Rethink Reveals Version of Baxter Industrial Robot for Researchers
Rethink Robotics is offering a research version of its Baxter industrial robot powered by a software development kit. The robot costs $22,000 and is aimed at giving robotics researchers an opportunity to create new software for Baxter, a robot designed to work side-by-side with humans safety and intuitively. (Source: Rethink Robotics)
This is a great idea. Open software for the robot could create possibilities far beyond what Baxter would have developed for its machines. This open model worked very well for Google when it gave away its Android smartphone operating system. The results were robust enough to allow Google to go toe-to-toe with Apple -- no easy feat. Because of its open approach, Android is now the leading smartphone OS in volume.
This certainly creates a very potent development environment for software developers. Will save alot of integration time developing hardware and testing, especially since there seems to be so much interest in humanoid type robots.
Maybe this post should be titled "Rethink Rethinks Baxter." Anyway, thanks for the post, Elizabeth. Making Baxter available to developers is a great move on Rethink's part and will help accelerate development of this important robot design platform.
Yes, I agree with all of you, this is a really great idea and it will be interesting to see what developers come up with when they have a chance to program for the actual robot and not just a facsimilie of the platform. Is this a novel idea, does anyone know? Have other companies done similar things? I wasn't sure about that myself.
Rob, I asked a question in my last comment and you kind of answer it. Google is one company that used this model to its success. I was wondering if it's ever been done with a robotic platform before. I imagine probably not, but perhaps this will set a precedent for the future, if it goes well. Savvy move, too, on Rethink's part, as they are pushing Baxter as a real innovation and are going for innovation in development as well by offering a research version.
Elizabeth, I'm not sure what question you're asking. Opening up robot platform development is not a novel idea--that's why ROS exists, and at least one other robot company Willow Garage, has done more or less the same thing, including providing its robot hardware for tinkering. But WG wasn't originally formed to just make robots commercially, so that part is a relatively new idea. Also, ROS has been extended to industrial robots. We've covered the development of open-source robotic development in several posts: http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1386&doc_id=245355 http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?
I agree, Apresher, this does make for a potent development environment. It's good to see open source moving into new territory. It will be interesting to see what comes of this. It will depend on whether robotic engineers eagerly take to this model. The jury's out on that question.
Elizabeth, I'm not aware this open system approach has been used in robotics. I don't think it's been used much at all. I'd like to hear from those who have seen in used in other contexts. Google results were stellar. They gave away the platform and it because the leading platform for smartphones.
I think what makes this unique is that Rethink has developed its system using open software but now is making its humanoid hardware platform (with all of the development that went into it) available for research purposes. Researchers can concentrate solely on software solutions with than many problems already solved for them. Very interesting development.
Thanks for the clarification, Ann. What I was asking was somewhere between what both you and Rob answered--ie, has a commercial robot platform been opened up this way. I'm familiar with Willow Garage, and of course as you not there are a lot of open robotics platforms in the hobbyist world mainly, is that right? Sounds like Rethink is doing something a bit different for the commercial platform, which personally I think is a good thing.