Subject:
|
Re: Design
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sat, 3 Dec 2005 16:46:53 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Mr S <(szinn_the1@yahoo)stopspammers(.com)>
|
Viewed:
|
1184 times
|
| |
|
|
Peter,
I have a couple of thoughts for you about the remote
control and the robosapiens, and commercial robots in
general. There are several 'things' working against
commercially available autonomous robots:
1 - Little girls kind of like the dolls that eat and
cry and such, but this experience is totally tied to a
play experience. Once they grow out of that 'stage'
the dolls have little alure.
2 - When boys play, they are in total control of the
play, and have little need of the 'toys' doing things
on their own. A young boy can play just as effectively
with innanimate objects as ones that 'do something'...
3 - Adults don't really trust things, many can't
program their VCR equipment, and generally don't trust
things that do things on their own.
The one 'thing' that is working for you is that people
in general, old and young, like to anthropomorphize
things: boats are female, lapdogs are little people
etc. If you go to the iRobot site, you'll see that
owners of Roomba think of it as a pet or part of the
family, not as a vacuum cleaner.
The reason that autonomous robots have no truck in the
commercial world yet is that they are not easily
anthropomorphized the way that Roomba and Aibo are.
That means that AI in some form or another is
necessary to break into the commercial market. Owners
of Roomba swear that its intelligent, even though that
intelligence is not 'all that and a bag of chips' but
it is the perception that makes it sell.
The Robosapiens allows young boys to anthropomorphize,
in a way that they like to play... burps, farts, and
controlling the movements.
In summary, its a psychology thing.
If you were to make a pet cat that needed no real
interactions, it would be possible to sell them, but
that requires a good bit of autonomous robotics.
Just my thoughts...
--- PeterBalch <PeterBalch@compuserve.com> wrote:
> Bruce
>
> > The recent Robonexus was a mix of the • mundane/boring, remote
> > controlled non-robots, and some very exciting • autonomous technology
> > (which did not attract the limelight). Go
> figure...
>
> Yes that's true and very sad.
>
> It's a problem I'm interested in because for a few
> years now, I've been
> designing autonous robots for the retail market and
> I've never ever made a
> profit. (Even though some are in production.) Every
> other designer I've met
> has admitted the same result. Why does Robosapiens
> have a remote-control?
>
> My guess is that if I'm controlling a Robot Wars
> robot, my ego is projected
> into the "robot" (i.e. remote-control car). It's as
> though I'm sitting in
> it. I feel the pain when I get hit. It's much more
> emotionally involving.
> And it's emotional involvement that people want.
> That's just a biology
> thing: a part of being human.
>
> Autonous robots imply an involvement that is
> one-step removed. It isn't
> "me" that's in the robot, the robot is a free agent.
> Which is fine for us
> nerd, geeks and other detached intellectuals. But
> we're the weirdos. The
> majority of the species doen't think or feel the
> same way.
>
> Any counter arguments?
>
> Peter
__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Design
|
| Bruce (...) Yes that's true and very sad. It's a problem I'm interested in because for a few years now, I've been designing autonous robots for the retail market and I've never ever made a profit. (Even though some are in production.) Every other (...) (19 years ago, 3-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
