This seems like a stretch. I am a big fan of robotics, and I get the Hard Problem appeal but it doesn't seem like a good use of Google's funds. It does make for some interesting speculation though.
What a bargain 800 million was in hindsight. And what a monumental effect the acquisition had.
It's hard to predict whether this acquisition could be on the same scale. But considering the space, it may very well be.
http://googlepress.blogspot.com/2006/10/google-to-acquire-yo...
Why not robots? Higher barrier to entry, untapped market. It is a place where a ton of capital can really shine.
I could actually see Apple doing a rather good job with robots. Making sleek, stylish efficient (servant|killing) machines...
On a more sober note. I see Apple as being likely to go after the home automation market. In fact I wouldn't be too surprised if they partnered up with an RV manufacturer to try out technology for the "iHome".
As for home automation, sure. I cannot see why these companies aren't trying to stake out the Internet of Things in the home more.
Robotics isn't a 'smart gap' market (where if only smart people would focus on it they could dominate it) there are lots of brilliant people already toiling away there. It isn't an advertising market.
In Asimov's vision of the future the robotics company that developed the positronic brain is the dominant corporation in the galaxy, and perhaps Larry is working on a positronic brain equivalent. But who knows. Maybe they are afraid of Bezo's drone army, or Musk's rockets. But why Boston Dynamics and not iRobot? Why a fragment of Willow Garage and not Neato? Why a self driving car but not Tesla? Lots of questions. Its a fun puzzle to try to solve.
On that note... A driverless car can get a package to your driveway, but a mule can bring it to your door. A driverless car can scan every road, but a mule can scan parks and pathways. Reminds me of this http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/30/google-buys-bufferbox-loc...