CSo the big robotics story tonight is not a new robot. It's who's buying them.
MICE wants four Boston Dynamics Spot robot dogs. And the people who build them are not happy.
CHundreds of Boston Dynamics employees wrote to their own executives asking them to kill the deal.
MThe Boston Globe got the letter. It went out in September. The workers say they're uncomfortable, and they can't be proud of work used by an agency they say brutalizes civilians.
CThat's a strong word. Brutalizes. These are engineers, not activists.
MAnd that's what makes this different. Until now it was advocacy groups outside the building. Now it's the people inside.
CI get the moral objection. But let's be clear about what these robots actually are. Spot is a camera on legs. It's not armed.
MSure, but ICE isn't buying them to deliver coffee. They'll be used in enforcement operations. Raids, surveillance, whatever.
CAnd that's a legitimate government function. Immigration enforcement is the law. Using a robot to look inside a building before agents go in—that could actually keep people safer.
MOr it could be used to intimidate. You see a robot dog coming at you, that's not a friendly face.
CIt's a tool. The same tool is used on construction sites and oil rigs. We don't protest when a power company buys one.
MBecause a power company isn't detaining people. Context matters, Chris. You can't just say 'it's a tool' and pretend the buyer doesn't change what it is.
CI'm not pretending. I'm saying the employees have a right to their opinion, but the company also has a right to sell to a legal government agency.
MAnd the employees have a right to say 'not in our name.' That's what they're doing. Hundreds of them. That's not a fringe.
CBut here's my problem with the letter. They say it could hurt the company's reputation. That's an argument about PR, not principle.
MOr maybe they actually believe it's wrong. Not everything is a PR calculation.
CFine. But if Boston Dynamics cancels this deal, what's the line? No sales to any law enforcement? No military? They already work with the military.
MMaybe that's the conversation they want to have. And honestly, it's overdue. We're building robots that can go anywhere, see anything, and we haven't decided what they're for.
CI think they're for keeping people out of danger. That's the whole pitch. Send the robot into the unstable building, not the human.
MAnd when the robot goes into a family's home during a raid? That's not keeping anyone out of danger. That's bringing the danger in.
CYou're assuming the worst about how they'll be used. I could just as easily assume they'll be used to check for weapons before agents enter.
MI'm not assuming. I'm looking at who's buying them and what that agency does. That's not paranoia, that's pattern recognition.
COkay, we're not going to settle this. But the protest outside their Waltham headquarters on October 15th—that's real. This isn't just an internal memo anymore.
MAnd Boston Dynamics hasn't responded publicly. Neither has ICE. So the deal is still on the table.
CFour robot dogs. That's the whole order. Four. And it's sparked a company-wide revolt.
MBecause it's not about four robots. It's about what the next order looks like. And the one after that.
CSpeaking of what's next—there's a post on Bluesky that made me laugh. Someone named DJay says we're entering the era of advanced robotics, and we're not even using them to make pterodactyls.
MThat's the real tragedy. We have the technology. Where are my robot dinosaurs?
CI'd watch that Kickstarter video tomorrow. A robotic pterodactyl that flies around your neighborhood? Terrifying and magnificent.
MThe point stands though. We're building robots for warehouses and border patrol, and nobody's building the fun stuff.
CBoston Dynamics made a robot that dances. That's fun. Then they sold its cousin to ICE.
MAnd that's the whole tension in one sentence. Same company, same technology, wildly different feelings depending on who's holding the leash.
CAlright, different corner of tech. There's a poll going around on X asking which ecosystem has the best user experience—Apple, Samsung, or Google.
MAnd let me guess, it's just a list of products with no actual argument.
CPretty much. iPhone, iPad, MacBook, AirPods, Apple Watch. Galaxy S, Galaxy Tab, Galaxy Book, Galaxy Buds, Galaxy Watch, S Pen. Pixel phone, Pixel Tablet, Chromebook, Pixel Buds.
MIt's a list, not a question. The answer depends entirely on what you already own.
CBut there's a real point buried in there. Apple's ecosystem is seamless because they control everything. Samsung's is broad but messy. Google's is... inconsistent.
MGoogle's ecosystem is a great phone and a bunch of products they might cancel next year.
CThat's harsh. But not wrong. The Pixel Tablet was basically dead on arrival.
MAnd the Chromebook is fine for school, but nobody's building a creative workflow around it.
CMeanwhile Apple's got the Watch talking to the MacBook talking to the AirPods, and it all just works. That's the moat.
MIt's also the cage. Once you're in, you're paying Apple prices for everything.
CBut the poll isn't asking about price. It's asking about experience. And for experience, Apple wins. It's not even close.
MFor most people, sure. But there's a reply that says Pixel and Galaxy S are the only valid Android phones. That's a take.
CIt's a hot take. What about OnePlus? What about the foldables from other brands?
MThe person's basically saying if you're not buying Google or Samsung, you're doing Android wrong. I don't hate it.
CI do. There are great phones from smaller brands. But I get the impulse—software support matters, and those two actually update their phones.
MFair. But this whole poll is just engagement bait. Thirteen likes. Nobody's actually debating anything.
CWe're debating it right now. So it worked.
MWe're the engagement. Great.
COne more quick one. There's a post predicting the iPhone Duo will be the next Apple Vision Pro—everyone excited at launch, then nobody uses it.
MThat's a bold call for a phone that isn't even out yet. The iPhone Duo is rumored to be Apple's first foldable.
CThe argument is that foldables are a gimmick. People try them, think it's cool, then go back to a normal phone.
MThat's what they said about big phones. Then the iPhone Plus happened and everyone bought one.
CBut the Vision Pro comparison stings. That thing was supposed to change computing. It's a very expensive paperweight for most people.
MThe difference is a phone is something you already carry. A headset is something you have to decide to put on. Foldables just make the thing you already have more useful.
CIf the hinge doesn't break. That's the real test. Apple's reputation is on the line with that hinge.
MAnd Apple doesn't ship things that break easily. They're late to foldables for a reason.
CWe'll see. But I'll say this—if anyone can make a foldable mainstream, it's Apple.
MAnd if anyone can make it boring enough to be normal, also Apple.
CThat's the brand. Boring in the best way.