Quote:
Originally Posted by 1885.Blake
So far I'm pretty sure no one has.... Why keep keep trotting out that canard? Who would think that folks would keep claiming attacks have occured?
|
I think the tempered enthusiasm displayed for Microsoft's larger participation and support of FIRST in this thread falls squarely in line with my original statement. I don't necessarily believe that anyone is attacking Microsoft in any specific manner -- though the distaste for the company and its products is evident among some posts.
There are few selfless acts and I don't believe that supporting FIRST is among them. The companies that support FIRST, especially at a high dollar level, do so with understanding that their sponsorship is an investment with reciprocal benefits. FIRST and its participating teams receive the support they need, in the form of money, professionals and products, to keep "raising the bar," while the sponsors receive enormous mindshare among the next generation of their workforce and increased familiarity with their products and services. Everyone benefits from these relationships to some degree -- General Motors, NASA, and IFI included -- and to expect that some other company would sign on without wanting a piece of that pie is, perhaps, a bit too idealistic for our existing culture. Maybe some day in the future, if we do what we're here to do, things will change.
I think that discussion about conflicts of interest as they pertain to FIRST sponsors could be engaging and interesting, but I don't quite see why it is that Microsoft's involvement is the catalyst that might spark such a conversation. I don't perceive their position among FIRST's other sponsors as being particularly unique and, in fact, I'd argue that there are extant sponsorship agreements that more closely resemble the doomsday "conflict of interest" scenario Pavan seems to be considering in his posts.