Robot Vandalism

I don't think those attributes you suggest are part of the robot.  I think they're part of the software/systems that use the robot as a platform.  Slap another gig of ram into the autopilot in the police package Tesla and it could do that too.  I.e. facilitate the interesting features you suggest that security monitoring systems might do in a mobile platform.

Ross, 

I'm the Head of Business Development for Turing Robot/drone

I can fully understand all your posts completely and your "Risk negative" position. In the physical security business, your job is managing those risks and ROI to protect a company's assets, their people, and live to work another day. Do not take this wrong Ross, you are not in the minority at all. My meaning is that the far majority of security professionals are very "risk adverse," to new product offerings, because you just have to be...But 15 years until you use a robot? Not a chance...

Remember the first iPhone, Steve Jobs announced iPhone at the Macworld convention January 9, 2007. Did you wait 10 years before buying your first Smartphone? I think not. Okay, Okay, you held out for the iPhone X! (If only now you could find someone to show you how to use it).

That said, people in the security business need to look over the very near horizon and move much closer to how IT centric Silicon Valley Companies, where I work, disrupt "known solutions" and quickly become billion dollar companies in shorter and shorter periods of time. I would highly suggest reading the startup bible, "Crossing the Chasm" by Geoffrey A. Moore. It deals with the early market development and adoption problem of new technology innovation. (note: It is considered a must read at both Harvard and Stanford Graduate schools).

We live "Crossing the Chasm" here at Turing. Meaning if I would contact you about our solution, I'd add you to my SFDC DB (Salesforce) immediately upon hearing your objections, and setup a return call in late 2017. I'd then quickly move on to finding an innovator and early adopter as described below in Moore's book.

His book brilliantly sets the rules for new technology buyers and their new markets; he separates them into 6 distinct purchasing groups: Innovators and early adopters, early majority market and late majority market markets, and finally laggards.  

So where's the capitalist beef ($$$) vs. being risk adverse like you and the creation of applications you see as risky or zero of value?

Moore's technology lifecycle curve says that about 15% of prospects fall into innovators and early adopters market, add to this, the current market for Security stands at $350 billion per year (per ASIS-2013), and we can do the math forward and backwards on why robots will swiftly deliver the value you currently do not see until 2032!

Think like a cold blooded Venture Capitalist... they live in a world of high risk and high reward for looking beyond that near horizon.

Let's say robots can sell .01 % in security by 2021 (1/100th of one percent) that equals $3.5 billion dollar marketplace (Beginning of an early market).  Then take that number x 15% (Innovators and early market) and you have a $525 million dollar initial market to wade into. Add some venture funding that speeds technical innovation and you have a thriving market in a mere 18-36 months...Even if you cut that number again by 50%, you have the makings for an entirely new industry at over $250 million dollars in sales. It's the beginning of a new financial Big Bang and true game changer.

Keep this in mind moving forward.

The best way for security industry veterans to see where they fit into Moore's Technology bell curve is look back to how fast you adopted digital video or networked security applications and score yourself. If you fall into the late market or a laggard sections, you could be handing your coveted job to a smiling Millennial before you know what hit you.

Knightscope is the pioneer in the security robot market, and I tip my hat. But they have made many many serious mistakes that industry Pro's, like yourself, see as extremely foolish and outright stupid. They failed marketing 101 by not understanding your job, needs, and pain points; not to mention what is true value for your money at an astounding $60,000 price point per bot..yikes!

note: This price point, that VC's now see as never getting Knightscope to the  early majority market; let alone the late majority market. This is a big problem if you are burning through tons of cash and new funding seems impossible...So where does this leave us all on robotics? Well, with Knightscope it means turning to crowdfunded investment from regular folks that do not understand just how extremely risky early stage investmenting is in any startup and knowing nothing about the security business. But hey, they sure look cool...

Now as to us, because I know us ...LOL and I too shake my head at the far majority of robotic solutions I saw at the recent ASIS show. So where is the Beef?

At Turing we understand the industry's risk adversity and know we need to create real applications that solve genuine pain points for security to earn your trust and help you provide state of the art solutions. This is why we are moving slowly in stage one of this new market.

For instance, we do not create pain by saying, "We replace your expensive guards and save you money!"   

That is selling zero value; not increased safety or real value to you or your company.

At Turing we take pride in helping security professional understand what can and cannot be delivered and we find pain points that we know add real value.

Oh, by the way, we cost 50-65% less than Knightscope; (Bye...bye the $60k investment) and we run on a highly reliable and inexpensive Segway platform that allows us to work both inside and outside multiple building environments.

Ross, it may not be our robot you buy, but you will own one and deploy it no later than 2022. Also, do not forget, that Millennial really wants your job... I know they want mine and lucky me, it's not a robot....yet.