Marketplace, Mesh & a question - your opinions please

[Gavin Hird]

Virtually all market research show that for a Mac and a brand name PC at the same price, the Mac is better spec-ed than the PC. 

 

 

 

[Medhue Simoni]

Why do you need market research? Just look yourself. 5 minutes of research is all you need. If you are right, you should be able to point us to a Mac with better specs than a PC of the same price.

I also saw market research that says Obama has spent less money than all other presidents. Yet Americans owe 5 trillion more than when he started. Most "Market Research" is driven by the manufacturer, and they tend to leave out key factors.

[Gavin Hird]

A disturbance was felt in the force, as fandriods across the globe suddenly cried out in terror over 37,040,000 external memory card slots not being sold. 

BOOM!

[Dartagan Shepherd]

---

Gavin Hird wrote:

A disturbance was felt in the force, as fandriods across the globe suddenly cried out in terror over

37,040,000

external memory card slots not being sold. 

BOOM!

---

BOOM! Indeed.

A little more BOOM to put that in perspective compared to "everyone else" ...

http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/24/boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom/

Regardless of what you think of the product, and I say this as a mere PC and Android user, that's the way to create products and markets that have real value, which in turn creates oodles of jobs besides a $4 Billion dollars to its developers.

If LL can grasp product as product, the rest as cruft, and third-party product as a value market, we might get somewhere.

 

[Toysoldier Thor]

They said all this about Microsoft and how it cant double and double but it did..... THEN it started to stop.

You can only market limited technology for so long before people wake up..... plus now that Jobs is gone... some of the Apple Cultists might wake up and realize they have been bamboozled all these years on over paying for under-delivered technology.

They cant be stupid forever.

But its great Apple built their second industry bubble.... like i said... it will burst.  Economics dictate it.

[Toysoldier Thor]

---

Gavin Hird wrote:

A disturbance was felt in the force, as fandriods across the globe suddenly cried out in terror over

37,040,000

external memory card slots not being sold. 

BOOM!

---

YUP.... You and your Fellow Apple Staff have done one hell of a job creating the cult where even a simple function / feature like expandable external memory that EVERY OTHER DEVICE ON THE INDUSTRY HAS.... Apple doesnt have the smarts to figure out how to do it.

Weak limited over priced technology eventually fails - no matter how much marketing power you have.

 

Again... its not fun debating with an Actual biased Apple Staffer.  You are the creator of the Merketing Propaganda....I like debating with people with a hope of being open minded.

  that wont happen with you Gavin... not on this topic.

Later!

[Gavin Hird]

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

YUP.... You and your Fellow Apple Staff have done one hell of a job creating the cult where even a simple function / feature like expandable external memory that EVERY OTHER DEVICE ON THE INDUSTRY HAS.... Apple doesnt have the smarts to figure out how to do it.

 

---

In case you have not noticed iCloud is the 5 Gb external memory that comes for free with every iOS device, expandable to your liking. It is even shareable between, and being synced with your devices, and it is backed up for you. 

Apple made an informed decision to not include a memory expansion slot on these devices because they wanted to use the realestate it use in the housing to increase the size of the battery, and thereby giving users a better experience in terms of time the device can be used between recharges. 

Finally, if every other device in the industry has it – exactly what marketing advantage does that give you? Only a big meh from customers. While useable battery time is a BIG factor in deciding on a portable device. 

 

[Dartagan Shepherd]

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

They said all this about Microsoft and how it cant double and double but it did..... THEN it started to stop.

You can only market limited technology for so long before people wake up..... plus now that Jobs is gone... some of the Apple Cultists might wake up and realize they have been bamboozled all these years on over paying for under-delivered technology.

They cant be stupid forever.

But its great Apple built their second industry bubble.... like i said... it will burst.  Economics dictate it.

---

It's not a bubble, I think. It's based on a solid electronics consumer market, and the numbers don't lie in that they've got a good grasp of what makes a satisifying product to their customers. 

A few things I leave at the door, one of which is what I think of the product (when it isn't mine). What I think is irrelevent. Whether I like it or not is irrelevent.

What makes a product valuable to its customers isn't always about whether it's better, but whether it's more satisifying. With Apple, there's not a lot of secrets there. We've got years worth of analyzing what makes an Apple product different from something "better".

The thing this should say to LL is that there's more money to be made (especially in third-party content) by being Apple than being Google.

There is more stable and long term income in maintaining value and a product that satisfies its market, within a reasonable price range, than there is with all the "reach" in the world.

In fact, I'll go one step further. A company that tries to make reach and "open" a priority is far more greedy than any Microsoft, or Apple. The main reason being is that at the end of the day, this type of startup, tech mentality creates far more failures than successes and devalues or "disrupts" markets that they touch.

It exploits people to do much more for much less by dangling a whole bunch of creative carrots, in the name of freedom and empowering individuals.

It creates far less jobs in the real economy, and funnels more money to the companies than the people, than say Apple.

Apple contributes back more in taxes, jobs and a slew of other economic factors.

LL can continue to let what we have here devalue and shrink, or they can be an Apple and say hey this stuff is worth something, and we're going to protect that value.

It's not a matter of exclusion, it's a matter of people being able to make a little money with a lot more risk and a lot more time, or a lot of money with a lot less risk and a lot less time.

Time for LL to grow up in this regard and stop short-changing their Merchants.

[Toysoldier Thor]

---

Gavin Hird wrote:

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

YUP.... You and your Fellow Apple Staff have done one hell of a job creating the cult where even a simple function / feature like expandable external memory that EVERY OTHER DEVICE ON THE INDUSTRY HAS.... Apple doesnt have the smarts to figure out how to do it.

 

---

In case you have not noticed iCloud is the 5 Gb external memory that comes for free with every iOS device, expandable to your liking. It is even shareable between, and being synced with your devices, and it is backed up for you. 

Apple made an informed decision to not include a memory expansion slot on these devices because they wanted to use the realestate it use in the housing to increase the size of the battery, and thereby giving users a better experience in terms of time the device can be used between recharges. 

Finally, if every other device in the industry has it – exactly what marketing advantage does that give you? Only a big meh from customers. While useable battery time is a BIG factor in deciding on a portable device. 

 

---

ROFL!!!   I will say Gavin when I woke up this morning and read my emails on my Android and I came to your posting... your response on Apple's logic on why they do not support the most basic of Mobil Computing hardware functions - external SD memory expansion slots  - almost made me spit my cereal out!!

LOL  WOW you kill me.  It is so interesting to be speaking to an actual Apple Spin Doctor in person and listen to the actual BS arguments used to explain why Apple's technology is inferior to its competitors.

I actually had to share your excuse / explanation with my fellow techies here in RL.  They got a great chuckle from it to.

So Apple Engineers could not figure out how to add a highly valuable basic funtion of added a MICRO SD CARD SLOT because they wanted to add more battery space??  OMG... lol  Good one Gavin.

Can you be just a bit honest here.... the reason Apple did not put in an external memory SD card memory expansion was because if you did, you could not control the interface of the SD card with your device.  You could not add this special "monitoring and controling" chip that you mandate all hardware partners must put in front of your other interfaces.  Apple doesnt want data, information, movies, music, etc. to come into the Apple device from an uncontrolled source like an SD card with MP3s on it.  They want ALL of the data that flows in and out of the Apple device to be 100% in Apples control, restrictions, monitoring.

You also knew that since your BORG CULTIST Customer base does not have the ability to expand the device's internal memory, you will force them to upgrade the apple device to a device that simply has more memory at a hugely inflated additional price.

As for your iCLOUD.... wow that is an innovative concept.   One that has existed in the industry all over the place and for starge much larger than 5GB.  But... of course with Apple's amazing spin Dr'ing, iCloud is different

So poor iphone user with only 8GB RAM and a library of movies and music that has filled up all the devices memory... must rely upon completey connectivity to your iCLOUD if they want to store more movies and songs and documents etc.?  And what if they are on a plane?  Utter BS Gavin and you know it.... you just cant admit it publicly.

As for your last hilarious argument that if all devices of all manufacturers have the same function then whate value is it??? Are you kidding me?   OK... so based on that lame ass excuse, all devices have a screen and touch screen even.  Ohh and better yet, ALL smart phones have a camera - even the old flip phones did.... I guess there is no value in having these functions either - huh?  Apple should remove screens and camera functions from their devices.   How stupid an argument is that??

You are good Gavin.  You did make me laugh.

 

But this is a major part of the current success of Apple.  Their marketing is SOOOO SLICK that they have established a blind cult consumer base that has no mind of its own.  Apple has brainwashed these people so well that they can convince a consumer that a primary high value techincal function like expanded external memory is not really needed.  "You dont need more memory... Turst us."  And when Apple actually has a compromising solution to their inferior technology, they then spin it into "We have an amazing new concept called iCloud".  Not new - not innovative... but Apple concinces the borg that it is new and you need this now!

All Part of the Steve Jobs vision of maintaining a proprietary closed ALL-CONTROLED business model.

What will be so interesting to see and I predict this will be the ultimate failing of Apple in the next 5  - 7 years - is how Apple will be able to maintain this Cult Control without Steve Jobs. 

Apple vs Android is the battle between an Closed and Open model.  We will all know in 5 years who won this one.

Open beat Closed in the 80s.  We will see if Apple learned any lessons - but it seems they didnt.

[Gavin Hird]

I'd like to add to that "... and stop short-changing their Developers."

The reason why I make this distinction is because, although it is not very big, there is one even in SecondLife. We typically see it as people delivering scripts, full perm animations and the industry of full perm sculpty items that has sprung up. Pure land developers could also be included in this category. 

Common for them all are they are very dependent on the builder tools built into the viewer, and LL short-changed these people badly with viewer 2, which for many developers made building a nightmare. The result was that infinite amounts of energy has gone into developing third party viewers (TPV) that tried to alleviate some of the shortcomings in this area. 

One very recent example is that most TPVs have a tool developed by a former employee (Quarl) for alignment of prims during the building process, and the code for this was donated to LL recently for inclusion in the version 3 viewer. This was dismissed by LL as "not being adequate" and it also could not be used to align items customers have bought. 

I am sorry, but I think such an attitude is preposterous, and even though Thor is gonna say that Apple is equally controlling in how they develop their tools for iOS, yes, they are at some level, BUT...

They have yearly developer conferences where they take massive amounts of input from their developers, while at the same time present future plans. This is merged into what typically becomes a major release of iOS, but equally important fast iterations of their development tools to make their developers more productive. 

Had the LL development team for mesh listened more to us, the developers of content in SecondLife, the afterthought of parametric deformers to fit a mesh to an avatar that is now somehow being bolted onto the initial mesh implementation, would have been avoided. This even came about after developers funded the project themselves. 

Equally well, and I am sure others here will fill me in, but the development of the delivery platform for the Marketplace has been a core example on non-communication with the real users (merchants and developers alike.)

This is also another reason why I have called for a developer organization; to significantly improve the communication between LL and the developers in SecondLife, so we both can pull in the same direction. 

 

 

[Toysoldier Thor]

Its a bubble Dart.

You are like so many others - even the industry experts that have been proven wrong so many times.  You look at today figures and revenues and convince yourself that current success = future success.

You are not looking at past experience.  You are not looking at the bigger picture.  You dont see this is a battle of two fundamental business / technical models.

This battle is between:

A CLOSED / PROPRIETARY / CONTROLLED model (Apple / RIM)

vs

An OPEN /  COMPETITIVE / NON-CONTROLLEd model  (Android)

 

If you want to see the future Dart.... 1) dont listen to current industry experts that make predictions based on current numbers.  2) look at the bigger picture and the more subtle movements in the industry - dont make predictions based on hype.  3) look at history in these longer slower evolving models

 

This battle between CLOSE and OPEN has happened countless times and even to Apple in the past.  Apple lost that battle in the 80s when the market overwhelmingly sided with OPEN and left CLOSED.  Apple was on the verge of collepse if Microsoft didnt come and help them and Steve Jobs stepped back in.

Now Steve is gone (who was the architect of keeping a CLOSED model working) and the Android growth is exploding in only the past 18 months.  The Steve legacy will only last for a couple more years before Apple Execs will have to think for themselves.  And... I predict history will repeat itself.

We are not talking predictions of 12 months... these battles take 5 - 7 years to play out.

We will see if OPEN wins again... as it always has.

[Gavin Hird]

I remember equally well how people spat creal when Apple removed the floppy drive and put a CD-ROM in, or USB, or Firewire, or entirely removed the DVD drive, or now put in the Thunderbolt port. Every time the industry has been scrambling to follow, and techies like you have barfed over yourselves every time.

The biggest craze right now is gorilla glass. Even the producer did not know what to use if for before Apple put it in their phones. 

Apple does what it does because it is a market creator.  The rest are more or less followers. A little ROLF from techies has never stopped it. ;-)

[Gavin Hird]

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

vs

An OPEN /  COMPETITIVE / NON-CONTROLLEd model  (Android)

 

---

Do some research, and you will find that Google's devlopment model is the most closed of them all. I'll provide you a lead to follow. ;-)

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/08/android-least-open-platform/

[Gavin Hird]

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

  Apple was on the verge of collepse if Microsoft didnt come and help them...

 

---

This is a blatant lie, and I get pissed every time I see it. 

The fact is that Microsoft stole code from QuickTime to incorporate into what was then Video for Windows. So this deal was the end of, and settlement of the legal process that started in 1994 when the theft was discovered. 

Microsoft entered into that deal with Apple as settlement for what would otherwise have been a very damaging legal process where Microsoft would most likely have been split in two by the DoJ. 

The settlement involved that Microsoft HAD to continue develop Office for the Mac for a number of years, it HAD to port Explorer to the Mac, and Apple got access to, and insight into all MS techology for a number of years ahead. 

The $150 million in non-voting stock that Microsoft paid for was just the icing of the cake. 

[Toysoldier Thor]

---

Gavin Hird wrote:

I remember equally well how people spat creal when Apple removed the floppy drive and put a CD-ROM in, or USB, or Firewire, or entirely removed the DVD drive, or now put in the Thunderbolt port. Every time the industry has been scrambling to follow, and techies like you have barfed over yourselves every time.

The biggest craze right now is gorilla glass. Even the producer did not know what to use if for before Apple put it in their phones. 

Apple does what it does because it is a market creator.  The rest are more or less followers. A little ROLF from techies has never stopped it. ;-)

---

Yup.... I give Apple Marketing Gods credit... they have so deeply brainswashed the core BORG of Apple customers that Apple can remove technical functionality and add more controls and more restrictions to their technology and deploye limited features to their technology and be able to simple tell their borg "you dont need it.... trust us".

Again, you can spin your APPLE BS all you want to me... I took the BLUE PILL GAVIN... your marketing propanda doesnt work on me.  And... we can debate Apple's excuses on inferior functionality to death.....

Who was right and wrong is not something that will be known for 5 more years. 

CLOSED PROPRIETARY models can get to market quick and always shows early wins (as we see with Apple now) but OPEN COMPETIVIE models historically always win out in the long run.  They just take longer to destroy those with the closed model.

Apple has failed before and withouth Steve Jobs ingenious personal talent to guide and spin this Closed Model anymore, my prediction is in 5 - 7 years.... you and Dart's "APPLE WON" prediction will be proven wrong.

Sorry that I cant prove that until 5 years from now.

So.... lets close this topic and I will reopen a thread in 5 years.

 

PS - we are wayyyyyyyy off the OP of this thread.  But I will say it was a fun thread to participate in.  I never got to speak directly with someone from the Actual Apple Borg before.  It was entertaining.

Thanks!

[Gavin Hird]

For the record, I am currently not an Apple employee (you seem to be under that impression.) Wired Magazine even called me an open source activist a few years back, hehe!

... but the reason why Apple was even brought into this discussion, is that Linden Lab can learn from how Apple handles their developer community in general, and the iOS developers and the App Store in particular. They can also learn something about simplicity and the user experience. 

The symbiosis of a good developer program, a solid technology and development platform, clever marketing, persistance and belief in own ideas and quality standards, all in combination with freedom to create and market, coupled with decent financial rewards for their developers. –— This is what is behind the success everyone in the industry now envy, and so far has resulted in the stellar performance that was reported yesterday. 

[Medhue Simoni]

Keep watching the numbers. I called the peak a year ago. From here, it is down hill. The market is shifting as we speak, but Apple is ready for this next shift. Will they be ready for the 1 after that?

I don't see all the things like droids and Iphones going away, but I do see the market shrinking. Not as bad as past markets in tech, because this 1 is directly link to a product we've used for years, the phone. What makes me laugh, is this insistance that desktops are not wanted. I predict that we'll see and reimmergence of the desktop when more and more people actually stop running to work everyday and start actually working from home. This is still years away in my mind. Most companies still don't trust their employees enough to let them work from home.

[Toysoldier Thor]

---

Gavin Hird wrote:

....

... but the reason why Apple was even brought into this discussion, is that Linden Lab can learn from how Apple handles their developer community in general, and the iOS developers and the App Store in particular. They can also learn something about simplicity and the user experience. 

The symbiosis of a good developer program, a solid technology and development platform, clever marketing, persistance and belief in own ideas and quality standards, all in combination with freedom to create and market, coupled with decent financial rewards for their developers. –— This is what is behind the success everyone in the industry now envy, and so far has resulted in the stellar performance that was reported yesterday. 

---

 

The problem with your logic on the Apple Developers model (or really any formal vendor Developers model in the industry) being used for the MP to restrict merchantsis that Creator / Merchants are not Developers. 

You have a mindset that the 70,000+ population of SL Merchants (which most are SL creators of content of what they sell) are "DEVELOPERS" and that you just want to skim the cream from the milk of this population and ban the weak non-disciplined "developers" from the fastest growing and most powerful distribution channel that any SL Merchant has.

Where you are wrong and subsequently why your idea of introducing a Developer Program for MP is a bad idea is that most SL Merchants (I will say 95%+) are not Developers with no formal developer skills.  And 99.9% of the Creator / Merchant community are not developing - they are Creators / Assemblers and creating content from the tools that are openly available to all SL residents.

Classifying a SL Merchant / Creator as a "DEVELOPER" would be equivilent to calling a user of Microsoft Word or Excel a Developer because they wrote a novel or document or created a cool advanced spreadsheet.  They didnt "develop" anything in the sense that any known RL vendor Developer Program would consider development.

 

So, since MP is an SL open distribution channel of SL's creators to distribute their content, placing the rigors, controls, restrictions, fees, obligations, standards, practices of a formal devloper program would destroy the MP.

As such, even though you say its DOA, if you so strongly feel there needs to be a special elite MP that services TRUE DEVELOPERS.... then do not hijack the main MP distribution channel used by 99% of SL creators / merchants and boot them off.   Go create a new MP distribution channel that is restrictive and caters only to SL's few true Developers.

You and Porky are trying to hammer a round peg into a square hole.  No one wins on that.

[Gavin Hird]

I, on my part, have never suggested any other formal or rigour than this:

1. Every developer must pass a test on copyright and IP (simmilar to the one that exist for mesh.) Meaning all developers are treated equal regardless of their creation is mesh, scultp, prim, script, texture, animation, sound ...
2. Every developer must register with a know RL identity
3. Every developer must pay a yearly fee to be in the developer program

A developer is defined as an individual who makes a creation or provides a service that can be set for sale through the mechanisms in the marketplace or in-world*. 

Any other restrictions, control, whatnot you refer to only exist in your head. 

*The in-world part may not be possible to implement unless major changes to the server code is made. It may also be dead simple for all I know.  It must be possible to give someone else a "transfer" item, and the mechanism for this may be intertwined with the code for selling items. 

[Toysoldier Thor]

---

Gavin Hird wrote:

I, on my part, have never suggested any other formal or rigour than this:

1. Every developer must pass a test on copyright and IP (simmilar to the one that exist for mesh.) Meaning all developers are treated equal regardless of their creation is mesh, scultp, prim, script, texture, animation, sound ...
   Toy: and exactly what benefit does this serve to stop a CopyBotter / IP Stealer?  I went through the same LAME test to be able to import a mesh object into SL.  A small set of Questions that even when you get it wrong you can correct it until you are right and move on to pass the test. 
   If I were a MESH Thief I would have done nothing different and still violated all the points mentioned in the test that I passed. 
   If the test is only to expose abandoned Merchants on MP well this is a useless means since MP is currently filled with all this clutter many of you complain about even after the active participation required to move from Xstreet to MP and when we move to DD as well.
   If its just for general SL Citizen awareness of how IP rights work then force the QUIZ (with no test) on every SL resident to learn in the same way that LL gets occassional @ Login Approval of new TOS.
2. Every developer must register with a know RL identity
   Toy: In a virtual world world like SL where anonymity of your SL account is high on the critical success factors of SL (as 100% agreed by Rod Humble himself), this demand is an attack on an SL prime principle.  PIOF is required for any merchants wanting to have their profits paid out into RL $.  Anyone else should not be forced to expose their RL Identity to anyone else - including LL.
   I know you have no respect for this principle and current right within SL but you should not be demanding that other SL citizens must give up this right in order to contribute content to SL and be a Merchant.
   All this will do (which I believe is one of your secret objectives in these demands) is cull a large % of the Creator / Merchant community.
3. Every developer must pay a yearly fee to be in the developer program
   Toy:  WHY?  What purpose is there / what benefit is there for a MERCHANT (no such thing as a Developer in SL) or the MP or inworld economy or the buyer that a Merchant is forced to pay an annual fee in order to be a Merchant?  This is only a Tax Grab for LL. 
   The collect $L would be used for what when collected???   We already determined that registered or not - all education, documentation, access to betas already exist in the crappy forms LL offers.
   This demand would only serve to raise another barrier to entry for new creators and line LL's pockets for an MP service that is already reducing in SLA and functionality - not improving.

A developer is defined as an individual who makes a creation or provides a service that can be set for sale through the mechanisms in the marketplace or in-world*.

 

 

Toy: Well LOL I guess if I write a notecard and place it on Marketplace - I am a developer?  Your definition of a DEVELOPER sure is an insult to all that would truly consider themselves a Developer.  SL creators are NOT developers.  A Developer in any program is given special access code, tools, etc. to create a product.  So are you planning to take all SL-wide creator tools away from them until they become a Developer?  Though shalt not be allowed to rez and assemble prims in SL unless they are licensed?

 

Again, you need to change your mindset of what an SL Creator is and a Merchant is.... they are the equivilent of a user of Word or Excel and they are selling a Word Document or Excel Spreadsheet.  They are not developing the program called WORD or EXCEL.  These are Developers.

Any other restrictions, control, whatnot you refer to only exist in your head. 

 

*The in-world part may not be possible to implement unless major changes to the server code is made. It may also be dead simple for all I know.  It must be possible to give someone else a "transfer" item, and the mechanism for this may be intertwined with the code for selling items. 

Toy: You want to completely transform SL's fundamental model that has made it the level of success it is now.  You want to live in a world like Blue Mars.  As such, since you already know your ideas will not ever fly in SL.... why dont you leave SL (since it soo fundamentally conflicts with your business model) and establish your business in Blue Mars?

You say that this model you suggest is such a great idea and simple - then instead of destroying the current MP and ostresizing 90% of the current creator / merchant population from the main MP model, create your own new MP model and place these restrictions in place.  You say its DOA but how can it be if your developer program is such a good idea?  Dont try to rip the MP model away from the vast majority of creator / merchants because you believe they are below you as a "DEVELOPER".

---

 

[Gavin Hird]

All current build and developer tools will be available to anyone as they always have. In my model, even the current restriction on uploading mesh would go away. It is only when you want to trade your creations you need to enter the developer status. Having said that once-off sales items should be able to be sold in-world with no restrictions. 

A good developer program would offer more insights, more access to information, perhaps special code access and other incentives to enroll in the program.

Apple's program is free for anyone to enter, it is only when you want to sell your creations or you want access to beta programs you need to pay the yearly fee. Such a model might work well for SecondLife too. 

You need to reset your mind on what a developer is. Stick content in front of it, and you might feel more comfortable. ;-)

[Toysoldier Thor]

and you need to unstick your mind from the idea that any creator that creates content and wants to sell it on MP needs to pay an annual fee....  and then you spin it into "its an annual Developer fee"...

LOL  its your old Apple spin Dr'ing talking...

All you want is to charge a fee to scare away the hobby merchants.... NO OTHER REASON FOR THE FEE. 

I have asked you twice why you are so convinced that your program needs to force merchants to pay a fee to sell.

PS.... so now you even say "anyone can build create develop" which to me would be the "DEVELOPER" relation but you only want to force them into a "developer" program after they have already developed but want to sell.  LOL

So you are not actually proposing a DEVELOPER PROGRAM .... you want a MERCHANT PROGRAM that is disguised to sound fancy and be a Developer program.  SPppppinnnnnnnn

This is nothing more than a MP USAGE TAX.  It has been proposed many times many ways....  your suggestion is nothing new,.

[Gavin Hird]

There already is a MP Tax. Namely the heavy burden massive amounts of  freebee and dollarbees impose on any serious developer. – Which is why many leave. The exocus may be swift and brutal once they realize what they can get for their mesh creations outside SecondLife. 

Yes, the proposal impose some restrictions also on in-world trade. Primarily the ability to spawn multiple unknown identities used to hand off stolen and ripped off goods. 

[Ann Otoole]

Gut SL of the hobbyists making a little cash for tier, shoes, dresses, and wigs and the elite devs will have nothing left to sell to and LL will shut SL down. Period. End of story. The SL ecosystem is that fragile and you should already be able to see the decline rate increasing as people quit because they don't feel like hassling with mesh. Even LL left to go work on non SL stuff so they know it is going to fall.

[Gavin Hird]

Admittedly putting restrictions on in-world trade is problematic. You have the whole issue of affiliates for instance that many small stores rely on. 

Also, as I said before, once-off items (transfer only, modify+transfer) should be able to trade without any restrictions whatsoever. 

Perhaps the solution is that before you are able to set the "for sale" option in-world, you'd have to registers in the (content) developer program (with a known identity) and pass some copyright test ala the current mesh test. To trade on the MP and get access to beta programs and such, you'd have to pay the yearly fee. 

I also believe that the camping ban has significantly hurt in-world trade and retention. This was an option to enter the economy without taking the plunge. Test the waters so to speak. With few such opportunities left, people leave at the door once they realize you have to show plastic fast to participate.