Quote:
Originally Posted by Hachiban VIII
They're just like any other company.
|
No, Microsoft is not just like any other company. In their recent high-profile lawsuits they adamantly lied about matters of technical fact; and the company is extremely predatory and agressively attempts to monopolize nearly every major market domain they enter.
Additionally, rather than adhering to a strategy that emphasizes greater compatibility among software products, along with being the best at building those products; they consistently attempt to either either replace or subvert consensus-based and/or de facto design "standards" that exist in those markets.
They have been very successful at carrying out these strategies, and have made a lot of money for their shareholders. So, in the sense of being in business for a profit, "Yes, they are like other for-profit, capitalist businesses." In other very important senses, they are not like
all other businesses.
A organization like FIRST, needs to be extremely cautious about accepting too much help from
any one donor, or from any donor that has a vested interest in something other than "agnosticly" inspiring students to explore ALL science and technology avenues. If FIRST isn't careful they might wind up becoming a mouthpiece for one sponsor's corporate strategies.
In FRC FIRST, I assert that offering/using a mixture of diverse technologies is a good thing. At every step in the design, construction/programming, testing, and operation of the FRC machines, I favor having several "technical" options for teams to choose among. I worry that if Microsoft or any similar company's influence grows too large, those options might become inappropriately narrowed (see above).
Blake
PS: Everyone should be careful to separate their opinion of the B & M Gates Foundation from their opinion of the Microsoft corporation. I also recommend that everyone should ponder the old adage about the apple not falling far from the tree.