Robots and Systems
home  >  Albuquerque 1984  >  Billinsley report 26 May 2007

The First
International Personal Robot Congress & Exposition
Albuquerque Convention Center
Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
April 13-15, 1984
- be part of the beginning -

                   A report on the
         First International Robotics Congress,
                  Albuquerque, 1984.


  The conference was fascinating for its contradictions. One 
question was asked time and time again: "What does it do ?". 
The contrary opinion was also voiced that a robot did not
have to be useful - it merely had to be lovable. One 
manufacturer reported financial success - others were merely 
hopeful of future performance. Perhaps it is significant 
that the successful robot has an easily definable task - 
that of education.

The sessions

  The opening session reflected the desire of the organisers 
to put the IPRC and Albuquerque itself onto the map. The 
historic and unique nature of the event was plugged again 
and again. Asimov was self-congratulatory as ever, but 
highly entertaining for all that. He ranged from his 
influence on Joe Engelberger to the naivety of people who 
question robot accidents in terms of a contravention of the 
"three Laws of Robotics". In his anthropomorphic view of 
robots, he made a powerful point that the very nature of 
machine intelligence may differ from human intelligence in 
a complementary way.

  Now it was time to decide between the parallel sessions, 
where at first I selected "Hardware Considerations". Jim 
Lytle launched into a businesslike attempt to define a 
robot, questioning the need for mobility, sensors, a 
manipulator and any other accepted attributes. He settled on 
"a Machine with human-like capabilities", and came down 
against the need to do useful work. However he streesed that 
the Hero had a useful purpose, that of education. He than 
got down to details of actuators, sensors and the need to 
apply intelligence to the interpretation of sensors.

  Brent DeWitt beat about the "What does it do" bush, 
deducing that the robot-builder's role was parental! More 
practically, he addressed the problem of software 
transportability, and suggested a layered approach to robot 
software with a pyramid hierarchy. (Personally I feel that 
the losses in opting for a standard operating system far 
outweigh the advantages, except in the exploitation of 
easily 'borrowed' routines for standard tasks. Structured 
software is another matter - structure is essential.) In 
discussion the question of the coordination of a houseful 
of specialised robots arose, and was dealt with in a 
positive way.

  The record of excellence of the speakers was then broken. 
The chairman gave the platform to Jonathan Oakey, who had 

                         - 1 -

deaf since infancy. Disastrously this seemed to be his first 
experience of public speaking, and he read painfully from 
excessive notes with long pauses. This brought the section 
to a close, and I moved to the session on Business 

  Douglas Bonham had already started to give an account of 
the success of Hero I. He gave an impressive list of its 
public appearances and news reports. Although outsold by 
other electronic products, Hero I is Heath Company's best 
selling educational product. Hero I has outsold robots of 
all types throughout the world, and Heath has between 70% 
and 90% of the personal robot market. "The easy sales have 
been made." He predicted a large market in the domestic 
robot business - but suggested that there were much easier 
pickings to be made elsewhere. Again he stressed that the 
answer to "what does it do" was education.

  Joe Bosworth once more stressed the "what does it do" 
issue. He described the RB5X's problems as being due to "a 
mature distribution scheme for an immature product." With 
16 to 20 representatives and 80 to 90 dealers, the sad 
conclusion was that the product was not ready for the market. 
The industry is a moving target; what will happen when people 
with real marketing money enter into competition?

  Skip Steveley spoke patriotically about Androbot. Topo is 
a computer peripheral, with an optical link which is upset 
by lasers at press launches. Bob is self contained, and is 
rather over-engineered. He stressed the need for aggressive 
marketing, and for qualified people to demonstrate them. He 
was well steeped in Nolan's fantasies, looking forward to 
robots which would "do a lot more."

  At this point I returned to the Hardware session to make 
contact with Dan Prendergast. I listened to Tom Carroll and 
Richard Prather describing their "home-grown" robots. Many 
technical details were interesting, but not important from 
an exploitation point of view. I was then able to present 
an outline of the "Robot Ping-Pong" contest in the last ten 
minutes of the session.

  The afternoon was filled with the exhibition. Several 
ingenious gadgets were on display, but the dominant robots 
were Topo, Bob, RB5X and Hero I - apart from a number of 
remotely controlled "show robots". Robot capabilities seemed 
to be limited to stilted speech, measurement of distance and 
the ability to follow a few feet behlng a human "master". 
The nearest to a practical application was a lawn-mower 
which could remember its remotely-guided program. Nolan made 
dark remarks about not wanting to be responsible for "mowing 
the baby".

  Saturday's sessions started with guest presentations 
including one by Joe Engelberger. He mentioned the Robot 
Industries Association, hoping that the personal roboticists 
would become members. He also aligned himself with the "it

                         - 2 -

must do something" camp. A memorable description of the task 
of assembly by robot: "Rub petroleum jelly on your glasses. 
Tie one hand behind your back. Put a mitten on that hand, 
and then pick up chopsticks."

  Nolan Bushnell then painted the verbal picture expected of 
him, saying that "Fun sells." He cast the robot as a pet and 
as a companion, and looked forward to robot markets four to 
six times the computer market. "Less than 10% of the 
population wrote a letter last year." "Many people own a 
dog, and wish that it could speak English." "Many lonely and 
perhaps senile people need to be reminded to take their 
medicine." Perhaps his charisma will be sufficient to 
influence the market, at least in the national home of Walt 

  Nolan's opinions were reflected throughout the "Futures" 
session. In particular, Fred d'Ignazio presented a cloyingly 
sentimental picture of his children dressing up Topo, of 
them being woken by Topo in the morning and giving the robot 
a hug.

  Nelson Winkless went entertainingly into more practical 
detail. He suggested a robot which now and then would put a 
seal-like flipper around its owner's waist. After a display 
of seeming affection, it might telephone his doctor to warn 
of high blood-pressure or such. "What about the 
responsibility of paying for false alarm calls ?"

Meeting of the BPEMG

  Early on Saturday afternoon the British contingent met to 
discuss the formation of the British Personal Robot 
Manufacturers' Group. Present were John Billingsley, Robin 
Bradbeer, David Buckley, Graham Dobney, Geoff Henney, Peter 
Matthews, and Richard Moyle. Joe Bosworth looked in for part 
of the meeting. Nine prime objectives were identified:

  1. To lobby Government.
  2. To determine legal liability.
  3. To influence education.
  4. To maintain standards of after-sales service.
  5. To establish standards, in the general sense.
  6. To be a channel through which members could affiliate to
     the international body.
  7. To attract funds for R & D.
  8. To help members to get government assistance to attend 
     international meetings.
  9. To fund national representation at trade meetings abroad, 
     such as next year's fair in Tsukuba.

  Some discussion followed on qualification for membership 
-should it be limited to manufacturers, should wholesalers 
be included, should a lay membership receive the newsletter? 
It is possible that the criterion for membership will be 
willingness to pay the fees!

                         - 3 -

Meeting of the NPRA

  At 6.30 a meeting was called to discuss the National 
Personal Robot Association - the American version of the 
previous meeting.

  Joe Bosworth led discussion via the difference between a 
Trade Association and a Professional Association, pointing 
out the need to form some association to take on the 
organisation of next year's show - few of this year's 
organisers were prepared to volunteer again.

  He described the Paris meeting[1] briefly, and then went 
on to outline some objectives:

  1. To deal with anticipated Government regulations.
  2. To relate to the housing industry.
  3. To relate to the appliance industry and establish 
  4. To impress financial institutions.
  5. To consider ethics, warranties to customers.
  6. To focus publicity, and to communicate with amateur 

  The 'selling' job then started on convincing those present 
that the association should come under the wing of the Robot 
Industries Association. It was pointed out that 300 
companies were members, that RIA hired professional 
congressional lobbyists and that RIA had a professional show 
management group. The deficit of the present conference of 
$28,000 was made light of, but clearly made an impression on 
those present when it was suggested that next year's 
organisers might have to guarantee any losses. Joe 
Engelberger joined in the rhetoric, and a unanimous vote was 
taken that the committee should sound out the possibilities 
of RIA affiliation.


  It was important to attend the conference, as much to 
survey the level of American activity as to attend the 
technical sessions. I found the lack of technical 
sophistication surprising. Many of the 'star' features of the 
robots had been anticipated by Micromice two years ago, such 
as the ability to judge and speak of distance, and to navigate 
by sonar. (A large question-mark still hangs over the products 
likely to be launched from Japan.)

  The formation of the British group will reinforce support 
for the International Personal Robot Association, but the 
affiliation of the American group to an organisation as large 
as the RIA may perhaps be unsettling.

John Billingsley, 1984.

                         - 4 -

[1]Robotics at home, A forum sponsored by NATA Industries,
   2nd and 3rd March 1984, Hotel Le Bristol, Paris.