[HN Gopher] Hyundai acquires controlling stake in Boston Dynamic...
___________________________________________________________________
Hyundai acquires controlling stake in Boston Dynamics for $880M
Author : sidcool
Score : 357 points
Date : 2021-06-22 04:40 UTC (18 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (finbold.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (finbold.com)
| ineedasername wrote:
| For years they made the news with bots that seemed to have direct
| defense/militaristic use.
|
| Not too long ago, or at least the last time I remember them
| hitting my news streams, was when they demonstrated a bot capable
| of handling moderately complex warehouse tasks.
|
| If my reading of this sequence of events is correct, it is
| probably no coincidence that foreign investment came in after
| applications shifted from tactical militaristic use that would
| likely be restricted to the US & allies, and now also includes
| applications more generally applicable to uses outside of
| warfare.
|
| It seems that military applications may be compelling, but
| plowshares are more economically interesting.
| Judgmentality wrote:
| That's not what happened. The military flat out rejected their
| robots for being too big, too loud, and too slow. So they
| pivoted to try to find a new customer.
| ineedasername wrote:
| I think my comment generally still holds: after their pivot
| they received more commercial interest.
|
| But no, I wasn't aware that they had failed to keep military
| interest, thank you.
| kingsuper20 wrote:
| I'm surprised it wasn't Amazon buying them. There's bound to be
| more than a few people that steal from their warehouses.
| ManuelKiessling wrote:
| And a fricking messenger app sold for $21.8 billion.
| Unbelievable.
| jokoon wrote:
| Being able to do sentiment analysis on all the consumers of the
| world is a goldmine for revenue. Marketing doesn't have a good
| reputation, but information is power.
| analognoise wrote:
| Real stuff isn't highly valued.
| macspoofing wrote:
| To be fair, nobody was under any illusion that this valuation
| had anything to do with the technology WhatsApp developed. Any
| half competent team could recreate WhatsApp. The price was for
| 1 billion active users. That's a little harder to get.
| didip wrote:
| When you look at how scared Facebook was of WhatsApp and
| combined that with FB market cap... $22 billion makes so much
| sense.
| mrweasel wrote:
| Normally tech companies tend to be overpriced, but $880M for 80%
| of Boston Dynamics (total value of $1.1 billion), doesn't that
| seem a little low?
|
| Other tech companies can seemingly lose millions, as long as
| there's an advertising or data-mining angle to the product.
| Because Boston Dynamics aim to actually create physical products
| they then get valued lower?
| unabridged wrote:
| This is an extremely low valuation for how famous BD is. They
| could have gone public and sold 10-20% of their stock for $1B.
| qeternity wrote:
| It's the same issue faced by other "moonshot" R&D enterprises
| like DeepMind. They burn tremendous amounts of cash, and as
| other comments have noted, the path to profit is unlikely to be
| a direct path through their core competency, whether that be
| general purpose robotics or AGI.
|
| DeepMind's greatest commercial achievement seems to have been
| around optimizing energy usage in Google's datacenters, which
| as a standalone product would have a relatively small
| addressable market. The progress that BD has made is likely
| similar: immediately valuable to a small number of players,
| even if the long term winds up being something far more grand.
| balfirevic wrote:
| > Normally tech companies tend to be overpriced
|
| According to what criteria?
| jsight wrote:
| Based on profits at the date of valuation. Its a useless way
| to value companies, but that's basically always what this
| comment means.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| The research they've done is undeniably awesome, but valuations
| aren't based on awesomeness, they're based on ability to make
| money. So far, Boston Dynamics hasn't done much there. There's
| potential to make a lot of money, but that's far off.
| saalweachter wrote:
| Does this come down to the unit costs?
|
| Your typical tech unicorn can at least tell a story of tens or
| hundreds of millions of potential customers (either paying or
| eyeball-monetized) with a unit cost of pennies per customers.
|
| Boston Dynamics story is still "each robot costs tens or
| hundreds of thousands of dollars" and "almost no one has a use
| for one".
|
| Honestly I'm not sure there's a story for a profitable market
| for humanoid robots until your robots are sophisticated enough
| to build themselves.
| eric4smith wrote:
| I doubt they want BD for the products they're making. They want
| BD for all the hundreds of tiny little innovations they're
| making.
|
| For example, a motor that has more torque with low power
| consumption.
|
| A joint that can flex a certain way.
|
| All those things are worth $100000000x more than a robotic Spot
| when it comes to industrial applications.
| yarg wrote:
| Why leave the word "controlling" out of the title?
| sammyaxe wrote:
| I believe that word is in the title
| yarg wrote:
| It is now; it was left out of the submission title despite
| being part of the article's.
| elliekelly wrote:
| The headline definitely downplays Hyundai's involvement:
|
| > The deal will involve Hyundai and its affiliates, including
| Hyundai Motor Co., Hyundai Mobis Co., and Hyundai Glovis Co.
|
| > Hyundai Motor, Hyundai Mobis, Hyundai Glovis, and Hyundai
| Motor Group Chairman Chung Euisun will have 30%, 20%, 10%, and
| 20% share respectively.
|
| It's been a while since I've had to think about consolidated
| financial reporting for subsidiaries and -- if anyone happens
| to know -- I'd be curious to understand how (or whether) these
| ownership tranches will make it onto Hyundai Parent Co's
| financial statements?
| ufmace wrote:
| Hyundai's interests are broad enough that I really wonder what
| they intend to do with it. Are they just going to do factory
| helper robots that are super-specialized and we'll never see? Or
| will they actually commercially sell some version of these types
| of robots?
| MichaelMoser123 wrote:
| i thought that boston dynamics were a former DOD contractor, did
| this cause any problems with the authorization of the sale? (here
| it says that they got a lot of initial DARPA funding
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Dynamics )
| numair wrote:
| We just sold South Korea a bunch of actual weapons so I don't
| think these could-be weapons are going to attract too much
| controversy. And if you think there's some _actual_ weaponry
| among the could-be weapons technology, well... Take a look
| around the neighborhood. Maybe that's the point?
|
| (I don't think this is true; I am of the belief that the hidden
| secret within most companies, regardless of size or industry,
| is that they're way more boring and way less sophisticated than
| they would like to appear.)
| hoseja wrote:
| Sell a man a fish, he'll come back hungry tomorrow. Teach him
| how to fish, you just lost a customer.
|
| edit: Karl Marx came up with it first it seems haha. I swear
| I didn't know!
| wombatpm wrote:
| I prefer the darker version. Give a man a fire and he'll be
| warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for
| the rest of his life.
| davidkuhta wrote:
| Tenet would beg to differ.
| smhost wrote:
| > Take a look around the neighborhood. Maybe that's the
| point?
|
| Probably not, since South Korea maintains pretty good
| relations with its neighbors. South Korea (as well as the
| rest of the world) doesn't see the U.S. anymore as a rational
| partner, but as something to be managed with caution. North
| Korea is unironically seen as a more predictable and reliable
| enemy than the U.S. is seen as a reliable ally. Nobody is
| happy about this, but that's the reality.
| jgilias wrote:
| Are you actually from South Korea to be able to comment on
| what the South Korean perception on their neighborhood is?
| Like, this is a no offense intended genuine question.
|
| Because from an outside perspective the neighborhood really
| looks challenging. China is growing stronger and throws
| muscle around a lot with diplomatic rows ensuing even over
| traditional ways of cabbage preparation. Relationships with
| Japan are cordial at best due to WWII legacy. North Korea
| seems to be a pretty big liability.
| xpressvideoz wrote:
| As a South Korean, I can share some perspective. There
| has always been pro-American and anti-American atmosphere
| in South Korea. Recently, the scale seems to be more and
| more skewed towards the United States. We're definitely
| not in favor of North Korea, and even regarding China,
| more and more South Korean are seeing them as a threat
| rather than a partner. We don't _love_ the US either, but
| when faced to choose between the US and China, most
| Korean would choose the US. I guess the GP was just salty
| about the Trump administration.
| smhost wrote:
| The South Korean position locally is actually not that
| challenging in a particular sense, despite typical media
| exaggerations. It's almost straightforward. SK has strong
| economic and cultural ties to its neighbors that can be
| accessed to stabilize relations if needed. North Korea is
| not really a liability in itself. KJU has been acting
| consistently towards opening up the North Korean economy
| on NK's own terms, which would benefit both nations
| tremendously. Those kinds of attempts are being
| stonewalled by Biden, and that's causing the U.S. to lose
| favor even among some pro-Americanists. As for the kimchi
| problem, I don't know what to say. That's the same kind
| of bickering as when France tells people to stop labeling
| things as champagne. I understand that those things can
| get brutal, but it's nothing world-changing. Beneath the
| headlines, South Korea has been quietly strengthening
| relations with China, because South Korea is not
| suicidal. The groundwork has to be laid today for the
| eventuality of a Chinese economy that is at least twice
| the strength of the U.S. economy. But even without China,
| at some point people are going to have to learn to live
| in a way that isn't dictated by the fears of the American
| empire.
| jgilias wrote:
| I don't believe the least bit that there are more than a
| few people in South Korea who believe that they are
| living 'in a way dictated by fears of the American
| empire'.
|
| I say this as someone living in a region where the 'local
| neighborhood' also has its challenges in the form of a
| wannabe world power local authoritarian hegemon.
| Alliances, including the one with the US, are seen as
| paramount for security and long-term sovereignty. If that
| also fulfills some US strategic interests, so be it. The
| alternative is dreadful.
| smhost wrote:
| I think you're misunderstanding. Learning not to live
| according to the fears of the American Empire doesn't
| mean learning to be opposed to the American people or to
| break alliances. If anything, it should our job to
| lecture Americans on what is and is not appropriate fears
| to have.
| darkerside wrote:
| South Korea has been a stalwart US ally for many years.
| While you're right that relations with NK and China have
| softened, and calling them challenging is probably an
| overestimation, the US is far from a bit player in the
| region.
|
| Like any democracy, you have continents of folks that
| want to cozy up to China, and others that trust the
| history of their relationships with the US and Japan.
| smhost wrote:
| South Korea has been less of an ally than it has been a
| client state of the U.S. "Ally" implies some degree of
| autonomy for both parties. South Korea has never really
| had the opportunity to act for itself, and when it has,
| it has received cold and rather tonedeaf responses from
| the U.S. (just look at the recent visit by Moon to the
| U.S.). That's not at all to say that the SK-US relation
| is inauthentic; there's definitely something genuine
| there. But that authenticity doesn't to seem recognized
| by the current administration. Biden seems to want to
| keep South Korea as the client state that it has always
| been despite (what seems to me) to be reasonable demands
| of sovereignty.
| MichaelMoser123 wrote:
| don't know. here it says that Spot was tested by the french
| army in combat roles
| https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/7/22371590/boston-
| dynamics-s...
| crsv wrote:
| I think it's quite the loss for the US to allow a foreign company
| to gain controlling interest in such a cutting edge firm. Some of
| what they've built I'd have to imagine could be of very real
| national interest as it relates to any of the military
| applications.
| justicezyx wrote:
| Good move.
|
| I think the next step of mobility is a mobile robot. The cars of
| the future should be a central hub for move people between
| places, but able to do a lot more through physical manipulation,
| instead of becoming a enlarged mobile information terminal.
|
| Thus, developing cars as robots are going to be more useful in
| that future.
|
| I personally will invest time in building products that are
| mobility robots, not cars with giant screen.
| powerapple wrote:
| A car can take you to work and instead of waiting in carpark,
| it can help you do stuff, that would be awesome XD
| mrweasel wrote:
| I just want my car to drive itself to service checks, when
| I'm at work. Save all that trouble of having to gamble that
| they have a car you can use, or there's a bus route that
| won't take you an hour back and forth.
|
| Self-driving done right could save me from having two cars.
| It could take me to work, drive back home, pickup the wife,
| drive her to work. Go back and pick me up in the afternoon,
| drop me of at home and the drive back to get the wife.
| prawn wrote:
| This made me think of something I hadn't considered before
| - whether we'll first see automated driving, but only when
| the vehicle is empty. e.g., you drive yourself somewhere,
| then the vehicle moves on to another job. If the vehicle is
| privately owned, it would park or drive home for your wife
| to use. If part of a fleet, it would just drive on to the
| next request.
|
| Cars in that mode could be constrained to a less dangerous
| speed to limit damage in an accident. I don't want to drive
| to work at 20km/h, but once I'm out of the car, I don't
| really care how slowly it goes.
|
| Of course, it wouldn't necessarily work to combine too
| broadly differing speeds on the same roads. But it would
| remove a bit of the "I'm not putting on my VR goggles to do
| work and trusting this car to drive to the office" fear.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _I don 't want to drive to work at 20km/h, but once I'm
| out of the car, I don't really care how slowly it goes._
|
| The other people on the road trying to get to work
| probably do.
| slavik81 wrote:
| A basic form of low-speed self-driving would be automated
| valet parking. Drop people off or pick them up at the
| entrance, then go park far away.
|
| If there was a common communication standard, the
| vehicles could also park much more tightly than is done
| in a normal parking lot. You don't need to keep empty
| space behind each car when you can coordinate the parked
| cars to move and clear a path. My guess is that you could
| park almost twice as many cars in the same space.
|
| The combination of reducing parking lot size and freeing
| people from walking to/from the lot would open up many
| interesting options for increasing density and
| walkability in commercial areas.
| jahller wrote:
| this would be the best usage for what we consider cars
| imaginable. also would negate the need to personally own a
| car. just order one from a fleet of autonomous cars if you
| are in need of mobility.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _just order one from a fleet of autonomous cars if you
| are in need of mobility._
|
| I find it confusing that one reason the tech crowd
| cheered on Uber's success was because taxis were often
| filthy and poorly maintained. But autonomous car fleets
| won't be?
| mrweasel wrote:
| Ideally yes, but there's a lot of hurdles to overcome.
| For many it would work just fine, but for other there's
| going to be minor details that makes it work less well.
|
| Firstly we need to spread out peoples work day. We can't
| all be at the office a 8:00, and go home at 16:00. it
| wouldn't make economical sense in have a fleet large
| enough to handle peak hours, but have the cars do nothing
| most of the day.
|
| There's also details like: I would like a car to pick me
| up at 15:45, and drive me to the kindergarten, and that
| car MUST have a seat for a three year old (but not a seat
| of brand X, Y, or Z, because they're to small). Or I need
| a car with a trailer, or a truck, because I'm moving
| 500kg of dirt to the recycling station.
|
| Most people shop around for cars and pick very specific
| cars that fit their needs. So renting for a fleet of cars
| also need a rather large variety and flexibility in
| allowed usage.
|
| I believe that many would still want to buy their own
| cars, even if it's self-driving, to ensure it's available
| when they need it, and that it fulfil their specific
| needs.
|
| If we didn't have all these specific needs, most of us
| could just take the bus, which in turn would make it
| feasible to have all the bus routes people would need.
| gilbertbw wrote:
| > it wouldn't make economical sense in have a fleet large
| enough to handle peak hours, but have the cars do nothing
| most of the day.
|
| But that's the current state of the world.
|
| Even if you have enough cars to meet peak demand you will
| have an efficiency saving (at least where I live you see
| a lot of cars in driveways during rush hour traffic).
|
| That said I agree that for a lot of people their car is
| an extension of their home, they'll keep the golf clubs
| and a coat in the boot etc. But for the 80% case of just
| carrying a rucksack to and from work there is a massive
| efficiency improvement to be had.
| mrweasel wrote:
| > But that's the current state of the world.
|
| True, but the difference is who's carrying the financial
| risk of the buying the car. Right now it's the individual
| consumers, who are mostly forced to do so, because better
| alternatives are not available.
|
| Leasing companies would never buy a fleet of cars that
| would sit mostly unused. Their cars needs to be on the
| road most of the time.
|
| This puts us back in Uber vs. taxis. Uber works because
| (depending on area and regulation) there cannot be
| sufficient taxis to handle peak demands, that wouldn't be
| financially sound for the taxi companies. Uber tries to
| fix this, by taping into idle cars in the driveways. A
| company that maintains a fleet of cars that you can just
| order on-demand, would always have to few cars for rush
| hour.
| 88 wrote:
| The market solves these problems so we don't have to.
|
| It is extremely common for markets to face bursts in
| demand at peak times, and yet somehow we always find a
| sustainable equilibrium.
| maxerickson wrote:
| The fleet would be sized to whatever was profitable. If
| people were willing to pay more at rush hour, there would
| be some capacity to capture that demand.
|
| Thinking through what it costs me to own a car, I'm going
| to carefully do the math if they price my trip into the
| office at more than about $5 (it's a short drive). That's
| probably the bigger problem.
| jahller wrote:
| > True, but the difference is who's carrying the
| financial risk of the buying the car. Right now it's the
| individual consumers, who are mostly forced to do so,
| because better alternatives are not available.
|
| car-sharing already exists on a large scale in German
| capitals. you can park and pickup cars from e.g. Sixt or
| Share Now everywhere within a marked area. the business
| model for owning and maintaining a big fleet is already
| there.
| 88 wrote:
| > it wouldn't make economical sense in have a fleet large
| enough to handle peak hours
|
| Supply and demand with dynamic pricing will sort that
| out.
|
| Consider also that autonomous vehicles could make much
| more efficient use of existing road capacity.
|
| > If we didn't have all these specific needs, most of us
| could just take the bus
|
| Buses do not take you directly to your preferred
| location, without stopping, with your own private space,
| etc.
| [deleted]
| blackoil wrote:
| Autobots, collect the grocery and parcel.
| thingsgoup wrote:
| Riding a robot horse could be fun! Such a thing would likely
| have an easier time navigating complicated terrain than any
| vehicle with wheels.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Almost as fun as riding a real horse and only several
| thousand times more expensive!
| justicezyx wrote:
| 4 pods shelled tank in ghost in the shell! The most
| impressive design I know of from any entertainment piece.
| Shadonototro wrote:
| korea taking over USA, hahaha that's funny, America really is
| dying
| eric4smith wrote:
| These are one of the few times I can say that I don't care if
| Boston Dynamics are making money as yet.
|
| Boston Dynamics are one of the few real serious players in the
| robotics space worldwide doing deep R&D.
|
| Hyundai are basically paying for the BD Labs research. And they
| are well positioned to reap the products and techniques from the
| lab with their own manufacturing and engineering prowess and
| experience over the next decade.
|
| And it won't be walking dogs.
|
| It will be things like a little flexi-joint in a car that you buy
| without knowing (or caring) it's in there. Or some industrial
| machine that Hyundai builds that gives them a 5% competitive edge
| in the manufacturing of it that 99.9999% of us never hear about.
|
| But for that it's worth it.
|
| Very happy to see people put good money into this Lab.
| nine_k wrote:
| The key competence of BD is locomotion on legs. There are
| plenty of other companies that make stationary industrial
| robots, and a few who make wheeled robots.
|
| But there are still a number of areas where wheeled robots are
| at a disadvantage: inspection of complex industrial
| installations (like complex pipework and other hard-to-reach
| areas), firefighting and rescue operations, well, even delivery
| in places with steps and stairways.
|
| Korea is more technophilic than USA, and Hyundai is well-
| connected. They may find a more ready market for such products.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| There are plenty of patents along the way to get to
| locomotion on legs that have uses that don't necessarily need
| to be applied in that manner. Hyundai gets all of those too.
| hkmurakami wrote:
| I imagine Hyundai Motors has loose informal connections and
| regular collaborative efforts with other former Hyundai Group
| companies, including Hyundai Heavy Industries and Hyundai
| Robotics, so hopefully there'll be some smooth expertise
| sharing there.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai_Group
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai_Heavy_Industries
|
| https://www.hyundai-robotics.com/english/
| NoImmatureAdHom wrote:
| Hyundai is one of South Korea's market-dominating cartels,
| the chaebol: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaebol
|
| "regular collaborative efforts" is an understatement.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| Automatic plugs for electric cars would be a welcome update,
| like getting your gas pumped in Jersey
| nitin_flanker wrote:
| Hyundai has it's own Robotic labs too. They have plenty of
| reasons to invest in Boston Dynamics, apart from just car
| parts.
|
| In addition, Robots manufacturing cars or car parts, improving
| their own robotic products could be another reason behind this.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Great for Hyundai. Not such a good ROI for the taxpayers who
| kept BD afloat with decades of DARPA funding.
| thebiss wrote:
| I don't know where to even look for this, but it would be
| interesting to see if the DARPA investment bought them a
| perpetual, irrevocable license to technologies they funded.
| chickenmonkey wrote:
| I think their investment in DARPA has a positive externality
| for society. If we account for this externality, perhaps
| taxpayers enjoy a positive ROI?
| fny wrote:
| I think people are missing the point of this comment. The US
| invested heavily in BD, and now BD is being incorporated into
| a South Korean company rather than a US company.
|
| I presume this is mostly because US manufacturing industry is
| relatively dead so capex for potential automation gains don't
| make sense for US firms.
| echelon wrote:
| > US manufacturing industry is relatively dead
|
| Here's where we need to be spending our tax money. We
| should be buying overseas firms and onshoring manufacture.
| nine_k wrote:
| The legal landscape in the U.S. may be harder to
| navigate, labor laws more strict, and salaries
| necessarily higher. This all makes it hard for U.S.
| manufacturing to compete on production of commodities.
|
| Like many of the EU industries, viable U.S. industries
| tends to produce and export unique things with relatively
| small physical volume: complex chips, complex chemical
| compounds (like medicines), precision mechanics, high-
| performance agricultural equipment, aircraft, spacecraft,
| etc. Of course the U.S. does produce higher-volume
| things, too, from cars to foods to fuels, but these are
| more for domestic consumption, and often face competition
| from imported goods even domestically.
| swagasaurus-rex wrote:
| Not to mention land prices mean salaries need to be
| higher for the workers to afford rent/mortgages,
| facilities more expensive, higher property taxes, even
| ancillary purchases are more expensive.
| echelon wrote:
| What if we opened up immigration and built factories in
| middle America?
|
| Provide path to citizenship and education opportunities
| for children of immigrants, but host all manufacturing
| domestically at rates comparable to overseas facilities.
| Beat them on opportunity and subsidize workplace safety
| and vacation.
|
| Provide tax incentives or transferable/sellable credits.
| We could even federally purchase the land and provide no-
| cost ground lease.
|
| Dollars to dollars, this would make way more sense than
| extending Amtrak. It'd also stop population decline and
| create a next generation of American consumer.
| derriz wrote:
| The perception that US manufacturing is dead is mostly just
| perception, if you look at the actual numbers.
|
| Before the big dip caused by covid, the value of US
| manufacturing output had never been higher. [1]
|
| Even in inflation adjusted/real value terms, US
| manufacturing output is 50% higher today than it was 30
| years ago.
|
| My guess is that the perception is cause by a few factors:
|
| - fewer people are employed in manufacturing than were in
| the past because of improved manufacturing
| technology/productivity
|
| - other sectors of the US economy have grown at a faster
| rate than manufacturing (tech for example) which means
| manufacturing represents a smaller share of a bigger pie
|
| - the US is no longer number 1 in the world as China
| surpassed the US about 10 years ago. But the US still
| manufactures more than Germany, Japan and South Korea
| combined, for example.
|
| [1] https://www.nam.org/state-manufacturing-
| data/2020-united-sta...
| tooltalk wrote:
| It's just too bad that the DARPA couldn't flip it like
| Softbank did in just a few years.
| echelon wrote:
| They first sold it to a US company without a vision
| (Google).
|
| If Google can't figure out how to get a messaging app
| right, there's no way they can make sense of this purchase.
| JohnWhigham wrote:
| Not everything DARPA does is going to be a hit. Don't forget
| they're responsible for virtually all of the funding that
| helped build the myriad technologies that comprise the
| Internet.
| bongoman37 wrote:
| DARPA funding is actually supposed to fail at a reasonably
| high rate. If they succeed a lot it means they are not
| taking big enough bets.
| gmadsen wrote:
| DARPA basically started the self driving industry
| judgardner wrote:
| Assess the DARPA funding as a portfolio.
| ErikVandeWater wrote:
| Is that even possible? I imagine lots of, if not the
| majority of what DARPA does is classified.
| noir_lord wrote:
| Agreed - one of the benefits of DARPA is they fund long-
| shots which once proven viable (or not) are then
| commercially developed.
|
| This is a good outcome, the money wasn't 'wasted' since it
| spurred development in a particular area of interest to
| DARPA - advanced robotics.
| blamazon wrote:
| "DARPA Awards Moderna Therapeutics a Grant for up to $25
| Million to Develop Messenger RNA Therapeutics" (2013)
|
| https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-
| release-d...
| vibrio wrote:
| I believe DARPA is a national treasure, and has driven a
| ton of otherwise neglected innovation, but let's not
| overstate their contribution to Moderna. For exsmple,
| AstraZeneca did a deal with Moderna including a $240MM
| upfront to another $180MM for potential milestones six
| months before the DARPA money. That is all on top of a
| pile of venture money and other corporate deals over
| those few years. The value of the DARPA $25MM wasn't the
| money per se, it was the incentive for Moderna to keep a
| toe in infectious disease, which was a hobby for them
| (and the industry) at best before COVID. I believe the
| platform would have been established with or without the
| DARPA money.
|
| https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-
| release-d...
| whymauri wrote:
| >For exsmple, AstraZeneca did a deal with Moderna
| including a $240MM upfront to another $180MM for
| potential milestones six months before the DARPA money.
|
| This is called "biobucks" in the industry. There's an
| incentive to close big deals for management and business
| types in biotech, so they love to craft these large
| headlines to drop it on their resume and grift at another
| big pharma.
|
| I'd be surprised if they ever received the $180MM,
| although $240MM upfront is really impressive.
| vibrio wrote:
| I think "grift" is a bit cynical. I agree the 'biobucks'
| concept largely exits, but it also good deal-making. A
| huge upfront is 100% risk on the buyer. Paying out
| incrementally for accomplishments is common and good
| business sense risk-sharing and should happen in almost
| any industry.
|
| The larger point is that Moderna was flush with cash for
| years before COVID, and the DARPA money wasn't that
| 'crazy' of an investment, or essential to Moderna's
| progress.
| JohnJamesRambo wrote:
| Oh this one deeply paid off. Great find.
| nly wrote:
| Robots that build cars seem most likely? Not sure how many
| staff your average car factory has, but due to sheer product
| complexity it's still more than other industries like food
| manufacturing.
|
| Maybe we'll see vast car factories, churning out thousands of
| cars per day, with only a half dozen staff in years to come?
| weego wrote:
| Robots already build cars, and supply of new cars is often
| out-stripped by demand. It's not really new ground.
|
| The limitations in car production are always the component
| supply chain, not the actual manufacture.
| Tade0 wrote:
| Robots indeed build cars, but not from start to finish.
|
| Especially customisation and snapping delicate plastic trim
| pieces in place is still done by hand.
| batmansmk wrote:
| Humans spend 15h to 60h of labour to build a car. After,
| humans worked on individual parts, shipping, loading etc.
|
| My rule of thumb is that there is about 10% of
| manufacture cost that are direct or indirect cost
| connected to payroll.
|
| If I may add another axis of reflexion that I consider
| fundamental for modern engineers to consider, food for
| machines for producing a car (44% natural gas when
| smithing things) is about 15 to 25% of the energy cost to
| use the car in its lifetime, according to the EU. Or
| about 2,400 euro of a 8L/100km car.
|
| So in a world where energy gets more expensive,
| automation needs to definitely evolve, but not solely to
| be faster or replace more humans.
|
| https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/9/2396/pdf
| glitchc wrote:
| Even 60h seems low here. Do you only mean assembly?
| Tacking on parts manufacturing, sub-component assembly,
| and software is likely to increase that estimate by a
| factor of 2 to 5.
| nly wrote:
| Google image search "car factory" and it's super obviously
| it's quite labour intensive. I'm not sure why an investment
| in robots has to be "new ground".
| deelowe wrote:
| You're using the wrong terms. Add "advanced
| manufacturing" to the query to get some idea of the
| current state of things. I toured a new automotive plant
| over 10 years ago and up until the final configuration
| stage, the only manual labor was cabling and quality
| control. This included sheet metal unloading and delivery
| (from rail), stamping of the chassis, welding, paint,
| installation of doors, hood, suspension, etc, powertrain
| installation, and many others. From my estimate, 2/3 of
| the factory was very close to being "lights out." The
| entire welding and paint process was fully automated and
| required a line stop to enter the area.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| The Google Image search isn't reflective of an actual car
| factory.. There are of course hundreds of workers there
| but final assembly facilities produce something like 1
| car/minute. They're heavily reliant on robots - most of
| the parts move around the floor on autonomous transports,
| the stamping is all robotic, all of the frame welding is
| robotic, paint is of course robotic.
|
| GM is of course tied in with the UAW, so they're going to
| be as favorable to labor as possible in their promo
| videos, but take a look at this video of one of their
| production facilities, this is reflective of the amount
| of manual input into modern automotive production:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ow7gmZTIpo
| jrwoodruff wrote:
| I've toured this plant. They don't show it in this video,
| but in the stamping and body areas of the plant, they
| don't even have the lights on at task levels - it's a
| dusk-level lighting until a human enters the space. This
| plant was built circa 2006, and is pretty amazing. Bring
| steel coils into one side of the factory, get a fully
| assembled car from the other side.
| newsclues wrote:
| You are right, modern car manufacturers still use humans
| in assembly lines.
|
| But to see how much robots actually do nowadays, compare
| that to auto assembly from decades ago when robots were
| new, or further back when they did not exist
| jrwoodruff wrote:
| Yup! And really, the highly, highly automated processes
| in car manufacturing are in the stamping, body
| construction and painting phases. Almost no humans
| involved in those three major phases. Final Assembly is
| the most labor intensive, because it involves lots of
| fiddly little parts going into hard to reach places. Even
| then, it's usually robot-assisted tasks, so one person is
| installing a seat, where it would usually take two, or
| something like that.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| Maybe. Another possible variant on that idea could be micro-
| factories [1] that address delivery constraints and allow a
| factory to be located anywhere there is a small warehouse.
|
| [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_Qyor9Yc-s
| eloff wrote:
| Seems that would be a supply chain nightmare, plus it would
| multiply capital costs. I doubt it's worth it.
| RegW wrote:
| In a factory setting I would have thought existing robots
| would suffice.
|
| Looking at the wider group, I would think there's lots of
| roles for robotics in construction. Delivery of heavy items
| across uneven terrain or up stairs - may be something like a
| robotic hod carrier.
| jcims wrote:
| They are pretty great at welding and painting, they not as
| good at attaching bumpers or trunk lids, and terrible at
| running wire looms through doors or installing headliners.
|
| Also from my last visit at an assembly plant ~5 years ago,
| most plants are still on large conveyors vs. driving
| individual vehicles around the plant, and materials
| handling is still in the 90's with little stripe-following
| tugs slowly moving about the place.
| eric4smith wrote:
| That's a good assumption to make. They for sure see 800M+
| value in it.
| [deleted]
| JohnWhigham wrote:
| What's the difference between a "controlling stake" and just
| owning the company?
| dharmab wrote:
| A controlling stake doesn't have to own the majority of the
| company, just the majority of voting shares. It gives you
| meaningful influence over the board and executives but does not
| entitle you to all (or even a majority of) of any profit.
| tomhoward wrote:
| A controlling stake means you own enough shares to have full
| voting control (i.e., you control the board votes, can appoint
| the executives and set the company direction) without having to
| pay for 100% of the shares.
|
| There are a few reasons to only acquire a controlling stake
| rather than 100% of the shares; you might want to preserve
| capital for other uses, or leave some shares to be traded on
| public markets so the stock still has a market valuation.
| Ensorceled wrote:
| Or to leave key executives and tech leaders with some shares.
| orliesaurus wrote:
| BD was once under Google/Alphabet's control - then they let them
| go, what does that mean? Was their robotics efforts not useful to
| Google's own research branch? Did acquihired the talent and then
| resold what was left to SoftBank? I have no clue...then SoftBank
| sold it again.. What I know is surely BD must have gone through a
| lot of turmoil (acquisitions) for such a small company (300ish
| employees?) since its inception!
| Baeocystin wrote:
| Honestly, of all the mega-corps that could have been the ones for
| this round of BD bailout, this isn't a bad choice at all. Hyundai
| already has a strong background in robotics, and hopefully
| they'll be able to help Boston Dynamics to finally capitalize on
| their excellent work.
|
| I do wish controlling interest had managed to stay stateside,
| but, well, it is what it is.
| sergiotapia wrote:
| Boston Dynamics is the one company on this planet that inspires
| me and makes me believe in a wonderful future that we have yet to
| even glimpse. I hope they keep doing what they're doing and
| elevate our species to new heights. God bless them.
| nr2x wrote:
| Seems like they'd be a good fit for Disney, making theme park
| attractions.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| I'd be a little sad if this technology only ended up being
| useful as a toy, but then again the biggest disruptors are at
| one point thought of as toys, so maybe that's about where we
| are in the process?
| nr2x wrote:
| If they monetized their YouTube channel I'm guessing it would
| be their biggest revenue source, as far as I'm concerned they
| are an entertainment company already.
| jeffrallen wrote:
| I, for one, salute my new dog-shaped robot overlords.
| jmcgough wrote:
| They've gone from Google -> Softbank -> Hyundai in a few years.
|
| Does anyone know where their revenue is coming from currently?
| For all the flashy videos they put out, you so rarely see them
| that I'm not sure if they're just doing well on the B2B side
| (warehouse automation? military contracts?), or if they've been
| in the red for the last decade.
| 88840-8855 wrote:
| They bleed money and are not revenue positive yet. And all
| those re-acquisitions indicate that none of their parent
| company could provide a nurturing environment to enable the
| company to make profit.
|
| My two cents. If not military use or a very expensive niche
| use, e.g. for emergency services, then those things will have a
| pretty hard time to enter the mass-consumer market.
|
| What will probably happen is that a Chinese company will be
| able to produce a 80% version of those machines for less than
| 1k. This is when those things will become interesting to
| consumers for whatever purpose those things can be used.
|
| As long as the SPOT robot costs over 70k, nobody will even
| consider buying it.
| helsinkiandrew wrote:
| Unitree's Go1 is currently $2.7K. I commented on the HN
| thread below that if walking robots have any use/future - A
| company like Unitree could become the DJI of the industry and
| make Boston Dynamics even more of a niche player than it
| already is.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27569631
| accurrent wrote:
| As someone who has worked with both Unitree and Boston
| Dynamics I can tell you there is a marked difference in the
| ability for Boston dynamic's ability to walk vs Unitree's.
| The ANYMal is closer to Boston Dynamic's capabilities but
| also at a similar price point. That being said what Unitree
| is lacking is good software so theres a chance that they
| may be able to incrementally catch up while maintaining a
| relatively low pricepoint. I don't think we're gonna see a
| DJI moment any time soon in this space purely because the
| other algorithms around this area are still in their
| infancy. Furthermore, motor prices don't seem to have
| fallen all that much making innovation in this space much
| harder than with drones.
| jcims wrote:
| You can see this in the Unitree videos, nearly everything
| is on a flat plane and while it was a video from 2019 it
| seemed to struggle climbing stairs a bit.
| echelon wrote:
| But they'll sell at a higher volume and be able to
| reinvest in R&D. Boston Dynamics needed constant
| injection of capital.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Forgive me if I'm wrong but I though motors aren't the
| main cost, rather the rest of the actuator?
|
| Also Unitree is going to make so much money selling these
| as well as get so much mass producing experience they'll
| probably be able to figure out the algorithms. Methinks
| the code is easier to figure out than reliable and cheap
| hardware.
| jcims wrote:
| The motor usually makes up about a third, the motor
| controller another third and the planetary gears and
| enclosure the final third.
| sdflhasjd wrote:
| Where does 70k even go?
| ionwake wrote:
| 1- Unitrees robot looks identical - though it looks like it
| lacks Lidar?
|
| 2- Is the Unitree robot so similar because of talent
| poaching or just a coincidence?
|
| 3-How could a person invest in a company like unitree?
|
| Thanks
| helsinkiandrew wrote:
| The more expensive versions of the Go1 have Lidar.
|
| Robot dogs are going to look like dogs - a body with
| legs. According to the about page, the CEO has been
| developing quadruped robots since 2013 (his masters
| thesis). https://www.unitree.com/aboutus
|
| Looks like they've take venture capital money:
| https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/unitree-robotics
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| The high cost components of a robot like this are:
| Actuators, motor drivers, batteries, compute, sensors, and
| mechanical components.
|
| I did not reference SPOTs specs but it must be full of low
| volume custom parts (expensive). They are honestly probably
| selling them at little to no profit as $70k is about how
| much a low volume custom research robot might cost in
| parts. But I could see them getting SPOT down to $20k in
| parts, but then you still need to do assembly which is
| going to be very hands on with technicians doing assembly
| and test engineers checking components. And one could
| imagine they'd like it if they could manage some profit.
| IDK it all adds up robots are super expensive.
| drdeadringer wrote:
| > They've gone from Google -> Softbank -> Hyundai in a few
| years.
|
| I was a contractor at Google when the Google//Boston Dynamics
| was happening, I now work//live in Silicon Valley, I grew up in
| MA, so I've been mildly following the story.
|
| Is this sort of pinball "normal"?
| tyingq wrote:
| Softbank said they were purposefully selling things off to do
| stock buybacks and cut debt earlier this year. They
| supposedly paid $100M for BD, so selling it for $880M would
| be a nice way to do that. I think the ping-pong is just
| coincidental timing of both Google and Softbank wanting to
| sell off R&D type things.
| throwaway879 wrote:
| This and the first few replies to it feel like they're coming
| from bean counters, not engineers. Who reads HN? I mean anyone
| can, but who's the core audience. I'm confused. Shouldn't the
| top voted thread be about the tech and the engineering behind
| it, and debating whether it's worth funding or not based on
| that, not based on things that are mostly the concern of
| business people. Is it that most engineers today have MBAs or
| are MBA wannabes? or well roundedness? But this focus on
| business metrics is not well roundedness, for an engineer, IMO.
| jahller wrote:
| i'm not sure if they operate in the classical sense of a
| company with a budget. i see them more as a research facility
| with huge interest from the military and law enforcement
| complex.
| ackbar03 wrote:
| I asked something like this last time as well. I don't think
| they have any meaningful revenue except for their dog bot
| "spot" which they only launched very recently. They basically
| just survive on funding, kind of like some university research
| group
| jmcgough wrote:
| Looks like they've just been bleeding money for years:
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-17/boston-dy...
| luxuryballs wrote:
| Let's go robot that steps out of the trunk and pumps my gas for
| me!
| ConcernedCoder wrote:
| I can imagine those dancing robots being used to replace workers
| in an auto assembly plant.
| pcurve wrote:
| Probably one of the better companies to acquire controlling stake
| in BD because several of their own companies would directly
| benefit from robotics.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-22 23:02 UTC)