Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I believe the author's thesis is that if they had invested in innovation over a couple decades, the product probably would have sucked less.




Or perhaps would have sucked more where it needed to, and sucked less where it didn't.

It's a vacuum cleaner. All you want it to do is suck.

But not at navigation.

It does seem like that upon reading the article, but it’s not what the title of the article suggests.

The innovation being shutdown wasn't innovation towards making robot vacuum cleaners better. It was innovation direct towards military applications like building robotic hands.

Exactly this. If they had been innovating in vacuum technology then maybe this article would have a point. But they were building stuff for the military and for space, and there's a good reason investors wanted them to get out of that because it was sucking up money and not resulting in better vacuum cleaners.

Well it's 2025, we've just spent the better half of the year discussing the bitter lesson. It seems clear solving more general problem is key to innovation.

Hardware is not like software. A general purpose humanoid cleaning robot will be superior to a robot vacuum but it will always cost an order of magnitude more. This is different from software where the cost exponentially decreases and you can do the computer in the cloud.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: