Everything was pretty standard until I got to the price. This robot is a nice improvement, but there's already many good collaborative robots (i.e. http://preciseautomation.com/PF400.html).
But if they can actually hit the price point it will be game changing:
"Another factor that will make Franka stand out is cost. At the time of this writing, the robot was available for preorder at a yet-to-be-confirmed price of €9,900, or about $10,500. That’s a startlingly low figure for such a capable robotic arm. For comparison, Rethink’s Sawyer sells for $29,000, and Universal Robots’ best-selling UR5 costs even more, at $35,000."
Heck, even $15K vs the standard $30K would be a big improvement.
Agreed this could change the game. I think there is a large network effect to this type of product. Once people get used to it, learn how to code it, build tutorials, start using it on projects, and tell their friends about it, they won't want to switch. Right now Universal Robots seems to have a large share of the existing market, but many small shops are still just getting their first robotic arm. Will be very cool to watch.
I agree that effect will exist, but it remains to be seen when it will kick in.
Ie, if there are big improvements left to be made then that network effect can be overcome a few times by each 'big leap' change. Once the market matures though, you probably will see strong lock-in as you describe.
"Replicate itself" is a bit much. It's used on its own assembly line. Fanuc has done that for two decades. Here are Fanuc robots making more Fanuc robots.[1] Robots are pouring molten metal for casting, loading and unloading CNC machine tools, and making many of the parts. Then robots assemble the parts.
This is an ancient video about KUKA robot production [1]. While it's not very automated at all, some things are done with robots because no human has the required strength or precision.
Truth is, robots have been building robots since the 60s or so, long before I was born, and long before skynet was a fictional gleam in some author's eye.
"Clone itself" as long as you get gearboxes, actuators, bearings, bolts, and any other part already made by other machines. "Assemble a copy of itself from parts" would be more accurate, but of course less attention grabbing.
Unlikely - seven axes is very flexible, but it can't lift more than 3Kg, I suppose a very small handheld router could allow it to do some CNC, though the precision would suffer compared to a normal CNC; by the same token, it could hold a 3D printer's extrusion nozzle, but the accuracy would be poorer than a dedicated printer. It sounds like they are hoping to drive their production line entirely with their own robots, not to manufacture all the parts needed in-house.
The key is to design it in a way that such precision isn't really necessary. It probably isn't for most of it. Some things are, and for that, it puts the part on a precision jig or whatnot, rather than relying on it's own precision.
Also, if it works the way they say it does, where it is constantly comparing what it measures against its internal model and adjusting the model (similar to how our own arms and brain works), again, precision (in the geometry of the parts) isn't so necessary.
One thing it doesn't do, that would be particularly powerful, is emulate the geometry of the human arm. If it did, and it if it was typically paired with a mirror image arm, you would be able to very easily train it to do most tasks that can be done by a human. Instead of "programming" it to, say, iron a shirt, you just get someone who is good at ironing shirts to do the task over and over while it copies them, gradually improving its abilities.
Combine that with designing it in a way that it can do a large part of making new robot arms, and the costs should drop and the capabilities should increase....dramatically.
Yes I assume there are cameras, and that it isn't copying exact moves but actually learning. I'm not suggesting it would figure out how to iron a shirt quickly, it would take thousands upon thousands of hours of watching/copying as someone is ironing. But hey we were worried about robots taking jobs...and there's a job! (and they are also producing ironed shirts!)
Cameras aren't particularly expensive, the ones made for cell phones can do fine and they are a couple bucks. The software is hard but machine learning is improving by leaps and bounds. And software may be expensive to develop, but it isn't expensive to make another copy of.
The problem isn't the hardware here, the problem is the software. Robots just aren't smart enough to perceive the world around them yet. People are working on it, but it's still very much in the research phase at universities. You should check out HERB at Carnegie Mellon (1), which is working on things just like this. A fun anecdote - all the students spent forever trying to get the robot to open a microwave (and keep in mind this is a highly controlled environment and they knew exactly where it was). Eventually they gave up and modified the microwave.
True. I bet if the hardware was cheap enough, the software would advance a lot quicker.
I mean, imagine the only really useful thing one of these things can do is make a copy of itself. And it might takes it a month running non-stop to do it, but the parts are cheap so it only costs a few hundred bucks for a new one. Would you want one of these things in your basement working away? I sure would. And I'd be pretty interested in tweaking its software and training data and whatnot to make it faster and better.
Sure it'll be a good while before it is folding laundry or picking weeds in the garden or whatever, but I think the pace of improvement would pick up quick once these things are available in mass.
I went to a seminar on collaborative robotics (industrial robots that work in close proximity with human workers) and one of the vendors had a robot arm that you programmed by simply moving it from position to position, telling it what technique to use to interpolate between them. You could also easily set up reference planes by probing the work area or workpiece, then constrict motion to an axis in that coordinate system, say for inserting parts into holes on an assembly. Not quite the "learning" system you describe, but easy to use and understand. I think one example application they showed was a robot that was programmed by this method to insert lifter rods in one side of a V8 engine block (which was hard to reach), while a human did the ones on the easy-to-see/reach side. It was pretty slick.
I'm curious if there's a small population of people (with the means) that buy these robots for private/hobby use, and if so, what they do with them in their house/workshop?
Cause honestly, I would love to play and experiment with a few of these to see what I can automate around the house and maybe if I was inclined create a mini-assembly line for "etsy" like products.
Once cars are self-driving and rarely spend time in a garage, I think we'll have the potential for millions of micro-factories to spring up, similar to wood shops but a lot more automated (and not limited to wood products, of course).
10500€ for 7 degrees of freedom is awesome. Usually you get small 6 axis bots for 20k - 40k, without collision detection. Not to mention user friendly software.
But if they can actually hit the price point it will be game changing:
"Another factor that will make Franka stand out is cost. At the time of this writing, the robot was available for preorder at a yet-to-be-confirmed price of €9,900, or about $10,500. That’s a startlingly low figure for such a capable robotic arm. For comparison, Rethink’s Sawyer sells for $29,000, and Universal Robots’ best-selling UR5 costs even more, at $35,000."
Heck, even $15K vs the standard $30K would be a big improvement.