Point-to-point != kill Telehubs

As Anshe Chung points out, a lot of people have spent a lot of money buying Telehub land. Her concern that point-to-point teleporting would hurt all those investors is valid, but I don't think it's wholly accurate. As someone who wants point-to-point teleporting (P2P) and as someone who (thinks he) understands the kind of destabilization Telehub land owners are facing, let me offer a quick description of why I don't think P2P will kill Telehub land owners.

First off, a bit of history: I used to own land in Teal, a good bit actually. Teal was nice back in early 2004, because it was on the egde of the world. It was quiet. However, it was also next to Olive, which housed one of the first malls in Second Life. Two-to-three sims away from the nearest Telehub was where I saw my first Second Life mall. These days I hang out in Zoe, which is still two-to-three sims away from a Telehub. One of my neighbours run a clock shop, which I'm quite certain he's famous for, and a friend in Taber runs one of the most successful tree shops in Second Life.

I've never owned Telehub land -- well, back when I first joined, I had land in Mauve that you see a Telehub from, but I don't think it was called "Telehub land" back then -- for the sake of commerce. However, as a citizen of Second Life, who's coming up on his second year here, I can state with absolute certainty that Telehub land is neither an effecient means of zoning commercial areas, nor is it the silver bullet of a successful, in-world business.


If we ever get P2P teleporting, it doesn't mean Linden Lab has to remove the Telehubs. In fact, it would be silly to do so; just as silly as getting rid of Landmarks just because we have Find Places. Telehubs, the land around them, and the owners of that land, would certainly lose their exclusive, enforced contact with SL citizens, but that's not a bad thing, for citizens or for land owners.

In the town where I live, we have about three or four major places to go and shop, and then we have roads that go everywhere. People take roads where ever they want to go, but when they want to go shopping, they go to those places. The web works the same way. Hyperlinks let people jump to any web page on the web, but when they want a book or need to search for something, they go to those same, big places they know, web sites like Amazon and Google, the web's equivalent of Telehubs.

Sure, stores will be able to be built with equal accessibility if you introduce P2P, but the places near the Telehubs will still have several advantages if the land owners are smart. First, they'll have Telehub land. Despite my own experience and evidence, once of major arguments against P2P is that Telehubs act as adhoc zoning system; what Telehub land owners need to start doing is exploiting that belief. They need to work together and create Telehub malls, so when people have the option, instead of using Find, they'll have heard about a sim's Telehub Mall. Historically, I believe, this is how guilds have worked, merchants banding together for a common purpose. The purpose now revitalize Telehubs, change them from a necessity of Second Life into a feature of them.

Second, building on the first idea, since merchants are already established around Telehubs, they have something other stores may not have: experience. If a person has run a store near a Telehub for a while, they have not only personal experience, but citizens of SL have experience with them. If they've been good experiences, people will come back. If that person partners with another person, then the partner gets social points for working with a good, Telehub merchant. People might be able to build stores anywhere with P2P, but these new stores won't have the history or the good name of a Telehub merchant.

As it stands now, Telehub stores are the Second Life equivalent of spam and pop-up adds; they're store and ads forced on people whether they want them or not. As SL grows and more people come, people will grow more disquieted with this imposed commercialism. User-created technology like ROAM is just one of the first, emerging pieces of software that is to SL what ad-blockers are to web browsers. P2P doesn't have to destroy the value of Telehub land, and in fact, it could just as easily increase the value. The changes Telehub land owners will likely have to make are not bad changes, and in fact they are the changes any business has to make if they want to remain popular: they must give the customer a pleasant experience, must look nice, and must inspire the customer to return.

Advocating against P2P on the grounds that people will lose invested money will inspire the changes that we see hurting businesses today: blatant commercialism in the place of pleasant experience, tacky appearances in an attempt to catch someone's eye, and the ability to inspire people to leave as quickly as possible. P2P teleporting is not going to devalue Telehub land, the current status quo for Telehubs is doing that already.

Jarod, for all your suggestions there I do not need telehub land. I can buy up some cheap PG sim in middle of nowhere, put some structure in the middle that I call "telehub" and build my "telehub mall" around it.

How about we move your house from that nice American suburb to the Sahara desert? You won't mind, would you? I mean, you just need be smart: first you improve your house and turn it into one castle, then you install one satellite base station and bring all celebrities from the world there and you start broadcast your TV show all over the world! Billions will watch you and your Sahara desert land will turn into centre of the universe and become so expensive you can swap sand for diamonds!

What does this even mean? I can tell you're trying to make a sarcastic point that would support your defense of your telehub business, but...

I think you're missing something.

We already have pseudo-P2P teleportation; first ROAM, and now Hank Ramos' free Hyperporter. Actual P2P only makes it easier, it doesn't do much to change the fact.

On the other hand, Telehub malls don't seem like they'd be worth much to begin with at this point in time; sure, they make great newbie traps, but I know very few experienced SLers who do anything but fly straight up and over to their destinations... if they even bother with a hub and don't just ask for a direct TP.

The "value" of a telehub is pretty much the same "lack of value" a snow sim has; entirely in the mind of those who sell and buy land.

If that moves comes with the ability to terraform, the elimination of distance by way of teleporting to hubs of commerce, and the ability to create matter from nothing in direct proportion to the about of desert I own... I wouldn't mind a bit.

Did Napoleon say "Geography dictates history"?

I liked the old way (teleport hubs and point-to-point by invitation).
It'll be interesting to see what happens, sounds fun.

Where's a historian when you need em?

I would think that anyone who creates content for SL would know that their creation could be one update away from obsolescence. It isn't like this change came as a surprise. It has been talked for quite some time.

It would be a big improvement to get rid of the circus midway environment that surrounds hubs. Having far fewer retail centers which are better and busier should be an improvement for both buyers and sellers.

I would go one step further and say that a lot of the more popular gagetry is 'gapfiller' for things we wish we had, but hack around to give ourselves.

I know at least 4 of the things I sell are - and I actually WISH they were obsolete!

I feel that perhaps, the best way to deal with telehub issues, is not to get rid of them.

But rather have that small 1x1 telehub platform in every sim, on a small piece of linden owned land. Of course those that own the entire sim in the main land could have the ability to have it moved I imagine.

This would mean that you could keep the existing telehubs that have all the ads and building that block everything which you can't fly through unless you use one of those phantom shields. While giving people a almost point 2 point teleportation by teleporting into the sim they want to be because of the small 'telehub plates'.

This would also mean that people wouldn't accidently teleport inside someone's house or such, which is the issue that can arise with point 2 point teleportation.

1. Keep telehubs.
2. Allow people to choose whether to teleport through a hub, or to teleport directly.
3. If they teleport directly, they will be charged some amount dependent on the distance of the destination from its nearest telehub.
4. Present both options in a window, along with the charge for direct teleportation, when a person initiates a teleport.

That way, people can either teleport through a hub for free, or directly for some small charge.

In RL store owners deliberately group together in order to gain customers, knowing that it is easier to walk out of one store and into the store next door or across the street than to drive 50 miles to buy one thing then another 50 miles for something else...

In large towns and cities this often goes further, having areas full of stores selling just one type of product, for example a street full of clothing stores. This is simply a case of the company knowing that is where the customers are, so they put their stores there..

The Telehub system was specifically designed to emulate this and encourage stores to be grouped together rather than randomly spread over the grid. With P2P teleporting it makes no difference what-so-ever if the stores you want are next to each other or on opposite sides of the grid.


Edit: Amazon is a store, the server you're accessing could be anywhere in the world.. Google is a search engine like the 'find' menu. A link you get from Google could take you anywhere on the web.. just like P2P and NOT telehubs..

build their stores on the ground so people don't have to climb or fly up to their locations and risk their very lives just to shop. LL doesn't insist that every SL store be located on the ground.

In RL store owners must committ to pay suppliers for everything they sell even they're purchasing supplies to build their own products. That equates to a per prim rezzing cost. Now There's a money sink idea.

In RL stores must be attended by employees. Thank Heaven LL don't impose this RL burden on us.


These statements are true. Allow me to add that it is a mistake for LL to design and implement methods in SL that force us to emulate RL. I'm greatly heartened by the fact that they seem to've realized this lately and are concentrating their efforts on correcting those mistakes as well as designing new features to encourage us to function as efficently as possible using the abilities that living in a VW grants us.

Ok, that is quite the analogy, Anshe, but I have a simpler one to counteract it. Imagine they develop this crazy transportation technology. For argument's sake, let's call them airplanes. They allow you to go between two distances very fast, much faster than driving. Unfortunately, they can't build the landing areas because your house stands in the way, so they have not created these airplanes. Why should something that would benefit so many people be held up for the needs of a few? The answer, it should not be. As the world continues to grow, the telehub system is unworkable. If those 10,000 malls you have are so compelling, people will want to teleport to them anyway.

PS - I paid a shitload of money for land only to have a club ruin one sim, and a casino ruin another. No one compensated me. Telehub land owners do not deserve any compensation if they implement point to point teleporting.

Once again (gee, there aren't too many p2p vs. telehub threads! NO WAY!) I will present what I believe is the most elegant, rights-based, flexible, and close-to-WWW solution:

Implement landowners' ability to set "tp to landing point".
This accounts for privacy, for freedom to explore, and is just like the web in that people can go directly to a site if the owner permits it.

There are so many different vendors and products in SL that it is impossible for anyone to know where or what all of them are. When I go out shopping in SL, I discover things by exploring the stores around each other. P2P teleporting is only a benefit when you know exactly where you want to go. Stores still have the exact same reason to group together as they always have - to create a compelling environment that people want to come to in order to shop.

Sure! What's the difference so long as I can get there instantly with Point to Point teleport? You can move me to the frickin' moon for all I care... just so long as it is not swamped with lagged out telehub megamalls.

-Ghoti

fun with analogies!

Ok lets say you are CEO in a candle company back in 1878... Then 1879 rolls around and some guy makes a lighbulb, Holy Crap! you thought that 50 year old idea would never work!

Do you
A - whine about it and die as a homeless person in New York.
B - liquidate and sell your companies holdings at a loss.
C - Realise you can't fight against progress and change the focus of your candle company.

Proctor and Gamble started out as a candle company, in 1879 they came out with Ivory Soap...

I see absolutely nothing in your reasoning to back up your assertion that point-to-point would not "kill telehubs".

Currently, if you click anywhere on the map and then "teleport", you are automatically transported to the nearest telehub, and you then fly to your destination. This creates a large amount of passer-by traffic. Telehub land is more valuable, AND telehub land attracts businesses, BECAUSE of this high "passerby" traffic. In other words, the chance to snag people who are NOT shopping, or who are not shopping for something specific, is the key to retailing! Many retailers, both in SL and RL, could not survive if they had to depend solely on customers who actively seek them out. They depend on impulse buys from passers-by. This is true, even though only a very tiny percentage of passers-by actually stop and shop, let alone buy anything. Its a "numbers game", as they say in business.

Point to point teleporting would eliminate the passers-by at telehubs. Eliminating parssers-by will cause most businesses to simply close down.

Who would pay $50 or $100 per week to rent a stall with no stream of passer-by traffic?

Who would pay tier on telehub land to maintain empty stalls?

Who would pay $20 or $30 per m2 for land that doesn't have a guaranteed stream of passer-by traffic?

Buster

Absolutely. I paind a good chunck of money to be isolated and build my parthenon far away from hustle and bustle, then a telehub went in and i am surrounded by tringo and slingo. Noone compensated me for my loss.

What I have never seen, is much evidence supporting the notion that people randomly window shop at telehubs. I am a regular at several telehub malls, but I promise you I have never randomly shopped just because I was at a telehub. I think destination malls, like Slootville, or midnight city, are wonderful things. Stores should be grouped together for all the reasons stated. I am just not certain that proximity to a telehub is, infact , the faactor that draws customers to the store.

Ferran - you sooo rock!!

Telehub land owner compensation?

No way!

Capitalism rules - remember - business girls and boys will do just fine with out compensation.

There is a strong possibility that prim limits will be raised with a future release of Second Life.

Right now, the 4 city sims have 2x prim limits, and the land value there eclipses what TH land is currently worth. (100-300sqm for City land / 10-30sqm for TH land).

Hypothetically speaking - lets say that in 1.7, Linden decided to offer us all 2x prim limits, but chose not to proportionally raise the limits of the city sims.

Effectively, (and hypothetically), this would significantly reduce the value of the city sims.

If Linden did normalize the prim limits - should the landowners in the city sims be compensated in some way for their loss of land value? Should Linden do something to attempt to mitigate that loss if they decided to make a technical change?

There is no right or wrong answer to this question. I'm just looking for consistency of position.

Ask telehub merchants. That's why a lot of them are there. They wouldn't be there if there wasn't passer-by traffic.

People do randomly window shop at telehubs. Only a small percentage of them do, and only once in a while. But they do it enough, that's the dynamic that's at work.

Its my understanding that the city sims achieve their higher prims limits by having more linden land in the sim. At least that's what some Lindens said at one time. If this is the case, then prim limits would all increase by the same factor, and city sims would retain their advantage.

But as you pose it hypothetically, if Linden DID do something that took away the premium value, how would they decide how much compensation?

Telehubs are more complex, because it is "distance from telehub" that is a factor, not whether the land is in the same sim as a telehub. Parcels along the border of the next sim are almost as valuable as parcels in the telehub sims, with declinging value as you get farther from the telehub. In effect, there is a premium gradient that corresponds roughly with the distance from the telehub. There are no bright white lines with a factor on one side and no factor on the other.

A better analogy would be shoreline. What if you bought a shoreline property and paid a 25% premium to get it over a similar-but-landlocked parcel, and Linden came along and eliminated the water. Instead of being on the edge of the ocean, you have a ditch on your land facing a mountain instead of an ocean. The issue isn't merely the 25% premium that you paid, its your purpose in choosing that land in the first place. You have a boat. Or you have a waterside villa. For whatever reason, you wanted the nature of the land to be something in particular. Not just the cost of it.

I think that $ compensation is a bad solution.

Buster