←back to thread

Launch HN: K-Scale Labs (YC W24) – Open-Source Humanoid Robots

223 points codekansas | 1 comments | 03 Jul 25 16:44 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source

Hi HN, I'm Ben, from K-Scale Labs (https://kscale.dev). We're building open-source humanoid robots.

Hardware video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhZi9rtdEKg

Software video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXi3b3xXJFw

Docs: https://docs.kscale.dev

Github: https://github.com/kscalelabs

HN thread from back in May: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44023680

I started K-Scale because I really wanted a humanoid robot to hack on, so I knew that if I built one, I would have at least one customer. It was before the Unitree G1 came out so the cheapest option at the time costed over $50k, but I figured I could build one for about $10k using COTS (Commercial Off-the-Shelf) components, which would be a much better price point for indie hackers and developers.

We built the first version using some 3D printers and parts that I bought off of Amazon and Alibaba. It was not great, but it let us build out the full pipeline, from designing and building the hardware to training control policies in simulation. We actually did most of this in about two months, and had a standing, waving robot by YC Demo Day (although it wasn't good for much else!).

Since then, our focus has been on figuring out how to go from a hobby-grade robot to a consumer-grade robot, without inflating our BOM (Bill of Materials, i.e. cost of all the parts) or having to set up our own factories. This is surprisingly difficult. A lot of the supply chain for robotics components currently goes through China, but tariffs have made it difficult to rely on Chinese suppliers for components. Also, even a $10k price point is pretty expensive for most customers, for a humanoid robot that has fairly limited capabilities.

Our solution to this is to open-source our hardware and software. This makes it easier for us to navigate tariffs and manufacturing challenges. By making our reference design public, our suppliers have a much easier time figuring out how to offer us competitive solutions, and our manufacturing partners are able to more easily adjust our design for their production processes.

On the demand side, the basic problem with humanoid robots is that they're mostly useless right now, and it will probably be a long and fairly capital-intensive journey to make them useful. My expectation was that there is a large pool of latent interest from people like me who are interested in hacking on humanoids, and that this customer segment is a much better customer segment to sell into than more traditional business-focused robotics applications. As someone in this customer segment myself, I felt that open-source software and hardware would be a strong value proposition, particularly for developers exploring bringing humanoids into their own business verticals.

More philosophically, I think it is important that there is a good, open-source humanoid robot. I think the technology is likely to mature much more rapidly than many people currently expect, and the idea of armies of humanoids owned by some single company walking around is pretty dystopian.

Right now, we're selling our base humanoid robot, K-Bot, for $8999. The main reason we're selling it now, instead of waiting to do more R&D, is because we're trying to negotiate volume prices with our own suppliers before we do final DfM (Design for Manufacturing). For example, we are able to negotiate better volume pricing for actuators and end effectors than what the average indie developer would be able to get for low-volume orders.

However, a lot of the people who want to buy a humanoid robot today do so because they want a completely autonomous robot to do all their chores, which is a pretty hard (although exciting) thing to build. To square this circle, we're offering a "Full Autonomy" option - it is the same robot hardware, but we will provide free hardware and software upgrades until we are able to make the robot fully autonomous. This way, we can have some extra cash upfront to kickstart development, and start to build a core group of people who are aligned with helping us improve the robot's capabilities across a diverse set of environments. From our customers' perspective, it's a way to de-risk buying a first-generation product from a young hardware company, and to have a bigger influence on how the technology unfolds.

The best part about building open source software and hardware is getting torn apart by people smarter than us, so we'd love your feedback!

Show context
deepdarkforest ◴[03 Jul 25 17:03 UTC] No.44457096[source]▶
> the demand side, the basic problem with humanoid robots is that they're mostly useless right now ... ... to square this circle, ... we will provide free hardware and software upgrades until we are able to make the robot fully autonomous...This way, we can have some extra cash upfront to kickstart development

Congratulations guys! The technical stuff is above my paygrade, but you have a cracked team and with open source you will have a great chance to be close or at SOTA level at your price point.

However, it looks to me that your core thesis is yes, when the autonomous robots get good enough, even at a medium family car price range they will sell like candies. Sure. But since you also want to have the cash now, to who exactly are you selling? Yes you promise that you will support the full autonomy option, but this sounds weirdly similar to Tesla selling cars promising the FSD, which we all know how that story went.

I'm not saying you won't deliver, I'm just saying you might need to a bit more careful in your story selling/narrative for this. For example, i would be super interested to get one for like 2k if it's not useful now, but paying 10k for essentially promises and possible upgrades is a bit iffy. Hence i would like to at least see some plug in and play current usecases? Even if they are just for fun.

replies(1): >>44457134 #
codekansas ◴[03 Jul 25 17:07 UTC] No.44457134[source]▶
I spent two years on Tesla's FSD team, and I think from a cash flow perspective for funding R&D this model did make a lot of sense - basically, it takes cash upfront for training models, but there's zero marginal cost for distributing the models once you've developed them.

I think this kind of "promise the future, pay now" model does alienates some people, especially when the tech is not ready today. That's why we're open sourcing everything, to avoid the feeling of overpromising on what is ready today. The core idea is that the people who bought FSD early on were very invested in it's success, and that feedback loop is very important for improving machine learning models at scale. The problem happens when actually delivering on the tech takes a long time, but I think we have a fairly clear technical roadmap to make our robot useful. At least, I think there are a lot more intermediate benchmarks for driving value for a humanoid robot than there are for self-driving cars, so I think people who buy it will have a stronger feeling that it is constantly improving.

replies(2): >>44457318 #>>44457800 #
deepdarkforest ◴[03 Jul 25 17:27 UTC] No.44457318[source]▶
From a cash flow perspective of course it makes sense to sell the future before you have it as working product. It just needs a great salesman or narrative to keep it going, im not arguing that.

> that feedback loop is very important for improving machine learning models at scale

Oh will you have your own feedback loop with let's say user's data? Or you meant as an example?

> * That's why we're open sourcing everything, to avoid the feeling of overpromising on what is ready today*

I agree here, it helps the today, but I dont think it helps the feeling of overpromising on what is ready today, its more like, even if it's open source , it does not increase the chances of it being ready/autonomous in the future. (im just playing devils advocate here)

I also agree with the intermediate benchmarks for sure, this is more to what i was referring to, it would be nice to see some more short term usecases/fun applications that are realistic to hit today or in the nearer future, that would drive a lot of sales value, at least for me, rather than go from now to full autonomy. Good luck!

replies(1): >>44457452 #
1. codekansas ◴[03 Jul 25 17:42 UTC] No.44457452[source]▶
> Oh will you have your own feedback loop with let's say user's data? Or you meant as an example?

That's more or less the idea - obviously since it's open source we wouldn't scrape peoples' data without their consent, but I would hope that people would contribute to the project in some form. Like, the core idea of the open source ethos is that building something like this collaboratively is a better / cheaper way to scale data collection / experience than us trying to collect all the data ourselves.

> it does not increase the chances of it being ready/autonomous in the future.

Yea that's true. At the end of the day it's just technical execution, so it's pretty risky. I just prefer that if people sign up for something risky, it's pretty transparent what exactly it is they're signing up for :)