Could Apple’s Research Robot Bring Personality Back to Hardware Design?

Article Comments
1

Originally published at: Could Apple’s Research Robot Bring Personality Back to Hardware Design? - TidBITS

In August 2024, Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman reported that Apple is working on a “tabletop home device that combines an iPad-like display with a robotic limb.” While the company often conducts hardware and software research that may never make it into a product, Gurman’s suggestion that a tabletop robot could come to fruition has recently garnered some public support. In a blog post introducing their research paper, Apple’s Machine Learning Research group examines how robots might interact more naturally with humans. They write:

Nonverbal behaviors such as posture, gestures, and gaze are essential for conveying internal states, both consciously and unconsciously, in human interaction. For robots to interact more naturally with humans, robot movement design should likewise integrate expressive qualities—such as intention, attention, and emotions—alongside traditional functional considerations like task fulfillment, spatial constraints, and time efficiency. In this paper, we present the design and prototyping of a lamp-like robot that explores the interplay between functional and expressive objectives in movement design.

Since this is a situation where showing is better than telling, the blog post includes a video demonstrating the differences between an expressive robot and one that’s merely functional. The contrast is striking, with the expressive robot evoking the playful and curious lamp in Pixar’s famous Luxo, Jr. animation intro. To paraphrase Lloyd Price’s 1959 hit, it’s got personality.

Unfortunately, while some Apple products have captivated users, personality has been in short supply in recent years. That hasn’t always been the case: the original Macintosh introduced itself with, “Hello, I’m Macintosh. It sure is great to get out of that bag!” and stated that you should never trust a computer you can’t lift. The iMac G3 set the world on its ear with its gumdrop design and splashes of Bondi Blue color, which led to the curvy, colorful iBook G3, complete with its integrated handle. Later, the iMac G4 featured a round base and a movable screen on a chrome arm that could only have been inspired by Luxo Jr. (and, in fact, one of the commercials was directed by Pixar founder John Lasseter). The Power Mac G4 Cube may have been a commercial flop—and it certainly had usability issues—but it was meant to be showcased like modern art. Even the first click-wheel iPod, minimalist though it was, provided an unparalleled tactile experience, and the first MacBook Air was impossibly thin.

But the iPod heralded an era in which Apple began to pare down its industrial designs, giving us ever smaller, sharper iPods and then the iPhone, Apple TV, and iPad, along with a series of slab-like Macs. (The cylindrical Mac Pro was an exception but lacked charisma despite its unconventional appearance.) They’re all sleek and elegant, but they’re also essentially blank slates. iPods were the music they held, while iPhones, iPads, and Apple TVs are whatever app is active. Macs have mostly been distilled into their screens or squat blocks of metal. (At least the Apple silicon iMacs have some color, and you can personalize an Apple Watch with your choice of band.) They’re conduits, not objects with their own personalities. The HomePod and HomePod mini are small exceptions, but they’re still mostly about fitting in on a shelf. The Vision Pro is amazingly dorky and evokes strong reactions, but Apple intends it to disappear in favor of a virtual environment. It’s not a thing; it’s an experience.

While it’s tempting to wonder if Apple’s research robot hints at a revival of product personality, I’m not holding my breath. Apple’s target market is now literally everyone in the world, leading to designs that prioritize universal appeal over distinct personality. Here’s hoping I’m wrong and that an upcoming personable tabletop robot brings some character back to Apple’s product line.

2 Likes
2

I think Apple’s products have gone through a number of images and personalities, personified by Kates:

Apple I/Apple ][
Kate McGarrigle (long haired, crunchy, Birkenstocks)

Macintosh 128/512
Kate Bush (innovative, dramatic, one-of-a-kind)

Performa/Quadra/PowerPC
Kate Capshaw (pale, reserved, not terribly memorable)

G3/G4
Katy Perry (curvy, candy colored, outgoing)

iPod/iPad/iPhone
Kate Moss (emaciated, imperious, standoffish)

post-Jony Ive era
Kate Winslet (solidly built, unpredictable performer, sometimes stubborn)

4 Likes
3

OK, that’s the funniest thing I’ve read all day. :grinning:

Since I know about some of these Kates only peripherally and was thus curious, I added Wikipedia links to your post.

2 Likes
4

Leaving the Kates aside…

Totally down with the expressive robot arm. I’d love a larger set of them for my studio. Lighting through gesture… yes please.

1 Like
5

Tonya refers to her Apple Watch, iPhone, and iPad (which she uses largely for reading in Libby) as her “digital friends.” Mostly in the context of forgetting them in a room and needing to come back to collect them.

We were talking about how beautifully the researchers captured some forms of expressiveness, such as how the robot was frustrated at not being able to reach something and then hung its lamp in sadness. I could easily imagine an Apple tabletop robot fitting neatly into Tonya’s digital friend category.

2 Likes
6

I know programmers who miss the command line and their Wyse terminals. I prefer a more interactive device. If you read any Buddhist teachings, the point is we are all connected; organic, inorganic and in this case human and robot. I enjoy the Star Wars droids and hope for the level of interaction they have with people without (most) people and droids losing their humanness or droidness. But that’s in a galaxy far away now. For the present, I keep hoping some clever engineer will start the ball rolling with botvacs. Botvacs are so dreadfully boring at present, except to cats, of course. Wishing that Siri had a spark of joie de vivre seems gloomily impossible due to Apple’s inability to see her as more than a mechanical voice. It’s a kind of misogyny. The first person to instill communication skills in a botvac (instead of adding controls thru an app) will revolutionize them and make them more efficient, fun, and spirited. I’ll obtain one.

NB the first step in making relations more cordial between us and devices will be consideration, maybe courtesy is a better word. The few times that Siri makes a real difference in my life, I want to thank her and my phone. I want to express gratitude. Otherwise devices will only be servants, not persons. Yes, I’m advocating for a degree of separation and autonomy between the members of the human and mechanical species. Maybe the term is respect.

1 Like
7

I am all for novelty and creativity in design, as long as the design is also appropriately functional. But I worry about adding behaviors that suggest emotion in electronic devices. Humans are naturally drawn to the appearance of a conscious, living creature, even in inanimate objects. The more lifelike, the more potential for emotional investment. What happens when that robot friend or pet breaks down, or goes haywire?

8

Probably the same sort of reaction that happens when a beloved device breaks. Regardless of the design, people often project personality on inanimate objects. For instance, I’m quite attached to my 1959 Ford Powermaster 841 tractor, who’s named Max after the dog in The Grinch Who Stole Christmas based on some early wagon loads of fallen pine branches that dwarfed the tractor (this wasn’t even the largest). I worry about his various tractor ailments far more than those of our cars, partly because I have to fix them myself.

IMG_3647
IMG_36471896×1422 496 KB

2 Likes
9

Sure, I get that kind of attachment! But if the tractor finally hits the end of the road you know that it’s not actually being hurt.

I’m worried about going further, where the device interacts with a person in a way that mimics a human or an animal. In particular with children, who cannot understand the difference between a real dog and a robot that runs on batteries. The robot may act like it has emotions, but it doesn’t.

1 Like
10

I’d be hesitant to suggest that children, even rather young ones, can’t distinguish between the living and the not-living. A treasured story in my family is that as a small child, I was once playing Monopoly with my stuffed animals, and my mother noticed I was cheating. She called me on it, and apparently, I replied without a trace of embarrassment, “They don’t have feelings that get hurt if they lose.”

11

C’mon Adam, you were just precocious! Seriously, I don’t mean to beat this to death, but the two instances aren’t equal. Stuffed animals are inert, they don’t exhibit behaviors that mimic living creatures. I’m not a child psychologist, but I can easily imagine kids interacting with robotic devices and not understanding the difference. How could they???

For that matter, I think many adults could become highly attached to emotive robots, for better or worse. Look at how we instinctively react to the Pixar lamp–the empathic connection to another “being” showing emotions we understand. Geez, look at how people were drawn into connections with even early AI chatbots. It’s in our wiring.

12

An area long explored in Science Fiction, exemplified in Dick’s “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep”, the basis for Blade Runner, a film whose cultural resonance continues to grow.

1 Like
13

But to those who have only seen Blade Runner, please go read the book.

The movie, while really good, is at its core mostly a “cop vs. killer robot” story. The book, on the other hand, deeply explores the philosophical concept of “is there any difference between a human being and a perfect (or near-perfect) simulation”?

2 Likes