Ebbe's Keynote Critiques

[ChinRey]

Phadrus has some really good point, but:

---

Phadrus Karu wrote:

Cloud Party did not fail to attract content creators or suffered from a lack of feedback; it had plenty of both. What it lacked throughout was consumers.

...

Second Life has had an immense head start for a number of years, allowing it to garner a base of hardcore residents.

---

I think we need to be very careful not to overestimate that factor. LL does already have a fairly large established customer base yes, but they tend to be loyal to SL, not to LL. More importantly, from what we know about SL2 so far, it seems to target a completely different audience than the majority of current SL users. That's not necessarily a bad thing in irself - quite the contrary - but it means they'll have to start building the customer base and credibility for SL2 more or less from scratch with very little help from SL.

---

Phadrus Karu wrote:

In actuality, commercial products such as Maya, 3dsmax, Modo, Cinema4D, 3DCoat, Zbrush, etc. are what remain the primary tools of choice for professional developers across various platforms.

---

Maybe but I haven't heard much talk about any of the other professional products yet, it's all Maya vs. Blender...

One of the main reasons for SL's success is the huge crowd of amateur content creators. There is probably far more content available in SL than in all other virtual environments combined today. And for the most part it's dirt cheap! Most of this content was made by amateurs who didn't have to worry about the income, or - let's face it - by wannabe professionals who grossly miscalculated the earning potential. With a focus on professional content creators, things are very different. There are far fewer of them for a start and they have to set their prices to a level that actually reflects the amount of time, effort and money they've invested in their works. The result should be that SL2 will have much less and considerably more expensive content than SL.

I'm talking about content creators in the widest definition of the word btw. Most "experience content creators" in SL are just as much amateurs as the builders and scripters and animators. They don't make money from the rp sims and expereince sims etc. they buid and maintain, they pay for it.

(Interesting digression here btw: what'll happen if an SL content creator refuses to give permission for his/her works to be ported to SL2?)

 

---

Phadrus Karu wrote:

Maya is what they know

---

Ummm... does that mean they're going to use Havok as the physics engine too since that's the one they know? If so, they've lost even before they've started.

Seriously, we're talking about LL making a fresh start here. The "already know" argument is hardly matters in that context.

(Oh btw, as far as I know Havok is an excellent physics engine for the most part. But it's old and lacks one feature that I believe is crucial to any new virtual world today: soft surfaces.)

 

Now, don't get me wrong here. If LL successfully creates a brand new VW product, based on completely different premises and targeted toward a completely different customer base than the existing SL, well, that's great! More power to them! But it means we just have to forget about SL in this context. Comparing SL to SL2 is comparing apples to oranges.

It also means SL2 can never replace SL and LL can't afford to loose their existing customer base. The problem LL face there is that giving SL the complete overhaul it desperately needs will be a huge, time consuming and expensive undertaking but not doing it will be even more expensive in the long run. SL2 or not SL2, LL simply isn't ready for such a momentous task yet but sooner or later they will have to bite the bullet and get it done. I hope they are ready by then. They can be if they do things right from now on and I think the experience they gain from building SL2 will be of great help there.

[LlewLlwyd]

---

ChinRey wrote:

 

Interesting digression here btw: what'll happen if an SL content creator refuses to give permission for his/her works to be ported to SL2?

 

---

PERMISSION is NOT needed!

***LL own everything in SL since they changed the ToS***

[ChinRey]

---

LlewLlwyd wrote:

PERMISSION

is NOT needed!

***LL own everything in SL since they changed the ToS***

---

I know but they've also kind'a promised not to abuse that privilege. The interesting part is what will happen if LL breaks that promise?

Edit: I can't really imagine LL being stupid enough to allow SL works to be ported to SL2 against the creator's will. That would be suicidal, no serious content creator would ever want to deal with them again afterwards.

[Pamela Galli]

---

ChinRey wrote:

---

LlewLlwyd wrote:

PERMISSION

is NOT needed!

***LL own everything in SL since they changed the ToS***

---

I know but they've also kind'a promised not to abuse that privilege. The interesting part is what will happen if LL breaks that promise?

Edit: I can't really imagine LL being stupid enough to allow SL works to be ported to SL2 against the creator's will. That would be suicidal, no serious content creator would ever want to deal with them again afterwards.

---

They have done so many things that would cause serious content creators (ie those making significant income) to never want to deal with them afterwards. But if you want to earn a living in a virtual world, it's the only game in town, you grit your teeth and bear it.

[LlewLlwyd]

---

ChinRey wrote:

 they've also kind'a promised not to abuse that privilege.

---

THEY also kind'a promised to restore naming, and . . .

***It's not a privilege; it's their right; which you gave them***

[ChinRey]

---

Pamela Galli wrote:

They have done so many things that would cause serious content creators (ie those making significant income) to never want to deal with them afterwards. But if you want to earn a living in a virtual world, it's the only game in town, you grit your teeth and bear it.

---

---

LlewLlwyd wrote:

THEY

also kind'a promised to restore naming, and . . .

***It's not a privilege; it's their right; which you gave them***

---

It's just speculations anyway, only one person can give actual answers. Does anybody happen to knwo where I can find Ebbe Linden's email address?

[LlewLlwyd]

---

ChinRey wrote:

. Does anybody happen to knwo where I can find Ebbe Linden's email address?

---

YES

***Work or private?***

[ChinRey]

Work.

I think you better PM me for that. It's probably not a good idea to post it in public. After all, if LL wanted it to be open, they'd have posted it on their contact web page.

[Medhue Simoni]

---

irihapeti wrote:

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

---

 

---

The Austrian school is not determined by Mises, nor even Hayek. It's a combinations of similar theories by many Austrians, not just 1 or 2. The Austrian school is not predicated on whether people are rational at all. The only people that say that it is, or the Chicago school of thought is, are the keyensians, cause it really is 1 of their few arguments.

---

was Mises who did actually say this. Not Keynes

also. The argument that Mises methodology is suspect is your argument. Not mine

+

whats interesting about disciples is how they re-invent their ideology when is shown that one of their leading lights is just making stuff up

if you do want clever then this is clever. Is a re-invention by a disciple of what Mises actually said

http://mises.org/library/what-do-austrians-mean-rational

 

 

---

Did you read the article? That's exactly what I said he said, and, for the most part, I agree with him. See there is the distinction. Much like Mises, I also have a brain. Are you saying that I'm not allowed to use that brain to interpret what Mises meant? Are you saying that people can not expand on a view from the past? Are you saying that people can't have minds of their own, if the subscribe to a view? That every single point should be accepted without question, and that if we don't fully agree with all aspects, then we must reject it? To me, you are talking in circles.

[Medhue Simoni]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

---

I tried to find examples of market collusion but was stymied by the fact that I haven't found any recorded markets that you'd consider "unregulated." This raises a question - how do you stop the people participating in a market from forming something that you'd consider a government and then instituting something you'd consider regulations if that's what they decide to do?

ETA - remembered a classic case of collusion and closing a market: Major League Baseball.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_League

 

---

How exactly would these people institute their regulations without using force? If they did not use force, then it would be perfectly fine to do. There are many certifications for things, and they aren't all controlled by governments. I can be certifide to be a professional Blender user, but nobody is force to only employ certifided Blender professionals. It's a good system, and everyone is still free to do as they please.

Right now, there is a push to force food producers to label if they use GMOs. Now, while I'm all for knowing if your food contains GMOs, I'm not for forcing them to do it. By having the government involved, the GMO companies can influence the regulators. Many companies are doing the reverse of labeling the GMO products, by putting in large bold letters like NO GMOs, or NO Gluten, or NO MSG. This is a much better system and the companies are doing it voluntarily because it is a good marketing tool. With more and more labs opening up to test such things, anyone can ship a can off to a lab to have it tested. If they government was not involved, we'd likely have dozens of organizations around the country, all testing these products in independent labs, which will produce much better information for everyone. When 1 entity controls it all, then corruption become rapid, and the people are the 1's that lose out.

[Medhue Simoni]

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

You haven't established why we should prevent that. If a company made the best product, and gave the best prices, and that lead them to be the #1 supplier, then what is wrong with that?

---

 Not necessarily.   There's plenty of research on the effects large out-of-town stores have on town centres.    Essentially, if you start with a situation in which several separate small retailers are trading quite profitably and in competition with each other, and then a large hypermarket or superstore opens outside town and takes 10%--15% of all the town centre stores' business, that's almost certainly going to mean the town centre stores' margins take such a large hit that they cease to be profitable, even though 85 to 90% of their customers have never shopped at the new hypermarket.

The effect will be exacerbated, of course, by the fact that someone who drives out to the hypermarket because -- for example -- he wants to buy a new TV set and the hypermarket is offering very good prices,  while he's there he'll probably do that week's supermarket shop, too, even though he'd normally go to the town centre stores because they're cheaper and offer a better range and quality.    That's because he's now at the hypermarket and doesn't want to spend the extra time driving all the way back to the town centre to do his supermarket shop when he can do it all while he's at the hypermarket.

Before too long,  the hypermarket effectively has a local  monopoly even though most of its customers never wanted to shop there, and would rather shop somewhere else.

 

---

Well, of course, I'm very much for small businesses, and I try to support them when I can. That said, I'm not rich, and lower prices can help me and my family. So, there is a benefit to the whole community when those large super chains come in, but not all of them. The problem that I see, is when the local government give those super chains special deals to build in their area. Those mom and pop shops don't get deals like those, and many times the people don't see the real cost of those big chains, because the local governments are hiding those extra costs in taxes, or the tax breaks that the big chains get.

I live just outside of Detroit, which is a perfect example of big business and crooked politicians destroying a whole city. Not just any city, but 1 of the largest, most productive cities ever to exist. I live outside of the border, because it is impossible to live in the city and survive in any meaningful way. Why? Because of the taxes and regulations. Last year, Detroit closed 400 businesses because of code violations. It was a program the mayor created, in which cost the city millions of dollars to hire more code enforcers. So, the city paid millions to close down business that were paying them taxes, and surviving, despite the city's major flaws. Does that even remotely sound intelligent. If they were worried about code violations, you'd think they would take that tax money they collected from those businesses and help them get up to code. That would have been a productive way to handle the problem. See, but that really wasn't their goal. What was really going on, was the ultra rich wanted the land those businesses were on, so they bribed the city officials to close those businesses. Ask any business man in Detroit, and they will tell you that the codes can't be adhered to, because you can't be compliant with 1 code, and also be compliant with others, as they overlap. Being compliant with 1, means you can't be compliant with others. This is done on purpose so that the officials can close any business they want.

So, the main problem that small businesses face are the regulations. The natural market is an ever changing environment. Any business that is not constantly changing the way they do business, will fall behind, and that is a necessary part of the whole process. Yeah, some markets have changed so much that it is nearly impossible for a mom and pop shop to compete. That said, there are also new and emerging markets to get into. A small business can change on a dime, where as a large corporation tends to move like a turtle, and has to spend millions to make any major changes. The larger a corporation gets, the more easily it wastes money. LL is a good example. They move at a snails pace, and even the most basic stuff, needs approval and meeting and numerious BS paths to follow. Small businesses can compete, but not if the markets are all corrupted by politicians taking bribes.

[Deltango Vale]

"I can't really imagine LL being stupid enough to allow SL works to be ported to SL2 against the creator's will. That would be suicidal, no serious content creator would ever want to deal with them again afterwards." - ChinRey

-------------------------------------------------------------------

"They have done so many things that would cause serious content creators (ie those making significant income) to never want to deal with them afterwards. But if you want to earn a living in a virtual world, it's the only game in town, you grit your teeth and bear it." - Pamela Galli

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the crux of the problem: anyone who has invested in SL no longer trusts Linden Lab. The company's reputation is so badly damaged that the worst is expected by default. I, like Pam, have been gritting my teeth for seven years because SL is the only game in town.

Under these circumstances, I believe Linden Lab is foolish to embark on the construction of a new world without first rebuilding SL's infrastructure, fixing major mistakes and formulating a sound strategy. To attempt to build a new world without first proving competence to a highly skeptical userbase in its existing world - let alone the RL investor base - is to invite ridicule - which is precisely what's happening.

No, I do not trust Linden Lab to do anything right. I expect stupidity around every corner. I cringe whenever I see an official announcement, wondering what new catastrophe is in store. It means that my investment in SL is highly restricted and defensive. Having been burned so many times by LL policymakers (offset by the excellent inworld service I receive from the grunt-work Lindens, bless them all), I dare not expand my business. Almost everyone I knew of my generation is gone, their land sold or abandoned, their businesses closed, their enthusiasm turned to bile.

There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.

I believe Linden Lab missed the boat in 2007 (on Captain Philip's watch, though I blame the admirals). It will take an enormous effort in terms of leadership, intelligence, ability and teamwork to make up for those seven lost years, let alone the next seven. This is why I believe SL2 will fail, but perhaps there is a silver lining: Linden Lab will be ripe for a buyout at a fire sale price.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

You complain about small businesses finding various regulations irksome and unnecessary, and doubtless some -- maybe many -- regulations are.  

Nevertheless,  I see nothing wrong with insisting on reasonable fire precautions,  and demanding reasonable standards of hygiene, storage and waste-disposal in businesses involved in the preparation and sale of food,  and access for disabled customers, and on a safe and healthy work environment for office workers and so on.

There's doubtless a very good case for simplifying regulations and reducing their number, that's not an argument in favour of doing away with them altogether.

Yes, I realise that if a restaurant gets a reputation for giving its customers food poisoning it'll eventually go out of business because of market forces, but I'd rather not run the risk of being one of the customers who contributes to its bad reputation if I have any say in the matter.

 

[Vivienne Schell]

---

ChinRey wrote:

Does anybody happen to knwo where I can find Ebbe Linden's email address?

Ummm...if you despair, go and mail Mr. Altbergs boss at:

http://www.catamountventures.com

Then start to calculate like 1 + 1 = 2 and then you probably  know what kind of interest fuels the glorious "new platform". This interest is certainly not related to Second Life or Second Life users.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

---

I tried to find examples of market collusion but was stymied by the fact that I haven't found any recorded markets that you'd consider "unregulated." This raises a question - how do you stop the people participating in a market from forming something that you'd consider a government and then instituting something you'd consider regulations if that's what they decide to do?

ETA - remembered a classic case of collusion and closing a market: Major League Baseball.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_League

 

---

How exactly would these people institute their regulations without using force

? If they did not use force, then it would be perfectly fine to do. There are many certifications for things, and they aren't all controlled by governments. I can be certifide to be a professional Blender user, but nobody is force to only employ certifided Blender professionals. It's a good system, and everyone is still free to do as they please.

 

---

They'd use force, chah. Are you saying there will be regulations preventing the use of force, and if so, who will enforce them, and how? How do you know that the forces of no-force will be able to prevent it?

[ChinRey]

Forgot to comment on two things in Phadrus' post:

---

Phadrus Karu wrote:

Ebbie Altberg is the Chief Executive Officer. The fact that he knows next to nothing about 3D production tools is a forgone conclusion – such things are merely details outside his immediate concern as it would be for any other company bureaucrat. His engineers, whom I presume do know a thing or two about the production process, most likely advised him to start with Maya for a number of reasons.

---

I am one of the few who think it was a good move for LL to find a new CEO outside the established virtual world environment. He came in with a fresh look at and a new persepctive of everything and was able to see problems and opportunities the "insiders" missed. For example, I don't think it's a coincidence LL discovered html pipelining and CDN shortly after he took the position.

However, regarding his advisors, here's a quote from an older thread on this forum:

---

Ebbe Linden wrote:

You asked: 

1 - What type of assets are more likelly to be transferable to SL2 and what probably not? (meshes, animations, sculpts, scripts, textures, builds made of normal prims, system clothing ?)

We don't have all the answers to this one yet, but several areas will have radical improvements and thus not possible to be fully backwards compatible. 

Mesh is ok (but with better lighting and other tech you may want to make tweaks)

Animations will change (major mprovements as we don't currently do it the way it should be done)

Sculpts (TBD, but not as is, but maybe converted to Mesh?)

Scripts (major improvement, so will change)

Textures ok

Prims (TBD, but probably not as is)

Avatars will be radically improved as well so a lot TBD

---

(https://community.secondlife.com/t5/General-Discussion-Forum/Linden-Lab-is-building-a-NEW-virtual-world/m-p/2758334#M185698)

Read that carefully. Mesh is OK, prims to be determined. That means whoever advised him here did not know how easy it is to convert prims to mesh. That is rather worrying I'd say.

This is not an isolated incident. Time after time, when we ask LL for help of information about practical modern content creating they don't have an answer. As often as not they don't even seem to understand the question. They obviously have to know a lot about the theory and coding behind 3D programs but the practical use of the program is all but alien to them.

I still don't know if focusing on Maya is the right decision. For the kind of content I create it's hardly relevant so I never really looked into it. But no, I do not trust the judgement of LL's staff and advisors in this.

 

---

Phadrus Karu wrote:

The one notable advantage of using professional software over opensource solutions is the level of support provided.

---

That is true. Open Source software is generally made and maintained by unpaid volunteers who do the job because they want to, not because they're paid. So it's a bit disorganised, the user interface is a mess, documentation is full of holes and written in tech speech no non-programmers can understand. Bugs are fixed whenever somebody feels like it. New features are added whenever somebody feels like it. User support is done by altruistic volunteers who are always willing but not necessarily able to help...

What does that remind you of?

Linden Labs has paid employees, paying customers and proprietary code but for all other practical purposes it operates as an Open Soruce project. Will somebody who is used to and expects the professionalism of a commercial software company be attratced to SL or SL2 at all?

---

Deltango Vale wrote:

No, I do not trust Linden Lab to do anything right. I expect stupidity around every corner. I cringe whenever I see an official announcement, wondering what new catastrophe is in store

---

I haven't been here for two years yet (except for a brief visits a decade or so ago) but I know what you mean. When I heard how they were going allow for meshes with more than eight faces, my first thought was that if they got that right, I'd withdraw all my money from the bank and invest in lottery tickets. My meagre savings are still tucked away in a bank account.

---

Deltango Vale wrote:

Under these circumstances, I believe Linden Lab is foolish to embark on the construction of a new world without first rebuilding SL's infrastructure, fixing major mistakes and formulating a sound strategy.

---

I don't completely agree with you there to be honest. Yes, such a complete overhaul is necessary and yes, it is urgent but I don't think LL at the moment is qualified to do such a job. They would only make matters worse so it's just as well they don't try.

However, I do believe that the experience they will gain building SL2 will help a lot. Once they've done that, they will be in a much better position to tackle the mess SL has become. I just hope they haven't forgotten about it by then.

[Medhue Simoni]

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

You complain about small businesses finding various regulations irksome and unnecessary, and doubtless some -- maybe many -- regulations are.  

Nevertheless,  I see nothing wrong with insisting on reasonable fire precautions,  and demanding reasonable standards of hygiene, storage and waste-disposal in businesses involved in the preparation and sale of food,  and access for disabled customers, and on a safe and healthy work environment for office workers and so on.

There's doubtless a very good case for simplifying regulations and reducing their number, that's not an argument in favour of doing away with them altogether.

Yes, I realise that if a restaurant gets a reputation for giving its customers food poisoning it'll eventually go out of business because of market forces, but I'd rather not run the risk of being one of the customers who contributes to its bad reputation if I have any say in the matter.

 

---

Now, this would seem like a very reasonable and measured approach, but let's take a look at it in practice. We actually have a really good experient going on in that exact market. It's called KitchenNightmares. In about 95% of all the tv broadcasts of the show, which I'm addicted to, the kitchens are filthy. No person would ever eat in any of them, if they just saw the kitchen. Every single 1 of these kitchens, are supposed to be inspected. They obviously are not. So, the public assumes they are being protected, when there is no protection at all going on. It's not just a problem in 1 area of the country. As I said, almost every single kitchen is this way on the show. How is that possible? How is it possible that every single city these places are in, the inspectors are incompetent?

Well, with a little incite into what produces wealth, and incentives, it's pretty easy to see why this is the case. When you work for the government, there is almost no incentive to do a good job, as you aren't competing with anyone, and there are no consequences for doing a terrible job. Actually, if you do a terrible job, then you can say that you are under funded, and get more money for your department. It's the same reason schools are terrible, as doing better doesn't get you more money. For decades now, we keep paying more for education, and nothing improves at all. This is why the market works, and government programs don't. It's all about incentives.

[Medhue Simoni]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

---

They'd use

force

, chah. Are you saying there will be

regulations

preventing the use of force, and if so, who will en

force

them, and how? How do you know that the forces of no-force will be able to prevent it?

---

Ok then, allow me to ask you a question. Do you steal? Do you use force in your every day life? Why don't you? Most of us don't use force? Why don't we? Is it because of laws? Really, the laws are meaningless to me, yet I would never use force. All that said, if someone does use force, I have the right to defend myself, and that allone will stop most people from using force against me, especially if you knew me in RL. If there were ignorant people that do still want to use force, then we would join together to eliminate that aggression. Problem solved, and no government needed. Again tho, I'm not really an anarchist, so I don't see why this is even talked about. If we had a tiny government whose only job was to protect us and our property, then no force outside that government's force would be needed. The problem is, that our government doesn't protect our property, and actually thinks our property is their's to distribute to whomever they want.

[Vivienne Schell]

You all miss the point. The point is that neither Linden Lab employees nor their CEO decided to drop Second Life as a priority for something different. It was the decision of the board, and the board follows completely different priorities as you, me or Linden Lab as an executive unit.

It´s only about venture capital, profits and the financial future of the project named "Linden Lab". No investor is interested in more than eight faces on a mesh, in maya or blender, prims, avatars or whatsoever, not even interested in Second Life.

Fact is that Second Life does not grow anymore. It has a hard core, die hard user crowd which spends enough money on it to keep it kinda profitable - in spite of the obvious shortcomings.But it is not mainstream compatible, has no potential for going mainstream due to many, many conceptional and basical reasons. Investors insist on growth and do not accept decline or even stagnation.

Almost everything you discuss here is based on the SL experience as is. While the investors already dismissed the SL experience as it is. Your interest is in fundamental conflict with investor interests and aims. You want a somewhat "better" Second life, they want no Second Life at all. They want something completely different, mainstream compatible, clean, controlled, regulated and highly profitable which they even can sell to Microsoft or Apple or whomsoever and which will not be in the news for pixel nudity, addiction or failed lifes.

Second Life as a conception is way too rebellious, way too "not kosher", way too niche, there´s too much anarchy, sex and crime and user power in it for the american prime time.

Most of you just show wishful thinking by calling the new platform "SL 2", while every official at LL and on the board avoids even mentioning the term "Second Life" if it comes to the "new platform". For a very good reason.

Basically, it´s not the eight faces mesh or the prim or the windlight or the system avatar which stopped the growth of Second Life. The child porn scandal and the homestead pricing disaster had a much more massive impact. It´s not the rendering engine - 80 percent of all SL users run stone aged, underpowered computers, anyway. It´s not the default camera position or whatever. It´s not as if it would be impossible to make SL run on a cloud and within a browser. It´s just the fact that Virtual Reality in the Second Life shape (which is a giant, very complex and anarchist user sandbox model combined with the idea of "virtual land", object trade, user interaction and a lot of brilliance inavoidably paired with a lot of trash and breathtaking kink) does not work for mainstream success.

So, if you expect any kind of "better" Second Life, you are on the wrong track. Altberg was not selcted by LL, but by the investor board. Sure, he´s a Virtual Reality alien, he has no clue on the technology nor on the subcultural aspects which make Second Life  and Linden Lab (still) profitable. He does not have to have a clue, because he was hired for one reason: More profits. More profits or die, sweet bird. Add that the main investors have stakes in some very related ventures, like software and hardware companies. These cannot participate in and profit by SL development, but they can by a different platform development.

And everyone who really believes in a kind of "Second Life 2" is either completely blind or just driven by wishful thinking. Whatever the company will come up with, do not expect much more similar components than the avatar.

The debate "Why did SL not grow anymore" and "How can  LL improve SL" is over. It´s too late. Investors decided to go for something completely different while Altberg tries to sell it as "better, bigger and whateveryoucanimagine" - just to keep the blind and the wishful paying their fees. And this "something different" certainly will not keep Second Life alive. The only ones who can are the Second Life users. If they refuse to exchange what they have for a virtual Disneyland.

[ChinRey]

---

Vivienne Schell wrote:

You all miss the point. The point is that neither Linden Lab employees nor their CEO decided to drop Second Life as a priority for something different. It was the decision of the board, and the board follows completely different priorities as you, me or Linden Lab as an executive unit.

---

If you look at the statements made by LL through the history, it seems like SL2 started as an attempt to revitalize Second Life. When it turned out that was beyond LL's abilities, at least at the moment, they changed it into a new different project rather than scrap it. I don't think it's important where that decision was done it was clearly the right decision in the given situation from everybody's point of view.

---

Vivienne Schell wrote:

It´s only about venture capital, profits and the financial future of the project named "Linden Lab". No investor is interested in more than eight faces on a mesh, in maya or blender, prims, avatars or whatsoever, not even interested in Second Life.

---

Private investors do tend to go for ventures they have some personal interest and affinity for. Investment funds only look at the bottom line.

---

Vivienne Schell wrote:

Fact is that Second Life does not grow anymore.

---

It has been stagnant for years.

---

Vivienne Schell wrote:

Investors insist on growth and do not accept decline or even stagnation.

---

That's a truth with modifications. Second Life is not a good investment object but it's not exactly a bad one either. You wuldn't want invest fresh capital there but there's no urgent need to withdraw from your existing involvment either. From an investors point of view it's like an old car that's missed to many routine service stops. You don't want to spend money on restoring her but she's still got some mileage in her so you use her as long as you can.

---

Vivienne Schell wrote:

It has a hard core, die hard user crowd which spends enough money on it to keep it kinda profitable - in spite of the obvious shortcomings.

---

That's not true but maybe not for the reason you think. The user crowd, the active users that is, spends very little money on SL. They do contribute to the economy by keeping the activity level up and the Lindens in circulation but they pay preciously little actual U.S. dollars to LL.

Most of the paying customers are passive users (Desmond Shang called them "Rip van Winkles"), people who joined SL long ago and still pay their premium memberships and tiers although they hardly ever log on anymore. If your stomach is strong enough for it, take a trip to one of the Linden Homes sims. Most of those houses are actually occupied by premium members but you hradly ever see anybody there. Some are of course elsewhere in SL but I don't think I'm exaggerating if I say ninety percent of the Linden Homes owners are Rip van Winkles. And it's not just there. The whole of SL is filled with land owned or rented by passive users. This is one of the reasons why I'm confident SL will go on for a long time regardless of what other prog\jects LL launches btw. Theoretically they may be able to convince the active users to move to a new WV but their "milk cow", their main source of income, is stuck and will just vanish the moment they close down SL.

 

---

Vivienne Schell wrote:

You want a somewhat "better" Second life, they want no Second Life at all.

---

Why would they want that? As long as SL produces a revenue, they want it to continue. The moment it doesn't they just don't care whether it survives at all - at least not if they're the diehard capitalists you think.

And if they are, they would care just as little about mainstream compatibility as they would about the number of faces on a mesh. They'd be more than happy if they could make a huge pile of money from some old outdated rubbish.

---

Vivienne Schell wrote:

Most of you just show wishful thinking by calling the new platform "SL 2",

---

I hope not. The only reason I call it SL2 is that nobody's come up with another name for it yet. I've been very clear that I consider it a completely different project, not really related to SL at all anymore, and it seems to me most of the otehrs here have too.

I certainly don't wish for SL2 - or whatever we should call it - to be "the new SL". In my opinion that is the worst that can happen.

 

---

Vivienne Schell wrote:

Basically, it´s not the eight faces mesh or the prim or the windlight or the system avatar which stopped the growth of Second Life.

---

Of course but please keep in mind that we've used those as examples of the core problems. Nobody has yet said those are the actual causes on their own.

---

Vivienne Schell wrote:

The child porn scandal and the homestead pricing disaster had a much more massive impact.

---

And the inflated land prices and the killing of the educational discount programme and...

But SL would have handled those blows much better if the organisation and the fundament had been more solid.

---

Vivienne Schell wrote:

It´s not the rendering engine - 80 percent of all SL users run stone aged, underpowered computers, anyway.

---

And that is one of the core problems. LL consitently misjudges their customer base. The upgrades they've made to SL over time have always been for the fictious dream customer, not for the benefit of the actual SL users. In LL's collective mind, the typical SL user is a young male wielding a game computer with a TV sized monitor and a graphic card hot enough to do double duty as central heating mid winter. They just don't realise that the only thing the average SL user get from all those fancy updates to graphics quality is more lag.

---

Vivienne Schell wrote:

It´s just the fact that Virtual Reality in the Second Life shape (which is a giant, very complex and anarchist user sandbox model combined with the idea of "virtual land", object trade and a lot of brilliance paired with trash and kink) does not work for mainstream success.

---

I don't agree with you there. If any virtual world concept has any mainstream potential at all, it's Second Life's - or rather Second Life's adapted to actually cater for the mainstream market.

SL2 certainly has no mainstream potential. It's very much a niche product for the "high power gaming computer" people. And yes, that is a large niche but hardly mainstream.

 

---

Vivienne Schell wrote:

And everyone who really believes in a kind of "Second Life 2" is either completely blind or just driven by wishful thinking. Whatever the company will come up with, do not expect much more similar components than the avatar.

---

SL2 is certainly not a "new Second Life", I think we've already established that. It's a completely different product for a completely different market.

That doesn't mean there won't be one though. Sooner or later LL will try to resurrect SL. They simply can't afford not to. Hard to say if they'll succeed or not of course but if they don't, somebody else will see the opportunity and come and fill the gap. Because, for good or bad Second Life is actualy the only virtual world. There is and will always be a need for that.

[Medhue Simoni]

Sorry, but I'd say that, pretty much everything you said, is completely wrong.

I'm not an LL or SL fanboy. I could easily be said to be their biggest critic. So, It's not likely I'll sugar coat things in regards to LL.

Investors:

Look around you. There is nothing to invest in. Gains in the stock market are almost entirely because of the Feds money printing. That money they print goes directly into the hands of the banks, and invested into the stock market. For most people that do have money to invest, there is very little that is even remotely safe. You can't even keep your money in the bank, cause there is no interest generated, and there is a possibility of a Bail IN, like they did in Greece, where the banks just takes your money to cover the banks losses. So, my point is, that SL does actually make money, and is a much safer investment than almost anything, besides gold or silver. The best thing any investor could ever hope for, is for an investment to pay them something every year. Today, most ventures loss money, like crazy.

 

New world or SL2:

I said in the beginning that refering to it as SL2 was wrong and very bad marketing, not because of the name, but because of the expectations from the current SL users. It is not possible to make an SL2, just because of how the new world will be created and the tools they will use. Everything has to be different, because it has to be designed differently. Whenever you think about how you are going to build something, you have goals, and those goals establish the system. When LL created SL, they had very different goals from how it turned out. They changed direction a number of times. This new world has much more defined goals, hence changing the whole way they go about it.

 

What stopped SL from growing:

Well, it could never be 1 thing, but I'll try to encapsulate it. The main reason was price. Ebbe knows, and we all know that the sims are over priced. When everyone knows this, then how is it that people still speculate about it. That is the main reason, and LL is far to afraid, and economically illiterate to do anything about it. IMHO, they screwed themselves in the beginning by giving out deals with special people, when they really had no reason to do so, which lead to them not being able to lower tiers without angrying their biggest supporters. After the boom was over, they were stuck, in their narrow visioned eyes.

I'd also say that a total lack of interest in bug fixes and avatar advancement led to a stifling of content, and much agrivation from the merchant class. I could go on and on about all the problems they created for us. In the end tho, if your crap is buggy, there's not much we(the content creators) can do about it, accept yell at them. Lord knows the jiras wer useless. And don't forget about the total lack of marketing for both us, and SL.

 

Is the concept bad:

Not in the least. The concept, which LL fell into, is brilliant. I'm not really talking about the concept of bringing 3d objects into a open sandbox, but the concept of making a platform in which people can produce wealth with. This concept almost always works, I just don't think LL understands it, or even embraces it. The concept is similar to Windows, or Ebay, Youtube, and things like that. There are basically 3 types of things we(as human beings) invest in. There are things we need. There are things we like. And. there are things we make money on. When you make money on something, there is no downfall to doing it, or investing in it, other than your time. The money is a major incentive for people to be engaged and grow it. Yeah, I could play minecraft, or candycrush, but what do I gain from my time doing it?

All the crap about porn, and child stuff, is just that, CRAP! Nobody(people in RL) gives a crap about it. So many people make this a big deal, but in reality it didn't hurt SL at all. Virtual worlds don't hinge on whether big corporations join in. That was probably LL's biggest flaw, in catering to these people, meaning the corporations. They saw big dollar signs, and it massively skewed their vision of SL. LL didn't understand that they would have a much better business by having millions of customers, instead of a few really large 1's. If LL had understood that catering to the average person would gain them much more than big corporations, which could destroy them when they pulled out, then they would have approached the sim cost differently, as well as other aspects. That's really LL's big problem from the past. They never really wanted us, just the big corporations.

[ChinRey]

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

They saw big dollar signs, and it massively skewed their vision of SL. LL didn't understand that they would have a much better business by having millions of customers, instead of a few really large 1's. If LL had understood that catering to the average person would gain them much more than big corporations, which could destroy them when they pulled out,

---

Oh, I had completely forgotten about the Big Business period. It was way before my time of course and no trace of it in SL today but I read about it in the news.

But you're not suggesting that they still are LL's Dream Customer, are you? That wouldn't just be stupid, it would be sheer lunacy. But on the right side, at least it would mean it wouldn't take long before LL have to give SL their full attention again.

[Medhue Simoni]

---

ChinRey wrote:

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

They saw big dollar signs, and it massively skewed their vision of SL. LL didn't understand that they would have a much better business by having millions of customers, instead of a few really large 1's. If LL had understood that catering to the average person would gain them much more than big corporations, which could destroy them when they pulled out,

---

Oh, I had completely forgotten about the Big Business period. It was way before my time of course and no trace of it in SL today but I read about it in the news.

But you're not suggesting that they still are LL's Dream Customer, are you? That wouldn't just be stupid, it would be sheer lunacy. But on the right side, at least it would mean it wouldn't take long before LL have to give SL their full attention again.

---

Enterprise, they priced it at $55,000, and we all laughed our butts off at it. I don't think they are still in that mindset, as Ebbe did say that the cost would be much lower. Then again, LL still charges $1000 for a "set up fee". Why? Where is the justification? They flip a switch and that costs us $1000? If it does cost them something, then they should eat it just to have more reaccuring sim fees. If they really have to charge something, then have it equate to the real cost, not some imaginary fairy cost. Most businesses try to price their products to real costs. LL knew they had a monopoly and just charged arbitrary prices, that have nothing at all to do with real world prices. If it was not for my partner, at the time, I would not have purchased a sim, cause I would never pay that $1000, just in principle. Plus, I could do alot more with that $1000 than anything SL could give me. The fact that they still charge that, is mindboggling. They know their product is overprice, but they can't lower the 1 thing that would not hurt anyone? Again, it's mindboggling.

Just look at what Epic did with Unreal Engine. Last year they came out and opened the engine up to the public with a $19/month model. That is easily within the scope of most people. Then, this year, realizing that they were making enough from their 5% share on profits of games made with UE, they decided to drop the monthly cost all together. That is a company understanding that if they lower their costs, they'll have many more customers, which will massively boost the potential for more profits.

Personally tho, I'll believe it when I see it from LL. They have done nothing at all to lower costs for their customers in their whole 11 year existence, so I'm not all that convinced that they will price things reasonably in the new world. Really, LL themselves are their own worst enemy. They hold themselves back more than anyone.

[irihapeti]

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

 

---

irihapeti wrote:

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

---

 

---

The Austrian school is not determined by Mises, nor even Hayek. It's a combinations of similar theories by many Austrians, not just 1 or 2. The Austrian school is not predicated on whether people are rational at all. The only people that say that it is, or the Chicago school of thought is, are the keyensians, cause it really is 1 of their few arguments.

---

was Mises who did actually say this. Not Keynes

also. The argument that Mises methodology is suspect is your argument. Not mine

+

whats interesting about disciples is how they re-invent their ideology when is shown that one of their leading lights is just making stuff up

if you do want clever then this is clever. Is a re-invention by a disciple of what Mises actually said

http://mises.org/library/what-do-austrians-mean-rational

 

 

---

Did you read the article? That's exactly what I said he said, and, for the most part, I agree with him. See there is the distinction. Much like Mises, I also have a brain. Are you saying that I'm not allowed to use that brain to interpret what Mises meant? Are you saying that people can not expand on a view from the past? Are you saying that people can't have minds of their own, if the subscribe to a view? That every single point should be accepted without question, and that if we don't fully agree with all aspects, then we must reject it? To me, you are talking in circles.

---

what I am saying is that people do re-evaluate their beliefs as they learn more

which is a good thing

edit add:

this disciple has re-evaluated what Mises actually said. Re-evaluated, changed it even, so that his (the disciple) beliefs are in accord with a new argument that makes sense to him

 

[Deltango Vale]

"SL2 certainly has no mainstream potential. It's very much a niche product for the "high power gaming computer" people. And yes, that is a large niche but hardly mainstream."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

As perhaps the only economic historian in Second Life, I would disagree. One of the huge problems of SL is that it's packed with engineers. While engineers are extremely useful for nuts and bolts work, they cannot see the big picture: historical context and perspective, social trajectories, institutional and organizational change, vision, strategy, leadership, management and, above all, human emotions, motivations and behavior.

Philip (an engineer) was baffled by the success of Second Life in 2006, but he had enough wit and wisdom to recognize that human beings were using Second Life as more than just a game. People were flocking to SL from all over the world, bringing with them a high level of enthusiasm, trust, ability and money. They learned how to use the viewer from each other. They upgraded their computers (which were less powerful than today's tablets). They put up with all kinds of bugs (who can forget 'downgrade' Wednesdays when LL would 'upgrade' the grid?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It wasn't just hype. There was a real hunger for the opportunities - human opportunities - afforded by Second Life. There were also commercial opportunities. While not the best documentary,

 illustrates some of these human and commercial opportunities. The same year, I wrote an assessment of SL, which outlined the potential of SL and the failings of Linden Lab to achieve that potential.

Nothing has changed regarding Second Life's potential. Not only have the tools for accessing SL improved (low-cost, high-power computers, low-cost, high-definition display monitors, high-speed broadband, the Phoenix/Firestorm viewer, social media support, resident-based community and technical support), but the human desire to escape from RL constraints has not diminished.

Second Life is not a game, it is a new social geography with a sophisticated political economy. It is a new country that floats above RL. Sadly, Linden Lab never understood this metafunction of SL, seeking instead to treat it as a game or 3D Facebook or a California theme park. The company just didn't get it - and still doesn't get it, but then, how could a handful of engineers and venture capitalists ever understand such things?

People learn when there is an incentive to do so. They learn fast when they learn from each other. Also, each generation is capable of absorbing technologies that befuddles its parents (grandpa with a cellphone, dad with Oculus Rift). Writing off Second Life as too advanced for the human race is disingenuous. Second Life could become mainstream if it were treated as a new frontier instead of a shiny toy.