Cute robot dog from Tiger Electronics.

110 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ken68
Ken68's picture
Cute robot dog from Tiger Electronics.

I picked up Sunday from ToysRUs a Tiger Electronics Mio Pup robotic dog. It can walk forwards and has 4 capacitive touch sensors, a touch switch on the nose, motorized moveable ears, legs and tail. Also has LEDs all over it as well as two large eye LCDs.

It can display 100 different eye patterns and talks to you in a babbling language and can hear you with a built in microphone. It comes with a magnetic bone that magnetizes to it's mouth for pretend feeding.

It has a full compliment simulated emotions, and a sleep function. But strangely no off switch at all. Here is a link to see it.

http://www.hasbro.com/tiger/default.cfm?page=browse&product_id=20190

It is not as good as my Roboquad, but it is much, much more interactive though.

dkaz
dkaz's picture

both of my kids (4 and 7 year olds) love the Mio pup, and they have not been too engaged by Robots before

best feature of this product is the way the dog's emotions are expressed through an image in the puppy's eyes

 

NoroBiik
NoroBiik's picture

dkaz said: both of my kids (4 and 7 year olds) love the Mio pup, and they have not been too engaged by Robots before best feature of this product is the way the dog's emotions are expressed through an image in the puppy's eyes  

Thanks for the link,  I have a very young niece who's been badgering her parents for a pet most of 2007.   Was considering the Robopanda but it was selling locally in very limited quantities & very marked up prices ( US $ 395.00 ) 

This looks more affordable,  I also like it's brother - the I-Dog Amp.

dkaz
dkaz's picture

your young niece will love it; just make sure she doesn't lose the bone (w/o it the toy doesn't work)

Ken68
Ken68's picture

dkaz said: your young niece will love it; just make sure she doesn't lose the bone (w/o it the toy doesn't work)

If she loses the bone you can use any magnet to simulate the bone, that is all that is in the bone is a small magnet about the size of a fridge magnet.

dkaz
dkaz's picture

thanks Ken, that's a great tip

NoroBiik
NoroBiik's picture

Thanks for all the tips & info - will drop by a local Toys R Us store later.   Hope they have this on stock & won't be charging an arm and leg for it :)

dkaz
dkaz's picture

it's a $70 toy...so you won't be going broke

Robo BG
Robo BG's picture

I don't appreciate this.  I am only a fan of Wow Wee robotics.  This is Wow Wee's website and I think they would prefer it if you stuck to discussing their robos.  Im not a fan of Robopanda but I don't want to see a Wow Wee robot seemingly replsced by some girly Mio Puppy thing.  You can tell by the front page this is a Wow Wee website and the categories are only regarding Wow Wee products.  Wow Wee has toys around the $70 price range to like the following:  Roboquad,Roboraptor and Roboreptile.  They are all affordable and very good robos.  It is your choice but I think RoboCommunity would prefer you stick to Wow Wee products.  Thank You.

P.S.  I recommend Roboquad.  He ranges from $80-$100.

Later. 

MrScott
MrScott's picture

Nope. All robots are welcome here, though it is primarily a WowWee fan community.  Just steer the threads towards the most appropirate forum selection.

We have General Robotics, News Rumors and Gossip, Robot Hacks and Mods, and Off Topic Discussion for talking about something that isn't specific to a particular WowWee product.

Rudolph
Rudolph's picture

Robo BG said: This is Wow Wee's website and I think they would prefer it if you stuck to discussing their robos.

 No, it's not. This site is owned and operated by Capable Networks, LLC. Scroll down to the bottom of any page here and you'll find the following;

 Product names, designations and logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of WowWee Group Limited and all copyright in the associated images is the property of WowWee Group Limited. RoboCommunity.com is not affiliated with WowWee Group Limited.

Nocturnal
Nocturnal's picture

I've always found that last part to be somewhat odd. Since they obviosly have a service arangement (ie capable networks is providing a service to WowWee), I would say that makes them affiliated. It is, however, probably one of those words that means different things to different people depending on your background (this one would probably be buisness or legal oriented). I assume what they mean is that Capable Networks and WowWee are entirely seperate seperate buisness entities.

MrScott
MrScott's picture

I expect the legal beagles are thinking of this definition

Affiliate
Relationship between two companies when one company owns substantial interest, but less than a majority of the voting stock of another company, or when two companies are both subsidiaries of a third company.

Robo BG
Robo BG's picture

Wow you kill me on that.  I guess your right I can't argue there but I really would rather stick to the topics most discussed here.  That's just my opinion.

Nocturnal
Nocturnal's picture

If you don't like the topic under discussion, ignore it (I do that all the time). If you REALLY dont like it, rank it poorly.

Robo BG
Robo BG's picture

Ok good with me

Rudolph
Rudolph's picture

<rant> 

I too ignore many forum threads. If people would use the categories system accurately it would help alot. For example, this thread is listed under General and Roboquad. General makes sense, but the only reason OP seems to have listed it in Roboquad is because he has an RQ he likes better, even though comparing RQ to this dog is like comparing apples to pizza crust...

</rant>

<rant2>

 Just my personal opinion here, but I completely disagree with "If you REALLY dont like it, rank it poorly.". Just because you don't like a Mio Pup thread doesn't mean other folk will dislike it too. If you rank it poorly it will lose position, even if it's useful to others. If you use the discussion system (ie the Post Comment form) you can show your disagreement with the OP and why, allowing other readers more information about certain products.

For example, had RoboBG just ranked this thread poorly because he believes non-wowwee talk shouldn't happen here, we'd have never had this talk about what "affiliation" can mean, just who is behind this particular website, or how some people ignore threads they don't want to read.

</rant2> 

Robo BG
Robo BG's picture

I did rank it poorly.  I don't like this discussion.  That is what it's for right?

MrScott
MrScott's picture

Just so everybody realizes that forum rankings can be done by anybody, on any thread.

If we start using ranking to "punish" authors, rather than rewarding them, all the threads will get dragged down.

It's kind of like that old adage....

If you don't have anything nice to say, ZIP IT! 

dkaz
dkaz's picture

Rudolph said:   ...this thread is listed under General and Roboquad. General makes sense, but the only reason OP seems to have listed it in Roboquad is because he has an RQ he likes better, even though comparing RQ to this dog is like comparing apples to pizza crust... 

fair point...i untagged it from Roboquad

Rudolph
Rudolph's picture

To borrow (and paraphrase) someone's slashdot tagline;

 There is no "-1 Disagree" mod. "-1 Flamebait" and "-1 Off Topic" are not substitutes. If you disagree, reply, that's the point of discussion forums.

Giving a thread a low ranking because you don't like it defeats the purpose of the ranking system. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean some other user won't find it incredibly useful. Giving it a low rank reduces the chances of the thread's ability to become useful to other viewers.

Some examples;

An off-topic thread that supplies good information about a non-wowwee product (like this one). If you don't like it, ignore it. If you found it useful, mod it up. If you disagree, or feel you can add something to the discussion, post a comment.

A thread that supplies good information about a wowwee product. If you don't like it, ignore it. If you found it useful, mod it up. If you disagree, or feel you can add something to the discussion, post a comment.

A thread that supplies bogus/inaccurate/fake information about anybody's product. Mod it down, it's inaccurate.

A thread consisting of "You guys suck!". Mod it down, it's useless.

A thread containing "You guys suck!" followed by a darn good reason and possibly some insight as to how us guys could reduce suckage. If you don't like it, ignore it. If you think it's a valid point, mod it up. If you disagree, or feel you can add something to the discussion, post a comment.

As MrScott said, don't punish authors because you disagree with them. I would add to that, don't reward authors just because you agree with them.*

Personally I only rank threads up if I believe they might be of real use to other viewers as well as myself. My personal examples; this thread = no mod. "RoboQuad is teh r0XX0r" (and nothing else) = mod down. "RoboQuad Issue" with comments on how issue is solved, how to prevent it, etc... = mod up.

* Don't take what I say as meaning jack. I am not affiliated with RoboCommunity, Capable Networks LLC, or WowWee Group Limited. 

Robo BG
Robo BG's picture

Gave it a bad rating.  Too bad.  That's what i did.

LAter.

Nocturnal
Nocturnal's picture

Rudolph said: For example, had RoboBG just ranked this thread poorly because he believes non-wowwee talk shouldn't happen here, we'd have never had this talk about what "affiliation" can mean, just who is behind this particular website, or how some people ignore threads they don't want to read.

The entire point of a ranking system is to rate the content you like and don't like. I assume (based off your second post), what you are trying to say is that if you disagree with something, post that disagreement, don't just ignore it / rank it (ie foster discussion). But thats not how this comes across.

Unlike slashdot, we are not talking about ranking an individual post here, we are talking about ranking the entire thread, so some of your examples are not relivant, unless the post that starts the thread happens to be "You guys suck!" or "RoboQuad is teh r0XX0r". Unlike slashdot, this site does not appear to have minimun thresholds. All things, be they highly ranked or lowly ranked, show up, they do not disapear (as they do on slashdot).

I dont know where this suggestion of "Punishing" authors came from, thats certainly not what I was suggesting. Ranking an entire thread poorly just because you don't like what one person said would be stupid (and thats the only way I can think of that someone might attempt to "punish" someone with the rating system). I suspect any attempt to do so would harm the ranker more than the person they were trying to "Punish". I don't know how the CVE deals with people who consistently rank content low, that turns out to be of value to the community as a whole, but I wouldn't be surprised if it had a negative affect on their "credability" which would in turn reduce their power to actually rank things.

Have you read how the rating system works here? If you havent, you might find this thread interesting. Just because a handful of people rank a thread low, does not mean it will disapeer. It still shows up on the main page under recent discussions, and it still shows up in the more recent discussions list. If the thread has merit, it will still be viewed and discussed despite a few bad rankings, and as I understand it, if the interest is high enough, it will still end up with a high score because of that.

MrScott
MrScott's picture

It was me who brought up the don't "punish the author" concern.

I'm well aware of the fact that its a thread that's rated, not an individual poster to it.

It is also true that the originator, or "author", of that thread that gets affected by the rating. Their ranking in the community is tied to it. Go look at your own profile. There will be a list of thread contributions, and an associated value, with each thread.

I stand by my voiced concern that if we find ourselves, as a community, looking for which threads to downrate, rather than which threads to reward, then we're not doing ourselves a service.

If a thread is simply not of interest to me, my response would be to just leave it alone and ignore it. If it's on topic for the community, but not your interest, walk away. For example, I don't own a RoboPet, but that doesn't mean I should rank every RoboPet discussion with a low number. 

If a thread seems to have superior inherent value, reward it with an above average rating.

In my opinion, it is only a topic that is obviously of no value to anybody in the community that deserves a smack down. A one line thread opening consisting of "These robots suck!", with no follow up discussion stating why or why not, is a thread worth downrating.

Rudolph
Rudolph's picture

Nocturnal said: Ranking an entire thread poorly just because you don't like what one person said would be stupid ... I suspect any attempt to do so would harm the ranker more than the person they were trying to "Punish". I don't know how the CVE deals with people who consistently rank content low, that turns out to be of value to the community as a whole, but I wouldn't be surprised if it had a negative affect on their "credability" which would in turn reduce their power to actually rank things.

Thanks. I had read that thread you linked, I just managed to forget about CVE's existance (slaps self in forehead). I'm so used to low-ranked postings becoming hidden.

The part you quoted of me, you're right, that wasn't worded well. Indeed I meant had he ranked it and left it would not have been a good thing.

@Robo BG,

There was no offense intended, towards you or anyone else, in anything I said here. I'm not talking smack about how you choose to rank threads you read, and I apologize if it came across as such.

Nocturnal
Nocturnal's picture

And this thread is a perfect example Mr Scott. Have you checked its rating? "Thread's Raw Score: 162,334", which is a good score, despite the negative rankings some users have given it.

For the record, I have not ranked this thread. I only rank things that I really like or dislike. I was not suggesting that anyone should be ranking all the threads that don't interest them poorly (that would be why I used capitals when I said "REALLY don't like", and suggested igoring it first). I can count the number of items I have ranked poorly on one hand (and not in binary), I've ranked at least 4 times that positively. But again, I suspect the CVE might counter a user who was constantly ranking useful content down by reducing their rank.

I'm right there with you Mr Scott, that when ranking things you need a balance, if people only rank things down, never up, that would be seriously bad. What does seem to be missing from this new system (and was present in the old) was a general indicator on what other people had ranked a given item (which is different from the raw score).

Jeff Block
Jeff Block's picture

Very interesting discussion; glad you all are having it. I wanted to jump in here with a couple clarifications.

MrScott said: Nope. All robots are welcome here, though it is primarily a WowWee fan community.  Just steer the threads towards the most appropirate forum selection. We have General Robotics, News Rumors and Gossip, Robot Hacks and Mods, and Off Topic Discussion for talking about something that isn't specific to a particular WowWee product.

Just so everyone knows where the administration of the site stands, this statement is EXACTLY correct.  The only thing I would add is that if you feel a thread has been categorized incorrectly (it's tagged to Roboquad, but it's really Off Topic), either a) PM the original poster and open a dialogue encouraging them to re-categorize, or b) report the thread, which will alert the moderators that it needs to be looked at. 

Most people do a great job of categorizing, and we'll fix (read: recategorize) the few that are out of place if we know about them.  No problem.

Rudolph said:

Robo BG said: This is Wow Wee's website and I think they would prefer it if you stuck to discussing their robos.

No, it's not. This site is owned and operated by Capable Networks, LLC. Scroll down to the bottom of any page here and you'll find the following;

Product names, designations and logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of WowWee Group Limited and all copyright in the associated images is the property of WowWee Group Limited. RoboCommunity.com is not affiliated with WowWee Group Limited.

Again, just so everyone knows the official word, Rudolph is correct. This site is owned and operated by Capable Networks, which is not in any way owned or operated by WowWee or its parent company Optimal Group, Inc. We (Capable Networks) build lots of online communities. We're contracted by Consumer Electronics manufacturers like WowWee to build communities like this one for them.  We own all the content, and we decide what does and does not go on the site.  Of course, we have great respect and admiration for WowWee and their products, but they do not control the content here.

Robo BG said: I did rank it poorly. I don't like this discussion. That is what it's for right?

So that everyone understands what our intention was in introducing a rating system...

We intended it to be a measure of the "quality" of the thread or article or blog entry. If it's of high-quality, then give it a 4 or 5. If it's low-quality, then rate it accordingly. This is less about whether or not you like what the person is saying, and more about whether or not what the person is saying is valuable. One critical component of value (as alluded to in this thread) is how well it stays on topic. If someone categorizes an article as being about the RS Media, but it talks about pizza crust (great reference there), then I wouldn't rate it very highly. But if they say it's about the RS Media and say something I disagree with, then that doesn't seem like a good reason to give it a poor rating.

Other aspects of "quality" in my mind: factual accuracy, readability, how well complex concepts were explained, etc.

Hope this helps.

Nocturnal
Nocturnal's picture

I'd get into a debate with you Jeff, about about like and dislike, being based off a value rating system, but it would be somewhat pointless, since not everyone (I'm refering to the world in general here) thinks along thoses lines.

Perhaps the creation of some rating guidelines (not rules, just guidelines) would be helpful here, something along the lines of "some things to think about when rating conent". 

Ken68
Ken68's picture

Jeese, I did not know that just talking about another brand of robot here would create such a debate. I will stick to Wow Wee robotics for my topics for now on. I will take my discussions about non Wow Wee robots to other websites that are not so fixated on one brand only. (for this forums health I hope Wow Wee never stops producing robots).

MrScott
MrScott's picture

 "I will take my discussions about non Wow Wee robots to other websites that are not so fixated on one brand only."

Speaking as a community member interested in all robots, please don't do that. 

There was only "1" person who took issue in this thread with discussing non WowWee robots in this community. Your thread received official and unofficial rebuttals to that person's "WowWee Only" statement.

The rest of the meta-discussion relates to the broad topic of rating threads for any reason.

We really have de-railed your perfectly acceptable thread topic.

Speaking as a moderator, would you like me to clean up your thread and move the meta-discussion to a different meta-thread?

Ken68
Ken68's picture

No, the thread is fine as it is. I just got back from holidays and checked my email and found that this thread had so many replies. When I logged on and saw the replies I was surprised at the responses. I made sure I responded in the General Robotics thread not any of the Wow Wee threads. I do own a Wow Wee Robosapien, Robosapien V2, Roboquad, all the B.I.O. Bugs and I used to have a Robopet and a Roboraptor. I also have the Mio Pup, i-Cybie, Tyco Nsect Bug RC Robot. I also have two micro Teddy Bear Robots that I cannot remember who made them or their names.

So I will stay here, but I will make sure I stay on topic in the correct threads.

Pages