Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
Why do robots cost so much? — Parallax Forums

Why do robots cost so much?

Too_Many_ToolsToo_Many_Tools Posts: 765
edited 2013-12-13 17:44 in Robotics
That question was asked of me recently by a young budding roboticist.

She pointed out that robots like Vex, Lego AND Parallax cost a lot of money.

Unfortunately she is right.

So why do robots cost so much and why haven't their prices come down over time?

When entry pricing for robotics kits are set high, it prevents many wanna be roboticists to be involved.

The world is poorer because of it.

Comments

  • hapaluahapalua Posts: 149
    edited 2013-12-12 16:15
    Well I got a boebot for 180
  • ercoerco Posts: 20,256
    edited 2013-12-12 17:29
    @TMT: Surely you gave her one of the BoeBots you got for $15 from the Radio Shack blowout? :)
  • ctwardellctwardell Posts: 1,716
    edited 2013-12-12 17:44
    I'd say mostly the low sales volumes involved.

    I think there is a thread around here somewhere where Prof. Braino was trying to come up with some low cost options.

    C.W.
  • xanaduxanadu Posts: 3,347
    edited 2013-12-12 17:54
    I ask myself that question daily. It is rhetorical to me. If you design and build a unique robot from scratch you'll find out. I'm sure you're aware any entity that produces a product is adding in the cost of labor and a profitable margin to protect them from their own customers and provide support.

    LEGO, Vex and Parallax are very different things. Which model robots did you have in mind?
  • Martin_HMartin_H Posts: 4,051
    edited 2013-12-12 19:40
    A scratch build can be pretty cheap and fun. I've built many robots for under $50 by timing purchases when deals come up, or buying used parts off eBay. The problem of course is I've built so many robots for $50 that I've spent quite a bit on them.

    Speaking of eBay, educators occasionally sell off spare Boe-bots and I scored one for $60 once. So don't underestimate the value of scrounging.
  • Duane DegnDuane Degn Posts: 10,588
    edited 2013-12-12 19:42
    ctwardell wrote: »
    I think there is a thread around here somewhere where Prof. Braino was trying to come up with some low cost options.

    There are several threads about building low cost robots. I'm pretty sure I link to several other of these threads from my cheap bot thread.

    The main costs are control board, servos (or motors) and batteries. There are a lot robots that can be built for less than $50.
  • Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) Posts: 23,514
    edited 2013-12-12 19:52
    There's always Mark Tilden's BEAM robotics, renowned for utilzing scrap, found, and other no-cost components.

    -Phil
  • NWCCTVNWCCTV Posts: 3,629
    edited 2013-12-12 22:32
    Try trading on Craigs List. I have scrounged up all kinds of stuff that way. I even have a couple of fairly nice RC Cars that I do not use but will be trading for useable items down the road. Plastic companies some times will donate REMS that can easily be made in to robot bases. Motors can be acqired from old printers. Garage sales yield lots for a buck or two. Sure, they are stepper motors but if you want cheap then there are plenty of resources to do it, you just have to be willing to do the leg work.
  • ajwardajward Posts: 1,130
    edited 2013-12-13 04:24
    When you buy a robot kit, you're paying, in part, for the convenience of someone else designing the robot and gathering all the bits and pieces into one convenient package so all you need to do is "bolt part A to part B....", like the BoeBot. Nothing wrong with that, but I like the challenge of figuring out how to make my own "part A and part B".

    When I built Clyde the only high-dollar part was the BS Homework Board ~$40. The rest came from parts I had on-hand, a couple of bits on eBay and the scrap bin at a local plastic supplier.
    I did recently buy a robot kit, a bipedal walker. It was a bit pricey at $100 plus shipping. Previously, for about the same cost I built a larger, more complex walker (Wally) using parts on-hand and scrounging for deals on eBay.

    So, again, nothing wrong with kits ('cept price maybe), but for me the fun is in designing my critters and making all the parts I can as cheaply as possible.

    Amanda - Apprentice Tinkerer

    Edit: See Gordon McComb's book "The Robot Builder's Bonanza"
  • GordonMcCombGordonMcComb Posts: 3,366
    edited 2013-12-13 07:51
    I think TMT's point is that the kits are expensive to begin with, not that there aren't ways to trim costs by buying used or on sale. Everything is available that way, but that doesn't change the ordinary starting costs.

    For all three of the brands mentioned at top, the biggest contributor to the end price is support. Toolsets, learning guides, examples, tutorials, books, and all that cost money. In the case of Parallax, at least, these are always free when downloaded. Few other robot kits have the depth and width of free support as the BOE-Bot, and its selling price reflects the time and energy that went into creating that support.

    IMO, LEGO is absurdly priced. But apparently they can get it, because the thing keeps selling.

    Scratch-build, and not relying on Chinese sources to save nickles-and-dimes, you can do a decent bot for $50, and in style for $80.
  • xanaduxanadu Posts: 3,347
    edited 2013-12-13 08:25
    TMT, I would love to know what Parallax, LEGO, and Vex products you own.

    Do you have anything you have built you would like to share?
  • Martin_HMartin_H Posts: 4,051
    edited 2013-12-13 09:26
    IMO, LEGO is absurdly priced. But apparently they can get it, because the thing keeps selling.

    The thing Lego has going for it is that you can turn an eight year old lose with it, and they can turn out something impressive without breaking it. The problem of course is that it does that by constraining your choices so much that in two years you'll start to outgrow it. Some people continue to turn out amazing stuff with Lego, but they do it by buying add ons that are pretty expensive.

    What's funny is that I bought a Scribbler 1 when my son was five and my daughter was seven. We had a blast with it and the built in programs. We bought Lego NXT when they were eight, and ten, and likewise had fun. But then I realized there was more to Scribbler then met the eye, I learned PBasic, and ended up a forumista.
  • GordonMcCombGordonMcComb Posts: 3,366
    edited 2013-12-13 12:55
    Agreed about LEGO, but much of the what we "wow" over is the mechanics, and a $45 LEGO set is just as good. And from a construction and engineering standpoint, I'd even argue that the simpler non-LEGO sets are superior. For mechanically included 8-year olds and above, there's Erector, which teaches construction techniques that actually exist in the real world. Some of the general purpose Erector sets have motors, and kids love controlling their creations from a wired remote just as much, if not more, than programmed.

    I'm not saying LEGO robotics is a waste, but there are many other alternatives far cheaper. LEGO is becoming something for either rich kids, or schools, leaving out less affluent learners who don't go to a school with a robotics program. TMT nailed it with the comment "The world is poorer because of it." That's exactly right.
  • Too_Many_ToolsToo_Many_Tools Posts: 765
    edited 2013-12-13 17:04
    erco wrote: »
    @TMT: Surely you gave her one of the BoeBots you got for $15 from the Radio Shack blowout? :)

    LOL...I am slowly donating those Bots to deserving groups since I already had a number of them from past purchases.

    FWIW...my mention of the mind blowing pricing of those Bots was not meant as a personal gloat but as a heads up to others to be shaking the Radio Shack trees for hidden treasures. The last time I had seen those type of prices were during the Great Robot Purge several years ago at Radio Shack when they blew out Boebots and the Vex line.
  • Too_Many_ToolsToo_Many_Tools Posts: 765
    edited 2013-12-13 17:06
    ctwardell wrote: »
    I'd say mostly the low sales volumes involved.

    I think there is a thread around here somewhere where Prof. Braino was trying to come up with some low cost options.

    C.W.

    I think that is part of the problem..but only part of it.

    The Lego robot line is based on mechanical components that are made in the BILLIONS.
  • Too_Many_ToolsToo_Many_Tools Posts: 765
    edited 2013-12-13 17:10
    xanadu wrote: »
    I ask myself that question daily. It is rhetorical to me. If you design and build a unique robot from scratch you'll find out. I'm sure you're aware any entity that produces a product is adding in the cost of labor and a profitable margin to protect them from their own customers and provide support.

    LEGO, Vex and Parallax are very different things. Which model robots did you have in mind?

    All of them.

    I understand that development costs need to be crawled back but what we are seeing that robot kits retain their initial MSPR pricing over years.

    History has shown us that electronic companies who charge low prices for development kits see far better market penetration.
  • Too_Many_ToolsToo_Many_Tools Posts: 765
    edited 2013-12-13 17:14
    Martin_H wrote: »
    A scratch build can be pretty cheap and fun. I've built many robots for under $50 by timing purchases when deals come up, or buying used parts off eBay. The problem of course is I've built so many robots for $50 that I've spent quite a bit on them.

    Speaking of eBay, educators occasionally sell off spare Boe-bots and I scored one for $60 once. So don't underestimate the value of scrounging.

    I understand the lure of scratch build and the champaign tastes beer budget magic of the surplus market but history shows it is asking far too much for the young and inexperienced (who seldom have any mentoring available) to get robotics from that venue.
  • Too_Many_ToolsToo_Many_Tools Posts: 765
    edited 2013-12-13 17:15
    Duane Degn wrote: »
    There are several threads about building low cost robots. I'm pretty sure I link to several other of these threads from my cheap bot thread.

    The main costs are control board, servos (or motors) and batteries. There are a lot robots that can be built for less than $50.

    Good point...one of the many strong points of this website.
  • Too_Many_ToolsToo_Many_Tools Posts: 765
    edited 2013-12-13 17:18
    There's always Mark Tilden's BEAM robotics, renowned for utilzing scrap, found, and other no-cost components.

    -Phil

    Good reference...Mr. Tilden's approach is a valid one.

    Unfortunately few newbies know of it and one needs to come to it with working electronics knowledge (or make the time to gain that knowledge) to enable its implementation.
  • Too_Many_ToolsToo_Many_Tools Posts: 765
    edited 2013-12-13 17:22
    NWCCTV wrote: »
    Try trading on Craigs List. I have scrounged up all kinds of stuff that way. I even have a couple of fairly nice RC Cars that I do not use but will be trading for useable items down the road. Plastic companies some times will donate REMS that can easily be made in to robot bases. Motors can be acqired from old printers. Garage sales yield lots for a buck or two. Sure, they are stepper motors but if you want cheap then there are plenty of resources to do it, you just have to be willing to do the leg work.

    I would agree...I especially like this approach since I have a substantial tool capability available to me.

    Unfortunately building scratch built assumes that you already have the infrastructure skills and resources in place.

    Most people do not...and usually all newbies do not..which is why most commercial kits are based on supplied components.

    The decline and fall of the hands on culture in the USA is a sore point with me...next time you are driving around a neighborhood count how many households have a shop in their garage versus those who do not.
  • Too_Many_ToolsToo_Many_Tools Posts: 765
    edited 2013-12-13 17:26
    ajward wrote: »
    When you buy a robot kit, you're paying, in part, for the convenience of someone else designing the robot and gathering all the bits and pieces into one convenient package so all you need to do is "bolt part A to part B....", like the BoeBot. Nothing wrong with that, but I like the challenge of figuring out how to make my own "part A and part B".

    When I built Clyde the only high-dollar part was the BS Homework Board ~$40. The rest came from parts I had on-hand, a couple of bits on eBay and the scrap bin at a local plastic supplier.
    I did recently buy a robot kit, a bipedal walker. It was a bit pricey at $100 plus shipping. Previously, for about the same cost I built a larger, more complex walker (Wally) using parts on-hand and scrounging for deals on eBay.

    So, again, nothing wrong with kits ('cept price maybe), but for me the fun is in designing my critters and making all the parts I can as cheaply as possible.

    Amanda - Apprentice Tinkerer

    Edit: See Gordon McComb's book "The Robot Builder's Bonanza"

    I agree and understand the increased cost of a kit where predevelopment has been done versus the "raw pile" approach.

    What the young person's question unknowingly raised is why do the costs of robotics kits remain high years after being introduced...long after develeopment costs have been reclaimed.
  • Too_Many_ToolsToo_Many_Tools Posts: 765
    edited 2013-12-13 17:30
    I think TMT's point is that the kits are expensive to begin with, not that there aren't ways to trim costs by buying used or on sale. Everything is available that way, but that doesn't change the ordinary starting costs.

    For all three of the brands mentioned at top, the biggest contributor to the end price is support. Toolsets, learning guides, examples, tutorials, books, and all that cost money. In the case of Parallax, at least, these are always free when downloaded. Few other robot kits have the depth and width of free support as the BOE-Bot, and its selling price reflects the time and energy that went into creating that support.

    IMO, LEGO is absurdly priced. But apparently they can get it, because the thing keeps selling.

    Scratch-build, and not relying on Chinese sources to save nickles-and-dimes, you can do a decent bot for $50, and in style for $80.

    Thanks Gordon...that is my point.

    As we who have worked with robotics all know from experience, costs can be reduced through different routes..but again we know this because of our robotic experience which newbies do not posess.
  • Too_Many_ToolsToo_Many_Tools Posts: 765
    edited 2013-12-13 17:34
    xanadu wrote: »
    TMT, I would love to know what Parallax, LEGO, and Vex products you own.

    Do you have anything you have built you would like to share?

    All of the above and more.

    I use kits as resources to build custom setups as the need arises.

    As for building a specific robot, I have been considering building a working version of the Martian Curiosity rover as a personal project.
  • Too_Many_ToolsToo_Many_Tools Posts: 765
    edited 2013-12-13 17:40
    Martin_H wrote: »
    The thing Lego has going for it is that you can turn an eight year old lose with it, and they can turn out something impressive without breaking it. The problem of course is that it does that by constraining your choices so much that in two years you'll start to outgrow it. Some people continue to turn out amazing stuff with Lego, but they do it by buying add ons that are pretty expensive.

    What's funny is that I bought a Scribbler 1 when my son was five and my daughter was seven. We had a blast with it and the built in programs. We bought Lego NXT when they were eight, and ten, and likewise had fun. But then I realized there was more to Scribbler then met the eye, I learned PBasic, and ended up a forumista.

    Agreed that the Lego kit does leverage the basic building components.

    Softwarewise it seems to require adult assistance.

    I would agree that having access to the programming language adds power to the build experience but again that knowledge base is required that newbies lack.
  • Too_Many_ToolsToo_Many_Tools Posts: 765
    edited 2013-12-13 17:44
    Agreed about LEGO, but much of the what we "wow" over is the mechanics, and a $45 LEGO set is just as good. And from a construction and engineering standpoint, I'd even argue that the simpler non-LEGO sets are superior. For mechanically included 8-year olds and above, there's Erector, which teaches construction techniques that actually exist in the real world. Some of the general purpose Erector sets have motors, and kids love controlling their creations from a wired remote just as much, if not more, than programmed.

    I'm not saying LEGO robotics is a waste, but there are many other alternatives far cheaper. LEGO is becoming something for either rich kids, or schools, leaving out less affluent learners who don't go to a school with a robotics program. TMT nailed it with the comment "The world is poorer because of it." That's exactly right.

    Well said Gordon.

    We can easily see the mechanics but the software content is invisible...we tend to discount the "out of sight out of mind" content of any effort.

    I posted in the general discussion area about a film Stanford students attempting to design and build a useful product using minimal resources..a very telling real world challenge.
Sign In or Register to comment.