NTT’s recent entry into consumer robotics suggests that it’s not just about Google vs Amazon, or Softbank vs NTT anymore, but about telcos vs big data companies. With two major and distinct sectors now competing for market share in consumer robotics, will this impact the way the whole robotics industry evolves?

In the winter of 2013/14 major league US-based big data companies like Google, Apple and Amazon propelled robotics into mainstream news when they started buying and investing in robotics companies like Boston Dynamics, Kiva and Nest. The world was wondering: why do all these consumer-focused big data companies suddenly care so much about robots? Now it seems that the big data sector is not the only one with its eye on robotics. This spring Japanese telecommunications firm Softbank acquired Aldebaran’s Pepper robot, and just yesterday, the competing and much larger Japanese telco NTT announced it would be partnering with consumer robot manufacturer Vstock to offer its Sota robot to consumers on a subscription basis.

Is this a signal that the telecommunication sector will become just as interested in robotics as big data companies are?

The two Japanese telcos will be leveraging their robotic acquisitions/partnerships to market their core business – communications services like networking, broadband and data delivery – to their massive existing consumer base. For telcos, this seems a logical extension of the cell phone business model: the device itself is a loss leader and the revenue earned is in the subscription fees. Softbank will be charging about $1600USD plus a $30USD subscription fee for the consumer model of Pepper, and  about $440USD/month for the recently announced enterprise model. NTT will be charging about $800USD with a monthly service fee of about $30USD for Sota.

These rates are far higher than a smartphone, and so it remains to be seen whether customers can see added value in the service over existing ones. Success may hinge on first developing niche markets, for example healthcare. Indeed NTT says it will roll out Sota as a companion robot in seniors homes next March, and Softbank’s first corporate customer is Nestle, who will be soon be launching Pepper as a marketing and service assistant in its Nescafe stores.

It remains to be seen whether, when, and how far telcos in other countries will latch on to the same trend. Softbank and NTT are located in Japan, whose population has a general love and affection for robots, and has traditionally had a strong consumer support for technology. The government of South Korea is active in marketing robotics to its people (they are even building a giant theme park dedicated to promoting robot tourism) and also seems like a good candidate. South Korea’s two top telcos, SK Telecom and KT, have both launched consumer robots. About taking Kibot into global markets, Seo Yu-Yeol, president in charge of KT’s Home Business Group has said:  “We continue to conduct market surveys on each country’s network infrastructure such as broadband and WiFi services.”

There are surely others.

But returning to the original question of telcos vs big data companies … is it a stretch to say this is a game changer? Compare the fledgling consumer robotics industry to the early auto industry, where the oil, gas and electricity sectors all fought for influence. The oil sector largely won out and we have the gasoline-powered car; and it’s no coincidence that Elon Musk is invested in both electric cars and solar power … Through the eyes of the energy producers, the car is just a delivery vehicle for energy consumption.

Or perhaps it’s not telcos vs big data companies at all, but rather telcos AND big data companies. As evidenced by the Uber and Airbnb, the continuum between carrier, medium, data and service is getting blurrier by the day.

Either way, with these sectors driving the next wave of the consumer robot economy, how will this shape how we use, interact with and consume robotics technology? To paraphrase Frank Tobe in his recent Robot Report newsletter, it could be that: “We are watching robotics turn from industry to ubiquity before our eyes.”

Following an in-depth discussion on the topic at Robohub’s editorial meeting today, it seems at this point there are many more questions than answers …

• Is this even a game changer? or is it just hype?
• Which sector – big data or telco – is better positioned to capitalize on consumer robotics? Or will these sectors work together in partnership?
• Will we see a ‘dumbing down’ of social robotics systems as they become mass marketed consumer products? Or will the competition between telcos and big data inject energy and money into R&D ?
• How will niche markets, such as healthcare or service industry, impact the development of social robotics?
• Are there substantive differences between social robots vs. the other smart devices that telcos are currently using to deliver their services? Or in Noam Chomsky’s words: Is the medium the message?
• How will all this impact robotics research and development? Will it benefit or harm the robotics community?
• Will we see a regional consolidation of telco investment, for example in Japan? When will telcos from other countries jump into the market?
• How does telco involvement impact privacy issues?
• Will this help usher in robot-as-a-service (RaaS) as an accepted business model?

To explore these questions, and many others, Robohub will be renewing our focus series Big deals: What it means to have the giants investing in robotics (started back when the Googles and the Amazons were first getting into the fray) to explore how telcos might be changing the game.

Interested in joining the discussion? Leave a comment below or email us at info@robohub.org with your contribution ideas.

A special thanks to Robohub team members Andrea Keay (@robotlaunch), Sabine Hauert (@sabinehauert), Adriana Hamacher (@AdrianaHamacher), John Payne (@lacyiceplusheat) and Audrow Nash for their stimulating discussion and input. 

If you liked this article, you may also be interested in:

• Japanese telcos vie for share in consumer robot-as-a-service business
• Softbank will take pre-orders for enterprise version of Pepper starting Oct 1
• Forget Google and unicorns, Asian dragons are going to dominate robotics
• Foxconn and Alibaba invest in SoftBank Robotics as Pepper goes on sale in Japan
• Nestlé 1st big buyer of Softbank’s Pepper robot
• Natural language: The de-facto interface convention for social robotics
• The second wave of social robots is here

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Yesterday a second Japanese telecommunication firm entered the consumer robot-as-a-service market when the state-owned Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (NTT) announced it would partner with its subsidiary NTT Data and robot maker Vstone to develop a tabletop companion robot that can talk and communicate with smart devices. NTT joins Softbank in the move to market networking and cloud computing services to a massive existing consumer base using consumer robotics. NTT says its Sota companion robot will cost about 100,000 JPY (~$800USD), with a monthly service fee of a few thousand JPY (~$30). UPDATE:  Softbank will take pre-orders for enterprise version of Pepper starting Oct 1 

NTT seems to be betting that a simpler, smaller and less expensive device will be more appealing to Japanese consumers than Softbank’s larger (and mobile) Pepper, which costs about $1600 for the robot, plus $200 per month for the online service and maintenance contract. Japan, with its high housing costs, is notorious for its small apartments, and a table top robot that doesn’t need to navigate stairs or take up precious real estate might be just the competitive advantage NTT needs. Sota weighs about 1kg and is only 11″ (28cm) high.

Hiroshi Ishigura announces Sota at a press conference in January 2105. Source: Japan Times.

It remains to be seen how the two devices will compare in terms of their conversational abilities. In January of this year, Japanese robotics researcher Hiroshi Ishiguro – known for his work on extremely life-like humanoid robots – announced at a news conference that he was developing Sota (which stands for ‘social talker’) in collaboration with Vstone. At the news conference Ishiguro said that Sota’s conversational system was programmed to talk primarily with other robots, and not humans. “Voice recognition has always been very difficult for robots … Human beings should instead adjust to what robots can do.” In the video below, you can watch Sota interacting with CommU, another of Ishiguro’s robots that was unveiled at the same time. According to a story in the Japan Times, CommU and Sota “cannot understand what people are saying and are just acting out programmed conversations.”

This might suggest that Sota’s conversational abilities would be on the vacuous side, but this statement was presumably made before NTT and NTT Data entered the picture. One would expect NTT Data will bring its expertise in voice recognition and speech synthesis technologies to bear on the problem. NTT Data says it will develop apps for Sota, and deliver these via its parent company’s cloud networking services.

Sota’s conversational system. Source: NTT Data

NTT says Sota will be deployed in seniors’ homes as early as next March, and can be connected to medical devices to help monitor health conditions. This plays well with Japanese policy to develop and promote technological solutions to its aging population crisis.

It will be interesting to watch these two companies battle it out. Like Softbank, NTT is a Japanese telco providing phone, mobile, internet and network/technology services throughout Japan, but NTT has been around far longer, since 1952. According to Bloomberg, NTT’s 2014 earnings (10.9 trillion JPY) handily outstripped Softbank’s (6.7 trillion JPY), and the company ranks as one of the largest telcos in terms of revenue worldwide. While NTT is publicly traded, the Japanese government owns about one third of NTT’s shares. Sota is not NTT’s first foray into conversational robotics. Their subsidiary, NTT DoCoMo, have developed OHaNAS (video below) and Shabette.

Softbank, on the other hand, is somewhat smaller, but perhaps more agile. It has grown very quickly since its launch in 1981, and has made some astute moves in its short history, including partnering with Apple in 2008 to be the only official carrier of the iPhone in Japan (at least until the release of iPhone 4S). Softbank is also widely recognized in Japan for its forward thinking, creative and extremely popular marketing campaigns. While Softbank’s first big customer is Nestle (which is deploying Pepper as a customer service robot in its Nescafe stores this year), it’s clear from their recent promotional video (below) that they are still hoping to get a significant piece of the consumer pie by marketing Pepper’s abilities to recognize and appropriately respond to human emotions. 

https://youtu.be/3a4sZnLRvqk

Sota is joining a number of tabletop companions, including Jibo and Amazon Echo, in the race to market. Where Sota stands apart, though, is in its backing from a major telco (Pepper has this, too, but is not a tabletop device). In this sense Sota becomes not so different from a cellphone or tablet with voice recognition – it’s simply a marketing vehicle through which data services are sold. With a major telco and its existing customer base onside, Sota could be poised to grab a significant slice of the companion robotics pie.

On the other hand, consumers might be wary of “yet another” talking device if it fails to provide real social benefits over other technology forms, like cellphones and tablets. While Cory Kidd (Catalia Health) has shown through evidence-based research that social robots can offer measurable benefits over software alone, the ability to supply meaningful companionship or effect health benefits through behaviour change will surely depend on the sophistication of the conversational system. As Andra Keay of Silicon Valley Robotics puts it: “Social robotics right now is like the early days of the mobile phone industry. When many companies brought handsets to market that basically all provided the same core functionality. However, some models of phone became phenomenally popular and others sank like stones. It remains to be seen where Sota fits in the new social device spectrum.”

Whether or not NTT succeeds, I wouldn’t be surprised to see more telcos entering the consumer robotics space .

If you liked this article, you may also be interested in:

• Forget Google and unicorns, Asian dragons are going to dominate robotics
• Foxconn and Alibaba invest in SoftBank Robotics as Pepper goes on sale in Japan
• Nestlé 1st big buyer of Softbank’s Pepper robot
• Natural language: The de-facto interface convention for social robotics
• The second wave of social robots is here

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

A discussion with Ryan Calo on Google, your personal data, and the consumer robotics market

Can someone tell me: What’s Google doing, making robots? Or at least: What is it doing, making such acquisitions?

As you probably heard, in the first two weeks of December last year, they bought some pretty heavy companies (house specialties in parentheses):

• Schaft (Navigation)
• Industrial Perception (Vision)
• Redwood Robotics (Manipulation)
• Meka Robotics (People-safe designs)
• Holomini (Navigation)
• Bot & Dolly (Camera tracking)
• Boston Dynamics (Navigation)
• DeepMind (General AI & abstracted reasoning)

This list covers AI, robotic vision, and a famous four-legged ‘bot that can bust into a sprint that could beat Usain Bolt. So it’s safe to say that the focus is on navigation and vision.  This is nice for the roboticists who are waiting for market validation in the consumer space. Google is providing that. They’re also providing us with a fleet of robots that can navigate, see, and use the network.

What’s Google’s motivation?

Presumably, as a publicly-trade company, this is intended to make Google more money.

They did a pretty good job last year. Sitting between Apple and Coca-Cola, they’re the second most valuable brand in the world. Paid clicks were up approximately 31 percent over 2012, and as of year end, Google employed 47,756 full-time employees. They also, in 2013 had advertising revenues of approximately $50 billion.

Google exchanges personal information for online services. Expanding their horizons from online tools, a few years ago, Google gave Android away to handset makers for the same reason Google gave free web search and email away to you and I: to collect personal information and display other information back. This is Google’s job and their profits show that they are very good at that.

It makes sense, then, that Andy Rubin, who headed up the Android effort, is now heading up Google’s robotics effort. After all, robots – like smartphones – are not just a platform for providing products and services; they are also a platform for collecting data.

Personal information as currency

Nothing is free, so if you aren’t paying cash, you’re paying with your personal information. And that information, from 2013, was worth $50B … so it stands to reason that Google’s motive for getting into robotics is that it offers yet another means of harvesting more information about you. Google will be using robots to collect and display personal information, just like Android did, and before that, email and web searches did. If Rubin has moved on from phones to robots, it’s probably because he thinks robots offer the greater potential in terms of opportunity.

There are three reasons why this makes sense:

1. Robots will give Google access to the physical world for a reduced cost. Like Apple, they are seeking to produce advanced hardware with companies that have proven track records for such manufacturing, and Google is evidently partnering with FoxConn to make this happen.
2. Robots will allow Google access to home and business information with unprecedented fidelity of information. By providing us with robots that are cheap (if not free; think of how smartphones as subsidized), Google can eventually build data conduits into our homes that will allow the company to know what we read, what dog food we buy, what we wear, and when we turn on the Nest thermostat (and, yes, the business model is the same for Nest as it is for robotics: more consumer data).
3. As with an open source OS for smartphones, by producing an open source OS for robots, Google will have direct access to all of the information that Android offered the company.

A couple of weeks ago, while attending RoboMadness at my old stomping grounds of SRI, the CTO and EVP of iRobot, Dr. Paolo Pirjanian, made a curious statement on stage. He outlined a ‘holy trinity’ for robotics as: vision, navigation, and the cloud, and pointed out that, “navigation is key” because it will build environment maps that will allow problem solving. So for example, a 3D environment map will allow the indexing of objects, as well as conversational interfaces for voice and gesture control. If a book is out of place and you want your robot to put it back, then the idea of “back” needs to be indexed somewhere. That somewhere is the cloud, so this information will, then, attach to the cloud.

All that personal data …  all those clouds …

Here we have an example of mapping, navigation and cloud robotics, which, if I try to look at it objectively, sounds a lot like what Google appears to be doing.

Is surveillance the new business model for consumer robotics?

In my desperation to get to the bottom of this I called up Ryan Calo, for he once wrote that “robotics combines, for the first time, the promiscuity of data with the capacity to do physical harm; robotic systems accomplish tasks in ways that cannot be anticipated in advance; and robots increasingly blur the line between person and instrument.”

Professor Calo researches the intersection of law, robotics and the Internet. His work on drones, driverless cars, privacy, and other topics has appeared in many famous publications and he serves on a number of advisory boards, including the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and others.

I threw these ideas at him and he took difference with the angle. Here was Calo’s response:

The frame is right, though I would quibble with characterizations of profit – there is a potential for win-win and it’s not necessarily a transgression of privacy. I would love that.  In fact I kind of wish that Google and Facebook would consider creating a robot platform for the home. The robotics industry really needs a personal robot in much the same way as a personal computer. We need something that is very versatile – something we could run all kinds of different code on – a platform or PC that is open to 3rd party innovation.

Then what are these companies that collect our data, like Google or Facebook, up to?

They want to bring in the Internet to more places – to where it is hard to bring it.  Amazon wants robots that can shave seconds, or fractions of a second, in the time it takes to get a package from the warehouse. This is how they’re thinking of using robots.

So in other words, with regards to these companies, so far they are leaving a lot on the table and it may be that, cynically, they end up building this platform that personal robotics needs and their motivation is to get a look inside the home, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. I understand there are things like Nest that give some perspective on the home, so it is a natural fit for Google’s other enterprises. But it is a closed platform that does one thing.

Isn’t that why Google has traditionally offered more services? To get more user information?

No, it’s to get more users. Google doesn’t just rely on users, but also on inventory – it needs a place to display those ads. They want more screens. They created email to bring more people into the fold. But I don’t think Google does everything they do just to get more information. They want to go to advertisers to say, “We have X users” and that increases the value.

You could explain a lot by saying, “They think that smart objects of various kinds are the future and they want to use all these new screens.” Are they building driverless cars to collect personal information? Well, they’ve been doing that with people. Maybe they want drones to fly around for the same reason. But Google appreciates that contemporary life is shifting. Once you have driverless cars. the screen can be as big as you want so that Google can own that screen. If everyone is being driven by cars, maybe Google will have a credible map so that people have to build on that infrastructure. They want to be the ecosystem.

Mr Calo and I have more discussions ahead, but for now, like all good underlings, we’ll just have to keep an eye on the surveillance system to see when it wakes up.

If you liked this article, you may also be interested in:

• DARPA’s Gill Pratt on Google’s robotics investments
• Robots Podcast: Privacy, Google, and big deals
• Google’s robot acquisitions likely cost less than $100 million
• AFK (or, Robotic free speech, and what you can do to help)
• Robot love: Spike Jonze’s new sci-fi film ‘Her’ may be closer to reality than you think
• The death of search (or, My dysfunctional relationship with Siri)

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

When Google bought Boston Dynamics last December, the news made headlines, but it was not the first time the Internet giant has invested in DARPA-funded robotics. As part of Robohub’s Big Deals series, we asked Gill Pratt, Program Manager of DARPA’s Defense Sciences Office, to shed some light on what DARPA thinks about Google’s robotics acquisitions , and what it might mean to the robotics and open source communities.

Congratulations, Gill, on the DARPA Robotics Trials – what was your personal assessment of the event?

I was very pleased with how well the teams performed, and in particular that the hardware for the majority of the teams worked so reliably. In general, the teams did slightly better than we had expected and this was probably the result of a lot of very careful preparation. The infrastructure that we set up also worked reliably in the trials. Still, the DRC Trials were really just a beginning and showed us the potential of what can be done in disaster scenarios with robots.

Cloud computing was an important facet of the DARPA Robotics Challenge and especially the Virtual Robotics Challenge … How do you see cloud computing helping the development of robots?

The importance of cloud computing for Robotics falls into two different categories. The first has to do with simulation environments. We used cloud computing for the first time with the Virtual Robotics Challenge, which we had back in June as a precursor to the DRC Trials, to do real-time simulation of tasks in unstructured environments. We rented a whole lot of cloud computing space, we ran a very good simulator developed for DARPA by the Open Source Robotics Foundation, and we adjusted the latency – the time delay – so that it would be the same for all the teams, even though they were located in different parts of the world. It was a tremendous enabler to run a real-time competition based on simulation that also involves human-robot collaboration. Doing so required that the simulation run in real-time. That was a big first and we felt it was very successful.

Another important aspect of cloud computing is something that we have not used to date, but I think has a lot of potential for the future: the ability to have a robot’s computing and data hosted remotely. There’s a lot of potential for this, in particular for doing perception. Forty percent of the human brain is used for perception, and perception is one of the most difficult tasks for an autonomous robot. It’s very difficult to fit a computer with the size, weight, and power that you need to achieve really good perception onto a robot: the computer just gets too large, it consumes too much power, and it weighs too much. However, if you have access to cloud resources with lots of data and lots of computing cycles, they can help move that burden off of the physical robot.

Perhaps most exciting for the future of cloud computing in robotics is that when one robot learns how to perceive something, or learns how to do a particular task, that learning can be instantly shared with other robots. This sharing could have a catalytic effect on the capabilities of robots, particularly in structured environments.

This is really an up and coming field. How likely are we to see commercial interest come out of cloud computing for robotics?

If you look at the research being done we see a lot of possibilities with cloud computing for robots. In the commercial world, I think we are going to see it applied first to structured environments where there are lots of human artifacts — things like doors, stairs, furniture, tools — and where a large database of stored examples of these artifacts can help the recognition problem.

The Atlas robot, created by Bostron Dynamics and DARPA, was used by several teams in the DRC Trials. Source: DARPA

This is an interview for our Big Deals series, so we’re wondering, what does DARPA think about Google buying up some of the technologies that DARPA has spent years building? We’re thinking of the cars, the humanoids …

We are thrilled to see commercial interest. It’s one of the signs of success for the investments that we have made in future technology.

We think that it takes commercial investment to drive down the cost of technology. A very well known example is the cellphone. Cellphones have microprocessors in them that many years ago began with investments by DARPA’s Microsystems Technology Office and others. Cell phones have inertial measurement units to figure out the tilt of the cellphone. They have displays; they have GPS receivers; they have radio devices that work at low power. I can point to any number of DARPA investments that helped start those technologies, and of course cellphones now talk to the Internet, which is probably the best known output of all of DARPA’s investments. But if the Department of Defense wanted to produce a cellphone without the commercial world having picked it up and turned it into a product that billions of people use, it would cost many orders of magnitude more than it does now. It’s really because of the commercial world that we’ve seen the price of cellphones go down.

But DARPA is not only interested in seeding technologies with these early investments; we are also committed to solving real problems for national security. In fact, we have a variety of programs that use cellphones. One of these is called TransApps, where soldiers use smart phones to plan and carry out missions and layer and share data between teams. This is an example where investment by the commercial world made possible a national security capability that otherwise might not be feasible because of excessive cost.

By analogy, what’s going on in robotics is that we’ve seen some interest in the commercial world in taking this to the next step. And they have resources far beyond what DARPA has to further develop a technology and, most importantly, to drive down cost.

So these big deals are a good thing for DARPA?

Yes, they are a wonderful thing for DARPA and, more broadly, for our nation.

Do you think it’s a good thing for the field of robotics in general?

Absolutely, but I understand why there’s some anxiety.  It’s true that, for a very short time, some talented people in the field will be working for a commercial firm rather than for DARPA. However, that effect is transient and very small compared to the much more important thing, which is that these corporate investments both accelerate the field and show that it is going to be real.

This anxiety is a lot like the kind you get when your kids leave home. It’s sad, and for a while you’re going to miss them, but wait a while and then the grandkids come. The important thing is for Robotics to become a field that is not only about prototypes or lab demonstrations, but a field where significant resources are invested to make products that really improve people’s lives. We saw it with the Roomba vacuum cleaner, but we want to go beyond that. These kinds of commercial investments will make the field far more attractive to startups and to students who are planning their careers. The net effect is strongly positive.

How do you think this corporate interest in robotics will impact the open source community?

Open source is very important. It allows us to develop pre-competitive catalysts to help the whole field move forward.

In the integrated circuits world it was recognized that you couldn’t build experimental integrated circuits as easily as you could wire up a circuit with discrete components like capacitors and resistors and transistors that you solder by hand. As a result, people working in the area at that time needed to develop a simulator to allow for the experimentation of how a chip would work without actually having to make the chip. The idea was to do the design and the debug cycle on the computer in simulation instead of having to do it on the bench: when you were done you could press a button and have confidence that the chip would actually work. The open-source simulator SPICE filled that niche.

The very same kind of thing is true in the robotics field. The key is to recognize that simulation is really a pre-competitive technology now.  We don’t need to have proprietary closed simulation systems and keep reinventing the simulator over and over again. We’ve done it enough times now to know that it would be useful to apply open source. In the same way, I think that an operating system is precompetitive – it has been done enough times that a new company should not try to distinguish itself based on a proprietary version of an OS.

Rather, let’s just move on to the next thing where the real innovation is going to occur. DARPA funded the Open Source Robotics Foundation to develop an open source simulator for the DARPA Robotics Challenge because we think that it will catalyze the whole field to everyone’s advantage.

With the purchase of Boston Dynamics, some headlines were saying that Google bought military robotics. Is this an accurate assessment?

I think it’s very inaccurate. It’s based on the confusion – and the conflation – of two aspects of robotics: remote bodies and remote brains. A robot allows you to have a mechanical body take the place of a human being; for example, a robot can work in a dangerous environment while a human supervisor is in a safe place. And a robot also allows you to perform some of the function of the human brain autonomously in a remote location. When you conflate bodies and brains, and say that there is only one idea here, it’s like saying, “The robot looks like person, so it must be as intelligent as a person, and therefore I should be scared of all robots, particularly those funded by the Department of Defense.”

All of the robots that I’m aware of, except for the ones that actually have weapons or specialized sensors on them, are generic. They are neither military nor commercial. They are just robots that have mobility and perhaps some manipulation, but there are not classed to one type or the other. And they are all almost completely empty-headed: their bodies may look like ours, but their heads are almost totally empty.

In terms of autonomy, the technology has such a long way to go that the fears that have been generated are way out of proportion to the state of the art. At the DRC Trials, for example, we had people supervising the robots in pretty tight loops, telling them what to do. While autonomy may be able to handle very simple environments, close human supervision is going to be needed in unstructured environments for some time.

What do you say to people who are uncomfortable with the use of military robots in a commercial context?

I think there are legitimate concerns, but from a rational point of view it’s important to distinguish between a weapon, which none of the robots we are talking about are, and a machine that makes us feel scared because it looks like us but it’s hard to understand exactly how it works. Of course, science fiction has stoked that fear with movies like Terminator and so forth, but that reaction actually goes back a long, long way to stories like Frankenstein – anything that sort of looks like a person but is hard to understand will generate fear. It’s an emotional reaction. However, from a rational perspective, if you consider how little autonomy these real machines actually have, you realize that the worry is way out of proportion to reality.

What are some of the benefits that could come out of combining Google’s expertise in data with hardware from Boston Dynamics?

I don’t know the specific applications that Google is thinking of – it’s their prerogative to discuss them or not, and they haven’t told DARPA.

Generally speaking, when you think about data and robotics, there are a lot of exciting things that could happen. For example, you could do perception better by using a lot of data and sophisticated search. This is not necessarily the kind of search we think of when we type words into our browsers, but the kind that involves images, where a robot could say, “Okay, I see something and because of many prior examples I know what to do,” and share that data in a useful way.

Would voice commands play into this dynamic, in addition to visual search? Would it make it easier for humans to interface with robots?

I’m not an expert on voice, so I don’t want to speculate, but I know that you can train better when you have a lot of data. Voice and natural language recognition have the potential to help with planning and perception, and I think they could also facilitate more intuitive interfaces for sharing information between robots and humans.

Team SCHAFT raises the arms of its S-One robot in victory after successfully completing the Climb Industrial Ladder task at the DRC Trials. SCHAFT won that task and three others, and scored the most points of any team at the event. Source: DARPA.

What new robotic technologies will DARPA be pushing that might appeal to big companies that are not traditionally robotics focused?

We’re really interested in cooperation directly between robots and between human beings and machines. We are also interested in dealing with dynamic environments. What I would like to do for the future of the DRC, and what I think that DARPA is going to push even beyond that, is to answer questions like “What if the communication is intermittent?” and “What if the environment is beyond a set of familiar things that I’ve seen before?” … What do we do if we’re actually outdoors? How do we handle this piece of vegetation that’s in front of us? Do we go through it or around it? If we go through it, do we move the branches out of the way?

We also still have a lot of research to do to figure out how to apply cloud computing when the environment is unstructured, like it would be in disasters or outdoor scenarios.  And if the communications are intermittent, we have to figure out how to cache enough of the intelligence on the robot itself so that it can continue to do what it needs to even when it’s disconnected from the cloud. Of course, disconnected operation may be at a reduced level of effectiveness, but we don’t want the robot to stop altogether when communications go down for a little while. We want the robot to have at least some ability to complete the tasks it was given to do.

How do you actually put behavior in the cloud? How do you take a data driven approach to behavior? I think that’s very much an unknown thing right now. Data driven approaches to perception are easier to understand, but we are going to try to take the next step and look at behavior as well.

If you liked this article, you may also be interested in:

• Snowden BEAMs into TED: How robotic telepresence disrupts borders
• Google’s robot and artificial intelligence acquisitions are anything but scary
• Will companies like Google and Amazon usher in a new era for robotics?
• The robots behind your Internet shopping addiction: How your wallet is driving retail automation
• What do Google, Amazon, IBM, Apple, Microsoft and all the airlines and car companies want?
• Robots Podcast: Privacy, Google, and big deals
• Robots, soldiers and cyborgs: The future of warfare

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Henrik A. Schunk, Managing Partner of SCHUNK GmbH & Co. KG, and Chairman of EUnited Robotics – European Robotics Association

The continuing interest of Google in robotics over the last years and its newest activities in this regard confirms what all players active in robotics will confirm: service robotics is on the threshold of entering a new maturity level. Service robotics conquers new, commercial fields of application and is just becoming an independent industrial sector. Where in the past the focus has often been on research, now new companies and applications are emerging. Research projects have been taken out of the labs and turned into real companies and solutions, new companies and players have entered the game with Google being among them.

Considering that robotics is still a relatively young industry (in 1962, General Motors installed the world’s first robot in a production line!), we have certainly come a long way. According to the latest available IFR information, about 168,000 industrial robots were sold in 2013. In the service robotics segments, the sales figures are significantly higher, at least in units: three million service robotics for personal and domestic use and 16,100 service robots for professional use were sold worldwide. Growth rates of 10% per annum on average since 2006 added to the turnover of professional service robotics, which reached €2.5 billion in 2012.

And much more is yet to come. The International Federation of Robotics (IFR) assumes that between 2013 and 2016 at least 95,000 new professional service robots will be sold worldwide, worth €12.3 billion. Service robotics is definitely a market of the future. So, it seems that what Bill Gates predicted in 2007 is becoming true: the next “hot field” will be robotics. Though it is not yet clear when we will have, in Gates’ words, “A Robot in Every Home” or even a robot in every factory (including in SMEs!), it is definitely apparent that robotics has gained momentum over the years.

To Google and all the other new players and investors in the robotics field, I would like to say, “Welcome to an exciting world and a growing market!” But to all stakeholders in robotics – be it old or new players, investors or enthusiasts alike – I would add: be patient and don’t expect too much too soon. It is not yet clear when robots will become part of our every day lives – but we are on our way!

Greetings from Europe!

Link to audio file (33:53)

What does it mean to have giants like Google, Apple and Amazon investing in robotics? Since last December, Google alone has acquired a handful of companies in robotics, home automation and artificial intelligence. This can be pretty exciting for robotics. But what exactly is the internet giant planning to do with this technology? Is there something we should be worried about? If there is, what can we do about it?

Experts have been actively talking about this in the media, including through Robohub’s recent focus series on Big Deals in Robotics.

In today’s episode, AJung Moon talks with Avner Levin, a privacy and cybercrime expert, about Google’s recent acquisition of companies. Levin sheds light on why we should be concerned about the recent series of acquisitions by the big companies from privacy and cybercrime perspective. He also discusses whether the existing privacy policies are ready to handle what may lie shortly ahead of us in the future — the future of the Internet of Things, or perhaps Google-branded robots.

Avner Levin
Avner Levin is the Chair of the Law & Business Department, as well as the Director of the Privacy and Cyber Crime Institute at Ryerson University in Toronto, Canada. His research interest is in regulation and protection of privacy with respect to technology within Canada and worldwide. In the interview, he advocates for more discussion of privacy issues to take place, not just within the companies that (do/will) hold our data, but by governing bodies.

Links:

• Download mp3 (15.5MB)
• Subscribe to Robots using iTunes
• Subscribe to Robots using RSS
• Avner Levin’s Website

 

If you liked this article, you may also be interested in:

• Google’s robot and artificial intelligence acquisitions are anything but scary
• Will companies like Google and Amazon usher in a new era for robotics?
• The robots behind your Internet shopping addiction: How your wallet is driving retail automation
• What do Google, Amazon, IBM, Apple, Microsoft and all the airlines and car companies want?

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

 

What is one to make of this focus series … Big Deals: What It Means to Have the Giants Investing in Robotics … with the giants being Google, Amazon and Apple (as given in the preamble)? The assumption, of course, is that robotics investments by these companies represent a turning point in the evolution of robotics — perhaps something wholly different, outside the normal ebb and flow of robotics investments, acquisitions, and mergers. It is also assumed that the investments represent some type of trend, or at least have something in common.

The Google, Apple and Amazon robotics investments do share much.  First, each of these investing companies are considered large, particularly when measured by their market value. The market cap of Apple, Google and Amazon is approximately $468B, $409B and $164B, respectively. All three are Fortune 500 companies (For 2013, Apple 6, Amazon 49 and Google 55), and are listed on the Forbes Global 2000 (For 2013, Apple 15, Google 68 and Amazon 525).

Each of these large companies is also considered innovative and forward thinking, capabilities usually associated with smaller, entrepreneurial firms. But this can also be said of many other large enterprises, although “innovation” per se can be difficult to gauge (unlike market cap, sales revenue and profitability) and the ranking process is usually biased in some way. A comparison of the Forbes list of the world’s most innovative companies with that of Fast Company, and again with Thomson Reuters’ Top 100 Global Innovators (Amazon not even listed), demonstrates the difficulty of quantifying innovation, and provides a great example of expectation bias at work, especially on part of Fast Company.

There is no disagreement that Google, Apple and Amazon are some of the most recognized brands in the world (see here and here). It is on the strength of their respective brands … in a way a measure of their cultural standing … that the announcements of the companies’ robotics initiatives and acquisitions made such an impact. That each company has made a substantial investment in robotics technologies fired the imagination of the public and invigorated the robotics community (business and technology media outlets went positively orgasmic!). That’s a good thing — a very good thing — in ways too numerous to list here. At the very least (and this might be the most important aspect of the various deals) the Google, Amazon and Apple robotics initiatives have legitimized and substantiated robotics for businesses, entrepreneurs and investors in a way that Mars rovers and military drones cannot.

I would argue that the Google, Apple and Amazon investments do not herald a new robotics era, or even a new overarching trend. Instead, they are the logical consequence of robotics technologies becoming ever more powerful (even as they become less expensive), and being exploited by companies to further business aims. The investments also follow the typical usage progression for advanced technologies beginning with research, then moving on to the government/military, then on to business, and ending with consumers. Google, Apple and Amazon are not consumers in the general sense, but they are consumer-facing (mostly), which is another point of commonality.

Google, Apple and Amazon have very different business models, and their robotics acquisitions and initiatives reflect this and should be viewed in this light. Apple, as a designer and manufacturer of computers, tablets, and mobile phones, is investing in robotics to increase productivity during manufacturing, reduce costs and improve quality in the process. According to Apple’s annual 10-K report, the company anticipates using approximately $10.5B in capital expenditures (CapEx) for investments such as new tooling and manufacturing equipment, including assembly robots and high-precision milling machines. The technology will be installed in Chinese manufacturing companies such as Foxconn and Pegatron, as well as in facilities located in the US and elsewhere. In this way, Apple is using its vast cash holdings as a competitive weapon as it battles competitors (for example, Microsoft and Sony for tablets, and Samsung, LG, ZTE and Huawei for smartphones).

For ecommerce retailer Amazon, its purchase of Kiva Technologies for $775M in cash in April 2012 (almost two years ago, further eroding the trend argument), was also made to increase productivity and reduce costs, but in this case it was for fulfillment operations and not manufacturing. At the time of the acquisition, Amazon was cash rich, but fulfillment costs as a percentage of revenue were steadily increasing. The Kiva technology has proven to reduce the cost of pick-pack-ship operations and increase throughput at distribution centers, boosting profits in the process. Applied across Amazon’s many distribution and fulfillment centers, Kiva MPS would have a significant positive effect on the company’s profitability (something Amazon sorely lacks even as revenues increase).

Amazon was also in the news following an announcement on CBSs’ 60 Minutes program that the company was evaluating the use of drone to deliver packages to Amazon customers. The gadget press went wild, but the announcement should be seen for what it was… a swarmy bit of self-promotion and boosterism, which coincidently came just before the announcement of Google’s robotics acquisitions (see below).

Google generates the majority of its revenues selling Internet advertising, and is rapidly acquiring new companies and developing new technologies to broaden its offerings and reduce its dependence on a single revenue source. While not indicative of a general trend, Google’s announcement that it had acquired eight robotics and artificial intelligence technology start-ups as part of a major new robotics initiative was a watershed moment. Google purchased a total of eight privately held robotics companies for an undisclosed amount (estimated at only $80-$100M). These include Industrial Perception (IPI), Meka Robotics, Redwood Robotics, Bot & Dolly, Autofuss, Holomni, Schaft, and lastly, Boston Dynamics.

The initial robotics announcements were followed in quick succession by Google’s purchase of home automation maker Nest Labs and Deepmind, an artificial intelligence start-up. The Nest acquisition will immediately drive revenue, but near term contributions by the other acquisitions are not clear. In media outlets and the blogosphere speculation was rampant, and ranged from the well-founded, to the speculative, and on to the absurd (although great reads all).

What is known is that of the eight purchased companies (really only five), none were public or substantial in size (employees, revenues etc.). Also, none had developed commercial-class products, or delivered robotic solutions targeted to mainstream, sizable markets (research robots, prototypes only). What Google did purchase were pieces that can serve as the generative component of a larger robotics solutions stack. Google’s acquisitions laid the groundwork for the company to become a robotics platform provider and industry accelerant. Software, including Robot Operating System (ROS) and Android, is key. The capabilities required to create new applications and products, whether by Google or others, is more important than the recent robotics acquisitions themselves.

In summation, Google, Apple and Amazon’s robotics acquisitions and initiatives should not be seen as a turning point, but as part of a building wave of robotic technology proliferation into the workplace, public places and the home. This does not diminish the impact of the purchases and investments, and in fact increases their importance to the larger robotics community by continuing to normalize robotics technology.

As their brand strength indicates, Google, Apple and Amazon have a cultural impact that exceeds that of other large, innovative companies with substantial robotics investments (for example, Rio Tinto for mining, GE for the industrial Internet and Boeing for unmanned aerial vehicles etc.). Through their acquisition and initiatives, Google, Apple and Amazon have “blessed” robotics, and in the process dramatically increased the profile and legitimacy of robots and robotic technology in the eyes of the business and investment community, especially the legitimacy of robotics as an investment opportunity. The acquisitions themselves demonstrated a clean, quick exit strategy and software-like ROI to a financial community that is often hesitant to invest in far-horizon, hardware-centric robotics start-ups.

If you liked this article, you may also be interested in:

• Facebook plans to offer Internet service using aerial robots
• Google’s robot and artificial intelligence acquisitions are anything but scary
• Individual investors: Take a cue from corporate capital … the time is right for robotics
• Will companies like Google and Amazon usher in a new era for robotics?
• Big deals: What it means to have the giants investing in robotics

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

[AK] With investments in two accelerators now (Bolt in US and Navigator Campus in Russia), as in well as a range of robotics companies, Grishin Robotics has a bird’s eye view of robot startups. What do you think about the recent high profile announcements about robotics investments … how will this impact the start-up scene? 

[VK] It’s definitely great news. Amazon, for example, announced in a very significant way their interest in robotics a few years ago when they bought Kiva for $775 million. So this isn’t the first time that big corporations not traditionally involved in robotics are starting to pay attention to the field. It really  begun at least in 2012, when Grishin started to invest into robotics startups as well.

However, this time it’s even more about perception. These high profile media announcements are getting picked up by the general public, investors, and entrepreneurs – they attract attention to the industry. No doubts, it is important from an entrepreneurial perspective – there should be more success stories for them, more ‘benchmarks’.

These days many talented mechanical and electrical engineering students and professionals (particularly in the Bay Area) are attracted by the large salaries being offered by big internet companies like Facebook and therefore decide to switch into software and postpone their startup, hardware and robotics dreams indefinitely.

But when they hear these big announcements about new products or M&As, they realize the market is actually happening and they begin to believe that they can start their own company … they don’t have to go work for a big corporation. They can continue to work in a profession that they like and have expertise in. So from that perspective, these announcements are very important.

From the investors’ perspective, it’s largely the same. They need inspiration, they need proof, they need exits, and they need public companies. Of course there are already public companies like iRobot , but still we don’t hear about robotics acquisitions or IPOs every day – not yet. The announcements of the Amazon drones and the Google acquisitions of Nest and other companies really attracted the attention of the venture and finance communities and reminded them that something big is happening. It forced them to pay attention … it forced them to think that maybe another one or two years is too long to wait to make their bet on this space. And that’s really great news.

Google have invested in quite an assortment of robot startups, particularly if you include their investments and resources in AI and NLP. What do you think their plans are?

Interesting question to speculate on. Google itself said that their primary interest at this point lies in the area of manufacturing. But the acquisition of Nest is definitely a consumer play. Frankly, at this point, I think, it may be not so much about any coherent behind-the-scenes grand strategy as much as that they are starting to feel like something big is going to happen to follow the revolutions that came with the personal computer, the internet and the smart phone. Many people are seeing signs that the next big revolution may be robotics.

For Google, Amazon etc. this may be more about announcing some kind of interest in this space and to jump into the game as early as possible. I think there’s a lot of R&D going on internally to figure out where and how exactly to go and approach it.

So while it’s definitely exciting times and more and more startups are launching with interesting ideas, there are still some unknown variables. It’s important for big corporations like Google to figure out the unknowns in this multi-billion dollar market as early as possible, and to do this before the competition does.

Do you see any down side to large companies getting involved in robotics?

Despite all these announcements the market is still at an early stage of development, so the really fierce competition is ahead. It’s not that the market is divided between big companies, after all these news – far from that. Just as a comparison … it’s difficult to launch another smart phone in the market today because the market is fairly mature and is divided between the big companies. But in the robotics market, and in the consumer robotics market specifically, it’s the opposite.

The barrier of entry for robotics startups has been getting lower and lower the last few years. And all these announcements lead to increased investor interest, which means more money for robotics and hardware startups … more investors ready to consider these kinds of companies in addition to the traditional Internet and mobile companies. I just can’t think of any significant downside – at least not at this point and not for the next two or three years.

Possible problems could include losing top talent, or losing access to components or research, or support for community and open source projects, which all have impact on research and startups …

All good points and let’s consider them one by one.

Regarding top talent, all these companies that were bought are fairly small. I deeply respect all these people and I know many of them, but I hope these acquisitions will inspire more robot students or engineers to go out there and start their robotics companies, or it will inspire younger students to select robotics when they pick their majors at universities. I think that the cumulative positive impact will be so much greater than the loss of these people to big corporations.

I also agree that it’s startups that are primarily innovating in new markets rather than the big companies … but it’s not like these people won’t continue to do research. And Google has a lot of money and resources and these people will continue their work with other talents they meet there. It’s very possible that these talented people will be able to accomplish more given the vast resources they’ll have access to inside these big companies. So I urge you consider not just the negative side of this, but the  positive sides as well – word ‘loss’ has too much of a negative connotation, in my opinion.

The second concern you mention is lack of access to components …

Yes, to components, ROS, research findings…

Not necessarily. When big company is buying component technology, of course, it often ceases to be open-source. Discussion of open-source ideals are wholly different topic, but my point is that it is not necessarily means decreased access – may be quite the opposite. Often there is an interest of a big company to make certain technology a dominant platform, therefore, great investments are made to attract more developers to it, improve it, explain benefits etc. And if it will turn out not to be the best platform – competitors or same open-source community will be quick to offer alternatives, especially, again, at this stage of market development, when barriers to entry are quite low.

If you could ask Andy Rubin any question what would it be?

One of the main challenges for consumer robotics market – whether we are talking about connected devices and the Internet of Things or more traditional consumer robotics like Roomba – it pretty much comes down to applications and business models. We can imagine some of the interesting applications or verticals where robotics could make a significant impact, but we can’t always imagine all the possible  areas and ways where robotics can be applied to make our lives better – there are just so many of them, and many are far from being obvious. So I would be interested to know how he thinks robotics can make our lives better in a significant fashion, beyond the usual suspects we already know about, like agriculture, drones etc.

And the same question about business models can be asked from a different perspective: at the moment hardware companies are selling hardware, but it’s getting commoditized … and you have to think about software and data and the cloud connectivity of the hardware components you are making. So, how can business models that are familiar to Google (like advertising, subscriptions, internet) be applied to robotics and consumer hardware companies? And of course, what kinds of new business models will emerge as a result?

We’ve talked about Google and Amazon. Who are the other big new players in the robotics space that are known for things other than robotics but are starting to have an impact in the field …

There may be many more than we are aware of. Like Tesla – of course it’s an automobile company but more and more its top management is starting to say that they are essentially an IT company, considering how connected the car is and how advanced the driving functions and so on. And the same goes with the other automobile companies that are working on self-driving cars.

And the problems they are solving, whether they are BMW or someone else, are very related to the problems the robotics industry in general is facing right now. The advancement of computer vision is basically what the whole robotics industry is reliant on in terms of future growth and potential. Also autonomous capabilities … We’re not talking about the holy grail of full autonomy any time in the foreseeable future, but the algorithms and the decision-making processes needed for these new (semi) autonomous cars may spill over into the startup world tomorrow. Eventually it will impact the whole market in a very significant and positive way.

Many of the big corporations today may essentially be involved in robotics already. For example Foxconn and other manufacturing companies are starting to use robots. And more and more companies in agriculture and mining are beginning to use unmanned vehicles. They are starting to understand that adopting these technologies earlier than their competitors is a necessity if they are going to survive. Robotic capabilities are becoming the basis of their long-term competitive advantage.

To make a comparison, almost everyone involved in physical commerce today is finding that their internet capabilities are getting closer and closer to the heart of their business. I think we will find the same thing happening with robotics. It’s not so much about the specific companies’ names we can come up with today … because in the future it will be almost everybody, just like how almost everybody these days is involved in the internet or is using software or computers.

What do you think are the most interesting recent robotics acquisitions?

It depends on how you define robotics. Is Nest as a robotics company? I for one define it as a consumer robotics company but I can imagine that many people will not agree with me. I believe everybody will eventually agree with this definition but not maybe today. I think the Deep Mind announcement is also very interesting. AI and related software is a very important enablers of robotics.

What do you think about Dyson’s announcement of the $8million (5 million pound) UK research facility specifically into home robots?

It’s an awesome announcement. Dyson himself is an iconic figure, as well as his company. They have been making products that we are used to seeing both in the home and the office, and they’ve been able to make them differently, both in terms of design and in terms of capability. And it’s great when such a company pays significant attention to robotics.

The thing is – it’s not enough to make a good-looking coffee maker or washing machine anymore because people are getting more and more used to smart devices in their homes and cars. Increasingly they are expecting smart capabilities for the same amount of money. And it is possible now to deliver a much smarter device – with Internet connectivity – for almost the same price as a so-called ‘dumb device’.

All this attention is just another confirmation that very soon the fact that you are making smart devices with robotic capabilities will stop to be the competitive advantage and will start becoming the threshold capability. I think Dyson is foreseeing this (probably somewhat ahead of their competitors) – but  eventually everyone will follow.

Grishin Robotics is investing in consumer robotics… Do the recent announcements change any of your plans? 

No. There are a lot of very interesting application areas and verticals in the robotics market, whether it’s health care, agriculture, or manufacturing, but Grishin focuses on consumer robotics simply because we see huge potential, both from the market perspective and from the perspective of having a positive impact on people’s lives. This potential is much greater when we’re talking about robotic products that the average person can buy for $100-$200, and when there are so many prospective customers out there. It’s really all about impact. Big corporations and governments have been benefiting from robotics for so long, but average people have yet to benefit. We think it’s time to change that.

You could say, then, that the recent announcements have validated Grishin Robotics’ interests …

Exactly. In June 2012, when Dmitry Grishin launched the firm, a fair number of people told us that we were absolutely crazy. When so many smart people are telling you that you’re crazy, you have to think that you may not necessarily be right, but at least you’re probably doing something interesting. But when in the end it turns out that you are even may be right … it does feel good.

 [Edited by Hallie Siegel]

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in:

• Robot Launch 2014: The first global startup competition for robotics is here!
• Doggone it, there are no exciting consumer robots
• Dmitry Grishin on evaluating robotic investment opportunities
• Accelerators and opportunities for robotics startups
• Robots Podcast: Grishin Robotics

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

When you’re shopping for the best online deals you’re probably not thinking much about the massive distribution network required to bring that pair of shoes to your doorstep. Is your quest for the best possible deal helping to usher in the next wave of automation?

Internet giants like Amazon and Google have an obligation to stay competitive and are going head-to-head over the online shopping space. Customers choose to purchase the lowest priced product, without loyalty to any online e-tailer, and expect fast shipping and handling. Amazon and Google appear to have two strategies for staying competitive: improving their search experience and decreasing inefficiencies in their supply chain. For the latter strategy, both companies have publicized their interest in robotics – and have invested heavily.

The manufacturing sector has relied on robotics and automation for several decades. In many sectors, productivity has increased while employment levels diverged, leading many people to assume “robots kill jobs.” Technology has been displacing workers for the past century, but I have not heard of a customer who has voluntarily purchased a more expensive product in order to reward a company for their inefficient operations. Robotics and automation are the link between data and the physical world, and automation technology is required for the production of complex products, but the hypocrisy between “having our cake, and eating it too” has put robot companies in an awkward position: automation has advanced the human race with wonderful products, but many people say they would rather throw that productivity away in order to keep their jobs.

Humans live in a physical world: we touch, hold, and eat physical things – so society needs to accept that as long as we demand inexpensive goods and services, companies will choose to automate a process the moment a technology becomes available. This strive for efficiency is constant, ongoing, and cannot be stopped  – even if jobs are displaced in the process.

New robotics companies are finding it difficult to attract investors – especially if their robot can’t be put under a Christmas tree. The online storefronts that Silicon Valley investors have fallen for are subject to market commoditization, and the only way to compete is to make the physical world, production and distribution, more efficient. Due to rising wages and physical limitations on the human body, this cannot be achieved with pure manual labor. In my experience, investors have noticed Amazon’s acquisition of Kiva Systems and are beginning to realize that the backbone of internet shopping lies with automating factories and warehouses.

According to a recent New York Times article: “Google’s robotics effort is not something aimed at consumers. Instead, the company’s expected targets are in manufacturing — like electronics assembly, which is now largely manual — and competing with companies like Amazon in retailing, according to several people with specific knowledge of the project.” In fact, Google just announced a partnership with Foxconn for electronics assembly.

Fuel and labor costs are having a direct effect on Amazon Prime’s pricing, and Amazon announced a rise in prices that provoked a negative reaction by shareholders. I stretch to suggest a large percentage of customers who enjoy Amazon Prime’s free or inexpensive shipping also complain about robots taking jobs – a counter-productive opinion for a society that wants lower priced products but cannot accept the employment ramifications.

Amazon and Google are in competition and both will use robots for a more efficient supply chain. All companies will automate processes when the appropriate technology becomes available. Technical improvements are constantly sought after, manual labor is not, so companies will always demand robots as an alternative to having a less efficient workforce. Folks who choose to educate themselves and gain the necessary skills will always find a job. My wish for all people is they get to spend their lives instigating the projects they find most meaningful and do what people (not robots) are best at: imagining a better world, designing the future, and making amazing things happen.

Perhaps when Google and Amazon has elimiated shipping and handling costs, we can find some room in our wallet to donate $1 of every internet purchase back to our education system.

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in:

• Big deals: What it means to have the giants investing in robotics
• 7 consumer robots to look out for from CES 2014
• The economic impact of the robotic revolution
• The death of search (or, My dysfunctional relationship with Siri)
• Foxconn and Google cooperating to make robots

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

My name is Rob Wilson, CEO of ROBO-STOX, and in 2013 we partnered with world-leading scientists and investment experts to create the first and only dedicated stock index to track the business of robotics and automation.  For investors not interested in putting all of their money into a single robotics stock, the ROBO-STOX Global Robotics and Automation Index is now a great alternative.  Our index consists of 78 different stocks all focused on the value chain of robotics and automation rather than just one company, and there is nothing else like it that is available to investors today. The index can be followed on Bloomberg under the ticker symbol “ROBO”, and since launch late-2013, we have seen large investment amounts being committed to vehicles that track the index.

Robotics and automation technology adoption is accelerating as the core technology becomes more affordable and flexible. Major companies are investing in the field because the industry has reached an inflection point where the combination of capability and affordability intersects with commercial demand.

The history of cell phones offers an instructive example. During the 1970s, 1980s and into the early 1990s cell phones were big, clunky and very expensive. Only wealthy individuals and business executives were willing to buy the technology, and what they got in return was often frustrating. Conductivity was low, and early phone models had limited capability, mostly centered on voice.  But at some point near the turn of the century we hit an inflection point.  The adoption rate turned geometric because the cost, quality, and capability of handsets evolved to a point where the productivity benefits of mobile communication were hugely compelling.

Now consider robotics and automation.  People have been automating the world for a very long time. Henry Ford’s first assembly line used a conveyer belt to transfer parts from station to station in order to build the model T, and this was a big step in early automation.  The auto industry continued to lead in automation technology for many decades because their high cost structure and complicated processes created a large economy of scale that justified robotics investment.  As automation suppliers tried to improve the flexibility of their offering to Ford, they began incorporating other technologies like semiconductors and software into their products.  This increased the flexibility of what their assembly machines could do and other industries took notice.  Eventually the automation know-how evolved to serve other sectors like aerospace, healthcare, and energy.  But the products were still expensive and highly customized!

What I believe is now different is that the cost and flexibility of automation products are finally at a point where it makes sense to use them in many new areas of the economy.  Automated kiosks in airports to check you in are great example.  Many more will follow.

Commercial users almost always lead the adoption of new technologies because they evaluate decisions through a cost-benefit lens. With the case of handsets, companies recognized that more efficient communication would boost productivity and profits. The same is true today of robotics and automation for the likes of Amazon, Google, and a host of other big companies investing heavily in automation.

The attention and involvement of large companies in automation, while not new, is definitely accelerating. And this is happening not just in the US, but globally. In China, large electronic manufacturers like Foxconn have committed to radically automating their production lines.  And big companies investing and adopting the technology is a huge positive for the industry: not only do large companies bring deep pockets to fund R&D, but they help refine new business models that can lead to entirely new industries being created.

The underlying motive of large companies is always to improve productivity, safety, and quality. Gains in all of these areas fuel growth and lead to a world where more goods and services are produced more cheaply than ever before. This is a tide that lifts all boats over time.

What does all this mean for investors? While big corporate capital and investments will help increase company profits, they can also make others wealthy. Investors that had the insight and courage to invest their money in wireless companies alongside corporate America during the 1990s and early 2000s made fortunes.The goal of ROBO-STOX is to provide the average investor with a straight forward, diversified, and affordable way to invest alongside Wall Street in robotics and automation.

A wealth of robotics, automation and index investment research reports and related-videos can be found on the ROBO-STOX website.

If you liked this article, you may also be interested in:

• New ETF (NASDAQ:ROBO) focuses on robotics industry
• ROBO-STOX: A dream come true
• Are investments in robotics capital intensive?
• Forget the octocopter, let’s talk about Kiva

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Recent eye-popping acquisitions of robotics technology companies by giants like Google and Amazon might suggest that the automated age is upon us. Is it? Why now? Are these the companies that will usher in the commercial robotics and drone era? And will the little guy continue to find a place in the new epoch? While the excitement surrounding all of this suggests that a huge movement is afoot, those in the community should be relieved that we are finally seeing any activity.

The investment situation in robotics has been abysmal for years, and the affirmation of momentum is real and inspiring. The natural perception is that the movement is real, but the market has much to prove. Of course robotics has a place in the future, but modern history has seen the bulk of activity within academia and professors chasing the next grant.  However, big companies positioning long term for the inevitable opportunity is far from unprecedented. For instance, as far back as 1998, Honda shocked the world by demonstrating ASIMO, a robot capable of advanced gait, climbing stairs, communicating, and more … with limited revenue positioning whatsoever. Seeking examples of large companies that have invested in robotics infrastructure is easy – look no further than KUKA, Yaskawa, FUNUC, Rethink, Sony, and Intuitive. The massive payoff for many of these investments has yet to arrive.

Perhaps that gives insight in the state of affairs at Google and Amazon with multiple robotics and drone acquisitions in the recent years. Understanding the emerging market opportunity is sci-fi easy. Recognizing when the market will hit is not, especially when so many companies have yet to capitalize despite decades of huge R&D costs. Recent acquisitions are coming from capital rich companies, and these companies are primed to build the infrastructure required and wait this lucrative market out. Google’s investment in Boston Dynamics has this quality. Amazon’s investment in Kiva had a dramatic infrastructure feel.

While I am hesitant to say that the robotics and drone commercial markets will affect the average person’s day-to-day activity tomorrow despite the renewed activity, the feel now is that the climate has noticeably improved for adoption. For instance, in the commercial drone sector, Amazon provided a great community service with its 60 Minutes showcase highlighting its proposed Prime Air delivery service. A year straight of negative privacy press was diluted when Amazon suggested a very tangible and real use of drones that the average person could digest – one that comes with a huge economic upside. While Amazon suggested they could have the system up in 3 – 4 years, I think most of us in the community expect a much more modest timeline. However, the good that came from the announcement has the community buzzing again after a relatively stagnant period of waiting for the air space for commercial drones to open. The last year of robotics activity seems to be in lock step with this changing drone perception.

Even if the tipping point for the commercial market for robotics and drones may yet take some time to arrive, the advancement to this moment is noticeably accelerated. For ubiquitous application, robotics and drones require significant infrastructure when considering use alongside people and existing systems.

Little has done more for the community then the evolution of layered robotics operating systems, SDKs, and applications that have contributed to the powerful offering available to the community so dependent on infrastructure and smart solutions. Sensors are also at the price point where robotics and drone systems can be competitively priced. Seemingly, the prerequisite ingredients for adoption have arrived, and companies recognize this. Perhaps this is another major reason that we are starting up the proverbial curve.

Rather than thinking that the big players are going to squeeze out the little ones, I expect the opposite. With so much infrastructure and so many markets soon to seek robotic and drone technology, the corporate acquisitions are probably just starting. Prospects are great for the small business providing a part of the overall solution. Positioning an offering in this community makes sense. Much change and adoption is ahead, and this will take time. But the time is probably right to get in if you are going to and have your offering be relevant when it counts.

In essence, the window is not completely wide open for commercial robotics and drones markets, but it is opening. And like anything, you need to get there early. I think the 5 AM alarm is going off.

If you liked this article, you may also be interested in:

• New ETF (NASDAQ:ROBO) focuses on robotics industry
• Robo-Stox: A dream come true
• Forget the octocopter, let’s talk about Kiva

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

If the world outside the robotics community didn’t know about Boston Dynamics, Kiva and Nest, they do now. Recent robotics acquisitions and investments by major-league players like Google, Apple and Amazon have generated a blitz of headlines in the robotics world and beyond. Are we witnessing a power play in the making? What does it mean for the future of robotics? And is all the hype beneficial or harmful to the robotics community?

This month’s Robotics by Invitation will serve as a launch for Robohub’s newest focus series on how big time corporate attention effects the culture of robotics. In the coming weeks we will be bringing you insight from the likes of Steve Cousins, Dan Kara, Valery Komissarova, Avner Levin, Chad Partridge, Gill Pratt, Erin Rapacki, Frank Tobe, and Rob Wilson.

Today, RBI panelists Mark Stephen Meadows, AJung Moon and Alan Winfield weigh in …

Alan Winfield on “What does it mean to have giants like Google, Apple and Amazon investing in robotics?”

Judging by the levels of media coverage and frenzied speculation that has followed each acquisition, the short answer to what does it mean is: endless press exposure. I almost wrote ‘priceless exposure’ but then these are companies with very deep pockets; nevertheless the advertising value equivalent must be very high indeed. The coverage really illustrates the fact that these companies have achieved celebrity status …

Read more →

Mark Stephen Meadows on “What does it mean to have giants like Google, Apple and Amazon investing in robotics?”

Google, is the wild card for me.  With more acquisitions than Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft combined, the GOOG looks to be rigging up a kit that would offer excellent image recognition + navigation + mobility.   A robot that can roam around your home or maybe your city, and offer a helpful service. My bet is that these Googlebots (perhaps they will be cars) will have sharp eyes, simple yet helpful demeanors, and we’ll trade that robotic service for our personal info …

Read more →

AJung Moon on “What does it mean to have giants like Google, Apple and Amazon investing in robotics?”

It’s exciting for the robotics community that the giants (Google, Apple, and Amazon) are actively investing in robotics. Large scale investments by giant corporations, regardless of what their actual plans are, can have a positive impact on the job market for roboticists, increase competition between the giants and push robotics forward. But I began to feel uneasy when Google acquired Boston Dynamics …

Read more →

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in:

• Robohub focus: Dealing with the ‘jobs’ question
• Robohub focus on frontier robotics: High risks, high rewards
• Robotics by Invitation: Is open source a good business model for robotics?

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Judging by the levels of media coverage and frenzied speculation that has followed each acquisition, the short answer to what does it mean is: endless press exposure. I almost wrote ‘priceless exposure’ but then these are companies with very deep pockets; nevertheless the advertising value equivalent must be very high indeed. The coverage really illustrates the fact that these companies have achieved celebrity status. They are the Justin Beibers of the corporate world. Whatever they do, whether it is truly significant or not, is met with punditry and analysis about what it means. A good example is Google’s recent acquisition of British company DeepMind. In other words: large AI Company buys small AI Company. Large companies buy small companies all the time but mostly they don’t make prime time news. It’s the Beiberisation of the corporate world.

But the question is about robotics, and to address it in more detail I think we need to think about the giants separately.

Take Amazon. We think of Amazon as an Internet company, but the web is just its shop window. Behind that shop window is a huge logistics operation with giant warehouses – Amazon’s distribution centres, so no one should be at all surprised by their acquisition of brilliant warehouse automation company Kiva Systems. Amazon’s recent stunt with the ‘delivery drone’ was I think just that – a stunt. Great press. But I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see more acquisitions toward further automation of Amazon’s distribution and delivery chain.

Apple is equally unsurprising. They are a manufacturing company with a justifiable reputation for super high quality products. As an electronics engineer who started his career by taking wirelesses and gramophones apart as a boy, I’m fascinated by the tear-downs that invariably follow each new product release. It’s obvious that each new generation of Apple devices is harder to manufacture than the last. Precision products need precision manufacture and it is no surprise that Apple is investing heavily in the machines needed to make its products.

Google is perhaps the least obvious candidate to invest in robotics. You could of course take the view that a company with more money than God can make whatever acquisitions it likes without needing a reason – that these are vanity acquisitions. But I don’t think that’s the case. I think Google has its eyes on the long term. It is an Internet company and the undisputed ruler of the Internet of Information. But computers are no longer the only things connected to the Internet. Real world devices are increasingly networked – the so-called Internet of Things. I think Google doesn’t want to be usurped by a new super company that emerges as the Google of real-world stuff. It’s not quite sure how the transition to the future Internet of Everything will pan out, but figures that mobile robots – as well as smart environments – will feature heavily in that future. I think Google is right. I think it’s buying into robotics because it wants to be a leader and shape the future of the Internet of Everything.

Read more answers →

Google, is the wild card for me.  With more acquisitions (DeepMind, Boston Dynamics, Redwood Robotics, Industrial Perception, Meka, Schaft, and others) than Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft combined, the GOOG looks to be rigging up a kit that would offer excellent image recognition + navigation + mobility.  A robot that can roam around your home or maybe your city, and offer a helpful service.  My bet is that these Googlebots (perhaps they will be cars) will have sharp eyes, simple yet helpful demeanors, and we’ll trade that robotic service for our personal info.  Then Google will sell that info to advertisers.  So the same Google formula the company has used with email, docs, voice, maps, and the others.

It’s exciting for the robotics community that the giants (Google, Apple, and Amazon) are actively investing in robotics.

Indeed, my initial response to hearing about Google’s first seven of a series of acquisitions of robotics-related companies was a very positive one (these companies include Shaft, Industrial Perception, Meka Robotics, Redwood Robotics, Bot & Dolly, Autofuss, and Holomni, see Frank Tobe’s article for more details on these companies). Technologies from these companies are ones that can make robots mobile, perceptive, responsive, and interactive. The fact that the companies are now housed under one giant roof of Google made me imagine a future of next generation robots where Google-branded humanoids will be the next Baxter, working shoulder-to-shoulder with people in dynamic manufacturing environments, or assisting caregivers and serving seniors at care facilities. How could it not be exciting?

Even if Google’s actual direction is to put bipedal robots in self-driving cars so that people can enjoy fast, fully-autonomous door-to-door delivery of flowers on Valentine’s Day, my view was that such investments can only be good for the robotics community. Large scale investments by giant corporations, regardless of what their actual plans are, can have a positive impact on the job market for roboticists, increase competition between the giants and push robotics forward.

Then I began to feel a little bit uneasy when Google acquired Boston Dynamics. That’s because Boston Dynamics is not only a company with one of the most impressive control systems I’ve ever seen (I’m sure many of you will agree with this from the video of Boston Dynamic’s Big Dog, which has over 15 million views on YouTube), but it’s also a company that is known to have developed such impressive systems for the Pentagon, of all clients.

What does this all mean? What is Google planning to do with robots that can keep itself upright after being kicked, walk through rough terrains, run as fast as 29 miles per hour? The combination of Google-acquired companies became even more mysterious when the London-based AI company, DeepMind, was added to the mix. It’s safe to say that the uncertainty over Google’s plans with these companies has stirred up quite a bit of concern to the general public: some media coverage on the topic have been hyping the idea of Google building Skynet or being in the business of building robot soldiers.

Unless Google is indeed headed in those directions, I don’t believe that the public concern about the possibility of human extinction by Google-made robots in the near future is a good thing, either for the company or for the field of robotics in general. I think that public concerns over Google’s investment directions exist today because we, as a society, lack the presence of governing bodies whose role is to ensure that robotics technologies are developed and used for purposes desirable for the society, in manners aligned with society’s values.

However, I do applaud the fact that Google is setting up an ethics board to presumably oversee what they will and will not do with their technologies. If Google takes ethics seriously, I think Google could be a game changer in robotics (although it already is), not just by producing and selling cool robots in the future, but more importantly, by leading the way of tightly coupling ethics in robotics and making robots that “don’t do evil”.

Read more answers →

They want to communicate more accurately, resolve issues faster and with higher levels of satisfaction than at present. They also want to enable more complex communication. And they want to do it amiably. As we move toward the Internet of Things, more players will enter the fray – all having the same goal.

Google appears to be acquiring people and companies to build a better human interaction interface. This interface can be the front-end of search, IoT devices, robotics and voice systems. Even if Google keeps their algorithms private, the first to deploy complex communication modules that can understand and resolve queries is going to have a big winner on their hands.

Certainly Google is going all out in this endeavor:

• Ray Kurzweil has been at work at Google for over a year now to develop natural language understanding. If successful, Google’s computers will be able to pick up semantic meaning enabling people to ask more complex questions.
• Just last week Google acquired DeepMind, a British AI start-up with some high-profile investors and a whiz kid founder (Demis Hassabis). DeepMind’s forte appears to be smart recommendations for online commerce.
 
• Facebook attempted to buy the deep learning group within DeepMind but Google outbid them.
• Deep learning is AI that trains AI to recognize patterns within streams of data instead of programming immense decision trees. For example, DeepMind trained software to play an Atari video game without teaching it the rules. The software had to learn through trial, errors and low scores.
• Google has hired and bought up leading researchers in AI for years including Sebastian Thrun, Peter Norvig and Geoffrey Hinton.

In a recent New Yorker article by Gary Marcus, Hyping Artificial Intelligence, Yet Again, it was clear that AI has received a lot of enthusiastic press attention over the years but hasn’t delivered upon those promises. Perhaps Google is on the right track toward converting all that desire into reality.

If you liked this article, you may also be interested in:

• Google acquires Nest for $3.2 billion
• Amazon isn’t the only delivery service testing flying robots
• Apple, Amazon and now Google: It’s a pretty exciting day for robotics!
• What were the top stories in robotics from 2013?
• Forget the octocopter, let’s talk about Kiva

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.