5 ms·

> Since when do we define the value of something by the > infinite list of things it can't do? When that infinite list is things people want. I speaking of co

by bArray 6y ago

> Since when do we define the value of something by the > infinite list of things it can't do? When that infinite list is things people want. I speaking of course from the "consumer" perspective and outlining some reasons why this robot is many, many years away from being ready for that market. This particular robot will likely never be anything other than a research platform that has all support dropped for it after a few years. > I could make a list a mile long of all the things my > dishwasher cannot do... does that mean no HNs have > dishwashers? Your dishwasher is not an autonomous robot, arguably it's not even a robot. It does one very specific task mostly well. This robot is marketed as some generic home automation machine, which it isn't.

koheripbal 6y ago
I think you're looking at this the wrong way. It only needs to be able to do juuust enough work to justify its cost (obviously not true yet). Roomba is, for example, an even more limited device, but since it does one thing well enough to justify a $500-$900 price. Talking about all the myriad of things it can't do is just pointless.
- bArray 6y ago
  The point I'm making is, this robot is being sold on the idea of some magical do-all machine around your house, when the reality is far different. The problems I stated are really some of (but not all) the key problems that need to be solved in order for it to do as the advertising suggests. To put the problem into perspective, with billions of dollars man could send people to the moon, but is still unable to solve some of these fundamental robotics problems with similar funding. I agree though, if this is ever to be a consumer product then it needs a massive reduction in scope and price drop (depending on what problem it solves). It's hard to think of a problem that is as commonly shared and simplistic in scope as hoovering without being a gimmick though. You've got cooking which is basically automated through meal prep (e.g. microwave meals or even fast food services). You've got cleaning clothes - but the scope is enormous. Dusting and putting small items back in their correct location may be the only real possibility.

by bArray 6y ago

koheripbal 6y ago

I think you're looking at this the wrong way. It only needs to be able to do juuust enough work to justify its cost (obviously not true yet). Roomba is, for example, an even more limited device, but since it does one thing well enough to justify a $500-$900 price. Talking about all the myriad of things it can't do is just pointless.

bArray 6y ago
The point I'm making is, this robot is being sold on the idea of some magical do-all machine around your house, when the reality is far different. The problems I stated are really some of (but not all) the key problems that need to be solved in order for it to do as the advertising suggests. To put the problem into perspective, with billions of dollars man could send people to the moon, but is still unable to solve some of these fundamental robotics problems with similar funding. I agree though, if this is ever to be a consumer product then it needs a massive reduction in scope and price drop (depending on what problem it solves). It's hard to think of a problem that is as commonly shared and simplistic in scope as hoovering without being a gimmick though. You've got cooking which is basically automated through meal prep (e.g. microwave meals or even fast food services). You've got cleaning clothes - but the scope is enormous. Dusting and putting small items back in their correct location may be the only real possibility.