Root – Coding Robot

Root coding robot - No I would not I would invest in this. As a computer programming teacher, I love how this has multiple levels of coding; from block-based drag and drop to text-based programming, but I don’t quite see what the pain point is. There are so many platforms available to teachers to engage students with coding: scratch, hopscotch, Mindstorms, sphere, dot and dash, etc, and I don’t quite see how they differentiate themselves here. The pricing is reasonable at $400 USD for two robots, but a classroom would need at least six. You can get six for $1200 but that is well above the budget for a single classroom unit that might last a week or two. I can see this being novel for an hour but I’m not sure this is different enough to sustain itself when compared to the many free options.

Sticking points: the name. “Root” gives no indication of what it is or what it does. When you ask someone if they’ve heard of “root” or “have a root” there will be confusion. It’s not an invented word, that might inspire intrigue; it’s a common English word with a few meanings. Differentiation. They should be brave enough to call out the competition to say what they do better. There are many classroom robots on the market - how is this not just another of them. The vertical whiteboard ability is quite striking, but will it be a fad or novelty that will wear off quickly? That doesn’t mean I don’t like it though - a major problem with classroom robotics is that they take place on tabletop arenas which have poor visibility for spectators. This wall-climbing ability makes it visible and therefore participatory. The developers don’t make the pain point obvious. While I’m not an expert in classroom robotics, I know that the field has many options available and the market is dynamic. A point in their favour is the reliability of their brand. The iRobot Roomba robotic vacuum cleaner is widely available, has an underground meme culture associated with it (people recording and publishing the paths around their homes), and is presumably successful (I have not looked up the financials). It’s neat but the pitch fails to really move me. I would not invest.

As an EVA for the Saskatchewan School Board I would invest in the Root-Coding Robot product. The product is aimed at encouraging children to code by making the process of coding simple, with multiple opportunities for advancement as a child’s skills grow. The Root Robot is different than other coding robots that already exist for several reasons: 1- this robot can vertically climb surfaces, which means it does not have to be something that is run on the floor or table top. 2 - it has the ability to add a marker and eraser, which opens the door for using coding as an artistic tool. 3 - As stated previously, it has the ability to transfer from graphic coding all the way up to multiple written coding languages. By promoting this product online, Root Robots could reach many households of parents, but if they were to promote this product at an EdTech event, I believe the Root Robots could be seen in classrooms across the country. As an EVA I’m comforted by the fact that this product originated at Harvard University. This makes the product team exude confidence and extreme capability to achieve success. The idea behind Root Robot is not original, but their final product is competitive with others on the market as this robot does what most others do not. I believe they have done their homework to ensure that the Root Robot is better than the rest. As an investor, I like the current plan set forth for this product and I think I can add a layer of expertise from a school perspective to ensure the success of this robot. Of course, we’ll have to keep an eye on the emerging market as someone is bound to copy this idea and make more versatile coding robots that do the same thing. I’ll have to follow up with the team to find out more about their venture plan and how I will be recompensed.

Yes, I would invest in this venture. Although there are a number of educational toys out there that teaches youth how to code, few are as versatile as Root, and none are made to follow students as they advance in their learning. Root provides scaffolding, from drag and drop coding to typing a variety of coding languages. The pain point is quite well identified. As an EVA for the West Vancouver school board, this makes Root financially appealing as a class set can be used in Grade 3 through to high school. Our school district also already has the infrastructure to implement Root as well; many of our schools have BYOD programs and our students already own iPhones and iPads. Our secondary schools have robotics programs, so I see Root as a learning tool to prepare students in the lower grades for that program too. Looking at the product, the robot is well designed with expansion capabilities so our investment can get more sophisticated over time. The design is more robust compared to competitor products (i.e. raspberry pi), suitable for extreme wear and tear by young children. The champions of this pitch bring a powerful marketability to their product; the creators of Root are from Harvard and the Harvard brand certainly screams reliability and innovation. The developers are Harvard professors and researchers and they have incorporated the psychology of learning into their product. This venture’s strategic plan is well developed; they have the product ready to go and have clear goals for future development phases. The only thing missing from this pitch is the price tag of Root and a detailed description of the return for investors, but Root’s solid concept, development team, strategic plan, and marketability deserves a phone call for further inquiry.

Root Robotics Yes, I would invest in this venture. This product seeks to make coding fun and accessible. For many people unfamiliar with writing code, the process seems complicated and out of reach, and the pitch argues that it should be something that just computer scientists can do. The pitch is marketed to parents and hooks them by stating "Your child may have what it takes to become the next great digital visionary." It suggests that parents can provide opportunities and access for their child to excel in a potentially lucrative and exclusive field; a field that requires special knowledge and skills most parents cannot teach themselves. What makes this product different is the offer of engaging learning experiences through a language that is simple enough a child can use it before the "even know how to read." Other products like the Fisher-Price Think & Learn Code-A-Pillar offer a similar promise, but the Root Coding Robot is more versatile. Not only does this robot appear more sophisticated (makers and researchers can use it too), but it can also boast that it was developed at Harvard. A parent that wishes to provide their child an exceptional learning opportunity is sold on the fact that this product was developed to teach computer science to undergraduate students at Harvard, but it is simple enough for their child. Harvard is an elite school, and their child could be elite as well! The Harvard "brand" has a strong reputation and international appeal, which aids overseas marketing, especially in brand-conscious Asian countries. While the pitch is geared towards parents, the product can also appeal to teachers, schools, and districts. For a minimum pledge of $20, this venture is worth investing in. Even if the educational value is overstated, there is no shortage of parents willing to spend substantial money looking to give their child a competitive edge.