> Folding arbitrary pile of laundry completely unsupervised is super hard computing and robotics problem
FTFY. And the business proposition isn't "limited", it's stupid. An attempt to throw technology somewhere it cannot compete.
The opportunity cost for that $16k is paying somebody minimum wage to fold clothes for you for over 2000 hours. That would last a family of four about 38 years (just folding). Cleaners, housekeepers, nannies, etc all offer this sort of service, and more. Cleaning, ironing, folding, putting away and because of the lack of skills, and the availability of people to do it, they usually can't charge that much for it.
This robot took up a ton of space, barely worked by all accounts, did untold damage to clothes that got caught, and didn't do any other part of the cycle. I don't know how you can call that a proposition. It's neat but it's not saleable.
This version. It isn't ready yet. If they do a $2k robot that finds my dirty clothing on the floor and puts clean clothing in the correct closet/draws (my kids, wife, and mine...) and I'm interested. Laundry takes a lot of time, and paying someone isn't really cost effective.
In particular, paying someone to do something makes you subject to a lot of extra regulations, which exist mainly because there's plenty of evil people who like to abuse people they hire. Getting a robot to do something for you is free from all that baggage, and if you mistreat your robot, it's only your loss.
Agencies can insulate clients from that sort of junk. A small percentage over the base, tends to bring liability insurance with it, so it's usually worth it.
Then again, given the horror stories I've heard about such agencies (exploiting and abusing old people and immigrants), if you're a human being with a conscience, you now have to vet the agency, which is a non-trivial task.
No, I think this line of thinking is exceptionally counterproductive.
If you are the sort of lovely person who is bothered by others' working conditions and rights, a cleaner in your home is absolutely the best outcome. Not only do you get to pay above the odds —if you want to— you get to see them, you can talk to them and ask them how they're doing in life.
Conversely how do you suppose the teenagers who assembled your robot is being cared for? What about the miners extracting the rare earth metals used in batteries and motors? What about the villages around said mines that suffer horrific levels of pollution? And what about the dump where all this ends up in under 10 years time?
> Not only do you get to pay above the odds —if you want to— you get to see them, you can talk to them and ask them how they're doing in life.
To the extent that it makes this person's work bearable, it worsens the situation. The company abusing the worker gets to earn that much more money and stay in business that much longer. If everyone did that, such companies would worsen their treatment even more (this is the same phenomenon that makes jobs desirable for non-economic reasons pay less; satisfaction gets deducted from your salary).
> Conversely how do you suppose the teenagers who assembled your robot is being cared for? What about the miners extracting the rare earth metals used in batteries and motors? What about the villages around said mines that suffer horrific levels of pollution? And what about the dump where all this ends up in under 10 years time?
The way to help those people isn't to buy more of their products, ensuring they have more work to do.
Abuse can exist anywhere, but I wager it is more likely in countries with little or no worker protections, and where there are more people working in poor conditions.
Because where I am, we do have worker protections, minimum wage, modern-day slavery rules that forbid indenture, maximum hours, health and safety regulations. The people in the factories and mines that make the robots have none of these.
My point above was that you are only ever able to detect abuse where you have contact. If you feel your cleaner is being abused (again, just talk to them) you have so many options for legally improving their situation.
That may mean the agency they worked for goes out of business under a hail of prosecutions, but there is a solid demand for cleaners (both self-employed and agency). Somebody else will step in and take on that work, and ultimately employ local people to do the same work.
> The way to help those people isn't to buy more of their products
Not sure if you got that the wrong way around but my point above was not to suggest that buying more robots is a good thing. If the quote above is what you meant, we agree.
Agreed. But I worry about the 'first-world' convenience of this argument. Boycott abusive employers, maybe put them out of business! But the poor people working there are out of a job too. And they needed that job - it was miserable and yet they kept working, so I know they really needed it.
People have to eat every day. To lose a job, even a miserable one, is not something I want to inflict on somebody, especially sitting in my armchair in my comfortable house on 80 acres in the heartland of America.
So where does that leave my ambitions to be ethical in my buying?
I'll start positively, by agreeing. Yes, if you can make a robot for $2k that does all that, cooks and cleans, perhaps teaches the kids to ride their bikes, dispenses oral sex, etc, again yes, they will sell and sell fast. But that's really a very significant distance from what we have, which is a constellation of very expensive robots that are demonstrably worse than humans at doing tasks unskilled humans are pretty good at.
Even at the most basic level, a vacuum cleaner... It wasn't until last year that there was a self-emptying model. It still insanely slow. It's suction is still objectively awful. It still gets blocked up by anything hairier than a large cat. It still can't get into certain places. But that's going to be $1000 and you're still going to have to set it up, fix is when it breaks, etc.
A $200 stick vacuum and 10 minutes/week cumulative contact is much better. That $800 saved could pay for somebody to do that vacuuming (and more!) for you for 100 hours. Really, tell me what's more "cost effective".
But yes, if we somehow get a magical level of robot that can transcend stairs on their own, carry 20KG of washing up and down, fold it all up, put it away... That would be worth $2k. But that's just a robotic unicorn at this juncture.
My robotic vacuum is incredibly useful and keeps my home far cleaner than it would be without it. It vacuums most of the floor space of my apartment every day, rarely gets jammed or caught on something, and all I need to do is empty the bin every few days. I'd end up spending 15-20 minutes a day to clean as much as my robot does. With two animals in my home, hair appears on the floor instantly so its nice having a vacuum run daily.
My robotic vacuum cost ~$500 three years ago, and I've probably spent another $75 on battery replacements/filters. So $575 for floors cleaned daily over the last 3 years and I'll probably get another few years out of it for another $75. Definitely beats paying someone to come out to my home every day to vacuum.
Minimum wage for cleaners is standard here, but whether or not that tallies with your experience will probably depend on the cost of living where you are.
well, you're assuming that its' only an hour of folding a week. It's highly variable for different people. But for families that do fold most of their clothes (and folding is the better way to store your clothes than just hanging it), many would spend over an hour doing it. My wife does most the laundry and we got two kids. It's a good half a day to clean all our weekly clothes, towels and sheets. There's a market for this product you put it in the exact way that explains why it failed.
I'm basing that on an extrapolation of our family, yes, but we do have a toddler, so I'm not that out of kilter with real life.
Remember we're only talking about folding here. I don't think we spend much more than an hour contact time doing the full cycle. But for folding, I allow 20 seconds an item, 180 items... With absolutely no checking, that seems right.
However you look at your personal situation, you have to generate a lot more load before you're not talking about a period of duration which would clearly outstrips the lifetime of the clothes-folding robot.
A clothes washing and folding robot is highly desired.
But for $20,000, if the robot can also wash the dishes (not a dishwasher), vacuum the floor (not a Roomba), and do some light dusting.. then I’d buy that in a heartbeat.
I do not want to pay for maid service. I don’t really want people in my personal space, so I’d rather do everything myself, which means they never get done.
FTFY. And the business proposition isn't "limited", it's stupid. An attempt to throw technology somewhere it cannot compete.
The opportunity cost for that $16k is paying somebody minimum wage to fold clothes for you for over 2000 hours. That would last a family of four about 38 years (just folding). Cleaners, housekeepers, nannies, etc all offer this sort of service, and more. Cleaning, ironing, folding, putting away and because of the lack of skills, and the availability of people to do it, they usually can't charge that much for it.
This robot took up a ton of space, barely worked by all accounts, did untold damage to clothes that got caught, and didn't do any other part of the cycle. I don't know how you can call that a proposition. It's neat but it's not saleable.