I’ve not had time to flick around SL8B today – real life has kept me occupied. However, Massively did get a superb interview with Rodvik Linden, and posted it to You Tube. So, to make up for my own lack of effort, here’s the piece for your enjoyment:
Category: News-Opinion
SL Birthdays and Missed Opportunities
The Second Birthday week is a time of celebration, a time when people can express what SL means to them and promote how it can be used and enjoyed.
Throughout this week, and besides the inevitable parties and the like, we have a range of thought-provoking talks and presentations on a wide range of worthy subjects: disability, education, machinima, art in Second Life. The list is impressive.
Except that something is missing.
Take a look at the Main Auditorium schedule I’ve linked to above and the other major stage (Main and Cake) event pages. You’ll notice that the name “Linden” doesn’t appear once.
I’ve already commented on the lack of any real Linden presence at the SL8B opening, and while that may well be dismissed as grumpiness on my part, there is a bigger issue here.
SL8B represents a marvellous opportunity for LL to reach out to the user community and communicate with us – so where are they?
I’m not talking about glad-handing or getting involved in in-depth discussions about who, what, when, where, how and why; rather I’m talking about getting up on stage and giving an overview of what is coming down the road, things like:
- What is happening with Viewer 2?
- What is Mesh going to look like? (Given many haven’t see the results from the Beta Grid)
- What is happening around service improvements like Group chat and server-side lag issues?
These don’t have to be massive Q&A sessions (and can be set-up from the outset as such), but the opportunity to inform, particularly given LL’s reticence to actually consistently use its own “communications platform”, isn’t one to be sneezed at.
Again, I know that LL do turn out in force at SLCC year-in-year-out and talk about these very things but the fact is however you look at it, the SLCC audience is pretty closed-off. Even with videos of the presentations being streamed live & available for viewing after the fact, it’s fair to say that SLCC doesn’t quite have the reach or immediacy that SL itself potentially has.
In short, by not turning up at SL8B Linden Lab is again missing an opportunity for positive engagement with its users on a global scale. Lets face it – I can make it to SL*B events a bloody sight easier than I can make SLCC – and I think it fair to say that the majority of people who are involved in SL are in the same boat as me in this.
It’s not only a missed opportunity, it’s also somewhat ironic. It is not that log ago (a year, in fact), that Linden Lab were loudly touting Second Life as the tool for virtual meetings, and that given it now has media on a prim and other goodies, it makes a excellent tool with which to bring together people from geographically disparate locations and communicate with them.
So why on Earth isn’t the Lab using it’s platform to this end at an event people want to attend (and are attending in droves) to actually get out there and be seen and to talk and engage?
As it stands, the only Linden presence in any official capacity this year seems to be Kim (who, with due respect, was gone in the blink of an eye) and Rodvik. Hardly a massive tunr-out.
And, with the greatest of love and respect to him – Rodvik is someone I genuinely admire enormously – I do have concerns with his appearance.
You see, he’s due on the Main Stage at 3:00pm SLT on the 23rd June. But that is also the time FedoraJones Popstar is due on stage, which leaves me wondering if Rodvik’s appearance won’t actually be a quick duet before his is whisked off stage…
SL8B is a great opportunity for celebration; but it is also an outstanding opportunity for LL to be seen to be communicating and showing an interest in the platform, rather than hovering off to one side. And in this latter regards, they have once again failed to understand the medium at their fingertips.
My Ideal Viewer
OK, so over the years I’ve looked at just about every major Viewer to come out of the starting gate. Some I’ve reviewed in this blog, some I’ve chosen not to. I can’t claim to be intimately familiar with all of them, but I think I’ve used enough of them for long enough to determine what I would personally like to have in my Ideal Viewer.
Version and Installation
Right, well first off, I want a Viewer that can keep up with the latest developments – or more particularly, improvements – churning out of Linden Lab. This means I want a Viewer that comes from the Viewer 2 Snowstorm code. Sorry, Viewer 1, but you’ve had your day. My ideal Viewer is one that installs cleanly and easily and tells me what I’m getting; I don’t want to be faced with a lot of tedious swapping of .EXE files, unpacking of additional folder and what have you – so again, bye-bye some Viewer 1 TPVs.
Frame Rates
Frame rates aren’t everything, but they certainly smooth things for the better. As such, my ideal Viewer will consistently push out the best possible frame rates for my hardware. Given SL 2.6.4 banged things through at around 55 fps at a consistent rate when on my own (and over half that with other around), so it’s not unreasonable for me to expect that kind of performance on a consistent level (SL 2.7.1 has, for some reason now tailed off to figures below Firestorm on my machine after a good start during the first day or so I played with it).
Ideally, and allowing for the fact my graphics card and CPU are not cutting-edge and I only run Windows 7 32-bit, so have a RAM limitation – I’d ideally like to be able to run shadows without seeing my machine grind to a halt. Right now, only Viewer 2.7.1. and Firestorm Beta seem to be able to do that for me – and 2.7.1 does so significantly better than S21.
Top Bars
My ideal Viewer will minimise the impact of the top-of-screen navigation bars, etc., that doesn’t impact on their usefulness and which give me the option of being able to display my location information without compromise in terms of screen real estate or without the information vanishing just because I turn a bar or two off.
On the subject of top bars – my ideal Viewer would have a pre-requisite that the Preferences shortcut button is employed in every skin variant.
Sidebar
My ideal Viewer will avoid the Sidebar like the plague; if it must use the Sidebar then:
- It will do so without idiotic tabs cluttering up the right side of the screen and making things look unsightly
- It will provide button-based access to all of the Sidebar tabs, either from the toolbar at the bottom of the screen (e.g. Firestorm) or via an optional floating palette (e.g Kirstenlee’s & Kokua)
- It will be appropriately sized so as not to feel like an elephant is taking up residence on my screen
- Tabs detached from the Sidebar will given me the option of closing them (not minimising – closing) without having to re-dock them, and will then be persistent on opening thereafter (preferably via a toolbar button, but even by retaining the relevant right-side tab if necessary).
Communications
My ideal Viewer will properly integrate my communications options, be they local chat, individual IM sessions or Group Chat. It will present these options in a single, tidy reference-point and not force me into having to use the People tab of the sidebar to reach someone . It will also present my options for communicating without making large demands on screen real-estate. So far only Firestorm successfully grants all of this.
Walking and Camera Movement
I like the camera movement options with Viewer 2 et al, even with a trackball rather than a mouse (although still a pain in the bum on my netbook’s touchpad). However, there are times when the camera controls and the movement controls are handy to have around. Therefore, my ideal Viewer would include both. Just like Kokua.
In-World Profile Windows
Yes, the new web-based profiles have their uses – but the fact remains, they are most frequently used in-world – and having to repeatedly have the Viewer web-browser thrown open, or to be chucked out into your external browser is on the high side of bloody annoying. It’s also slow at times. Therefore, my ideal Viewer will retain a “Viewer 1” style approach to Profiles (Firestorm) and include the option to use either it or the web-based view.
UI Flexibility
While Viewer 2 has come a long way over the last 18 months, some aspects of it remain something of a pain. Information can easily be missed, for example. It’s also fair to say that old habits do die hard and many of us have doing things a certain way ingrained ‘pon our souls for better or for worse.
Therefore, my ideal Viewer would include options that allow some degree of customisation within the UI and provide people with options that help them feel more at home with the Viewer.
At the moment, Firestorm leads the way here – not only for the privacy options and the like, but for the fact it includes a UI Extras tab in Preferences, which not only includes some handy sliders with which you can carry out small adjustments to the UI, it also includes some options liable to put a smile on a lot of faces (circled) – although Kirstenlee’s Viewer, in fairness, offer the old-style pie menus as well, athough they are turned off by default, rather than on by default as with Firestorm. Indeed, the only additional option it needs here is one that will chuck system alerts and notifications up to the top right of the screen.
Context Menus
I prefer the context menus over pie menus. Done right, they are far more intuitive than hunting for the right slice of things & in keeping with the majority of computer applications. But they are not with fault. My ideal viewer would therefore consider what someone is likely to be doing wherever they are, and provide the menu options they are most likely going to want to use, whether they are building, shopping or whatever.
Firestorm blazes the trail here (no pun intended), and I’d definitely incorporate their approach into my idea Viewer. It’s fast and efficient and doesn’t require multiple step-downs to get to the things you want.
Built-in AO
Take the load off the server; give yourself client-side flexibility & lose the need for HUDs. My ideal Viewer is one that incorporates an client-side AO system that is comprehensive and easy-to-use. Right now, that’s Firestorm only, but doubtless Kokua will be following suit.
And the Rest
No Viewer would be complete without:
- RLV / RLVa (it’s not just about the BDSM, OK?)
- Radar a-la Firestorm
- 3D (only in Kirstenlee’s S21 Build 8 right now)
- Comprehensive privacy options (Firestorm)
- The ability to disable various blank screens (i.e. teleport)
- Media filter Viewer 1 TPV-style TP indicator displayed whe teleporting & the Tp screen is disabled
- Can easily be optimised for photography / machinima (as with Kirstenlee’s S21)
And that’s about it. There is nothing extraordinary here. Everything I’ve described above exists in various flavours of the Viewer right now. Question is, will anyone bring them all together into a single offering?
Amanda and Courtney – gone
Rumours are churning in-world and now on Twitter and Purk that both Courtney Linden and Amanda Linden (Amanda van Nuys) have both departed Linden Lab. And the rumours are true.
Courtney, who was most recently in the driving seat for SL8B, is said to have left as she has another job. I never had many dealings with her – but in those I did (around the MoM events and other activities) she always came across as enthusiastic and helpful.
I can only wish her all the best for the future, and hope that her departure (said to have been on the 10th June) hasn’t left a hole in the last-minutes arrangements for SL8B.
Amanda Linden joined Linden Lab from Organic – Mark Kingdon’s old haunt prior to his coming to LL as well. Originally holding a marketing brief, Amanda was responsible for push SL towards the world of business, and as such seemed at times to have a openly hostile attitude towards users in general; she was one of the first to push the envelope with regards to SL / rl identify linking, and she gave support to Justin Bovington’s view (Rivers Run Red) that LL should consider turning swathes of Mainland over to corporate-only use and ban “everyday” users from it.
Certainly, it must be said that Amanda has frequently had that unique LL ability to simultaneously promote the platform and shoot herself in the foot while doing so. I doubt few will forget her post from February this year in which she announced the forthcoming “Community Platform” which would encourage greater communications between Lab and users – and then promptly told everyone that if they really want to engage with LL and find out what is going on, they should all go to Facebook. Not exactly the most sparkling way to get people enthusiastic about using a platform you’re about to roll out.
My own dealings with Amanda were, it has to be said, unedifying. “Spin” seemed to be her watchword when it came to responding to genuine questions. As such, I found her hard to take at face value, which is perhaps unfair of me, but I couldn’t help but take anything she said with a pinch of salt and an eye on the possible hidden meaning. That said, I wish her well for the future.
Linden Lab: IP infringement?
IP rights, DMCA, copyright, trademarks, content theft – they are all the subject of heated debate within and around Second Life.
Linden Lab themselves have been known to react very heavy-handedly regarding what they view as their own intellectual rights including laying claim to the word “Life” in all matters relating to Second Life, thus forcing Marine Kelley to rename the “Restrained Life Viewer” to “Restrained Love Viewer” – something of a petty stance in the circumstances – while also roundly slapping those it purports to support in the education sector.
And now Linden Lab seem to be wading deeper into the water – by snagging Miso Susanowa’s work, and the credit thereto. As Miso explains, she was approached regarding the creation of a logo for SL8B – and the outcome appears to have been somewhat less than positive.
It’s going to be interesting to see how this works out; right now the story is not winning Linden Lab much in the way of support – or doing SL8B any favours. Indeed, in reading it, one is reminded of the old adage about politicians: if one isn’t kissing your baby, you can be sure he’s stealing its lollypop.
Addendum
18:00 BST:As suggested in my reply to Gwyn, Rod “Rodvik” Humble was straight on to the case via Twitter:
rodvik rodvik humble
Thanks for the notes all. Will look into the mystery of the magic hat! 🙂
Further updates will (hopefully) follow, if warranted.
21:30 BST: Pete Linden, posting on behalf of Amanda Linden on Miso’s blog, had this to say (also linked to above):
Hi Miso, Amanda Linden tried posting the comment below on your original post, but it wasn’t published. Here it is again:
Despite how this unfortunate situation clearly feels, it’s really just a misunderstanding and a case of two designers independently choosing a similar image to represent the theme.
The Lindens and community organizers who saw your original submission liked the idea, but it needed to not make use of the eye-in-hand SL logo. They asked that you re-submit the design without the eye-in-hand logo, but when they’d not heard back after several follow-ups, they asked a Linden designer to create a few options so that we would be sure to have a logo in time for the event.
The Linden designer presented a few concepts based on the theme of ‘the magic of SL,’ and, without having seen your concept or having been told about it, she also created a logo using a magician’s hat image to represent the ‘magic’ theme.
At this point, the Lindens picking the logo had an opportunity to notice the similarities and should have addressed this with you directly; we didn’t, and for that we apologize sincerely. While the Linden designer arrived at similar imagery independently, we will update the attribution of the logo design to reflect that your earlier submission first presented this concept. [posted by Pete Linden]
Naysayers and the Doom of Second Life
The world is full of naysayers; the virtual world doubly so. It seems we cannot get through a single week without someone raising a cry that Second Life is either dying, dead, or en route to the hospital while undergoing CPR.
This isn’t a new phenomenon; the doom of Second Life has been oft-predicted over the years, with a notable increase following the “boom” period of 06/07; the cry frequently being heard from both users and mainstream sources. More recently, self-styled virtual worlds /social media pundit Hamlet Au (Wagner James Au), rarely misses an opportunity to pronounce SL as having entered a phase of terminal decline (damn you, pesky users!).
The Chicken Little Syndrome
It cannot be denied that apart from the odd blip, Second Life has plateaued, concurrency remains fairly flat, and while we’ve been seeing a recent upturn in new user sign-ups, it’s unclear as to whether the sign-ups are new users (and if so, whether they are being retained), or whether they are existing users trying out the new sign-up process and creating alts for other purposes. On top of this, the economical stats, despite all the fiddling and tweaking that has gone on around them on-and-off for over a year new, remain relatively level outside of the SL Marketplace.
But, a lack of highly visible growth doesn’t actually equate to the platform “dying” in any way. As mentioned above, it’s very easy to take things out of context or be highly selective in which data you use to make a point. Take Hamlet Au’s recent “deathwatch” claim. On the surface it makes worrying reading: the grid is losing large number of sims (74 in one month!) representing large amounts of income for LL ($250,000!), all of which is “extremely significant” (i.e. “ominously bad”) for SL.
Except that as I pointed out, Hamlet arrives at this sensationalist viewpoint through a bad case of selective reading. The very source he quotes goes a long way towards undermining his position: end-of-month sim losses tending to be countered by new sim leases the following month; the figures for March 2011 actually showing LL’s sim revenues increased by 1%, and so on.
Another thing somewhat taken out of context and used to paint a black picture of Linden Lab were last year’s layoffs. When announced, people preferred to pooh-pooh the Lab’s official line that the layoffs were part of a strategic restructuring, and instead sagely pronounced they were “proof” that the company was in deep financial do-doos. However, in doing so they tended to overlook the Lab’s history in the two years prior to the lay-offs.
Up until 2008, Linden Lab had, staff-wise, expanded at a pace which matched the growth of Second Life, to reach around 250 when Mark Kingdon joined the company as the new CEO. At that time, Philip Rosedale was, somewhat prematurely, talking in teems of massive expansion:
“We’re looking for someone who has experience with and a passion for growing this type of company — a software platform company — from 250 people to thousands of people, which is where we think it’s going,”
Sure enough, following Kingdon’s appointment, the company did start hiring at an impressive rate, taking on around 100 staff between March 2008 and June 2010 – a figure well ahead of any matching upturn in the take-up / use of Second Life in any market sector. While there was much ado during that period about the SL Enterprise product and Linden Lab trying to transform Second Life into a viable corporate business platform, it was questionable as to whether all the hires made during that period were actually required and sustainable.
History now shows us that the answer to that question has been “no”. Second Life has failed to come anywhere near being a credible business platform in the terms the LL themselves touted; the Second Life Enterprise product has been scrapped. As such – and while undoubtedly traumatic for those involved – the lay-offs do appear to have been driven by a strategic decision to refocus on the company’s core business and bring staffing levels back in line with the needs of the platform rather than any knee-jerk reaction to a financial “crisis”.
Money Talks
On the subject of finances, and while LL aren’t in the habit of giving out financial data, let’s again look at recent history. Back in 2008, and before his view of Second Life soured, Hamlet himself estimated Linden Lab could well be clearing between $40 and $50 million profit a year, based on an income stream of around $96 million.
Of course, since then, we’ve had a global financial crisis, the Lab itself has (see above) made unwise investments and tried to shift its focus in to unfounded markets which ultimately failed to pay off, and so on. By mid-2009, Mark Kingdon was candid enough to admit that while the figure wasn’t as high as Hamlet’s estimate, the company was still in good health, financially. Indeed, in that year, NeXt Up was estimating the Lab’s revenues could hit the $100 million mark. So while the company was undoubtedly suffering from increased overheads, a massive upswing in expenditure (staff increases, foreign offices, etc.) – is it really credible that by 2010, things had reached a state where the company was teetering on the edge?
I have a hard time accepting that. Even if profits were halved between 2008 and 2010, that still leaves Linden Lab generating a modestly-healthy $22 million a year, and that’s without taking into consideration the growth of the Grid itself (some 11,000 regions added), which helped generate entirely fresh income for Linden Lab. Indeed, in what was to be one of his last official statements for Linden Lab, Mark Kingdon went on record in June 2010, stating:
“The fact is our underlying financial health is very strong. We’re on pace this year for record revenue, record user numbers and record user-to-user transactions – among other positive indicators” [my emphasis].
Now, “record revenue” may not automatically translate to “record profits”, but by the same measure, it also doesn’t mean the company has been losing money hand-over-fist. The truth is going to be somewhere in the middle, and liable to be the case that while profits were reduced during that period, LL nevertheless remained as healthy and as viable as it had ever been – which is again a long way short of falling off the cliff in terms of solvency.
Of course, this doesn’t mean everything is rosy in the garden of Second Life. People – the Lab’s Board included – have been expecting stellar things from the platform, and these clearly have yet to materialise – if indeed they ever will. There are issues that need to be sorted with regards to the scalability, stability and usability of the platform; there are equally valid questions around how LL can constructively engage with its user community and draw in and retain new users. There are even bigger questions to be asked as to whether or not Second Life and its ilk really do have a truly “mass market” appeal.
But none of these are indicative of a company that is teetering on the edge of financial disaster, and commentators who constantly try to slant things in that direction really aren’t doing themselves any favours.
