Introduction

What’s more important in robotics: achievable innovation or visionary ambition? There’s a fundamental distinction between what I call “hype robots” and “reasonable robots.” While hype robots often thrive on perception and grand visions, reasonable robots are built on the realistic possibilities of current technology. Ultimately, these two paths serve different purposes in the market—and it’s critical to understand the difference.

At Polymath Robotics, we’re focused on creating practical solutions for off-highway vehicles, such as tractors and bulldozers. I’ve been fortunate to contribute to big milestones in autonomous driving, such as putting the first driver-out truck on a public highway. My experience in the industry has only solidified my belief in the importance of realistic, value-driven robotics; but it hasn’t stopped me from spending a lot of time trying to figure out what’s going on with the hype teams.

Reasonable Isn’t Unambitious

When I talk about “reasonable robotics,” I’m not talking about a lack of ambition. Reasonable robotics is about creating robots that solve real problems with measurable value and achievable goals. These companies follow the same principles as non-robotics startups: concepts like minimum viable products (MVPs), product-market fit, and a focus on tangible customer needs.

The Lean Startup movement revolutionized SaaS by teaching companies to validate ideas with minimal technical investment. Instead of spending millions and years developing a product, founders tested hypotheses early, gathering customer feedback before scaling. Lean methodology let SaaS companies grow efficiently, with each round of funding representing real progress and a clear path forward.

In reasonable robotics, the goal is the same: test ideas as quickly as possible, build a working product, and focus on market needs. This doesn’t mean building something simple—it means building something achievable within the constraints of cost, complexity, and technical feasibility.

Robots Are Different – And Expensive

Robotics is a unique challenge, one where traditional startup models don’t always fit. Robots are hardware-intensive, and robotics companies face large up-front costs—just the sensors, compute, and basic platforms can easily run over $200K for a prototype. Robotics is also inherently multidisciplinary, requiring expertise in perception, planning, and user interfaces, each demanding dedicated teams and significant R&D time.

This complexity can make it hard to apply Lean Startup principles to robotics. But it’s still possible to be reasonable about what you can achieve at each stage. For instance, a reasonable robotics company doesn’t need to invent entirely new tech to succeed; instead, it should focus on proving key functionalities and ensuring customers are willing to pay for what they’ve built.

The Pitfalls of Hype-Driven Robotics

In contrast to reasonable robots, hype robots are defined not by their technological milestones but by their market perception. These companies often attract large rounds of funding based on ambitious claims rather than immediate product viability. Founders may feel pressured to keep expanding their vision to justify raising further rounds, even if the technology is far from being ready for customers.

It’s not uncommon to see hype-driven companies raise $500M or more and grow to hundreds of employees, only to remain pre-product-market fit. While some of these teams will eventually ship (Cruise, Waymo), they rely on hype as their primary currency. Their progress markers aren’t about tangible MVPs or customer feedback but about creating a narrative that keeps investors excited.

Why Hype Isn’t Always Bad

Hype has its place, especially in markets requiring multiple breakthroughs, like robotaxis or humanoid robots. In these spaces, where companies need 5-8 technical miracles to succeed, a lean approach might not be feasible. Hype-driven investment can bridge the gap, bringing in talent and capital while the company tackles high-risk problems that wouldn’t otherwise attract early funding.

But attracting that type of capital requires an entirely different set of heuristics than traditional startup funding: focused popularity and being tightly aligned with prevailing VC theses.  Going through a top-tier grad program or even Y-Combinator is almost an anti-pattern for a successful hype founder; they need to be able to raise >$50m pre-product to even be in the running.

I, for one, don’t find it a natural fit – I wasn’t popular in high school and that certainly didn’t change in adulthood.   Instead, I lean on Lean Startup principles, where disciplined iteration and market focus drive growth—even in a hardware-centric industry like robotics.

Reasonable Robots: A Pragmatic Path Forward

When I think of reasonable robots, I’m talking about companies focused on two core elements:

1. Market Receptivity: Proving early on that customers are willing to pay for a working robot, even if it’s imperfect and expensive.
2. Targeted Innovation: Building a unique technological advantage that doesn’t rely on solving multiple high-risk problems at once.

Consider a company like Urban Machines.  They’ve built a series of robots to pull nails and screws from beautiful old waste wood to transform it into premium architectural lumber.   Urban Machines’s bet isn’t just on tech, but on the assumption that if they can spit out a bunch of board feet of premium lumber, they can sell it efficiently.  

Investing in a reasonable robotics company like Urban Machines can follow the same heuristics as traditional tech:

• For Seed, is the team credible and capable of solving the specific challenge?
• For Series A, have they built a functional product, and are their customers paying something reasonable
• For Series B, can they demonstrate enough reliability to justify scaling, even if the economics aren’t perfect yet?

What’s Better: Hype or Reasonable?

Both reasonable and hype-driven robotics companies have their place in the market. Sometimes, if you want to invest in certain high-stakes sectors, hype robots are the only options available. But high-profile failures among hype robots have, at times, cast a shadow on robotics as a whole. Just as robot foundation model companies are raising $10M+ rounds, companies with actual revenue and deployed robots, like Reliable Robotics, have struggled to stay afloat.

Investing in these two types of companies requires fundamentally different approaches. For hype robots, the evaluation may lean more heavily on pedigree and connections, with terms that account for the heightened risks. For reasonable robots, investors can apply the familiar metrics of tech: product milestones, market traction, and clear paths to scale.

Conclusion:
As the robotics industry matures, we need both types of companies, but we must also recognize their differences. Reasonable robots may not make as many headlines, but they represent a sustainable, scalable path to growth grounded in tangible customer value. And in a market often swept up by hype, reasonable robotics has a clear and compelling case for investment.