\n<\/p>\n
The company which popularized robot vacuum cleaners around the world has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy<\/a>. iRobot, makers of the Roomba, has been synonymous with the category since its inception, but its star had dulled in recent years. The company plans to sell its assets to its primary supplier, China\u2019s Picea Robotics, in the hope of maintaining its business.<\/p>\n Everyone\u2019s got a strident opinion as to why iRobot fell from grace. The rugged individualists blame limp<\/a> regulators<\/a> on both sides of the pond (and their hatred for big tech) for blocking Amazon\u2019s attempted purchase in 2023. Those on the hardware<\/a> side of the fence say iRobot\u2019s refusal to embrace LiDAR for navigation until this year<\/em> left it behind rivals.<\/p>\n Then there\u2019s the geopolitical experts, who can point at China\u2019s industrial policy<\/a>, subsidies and favorable regulatory environment compared to the US approach. After all, iRobot\u2019s US gear is made in Vietnam, which is now subject to a 46 percent import levy. As BBC News<\/em><\/a> reported, that added around $23 million to iRobot\u2019s costs and increased the price of its hardware.<\/p>\n The real answer is that iRobot\u2019s demise was caused by a perfect storm of all these factors piling on to the company. More importantly, iRobot\u2019s situation isn\u2019t any way unique, and should serve as a warning to every major American technology brand. It\u2019s also a lesson in why companies need to deal with existential threats when they have the time and cash to do so.<\/p>\n For instance, once iRobot perfected the concept for the Roomba, it wasn\u2019t long before the first copies burst onto the scene. iRobot had the brand and the know-how, but that only goes so far against well-motivated copycats. Think about the first Samsung Android handsets, and how quickly they went from iPhone imitations to class-defining devices of their own \u2014 and how hard Apple fought in court<\/a> to prevent it.<\/p>\n Even before this year\u2019s tariffs, iRobot struggled to compete on price in a manner we\u2019ve seen in other fields. Remember Fitbit before Google purchased it, happily selling $80 fitness trackers for years until Xiaomi swiped the low-end part of its business for itself. Even if the early MiBands weren\u2019t very good, you could buy three for the price of a single Fitbit Charge. Yes, the argument around quality and reliability is important, but it\u2019s often not as loud or compelling as a competing product sold for a fraction of the price.<\/p>\n iRobot should have either made more of an effort to offer a dirt-cheap model to undercut its rivals, or more likely pull out of the low end altogether. Earlier today, I checked out local retail listings for Roombas and its nearest competitors. Next to one another were the Roomba 405 Combo with Dock and the Roborock Q7 L5+ \u2014 both capable of vacuuming and mopping your floor. The former is currently on sale for $400 direct from iRobot, while the latter is currently selling for $220. I\u2019m sure plenty of buyers would have seen the price difference and opted for the cheaper model.<\/p>\n I\u2019m not going to throw too many Told You So\u2019s over iRobot\u2019s fence for not embracing LiDAR sooner. Its omission was a mistake, but you could see why it was shy about abandoning its existing setup. But the company had forgotten one key mantra about the tech world, Andy Grove\u2019s maxim that \u201conly the paranoid survive.\u201d Even the fanciest, highest-end Roombas of the last five years felt a generation behind rival products.<\/p>\n And, at the risk of sounding like a marketing guru, it was never clear what iRobot, or Roomba, stood for. When companies flooded the market with cheaper models, iRobot needed to make it clear what it meant<\/em> when you bought a Roomba over a generic model. What did, and could, it offer beyond the name and history that made it stand out against cheaper competitors? Companies like Apple and Dyson command a premium, but you almost always know what you\u2019re getting for your money.<\/p>\n All I can say is that it\u2019s good that there isn\u2019t another American company presently in a similar position. I certainly<\/em> can\u2019t think of a controversial US company that builds things with wheels that has historically rejected LiDAR<\/a> for its autonomous services. One that has a brand that doesn\u2019t stand for much, or has its identity tied too closely to the identity of its CEO. One that is staring down the barrel at a raft of better<\/a> equipped<\/a> and often cheaper Chinese alternatives. Because that company could surely be looking at a similar fate a decade or so down the road.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n