The company which popularized robot vacuum cleaners around the world has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. iRobot, makers of the Roomba, has been synonymous with the category since its inception, but its star had dulled in recent years. The company plans to sell its assets to its primary supplier, China’s Picea Robotics, in the hope of maintaining its business.
Everyone’s got a strident opinion as to why iRobot fell from grace. The rugged individualists blame limp regulators on both sides of the pond (and their hatred for big tech) for blocking Amazon’s attempted purchase in 2023. Those on the hardware side of the fence say iRobot’s refusal to embrace LiDAR for navigation until this year left it behind rivals.
Then there’s the geopolitical experts, who can point at China’s industrial policy, subsidies and favorable regulatory environment compared to the US approach. After all, iRobot’s US gear is made in Vietnam, which is now subject to a 46 percent import levy. As BBC News reported, that added around $23 million to iRobot’s costs and increased the price of its hardware.
The real answer is that iRobot’s demise was caused by a perfect storm of all these factors piling on to the company. More importantly, iRobot’s situation isn’t any way unique, and should serve as a warning to every major American technology brand. It’s also a lesson in why companies need to deal with existential threats when they have the time and cash to do so.
For instance, once iRobot perfected the concept for the Roomba, it wasn’t long before the first copies burst onto the scene. iRobot had the brand and the know-how, but that only goes so far against well-motivated copycats. Think about the first Samsung Android handsets, and how quickly they went from iPhone imitations to class-defining devices of their own — and how hard Apple fought in court to prevent it.
Even before this year’s tariffs, iRobot struggled to compete on price in a manner we’ve seen in other fields. Remember Fitbit before Google purchased it, happily selling $80 fitness trackers for years until Xiaomi swiped the low-end part of its business for itself. Even if the early MiBands weren’t very good, you could buy three for the price of a single Fitbit Charge. Yes, the argument around quality and reliability is important, but it’s often not as loud or compelling as a competing product sold for a fraction of the price.
iRobot should have either made more of an effort to offer a dirt-cheap model to undercut its rivals, or more likely pull out of the low end altogether. Earlier today, I checked out local retail listings for Roombas and its nearest competitors. Next to one another were the Roomba 405 Combo with Dock and the Roborock Q7 L5+ — both capable of vacuuming and mopping your floor. The former is currently on sale for $400 direct from iRobot, while the latter is currently selling for $220. I’m sure plenty of buyers would have seen the price difference and opted for the cheaper model.
I’m not going to throw too many Told You So’s over iRobot’s fence for not embracing LiDAR sooner. Its omission was a mistake, but you could see why it was shy about abandoning its existing setup. But the company had forgotten one key mantra about the tech world, Andy Grove’s maxim that “only the paranoid survive.” Even the fanciest, highest-end Roombas of the last five years felt a generation behind rival products.
And, at the risk of sounding like a marketing guru, it was never clear what iRobot, or Roomba, stood for. When companies flooded the market with cheaper models, iRobot needed to make it clear what it meant when you bought a Roomba over a generic model. What did, and could, it offer beyond the name and history that made it stand out against cheaper competitors? Companies like Apple and Dyson command a premium, but you almost always know what you’re getting for your money.
All I can say is that it’s good that there isn’t another American company presently in a similar position. I certainly can’t think of a controversial US company that builds things with wheels that has historically rejected LiDAR for its autonomous services. One that has a brand that doesn’t stand for much, or has its identity tied too closely to the identity of its CEO. One that is staring down the barrel at a raft of better equipped and often cheaper Chinese alternatives. Because that company could surely be looking at a similar fate a decade or so down the road.
