Medhue Simoni

Gavin Hird wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: People that buy Apple products, are, for the most part, ignorant, and care more about being trending, than what is smart. It is interesting that you, as a developer, find a user base of 750+ million uninteresting and stupid, despite their willingness to pay, and pay more for your potential product. But that is perfect with me – one less competitor ;-) Gavin, please try to be honest here and don't rephrase things to fit your argument. Well, there was no argument, but you know what I mean. Where did I say anyone was STUPID, or even worst UNINTERESTING? I said that, IMHO, people that buy Apple products are IGNORANT, which is not the same as being STUPID, or UNINTERESTING. I'm ignorant about all kinds of things. Heck, my father is a mechanic and I can't even do my brakes by myself. I live in Detroit, and don't know a dang thing about hockey. I could go on and on. We are all ignorant about many things. If I know I'm ignorant about something, I will seek out someone who is less ignorant about it and take their advice.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: madjim wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: madjim wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: As far as MS not being part of the mobile market, I would beg to differ, as the Surface Pro is the only actually productive tablet on the market. It is the only tablet that is what tablets should have been from the start. Presently, I have yet to buy a tablet, as why would I buy a useless toy to read webpages. That's only worth about 50 cent to me. I might actually go get the Surface Pro 3 tho. Given your apparent propensity to back obvious losers, please don't offer me any racing tips. Father "heaping Pelion upon Ossa" Jim Using this same logic, Apple was a loser for the vast majority of their existence. Even today, if you look at the stats on any website, you'll see that it's not people with apple products visiting websites the most. I don't base things on HYPE, but the facts. Apple is STILL a loser. Check those stats of iPhones against Android. Just like Mac and PC all over again. Father "Losers buy Apple products because they want to be like other losers" Jim My point is, that if you can make a profit without using government money, then I would hardly call you a loser. I total agree with your Father. People that buy Apple products, are, for the most part, ignorant, and care more about being trending, than what is smart. Again Medhue, I'm going to ask you to back up your claim with evidence. I just Googled "apple owner demographics". Here's the first (for me) returned link... http://www.marketingprofs.com/charts/2013/10957/how-iphone-and-android-ownership-varies-by-demographic From which I cribbed this chart... The average Apple phone owner appears to have higher income and education than the average Android phone owner. If you are right about Apple owners being ignorant, might we then conclude that ignorance is the result of education, and results in greater financial success? I'm willing to entertain the former idea, but the latter would really bother me. I haven't digested all the information here, but it's interesting that Apple owners skew older. That might explain the higher income as people work their way up through their careers. But it doesn't explain your trendiness theory. It has been my experience that the young favor trends. Old timers are thought to be stuck in their ways, aren't they? There is a distinct difference between stating opinions and stating facts. I find it very strange that anyone would say that a group is ignorant, and others think this is a fact. It's obviously an opinion. Of course, this doesn't mean I don't have to back it up with evidense for others to agree with me. Here's the thing tho, I don't care if anyone agrees. Obviously tho, some do. Now that this is cleared up, I'll explain why your graph is meaningless, especially to the point of Apple users generally being more ignorant, and which is the better product. First, when some1 talks about ignorance, what are they talking about? Are they talking about being dumb, or uneducated? No, I don't think so. They are talking about being ignorant about a subject. Being that none of the people in the study are experts on smart phones, then they must be ignorant. Your graph is really a measure of what groups are the most affected by marketing. That is all it is. It is also an extremely small study for the subject matter. We are also talking about Apple, not the just the Iphone. Now, if your graph was just a study of computer scientists, and it showed what computers they actually owned, and what brand devices they use, then it is be a completely relevant studies about what we are talking about. To try to imply, that just because someone has more formal schooling or makes more, that they know more about phones, is very bad logic. It's much more logical to say that, those that have more formal education generally make more, and people that make more are less influenced by the price difference, which likely means they are more influenced by marketing.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Regarding ad spending, Apple's competitors vastly outspend it... http://qz.com/103266/google-is-about-to-spend-half-of-apples-annual-marketing-budget-promoting-a-single-phone/ http://bgr.com/2013/11/01/microsoft-marketing-budget-2-5-billion-dollars/ http://www.dailytech.com/Samsung+Breaks+the+Bank+w+14B+in+Advertising+But+is+it+Trying+Too+Hard/article33846.htm http://bgr.com/2013/04/11/samsung-advertising-spend-analysis-430831/ Since you said you are an evidence base thinker, I'll point out that this isn't an argument against what I said. If anything, it is proof that these company's are trying to emulate Apple. It's an argument for my position, not against it. They even use Apple as their benchmark, and that tells you alot. Today, Apple doesn't need to advertise as much cause they can market directly to schools and teachers, who will do their marketing for them. As far as value in a Brand, sorry but that all depends on what you think that brand represents. I see no added value at all. If there is any at all, it is destroyed by the price difference, and the shear amount of products the people using their competition can use. Madelaine McMasters wrote: Regarding Apple's dependence on the education market... Apple's 2013 total revenue was $171 Billion. Of that, less than $4 Billion came from the education market (I don't have ed revenue for the full year, but if the best quarter topped $1Billion for the first time, the year total can't be much above $4Billion). I don't think Apple would go bankrupt on losing 2.4% of revenue. I'm an evidence based thinker, and look forward to evidence to support your claims. What is missing here, is Apple's definition of what constitutes their educational market. I'll also point out, that if we want to talk just about Apple's total profits, then we shouldn't be talking about their actual products, outside of their stock. I don't know the exact numbers, but it's likely that their stock alone makes up a good portion of those profits. It's kind of the same as saying that Facebook made all this money, but the actually platform didn't make a profit at all. It's all speculative money, that could be lost in an instant. It's not real tangible profits.

madjim wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: madjim wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: As far as MS not being part of the mobile market, I would beg to differ, as the Surface Pro is the only actually productive tablet on the market. It is the only tablet that is what tablets should have been from the start. Presently, I have yet to buy a tablet, as why would I buy a useless toy to read webpages. That's only worth about 50 cent to me. I might actually go get the Surface Pro 3 tho. Given your apparent propensity to back obvious losers, please don't offer me any racing tips. Father "heaping Pelion upon Ossa" Jim Using this same logic, Apple was a loser for the vast majority of their existence. Even today, if you look at the stats on any website, you'll see that it's not people with apple products visiting websites the most. I don't base things on HYPE, but the facts. Apple is STILL a loser. Check those stats of iPhones against Android. Just like Mac and PC all over again. Father "Losers buy Apple products because they want to be like other losers" Jim My point is, that if you can make a profit without using government money, then I would hardly call you a loser. I total agree with your Father. People that buy Apple products, are, for the most part, ignorant, and care more about being trending, than what is smart.

Gavin Hird wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: Using this same logic, Apple was a loser for the vast majority of their existence. Even today, if you look at the stats on any website, you'll see that it's not people with apple products visiting websites the most. I don't base things on HYPE, but the facts. Fact is that Apple has close to 150 billion USD in the bank, and can fit Google's entire quarterly turnover in the AppleTV department (slight exaggerationthere - but Android is currently a loss for Google). They are competing with Exxon to be the company with highest market evaluation in the world and have both the highest brand recognition in combination with the best customer service in the industry. They have shipped over 750 million devices running iOS. They rake in over 75% of all revenue in the tablet market, and for high end laptops it is closer to 80% Symptomatic the national broadcasting corporation here were criticized for not making a Windows Phone app for streaming of their live broadcasts. They said at between 0.6 and 1.1% visitors with the device on their website, it was not worth it at all. And how does Apple do this? They do this by hyping their products by spending ridiculous money on advertising, and by pricing that product 2 and a half times more than an equivalent pc. This is also why they immediately started to use government to get their products in people hands, as those people would never have gotten them without government money. So, basically, Apple created a system where by the public pays Apple for other people to own and use their products. You end all those programs, and Apple is bankrupt.

Gavin Hird wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: as the Surface Pro is the only actually productive tablet on the market. As SLGo has proven, you can have super high performance graphics without a gaming rig at all. About the Surface Pro... it is a crippled Windows notebook with hardly any battery life and graphics performance. Even the 2010 MacBook Air had better performance. But more important, it sells in the in hundreds of thousands if even that per quarter. Microsoft sold over 12 million copies of Office for iPad the first week in marketing in comparison. Meaning in the first week of marketing 6x as many iPads had Office than Surface Pros sold ever. Notice how you had to compare a tablet to a laptop. What is even more hilarious, is that laptop costs 2 and a half times that tablet, and it doesn't come with a touch screen. That tablet has thousands more programs and apps that it can run. So, head to head, the Surface Pro 3 kicks the Macbook Air's ass, hands down. They should not even be compared, cause it is just embarrasing for Apple. As I have said many times, Apple is all hype and back room deals. Today, a good portion of Apple's sales are to government schools and colleges. They allow students to pay for a Macbook using government loans for tuition. 2 years ago, I fought with my sister about her opting in on that program. She was going into graphic arts and would not have been able to even afford a Macbook without that government loan. Today, she sees exactly what I was saying, and now she has an extra 2 or 3 grand to pay back because of it. Hey, tho, her instructor told her she had to get a Mac. Like I pointed out in another comment, even with all this government help, Apple still only makes up a small subset of the market, and even today, it's not a given that a developer will even consider Apple users.

madjim wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: As far as MS not being part of the mobile market, I would beg to differ, as the Surface Pro is the only actually productive tablet on the market. It is the only tablet that is what tablets should have been from the start. Presently, I have yet to buy a tablet, as why would I buy a useless toy to read webpages. That's only worth about 50 cent to me. I might actually go get the Surface Pro 3 tho. Given your apparent propensity to back obvious losers, please don't offer me any racing tips. Father "heaping Pelion upon Ossa" Jim Using this same logic, Apple was a loser for the vast majority of their existence. Even today, if you look at the stats on any website, you'll see that it's not people with apple products visiting websites the most. I don't base things on HYPE, but the facts.

WickedWanda1956 wrote: Thanks Medhue. I really see the new Second Life being more of a mobile app than anything else. As such, it has no interest from me. But to try and capture a share of that market does make smart business sense. I just had a thought. What is the average amount of time a person spends on present-day Second Life per visit versus what their business models (and I sure hope they have one) are projecting will be the average amount of time on "Second Life Lite" per visit? Is "Second Life Lite" going to be nothing more that a virtual Facebook/Twitter account? I REALLY worry about erosion from present-day Second Life. Why would you assume it will just be a mobile app? Who the heck came up with SL lite? Again more eroneous assumptions? This is really getting to the point of ridiculousness. Why make any of these assumptions? As far as SL erosion, I see this as another assumption that the facts do not support. Of course SL has been gradually declining for years now, but this new world isn't going to make that happen faster. If anything, It could very much help the REAL SL. I also have a completely different impression of the new world tho. It seems most people that are predicting SL dome, have the opinion that the new world will replace SL. I think this is an almost crazy assumption to make. It assumes many things, like LL has a clue how to even do that. I do not have that much faith in them, as they have shown little over the years that they even understand SL. What I think is more plausible, is that they do understand the principles that made SL successful. So, although the new world venture might become profitable, it will not be, and could never be, the REAL SL.

Gavin Hird wrote: WickedWanda1956 wrote: It all comes down to one question : "Do you believe that Linden Labs can catch lightning in the bottle again and recreate the magic of Second Life?". For myself, I can't tell you where I will be in four years, maybe even in "Lite". It is always hard to predict what the next fad will be and LL's main problem is they are not even on the platforms where the fad happens at the moment (and in the near future.) If they think they will develop with Microsoft tools, when Microsoft have NO BEARING whatsoever in the mobile market, they seriously need to think again. Unfortunately for those who think the next SL will be super high performance graphics on gaming rigs; think again. There is no 100+ million market for such a thing. There is not even sufficient hardware for it currently in customer hands, and with traditional PC sales nosediving such a target group will not fly... When I worked in product management in the most influentual and forward thinking company in the industry, we always had 3+ product development plans with lots of beta rounds and products that were even scrapped hours before launch because the market had changed. So there is nothing wrong with having a 2018 product launch target, BUT making announcment at this time (if that is the real target) is borderline... Our mantra was "Market creation", not to be followers, but also not launch till the product was right. Therfore it is erosional on own customer and creator base to announce at this stage, even to the point iof being detrimental. I see a bunch of assumptions here that do not match up with reality. As far as MS not being part of the mobile market, I would beg to differ, as the Surface Pro is the only actually productive tablet on the market. It is the only tablet that is what tablets should have been from the start. Presently, I have yet to buy a tablet, as why would I buy a useless toy to read webpages. That's only worth about 50 cent to me. I might actually go get the Surface Pro 3 tho. It really does need a bigger screen, IMHO. As SLGo has proven, you can have super high performance graphics without a gaming rig at all. Also, It's not really that big a deal to port games onto almost any device today. Heck, with Unity, it is literally a 1 button click and your game can be exported to play on any system out there. I'll also take on the notion that gaming rigs are somehow not a big part of the market. Today, I own more gaming rigs than I ever have in my life. I don't know a single person, that only uses a tablet, Every1 has a PC in their home, and if it was purchased in the last few years, it is a gaming rig, as almost all PCs sold today can handle most games. Yes, the traditional tower PC is no longer consumes the majority of sales, but they are still a huge part of the market. 1 of the most popular Youtube channels I watch is a Gaming PC store. How the heck could they be as popular as they are if the gaming PC was not a significant player? Like I said, these are just assumptions that aren't actually proven in real life. The only way anouncing all this now is a negative, is if people continue to fear monger and promote their wrong assumptions. The only real criticism I can give the Lab on this, is implying that the new world will be an SL sequel.

WickedWanda1956 wrote: Before the LL "cheerleaders" get on today to tell us we are all wrong as usual, I thought I would add my two cents. I purposely waited to sleep on my thoughts and just watched the meeting again on YouTube. As a retired computer programmer, believe me when I say deadlines always come from managers who can't tell the difference from their butt from a hole in the ground. At best, I don't see a beta for "Second Life Lite" available for testers until two years from now in the summer of 2016. After a solid year of testing (and I am being generous with that estimate), they will open it up to the very creative people of present-day Second Life so they can build content. Now on this point, I can only guess as I am not a content creator so I am going to give that a year also. If a content creator sees a different time period, please let us know. Also during this time period, LL can continue fine tuning "Lite". That brings us to the summer of 2018 when LL can finally open the doors to "Lite". It all comes down to one question : "Do you believe that Linden Labs can catch lightning in the bottle again and recreate the magic of Second Life?". For myself, I can't tell you where I will be in four years, maybe even in "Lite". Besides the timeline, I kind of agree with you. The timeline, we have no clue about, as we don't even know when they started. Ebbe is saying we'll see beta next year, so we have to go by that. I agree that once creators get in there, it will likely take another year to iron things out, and get features that the public will want and need. The difference in my predictions has to do with my knowledge of SL. No, I don't think LL can't even come close to replicating SL in anyway, shape, or form. It is because of this that I see both worlds working side by side for a very long time. I think the new World will be successful, if they keeps the same type of model in place, but some aspects of SL just won't make it over, and many will opt to stay in the REAL SL. I see the new platform evolving the way the people inside it want it to evolve. So, if half of SL rejects the new platform, then it can't ever replace SL.

madjim wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: I love it when people talk about things they have no knowledge of at all. The drama is really just about over. I can see it in my sales. So, basically, all this drama created by people that don't know a thing about 3D creation, nor game engines, has just about runs [sic] it's [sic] course. And there we have the crux of your problem. You seem to believe that technical knowledge regarding 3D creation or game engines means that you understand business. As with most creators and artists, you really don't have the first clue. You remind me of the answer to the question: How do you get a creative person to run a small company? You just give them a big company and wait a year or so. But keep talking, you might persuade other creators and artists to buy your stuff so you can pretend that the world is not going to end very soon. You also remind me of the guy who jumped off the top of the Empire State Building, and was seen smiling and talking all the way down. Father "What he was saying was 'All right so far. All right so far . . . ' " You do not know me very well, do you? Hmm, let's see, yesterday my sales were above average. OMG, the sky is not falling! See, what some people don't understand, is that markets can only be slightly rattled by the fear mongers who aren't basing their predictions on sound economic principles. Eventually, the market goes back to those sound principle, and not the hype. SL is not going anywhere, hence what was profitable before the hype, is still profitable today, next week, and likely next year. Of course, if you don't know a dang thing about the actual market you are predicting for, you likely aren't going to be correct. It's understandable why people like yourself want merchants to fail, as jealousy is a powerful motivator for some, but it has nothing to do with reality.

Morphs - Blend Shapes - Shape Keys I can't stress this enough! We don't need clothing physics if we have morphs, cause we can bake the physics into the mesh, and then play it using morphs. This is on top of all the other cool things we can do with morphs. They are really a must have today.

Phil Deakins wrote: I just want to add that, imo, your idea is a very good one. It could include much more than the box messages we get in the first few days when doing something for the first time. The 'pet' could be an attachment - sitting on your shoulder, for instance, or even an invisible one pretending to be in your pocket. I would hope that it could not be an attachment, and the pet could still sit on your shoulder, and teleport with you. This is kind of why it would be cool for LL to do this, as it will automatically add more functionality to the pet system. Or maybe, it attaches and detaches from you in the background, when it wants to ride on you.

Derek Torvalar wrote: You are going to have to do a lot better than that Medhue. lol And I am not talking about some paltry incentive programme instituted by the Lab offering 10K L$ to help them improve their product or clean up their buggy software. Or some sponsorship like that given to that ass licker Drax. I do not aspire to be one of Ebbe's b*tch bois. You may start at $500 USD per hour with a 25K retainer. Alternatively, a three month contract at 250K. Well, you kind of prove yourself wrong right here by responding to me, as I have not, and will likely never, pay you a dime. That said, I make it a point to only charge for labor, and only contract for work that requires labor. Because of this, I'm constantly in talks with different companies, and contracted by them for various work. For 1, they wanted more animation work, but I couldn't do those yet, as their main character wasn't ready. They only had the head. So, I had a good conversation with them, threw out some ideas that I knew I could handle for them, and now all of a sudden, I'm attaching the head to a body, and creating all the facial morphs and clothing for him. The clothing, of course, I contracted out to a good SL designer, in which she was paid a good amount over her normal custom job rate. All this because I free give out ideas. It's not just to get me jobs too, as I'll get jobs when they actually do need me. Like, right now, I'm making new flying animations for all their birds. I was the 1 who found them those birds in the Unity MP, and the creator included all the animations, but the company doesn't like the flying animations. They saved a ton of money, and I still got work out of it. They originally asked me to make the birds, but that's not how I felt like spending the new month. Plus, by not being hired by the company full time, I can do work on anything else, or work for anyone else, which is how I prefer things. Right now, I do regular work for about 4 companies, and I have time for more, if it's interesting enough.

Chic Aeon wrote: Thanks again for the link. I did read through ALL the articles and found "spiritual successor" in the text but no reference to SL2 or SL 2.0 (my personal fav at this point as it is short) and felt that the reporters followed the press release well (not necessarily a gold star in my book). The article at engadget.com was excellent and the only one with ACTUAL NEWS. So worth taking the time to read IMHO. AND after reading the quotes from Ebbe in THAT article I do have a clearer picture of the new platform and it honestly doesn't sound much like OUR SL at all. I am not really sure if it will be something I like, but not being in the Facebook or Desura crowd or an avid MMO gamer (which seems to be the target audiences at this point) we will just have to see. The statements about all devices enabled at the beginning wasn't actually new news as that had been spoken of before, but it does speak to the viewer question and the entry difficulty for "the masses". And that worries me a bit. In the big picture though, it seems like SL and the NEW PLATFORM will be very different; good for some, not for others. So I suspect our current platform will be around without too many changes for a long time. I think that all those descriptions kind of say the same thing tho, SL2. If you understand the 3D creation process, and how things work together, it's pretty obvious that the New World, and SL will be 2 completely different things. Yes, it might have many of the same principles. Over time, they might even become more similar, but that will take time, as I don't see how LL can truly replicate some aspects of SL, without upsetting many people, if they were forced to use it. This is why, I think, the REAL SL will be around for as long as people want it to be. And, I think, that perpetuating any thought that the new world will replace SL, will only hurt the REAL SL. I really do wish LL would be clear, or take the stand, that they are not making SL2, or at least, not trying to initially. Yeah, I kind think that is what they are saying, but it is not quite clear enough. I would just hate to see some of the histeria lead to people making uninformed decisions. Did you see the part where he compares the New World to Unity? I think that is probably the most telling statement he can make. Many worlds are going in this direction, but unlike SL, they don't allow for content importing like SL. I do not expect Yahoo, nor Facebook to allow content importing. Yes, Unity does, but it isn't a world, just a game engine. Microsoft has been working on Project Sparks for the past couple of years. I'm in the beta, and it is totally a game creation platform, but more for kids, with no content importing. Microsoft supplies all the content for the kids to build their worlds with. So, IMHO, LL is setting itself up nicely to show how things should actually be done, when it comes to virtual worlds and games. If done right, those others worlds will attract the masses, and the new world that LL created should gobble them all up, just because it has millions more content to choose from.

madjim wrote: Oh, and the big question Ebbe now has to resolve is not retention of users in the new world. It's how to retain SL's current user base so that a flow of funds is available for investment to develop the new world. His premature, and obviously unprepared, announcement will be driving the current SL economy further into recession until concrete plans for the "BetterWorld" are revealed. Once they are, things may improve, but more likely those plans will be derided as much as Ebbe's lack of PR nous. Father "enjoy it while you still can" Jim I love it when people talk about things they have no knowledge of at all. The drama is really just about over. I can see it in my sales. So, basically, all this drama created by people that don't know a thing about 3D creation, nor game engines, has just about runs it's course.

Derek Torvalar wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: Derek Torvalar wrote: madjim wrote: Hey, you just reinvented Microsoft's Bob! And that went well, didn't it...? Father "Ebbe would probably go for that - again" Jim Even if 'fleshed out' this one needs to be flushed out. Notice how the negative people do not give any other ideas. I find this kind of strange. So, you think you have thought deeply about my proposal, yet this didn't lead to your own ideas. More likely, is that you aren't thinking deeply about it at all, and just want to put other people's idea down. Notice also, that no real arguments, as to why my idea will not work, has been given. Why? Why would I do that Medhue? What's in it for me? Some brain exercising.....maybe, or a better virtual world? Some mental tennis?

Chic Aeon wrote: Ebbe has been doing press for this in the past week. All of them use the term, SL2, even Ebbe. Look at all this talk about people's inventory. If they were not thinking it will be SL2, then why would they want their inventories? This is what I mean tho. By framing it as SL2, it implies many things, including inventories. Can you paste in some documentation here with links? This thread has a list of interviews and press releases recently done. Most, if not all of them, reference this new world as "spiritual sequel", or just "SL sequel", or "successor". http://community.secondlife.com/t5/General-Discussion-Forum/SL-back-in-the-RL-news/m-p/2762754#U2762754 Chic Aeon wrote: So similar to the beta grid effect which is like that. I seriously doubt that is what he meant. I think he was just saying that we would have an inventory in the new world. He has said quite clearly that not all items can be ported over. Plus, it is pretty easy for a knowledgable creator to know almost exactly what will and won't be ported, and we have talked about this extensively. I'll predict right now, that nothing will be ported over. So, I really hope no1 is counting on that.

Mony Lindman wrote: These "first hand" content creators are a MINORITY of the total amount of content creators in the present SL. The majority is the "second hand" content creators , those who buy items made by the "first hand", combine them , modify them and create new items contributing this way to the unequaled variety of content available in the old SL, and driving its economy! If LL will leave behind THIS MAJORITY of "second hand" content creators together with 90% of thier inventories , filled with their previous creations and with their investments in future creations, then LL will not survive in this competition! Because it ignores exactly that what LL states and KNOWS that is and should remain the BASE of their business. And their only chance .. Mesh gurus alone will not create an economy ! They can sell those things from their HD anywhere.. Wile the "second hand" content creators can sell their creations ONLY IN SL ! So you can bet they will stay in SL. In the old SL by all means and, if LL makes it possible .. also in the new SL .. But if their years of work and their millions of dollars invested in "first hand" items for future creations will not be ported to the new SL then good luck LL in surviving with only the mesh gurus around and a lot of kids looking for shiny worlds .. and leaving them when they get bored, which kids always do by default.. There is a small problem with this logic. See, those "second hand" creators purchased those full perm items for a reason. They did it to make money. And they did, for the most part, or they would not have bought so much. That investment will likely keep paying off until they are no longer competitive. In the New World, even if they have to buy similar items all over again, it's just another investment, for another world. I sell animation, so I will likely have to redo them for them to work properly. As the "first hand" creator, the rework is not insignificant, besides learning the new system enough to create the proper animations. I would have to charge for them. Even meshes, If someone desides the mesh could use a bone system and animations for it, then it's not just an upload, but involved work to make it for this new world. If "second hand" creators made a profit on things in SL, why would they not in the new world? See the cost is somewhat insignificant, because the end result is profit. Even in the real world, if I know that buying a program will make me alot more profit than the cost of the program, then I'd be kind of dumb not to buy the program. The real question is, whether the New World will build the economy fast enough to support all those "second hand" creators. There is also another aspect that has not even been mentioned yet, and is actually the solution to this whole issue. Depending on the format LL decides to use, instead of "second hand" creators buying the items off of LL's Marketplace, only to be used in that world, creators might decide to sell these items on their own Websites in that format, with a more open license to sell the items in any world. Some are already doing this, and I would expect many more when this New World opens.

Theresa Tennyson wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: Gaia, in my honest opinion, 1 of the core problems is calling the New World SL2. If LL had never describe it in this way, then there would be less crazyness. I see this New World projects as never, ever being SL2, as it is just not possible. Not without just cloning the platform we have now. When exactly DID Linden Lab describe it that way? They said it would be "in the spirit of" Second Life. Every virtual world that came after SL can be described in this way - the press made that comparison with Vivaty, which was incredibly different from Second Life? Ebbe has been doing press for this in the past week. All of them use the term, SL2, even Ebbe. Look at all this talk about people's inventory. If they were not thinking it will be SL2, then why would they want their inventories? This is what I mean tho. By framing it as SL2, it implies many things, including inventories.

Gavin Hird wrote: There is also a scenario 1 1/2 and it goes like this: SL2 plans are scrapped LL decides to become a true platform developer and supplier The server backend is cleaned up to support Hypergridding with light suitcase type moveable inventories that travel with users to other grids The Marketplace is enhanced to deliver content to other grids and to serve as a content broker between such grids LL will license the server backend to other interested parties that can establish grids in other locations, cultures and legislations without making LL legally responsible for everything that goes on The viewer is rewritten ground up in such a way it can also support mobile clients, touch input and devices that supports 3D space A Tablet client is developed with increasing capabilites as it becomes feasible A new avatar is introduced that can have custom rigging and has uv mapping to also support legacy skins and system clothing The new avatar supports custom morph targets and more material zones on the new uv Sculpts are deprecated and a date is set where it is no longer possible to create new or copies of sculpts Once Hypergridding is up and running, the grid is split into more manageable entities in the backend - perhaps per contient and groups of private sims. VAR regions are supported Land prices will be reduced both because of competition with other grids, but also because LL will have alternative revenue streams through licensing the server backend to other grid owners and increased transaction volume on the marketplace Support for crypto or real currencies (at the discretion of the new grid owners and their legislative environment) A Developer Association is established where members (paid) will get betters tools, support and non disclosure information about platform development. yearly developer conference The obsession with Facebook is turned into an obsession with self and self marketing and promotion Last but not the least – there will be less disruption, new stuff to play with for a very long time and more profit for many more providers of grids, services and content Most of what you talk about here, either will not happen, or can't happen. What is more likely, if LL scraps the New World, is that other worlds will open, and creators will try them all out and create on the platform they most like. They will not be chosing SL, as even today there are platforms that give us even more versatility. SL will decline even faster to 1 day close. The best scenerio, would be for LL to continue to create this New World, and develope for SL also. The current SL would benefit greatly from the added income that the New World creates, enabling LL to lower tiers in SL. These lower tiers spurs growth in SL. The New World caters to artists and developers interested in creating games and such things. Both worlds out do all other worlds that pop up, and both our worlds become the places to be when it comes to VR, Virtual Worlds, and 3D creation.

Gaia, in my honest opinion, 1 of the core problems is calling the New World SL2. If LL had never describe it in this way, then there would be less crazyness. I see this New World projects as never, ever being SL2, as it is just not possible. Not without just cloning the platform we have now.

Derek Torvalar wrote: madjim wrote: Hey, you just reinvented Microsoft's Bob! And that went well, didn't it...? Father "Ebbe would probably go for that - again" Jim Even if 'fleshed out' this one needs to be flushed out. Notice how the negative people do not give any other ideas. I find this kind of strange. So, you think you have thought deeply about my proposal, yet this didn't lead to your own ideas. More likely, is that you aren't thinking deeply about it at all, and just want to put other people's idea down. Notice also, that no real arguments, as to why my idea will not work, has been given.

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: Pamela Galli wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: Pamela Galli wrote: Well I have been thinking about that. Of course so will millions of others who will skip the actual creation part. At this point I have no idea what will happen to my little handmade 3d stuff business, other than that it will not be what it has been. I understand your concerns about those that try to cheat the process. I just see it as they are small potatoes. We run a business. We take care of our customers. We know exactly how to create the products, and the issues it may have. Those cheats do not do nor know all this. They are a blip on the screen. Besides, there are many more worlds coming, and who knows what those opportunities will bring. None of these cheats will get a $50k job supplying furniture to some virtual business or game. I'm still get work from on going games that are continuously evolving. They know they have access to an animator that knows platforms like Unity3D, and look for ways to give me more work, as they know it all makes the game better. LL has to put out a product that uses all the features out there. There is a basic standard in the industry now. Pretty much all the worlds that get created today are going to use that standard. The best part, is that we don't have to abandon SL at all, cause it is all easily convertible for us. The future looks bright for all of us, if we can keep it together. I agree, and until now I just wanted to have my SL store. But my motto is "Deal with reality or reality will deal with you." And the reality is that I have nothing to lose by diversifying into other markets. I think the problem will come in when the merchant that purchase full perm mesh templates can not use them in the new platform and have to decide on spending hundreds if not thousands again to use in the new system. I know many people keep saying this, but I just don't see the problem. I offer quite a few full perm animation sets for different things. They are here, in SL, not some other world. I don't even know if I will supply them in the New World. I don't even know if that business would be viable in the New World. I think people are mistakenly thinking that just because LL is also making the platform, that somehow creators are obligated to convert products over. We are not obligated legally nor ethically. As we have also pointed out, they will not be the same products anyways. Why would they spend money on full perm items in the New World? That is obvious, because they want to make a profits off those full perm items in the New World. Now, maybe if they never made any profit off the full perm market in SL, then they might not buy them in the New World. To me, the whole problem is calling this SL2. It won't be. I guarantee it. It might be SL2 to Ebbe, or many other Lindens, but it certainly won't be SL2 to the vast majority of residents. IMHO, at best, we might see half of SL in the New World. I predict that SL will go on for, at least, another half decade or more. I predict that SL will become what many of the noncreators really want it to be, which is more about community. In the end, we'll have the New World, more for game creators, and then SL for more community driven things.

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: Imagine this Pam. Imagine that you only need to make a product once, and that same product could be sold in the New World, Unity3d, Facebook's Oculus world, Yahoo's uncoming world, and SL with just a little converting of animations. This will save you time, and now that 1 product will be sold everywhere. This is what could be the result of creating for this New World. And unless the ToS of this new world is drastically different from the one we have now, it will be LL doing the selling of our products to everyone else. Although I do want the TOS changed, I'm also fairly certain that their TOS would never hold up in court, especially against a class action lawsuit. This is also why it should be changed.