Pussycat Catnap Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Sy Beck wrote: Pserendipity Daniels makes an interesting claim/point in the feeds over what may be another purpose of the TPV changes. "pserendipity.daniels Oh, by the way, the reason for the change in policy about Third Party Viewers is not because of anything the TPVs are doing at the moment, but because LL are about to insert advertising into the user experience - and they don't want TPVs to be able to do what the netintelligentsia do with AdBlock on Firefox to eliminate adverts. Pep (Go on Viale/Rod, tell me I am wrong, and make yourself public liars!) PS Again. about 12 hours ago Comment" So far no advertiser would seriously consider it because most users use TPVs, who would/could block any advertising, and any such introduction of embedded advertising into the LL viewer would force the number of TPV users even higher. I call bunk on that theory. Removing advertising would not violate this altered TOS. That would be affecting the individual's experience, not the shared world. That's just an attempt at paranoia from the looks of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kinda Fallen Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Sy Beck wrote: So far no advertiser would seriously consider it because most users use TPVs, who would/could block any advertising, and any such introduction of embedded advertising into the LL viewer would force the number of TPV users even higher. So what would LL have to do to secure that advertising dollar? Firstly, remove any information showing what TPVs other users might be using apart from the LL viewer, don't want advertisers seeing that LL doesn't control the monopoly on viewers or even a sizeable majority of the market and then secondly, dictate that all TPVs must adhere to the same viewer experience that will be rammed down the throats of V2/V3 users, namely advertising. Slap me on the ass and call me Susan if this isn't on the cards. I must agree Sy, it sure looks like a plan to skew subscriptions numbers, and for what other reason do you do this? Anyone thats ever been in advertising knows this immediately, so you can sell advertising at whatever price you so chose to ask for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irene Muni Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Pussycat Catnap wrote: I call bunk on that theory. Removing advertising would not violate this altered TOS. That would be affecting the individual's experience, not the shared world. That's just an attempt at paranoia from the looks of it. I'm not sure. Of course It's just speculation, but might have some logic. Imagine LL adds advertising in the Tip Of The Day or as a window opened when you log in (as te actual "Destinations" in V3). LL would not want that any TPV could change the ToD or cancel that window. Just speculation but .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qie Niangao Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 I don't think advertising has anything to do with this policy change because I think the policy always gave LL all the power it needs to enforce that any advertising be preserved in TPVs, if it chose to do so. In fact, the policy change itself doesn't add any power to LL that it didn't already have; it merely specifies some situations where it now plans to exercise those powers. Since they weren't carving out new territory anyway, there'd be no point in using vague wording to entail something on the sly. The "shared experience" language is very general, but having finally listened to the meeting audio, I think I understand what they were trying to say, and I wouldn't know a more precise way of putting it within a handful of words. Anyway, I might even welcome an ad-supported version of SL for non-Premium users, but that would be a very difficult sell to advertisers (even if it didn't exclude Premium users) at rates high enough to make it worth doing. Remember the laughable failure of the MoTD advertising experiment from a couple years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irene Muni Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Qie Niangao wrote: Remember the laughable failure of the MoTD advertising experiment from a couple years ago? LOL I remember, LL has never been very good with advertising (advertrising of SL or advertising of others) - - - - - - - - - Oz Linden has added a comment in JIRA about viewer tags. A Resident wrote "I read every comment. Flooding the jira is necessary because Oz stated the roll out to break the scripts was scheduled for Tuesday (2/28) and Wednesday (2/29. Merchants had from Friday until Tuesday to react.". And Oz comment: "You are mistaken. I said that "Nothing is final."The change that is scheduled be rolled out this week affects viewer tags, not this." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solar Legion Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Oh yes .... and I'm sorry but .... viewing one's online status somehow violates privacy? I call BS on that one. Seeing at a glance which friends have removed that permission? Possibly an issue. Pulling up a profile to check? Nope! See, it's really quite simple here folks: Set yourself as "Not Online", set either your busy OR get a client with an Auto response module and use it, then ignore anyone who IMs you. It is how everyone operates when using a service which has an "invisible" mode which can be circumvented by simple IMs. How bloody hard is that to understand? And no - I do not view one's online status as a bit of private information, nor will I ever. Don't try and pull that out of your arses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anaiya Arnold Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Sy Beck wrote: Pserendipity Daniels makes an interesting claim/point in the feeds over what may be another purpose of the TPV changes. "pserendipity.daniels Oh, by the way, the reason for the change in policy about Third Party Viewers is not because of anything the TPVs are doing at the moment, but because LL are about to insert advertising into the user experience - and they don't want TPVs to be able to do what the netintelligentsia do with AdBlock on Firefox to eliminate adverts. Pep (Go on Viale/Rod, tell me I am wrong, and make yourself public liars!) PS Again. about 12 hours ago Comment" So far no advertiser would seriously consider it because most users use TPVs, who would/could block any advertising, and any such introduction of embedded advertising into the LL viewer would force the number of TPV users even higher. So what would LL have to do to secure that advertising dollar? Firstly, remove any information showing what TPVs other users might be using apart from the LL viewer, don't want advertisers seeing that LL doesn't control the monopoly on viewers or even a sizeable majority of the market and then secondly, dictate that all TPVs must adhere to the same viewer experience that will be rammed down the throats of V2/V3 users, namely advertising. Slap me on the ass and call me Susan if this isn't on the cards. How would embedded advertising that also happens to be part of the "shared experience" work exactly? Obviously it's not part of the log on screen or part of the UI since none of that is part of the shared experience. Will a 3 D mesh logo object rezz in world every time we rezz a new prim proclaiming "this prim provided by Pepsi" and give out partial credit to anyone who instantly shouts back "the voice of a new generation?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Solar Legion wrote: Oh yes .... and I'm sorry but .... viewing one's online status somehow violates privacy? No, but deliberately going behind the preferences someone has set for themselves in their own viewer (e.g. Show online status to friends and groups only) might well be considered extremely bad manners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pussycat Catnap Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Irene Muni wrote: Pussycat Catnap wrote: I call bunk on that theory. Removing advertising would not violate this altered TOS. That would be affecting the individual's experience, not the shared world. That's just an attempt at paranoia from the looks of it. I'm not sure. Of course It's just speculation, but might have some logic. Imagine LL adds advertising in the Tip Of The Day or as a window opened when you log in (as te actual "Destinations" in V3). LL would not want that any TPV could change the ToD or cancel that window. Just speculation but .... Except the new TPV policy says all of -NOTHING- in any way related to that. That theory would be like say... LL adding a new mesh for the base SL avatar, and then someone saying this was done to require people to only buy mainland in 2048 lot sizes. No logical connection. Sure, if they ever added advertising, they might not want people removing it. But if that was the case, they might actually announce a TOS saying no removing parts of the UI. - Which they have not done here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les White Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 So, LL place this announcement in the forums instead of the blog and with no reply option. Stay classy LL. Anyone who contributes free IP (in the form of viewer advancement or otherwise) to this private commerical company is a fool who deserves to be bent over by the lab. I'm looking at you firestorm. Make the suckers pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Ahren Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Les White wrote: Anyone who contributes free IP (in the form of viewer advancement or otherwise) to this private commerical company is a fool who deserves to be bent over by the lab. I'm looking at you firestorm. Make the suckers pay. What if the TPV developers boycotted LL? What if they formed a consortium and deliberately made their viewers so that they would no longer connect to SL and only to InWorldz instead? That might be enough to give InWorldz some serious traction against SL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceka Cianci Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Randall Ahren wrote: Les White wrote: Anyone who contributes free IP (in the form of viewer advancement or otherwise) to this private commerical company is a fool who deserves to be bent over by the lab. I'm looking at you firestorm. Make the suckers pay. What if the TPV developers boycotted LL? What if they formed a consortium and deliberately made their viewers so that they would no longer connect to SL and only to InWorldz instead? That might be enough to give InWorldz some serious traction against SL. then we wouldn't have tpv's? that's if they all would..you still need the ones that are not as popular to follow as well... also i don't think there would be as big of a flood as people think there would be to inworldz or other open sim projects..most times after being there for a bit and then coming back to sl..you really notice the difference.. it's still at about the 2006 era from the last time i was there which was a couple of months back..if that..thats only because i don't know what sl was like earlier than that lol i don't think LL would budge an inch from anything they had planned if for some reason all tpv's left.. one already said something in the meeting about it..something about a what if..what if we went to inworldz.. the response was something like...if you want to go to inworldz..then go to inworldz.. it's not really the viewer that drew people to sl and i don't think it is what keeps them here.. for most i would imagine.. also i don't think all would join in on that..i think some would step up and come in here and get their version of the viewer noticed.. i don't think tpv's have that kind of power with users or with LL..i think it comes down to grid when you are trying to get users from one grid to another.. and i don't think the OS projects have what it takes to give tpv's that kind of power yet..the grid would have to be at least as good as LL's.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rene Erlanger Posted February 29, 2012 Author Share Posted February 29, 2012 Randall Ahren wrote: What if the TPV developers boycotted LL? What if they formed a consortium and deliberately made their viewers so that they would no longer connect to SL and only to InWorldz instead? That might be enough to give InWorldz some serious traction against SL. Unfortunately the likes of InWorldz and Avination will only get a huge influx of new accounts.....once Second Life are dead and buried (Closed). None of the OS Grid operators have the infrastructure to cope with a huge influx of new users......they would probably need outside financing to scale upwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Ceka Cianci wrote: i don't think tpv's have that kind of power with users or with LL..i think it comes down to grid when you are trying to get users from one grid to another.. Third Party Viewers don't have the tiniest fraction of that sort of power. In that respect, TPVs have no power at all. For SL-like systems, people use the system they like the best (SL, on the whole, in spite of 'the management'), and that has nothing whatsoever to do with the viewer they use for it. This is a long thread, and I've only read a very small part of it, so this may have been said before... Having just read the Phoenix blog about the changes, it struck me that the changes are because LL does not like their viewer to be as unpopular and as unused as it is, so they've prevented people from being able to see what viewers other people use. Then they can pretend that theirs is widely used. The bits concerning privacy (being able to know if a user in online or not) are dead right, and should have been dealt with a long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sy Beck Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Anaiya Arnold wrote: How would embedded advertising that also happens to be part of the "shared experience" work exactly? Obviously it's not part of the log on screen or part of the UI since none of that is part of the shared experience. Will a 3 D mesh logo object rezz in world every time we rezz a new prim proclaiming "this prim provided by Pepsi" and give out partial credit to anyone who instantly shouts back "the voice of a new generation?" Oh I don't know, but how about all TPs screens will last a minimum of 20 secs with elevator music and ads while you wait or popups on your screen when you login with ads from today's sponsor that you have to click to clear. I could think of many more irritating ways, but I don't want to give them ideas they may not yet thought of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceka Cianci Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Phil Deakins wrote: Ceka Cianci wrote: i don't think tpv's have that kind of power with users or with LL..i think it comes down to grid when you are trying to get users from one grid to another.. Third Party Viewers don't have the tiniest fraction of that sort of power. In that respect, TPVs have no power at all. For SL-like systems, people use the system they like the best (SL, on the whole, in spite of 'the management'), and that has nothing whatsoever to do with the viewer they use for it. This is a long thread, and I've only read a very small part of it, so this may have been said before... Having just read the Phoenix blog about the changes, it struck me that the changes are because LL does not like their viewer to be as unpopular and as unused as it is, so they've prevented people from being able to see what viewers other people use. Then they can pretend that theirs is widely used. The bits concerning privacy (being able to know if a user in online or not) are dead right, and should have been dealt with a long time ago. i mentioned this in another thread ..because really it just makes sense to me.. why would LL keep tpv's if they were worried about their own viewer? why would LL worry how their viewer stacks up in who is using it vs how many people are on the grid? i would think they would love the fact that all viewers were getting good ratings.. as long as grid user numbers were good.. their viewer is not sucking for usage and neither is some of the tpv's..i really don't think they give a crap about if their viewer is number one.. what they give a crap about is their grid and the grid experience.. we are all LL's users no matter what we use to long in..the viewer is just like choosing IE or firefox or opera when it comes to that.. they just want everyone patched to be able to have the same grid experience no matter what browser you use.. because no matter IE firefox or opera..LL is happy more about user numbers than browser user numbers.. if tpv's help in making part of the users a bit more happy..more power to them..just keep the world itself untouched.. do all the client side stuff you want to your hearts content till you wear yourself out..hehehehe i just don't see it being as big of an issue as a lot of people feel it is.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qie Niangao Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Phil Deakins wrote in part: Having just read the Phoenix blog about the changes, it struck me that the changes are because LL does not like their viewer to be as unpopular and as unused as it is, so they've prevented people from being able to see what viewers other people use. Then they can pretend that theirs is widely used. The bits concerning privacy (being able to know if a user in online or not) are dead right, and should have been dealt with a long time ago. I don't think that's it. For one thing, as best I can understand that TPV meeting audio, LL apparently supplies per-viewer usage statistics to the TPV developers. Granted, that's not the same as constantly showing every user that their personal clique has pledged unanimous fealty to one or another TPV, but it's not as if the numbers are secret, either. Rather, I believe that they're being truthful about wanting to defeat the uber-drama that ensues when the user of one viewer finds themselves surrounded by users of another viewer, who then evangelize the One True Viewer. This has happened to me, several times. I can fend for myself (you can rest assured, heh), but this harassment is apparently more commonly addressed to newbies, who presumably won't be prepared with the entire catalog of past TPV transgressions with which to respond. I might have been convinced, even, that the sudden priority escalation of pretend "privacy", after over four years of inaction, might be a misguided attempt to rein-in the attendant drama. ("You're hiding from me, I can tell !!") I might have been convinced, that is, except they've not made that claim. Indeed, nowhere have I seen any attempt at all to justify breaking DATA_ONLINE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anaiya Arnold Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Sy Beck wrote: Anaiya Arnold wrote: How would embedded advertising that also happens to be part of the "shared experience" work exactly? Obviously it's not part of the log on screen or part of the UI since none of that is part of the shared experience. Will a 3 D mesh logo object rezz in world every time we rezz a new prim proclaiming "this prim provided by Pepsi" and give out partial credit to anyone who instantly shouts back "the voice of a new generation?" Oh I don't know, but how about all TPs screens will last a minimum of 20 secs with elevator music and ads while you wait or popups on your screen when you login with ads from today's sponsor that you have to click to clear. I could think of many more irritating ways, but I don't want to give them ideas they may not yet thought of. Which brings us back to PussyCat's point of claiming that this is like trying to claim an introduction of new mesh avatars is part of some plan to make people buy mainland only in 2048 size lots. TP screens are not part of the shared experience. When I tp you don't see my tp screen. Log in screens are not part of the shared experience (as I already pointed out in my earlier post). When I log in, you don't see my log in screen. Shared experience, that's the bits that happen in the 3D world where everyone can see it together, not the bits that happen discretely on a single user's screen indpendently of everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 on nalates urriah's blog the transcript of the meeting has been broken down linden say that the way in which viewer info is transmitted is a hax. a vector hole they do not check for currently. the vector could be used to pass all kinds of info about a user's computer to other users in SL. not that any of the TPVs do this but it is possible. so they are closing the hole, which will break the viewer tags linden are saying that it is ok to transmit info about your computer to others if you choose to and is an opt-in option and not auto-transmitted without explicit permission. just can't use this vector anymore to do it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sommerland Starostin Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 I so agree! Where would SL be today without these kinds of features in the first place? This is what MADE SL what it is today, to BE and create what you want to see and do, not what everybody else does. So what are they saying, if someone can't see it, you can't be it? Isn't that a bit of a "behind the iron curtain" idea LOL. It says on the homepage,"Your world. Your imagination." This policy don't seem to fit that too well if you ask me. I'm very disappointed. It lowers the integrity of Second Life & Linden Lab. I give SL & LL a lot of credit. I love SL and I try to stay away from the general LL bashing culture, because generally people just like to complain, but in this new policy I'm very disappointed and think it's the wrong way to go. The wrong way because this is a main part of what SL is USED for, what I love about it. The only way a new feature can be implemented that's not a shared one is if a creator is so motivated to invest possibly months in developing and then maybe get the Lindens to approve or take it on themselves which isn't going to happen too much. Serendipity Seraph wrote: The last point makes me want to abandon my private region and run to opensim. Innovation from TPVs has driven a lot of LL viewer innovation and added tremendously to the enjoyment of our world for many many users. To say that no such innovation will now be allowed unless LL viewer has it is an ugly stifling of competition at best. At worse it is merely irrationally authoritarian and stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceka Cianci Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Sommerland Starostin wrote: I so agree! Where would SL be today without these kinds of features in the first place? This is what MADE SL what it is today, to BE and create what you want to see and do, not what everybody else does. So what are they saying, if someone can't see it, you can't be it? Isn't that a bit of a "behind the iron curtain" idea LOL. It says on the homepage,"Your world. Your imagination." This policy don't seem to fit that too well if you ask me. I'm very disappointed. It lowers the integrity of Second Life & Linden Lab. I give SL & LL a lot of credit. I love SL and I try to stay away from the general LL bashing culture, because generally people just like to complain, but in this new policy I'm very disappointed and think it's the wrong way to go. The wrong way because this is a main part of what SL is USED for, what I love about it. The only way a new feature can be implemented that's not a shared one is if a creator is so motivated to invest possibly months in developing and then maybe get the Lindens to approve or take it on themselves which isn't going to happen too much. Serendipity Seraph wrote: The last point makes me want to abandon my private region and run to opensim. Innovation from TPVs has driven a lot of LL viewer innovation and added tremendously to the enjoyment of our world for many many users. To say that no such innovation will now be allowed unless LL viewer has it is an ugly stifling of competition at best. At worse it is merely irrationally authoritarian and stupid. actually tpv's can add none shared experience features all they want..it's just the ones that share an experience with people on other viewers and it coming out different or not the same experience for them.. if it doesn't mess with thier virtual experience it's fine.. and tpv's did not make SL what it is today..they helped just like everything else did..there is no one thing that made sl what it is today.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 As a counterweight to some of the worries about TPVs, I was very pleased to see Catznip, made by Kitty Barnett and Trinity Dejavu, has just been listed in the TPV directory. For people who aren't familiar with it, it's where the latest RLVa functions get rolled out, and it's also got some really nice and innovative tweaks, many of them unique, beneath its V3 UI. I think most people who've tried it agree it has the sanest implementation of outfits anywhere. Reviews of recent editions are to be found in Inara Pey's blog here, here, and here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceka Cianci Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Innula Zenovka wrote: As a counterweight to some of the worries about TPVs, I was very pleased to see Catznip, made by Kitty Barnett and Trinity Dejavu, has just been listed in the TPV directory. For people who aren't familiar with it, it's where the latest RLVa functions get rolled out, and it's also got some really nice and innovative tweaks, many of them unique, beneath its V3 UI. I think most people who've tried it agree it has the sanest implementation of outfits anywhere. Reviews of recent editions are to be found in Inara Pey's blog here, here, and here. omg she made a V3? =) i remember her v2 and i loved it..performance was really nice on it.. i can't wait to try it..thank you =) i remember when she used to come into cartel group chat..i haven't seen her in there in a long long time.. infact the last time i talked to her..i had just gotten done trying her viewer out..hehehe this is great.. i can't wait..i'm gonna get it tonight first thing when i wake up =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceka Cianci Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 i got it when i woke up and have been on it since..i've been waiting for a tpv to put out a version of the V3.. it runs great so far..it feels good to be back in her viewer.. and i love the V3..right now i am running as if i were on my singularity v1 which was about the only viewer that i could move around on lately.. Thank you =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Ceka Cianci wrote: i got it when i woke up and have been on it since..i've been waiting for a tpv to put out a version of the V3.. it runs great so far..it feels good to be back in her viewer.. and i love the V3..right now i am running as if i were on my singularity v1 which was about the only viewer that i could move around on lately.. Thank you =) Glad you're enjoying it! There's several third-party versions of V3, though, if people are wondering. I can recommend Marine's RLV and Lance Corrimal's Dolphin on the TPV list, plus Niran's Viewer (which has lovely graphics -- makes SL look so different), Exodus and Chalice Yao's NaCl. Inara Pey does a weekly round-up and Chalice Yao maintains a very comprehensive list as a sticky (sadly lacking in lolcats) at SLU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now