> But instead, we get a replacement for Git. [...] Why is nobody solving actual problems anymore?

While I personally doubt that for $17M one could build such a vacuum robot prototype (for a vacuum cleaner company, investing this amount of money - if it worked - would be a rounding error), I will rather analyze the point that you raised:

It is a very common situation that the workflows of companies is deeply ingrained into some tool

- that they can't get rid of (be it Microsoft Excel (in insurance and finance), be it Git (in software development), ...)

- that is actually a bad fit for the workflow step (Git and Excel often are)

So, this is typical for the kind of problem that companies in sectors in which billions of $/€ are moved do have.

I am actually paid to develop some specialized software for some specialized industrial sector that solves a very specific problem.

So, in my experience the reason why nobody [is] solving actual problems (in the sense of your definition) anymore is simple:

- nobody is willing to pay big money for a solution,

- those entities who are willing to pay big money often fall for sycophantic scammers/consultants.

▲

ninjagoo 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> While I personally doubt that for $17M one could build such a vacuum robot prototype (for a vacuum cleaner company, investing this amount of money - if it worked - would be a rounding error)

The first Roomba prototype from iRobot was two weeks and $10k in 1999 [1], and S. C. Johnson's funding was up to $2M [1]. The public estimate for total pre-launch program cost is $3M. [2]

In 2026 $, that's about $19k, $4M and $6M respectively.

[1] https://nymag.com/vindicated/2016/11/roombas-long-bumpy-path...

[2] https://dancingwithroomba.com/funding-tertill/

▲

Liftyee 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As someone who makes things it always confuses me when millions just disappear whenever a company or government contractor makes things. Give me $17M and I'll build a vacuum robot prototype in under 2 years, I can't imagine 10 engineers getting paid $100+k/year can't do it in less time? Tooling is expensive, but not THAT expensive...

▲

ubercore 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Get it approved in a lot of large markets? Deal with ongoing supply issues as suppliers change and you need to maintain your product? Market it? I could keep going on, but making a prototype is the easy part, making a sustaining business out of it is the hard part.

	▲	seb1204 4 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Moving the goalposts so soon.

▲

fxtentacle 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I would agree. CNC-ing POM also tends to work extremely well for prototype plastic parts.

Also, I already built a robot arm, a robot car, and a custom camera in my free time. So I’m having a hard time imagining that a robot vacuum prototype wouldn’t be possible for me to build in a year, let alone with the team size that $1m in annual salaries buys.

	▲	petre 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The robot vacuum is already there. The Chinese buit a better, cheaper one and the original company went bankrupt. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1lr75lp239o

▲

RamblingCTO 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You sure? You ever ran a business? Prototyping costs, machines, licenses, overhead etc. etc.

	▲	Dylan16807 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The prototyping and machine costs are easily under a million. It's one custom-built vacuum. You can do it with 0-3 digits of license cost too. There's no sane way the business overhead more than doubles things.

▲

conartist6 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

For $17 mil you can't replace Git either. Can't get it done.

The problem is that the cost of replacing git isn't measured in money, it's measured in time.

It's one of the few programming projects that no amount of money can buy, and ironically getting more money often means having less time.

At the same time, you just can't scale up a company then decide to disruptively innovate on your core tech. You either put your nose to the grindstone or you let yourself play and explore but you can't do both at once.