Tag: Second Life

To far to fast?

Posted on by Inara Pey

More theories as to what has prompted the recent “restructuring” at LL are popping up.

While Hamlet offers a concise argument, I still don’t buy his “Viewer 2 has failed to increase adoption” line, for reasons already stated. Viewer 2 doesn’t exist in a vacuum, to “increase adoption” it needs support – advertising and promotion well beyond the walls of the Second Life garden, and this has yet to happen in any real way.

Similarly, it is hard to judge what impact the SL Enterprise issue has had on LL’s fortunes – if any. In terms of straightforward revenue generation, I’m inclined to agree with Gwyn Llewelyn (to a point) and say, not a lot. SLE was, from the start flawed, again, for reasons I’ve gone into at length … several times … previously. However, I can see the Hamlet is potentially hitting the mark here in that there has been a negative outcome in so far as possible projections of cashflow into the LL coffers as a result of the SLE launch not achieving any significant levels are concerned.

Again, products don’t exist in a vacuum: some projections as to the potential take-up of SLE and the possible partnering of its use with the renting of SL Workspace sims must have been carried out at some point in Linden Lab. And having a company internally translate a projected income into something that influences their entire bottom-line financial structuring is not a rarity. Even big companies can get it wrong, issuing profitability warnings when sales fail to meet expectations / forecasts…

In both Viewer 2, the New User Experience, and SLE, I think it is more a case that those running Linden Lab simply took a gamble – risking stability and steady-state growth in order to re-invent the Second Life wheel and spin it up into a rapid revenue earning machine that could draw in the trendy and the shiny in terms of casual and business users.

In short, in the drive to make Second Life “profitable” in a very real sense and break free from the constraints of being considered a “gamble” for new investors, or still sporting the buffed-up shine of a “start-up”, Mark Kingdon and his fellow executives simply tried to drive LL to far to fast. The gamble required large-scale expenditure, it required personnel expansions that were perhaps not the wisest. Linden Lab simply over-extended itself.

This doesn’t mean that the management team themselves have massively failed; companies can and do get it wrong.  When they do, the wise ones take similar steps to LL: they retrench, they lay-off staff, they reduce overheads. And while some may see the laying-off of some 30% of staff as “massive” – the reality is, LL are in fact bringing staffing levels back to the “pre-expansion” levels of last October when, as Hamlet points out, Kingdon was talking about recruiting some 70 staff.

If anything at all, the fact that someone within LL has reacted so swiftly to the situation could be seen as completely positive: the errors have been realised, the need to retrench to firmer ground agreed to and the necessary action taken. While it has hurt a lot of people within LL in the process – surely it is better the hard steps are taken now, than the company wallow on in the face of potential waning income streams and increasingly upset investors edging ever closer to pulling the plug once and for all?

The flipside to this is, of course, that if the above is true – that those at the top misjudged their market and their platform – then the blame for this rests in one place and one place only. And it is not among the departed souls, so to speak.

As others have said, and I’ve analysed, and Grace McDunnough oh so eloquently phrased it, in careering in the direction of the shiny and new, Mark Kingdon and the executive management team again demonstrated that they simply don’t grok what they have. Rather than embracing the community already on their doorstep  – the community that has shown a dedication to their platform that has translated into hard dollars for the company, Linden Lab has time and again demonstrated everything from lip service through indifference to outright hostility towards its customer base since the end of 2006.

Under Mark Kingdon’s leadership these mixed attitudes towards the existing user base reached new heights; first came the OpenSpace / Homestead debacle; while not the blatant bait-and-switch many claim, it did hurt and upset a very large number of SL “residents”; then came the increasingly vocal and anti-resident demands of people LL chose as strategic partners  – people like Justin Bovington of Rivers Run Red, who gained somewhat tacit support from the likes of Amanda Linden; then came the entire Adult Change fiasco, in which Linden Lab blatantly demonstrated its lack of concern for the well-being of a sizeable portion of its community that represented a major influx of funds to LL in terms of land and overall in-world revenue transactions through the sale of goods.

This in turn gives rise to another, and very fundamental reason as to what “went wrong” at Linden Lab – and in fairness, it pre-dates Mark Kingdon’s tenure at Battery Street as well as cutting through a lot of Hamlet’s more corporate-perspective speculations. It is simply this:

Linden Lab lost sight of what their platform really is.

When all is said and done, all the debates held, the navel-gazing done with and with all the cows home, milked and safely in their stalls, Second Life is at its heart a recreational activity. True, it is a highly unusual one in that a) it doesn’t have any quantifiable goals in the same way that other “games” do – but then, I didn’t call it a “game”; and b) it enables those participating in it to not only spend “real money”, but also earn it as well.

Instead of focusing on the ability for Second Life to engage, inspire and ensuring it remained an “open” and balanced environment in which the words your world, you imagination had genuine meaning to whoever came into SL; Linden Lab chose to start tinkering with the fundamentals of the platform – not so much the technology – but the manner in which SL could be used. They started slanting it this way and that, trying to capture real and imagined markets, chasing illusive (and sometimes imaginary) goals. In doing so, they fell victim to their own  – dare I use the term – propaganda as to the potential of the platform, with the result that when things didn’t turn out “right” the first time (the ’06-’07 “boom”), they started tinkering and tipping things more aggressively, further losing sight of the potential before them, and thus created a downward spiral that has done much to alienate those who have most supported the platform and within whom, LL had perhaps the strongest allies who might have otherwise helped spur on the growth of the platform.

It may well be that the end of the road is now in sight and that, as Hamlet speculates, the company is quietly being prepared for outright acquisition; it may also be that the management team are attempting one last-ditch effort to make LL work by switching tracks and going the SAAS route, as I and others have speculated.

In looking at the ToS, it is easy to see that in its restructured form, it supports either of these eventualities. So does the restructuring. Were either to occur, one would have to say that, in purely business terms, the management team have “succeeded” in “keeping Second Life alive”.

In terms of the current user base and the potential that it once – and still – represents the truth is very much otherwise.

Restructures, ToS and licences

Posted on by Inara Pey

Gwyn Llewelyn replied to my post on the restructuring at LL, and while we differed in some views, she nevertheless raised a point that has taken a while to percolate through the grey fluff between my ears and mingle with something I posted regarding the sudden launch of the heavily revised ToS.

At the time the new Terms of Service came out, I asked if LL might not be putting the paperwork in order, suggesting that they might be moving towards a hiving-off and licencing of the server-side software.

Despite all the soft assurances from Mark Kingdon about the health and vitality of Linden Lab, as circulated in his recent e-mail, could it be that the announcement of the restructuring be a further step in that direction?

If I’m honest, Prokofy Neva spotted the parallel before me; although she takes a slightly different angle.

In the ToS, LL have pretty much redefined SL as software as a service (SAAS). This helps make the platform itself suitable for licencing – letting other companies come in a take on the task of hosting the platform, as I’ve previously mentioned. This benefits LL from the need to invest massively in additional hosting efforts elsewhere (such as in Europe) with the aim of reducing latency. It also relieves them of the burden of supplying customer support services, since this would fall under the remit of the licensees. At the ame time, LL generate income through a licence structure (based on the server count? the number of actual sims?) that also enables them to retain the IP on the software and thus control its development.

Certainly it is doubtful a purely “land sales” model is sufficient to keep LL afloat, and licensing deals have traditionally been far more lucrative to software companies, so I’d be very surprised if a shift towards such a model hasn’t been considered by some at the top of the LL tree.

They could even hive-off the operations they currently have into a holding company, as Prok suggests, which in turn could operate a number of sub-leasing deals.

Again, moving towards browser-based accessibility for the platform (or possibly offering as an option alongside the Viewer) fits this scenario, again for reasons I’ve stated: it encourages those who would otherwise fight shy of “trying” SL to do so, simply because it no longer necessarily requires them to download and maintain software.

The browser approach also increases the potential attraction business and education may have towards SL as a platform. A shiny new toy delivered direct to the desktop within an browser’s existing functionality is far more attractive than buying a “virtual world modelling tool” which requires you to install and maintain a clunky client front-end on every single desktop PC in your office / classroom environment.

Licencing the platform also offers potential benefits for LL’s business hopes: a couple of strategic “partnerships” with suitably focused hosting services could see the development of Justin Bovington’s longed-for “business oriented Mainland”: a secure environment to which companies using Second Life on the business front can meet and intermingle via “shop fronts”, as an example. Again, LL win in that they lose the overhead of running the service, but gain on the licensing of the platform and in the potential consultancy spin-offs.

Turning as well, for a moment, to Mark Kingdon’s e-mail to residents on the structuring, and risking going off-topic from the above speculation.

I’ve previously-suggested that the structuring PR may have been poorly-worded, giving people the impression that LL were going to overthrow the Viewer in favour of a purely browser-based method of access SL when in fact they may have meant the browser option might be in addition to the Viewer.

Mark Kingdon’s letter to users suggests this may well be the case, as he states: By bringing new people to Second Life, and by increasing the ways in which people can interact with the world and with the people, places, and things within it. Note the emphasis. Not “changing the way in which people can interact”, but “increasing the ways” – this really does suggest to me that the browser approach is intended to be in addition to the Viewer.

No chicken supreme

Posted on by Inara Pey

Well, the winner is announced. The Tech Virtual Museum Workshop has won the 2010 Linden Prize. Reading about the Workshop suggests it certainly ticks all the required boxes for the Prize, and so congratulations to those behind the project. It’ll be interesting to see what the $10,000 US yields within the project in the future.

Beyond this, I’m amazed and mystified at the number of people who have leapt to the defence over the inclusion of Sion chickens as a finalist. From many of the reasons cited for their inclusion, it seems apparent that quite a few of those leaping to the chickens’ defence actually haven’t grasped – or have chosen to ignore  – the criteria of the Prize. It’s not about in-world activities, nor is it about commercial endeavour, enterprise or success – all of which seem to be the rallying cry of many who have defended the chickens’ inclusion in the first place.

More puzzling still is the attitude of others, such as my dear friend, Ciaran Laval, that it is “OK” for things like the chickens to be included so long as they don’t win. This is something I simply cannot get my head around – together with attitudes that amount to people supporting the chickens just so long as they don’t win – and indicating that they’d have a change of tune were the chickens to actually win.

The only way I can describe such view is, well, as being two-faced. If it is OK for something like the chickens to reach the finals then sorry – it should be accepted that it is OK for it to go on and win. To support a nomination (that has probably come at the expensive of other entrants that more properly fulfilled the criteria of the prize in the first place) and then threaten to protest long and loud should it actually win strikes me as being as baffling as the chicken’s inclusion in the finalist list in the first place.

It matters not whether the chickens actually won or not. Their inclusion simply undermines the reasons for which the Prize was originally set-up. I wonder how many people will be so accommodating next year if we see the likes of a latter-day Anshe Chung or United Sailing Sims listed as finalists. After all, there is little commercial difference between the likes of an Anshe Chung and a Sion Zaius, while something like USS-SL offers the same kind of “immersive experience” that has been used in the defence of the chickens’ nomination as a finalist. I rather suspect that were this to be the case, those leaping so readily to defend the chickens would be the first to howl long and loud.

Chicken little for the big time?

Posted on by Inara Pey

Colour me gobsmacked.

Is the grid so laggy that April 1st has JUST arrived at Linden Lab’s offices? I’ve just read this, and I’m utterly floored.

Don’t get me wrong….I think the Linden Prize is a great thing. For those of you perhaps not familiar with it, the Prize is an annual award LL give (to the tune of $10,000 USD which is given to the “Second Life Resident or team for an innovative inworld project that improves the way people work, learn and communicate in their daily lives outside of the virtual world” [emphasis mine, for reasons that will become clear].

The listed finalists include very worthy projects such as AIDS / HIV awareness; NASA’s Colab educational facility; the Open University (potentially the world’s foremost distance-learning university, with a global student intake of over 200,000), Virtual Helping Hands, that links volunteers who help individuals with disabilities, various education-based projects…

…and Sion Chickens….

You read that correctly. Sion Chickens. Yes. Those chickens. The ones people (allegedly) love to kill – or more particularly, the ones that eat up sim resources faster than a politician can simultaneously kiss a baby and steal its lollypop.

Now, it may well be that “raising”, “feeding” and “breeding” virtual chickens could well be a fun thing to do (even if it does see your estate “owner” suddenly ignoring you entreaties for help, or your neighbours looking at you peculiarly while holding knives or handguns or large blunt object-shaped prims….). But come on!!! Are we really supposed to believe that this sim-screwing, resource-gobbling, lag-spewing pyramid scheme actually, improves the way people work, learn and communicate in their daily lives outside of the virtual world??

Well…yes, if by “improve” Linden Lab means the potential for those suffering from the impact of said chickens conspiring via real life to locate those owning them, pay them a visit and casually persuade them as to the error of their ways*- then I suppose there might be some logic to including Sion Chickens in the list.

However, the only reason I can find for the inclusion of the Chickens among the finalists is because they apparently stimulated the SL economy in 2009, encouraging an alleged 60K of “new users” to participate in the economy by buying the chickens and their associated, um, goods.

Again, I’m not against stimulating the economy (I’m a content creator, after all). It’s a good thing; it’s healthy to see more people get involved in SL: and if they buy chickens, what else might they buy / rent? Land (they’re going to need somewhere to put their chickens); a house (where they can sit and watch over their chickens); furniture (so they can have something to sit on while watching their chickens)….

But this isn’t the (alleged reason the Linden Prize was founded. Period. End of discussion. As such, for the Lindens to place it in the final 10 is nothing short of cynical, promoting as it does the view that making money (for yourself and LL) is as merited improving the way people work, learn and communicate in their daily lives outside of the virtual world. What is worse is that if, but some godforsaken chance  M and his gang actually declare the chickens their winner (or even a joint winner), then they will have undermined any credibility the Prize currently holds among residents.

If not actually reduce it to outright farce.

*aka “beat seven bells out of them”

Hot under the collar

Posted on by Inara Pey

With the ripples from the recent forum phishing scam still, well, rippling (PMs remain disabled on the blogrum), people seem to be returning to their own pet peeves.

Chief among these is a return to the popular game of “Emerald bashing“.  Let’s be clear on this: I’m actually very uncomfortable around some of the activities being undertaken by those involved in Modular Systems. My take on Lonely Bluebird (one of several alts within the “Emerald dev” group that is operated by one of that group’s more conspicuous members) handing out Viewer-crashing prims in the name of “anti-copybotting” activities being a case in point.

I’m also less than sanguine about the likes of CDS and Oynx, both of which smack of vigilantism to some degree – especially in the light of the continued obfuscation put out by those involved in Emerald / Modular Systems / Oynx / CDS. I’m certainly not sold on the idea that they need to be secretive because otherwise the “bad guys” will be able to bypass the “security” tools like Oynx and CDS supposedly give.

But that said, the blatant witch hunting that goes on around anything that even faintly smacks of being Emerald-related stinks at least as much as (and in some cases more so than) any whiff of unpleasantness arising from Oynx / CDS.

In a recent  round robin on the Oynx bots currently threading their way through the grid, any opportunity to engage in reasoned discussion was quickly overturned by those more interested in relying on fear and innuendo. That some of this seemed driven more by one Viewer developer’s  – dare I say it – envy over Emerald’s continued success more than any genuine concern or attempt to give factual information on subject was unfortunate. That another over-the-top forum poster saw it as a means of (again) demonstrating her self-promoted “skill” at wordplay simply drove the entire thread into the realms of pointlessness.

Which is a shame, as there are questions that need to be legitimately asked – and honestly answered – around the subject of Oynx in particular. Dragging matters down into games of wordplay or Viewer envy tend to kill the opportunities to ask such questions stone dead.

To be sure those at Modular Systems are not entirely free from blame here. They’ve been challenged some in the SL blogs and forums such as SL Universe, and rather than give direct answers, they’ve opted for wordplay and obfuscation of their own. Many attribute this to the fact that they have “something to hide”. Personally, having been witness to the behaviour of some of the individuals involved in Modular Systems, I have to say I think their repeated attempts at “wit”, etc., is actually down to juvenile flippancy more than any desire to “hide” things; that is to say that some of them enjoy spreading confusion simply because it does upset the very people it  is aimed at, rather than being any attempt at deviousness. While it is true that some of them have, in the past, demonstrated a capacity for maliciousness, I for one would still rather look upon them with an attitude of “innocent until proven [emphasis deliberate] guilty” – whereas others out in the virtual world seem to believe that democratic due process proceeds from “guilty even if proven to be innocent”.

But this aside, resorting to the Alphaville Herald (neither a bastion of honest journalism or a font of unbiased and accurate information) – does little to establish a “case” against Modular Systems; all it actually does is provide further opportunities for wordplay, FUD and temper tantrums.

Elsewhere, people are picking up on the Evans et al suit against Linden Lab following a report (loosely) on the matter posted by CNN.

Although the CNN article doesn’t directly address the ins and outs of the Evans et al case, this hasn’t stopped some in the blogrum from gloating over the potential for LL to be “put to rights” over perceived wrongdoing – while seemingly remaining blissfully unaware that a) the case is less about land ownership and more about potential false advertising on Linden Lab’s part, and b) it seems fairly clear from the way the case has been structured (and by whom: one Justin Archinaco) that the plaintiffs are more likely to be seeking a hoped-for settlement out-of-court, rather than the before jury hearing they are demanding (and it will be interesting to see how they respond should LL call this particular bluff).

Most of all however, I’m again struck by the shallowness of thinking that surrounds those who post gleeful “I own land and I can’t wait for this to get to court…” comments. While I do remain convinced the chances of this case reaching court prior to a settlement being reached are slim, I have to say that those wishing it to go that far show a remarkable lack of comprehension. Have they really not thought through the repercussions that they will face, let alone LL? Anyone who “owns” a sim and then rents out “sells” or otherwise leases land on that sim for profit (i.e. any income over and above tier) could well find themselves liable for tax due on said income – and I seriously doubt many will have placed themselves in a position of being able to write-off their liability to any sizeable degree.

While there does need to be a discussion around the concept and realities of digital ownership, one really shouldn’t be fooled into believing that Evans et al vs. Linden Lab has anything to do with such a discussion.   And those that gloat today may yet find themselves deep in regret tomorrow.

Changes ahoy!

Posted on by Inara Pey

Yesterday saw what marks a major set of announcements – and linked comments – from Linden Lab. During her appearance on Metanomics to promote the Beta launch of Viewer 2.0, Amanda Linden admitted that LL’s track record in communications with to and with users has been pretty appalling over the last few years, and she made mention that things were going to be changing.

Later, Amanda popped up in the Forums (nothing unusual there) and proceeded to actually respond to critiques and concerns voiced by users (which, given the general preference for senior LL executives to cherry-pick comments in the forum and sway towards answering those more given to praise than critique, was a little unusual). Now we get the “start” of a process of “Coming Soon” announcements designed to highlight upcoming changes  / implementations, etc.

This in itself isn’t new per se. We’ve had similar “programmes” in the past, taking a variety of forms from website announcements all the way back to special town hall events. Few have stuck over the years once the heady thrill of the first few posts / sessions has faded. The cynic in my says this effort also won’t last: the timing of its arrival suggests it is an attempt to show the “new influx” of users that SL is an alive and vibrant place, and LL are working hard to keep it so.

Nevertheless, kudos for the effort, and well done on presenting what is for the most part, very exciting news. Long may it continue.

While I’m not overly fussed about Viewer 2.1 (I’m still bouncing between Emerald and KirstenLee’s S20 viewer); it will hopefully bring some kind of decent stability that will enable TPV developers really sink their teeth into it via Snowglobe, and generate some really first class Viewers.

Similarly, I can’t get excited about the new Second Life Marketplace that is entering beta. This looks like it will be superseding XStreet in the future, and goes some way to explaining why Pink Linden has been conspicuous in her silence. I’m finding it hard to get excited by this new venture, for a couple of reasons. OK… more than a couple.

First off, Pink appears to be in charge. Sorry, but she is someone I have very little respect for and has proven herself less concerned about user’s views and legitimate concerns on matters than she is in pushing through policy and earning (one assumes) corporate brownie points. Beyond that, this new market environment looks like it’ll be the place where some of the more unpopular commerce policies will be enforced, and given Pink’s attitude at OH meetings, the control is liable to be draconian.

Most of all, however, there is the fact that however it is dressed up, this seems to be geared towards pushing shoppers into buying on-line, rather than in-world thus generating revenue for LL. As Pink herself states: The portion of Second Life Residents using XStreetSL has gone from 8% to 20%, with 2/3 of Residents telling us they shop on Xstreet before checking inworld. Now, I’ve no idea where or when the surveys and meetings relating to the gathering of these figures were held – I didn’t see or hear anything, and I’ve been an SLx / XSL merchant for well over 2 years, but the upward trend is something LL are very keen to see continue. XSL itself already enjoys many advantages over in-world shopping. For a start, Viewer 2.0 search can make finding what you are seeking unnecessarily complex at times – but more than that, XSL gets pumped straight to the user’s desktop “dashboard”, and faces no real competition from the forums…because there is currently no real classifieds forum (although we are being told that “will change”). Indeed, many policies and actions on the part of the commerce team have been directly geared toward pushing buyers to Xstreet, rather than towards in-world stores. Therefore, one cannot help but worry that this direction is going to be more aggressively pursued when the Marketplace is formally launched.

As it stands, given the information provided in the Merchant’s Wiki, those advertising on XSL will have their work cut-out in the coming weeks to gain “compliance” with the new standards for the SLMP.

Of a much brighter note are the announcements of forthcoming technical changes. First among these is the new that LL have listened to the complaints about Search and are putting effort into fixing it, particularly where Land and Events are concerned. Good!

We finally have official confirmation that Havoc 7.0 and full Mesh imports are coming down the line, with Havoc 7.0 due to arrive in the summer, and Mesh going to the beta grid around the same time, for public testing ready for a hoped-for end-of year launch.

Hopefully, the lessons of Havoc 4.0 are ingrained on a wall somewhere at LL, and the update to 7.0 will progress smoothly and effectively. Again, it has been on public test on the Beta grid, and those I’ve spoken to about it say it seems more than OK. If all goes according to plan, Havoc 7.0 will roll-out with Server 1.40.

Mesh is something a lot of people have been calling for a long while now, and it could possibly be the thing to revolutionise SL in terms of content. Demo videos on the subject have been around for ages, but assuming the implementation is well-handled, and allowing for the learning curve many content creators will face, mesh presents a lot of new opportunities for established 3D modellers.

That said, mesh will bring a substantial can of worms with it, and there are important aspects that need to be addressed:

  • Impact on the economy. Two things here: not everyone is going to be able to get to grips with mesh and the creation import of objects…thus the sudden influx of seemingly high-quality items could well put a lot of content creators out of business; also the sheer “wow” factor of mesh object might lead to their prices being massively over-inflated, creating an unexpected (and possibly damaging) spike in economic returns
  • Performance. Again, so far as I can tell from my cursory reading, two things: first off will be the risk of those of us (me included) who are far from experts in 3D modelling creating complex models withtens of  thousands of polygons that…grind a sim to a standstill when rezzed in-world. Also, with the masses of 3D content (legal and ripped) floating around the web, the risk of the grid suddenly getting overloaded with a gazillion uploads
  • Related to the above: IP rights, use of copyrighted material, etc., etc. Some form of safeguard needs to be implemented or SL /LL risks becoming home to even more copyrighted material & open to accusations of violations of the same.

Speaking in the discussion thread following the announcement, T Linden indicates these things are “front and centre” of LL’s thinking, and rightly so. But these aren’t the only concerns. There is potential here for LL to completely overhaul the commerce environment and mandate strict controls (I could say “licences”, as this seems to be the Linden Word of the Quarter) governing who can and cannot upload creations to SL and define the fees they pay in order to do so. As I’ve said elsewhere, eyes at Battery Street are probably looking over the fence at Blue Mars to see how well commerce and content creation runs there….

The feedback to the announcement has been largely positive – and rightly so. The concerns raised by some have been valid, and it again appears as if concerns are being taken on board. SL needs to stay abreast of developments elsewhere if it is to properly expand, and much of what is mapped out in this announcement will help in that regard. Nevertheless, as a couple of commentators in the discussion thread have pointed out, it would be good to see other “coming soon” features finally implemented – such as smooth sim crossings, something that has been “coming soon” since I returned to SL back at the end of 2006…!

P.S. I’ve ignored the comments around Avatars United simply because I don’t use it nowadays (never did really), and I don’t see anything there to attract me.