On the Future of Power Functions

[JopieK]

Our German speaking friends of 1000steine have started a discussion on the Future of power functions (Original link, In German)

The reasoning is as follows:
- Power functions is now 10 years old
- The newest sets including the Mack don't include PF
- Bluetooth (4.x/5) seems to be the way to go seeing the success of SBricks

While I don't think LEGO has a good replacement for PF at this moment and also don't see how LEGO Booster or WeDo (the latter uses PF in fact of course) would replace it, but I also see that those new sets lack PF. Any people that know more and are not under NDA by TLG? 

B.t.w. to add some more possible fuel to the discussion: at the Medica (Compamed) conference in Düsseldorf I have spoken several times with the two companies that co-produce Power Functions for LEGO, they weren't there last week (last year they still were though!).

[LucyCol]

I think the big issue with Lego moving to a Bluetooth solution, is that they have to sell something that will (with the addition of batteries) work straight out of the box, not everyone owns a Bluetooth equipped smart phone. Despite the growing number of AFOL's the products are aimed at children, typically 12-16 years old for Technic, parents and/or children buying these sets will not necessarily want to have to start setting up Bluetooth apps to get their model up and running.

Yes the current PF is 10 years old but it is still capable of doing all that TLG ask of it, whether it meets the needs of AFOL's is up for debate.  Leaving PF out of sets reduces costs all round, leading to a cheaper final price and therefore the potential for more sales.

 

[aminnich]

My biggest gripe about PF is the size of the battery boxes.  

As for bluetooth, I have 2 Sbricks, they are great, but I do not think that LEGO will make something with Bluetooth.  

[letsbuild]

Just now, aminnich said:

My biggest gripe about PF is the size of the battery boxes.

As well as that, my other gripe is how easily damageable the cords for the motors are. All of the motors I have owned have a problem with the cords.

[mocbuild101]

One thing I noticed, is that we already have WeDo 2.0, and Pneumatic V2, so Power Functions V2 can't be that far away...

The only thing I can say for sure, is that I really don't want Lego to change the PF connectors like they did with WeDo 2.0...

[Jurss]

Don't see a problem in using BT. It's pretty hard in Lego target markets not to buy smartphone with BT for kids. 

2 hours ago, mocbuild101 said:

I really don't want Lego to change the PF connectors like they did with WeDo 2.0..

agree

[Saberwing40k]

I've seen several non Lego toys that require a smartphone to use, so that's not an issue. Honestly, PF motors are plenty good, not that I wouldn't mind some additions to the lineup, like a small motor half the size of a current M motor. Where Power Functions is really outdated is the remote control system, you know, the IR receivers. So, I don't see Lego doing a full PF 2.0, like pneumatics, but I see a space for a new kind of receiver.

There are many reasons I can think of for Lego to not have any PF upgradeable sets in 1H 2018, such as the fact that most of the sets barely count as Technic to begin with. The Mack probably could not be motorized as it is, without compromising the look. Another possibility is that for whatever reason, Lego decided to get rid of their motor supplier, and is working to find a new one, and is not including PF in sets until they do so. Still another is that maybe they figured out that having PF upgradeability is not as much of a selling point as they thought, and that full RC sets do not sell well, because of the overpricedness. But, maybe that's marketing VS. engineers, like so.

Marketing: We've found that remote control sets don't sell well, so we're going to have to hold off on doing that for a while.

Engineering: Duh, of course they don't sell well, you overprice them for no reason.

Marketing: What do you know about set pricing?

Engineering: It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a 50% markup is a bad idea.

Marketing: lalalala, we're not listening.

or something like that.

Edited November 24, 2017 by Saberwing40k

[Leonard Goldstein]

Hi,

my dream would be a PS3 (or higher) compatible receiver. This would solve a lot of problems.

Advantages:

• game controllers are everywhere available for a little money
• the bluetooth connection of course works much better than IR
• these controllers offer a lot of channels, some of them proportional
• with a hardware controller the haptics is by far better than with any touch screen device (as I mentioned in my latest topic)

And of course I would like a powerful replacement for the buggy motor 

Regards

Leonard Goldstein

[mocbuild101]

1 hour ago, Saberwing40k said:

I wouldn't mind some additions to the lineup, like a small motor

Agreed, after all, it would fit perfectly into the M - L - XL range we have currently.

48 minutes ago, Leonard Goldstein said:

my dream would be a PS3 (or higher) compatible receiver. This would solve a lot of problems.

I doubt Lego would do that...

Though I would prefer hardware based controllers like the remotes PF currently has - but using BT.

51 minutes ago, Leonard Goldstein said:

And of course I would like a powerful replacement for the buggy motor 

Me too...

[legolijntje]

1 hour ago, Leonard Goldstein said:

Hi,

my dream would be a PS3 (or higher) compatible receiver. This would solve a lot of problems.

[...]

I don't think that will ever happen. Even though Playstation controllers use Bluetooth as communication, the data it sends over Bluetooth is non-standard I believe, but don't quote me on that. However I have no doubt that if Lego would release a Bluetooth system, there will be people out there creating their own apps so that you can use controllers such as the Playstation. Same thing happened with SBrick.

[Ivan_M]

First of all it is necessary to ask KIDS how they feel about PF/IR. I don't think any kid would complain on motor power/size etc, because they don't care at all. All they have to know is where to put it according to the BI and if the function works well. I think current motor lineup meets this criteria very well. Next in line is battery - I can see a room for improvement here, but the one complaining is usually not kids but parents who have to recharge/buy batteries and current lipo battery is not compatible with technic BB out of the box. So the kids cannot just swap it in their model without modification. Third in line is IR system. I have witnessed two youngsters (8 & 11 yo) recenty with 42065 Tracked racer. Damn they had so much fun. They just grabbed the remote, made two runs around the living room and started to play with something else. This repeated all over again. The simplicity and ease of use of IR is its biggest advantage. Of course tablets, phones and such stuff is also interesting for such kids, but once they are allowed to play with such device they loose interest in lego and rather play some game on it or watch videos, because controlling vehicle like the tracked racer is sooo difficult that they give up.

AFOLs thinks otherwise obviously, but TLG doesn't care much, because we are too small market.

[mocbuild101]

2 hours ago, Ivan_M said:

The simplicity and ease of use of IR is its biggest advantage. Of course tablets, phones and such stuff is also interesting for such kids, but once they are allowed to play with such device they loose interest in lego and rather play some game on it or watch videos, because controlling vehicle like the tracked racer is sooo difficult that they give up.

I agree, but why can't Lego just put BT in their own controllers? - the same way as is done with IR.

2 hours ago, Ivan_M said:

but TLG doesn't care much, because we are too small market

Then how come Lego keeps making giant sets (Porsche, BWE, UCS sets, etc.) that most kids could never afford?

Edited November 24, 2017 by mocbuild101

[Erik Leppen]

5 hours ago, Saberwing40k said:

Still another is that maybe [...] that full RC sets do not sell well, because of the overpricedness.

I think the best example of a full RC, PF-focused set is the recent Tracked Racer 42065. Maybe this set was designed as a test to find out how PF affects sales. Whether that is the case or not, it could be that sales of that set were below expectations.

Another option is that some of use are seeing patterns where there are none - after all mnaybe there have been two or three larger sets without PF, which is hardly a trend to speak of. It could be coindicence.

[RohanBeckett]

36 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

I think the best example of a full RC, PF-focused set is the recent Tracked Racer 42065. Maybe this set was designed as a test to find out how PF affects sales. Whether that is the case or not, it could be that sales of that set were below expectations.

Another option is that some of use are seeing patterns where there are none - after all mnaybe there have been two or three larger sets without PF, which is hardly a trend to speak of. It could be coindicence.

I think this set came about, because 'it was about time' we had a PF set that had pure, fun, fast driving..

ALLLL other PF sets use the motors for mechanical functions, or driving slowly (from the original 8275 BullDozer.... to the 4x4 Crawler)

plenty of great sets... but all are slooow..

People (and kids!) want fast... and that is obvious with the amount of fast-driving MOC cars that people have made over the last decade! (even before sbrick/etc came along!)

[Cumulonimbus]

Interesting discussion. At the moment, I'm not a big fan of PF in sets for a number of reasons:

• Bulky components, especially for small and mid-scale models
• Need for batteries, which are just inconvenient
• Mechanisms in PF sets tend to less complex or "realistic"

However, I can see the added value of PF/RC if done right. The play experience Xerion and the BWE for example would simply be annoying if you needed to crank continuously and the little Tracked Racer is just fun.

If a next generation PF/RC system should be developed, I would expect the boundaries between Mindstorms and PF to become more vague or even disappear all together. Some of the potential I see:

• Programmable light and sound bricks would add a lot of play value in many sets and MOCs.
• Smaller motors and battery packs could increase the possibilities in smaller scales.
• Rechargeable batteries could be more compact and since they are becoming mainstream in plenty other products, costs could be reduced as well.
• Compatibility between WeDo, PF and Mindstorms elements would lead to a low threshold to start with animated Lego creations at young ages, while allowing almost unlimited possibilities for AFOLs. But this would be a huge project for TLG, and it would mean committing to a chosen system for a decade at least.
• Better speed controll for all types of motors

Connectivity of PF to 3rd party devices seems to be inevitable to me, you see this happening in WeDo and the digital Technic instructions, but keep in mind that this is a huge step for any OEM. Once you make your product compatible with lets say a smartphone, you create a huge amount of work by needing to check which models are supported (available connectivity types, screens sizes, onboard sensors, etc) and you will need to do this for every new device which hits the market. Worldwide, this is a nightmare.

Another point is this: which part of the Technic target group has access to a tablet or smartphone? I can image TLG would rather like to keep selling sets as stand alone units without extra requirements for device you need to have before you can start playing with your new set.

[mocbuild101]

But surely it would be possible for Lego to use BT for controlling PF without using 3rd party devices - it's not like they havn't done that before... Mindstorms EV3 bricks can connect to each other via BT without any add-ons.

 

[Ivan_M]

Mindstorms, wedo and boost are very different from usual sets. They are meant as educational and you cannot use them at all without some sort of computer first, unlike regular toy sets with PF. I also think that they are not generating much profit, if any. Unlike regular sets which are feeding the company and where every CENT matters.

[allanp]

I think one thing parents like about Lego is that it get kids away from computers and smart phones and all that stuff. And as been said regular, none mindstorms Lego sets contain everything in the box except batteries for it to be used and enjoyed as per the instructions. While the current PF is 10 years old, I think a better option may possibly be proper radio control, or if they go Bluetooth they should sell an add-on which is a Bluetooth touch screen or control system of some kind which is NOT a phone. 

Edited November 24, 2017 by allanp

[RohanBeckett]

1 hour ago, Ivan_M said:

Mindstorms, wedo and boost are very different from usual sets. They are meant as educational and you cannot use them at all without some sort of computer first, unlike regular toy sets with PF. I also think that they are not generating much profit, if any. Unlike regular sets which are feeding the company and where every CENT matters.

Mindstorms (RIS/NXT/EV3) has been reported MANY times as Lego's Best selling set... due to the amount they sell to schools around the world..

[dr_spock]

IR components are much cheaper than BT components.

Tablets/smartphone/touch screens do not stand up to abuse like a PF IR remote.

 

[Trekkie99]

I'd like it if Lego made a supplementary WiFi or Bluetooth receiver that would be bought separately like the rechargeable battery box, but I wouldn't want them to discontinue the IR receiver or any other PF components. 

[TomOOO]

BT is not the way to go for Lego group since as noted it requires something else for the controller - or if they made their own controllers they hit the second problem - it is so....... non-standard, i really struggle to get my sbrick to work with my android phone.  The entry of bt to the phone market resulted in so many "standards" which are a pain and just a fiddle to get working.  IR is the way to go as it is much more reliable, does not need setting up and so easy for them to multiplex multiple channels on different frequency bands.

Edited November 25, 2017 by TomOOO
added a sentence

[suffocation]

I'd be happy if they introduced an S motor and better battery packs. A single BuWizz can power up to EIGHT XL motors at 10.5 V and is smaller than Lego's rechargable battery box, which can handle only 2 XLs at 7 V. So there's plenty of room for improvement.

Edited November 25, 2017 by suffocation

[mocbuild101]

11 hours ago, TomOOO said:

BT is not the way to go for Lego group

What about radio control? - that would have the same benefits as BT, but would be easier to use...

[Aventador2004]

40 minutes ago, mocbuild101 said:

What about radio control? - that would have the same benefits as BT, but would be easier to use...

Yes, like the fact that for around 100$ you could get a good quality rc car, or make a slow 2 L motor, servo, reciever, battery, and remote car. Where is the value??