Reminded of this article in The Economist: <a href="https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2013/03/09/your-alter-ego-on-wheels" rel="nofollow">https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2013/03/09/yo...</a><p>With this hilarious closing paragraph:<p>> A telepresence robot sheathed in rubbery skin is being sold to researchers by Japan’s Advanced Telecommunications Research Institute International. Resembling an androgynous and legless child with short, handless arms, Telenoid, as it is called, is essentially a large humanoid phone. The idea is that lonely grandparents “feel the human presence” of relatives who speak through it while remotely moving its head and other body parts, says the project’s leader, Hiroshi Ishiguro. But this creepy robot is unlikely to catch on outside Japan, says Timo Kaerlein, a German researcher who studied Telenoid on a visit to Kyoto. One observer described it as a nightmarish, fetus-like “demon-spawn”. By comparison, having your disembodied boss drive up to your desk for a quick chat seems reassuringly normal.
Hoo boy. This seems to be the worst aspects of the Bobiverse[1] without any of the benefits. If my future is to be an iPad on a stick, can I at least get to go to the stars? :)<p>[1] We Are Legion, Dennis E Taylor - <i>thoroughly recommended,</i> along with his other SciFi.
I like some of the applications of this product, but as a long term remote worker this seems kind of silly to use for remote IT work.<p>Video calls through Slack have worked really well and I find it motivates people to do some preliminary research before they reach out; as opposed to inter-office interactions where co-workers might inconsiderately interrupt work frequently with trivial questions.<p>I would think a virtual office environment in VR would be another (and cheaper) strategy for this, but I understand wearing headgear for extended periods of time comes with some consequences.<p>I do think this is a good step forward in terms of technological progress however.
No, I don't think I need a robot on wheels to roam the office and join a meeting room when I can just join a video call.<p>All the tech for remote work is here already, all we need is a change in mentality to get wider acceptance of remote work.
And what happens when there are more telepresence robots than actual people? Is there even any point to having that office?<p>This is one of those things that'll get even more silly, the more popular it gets.
So many nay-sayers here. At my previous job we actually owned 2 of these robots, and although a bit gimmicky they worked great for us for a few reasons:<p>1) It was surprising how much more engaged and engaging someone was when connected to a meeting than on a typical video conference screen hidden in a small corner. People who connected "on the double" paid way more attention to meetings, and when they had something to contribute, people paid them more attention.<p>2) We could get up and start writing / brainstorming on physical whiteboards we had set up around the meeting rooms and remote guests could move around and inspect the ideas in a much more natural way (the caveat of course being that they couldn't scribble too, but this rarely seemed to be a problem)<p>3) We also ran a lab, and we could easily give tours to remote guests of our lab and office space, something that would have been awkward at best in any other way, and at least one tour we gave this way brought in far more money than the robot cost<p>4) It was a very handy way to check in on things at the lab—student needs help with something late at night? Sign in to the double and go look at what's going on. Something triggered a security alarm but our security cameras couldn't quite reach? Connect on the double and go investigate.<p>There were of course downsides—some people seemed incapable of driving the robot, and it wasn't great at crossing the threshold between carpet and lino (someone once managed to tip the robot over), but overall it was quite successful.
I worked at a place that had a "BeamPro", it was alright. More fun and convenient than video conferencing.<p><a href="https://www.suitabletech.com/products/beam-pro" rel="nofollow">https://www.suitabletech.com/products/beam-pro</a><p>From the title, I thought this might be about tele-operators for litter-bots to pick up litter or something.
There's also the Human Uber[1] which is a human with an IPAD on their face going around the office for you.<p>[1]<a href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/paq7xb/human-uber-ipad-masks-vgtrn" rel="nofollow">https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/paq7xb/human-uber-ipad-ma...</a>
Anybots had telepresence robots up and running back in 2009, several years before Double Robotics was founded:
<a href="https://anybots.com/" rel="nofollow">https://anybots.com/</a><p>While the technology is interesting, it doesn't really seem to have taken the world by storm.
Yes, a lot of this is marketing, but I'm a little surprised all the naysayers here don't really address any of the issues brought up in the video. That is, the benefit of having more spontaneous conversations (if desired), the "talking to you vs. talking over you" that happens in conf calls, the ability for the remote person to move and manipulate the robot to get a better view (has no one had the "wait just a minute Bob, we know you can't see the whiteboard right now, but we'll send you a picture when we're done" experience in a meeting?)<p>I'd be more interested to hear the experiences of people who've actually used something like this than the folks who are summarily dismissing it without giving it much thought.
Robot on a stick doesn't do alot. I speak from experience using a telepresence robot at work to interact with my boss. It's basically a walking tablet that can't really navigate because it's wrapped in a consumer toy grade vehicle system to meet price point. Just pay an intern to hold a phone up and walk around. I agree that telepresence is the future of remote work, and by work I mean physically moving atoms around not just using social media to exchange information. The trick is creating reliable and efficient robotic systems that are actually suitable to the types of work needed. Thats not so easy and why I work in robotics. Lots of problems to solve.
This is just silly. It is a transition idea of an old paradigm to a new world where people are lagging behind. If nothing else, we are going to be in virtual spaces / augmented ones where amazing visuals / interactions can happen. They certainly cannot happen in this pitiful looking stick on wheels with an ipad. It dehumanizes the person on the stick and just looks stupid. Come on.
Communication remains the hardest problem in Software Engineering and despite all the I do not think remote = onsite is the same thing. We might reach there in 2-3 years but today is not that time.<p>I have worked as a remote engineers and have hired remote engineers. There are scaling issues and then there are life satisfaction issues. While many people think that being with their families and familiar location might be good for them it does not turn out to be the same.
No they're not. This is a solution looking for a problem. If you're going to control a robot in the office, you better be controlling it to do actual physical work like adding paper to the printer or something of that manner. Video conference is the future of remote work for communication, what most people haven't figured out is a good process/flow to make it effective.
A bit disappointed that nobody talks about the environmental impact.<p>Remote work --> good, better than commuting.<p>Telepresence Robots --> horrible, one more battery powered, electronic filled, 2 years life span manufactured thing.<p>We have to learn to use LESS material things.
This thing might be good for a hospital or sth, but remote work is not at all about remote-controlled bots. There are plety of conferencing tools doing a better job of providing presence.
A thought experiment:<p>If the entire team is remote then does it make sense for the company to rent a room, say 1 per team, and fill it with such robots, 1 per person for social interaction?<p>I'm assuming the answer is no.<p>What about a team where everyone except 1 person is remote, does it make sense to have this for everyone and put it in the room with the non-remote person?<p>I believe the answer is still no.<p>Continuing...<p>Now, how about if half the team is remote?
I'm assuming the answer is still no.<p>Continuing....<p>Then, how about the entire team is on-site, except 1 person. Do we need a robot for 1 person who is remote?<p>If the answer is still no, then there is no need for such a product.