Challenging The Status Quo Improves Lives

[Kak]

Very new example:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGBRA24qlEg&pp=ygUSQnJpY2sgbGF5aW5nIHJvYm90


This crane robot can lay 2-300 giant bricks per hour. Why is that important? Who cares?

How does a more affordable home sound? How does a bigger home for the same amount of money sound? How does a quicker move in date sound?

When industries get more efficient, they set the new standard. When the new standard is set, other entrants make it competitive. When they make it competitive, we can order up a quick house, probably better built than a traditional wood frame job, for a lot less.

This is how you disrupt a trillion dollar market.

This is why I always say the entrepreneur, that challenges the status quo, is why we aren’t living like 500 years ago right now. Government didn’t do this. Individuals boldly bringing new and better to the world did.

Does your business challenge a status quo? I’m in the process of doing just that with my building products division. More on that in my INSIDERS thread soon.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[MJ DeMarco]

Introduction of the technology also makes the jobs associated with them more valuable, from users, to technicians, to maintenance. This is how luxuries of 100 years ago are now normal staples of life.

 

[Mr.Maverick]

This is really interesting. Companies like these really contribute to society in a creative way

 

[Kak]

Who else wants to buy one of these brick layers?

Be the first to a major market with a machine that can build a home in 36 hours. That’s awesome.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Guest-5ty5s4]

It also makes those jobs suck less. People think technology destroys jobs. It sort of does, but instead, the same number of people can work, but they can do more with their hours, and often less back breaking, mud slinging level tasks.

 

[Kak]

It also makes those jobs suck less. People think technology destroys jobs. It sort of does, but instead, the same number of people can work, but they can do more with their hours, and often less back breaking, mud slinging level tasks.

Yep and when they go to buy a house, the biggest thing most people ever buy, now it’s cheaper (in terms of how hard they’ll have to work to afford it, not necessarily dollar amount) too.

The funny thing is, this will also lower the price of traditional construction too because of S&D and competition.

 

[BizyDad]

Government didn’t do this.

True.

But how do you know they didn't fund the initial research that led to this?



Oh wait...

Interestingly, the initial inventors of the technology appear to have been gobbled up by an investment firm in 2016. I don't even want to mention the low price they paid. And that investment firm rebranded into the company that put out the video you shared. I didn't bother checking to see if the original inventor is part of the new group.

And the company only recently received approval to sell in the United States. 7 years later. The first 3 machines are coming... Owned by a US subsidiary.

I think there's a tale of the perseverance of an entrepreneur somewhere in here... Ups and downs and doing things right and doing things wrong.

The company also manufacturers the bricks they use. Lol. These guys aren't just looking to revolutionize the construction industry, they're looking to take it over.

I think there's many lessons in here. Good find.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kak]

True.

But how do you know they didn't fund the initial research that led to this?

View attachment 48383

Oh wait...

Interestingly, the initial inventors of the technology appear to have been gobbled up by an investment firm in 2016. I don't even want to mention the low price they paid. And that investment firm rebranded into the company that put out the video you shared. I didn't bother checking to see if the original inventor is part of the new group.

And the company only recently received approval to sell in the United States. 7 years later. The first 3 machines are coming... Owned by a US subsidiary.

I think there's a tale of the perseverance of an entrepreneur somewhere in here... Ups and downs and doing things right and doing things wrong.

The company also manufacturers the bricks they use. Lol. These guys aren't just looking to revolutionize the construction industry, they're looking to take it over.

I think there's many lessons in here. Good find.

It’s still an entrepreneur that did it, grants or no grants. It could have just as easily been completely private money. Why not take a grant if you qualify? I would. I just never have qualified.

We can get into a pissing match about government funding or you can agree that individual initiative drives humanity forward.

You obviously know government exists at the direct expense of private industry wherein force directs the use of resources instead of the market. If it was the market choice it wouldn’t require force.

Value is create by the people. It is only taken and redistributed by government. So even a grant was just value moved around.

Also, that grant could have been TINY by comparison to the actual capitalization of this project. Would you consider it a government developed tech if they only got a $5k grant? Call it a tax break.

We don’t need a derailed thread. If the government could have just ordered iPhones and air travel, why didn’t they do it in 700 BC?

 

[BizyDad]

We can get into a pissing match about government funding or you can agree that individual initiative drives humanity forward.

Are these my only two options?

My first word in my response to you was "True".

Everything else you're saying is a red herring or a straw man to me.

I think the government has a role to play in society. You don't.

So even a grant was just value moved around.

To me, this is exactly the point. Many entrepreneurial advances had to be funded by government, because the idea was so new a standard capitalistic source of funding would not have funded it. And there are numerous examples of this throughout history.

Also, that grant could have been TINY by comparison to the actual capitalization of this project. Would you consider it a government developed tech if they only got a $5k grant? Call it a tax break.

And this is primarily my issue. You talk a lot of hypotheticals. Instead of dealing in facts. For starters, there was more than one grant.

But that doesn't fit your argument. So you want to wave away facts.

What further bolsters your argument is the fact that an individual, and a corporation, also backed the project.

But those were done as investments. Sometimes, an idea just needs a grant. A scientific discovery needs a grant.

I didn't research for too long, so I don't know who provided what or in what order. It doesn't really matter. We both have businesses to build...

In your worldview, you preach government and entrepreneurship and act like they are at odds.

In my worldview, scientists also achieve advancements. Scientists are individuals. But they're not always entrepreneurs. I do not conflate the two.

We don’t need a derailed thread.

I started off saying your point was true. I agreed with 99% of your words.

I'm not trying to derail a thread. The government has a role to play in some entrepreneurial pursuits. I called the sky blue and you got triggered.

Whether you like the government or not, this is just a fact. And it's not derailing a thread to present a fact. I'm not derailing a conversation by looking deeper into the company story.

Funnily enough, I did what MJ's tagline says. I followed the science and found the money. I was curious about the research they did. I recently started a thread to discuss companies and opportunities like this.

I was wondering how a company like this actually gets started.

Not mythically. Not hypothetically. Actually.

This company story has a lot to it. Private equity. Multiple raises. At least one exit event. New technology. Integrated supply chain. International expansion.

And that's just what I found in 10 minutes of reading.

You're right, there's no need to get hung up on the government funding. It's just one facet that I find interesting about this company's story.

And there are a lot of angles and lessons that a fast laner can take away from it in 10 minutes of reading.

Thank you for starting the thread.