Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Robot Pioneer Rethink Shuts Down (bostonglobe.com)

Posted by msmash on from the end-of-an-era dept.

Rethink Robotics led the way in building robots that could work safely alongside humans. But when it came to selling those robots, Boston-based Rethink came up second best. On Wednesday, without warning, Rethink shut its doors, after a deal to acquire the company fell through. From a report: "We thought that we had a deal that we were going to be able to close," said Rethink chief executive Scott Eckert. But the buyer backed out. Eckert declined to identify the company that had broken off the acquisition. Eckert said Rethink ran low on cash as sales of the company's Baxter and Sawyer robots fell short of expectations. "We got out a little early with a very, very innovative product, and unfortunately did not get the commercial success that we expected to get," he said. Rethink was a pioneer in developing collaborative robots, or "cobots," which are designed to work side-by-side with humans. Their software makes them easy to program, even by workers with no training in robotics, and they come with sensors and software to prevent them from accidentally harming nearby humans.

30 comments

  1. Stale... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was news 2 days ago... not only has it gone stale, there is mold growing on it already.

    1. Re: Stale... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like they were doing the opposite of everything they should have been doing.

  2. Rethink this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    deez NUTZ

  3. shutdown -h now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm...

  4. They're Rethinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're rethinking their business plan.

    1. Re:They're Rethinking by Desler · · Score: 1

      True. Bankruptcy is sometimes the only workable business plan.

    2. Re:They're Rethinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True. Bankruptcy is sometimes the only workable business plan.

      Or proof you never had a workable business plan in the first place.

    3. Re: They're Rethinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone was considering an acquisition. If you know the only other alternative is bankruptcy what acquisition price do you ask?

    4. Re: They're Rethinking by Desler · · Score: 1

      A couple of magic beans?

  5. Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Robots took there jerbs haha lol

  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  7. Don't like the eyes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't like the 'face' that is shown on their robots' screen. Looks childish and unprofessional. Could be why not many businesses were interested in their products.

    1. Re:Don't like the eyes by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well just to play devil's advocate, it's not just about marketing, like slapping tail fins and chrome on a car. Facial expressions are one of the few communication systems that are universal across human cultures. That's obviously not true of language and writing, but gestures too are purely arbitrary in their meaning.

      The communication you can do with a simulated face is clearly very limited, but potentially useful in certain situations (e.g. where danger is involved).

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  8. Founded in 2008 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How can a company founded in 2008 possibly have been a pioneer in a field that was many decades old by then?

    1. Re:Founded in 2008 by Desler · · Score: 1

      Because every company is "best in class" or "world reknowned" or the "industry leader" in their field. It's just typical PR fluff.

    2. Re: Founded in 2008 by anegg · · Score: 2

      One of the principals in the company, Dr. Rodney Brooks, did pioneering work in robotics at MIT quite a while ago (the subsumption architecture). That approach today has morphed into behavior-based robotics. The Baxter robot was designed to operate safely in close proximity to humans, another pioneering aspect. Most industrial robots operate in "cells" where human presence is prohibited for safety reasons. Putting "real" robots in close proximity to humans still has significant risks ("real" isn't necessarily the right term, but it is the best I can do while typing on a mobile's keypad).

    3. Re:Founded in 2008 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, but this one is too far fetched to be even slightly credible. Moreover, it's a newspaper that makes the claim, not the company itself.

    4. Re: Founded in 2008 by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      It's actually pretty simple. If people are stronger than the robot, the robot doesn't have to be in a safety cage.

      Obviously not true if the robot is wielding a chainsaw or anything else dangerous.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re: Founded in 2008 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's actually pretty simple. If people are stronger than the robot, the robot doesn't have to be in a safety cage.

      Obviously not true if the robot is wielding a chainsaw or anything else dangerous.

      What about the robot's safety?

      Humans heal, robots don't.

    6. Re: Founded in 2008 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the principals in the company, Dr. Rodney Brooks, did pioneering work in robotics at MIT quite a while ago (the subsumption architecture). That approach today has morphed into behavior-based robotics. The Baxter robot was designed to operate safely in close proximity to humans, another pioneering aspect. Most industrial robots operate in "cells" where human presence is prohibited for safety reasons. Putting "real" robots in close proximity to humans still has significant risks ("real" isn't necessarily the right term, but it is the best I can do while typing on a mobile's keypad).

      Plenty of companies who have a renowned professor associated with them in some manner. Have worked in a couple of them.

      They are zero engaged in anything related to the company. It's another PR stunt.

    7. Re: Founded in 2008 by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Normally you want to use a robot (or some other form of automation) because it is strong than a human or several dozens of them.

    8. Re: Founded in 2008 by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      More precise, more consistent.

      If a human can push it back, it's unlikely to hurt them.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re: Founded in 2008 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Generally true. They get equity in exchange for the right to use their name and picture. Often time some former student of theirs is involved in the company.

    10. Re: Founded in 2008 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey Bob, why is that robot with the leather mask on still working? Didn't you tell all the robot chainsaw workers the plant was shutting down? Go tell that retard to put down the chainsaw and get out of here!

  9. Revenue problem or Fat Startup? by DidgetMaster · · Score: 1

    Startups usually fail for one of two reasons. Either they were trying to grow organically and were never able to generate enough revenue to sustain the company; or they got a wad of cash from venture capitalists and they burned through it too fast. The country is full of startups that got $10M+ in cash but burned through it quickly because they were spending like drunken sailors. Executives with fat salaries and expense accounts. Plush offices and tons of perks. Expensive marketing events that try to create 'buzz' before the product is even ready to sell. These kinds of things can sink a company really quickly.

  10. What failed? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    Wow, I thought that Baxter robot was going to take over a lot of jobs. They advertised it as being cheaper than a minimum wage employee... was that fudged a bit? I could easily see if setup and programming the thing was way more complicated and involved than they claimed.

  11. Good Riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't need no robots taking over anyone's job.

  12. Robots never sell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My Dad, a retired Electrical Engineer, worked many contracts throughout the 70's and 80's in Silicon Valley where he designed the power systems of robots.

    They all came to the same ending:
    -The company would go public and start issuing stock to raise capital for their amazing robot idea
    -Contractors would be brought in to design and build the damn things but would be paid little and given large stock options instead with a strict vestment period
    -Prototypes would get built
    -Prototypes would be demonstrated at large industry events
    -Payments would start rolling in from companies wanting to secure pre-orders
    -A few days before stocks were going to vest, the founders would take all the money and flee the country
    -Investigations would follow and would always find the founders had been spending company funds on lavish trips and gifts for their mistresses and occasionally their wives and families

    Not a single one had any intention of running a successful company.

    1. Re:Robots never sell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool story, bro.

    2. Re:Robots never sell by vlad30 · · Score: 1
      That is true of many startups not just robotics occasionally you will see them on places like shark tank germ of an idea partially built with the help of low paid, if paid at all "friends", They look for a big payday on the stocks hoping someone will be gullible enough to invest.

      In the past they relied on pre-orders now they just go for the IPO, or crowd funding sites. The thing to look for is how much of their own money and time went into it.

      This guy on the other hand relied on a sale to china a country where people are cheaper than a robots running costs most of the time and a country known for promising to buy and not going through to either screw the price down or once they have your sample copy it, and occasionally these days offer to buy you out, go figure after the lost sales you will be a lot cheaper.

      --
      Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you