Pinkbot — the Miami and Toronto-based delivery robot startup formerly known as Tiny Mile — has quietly rolled out some big updates.

On the hardware-front, the company just released its V5 robots, updating the form-factor to house a large pizza, returning to a four-wheel configuration, and now running three times faster than before. More importantly, after 30 months of research, the machines are now licensed to drive on-road, as you can see in the video above, putting this lightly-capitalized company in the same category as behemoths like Nuro.

PARTNER | DoorDash vs. Uber Eats: The Flower Delivery Battle That Could Shape the Future of On-Demand’s Delivery

Mother’s Day. Valentine’s Day. These aren’t just big days for gifts — they’re a battleground for retail delivery dominance. For many customers, their first non-food delivery happens on a holiday. That first experience can shape loyalty for every delivery after.

The Gridwise Special Occasion Report unpacks how platform performance on key dates is revealing early leaders in the race for retail.

• Mother’s Day demand exploded: Delivery volume spiked 1,174% above baseline in 2025, up from 723% in 2024.

• Uber Eats surged on Valentine’s Day: Its market share jumped from 25% to 52% — more than doubling overnight.

• DoorDash market share declined on Mother’s Day: Market share fell from 60% to 43%, marking a significant year-over-year drop.

🔗 Get the full report and see what these seasonal shifts mean for the future of delivery.

Download Now

Market Expansion

Read more

Cartken has now raised $22.5 million in total funding, with plans to use the new capital to pursue more enterprise relationships and advance its lidar-free AV technology. In the past few years, the California-based company has made notable forays into the industrial AMR space, working with biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, OEM and chemical conglomerates, while scaling its sidewalk delivery robotics business to the point of profitability.

We checked in with Co-Founder and COO Anjali Naik, to learn about how different countries are adopting autonomous mobile robotics technology, as well as which universities are proving to be the most enthusiastic users.

Jonah Bliss: It's a tough fundraising environment out there for hardware-oriented startups; what made Cartken's narrative attractive to investors?

Anjali Naik: Cartken's story stands out because of our AI-powered autonomy stack and hardware-agnostic approach, allowing our robots to work seamlessly both indoors and outdoors. This capability fills a crucial gap in industrial automation and last-mile delivery, where many traditional mobile robot solutions fall short.

Our tech stack uses low-cost sensors and cameras instead of expensive LIDAR systems, making our technology both reliable and cost-effective.

Plus, our track record is strong. We've completed hundreds of thousands of deliveries and saved employees thousands of hours in transportation time. We accomplished quite a lot with a small team and were capital efficient along the way. This makes Cartken a highly attractive investment.

Which investors are new to Cartken?

468 Capital, LDV Partners and Volex.

How do you plan to deploy the fresh capital?

The funding will be used to deepen enterprise partnerships, further advance Cartken’s self-driving technology, and drive further integration of Cartken's robots into biotech, pharmaceutical, chemical, and automotive sectors. 

If the food delivery business is profitable, why spend resources on the AMR space?

Read more

$230M in Total Funding

Since its founding in 2014, Starship has raised over $230 million in venture capital. With the company’s robots having driven over 11 million miles to make six million deliveries, existing backers were eager to re-invest in the round co-led by Plural and Iconical.

Plural, based out of Estonia and London, just raised a $430 million fund in January; Iconical is backed by Janus Friis, who is also one of Starship’s co-founders. There’s certainly some hometown (or home continent) pride at play here; Plural Partner Taavet Hinrikus noted:

“Starship is the global leader in autonomous technology, built in Europe. For the past 10 years, the team have been working tirelessly to build the most advanced autonomous logistics technology in the world, driving more miles and making more deliveries than any other company, whilst reducing the impact of last-mile and on-demand delivery on the planet. The culmination of this hard work over the past decade and this new funding means Starship is well-positioned for accelerated growth. We’re looking forward to supporting [Starship CEO] Ahti and the team on this journey to becoming one of Europe’s most successful global companies.”

Sustainability First

Starship is quick to note the sustainability of its delivery operations. One starship robot operating at full speed consumes 110 watts of energy. A human walking uses 300 watts; cars use thousands of watts.

Expansion Plans, Off-Campus Operations

OttOmate reached out to Starship for some more details on what comes next; a company spokesperson filled in some important details.

OttOmate: Are there particular markets that Starship is looking to enter next?

Starship: “We have a lot of interest from new territories as they’ve seen the advantages and the warm acceptance of Starship robots in other communities. We do have some new territories in mind but we are not publicly sharing those yet. There is still a lot of room for expansion in our existing markets so that will also remain a strong focus.”

O: Is Starship considering using the funds to accelerate off-campus deployment in the U.S.?

S: “The campus business has been very successful for us so that is our main focus in the US. In some cases, we have expanded to nearby neighborhoods and that will also be an option when it makes sense but that is determined on a case-by-case basis.”

O: Any details on AI or DaaS?

S: “Our Delivery-as-a-Service (DaaS) business model allows businesses to integrate Starship into their delivery infrastructure. In this model, orders are placed through our partner’s app rather than the Starship app. When companies have multiple delivery options, this creates a more seamless experience for customers. Our current DaaS clients include Grubhub, S-Group and Bolt. Based on the success of this model and the demand,  we are actively talking with potential new partners.”

O: Can you share the campus-adjacent neighborhoods where Starship currently operates?

S: “We service the neighborhoods adjacent to BGSU and Purdue and service off-campus merchants.”

That last point is particularly interesting, as outside of Europe, the company is broadly thought of as operating on campus. But evidently the mean streets of Bowling Green, Ohio and West Lafayette, Indiana have already embraced the robot-friendly future.

Let’s look back at the state of delivery robotics since 2020, to see how the field’s evolved.

2020: Rolling Out

At Curbivore 2020, delivery robots were still quite unfamiliar essentially anywhere other than George Mason University or the back roads of Estonia. So Refraction AI Co-Founder Matthew Johnson-Roberson and Tortoise Co-Founder Dmitry Shevelenko were navigating uncharted terrain as they got their companies running through the heart of the pandemic, providing an invaluable lifeline to restaurants that couldn’t otherwise operate. Tortoise pivoted to mobile vending robots before quietly winding down; Refraction’s three-wheeler is still chugging along with a valuable Chick-fil-A contract.

2021-22: Mo’ Money, No Problems

2021 and early 2022 was truly a go-go time for the space, as billions of dollars were poured into hardware-heavy firms, and quick delivery upstarts like JOKR were all racing to figure out how to deliver small orders at ever quicker speeds. At Curbivore 2021, Coco’s Carl Hansen was on hand to discuss how robots were a particularly good fit for new delivery verticals, Dan Mitchell made the case for unique form factors like Nuro’s, and Tortoise’s Dmitry Shevelenko announced the company’s aforementioned pivot to Mobile Smart Stores.

2023: Creativity Counts

With budgets tighter, last year restaurateurs got creative with their automated solutions. Sweetfin shared the innovative ways it made use of Coco, Sprinkles’ Founder Candace Nelson shared the creation of her iconic Cupcake ATM, and Benson Tsai opened up about building his truck-based robotic Stellar pizzeria.

2024: Robotic Rebound?

With Curbivore 2024 just two months away, only time will tell what will happen next. With the sector back on the upswing, we’re expecting a major announcement or two to keep the industry animated!

Jonah Bliss: Let’s start off with the basics, what is Intermode, and what do you do differently than others in the robotics industry?

Arnold Kadiu: Intermode is building robotics hardware infrastructure. We make a universal mobile robot called The Modal. What’s different is that we aren’t trying to own a specific robotic use case, instead, we have a series of modular components that attach to our automotive-grade platform so people can have turn-key mobile robots in a variety of use cases. Most of our robots are used as PDDs in last mile delivery. We full service lease the hardware which means that Intermode will take care of everything from maintenance to repairs, so that our customers can focus on their business. We give our customers the universal basics and then we have specific areas where they can customize to make the robot their own. Our belief is that there would be infinitely more opportunities for mobile robots to be deployed in our lives if the hardware was easy to use, accessible and scalable.

JB: Tell us a bit about you and your team’s background, and how that led you to start the company?

AK: We’re a team of ex-Ford engineers who worked in a variety of areas within the company: electric and autonomous vehicles, vehicle testing, mobility incubator, etc. Before that we built highway legal, solar power cars at the University of Michigan. Between us, we’ve built and tested quite a few electric vehicles.

I’ve always loved mobile robots. When I first started at Ford, I remember seeing the first mobile robots in the factories, (new engineers are usually required to work in a assembly plant for their first three weeks) and then seeing the news about early mobile robots outdoors and thought to myself, this is the future. A true first principles approach to changing how the world works, but I was a research engineer who designed architectures at the time. I helped design structures that held the sensors for Argo AI, but didn’t know much implementation side of computer vision, sensors fusion, autonomous navigation. I didn’t know how I could really contribute to the industry. Much to my frustration, these robots didn’t take off at the speed I thought they would, especially outdoors.

As I spent more time understanding how the auto industry worked, especially within commercial vehicles, I started to realize that there is a missing component for mobile robotics to grow: scalable, durable and affordable hardware. Mobile robotics needed its commercial vehicle, and I knew we could make it.

JB: What are the types of projects you’ve taken on?

AK: It’s been a surprising variety. Our first focus was to work on last-mile delivery robots where we provided the strongest value proposition, and that’s where the majority of the work has been. It’s still incredible to see a robot you’ve built teleoperated around the world at 15mph. The customers here had either built their own custom robot before and switched to ours or switched from a competitor. We’ve also had a few customers use our indoor variation in a factory setting. Another uses it as a mobile cell tower. My favorite, however, is a robotic crossing guard. Here’s a use case where there isn’t a big enough market to generate strong VC interest, but there’s a clear use case and need in the market that we enable by having a hardware foundation to build off of. 

JB: How are you seeing hardware capabilities improve as the industry matures? 

AK: I think the biggest change in PDDs will be focusing on hardware that can start doing more deliveries per hour with a wider range of customers and conditions, while still using the same vehicle. The small moving cooler design has won so far. It’s the cheapest to build, but what these operators care about is not the cheapest to build, it's how can I complete the most amount of profitable deliveries with it.

In order for these robots to be used in a wide range of use cases, they need to operate in all four seasons, carry American-sized amounts of groceries and be durable enough to handle all of the terrible infrastructure we see in the world. This robot starts looking more like a cargo ebike than a cooler. 

Most importantly, it needs to move safely and quickly while doing so. A robot going 15 mph in the bike lane vs one operating 3 mph on the sidewalk is a widely different problem, but a robot going that fast can complete anywhere between 2-4x more deliveries a hour. Ali Ahmed has a great TechCrunch article on it.

In general mobile robotics, I think the greater problem is having the hardware fully integrated and ready to be deployed, instead of having to tinker with a variety of options.

JB: What do you believe are the advantages a robotics deploying startup has if they turn to a firm like yours, versus them doing it in house?

AK: Ultimately it comes down to, what do they want to be good at? We want to be good at making and taking care of hardware.

The biggest advantage initially to using a supplier is the ability to cut right to something that works well and easily grows with them, rather than divide their limited capital going through the hardware R&D process themselves. A startup can either run leaner without those hardware engineers or those engineers can instead be sales, computer vision, operations, etc.

Once they want to scale a different set of issues pop up: service + volume. Who’s going to take care of the robots in other markets, how many robots should I build, who makes spare parts, how many spare parts, etc. Again, instead of the costs to make that happen, they can grow their startup on demand by leveraging a supplier. UPS, FedEx, and more don’t make their own hardware, instead, they optimize their operations around hardware that best enables their business. 

You can use a contract manufacturer, but the difficulty here is that if you’re making something truly bespoke, you don’t typically have the volume to make it cost-effectively. High-volume production is the only way to get around the old saying of, pick two: durable, effective, or cheap.

JB: The industry seems to be split in a big of a divide between teleoprations and autonomy; I feel like you might be neutral to this debate in the sense that you’ll build either for the right client. With that said, how do you feel about the pros and cons of the two models?

AK: There certainly is a split. The future state will always have some percentage of both, as laws in many places require human monitors, at least in the short term. So, I think the question most companies today start with is: do I need mostly autonomy to make my business viable?

Let's look at some simple numbers for making a teleoperated robot work. Let's say the robot's physical costs are around $850 a month all in. Let's take that robot, and if we can make an average of 15 deliveries a day, 7 days a week, that’s $1.90 per delivery. Now let's hire remote drivers from South America. That comes to roughly $2.50 per delivery. Data costs another $1.5 per delivery. Other various costs come out to roughly $0.5 per delivery. So all in, it’s a delivery cost of just under $6.5, with no tip required. These numbers are only improving as the cost of data continues to fall.  

The thing I’m neglecting in the calculation above is speed. Your labor and data costs roughly stay the same, regardless of what speed you’re going. If your PDD only goes an average of 2 mph on its deliveries, that means the average distance to do this many deliveries in a day must be under ~0.35 miles away to make the math above work. 

So if your robot can only go 2-3 mph, your only option to make it more profitable is to reduce the cost of labor, aka to automate it. 

JB: You seem to focus on speed and getting robots off of the sidewalk, is there a particular reason why?

AK: I think sidewalks can be a hard place for mobile robots. The last 30 feet need to be on there, people don’t want to come out to the curb, but the infrastructure isn’t really designed for wheeled vehicles going more than a walking pace. The moment you go much faster than walking speeds, and it's crowded with people, it can get tricky and I think that’s one of the reasons you see backlash in some cities. If no one is around, I think sidewalks are fine, even if you’re going faster.

The biggest reason is I want robots to eventually replace ¼ of car trips in the US. That means less space taken up in our lives for parking lots, more space for people and businesses, far fewer cars on the road, and a dramatic drop in emissions. All while making our lives more convenient, it’s a win-win in my book.

You can’t do that if you’re traveling 3 mph and competing with pedestrians who want to walk places. Bike lanes and the edges of the road are much better as the robot can solve more real-world problems by operating in those conditions. There the traffic is more predictable, the infrastructure is (usually) better, and it’s easier to show a 1:1 benefit to cities to invest in more bike lanes. 

JB: Are there other particular members of the community you find yourself working with a lot? Hardware or software vendors, regulators, prognosticators?

Read more

Jonah Bliss: Why don’t we start with some background; tell us a bit about the founding team, and what led you to create Peyk?

Salman Moghimi: I founded Peyk at the age of 19 whilst studying at university after finding a huge gap of peer-to-peer deliveries in the market. I started from scratch with no help from family or friends and reached a team of 28 highly talented individuals and broke the record of 4,000 deliveries a day with 6,000+ freelance riders in London. After Covid-19 and Brexit, unlike many startups, I didn't fear failure and made another idea into a reality. Knowing nothing about robotics and manufacturing, but with strong dedication and commitment, after a year, PeykBot was born. 

Transferring from a tech/business background to manufacturing a product was very challenging at first. I had the idea in mind, but no clue on how to start. I did not know the resources needed nor the people required to start, whether it was designers, engineers or mechanics. I had to get mentorship from the advisors around me and mostly commit the majority of my own time to researching what is required as the first step.

Today, the team includes highly skilled individuals from C-level members, alongside our experienced team of 28 talented individuals, to senior mechanical engineers, composites engineers, mechatronics engineers, electronic and control engineers, AI and ROS developers, server and backend developers. A tech team does not get completed without marketing; we have an experienced CMO alongside a business development officer with strong start-up and manufacturing backgrounds to make sure the product is well sold within the market.

JB: How would you say PeykBot is different from the competition?

SM: PeykBot is designed by a delivery company rather than a robot manufacturer and that means we’ve been thinking differently from the very first day. As delivery experts, we knew what is operationally challenging and what is truly needed by society. For us, a delivery is not getting a parcel from A to B. It is the experience we provide from the very first moment the user visits our app to the moment they receive their parcel. In PeykBot, we used the same mindset to design a robot that can leave a lasting mark within the industry. As an example, PeykBot is the first delivery robot that is built on a modular design. To fulfil deliveries on a different scale, we had to make sure the PeykBot is practical for everyone. The modular design allows us to change the compartment storage size in less than 5 minutes. I.e. laundry can have deliveries with larger storage where clothes can be hung straight and groceries can have wider space for extra practicality.

JB: What’s your approach to robot operations: remotely piloted, autonomous operations, some combination of the two?

SM: When it comes to operating robots the biggest question manufacturers face is the legal perspective of the operations. Even though robotic deliveries are designed to have autonomy and people consider them cool; the reality is that the majority of the robots including PeykBot have no other way than including teleoperations as a part of the journey. That is not due to lack of technology, it is mainly from the regulations and public safety perspective at the current moment. We believe that the industry has decided to go for an incremental approach in operating autonomy fairly because of not losing their time at status quo and to ensure complex technological challenges are significantly resolved until then.

JB: Which markets do you see Peyk initially operating in? How did you choose those regions?

SM: Peyk has been a delivery platform in London for the last 4 years with a strong reputation as well as partnerships with thousands of local boutiques and brands. The U.K. is our hometown and place where PeykBot was designed and born. Hence, it is a definite market for us to deploy the robots in. However, alongside our subsidiary company in Qatar, we have selected the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) as the most ideal region for us to commence real robotic delivery trials. So far the PeykBot has been trialled and used by different logistic partners in Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait and Iraq. With this region currently being the most tech and startup friendly, PeykBot has been highly appreciated by the locals.

JB: Who are you targeting for business development: 3PDs, food service groups, end user restaurants, courier firms?

Read more

Noteworthy Investors and Board Induction

This fundraising round witnessed the participation of existing investors like Uber, NVIDIA, and Wavemaker Partners, alongside new investors such as Mark Tompkins and Republic Deal Room. Montrose Capital Partners sponsored the transaction, while Network 1 Financial Securities and Aegis Capital Corp played pivotal roles as co-placement agents. Adding to the company's strategic clout, Sarfraz Maredia, Uber's Vice President of Delivery and Head of Americas, has taken a seat on Serve's board, effective this past July 31st. In a note to our sister publication, Serve Co-Founder and CEO Ali Kashani added:

Having Uber, our largest enterprise partner, increase their investment and join our board feels like a vote of confidence after 18 months of 30%+ month-over-month growth.

Ambitious Growth Plans

As just earlier this year Serve was looking to raise between $2-5 million via crowdfunding, this increased warchest serves what sounds like expanded corporate ambitions. The company will use the capital to fulfill its commercial agreement with Uber Eats to deploy 2,000 robots. The company aims to be able to deliver to every doorstep in the country in the next five years.

The Long Road Ahead

It’s been a long journey for Serve, which started its life as Postmates X, launching as the then-independent delivery service’s robotics arm in Los Angeles in 2018. When Uber acquired Postmates in 2020, it spun the X division out into a separate company, rechristened as Serve. That same year co-founders MJ Chun, Dmitry Demeshchuk, and Ali Kashani, Ph.D launched the startups’ first commercial services. As the company continues to expand, this latest financing should give it fuel for the road ahead.

Jonah Bliss: Thanks for chatting, Luke. Why don’t we start at the beginning; what brought you and the Refraction team together, and why did you all decide to work in this space?

Luke Schneider: I like to think we were brought together as kindred spirits. Transportation technology has been a noisy, adolescent space for most of this century, and the entrenched models of the last century continue to experience disruption and innovation on a constant basis. The people at Refraction are all passionate about the same thing – leveraging technology to transform transportation in a practical way – we just had to fight through the noise to get there. Refraction promises safe, reliable last-mile delivery with dramatically less energy consumption, virtually no carbon footprint, at a tiny fraction of the cost of conventional delivery. Thank goodness we found each other!

JB: You in particular have an interesting mobility background – Flexcar, Zipcar, Silvercar, you know I’m a true believer in carsharing – what’s the throughline between that experience and what you’re building today?

LS: I think the legacy automotive industry worked well for the first 80 years but has been steadily failing us for the last 40. Happily, we’re at a moment when technology, policy, consumer sentiment and business models are all ready to support better approaches. With the car-sharing companies we developed workable technology models and reliable operations but struggled with challenging unit economics. At Silvercar we improved on the customer experience and optimized economics. Refraction AI represents a kind of synthesis of all those companies, combining technology, service design, and field execution to dramatically redefine the way people get their goods. The common thread is better serving demand for transportation – goods or people – by making it safer, cleaner, more convenient and of course, less expensive.

JB: Let’s talk a bit about the Rev-1; what’s the company's approach to hardware?

LS: REV-1 was the brainchild of our founders Matt Johnson-Roberson and Ram Vasudevan, great friends and accomplished leaders in the fields of robotics and self-driving cars. When they launched the company they modeled the hardware on bicycle couriers, reasoning it was the most effective way to meet customer requirements for range, payload, speed and cost. Road margin operation has distinct advantages over sidewalks without the technical and regulatory complexity of regular traffic lanes. We’re on generation 2 of that initial design now, and we couldn’t be happier with the performance.

JB: How do you approach partnerships and biz dev? You’ve scored some marquee clients like Chick-Fil-A, is that your ideal customer persona?

LS: Chick-fil-A is an outstanding partner, and one that represents our approach well. Most robot delivery companies have a “delivery-as-a-service approach”, echoing the strategy of micromobility, car-sharing and other asset-based technology-enabled services. That generally means flooding the streets with assets and pursuing a large number of relatively small customers. We’re not so enamored of that idea, so our approach has been “robot-as-a-service”, targeting a relatively small number of large customers, looking to counteract the effects of intermediation and retain or strengthen their brands. Customers subscribe to dedicated delivery robots and deploy them in whatever capacity they need. They even customize their interiors and brand the exteriors. We’ve found this to be a scalable, capital efficient strategy that helps our customers translate outstanding guest experiences into outstanding delivery experiences.

Q: Is there anything you can share with us on the financial side? How does the company intend to monetize?

Read more

Jonah Bliss: Let’s start with some background; what led you to start Tiny Mile, and what were you working on prior to this company? 

Ignacio Tartavull: I founded Tiny Mile after profound reflections on autonomous technology's safety aspects, brought about by a tragic incident during my tenure at Uber ATG. [Note: Uber’s Advanced Technologies Group ran the company’s self-driving automotive research.] A pedestrian fatality in Arizona shook us to the core, serving as a wake-up call and a catalyst to reconsider our approach toward autonomy. This experience didn't just resonate with me; it motivated me to rethink and reprioritize safety within the realm of autonomous systems. 

Following these reflections, I envisioned a safer, gradual path to autonomy that begins with delivery robots. Due to their low speed and weight, these robots pose virtually no risk of causing harm to individuals, making them an ideal starting point. With Tiny Mile, we're dedicated to scaling up these operations methodically, transitioning from robots to larger vehicles like cargo bikes and single-passenger vehicles, and eventually reaching autonomous trucks. This incremental approach ensures we uphold our commitment to safety while tackling increasingly complex technological challenges.

JB: I think it’s safe to say that where many PDD startups zig, you and Tiny Mile look to zag… what can you say about your differentiated approach? 

IT: We will wear that ‘zag badge’ with honor. I would say that we’ve always prioritized the economics over the elegance, and have allowed the math to serve as our north star from day 1; math leads on hardware, software, team building, and business model decisions. There are thousands of decisions to be made when building a business - and by no means would I ever belittle that challenge - but by applying a consistent designated north star, our approach, and the consequent decision-making, has always been relatively clear. 

JB: Do you see advertising as being the long-term monetization source for the company? Does having that existing revenue allow you to do things differently than some of your competitors?

IT: We look at advertising as a long-term monetization source, but not necessarily the long-term monetization source. We believe in diversifying revenue streams and leveraging our robot to its fullest earning power, and advertisement is one of the levers we pull. We’ve intentionally hired some folks with advertising backgrounds that understand how to maximize both the offline and online advertising potential of our robots, and we’ve been fortunate enough to work with some great partners that recognize the efficacy, as well. 

I personally very much enjoy this side of the business. Working with super smart partners to execute a creative activation has been tons of fun, and our team gets a lift every time a new branded robot photo hits our Slack. 

JB: Looking at the Tiny Mile as essentially an eye-catching urban advertisement, I can imagine some other companies that work in OOH might find you as an interesting partner, or acquisition target. On the specialized side there’s Swiftmile, which has some ad-supported hardware that’s perhaps complementary to your robot, and then there are giants like Clear Channel Outdoor; do you see companies like that as potential partners or investors? 

IT: I do. But it’s not just because of our shared appreciation for urban advertisement. The current economic landscape is daunting but not insurmountable. I think the companies that are fortunate enough to come out on the other side are those that are agile and embrace evolution. So, it’s just a prediction of sorts, but I think we’ll start to see an acceleration in unexpected partnerships between like-minded companies that elect evolution over extinction. 

JB: One other thing you’ve highlighted is a tight focus on controlling costs. For example, you took your robot from four wheels to three, to cut down on construction and maintenance expenses. What are some other ways you look to control costs?

IT: Yeah, rather than ‘controlling costs,’ I think I prefer to look at it as a continuous effort to maximize our organizational efficiencies. Slight difference, but there’s a difference. 

So, with the four-wheel to three decision as an example, our hardware team was tasked with the challenge of decreasing robot costs by X%, without sacrificing performance, and ultimately shifting to a three-wheel design was the winning proposal. That’s not to say the shift was universally applauded internally, but we try very hard to foster a culture that promotes “strong opinions loosely held,” and after applying our previously mentioned north star variable, the decision sort of made itself. 

The four-wheel to three-wheel shift is representative of the efficiency chasing we do across the org. Hardware, software, talent, marketing and sales, everywhere - we’re always trying to maximize efficiency while maintaining forward momentum. It’s a difficult balance, but by doing so, we protect our unit economics and afford ourselves the luxury of mistake-making. We’re learning every day, and we learn best from our mistakes. 

JB: The company’s flagship robot is named “Geoffrey” after Geoffrey Hinton, the godfather of AI. He recently made waves for essentially condemning his life’s work, worrying that unchecked AI could be a huge threat to humanity. Obviously you’re not working in the LLM space, but does that give you pause about automation in general? 

IT: Geoffrey Hinton's remarks reflect a broad, crucial conversation about the implications of artificial intelligence and its potential impacts on society. While his concerns primarily lie within the realm of Large Language Models (LLMs), they do underline the importance of ethical and responsible development in all facets of AI, including automation. 

At Tiny Mile, our focus is on creating autonomous solutions that serve and protect humanity, which includes rigorous safety protocols and ethical guidelines. Although our work in automating delivery services is quite different from LLMs, we recognize and share the overarching responsibility to ensure AI technology is used responsibly and does not threaten people or society at large. 

Despite Geoffrey's concerns, his life's work still remains an inspiration for us. His cautious perspective offers an important reminder to constantly evaluate our work's impact and potential risks, driving us to invest further in safety measures, transparency, and ethical practices. The key lies in a balanced approach, fostering AI and automation's benefits while mitigating potential downsides. 

JB: We’ve seen different cities take different approaches to regulating sidewalk delivery robots. Do you have any thoughts on how the industry and regulators can work together, or any insights from what happened in Toronto?

Read more

Jonah Bliss: Let’s start with some background; can you tell us a bit about Motional’s founding story, and how the group came together?

Phil Vidal: Motional was formed in 2020 as an autonomous driving joint venture between Hyundai Motor Group and Aptiv. That said, our history goes back much farther to two of the AV industry’s first start-ups; nuTonomy, founded out of MIT in 2013, and Ottomatika, founded out of Carnegie Mellon in 2013. Both nuTonomy and Ottomatika were acquired by Aptiv and later spun out into Motional through the joint venture. So, the Motional team, in all its previous forms, has been part of the driverless industry for over a decade.

JB: Motional, and its predecessor companies, initially got its start focused on “robotaxis,” or autonomous passenger transportation. How did the additional focus on delivery develop?

PV: You’re correct, we started with robotaxis and it remains a core focus of our business. We firmly believe that providing a safer mobility option and a convenient alternative to personal vehicles is the most significant opportunity in the realm of driverless technology. We’ve been operating a public robotaxi service in Las Vegas in partnership with Lyft since 2018. We’ve conducted over 130,000 rides and the experience has been very well received by Lyft passengers. In 2022, we also began offering rides in partnership with Uber in Las Vegas. 

In terms of delivery, it began with a partnership we established with Uber in 2021. In May 2022, we successfully launched our first delivery service on the Uber Eats app in Santa Monica. 

Motional’s decision to enter the last mile delivery market as our second vertical was for a number of reasons. Firstly, it was complementary to our existing robotaxi technology. Meaning, we were able to launch a service faster by leveraging our core robotaxi technology. In fact, we went from concept to pilot with Uber in a matter of months. This pilot program provided valuable insights that enabled us to refine and enhance the merchant and end-customer experience as necessary.

Ultimately, we envision a future where our vehicles can serve a dual-purpose, conducting both rides and deliveries throughout the day in response to demand. We understand that ride-hail and delivery have their own unique demand patterns, and by combining both services, we can maximize the utilization of our vehicles. This approach allows us to adapt to fluctuations in demand and ensure maximum efficiency in our operations.

JB: Are there any particularly interesting learnings from your trials with Uber Eats thus far?

PV: Throughout our delivery service with Uber Eats, we've gained some fascinating insights and learnings. One key observation is that there are numerous touchpoints during an autonomous delivery that we take for granted when there is a human courier involved. For example, the merchant has to deliver the order to the AV as opposed to leaving it on a front table, which is a common practice at most restaurants. We've noticed that during busy periods, merchants occasionally forget to perform this step. As a result, we're actively exploring innovative ways to streamline the process to ensure a seamless merchant experience.

This is why real-world experience is so important. We’re able to refine our user experience through real feedback. We’ve followed the same approach with our ride-hail service in Las Vegas. We’ve accumulated five years of customer feedback, which has helped inform everything from how we communicate passenger instructions to the amount of space needed for luggage and bags. 

With both our delivery service and our ride-hail service, we have vehicle operators present while we’re going through this learning process. The operators provide added support to the customers as needed. We’re able to iterate during this phase so that when we remove the vehicle operators we’re confident the customer is comfortable interacting with the vehicle autonomously. This is an important part of our roadmap and translates into a smoother experience for the customer. 

JB: Many of the other players in the autonomous delivery space use a smaller form factor vehicle that’s meant to travel on sidewalks; others that are also in the on-road space are also exploring the use of vehicles purpose-built just for delivery. Can you speak to Motional’s different approach when it comes to vehicle design?

PV: At Motional, we have a unique approach to vehicle design in the autonomous delivery space. We are focused on developing a dual-purpose product model, where our existing IONIQ 5 autonomous vehicles can efficiently handle both ride-hailing and delivery services. This allows us to optimize asset utilization and balance demand across both offerings. Therefore, we do not currently see the need to develop a purpose-built vehicle specifically for delivery.

JB: As we’ve seen the macro-economic situation change, it’s been harder for some hardware startups to get the additional financing they need to advance their projects. Does Motional’s institutional backing inoculate it from those issues?

Read more

Jonah Bliss: Why don’t we start with some background; tell us a bit about the founding team, and what led you to create Ottonomy?

Ritukar Vijay: The core team of Ottonomy has more than 50 years of combined experience in the design, development, manufacturing, and sale of autonomous technology and is ideally positioned for developing technology to solve commercial challenges that can be adopted on large scale by enterprise customers. Ottonomy, as a team, are true supporters of the design-first approach to develop products which are customer centric, working backwards from the customer experience leading to technology.

Ottonomy was founded in 2020, in the midst of the global pandemic, as the demand for online and curbside delivery orders from customers who were practicing social distancing were rising more than 700%. The co-founders of Ottonomy.io came together to design an innovative, efficient, and sustainable solution, the Ottobot, that enabled customers to get fast, contactless delivery while solving the unique labor challenges and staff shortages of restaurants and retailers. The goal was to significantly improve and enhance the quality of delivery services by introducing best-in-class and friendly service robots. 

In 2021 and 2023, Ottonomy was ranked in the top 50 most innovative robotics companies by Robotics Business Review and also won Plug and Play’s award for one of the best mobility startups.

JB: What do you think of the current moment, in terms of macro factors affecting delivery overall, and fundraising for hardware startups in particular?

RV: With the growing trend towards automation across various industries, investors are increasingly looking to fund robotics startups that offer innovative solutions for logistics and delivery. The core problem being the labor shortages and with the rising delivery needs, its challenging keeping the cost of delivery affordable using manual deliveries.

In current times, the investors are looking for technologically superior and scalable solutions which have a solid business model to put the startups towards a path to profitability. 

What that means is that you have to continuously hit the revenue numbers while building state of the art technologies.

JB: Can you share a bit about your deployments, how many markets you’re in, if there’s a particular operating environment you’re focusing on?

RV: Since its inception, Ottonomy has focused on innovating and paving the way for efficient and sustainable delivery logistics. The initial testing phase started with identifying scalable use cases and scenarios wherein the technology and regulatory aspects are in complete sync - like restaurant curbside and airport deliveries. 

In 2022, Ottonomy successfully deployed autonomous delivery robots at Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky (CVG), Rome Fiumicino International (FCO), and Pittsburgh (PIT) airports. Additionally, Ottonomy robots pilots have been utilized by Posten Norge, one of Europe’s largest postal and logistics services, in Oslo, Norway as well as Goggo Network, the European leader in last and middle-mile logistics with autonomous vehicles and robots, in Madrid, Spain. Currently, Ottonomy is working with industry partners in Canada and Saudi Arabia with more launches scheduled for 2023 in the USA, Europe and Asia.

JB: Last year you released the Ottobot 2.0, and more recently the Yeti; do you have any other new hardware in the works? Do you think your approach to hardware differentiates Ottonomy from some of the other players in the industry?

RV: The Ottobot is the world’s first fully autonomous delivery robot capable of delivering in both indoor and outdoor environments. Using Ottonomy’s proprietary high information mapping and contextual mobility navigation platform allows for fully autonomous driving, with no need for human input, while detecting environmental factors in real time. The Ottobot Yeti is designed specifically for unmanned automated delivery and is the first fully customizable and modular robot featuring interchangeable cabins and specializations for delivery of e-commerce and retail packages. 

JB: Do you have any thoughts on the regulatory environment for delivery robots? Any insights into overall market adoption?

Read more

Jonah Bliss: Why don’t we start with some background; tell us a bit about the founding team, and what led to the creation of Starship?

Henry Harris-Burland: Starship Technologies was co-founded by Janus Friis, co-founder of Skype and Ahti Heinla, a founding engineer of Skype. Some of the original Starship team was initially part of a NASA contest to create sample retrieval robots. It quickly became clear to Janus and Ahti that these little robots could be a great way to help solve the inefficiencies in last-mile delivery while also making people’s lives more convenient. Rather than spending time on errands or waiting for packages to arrive, people could order what they needed on demand, and focus more on what they really wanted to do. We’re proud to have started an industry that has attracted world-class brands and new brands alike! 

JB: What do you think of the current moment, in terms of macro factors affecting delivery overall, and fundraising for hardware startups in particular?

HHB: In the past few years, the convenience of on-demand delivery has gone from a nice-to-have to a must-have. Everyone has busy lives and if they can have their food or groceries delivered when they want them, they are much happier to use that time saved to do things they enjoy. Starship’s business model lines up with things that are important to people - sustainability and convenience while also addressing the labor shortages that are impacting many restaurants and grocery stores. Our business model allows us to scale and reduce costs, while other delivery companies are facing increasing costs and a tight labor market.

JB: Can you share a bit about your deployments, how many markets you’re in, if there’s a particular operating environment you’re focusing on?

HHB: Starship is currently providing autonomous deliveries in nearly 50 service areas, ranging from college campuses to neighborhoods. In early April, we announced that our robots have traveled more than 10 million kilometers (6m+ miles), which is an industry first and six times more than the milestones announced earlier this year by Waymo and Cruise. We are really proud of this achievement, which comes as we are marking five years of commercial, autonomous delivery. 

In addition, our Level 4 autonomy and the pace at which we are doing autonomous deliveries have made a new company record possible - one of our robots completed a record 24 deliveries in 16 hours 100% autonomously without any human intervention or oversight. 

We have found campuses and neighborhoods to be successful for us for different reasons: campuses often didn’t have any delivery options for on-campus merchants and in neighborhoods, our on-demand delivery options save people from having to get in the car to pick up items. For example, our research shows that in just one UK town, we removed 350,000 car journeys in our first 3.5 years of service.

JB: Are there markets, or partners, that have been particularly fruitful? Or any that have led to learning some key lessons?

HHB: Because we have been providing commercial services for five years and have completed more than 4 million autonomous commercial deliveries, we have honed in on what works. The first step is making sure we are an asset to whatever community we enter and that starts with helping to develop regulations for the entire industry. In fact, we have worked with several states to draft legislation for all personal delivery devices (PDDs). Regulations help local residents know that safeguards are in place and ensure that all operators act responsibly. Because we have the most experience in the industry and are safely operating in more than 50 locations, we think our learnings can benefit the residents and other companies in the industry. To meet the needs of each community, we have different models. 

We have created different models based on what works best in each community. We recently launched DaaS (delivery as a service) where we offer our robots to partners who want a sustainable, low-cost method to deliver to their customers. We have multiple partners waiting to integrate our robots into their systems and have recently announced a partnership with Grubhub in the US. 

Another advantage for Starship over other forms of delivery is that our costs will continue to decrease while many of the other companies’ costs will increase. Last year, we crossed a big milestone due to the advancements in our autonomous service. We are now cheaper than human delivery so we can offer lower fees without impacting service.

JB: With regards to creating your robots, how does Starship approach creating its hardware? Do you think this differentiates the company from some of its peers?

Read more

Jonah Bliss: Why don’t we start with some background; tell us a bit about the founding team, and what led you to create Kiwibot?

David Rodriguez: In 2014, my colleagues Felipe and Sergio founded an e-commerce grocery platform named ‘lulo’ to improve the consumer experience of grocery shopping and introduce an efficient alternative to the Colombian market in a time where online shopping wasn’t as widespread. This endeavor allowed them to learn about logistics, last mile, and ecommerce and grew to an interesting customer base, leading to an acquisition by Merqueo (Endeavor Entrepreneur).

In the meantime, I was in college, grew interested in ESG, and began working at Filantropico, a consulting firm that aims to help family-owned companies develop strategies for social and environmental impact initiatives and investment. Inspired by this, David launched a project in the university to help improve vulnerable communities’ access to books. Through working on this program he met Felipe and Sergio who were in the midst of their exit from lulo.

Kiwibot was founded in 2017 and launched its first pilot at the University of California-Berkeley campus. Our company aims to revolutionize food delivery with high-driving autonomous robots; we’ve already made over 200,000 deliveries on US university campuses and cities. The service lets customers launch last-mile deliveries at a fraction of the time and cost without the hassle of hiring a courier. With recent partnerships, including GrubHub, Kiwibot is committed to a zero-carbon future and aims to create a world where technology, logistics, and delivery are for all.

JB: Can you define “high-driving?”

DR: High-driving autonomation refers to level 4 of autonomous driving.

Today, our robots count on high-driving automation, with a system capable of being self-sufficient in most of its operations to reach the pre-established destination while solving problems in various scenarios: walking along the sidewalk, staying focused on the sidewalk, avoiding colliding with objects, people, animals; identifying street crossings, knowing if it is safe to cross; and crossing the street.

The Kiwibots can accomplish most of their tasks autonomously and only need supervision for very specific, high-risk moments. For us, safety always prevails over efficiency. When we carry out technology developments, we always take efficiency into account, but pedestrians’ safety is our priority.

Kiwibot's high-driving automation robots use a combination of sensors and artificial intelligence to navigate surroundings and obstacles. It also utilizes an advanced GPS navigation system with a high-tech satellite solution, to generate virtual maps and establish multiple routes that make it possible to reach a pre-defined goal.

JB: What do you think of the current moment, in terms of macro factors affecting delivery overall, and fundraising for hardware startups in particular?

DR: The Global Autonomous Last-Mile Delivery Market size was worth of USD 11.9bn in 2021, it is expected to reach USD 84.7bn in 2030, growing at a CAGR of 24.4% from 2021 to 2030. The key to staying alive is to iterate and innovate. Our latest milestone was a first-of-its-kind leasing program with kineo finance.

JB: Can you share a bit about your deployments, how many markets you’re in, if there’s a particular operating environment you’re focusing on?

DR: Our robots should strive to benefit the community and serve the greater good. From delivering, to mapping and advertising:

1. Delivery: a last-mile delivery solution for B2B partners, in which autonomous robots and a logistic suite solve restaurants’ and retailers’ main pain points. We have operations in 30 campuses across the U.S.

2. Mapping: Kiwibots map city areas and collect data from sidewalks infrastructure, traffic and consumers to encourage authorities to measure the quality of pedestrian sidewalks and speed up infrastructure improvements. 

3. Advertising: Kiwibots are brand ambassadors that generate revenue from sampling and advertising while moving around a neighborhood.

JB: Are there markets, or partners, that have been particularly fruitful? Or any that have led to learning some key lessons?

DR: Our deal with Sodexo reflects our success. We closed out the year 2021 with three campuses, started 2022 with seven, and began this year with 30 campuses around the U.S. 

JB: With regards to creating your robots, how does Kiwi approach creating its hardware? Do you think this differentiates the company from some of its peers?

DR: Our robot, which is in fact very adorable, is designed to have a very good relationship with the community, and citizens. Not just due to its eyes or exterior, but also its size. Our robot can fit alongside a wheelchair on most sidewalks in the U.S. When we design our robots and when we develop our software we take into account that these robots are going to live with other human beings, and that is our priority, a harmonious relationship between humans and robots.

JB: Do you have any thoughts on the regulatory environment for delivery robots? Any insights into overall market adoption?

Read more

Jonah Bliss: Why don’t we start with some background; tell us a bit about the founding team, and what led you to create Coco?

Zach Rash: Six years ago at UCLA, Brad Squicciarini and I founded an autonomous vehicles research lab. After graduating, Brad and I used that experience to create Coco, with the mission to make last-mile food and grocery delivery more sustainable, reliable and cost effective for local businesses and their customers. We had watched the early robot delivery companies spending years and billions of dollars on autonomy R&D without any major deployments and wondered why we weren’t seeing robot delivery at scale. We decided to focus on building the infrastructure for piloted robot delivery so we could deliver immediate value to merchants, while using our growing fleet to train and improve our autopilot system. This would allow us to profitably scale up our fleet and accelerate our product development through real-world learnings.

JB: What do you think of the current moment, in terms of macro factors affecting delivery overall, and fundraising for hardware startups in particular?

ZR: Consumers and merchants are becoming more cost-conscious, which only bolsters our competitive position in the delivery space. If you’re a hardware company, with years of R&D ahead before you have a meaningful launch, this is going to be a hard time, but because Coco can make money now, we control our own destiny, and can finance growth from customers.

JB: Can you share a bit about your deployments, how many markets you’re in, if there’s a particular operating environment you’re focusing on?

ZR: We launched first in Santa Monica in 2020 and then in the City of Los Angeles in early 2021. We then expanded out to Houston and Austin at the start of 2022. Currently, our main focus is growing our LA-area market. We now have over 70 merchant partners in the West LA / Santa Monica area alone.

We also recently got a program approved for Chicago and are in discussions in some international markets. We should have some exciting updates soon!

JB: Are there markets, or partners, that have been particularly fruitful? Or any that have led to learning some key lessons?

ZR: The great thing with this technology is it works anywhere with a sufficient density of merchants and residents within around a 2-mile delivery range. In these dense areas, 60+% of a merchant's delivery volume often falls within our delivery radius, so there is lots of opportunity for us to be the best delivery option. In some parts of the Texas markets we did see areas that were too spread out or lacking adequate sidewalk infrastructure, but this forced us to improve our routing software and vehicle speeds which ultimately made the product better. Today, we’re focused on urban and semi-urban markets but in the future we expect to serve a broad range of neighborhoods with faster vehicle types.

JB: With regards to creating your robots, how does Coco approach creating its hardware? Do you think this differentiates the company from some of its peers?

Read more

Jonah Bliss: Can you start by giving us a bit of background on your work in the mobility industry, as well as the history of the Urban Robotics Foundation?

Bern Grush: I started out in the late 70s in computer vision, writing software to interpret images from the Landsat and SPOT satellite systems. Had it been 40 years later, I would have been writing the vision systems for automated vehicles and mobile robots instead — but I was born too soon! Fast forward to the early 2000s, I switched into the mobility industry to develop autonomous road-pricing and parking payment systems using GPS. After 15 years of that I found myself writing a book about deploying automated vehicles within a public transportation context and that led to an interest in goods delivery and naturally to the last-mile problem — hence delivery robots.

Because I had been repeatedly involved in standards drafting in those early machine vision, road pricing and autonomous parking days, I had become a “standards nerd.” So, when I saw the potential of mobile robots within an urban landscape, I immediately recognized that the lack of deployment standards would prevent the scale up of these devices in public spaces.

In 2019, I applied to the ISO to be project leader for the draft global standard now called TS4448 Intelligent transport systems - Public-area mobile robots (PMRs) and automated pathway devices. This initially started as a side-gig in my engineering consulting firm, and not long after I understood that ISO work needed to be moved to a dedicated environment. It had to be in a nonprofit in order to be funded – in our case by membership subscriptions. The Urban Robotics Foundation was established in 2021 to bring together stakeholder members to provide feedback and real-life experience to the standards development process. We are now about half way to completing the draft ISO 4448 suite to inform safe PMR integration into cities that want them.

JB: What is ISO 4448, what problem does it intend to solve, and what is the URF’s role in the process?

BG: The 4448 PMR standard directly addresses deployment, orchestration, behavioral, and governance issues. It focuses specifically on bystander safety, comfort and acceptance. It is only interested in device operation, configuration and safety insofar as it pertains to bystander safety. It is a deployment and operations standard, and a device capability standard, but not a manufacturing standard. There may be design and innovation requirements buried within deployment or behavioral clauses, but we try to stay as far away as possible from innovation and in fact we are required by the ISO to stay away from commercial IP. 4448 is focussed on what is workable for cities and for the active transportation users within those cities. Of course, we have to understand enough about what is technically feasible so that what the standard requires is achievable. That is one of the reasons we feel fortunate to have a number of technology members — they ensure that what we are asking on behalf of cities and active transportation users is doable.

The Urban Robotics Foundation (URF) was founded in 2021 to fund and strengthen project leadership. Our role is to bring stakeholders together to discuss, debate and explore the complexities involved in deploying PMRs in urban environments and to propose and document the standards that will help cities decide whether to reject or permit PMRs, in what areas and for what purposes. As subject matter experts, we also offer training workshops, webinars and will be publishing guidebooks to help with knowledge transfer.

JB: Which organizations are members of the URF? And are there any non-members that have had a hand in drafting the specification as well?

BG: We have members that are municipal governments, urban planners, traffic planners, technology companies, fleet operators, urbanist groups, accessibility advocates, researchers and, of course, the ISO working group that hosts this draft. In addition to the US and Canada, we have members and collaborators from over a dozen countries in Europe and Asia and we continue to build our membership through webinars, workshops and other outreach activities. In the early days of my work on ISO 4448, I solicited input from my global network but soon realized that a membership model was really the most appropriate way to move forward.

JB: What’s the current timeline for the standard being finalized? And after it’s finalized, what does adoption and deployment look like?

BG: We think we are about halfway through, at this point. In March of this year, the ISO working group reviewed the draft and rearranged its parts into an order that would be funneled through the acceptance process of the ISO technical committee 204. We are expecting to see the 15-17 parts of 4448 enter that funnel beginning later this year and continuing over the following year and a half — 2024-2025. 

It is harder to predict how adoption would work, but we believe it will mostly be the case that some municipalities, when asked to permit a fleet to operate at a scale beyond a pilot, will ask questions that will point to the need for a common body of standards for the municipality to judge whether it should permit — or ban – such fleets. That’s where we think standards adoption will begin. In other words, standards will have little impact on pilots or trials, but they matter very much at scale. Pilots and trials often focus on innovation or exploration. But scale means business and that means investment and risk. Since investment often matters more than technology, scale demands standards.

This means initial deployments might pay only lip-service to standards, but as soon as large organizations within the fast food, express delivery and security industries wish to scale, adoption of standards will be rapid.

So, I guess I’m saying this will be a collaboration between cities protective of their social, pedestrian spaces and the companies that will bring scale — such as Uber Eats or DHL. 

As with a lot of innovation, the first half of the coming S-curve will be hailed as a “hockey stick.” My guess is that we will be deep into that hockey stick well before 2030.

JB: ISO 4448 addresses “public-area mobile robots” - whereas others in the industry, or outside observers, may be more familiar with terms like PDDs, delivery bots, or robotaxis. How do you define the differences between those, and which are incorporated into the standard you’re developing?

BG: Let me first read the draft standard’s definition of PMRs: “Public-area mobile robots are devices that operate under software or teleoperator control in pedestrianized spaces among non-involved humans (bystanders).” So, that simple definition includes PDDs, delivery bots, sidewalk robots, sidewalk drones, etc. But it also includes surveillance robots, floor-mopping robots in airports, robots spraying brine on icy sidewalks, mobile “social robots” guiding tourists, etc.

Looked at this way, the standard is describing the behavior, orchestration or capabilities of a robot in a public space, So, as far as 4448 is concerned, it doesn’t matter what type of robot it is or what its task is. 4448 is concerned with behavior, competency, and fleet governance within those environments.

JB: What are some of the biggest challenges facing the public-area mobile robot industry as a whole, and how does that impact companies in the sector, the cities they operate in, and the public at large?

BG: I think there are two challenges. First, as soon as consumers stop being enthralled by robotics, they will start demanding far more physical agility and capability than we are seeing now. Having a box on wheels bring your pizza may currently be novel and something to write home about, but that wears off quickly. Cities that have permitted delivery robots are full of pedestrians that no longer even notice them as they walk along looking at their phones.

At maturity many ordinary, every-day robots will be legged, they will be nimble, capable, competent, and will start exhibiting mobility capabilities beyond human. That’s the technical innovation challenge. That will cost billions. This level of mechatronics ability and intelligence will be the mobility correlate to Artificial General Intelligence.

Second, there is the regulatory challenge. In many ways this will be harder and take longer. Pedestrian spaces are highly unstructured, no two walkways are the same. The edge cases in pedestrian spaces including inside malls and hospitals are more numerous than those on the road. The saving grace is that in these pedestrianized spaces speeds are 3 - 4 mph. Partially automated passenger vehicles have already been involved in numerous fatal crashes. Partially automated delivery robots have caused only the smallest of scrapes. Still the deployment of multiple fleets of a high number of PMRs, each engaged in independent tasks, under the independent oversight of multiple, independent, for-profit, fleet operators, could mean all sorts of negative outcomes. The challenge of safely orchestrating a managed number of these robots is easy enough to understand technically — it’s similar to an air traffic control problem — but I think that the regulatory demand for this solution is at least as difficult as the technical demand for the mechatronics.

I hope I am wrong.

JB: You just painted a troubling picture of the regulatory environment for public area mobile robots. What can the industry do to stay in the good graces of regulators and politicians?

BG: Well, when we get to the point of a reliable, and well-accepted standard that sees a reasonable level of behavioral compliance— whether in PMR code or in PMR teleoperation — that would help reduce the risk regulators face when making decisions to accept a new technology or system. They would have something to test against. They would have vocabulary, definitions and benchmarks. They could better understand liability.

I think without that most regulators will do what the city of Toronto did. In December 2021, Toronto City Council said “no thank you, until we see some reasonable guidance.” And I happened to agree with that. I blogged at the time that had I been a city counselor, on that day, hearing those arguments, I would’ve had to vote for the temporary ban. I don’t believe there was any other responsible, immediate action that this council could have taken.

But the other and longer view of this is that robotics can bring us enormous urban benefits — more safety, cleaner environments, and, surprisingly, new job benefits. When we start to see these kinds of outcomes, and city councils that see safe, acceptable ways to deploy, they will be hard-pressed to continue saying “no.” So my answer is if you want to stay in the good graces of regulators, get behind a competent standard, make sure that standard works both for the cities and for the industry. Then build systems that comply.

Without standards, industry cannot scale. That has been true for hundreds of years — and will continue for hundreds more.

JB: Finally, do you have any general insights into the state of the industry you’d like to share? Any thoughts on where you see the space evolving in the next few years?

BG: The expression “the industry” is complicated. If you are mostly thinking about last-mile delivery — which may continue as the largest single sector — then this industry is barely starting. The impact so far has been tiny, while the potential remains enormous. Probably the greatest thing holding back explosive growth is regulatory.

But that is just scratching the surface because we may be waiting for infrastructure updates in some places, or the evolution from wheels and self-serve to legs and graspers to navigate steps, doors and elevators, or end-to-end systems that begin with self-extraction at a shippers warehouse all the way through to automated drop off at the receiver’s locker.

Expecting a person to reliably stand by to extract a delivery from the carrier’s bin is a very limited business model. It is well-suited to hungry students, but not much else.

But even this is only a tiny fraction of an answer to your question. “The industry” includes surveillance, maintenance, and many other robot types and tasks. Each of those have their own issues, infrastructure questions, mechatronic innovations, and so on.

Throughout all of this – especially outside on streets and sidewalks we have matters of urban planning, traffic management, IoT, enforcement systems, and more. These are industries, too.

How can PMR technology improve the prospects for complete streets, 15-minute cities, or car-free living? I am sure it can, but there is no roadmap, yet, to get from exciting mechatronic innovations to substantially improved livability. That’s my wider-industry view. It’s massive and touches everything. And that’s where I believe this space is evolving over the next decade and beyond.

And that’s the driving purpose behind the mission here at the Urban Robotics Foundation.

Here I discuss the fate of the industry with Tortoise’s Co-Founder Dmitry Shevelenko. Dmitry’s unique background spanning companies like Facebook, Time Inc, Uber, LinkedIn and Superpedestrian made Tortoise a particularly fun company to watch: they started with self-driving scooters, before transitioning to tele-operated delivery bots, and finally they built a unique mobile vending robot. This interview with Dmitry is a long read (edited and condensed for clarity, italics added for emphasis) but I highly recommend you take the time to digest it - anyone else in the space would be quite well served by his lessons learned.

Jonah Bliss: Dmitry, great to catch up with you. Can you start by giving folks an overview of Tortoise, your founding story and pivots?

Dmitry Shevelenko: Yes, so the founding insight of Tortoise was when it comes to bringing automation to the real world: low-speed comes before high speed. Something that's going five miles an hour is a lot less dangerous than something going 50 miles an hour; remote control comes before autonomous. The very first incarnation of our technology launched in late 2019, early 2020 as a solution for shared scooters, to let a remote operator in Mexico City look out a camera and re-park a scooter in Minneapolis if it’s in front of somebody’s front doorstep. Or say, return it to a safe parking spot to get recharged and allow for the rebalancing of micromobility fleets. 

This was, of course, a fantastic time to be in the shared micromobility space because literally the weekend I was supposed to launch our first market in [Peachtree Corners] Georgia - all national air travel got shut down for Covid. And all movement of people in cities froze; so pivot number one was was realizing when people are frozen, the movement of goods becomes even more important. And we obviously all lived through this explosion in demand for last mile delivery. 

And so we'd already built this ability to remotely drive a light electric vehicle from A to B. We just needed to create a new form factor, so we built our own remote controlled delivery robot, with a focus on grocery. And we built a robotic platform that was modular and had different container types on it. We built a larger form factor, specifically to handle your typical online grocery order, which we didn’t think was being served by the existing players. Again the really key insight was this pure focus on on tele-ops and and keeping the bill of materials low by not trying to layer in lidar and uneconomic features, and just keep this something simple that we could launch right away.

We were able to get big grocers on board fairly quickly because there was a lot of interest in scaling last mile solutions with a surge in demand during Covid. So we got on board Shoprite and Meijer - national grocery chains - and they started doing pilots with us. But if your mandate is to deliver anywhere within a three mile radius of the store, you're running into a lot of edge cases on a day-to-day basis. Even when you have a 100% tele-operating solution, you have all the variances in sidewalk infrastructure, plus first generation hardware. So that made things not always the most reliable.

It became clear that this was not a business model that was only a few months away from profitable unit economic operations, at a price point that made sense for those grocers. But as we kept doing more pilots, we noticed a really interesting behavior which was that when the robots were parked in front of the grocery stores, they'd get a lot of attention. People would walk up to the robot and start talking to the robot and expect to interact with it. We just didn't know why or what they thought would happen. And so we started asking people, “Hey, you started talking to this robot that wasn't talking to you. What do you think is going to happen?”

Subscribe now

We consistently heard the same thing which was “I thought I could buy something from the robot.” And that was pivot number two for us. It was this moment where we're like, “Hey, you know, maybe the killer use case here is selling stuff instead of delivering it.” We have this modular container system and each robot has two containers. Embed a tap-to-pay NFC reader in the container, which already has a Bluetooth controlled Internet connected locking mechanism, and within a few months we turned our delivery robots into the world's first mobile vending robots. As Curbivore fans might know, we debuted that at Curbivore ‘22. This product worked really well in dense environments where you have large crowds: shopping malls, sports venues, conference centers, anywhere you have a lot of people and long lines.

So we got interesting, commercial traction with NBA Arenas, NHL, MLB, large venue operators, Walmart, and Mall of America. So, there was a lot of interest in the solution but not not enough to overcome the macro environmental change which was that raising capital became much more difficult for unprofitable hardware startups. Unfortunately, we weren't able to see it through.

JB: I appreciate you being so candid about that. I’d like to touch on something that you seemed really successful at: you were able to make these pretty big pivots and pull them off quickly. But then just as quickly, you were able to sign up marquee brands. Do you have any advice or learnings about how you all were able to sell through to large companies so well?

DS:  I think one of our advantages was the design of the container; it was literally a white box with no Tortoise branding on it whatsoever. So, we offered the marketing value of getting your own large-scale, branded robot. In approaching a lot of these larger brands and retailers, we could very quickly generate a rendering of what the robot could look like, in a very photorealistic way. Generating those customized assets made it feel like something real and enticing. 

And I think the other piece that helped was our business model: no upfront costs, but we’d take a percentage of sales. That makes it easier to push through a procurement process from a budgeting point of view. And I think the other thing, particularly with the mobile vending, is there was no systems integration needed. We provide the payment processor, there's no app, there’s no website. All a retailer had to do was provide us with their marketing assets, so we could design the container wrap, and have a place to store the robot when it's not in use. The trick is to solve as many bottlenecks on the customer side as you can take on yourself. 

We were able to launch Walmart, where we had the mobile vending robots in their parking lots. We hired somebody on our side to restock the robot, so Walmart didn't have to train an associate. Because we knew that would be a deal breaker with Walmart operationally. So I think that those are the types of things you need to do: things that don't scale, but let you quickly bring the product to market, so you can you discover the consumer experience, see where things break, see what works and what doesn't. And if you have momentum, you can always figure out the more scalable answers later

JB: I'm curious if you've any sorts of you know statistics you can share in terms of your sales cycle - from first outreach to deployment. Additionally, what kind of revenue were you doing per unit?

DS: Because we had a sexy solution, because people love the idea of “a robot in a stadium” - sometimes we could go from our first conversation to a signed MSA in under two weeks. Especially if they had like specific games where they wanted to deploy the robot, which would add useful pressure on their side.

I think it's sales 101: finding a champion inside these large organizations, having empathy for that person, knowing who their stakeholders are, and just arming them with everything they could possibly need to push it through internally. It wasn't the case with most of these that we got a CEO level relationship; it was about finding a champion and and making them successful internally. 

In terms of the sales per robot, some days, at an event like Comic-Con, each robot was generating $3,000 a day in sales. And then we had other robots that would generate zero dollar sales days. It was hugely variable, depending on the volume of the crowds.

That was actually one of the challenges in the business model. If we could do it all over again, I’d package the product less as the main benefit being direct sales and more as a marketing lever. Say, charge a fixed fee for the exposure that you get through the robot; I’d have the CPGs play a role in covering costs. Because we dealt with the whims of foot traffic, and of the venue operator or retailer having wisdom about what is the right product to sell in each location.

JB: With the whole industry going through a period of turmoil, are there any words of advice for your peers? Any North Stars to look to, or things to avoid?

Read more

OttOmate: Tell us a bit about the founding team, and how you all came together to create Cartken?

Christian Bursch: Cartken was launched by a group of former Google, Apple, and Bosch engineers and operators with a long history of building emerging technology products. Our team has deep expertise in self-driving vehicles, AI-powered robotics, and delivery operations.

After multiple years spent on developing and launching emerging technologies, the group came together in August 2019 to build autonomous delivery robots that are more accessible and commercially viable. By applying that knowledge, our team was able to develop a fully integrated system in less than a year. We first launched robots in California.

O: What has your collective background in robotics and AI taught you about this space? Are there any particular lessons you think you’ve already learned?

CB: In general, the automotive industry has come to a realization that integrating self-driving vehicles into roads is much harder than anticipated. We are still years away from true robot taxis and delivery trucks, that can drive in all conditions the same as humans can. Also, the cost of developing a self-driving fleet is far from being efficient.

The level of autonomy is very different between companies in this space. Our Cartken robots achieve L4 autonomy, which means they can navigate sidewalks and pedestrian paths on their own within mapped areas. L4 is the highest level of autonomy that is possible for autonomous vehicles - L5 would be autonomous driving without prior knowledge of the driving area, which only humans can do. The other thing to call out is that Cartken’s autonomy stack is based on cameras combined with state-of-the-art computer vision.

Most robots in this space rely much more heavily on or even exclusively on teleoperation. The high level of autonomy of Cartken’s robots doesn’t just lower the cost, but makes their operation much more reliable and safer, as the AI system can react much faster than a human over an LTE connection ever could.

Developing robots that can navigate autonomously around obstacles and pedestrians, but get help from a human when they encounter an unknown situation - is the operation we chose to pursue.

O: As the PDD / robotic delivery market gets busier, how do you foresee Cartken’s approach differing from some of your industry peers?

CB: We think overall, success in the delivery robotics space means having intelligent machines that can navigate among existing environments of people and infrastructure. But, for us specifically, Cartken’s strategy for success focuses on three main areas:

The first is having the most capable and flexible autonomous robot platform on the market. Our technology leverages low-cost commodity hardware and best-in-class sensors and cameras which allows us to achieve high levels of autonomy, safety, and reliability.

The second strategy is the ability to extend our technology to be customizable and brandable. We allow our robots to be branded with our partner’s logo and messaging and want to make sure our partners own their end customer data.

The last strategy for success for us is building a broad distribution network and partner base. We are a technology provider to existing delivery services versus trying to build a new, robot-only delivery service. We offer robots as a monthly subscription. Securing partnerships with a few big players in the space, such as Grubhub, Magna, and Mitsubishi, allows us to tap into their distribution pools in exchange for our technology.

O: Are there particular markets that you see as being most receptive to robotic delivery?

CB: Naturally, restaurant aggregators, such as Grubhub, Uber, DoorDash, and Postmates, were the first to pilot robots as new delivery mechanisms.

We have noticed universities, quick service restaurants, grocery retailers, and ghost kitchens are the primary segments that take advantage of autonomous delivery robots and the infrastructure restaurant aggregators have built. They use robots to streamline curbside pick-up, local delivery, and internal shuttling operations and reduce labor cost. Malls and hotels are catching up with the trend.

Manufacturers, e-commerce companies, and delivery carriers adopt robots for micro-fulfillment operations which allows them to optimize manual processes and save their staff time.

O: Are there any use cases, beyond prepared food, that you see as particularly adapted to robotic delivery?

CB: We have found several use cases for delivery robots operations, and much more to be discovered and tested.

For example, robots can be used for micro-fulfillment in factories and warehouses to shuttle boxes, instruments, and materials between aisles and halls.

Secondly, robots are useful for short-distance shuttling in instances such as:

• Food/medical supplies at elderly care facilities

• Small package delivery in corporate campuses, offices

• Linens at hotels/resorts, hospitals

• Food prep items at stadiums, hospitals, hotels

• Hauling of trash at various types of locations

• Catering for events

Robots can be transformed into vending machines to deliver consumer goods for sale across large designated areas, such as outdoor event venues, conferences, and stadiums.

Last-mile package delivery is not a new concept. A few e-commerce and shipping giants have been developing and testing their own delivery robots, but they haven’t become widely adopted yet. For example, DPD, Europe’s largest parcel carrier, is piloting Cartken robots for last-mile delivery in the UK, and locals receive it quite well.

Lastly, as the technology becomes more mainstream, we predict that consumers will leverage robots to deliver items peer-to-peer (P2P). For example, you can deliver a home tool set to your friend’s house when he/she needs it.

O: How do you feel about the regulatory environment for PDDs? Are you seeing consistent policy frameworks across markets, or is it still a bit of a “wild west” that needs to be made orderly?

Read more

Jonah Bliss: What attracted Serve to equity crowdfunding as a new funding source?

Aduke Thelwell: Having raised over $42 million since spinning out of Uber in 2021, we have been fortunate to be supported by institutional and strategic investors. However we are regularly contacted by people who’ve received a Serve delivery or heard about our robots and want to invest. As a private company, we are required to comply with SEC’s Regulation Crowdfunding in order to offer securities to non-accredited investors. By doing so, our goal is to invite the communities we serve to participate in the growth we foresee in this sector.

JB: How long have you been working on this campaign? 

We started exploring this back in 2021 when Vebu Labs (formerly Wavemaker Labs) led our seed round and joined our board. They demonstrated significant success in raising over $100 million of dollars for their portfolio companies. 

AT: How much are you aiming to raise, and how do you hope to deploy the capital?

Read more

Pizza/tech company Domino’s has partnered with German autonomous driving startup TERAKI to offer robot pizza delivery in Berlin. TERAKI today announced a five week pilot will see its robot shuttling pizzas and drinks from the Domino’s store in Berlin-Charlottenburg Nord sidewalks.

There are a few things worth pointing out about this deal as it relates to both TERAKI and the European market for delivery robots.

Read more

The fact that foodservice giant has a job listing for a Senior Manager, Robot Growth illustrates two things.

Read more