It really depends on his motivation.
- One over-arching issue is the permissive license where ROS users aren’t really compelled to talk about their wins and successes (even though I hear about them all the time off the record).
- If the root of the issue is the classic open source debate that has been settled long ago for most applications except a few verticals (graphics / games, and CAD).
- One logical failure I hear all the time is the belief that ROS is a monolith; where it is an all or nothing solution, which is patently false. Generally ROS can be easily integrated with whatever proprietary system floats your boat.
- I’ve seen a number of orgs attempt to replicate open source solutions because of quality concerns, only to get mired in years of development. Writing anything from scratch is only a worthwhile endeavor if you value your time at zero and aren’t concerned with time to market.
- Along those lines, the things we do as robotocists are hard. They require research, hypothesis testing, and iteration. That’s what ROS allows to happen quickly. You can’t iterate if you are stuck building infrastructure.
- There is still a mindset, based in ROS’s history, where people believe it is an academic enterprise. I usually point people to the TSC as proof that this isn’t the case. If companies like Amazon, Toyota, Ford, Fraunhoffer, the US Government, and Bosch, being active ROS contributors doesn’t convince you I don’t know what will.
- In Aerospace, Spirit Aerospace gave a great talk at ROS-I early in the year. They are big converts. I would suggest you reach out to ROS Industrial for an intro.
I compiled a list of a few metrics to help out with social proof. I would suggest that most of them are big under counts. We’re trying to work on a few more things to tamp down on the FUD.