As Design News' Rob Spiegel reported last month, Google is developing a robotics division. After buying up robotics companies during the last several months, the company made this announcement in a New York Times article. But 10 days later, the Times revealed that the company had purchased Boston Dynamics.
Those are the geniuses who pioneered animal-like robots based on emulation of animals' actual movements, such as Big Dog and Cheetah, robots that move like bugs, and the humanoid stair-climbing Petman. The company has been under contract to DARPA since it began: most of their robots were developed for military uses. Currently, it's developing humanoid robots for the DARPA Robotics Challenge.
Google's expected target applications for its new robot division are in manufacturing and retailing, and its other robot purchases are right in line. So why did it buy Boston Dynamics, makers of innovative Big Dog, shown here, and the leading-edge military robot company?
(Source: Boston Dynamics)
I'm not surprised that Google wants to get into robotics. It's certainly an area of technological growth -- in fact, multiple technologies. But the first Times article reported that Google's expected target applications are in manufacturing and retailing. Its previous robot purchases are companies that specialize in technology you'd expect to find in that environment, like robotic arms, grasping hands, and machine vision.
So why did Google buy military robot technology? Boston Dynamics' robots aren't little four-wheeled baby tanks, either, like some military or search and rescue bots. They're big, strong, rugged, autonomous machines built with sophisticated and sometimes revolutionary technology. The company's founder, Marc Raibert, is a former professor at Carnegie Mellon University and MIT, and considered by many to be a robotics visionary.
The fact that the Massive Dynamic of this world (a Fringe reference) -- a company said to have more computers than any other -- wants to use military robot technology sets me back. I'm not the only one that finds this a puzzling, even unsettling, move. As is usual in much of the press on robots, some coverage of the Boston Dynamics purchase was accompanied by jokes about our robot overlords and mentions of the Terminator movies. The funniest, I think, was a blogsite called Bustle. The headline for that blog reads, "Google Buys Boston Dynamics, Will Soon Be God."
The blog that echoes my thoughts the most was Forbes' Robert Hof. He cited Google's extensive information gathering on its users, its huge computer network, and its new artificial intelligence team, as cause for concern when combined with autonomous military robots. That part appeared to be a joke. But like him, I wonder what Google intends to do with this combination. It seems far too high-powered for the factory, and a curious business move. I'm not at all sure this is a good thing.
I think bdcst is right about using Big Dogs for mail delivery. That's kind of overkill: they're huge and expensive and made for difficult terrain, not exactly a description of urban or suburban landscapes.
Thanks for your comment, William. I think some people are concerned, as I noticed in much of the tech press reportage on this. But that's only journalists and bloggers. Whether lots of people are concerned is another question. And even if they were, what could they do about it?
Hi Ann--It is a curiosity why Google would pick up the diversity of companies it has acquried in robotics. There are a various ways to consider this:
1) Google is being forthwright in its intentions to develop technology for industrial and manufacturing applications. Google has mapping technology, it has cloud technology, and many other capabilities. If you combine some of these into a robot you could, for example, have a robot that could do mining operations, still one of the most dangerous occupations around. There are indications the mining industry in general would like to get to fully autonomous operations. The industry is a signficant user of technology, such as location technolgies to route giant machinery in large mines.
Although manufacturing was stated, that makes less sense to me on the surface becuase there are so many large companies already deeply involved in manufacturing automation. The only way that makes sense is if Google believes they could deploy more general purpose robots that are easily trained and can do more human-like tasks (like Baxter 10X (a reference to Google's 10X approach.)
2) Google has decided that there is a close relationship between the internet of everything, robotics, cloud computing, and search-based intellegence and has the intent to grow a business in this area. Think IBM Watson. They started with a demonstration technology, now they want to leverage that into huge markets. The question is, what markets is Google really after?
3) Ths sinister view is that Google has gotten cozy with the Government, and is going to start generating revenues in a Government/Military business, as another way to leverage all the technologies they offer. Think about this--the large robots from Boston Dynamics connected to a massive cloud computing resource giving the robots near autonomy in dangerous areas. The earlier remark about Terminator is not far from the mark in this scenario. There are even more sinister lines of thought--as noted in another comment, let's say Google takes over mail and package delivery by robots. But these robots are linked to a massive cloud resources matching up terabytes of information relating to the shipping origin, the destination address, past delivery history, past history of all, say, catalogs and bills received, plus, it has sensors to sniff out chemicals, drugs, dangerous materials, etc., it can scan every package for all fingerprints and do further matching and connecting the dots. When you come to the door to get your robo delivery, it sniffs you and your home, adding further intel on possible drug use or other activities, perhaps it listens and makes note of how many people it thinks are there, what TV is being watched, what music is played, and even what's for dinner. Oh, and it also scans any faces it sees and matches them to a real-time cloud dB of people and flags if you might be somebody on a "list". The government then uses all this hyper-connected intel to "find" suspected terrorists, drug dealers, or other "persons of interest".
Which, if any is the right interpretation? Who knows.
Too much ground clutter, traffic, to use robotic delivery dogs in most urban locations. And the power plant can be quite noisy too and less energy efficient than, for example, a lighter than air blimp drone. I can imagine, even if the robot's power system was relatively quiet, its animal like shape and movement might excite a lot of barking dogs.
The code required for dynamic balance control of a quadruped isn't particularly applicable to the act of driving a car. However, obstacle avoidance, and maintaining a correct route are activities whose clever coding could be valuable to Google's autonomous vehicle persuits.
Buying into the expertise of Boston Dynamics could be very helpful to Google. And yes, it does give one pause to think about the modern day goldrush to centralize capabilities into huge conglomerates. On the other end of the cycle, a time may come when pressure will come to bare to once again disassemble the monopolies. Human history seems to repeat itself with no promise of learning from it.
Google, that company that gathers up so much information about everybody who uses the internet, almost, is now investing in some serious robotics, and has purchased an organization that has a proven track record of producing "things that work well", and nobody is concerned? Possibly GPS guided versions of "Big Dog" could be used for delivery purposes without many of the limitations faced by the Amazon Drone Delivery System. Just consider that a thing walking down the sidewalk does not need to meet the requirements for an autonomous motor vehicle, nor does it fall under any FAA rules. So a Delivery Dog system would be a lot less regulated, and a whole lot "cooler" than the delivery drones. But then I think about those "hounds" in the book "Farenheit 451", which seemed to be able to complete a task without intervention. Not all uses of autonomous devices would be for the benefit of most of us. I can certainly imagine being followed by a robot of some kind delivering an advertising spiel for some shop that I was approaching on the avenue. That would be one step beyong the location sensitive advertising planned for smart phones, and much harder to ignore. And much less pleasent yet is the image of a robotic police droid enforcing the latest whim of an overbearing city government. That may sound way outside the realm of possibility, but it is almost within the scope of current technology. And who believes that all advancs in technology are "for the good?"
Good point about code, JimRW. That's certainly part of how BD managed to get more animal-like movements in its bots. Google has shown it doesn't operate by its own motto in several different ways. That's one of the reasons it reminds me of Massive Dynamic. Some cynics would say that's why it adopted that motto in the first place.
Here's what I think, based on Google's (and others) activities:
A huge market is in-vehicle info-tainment systems. The Automotives, by and large, all have crappy systems, although some people except On-Star. The future of in-vehicle info-tainment is going to be plugging in your phone (wirelessly, of course) and making use of its applications, bandwidth, and constant updates. The Automotives will just supply the cradles: large screens, easy connectivity, standardized safety interlocking for distracted driving.
The problem for Google is that they are late to the game and well behind others, like Microsoft and Apple. Google doesn't want to be just a me-too company, so they are looking for an advantage. And that is why they started their autonomous vehicle program: They want to define the future for vehicles.
A fully autonomous vehicle is a difficult prospect. It's easy to use robots when decision making is limited; but the driver of a car needs to be able to evaluate multiple information streams and make decisions quickly, especially in an emergency situation. So certainly, Google would be interested in autonomous robots. They would be especially interested in autonomous robots like Big Dog, which can climb uneven and varying terrain, AND react to unexpected events, like a tremendous shove(very impressive). I would also expect Google to be interested in partnering with DARPA and companies like Lockheed, who are working to develop pilot-less fighter jets.
In other words, I think it's long term move that makes commercial sense. There's also the potential side benefit of unexpected synergies that can take off in a totally new direction.
A make-your-own Star Wars Sith Lightsaber hilt is heftier and better-looking than most others out there, according to its maker, Sean Charlesworth. You can 3D print it from free source files, and there's even a hardware kit available -- not free -- so you can build one just in time for Halloween.
Some next-generation bio-based materials are superior in performance to their petro-based counterparts, but also face some commercial challenges. This is especially true of certain biopolymers, adhesives, coatings, and advanced materials.
Cars and other vehicles, as well as electronics and medical devices, continue to lead the use cases for the new plastics products we've been seeing, as engineers design products for tougher environments.
LeMond Composites, founded by three-time Tour de France cycling champion Greg LeMond, is the first to license a new carbon fiber production method invented by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) that's faster, cheaper, and greener.
This month will mark the launch of the SpeedFoiler, a super-fast, ultra-lightweight foiling catamaran that can fly short distances over water faster than other foiling designs, in part because of its carbon composite materials.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies.
You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived.
So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.