Image credit: Image via source article. Used under fair use for news commentary. · source
I've been watching tech cycles since before most robotics founders were born, and let me tell you something that should be obvious but apparently isn't: Wall Street doesn't actually care about robots. Not really. Not in the way the press releases suggest.
This week's trading action made that painfully clear. Bloomberg had a parade of analysts on their closing bell coverage, everyone from BlackRock's Jeffrey Rosenberg to Constellation Research's Ray Wang, and you know what dominated the conversation? US-Iran signals. Oil. Macro hedging. The stocks halted their rally not because Boston Dynamics announced something or because humanoid deployment numbers came in soft, but because geopolitics did what geopolitics always does.
Call me old-fashioned, but I remember when the autonomous vehicle hype cycle was supposed to change everything too.
Here's what actually happened this week: markets swung wildly on conflicting diplomatic signals, then rallied again when reports of a potential US-Iran deal emerged. Bloomberg's coverage the following day showed stocks and bonds both rising, with analysts pivoting seamlessly from doom to optimism in roughly 24 hours.
Nowhere in this whiplash did anyone stop to ask: wait, what about the robotics companies we were supposedly so excited about last quarter? The humanoid deployment numbers? The warehouse automation capex cycle? The labor shortage thesis that was going to drive adoption for the next decade?
Related coverage
More in Autonomy
The IPO everyone's talking about has me asking questions nobody seems to want to answer.
Robert "Bob" Macintosh · 5 hours ago · 3 min
After years of voice assistants that made me want to throw my phone out the window, Google's AI might finally be cracking the in-car experience.
Mark Kowalski · 16 hours ago · 5 min
New research shows robots navigating without task-specific training. I've got thoughts.
Robert "Bob" Macintosh · Yesterday · 4 min
A flood of new research papers promise safer autonomous vehicles through AI wizardry, but we've been here before, and the fundamental problems haven't changed.
Gone. Poof. Replaced by oil futures and currency hedges.
This is the pattern I've seen play out roughly six times since I started covering tech, and it goes something like this: new technology emerges, gets hyped, attracts capital, then gets completely ignored the moment something shinier (or scarier) comes along. The robotics thesis is real, the underlying trends are real, but the market's attention span for actually pricing it in? About three quarters, give or take.
The guest lists on these market close shows are instructive if you read between the lines. You've got your macro strategists (Wells Fargo's Ohsung Kwon), your consumer spending experts (Kikoff's Cynthia Chen talking trends), your old guard retail wisdom (Mickey Drexler from Alex Mill, who I remember from the Gap days, still out there opining). What you don't have is anyone talking about automation in any serious way.
Now look, I'm not naive enough to expect CNBC or Bloomberg to lead with robotics every day. That's not how markets work. But the complete absence is telling, it suggests that for all the breathless coverage of humanoid demos and factory deployments, the actual money people have moved on to other concerns.
M12's Cheryl Cheng was on talking about venture trends. Tola Capital's Sheila Gulati discussing whatever Tola Capital discusses. Not a single question about whether the robotics investments from the past two years are panning out. Not one.
I've seen this movie before! The self-driving car companies went through the exact same cycle, roughly 2016 to 2019, where everyone was convinced Level 5 autonomy was imminent and then suddenly nobody wanted to talk about it anymore because, well, it turned out to be harder than the pitch decks suggested.
Here's where I'm supposed to tell you what this means for robotics companies, and honestly, I'm not entirely sure. The fundamentals haven't changed, labor costs are still rising, demographic trends still favor automation, the technology is genuinely better than it was five years ago. But market attention has shifted, and that matters for funding, for partnerships, for the ability to weather the inevitable setbacks that come with deploying robots in the real world.
The companies that survive will be the ones that don't need Wall Street's daily validation. The ones that have actual revenue, actual deployments, actual customers who don't care what the macro strategists said on Bloomberg this afternoon. If you're a robotics startup that's been riding the hype wave without building real fundamentals, this is your warning sign.
What remains unclear is how long this attention deficit lasts. Could be a quarter. Could be two years. The Iran situation could resolve tomorrow and everyone could pivot back to talking about AI and automation like nothing happened. Or we could be entering a period where macro concerns dominate for the foreseeable future and robotics becomes a backburner story.
But what do I know. I'm just a guy who's watched enough cycles to recognize the pattern.
The young founders in this space, and I say this with genuine affection even if it sounds grumpy, need to understand that market attention is not the same as market validation. The fact that analysts were excited about your demo video three months ago and are now completely ignoring you to talk about oil prices doesn't mean your technology stopped working. It means markets are fickle and you should have known that going in.
The companies I'm watching are the ones that basically ignored the hype in the first place. The ones that kept their heads down during the funding boom, didn't over-hire, didn't over-promise, and are now in a position to keep building regardless of what the talking heads say on TV. There aren't many of them, but they exist.
Consumer spending trends came up in the Bloomberg coverage, with Kearney Consumer Institute's Katie Thomas discussing the latest data. That's actually relevant to robotics in a way that nobody on the show mentioned: if consumer spending shifts, retail automation timelines shift, warehouse deployment schedules shift, the whole downstream effect plays out in ways that don't show up in the headlines. But connecting those dots requires paying attention for longer than one news cycle, and that's apparently too much to ask.
I'll be honest, I don't have a clean conclusion here. The situation is messy and it's going to stay messy for a while. If you want to argue with me about it, my email's on the about page. I still prefer email to Slack, which makes me roughly 150 years old in tech years, but at least I read my inbox.
