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

[Joe Matt]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

They make their money by dominating (ar attempting to) their chosen markets. Microsoft is no exception to this. In this case they see a potential emerging market that they are well suited to be a major player in. At the same time they get to appear as being a good corporate citizen by helping the students learn and be creative. For Microsoft, this is a win-win situation.

Should we question Microsofts motivations when accepting their charity? Absolutely, just as we should question EVERY doners motivation. BAE, Microsoft, MIT, NASA, Parker, Bimba, Andy-Mark, Small Parts, Etc they all have motivation to support FIRST ... and we, as the recipiants of that charity are obliged to question that motivation.

Is Microsoft just being charitable by supporting the Seattle regional? No, getting their name on the regional gives them name recognition in the robotics emerging market. Does that mean that we should not accept their charity? Again no. As long as we understand their motivations, and those motivations do not stand counter to our beliefs in FIRST, then both the goals of FIRST and the goals of Microsoft can be met. Win-Win.

Phillip-Morris wanted to give out money to Richmond, VA teams. Should we have taken it?

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Joe Matt

Phillip-Morris wanted to give out money to Richmond, VA teams. Should we have taken it?

And this is why I said

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

and we, as the recipiants of that charity are obliged to question that motivation.

Both companies are trying to influence the next generation with their product. The issue then becomes does either product fall within the teachings and ideals of FIRST.

Microsofts product is a tool. Tools can be both used and misused. As long as we teach our children how to use the tools properly we can make a better future. The use of Microsofts products are within the ideals of FIRST.

Phillip-Morris' product (There most well known product ... Cigerettes) is a controlled addictive substance. I do not believe that Phillip-Morris' product is within the ideals of FIRST and therefore we should not partner with them.


The above, as usual, is IMHO

[114Klutz]

Originally Posted by Joe Matt

Phillip-Morris wanted to give out money to Richmond, VA teams. Should we have taken it?

Yes - it gives them no real benefit - simply because you accept money from Phillip Morris doesn't mean that you believe what they do is morally or ethically correct.

In a way - it's their method of "atoning" for sins - and why not let them do some good.

[Pavan Dave]

Originally Posted by Joe Matt

Phillip-Morris wanted to give out money to Richmond, VA teams. Should we have taken it?

Yes. Phillip-Morris owns Kraft under the Altria Group. Just let them know that you will have an Altria Group logo rather than Phillip-Morris logo. That way you are promoting Kraft and Nabisco.

Pavan.

[Chief Pride]

Originally Posted by 1885.Blake

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.

i was planning on reading the whole thread but stopped at this post, yes, microsoft TRIES to monopolize everything they come to, but what HAVE they monopolized in other than OSs?

Consoles? no, theyre definately in the race though

Peripherals? nope

so yeah... they may try, but fail if they do.... plus would it be THAT bad if they did?

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Pavan

Yes. Phillip-Morris owns Kraft under the Altria Group. Just let them know that you will have an Altria Group logo rather than Phillip-Morris logo. That way you are promoting Kraft and Nabisco.

Let me suggest that this might not be the way to go. In the example, it is Phillip-Morris (or, to keep track with the body of the thread, Microsoft) that is making the donation to the team. The donation is not coming from Altria - or Kraft, or Nabisco. They are not interchangeable.

If the team has made the decision that is it within their ethical standards to accept a donation from a cigarette manufacturer, then they should be willing to declare so publicly. To try to substitute donor identities seems to say "we are not too ashamed to take your money, but we are ashamed to be publicly connected to you." That would call the ethical integrity of the team into question. To then take the additional step of saying "we are going to tell everyone that a different organization made the donation" would smack of dishonesty.

Originally Posted by Tim Delles

Heck what about NASA... they sponsor the MOST teams in first, and have a regional. are they taking over?

Actually, six regionals this year, but who is counting?

-dave

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by Tim Delles

Ok so almost everyone here is saying that MS is taking over FIRST because they have 1 regional... one little regional in the northwest. ok so:

does that mean that BAE tried to take over FIRST when they brought a regional back to the founding state of NH?

does does that mean that UTC has tried to take over FIRST because they sponsor a lot of teams around the Hartford area and the regional in Hartford?

Heck what about NASA... they sponsor the MOST teams in first, and have a regional. are they taking over?


Yes FIRST may move to use MS product in 2009, but they may not. No one in FIRST or MS has come out and said we have made a partnership to do this and that. What they have said is they will sponsor a regional, putting it in Seattle so that teams don't have to drive 10 hours to get to the closest regional.

As for MS taking over FIRST, that is going to be nearly impossible. Honestly, they would have to convince the entire FIRST staff that MS was right, but how could they do that when FIRST has a goal, a goal they are very driven to.

I believe that Dean, Woodie and the rest of the gang are smart enough to realize if MS tries to do this, and they would inevitably deal with this (atleast i hope)

Well, I'm pretty sure NASA has already taken over FIRST (6 regionals, webcasts, and several hundred teams), but do I'm not concerned. I look up to NASA as being pretty sweet. Becuase, when was the last time your ion engine processed 245 kilograms of xenon?

I don't think the BAE argument holds up. BAE builds things that fly, and if they took over FIRST, water games would be the least of our worries. BAE has a vested interest in the workers they can acquire from FIRST, but not from the products they can sell to FIRST. Whereas Microsoft stands to gain a great deal from getting FIRST to use their platform. They'll have thousands to students using it, who'll be used to it, and continue to use it beyond high school. I don't know exactly what UTC does (aren't they a conglomerate of sorts?), but I don't think they have anything to gain from selling to us.

And, I don't think what people are concerned about is a "take over", where the FIRST staff at 200 Bedford are left out in the cold and Microsoft takes control of FIRST. What they're more worried about is a change from the relatively tried and true IFI controller configuration where we know exactly what we're getting.

I know what our mentors are at least concerned about is a movement towards a simplified coding environment, where the lower level stuff isn't accessable. I think FIRST stands too much to lose in the way of awesome autonomouses that they like to put in all of their promotional videos if they move in that direction though.