Microsoft's New Attempt To Dominate Robotics 225
An anonymous reader writes "IEEE Spectrum reports that Microsoft's Robotics Group is announcing new world domination plans — at least for the robotics world. The company is making its Robotics Developer Studio (RDS), which includes Microsoft's CCR and DSS runtime toolkit, available to anyone for free. Why make it a freebie? Because the company wants to expand its RDS base and get a grip on the robotics development space, hoping big things will come out of it."
Wow... (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, that is one biased summary.
Not only free as in beer! (Score:5, Insightful)
In addition to creating a single RDS release, the robotics group is also making the source code of selected program samples and other modules available online, hoping to improve collaboration among users. In particular, Microsoft wants to entice the growing community of hobbyists, do-it-yourselfers, and weekend robot builders.
They are releasing code. Which is worth mentioning in the summary, since we are talking about Microsoft. Obviously they are not opening the whole thing, because after they extend, they want to make money, but still it is interesting.
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
I will have to second the AC's opinion here...
We call this Business 101. Same reason Oracle kept java free...in the "goal" that its services would be desired later. (Keep Java popular and mainstream)
Why don't we just say we hate Apple, Microsoft, and all other corporations to be fair...or we can legitimately point out where corporations are unethical and not tolerate those acts and support good business practices (There are examples for Microsoft, Apple, etc. Every silver lining has a touch of gray). Plus why start complaining about free software, do you wish they charged for it?
Sorry for that rant...but this isn't front page new format, more flame-bait. As for creating software for robotics, I did find that interesting, thanks.
But it has a basis in the business model. (Score:3, Insightful)
Another example... (Score:2, Insightful)
.
Will Microsoft suck the innovation and profits out of the robotics industry in the same manner they sucked the innovation and profits out of the PC industry? Will the use of Microsoft's development environment environment force you to slow down your innovation to the level that Microsoft wants to accommodate?
Stay tuned to /. for updates..................
Re:But it has a basis in the business model. (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Every Exchange implementation I've been on in the last 15 years (starting at 1000, 5000, 9000 & my current job @ 15,000 users) has been just as "install and forget" as the first @ 200 users. Perhaps you're just doing it wrong?
Sounds like bad news to me (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice summary (Score:5, Insightful)
By the summary's logic, Linus Torvalds must be the next Dr. Evil, because he's been giving away Linux for over a decade.
Summary is Ridiculous Bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly people, there are more than enough valid reasons to dislike MS without adding imaginary ones. TFS takes the free release of what's probably at least nifty and interesting software and turns it into an irrelevant blurb about "world domination". As far as I can tell, MS dominates two (closely related) industries: home/office desktop and laptop OSes and utilities, and office software. They have also entered into many other markets, sometimes producing good products, sometimes bad, but never really getting the necessary leverage to "dominate" other, often better competitors for long. (e.g. Xbox, Zune, hotmail, Silverlight, Windows Mobile, Windows Server, even IE at this point.) I'm sure there is no shortage of asshats who go with MS simply because of an easy contract, but I'd like to think that robotics engineers and researchers aren't among them. If the tools are solid, great. If not, no one will care.
Seriously. Hate on MS because of sleazy monopoly abuse. Hate on them for releasing disappointing public-beta style software. But the sort of hyperbolic nonsense on the frontpage makes *NIXers look like unbalanced zealots.
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, dah, who would trust Microsoft to actually compete by making better products? Not too many who've seen them operate over the past 20+ years. If they are so good, let them sell API's which run on top of Linux. Oh wait, they die without the ties to Windows. IMO
LoB
Re:Wow... (Score:1, Insightful)
I will have to second the AC's opinion here...
We call this Business 101. Same reason Oracle kept java free...in the "goal" that its services would be desired later. (Keep Java popular and mainstream)
Why don't we just say we hate Apple, Microsoft, and all other corporations to be fair...or we can legitimately point out where corporations are unethical and not tolerate those acts and support good business practices (There are examples for Microsoft, Apple, etc. Every silver lining has a touch of gray). Plus why start complaining about free software, do you wish they charged for it?
Sorry for that rant...but this isn't front page new format, more flame-bait. As for creating software for robotics, I did find that interesting, thanks.
No charge /= free software.
Re:Wow... (Score:2, Insightful)
And it's that 'legal AND illegal' that worries some here. With one hand, Microsoft is openly doing something that is legal and will doubtless benefit some people. Given their history, what's the other hand doing? It's possible there isn't a concealed part of the overall process, but given that very same history, why is anyone in a rush to demand they get the benefit of our doubts? How many times does Microsoft have to demonstrate they have an ulterior motive, before everyone gets the memo?
Giving away your browser is legal. Having a monopoly is, in itself, legal. Not prosecuting everyone who distributes bootleg copies to overseas markets is legal. But whether they all should be or not, all these things have tied in to Microsoft doing things that (surprise) aren't legal. Now some Slashdotters don't think Antitrust should be the law. Some disagree over just what constitutes an abusive monopoly. Some think Europe is some socialist psycho-state that simply targets bigness. But the laws are what they are. Proving the court cases Microsoft has already lost has taken establishing how MS has had hidden motives for various actions that look open and aboveboard. The hidden motives are now on the record. So why does someone always seem to demand the rest of us prove those methods and motives are coming up again, when after five or six good examples, the burden of proof ought to at least have shifted the other way?
Re:Wow... (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with the spirit of your post, but certainly not this statement. It's 100% true.
Microsoft is a deeply shitty company, not because of the software it makes, but because of how it behaves in the larger community. Always has been. You are entirely correct to point out we should not give a Google/Apple a pass on ANYTHING just because they are not Microsoft, but let's not start rewriting Microsoft's dirty history to support that point either.
Point in fact, Apple worries me a lot more than Microsoft at this point with it's shiny walled garden approach and holier than thou attitudes, and Google worries me with it's, "let's record and store everything and sort out all the ethics later" approach. Not to mention, Google does some pretty dirty things, but just does it with company names they acquired. *cough* FaceBook *cough*.
Considering how Microsoft has handled some things like IE, the fear about how the same thing would happen in Robotics is quite valid, and the logic is not based in simplistic Microsoft bashing.
Re:Give stuff away = still evil? (Score:3, Insightful)
mucking foron - did you see what microsoft did to its last attempt at putting out open source stuff? just killed it not too long ago. so... sure, yeah, whatever.
Re:Give stuff away = still evil? (Score:3, Insightful)
As with most religions, F/OSS zealots like what they like and hate what they hate without regard to fundamental principles.
Re:Nice summary (Score:3, Insightful)
If MS would be opening up the code for everyone under an open license, that would be news. But until that, it's just a marketing gag to get a foot in a new market.
Re:Wow... (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, yes, "no charge" == "free software". What you probably meant is that "no charge" != "Free Software".
Re:Another example... (Score:1, Insightful)
Apple and Commodore owned the PERSONAL COMPUTER industry
Sure. That alternate universe would have been so cool, where I'd have to pay f**** $10,000 for a toaster made by Apple. Say what you will abt MS's abusive monopoly practices (they are guilty as daylight), I like having cheap hardware for my Ubuntu distro. And IBM clones were cheap.
Seriously, ease up on the Mac-kool-aid. Side effects include delusions...
Re:Not only free as in beer! (Score:1, Insightful)
As I read it, it is unfortunately only free as in beer. What they're talking about is releasing sample programs written in RDS. That's very different from releasing any source code for RDS itself.
Re:But it has a basis in the business model. (Score:2, Insightful)
Khan... or, Ahab...
Re:Wow... (Score:2, Insightful)
When was the last time Microsoft had a success with any thing new? I hate to break it to you but the reason we don't hear more complaining about Windows 7 is coporations are still clinging to their XP licences and most home users are clinging to their pirated copies of XP.
Re:Wow... (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe it's time to stop being so angry about something that, if you'd only stop using it, wouldn't even affect you?
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wow... (Score:1, Insightful)
That's funny, because I thought 7 was great.
That's strange, unless you're from the future, the 7 [windowsphone7.com] the GP was referring to isn't even out yet.
It just shuts up and sits in the background making all of the bits of your computer work, without you having to even notice it.
Yeah, wake me up when any version of Windows even remotely resembles that in any way. Or you could, you know, just embrace reality and realize that between the annoying UAC prompts the absurdly circular menu in a menu configuration settings, constant popups from various programs wanting to be updated, incessant whining from various "security" software, nagware wanting you to upgrade to whatever the next expensive version is, it's really just the same old annoying in your face crap that MS has been putting out for 15 years. I understand a fanboy like you can't fathom the possibility that there could be any other way than the MS way but, trust me, Windows is far from the fairy tale you are making it out to be. Fortunately for me, I found a better [ubuntu.com] way. Now my computer just works. No more viruses, spyware, trojan-ware, adobe upgrade this, java upgrade that, "are you really sure?", wga thinks I'm a thief, etc. anymore. Finally, I can compute in peace and actually Get Work Done.
Re:Wow... (Score:0, Insightful)
Yawn. And the trolls are still harping about netscape and ie. MS has over 4000 commercial, in-house and custom products.
If they are so good, let them sell API's which run on top of Linux.
Huh? The API is only good if they port it to Linux? LOL. I understand that you anti-ms trolls have suffered some brain damage. But cmon, a child can make better arguments.
Re:Not only free as in beer! (Score:1, Insightful)
Why the hell would a person interested in robotics want the source code to a programming IDE?
Re:Nice summary (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux doesn't have a proven track record of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Step 1, embrace whatever new protocol it is. Everyone's happy that MS gets on board. Step 2, extend the protocol with MS-specific tech. Competitors can't use this because it's patented or relies on knowledge of the inner workings of closed-source software. Step 3, extinguish. When the extensions become industry-standard, use them to smash competition. Winner: Microsoft.
Note that this isn't some sort of flamebait. Microsoft invented these terms in their own internal memos to describe their business practices.
Re:Wow... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Having a monopoly is, in itself, legal."
No, it's not. There are anti-trust laws for specifically this sort of thing.
If that were true, the first company to make any product would always be breaking the law. What's illegal is using control of a market to stifle competition.