On Microsoft's Increased Sponsorship of FIRST // Was: Microsoft Regional

[Pavan Dave]

... I wanted to bring this up this up one final time since it is now set in stone. Also FIRST dropped IFI for VEX and they have announced a completely new system for the 2009 season. What's next, a 51+% chunk of pie in FIRST Sponsorship? Microsoft has begun its takeover of robotics. Thoughts? Concerns? Comments? Questions? ...

[AdamHeard]

In no way will they take over FIRST. They're sponsoring a regional, and have sponsored teams for some time.

[Pavan Dave]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

In no way will they take over FIRST. They're sponsoring a regional, and have sponsored teams for some time.

I forgot to link the controls systems to it. I call it "Microsoft's Proved Formula for Global Domination"

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Pavan

I forgot to link the controls systems to it. I call it "Microsoft's Proved Formula for Global Domination"

In terms of the controls system, FIRST will go with whatever the best option is..... and quite frankly, I won't be upset with that no matter who makes it.

[=Martin=Taylor=]

Originally Posted by Pavan

I forgot to link the controls systems to it. I call it "Microsoft's Proved Formula for Global Domination"

They're just like any other company. What’s wrong with them giving money to FIRST? The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has given money to all manner of charities and organizations.

Like other companies, Microsoft has probably realized that by sponsoring FIRST it will help to inspire some of its future employees and innovators.

[gblake]

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.

[xzvrw2]

I say we not get into the discussion of bill gates and microsoft trying to take over the world, this is about as touchy as wal mart.

[Tottanka]

I really dont thing that it ill do any harm.
Blake mentioned beeing carefull of having one too big sponser. What abaut NASA and GM, they have far more support to FIRST than MICROSOFT currently has.
Its a great thing that they now support a full regional, and we should be happy about it instead of complaining. Microsoft can give FIRST far more than FIRST will ever give Microsoft.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Tottanka

I really dont thing that it ill do any harm.
Blake mentioned beeing carefull of having one too big sponser. What abaut NASA and GM, they have far more support to FIRST than MICROSOFT currently has.

And there are other FRC regionals that explicitly have a corporate moniker or two in their names (BAE, GM), so the "Microsoft Seattle Regional" is hardly breaking new ground. But... the adage Reagan made famous is worth remembering: "Trust, but verify".

I doubt BAE or GM recently announced any robotics products like MSRS or have an interest in seeing robotics products like MSRS take root in students' habits. So, I am rather complacent about seeing them listed as big sponsors. I tend to think they are investing on the entire economy and in future (post-college) good will.

On the other hand, with the recent announcement of MSRS, I wonder a bit if Microsoft polishing its corporate image, is simply doing a good thing by inspiring students, is starting a stealth marketing campaign, or all of the above? Is GM? Is BAE? Is Autodesk? Tough call to make. Let's watch actions and not marketing announcements. Let's also keep FIRST HQ informed about our desires (an assumption that I make) for staying properly aloof from any and all sponsorships that might create too much entanglement.

For FIRST FRC, at least, I would love to have MSRS, Intellitek,s C18, and homebrew Java (or FORTRAN, or FORTH or whatever) all be ways that I am allowed to program either next generation Parallax CPUs, SPARC CPUs, Intel/AMD CPUs or Terks, that are running BSD variants, Linux variants, OS X, Vista, or VxWorks OS's. Etc.

Currently though, my ears (and those of many of us) properly perk up when I hear about signs of an 800 pound gorilla visiting my neighborhood. I do not want to open an FRC KOP and rulebook, and find out that MSRS, Intel, and Vista are the only tools I get to use for my computing. Fool me once (in other markets) shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Blake
PS: On the other hand, I'm not too thrilled about the limitations of the Parallax PICs and C18/EasyC that we (FRC & FTC) are limited to using now; but at least I am comforted by knowing that the students who master them should be able to confidently move on to tackle other tough problems; and that they are very unlikely to myopically develop a sense that the Parallax/Intellitek/C way to do things, is the only way to do them.

Instead, as they move through life they are almost guaranteed to come to view the Parallax/Intellitek combo as one of the many, many diverse ways they learned to skin the proverbial cat. That broadening of one's horizons is one of the good things about staying a little bit outside the herd, no matter how seductive the herd's "benefits" might appear. In many ways, doing that teaches students to be a "developer" rather than a "user".

[ebarker]

Microsoft has two choices regarding that regional.

a) They can support it and be accused of trying to take over the world.

b) They can not support it and be accused of not supporting their community and education and not having 'social responsibility'.

Either way in the eyes of people that don't like Microsoft, they lose.

Microsoft is a large successful company. But they are definitely not all-knowing, all-controlling. Their list of technical and business failures is a long as their successes. There are a lot of vertical markets that MS doesn't dominate or are not even really competitive in.

As a general rule, large companies should support FIRST and/or teams in their corporate shadow. For example, automotive companies give support in the upper midwest. Here in Atlanta, The Coca Cola Company provides substantial support to FIRST in it's shadow here. If Coca Cola was a little more east the Championship would literally be in the shadow of the Coca Cola headquarters. Some companies only support 'plant shadows'. 3M is an example.

Microsoft has too many challenges to solve in their business in order to maintain sustainability. Trying to take over FIRST isn't one of them. FIRST is their 'social responsibility' charity effort.

I agree with the previous poster that this topic is best left alone given the emotionally charged environment surrounding it. And no, I'm not a Microsoft hack. I write linux application code for a living.

[Ryan Dognaux]

I still think the same thing - if Microsoft is developing a controller system and it gets used in 2009, good. FIRST wants to hit the mainstream in a big way, teaming up with one of the biggest tech companies in the world seems like a great way to do it. I love it how everyone is freaking out that they're sponsoring a robotics regional now. This is a GOOD thing that FIRST has gained the interest of Microsoft. And with as much Microsoft hate as there is in FIRST, I don't foresee them having any sort of monopoly within FIRST anytime soon. Unless we use a system made by them in 2009, but then where were the people crying out about IFI?

I'm sick of the Microsoft hate here, this is a good thing regardless of how you try and spin it.

Microsoft has begun its takeover of robotics.

[AdamHeard]

I love IFI and I love their products (use them outside of FIRST extensively); but I find it hard to believe that the great minds in FIRST would even consider dumping IFI's system for something that isn't far superior. So, if FIRST switches to microsoft's controls system, it will be a better solution. Currently, I find it hard to imagine a better solution from Microsoft (as they don't have much in that market), but FIRST wouldn't change to Microsoft if they didn't.


Also, risking making myself look like a fool here.... but, is it even confirmed that Microsoft is doing it? I thought we had to wait until 2008 for real confirmation.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by ebarker

Microsoft has two choices regarding that regional.

a) They can support it and be accused of trying to take over the world.

b) They can not support it and be accused of not supporting their community and education and not having 'social responsibility'.

Either way in the eyes of people that don't like Microsoft, they lose.

Trying to take over FIRST isn't one of them. FIRST is their 'social responsibility' charity effort.

I agree with the previous poster that this topic is best left alone given the emotionally charged environment surrounding it.

EB,

You present a false dichotomy. There are third, fourth and more options.

You also appear to view this discussion through a take-over-the-world lens.

I prefer to view it through a what-does-the-past-teach-us-to-expect-from-the-future lens; and a diversity-is-good lens.

I also don't think that I described or implied anything that Microsoft-the-corporation might offer, encourage, or strive to accomplish; that would be at odds with their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders; or would be inconsistent with the business models/patterns the company has consistently relied upon to produce their successes.

I further don't think that, simply because a topic is emotionally charged, we should remove it from the discussions occuring here. Isn't teaching, by example, how to objectively dissect an emotionally charged subject, and how to then use clear, cogent, well-formed arguments to discuss/debate it, with respect for differing opinions; something mentors (and everyone involved) should do?

Honing one's ability to successfuly navigate a discussion of an emotionally charged topic would seem to be as important to one's career as just about any other social skill we attempt to teach/nurture in those FIRST inspires. Are we unable to teach that part of being a well-rounded scientist/technologist well?

Finally, I'm no expert on corporate law, but I believe that almost all US, for-profit companies, large and small, are obligated by US law to obey the instructions of their shareholders. Those instructions are generally to maximize the return on the shareholders' investment in the company. Sometimes that leads to support of organizations like FIRST; and I am happy when it does. However, for the reason in the next paragraph, I also think that it usually leads to attempting to take over "the world".

How many shareholders (who are investing to increase their capital or income) do you know who would not want to see their current investment result in them owning a slice of everything worth owning in the entire world?

In the US' predominantly-capitalistic, economy, it is not a business sin to want to control the world. It is a duty. In my opinion this is what makes debating whether or not "Company XYZ wants to control the world." a waste of time. The answer is rarely in doubt.

So, lets not avoid that discussion. Instead let's finish it and make it irrelevant. It will then be interesting/enlightening to look around and see what is left to discuss. At that point we might find we have a clearer view of the important topics from which the phantom debate (about taking over the world) distracted us.

Blake

[ebarker]

Interesting thread.

I would like to hear three GOOD reasons why MS would even think about entering the robotic controller market for FIRST. They would need a good business case and I don't think it is there. FIRST is just too tiny a market and doesn't have money flowing TOWARD Microsoft, relative to their cost stucture.

Relatively speaking, the FIRST controller market is tiny relative to their other product lines. It would be a distraction to their management and engineering teams that frankly have a lot bigger fish to fry. It would almost certainly be cash negative for a long time.

The type of electronics that FIRST uses is best developed by a team of 3 or 4 people with a passion for entrepreneurship. That is why companies like IFI and AndyMark do such a good job with FIRST. If these companies had to ship 100 million units a year they would in fact be large and cumbersome. In other words like Microsoft.

Sometimes people attribute evil to companies when in fact it is just 50,000 employees tripping over themselves. Self inflicted incompetance.

20 years ago the evil empire was IBM. For a while people thought the good side was Digital Equipment but then they became TOO successful. And HP was an IBM wanna be. Bill Gates came along as the underdog. None of the young people reading this post perceive IBM as 'evil' I'd bet. In 20 years the same will be said of Microsoft.

Nearly every project that I worked on where we recommended IBM, DEC, or HP, there was someone that furiously argued for MS products for blah blah blah reasons. MS wasn't the best for those projects. It is just that the person wanted the underdog to win, and the market leader to lose for no good technical reason.

Basically it is 'king of the hill'. Whoever is on the hill becomes the target.

As I write this I'm watching Notre Dame and Michigan bite the dust.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Ryan Dognaux

I still think the same thing - if Microsoft is developing a controller system and it gets used in 2009, good. FIRST wants to hit the mainstream in a big way, teaming up with one of the biggest tech companies in the world seems like a great way to do it. I love it how everyone is freaking out that they're sponsoring a robotics regional now. This is a GOOD thing that FIRST has gained the interest of Microsoft. And with as much Microsoft hate as there is in FIRST, I don't foresee them having any sort of monopoly within FIRST anytime soon. Unless we use a system made by them in 2009, but then where were the people crying out about IFI?

I'm sick of the Microsoft hate here, this is a good thing regardless of how you try and spin it.

Ryan,

Answer me this. Do you think that Microsoft the corporation wants anything less than for the MSRS product and its offspring to be a product used by every robot, every robot manufacturer, and every roboticist in the entire world?

If you do, buy some Microsoft stock, and then successfully sue them for a breach of their fiduciary duty.

It is their duty to attempt to dominate any market they attempt to enter. Asserting that Pavan's comment is motivated by "Microsoft hate" might be something of an insult. You should tread lightly there. An alternative interpretation of Pavan's statement is that Pavan does understand how businesses make profits, and that he thinks that Microsoft's entry into the robotics market is one of their significant business thrusts, not just a boutique, research endeavor.

If it is one of their important business thrusts, then I suggest that any organization that has robotics at the core of its existence would be foolish not to view how their own organization might be affected by the entry of an enormously large, influential and wealthy corporation like Microsoft, into that market.

You said you are "sick of the Microsoft hate here". If there is unfounded "hate", or even mild dislike, here, then I applaud your being sick of it. However, you didn't say that anyone in the discussion has made a false assertion or drawn a false conclusion from an assertion. Please point out where you see the holes in the thread's arguments, along with expressing your feelings, so that we can see if we agree or disagree with you.

Blake
PS: In reply to your question about "people crying out about IFI"; in this very thread the current FIRST FRC/FTC monopoly held by Intellitek/IFI was pointed out as an example of something to try to avoid. I did it in my PS here: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...56&postcount=9