Toyota's Trumpet Playing Robot Showcased 356
fsharp writes "The New York Times has an article discussing the first public showing of Toyota's new humanoid robot. During a demonstration, the biped robot played trumpet together with a rolling robot. Most telling about the article was the whole philosophy towards R&D: 'Toyota acknowledges that it is unlikely to turn a profit building robots anytime soon, but the program highlights its engineering-oriented culture and willingness to invest in projects that may not pay off for decades.' How many companies these days are willing to drop money into some technology that may not turn a profit for many years?"
Lots of them are... (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, even if the technology itself doesn't automatically pan out (ie, humanoid robots), it may still have profitable applications in other areas (ie, prosthetics).
One answer. (Score:4, Insightful)
The kind that is already doing very well financially and wants to solidify a reputation of innovation. Similar to Microsoft's $1 billion donation to Africa.
Long-term investing (Score:5, Insightful)
How about most drug companies.
Re:Very cool, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Very cool, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Very cool, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
That is because Wall Street is so concerned with short-term profits. Gasoline is at an all-time high while Toyota/Honda are the only companies that had the patience to develop a profitable solution [ljworld.com] to the problem. In 1997 when Toyota introduced the hybrid, they were losing lots of money on every unit sold. Now, they are selling that same technology to US-based companies [iht.com].
Now, Ford isn't buying Toyota technology because it makes environmental sense. Rather, they are doing it because it makes sense for short-term profits - the same mindset that got them into this situation in the first place. This mentality will catch up to the US sooner or later. And where is solar energy?
But is it (Score:3, Insightful)
If not, no deal.
Re:Very cool, but.. (Score:1, Insightful)
However, Ford is also full of managers who are out to make a buck for the company today, rather than spend money now to ensure a solvent future. It is, I believe part of the reason why Toyota is "so far ahead," which they are.
Why automotive companies? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Very cool, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't need to have all these tariffs on products imported from countries that have the same standard of living that we do. The Japanese work hard, yes, but they are paid first world salaries so if the prices of their automobiles is low, it is because they are damn good at building cars and if they want to work a little harder than us to do it, more power to them.
On the other hand cars imported from Mexico (like the VW I drive) are produced at the expense of some Mexican making 70 cents an hour. We can't have free trade in this scenerio or we'll all be living in cardboard lean-tos just like our counterparts south of the border.
This ain't no robot (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Look at IBM (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Very cool, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
| since the end of WWII, they haven't had a
| military to take up financing, (or resources, or
| R&D, etc..)
True, but the huge amount that the US spends on Military is largely by choice.
Is it really necessary to have sufficient armaments to destroy the planet seven times over? Is it really necessary to have sufficient firepower to independantly forcibly take over any other country/contitent on the planet?
And are these things more important than education, health care etc etc.
Every country sets its own agenda. The US wants to be the untouchable goliath of military power. If the US wanted to be the world leader in non-military research and development, they could be.
Re:Very cool, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Very, very true. But, it just wouldn't be The American Way if we didn't have the ability to police the world. However, if you pay close attention to the history of how the US became involved in various wars,[read: WWI, WWII] you'll see we re-acted to outside influences. Had those not come along, the US may never have invested so heavily in a war machine. (Just my $0.02.)
Why music/dancing? (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems that almost everytime there is a message here about a new robot coming from Japan, the feature list includes some kind of dancing/singing. Anybody knows why?
Boggles my mind :-)
What kind of companies? (Score:2, Insightful)
Never go public.
Re:Very cool, but.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the parent's point was that it's not foreign nations, but corporations that are willing to invest in these 'party gimmicks' that have no immediate application. As with the case of exploring mars, there is an intrisic value in pushing the boundries to any extent in any field.
Culture and Trophies Re:Why automotive companies? (Score:1, Insightful)
A part of the direct mechanism is the culture and peer-evaluation system in the country. How does a corporate executive boost his stature among his peers? We are used to thinking of "Trophy Wives" and conspicuous consumption, but there is more to it than that. Cost cutting, creative accounting, and outsourcing for its own sake can be driven by peer competition as well as competition at the level of firms.
Now, this peer-evaluation culture creates indirect financial incentives as well. If you are known as a cost-cutting or outsourcing expert, you can bet headhunters will be after you. You will get outside offers which you can sometimes leverage into inside promotions. Either way, you're moving on up. Is this because the hiring firm has a real need for that specific expertise? Not really. They are looking to have the hottest executives they can get. What constitutes "hot" is the management fashions of the day.
To investigate why companies spend their money one way rather than another, you need to study these issues. In technophilic Japan, it is presumably very cool to have made the latest and greatest robot in your division. The executives involved are probably the toast of the town right now. Meanwhile, in our America, we saw legendary institutions like Bell Labs gutted *during the boom* because it was more cool to show short term profits or even improve your golf game.
Culture matters.
Re:Long-term investing (Score:5, Insightful)
Your typical drug, say Viagria, starts as a base compund. Normally there are over 100,000 or more base compounds that are tested and researched before even one compound is found that would be useful to market (and this is before the inital FDA filing, AKA Pre-EDC). Once the compound is registered with the FDA and goes under intensive developemnt there is much more money spent.
On average development costs for a single drug can esclate into billions of dollars. Of course, if successful, a single good drug can bring enough profit to keep a drug company operating for years before the patent protection goes away.
The reason drugs outside of the US are much cheaper is mainly thanks to the FDA. The FDA has massive amounts of regulations even after the drug is approved that regulate how a drug is manufactured and handled. These regulations even dictate how the drug company manages and runs its production computer networks and client systems. This of course adds A LOT of overhead when making a drug.
Drugs coming from non FDA regulated sites (this is the kinda stuff you buy super cheap on the net) are much cheaper however knowing what the FDA regulations are and why they are there I feel much safer paying more money for an FDA approved drug which I know will be safe as opposed to a drug made at a non-FDA regulated site which may not meet the standards of saftey we have here in the states.
Free Trade... (Score:3, Insightful)
Firstly, import taxes in general have been greatly reduced since the 80's when foreign cars were first becoming popular in the US. Secondly, an increasing proportion of so-called "foreign cars" are being manufactured within in US (or at least North America). Thirdly, an increasing number of "domestic" cars and parts are being manufactured outside of North America. All of this is due to the increasing globalization and reduction of tariffs in all directions.
On the subject of Mexico:
Firstly, the minimum wage in Mexico is 43.65 Pesos [laredo-ldf.com], or just under $4. Not exactly 60 cents. Secondly, Mexico and the US are part of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which means they have unlimited tariff-free trade (with a few exceptions).
Finally, on the subject of Free Trade:
Contrary to popular beliefe, Free Trade does not make all people poor. Free Trade merely knocks down artifical price barriers on goods and services sold. This means that products will be available at their fair price. This can be a signifigant change if these barriers previously existed. Whenever there is a major change, there will be temporary (structural) unemployment. This is the same as the introduction of any new technology, such as computers, the assembly line model, or the internet. Over time, due to market forces, prices will stabalize and the playing field will be level again.
Unless of course, you choose to not adapt to the new system.
Re:Very cool, but.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Which only proves the previous poster's point. Toyota spent the research money to design and build hybrid technology first, and as a result they were properly rewarded by a patent on their technology. Now Ford must license this technology in order to build and sell hybrid cars. Here is an example of patent law working properly. --M
Re:Very cool, but.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's your solution:
1. Start a company.
2. Be successful enough that you have enough cash to fund this type of effort.
3. Fund this type of effort.
If you don't like how existing companies are run, too bad. Unless you're a big shareholder (or a big customer, I suppose), they don't have any incentive to do things because they're 'very cool'.
Is that management philosophy shirt-sighted? Yes, of course it is. But that's what investors are rewarding these days.
Sweet (Score:2, Insightful)
Development (Score:2, Insightful)
There are still though plenty of large companies in the U.S. that invest alot of money into R&D (IBM) but patients among americans is severly lacking these days and most people, including business owners have the "I want it now" philosophy.
On an off note I read somewhere that the pay ratio between a company CEO and their lowest paid employee in the U.S. averages 400 to 1 versus 100 to 1 in countries like Japan.
Re:A heckler from the 18th Century (Score:5, Insightful)
I hear you on the technical aspects, but I think its just as impressive that a robot was built nearly 270 years ago that could play a flute. And hell, the guy made a robotic duck that could eat,drink,quack and deficate as well! Where's your shitting robot Toyota?!?! :D
It requires planning and continuity. (Score:3, Insightful)
"Willing" isn't enough. Too many companies don't make adequate plans for preserving the technologies which they develop for the urgent needs of today's market. Four years from now, half the team is gone and nobody knows what happened to the source code archive much less any design documents.
A company has to first have a strategy for conserving the technologies they develop, as they are developed, before developing anything which may not be marketable for five or ten years. They'd also have to slow down their employee turn-over rate.
just as the British Empire (Score:2, Insightful)
Britain was an parliamentary monarchy at that time. The purpose of the parliament is to restraint the ruler from fighting unjust wars for personal grandeur and glory. This always means higher taxes and merchants just hate that idea.
The colonies in America have been surrounded by french forts on the Missisippi and in Quebec. This meant that they could possibly fall under the rule of France. The 7-years war was fought to prevent that danger. So, at that time Britain was only protecting it's people from an encirclement by a tyrannic, undemocratic regime. the costs at that time were twice their yearly income. they had to tax the protected somehow. 30 years later the settlers did not want to pay for the protection any more.
In India the French caused the problems again. There was already an monarchy in India, the Moguls (sp?). the British had only a trade settlement in India, no troops. they were buying Indian high-tech carpets in exchange for british silver.The French toppled the legitimate ruler and put an puppet in his place. this would not be as bad if the new monarch hadn't ruled all trade with the brits illegal. so now, they had to bring in troops topple the french puppet and install somebody new. after that someone had to administer the terrain, colect taxes and here you go, you have got an occupation and bureaucracy (CPA?).
Only later had the French people started their own revolution because they didn't want to pay the taxes for the military adventures of their king.
blame shareholder value (Score:2, Insightful)
in the short term it might be less risky to throw some marketing cash at an old product or visually redesign it (buy our new thingy! now, it's red!) than to spend your precious cash on something unknown.
OTOH, Intel is investing A LOT in R&D. but they get their cash back in, let's say, 5 years and have steady demand. we could take a look at their roadmaps from the past and measure the time from the lab to the market.