Toysoldier Thor

Rene... These statements i believe to be true....that's why i'm not shedding any tears that Marketplace are shooting itself in the foot.. I'd sooner consumer traffic returned In-world to where it belongs. LL lost 1300 Estate sims in 1 year to 31 Jan 2012.....a lost of around 3.25 to 3.50 Million USD tier income they won't have in 2012!! --------------------------------------------------------------- Sadly Rene there is no tears to shed on watching MP give up its customers to the eveil SL Inworld Competitor. There are so many factors against inworld stores and for MP that even without LL's stupid "anti-competitive" TOS rule, MP has been shifting inworld SL resident / shoppers to MP on the web is massive numbers. MP allows SL residents to shop while off the grid (while at RL work or even on my Android) MP's search - as lame as it is - is far superior to inworld's search for sellable products & stores. Inworld search for stores is basically a joke. Even for those remaining SL residents that shop inworld, many will Window Shop / search on MP and then go to the store inworld. MP does not have the shopping lag that inworld shopping has to deal with LL promotes Merchant's / products on MP and promotes traffic to MP - so for a Merchant to not participate in MP would now be a silly decision. MP has no fixed costs to deal with compared to inworld store operations. If you have a store inworld with a $5000L/month rent or teir to pay to have a store.... you need to pay that $5000L even if your store doesnt make even 1 sale. MP's is cost/sale. No risk. MP doesnt have to deal with inworld's copybotters walking into a store and stealing all the Merchant's content in one convenient place. It can still be stolen after the sale on MP but not from MP directly. I can keep going.... but you see why MP has been and continues to be destroying inworld shopping. Some people here can say that MP is not the cause and that MP is just an extension of inworld stores.... but that would be just wishful thinking. More and more Merchants are realizing that they really dont need to deal with all the hassles and risks of operating an inworld store. They can just either dramatically reduce the size of their inworld store or close it all together and just operate on MP. So....... Why does LL still have a TOS that punishes Merchants from encouraging shoppers to buy in their own controled grid?? STUPIDIDTY.

Gavin Hird wrote: I tested setting some building's Physics type to Convex Hull and the results were mixed. Some of the buildings halved their land impact, some had a reduction of only a few, but the most interesting ones inflated their impact 10 fold or more so the parcel ran full and they got returned to Lost and Found. ... which was not so good really. One of the buldings that got returned interestingly had it's impact halved on re-rezz, whereas the other one was destroyed and a good copy had to be rezzed from inventory. Lessons learned: Take a copy of the buildings / items you try this on before proceeding. Gavin,.... this is the exact thing I was thinking and fearful of as soon as I read the suggestions on how to SIMPLY TEST CONVEX HULL on your own land. Your test confirmed my fears when I read the blog post. That was dangerous advise to provide in the blog for exactly what I thought of when reading it. "What happens if the change to Convex max's my parcel of land?' Glad yo uproved that theory.

Ironically when you say that all MP sales delievered magically at SL 8am.... isnt it funny that the LL Commerce release notes for the Jan 30th changes included LL's fixing of night time sales delivery delays. So their solution is ..... BLOCK ALL SALES TIL 8AM ?? LOL woo hoooo great fix LL.

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: mischief Goldshark wrote: how about on your product listings offering a 5% discount to puchase the item inworld with a slurl direct to the item? that violates the listing guidelines.. prices must be the same inworld and on the marketplace.. BTW, i have been waiting for 3 hours now for items i purchased on the marketplace... what kills me is when people give bad reviews for non deliveries when it is LL fault. Drake.... Technically the TOS does not say the pricing has to be the same. It says... Anti-Competitive or Abusive Behavior. Examples include, but are not limited to: inflating prices on the SL Marketplace, in comparison to in-world or other e-commerce sites, You can interpret this statement to say the the prices inworld and on MP must be the same. I do not see that is what LL's TOS is saying. Anti-competitive actions would be if a Merchant were to inflate the price of MP's listing far above a reason delta in pricing to inworld to fully discourage any sales activities on MP. For example if the Inworld price for the same item was 20% lower than the MP price... this would be a delta that is beyond any explanation of pricing based on costs associated to each market. That would be clearly anti-competitive. But... it would not be anti-competitive to charge a 5% higher price on MP over inworld to RECOUP the additional 5% costs that MP incurs on the listing being on MP. This is a reasonable and explained delta in price. Secondly, the other approach you can use and I did use in 2010 to promote improved traffic and sales of your inworld store (not related to MP sales activity) is to offer after sale Percent or Fixed price rebates to customers that buy inworld. The price between MP and inworld of my listings were IDENTICAL but I rewarded my inworld customers for taking the time to visit my store and buy inworld. This promo ran for almost a year and had a good result for me as my sales volumes ration between MP and inworld became more balanced (from 90% MP sales to about 70% MP sales). Lastly, I strongly disagree with the LL TOS policy in the first place that LL has the nerve to say a Merchant is being anti-competitive by managing where his sales occur on two environments own by LL's !! MP has become the #1 reason for SL's inworld demise of inworld shopping and the collapse of the inworld economy. MP has so fundamentally shifted where Merchants can best sell their goods that stores are closing, malls are closing, and sims are being abandoned. And then LL still maintains this utterly stupid policy that does not allow merchants to try to encourage and promote that customers do more shopping and buying on the inworld grid. For LL to deem inworld shopping to be an evil competitor to LL's own MP is a clear example of the poor business decisions LL keeps practicing to continue to destroy SL.

I know... I am just bugging you Arwen. Not sure why your PC does not work with the latest Phoenix or Firestorm. There are also other viewers to consider. But you switching to a viewer that works doesnt resolve the bug in LL V3. So its good that you opened a JIRA for it.

I have a very simple solution for that problem..... dont use LL Viewer 3. Use Phoenix or something else.

LOL.... the USA is not the only country that is made up with very large populations of several "OLD WORLD" cultures. Most "NEW WORLD" countries, which Canada would surely be classified as one of these countries and which has a European Invasion history as old if not older than the USA, are made up primarily of very large populations of OLD WORLD cultures. Not only does Canada have a very large population of Irish, they also have as large if not larger populations of: French (obviously) Ukrainian German Islantic Asian (ChineseandJapanese) Philippine Islamic and several other cultures. There is a big fundamental difference though between Canadian and American culture as a whole that Canadians are fully aware of but not most Americans (since most Americans know almost nothing about their largest and closest neighbour to the north). In the USA the greater overarching culture is referred to as "THE MELTING POT" - i.e. that although USA has a lot of these old world cultures that make up their population, the continual pressure and belief is that "We are all Americans". Ethnic diversity is not promoted as much as its a blend to the greateer American Ethnic Culture. This is not the overarching culture in Canada. In Canada, ethnic diversity and cultures are heavily promoted and brought to the forefront. "The Melting Pot" philosophy is NOT a Canadian belief. In Canada, everyone is proud to be a Canadian but we are proud to be that because we fully see each ethnic culture stands strongly as part of what makes Canada what it is in this world. The best way to prove this difference in culture is if you were to ask 100 Americans on the street what their background is or "what are you", a very large % would respond "I am American". In Canada you would get a much larger % responding "I am Ukranian or German or Chinese".... or "I am a German Canadian" There you go... a bit of trivia about Canada for some of you south of the border.

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

Paula001 Goldschein wrote: I would like to know why LL has such a fascination on promoting Vampires. Anyone outside SL on all the LL paid promotions on external website banners would think SL is a site dedicated for Vampires! It's horrible! Why are they so hung up on that (still) ?? The ads are such low quality too (IMO).. I really dont know. The Vamp Ads are not even that enticing - I agree. If I were a RL VAMP LOVER I would think being a Vamp in SL was a tacky game for kids. Vamps in SL take their role playing pretty serious (as do all the other communities within SL). They must cringe when they see LL's promotion of Vamps. The fact that after all these months LL is still only promoting Vamps is likely because with Kim Linden out the door (who I suspect was the architect of the Vamp promotion), no one is around at LL to take over the marketing reigns and change the banner to anything new. The Art community is HUGE and would give a major high-brow professional look to the outside world. The music community is massive and yet very little is done to enlighten RL garage musicians to come in to grow their popularity and expand their talents / revenue / fan base. We could go on... but no one at LL is really running LL / SL marketing anymore that I know of. And we know that the LL Commerce Team is so smal they can only work on one initiative at a time and even that is done with no cycles to talk with their Commerce Merchant community. Sooooo sigh

Shhhhh Mickey!!! Leave the LL Commerce Team alone. Every minute this team wastes in keeping the MP banners up to date on up-coming seasonal promotions is a minute they are not working on their YEAR LONG DD Deployment They can only work on one thing at a time. I would like to know why LL has such a fascination on promoting Vampires. Anyone outside SL on all the LL paid promotions on external website banners would think SL is a site dedicated for Vampires! Does LL know there are even larger communities of Music/Singing/Concerts, or Clubbing, or Gorean Why are there no LL paid banners about the Gorean culture? They could make image banners up with medieval clad men chasing scantily clad hot women with club and ropes across a beautiful forest landscaped sim. Think of the influx of new SL residents if these posters popped up as side banners on KOINUP and wherever else they appear.

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!

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 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 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!

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.

Gavin Hird wrote: I'll let the earnings statement tonight talk for itself. ... and if you had looked at my CV, I have worked in Apple product management. LOL.... no i did not look at your CV (what is a CV). But in hearing the purity of your APPLE Propaganda as your posts continued on, it didnt take much effort to conclude that you were more than just a Brainwashed Apple FanBoy.... you had to have been one of those at Apple that generates the Marketing Propaganda. This puts all your posts in complete perspective. And just to clarify my position.... I am not an employee of Apple nor Google nor any company or manufacturer that would gain anything by me promoting Android or Apple. In fact this spring I went through a huge due diligence personally on which tablet and which smartphone to jump into. I was not commited historically to either. I have always despised Apple's "NIKE" type model for success combined with their long history of controling closed architecture. Their technology has never been leading edge but their marketing was all they have had going for them. LOL - look at the iPOD... this was the posterchild example where a hugely limited MP3 playter technology was turned into a market leader only because Apple brainwashed enough consumers that "we do not have an MP3 player we have something far better - an iPOD! I does not have expanded 3rd party memory slots. It does not have voice recorder. No AM/FM radio feature. And you cannot get music into it via any way but through Apple's proprietary iTunes spy app..... but wow... its have amazing color designs and fancy touch wheel and white headset wires." And the countless brainwashed apple fans that blindly bought ipod over all the other MP3 players with far better features... MARKETING OVER POOR TECHNOLOGY. Anyway... I still looked at all the pros and cons between an ipad over Zoom. The Zoom had more technical features to the ipad and more importantly it ran on a platform that that was open and not restricted / controlled by one maker (Apple). So I bought a ZOOM. Love it. Then I decided for me smartphone that Samsung Nexus S was the hands down fave over iphone in technology as well as openess. Also, I had fellow techies that were heavy Apple Fans that even abandoned iphone and moved to Nexus S. These are pure Tech Geeks who previously loved Apple. So that was a no brainer. Conclusion... my talk is not biased. Now that we know your history, this topic is dead.

Gavin Hird wrote: In case you did not understand it, the flow control chip is there to ensure the hardware partners are protected from crap devices flooding the market and ruining their development efforts. It also has other purposes. So now you are talking like an APPLE STAFFER - a brainwasher - not the brainwashed.... OK Gavin... the chip is only for the greater good and serve no purpose of Apple's ultimate control of the development / hardware environment. What UTTER APPLE BS! The chip is for Apple's control of their partners. End of Story. But you are obviously paid to keep the Apple propaganda in tact and not let darker deeper Apple secrets get out. My Brother's company could have easily integrated without this chip. They didnt need it. It served them no benefit and only added to the complexity of integrating into the Apple platform. but enough.... I wont respond anymore to Apple Brainwashing... To make you feel better..... Porky is right... YOU ARE RIGHT... APPLE IS GOD and no other platform nor its model will ever supplant Apples world wide dominance and superiority. Android is just a fad and it will go away in short time. ROFL Feel better now?

Thanks Ciaran.... I wanted to test this theory on just one simple model. and you are right. But for my model even the 1st script did not change the LI. You mentioned that the 1st script changed the LI but I think you were talking about the convex hulls. So I am not sure what these are impacted by the 1st script but my mesh model was not.

Gavin Hird wrote: Toysoldier Thor wrote: Its the fact that Apple's restrictive developers closed model would not allow the Developers the freedom to develop what the developer wants to develop. Yep, we see a lot of evidence of that in the App store! Your remarks about Apple and marketing is basically – clueless. It is the typical knee jerk response of a technology driven mindset which is typical for a company like Nokia for instance. They and Microsoft litterally owned the smartphone market. But marketing cluelessness has driven Nokia to shed 8000 workers and abandon their own OS, Symbian, to team up with the next looser in the queue; Microsoft with a staggering 1.5% market share for smartphones. The vast majority of smartpone users do not jailbreak their phones. They don't need to. They don't know how to. They don't even care. The was majority of smartphone users never use the memory card slot. The was majority of smartphone users do perfectly fine without flash. What happens when they encounter a flash based site, they just leave. So it is a lost customer for those who insist on sticking with yesterday's solutions. LOL Spoken like a true and pure Apple FanBoy... Clueless from the Apple Marketing Cloak that is wrapped around him. "Flash is crap and any website that uses Flash is not a site that Steve's Fanboy community should go to anyway". LOL The truth is when an Apple Fanboy user goes to a flash integrated site they HAVE to leave since Steve has dictate they are not allowed to see it. No Freedom. But of course as you have just proven, Steve has done such a good brainwashing job on you - a Steve "JOB" - that you have been convinced that site that do not meet his standards are not worthy of your visit. WOW how sad a statement that is. There is not arguing with an Apple Fanboy... you will believe anything that Apple pumps out and you will upgrade to the latest Apple technology and believe that until Apple endorses it - its not real technology. LOL Wait until Apple ever introduce expandable external memory cards for your iphone Gavin.... what a great technology you wont ever know - but of course Gavin - since Apple told you that SD card slots for an iphone is not needed and its better to just throw out your iphone and buy an iphone with more memory - that must be the BEST WAY? lol You apple fanboys kill me with laughter and brainwashed you are. As for JailBreak not being popular?? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?? Actually the truth is that the need for the large community that loved JAILBREAK is dropping - you are correct - because these customers are all switching to Android where they have a platform that openly supports the freedom to develop software and hardware and competition that promotes innovation. So you are right in one sense... less and less of Apple's fanbase is using JailBreak because Android is a far better option than a JailBroke limited Apple technology. My Brother is an Electrical Engineer for a new innovative hardware platform where they wanted to expand this device's interfaces to both the Apple ipad/iphone devices and to the Android platform. They became an Apple hardware partner (which was FAR from an easy feat when you have to go through all of Apple's restrictions to interface development). One of the hurdles / controls when working with Apple was that his company had to include a mandatory control chip in the flow between their device and the Apple device. The ONLY purpose for this apple chip is to allow Apple to monitor and control the interface. It served no other functional purpose for anyone else. So.... again... no need to debate this... its clear you are one of the pure Apple Fanboys - you will only believe and promote what Apple has brainwashed you to believe. You will be an apple user 5 years from now when Android far surpasses Apples' marketshare and technology capabilities. so back to the matter at hand.... how you called an ELITE MP to suit your needs for a restrictive MP... DOA? huh? lol

Gavin Hird wrote: Good riddance flash. The most malware and battery hungry technology ever brought to mobile handsets. It is so rotten even Adobe has abandoned it on mobile devices. Why did I already know you would miss the point on this? So let me point out the big picture for an Apple Cultist that is blind to why the Apple Model is flawed... The fact that Steve J. from Apple could arbitrarily decide & dictate and restrict a technology or solution from his company's customer base for whatever reasons he sees fit is the flaw in the model. You can love or hate FLASH but the fact that as bad as it is on a mobile device's battery does not dismiss the fact that the large use of FLASH on countless websites is not available to ANY APPLE DEVICES because Steve J. said so is the problem. It was not because Steve J. so much hated how Flash for mobile was bad for his device's batteries that Steve hate Flash. If you think that is the reason... you are fooling yourself. The bigger reason Steve hated Flash and refused to allow any developers to create a flash foundation/app for iphones/ipads is because of the loss of control. But again... the reasons or debate on why FLASH was or was not allowed on Apple devices is not the critical point. Its the fact that Apple's restrictive developers closed model would not allow the Developers the freedom to develop what the developer wants to develop. Why do you think Apple's own IOS restrictive closed model is under attack upon itself own development environment with the huge popularity of JAILBREAK? If Apple's developer model is soooo great and perfect and promotes progress and innovation, then why has JAILBREAK and the non-official JAILBREAK developer community been so successful? I will tell you why. Because Apple's closed restrictive developer model is flawed for unnatural restriction of COMPETITIVE FORCES AND INNOVATION. Apple never learns - they just love to MARKET and BRAINWASH the WEAKER MINDED CONSUMERS that are too scared to look and try and learn new better solutions. This will ultimately fail like it did before. Tying back to this SL MP topic... you proved my point again when your response to my idea of creating a new ELITE MP is DOA. Its DOA because your model of restrictive development and controls is not successful as a model that can support itself. You just want to take a hugely popular MP and now kick out the UNDESERABLES and make MP your own. Arent you nice.

Gavin Hird wrote: Because the idea is DOA. Good - so if the idea is bad for you.... even with it being the perfect environment - then dont go around trying to promote the restriction of the current MP platofrm from 90 % of the current marketplace with new hurdles and ELITE paid memberships. Its funny how a proposed idea that excludes YOU from the main MP is a DOA idea but one that excludes a massive portion of the current Merchant community from MP is a great idea. cant drink your own coolaid?

Gavin Hird wrote: Fact is that in 3Q11 Apple took 53% of all smartphone profit with a 4.2% market share. Fact is that iOS developers makes 6 times the profit per App compared to Android app makers (same app traded in the 2 markets) Fact is that iOS significantly grew market share in November and December, while Andriod saw a 14,7% decline. (US figures) The business model you support has generally led to razor thin profits for the box and now increasingly phone assemblers, making them unable to invest in R&D for new products, but rather stay in a cut-troat raze to bring cheapest to the market and copying each other. This approach might work to some extent in a fast growing market (which is why it is failing in the PC market which is shrinking, and still somewhat viable for smarphones which is growing), but SecondLife is a stagnant market. There is no year-over-year groth to spot at all. So your receipe will lead to an accelerating sprial of lower prices, and copied goods as nobody sees much incentive to develop and create any more, where everyone is scrambling for a cut of the market that exist. This ie exactly what we witness in SecondLife Marketplace. I completely agree with Medhue's response to your "Apple Coolaid" posting. You are a perfect example of one that has drank wayyyy too much of the Apple Marketing coolaid and must be a cultist. Apple's CURRENT success has very little to do with their technology lead - they do not have a technology lead anymore on the iphone / ipad technology. In fact Apple has to flood the media with advertising to make sure their BLIND FOLLOWING OF CUSTOMERS will still stay brainwashed and not seriously look at what the Android devices can offer them over iphones and ipads. And why are the various android devices superior in function and capabilities over Apple? Thats very easy - OPEN COMPETITION! That is the same competition that PC market introduced over Apple's closed prioprietary microcomputer dominance in the early 80s. And that is why the PC market ripped all but 10% of the market away from Apple. The only customers back then that stayed with Apple were the CULTISTS and specific industry loyalists to Apple like the media. Among the tenchnologies that Apple would not allow and Adroid devices do - expandable exernal memory and the freedom to support and run FLASH. There are many others but the point is that competition has allowed manufacturers to add functions and features to both the hardware and software that Apple would never allow. This is a major flaw in Apple's past and current model. Apple's proprietary controlled model failed them before spectacularly in the 80s and it will fail them again in the next 10 years. Your current numbers - wherever you got them from - will be moot because Android's already market lead on monthly unit sales over Apple will not grow linearly - it will grow exponentially over Apple. Will the shareholders of Apple go poor in the foreseeable future? NO.. but their closed proprietary business model is flawed as it was before. As for your statements that Android apps are the world of free.... I guess you are so Apple cultist that you have no clue about Androids (I have one and love my Nexus S). There are TONS of android apps that cost as much as those on the proprietary istore. In fact, contrary to Apple, there are even multiple competing Android stores. and now that Android sales have surpassed iphone / ipad sales, many of the developers of IOS will start developing code on BOTH platforms. Eventually, as Apple's marketshare erodes in the years to come, the developers will start developing IOS apps as an afterthought to the android platform. Funny Gavin... this is the same path that Apple went through in the 80s and they didnt learn their lesson. They will only survive by making sure they keep brainwashing the APPLE CULT that its worth paying a large premium to get less function from an Apple device than the Android. Apple's model survives ONLY BECAUSE OF ITS MARKETING... this will fail them. My prediction for the past 12 months has been that RIM devices will eventually fully fall into the Android line and RIM has already started making moves to license out their advanced security to platforms which we know Apple would never accept but that would likely be adopted by Google's Android to increase the platform's market penetration. Apples' Model is FLAWED.... time will keep this model has it has before.

Gavin Hird wrote: A developer program is supposed to help developers, and not stifle them. Your comments about Apple's program is biased on that you don't like the business model, and not the fact that the program actually works great both from the developers viewpoint and from the program manager. It has helped bring both parties great revenue, growth and a staggering amount of creativity and innvovation. Your right Gavin, a developer program is not supposed to stiffle. and yet you have not explained how a model like your Apple model would do anything to help the sick SL MP. What benefits would a paid "developer" get. I asked you what documentation or access to beta from LL? What API would you offer these paid members of the SL MP? PS... a Developer Program does not do this... a great innovative technology and developer / user community support around the technology does - regardless of any formal DEVELOPER PROGRAM with restrictions.