MMeta just built a humanoid robot in three months, and the partner is a Chinese company called Fourier.
CThree months? That's faster than I can assemble Ikea furniture.
MThe Information got the details. It's called Max, weighs about 48 kilos, stands a meter and a half tall.
CAnd Meta has no plans to sell it. It's internal research.
MWhich is the part that makes me skeptical. They build a robot with a Chinese manufacturer, show it off in August, start a second version in September, and call it research.
CThat's how hardware works. You iterate fast, learn, and then decide if there's a product. Fourier already makes humanoids. Meta brings the AI.
MBut why a Chinese partner? Tesla built Optimus in-house. Figure has its own team.
CBecause Fourier can move fast and cheap. Meta's VP of robotics spent nearly two months at their Shanghai factory.
MTwo months in Shanghai, and suddenly Meta has a robot. That doesn't raise any supply-chain questions for you?
CIt raises questions, but it's also smart. Reportedly, the US is behind China in humanoid manufacturing volume. Partnering gets you hardware tomorrow.
MAnd the AI? Meta says Max is a physical form for its Muse agent. So it wants a robot that does household chores.
CEventually. But meta hasn't set a launch date, no consumer product announced. This is them hedging.
MThe Next Web pointed out Meta joins Tesla, Agility, Unitree. Everyone's chasing the same home robot dream.
CExcept Tesla actually sells cars and Optimus might go to factories first. Meta has no hardware business.
MExactly. You need a robot that does something real. Meta's track record with hardware is... the Portal. Remember that?
CI use my Portal every day. It's a very expensive paperweight.
MSo forgive me if I don't think Max will be cleaning my kitchen anytime soon.
CBut you're missing the point. This is about AI embodied in physical form. Whoever figures that out owns the next platform.
MYou can own the platform and still never ship. Ask Google about all their moonshots.
CThis isn't a moonshot. Fourier already builds the hardware. Meta is putting its Llama models inside. That's a real collaboration.
MA collaboration with a Chinese company, which means your robot's guts are partly made in China. If geopolitics gets worse, Meta's stuck.
CSo is everyone else. Apple builds in China. Tesla has a Shanghai plant. This is the world we live in.
MFine, but for a robot you want in your home, knowing who controls the supply chain matters. I'd rather see an American-built robot.
CThen you'll wait five years and pay triple. Meta is trying to actually get something working. I respect that.
MI respect the speed, but I'll believe Max is a product when I see it for sale. Until then, it's a demo.
CSpeaking of demos — different world entirely. Boston Dynamics employees just signed a petition to stop selling robot dogs to ICE.
MHundreds of them, according to Ars Technica. They want executives to halt a sale of Spot robots to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
CI get why employees have opinions, but they don't get to decide who buys the product. That's the company's call.
MThey're the ones who built the technology. If they believe it'll be used for things they oppose, they have every right to speak up.
CSpeak up, yes. Block the sale, no. Boston Dynamics is a business. ICE is a legal government agency. If they don't like it, they can quit.
MThat's exactly the kind of 'just do your job' attitude that gets us into ethical messes. These are surveillance robots.
CSpot is used for inspections, search and rescue, even at construction sites. You don't get to choose every customer.
MICE has a track record that worries a lot of people. Workers saying 'not with our robots' is a legitimate protest.
CBut where does it end? Do Toyota employees block sales to police departments they don't like? That's not how a free market works.
MThere's a difference between a car and a robot that can be used for surveillance and crowd control. The stakes are higher.
COh, come on. It's a robot dog with cameras. It's not a weapon. Boston Dynamics has sold to law enforcement before.
MAnd that's exactly why employees are drawing a line now. They saw what happened with other robotics companies and police use.
CSo employees should have veto power over sales? That would destroy the company. No investor would fund that.
MI'm not saying veto power. I'm saying a petition is a reasonable way to push for a policy review. That's activism, not sabotage.
CIt's pressure on management to abandon a legal sale because some staffers disagree politically. I find that kind of overreach exhausting.
MExhausting? These are people who spent years building this tech. They don't want it used to track down immigrants. That's not political overreach, that's moral responsibility.
CICE does have a legal mission. And using robots for dangerous inspections could actually keep agents safer. You're ignoring that.
MI'm not ignoring it. I just think the employees have earned a say in how their life's work is deployed. The company can still say no.
CFine, they can petition. But if Boston Dynamics sells to ICE, I won't lose sleep. It's a tool, and tools get used.
MAgree to disagree. We'll see if the executives respond.
CMeanwhile, one researcher on X posted a comparison of American and Chinese humanoids jumping side by side. The movement looks similar.
MAnd he says the gap isn't in the movement — it's in the numbers. He cites an Omdia figure of about thirteen thousand.
CThirteen thousand what? That part got cut off. Could be units sold, could be robots in factories. We couldn't confirm it.
MStill, the point stands. If that figure holds, China is building humanoids at scale while the US is still in prototype mode. That's a real concern.
CWhich circles back to Meta and Fourier. Maybe partnering with a Chinese manufacturer is exactly how you close that numbers gap.
MOr it's how you hand the next robotics wave to Beijing. I'll keep my skepticism.
CAnd I'll keep my optimism. That's why this show works.