All Out by 2009?

.

So....if SL wants to be embraced by the Business World they have a lot of fixing to do.

Yeah. So what's the big revelation? That has been apparent for the year that I've been here.

At least in my company, Gartner is the bible. Sometimes dead *wrong*, but still the bible.

Every time I need to convince a suit about an implementation with a new vendor, the first question I get is "What does Gartner say?". I'm sure this report will have an impact on future RL companies getting involved in SL.

Good.

I've always maintained that LL's pursuit of Corporate Amurrica is a big mistake. Their real customer base is US...the individual residents, both those who just play here and those who use SL to operate a small business.

Maybe if corporate interest dries up, LL will see the light.

ZOMG TEH SKIEZ IZ FALLINGZ


Where'd I put my foil hat?

At the risk of posting a me too post....ditto.

Same in my neck of the woods Travis. We do consultancy for many organisations.. big, small, private and public.. I've not spoken yet to a credible decision maker who didn't take Gartner's temperature. I reckon this report will have a huge effect on SL's aspirations to be the business environment of the future.

I'm guessing this thread won't set the boards alight, just posted it because it came up at work and thought some might be interested..

Just makes you wonder how many more nails will it take before the coffin is finally closed and ready for burial...

Should we all just go ahead and quit now? Lets meet up on the Sims Online!

I always thought SL would be an excellent place for politicians to chase young women instead of the Oval Office.

Who wants my stuff?

Well, the headlight of an oncoming train, perhaps.

If LL utterly fails with corporations, IMHO there will be little reason to keep the doors open. "Imagine" nothwithstanding, they are not a nonprofit.

If left unaddressed, negative Gartner analyses have the sombre tone ... and effect ... of a death knell, in my experience. Gartner is hugely influential ... they CAN be ignored, but in this case only if LL has new, well-known corporate committments in their pocket.

If LL doesn't have evidence to directly counter Gartner, I would be unsurprised to see some sort of dramatic response from LL relatively soon. Re-org or change in direction.
.

Nice to know that the average resident is "Little reason to keep the doors open". But I get what you are saying, and I think it is true. They really aren't interested in us except as numbers to pimp to the corporates. That's part of why I've sdowngraded to Basic. A Corporatized SL is the future I think, if LL doesn't screw it up. I don't like the idea, and will probably not stay when it happens, but it is a reality I think.

Without corporate customers, eventually they will have to charge us (landowners) more. SL is a business and must continue to grow. I think that report is good though because maybe it will be just enough kick in the rear for them to straighten this mess out.

Those were my thoughts too Nika,

I'd be worried on LL's behalf if they didn't have some answer prior to the ITxpo in April.

As for what the other guy's say.. you're all right from your own perspectives. I just thought LL's game plan was a little bit more ambitious..

LL are perhaps more likely to respond to a report like this than cries from residents. This might in fact precipitate some changes that will make things better for everyone.

Basically, Gartner are saying a lightweight client and non-offline maintenance is required. It's unfortunate that Gartner didn't specifically mention unexpected downtime (such as the "asset servers" going away) or ill-tested updates being rolled into production, because that to me is the third thing to interfere with SL "usability", and conequently, one's faith in SL as a corporate tool.

Who is Gartner? I'm not in a big business and have never heard of this guy.

-Atashi

Hi Atashi, there's a link in the OP which leads you to a wiki article..

They can also get their act together, and provide what they are advertising. Then perhaps more residents will pony up to Premium. And there is no reason why a Basic Account can't have a small fee, even if its $2-$5 a month. Have a free account of either limited duration or limited feature. And make tier and other charges payable in Lindens. But that is another topic.

Does anyone know how many corporate customers there are? And how much they contribute to LL's income?

My impression is that the vast majority of land is owned by residents, there seem to me to be very few corporate islands, or if there are, they are not easily identifiable as such. Would the loss of most of their corporate customers actually hurt LL all that much right now? In the long term, and with their dream of becoming the new internet or whatever it is, then yes it might hurt, but that doesn't mean they couldn't draw in their horns, reposition themselves as what they actually are, which is primarily a source of entertainment, and still have a profitable future.

I completley agree with that. They used to charge 9.95 for lifetime basic memberships. I still think free accounts should be supported by advertising personally(an ad enabled client), and not the people who buy land. But this is a whole other dead horse to beat.

They want it both ways. The Shiny Happy everyone can play world but will sell that out to the Corporates.

Well, I think that's a little severe, but yes, I always thought they wanted it all. As in: They want Second Life as it is, a wonderful playground. And they want to sell other grids, or the platform on which SL is based, to corporations for both intra- and inter- netz activities.

I don't think they would have to "sell out" SL to have success with corporations. Although at present the two .. corporate and entertainment .. grids are shared, that doesn't have to be the case in the future.

In my private view of LL, success in both venues is the criteria for overall "success". Both having SL itself grow moderately and prosper, and then proliferation of the SL model and tools into the business world. But I'm not at LL, so that vision is worth what you paid for it
.

OMG!

The sky is falling again?!?!

I remember when the dropping of land prices meant the death of SL

I remember when the gambling ban meant the death of SL.

I remembe when the ginko fiasco was the death of SL.

I remember when the banking ban was the death of SL.


What's up with all the doomsayers all the time?

To be honest, I never really worked out what LL's overall strategy for SL was.

However, given the emphasis within the site and marketing collateral, it seems that RL business was always a key target. Accepted wisdom is that free user volume attracts paying RL business looking for a new marketing and sales channel.

Even if that wasn't the idea, the tactic of implementating free accounts as some sort of "Loss leader" doesn't seem to be working well either.

I know it's all a bit dry, but I get the feeling that a lot of people think SL has been here forever and will be here forever, and that what the outside world thinks doesn't matter.

SL hasn't been here forever, it's had at least 4 rounds of investment (I might even be out of date on that), and it's getting to the point when in RL it's time to put up or shut up for LL.

Gartner are often off the mark, but they're so influential that whatever they say more often than not becomes self fulfilling prophesy..

So maybe start fashioning some sort of foil hat..

They basically blow their whole thesis out of the water by claiming that Sony's Home will be a competitor to SL for anything a business would be interested in. That makes it pretty obvious that they're talking out of their backsides. They're comparable as social hubs, but that's about it. With no user created content or user designed spaces I don't think any business is going to be looking at Home as a viable platform for training unless that "training" involves admiring the CEO's gaming trophies in an instanced apartment.