Amagami Ham Ham: a finger-nibbling plush robot with about 70,000 units shipped

Babies’ and young pets’ nibbling, put into a plush toy

Amagami Ham Ham is a plush robot from Yukai Engineering, the maker of Qoobo. Put a finger in its mouth and it nibbles gently. When a baby or young animal nibbles a finger it feels good, but people feel they should stop it from becoming a habit. The company said the robot frees people from that conflict. According to a Japanese business paper, the idea came from a male employee with two children and emerged from an in-house event called Makeathon. The exterior was developed with Liv Heart’s Nemu Nemu series, known for sleepy faces. A proprietary algorithm called the HAMgorithm picks from about 24 nibbling patterns (some sources say dozens). The lower jaw has some play and the flex of the resin lets different finger shapes feel similar, according to Kaden Watch.

2,297% of the goal, 20,000 in the first shipment

From 8 March 2022 a 45-day CAMPFIRE campaign took in 11,485,575 yen from 2,267 backers. That was 2,297% of the goal and the company’s largest ever. The robot went on sale on 27 July at 4,620 yen including tax, up from the 4,400 yen planned earlier. The company said it had tripled the planned production run and expected the first shipment of 20,000 to sell out. In October it opened a campaign on Indiegogo for overseas sales, with a $5,000 goal and delivery to 14 countries and regions. Its final result was not confirmed.

Later releases widened the lineup by changing the exterior. A panda and an otter arrived in May 2023 at 4,950 yen, and a bear was added in June 2024 at 5,830 yen. In 2025 a version featuring the mascot of the Osaka-Kansai Expo went on sale at 6,600 yen. In September 2026 PRESIDENT Online reported about 70,000 units shipped in total. According to that article, nobody sympathized with the idea in the planning meeting and it nearly passed unnoticed, until a prototype built the following week changed opinions. The official store now shows all four models as sold out, with no reason given.

Curious at first, then quickly tiresome

Overseas outlets met it as something unfamiliar at its January 2022 debut. Digital Trends called the nibbling a cute and reassuring experience while admitting it puzzled over why anyone would want it. Inverse headlined its piece that the plushies were freaking the writer out, and yet. Many Japanese launch articles drew on company material. In July 2025 Lifehacker Japan ran a piece marked as advertising that said the campaign hit its goal within three minutes, and it carried no hands-on impressions.

One of the few independent hands-on accounts is a Keitai Watch article of October 2025. The writer tried the Expo version and found the bite firmer than expected: painless, but sturdier than a baby’s or pet’s nibble, with the plastic felt even through the fabric. They said it takes about ten minutes to try everything, and that after playfully putting a finger in again and again it gets tiresome fast. At 6,600 yen, the writer saw it as affordable next to Expo plush toys at around 3,500 yen. No design awards or studies on its form or expression were found.

One motion at about 5,000 yen, expanded through characters

Ham Ham narrows the robot to one motion and sells it for 4,620 yen. The same company’s Qoobo passed 30,000 units cumulatively in September 2021, but at 13,200 yen it costs nearly three times as much. It also contrasts with Jibo, a social robot offered at $899. What it added after launch were new exteriors, such as a panda, an otter, a bear and the Expo mascot, rather than new functions. The worry remains, as Keitai Watch noted, that a single motion wears thin with repeated use. No public data says how many of the roughly 70,000 are still in use.

What brings someone back to a robot with only one motion before they get tired of it?

What we haven’t confirmed

• Why the Japanese official store is sold out, and whether it will restock
• The final Indiegogo total and overseas unit sales
• Long-term usage and satisfaction after purchase (independent reviews are scarce)
• The only design intent found was the company’s own explanation; no design award or study of its form was found