When Roomba came out I expected vast progress by now. Some company would actually make one that works all the time for the whole house. Now I am not second guessing the the IRobot corporation—maybe they could do it but the market is happy now. How hard is it with today’s know how to make one that
doesn’t get stuck on rugs, cords, clothes, or under things ever
can remember where it needs to clean and you don’t have to use virtual walls
can remember how to get back to its docking station before its battery runs out every single time
make a docking station where it can drop off its dirt so I don’t have to check it more then once a month
Its stuff like this that makes me wonder how much progress we are actually making. Is it a solved problem with no market (at the price point) or is it a problem in robotics?
I find it strange too. I was looking at Roombas 2 months ago because I was wondering if it would make cleaning up after my cat easier, and I experienced a feeling of deja vu looking at the Amazon listings: “these prices, physical shapes, features, and ratings… they look almost exactly the same as I remember them being a decade ago”.
I don’t know. It’s not like robotics in general has stagnated—iRobot has done a lot of robots beside the Roomba (and has pretty good sales, although I wonder how much comes from their military customers, which they seem to really be focusing on); and the robots that General Dynamics has been showing off, like their latest “Spot” quadruped, are simply astonishing.
I wonder if Roombas are trapped in a local optimum: you can’t improve a small disc-shaped wheeled robot vaccuum much beyond what it is now without completely changing the design (appendages like hands would help it get unstuck or pick up stuff) or much improved battery technology?
Roomba’s “intelligence” is a bag of random numbers with some constraints on it. Their competitor is a bunch brainier in terms of room mapping and general navigation; for instance, it doesn’t require a special beacon to tell it where a doorway is.
Stupid Roombas don’t seem very convenient. (I don’t think people enjoy getting their Roombas out of corners or stuck places.) Or do you mean that the Neatos, despite their greater intelligence, are much more inconvenient in some other way (also explaining why Roombas continue to sell as much as they do)?
I’m guessing stuff like dropping off dirt or running out of battery could be solved without any AI improvements, so they are probably problems iRobot has decided aren’t worth solving at the moment.
When Roomba came out I expected vast progress by now. Some company would actually make one that works all the time for the whole house. Now I am not second guessing the the IRobot corporation—maybe they could do it but the market is happy now. How hard is it with today’s know how to make one that
doesn’t get stuck on rugs, cords, clothes, or under things ever
can remember where it needs to clean and you don’t have to use virtual walls
can remember how to get back to its docking station before its battery runs out every single time
make a docking station where it can drop off its dirt so I don’t have to check it more then once a month
Its stuff like this that makes me wonder how much progress we are actually making. Is it a solved problem with no market (at the price point) or is it a problem in robotics?
I find it strange too. I was looking at Roombas 2 months ago because I was wondering if it would make cleaning up after my cat easier, and I experienced a feeling of deja vu looking at the Amazon listings: “these prices, physical shapes, features, and ratings… they look almost exactly the same as I remember them being a decade ago”.
I don’t know. It’s not like robotics in general has stagnated—iRobot has done a lot of robots beside the Roomba (and has pretty good sales, although I wonder how much comes from their military customers, which they seem to really be focusing on); and the robots that General Dynamics has been showing off, like their latest “Spot” quadruped, are simply astonishing.
I wonder if Roombas are trapped in a local optimum: you can’t improve a small disc-shaped wheeled robot vaccuum much beyond what it is now without completely changing the design (appendages like hands would help it get unstuck or pick up stuff) or much improved battery technology?
Roomba’s “intelligence” is a bag of random numbers with some constraints on it. Their competitor is a bunch brainier in terms of room mapping and general navigation; for instance, it doesn’t require a special beacon to tell it where a doorway is.
If true, that just sharpens the question: why isn’t iRobot improving their Roombas’ software if a competitor is doing so?
They’re not selling brains; they’re selling convenience?
Stupid Roombas don’t seem very convenient. (I don’t think people enjoy getting their Roombas out of corners or stuck places.) Or do you mean that the Neatos, despite their greater intelligence, are much more inconvenient in some other way (also explaining why Roombas continue to sell as much as they do)?
I’m guessing stuff like dropping off dirt or running out of battery could be solved without any AI improvements, so they are probably problems iRobot has decided aren’t worth solving at the moment.
I agree. I was just trying to motivate my rant.
doesn’t try to kill you in your sleep