Slashdot Mirror


Toyota's Trumpet Playing Robot Showcased

fsharp writes "The New York Times has an article discussing the first public showing of Toyota's new humanoid robot. During a demonstration, the biped robot played trumpet together with a rolling robot. Most telling about the article was the whole philosophy towards R&D: 'Toyota acknowledges that it is unlikely to turn a profit building robots anytime soon, but the program highlights its engineering-oriented culture and willingness to invest in projects that may not pay off for decades.' How many companies these days are willing to drop money into some technology that may not turn a profit for many years?"

9 of 356 comments (clear)

  1. Very cool, but.. by mr.henry · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It pisses me off that no American company today would ever do something like this. Our leaders have sold our technological infrastructure out for quick $$$. The boobs may have T-shirts -- made in China, no doubt -- that say "America is #1", but it hasn't been for a long time. Japan and the other Asian countries do all the cool stuff now. Come on, could you see Ford or GM doing this?

    1. Re:Very cool, but.. by Brento · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That kind of culture explains why Toyota was first to market with a profitable hybrid car, and why they're so far ahead that Ford's licensing hybrid technology from them.

      Here's the missing link that doesn't get publicized: automakers are ahead of the curve on robots because they use robotics extensively in assembly. The more accurately their robots move, the more accurately they assemble cars. Next time you wonder why Japanese cars have a reputation for being so well-built, think of projects like these.

      --
      What's your damage, Heather?
    2. Re:Very cool, but.. by Have+Blue · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And they had an advantage that Europe also got after WW2: Their manufacturing infrastructure was completely destroyed, so they had a chance to start from scratch with cutting-edge (at the time_) technology throughout the entire process. The US was (and is) still trying to maintain their much older and less capable facilities, since that was still less expensive than starting over and there was no carpet-bombing to force them into it.

    3. Re:Very cool, but.. by Ian_Bailey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not to mention the US only trails Japan by a thin margin in R&D spending as well as personnel

  2. A heckler from the 18th Century by The+I+Shing · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Presenters of the music-playing machine found themselves being unmercifully heckled by a man calling himself Mssr. Jacques de Vaucanson, who proclaimed loudly that he had accomplished robotic music more than two hundred years prior to this demonstration.

    When the presenters pointed out that Mssr. Vaucanson would have to be long dead as of this late date, the suddenly horrified heckler collapsed into a pile of dust, and the remainder of the presentation was conducted without further interruption.

    --
    You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
  3. sound clips? by chocolatetrumpet · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am a trumpet player and I really want to hear this thing!

    Imagine if typing was so challenging that you spent 90% of your computer time refining and keeping your typing skills adequate, so you could spend 10% of the time programming...

    Anyone have any sound clips?

    --
    Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
  4. It would... by BJZQ8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It would behoove many companies to invest more in R&D and less in padding executives pocketbooks with $100's. HP, for example, has gutted their engineering ranks while simultaneously buying jets for the higher-ups. Closer to my region of the country, Caterpillar has outsourced waves of R&D people...and their executives are getting ever-higher bonuses.

  5. which companies? by slide-rule · · Score: 4, Interesting

    > How many companies these days are willing to drop money into some technology that may not turn a profit for many years?"

    Aerospace, for one. Working at one of the companies that makes commercial (and military) aircraft engines, it is jokingly quoted that: "A decision to launch a new engine program is a calculated risk to go into the hole for about 20 years" (Meaning it takes about that long to "turn profit" off all the years of design, development, testing, and certication processes.) Imagine how many times the market flops around responding to other market pressures in that length of time.

    As an interesting aside for many of you, aircraft engines have historically been sold on the razor/blades business model, so its an interesting business balance between a quality engine that airline customers will buy and the need to sell spares to eventually make money on FAR down the road.

  6. Re:Long-term investing by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But of course if a drug company spends 7 years developing a drug and starts trying to recoup some of that cost over the next few years everyone will forget the R&D and point out how the drug costs nothing to make and so the company is ripping everyone off. When I worked at a pharmaceutical company there were cases when it took so long to develop a drug that it wasn't worth bringing it to market because the patent would almost have expired by time it was ready for release. (The patent needs to be filed right at the beginning of the testing process.)

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.