Jump to content

Linden Lab is building a NEW virtual world


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1967 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts


madjim wrote:


Medhue Simoni wrote:


madjim wrote:


Medhue Simoni wrote:

 

As far as MS not being part of the mobile market, I would beg to differ, as the Surface Pro is the only actually productive tablet on the market. It is the only tablet that is what tablets should have been from the start. Presently, I have yet to buy a tablet, as why would I buy a useless toy to read webpages. That's only worth about 50 cent to me. I might actually go get the Surface Pro 3 tho.


Given your apparent propensity to back obvious losers, please don't offer me any racing tips.

Father "heaping Pelion upon Ossa" Jim

Using this same logic, Apple was a loser for the vast majority of their existence. Even today, if you look at the stats on any website, you'll see that it's not people with apple products visiting websites the most. I don't base things on HYPE, but the facts.

Apple is STILL a loser. Check those stats of iPhones against Android. Just like Mac and PC all over again.

Father "Losers buy Apple products because they want to be like other losers" Jim

My point is, that if you can make a profit without using government money, then I would hardly call you a loser. I total agree with your Father. People that buy Apple products, are, for the most part, ignorant, and care more about being trending, than what is smart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


Madelaine McMasters wrote:



Regarding ad spending, Apple's competitors vastly outspend it...

 


Since you said you are an evidence base thinker, I'll point out that this isn't an argument against what I said. If anything, it is proof that these company's are trying to emulate Apple. It's an argument for my position, not against it. They even use Apple as their benchmark, and that tells you alot. Today, Apple doesn't need to advertise as much cause they can market directly to schools and teachers, who will do their marketing for them.

As far as value in a Brand, sorry but that all depends on what you think that brand represents. I see no added value at all. If there is any at all, it is destroyed by the price difference, and the shear amount of products the people using their competition can use.

 


Madelaine McMasters wrote:


 

Regarding Apple's dependence on the education market...

Apple's 2013 total revenue was
. Of that,
came from the education market (I don't have ed revenue for the full year, but if the best quarter topped $1Billion for the first time, the year total can't be much above $4Billion). 
I don't think Apple would go bankrupt on losing 2.4% of revenue.

 

I'm an evidence based thinker, and look forward to evidence to support your claims.

What is missing here, is Apple's definition of what constitutes their educational market. I'll also point out, that if we want to talk just about Apple's total profits, then we shouldn't be talking about their actual products, outside of their stock. I don't know the exact numbers, but it's likely that their stock alone makes up a good portion of those profits. It's kind of the same as saying that Facebook made all this money, but the actually platform didn't make a profit at all. It's all speculative money, that could be lost in an instant. It's not real tangible profits.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Medhue Simoni wrote:


madjim wrote:


Medhue Simoni wrote:


madjim wrote:


Medhue Simoni wrote:

 

As far as MS not being part of the mobile market, I would beg to differ, as the Surface Pro is the only actually productive tablet on the market. It is the only tablet that is what tablets should have been from the start. Presently, I have yet to buy a tablet, as why would I buy a useless toy to read webpages. That's only worth about 50 cent to me. I might actually go get the Surface Pro 3 tho.


Given your apparent propensity to back obvious losers, please don't offer me any racing tips.

Father "heaping Pelion upon Ossa" Jim

Using this same logic, Apple was a loser for the vast majority of their existence. Even today, if you look at the stats on any website, you'll see that it's not people with apple products visiting websites the most. I don't base things on HYPE, but the facts.

Apple is STILL a loser. Check those stats of iPhones against Android. Just like Mac and PC all over again.

Father "Losers buy Apple products because they want to be like other losers" Jim

My point is, that if you can make a profit without using government money, then I would hardly call you a loser. I total agree with your Father.
People that buy Apple products, are, for the most part, ignorant, and care more about being trending, than what is smart.

Again Medhue, I'm going to ask you to back up your claim with evidence.

I just Googled "apple owner demographics". Here's the first (for me) returned link...

http://www.marketingprofs.com/charts/2013/10957/how-iphone-and-android-ownership-varies-by-demographic

From which I cribbed this chart...

Apple:Android User Demographics.jpg

 

The average Apple phone owner appears to have higher income and education than the average Android phone owner. If you are right about Apple owners being ignorant, might we then conclude that ignorance is the result of education, and results in greater financial success? I'm willing to entertain the former idea, but the latter would really bother me.

I haven't digested all the information here, but it's interesting that Apple owners skew older. That might explain the higher income as people work their way up through their careers. But it doesn't explain your trendiness theory. It has been my experience that the young favor trends. Old timers are thought to be stuck in their ways, aren't they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Medhue Simoni wrote:


 People that buy Apple products, are, for the most part, ignorant, and care more about being trending, than what is smart.


It is interesting that you, as a developer, find a user base of 750+ million uninteresting and stupid, despite their willingness to pay, and pay more for your potential product. 

But that is perfect with me – one less competitor ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Medhue Simoni wrote:


Madelaine McMasters wrote:



Regarding ad spending, Apple's competitors vastly outspend it...

 


Since you said you are an evidence base thinker, I'll point out that this isn't an argument against what I said.
If anything, it is proof that these company's are trying to emulate Apple.
It's an argument for my position, not against it. They even use Apple as their benchmark, and that tells you alot. Today, Apple doesn't need to advertise as much cause they can market directly to schools and teachers, who will do their marketing for them.

As far as value in a Brand, sorry but that all depends on what you think that brand represents. I see no added value at all.
If there is any at all, it is destroyed by the price difference, and the shear amount of products the people using their competition can use.

 

Madelaine McMasters wrote:


 

Regarding Apple's dependence on the education market...

Apple's 2013 total revenue was
. Of that,
came from the education market (I don't have ed revenue for the full year, but if the best quarter topped $1Billion for the first time, the year total can't be much above $4Billion). 
I don't think Apple would go bankrupt on losing 2.4% of revenue.

 

I'm an evidence based thinker, and look forward to evidence to support your claims.

What is missing here, is Apple's definition of what constitutes their educational market.
I'll also point out, that if we want to talk just about Apple's total profits, then we shouldn't be talking about their actual products, outside of their stock. I don't know the exact numbers, but it's likely that their stock alone makes up a good portion of those profits. It's kind of the same as saying that Facebook made all this money, but the actually platform didn't make a profit at all. It's all speculative money, that could be lost in an instant. It's not real tangible profits.

 

 

Apple's ad spending is rising, and quickly, as they push back against Samsung's onslaught. Apple is a follower when it comes to ad spending. If they get a better return on their advertising dollar, good for them. Using the leader as a benchmark does indeed say a lot. Who wants to emulate a follower? You are entitled to see no value in Apple's brand. You are even entitled to claim there is no value in a brand. That does not mean there isn't, it simply means you're wrong, or that centuries of brand building around the world has all been for naught. It is for others to decide which is more likely.

Apple's definition of "eductional market" is revenue booked from/through educational institutions, rather than individiuals at retail. And that would be where government subsidies apply. This is all available in their SEC filings. It has long been a complaint of the Apple investor community that Apple does very little marketing to the educational community. They do offer educational discounts, but those are both smaller and narrower in scope than years ago. When Steve Jobs returned to Apple, the focus turned squarely to the consumer. Apple had been far more education friendly before that.

The definition of "profit" is a legal one (tax codes wouldn't work if it weren't). Appreciation in stock price is not profit for Apple, it's capital gains for Apple shareholders. Some of Apple's profit is paid to shareholders in the form of cash dividends, which are quite tangible. Apple's profits are well documented in their SEC filings, and shareholder's capital gains are documented in their individual tax filings with the IRS. Have you confused the two?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Gavin Hird wrote:


Medhue Simoni wrote:


 People that buy Apple products, are, for the most part, ignorant, and care more about being trending, than what is smart.


It is interesting that you, as a developer, find a user base of 750+ million uninteresting and stupid, despite their willingness to pay, and pay more for your potential product. 

But that is perfect with me – one less competitor ;-)

This is a demonstration of the peril of "belief". I can't count the number of times I've had to change my mind because the evidence wouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Madelaine McMasters wrote:


Medhue Simoni wrote:


madjim wrote:


Medhue Simoni wrote:


madjim wrote:


Medhue Simoni wrote:

 

As far as MS not being part of the mobile market, I would beg to differ, as the Surface Pro is the only actually productive tablet on the market. It is the only tablet that is what tablets should have been from the start. Presently, I have yet to buy a tablet, as why would I buy a useless toy to read webpages. That's only worth about 50 cent to me. I might actually go get the Surface Pro 3 tho.


Given your apparent propensity to back obvious losers, please don't offer me any racing tips.

Father "heaping Pelion upon Ossa" Jim

Using this same logic, Apple was a loser for the vast majority of their existence. Even today, if you look at the stats on any website, you'll see that it's not people with apple products visiting websites the most. I don't base things on HYPE, but the facts.

Apple is STILL a loser. Check those stats of iPhones against Android. Just like Mac and PC all over again.

Father "Losers buy Apple products because they want to be like other losers" Jim

My point is, that if you can make a profit without using government money, then I would hardly call you a loser. I total agree with your Father.
People that buy Apple products, are, for the most part, ignorant, and care more about being trending, than what is smart.

Again Medhue, I'm going to ask you to back up your claim with evidence.

I just Googled "apple owner demographics". Here's the first (for me) returned link...

From which I cribbed this chart...

Apple:Android User Demographics.jpg

 

The average Apple phone owner appears to have higher income and education than the average Android phone owner. If you are right about Apple owners being ignorant, might we then conclude that ignorance is the result of education, and results in greater financial success? I'm willing to entertain the former idea, but the latter would really bother me.

I haven't digested all the information here, but it's interesting that Apple owners skew older. That might explain the higher income as people work their way up through their careers. But it doesn't explain your trendiness theory. It has been my experience that the young favor trends. Old timers are thought to be stuck in their ways, aren't they?

There is a distinct difference between stating opinions and stating facts. I find it very strange that anyone would say that a group is ignorant, and others think this is a fact. It's obviously an opinion. Of course, this doesn't mean I don't have to back it up with evidense for others to agree with me. Here's the thing tho, I don't care if anyone agrees. Obviously tho, some do.

Now that this is cleared up, I'll explain why your graph is meaningless, especially to the point of Apple users generally being more ignorant, and which is the better product. First, when some1 talks about ignorance, what are they talking about? Are they talking about being dumb, or uneducated? No, I don't think so. They are talking about being ignorant about a subject. Being that none of the people in the study are experts on smart phones, then they must be ignorant. Your graph is really a measure of what groups are the most affected by marketing. That is all it is. It is also an extremely small study for the subject matter. We are also talking about Apple, not the just the Iphone. Now, if your graph was just a study of  computer scientists, and it showed what computers they actually owned, and what brand devices they use, then it is be a completely relevant studies about what we are talking about. To try to imply, that just because someone has more formal schooling or makes more, that they know more about phones, is very bad logic. It's much more logical to say that, those that have more formal education generally make more, and people that make more are less influenced by the price difference, which likely means they are more influenced by marketing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Gavin Hird wrote:


Medhue Simoni wrote:


 People that buy Apple products, are, for the most part, ignorant, and care more about being trending, than what is smart.


It is interesting that you, as a developer, find a user base of 750+ million uninteresting and stupid, despite their willingness to pay, and pay more for your potential product. 

But that is perfect with me – one less competitor ;-)

Gavin, please try to be honest here and don't rephrase things to fit your argument. Well, there was no argument, but you know what I mean. Where did I say anyone was STUPID, or even worst UNINTERESTING? I said that, IMHO, people that buy Apple products are IGNORANT, which is not the same as being STUPID, or UNINTERESTING. I'm ignorant about all kinds of things. Heck, my father is a mechanic and I can't even do my brakes by myself. I live in Detroit, and don't know a dang thing about hockey. I could go on and on. We are all ignorant about many things. If I know I'm ignorant about something, I will seek out someone who is less ignorant about it and take their advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Mony Lindman wrote:


Phoebe Avro wrote:

If they closed SL going back on the statment that that they wont it will be the death null of LL!

But at least they have some crappy apps to fall back on!

... and they are one of the main investors in HiFi ..

Actually, LL were only an investor in the 2nd round of funding for High Fidelity. The three rounds of funding break down as:

Seeding: $1.6 million sought, True Ventures only investor.

Round one: $2.4 million sought:, True Ventures, Google Ventures, Kapor Capital, Linden Lab + angel investors

Round two: $2.5 million sought, True ventures apparently sole investor.

 

Sources: SEC filings, Techcrunch, Crunchbase.

 

So while LL have invested, I wouldn't presume their investment is necessarily significant when compared to others.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Medhue Simoni wrote:


Gavin Hird wrote:


 I said that, IMHO, people that buy Apple products are IGNORANT

Medhue, I think you need to revisit that opinion, because all research show they are not ignorant at all about their purchase of an Apple product. To almost all of them the purchase was a very conscious decision. 

You can be very sure that a good proportion of your customers are also Apple customers and using your product on Apple products. Chances are they are more willing to pay for your product it they see quality and value. 

If I were you – and this goes for LL too, I would make sure these customers tell their friends about your product, because they can be quite pationate when they have made up their minds. But they sure will tell their friends too if, to quote Steve Jobs, "The idea is good, but the implementation sucks!"

If LL's plans for a new SecondLife comes to fruition, I can guarantee you there will be a whole lot more of them around this place. ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Medhue Simoni wrote:


Gavin Hird wrote:


Medhue Simoni wrote:


 People that buy Apple products, are, for the most part, ignorant, and care more about being trending, than what is smart.


It is interesting that you, as a developer, find a user base of 750+ million uninteresting and stupid, despite their willingness to pay, and pay more for your potential product. 

But that is perfect with me – one less competitor ;-)

Gavin, please try to be honest here and don't rephrase things to fit your argument. Well, there was no argument, but you know what I mean. Where did I say anyone was STUPID, or even worst UNINTERESTING? I said that, IMHO, people that buy Apple products are IGNORANT, which is not the same as being STUPID, or UNINTERESTING. I'm ignorant about all kinds of things. Heck, my father is a mechanic and I can't even do my brakes by myself. I live in Detroit, and don't know a dang thing about hockey. I could go on and on. We are all ignorant about many things. If I know I'm ignorant about something, I will seek out someone who is less ignorant about it and take their advice.

Would it also be a sign of ignorance to decide where to buy a product - say, something like an animation - by going to the store listed first by a search algorithm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


WickedWanda1956 wrote:

 

LINDEN LABS MUST ADDRESS...

Highjacking this thread a bit into a sidetrack...

I have always wondered where this misnomer Linden Labs comes from. Well, I have found the answer finally. These two monuments stand close to each other outside at the Governor's Mansion.

Linden-Lab vs Linden-Labs.jpg

Uh oh... it has been one of the Beta Testers who made this horrendous spelling error!  Hammer-head.gif

As everybody knows, quite often this spelling error haunts us still to this date.

 

Naturally enough Linden Lab got the name right. :matte-motes-big-grin:

(Although they made some other spelling mistake...)

Ok, now as this historical truth has been found out, let's continue with the present subject at hand. :smileyhappy: :smileywink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Medhue Simoni wrote:

Why can't i just have an opinion and that is it?

I apologize for taking this subject this far in this thread.

When I state an opinion, I generally preface it with "I think", "It seems to me", etc. You don't do that. You make statements like...

"And how does Apple do this? They do this by hyping their products by spending ridiculous money on advertising, and by pricing that product 2 and a half times more than an equivalent pc. This is also why they immediately started to use government to get their products in people hands, as those people would never have gotten them without government money. So, basically, Apple created a system where by the public pays Apple for other people to own and use their products. You end all those programs, and Apple is bankrupt."

and...

"I don't base things on HYPE, but the facts."

Those are your opinions, provided without evidence, and should be qualified as such. I'd have no problem with you saying...

"I don't think I base things on HYPE, I think I base them on the facts."

 

To be consistent myself, I really only think I'm an evidence based thinker. I won't try to prove it, out of fear someone will bludgeon me with evidence to the contrary.

The problem with incompetence is that we can't accurately judge our own.

;-).

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Madelaine McMasters wrote:

When I state an opinion, I generally preface it with "I think", "It seems to me", etc. You don't do that. You make statements like...

Actually, once you're seeing the assorted "I think" qualifiers applied over time, they start to annoy for the faux appeasers that they really are. My favorite Gunnery Chief, Ashley Williams, nailed it when she spoke:

Why is it whenever someone says "with all due respect", what they really mean is "kiss my *ss"?

Sometimes people foregoing on the charade, and just plainly voicing their opinion, can be quite refreshing. :) After all, one should be secure enough about oneself to realize that what the other says is, without them confirming it, just their opinion, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


kiramanell wrote:


Madelaine McMasters wrote:

When I state an opinion, I generally preface it with "I think", "It seems to me", etc. You don't do that. You make statements like...

Actually, once you're seeing the assorted "I think" qualifiers applied over time, they start to annoy for the faux appeasers that they really are. My favorite Gunnery Chief, Ashley Williams, nailed it when she spoke:

Why is it whenever someone says "with all due respect", what they really mean is "
kiss my *ss
"?

Sometimes people foregoing on the charade, and just plainly voicing their opinion, can be quite refreshing.
:)
After all, one should be secure enough about oneself to realize that what the other says is, without them confirming it, just their opinion, right?

I disagree.

My self assuredness is what allows me to reveal my uncertainty, not presume yours. Medhue's certainty about his position telegraphs to me that evidence will not sway him, as the evidence available to me contradicts the statements he's made. The certainty with which people make statements that are so broad and stereotypical as to be casually discounted signals that they are not open to discussion. I like discussion.

Certainly there are faux appeasers, and you may think me one of them. But on the issue of attempting to express no more certainty than I possess, I'm following in the footsteps of both Socrates and Benjamin Franklin (who adopted the Socratic Method when the Franklin Method failed him).

Ask Medhue if he thinks I appease him.

ETA: "with all due respect" says nothing about the speaker's certainty. That phrase often precedes an insulting comment. I think you are mixing concepts here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Gavin Hird wrote:


Medhue Simoni wrote:


Gavin Hird wrote:


 I said that, IMHO, people that buy Apple products are IGNORANT

Medhue, I think you need to revisit that opinion, because all research show they are not ignorant at all about their purchase of an Apple product. To almost all of them the purchase was a very conscious decision. 

You can be very sure that a good proportion of your customers are also Apple customers and using your product on Apple products. Chances are they are more willing to pay for your product it they see quality and value. 

If I were you – and this goes for LL too, I would make sure these customers tell their friends about your product, because they can be quite pationate when they have made up their minds. But they sure will tell their friends too if, to quote Steve Jobs, "The idea is good, but the implementation sucks!"

If LL's plans for a new SecondLife comes to fruition, I can guarantee you there will be a whole lot more of them around this place. ;-)

I don't think Apple owners are any more ignorant than average. Medhue's statement was so overbroad as to be meaningless, which he's approximately remedied by backpedaling on the scope of "ignorance". My personal experience is that Apple users aren't appreciably different from other computer users.

I've been curious about Apple's success, and about innovation and leadership in general. I've been okay at innovation and terrified of leading. I don't know where I'm going, so I don't want anyone following me. They'll find me out. But I do want to understand why I follow some people, some companies, some ideas.

I find this a compelling explanation...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


kiramanell wrote:


Madelaine McMasters wrote:

When I state an opinion, I generally preface it with "I think", "It seems to me", etc. You don't do that. You make statements like...

Actually, once you're seeing the assorted "I think" qualifiers applied over time, they start to annoy for the faux appeasers that they really are. My favorite Gunnery Chief, Ashley Williams, nailed it when she spoke:

Why is it whenever someone says "with all due respect", what they really mean is "
kiss my *ss
"?

Sometimes people foregoing on the charade, and just plainly voicing their opinion, can be quite refreshing.
:)
After all, one should be secure enough about oneself to realize that what the other says is, without them confirming it, just their opinion, right?

with all due respect q; (: i think this is not the same as saying I think

I say I think bc I am not sure of my argument. I think means to me how I am thinking about the topic at this time. Not why or what. How

+

if somebody else goes: think about it this way then I do and either I become more sure in my own argument. Or I conclude that I was think wrong so I change to this other way of thinking about it that I never thought of before

And sometimes another person joins in and goes that they think that maybe the topic can be thought about in a 3rd way. And both me and the 2nd person go: hmmm! thats a interesting thought. So we start to think about it in that way as well. Dont mean we agree with it. Just that we are thinking about it in another way that we never thought of ourselves. And we either come to a conclusion on it for ourselves and proceed on that basis. Or we dont come to any conclusion and keep our minds open to any other thoughts that may come at another time

+

i think also that is a difference between debate and conversation/chat

with all due respect, q; (: I think you more alluding/refering to the first form of engagement than the second. I do think tho that I am open to your thoughts on this. And I think that I might think differently when you do. Altho I think that I may not come to any definite conclusion even if you do. But I will think about it. bc I like to think about these things (:

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Madelaine McMasters wrote:


 My personal experience is that Apple users aren't appreciably different from other computer users.

 

 

I only know (for sure) one person who uses an Apple product to get to Second Life. There may be others I know who are Apple users, but if so none of them have mentioned that.

The one I know is 'appreciably different' from just about everybody. ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I find this a compelling explanation...


He is onto something there, but I don't think it the the whole truth – maybe not even half of it for Apple's case. 

What Apple's management were on to , and in partucular Steve Jobs, was to "change the world". This was their why (and still is), but that alone does not create a leader.  

So while Apple is on the "change the world" quest, that is not enough to sway people in their direction and stay there. 

I think the essence of Apple has been "it is a great idea, but the implementation sucks" – many of the things Apple has succeeded on are not inventions of their own, but they have taken a good idea, sucked out the essence of it and refined it to the use of it becomes second nature. This in combination with at times brilliant marketing messages.

Before the iPod there were plenty of mp3 players. They all mostly sucked and where hard to get song into. Apple cleaned it up went to market with the "1000 songs in your pocket" message. - Yeah, why would I not want to have 1000 songs in my pocket?

When the iPhone launched it could technically not do much more than the Nokia N80 I bought a couple years before. On the paper the N80 was a great phone, but it totally sucked at what it did and trying to upgrade it - it even had over the air software updates, in the process it zapped my apps - yes it even had apps, and it was so hard to use that in reailty it was used for text messages and calls. The rest sat unused. 

The iPhone on the other hand, did more or less the same things, but in way that felt natural and fluid. Hardware wise it was underpowered in many ways, but it still completely changed the phone landscape, and Nokia - then the king - is no more. 

 

If you ask Mac users (the original Apple customers) why they use a Mac most of them will answer it is because it is a means of expressing themselves either artistically or professionally whitout letting the tool get in the way of their expression. 

These people are simply not very concerned with - if at all - tech specs. They have no patience scanning for viruses, defragemtnign drives, thinking about what grapics card to install, the latest mouse driver or which package manager is the best and what UI skin is the hottest.

Apple has essentially hidden all this for them, so they can concentrate on what they want to do. And what they want to do is so essential to them they are willing to pay extra for a tool that stays out of their way with issues that are irrelevant to what they want to accomplish

 

Backtrace this to SecondLife and Linden Lab. 

The core userbase of SecondLife are those who came here because they wanted to create. That was their why. 

In the beginning that worked out pretty well because there was plenty creativitiy to be had at all levels, but more importantly the creation process happened almost entirely inside of SecondLife and while the viewer was by no means brilliant, it kindoff supported the creative process.

With viewer 2, LL essentially decimated the creative aspect of the viewer and you would hear massive complaints on how many extra steps were required to do tasks creators did all the time. This alienated a lot of people and it started the viewer war spearheaded with what is now called TPVs. Since viewer 2, LL has eseentially been at war with a large section of the userbase. 

At the same time, they introduces scultps. Some convoluted process all happening outside SecondLife resulted in items that could be used inside of SecondLife. Again a section of the core user base were alienated because they did not have the means to create sculpts, but it also pulled them out of the creative environment. 

The same happened with mesh, although even more profoundly. The mesh creative process happens almost entirely outside of SecondLife and alienated a new section of the core userbase. 

Status quo is that a process that was spurred with Viewer 2 has largely removed the core userbase from Secondlife, and you now sit back with a prospects that essentially ask themselves "why would I shop in SecondLife" and they turn at the gate. 

Back to your movie and the Why question. The primary reason Facebook is such a succes is because their why for using them is "because you can stay in close contact and share with your family and friends". There is never one single tech question into the equation, and the tool to accomplish this is readily available and gets out of the way. 

 

The 100 million users question that remains for Linden Lab is "Why would I come to SecondLife version 2 and stay". Unfortunately I have not seen anything sheding light on that in this thread or in the "announcment" from the CEO.  Maybe it is time to suck the essence out of SecondLife and make it fluid and natural?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

over the street way down in the chat Wolkenreiter said something really insightful

up until now much of my own thinking and lots of others thinking was: How can you make a betterworld that does everything that SL does now but better. And also how to do all of the things SL cant do now but can do in the Betterworld, but Better also

then Wolkenreiter gave an example:

maybe in the betterworld the avatar is graphically better (speed wise) and artistically better in terms of looks and also better operationally and modally. So the avatar runs/renders as well on a tablet as it do on a PC. The LoD of the mesh adapting dynamically to the device. This being better for a larger number of users overall, than just for the number who make up the creator class who will still need a PC to make stuff on

a avatar that has less options in determing shape than we get in SL now. Less options so that fitted mesh clothes fit perfectly automagically every time for the greatest number of users. This being better for the users (the automagic fitting without tweak and hacks like alphas) and better for the creators who have a fixed range of shapes they have to design/create for

like SL but simpler

+

much of what you have written in your last post concur with this: like SL but simpler. Is better bc is simpler

i like it. I get it now what LL are wanting to. I get it now what they mean when they say better

maybe LL arent as good workflow designers as Apple and maybe never will be. But then neither were Samsung once. So i think is a fighting chance for LL. and I dont think they need be intimidated by deep pockets FB or the crazy genius of Uncle Philip and the even more crazy people with bubbles and goggles pasted on their heads

 do a Samsung

like SL but simpler. in the delivery to the most number of people and more affordable. Which is better

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


irihapeti wrote:

over the street way down in the chat Wolkenreiter said something really insightful

up until now much of my own thinking and lots of others thinking was: How can you make a betterworld that does everything that SL does now but better. And also how to do all of the things SL cant do now but can do in the Betterworld, but Better also

then Wolkenreiter gave an example:

maybe in the betterworld the avatar is graphically better (speed wise) and artistically better in terms of looks and also better operationally and modally. So the avatar runs/renders as well on a tablet as it do on a PC. The LoD of the mesh adapting dynamically to the device. This being better for a larger number of users overall, than just for the number who make up the creator class who will still need a PC to make stuff on

a avatar that has less options in determing shape than we get in SL now. Less options so that fitted mesh clothes fit perfectly automagically every time for the greatest number of users. This being better for the users (the automagic fitting without tweak and hacks like alphas) and better for the creators who have a fixed range of shapes they have to design/create for

like SL but simpler

+

much of what you have written in your last post concur with this: like SL but simpler. Is better bc is simpler

i like it. I get it now what LL are wanting to. I get it now what they mean when they say better

maybe LL arent as good workflow designers as Apple and maybe never will be. But then neither were Samsung once. So i think is a fighting chance for LL. and I dont think they need be intimidated by deep pockets FB or the crazy genius of Uncle Philip and the even more crazy people with bubbles and goggles pasted on their heads

 do a Samsung

like SL but simpler. in the delivery to the most number of people and more affordable. Which is better

 

It sounds like you're suggesting LL is trying to emulate Apple - and Facebook - and make technology simpler for (rich) idiots to use.

Father "thinks there's more than enough idiots in SL already" Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites


madjim wrote:

 

It sounds like you're suggesting LL is trying to emulate Apple - and Facebook - and make technology simpler for (rich) idiots to use.

 

it sounds like you're suggesting that you dont know your samsungs from your apples. even when you trip over them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1967 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...