Real Life will Trump Second Life, Microsoft Says

Well I looked up Photosynth and comparing it to SL is like comparing an Apple to a an Orange seed. I believe the only aspect of SL they would compete with is where people try to build a recreation of a real life place in SL. In SL you have to make everything out of prims and then texture all the prims and get all your measurements correct. In Photosynth all you need to do is take a lot of pictures of a place and these are all linked together in a virtual space. But you don't magically get a 3D representation of the place. You just get pictures. Photosynth has it's merits but the comparison to SL just isn't there.

I can see the potential for creating 3D world from digital images and Google Earth already does that in a basic way. We already have motion-capture to give us animations in SL and RL photos are used for making textures. So using digital photos to create 3D models would be of benefit to SL where you want to recreate something from RL. But a lot of what we have in SL doesn't exist in RL - we'd still need to build that from scratch somehow.

sounds like MS has been reading William Gibson's latest book - 'Spook Country' which has some very intersting ideas about the future of RL vs VW.

http://www.williamgibsonbooks.com/

-why

I think the Microsoft's view is both correct and wrong at the same time

In terms of communication tools, I think the Microsoft vision is accurate. Whether it is a business meeting, a lecture or just talking to family overseas, in these circumstances if attending virtually you want to be able to see close approximations to the RL people, and share RL objects/information easily and quickly etc.

However, in terms of recreational tools (free form online games, social networking sites, artistic creations/performances etc.), systems like SL which allow you more creativity and are unlinked from RL will win out.

Microsoft's error (at least from the article quite above) is not recognising that these two different application areas.

LL's mistake (I believe) is thinking that a single solution can address both and pushing SL more and more into the first application area where it is not a good fit at the expense of the application area where it works well.

Matthew

WOOHOO!!!!!! Creative Zen ROCKS!!!!!!!!
I get to laugh all the time when I show mine to Ipod owners and then get to tell em it was $100.

The thing about communications from Microsoft (or LL, for that matter) is that only some of it is intended to convey their strategy, while other parts are just disinformation and "spin" intended to affect the strategies of competitors and potential customers. For example, one often sees technology announcements months or years before a product has even begun development, just to discourage competitors from that space.

So, yeah, the IT execs in Fortune 500 companies are probably all hot for anything Microsoft puts out as a vision, but that doesn't mean anybody at Microsoft actually expects to pursue that path in the marketplace.

I think I see a hint of that in the quote: "Our view was that there was a fairly limited audience who was willing to deal with the construction of avatars and operating in that virtual space." I very much doubt that Microsoft is repeating its mistakes in assuming both that everybody else's technology is static, and that users aren't willing to acquire new skills. They just aren't that stupid--but they may be cynical enough to think their competitors and customers are. And they may even be correct about that.

Exactly. I already live in the real world, so why the hell would I ever log onto a virtual world if it was basically the same?
Model the virtual world after the real world? You can't all live in Versailles, so most residents of such a virtual world will end up in a virtual representation of their real home.

The idea of modeling a virtual world after the real world is as stupid as making a computer racing game without porsches, ferrari's and/or lambourghini's. It gives people the ability to virtually experience that which they can't experience in real life. This may be in technology, like cars, but also in settings, sceneries and whatnot, like flying castles, rampaging dragons, people with cat ears and tails (please, do NOT post that picture of that r/l botox catwoman now, I just ate!), basically, anything available in our imagination.

Not allowing such expression means nothing but stagnation, especially if such a virtual world without the possibility for such expression were enforced through the means we're so used to from M$.

i try to never compare apple to anything Steve end up writting you bad emails calling you horrable name hundres and hundres of times over

There are two distinct markets I think most are mixing up here. There's the market that LL invisions which is similar to the internet where a platform is created that allows users to build pretty much what they want and market it the way they want. Then what Microsoft sees as providing a platform basically prebuilt with all the features for the users just "plug into". I happen to believe that, though Linden Lab's vision is probably ideal, Microsoft's approach is more realistic. Most people simply do not want to spend time building their virtual "web page"........they want to plug in their products to a realistic looking environment. I've read so many times in these forums that SL is the "early internet" where pioneers built what it is today.........I believe that, sort of. The "sort of" part comes from the internet evolving into it's present form and LL has tried to more or less by pass that stage (or maybe hurry it is a better way to say that). Microsoft's approach is putting out a product that is ready made that incorporates things that they percieve the target market wants using the already evolved internet as it's vehicle.

The two "visions" will coexist for a while (my belief, anyway) as separate options. With Microsoft's approach the businesses will go that way. With LL's approach casual and creative will opt to stay with it. And someday the two will mostly merge into something completely different where there will no significant difference......it will be a virtual platform incorporating the best for business and the best for everyone else.

But, somewhere along the line a standard will have to be arrived at. The bickering about who's best will have to be put aside. Things will change in both approaches.........and no one here can predict what those changes will be. I look forward to it. I wish Microsoft luck. I hope LL takes this move by MS seriously and competes aggressively. It will all be better for all of us in the long run.

IBM thought this way when they released the PC, they were wrong.

No, IBM just plain didn't think when they released the PC.

Anyway, maybe I'm in the minority, which is fine by me, but if I want Real Life I will just turn off my computer and walk out my front door. Why would I want to log on to my computer just to visit Real Life v2.0?

Amen, brother!!!

Yup. But a lot of people don't want to walk out their front door, or some can't. There should be enough of a market for both types of uses, despite any developers own shortsightedness.

Not quite, they though nobody would be able to do it better and hey, they were IBM, who would buy from honest John's PC emporium, nobody has heard of him.



I know people now who would happily do their grocery shopping online if they could see the groceries, the fact that they still don't know the groceries they choose are the groceries that get picked for them is where I think they're mad as pants.

IBM was the industry giant......and locked into main frame computers. They never took PC's seriously and willingly gave that "niche market" to Bill Gates/Steve Jobs. It turned out that IBM missed the boat completely on that........they never really released PC's. The dabbled for a short time and walked away.

It could be that Microsoft is doing the same thing in regards to LL (and any other competitor lurking out there), but with the history of Microsoft's marketing strategies I don't think so. Time will time. There is a percieved market out there.........LL sees it and is even trying to create it. Microsoft sees it too and they have the experience in marketing and development to pursue it quite aggressively

I just would never poo poo MS's plans on how to approach a virtual environment for the internet. Dispite the mistakes made with operating systems they are the giant.......they set the standards. If someone is going to compete with them they better have the resources and the skills...........I hope Linden Lab knows that.

Having a family member that worked for them at the time, I got to read some of the memos sent to employees. What happened was more about IBM believing that the PC would never be anything more than a tool sitting on some Fortune 500 desktops. They completely discounted the possibility of a home market. So, I say again, they just didn't _THINK_.



On this I agree.

Nothing like a good business-history joke!

Especially if it "Pads" your post count.

*winces*

What do you mean they never really released PC's? They released their range and other PC's were released as "IBM Compatible". It's a pretty damn important piece of computing history.

Apple were ahead of them and released their hardware before IBM did.

As time goes on, what anyone at Microsoft thinks will be less and less relevant.

Consider what the opinions of the US railroad and newspaper magnates are worth today.

It's gonna be about like that.





Sure, the world they envision will come about somewhere. Probably somewhere on our virtual servers...

Welcome to teh future, Microsoft. We've seen such misplaced visions before.

Sure they didn't put the resources and efforts into it that they normally would have and it wasn't given the normal sort of priority but they didn't take into account people reverse engineering the bios.

Yes I know.....but to say they released IBM compatable PC's with any seriousness is not true. They dabbled in the PC business for a short time then pulled out of the market to let Gates and Jobs battle it out (thinking PC's were small potatoes anyway). They were wrong to do that, as history shows......especially since IBM is second fiddle to PC's now. A missed opportunity by believing computers would never be something the average person not involved in business would be interested in. I thought I made that clear when I said they walked away after a short time.

Microsoft may be making the same mistake as IBM did some 25 or 30 years ago.....but I don't think so.

Please, I know the important pieces of computing history.......but you need to read the whole history to get to the whole story.

My Dad was a beta tester for The Microsoft Network.

No, no! Not MSN
"THE Microsoft Network" was intended to be what the Internet has become.
In those days (he says) the Internet was mainly the preserve of academia. Ordinary people dialled in to BBS systems or Compuserve.
THE Microsoft Network had dial-up nodes all over the world. It was incredibly high-bandwidth -- which worked great in the MS boardroom but sucked horribly for dial-up users.They sent him a tee-shirt. He says he still has it "somewhere".

Microsoft took an age to "get" the Internet, which is why there was a (true) joke that the only way to certify a NT-based server as secure was to disconnect it from the Net.

We're at crossed purposes here, IBM chose Microsoft to provide them with the OS. Well if you believe legend Microsoft told them to contact Gary Kildall who produced CP/M but he wasn't home so IBM went back to Bill who acquired Dos.

IBM produced the PS/2 after the PC and put in tighter requirements to produce clones but people didn't buy into that, it was too late for IBM to control the market by that stage.

You're correct that IBM weren't too enthusiastic about the PC market, the whole project was treated differently to how IBM usually worked.

However Microsoft ignore things like that at their peril. Their name alone won't guarantee a healthy market share.