Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Robotics Science

NAO Humanoid Robot Set To Hit the Market 191

KentuckyFC writes "Earlier this year, Paris-based Aldebaran-Robotics picked up $8 million in venture capital funding to help commercialize its NAO humanoid robot. The target market for this device is research labs working on the next generation of robotic hardware and software. Today, the company has posted a detailed spec of NAO on the arXiv saying that it expects the robot to cost about $15,000 each. That's cheap compared to other humanoids. Fuitsu's HOAP humanoids cost $50,000 each and various estimates price Honda's Asimo at $1 million per bot, although they are not for sale. Aldebaran-Robotics says that NAO's cost should come down to about $6,000 as production ramps up."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NAO Humanoid Robot Set To Hit the Market

Comments Filter:
  • by Stanistani ( 808333 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2008 @12:52PM (#24307867) Homepage Journal

    A hundred years from now, whether the readers are C or Fe, they will get a feeling of nausea reading about the 'retail prices' of 'humanoids.'

    • by Harmonious Botch ( 921977 ) * on Wednesday July 23, 2008 @01:00PM (#24308045) Homepage Journal

      A hundred years from now, whether the readers are C or Fe, they will get a feeling of nausea reading about the 'retail prices' of 'humanoids.'

      No, because it will be illegal to talk about the robocaust.

      • by Tumbleweed ( 3706 ) * on Wednesday July 23, 2008 @01:41PM (#24308763)

        No, because it will be illegal to talk about the robocaust.

        You sound like a Robocaust denier!

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        And you won't be politically correct to say the "R" word... but it's OK for Robots to say it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      To be fair, even natural-born humans have a price, 5.1 million dollars if I remember right, according to the US government.
      • by 4D6963 ( 933028 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2008 @01:16PM (#24308301)

        To be fair, even natural-born humans have a price, 5.1 million dollars if I remember right, according to the US government.

        The subtlety being in the word 'retail'. The US government doesn't sell people in "people stores".

        Or does it?

        • by Godji ( 957148 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2008 @01:50PM (#24308917) Homepage
          Indeed it does not. One can only get a person through the OEM channels.
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by swarsron ( 612788 )
          not yet. But since one can use bodyfat to create biodiesel and with the rising cost of oil, an unbalanced budget ...
        • "..The US government doesn't sell people in "people stores"

          GW Bush has not yet finished unilaterally repealing the constitution. He still has a few months left to finish so maybe he'll start working on the 13th amendment next. Who knows

          For those not from the US the 13th starts off with the words "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude..." Repeals the 13th and then we could see "peole stores" again. We had then here before 1865.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        5.1 million dollars if I remember right, according to the US government.

        It Depends.

        If you're being poisoned by air pollution, it's $6.1 million dollars [msn.com] (down from $8 million in 2000) but if a company is dumping poison in your water supply, it's $8.8 million dollars. If you need to know how much more to pay for little rubber caps to make your Pinto not explode, the DoT suggests $5.8 million [64.233.169.104], but starting this year wants everyone to analyze their work at $3.2 and $8.4 million, just to be sure. $5.8 million i

      • humans have a price, 5.1 million dollars if I remember right, according to the US government.

        You are referring to this [washingtonpost.com] recent bit of news. The current official figure is, actually, about $7.22 million (you don't remember right).

        However, it is not set by the US government — the government simply researches, what "we the people" are willing to do (how much they are willing to spend, rather) to avoid risks to our health/life. For example, an American, wishing to travel from New York to Boston, can take

      • According to the EPA, and even with pseudo-science, you still need arbitrary numbers to plug in.
    • Probably for our naivete, though.

    • So where will the line be drawn? Is the robot a humanoid once the order is placed, or once it comes off the assembly line? Or when the warranty runs out?
  • by __aailob1448 ( 541069 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2008 @12:53PM (#24307887) Journal

    I want my robot NAO!

  • by Van Cutter Romney ( 973766 ) <sriram.venkataramaniNO@SPAMgeemail.com> on Wednesday July 23, 2008 @12:53PM (#24307891)
    Somewhere in the back of my mind I have this strange feeling that we are slowly heading into Asimov's world. And all the problems (and benefits) that come along with it ...
    • Somewhere in the back of my mind I have this strange feeling that we are slowly heading into Asimov's world. And all the problems (and benefits) that come along with it ...

      We were promised our own robots back in the 1950's. So, we finally have them. Now where is my flying car?

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by TheSync ( 5291 ) *

        where is my flying car?

        Try a Powered Parachute [easyflight.com] - no license to fly a single-seater, and they can be had for a little over $5000 [airframesunlimited.com]. With an airspeed of 30 MPH, you will easily outpace most rush hour LA freeways :)

    • Somewhere in the back of my mind I have this strange feeling that we are slowly heading into Asimov's world. And all the problems (and benefits) that come along with it ...

      Since a core feature of that world is that certain behavioral constraints favorable (in general terms) to humanity were features of robotic brains, not because they were designed that way, but as a matter essentially of natural law (in Asimov's works, the laws of robotics were discovered, not designed), I somehow doubt that we are heading

      • by Wildclaw ( 15718 )

        in Asimov's works, the laws of robotics were discovered, not designed

        Is that statement really true? It contradicts my knowledge. One example I could think off was ths short novel "Little Lost Robot" where the first law is modified.

        I have to admit that I am a little rusty on this topic as it is a long time since I read Asimov.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Is that statement really true? It contradicts my knowledge. One example I could think off was ths short novel "Little Lost Robot" where the first law is modified.

          Apparently, we're both right; Asimov's portrayal of the laws is inconsistent -- they are at times (particularly in later works) portrayed as fundamental and inherent in the nature of the positronic brain, and at times (particularly in earlier works) portrayed as alterable, engineered safeguard's. Wikipedia gives a rationalization of this (without c

    • by sm62704 ( 957197 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2008 @01:29PM (#24308583) Journal

      Asimov's universe has robots being banned on Earth, robot colonies dying, and robotics itself dying as well, with R. Daneel Olivaw being the only remaining robot in a galaxy with no non-human sentient life (except on Gaia, where everything is sentient).

      I think Asimov's robots will be about as like the real future's robots as his Multivac is to the internet. I don't see robots being banned.

    • by Stanistani ( 808333 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2008 @03:21PM (#24310259) Homepage Journal

      I think we are more likely to be governed by these Three Laws:

      1. A citizen may not criicize the government or, through inaction, allow the government to be criticized.

      2. A citizen must obey orders given to it by the government, except where such orders would conflict with corporate profits.

      3. A citizen must protect itself from unregulated media as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

  • Before anyone asks.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Blice ( 1208832 ) <Lifes@Alrig.ht> on Wednesday July 23, 2008 @12:54PM (#24307911)
    Yes, it does run Linux.
  • Why humanoid? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 23, 2008 @12:54PM (#24307933)

    I don't see the appeal to having a humanoid robot. The robots in Wall*e for example were all designed for a function.

    I think of any robot as a machine. They are there to serve a purpose. Even the IVR systems make me angry when they imply "I'm sorry. I didn't get that". No, the computer didn't recognize what I said. And "you" aren't sorry.

    Anthropomorphizing robots, cute as they are in Wall*e, is insulting to the beauty of that which is life.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Wiarumas ( 919682 )
      Just to bring up an interesting point, in the Animatrix's story about the rise of power of machines, they start out as humanoid (as we designed them that way) and evolve into insect-like creatures by the end as they continue to improve upon their robotic designs.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Brigadier ( 12956 )

      Somewhere in my head I'm picturing you in some basement building some contraption and talking to it as if Dr Einstein.

      Your zealousness is disconcerting. somewhere, in another time there is a small boy, and a machine and an angry mom pointing a rifle straight at your head.......

    • see sig-
    • by fireboy1919 ( 257783 ) <(rustyp) (at) (freeshell.org)> on Wednesday July 23, 2008 @01:27PM (#24308541) Homepage Journal

      Anthropomorphizing robots, cute as they are in Wall*e, is insulting to the beauty of that which is life.

      That's only when the robots look like robots. When the robots look like hot chicks that are anatomically correct (if well-endowed), then it's a complement to the beauty that is life.

      And by a complement, I mean that I want two of them. One to complement each arm.

    • by pitchpipe ( 708843 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2008 @01:44PM (#24308825)

      I don't see the appeal to having a humanoid robot.

      Sex.

      Anthropomorphizing robots, cute as they are in Wall*e, is insulting to the beauty of that which is life.

      Anthropomorphizing robots is all about what my previous statement was about. Fuck the beauty of life, we're talking utilization here.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sethumme ( 1313479 )

      You are right that robots are built to serve a specific purpose, but keep in mind that most robotic functions are ones that were previously done by us humans. So it's quite possible that one day we will want a robot that performs some human task that requires human proportions, such as carrying our bags while at the same time navigating stairs and fitting through doorways or even into cars.

      Of course, we could also want robots for companionship, in the same way people find comfort in pets. But in that case

    • Re:Why humanoid? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 23, 2008 @02:10PM (#24309273)

      Specialized robots are useless outside their function, and are thus just expensive deadweight when not in use. For example, a Roomba is great at vacuuming a floor, but when the floor is clean it can't do anything else. It can't carry boxes or wash dishes. You'd need additional robots for those specialized tasks, and they're going have the same "deadweight" problem as the Roomba too.

      A humanoid robot would be able to do any physical job that a human could do. Such robots would be versatile enough to be useful all the time. A single humanoid robot vacuums the floor, then it carries boxes, and then washes dishes, and then etc etc etc. A humanoid robot would always be useful in some way, and thus more efficient in the long run.

      • by HiThere ( 15173 )

        Actually, when I look at the hands I'm not very believing. They look rather incapable. Also, if it's 23 inches tall (I'm not sure what the 23 inches label referred to) then it's not going to be very capable of many human tasks.

        OTOH, this is an alpha model (I think the label said 0.0.1alpha), so one may well expect many improvements before it reaches beta. Including even massive changes in the C&C interface.

      • A robot who vacuums the floors will still need a vacuum cleaner. If you could make a robotic vacuum cleaner as small as a regular vacuum then it would make sense.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Mike1024 ( 184871 )

      I don't see the appeal to having a humanoid robot.

      Because we want them to operate in a world that (1) humans are well adapted to and (2) that has in places been adapted to be specifically human-compatible.

      Functional designs like the roomba are all very well, but can they ascend stairs? Operate a door handle? Press buttons positioned for humans to use? Pick up a variety of objects without needing special manipulators?

      And that's just what you'd need for a robot to go to the coffee machine and bring me a coffee, stopping off at the mail room to get my mail.

      No

  • Quick, somebody wake Jasper up!
  • by __aailob1448 ( 541069 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2008 @01:05PM (#24308143) Journal

    For all the details, hit this PDF [arxiv.org]

    NAOs head is equipped with an x86 AMD GEODE 500 MHz CPU motherboard with 256 Mb SDRAM. An additional 1Gb Flash memory is available. Communication with the robot is possible through WiFi 802.11g protocol and through Ethernet port. The CPU manages audio, video, and WiFi and other advanced modules. One ARM7-60MHz microcontroller located in the torso distributes information to all the actuator module microcontrollers (Microchip 16 bit dsPICS) through a RS485 bus (throughput of 460[Kbits=s]). There are two RS485 buses, one that connects the ARM7 microcontroller to the dsPICS modules of the upper part of the body, and the other that connects the ARM7 to the dsPICS modules of the lower part of the body. This bus partition permits to increase the data throughput.

    The ARM-7 microcontroller communicates with the CPU board through a USB-2 bus with a theoretical throughput of 11[Mbits=s]. It can be used to control the robots stabilityusing the inertial unit. The operating system is based on Linux, but the whole system can be modified.

    Sensors:

    30 FPS CMOS videocamera 1
    Gyrometer 2
    Accelerometer 3
    Magnetic rotary encoder (MRE) 34
    FSR 8
    Infrared sensor (emitter/receiver) 2
    Ultrasonic sensor 2
    Loudspeaker 2
    Microphone 4

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Thelasko ( 1196535 )
      I think the WiFi is the best part of the specs. You can have the robot run around with all of the complex computing done by a cluster of high end computers in another room.
  • by sm62704 ( 957197 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2008 @01:15PM (#24308289) Journal

    Ok, this is quite unlike me but I clicked the link and... Terminator 0.0.1 (alpha) looks like a robotic clown. She has no breasts, looks like sh'e made of HARD plastic, and doubtless has no vagina.

    I'm going to pay $15,000 for that? Come on, dude, I want one like Data's daughter! What are you guys smoking? Speaking of smoking, I can get a real twenty five year old human crack whore for twenty bucks.

    • $15,000 for a (fake) female that never talks back, won't steal from you, won't wreck your car, won't come home with another guy ... won't take off with one (unless stolen), and won't care if you forget an anniversary ... sounds cheap!
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by gstoddart ( 321705 )

      I'm going to pay $15,000 for that? Come on, dude, I want one like Data's daughter! What are you guys smoking? Speaking of smoking, I can get a real twenty five year old human crack whore for twenty bucks.

      Well, you get what you pay for, I guess.

      Skanky crack whore. $20, but nasty at any price.

      Real doll. $6000, but really interactive.

      Hard-plastic humanoid with no sexy bits. $15000.

      Sentient, intelligent android with positronic brain and capacity to learn. Priceless.

      Cheers

      • Real doll. $6000, but really interactive.

        Doh!! That should be "NOT really interactive".

        Fixed that for me. :-P

    • Speaking of smoking, I can get a real twenty five year old human crack whore for twenty bucks.

      Along the unadvertised free "extras". I won't be happy until the experience is fully replicated -- they need to make an anatomically correct robot with herpes and gonorrhea resevoirs.

      When sex with an android can result in me pissing guacamole, then I'll know that humandoi robotics has fully arrived.

  • Too Short (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ta ma de ( 851887 ) <chris.erik.barnes@ g m ail.com> on Wednesday July 23, 2008 @01:18PM (#24308343)
    If it can't reach the beer in the fridge, then who really cares.
  • Description (Score:5, Funny)

    by Subm ( 79417 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2008 @01:21PM (#24308417)

    FTA: "Initially, delivered with basic behaviors, the robot will be, at its market introduction, the ideal introduction to robots. Eventually, with many improved behaviors, it will become an autonomous family companion. Finally, with more sophisticated functions, it will adopt a new role, assisting with daily tasks (monitoring, etc.)"

    Will, it, have, full, comma, functionality?

    • No. But I hear it will have genuine people personalities.
    • by ignavus ( 213578 )

      FTA: "Eventually, with many improved behaviors, it will become an autonomous family companion."

      Hmm, sounds to me just like raising a child.

  • by MrSteveSD ( 801820 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2008 @01:26PM (#24308527)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww [youtube.com]

    Why can't someone make a bipedal robot as impressive as bigdog?
  • Have styling by the same Mecha designer as Patlabor easily worth the added $35,000 for your own Alphonse. On the other hand the Hyper Operating System is almost as bad as Vista.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by e2d2 ( 115622 )

      I thought the same thing, relating it to patlabor. The main character's name is Nao also.

      In the robot world this isn't really news so much as a press release. There are a lot of humanoid robots that one can purchase with similar feature sets. It's not going to change the landscape of robotics, but it is a cool tool/toy.

  • Am I alone in having 'Aldebaran-Robotics' making me think of 'Sirius Cybernetics'?

    • by rossdee ( 243626 )

      Aldebaran is a lot further away than Sirius. If you order one of these now, you'll get it in about 130 years or so.

  • Robo-clone (Score:3, Funny)

    by Smivs ( 1197859 ) <smivs@smivsonline.co.uk> on Wednesday July 23, 2008 @01:28PM (#24308563) Homepage Journal

    A humanoid robot that looked like me would be great, not just 'cos it looks like me (poor thing!), but I could send it to work and stay at home all day reading /.
    Oh, hang on, I do that anyway. Oh well!

  • Emotions? (Score:3, Funny)

    by devotedlhasa ( 1298843 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2008 @01:41PM (#24308775)
    I think you ought to know I'm feeling very depressed...
  • by Duncan Blackthorne ( 1095849 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2008 @01:45PM (#24308837)
    So.. let me get this straight: It costs $15,000USD, is approximately the size of a six-month old baby, and looks like some plastic toy? Sure, I read another of the comments here describing what hardware and software it's running, and that's all cool and everything, but seriously: what is it good for other than it's value as a very expensive high-tech toy? It's too short, and I'm sure, too weak and/or clumsy, to do anything really useful for you in your day-to-day life? Seriously, I may be missing an important point here, but I don't see where someone would want to pay so much money for what seems to amount to a very expensive hackers toy.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by e2d2 ( 115622 )

      It's mainly for researchers to devise the best techniques for a humanoid, and then apply them to the real world using "real" robots that are yet to come. Think about it, all of the flaws you mentioned are the same engineering challenges they need to meet in future robots. This robot is simply a cornerstone to get started thinking about those problem sets. The solutions start in research labs and makes their way to commercial applications slowly but surely. But this is almost always the first step. Robotics

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Sure, I read another of the comments here describing what hardware and software it's running, and that's all cool and everything, but seriously: what is it good for other than it's value as a very expensive high-tech toy? Seriously, I may be missing an important point here, but I don't see where someone would want to pay so much money for what seems to amount to a very expensive hackers toy.

      This is Slashdot. People who are will to pay so much money (or at least, wish they had the money free) for a "very exp

  • Even in Sci-fi, the value of the humanoid robot is cost-savings.
    If the brain of a general purpose robot is significantly more expensive than any body it will be put into, then you want that body to be able to handle as many tasks as possible, thus you make it to use all the tools that already exist for humans to use.

    Until the brain is capable of handling all the tasks needed for operating as a semi-autonomous manual laborer, then a humanoid robot is just a nifty gadget with no real place in industry or oth

  • Robotnet (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Botia ( 855350 )
    Now instead of worrying about being attacked by botnets, we'll have to worry about getting attacked from robotnets. Wonderful.
  • Why is it that all humanoid robots to date are tiny? Is it just for cost or what? To me, it seems that most people will consider these things to be an expensive toy, as long as they are the size of a toy.

    When the robot can take a verbal command to go to the kitchen and get me a beer, _and_ it is tall enough to reach everything in all the cabinets, then it will be useful.

    - Necron69

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by e2d2 ( 115622 )

      Why is it that when robots don't act like something out of a fantasy movie people are a little disappointed? Get a grip on reality man. There is obviously a huge disconnect between the reality of robotics and fantasy.

      Think of it this way - you're wondering why you can't get the really slick aqua theme on your desktop when the people writing the actual software are still working on getting a working 3-color display!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Khashishi ( 775369 )
      Probably weight. A human-sized one would probably take a crane to move.
  • Just as with architecture and automotive engineering task, they need to do robotics with virtual systems, using physics models instead of using hardware.
  • Boy I can't wait until i can get my own Marilyn Monroebot!
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      Boy I can't wait until i can get my own Marilyn Monroebot!

      You can have her, I want the Jessica Albot.

  • Videos from RoboCup (Score:5, Informative)

    by Falkkin ( 97268 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2008 @02:46PM (#24309751) Homepage

    The RoboCup 2008 world competition just finished in Suzhou, China -- new this year was a league where all the teams must use the Nao robots. The top two teams were from the University of Newcastle (Australia) and a combined Carnegie Mellon/Georgia Tech team. The final game was scoreless and decided by penalty kicks. Full results are here:

    http://www.tzi.de/4legged/bin/view/Website/NaoResults2008 [www.tzi.de]

    I wasn't at the competition but it's clear due to the scores that the league is still in its infancy, with scores being few and far between. As with any humanoid robot, falling over is a huge problem. I'm sure there will be some videos of the competition online once all the teams get home and have time to edit and upload them.

    Here's a video of the robot walking, from the 2008 RoboCup US Open (where there was no competition but a couple small demos for the public.)

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=N7USdkA0My8 [youtube.com]

    • falling over is a huge problem

      Wow, it sounds pretty authentic to me! Just like real soccer!

      The final game was scoreless

      Yup, it rings true. It's amazing how lifelike robots are getting these days.

  • ....can't......lolcats....too....strong....

    I can has robot NAO?! ^.^

    *gigglefits*

  • Are they nuts?

    That android:
    http://arxivblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/nao.jpg [arxivblog.com]

    Is not nearly hot enough for that price!

    This is what we want:
    http://www.universeguide.com/Pictures/RommieFace.jpg [universeguide.com]

  • I clicked the link only because I mistaken Paris as Pris, the entrainment model...
  • Telepresence (Score:2, Interesting)

    by dfcamara ( 1268174 )
    I rather use a robot like this for telepresence. Wish it have stereoscopic vision and not be too slow walking (if it is). AI only needed to assist moving around.
  • ...with its Lithium-ion-battery-based Humanoid Suicide Bomber-bot.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    The NAO isn't cheap-- that $15000 "is only the first installment". Teams wanting to use that unfortunate winner of the RoboCup tender have to pay almost as much again for the CLOSED-SOURCE SDK and training courses /per programmer/. There were fully free-software tender nominations that were only marginally more expensive (initially, and no hidden charges afterwards), and the predominately University-based researchers just wondered what the hell was going on for NAO to win the RoboCup contract.

    As for the cla

  • by oodaloop ( 1229816 ) on Thursday July 24, 2008 @02:59AM (#24315693)
    I read almost all the comments thus far and not a single overlord joke! I, for one, welcome new robot overlord jokes!

A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom. -- Parkinson

Working...