Category: News-Opinion

M’s People: Looking through Kingdon’s Spyglass

Posted on by Inara Pey

Mark Kingdon bounces into the Blogrum with a buoyant post looking to the future. Once one gets through the initial paragraphs, it is interesting to note where he lays emphasis for plaudits during 2009 and what he sees as being important for 2010.

First, his view on 2009 is interesting for the degree of spin evident – some of which borders on a complete re-writing of history, vis: We acquired two virtual goods e-commerce sites and began integrating them into the Second Life experience so that Residents can buy virtual goods both inworld and on the web. While it cannot be denied Onrez and SL Exchange were bought-out, to say they were both “integrated” in any way is far short of the mark. For a start, Onrez was simply killed stone dead, while the “integration” of SL Exchange (now XStreetSL, or XSL) has been nothing less than controversial, has seen LL (again) turn a deaf ear to many legitimate concerns of users, and has contributed further to the lack of trust between residents and the lab.

Similarly, his commentary on the Content Protection Roadmap and the Solution Provider Program fall wide of the mark for the majority of users. The former simply has no teeth, so is hardly something to chalk up as a “success”, while the latter is clearly aimed an LL’s belief in the “corporate market” and has little, if anything, to do with “casual users” (although many of us would like to think it does).

Looking more closely at the Content Protection Roadmap, many seem hung-up on the fact that it is all about “making” people have avatars that reflect their “real lives” (this coming off the back of Amanda Linden’s Work Avatar blog post, which was itself widely misunderstood – I hope).

However, the real threat here is not so much in the risk of people being “outed”, but more the case that the roadmap insidiously suggests that only those who (quote) meet a minimum threshold for content transactions will be able to partake in the new “content seller program”. Who will define this threshold? LL? LL in consultation with a few (and proven elitist) merchants (paging Ami Hoi….)?

What of those merchants who meet all the other criteria but fail to meet this threshold? They have payment info on record, they make quality goods for niche markets, they are in “good standing” with LL – are they suddenly to be outlawed for failing to hit sales of a few thousand linden dollars?

Similarly, the comment that merchants must be in good standing and not have been suspended for any violation of the Second Life Terms of Service is worrying given the way LL have suddenly started wielding the ToS like a big stick over merchants: “if thou knowingly mention a rival web commerce site on XSL, thou wilt not only have thine offending item removed but thous shalt face the wrath of Linden Lab, who will smite thee with a three-day account suspension” (believe me, this has happened, as reported on the Slapt.me forums).

Similarly, the commentary around the Linden Homes is suspect. Again, I’ve hammered out my view on this enough recently to make people possibly sick of it – but I have to say, M’s spin tends to mirror my thoughts: what he calls making it “web easy” for new residents to obtain their first home, I call “funneling” a section (Premium Account holders) joining SL away from the open market for land and homes, and towards a channelled experience that can either be used downstream to boost sales of the labs own “themed sims” – or used to direct users into the gleeful hand preferred land barons as the users find they need bigger land holdings as their experience grows.

And “channeling” (or “siloing” or “corralling”, whichever term you prefer) “casual users” (i.e. the likes of you and me), is very much a consistent theme with Kingdon of late, as I’ve previously mentioned. It is also in step with calls from the likes of Justin Bovington to “stream” the SL experience, and harks right back to another of my chestnut observations, Kapor’s own call for we “pioneers” to step (or get moved) aside for the “pragmatists”.

Little wonder, then, that the “Enterprise solution” (was there ever a problem with business enterprise that warranted a solution?) is flagshipped as the first 2009 “platform improvement”. And while the LLNet may well benefit “casual users” in the increased stability it brings, one cannot help but feel that this is a non-benefit as far as LL is concerned: LLNet is also about being able to furnish the corporate market, by providing high-speed, reliable connectivity between “behind the firewall” installations and a gleaming SL-based “shop front” corporate users can use to promote themselves among their peers and meet the LL-vaunted “Gold Solution Providers”. Again, such an environment has cropped up in several of Amanda Linden’s posts in the past.

And so we turn to M’s view of 2010….and for the casual user, I have to say, it is pretty glum. Once again, from a platform perspective, the emphasis is primarily on the perceived corporate market. Sure, there is much talk of the introduction of C# and of APIs and new protocols – and these will have some benefit to the user base at large – but make no mistake, the primary aim of these new tool sets are “business users”.

Not even the mini-list of “Technical Must Dos” is in anyway a comfort: the majority of them are “must dos” LL promised to deal with – or start dealing with proactively (as opposed to reactively, as is currently the case with things like inventory / asset problems) in 2009…and 2008…and 2007…and 2006….

M’s statements on the “ecosystem” offer little further comfort – indeed words like “seller directory” hold nothing but cold, empty dread while screaming “FIC!”. Similarly, the idea of XSL being further “integrated” holds concerns for me as a content seller, and the idea of it being “segmented” causes concerns for me as a “casual” user. While I can understand segmenting the needs of the corporate user away from those of the “casual” user (the former are, at least in theory, going to be largely looking for API and application-based tools and services not houses, furniture, clothes and the like that interest the rest of us) – the worry here is that things are going to go deeper: will Adult Content, for example, come under new and harder controls to “improve” the “user experience” in accessing and using XSL (or whatever it becomes)?

Of all M’s comments, those relating to Viewer 2.0 are perhaps the most relevant to the casual user.

There can be no denying that the current “official” Viewer is long in the tooth, is technically handicapped and cumbersome to use. While they may be forced to use broadly the same front end as the “official” Viewer, the major reason for 3rd party Viewers being so popular is not because they may be useful for illegal / unsocial behaviour but simply the fact that they avoid many of the issues inherent in the official viewer (memory leaks, etc.) and offer functionality users have been clamouring for over the last three or so years.

As such, a Viewer that addresses this issues, and provides greater flexibility of use (or is – to use LL’s own horrendous term – “localised”) should be welcomed, even if it will doubtless take us all time to get used to using it after years of ingrained use of the current Viewer.

One should also welcome the idea of new discovery tools – with the caveat being so long as said tools do not supplant existing tools (such as Landmarks) while offering less functionality / flexibility of use.

The idea of the new orientation program is one I’m very leery of, because again it smacks of M’s mime of “streaming” users into defined (easily-managed) groups, presenting the opportunity to further channel new users in directions LL would prefer them to take, rather than allowing them the more open thrill of discovery (even if the latter can mean a degree of confusion for some).

Again, while some hand-holding of new users is to be welcomed and encouraged, let’s not go too overboard. According to LL’s own hype, in the six years SL has been active, “millions” of users have made it through the first hour experience and “millions” of us have gone on to enjoy SL in all its forms and pleasures. So while there are issues to overcome with getting to grips with the software – it can’t all be bad.

Thus, the idea that – as Kingdon again suggested in his interview with Tateru Nino – it is now the first five hours of user’s in-world time which needs to be “addressed” – strikes me as a trifle excessive, and suggestive not so much of orientation but rather indoctrination.

Given LL are creeping ever deeper into the realm of service provisioning in-world (i.e. First Homes, “themed” mainland and private sims) and appear to be toying with entering the content creation business, one cannot help but wonder just how directed / channelled / siloed / corralled new users will be on emerging from their “first five hours” – and at what cose to resident-based businesses.

Overall, M’s post says nothing new. It confirms (if this needed emphasising) that LL has nailed its colours to the corporate environment masthead – but is not yet confident in its new shipmate to entirely let go of all pretense of regarding casual users as the core of their business.  Perhaps the saddest element in Kingdon’s post is the fact that it simply doesn’t embrace any of the core values that have so long earmarked what makes SL unique: the sheer diversity and creativity of we “casual users” and our ability to create and grow personal and group visions that are both exciting and enticing to the community as a whole, and which have, for six years, enabled Second Life, warts and all, be summed up in a single word:

Fun.

Surveying Content

Posted on by Inara Pey

I’m a content creator. I’m not a major player; I’d don’t build as a “business” I build because a) it is creative, and I can build better than I can paint or draw in rl;  and b) the things I make are comparative quality-wise with other items in the same market categories and so selling them helps offset my land costs.

So… being something of a small fish, I was surprised to find an e-mail from Pink Linden (she who is “in charge” of XStreet and commerce). Here’s the content:

Second Life always seeks to improve your experience with us. In order to improve that experience, we are surveying merchant opinions to understand more about how you sell virtual goods now and how you might like to sell them in the future.

The survey presents several concepts that are example of ways Linden Lab might be able to further support Second Life merchants and the inworld economy. None of these concepts are currently on our development roadmap, they’re just hypothetical scenarios that we’d appreciate your thoughts on.

Please take the survey (link below) and give us your input. It should take about 10 minutes to complete.

Follow this link to the Survey:
[removed]

If you have questions about the validity of of this survey, I invite you to contact me in world.

Thank you in advance for your time,

Pink Linden

The link in question lead to a multi-page survey relating to XStreet, merchandising and what Linden Lab “might” do (and I’ve long ago learned that “might” in Lindenspeak tends to mean “will”). And it makes largely horrifying reading. To summarise:

  • LL are considering introducing an in-world vendor system that will provide a “guaranteed delivery” and “comprehensive sales statistics” that will allow merchants to sell the goods they have listed on XStreet in-world. The lab will take between a 10-15% “commission” on all sales passing through these vendors.
  • LL are considering a “cross listing service” whereby you can sell your item in-world, on XStreet and get a featured classified for 5-10USD per item you chose to have in this promotion.
  • LL are considering establishing a mall where merchant of any size can have a store for “free” (as in no tier), but LL will take a 30% commission on each and every sale.

Even if the above are being posited as being mutually exclusive to one another, they are all insidious.

  • In-world vendor system: err, these already exist and supplied by a range of in-world creators. Think Hippo, think Jevn, etc. So Linden Lab are now proposing extending their content creation efforts (which started with prefab sims) to compete drectly with established names in SL. Is this the thin edge of the wedge? Even the terminology “guaranteed delivery” is offensive as it is suggestive both that a) other systems are not as reliable (they are, almost ALL failures to deliver goods can be attributable to failures within the SL infrastructure rather than external websites) and/ or b) these vendors will magically circumvent said failings in the SL infrastructure.
  • Cross-posting: many content creators are not in it for the business, they are here for pleasure. As such, a $5-10 US DOLLAR (not Linden Dollar) per item would cripple their ability to “make” money. Thus, LL are immediately creating a favoured nations status of classified ads and promotions only available to those merchants with high turnover, while the smaller merchants are left to struggle onwards.
  • LL-defined mall: again, another opening to LL-defined and controlled content. And that’s assuming it would be “a mall”. Practically speaking, were any decent number of merchants to sign up for this option, LL would have to think seriously about multiple malls in order to (among other things) a) avoid crippling lag; b) provide sufficient space for creators (they promise to support “everyone”, so just 4 or 5 builders of residential properties are going to represent a massive investment in land area). And again, how many store holders will benefit? How many actually have 30% of their income floating around to justify taking up space in the “mall”? What about any existing stakeholdings in land they have? Again, high turnover merchants may benefit – but what about the smaller people. And there’s more: how is this “super mall” or mall network going to be promoted? What impact will it have on existing malls and stores? With (no doubt) MOTD banners point to it, e-mail drops to users, etc., just how much interference will it cause to other businesses of this time?

Beyond this, one has to question how any of these ideas will sit with some of the “content management roadmap” proposals. For example: Merchant A meets all the criteria outlined in the “roadmap” (has an account in good standing, has a turnover in excess of X, etc.), and goes through all the pain of registering as such. Merchant B however, forgoes sign-up because he does not have an account in good standing but opts to use “LL certified vendors” and/or take a slot in the “LL certified mall”. How do buyers distinguish between the two? Both would appear to be equally-well “certified”….

Some have said that even if enacted, these proposals will be voluntary, not mandated, and so they don’t present a “risk” or aren’t a matter of concern.

Wrong. While the programmes may not be mandatory (so those screaming about having to shell out more money can calm down) – the fact remains they will create more of a two-tier content retail environment. The are also setting a precedent for further direct competition with merchants – today vendor systems tomorrow houses or furniture or (God help us) “LL certified BDSM toys”? The mind boggles at the potential avenues for direct competition this opens up for LL.

True, were any one of these proposals (and I do rather suspect that, in typical LL “tried and trusted” “programmes” in the past, it’ll be more a case of were all three of these proposals rather than just one or two of them) to be implemented, the impact on in-world commerce would be initially small – but it would be cumulative over time. And it would be the smaller merchants hit the hardest due to their inability to compete with those who can afford LL’s effective patronage.

Then there is the risk of abuse – the risk that unscrupulous merchants can use these proposal to their advantage simply but throwing money at LL. As mentioned above, people can gain the appearance of being “LL certified” simply by using so-called “certified tools”.

These are bad ideas.

The only idea that potentially has merit, and the one I’ve not mentioned so far, is the “Merchant Marketing Program” which, in the LL spiel:

would provide exclusive use of branding systems, customized store systems (such as a custom URL/SLURL and web storefront), and automatic consideration for large scale promotions. Also included is a data dashboard to enable you to track purchases in real-time. Customer service tools such as AvaLine mean that you are always able to talk with your customers.

Membership in the merchant marketing program would be available at a cost of $10-100 USD monthly, depending on sales volume.

Providing people with the means to break out of the god-awful XStreet listing environment and present their goods in a branded, manageable web store is clearly a valuable and viable option. What is more, the fact that the commission charged is based on sales volumes means that this option becomes as affordable to small merchants (who may already be paying around $12 a month for promotional listing on XStreet to get noticed) get a dedicated storefront and URL they can promote themselves any way they like for potentially the same cost. For merchants operating large land areas, the option is equally attractive: land holdings (and associated tier) can be reduced in favour of a custom on-line store, with the need to retain only land sufficient enough to demo goods to those who wish to view before they buy.

Beyond these specific proposals, a final issue I had with the survey was it’s sheer intrusiveness. LL demanded to know, for example, my gender, age range, the hours I spend in SL, my preferred activity (singular) while in-world (I regard my interests here as being divided between building (+scripting / texturing), role-play, socialising and exploring – yet I could only define my time in terms of just one of these). It is hard to see how such questions could have an impact on any decision to implement one or more of these proposals – so why include them.

At the moment, the vociferous (and partly ill-informed) firestorm over on the LL blogrum related to this survey is a little over the top. BUT, by the same token, that yet another “marketing specialist” in LL is pushing an agenda that comes across as potentially hostile to some sectors of the community, people should be aware of these suggestions, and have a right to be concerned.

Further Confirmation

Posted on by Inara Pey

The other day, I posted a response to the Behind the Firewall product announcements. In it, and in a reply to a comment / question from Prokofy Neva , I stated pretty much that I felt that people were misunderstanding the SL Enterprise (as it is to be called) “model”  – and on two scales.

The first, and more trivial, is that some in SL have perceived the new product as applying to them  – even to the extent of expressing shock at the quoted price of $55,000 (I think people were expecting it to be a kind of “pay-to-use” content-populated OpenSim competitor.

The second mistake I tried to sum up in my response to Prok’s comment, where I stated:

This is why I really don’t think that the new channel [the “Work Marketplace”] is “the mecca for all content creators to aspire to”. The majority will be excluded simply on the basis of what they make. Joe Schmoe (or indeed Inara Schmoe) who makes nice houses and skyhouses isn’t going to cut the mustard. If corporate minds are going to want a shiny edifice in-world or on their squeaky-clean sim in a box, they’re going to want a Name behind it; someone with a Reputation and Qualifications. They are also not going to need comfy sofas, beds, lamps, cars, planes, boats, BDSM gear… and so on.
Thus, the channel will remain more of a funnel, bottlenecked at one end to prevent the “unsuitable” getting in while directing others to the status of favoured elite.

In other words, the Work Marketplace will be carefully filtered, throttled and guarded to prevent the likes of you and me participating because our wares are “no good enough”.

With the possible exception of Anne O’Toole, I seem to have been somewhat alone in voicing this view – even though the evidence is abundantly clear elsewhere. Hence, I’m a little surprised that Prok herself states outright disbelief at a recent statement by none other than Justin Bovington, CEO of Linden Lab’s bed mate, Rivers Run Red.

In the piece, Bovington states in reference to the Work Marketplace:

It has [to] be less Xstreet, more Wall Street. It has to reflect relevance, rather than drowning us all in deluge of content: clothing, furniture and avatars,” he wrote, adding “if [Linden Lab] attracts the right people to develop these apps, this could be the tipping point.

In other words, it will be the jealousy-guarded filter I described.

Bovington’s comments also tend to support the idea that the grid is to be further messed with – or as Amanda Linden euphemistically calls it, “improved” – as he also states:

We also think that Corporates will create a mixture of hybrid behind-the-firewall closed-off spaces on their Intranets and a private, gated Internet-accessible space for their partners and collaborators.

In other words, if he and his ilk get their way, stand by for a scenario I touched upon while commenting in Prok’s blog earlier today when commenting on the idea that avatars may soon be “streamed” by “type”:

This might be good from a sign-up perspective to some degree, but IF carried beyond that (admittedly a big “if” at the moment) I’m not entirely sure it’ll do SL any favours. With users so corralled / siloed, how hard would it be to start demarking areas of the grid as “no go” based on avatar type (e.g. your avatar is recorded as “role-play”, therefore “business only” regions are off limits to you)?

In reviewing the SLE product release, I referred to Amanda Linden’s seeming hostility toward the user base at large. In Bovington’s comments the hostility is now approaching a state of warfare.

The writing on the wall is becoming clearer every day. There are those  – as again I stated in my last post – who see SL a world of to unequal halves: those involved in corporate endeavours – and everyone else. And those of us in the latter category are to be tolerated, rather than embraced. To use a phrase I believe (in all fairness) Prok herself used not long ago: we are now the “legacy product”.

Behind the Firewall

Posted on by Inara Pey

Well, it’s here, with ballyhoo aplenty. The much-vaunted “behind the firewall product”.

Yippee, one might state. Others might be more ecstatic. Some, poor benighted souls, might even think it is for them (I did find it hilarious that one “SL businessman” expected the new “sim in a box” to cost around $100 USD, and was stunned at the $55,000 price tag!).

Make no mistake. This “solution” is not about, for, or really involving “business” as the majority of us in SL go about it. Nor is it really geared towards the education sector LL has (until recently) been treating as a possible bedfellow. No, make no mistake, the Behind-the-firewall “sim in a box” is aimed at one market and one market only: the big corporations.

You might say it is 2006-in-a-box. Remember back then, all the hype and trumpeting about SL being “the place” for business, with the like of NBC, Toyota, Nike, Coca-Cola and others flocking into SL….doing next to nothing and then stampeding out again six months later….

I really don’t know that this new product has a market or whether it has been built on wishes and daydreams. To read the hype, a lot of it has been specifically engineered in ways that suggest it goes far beyond the capabilities of the main grid. However, seeing is believing, and as I’ve not seen, I can say either way. Certainly, as a “next generation” communication tool, it’s going to have its work cut out to effectively and efficiently compete with the millions big corporations have invested in direct-to-the desktop communications and collaborative tool sets, the ability to host face-to-face meetings with the participants hundreds (or thousands) of miles apart (or separated be several floors in the same building) without the need to either ldeav their desks or poke around with some 3D “image” of themselves in a digital utopia…..

But…that isn’t my concern. so long as LL don’t hang all their hopes on this yet-to-be “solution” and as a result crash and burn should it crash and burn, I don’t really care if they hit the mark or shoot themselves in the foot.

What concerns me is what else they are doing alongside this announcement. Because frankly, this “sim in a box” now seems to be the thin end of the wedge (or chisel) that could fracture SL.  Ciaran Laval, in his blog, cuts to the heart of the matter.

Several times I’ve fought shy of posting to the official forum “discussions” challenging Amanda Linden as to why LL simply can’t develop a “Corporate mini grid” to which, if they wish, those corporations employing the new “sim in a box” product can connect at some future date. It’s been obvious for some time that the tool on its own would be limited in scope in terms of a revenue stream and that  – given the emphasis on collaboration – somewhere would be needed where corporations could meet, not only with each other but with LL’s vaunted “Gold Solutions Providers” and perhaps with potential customers; so why not simply section-off server capacity and build a grid specifically for that purpose?

Now we see the reality: LL don’t have to go that route, as they appear to have already earmarked the main grid for this purpose. Many suspected this when they thrust the “Adult Content Policy” on us. I and several others challenged LL on precisely this point, and were told we were wrong.

Well, seems we were wrong in a rightish sort of way.

What is really worrying though, as Ciaran makes clear, is that now the gloves are really coming off. LL is moving beyond inconveniencing its user base (vis-a-vis the OpenSpace sim fiasco, the Adult changes, etc.), and into open hostility we’re being told “our world” is now a “serius” place of work, that if we want to be taken seriously “in business” we must start wearing suits. The implications in Amanda Linden’s post on the sim in a box are clear: if things don’t match the corporate-friendly image LL require, then “improvements” will be made – so step aside!

In this respect, I actually disagree with Ciaran’s assessment. He refers to the move as a “stealth takeover”. Actually, I’d say that up until now it has been “stealthy”; but now it is blatant and in our faces. And the stink is even worse for that.

Of course there will be the inevitable cooing from LL about how their “core business” – you and I – still matter. And we will; so long as we stay in our nicely corralled environments, overseen by the Lindens themselves (Zindra) or by their new Land Baron friends, who will doubtless vigorously police their estates and “themed lands” in accordance with the meme that “residents should be seen (on a map) but not heard”.

I’d given go so far as to say that LL are actually looking to keep us around, albeit nicely constrained and within markets that the new “big boys” won’t want to touch. To name but two of the markets and the reasons I say this:

  • Markets like land (corporations are going to be interested in running zillions of sims and renting out parcels, obviously) – but the big land barons are, and guess who are already being enticed with “beta programmes” by Jack Linden et al to buy more land, and to possibly take on management of “themed” Mainland.
  • Markets like the Adult community. Sure, we might not be appealing to LL’s corporate image, but we’ve all now been brushed under the carpet, tucked away in private sims or on Zindra. And while we may be “unsavory” – the fact remains that the Adult community is one of the most creative in SL, and one where businesses can thrive with huge turnovers (and Stroker Serpentine isn’t alone in this). It has a lively, nay, bubbling community that cannot help make T Linden’s quarterly reports look good. Ergo, so long as we behave, we Adult Market users stay – which is likely the real meaning behind all the hollow assurances LL gave back in the Adult Change fiasco that they were not “changing” their attitude towards the Adult market.

And the reason both stay? Two words: fall back.

It’s insidious and it is nasty. LL are aware that they are taking a gamble. They are aware that if it succeeds, then they break their reliance on the “casual” or “home” user – those who have, as many keep saying, made SL the “success” it has been. They can finally move beyond the “narrow” opportunities we afford them and move into a bigger marketplace and Do Things, as I seem to remember Mitch Kapor demanding of the company back just before Mark Kingdon showed up.

But…they can’t just let us go. Oh no, not yet; because everything still might go, as my father was once fond of saying, tits-up. If that happens, LL will need a fall back position – you and me – in our nice, constrained environments in SL, still turning our hard-earned cash over to the Lindex mill in order to keep their coffers topped-up.

It’s a pessimistic view on things, I admit. And I hope to high heaven I’m wrong.

Signs and Portents….

Posted on by Inara Pey

Two recent events involving Linden Lab reps have caused yet more head-scratching.

The first is a posting from Amanda Linden on the subject of “work avatars“, espousing the view that if people are to do “professional” business in SL then they should consider having a “professional avatar” as distinct from their runabout everyday avatar.

I’ve found two things interesting with this – one of which is somewhat amusing, the other is more alarming. The amusing element is in the number of replies from people who have somewhat missed the context of the post. This isn’t about all of us engaged in SL commerce having to ditch our current look and come over all business-like. Nor is it about any form of “outing” real identities behind avatars on the part of LL.

No, the article is aimed squarely at the question of “professional” (read “corporate”) employees being in-world as representatives of their organisation, and the need for these individuals to keep their “professional” identity both divorced from any “social” identity they may have and use outside of working hours, and in line with the professional / corporate image they are trying to promote.

While many have mistaken the posting, as mentioned above, giving rise to a range of misguided (…?) responses, those that have realised the intent of the post have, in fairness given interesting feedback on the matter relating to the “validity” of “business” (or “professional”) avatars, the question of naming rights / abilities, etc. However, with one or two exceptions, no-one has really addressed the question of why is Amanda even raising this issue in the public forum?

Second Life was never designed to be an engine of business. Period. It was designed – if such a term can be used – as a fun-based social networking platform (and I never thought I’d hear myself say that!). Yet, in the drive to make it sustainable, Linden Lab have been increasingly forced to look at the corporate environment as a means of generating sustainable revenues and growth (again, this drive is to me one of the clearest indications that all is not well with the SL economy as an “engine of commerce”, despite the rosy pictures painted every quarter by those juggling with the finance figures). To this end we’ve had much focus from LL on their “behind the firewall” product which (I gather) is designed to be the nirvana for all corporate communications needs.

And, in its own way, this is fair enough. Second Life does offer some unique opportunities for internal management to corporations. Whether they can compete with established tools and technology (video streaming, desktop-enabling video conferencing, secure collaborative work tools and information sharing, etc.), is obviously debatable – but one cannot simply discount SL on the basis of existing technology, or for LL for trying to leverage what they believe is a potential market.

Where this becomes an issue, however, is in the way it impacts how Linden Lab view the grid as a whole. Until recently, the grid was a place of open interaction, creativity and development, where many different lifestyles and communities could converge and mix and share (largely) without rancour or fuss. Sure, groups were/are prone to their own bouts of drama; yes, Linden Lab did and does sometimes show an insidious favouritism here and there – BUT on the whole, for those in SL it really was a case of “our world, our imagination”.

That is no longer the case. The “big business is everything” mantra is one that is spreading across the whole of Linden Lab, resulting in a grid that is slowly but surely being sanitised, and individuality squirreled away on private sims and small holdings. “Adult” content has been largely removed to its own continent or private sims; any that remain on Mainland are (theoretically) unable to advertise or gain much visibility unless people stumble upon them – and where they do advertise, users are encouraged to AR them so they can be taken down.

We’re now seeing discussions emerging between Linden Lab and a favoured few relating to “zoning” areas of Mainland for “community building” – words that again subliminally suggest “homogenising” the Mainland into a nice, clean, “safe” environment where Corporate Daddy will feel safe letting his children (employees) “play”.

In this, Amanda’s enthusiastic posting is but the latest demonstration that there are those within LL who view Second Life as being “all about business” – and very little else, despite the lip service they may pay to the rest of us. The only reason the idea of having a “professional” avatar is being promoted is because Amanda and others in LL want to see the grid as a confluence – not of communities and lifestyles and interests – but of corporate marketing and exposure. A place where all those behind-the-firewall grids can safely connect and where their minions and roam outside the hallowed portals of their corporation and “do business” with others “safely” (and by “safely” I don’t necessarily mean “securely”, I mean simply without the “risk” of running into any one of two dozen exotic avatar styles we all take for granted in SL).

And this is the worrying aspect of Amanda’s post; not that we’ll all have to somehow be “outed” (as some on the blog comments are decrying), but that here again we see Second Life – a place never designed to support Big Business – being slowly but surely forced into a business suit, shirt and tie….

Nor, in passing, do I find this kind of commentary being followed by Philip Rosedale’s recent bombshell unconnected. Other the last several months we’ve seen several departures from Linden Lab that have raised questions concerning the company’s intended future direction. Until now, the hardest of these was perhaps Robin Linden’s departure.

While Robin caused a mixed range of reactions from those around her, she did, in many ways, having the “community” of Second Life at heart. Not all of us agreed with some of her actions all of the time, but she was committed to the idea of Second Life being an open community. As, I think it fair to say, was Philip. And now he, too – despite all the comforting words – is off. Why, exactly, is unclear. Lots of promises and pleasing words – but one cannot help but feel that in sharing the same workspace as Mark Kingdon, Rosedale finally realised the yawning gulf between his dreams and ideas and Kingdon’s (Kapor’s?) vision for the future of SL, and the fact that the two can no longer comfortably co-exist.

So what of SL and the rest of us? I have no idea. But, like many others, I’m concerned about further developments coming out of Jack Linden’s office, as reported by Ciaran Laval and variously-reported elsewhere.

First off, the issue here – and Ciaran states – is not that LL have discounted a bulk sim sale to the likes of Dreamland (who are a huge customer well aware of their potential buying-power – thus discounts are hardly surprising). What is worrying about the deal is – again – the degree of obfuscation apparent in Jack’s responses to valid questions pitched during his Office Hours, and as reported by Ciaran. So much so, that Jack himself had to admit he was coming over as evasive – before hiding under the excuse that this is some kind of “beta program” – a laughable response at best.

Discounts are discounts. End of story. They are a legitimate part of business practices and require little in the way of hiding from others – so they fact that Jack (again) feels the need to obfuscate (just as he did over OpenSpace / Homesteads, and with the Adult Changes, and with the Blake Sea situation….), suggests that either favouritism is involved here, and a programme to edge-out the smaller land owner and private sim owners is in the process of being developed, or – frankly – Jack is (again) demonstrating a degree of incompetence in his ability to deal openly with his clients.

Personally, given the push for a bigger Big Business presence in SL, the erosion of the voices and dreams of those who made SL possible, and moves such as this latest “beta programs” from Jack, I’m beginning to get pessimistic about the future of SL.

These moves simply do not bode well for the smaller, independent player or player groups within Second Life. Again, leave us not forget that, after the special “beta testing” Jack developed with USS over Blake’s Sea, we’ve now got the much-touted Community Partnership Programme, which is utterly biased against small independents – right from the opening words: “a new initiative focused on expanding Linden Lab’s relationship with large, inworld communities“.

Indeed, taken together, one cannot help but view the CPP and this latest behind-closed-doors deal between LL and Dreamland as part and parcel of moves to sanitise Second Life ready for the Second Coming of Big Business, as heralded by Amanda….

Score One….

Posted on by Inara Pey

OK…I bash LL quiet a lot. So, in a pleasant change, I’m going to blow them (or some of them – notably Soft Linden) kisses.

Anyone reading this blog knows that content theft is a genuine issue within SL and that, as a content creator myself, I’d like to see LL become more proactive in dealing with it.

Well, now they have, as reported by Tateru Nino over at Massively – no fewer than 50 rippers have been summarily banned from SL for blatantly stealing assets from the Linden servers.

The culprits in question had been using a Viewer called Neillife (unfortunately built on the Emerald codebase) that utilises an purpose-built exploit that fooled the Linden asset servers into providing them with items to which they had no rights to own.

This is very much a step beyond “simple” copybotting or Viewer copying as evidenced with the likes of Cyrolife. It borders on outright computer crime that can far more easily be acted upon with legal measures than protracted DMCA actions, as the violations in question were directly against Linden Lab.

And it was becasue the Viewer behaved this way that Soft and co were able to get the hackers – by identifying the object the hackers were going for, they simply substituted the original item with one that effective “phoned home” with the user’s account information each time it was illegally copied….making it a cinch for LL to round up the culprits and ban them – including the Viewer’s creator….

It’s not clear how this kind of action by LL can be broadened, but the fact that they have quietly taken such a step is very welcome; and while it would be very easy to say “well, they only took this action as a result of the class action against them”, I’d beg to differ and simply say that kudos falls where kudos is due – and that LL are to be unreservedly congratulated in the action they have taken.

My one real worry is that this success will leads to greater cries from the ill-informed (or those carrying certain grudges) for other “safe” Viewers such as Emerald, Meekat and Cool Viewer to be  “banned” as third party viewers are “evil”…..