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

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.

Comments

They are doing it wrong

[npslider]

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

Re:They are doing it wrong

[JaredOfEuropa]

"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.

Why start the project then?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Why start the project then?

[thegarbz]

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.

Re:Why start the project then?

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Google is S00000000 smart...

[downright]

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

One Size Fits All

[ADRA]

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.

Disappointed

[Anonymous Coward]

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

If Alphabet doesn't want to do it, sell it off!

[Aqualung812]

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.

Re:If Alphabet doesn't want to do it, sell it off!

[bigpat]

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.

Re:Pretty short sighted

[wile_e_wonka]

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.

Re:failed what?

[wile_e_wonka]

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.

The toothbrush test is idiotic

[GameboyRMH]

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

Re:The toothbrush test is idiotic

[SolemnLord]

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.

Re:The toothbrush test is idiotic

[SolemnLord]

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.

Re:The toothbrush test is idiotic

[esonik]

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.

Thought they were going a different way with that

[SuperKendall]

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*

The toothbrush test?

[ClickOnThis]

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.

Re:Pretty short sighted

[TroII]

I assume they say could not instead of

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

Re:Pretty short sighted

[hairyfeet]

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?