simple un-oriented objects and moving them.[1] Slowly. Festo robot, finding picking up simple un-oriented objects and moving them.[2] Fast. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T91R-TPXwg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T91R-TPXwg [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH_t_1-tl40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH_t_1-tl40

sabalaba 8y ago

A CEO's job is to set the overall vision, recruit amazing talent, and make sure there's money in the bank. If a company wants to change the world, they can't forget #3. In fact it's probably the most important because #1 and #2 are not possible without #3. So, how does one raise $149.5M and fail? The Fatal Pinch. https://avc.com/2010/08/what-a-ceo-does/ https://avc.com/2010/08/what-a-ceo-does/ http://www.paulgraham.com/pinch.html http://www.paulgraham.com/pinch.html

Animats 8y ago

It's not that the concept is a failure. It's that Rethink, the company, is a failure. Universal Robotics in Denmark is doing something very similar, but they have over 25,000 installed robots and distributors in 50 countries. They also have a robot arm that is a nice piece of mechanical engineering, and retains its precision over a very large number of cycles. The coming thing is robots as a service, paid by the hour. Hirebotics offers that. They own the robots. They set them up. They fix them. You pay them for each hour of use, like an employee. Vision for robots today works well for semi-structured situations. If you know what the parts look like, and can see the parts and target location reasonably well, you can probably get a vision system to guide a robot arm to put things where they're supposed to go. The fixturing no longer has to be so rigid that a robot can do the job blind. The systems that do this are often just convolving a stored image of the target against a camera image of the area that contains the target. This is 1970s technology, but we have enough cheap compute power now to make it work fast.

noonespecial 8y ago

>Rethink will now be selling off its intellectual property and patent portfolio... Hopefully they sell to someone who intends to put them into practice and not some troll so these patents don't become another toxic ip spill the industry will spend the next 20 years navigating around.

tranchms 8y ago

I sold Baxter and Sawyer robots. They were shit. The creators had no idea about market fit. You’re selling this thing to controls and automation engineers who are familiar with programming on PCs and pendants. ReThink had this ridiculous face for “emotional feedback” that forced you to also do all your programming there. It was clunky and kinda cheap (Sawyer was upgraded, and more solid). Baxter was slow with terrible repeatability. And it did not come with native ports for external controls or communication. There was no way to integrate with an existing automated system, no digital IOs or Ethernet. You had to get a third party distributor to manufacture at their panel shop and jury rig something together for extra cost. Not to mention that UX was terrible and clunky and not intuitive. It’s suppose to be easy to use, easy to program, that anyone can just role it up to an existing operators position and teach it in five minutes and you’re up and running. Wrong. As mentioned, the only interface was the obnoxious swivel screen, and the only programming controls were... dials with a push button, one located on each arm and one on the back. Yes, you had to scroll through menus and across pages to select and modify programs in endlessly confusing menus that literally made you regret ever getting involved with the company. Yes, it had some nice collaborative safety features built in, some patented titanium s joints that flexed for safety like tendons yet maintained nice accuracy. But no one cares about your fancey safety features if it’s nearly impossible to use, and fails to seamlessly integrate into existing systems. This is a classic mistake. Build something epically fancy, but totally worthless to 90% of the people that would use it, because it just doesn’t play well. Learning curve is too high. It’s not plug and play/ fails to understand industry compatibility requirements, or it’s too niche. Because I sold these things, I quickly learned they were terrible. However, Universal Robots were on the right track from the get go. They were coming from the industrial automation world, they understood market fit. They made a device that was easy to use, intuitive, that leveraged existing programming methods and incorporated some collaborative programming technology in tandem. Maybe their gear mechanisms weren’t as safe, but they passed all the requirements, so what did it matter in the end? Fancy safety joints were NOT the most important selling point for collaborative robots. Reducing downtime to increase output and profits is, and that means easy integration and quick programming. Not to mention UR was just a robot arm, and not this wacky monstrosity of a machine and wheeled based (which was optional for ReThink but not really). And UR was super compatible. It was basically like conventional single arm robot with servos slowed down and given fancy torque feedback algorithms and some sensors for safety and tracking. The guys who started ReThink were out of their depth. Just some academics who had some success making commercial robots who expected an entire industry to conform to their fanciful dreams of robots with dopey emoting faces working along side their human comrads. Just pissed money away. And the thing is, they were one of the first, and positioned to be one of the best. Collaborative robotics is a massively growing field as humans and machines work in ever closer proximity. But ReThink totally choked. Had the wrong design engineers, with no industry experience. They failed to understand industry needs and existing automation culture and prevailing systems infrastructure. This company is a classic case study on how to completely botch the opportunity of a lifetime because of failing to understand existing market fit.

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago

Aaaw. That's Rodney Brooks' company! I warmed up to the crazy old coot, thanks to his recent series of articles on AI and machine learning [1]. It's very unfortunate that his company tanked. I hope he starts something new, soon. ____________ [1] https://rodneybrooks.com/blog/ https://rodneybrooks.com/blog/ That's a treasure trove of knowledge on AI with a generous dose of personal, um, perspective, but from a gentleman who has a very, very long career in the field. Do read his stuff if you fancy yourself "knowledgeable about AI".