Note that they aren't talking about Kubota, Cincinatti Milacron, etc. People that make robots for manufacturing are doing ok. But that also points to a big hole

Note that they aren't talking about Kubota, Cincinatti Milacron, etc. People that make robots for manufacturing are doing ok. But that also points to a big hole in this story, robots and what they are. Back when I was running the Homebrew Robotics Club the question of "what is a robot" came up several times. Typically the definition is a machine that can perform some task while responding to changes in its environment that might otherwise prevent the task from being completed. The essence being sensing, executing an action to achieve a result, and identifying/signalling completion of the action. By this definition your dishwasher is a robot, it senses water temperature, dish placement, and sometimes even the amount of soiling on the dishes. It may adjust its cycle to insure the dishes are clean. But most people mean mobile, anthropomorphic devices that interact with people when they think "robot." And making a business in that space is very hard indeed. In part because we don't really have a way to "value" what the robot is doing. When you replace a union auto worker with a robot, you can directly compare the what you would have paid the worker in salary/benefits/training with what it costs to operate the robot. The math is "easy". But when you have a robot that is more "companionable" than not having a robot? How do you value that? And if you have tasks like "fetch me a beer from the fridge" that the robot can do, how do you evaluate the value of that versus doing it yourself? Most people say "I'd love a robot that would pick up laundry off the floor and put it into the basket next to the washing machine." But if you say, "Here you go, for only $20,000 (ask about our payment plan), our picker-upper 1000 will collect dirty laundry and put it in the basket." people always blanch and say, "Heck for that much money I'll do it myself."