And a crab chair is a pretty good idea honestly. Sure wheels are cheaper and easier, but you can’t go many places with wheels. The crab chair could take you up normal stairs, lift you up to your bed, walk on sand or rough terrain.

I agree that the concept product space is exciting and important. It is good to see people and companies explore these spaces and ideas. Sure lets build and play with these things.

The criticism that is levied on these things is not that they exist but that despite the glitz and shine they are not going to help today. 20 years is a long time to wait for your fancy mobility device.

I have seen countless concepts that never see in the real world. 100 mpg cars, stair climbing wheel chairs, exoskeletons etc. I am watching for thing that I can afford and use now.

Could not agree more. Attitudes like the authors are incredibly destructive to society. Essentially all gains to human life satisfaction have come from tech innovation.

> What the author really means is "I didn't ask for a crab chair".

no what they mean is that the average disabled consumer did not ask for the crab chair

I think their point is they worry too much time and money is going into cool concepts like this and not enough on practical steps forward in mobility that can actually make a difference in people's lives within a few years.

The author even gives a concrete example

> I would give at least a few of my quad fingers for a high quality, lightweight, low-profile indoor/outdoor power chair with the customizable seating and back options I rely on.

That doesn't sound like a wild concept, sounds like something achievable as a product if there was someone with deep pockets willing to chuck in the money (I doubt mobility aids are a great money spinner, money back with a bit of profit should be feasible?) and some good engineers enthused by making a real difference to people.

How much money and engineering time did Toyota spend on this I wonder?

If that's a drop in the bucket compared to the practical, creating real product, engineering happening in this space then it's all good. If most of the money is going to stuff like this then that's a problem.

Agreed. Just goes to show that people have no idea how R&D works. You have to build the thing before you can discover if it's possible or not. If no one built stuff like this, you would never get improvements to your existing consumer-grade mobility devices. All breakthroughs look like longshots before they're real.

> obviously someone asked for it, else it wouldn't have been made at all

That is giving too much credit to the myth of consumer agency and free choice in the marketplace.

The truth is more complex than that: while consumers can ask for stuff and demand changes and make stuff happen sometimes, companies will usually be the ones making markets, and creating a brand image, around things that are profitable and realistic for them to make.

I was telling my parents the other day, that probably most cosmetics were started when a trader got 3 cartloads of some industrial chemical that he couldn't unload on the buyers anymore. Like "oh gosh all this powdered lead will go to waste, unless I convince all the patrician Roman women to smear it on their eyelids!!" Or, "subsidized corn gave us so much cornstarch capacity that we need to villainize talc, which was originally a useless byproduct of mining minerals like uranium and gold!"

And it is really true, at least in a minority of documented case studies, because if you go look up the history of Heathkit and the D.I.Y. electronics industry, it turns out that Heathkit was founded when several train cars were loaded with military-surplus electronics parts. And they were assorted parts that couldn't meaningfully be assembled into commercial products, and the seller couldn't unload all this postwar surplus, so the guy owning the cargo came up with the D.I.Y. idea really fast. And he put in work to write educational instruction manuals and make a market to veterans and young men who aspired to a career in electronics and E.E., like my father, (just a hobbyist).

So I believe there are opportunistic elements to market-making and there are ways for companies to sort of "simulate" consumer demand for things we didn't know we wanted. There are things we want that aren't on the market today. There are features we want that aren't in software. Look all around. The products serve the makers, ultimately, and as for consumers, we'll need to do what we're told.

[dead]

The author says exactly that in the essay, that if they could get a crab chair tomorrow they would be the first in line.

His point is that these sorts of designs are never going to be practical and that he wishes they would put some of this energy into designing the practical next steps for mobility assistance, that focus on the things the community actually needs.

I have a couple of Kelly Kettles (portable rocket-stoves), and one is for water and the other is for sand. The sand-filled one is a heat battery - charge it up after boiling some water with the other one, and bring it in the tent to keep things positively toasty.

Sounds like it was considered useful, but in a way that inconveniently didn’t line up with the investor pitch.

It's art. Not everything is optimization problem.

You can see it jerk up and down when one of the legs takes the load.

When one leg is moving the load is held on the other three, and if you define a triangle by the foot contact points, one side will bisect the center of gravity. That’s not a recipe for stability, but it probably helps with agility. What these design benefit from is lateral movement of the legs, but this one seems pretty stiff.

It does have a retractable foot rest.

[dead]

My legs work fine and I want a crab chair!

And now we only have phones with one button.

Or that guy from the Wild Wild West movie.

The article is not really anti hacker (IMHO) just lets not forget the here and now.