5 ms·

It's hard to believe that they were acquired for 'only' 1.1B, given the valuations we have seen of many other companies recently.

by ve55 6y ago

Element_ 6y ago
I totally agree, tech valuations this year are staggering, yet this company is only valued at 1.1bn even as they have started commercializing their spot robot. It seems like their robots could automate the truck-to-door problem with automated home deliveries. I guess we must be missing something...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- qayxc 6y ago
  > I guess we must be missing something... There's a whole ton of unsolved problems: - no true autonomy in chaotic/dynamic environments - powering these machines for longer timespans is currently impossible (batteries endurance is measured in minutes, not hours) - high skill level required for operating these machines (again - they're not autonomous in the slightest) - paradox of complexity: it's easier to genetically engineer tomatoes that can withstand falling to the ground and being swept into a box than it is to engineer a machine that can identify and carefully pick ripe tomatoes as fast, as reliably and as cheap as a human worker - motion planning and navigating unmapped environments is largely unsolved - specialised machines are cheaper, more reliable and readily available: it's often more beneficial to modify the process than to program a generalised machine to perform human tasks, e.g. washing machines and dish washers don't need actual hands and tumble dryers don't need to use clothes lines yet all three work fine/better than the human version of the process - AI safety is still in its infancy (even in the context of "just" motion planning and navigation); there's no such thing as tried and tested safety protocols for fully autonomous robots - the state of the software (in terms of autonomy) is way behind the state of the hardware - even Spot is for the most part still just a super low-volume solution looking for a problem
ThouYS 6y ago
hear hear
fartcannon 6y ago
Bipedal robots will replace human labour and the first person to make them inexpensive will become unfathomably wealthy. How much did slack go for? 30 billion? For a shiny chat client with fewer features than the 25 year old tech they ape.
- Andrex 6y ago
  > Bipedal robots will replace human labour and the first person to make them inexpensive will become unfathomably wealthy. Yeah, until there's a B1-66ER incident...
  - avaldeso 6y ago
    Animatrix: Second Renaissance. Sick reference bro.
    - bitcharmer 6y ago
      If you're reading this and still haven't seen Animatrix yet, you must. Absolutely stunning show of animation styles, story telling and great music.
- staplers 6y ago
  C-level business executives generally never pay attention to the frontiers of technology. It seems to be a common theme in entropy-stage corporations. It does help churn the larger corporate oligarchy though.
- briantakita 6y ago
  Human augmentation such as exoskeletons will likely find broad commercial appeal as well. https://www.army-technology.com/features/us-army-exoskeletons/ https://www.army-technology.com/features/us-army-exoskeleton...
- triangleman 6y ago
  If the video is any indication, the 4-legged robots will take over first.
nmfisher 6y ago
I'm not defending recent tech valuations (which I agree are ludicrous), but it's worth remembering that technological superiority != commercial value. It doesn't matter how good you are at building a technically complex product if there's no market for it. Judging from the comments in this thread, the value proposition for BD is still very unclear. Bi/quadriped robots are - currently, at least - an expensive solution to a problem that no-one really has. Investing in BD is a gamble that they'll be able to carve out a profitable niche some time in the future. The valuation has to reflect that uncertainty.
- ve55 6y ago
  That's correct, but the pattern of 'we know you are not profitable now, but perhaps you will be sometime later, and we are long-term players' is still very prevalent, but hasn't been extended to BD as much here as some may hope. While I can't argue they are actually worth much more, I think I do feel a bit of an 'I wish cool hardware got as much hype and attention as software' lament in general.

It's hard to believe that they were acquired for 'only' 1.1B, given the valuations we have seen of many other companies recently.

by ve55 6y ago

It's hard to believe that they were acquired for 'only' 1.1B, given the valuations we have seen of many other companies recently.

Element_ 6y ago

I totally agree, tech valuations this year are staggering, yet this company is only valued at 1.1bn even as they have started commercializing their spot robot. It seems like their robots could automate the truck-to-door problem with automated home deliveries. I guess we must be missing something...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
qayxc 6y ago
> I guess we must be missing something... There's a whole ton of unsolved problems: - no true autonomy in chaotic/dynamic environments - powering these machines for longer timespans is currently impossible (batteries endurance is measured in minutes, not hours) - high skill level required for operating these machines (again - they're not autonomous in the slightest) - paradox of complexity: it's easier to genetically engineer tomatoes that can withstand falling to the ground and being swept into a box than it is to engineer a machine that can identify and carefully pick ripe tomatoes as fast, as reliably and as cheap as a human worker - motion planning and navigating unmapped environments is largely unsolved - specialised machines are cheaper, more reliable and readily available: it's often more beneficial to modify the process than to program a generalised machine to perform human tasks, e.g. washing machines and dish washers don't need actual hands and tumble dryers don't need to use clothes lines yet all three work fine/better than the human version of the process - AI safety is still in its infancy (even in the context of "just" motion planning and navigation); there's no such thing as tried and tested safety protocols for fully autonomous robots - the state of the software (in terms of autonomy) is way behind the state of the hardware - even Spot is for the most part still just a super low-volume solution looking for a problem

ThouYS 6y ago

hear hear

fartcannon 6y ago

Bipedal robots will replace human labour and the first person to make them inexpensive will become unfathomably wealthy. How much did slack go for? 30 billion? For a shiny chat client with fewer features than the 25 year old tech they ape.

Andrex 6y ago
> Bipedal robots will replace human labour and the first person to make them inexpensive will become unfathomably wealthy. Yeah, until there's a B1-66ER incident...
- avaldeso 6y ago
  Animatrix: Second Renaissance. Sick reference bro.
  - bitcharmer 6y ago
    If you're reading this and still haven't seen Animatrix yet, you must. Absolutely stunning show of animation styles, story telling and great music.
staplers 6y ago
C-level business executives generally never pay attention to the frontiers of technology. It seems to be a common theme in entropy-stage corporations. It does help churn the larger corporate oligarchy though.
briantakita 6y ago
Human augmentation such as exoskeletons will likely find broad commercial appeal as well. https://www.army-technology.com/features/us-army-exoskeletons/ https://www.army-technology.com/features/us-army-exoskeleton...
triangleman 6y ago
If the video is any indication, the 4-legged robots will take over first.

nmfisher 6y ago

I'm not defending recent tech valuations (which I agree are ludicrous), but it's worth remembering that technological superiority != commercial value. It doesn't matter how good you are at building a technically complex product if there's no market for it. Judging from the comments in this thread, the value proposition for BD is still very unclear. Bi/quadriped robots are - currently, at least - an expensive solution to a problem that no-one really has. Investing in BD is a gamble that they'll be able to carve out a profitable niche some time in the future. The valuation has to reflect that uncertainty.

ve55 6y ago
That's correct, but the pattern of 'we know you are not profitable now, but perhaps you will be sometime later, and we are long-term players' is still very prevalent, but hasn't been extended to BD as much here as some may hope. While I can't argue they are actually worth much more, I think I do feel a bit of an 'I wish cool hardware got as much hype and attention as software' lament in general.