DesperadoReprise

Phil Deakins wrote: they have no intention of closing SL after the new platfrom is launched. Ebbe has said that LL will close SL as soon as it becomes unprofitable. That sounds like a death sentence to me. "is there going to be anything left?"

Pamela Galli wrote: DesperadoReprise wrote: It is Ebbe and Peter who are spreading fear, with their continuing demonstrations of their obvious unpreparedness. "is there going to be anything left?" I might wish things were different than they are but if this is what I have to deal with, it is better to do so with the CEO listening and talking than with the stoney silence we have gotten from LL in the past. He is being forthcoming with whatever information he has at present, and is listening to and inquiring about our concerns. That will go a long way to calm the waters. The thought of redoing SO much complex content is overwhelming, but once I know what I have to do, it is a matter of accepting it and getting started. The thought of sales dropping drastically is discouraging but once I know what the situation is, I can accept it. Pam, I understand what you are saying, and no, you can't turn back the clock so that Ebbe could do it a different way, but the implicit suggestion in my OP is that he should stop listening and talking - he's a CEO, NOT a Product Manager any longer, and he's certainly no great shakes as a PR man - and establish a transparent platform for reasonable discussion in these forums, thus empowering not only his customers but also the LL experts - which he is patently not - so that an informed dialogue might be opened between experienced and knowledgable individuals regarding the way forward. What is the point of asking Ebbe questions he doesn't even understand without recourse to his staff, and to which he seems only to respond vaguely and ambiguously with the consequent drain in credibility that we have seen over the last few days. It would be much better if we were talking to the project strand managers who could be definitive about their inability to make commitments, but who could summarise the reasoning behind the development and migration strategy. You can't do anything concrete about preparing for Sanitised Life at the moment, because Ebbe has given you no hard information whatsoever. You can't even plan. All you can do is decide whether you want to spend time enhancing and extending your current creations on the basis of uncertain assumptions regarding their possible lifecycle and market demand within SL V1. "ain't it hard"

Orgy Island? "as they came"

Of course it doesn't really matter. Except to those who depend on it for income. "paid you with regret"

Theresa Tennyson wrote: Even your wife and kids could be gone next year. I should be so lucky. "easy money and faithless women"

Parrish Ashbourne wrote: Your the one shooting your self in the foot, it's all ready been said about 1000 times that LL is not closing SL. Ebbe said he would close SL as soon as it became unprofitable to keep it going. Which sounds like a death sentence to me. Parrish Ashbourne wrote: Spreading lies and fear is what will hurt SL. It is Ebbe and Peter who are spreading fear, with their continuing demonstrations of their obvious unpreparedness. Parrish Ashbourne wrote: there's still people coming in. You have to believe that, don't you? Or at least to say so, because you want to believe that your revenue stream will continue, and a lack of confidence will destroy the market. Have you been recruited as a cheerleader by the LL PR machine? Or are you simply extremely naive? "is there going to be anything left?"

LaskyaClaren wrote: Thanks for these responses! (And sorry for posting the questions again -- I managed to miss this reply somehow.) Probably because he hid his responses - I note you avoid terming them "answers" - in an extremely badly formatted post. Perhaps you should offer him some tuition in Forums101. "ain't it hard"

Erm, Linden Lab is a commercial entity, not a democracy. "the queen of diamonds let you down"

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: Ebbe Linden wrote: DesperadoReprise wrote: Innula Zenovka wrote: Of course they don't have any plans to disallow ageplay of the sort you describe. They disallowed it seven or eight years ago, and people don't normally talk about making plans to do something they've already done. But Ebbe has comitted here in these forums very recently that Sanitised Life will allow user freedoms as long as they are legal. And depiction of sexual age-play is not illegal in California, with whose laws LL has to comply. Is he lying, inconsistent, or incompetent? "it's finally turned the tables" I said: We have no plans to disallow anything that's going on in SL and is legal. We're proud of the freedom we offer. rather than "...going on in SL..." I could have said "...adheres to SL policy..." So now you can have fun with that for a while... Rather than replying to the troll just ignore him.. All you are doing with the snide replies is making the rest of us not believe you. Lose the snide comments. How about a straight answer. Why did you announce this when you have almost zero info you can give the people that pay your salary? 99.999% of what you have answered is TBD. That is not an informative answer, so why leak this? You created FUD and are really doing nothing to fight it. You have yet to make any official announcement on any LL site that I have found. Way to garner support and trust. LL used to send announcements through SL itself. Haven't seen one fo those in years. Now we get info about a new SL from a whispered rumor via a third party site from a blogger.. Why that specific blogger? Why didn't you come here and let us know? Why, Ebbe? Answer that if you have the chutzpa. This reminds me of that wonderful scene in Airplane . . . "will you try to find your seats"

WRONG: "Oh by the way, cheerleader #23, we've unilaterally decided to dump the current version and build a much better product, although we don't actually have much of an idea what the new software will look like, how we're going to build it - except we'll use Microsoft development tools of course - how we're going to migrate existing stuff to it - or if we're going to bother - and how we're going to sell access to it. We'll talk about it in third party forums then come to the official ones, but still won't have much to tell you, because we won't know what we're doing ourselves. And please don't panic." RIGHT: "Hey guys; you're our customers and we value your experience and enthusiasm. We would like to know what would you like to see in the next generation of Second Life, assuming we weren't constrained by all the mistakes we've made to date, and by the outdated technology we are currently using. If we can get your constructive input, say in a public forum specifically dedicated to discussion and jointly moderated by LL strand leaders and expert user representatives, then we can ensure we generate a road map for the development and migration with a feasible timescale." Presentation is everything.

irihapeti wrote: Philip wants to change humanity. Is his calling. He hoped to get that when he envision SL. He never got change. We just brought our same old humanity (developed over 1000s and 1000s and 1000s of years) into SL with us and never changed at all I like Gwyneth. She is a humanity changer as well. Not all the time but she thinks and writes a lot about the greater things. She writes really interesting stuff from that perspective. And I quite like that she can express those thoughts and ideas very well. So I think about them also if I have to choose between changing humanity or letting humanity change itself then I prefer to let humanity find its own path My wife believed in tryng to change humanity. But I warned her, the only thing you can change humanity into is inhumanity. That works for me, as my wife found out. "you sealed your fate"

Gavin Hird wrote: Vivienne Schell wrote: Yes, but MS never did and never even would think of the announcement of a core business application upgrade/replacement where essential content as Excel Sheets are not backwards compatible. Ha! Ask the US state administrations that sits on thousands and thousands of Word documents they no longer can open how they feel about backwards compatibility of business applications. I have a few of those too. Or how Microsoft's mp3 player partners felt when they were suddenly dumped because Microsoft figured they wanted to roll their own Zune. We all know how well that went. Unfortunately I fear it is some of that Microsoft attitude we see here in action. I think the point that Viv is making here, Gavin, is that even - or especially - when Microsoft were not building in backwards compatibility, they didn't make the suicidal commercial mistake of warning users up front that they were wasting their time and money on stuff that would be obsolescent in the near future. "stardust"

Medhue Simoni wrote: Dude, how sad does your life have to be to post nonsense over and over, for days? Seriously, I want to know. It will be much more productive than what you are currently doing. Go ahead, tell us about you. Tell us about your childhood. Maybe we can help you. Why hide? Let it all out. We won't judge you. Why are you being so critical of Ebbe, Medhue? He's just doing his job. Well, actually, it's Peter Gray's job. As you have pointed out, Ebbe should be getting on with the CEO's tasks, which primarily consist of co-ordinating the management resources available to him so that it appears that he knows what he's talking about. "turned the tables"

kiramanell wrote: DesperadoReprise wrote: Hasn't your management training involved Portfolio Theory, Ebbe? Or maybe it has, but you're struggling to express its complexities. "high or low, it's all the same" Can't say I am all that happy with Ebbe's new vision and all; but are these constant ad hominems at him really necessary? At least the man shows up here, willing to answer question -- not many CEO's would. He'd be better off spending his time working on a business feasibility plan than publicly demonstrating his lack of preparedness here. "an empty fable"

Ebbe Linden wrote: kiramanell wrote: Ebbe Linden wrote: So you assume we could have the same amount of resources regardless of how hard it is to compete or that all projects are equal in potential value? Working on some products have much higher cost and lower return on investment than others. I appreciate a reply from the man himself, but I honestly don't know what you mean, here. I was pretty much just saying that being able to import half-a-home is, effectively, the same as not being able to import it at all. And thus, realistically, that I can forget about ever being able to port my many homes to SL2. Unless you tell me I am wrong, of course (please, tell me I am wrong, LOL). hmm, maybe i responded to another thread? It's late and you're tired, Ebbe, and it's making you forget which half-truths you have posted in response to which irrelevant questions. Go to bed. But call Peter first and tell him he should be ready with plausible denials in the morning. "ain't it hard when you're all alone"