Peter Nowak argues that military robots will lead the robotics revolution, but the counterargument is that service robots will have a larger market. Given their versatility and future price drops, it’s likely that service robots will take the lead in the robotics industry.
In the movie Wall-E, we see a variety of robots. We see many service robots in the movie, including the main character, WALL-E, who cleans up trash on the streets. We also see military robots fighting with guns. So while robots are currently only used in factories, in the not too distant future, we will be surrounded by them. Inside our homes, maid robots and childcare robots will take care of our chores; outside our homes, car robots and janitorial robots will do our work for us; and in times of war, military robots will fight for us, and police robots will keep the peace. Looking ahead to this future, which companies will lead the robotics revolution? Will it be service robots? Or will it be military robots?
“Peter Nowak, author of Sex, Bombs, and Burgers, argues that it will be iRobot, a military robotics company, rather than Toyota, a service robotics company, that will lead the robotics revolution. Peter Nowak believes that negative things like violence and sexuality are the biggest drivers of technological progress. The idea is that negative things like violence and sex drive people to make technological progress. But Toyota has nothing to do with it. Hypothetically, the biggest market for robots would be in the medical field or elderly care. However, when looking at the robotics industry as a whole, he argues that these are not the biggest markets. Instead, the military robotics industry, which is often associated with violence, will be the largest market. Peter Nowak also says that robots are so expensive that not everyone can afford them. While Japanese companies have created amazing robots like Aibo and Asimo, they haven’t managed to make them affordable and useful, so they’re not readily available to the general public, who are the main consumers of service robots. In contrast, iRobot has a contract with the US military that guarantees demand. Peter Nowak argues that this allows iRobot to accumulate capital and continue to develop.
However, I disagree with Peter Nowak’s argument. First, there are several counterarguments to Peter Nowak’s rationale. First, Peter Nowak overestimates the influence of sex and violence. Of course, they have a significant impact. War has led to many technological advances, such as laser technology and crash-modeling software programs, and pornography has led to the development of the Java language and video production techniques. But the problem is that technological advances driven by violence and sexuality are only a small part of the total. In fact, there are many more examples of technological advances that are driven by convenience or curiosity. For example, real-life technologies such as paper and smartphones were mostly created for convenience. Paper was created out of a need to easily record texts, and smartphones were created out of a need to have internet access everywhere. In addition to the many technological requirements, even small things like beds and desks are mostly designed for convenience. They’ve been modified to fit our bodies and make them easier to use. However, Peter Nowak overlooked all of this when he wrote his book. First, he underestimates the power of convenience.
Secondly, I would like to talk about the price of service robots. At the moment, it is true that service robots for home use are too expensive for people to buy them. But if you think about the future, this will change. Perhaps, in the not too distant future, the price of robots will come down to the point where they will be commercialized. We only have to look at computers to see that this is the case. The first computer, the Eniac, and the first commercial computer, the Univac, created in 1951, were too expensive for the average person to use. At the time, the Univac cost over $1.25 million, which was out of the reach of the average person. But today, every household has a computer. Some families even have two or three. In 50 years, computers have gone from being something that no one could afford to a necessity that everyone has. Given this example of computers, it is likely that robots will follow the same path. Right now, military robots are easy to accumulate capital for. However, if people start buying service robots, they will become more important to accumulate capital. In fact, on May 11, 2016, Forbes reported that the first, second, and third most valuable brands are Apple, Google, and Microsoft, respectively. In this way, computers, which were initially out of reach for many people, are now within everyone’s reach. This has also allowed computer-related companies to accumulate unimaginable amounts of capital.
So which companies will lead the robotics industry of the future? I think it will be a company that focuses on the service robot industry, even if it’s not necessarily Toyota. The first reason for this is that service robots are used almost everywhere, whereas military robots are only used for war or law enforcement. If you look at many futuristic movies, including Wall-E, robots are everywhere in our society. And as robotics technology improves, the more advanced they become, the more applications they will have. Cleaning robots, once used only in homes, will be cleaning the streets. Robotic cars will expand their scope to include driverless airplanes and ships that transport people. Given this, it is inevitable that we will see more service robots than military robots, which have a limited scope of use.
Another reason is that most of the world’s top 100 companies are involved in these services. Most of the world’s top 100 companies are involved in services, including Microsoft, Samsung, Apple, Toyota, and Audi. Samsung and Apple provide a service called telecommunications, while Toyota and Audi provide a service called transportation. Microsoft also provides a service called the internet. Even Lockheed Martin, the largest U.S. military contractor, has revenues of about $45 billion. That’s a fraction of Apple’s $200 billion in revenue. If we use the present to predict the future, it’s clear that service robots will lead the robotics revolution.
The final reason is the low price elasticity of the military industry, which means that demand is almost invariant. When demand is almost constant, you can accumulate capital steadily. However, it also means that there is no surefire hit like Apple’s iPhone. This is why the military industry is not the best industry to be in. It’s hard to accumulate a lot of wealth with a slightly advanced technology. To be the best, a defense company needs to be like Iron Man, using technology that’s centuries ahead of its time. But that’s only possible in the movies, and almost impossible in real life. Therefore, in the real world, not the movie, the industry is more likely to be driven by technology-as-a-service companies that have a lot to gain from innovative technology. This is evidenced by the aforementioned examples of the world’s top 100 companies.
Of course, someone might argue against my opinion with the price difference between military and service robots. You can also argue with the comparison between a car and a tank. Cars basically cost in the low tens of millions and high hundreds of millions. Even cars, of which there are very few in the world, are hardly worth more than 10 billion. But tanks are basically billions. Really expensive tanks can cost over 10 billion. This price difference is no different for robots, which is why the robotics industry can be driven by military robots that make big profits at a time.
However, this can be compensated for by the range of uses. No matter how expensive military robots are, there will be a price limit, and the scope of use will be limited by the interests of each country. Just like nukes today. Service robots, on the other hand, have no limits. They can be used in homes, businesses, and even rescue and medical fields. Because of this difference in versatility, it will be difficult for a company focused on military equipment to beat a company focused on service equipment. If we look at the world’s top 100 companies, we can see that service-oriented companies are still ahead today. The future will be no different. Barring a world war, that is.
In the not-too-distant future, the robotics industry will be a major player. In this future, Peter Nowak believes that the companies that will lead the robotics revolution will be iRobot, which is centered around military robots. However, I disagree with Peter Nowak’s position when I look at examples such as the current top 100 companies in the world or Unibac. The robot industry will be led by service robots, which have a stable demand and a large range of applications, rather than military robots, which have an unstable demand and a small range of applications. Therefore, robotics companies should focus on service robots to lead the robot industry accordingly.
