Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Canceled the Launch of a Robotic Arm After it Failed the 'Toothbrush Test' (bloomberg.com)

Posted by msmash on from the toothbrush-test dept.

Mark Bergen, reporting for Bloomberg: Google published research this week detailing how its software enables robots to learn from one another. To demonstrate, the company's scientists showed videos featuring robotic arms whirling inside its labs. Google's robotics group built those machines and wanted to sell them to manufacturers, warehouse operators and others. However, executives at Google parent Alphabet Inc. nixed the plan because it failed Chief Executive Officer Larry Page's "toothbrush test," a requirement that the company only ship products used daily by billions of people, according to people familiar with the situation.

61 of 97 comments (clear)

  1. Pretty short sighted by avandesande · · Score: 1

    What if they developed something like a robotic prosthesis that really improved the quality of life for someone? Also I could of told them nobody wants to wear those stupid glasses.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
    1. Re:Pretty short sighted by wile_e_wonka · · Score: 5, Informative

      According to the article, the research isn't over. They just aren't going to sell the robotic arm. This doesn't even mean the robotic arm won't get sold--if Google decides it has no use for this, it can just sell the IP to someone else to develop and bring to market. Google just doesn't want to be in the robotic arm selling business right now.

    2. Re:Pretty short sighted by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Not nearly as interesting as your grammer fetish. Was she cute?

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    3. Re:Pretty short sighted by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      What Kiko chooses to do with the technology is not important.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    4. Re:Pretty short sighted by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Because they're trying to unfuck our spelling by making it phonetic.

      And it's could've if you're writing conversationally (IMO).

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    5. Re:Pretty short sighted by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      How is the proper pronunciation of "have" so unphonetic that it is better written as "of". Have starts with an "H" sound as in ha-ha or he. Then the "A" sounds just like in "at", "hat", "cat", etc. then we have the nice little "V" sound. While true that common American pronunciation of "could have" becomes more like "uv" with the "U" sounding like "ugh" or "up". "Could of" comes nowhere near that.

    6. Re:Pretty short sighted by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Because nobody would say "have" in that situation, they'd say " 've"

      the word "of" has it's own issues, but one at a time.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    7. Re:Pretty short sighted by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Making it phonetic would actually make it closer to "could af", where does the "o" come from?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Pretty short sighted by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I think "could've" is probably best, both phonetically and conveying what's said, but could of is certainly closer than could av is closer than could af.

      But I guess part of the problem with phonetic spelling is that it's regional...

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    9. Re:Pretty short sighted by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Except people rarely say could have, usually they say could've, and the d-v transition mimics the sound of an intervening o or u. And for whatever weird historically reason, of is pronounced uv.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    10. Re:Pretty short sighted by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      Except people rarely say could have, usually they say could've,

      You might want to get out more. Not everyone lives on the same block you do, and some people are actually literate. Most people do say "could have" round here.

      In the olden days, I ran a BBS (like a blog, but old tech). I had people who spoke no English complaining of spelling mistakes or typos because they literally looked up every single word in the dictionary. I got the message.

      These days, they probably use Google translate, but that is pretty easy to confuse too.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    11. Re:Pretty short sighted by Immerman · · Score: 1

      An interesting mix then - I assume they say could not instead of couldn't as well? And yet I would assume they still manage to understand your usage of round (or, more properly, 'round) rather than around.

      Yes, the specifics of dialect vary wildly within the language, but pretty much everyone understands and uses the standard contraction forms. For could have, that's could've, a homophone of the ungrammatical could of, rather than could'ave, which is just wholly wrong in written English (though I have no doubt some say it that way)

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    12. Re:Pretty short sighted by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Some of us also learned English. And that entails learning proper pronunciation.

      I wouldn't go as far as pretending I know better when to use what past tense than a native speaker, but with some people I would actually dare to...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:Pretty short sighted by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      Sure if you like to waste time. In Northeastern US, people who expand contractions in daily speech are either being pretentious, or hicks.

    14. Re:Pretty short sighted by TroII · · Score: 2

      I assume they say could not instead of

      For the last time, it's "could not instead've!"

      --
      "If there was a gay Afro-Puertorican Linux distribution, I'd give it a try" ~lucm
    15. Re:Pretty short sighted by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except this is another example of how since the IPO they have become just another bloated shitty tech company.

      Before the IPO Google was this great mad scientist of a company, throwing out all these wild ideas and new products and just letting the market see what stuck. I remember before Gmail many said having email as conversations was seriously stupid, that nobody would want to give up the letter formatting they were used to, but Google did it anyway...but that was then, this is now.

      Sadly Google now seems no different than Apple and MSFT, more worried about keeping their position and buying lobbyists to get laws written for them than they are just doing what made Google great which was letting all these smart people come up with cool ideas and seeing what stuck. Maybe its inevitable, once a company grows beyond a certain size or goes public it has to become just another douchebag corp, but its still a shame that Google went from an almost Willy Wonka level of new and strange ideas to rigging search results to protect their political investment.

      Oh and before anybody claims its being hypocritical since the video is on YouTube? Yeah...they demonitized the video so they took the ad revenue on a million hit video and kept it, thus punishing those who dare speak against them...but hey they didn't BAN it right?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. They are doing it wrong by npslider · · Score: 3, Funny

    It did not fail the test. It does not want to or need to brush its teeth.

    1. Re:They are doing it wrong by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      "Toothbrush test" is still a weird name. I suspect the real criterium is "stuff used daily by billions that we can rape six ways from Sunday for data". A toothbrush provides no data. Maybe that smart vibrator is more their market... though that makes for a decidedly worse name for their test.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  3. Why start the project then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If this was a known requirement for googles products why did they start to begin with

    1. Re:Why start the project then? by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Google is a little like 3M in that it's an internal project machine. They fostered a culture of internal innovation that wasn't dependent on deliverable products until a certain critical size is reached. When it gets there it gets evaluated to see if there's value in continuing it.

      Sometimes the answer is yes, sometimes the answer is no.

      I remind you that 3M rejected the idea of the Post-It and didn't fund it internally either, but they did fund the laser disk.

    2. Re:Why start the project then? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      If this was a known requirement for googles products why did they start to begin with

      There are applications for robots that could potentially be sold to billions of people. This just isn't one of them. A household cooking & cleaning robot would be a good product for Google. Warehouse automation robots are not.

  4. Google is S00000000 smart... by downright · · Score: 2

    that they rolled the meter back to 00000000 and now they are dumb again.

    1. Re:Google is S00000000 smart... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      dumb again

      I wish I would be as dumb as Google. I wouldn't even need to laugh to the bank. I could just pay the bank to come to me, and pay someone else to laugh at it when it gets here.

  5. One Size Fits All by ADRA · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Clearly if it has the word Google on it, it must be WEBSCALE!!!

    Really, have an off-brand trade name for products that are niche industries if you've got the stink on for smaller products. Seriously, Google's scorched earth approach for lower performing products has affected my love for the company significantly over the last couple years. I'm VERY leery to try any of their new offerings, which is clearly a self-fulfilling prophesy.

    --
    Bye!
    1. Re:One Size Fits All by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      At one point in time Google (Alphabet) would have rejected the idea of selling computers or software at all, because most people wouldn't be using them on a daily basis. Yet here we are, where computers are pervasive to the point that they're starting to creep into watches and glasses now and phones have been subsumed into the category for the most part.

      If you could sell me a cheap robotic arm that could learn to do some simple* tasks, I'd probably get some for washing dishes and folding laundry. With a little more thinking I'm sure I'd have other uses for them as well if they were capable enough and even if I lack the imagination, someone else might find some good uses that I could emulate were I so inclined.

      If you want to sell something that passes the toothbrush test you've limited your market to commodity items that already exist. At that point it becomes a question as to why you're spending R&D efforts as a company on things that you don't care about when you could be applying those resources to other areas that you are interested in. The company appears to have lost its direction and doesn't have clear leadership or vision, but doesn't really need any so long as their advertising monopoly can support everything else.

      * Simple as in something most humans would consider tedious, mindless chores. I expect that building a robot that can learn how to do those simple tasks is itself no simple task.

  6. Google Glass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So did they think Google Glass would be used by billions of people? LOL!

    1. Re:Google Glass by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Glasses are used by billions of people, so that is the potential market.

    2. Re:Google Glass by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Back in the 90's I remember it being a very hot topic and common knowledge, especially on /., that it was what people wanted. Before smartphones, wearable technology was a BIG THING.

    3. Re:Google Glass by behrooz0az · · Score: 1

      You can use google for "prescription google glass" and see for yourself...

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion. -- Spazmania (174582)
    4. Re:Google Glass by behrooz0az · · Score: 1

      s/use //

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion. -- Spazmania (174582)
  7. Disappointed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am disappointed. From the headline I was expecting that they used the robotic arm to toothbrush someone and then things got funny...

    1. Re:Disappointed by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Clearly everyone needs this arm to brush their teeth for them. Add in shaving and combing and flying cars and we can live like the Jetsons!

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    2. Re:Disappointed by Cattrance · · Score: 1

      Pffffffft! A robot wouldn't user razors, it would use lasers!

  8. If Alphabet doesn't want to do it, sell it off! by Aqualung812 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why wouldn't Alphabet spin off a new company that they have a 40% stake in and let it fly?

    It wouldn't be part of Alphabet, so the rules wouldn't apply.

    If it fails, they can handle a little loss.

    If it is a hit, they can make money from it without holding back on good ideas the world might be able to use.

    --
    Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    1. Re:If Alphabet doesn't want to do it, sell it off! by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Exactly. They wouldn't even need to retain 40%, just sell it completely.

      There'd be IP and potentially licensing complications, but a few million (or tens or hundreds of millions) in cash or stock from a purchaser covers a lot of inconvenience.

      TFA suggests they're looking to spin off Boston Dynamics but that doesn't excuse cancelling the programme. The alleged justification around brand is also nonsense, it's trivial to create a new company and brand, even 100% owned.

      But hey, I don't run a multi-billion dollar company, what do I know..

    2. Re:If Alphabet doesn't want to do it, sell it off! by bigpat · · Score: 2

      Why wouldn't Alphabet spin off a new company that they have a 40% stake in and let it fly?

      It wouldn't be part of Alphabet, so the rules wouldn't apply.

      If it fails, they can handle a little loss.

      If it is a hit, they can make money from it without holding back on good ideas the world might be able to use.

      That is why I clicked on this thread. There should be room in the Alphabet ecosystem to spin off R&D like this into a standalone business or to sell to other companies for further development if there is a viable business plan and a sizable enough market.

      Otherwise they will get stuck in the mindset that befell Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center when it was at the forefront of computing R&D and ended up with other companies actually developing their concepts because the concepts for computing didn't appear to support their core business model. Xerox could have been a major player in the emerging PC market if they had seen their concepts as much more than niche products.

      I agree that it doesn't sound like this particular R&D fit the core Google business model, but if there was an opportunity to advance some area of technology with some promising new approaches and there was a market for the products then why not spin it off or seek outside capital if Alphabet itself didn't want to invest. I understand that even for Google/Alphabet there is a finite amount of capital. And of course they would want to retain key people and key patents so maybe it wouldn't have worked out as a spin off or new venture.

      But if we as a society, as Google customers, are going to put so much capital into Google/Alphabet and put so much hope in their R&D then they really need to be going the extra mile to make sure all their promising tech gets out the door whenever possible and not just what is going to end up selling to a mass market.

  9. Re:failed what? by wile_e_wonka · · Score: 2

    Here, I'll read the article for you. The "toothbrush test" = requirement that the company only ship products used daily by billions of people.

    Oh, what's that you say? I didn't even have to read the article; it's right there in the summary? Next time maybe they should just put the whole summary in the title.

  10. The toothbrush test is idiotic by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There are huge industries built around things that fail the toothbrush test. Does Google not like getting a return on their investments?

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:The toothbrush test is idiotic by SolemnLord · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Google's entire business model is built on massive scale. Small-but-hugely-profitable industries require a completely different approach to dealing with clients and users. If a user is having trouble with, say, their Nest thermostat, Google can log the problem and work on a fix in their own time. If an industrial client is having trouble with a robot arm, Google would be expected to be dedicating resources to that specific arm within twenty-four hours, if not sooner.

    2. Re:The toothbrush test is idiotic by SolemnLord · · Score: 2

      I think Google could absolutely build industrial robotics that's at least as good as what's currently out there. I don't think Google wants to build the support system that such products would require. It's a massive commitment that would demand a pivot from how Google typically deals with customers and manufactures products. Nest and Google Home is not even close.

      It's not that they couldn't- especially since the structure of Alphabet is perfect for it- but the company seems very hesitant to branch out in ways that are fundamentally at odds with the current model.

    3. Re:The toothbrush test is idiotic by coldsalmon · · Score: 1

      They can always sell the design to a different company with expertise in this type of market.

      Also, I initially imagined the "toothbrush test" as a requirement that robotic arms be able to brush someone's teeth autonomously.

    4. Re:The toothbrush test is idiotic by esonik · · Score: 2

      That's entirely correct. There are other implications when selling machinery, i.e. capital goods: the individual client has much more power over the manufacturer. A toothbrush consumer represents only one-billionth of your revenue and has virtually no power over the manufacturer. A capital goods customer can represent several percent of your revenue - in some industries several ten percent. That is on the order of the operating profit, i.e one customer can influence a lot the economic outcome.
      To deal with such customers you need not only to have a very good product, but also very good sales people (key account managers) and a very responsive field service, both of which are expensive to have. You cannot afford to have a homepage with no email to write to or no phone number to call.

  11. Re:failed what? by TroII · · Score: 1

    It says right there in the summary: "a requirement that the company only ship products used daily by billions of people." Billions of people don't use robotic arms every day, nor are they likely to start anytime soon.

    On the bright side, at least the robot didn't have to pass the breakfast test.

    --
    "If there was a gay Afro-Puertorican Linux distribution, I'd give it a try" ~lucm
  12. Pixel by dumfrac · · Score: 1

    I doubt that the new Pixel phones will be used by billions of people daily. Who knows, though.

    1. Re:Pixel by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Google would probably argue the Android OS is the "product" in this case, and since it is already on billions of phones used every day it meets the test.

  13. Thought they were going a different way with that by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    When I saw the phrase "robot arm" in conjunction with "toothbrush test", I had horrible visions of mangled faces from the various trials where the powerful robot arms went out of control during delicate teeth-cleaning operations were in progress.... *shudder*

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  14. Hooli beat them to it by thalakan · · Score: 1

    This scene with the monkey arm in Silicon Valley is uncannily precedent. I can't believe no one has mentioned this yet:

    https://youtu.be/1KaWPYOLuT8

    --
    -- thalakan
    1. Re:Hooli beat them to it by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Did you mean prescient?

    2. Re:Hooli beat them to it by just+another+AC · · Score: 1

      It was prescient to know that his mistake would be pointed out, this being Slashdot

  15. Re:Thought they were going a different way with th by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    I envisioned the exact same scenario. I hoped no-one was tempted to ask the robot for a handjob.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  16. Re:Got teeth? by maliqua · · Score: 1

    until i read the summary i envisioned it fumbling to pick up a toothbrush that it dropped endlessly

  17. Re:Thought they were going a different way with th by mugurel · · Score: 1

    same here, it reminded me of this: https://youtu.be/n_1apYo6-Ow?t...

  18. The toothbrush test? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

    used daily by billions of people

    Uh ... I can think of something that billions of people "use" daily. And that, plus a robotic arm, equals Internet Rule 34.

    'Scuse me, I'm going to brush my teeth.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    1. Re:The toothbrush test? by SolemnLord · · Score: 1

      Life imitating the THX 1138 director's cut? Now you've gone too far.

  19. Alternative by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    I don't need a bot to brush my teeth, I have it done
    by bigfoot.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  20. Re:failed what? by bobbied · · Score: 1

    What the fuck is a toothbrush test?

    Toothbrushes are needed by everybody alive and they wear out frequently so you have to buy multiple toothbrushes over time.

    The toothbrush test is basically about how many of the developed item can/will you be able to sell?

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  21. So it's toothbrushes? by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Not hotcakes like it was in my day?

    Get off my lawn...

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  22. Even worse than that by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    It didn't floss

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  23. That's a relief... by BoogieChile · · Score: 1

    For a moment there, I had a horrible premonition

  24. This kind of project is not for making products.. by Z80a · · Score: 1

    But rather for creating parts you use in products.
    Basically they have to squander all they got from it, do a few more of those, and then assemble all into something that can be sold.

  25. Re:failed what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    if he isn't even going to read the summary we should just make something more interesting up.

    such as...

    it means that the robot arm couldn't be taught to brush it's own teeth so they decided they can't sell it because they didn't think the customer would properly care for the robots teeth.