4 ms·

I really liked this guy. Maybe it's Boston but here's a guy with two wildly successful startups in robotics and he's having trouble raising money because his i

by rmason 1y ago

I really liked this guy. Maybe it's Boston but here's a guy with two wildly successful startups in robotics and he's having trouble raising money because his idea isn't sexy enough! I thought investors were smart and knew how to calculate odds. There is never any absolutely sure thing. But if a guy has been wildly successful twice aren't the odds pretty good he can do it a third time?

skeeter2020 1y ago
I know a very low profile entrepreneur who has essentially built the exact same business (with slight variations) 3 times over the past 20+ years, selling the first two, so yes I believe there is some corelation between his 2 previous successes and being able to do it again. Even if it's imaginary the funding markets swear by previous success being a strong marker for future success.
- monero-xmr 1y ago
  Years ago my friend had the best app for a particular game in the App Stores. But competition was rising. So he just rebranded his app with a few changes and then got 3 of the top 5 spots! Same underlying app
  - imp0cat 1y ago
    And this is why we can't have nice things.
    - kakacik 1y ago
      Sounds rather like we are having a lot of (almost same) nice things
jpm_sd 1y ago
iRobot got crushed by Chinese competitors. Rethink failed early, they had a poor quality product and Universal made a much better cobot. And this new venture is pointless, there are 10 other companies in the Boston area alone doing warehouse automation...
- infecto 1y ago
  Upvote for you sir. I was writing the same response as you posted the exact response. The only thing I did not mention that I will add here. iRobot was kind of a turd. They basically kept the same turd of a robot for a decade plus. Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang…
- adabyron 1y ago
  I'm a huge fan of the ease of cleaning & repairing iRobots, especially the earlier models. I don't know if the competitors match that but I have preferred their simplicity & quality. China competitors are always going to be tough to beat in terms of margins.
- Animats 1y ago
  The comment about humanoid forms raising expectations comes from Rethink's hype and failure. Rethink tried to solve manipulation and failed. The Rethink hype video, with their cute little face on a screen.[1] What the Rethink robot could actually do: take PC boards off a conveyor and put them in a fixture.[2] That's a routine robotic load/unload task. Like this one with Fanuc robots.[3] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4mULTknb2I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4mULTknb2I [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnzmxJS4Rp4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnzmxJS4Rp4 [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za5z1lb0hdU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za5z1lb0hdU
  - ACCount37 1y ago
    The industry term, I believe, is "skill issue". The conclusion to draw from "tried and failed" certainly isn't "it's impossible and everyone should give up on the notion".
- binoct 1y ago
  Details of this situation aside, the take "doing x is pointless because lots of other people are doing it" is a bit rough.
irjustin 1y ago
Having been through the VC system, I don't believe his face value statement, and I 100% believe you're right. They want to invest, but not at his terms that he's demanding. The thought experiment is - he wants to raise 1m @ 2m val. 50%. There's not a VC/angel/seed who wouldn't take that deal given who he is. So he's pricing himself at a level he "is willing to do this startup thing again" and it's simply too expensive.
- oofbey 1y ago
  You assume VCs are rational. They try to be. But they’re not.
  - graycat 1y ago
    A guess: Smart VCs know that they are not smart enough to evaluate a business from a plan or a founder' background and instead wait for the revenue growing explosively.
    - ljlolel 1y ago
      A smart VC knows they have 0% chance of getting into that round (even the top VC maybe 1/3 chance) much less leading it by then, and only chance is getting into it when it’s still contrarian.
infecto 1y ago
Define success. Without a doubt iRobot was a category leader for a long time. They created the market but were they ever profitable? At this point it feels like a company on life support that is getting their butts kicked by the Chinese who offer double the product for half the cost. Without a doubt though he created the category. Was the second company ever a success, all I could find is it being trade for parts over and over. This third company looks interesting but it’s also a flooded market at this point. So for me the guy never had a real success and is currently building in a market that has been for years flooded with products like his.
- yurimo 1y ago
  Rodney Brooks is widely recognized and celebrated roboticist, ran CSAIL for a while. iRobot as a company created a new market and managed to put a functional household robot out there, whether Chinese alternatives ate the share of it is largely irrelevant to his argument on humanoids, which I find to be completely reasonable.
  - infecto 1y ago
    There is a wide gap between academic and entrepreneur/business operator though. He was one of three co founders of iRobot the company l, is not even credited at the inventor of it, and iRobot has largely been a one hit wonder. They created a category but the underlying product largely was unimproved until China started dominating. His other business was a failure and his third current is in a crowded marketplace. Humanoids are the minority in warehouse automation. Who is even talking about his argument on humanoids? What does that have to do with my comment. My response was on a comment praising his triple success in business and I am questioning that definition of success.
    - ghc 1y ago
      You say one hit wonder, but iRobot's PackBot and other gov-focused efforts were/are very profitable, though the company had to spin off the defense arm.
tennisflyi 1y ago
I mean, VCs want stories (or at least hype) - not accolades, i.e., Altman, Neumann. Heck, accolades might hurt you. They want the unfound gem/they're so smart/cerebral...

by rmason 1y ago

skeeter2020 1y ago

I know a very low profile entrepreneur who has essentially built the exact same business (with slight variations) 3 times over the past 20+ years, selling the first two, so yes I believe there is some corelation between his 2 previous successes and being able to do it again. Even if it's imaginary the funding markets swear by previous success being a strong marker for future success.

monero-xmr 1y ago
Years ago my friend had the best app for a particular game in the App Stores. But competition was rising. So he just rebranded his app with a few changes and then got 3 of the top 5 spots! Same underlying app
- imp0cat 1y ago
  And this is why we can't have nice things.
  - kakacik 1y ago
    Sounds rather like we are having a lot of (almost same) nice things

jpm_sd 1y ago

iRobot got crushed by Chinese competitors. Rethink failed early, they had a poor quality product and Universal made a much better cobot. And this new venture is pointless, there are 10 other companies in the Boston area alone doing warehouse automation...

infecto 1y ago
Upvote for you sir. I was writing the same response as you posted the exact response. The only thing I did not mention that I will add here. iRobot was kind of a turd. They basically kept the same turd of a robot for a decade plus. Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang…
adabyron 1y ago
I'm a huge fan of the ease of cleaning & repairing iRobots, especially the earlier models. I don't know if the competitors match that but I have preferred their simplicity & quality. China competitors are always going to be tough to beat in terms of margins.
Animats 1y ago
The comment about humanoid forms raising expectations comes from Rethink's hype and failure. Rethink tried to solve manipulation and failed. The Rethink hype video, with their cute little face on a screen.[1] What the Rethink robot could actually do: take PC boards off a conveyor and put them in a fixture.[2] That's a routine robotic load/unload task. Like this one with Fanuc robots.[3] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4mULTknb2I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4mULTknb2I [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnzmxJS4Rp4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnzmxJS4Rp4 [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za5z1lb0hdU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za5z1lb0hdU
- ACCount37 1y ago
  The industry term, I believe, is "skill issue". The conclusion to draw from "tried and failed" certainly isn't "it's impossible and everyone should give up on the notion".
binoct 1y ago
Details of this situation aside, the take "doing x is pointless because lots of other people are doing it" is a bit rough.

irjustin 1y ago

Having been through the VC system, I don't believe his face value statement, and I 100% believe you're right. They want to invest, but not at his terms that he's demanding. The thought experiment is - he wants to raise 1m @ 2m val. 50%. There's not a VC/angel/seed who wouldn't take that deal given who he is. So he's pricing himself at a level he "is willing to do this startup thing again" and it's simply too expensive.

oofbey 1y ago
You assume VCs are rational. They try to be. But they’re not.
- graycat 1y ago
  A guess: Smart VCs know that they are not smart enough to evaluate a business from a plan or a founder' background and instead wait for the revenue growing explosively.
  - ljlolel 1y ago
    A smart VC knows they have 0% chance of getting into that round (even the top VC maybe 1/3 chance) much less leading it by then, and only chance is getting into it when it’s still contrarian.

infecto 1y ago

Define success. Without a doubt iRobot was a category leader for a long time. They created the market but were they ever profitable? At this point it feels like a company on life support that is getting their butts kicked by the Chinese who offer double the product for half the cost. Without a doubt though he created the category. Was the second company ever a success, all I could find is it being trade for parts over and over. This third company looks interesting but it’s also a flooded market at this point. So for me the guy never had a real success and is currently building in a market that has been for years flooded with products like his.

yurimo 1y ago
Rodney Brooks is widely recognized and celebrated roboticist, ran CSAIL for a while. iRobot as a company created a new market and managed to put a functional household robot out there, whether Chinese alternatives ate the share of it is largely irrelevant to his argument on humanoids, which I find to be completely reasonable.
- infecto 1y ago
  There is a wide gap between academic and entrepreneur/business operator though. He was one of three co founders of iRobot the company l, is not even credited at the inventor of it, and iRobot has largely been a one hit wonder. They created a category but the underlying product largely was unimproved until China started dominating. His other business was a failure and his third current is in a crowded marketplace. Humanoids are the minority in warehouse automation. Who is even talking about his argument on humanoids? What does that have to do with my comment. My response was on a comment praising his triple success in business and I am questioning that definition of success.
  - ghc 1y ago
    You say one hit wonder, but iRobot's PackBot and other gov-focused efforts were/are very profitable, though the company had to spin off the defense arm.

tennisflyi 1y ago

I mean, VCs want stories (or at least hype) - not accolades, i.e., Altman, Neumann. Heck, accolades might hurt you. They want the unfound gem/they're so smart/cerebral...