[ad_1]
new video loaded: Former Roomba C.E.O. Reminisces on 2008’s Viral ‘Shark Cat’ Meme
By ‘HARD Fork’
December 23, 2025
[ad_2]
‘HARD Fork’
Source link
[ad_1]
In just about a week, iRobot, Luminar, and Rad Power Bikes all filed for bankruptcy.
They’re very different companies — selling Roombas, lidar, and e-bikes, respectively — but as Sean O’Kane, Rebecca Bellan, and I discussed on the episode of the Equity podcast, they faced some similar challenges, including tariff pressures, major deals that fell through, and a failure to establish themselves beyond the products that first made them successful.
You can read an edited preview of our conversation below, with Sean providing an overview of each filing, Rebecca weighing in on whether she has a Roomba, and me speculating about what the popular narratives about these bankruptcies leave out.
Sean: Rad Power is big for an e-bike company, but small, I think, in most people’s minds, since that’s still a bit of a niche. They were founded a long time ago and became popular even before the pandemic, and really were thought of as an industry leader, as far as quality of the bikes that they’re making, pretty good branding and marketing and trying to connect with with customers — which is really hard to find in the world of e-bikes, where most of them are just like alphabet soup companies on Amazon.
They rode that wave in the pandemic up high as micromobility really took off, and people were really rethinking how they were getting around, they weren’t commuting into the office as much. And we get glimpses of that in the bankruptcy filings. It only shows revenue back three years, but they were pulling in well over $100 million in revenue in 2023 — like $123 million, I think that fell to about $100 [million] last year, and through the bankruptcy this year, they were only at about $63 million, so they were clearly coming down off a pretty big high. They have a pretty diverse product lineup, but they just never really found a way to establish a foothold there.
And I think you could say similar things about these other two companies. Luminar is another company that was founded in the early 2010s, came out of stealth in 2017, and its mission was essentially to take lidar sensors, which at the time were really expensive and big and really only used in, like, defense applications and aerospace. 2017 was sort of the first big hype cycle of autonomous vehicles. They wanted to apply those sensors, make them more affordable for that use case. That helped them get some deals, most notably with Volvo, and then some other deals with Mercedes Benz, and a couple other players. But they were just heavily concentrated in that, and that was one of the reasons they wound up filing this week, too.
And then iRobot [was] the most well known of these three companies — a lot of people listening probably even have a Roomba at home or something very like it. It’s just another one of these situations where iRobot became synonymous with a certain thing, and then the advances in the technology that build that product move so quickly that they wound up in a situation where they were looking for a way out. And we all saw this, they were trying to get acquired by Amazon, and that deal got blocked by the FTC and so here we are.
Techcrunch event
San Francisco
|
October 13-15, 2026
They’re very different companies, but they all ran into similar problems. Do either of you guys have a Roomba?
Rebecca: No, I don’t have a Roomba. Those freak me out, but I bought my mom a Rad Power bike years ago, and she loves it. But now, you know, they had not only this bankruptcy issue, but they also had the issue with the batteries — they weren’t able to do their recalls because they were, like, “If we have to recall these bikes, we’re going to go bankrupt.” But they’re going bankrupt anyway!
I’m curious about the tariff thing, and how much this affected everyone’s bottom lines. You hear a lot on social media, people who are pro merger, how certain FTC blockings of [mergers] leads to the companies going bankrupt, or getting acquired by a Chinese firm rather than an American firm.
Sean: iRobot represents, to me, the sort of macro global trade problem of, could you have ever built this company here in the United States with a localized supply chain over the last 15 years? Probably not. And so it makes sense that they became so heavily reliant on China — which, let’s be real, probably led to the ability for these other companies to pop up and essentially copy what they did.
That reminds me of in Trump 1, when he flipped on tariffs for Chinese imports, and we saw a bunch of startups like Boosted Boards and other ones in the micromobility space get hit. So they’re contributing factors, for sure. The battery recall with Rad Power absolutely was, I think, a bigger dagger at the end, but the tariff stuff put them on uneven footing that made it harder for them to respond to stuff like that.
Anthony: A lot of times when a company fails, there [are] larger structural issues, and then there’s maybe a more immediate proximate issue. And particularly in the case of iRobot, I think that a lot of former executives and even outside commentators are pointing to this Amazon deal that was reached a few years ago — it kind of looked like the EU was not going to allow it to go through, and there is this sense of, “Okay, well, by blocking this deal, you’ve essentially put the dagger in their heart that eventually killed the company.”
That narrative also maybe ignores the fact that there were other things that caused them to want to get acquired in the first place.
[ad_2]
Anthony Ha
Source link
[ad_1]
When iRobot filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy last Sunday, it marked the end of an era for one of America’s most beloved robotics companies. The Roomba maker, which had sold over 50 million robots since its 2002 launch, had survived 35 years of near-death experiences and technical challenges only to be undone by what founder Colin Angle calls “avoidable” regulatory opposition.
The collapse followed Amazon’s January 2024 decision to scuttle its $1.7 billion acquisition of iRobot after 18 months of investigation by the FTC and European regulators. In this candid conversation, Angle reflects on what he describes as a profoundly frustrating process, the chilling message it sends to entrepreneurs, and his determination to move forward with a new venture in consumer robotics.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
TC: You called the bankruptcy “avoidable” and a “tragedy for consumers.” Walk me through what you think regulators got wrong in blocking the Amazon acquisition.
CA: I think there’s a real lesson around the role of the FTC and the European Commission. The goal, of course, is to avoid the abuses that can happen in monopolies and with the goal of protecting consumer choice and protecting innovation.
What happened was that iRobot and Amazon came together for the expressed purpose of creating more innovation, more consumer choice, at a time when iRobot’s trajectory was honestly different from where it was several years earlier. In the EU, we had a 12% market share [but it was] declining where the number one competitor was only three years old in the market, which is nearly the definition of a vibrant and dynamic marketplace. And in the United States, iRobot’s market share was higher, but it was declining and there were multiple growing competitors bringing outside innovation into the marketplace.
This should have been a no-brainer. This should have been three, four weeks of investigation. What happened instead was a year and a half of pendency, which had a very challenging impact on the ability to operate a company and ultimately having the acquisition blocked.
Techcrunch event
San Francisco
|
October 13-15, 2026
What was that 18-month process actually like? What were you being asked to do?
The amount of money and time spent was indescribable. I would not be surprised if over 100,000 documents were created and delivered. iRobot invested a significant part of our discretionary earnings against fulfilling the requirements that went along with doing the transaction. Amazon was forced to invest many, many, many times that. There was a whole team, both internal and external employees and lawyers and economists working to try to, in as many different ways as possible — because it seemed like our message was falling on deaf ears — demonstrate that this acquisition was not going to create a monopolistic situation.
There was daily activity for 18 months associated with this. Perhaps most telling, when I was testifying as part of being deposed, I had a chance to walk the halls of the FTC. The examiners on their office doors had printouts of deals blocked, like trophies.
Trophies?
To me, it felt so wrong as an entrepreneur who started this thing literally in my living room and lived six and a half years never having enough money in the bank to make payroll, finally making it through succeeding. Here’s an agency whose stated mission is protecting consumer interests and helping the United States economy, celebrating as victories every time they shut down M&A, which in a very real way is the primary driver of value creation for the innovation economy.
I went into this deposition looking for a friend. It’s like, “Here we are, we’re obviously not in a stronger place, and here’s a great opportunity for us. Are you excited for us?” Maybe this is just my naïve take coming out, but that’s not the reception I got. It was, “Why should we ever let them do this?” It’s like: because it’s good for the consumer — because it’s going to catalyze innovation.
How do you think what happened here changes the calculus for startup founders who see acquisition as their exit strategy? Do you think we’re in a world where American tech companies can’t scale through M&A?
Risk has a chilling effect. If you’re an entrepreneur, your only option is to hope that it doesn’t happen again. The reason you and I are talking is I hope by my words I can make it less likely that it will happen again.
I founded a new company and my outlook on exit strategy and even commercialization strategy is impacted by the experiences I had at iRobot. How can it not be? That precedent creates risk of it happening again, and only through positive experiences do we start to dial down the anxiety that the exits I’m depending on — or as a venture capitalist, the exits I’m investing in assuming will happen — will actually come through. That risk is factored into the willingness to invest, the valuation of deals, and the rate of new company formation.
It’s hard to say there’s X percent fewer entrepreneurial starts or exits as a result of the chilling message, but it certainly didn’t help. Entrepreneurs can use every leg up that we as a nation can provide. It is a rugged journey. When it actually works out, it should be a celebration. The FTC is there as a safeguard against very real examples of things gone too far. I’m a big believer in checks and balances. But when things get out of whack, the country suffers.
Let’s talk about iRobot’s journey. The Roomba didn’t come out for 12 years after the company was founded. Tell me about those early days.
iRobot was a bunch of people in an academic lab saying, “We were promised robots. Where are the robots?” If I could be pissed off that I don’t have the robots we were promised, I should do something about it. If not us, who? If not now, when?
One of the co-founders, my professor Rod Brooks, had pioneered an AI technology which allowed the embedding of machine intelligence in low-cost robotics. The mission of the company was to build cool stuff, deliver a great product, have fun, make money, and change the world.
The first business plan was “private mission to the moon, sell the movie rights.” We were maybe the first company to fail to do exactly that. But the technology we developed led to additions to the Mars Pathfinder mission — my name’s up on Mars. We built robots that went into the Gulf of Mexico after the Deepwater Horizon disaster. We built the PackBot, which was the first robot ever deployed in a combat mission for the US Army, went into caves in Afghanistan, and became the primary methodology for diffusing improvised explosive devices. We would get postcards: “You saved my life today.”
When the Fukushima disaster happened, we donated half a million dollars worth of robots to Japan. We sent six people over to train Tokyo Electric Power Company employees. Those robots were the first inside the reactor doors, mapped out radiation levels, and found a path where an employee could run in, get to the control room, work for a minute and a half, run back out, and only receive a lifetime dose of radiation. We were credited with enabling the shutdown of the reactor.
And then year 12, the Roomba?
I had a team that was working on toys, and one of the guys said, “Colin, I think it’s time we can do this. We can finally make the vacuum.” I’m like, “Okay, here’s $15,000. Two weeks. See what you can do.” Two weeks later they came back and said, “Hey, that’s not bad. Maybe there’s something here.” We scraped and found a little bit of money [to build these]. A year and a half later, I convinced my board that we could build 10,000 of these robots and we launched them.
It’s really the media that picked up the story. We had no money for marketing. Reporters were fascinated because we tended to do interesting things that were real, and they couldn’t believe that robot vacuuming could possibly be real. [The reaction was:] “My God, it actually worked.” We ended up selling 70,000 robots in the first three months. Then we nearly went out of business the next year.
Because you couldn’t accommodate demand?
Because we screwed up. The press drove this huge initial demand — 70,000 robots. So next year we’re going to do four times that. We made 300,000 robots. We even made a television commercial, but we were a bunch of geek engineers, so it totally failed. After Cyber Monday we were sitting with 250,000 robots in our warehouse like, “Oh my God, the world’s going to end.”
Then something good happened. The guy running our website said, “Why did sales quadruple yesterday?” We hadn’t done anything. What had happened was Pepsi had started running a TV ad with Dave Chappelle. He walks into this beautiful home, picks up a potato chip, and a Roomba comes out. He’s like, “A vacuum cleaner!” He throws down the potato chip, the vacuum eats it, then chases him. His pants are ripped off. He stands up in boxers. A beautiful woman appears, and he says, “Your vacuum cleaner ate my pants.” We sold 250,000 robots in two weeks and realized we knew nothing about marketing.
Wow! You had no idea Pepsi was incorporating your product into its commercial?
No idea. It was wild. You try to do good for so long and you get smacked in the face so many times, and then sometimes something good happens. You could say because of that crazy moment in time, we have robots. When we think about just how fragile a journey it is — cats riding Roombas was a big part of why we succeeded. Does that make any sense? No, not at all. But we certainly didn’t expect tens of billions of views of cats riding Roombas.
At some point you started seeing Chinese competitors like Roborock and Ecovacs adopting lidar navigation years before iRobot. Why did you stick with vision-based navigation for so long?
We explicitly did not put lasers on the robot. We had the technology decades ago because it’s a dead-end technology. Under my strategic direction, we were going to invest every penny of cost against a vision-based nav and situational understanding system. Your Tesla does not have a laser on it. It is all vision-based. At least Elon agrees with me.
Our strategic plan was for Roomba to be much more than just a vacuum cleaner in the home. To do that, it needs to understand more. Lasers are not advanced technology — they’ve been around for decades. They’re an expedient solution to a subset of the problems that a robot at home needs to take on. A laser will never tell you whether you actually cleaned the floor or not.
It is absolutely true that Chinese competition was coming in at lower price points. We were late in building a two-in-one robot — we believed that by separating mopping and vacuuming you could give a better customer experience. The customer voted that we were wrong, and that’s okay. We certainly were first in auto-evac, first in navigation. We were also importantly excluded from the Chinese marketplace, which is the largest market for consumer robotics in the world. That didn’t help.
What learnings from your iRobot experience would you share with other robotics entrepreneurs?
The first thing I tell all robotics entrepreneurs is: make sure you understand your market so that you are building something that delivers more value than it costs to create. Robots are so exciting, so sexy that it’s really easy to convince yourself that you’re doing something that is going to change the world, if only consumers were smart enough to realize it. That’s a pretty tough equation.
Technology is oftentimes in the robot space well ahead of the business plans that can take advantage of the technology. One of the traps is thinking of robotics as a thing as opposed to a toolkit. As soon as you say, “I’m going to build a robot,” and head off building your humanoid — are you really doing it because you understand a problem you’re trying to solve, or are you enamored with building your thing?
When I started iRobot, it was just assumed that robots were going to vacuum floors by building humanoids to push upright vacuum cleaners. When we first built Roomba, we would ask people, “Is that a robot?” People would say, “No, that’s not a robot. A robot has arms and legs and a head.” Yet Roomba at the time cost 10,000 times less than a humanoid pushing an upright vacuum.
The challenge of entrepreneurship is breaking through the romance and opportunity and falling in love with your technology and getting to the application that you’re trying to solve. Understand your consumer, understand the problem you’re trying to solve — because it’s complicated, robotics is expensive, and it takes a lot of energy to get right.
You mentioned you’ve founded a new company. What can you tell me about it?
We’re in stealth mode, but I’ll give you a broad hint. It’s consumer-facing. We’re really looking at the fact that most of the things robots can do to meet outstanding needs require us to interact with other people. So how do we build a robot that actually has sufficient emotional sophistication — not human-level, but enough — to build an enduring co-character that can make sense over time and use that for health and wellness related applications?
It’s going to be awesome. I’m so excited about it. It’s given me enthusiasm and energy to have a chance to use this new toolkit and continue on my journey to build the robots we were promised. I really haven’t changed that much from a grad student in college saying, “Oh my God, we’ve been promised robots and we don’t have the ones that I want yet.” I spent 30 years focused on building the world’s greatest floor care robot, and now I have a chance to do something else.
For more from this interview with Angle, including his take on whether humanoid robots will ever work, check out TechCrunch’s StrictlyVC Download podcast — new episodes drop every Tuesday, and the full conversation will be available soon.
[ad_2]
Connie Loizos
Source link
[ad_1]
BEDFORD (AP) — Roomba maker iRobot has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, but says it does not expect any disruptions to devices as the more than 30-year-old company is taken private under a restructuring process.
IRobot, which became well known for its robotic vacuums, has struggled of late, dealing with increased competition, layoffs and a declining stock price. In 2022, Amazon announced that it had agreed to buy iRobot for about $1.7 billion, but that deal was called off last year. Amazon blamed “undue and disproportionate regulatory hurdles” after the European Union signaled its objection to the transaction.
kAmp>2K@? D2:5 2E E96 E:>6 E92E :E H@F=5 A2J :#@3@E 2 AC6G:@FD=J 28C665 E6C>:?2E:@? 766 @7 Shc >:==:@? 2?5 :#@3@E D2:5 E92E :E H@F=5 F?56C8@ 2 C6DECF4EFC:?8 E@ 96=A DE23:=:K6 E96 4@>A2?J]k^Am
kAm:#@3@E D2:5 $F?52J :E 😀 ?@H 36:?8 24BF:C65 3J !:462 E9C@F89 2 4@FCEDFA6CG:D65 AC@46DD] !:462[ @C $96?K96? !xrtp #@3@E:4D r@][ {E5][ 😀 :#@3@E’D AC:>2CJ 4@?EC24E >2?F724EFC6C] (:E9 724:=:E:6D 😕 r9:?2 2?5 ‘:6E?2>[ !:462 92D 3F:=E 2?5 D@=5 >@C6 E92? a_ >:==:@? C@3@E:4 G24FF> 4=62?6CD]k^Am
kAm“%96 EC2?D24E:@? H:== DEC6?8E96? @FC 7:?2?4:2= A@D:E:@? 2?5 H:== 96=A 56=:G6C 4@?E:?F:EJ 7@C @FC 4@?DF>6CD[ 4FDE@>6CD[ 2?5 A2CE?6CD[” :#@3@E rt~ v2CJ r@96? D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E]k^Am
kAm:#@3@E D2:5 :E H:== 4@?E:?F6 E@ @A6C2E6 2D ?@C>2= 5FC:?8 E96 r92AE6C “ AC@46DD 2?5 5@6D?’E 6IA64E 2?J 5:DCFAE:@? E@ :ED 2AA 7F?4E:@?2=:EJ[ 4FDE@>6C AC@8C2>D[ 8=@32= A2CE?6CD[ DFAA=J 492:? C6=2E:@?D9:AD[ @C @?8@:?8 AC@5F4E DFAA@CE]k^Am
kAm%96 q657@C532D65 4@>A2?J 2?E:4:A2E6D 4@>A=6E:?8 E96 AC6A24<2865 r92AE6C “ AC@46DD 3J u63CF2CJ]k^Am
kAmx? AC6>2C<6E EC25:?8[ :#@3@E D92C6D D=:5 ?62C=J f_T E@ S`]b`]k^Am
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
There’s something painfully American about the arc of iRobot, the company that taught your vacuum to navigate around the furniture. Founded in 1990 in Bedford, Massachusetts by MIT roboticist Rodney Brooks and his former students Colin Angle and Helen Greiner, the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Sunday, punctuating a 35-year run that took it from the dreams of AI researchers to your kitchen floor and, finally, to the tender mercies of its Chinese supplier.
Brooks, the founding director of MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab and the robotics field’s resident provocateur, spent the eighties watching insects and having epiphanies about how simple systems could produce complex behaviors. By 1990, he’d translated those insights into a company that would eventually sell over 50 million robots. The Roomba, launched in 2002, became the rare gadget that transcended its category to become a verb, a meme, and, to the amusement of many, a cat-transportation device.
The money soon followed, with the company raising $38 million altogether, including from The Carlyle Group, before going public in a 2005 IPO that raised $103.2 million. By 2015, iRobot was flush enough to launch its own venture arm, prompting TechCrunch to wryly declare that “robot domination may have just taken another step forward.” The plan at the time was to invest $100,000 to $2 million in up to 10 seed and Series A robotics startups each year. It was the kind of move that marks a company’s arrival, the moment when you’re successful enough to fund the next generation’s dreams.
Then Amazon came knocking. In 2022, the corporate giant agreed to acquire iRobot for $1.7 billion in what would have been Amazon’s fourth-largest acquisition ever at the time. In a press release announcing the tie-up, Angle, who’d been CEO since the company’s inception, spoke about “creating innovative, practical products” and finding “a better place for our team to continue our mission.” It seemed like a fairy tale ending — the scrappy MIT spinoff absorbed into the Everything Store’s sprawling empire.
Except European regulators had other ideas. Indeed, amid threats they would block the deal — they believed Amazon could foreclose rivals by restricting or degrading access to its marketplace — Amazon and iRobot agreed to kill the deal in January 2024, with Amazon paying a $94 million breakup fee and walking away. Angle resigned. The company’s shares nosedived. It shed 31% of its workforce.
What followed afterward was a slow-motion collapse. Earnings had been declining since 2021 thanks to supply chain chaos and Chinese competitors flooding the market with cheaper robot vacuums. The Carlyle Group, which provided a $200 million lifeline back in 2023, ultimately just prolonged the inevitable. (Carlyle finally sold that loan last month — presumably at a discount, though it didn’t specify either way.)
Now it’s over, at least, the version of iRobot that existed previously. Shenzhen PICEA Robotics, iRobot’s main supplier and lender, will take control of the reorganized company. According to a release issued by iRobot on Sunday, the restructuring plan allows iRobot to remain as a going concern and “continue operating in the ordinary course with no anticipated disruption to its app functionality, customer programs, global partners, supply chain relationships, or ongoing product support.”
Techcrunch event
San Francisco
|
October 13-15, 2026
It also vowed to “meet its commitments to employees and make timely payments in full to vendors and other creditors for amounts owed throughout the court-supervised process.”
What this means for customers longer term is another question, one iRobot was eager to answer when we reached out to the company. “To be clear, today’s news has no impact on our business operations or our ability to serve our customers – which continues to be our top priority,” said spokeswoman Michèle Szynal in an emailed statement to TechCrunch. “We remain focused on delivering intelligent home innovations that make consumers’ lives better and easier. Our products are not changing.”
In its release, iRobot similarly promises to keep supporting existing products during restructuring; at the same time, its legal disclosures acknowledge the inherent uncertainties of bankruptcy — whether suppliers stick around, whether the process goes as planned, whether the company survives at all.
As The Verge noted in a story about iRobot’s struggles last month, even if iRobot eventually collapses and takes its cloud services down with it, customers’ Roomba vacuums won’t become useless pucks. The physical controls should keep working — a Roomba owner could still jab the button to send it off to vacuum or tell it to head home.
What Roomba owners would lose is everything that make the devices feel futuristic, including app-based scheduling, the ability to tell it which rooms to clean, and voice commands barked at Alexa while sprawled on the couch.
Update: This story has been updated with comment from iRobot.
[ad_2]
Connie Loizos
Source link
[ad_1]
Amazon’s $1.4 billion deal for Roomba-maker iRobot looks set to be blocked by European Union antitrust authorities. It’s only a small setback for the e-commerce giant but it’s a reminder that regulators are still skeptical over acquisitions made by big technology companies.
Continue reading this article with a Barron’s subscription.
View Options
[ad_1]
By Joe Hoppe
The U.K. Competition and Markets Authority on Friday said it has cleared Amazon.com’s proposed $1.7 billion acquisition of iRobot Corp.
The regulator, which had launched an initial formal investigation in April into the takeover of the Roomba maker, concluded that the deal wouldn’t lead to competition concerns in the U.K.
The deal remains under regulatory review in other jurisdictions. In September, iRobot said the U.S. Federal Trade Commission formally requested documents from both companies explaining the deal’s purpose and rationale. A securities filing by iRobot said both companies would cooperate with the FTC’s investigation.
After an investigation, which typically takes up to a year, the FTC can sue to block a merger, seek concessions such as divestitures or decline to take action, allowing a deal to close.
“We’re working cooperatively with the relevant regulators in their review of the merger,” an Amazon spokesperson said at the time.
Write to Joe Hoppe at joseph.hoppe@wsj.com
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
Silicon Valley could use a reboot. The biggest players aren’t growing, and more than a few are seeing sharp revenue declines. Regulators seem opposed to every proposed merger, while legislators push for new rules to crack down on the internet giants. The Justice Department just can’t stop filing antitrust suits against Google. The initial public offering market is closed. Venture-capital investments are plunging, along with valuations of prepublic companies. Maybe they should try turning the whole thing on and off.
The only strategy that seems to be working is to lay people off. Tech CEOs suddenly are channeling Marie Kondo, tidying up and keeping only the people and projects that “spark joy,” or at least support decent operating margins. Layoffs.fyi reports that tech companies have laid off more than 122,000 people already this year.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
Press Release
–
May 31, 2022
ATLANTA, May 31, 2022 (Newswire.com)
–
Just as National Pet Month comes to an end, pet expert Kristen Levine shares some timely information to help people and their pets improve their relationships. Here are some of the issues and trends affecting pets and their pet parents.
FEEDING OUR PETS
It is so important to feed pets high-quality food. That is why Kristen recommends the new ORIJEN AMAZING GRAINS™ dog food. It is packed with animal protein and is enhanced with hand-selected, fiber-rich grains to nourish dogs and help support their digestive health. Full of premium animal ingredients, it provides dogs with the protein, vitamins and minerals that they need to thrive. The first five ingredients are meat, poultry or fish, which are inspired by your pet’s ancestral diet, which is how they were born to eat. Learn more about their high standards at orijenpetfoods.com.
CLEANING UP AFTER PETS
Dogs and cats will shed, and they often bring dirt into the house. To remedy this, choose the iRobot Roomba j7 PLUS Self-Emptying robot vacuum. Built with more pet features than any other robot, it is designed to keep homes clean to spend more time loving the furry friends, rather than cleaning up after them. Thanks to Precision Vision Navigation, the j7 PLUS identifies certain obstacles and hazards on the floor, like clothes, cables and perhaps most importantly, it is the only robot guaranteed to identify and avoid solid pet waste. It even empties itself when it is finished cleaning for up to 60 days at a time. For more information, visit www.irobot.com.
ANOTHER PET CONCERN
One concern is how to protect the interior of the home from the occasional pet mess. SmartStrand carpet with All Pet checks all the boxes for a pet-friendly home. It continues to be the best carpet for pet owners. Made in part from plant-based ingredients, it includes permanent, built-in stain resistance with spill and soil protection and features Mohawk’s All Pet Protection and Warranty, covering all pets, all accidents, all the time. It cleans easily with just water, so do not worry about having to use harsh cleaning chemicals. Everyone and every pet will enjoy the superior softness under foot or paw! For more information, visit www.mohawkflooring.com.
For more information: tipsontv@gmail.com
Source: TipsOnTV
[ad_2]