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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
For those who missed it... Here is the link again
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/3533.html
This should also greatly improve production volume.
You haven't seen a robot break down in a factory.
I thought he died when falling off a cliff when using his Segway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carson O'Genic
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carthusia
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1
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.
Chinese police have been using mobile devices for a long time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter236
Chinese police have using mobile devices for a long time.
Not surprising. They have the highest level acrobatics tradition in this world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carthusia
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carthusia
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WonkoTheSane
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
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.