It's everything. Starting with compute unit, sensors. They _are_ getting smaller and cheaper.
Then there are actuators. Small robots use servos which are not fast enough. Bigger robots, like those from Boston Dynamics, use brushless motors. Which are fast, but have limited torque.
Then there is the cost. Without volume it's absurdly high.
Then competitors, they can easily reproduce. For example Boston Dynamics sell it's dog sized robot for $75k, while mechanically similar Chinese are $4-10k.
Then the biggest question is what are you going to do with it for this price? Special note: we already have vacuums. You cannot send it shopping alone. Any other realistic ideas?
Thank you for the insights. Realistically, how long do you think it's going to be before small businesses (for example, retailers or small warehouses and manufacturers) start using robots like the Boston Dynamics products in their day to day workflows?
Some robots, such as spot is already used in business. This one [1] is used at a power plant, and some warehouses have fully automated pipeline. When I went to a job interview for Mujin in Japan they told me they had fully automated the new Nike warehouse
The big promise is that if you make it capable of the same physical feats as humans, then all you need to make it capable of doing almost any chore is software, and software is a lot easier to iterate on with huge advances right now in the form of LLMs, plus having effectively zero marginal cost once development is paid for. It'll probably do those tasks slower than a human for the foreseeable future, but that's unlikely to be a deal-breaker if it can reliably do the tasks. It's more expensive than a robot vacuum, but it can vacuum for you and prepare the house for vacuuming by moving things and putting clutter back where it belongs, something current vacuums can't do. It's more expensive than a dishwasher, but it can collect the dishes itself and then put them back into storage itself, something current dishwashers can't do. It can collect dirty laundry and put it in the washing machine, then take it out and dry it, then fold it and put it away, then get your clothes ready when you need them - a washing machine can't do that. If it's capable of doing the same tasks physically as a human, it should be able to charge itself, update itself, do some light maintenance on itself (e.g. clearing dust from sensors and feet, cleaning most of its chassis, replacing certain parts), meaning a good system shouldn't introduce more work than it's alleviating. It should be able to tidy up and mop properly, and if it gets close enough to human speed it may be able to cook - nothing commercially available can do those. It should be able to move furniture, arrange cables, and do some basic DIY tasks, maybe even 'destructive' DIY if you own your home - nothing commercially available can do that. It is very unlikely to be as efficient at any of those tasks as a purpose built, industrial-style robot specialised to a single task, but if it can do all of them to a satisfactory standard for a cheaper price than outfitting your home with every automated machine under the sun (some of which don't even exist yet, the economics for creating them aren't great, and they would take a huge amount of space in your home), then there's a value proposition there. Plus, there is also value in the visible solution being more familiar and understandable, rather than your home being filled with big cubes, rectangles, and robotic arms that infringe on your space even if they're made safe to be around humans.
Basically, with current automated solutions humans form the "glue" between all existing home automation solutions, because humans are generally capable where existing solutions are specific and fragile. If that "glue" role can be performed by a humanoid robot, then it dramatically reduces the amount of housework humans have to do.
As for who might buy it for the price, the obvious answer is people who are rich enough to afford it but either not rich enough to hire service staff or who don't want to employ service staff for other reasons (privacy, don't want to be personally exposed to wealth inequality, racism, fear of theft, fear of disease). Another answer is disabled people. A lot of disabled people love their support workers and have important, humane relationships with them. A lot of other disabled people (like me) love what support workers do and think it's important but are unwilling to go through the arduous process of finding someone you trust to be there when you're at your most vulnerable, or being forced to make do with one of the small proportion of support workers who don't care about their clients that much or are borderline abusive (or actually abusive). In countries with socialised or subsidised medicine, I could very easily see the case for covering humanoid robotic helpers. Already in my country various machines worth up to $8000 or even $100,000 can be covered for disabled people depending on how much it would help, the medical need for it, etc, under various different programs. These aren't small programs either, a lot of disabled people here have access to these resources. A lot of money is also allocated on an ongoing basis specifically for support workers, and for humanoid robots specifically I could see them being eligible to access those funds because of the overlap in role between them and support workers. It won't be a good solution for every disabled person, but it could be a good solution for a lot of us.
