Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft's New Attempt To Dominate Robotics

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."

16 of 225 comments (clear)

  1. Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wow, that is one biased summary.

    1. Re:Wow... by masterwit · · 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.

      --
      We should start a new Slashdot and return control to the geeks. It actually wouldn't be that hard to get some users to
    2. Re:Wow... by Locutus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Microsoft has a LONG LONG LONG history of doing all things legal and illegal to win market share. So dah, blindly thinking they are giving out the SDK free, as in beer, has a high probability it will not feel free or really be free if they win much market share. Look at how they handled the browser for a good example of how they work. They even tried making MS IE free but that wasn't working very well so they had to tie it to the OS, spread its bits all over the OS to fight orders to keep it separate, and even buy up Netscape contracts and pay companies for every unit shipped. And then they shipped a browser with many tied directly to proprietary features of only their platform.

      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

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    3. Re:Wow... by EdIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Give the MS bashing a rest. Not only is it no longer true, it's dangerous, as just focusing on Microsoft leaves Google and Apple free to do whatever they want without any kind of check.

      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.

    4. Re:Wow... by Smallpond · · Score: 2, 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.

  2. Not only free as in beer! by aBaldrich · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From the article:

    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.

    --
    In soviet russia the government regulates the companies.
  3. But it has a basis in the business model. by xzvf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They offer Internet Explorer for free undercutting Netscape's business model. They offer Outlook with a pretty user GUI and integrated with Office to push users to ask for Exchange. An email program that's easy to setup the first 50 users, but a nightmare for large corporations. Active Directory simplifies an all Windows environment, but mangles LDAP so you have to jump through hoops to add any other desktop to the environment. Sharepoint is really cool and easy to setup until you have to set controls and expand it enterprise wide. RDS is cool for simulating robotic programming and could be nice for education, but you'll end up with something that's easy to get started with, but a nightmare to really implement.

    1. Re:But it has a basis in the business model. by The+Spoonman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      An email program that's easy to setup the first 50 users, but a nightmare for large corporations.

      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?

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    2. Re:But it has a basis in the business model. by falzer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Khan... or, Ahab...

  4. Sounds like bad news to me by thenextstevejobs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Didn't RTFA, but I'm assuming that the main idea here is lock-in to MS products and technologies. That means it'll be harder to share work and ideas down the road because of artificial dependencies on MS to run the code, etc. Hopefully folks in the field will hold their ground and build their work on top of open, sharable, neutral platforms

    --
    Long live the BSD license
  5. Nice summary by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:Nice summary by devent · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Linus doesn't give Linux for free, he's giving it for Free. Meaning, you can do what ever you like with Linux and it's source code.

      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.

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    2. Re:Nice summary by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  6. Summary is Ridiculous Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  7. Re:Give stuff away = still evil? by the_B0fh · · Score: 2, 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.

  8. Re:Give stuff away = still evil? by ClosedSource · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As with most religions, F/OSS zealots like what they like and hate what they hate without regard to fundamental principles.