Numerous articles have appeared recently discussing the question of whether or not Second Life is empty. I know from personal experience that students of mine report rarely encountering other people when they visit Second Life. Since Second Life is largely a social technology, this is a problem. Linden Labs counters these claims with statistics that show the number of hours spent in Second Life along with the amount of money spent is increasing. All these statistics show, however, is how out of touch LL is with everything.
It isn't how many hours or Linden dollars are spent. It isn't how many accounts there are or how many islands have been created. It is the perception of the average person of the Second Life experience. This perception can be first or second hand. Both are important and neither is captured in the statistics.
First hand experience is when someone creates an account, logs into Second Life and does something. If that something is exciting, rewarding, interesting and memorable it is positive and the person will want to return. If it is frustrating, boring, and confusing it is negative and the person will probably not want to return.
Second hand experience is when someone reads something in the newspaper or overhears someone else talking about Second Life. It is the 'buzz' as they say. When there is a lot of buzz, people believe that Second Life is happening. When there is no buzz, people see it as a failed technology.
The statistics only matter to the extend that they reflect the first hand experience and generate second hand experience. So, the problem here is not whether or not Second Life is empty. The problem is whether or not Second Life is happening. In the next couple of posts I will explore this question further in terms of first and second hand experiences.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
A Lack of Vision
I read an interesting article about how the power users of Second Life are holding back the development of Second Life as they pressure Linden Labs to do the things that they would like rather than allow them do things the ordinary user would like. There are certainly no end of things of things that would make the Second Life experience better for average users. Security could be better. There could be a lot less lag. There could be better management tools and better development tools. There could be a whole host of better better applications. And yet, Linden Labs keeps tinkering with a small set of specialized issues such as mega prims that most people do not give a hoot about.
It raises the question of whether applications should follow technology or if if technology should be developed to support applications. While this is an interesting question and worthy of discussion, I believe that it misses the point. The point is why is Second Life in the shape that it is in after more than five years of serious global exposure. And the answer is very simple - a lack of vision.
Linden Labs appears to have absolutely no vision of where they would like this wonderful technology to go. They have some vague claim about a world created entirely by its users. This is no more a vision than getting a job to put food on the table would be a vision for one's career. I am a big fan of the mass collaboration movement and applaud LL for its support of the concept. But mass collaboration does not work automatically. It takes a lot more than just a simple notion. It requires a vision of where all the efforts of the mass collaborators should be directed. Otherwise you just get a lot of people milling around and nothing getting done.
The power users apparently have little vision either. If they did, their collection of efforts would amount to something. Instead, they view the next technical achievement - such as mega prims, or allowing you have more than 25 groups, or allowing you to hide your groups - as worth goals. But, I would ask - why do you need to have more than 25 groups or why do you need to hide your groups? Since LL has no vision of where it is going, it cannot say whether these are worthwhile changes or not.
This is a symbiotic self destructive relationship between LL and its power users. LL doesn't know what it is doing and the power users give it something to do. This allows them to ignore what they really should be doing which is developing a long term product strategy and a vision for the technology. The power users, on the other hand, are unhappy with the progress that their efforts in Second Life have made and think that if they have mega prims, they will be happy. But they won't. Mega prims are not the problem. They are just a diversion. A lack of vision is the problem.
I think the clock is ticking for Linden Labs. This is a wonderful technology and somebody is going to figure out how to take it to the marketplace. Sadly, as the clock ticks, the likelihood that this somebody is Linden Labs decreases.
It raises the question of whether applications should follow technology or if if technology should be developed to support applications. While this is an interesting question and worthy of discussion, I believe that it misses the point. The point is why is Second Life in the shape that it is in after more than five years of serious global exposure. And the answer is very simple - a lack of vision.
Linden Labs appears to have absolutely no vision of where they would like this wonderful technology to go. They have some vague claim about a world created entirely by its users. This is no more a vision than getting a job to put food on the table would be a vision for one's career. I am a big fan of the mass collaboration movement and applaud LL for its support of the concept. But mass collaboration does not work automatically. It takes a lot more than just a simple notion. It requires a vision of where all the efforts of the mass collaborators should be directed. Otherwise you just get a lot of people milling around and nothing getting done.
The power users apparently have little vision either. If they did, their collection of efforts would amount to something. Instead, they view the next technical achievement - such as mega prims, or allowing you have more than 25 groups, or allowing you to hide your groups - as worth goals. But, I would ask - why do you need to have more than 25 groups or why do you need to hide your groups? Since LL has no vision of where it is going, it cannot say whether these are worthwhile changes or not.
This is a symbiotic self destructive relationship between LL and its power users. LL doesn't know what it is doing and the power users give it something to do. This allows them to ignore what they really should be doing which is developing a long term product strategy and a vision for the technology. The power users, on the other hand, are unhappy with the progress that their efforts in Second Life have made and think that if they have mega prims, they will be happy. But they won't. Mega prims are not the problem. They are just a diversion. A lack of vision is the problem.
I think the clock is ticking for Linden Labs. This is a wonderful technology and somebody is going to figure out how to take it to the marketplace. Sadly, as the clock ticks, the likelihood that this somebody is Linden Labs decreases.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Hippo Open Sim
I visited another Open Sim project, this one called Hippo Open Sim. You have to download a Hippo Client which is, as far as I can tell, an open source version of the Second Life client. Hippo is more advanced than Open Life with much better freebies and more features working. Hippo also offers a feature where you can download the simulator to your computer and add your sim to the grid. I haven't tried this but from what I can tell the claim is genuine. And if the claim is genuine, it represents a major advance in the state of the art for virtual worlds. Although it is a bit more complicated, this could to for virtual worlds what the Apache server did for websites.
Virtual land prices are, at once, a bit too high and exceedingly soft. This keeps a lot of organizations away. But, if you can download the simulator software for free and tinker with it on your own computer this opens the markets to huge numbers of people with more technical talent than money. This is both exciting and promising.
I will look in this more and try to get some of the facts nailed down.
Virtual land prices are, at once, a bit too high and exceedingly soft. This keeps a lot of organizations away. But, if you can download the simulator software for free and tinker with it on your own computer this opens the markets to huge numbers of people with more technical talent than money. This is both exciting and promising.
I will look in this more and try to get some of the facts nailed down.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Open Life
I visited the Open Life Grid for a few hours the other evening. My understanding, thus far, is that it being developed by company called 3DX using the open source version of Second Life. This isn't much to go on, but I have just begun to look at it. Open Life has its own down loadable client which is very similar to the Second Life client. I haven't yet tried to log in using the SL Client. There are some small differences, but if you are familiar with Second Life you come up to speed very quickly. Although one cannot help but see the similarities between Second Life and Open Life, there are three glaring differences.
First, the software still needs quite a bit of work. Many of the little glitches that seem to have been fixed in Second Life are still glitches in Open Life. The search does not work well. Your avatar will experience numerous agonies from ruthing to yoga. You will experience hard crashes. And simple things like joining groups or adding friends still seems to be in development.
Second, there do not seem to be nearly so many dedicated residents. When I first went to Second Life in the Fall of 2006, there was a fully developed world with much to see, much to do and much to buy. Open Life offers a few token freebies. Some additional freebies are available from a vendor who gave it a try and is letting the lease run out. But, finding places to go and items for your avatar is a challenge.
And third, their business model does not seem to be fully thought out as yet. My avatar did not have any money and it was unclear how I might get some. On the other hand there was not a great deal to buy. I am not sure what the business model is for Open Life, and it appears as thought they do not know either.
I am glad to see some competition for Second Life as it has always been my contention that they fail to exploit their potential. And yet, this competitor makes me appreciate what Linden Labs has done. They clearly have some good technical people under girding their abundant social people. If only they would get some business people in there.
I realize that it is early in the development and don't want to be too harsh too soon. But, I have to admit that for all my complaining about Second Life, I do appreciate it a bit more now that I have seen what a not ready for prime time version looks like.
First, the software still needs quite a bit of work. Many of the little glitches that seem to have been fixed in Second Life are still glitches in Open Life. The search does not work well. Your avatar will experience numerous agonies from ruthing to yoga. You will experience hard crashes. And simple things like joining groups or adding friends still seems to be in development.
Second, there do not seem to be nearly so many dedicated residents. When I first went to Second Life in the Fall of 2006, there was a fully developed world with much to see, much to do and much to buy. Open Life offers a few token freebies. Some additional freebies are available from a vendor who gave it a try and is letting the lease run out. But, finding places to go and items for your avatar is a challenge.
And third, their business model does not seem to be fully thought out as yet. My avatar did not have any money and it was unclear how I might get some. On the other hand there was not a great deal to buy. I am not sure what the business model is for Open Life, and it appears as thought they do not know either.
I am glad to see some competition for Second Life as it has always been my contention that they fail to exploit their potential. And yet, this competitor makes me appreciate what Linden Labs has done. They clearly have some good technical people under girding their abundant social people. If only they would get some business people in there.
I realize that it is early in the development and don't want to be too harsh too soon. But, I have to admit that for all my complaining about Second Life, I do appreciate it a bit more now that I have seen what a not ready for prime time version looks like.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Some Competition
I have to admit that the progress of virtual world technology has fallen short of my expectations. However, there are two promising factors that cannot be ignored. First, those familiar with virtual world technology still see it as having enormous potential despite the ups and downs of the hype cycle, while those unfamiliar with it still wish it would go away. Second, we are beginning to see some competition which means that developers other than Linden Labs are willing to invest in it. I would like to focus on that competition in this post and in the next few to follow.
I have discovered three which I will explore in more detail over the next few weeks. These are OpenLife, SciSim, and Blue Mars.
I don't know a great deal about any of these competitors, although I do hope to learn much more. OpenLife and SciSim seem to be based on the open source versions of Second Life. Blue Mars seems to be based on video game technology. I think this is a promising sign and look forward to the next few weeks of checking these worlds out.
I have discovered three which I will explore in more detail over the next few weeks. These are OpenLife, SciSim, and Blue Mars.
I don't know a great deal about any of these competitors, although I do hope to learn much more. OpenLife and SciSim seem to be based on the open source versions of Second Life. Blue Mars seems to be based on video game technology. I think this is a promising sign and look forward to the next few weeks of checking these worlds out.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Looking Back
I started this blog a year ago next Tuesday. I have fallen into the pattern of adding entries each Tuesday so this entry represents one full year. Looking back over the past year, I have to say that I highly recommend blogging to anyone as a form of writing exercise, intellectual engagement, and self expression. When you have a blog, even a weekly blog such as this one, it forces you to think more critically about things as you attempt to formulate ideas for the next entry. It forces you to stay engaged whereas most people tend to drift quite a bit in their interests. And it forces you to stay on top of things. This is all good and good for you. In addition, if somebody actually reads your blog, you get the added advantage of having communicated your ideas. I have referred people many times to something I wrote in this blog when I just didn't have time at the moment to explain something in more detail to them.
At the same time, you have be honest in your introspection about whether the time you invest into your various activities is really worth it. And I have decided that this blog is probably not worth continuing. Part of this is my fault. I have to admit that I went a little crazy when I started blogging and started more blogs than I reasonably could handle. I have two others that seem to be making a little more progress so I really should focus on them. In addition, the focus of this blog, Second Life, seems to be pretty much in a steady state leaving little to comment upon. It is a land of great potential waiting to be exploited. I hope the old expression "it has a lot of potential and always will" does not apply. I hope the potential does get exploited. And I think it will. But, this will happen in its own time and regardless of whether or not I chronicle the action. So, with that, I am signing off.
At the same time, you have be honest in your introspection about whether the time you invest into your various activities is really worth it. And I have decided that this blog is probably not worth continuing. Part of this is my fault. I have to admit that I went a little crazy when I started blogging and started more blogs than I reasonably could handle. I have two others that seem to be making a little more progress so I really should focus on them. In addition, the focus of this blog, Second Life, seems to be pretty much in a steady state leaving little to comment upon. It is a land of great potential waiting to be exploited. I hope the old expression "it has a lot of potential and always will" does not apply. I hope the potential does get exploited. And I think it will. But, this will happen in its own time and regardless of whether or not I chronicle the action. So, with that, I am signing off.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
A Parallel with AOL
In the early 1990's there was an Internet company called America Online. It is still around, but far fewer people have heard of it today because it has slipped, unceremoniously, into obscurity. America Online (or AOL for short) provided a custom Internet experience for users before web technologies became commonplace. However, when web technologies became common place, they slipped quietly into the mist of the history of the Internet. There are a number of reasons why this occurred, not the least of which was an unfortunate merger with Time Warner, Inc. However, I would like to focus on two specific elements.
First, they built their business on a propriety layer of Internet technology. When open source Internet technologies became available they were hit by a double whammy. They had to advance their proprietary layer in attempts to keep up a rapidly evolving technology rather than assuming the technology and building on top of it. I think it was Fred Brooks who said that we have to learn how to stand on each other's shoulders in this field rather than stepping on each other's toes. It was good advice then. It is good advice now. And it will probably always be good advice. The other part of the propriety whammy is that developers are generally not interested in relying on a propriety infrastructure for their applications. So, not only did the infrastructure move in a different direction, it took the applications with it.
The second element in their flawed strategy was a focus on the social aspects of the technology rather than the business aspects. AOL provided email, chat rooms, groups, and all sorts of features to enhance the social experience. At the same time, they virtually ignored the business aspects such as online transaction support, group decision support, distance education or any number of other business applications. So, when the fickle social crowd drifted off to their next thrill, AOL was left holding an empty bag.
I say this because I see strong parallels between the AOL strategy and the strategy of Linden Labs for Second Life. In the early 1990's AOL was the Internet force to be reckoned with. A decade later most had forgotten its name. In 2006, Second Life was the emerging name to be reckoned with. I wonder what its status will be in 2016.
First, they built their business on a propriety layer of Internet technology. When open source Internet technologies became available they were hit by a double whammy. They had to advance their proprietary layer in attempts to keep up a rapidly evolving technology rather than assuming the technology and building on top of it. I think it was Fred Brooks who said that we have to learn how to stand on each other's shoulders in this field rather than stepping on each other's toes. It was good advice then. It is good advice now. And it will probably always be good advice. The other part of the propriety whammy is that developers are generally not interested in relying on a propriety infrastructure for their applications. So, not only did the infrastructure move in a different direction, it took the applications with it.
The second element in their flawed strategy was a focus on the social aspects of the technology rather than the business aspects. AOL provided email, chat rooms, groups, and all sorts of features to enhance the social experience. At the same time, they virtually ignored the business aspects such as online transaction support, group decision support, distance education or any number of other business applications. So, when the fickle social crowd drifted off to their next thrill, AOL was left holding an empty bag.
I say this because I see strong parallels between the AOL strategy and the strategy of Linden Labs for Second Life. In the early 1990's AOL was the Internet force to be reckoned with. A decade later most had forgotten its name. In 2006, Second Life was the emerging name to be reckoned with. I wonder what its status will be in 2016.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
