or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple's hiring of ex-Segway robotics expert fuels speculation of 'fantastic' future products
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's hiring of ex-Segway robotics expert fuels speculation of 'fantastic' future products - Page 2

post #41 of 67
I thought this was obvious but no one mentioned it, Advanced Robotics to Help with Manufacturing of Apple's products. Robotics wouldn't cover everything that Foxconn does, but it helps to greatly minimize cost, and Robots could pre work on parts way before the announcement without works being leaked off as easily, While the remaining work force could concentrate on human only work flow.

This should also greatly improve production volume.
post #42 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Actually, if one did -- on its own volition, somehow -- that would be HUGE news.

You haven't seen a robot break down in a factory.
post #43 of 67
I still think robot pets are a good starting place for robotis in the home. Something like a robot dog with Siri seems like it could have lot of possibilities. Didn't they just ya quire a company involved in locating devices by wifi within your home or test abolishment. Maybe your robotic pooch can keep track of you or the kids. Apps could be written for your robots etc.
post #44 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post

The Segway is cool. But its cool factor really sank when its CEO died while falling off one.

I thought he died when falling off a cliff when using his Segway.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, my opinion, man.
Reply
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, my opinion, man.
Reply
post #45 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carson O'Genic View Post

I still think robot pets are a good starting place for robotis in the home. Something like a robot dog with Siri seems like it could have lot of possibilities. Didn't they just ya quire a company involved in locating devices by wifi within your home or test abolishment. Maybe your robotic pooch can keep track of you or the kids. Apps could be written for your robots etc.

Furby again?

post #46 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carthusia View Post

Because you know the reality? I genuinely am curious about your ideas.


It's not about your idea or mine. You declared HMI as THE problem - i.e. it's a fact. It's not. If it were, the bulk of R&A research would be dedicated to solving it and most manufacturing companies would cite it as the main roadblock to deploying automation.

post #47 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

Apple hired CEO John Scully from Pepsi but that didn't mean Apple was going to make soft drinks.


Exactly. Also, Apple hired many years ago file system engineers and everyone thought that a new file system would come out soon. And guess what, it is still HFS Plus.

post #48 of 67

Chinese police have been using mobile devices for a long time.

 

post #49 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter236 View Post

Chinese police have using mobile devices for a long time.

 

Not surprising. They have the highest level acrobatics tradition in this world. 1biggrin.gif

post #50 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post


It's not about your idea or mine. You declared HMI as THE problem - i.e. it's a fact. It's not. If it were, the bulk of R&A research would be dedicated to solving it and most manufacturing companies would cite it as the main roadblock to deploying automation.

 

Nope. Reread my post, or here's the relevant phrase: "I understand your point, but consider this: a major complication (if not THE major complication) with robotic manufacturing is how humans and robots work together." To place a finer point on it, please note this specific part: "a major complication (if not THE major complication)". Thus, I did not state it as a fact. Quite the opposite of what you claim I wrote, I clearly speculated that it was among a set of major complications, but may be "THE" major complication. 
 
Perhaps you are a robotics/automation engineer. No matter. The mere fact (if true) that automation manufacturing engineers have not written copiously on this problem does not in any way preclude the problem as being a major one. The annals of science are riddled with missed opportunities for recognizing significant problems in accepted wisdom and failing to apply corrective innovation.
 
Further, my understanding of Apple is that they are uniquely capable and motivated to identify and "designing away" significant product development, manufacture, distribution, and sales problems (e.g., in product design, human interface design, retail store operations, supply chain management) where very few other companies can see those problems or consider them business-critical. Taking this all together, one may now view Apple also as a company very invested in another sort of human interface design problem-solving, i. e., human/robot interaction in automated manufacturing processes.
For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
post #51 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post


And could you give a plausible and credible argument against it? I can't, his theory makes a lot of sense.


I already did. Try reading.

post #52 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carthusia View Post

 

Nope. Reread my post, or here's the relevant phrase: "I understand your point, but consider this: a major complication (if not THE major complication) with robotic manufacturing is how humans and robots work together." To place a finer point on it, please note this specific part: "a major complication (if not THE major complication)". Thus, I did not state it as a fact. Quite the opposite of what you claim I wrote, I clearly speculated that it was among a set of major complications, but may be "THE" major complication. 
 
Perhaps you are a robotics/automation engineer. No matter. The mere fact (if true) that automation manufacturing engineers have not written copiously on this problem does not in any way preclude the problem as being a major one. The annals of science are riddled with missed opportunities for recognizing significant problems in accepted wisdom and failing to apply corrective innovation.
 
Further, my understanding of Apple is that they are uniquely capable and motivated to identify and "designing away" significant product development, manufacture, distribution, and sales problems (e.g., in product design, human interface design, retail store operations, supply chain management) where very few other companies can see those problems or consider them business-critical. Taking this all together, one may now view Apple also as a company very invested in another sort of human interface design problem-solving, i. e., human/robot interaction in automated manufacturing processes.


You first wrote in a declarative form (which implies you were stating it as a fact). And I wrote back saying that this was only your opinion, which you now admit. Effectively, you are conceding I was right. So what are you arguing? Why write so much to cover your butt? It's fine to state your speculation. And it's fine for me to inform you how wide off the mark you are.

post #53 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carthusia View Post

 

Nope. Reread my post, or here's the relevant phrase: "I understand your point, but consider this: a major complication (if not THE major complication) with robotic manufacturing is how humans and robots work together." To place a finer point on it, please note this specific part: "a major complication (if not THE major complication)". Thus, I did not state it as a fact. Quite the opposite of what you claim I wrote, I clearly speculated that it was among a set of major complications, but may be "THE" major complication. 
 
Perhaps you are a robotics/automation engineer. No matter. The mere fact (if true) that automation manufacturing engineers have not written copiously on this problem does not in any way preclude the problem as being a major one. The annals of science are riddled with missed opportunities for recognizing significant problems in accepted wisdom and failing to apply corrective innovation.
 
Further, my understanding of Apple is that they are uniquely capable and motivated to identify and "designing away" significant product development, manufacture, distribution, and sales problems (e.g., in product design, human interface design, retail store operations, supply chain management) where very few other companies can see those problems or consider them business-critical. Taking this all together, one may now view Apple also as a company very invested in another sort of human interface design problem-solving, i. e., human/robot interaction in automated manufacturing processes.

Fascinating.

 

You are telling someone that he might be an expert (I don't know if he/she is or not) and that other experts might feel differently, but, no matter, you know better even though you don't work in the field. Rather arrogant, no? Not being critical. Merely amused.

post #54 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by WonkoTheSane View Post


I thought he died when falling off a cliff when using his Segway.

 

Well, if this detail is sooooooooo important to you; I surmise, while falling off the cliff, he also fell of his Segway :)

post #55 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Fascinating.

 

You are telling someone that he might be an expert (I don't know if he/she is or not) and that other experts might feel differently, but, no matter, you know better even though you don't work in the field. Rather arrogant, no? Not being critical. Merely amused.


It's the norm around here. People state their opinions and then refuse to back then. They write paragraph after paragraph, Google like crazy to find links to support their speculation. As if there is a prize here for making up the craziest idea and refusing to face reality that they simply don't know the facts.

post #56 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post


You first wrote in a declarative form (which implies you were stating it as a fact). And I wrote back saying that this was only your opinion, which you now admit. Effectively, you are conceding I was right. So what are you arguing? Why write so much to cover your butt? It's fine to state your speculation. And it's fine for me to inform you how wide off the mark you are.

I'm not sure if you are this dense or simply being intellectually dishonest. Nonetheless, this forum is replete with opinion. So are all of your statements about my "opinions". I did not backtrack, nor did I attempt to cover my butt. Moreover, my argument is clear to anyone with more than a 8th grade reading level. If you want to split hairs and argue that it is just my "own opinion" that "a major complication" in designing automated manufacturing processes is in resolving issues in human/robot interaction, be my guest. In any event, I have said all I need to (with you) on this matter. You have offered nothing informative to an otherwise fun and interesting thread. Simply saying I am off the mark without offering your own educated and informed understanding of robotic manufacturing processes (specifically why it is not a major challenge to resolve robot/human interaction issues in automated manufacturing) comes across as mere bluster and oppositionalism, not at all as insightful and informed commentary. Not a fact, mind you, just my opinion. And, by all means, please enjoy having the last word.

For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
post #57 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post


It's the norm around here. People state their opinions and then refuse to back then. They write paragraph after paragraph, Google like crazy to find links to support their speculation. As if there is a prize here for making up the craziest idea and refusing to face reality that they simply don't know the facts.

I'm sorry, but where in anything you wrote would leave me to believe you have a more informed opinion. Absolutely nothing. If you just said, "Hey, I'm an expert in this field and you are wrong", fine. You did not. Am I supposed to accept that your "facts" about this topic (of which you offered none) are right and my comment is wide of the mark (which you have not supported with any facts) merely because you say so? I don't get it.

For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
post #58 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Fascinating.

 

You are telling someone that he might be an expert (I don't know if he/she is or not) and that other experts might feel differently, but, no matter, you know better even though you don't work in the field. Rather arrogant, no? Not being critical. Merely amused.

I do not feel my statement was arrogant, but I feel that you are not making any sense. I did not say anything about other experts feeling differently, nor did I state that I was not in the field. My stating that perhaps he/she is an expert was an attempt on my part to elicit some expert information from someone dead set on "proving me wrong", yet who up to that point offered no cogent and informed rebuttal. It's fascinating that you just made a bunch of stuff up, to what, amuse yourself? For the record, I am not an expert in robotics, but would love to actually hear from one who can intelligently and informatively comment on what I did write. One thing that I can do very well is logically follow an argument and articulate my point of view. Perhaps you have some basis for amusement, but your curiosity about a set of statements I did not make defies my own curiosity.

For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
post #59 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carthusia View Post

I'm sorry, but where in anything you wrote would leave me to believe you have a more informed opinion. Absolutely nothing. If you just said, "Hey, I'm an expert in this field and you are wrong", fine. You did not. Am I supposed to accept that your "facts" about this topic (of which you offered none) are right and my comment is wide of the mark (which you have not supported with any facts) merely because you say so? I don't get it.

 

It's stupid for anyone to state they are "expert in the field" as a way to bolster their arguments. It's also stupid for anyone to accept that. Anyone can write anything here. I provided reasonable support for my contention that you were wrong - it's documented by neither R&A experts nor by manufacturers that this is a major problem for them, let alone the major problem. It might be reasonable for you to ask me to prove the absence of such documentation. But no. Instead, you insinuate the possibility that, without being in the field, you might know better. No wonder you don't get it.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carthusia View Post

I do not feel my statement was arrogant, but I feel that you are not making any sense. I did not say anything about other experts feeling differently, nor did I state that I was not in the field. My stating that perhaps he/she is an expert was an attempt on my part to elicit some expert information from someone dead set on "proving me wrong", yet who up to that point offered no cogent and informed rebuttal. It's fascinating that you just made a bunch of stuff up, to what, amuse yourself? For the record, I am not an expert in robotics, but would love to actually hear from one who can intelligently and informatively comment on what I did write. One thing that I can do very well is logically follow an argument and articulate my point of view. Perhaps you have some basis for amusement, but your curiosity about a set of statements I did not make defies my own curiosity.

 

I did comment informatively on what you wrote - you were wrong. Concise but informative. A humbler person than you would say, "Damn. Thanks for pointing that out."

post #60 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carthusia View Post

I do not feel my statement was arrogant, but I feel that you are not making any sense. I did not say anything about other experts feeling differently, nor did I state that I was not in the field. My stating that perhaps he/she is an expert was an attempt on my part to elicit some expert information from someone dead set on "proving me wrong", yet who up to that point offered no cogent and informed rebuttal. It's fascinating that you just made a bunch of stuff up, to what, amuse yourself? For the record, I am not an expert in robotics, but would love to actually hear from one who can intelligently and informatively comment on what I did write. One thing that I can do very well is logically follow an argument and articulate my point of view. Perhaps you have some basis for amusement, but your curiosity about a set of statements I did not make defies my own curiosity.

 

I made up nothing. But feel free to continue stating your opinion. It's not my fight anyhow. 

post #61 of 67

Ever since Apple's acquisition of PASemi the company has enjoyed a particularly close relationship with the U.S. Dept. of Defense to the extent that Apple is pretty much becoming the standard for military computing.  The military is also heavily invested in designing and building advanced combat robotics.  It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Segway group is working both on the robotics within multiple Robotics groups and developing software on OS X to interface with the developing robotics.  Whether any of this ever makes it's way to the consumer level is unknown, but what tech engineering geek doesn't have wet dreams about being part of a small clandestine organization working on top secret military projects?  

post #62 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post

 

It's stupid for anyone to state they are "expert in the field" as a way to bolster their arguments. It's also stupid for anyone to accept that. Anyone can write anything here. I provided reasonable support for my contention that you were wrong - it's documented by neither R&A experts nor by manufacturers that this is a major problem for them, let alone the major problem. It might be reasonable for you to ask me to prove the absence of such documentation. But no. Instead, you insinuate the possibility that, without being in the field, you might know better. No wonder you don't get it.

 

 

I did comment informatively on what you wrote - you were wrong. Concise but informative. A humbler person than you would say, "Damn. Thanks for pointing that out."

So, I should not believe anyone who says they are an expert, but I should believe someone who repeats a simple statement that "neither R&A experts nor ...manufacturers" have documented that it is a major problem and who actually considers that as concise, convincing evidence. Got it.

For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
post #63 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imhotep397 View Post

Ever since Apple's acquisition of PASemi the company has enjoyed a particularly close relationship with the U.S. Dept. of Defense to the extent that Apple is pretty much becoming the standard for military computing.  The military is also heavily invested in designing and building advanced combat robotics.  It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Segway group is working both on the robotics within multiple Robotics groups and developing software on OS X to interface with the developing robotics.  Whether any of this ever makes it's way to the consumer level is unknown, but what tech engineering geek doesn't have wet dreams about being part of a small clandestine organization working on top secret military projects?  

Is Apple really the standard for military computing? What does that mean? Military computing is a broad, broad umbrella spanning distributed clusters to "standard" desktop computing to battlefield computing to ... In which areas is Apple the standard choice for the military?

What does it mean to develop software on OSX to interface with developing robotics? Are you referring to real-time control? Navigational control? HMI? Is this for R&D purposes only or battlefield robotics?
post #64 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carthusia View Post

So, I should not believe anyone who says they are an expert, but I should believe someone who repeats a simple statement that "neither R&A experts nor ...manufacturers" have documented that it is a major problem and who actually considers that as concise, convincing evidence. Got it.

Are you arguing that I wasn't concise? Heh ...

Like I said before, if you had challenged me on this front earlier, it would have made some sense. But, instead, you dismissed "the annals of science". I think that's why someone called you arrogant.

For someone who doesn't want the last word, you just keep going and going and going and going and going ...

Since you are so sure that the major challenge to overcome in R&A is HMI. Can you explain what that means?
post #65 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plagen View Post

Tomorrow Samsung publishes pictures of their vision of Segway that happened to be in works for several years.


The Koreans are way out in front on this research. Behold the E4U... /s
1

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #66 of 67
Recently rumored devices %u2013 iWatch, iRing %u2013 might be used to capture and interpret the user's movements and mechanics for gestures or sports analytics. This could be right up his alley. The same kinds of engineering and design he might have done at Yale could be done at Apple instead. And he could see the designs make it into production sooner and on a far larger scale, with far greater impact.
post #67 of 67
A few comments.

1) It wasn't the CEO.

2) Embedded systems? Errrrrrrrruummmm... whatchya think the iPad, iPhone, Nano, etc., qualify as?

3) Honestly, John M. is "wicked smaht," as we say in New England, but I'm not sure what all he'd be going after. If Apple suddenly hires Jon Stevens away from Segway (or either of the Heinzman brothers away from DEKA or Harvest AI, respectively), THEN I might start thinking a "dynamic" solution. But thus-far, aside from John, they don't have any of the core developers or dynamics engineers that dealt specifically with what makes Segway... well, Segway.

Never say never, but if Apple's looking to do anything out-of-the-box with Segway talent, they're taking an awfully slow road to get there.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple's hiring of ex-Segway robotics expert fuels speculation of 'fantastic' future products