Lego Mindstorms: What went wrong?

[JoeXIII'007]

Originally Posted by From the Article

Lego needs to introduce a new product line that can serve as a vehicle for developing Lego literacy. One idea for such a product line is to have sets based around important concepts and mechanisms. For instance, the product line can have one set for introducing people to torque and gears, another to demonstrate more sophisticated parts like the clutch gear, and yet another to cover pulleys and belts. The quality of the documentation bundled with the sets will make or break any such effort, so Lego will need to include documentation that stimulates thinking, emphasizes problem solving, and encourages experimentation and creative play. The documentation can achieve these goals by providing individuals with readily digestible information, as well as by leading them through exercises and experiments that build intuition. Lego should also add programmability to such sets but this should be done selectively, without creating dependencies amongst sets, and in a manner consistent with the overall goal of the product line.

I could use something along this line to help mentor the FLL team at the nearby middle school. The students I mentor, though young and great thinkers, have a hard time working with the set, because it requires such advanced thinking in order to utilize it correctly. Even I cannot build a robust robot out of that set (which is embarrassing, considering I've had 3 years to tinker with it.) I can build good models, not great.

It is because of its advanced concept that the Mindstorm was doomed, and that is what I think latif was trying to get to with the article.

I also find it shocking at how cheap the set really is when it comes to true manufacturing costs (as the article pointed out).

With all that in mind, the point is that the Mindstorms set never really reached out to the common man, and in particular, the common LEGO thinker tinkerer.

-Joe