Buyout of Linden Labs and Second Life

It seems Linden Labs needs funds (and maybe some personnel changes) in order to manage the network and the software of Second Life. As a software professional and former CTO, I can say it is unfortunate and not acceptable that there are so many problems with Second Life stability as well as performance such as avatars per sim (even when everything is running "well". This situation should be fixable, but so far there are no indications it is being fixed properly.

It has now been about two days during which there was one brief window that I was able to log in. And this is not unusual for Second Life, although the problems are not always login problems, they can be TP problems, assets disappearing (costing funds directly), lag, etc.

It seems clear to me that either LL needs large venture funding, or should look to be bought up by a large company that can make this virtual world "fly". That might be IBM, just as an example of a company that puts large amounts of capital into ideas it believes in, or some other large company that can profit from the leading edge while improving that leading edge for all involved. Linden Labs should look closely at potential buyers and their track records, and their funding, so they can place this valuable virtual world in good hands for the future, where presumably the Lindens would also have their place in a larger framework, better for all.

Linden has been Pimping themselves for Corporate funds for a while now. The danger in that is that they then become beholden to these interests over The Residents much like Our Government, which is beholden to Lobbyists and Corporate interests instead of the voters. Sure, all that capital can spur development, but will the development result in a SL that no one wants to visit? It's a hard question to answer.

OMG this rumor again? it seems to surface every so offen. But really who would buy this mess?

COUGH COUGH IBM again .ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm don`t count onthat either

BTW the example of IBM on Sl is something that has been talked about over and over again. I don`t buy the concept in any way shape or form. Can`t believe how much this issues been pushed and pushed down out mouths.

Your comment is interesting. I chose IBM as an example, as they have made major investments in Java and other technologies. To some, Second Life is like the Internet of 1990 - a lot of unproved potential. If an established company was to feel that it is a question of funding to get all the network and software issues straightened out, they might see this as a home run of a long-term investment. I believe LL does currently make money already? It does not need to be IBM that gets involved! I am sure some other companies out there have interest in where this virtual world is headed.

And yes, regarding the earlier comment, it would be important to chose a good partner for a buy out or major partnership - one that wants to make money and build a reputation as a leader, but that does not try to twist a world to serve its own purposes. In that sense IBM is pretty good based on track record, and Microsoft would be a horrible choice. And there are other companies out there that make money, from what I have heard. :--)

I should add, it may be all the X-rated activities that are discouraging potential corporate buyers - there is a high-profile risk of bad image due to that aspect, and that more than any other reason may scare away large companies.

The concept of what SL "IS" does not need to be bought out. Think of the SL platform as analogous to a pressed vinyl record, and what other large corporations are developing as analogous to a DVD. SL is merely the analog of what's to come. The concept may change very little, but the delivery method will change significantly. Since we are seeing the growing pains, or perhaps the death throws of SL scalability, the big question still remains...Who will deliver it?

Nice piece of writing, sadly no normal minden company CEO or COO would invest in a platform that is either breaking down or pissing off its paying user base. Those two issues alone will scary off any thought of a take over.

It seems to me that there is one source of money, and one source of tremendous intellectual potential already having hands-on technical experience, that remains completely untapped...US!

Question: WOULD there be enough commitment and interest amongst the subscriber-clietele, willing to back up our now-shaky capital investment (dollars-in, Lindens out), in the current structure, with some real cash, were we to be offered some secured stake (shares) in the future of this project?

Thought: PR seems unlikely to go for it, given his established history of not allowing the clients to determine the direction of development or company growth.

With due respect, Parsimony, Mr. Rosedale is a card-carrying successful entrepreneur and need not look to the peons for funding. He has an A-list board and I'm sure can raise money as needed. Their revenue stream is impressive for a software company of their age, so they have not had to raise huge amounts of capital.

I believe LL's last publicised injection of venture capital was March 2006, and they just bought a pile of technology and are hiring. They may easily be going for a new round even as we speak... er ... type.

Personally, if I were at LL I would not sell now unless I knew some awful thing about the future. I'd hold out and make a run at going public. Why not? SO much more money that way.

Consider, a long history of sit back, watch, jump in, do better, and cheaper.

They have experience with online 3d gaming both in the PC world and Console world.

They have a very full featured 3d framework and the best programing language framework going (XNA + .Net).

and

They just got there Island that is specifically there to draw programmers (Visual Studio Island) with experience in SL.

I don't think they will invest but just keep your eyes open for the new MS Live 3d World that is bigger, and better, and cheaper than SL.

Being in the software world, I hate the way Microsoft makes their products incompatible with others so there is a constant irritation if ones tries to use something of superior quality but that is NOT from Microsoft. They continue to break standards wherever they see money in it. For example, if they bought into SL, you would never see Flash technology take off in SL, or it would be crippled.

In addition, as an occasional public speaker at conferences, I have witnessed the brutal control Microsoft exerts on conference agendas, and on the content of speakers' words for conferences they sponsor, unlike other vendors with whom I have worked.

I hope MS keeps away from the virtual worlds.

yeah thats all we need, islands that BSOD to add insult to injury....lets not mention the M word

Hell if they made SL run better I'd let Enron buy it.

I don't know how well Linden Labs would do since Linden Lab runs Second Life.

My money is on Google

hmmm maybe. Realnetworks, where Mr. Rosedale was before founding LL, went public while he was CTO. I'm just sayin ...

Mine too, actually. I strongly believe that Google will get into this space sooner or later, and they have a demonstrated willingness to buy out companies with interesting technology.

The only thing I think (of the poll choices presented) that Linden Labs should *NOT* do is get venture funding. Having been down that road before myself, I think that venture capitalists are a necessary evil, but evil nonetheless, and very often completely ruin a good thing. Note that my opinion of venture capitalists does not extend to Mitch Kapor, Linden Lab's first outside investor, but holds true for most investment firms


.

LOL any company wanting to have a chew at this game would be better just setting up opposition with real features like customer support...............
There not much customer loyalty her in SL, it would be a ghost town in a couple of months to someone able to deliver similar goods reliably. Actually it's a ghost town now with more land than residents online.

Yes, that is an interesting thought... Google would probably handle Second Life rather well.

Has anyone called them to mention this to them? Anyone have their phone number, I'll give them a call? :--)

I don't think IBM are in the running since they appear to have built their own internal virtual universe using a commercial game engine - http://news.com.com/2300-1008_3-6201462-6.html?tag=ne.gall.pg

Google - well possible, but what technology would you be getting if you bought LL?

As the IBM example shows as regards building a multi-user virtual world there are plenty of commercial game engines out there and these actually offer better features that SL (the torque engine offers better material and shader effects, better physics etc.) - OK torque (afaict) doesn't support Linux but it does support X-Box!

In world content creation and in world economy are the two features which make SL stand out above the competition. SL shows what can be achieved.

SL also demonstrates a number of things not to do in hindsight - anyone building a similar system would want to think carefully about a architecture which scales and which has failsafe error handling built into the asset databases - i.e. rather than trying to eliminate errors (which are inevitable in a network environment), have mechanisms in place to recover from errors without data loss.

So, for anyone really interested in this space, I'd say it is more cost effective to license a game engine (a torque license is equivalent to buying a SL sim!), get some good database and network engineers and write your own from a clean start using SL as a blueprint of what to do and what not to do, than to buy SL with its legacy code and legacy issues.

Matthew

as far as that goes, how compatable is SL with other outside applications. Not very. It's a closed propritery system. You can't even use outdie code editors except by cutting and paisting, not to mention having one of the smallest compatabilties inthe industry for image formats.

Compared to SL, microsoft is practically open source.....o.k. that was going way too far but you get what I mean.

@Robby --- too late hon, LL has had two rounds of venture funding:

http://lindenlab.com/press/releases/03_28_06
http://lindenlab.com/press/releases/04_10_28

Really? Nobody but me thinks they could go public? True, revenue is small, but valuation prolly really really good ....

I think everyone should sell off their lindens, Linden Lab would run out of cash, then we the users could use the money we just cashed out to buy them at a steep discount. With us glorious residents at the helm, SL could do nothing but succeed!

Half of mine (please don't AR me) is on Google, half is on IBM.

At least they know how how to scale and fix bugs.

The first feature I hope they remove isn't voice, it's the one where things vanish that you paid real money for.

For now im doubting that any large, corprate company will buy, or sponsor Linden Lab. Untill then, its best for Linden Lab to stop funding new features, and put their money towards new servers, or funding the bug fixing team, hiring more employees, ect.

regardless if any mega company bought LL or funded them..we are talking about trying to turn a ten year old horse into a kentucky derby winner..It can't be done.If and when this idea is ever adopted..or sold to a big company(from my understanding in conversations with people who write programming language) Be prepared to "start from scratch".Since 2003 when LL opened their doors..they have (in theory) "ducktaped" second life with bug fixes.. updates etc. They never once decided to do a new standalone exspansion...or completely re-write SL's programming language therefore..if Second Life ever does get better..it'll be after every thing is wiped. All your builds..your projects..your textures...scripts..everything...is based on archaic tech...bout what..ten years old?...so..it's nice to think someone might come in and save our piddly dreams and clean them up and make them better.. but its my understanding that can not happen.

~Lana Tomba