Linden Lab is building a NEW virtual world

[Ebbe Linden]

Agreed, just a bit early to be that specific. More to come....

[Drongle McMahon]

"new ways to create that hasn't been done before"

:matte-motes-shocked: Ah! Now there's something to tickle even the most jaded imagination!

[arton Rotaru]

---

Drongle McMahon wrote:

"new ways to create that hasn't been done before"

:matte-motes-shocked: Ah! Now there's something to tickle even the most jaded imagination!

---

:matte-motes-big-grin:

To boldly go where no man has gone before...:matte-motes-nerdy:

I already have the tools which can do things which go beyond imagination. I just need a playground for them. :matte-motes-sunglasses-3:

 

[Ebbe Linden]

So you think SL can continue forever and still be competitive enought to matter in the future? 

We are going to do our best to make it  smooth, but if we have to make a crappy product with crazy complexity and poor user experience to preserve some very specific content compatability we don't want to cause those problems. 

A lot of what you have will be possible to move across and more specifics will come through over time. 

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Yes, Perrie linked to that graph and i agree, that does appear to be when the decline began.

What you haven't done is tell us what change happened to search at that time. It's not that I haven't asked. I have. What you claimed about search definitely didn't happen - I've proved that with evidence - and you haven't come up with anything else.

I'm happy if you've finished with this discussion. I'm sorry that you've steadfastly refused to accept the truth, even when it stares you in the face, as does the pre-GSA search. But it's your choice. You made a number of statements that have been irrefutably proved to be wrong. The last one you're left with is your theory as to why SL started its decline. You were shown proof that what you wrote wasn't right, and you were asked if you meant something else, and, if so, what. But you haven't answered. In fact, you've managed to avoid answering anything that you don't have answers for - and there's been a lot 

On three different parts, you been given actual proof that what you claimed simply isn't true, and yet you cling steadfastly to your claims. I'm sorry. Actual proof is usually enough for people but not, it seems, for you.

---

You haven't proved anything at all.

You have not pointed to 1 thing but a 3rd party viewer

.

I have pointed to actual proof, from all creditable sources.

You might very well have a point that parts of the GSA were used before the official announcement, but Torley's video proves exactly how the search engine worked at that time, which matched EXACTLY with what I said.

You have only addressed whether parts of the GSA were used. At best you can argue that my statement about GSA being the core problem is wrong. This, again, you can only argue, because it isn't proven. Whether it was GSA or just a change in algorhytms, it is irrelevant. That facts are that there were major changes.

Oh, 1 of the reasons I always remember the April 2 date, is that it was such a disaster, that some1 created a webpage that counted how many days since LL broke search. It went on for a couple years too, but I think it is closed now.

---

I have provided actual proof of three different things, each of which prove that what you claim is wrong.

This is one of my proofs that you were wrong. Third party viewers are where you can still see the original search system operating. The system isn't implemented by TPVs. It's implemented by SL and is displayed in the viewers. But you won't even look because it will prove you to be wrong about how the results in the orginal search system were/are ranked.

This is another of my proofs that you were wrong. Your "proof from creditable sources" was not proof of what you claimed. You claimed that the Torley video was about the original search system but it was about that system's replacement - the GSA. So much for that proof huh?

The other proof you provided only proved that you were wrong. You thought it was proving that the GSA arrived when the V2. I proved that the GSA arrived 2 years earlier. Yes, actual irrefutable 

proof

. It's all still there in this thread if you have eyes to see.

My, you are so very stubborn. No, Medhue. Parts of the GSA were not used before the official announcement. ALL of the GSA was used - never just parts of it. Torley's video demonstrated it in December 2007. It was in the Release candidate viewer at that time. very soon afterwards, it was in the main viewer. But let me rimind you - you offered Torley's video as proof that the original search system made use of objects on pages. You didn't even realise that the video was about the search sysrtem that replaced the orginal system. So that proof of yours wasn't proof of anything that you tried to prove. You got it wrong. It didn't match exactly with what you said.

It was the wrong engine for what you were claiming.

It would only have matched if you'd made the claim about the GSA, but you were trying to prove something about the orginal search. You proof failed.

Not "parts of the GSA". The GSA as a whole. Parts never came into this discussion. Anyway, it's nice to see you backing down a little now - from the search engine changed, to it might have just been some algorithms that changed. We're making prgress. However...

I most certainly can argue that no change of search engine system occured at the time when the V2 was launched. You've been shown categorical, and irrefutable, proof that the GSA was the search system 2 years before the V2 came along. So the GSA didn't arrive at that time. A replacement for the GSA perhaps? No. Absoluutely not. A couple of years later, yes, but not when the V2 arrived. Algo changes? Again no. LL could not change the GSA's algorithms. They could fiddle on the outside of it but they had no access to the code.

So we get to what you actually wrote - that the decline was caused by objects no longer being listed on parcel pages. That's a potted version of what you wrote. Now, I can't actually prove that that didn't happen. All I can say is that I was heavily involved with the SL search at that time, and I promise you it didn't happen. Not only that, but it hasn't happened since then either. I've shown you the current pages, and all the objects are on them. Since the GSA arrived 2 years ealier, parcels have had pages with the objects listed on them, and that's still the case. What you wrote as the cause of the decline was totally wrong. It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact.

My third proof that you were wrong concerned your outlandish claim that a change to search caused SL to decline - specifically that, before the change, ovbjects were listed on parcle pages and could be found in search, and after the change, objects were no longer listed on parcel pages and couldn't be found in search. Some theory, huh? But it didn't happen, and I proved it by showing a current parcel page - with all the objects still listed, of course. I also described a demo to prove that objects are on parcel pages and can be found in search.

You've never understood how any of the search systems we've had in SL work. You've imagined - I'll grant you that - but your imaginations were totally wrong, as is your reason for SL going into decline, What you claimed simply didn't happen.

Sorry about this color. I've run out of decent ones to highlight the parts of your post I'm replying to. This is a reply to the last paragraph.

During the GSA era, people often claimed that LL broke search. They couldn't break the GSA because they had no access to it, but they fiddled on the ouside to influnece the results in keeping with SL specifics. For instance, pre-GSA, places were ranked solely on traffic and traffic was gamed to death. They kept a small traffic influence with the GSA but they couldn't make the GSA take account of it. Remember I told you how links to pages push pages up the rankings? Well that's what LL used so that traffic had a small influence. They created 12 additional pages of links for the GSA spider to crawn and index. The top n places according to traffic got a link on all 12 pages. The next n pages according to traffic got links on 11 pages, etc. etc. So the more traffic a place had, the more of the 12 pages it got links on. The pages were updated daily, of course.That's the sort of external fiddle that LL had to use to influence reults.

Getting back to LL breaking search. People often claimed it, and, on occasion they did something that changed things quite a lot. One of those occasions might have been around the time when the V2 was launched. BUT what did NOT happen at that or any other time, was objects no longer being listed on places' pages, but that's what you claimed happened and you claimed it caused SL to go into decline. Since the GSA arrived, right up until today, objects have been listed on parcel pages, and can be found in search.

 

Comment (not specifically a reply to your post)

I'm sorry, Medhue, but you know next to nothing about the SL search systems through the years. For whatever reason, you've managed to mix things up, and even add something that never happened. Everything you've said in this thread about search has been wrong. What you said about the cause of the decline was wrong. The fact of the decline is true, of course, but the cause you stated was wrong.

Someone told me that you're stubborn. I can see that that's true. A person needs to be stubborn to argue in the face of irrefutable proof

The person added, "just like you" - meaning me. I'm stubborn too. I'm stubborn in this discussion because I know it all. I'm the expert on SL search (except the latest one because I lost interest). And I can afford to be stubborn in this discussion because I've provided not one but three irrefutable proofs that prove three of your claims to be wrong. Such proof cannot be argued against except by a really stubborn person

 - and such a person cannot win against such proof.

Although I can be stubborn, I do pride myself on the fact that, when I'm shown to be mistaken, I admit it. I'm not too proud to accept being mistaken or wrong.

---

oooooh pretty... like a rainbow of text.

[Phoebe Avro]

Ebbe,

Do you know some thing we don't I noticed you have used the word 'competitive' a lot in your posts?

As far as i know sl has no competitors, maybe high fidelity but they are not a competitor are they?

I don't wan't to wear a brick on my head

Since I have not won 80 million on the Euro lotto yet and i did promise my friends if i did i would open 3rd life under the company name of Reliable Lab I am wondering who the potential competitors may be? ^^

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Ebbe Linden wrote:

So you think SL can continue forever and still be competitive enought to matter in the future? 

We are going to do our best to make it  smooth, but if we have to make a crappy product with crazy complexity and poor user experience to preserve some very specific content compatability we don't want to cause those problems. 

A lot of what you have will be possible to move across and more specifics will come through over time. 

---

Competitive enough with whom? Please name any competition to SL. Anything even close to the number of users. Anything that allows the ability to create like SL does.

Anyone else hear crickets?

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Ebbe Linden wrote:

Thanks. So FB/Oculus came out and said they are going to do a VW for a billoin people. I did not hear a peep from anyone here. How compatibale will that world be? When will all users run over to that one? Should I invest in SL now that they are donig that...etc. 

If all users move rather quickly from SL to our next gen then I assume things went very well. If few are, then I think we'd have more work to do and SL will keep on tickin until only the new one makes sense to operate...

I can't give a clear path for exactly when and how this transition may or may not happen (could be that they are side by side for a very long time). 

All I've said is that we're doing it, we're going to invest a lot to do it, and that from now on forward we'll all be talking about it with more and more detail as time goes by. You'll be along for the ride. Trying to hide it for a long period where we can answer all the questions by the time we do reveal it I don't think would work becuase it would come out anyway and second, I want to have dialog with you all about it rather than come up with all the answers first (and then get yelled at for not including you sooner

. 

So, my recommendation is that if you have interest in VW then use the best product there is (SL) and as time goes on we will figure out how to make it worthwhile for you to stay with us and work through the transition over time . But none of us can predict what the world will look like 2 years from now (regardless of what we do or do not do). 

---

There was some peeping (though not much, as you've noted) about the FB/Oculus acquisition. I was (I think) the first to mention it, by admitting an oops. The reason we barely peeped is probably that our little tribe didn't see that competition as coming from our kin. I think we peeped more about Creatorverse, Blocksworld, Patterns, etc, than FB/Oculus. That's because we saw those not so much as competitors for our attention as for LL's.

You spoiled us.

But I'm in agreement with you about creating something new. If someone creates a VW that spawns a business that's provably larger/more profitable than LL, that would be a success. I think many here would grudgingly (and some enthusiastically) agree. If that VW doesn't attract a single one of us, it would still be a success. I think some of us would still, though even more grudgingly, agree. If LL were the ones to create that VW? Well then, all you Lindens can go to Hell!

If you manage to pull that off, I'll be the first little hellion to congratulate you.

;-).

 

 

[Phoebe Avro]

Oculus Rift is not gonna make the next gen in VR worlds, its a gimmick, If LL want to make real cash then something like the sinful robot project and  Oculus Rift  makes sense^^

[Kayleigh McMillan]

I agree with you that SL needs to innovate with today's standards.

A smooth working platform which is perfect today is one part of it but I also think the residents, friends, (shopping) events, groups, niches within, perhaps a more poorly performing SL, should not be underestimated.

Without such strong networks Second Life was nothing with an outdated interface or not I feel.

This is why I think Second Life doesn't easily find serious compettion because so much enthousiastic efforts over the years went into your platform this part isn't copyable.

Therefore I think Second Life will always matter because we exchange more than we can even imagine.

I feel strongly that it didn't matter how promising other grids may have seemed it never crossed anyone's mind to stick with them because we have it all here.

We've found our niche why would we leave all that behind?

Second Life is also a lot about the experience besides the technique.

I love to breed for example (sculpted cats) our large community loves them and we have a very devoted community to the cats we breed and eachother and we don't care much that it are cute animated sculpties, I am positive no one cares for that in fact.

And totally on the side note we are so attached to those pixel beings that we spend a lot of money on new traits etc. while it are really just cute sculpties from which I think your new platform may not support them.

SL makes no sense without these kitties for many people I know from out this community.

I guess what I'm trying to say is the success of Second Life and it's platform depends on more than technology alone but also the fun and passions we share and friends we make with this.

These things were not created over night but took years of investments on many levels.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Ebbe Linden wrote:

So you think SL can continue forever and still be competitive enought to matter in the future? 

We are going to do our best to make it  smooth, but if we have to make a crappy product with crazy complexity and poor user experience to preserve some very specific content compatability we don't want to cause those problems. 

A lot of what you have will be possible to move across and more specifics will come through over time. 

---

Competitive enough with whom? Please name any competition to SL. Anything even close to the number of users. Anything that allows the ability to create like SL does.

Anyone else hear crickets?

---

Topeka, Kansas.

Actually the average concurrency of Topeka is double the average concurrency of Second Life.

Have you been to Topeka?

[arton Rotaru]

Sinful Robot is history as well, even with Rift support.

But yeah, the Rift might attract a handful of people to virtual worlds, but it's certainly not something the casual Resident will want have in their face all day.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Ebbe Linden wrote:

So you think SL can continue forever and still be competitive enought to matter in the future? 

We are going to do our best to make it  smooth, but if we have to make a crappy product with crazy complexity and poor user experience to preserve some very specific content compatability we don't want to cause those problems. 

A lot of what you have will be possible to move across and more specifics will come through over time. 

---

Competitive enough with whom? Please name any competition to SL. Anything even close to the number of users. Anything that allows the ability to create like SL does.

Anyone else hear crickets?

---

Okay, let me start listing competitors...

• Facebook
• Netflix
• Pandora
• XBox Live
• Online porn
• A new child
• A used Miata(!)

Some of these competitors are intentional, some are natural, some are accidental, some are unavoidable. Second Life is not competing with other virtual worlds for our attention(money). It's competiting with everything. SL may have cornered us, but the SL concurrency charts reveal it's a stagnant to shrinking corner.

Look at the last five years of SL concurrency...

As you see, SL can't even compete with its former self. Yes I know about the sweeping out of the bots. Nevertheless, the trend continues. And this is why, like it or not, I'm sanguine about Ebbe's recent revelations. This is not about what I want, it's about LL's future success.

All our discussions about Oculus rift, before Facebook's acquisition for USD$2 Billion, were blinkered by our biases. I thought they'd go nowhere. USD$2 Billion is a heck of a lot of nowhere. I'm willing to consider the possibility that Facebook is smarter than me. I'm willing to extend that consideration (for now) to Ebbe as well.

;-).

 

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Ebbe Linden wrote:

So you think SL can continue forever and still be competitive enought to matter in the future? 

We are going to do our best to make it  smooth, but if we have to make a crappy product with crazy complexity and poor user experience to preserve some very specific content compatability we don't want to cause those problems. 

A lot of what you have will be possible to move across and more specifics will come through over time. 

---

Competitive enough with whom? Please name any competition to SL. Anything even close to the number of users. Anything that allows the ability to create like SL does.

Anyone else hear crickets?

---

Topeka, Kansas.

Actually the average concurrency of Topeka is

double

 the average concurrency of Second Life.

Have you

been

to Topeka?

---

I've been to Topeka, home of "Brown vs. Board of Education", the Kansas Evolution Hearings (I'll argue that the existence of Topeka is "only a theory") and the first city to rename itself "Google".

And, come autumn, they have lots of... crickets!!!

[Charlotte Bartlett]

I am looking forward to it, but I always like a new shiny

Implementation I can imagine will be hugely challenging, but personally having the chance of SL remaining (or becoming more!) relevant is how it will compete to me.   Right now it's competing with a million other ways I can spend time and having something that offers the opportunity to grow even more years with SL, to me, is worth the pain of transition if successfully managed. I have never stopped loving making SL thingies since 2006 so whilst I am nervous about how this will be delivered, I am hopeful for what it can bring.

I hope LL are also considering:

(a) Art direction as a key dependency to the critical path in delivery of the new world.

(b) Robust Alpha under NDA with survey for sign up so a good section of the user approach / technology used etc are tested for.

© Early and Often!  A method to identify the key stakeholder groups in the existing customer base (e.g. Merchant, Land Renter) and devise a way to solicit very focused feedback (e.g. detailed surveys) not on the solutions we want in the new world, but specifically today what are the problems we see that inhibit us using/promoting/enjoying/staying in SL more.  This may be helpful to add to the lessons learned to help craft the requirements if there are common themes through them.    This however should not be done at the expense of losing sight of also why people do stay connected to SL and those drivers.

 

 

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Ebbe Linden wrote:

So you think SL can continue forever and still be competitive enought to matter in the future? 

We are going to do our best to make it  smooth, but if we have to make a crappy product with crazy complexity and poor user experience to preserve some very specific content compatability we don't want to cause those problems. 

A lot of what you have will be possible to move across and more specifics will come through over time. 

---

Competitive enough with whom? Please name any competition to SL. Anything even close to the number of users. Anything that allows the ability to create like SL does.

Anyone else hear crickets?

---

Okay, let me start listing competitors...

• Facebook
• Netflix
• Pandora
• XBox Live
• Online porn
• A new child
• A used Miata(!)

Some of these competitors are intentional, some are natural, some are accidental, some are unavoidable. Second Life is not competing with other virtual worlds for our attention(money). It's competiting with everything. SL may have cornered us, but the SL concurrency charts reveal it's a stagnant to shrinking corner.

Look at the

last five years of SL concurrency

...

As you see, SL can't even compete with its former self. Yes I know about the sweeping out of the bots. Nevertheless, the trend continues. 

And this is why, like it or not, I'm sanguine about Ebbe's recent revelations. This is not about what I want, it's about LL's future success.

All our discussions about Oculus rift, before Facebook's acquisition for USD$2 Billion, were blinkered by our biases.

I thought they'd go nowhere.

USD$2 Billion is a heck of a lot of nowhere. I'm willing to consider the possibility that Facebook is smarter than me. I'm willing to extend that consideration (for now) to Ebbe as well.

;-).

 

 

---

Let me rephrase... Name any Virtual world that allows the same abilities as SL that is actually competition.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

Let me rephrase... Name any Virtual world that allows the same abilities as SL that is actually competition.

---

That's like asking me to name any other male who could compete against my ex-husband for my attention.

There aren't any, not even him.

He's remarried. He has a lovely family. I'm happy for him.

;-).

[Parrish Ashbourne]

Not sure if this has all ready been posted it got a lot of information and insight to this situation,  and that they are not giving up on SL, it is how ever a 2 hour meeting but worth the time to watch, the first half is about new features in SL, Ebbe comes in about half way, the after meeting is good to watch too more about the future of the current SL in that part.

[irihapeti]

---

Ebbe Linden wrote:

that from now on forward we'll all be talking about it with more and more detail as time goes by. You'll be along for the ride.

---

am happy with this answer. Will be a fun ride I think

[Tanita Blackburn]

As much as I understand the need of technical innovation - the success of Second Life does not only depend on that. The main reason why Second Life is struggeling for some years is not hecause we need new stuff - what we need is new staff.

 

- We need more, better support. We need 24/7 Live Chat as Second Life is open 24/7.

- We need an abuse team that cares and act quickly and does not operate as a shadow army but interacts with users.

- We need a TOS which recognizes that user created content is owned by the creator and we need the Lab to protect them

- We need bug fixes ( just 1 example: that bug that causes that users cannot rez on their very own land receive the error message that "rezzing is not possible because the land owner does not allow it") is spreading out for at least two months now and concierge team is not getting tired to repeat that "a team is working on it and hopefully they come up with a solution soon"

 

Most of those who left didn't do that because they miss something new and shiny - they left because they have been ripped off numerous times, they gave up on support after waiting weeks if not months for help and because the Lab keeps ignoring us. Linden Lab never understood their users and they never understood their own product.

 

So before you work on a new grid I would recommend to make sure not to repeat the mistakes of the past and present or it will most definitely fail. You asked: Would you like us to do it or someone else ? - If I have to pack up and leave everything I created behind I want someone to do it who knows not only how to run the technical stuff but also how to deal with paying customers.

[Gavin Hird]

---

Ebbe Linden wrote:

So you think SL can continue forever and still be competitive enought to matter in the future? 

We are going to do our best to make it  smooth, but if we have to make a crappy product with crazy complexity and poor user experience to preserve some very specific content compatability we don't want to cause those problems. 

---

I agree the backend of SL is technically complex and a bit of a mess, but that can be gradually fixed. if you think serving users in the 10s or even 100s of millions of users is not going to be complex, then think again. 

The user experience is largely your own doing in the mess that was presented to the users through the viewer 2 interface, and even that can be undone dy directing far less resources to it than creating a completely new experience.  The TPV devlopers have done a good job in many cases with what hey've got, but to fix it you need to throw the best user interface designers on it, and make viewers that is platform aware and compliant. You also have to design for touch interfaces, but you'll have to do this anyway. 

 

You talk about competitiveness, and as others have pointed out, SecondLife is in direct competition with people's time spent between Facebook, their mobile devices and running their real lives. In this space creating a new user experience that touches 100s of millions of users is going to be a lot of work. 

 

I posted the below on another board where this topic is being discussed, and I will cross post it there as I think ti brings some perspective to what you are up to and why things may not pan out as expected: 

 

... there is a parallel between SL and iPhone, and what happened at their introduction.

 

- When Linden Labs introduced SecondLife, both because of the tools provided, but also because of the point in technology time, it was suddenly possible to create something that would wow a lot of people including the press. People who ventured into SecondLife, including myself, got a sense of "wow - I can do THAT on my computer!!!", and it quickly came to realization that most of the creations were made in such a way even I could do it. In addition it quickly became a venue for expressing lifestyles that are fringe or even forbidden in many societies, so it provided a valuable breathing space for many people. 

 

I think that wow period ended sometime in 2008, and for me, specifically at the 3+ day downtime at the end of March that year, after which a lot of things started to change in SecondLife. I call it the end of the SecondLife frontier period. 

 

 

- When Apple introduced the iPhone, people, including the press, got the "wow - you can do THAT on your phone!" feeling. When the app store started to fill with apps, it quickly transformed it from a phone to an ubiquitous tool that accompanied people in almost every aspect of their lives. 

 

 

- Both SL and the iPhone are at the outset technological tools, and their success are both driven by the creation tools and what can be shaped with them, but they depart in a fundamental way. 

 

While the first time experience of both is still a wow for new users, both mandates monetary outlays in terms of subscriptions and "in experience" purchases to get the best out of them, but where they depart is that SecondLife does not fill any fundamental need in their user's real life reality, while for the iPhone – when the wow wears off, it is still a fundamental communication tool, music provider and camera that people constantly use throughout their day. 

 

This is also the key to the success of Facebook and Twitter. – They fundamentally fill needs in people's real lives that people can actively use throughout the day with content that is hyper relevant to their own lives. 

 

- For secondLife to scale to tens or hundreds of millions it must transform to the reality of people's real lives and not offer them an opportunity to create an alternative life. - It must become an extension to their lives, just like Facebook, Twitter and iPhone has become. 

 

It is easy to forget when you sit in a western country, relatively well off compared to the majority of the world's population, that the reality for most people is they have enough fulfilling their real life dreams and even fundamental needs, so the incentive to create alternative realities are close to zero. That is a luxury we who have our bellies overstuffed all the time only can afford. And even in that space SecondLife and virtual worlds will compete for attention with everyone else who wants to wow you.

 

- As SecondLife now seems to be at a fork in the road, in my opinion, the fundamental choices for Linden Lab are a) shall we transform to a company "where the tool is the journey" or b) step into the relevance zone of people's real lives. 

 

a) requires less transformation than b) and is most likely a safer road than b) where the company will have massive challenges in being heard in this space that is now becoming very crowded. b) also mandates a transformation into a mobile platform where it can follow people throughout their entire day

 

a) means becoming a tool provider for others to create their worlds, communities and creations on. It means proliferation of the platform in a different way than b) above but it can financially be equally rewarding and more fun for the technologists in the company because it is easier to be at the bleeding edge

 

- There is also a third aspect of this that comes into play when you try to scale up the platform, and that is cultural context. 

 

The current SecondLife is primarily set in a Californian cultural context where the legislation of the location "the servers are in" spills over to what is halal and what is haram to use muslim expressions. This is a problem in that very large sections of the world does not necessarily share this cultural context, and that in itself becomes a barrier to entry. 

 

We have seen this in Europe in the European app stores where Apple, who is in the same cultural context as LL, have had major clashes with European content providers who are used to expressions in their print media that Apple does not allow in apps traded in their app store. We saw exactly the same with the adult cluster**bleep** that LL introduced where Europeans left in hordes over adult verification that they felt fundamentally stepped on their privacy (and factually where in conflict with privacy legislation inside the European union countries.)

 

So rather than provide one service for the world filled with content "California Dreaming" style (alt b above), the "tool is the journey" alternative can prove to be a much better alternative in that it allows people to create virtual worlds in the frame of their local cultural context and legislation without holding Linden Labs legally accountable for it. 

 

By enabling travel between such contexts, like when we go to some exotic place for vacation, it enables virtual travelers to have the same, unfiltered, exotic experiences. Alternative b) can only provide a watered down experience mandated by the legislation of the locale Linden Lab is incorporated in, in addition to what is the current political correct view of the area.

 

Personally I think LL's best bet is to take "the tool is the journey" fork of the road, and make the platform (and thereby content) available for multiple grid owners to provide experiences that are set in a multitude of contexts. 

This is also in realization that Linden Lab already is in the business of being an infrastructure provider (server backend, viewer and development tools), while being totally reliant on content providers to fill the space to attract end users.

Other companies I have worked for like Apple and IBM are in reality in the same space as LL. They both tried to move into the content owning space, as Microsoft also have tried, got burned and now avoid it as the plaque.  They all excel at delivering very good infrastructure, middleware and tools so that the content providers can do what they excel at; creating content (both consumer and business), experiences and organizing communities and complex business relations. This has also made them very rich and influential companies. 

 

[Gavin Hird]

---

Ebbe Linden wrote:

So we'll talk about it. Or maybe I could have kept you in the dark for another month or two until it leaked out anyway (hard to hide such a big effort). And we have a long way to go to have all the answers to all the questions you may want. I figured sooner is better than later (even thought we don't have all the answers). 

---

Unfortunately when you are in the business of being a platform provider that people depends on for doing their business and making ends meet you have to have a little bit more meat on the bones before you announce something that could impact their business in a major way, and thereby indirectly your own. 

Now of course the cat is out of the bag, and I posted what I think perhaps might be your best bet for advancing and why SecondLife, as it is, runs into scalability issues that has nothing to do with technical issues, but rather cultural issues. 

There is nothing wrong trying to create, and have very high ambitions for a new experience that touches millions and millions, but you have to do it in a way that does not throw the baby out with the bathwater and ensures your current customer base both find it worthwhile to continue to invest in your old venture while you are busy reaching your new target.

In addition you must ensure them the business case that is as compelling as developing for other platforms – particularly since there seems to be an increasing focus on professional developers. A very large section of the current content was created on the enthusiastic and entrepreneurial spirit that existed in the first years of SecondLife. This might be very hard to recreate on a new platform.   

 

[LillyBeth Filth]

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

Let me be Clear about Why SL started to Decline, and why it is a direct result of the search engine.

LL changing to GSA is EXACTLY why SL started to decline. This is because business owners were no longer being found in the search engine and were no longer making enough to pay for those parcels. Hence why people immediately stopped buying more land and letting go of the islands they had.

What was it about the old search engine that made it so good for every1, including LL? See, this is easy to explain. Because the more land you owned gave you more object keywords, you were ranked higher than people with less land. How much land you owned in SL, was a direct representation of how much wealth you created in SL, at least for merchants. We could not own that much land if we were not generating enough money to pay for that land. When all those objects on your land were no longer counted in the search engine, no body could find your products inworld. Before the GSA, the search engine was almost specifically designed, whether by accident or not, for merchants. It made it as easy as possible to find products.

When merchants blame the Marketplace, I cringe, because the reality is, that the Marketplace is the only thing that saved my business. Every1 flocked to the Marketplace, which made my products able to be found. Of course, I did much better on Xstreet than I do with LL's version, because again, Xstreet was geared for the best merchants, and not about being fair. Today, the SL Marketplace ranks products by sales mostly, when it really should be ranked by relevance first and then price. This promotes more sales and the user can simply refine their search if they want something different. To think that something is too high priced and scares customers is kind of dumb, because the merchant is pricing their product according to their sales. If it's priced high, that really means all parties are happy with that price. Plus, higher prices products have more features and are generally better, which makes the customers happier. The most sold products will always be the 1 linden or 10 linden products, as nobody cares about spending 10 lindens, which kind of means the product is worthless, or almost.

---

Word of mouth is what made people find my store. I asked customers over and over, I even did in world surveys and 90% said they came because they knew someone who bought from me or they were given some textures which had my name in the properties.

A very small percent came from the small search fee I ran and those that TP in from clicking on the listing usually TP right back out as soon as they saw the size of the store. 

I can't say whether the ML "saved" my sales but I can say in world shopping (For textures at least) is dead. This makes sense as its laggy viewing in world so it makes sense to see it on a website LAG free which is why we built our own website in 2008.

Anyone who joined SL after 2010 thinks an in world store is "Quirky" they have all been driven to the Marketplace curtesy of Linden Labs marketing. 

 

 

[Jo Yardley]

In case you've missed it;

SL2 is scheduled to go into beta next year and public in 2016;

http://joyardley.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/second-life-2-scheduled-for-2016-launch/

[Racheal Rexen]

I hope LL invites content creators to the Beta, so there is plenty of new content when it goes public, at any rate i don't see the new SL being hit right away with a lack of content