In this blog post, we will look at various perspectives on which type of robot, military or service, will lead the future of the robot industry.
In the movie “Wall-E,” we see various robots. While watching the movie, we see many service robots, including Wall-E, the main character who cleans up trash on the streets. We also see military robots fighting with guns. Currently, robots are only used in factories, but in the not-too-distant future, we will be surrounded by robots. In our homes, housekeeping robots and childcare robots will do our housework, and outside our homes, car robots and cleaning robots will do our work for us. In addition, in the event of war, military robots will fight in our place, and police robots will maintain public order instead of police officers. Looking ahead to this future, which companies will lead the robot revolution? Will it be companies that focus on service robots? Or will it be companies that focus on military robots?
Peter Nowak, author of Sex, Bombs, and Hamburgers, argues that the company that will lead the robot revolution is not Toyota, which focuses on service robots, but iRobot, which focuses on military robots. Peter Nowak believes that negative things such as violence and sexual desire are the biggest driving forces behind technological development. He believes that negative things such as violence and sexual desire stimulate people and lead to technological advancement. However, Toyota has nothing to do with this. Considering the current situation, the medical and elderly welfare fields will be the largest markets in the robotics industry. However, when looking at the robotics industry as a whole, he argues that these fields cannot be considered the largest markets. Instead, he believes that the military robotics industry, which is associated with violence, will become the largest market. Peter Nowak also says that robots are too expensive for anyone to afford. Japanese companies have created amazing robots such as Aibo and Asimo, but they have not been able to make robots that are inexpensive and useful. Therefore, ordinary people, who are the main consumers of service robots, cannot easily purchase them. In contrast, iRobot has a contract with the US military that guarantees demand. Peter Nowak emphasizes that iRobot will accumulate capital and continue to develop through these contracts.
However, I disagree with Peter Nowak’s argument. First, there are several counterarguments to Peter Nowak’s reasoning. First, Peter Nowak overestimates the influence of sex and violence. Of course, these influences are significant. Many technologies have been developed through war, such as laser technology and collision modeling software programs. Pornography has also led to the development of Java and video production technology. However, the problem is that technological development through violence and sexual desire is only a part of overall technological development. In fact, there are many more examples of technological development driven by convenience and curiosity around us. For example, most everyday technologies, such as paper and smartphones, were created for convenience. Paper was created out of a need to easily record text, and smartphones were created out of a need to access the internet anywhere. Not only are many technologies necessary, but even small items such as beds and desks were created for convenience. They have been improved to fit the human body and are now what they are today. However, Peter Nowak overlooked all of this in his writing. Peter Nowak underestimated the influence of convenience and presented his argument without sufficient grounds.
Second, I would like to talk about the price of service robots. At present, it is true that domestic service robots are too expensive for people to purchase. However, if we consider the future, the situation will change. Perhaps in the not-too-distant future, the price of robots will fall to the point where they can be commercialized. You can see this happening with computers. Not only was the first computer, ENIAC, extremely expensive, but the first commercial computer, UNIVAC, made in 1951, was also too expensive for the general public to use. At that time, UNIVAC cost over $1.25 million, which was an amount that the average person could not afford. However, today, every household has at least one computer. Some households even have two or three computers. In just 50 years, computers, which no one had, have become essential items that everyone has. Considering the example of computers, it is highly likely that robots will follow the same path. Right now, military robots are the easiest way to accumulate capital. However, if people start purchasing service robots, these robots will become more important for accumulating capital. In fact, on May 11, 2016, Forbes announced that Apple, Google, and Microsoft were ranked first, second, and third in brand value. In this way, computers, which many people could not afford at first, are now available to everyone. This has enabled computer-related companies to accumulate unimaginable amounts of capital.
So, which companies will lead the robot industry in the future? I think it will be companies that focus on developing service robots. It doesn’t necessarily have to be Toyota. The first reason for this is that service robots are used almost everywhere, while military robots are only used for war or maintaining public order. In many futuristic movies, such as Wall-E, robots exist everywhere in our society. Furthermore, as robot technology advances, the number of fields in which robots are used will increase. Cleaning robots, which were once only used in homes, will clean streets. Robot cars will expand their range and be used for unmanned transportation in airplanes and ships. Given this situation, service robots are bound to be used more than military robots, which have a limited range of applications.
Another reason is that most of the world’s top 100 companies are related to such services. Currently, most of the world’s top 100 companies, including Microsoft, Samsung, Apple, Toyota, and Audi, are related to services. Samsung and Apple provide communication services, while Toyota and Audi provide transportation services. Microsoft provides Internet services. Even Lockheed Martin, the largest military contractor in the US, has sales of approximately $45 billion. This is far less than Apple’s sales of $200 billion. If we predict the future based on the present, it is clear that service robots will lead the robot revolution.
The final reason is the low price elasticity of the military industry. Low price elasticity means that demand remains relatively constant. When demand remains constant, capital can be accumulated steadily. However, this also means that there is no surefire hit like Apple’s iPhone. Therefore, the military industry falls short of becoming the best industry. It is difficult to accumulate a lot of wealth with only slightly advanced technology. In order for a military company to become the best company, it must develop its business with technology that is centuries ahead, like Iron Man. However, this is only possible in movies and is almost impossible in reality. Therefore, in the real world, rather than in movies, service technologies that can benefit greatly from innovative technologies are likely to lead the industry. This can be seen in the examples of the world’s top 100 companies mentioned earlier.
Of course, some may argue against my opinion based on the price difference between military robots and service robots. Even comparing cars and tanks alone, my opinion can be refuted. Cars basically cost around 10 million won, and the more expensive ones can cost hundreds of millions of won. Even cars that are rare worldwide are unlikely to exceed 10 billion won. However, tanks cost at least several billion won. Really expensive tanks can exceed 10 billion won. This price difference will be no different for robots. Therefore, military robots, which generate large profits at once, are likely to lead the robot industry.
However, this can be compensated for by their range of applications. No matter how expensive military robots are, there will be a price limit, and their scope of use will inevitably be restricted by the interests of each country. Just like nuclear weapons today. On the contrary, service robots have no restrictions on their use. They can be used not only in homes and companies, but also in rescue sites and the medical field. Due to this difference in versatility, it will be difficult for companies focused on military equipment to beat companies focused on service equipment. Looking at the world’s top 100 companies, we can see that service equipment-focused companies are currently leading the way. This will likely remain the case in the future, unless a world war breaks out.
In the not-too-distant future, the robot industry will emerge as an important industry. In this future, Peter Nowak said that the company that will lead the robot revolution will be iRobot, which focuses on military robots. However, looking at examples such as the current top 100 companies in the world and Unibac, I disagree with Peter Nowak’s position. Rather than military robots, which have unstable demand and limited versatility, service robots, which have stable demand and high versatility, will lead the robot industry. Therefore, robot-related companies will need to lead the robot industry with a focus on service robots.
