Allow Businesses to be Independent

ALLOW BUSINESSES TO BE INDEPENDENT

I haven't seen this topic discussed here anywhere, and I feel this is a very important issue concerning any and all improvements to Second Life.


Intent:
Businesses must independently be allowed to shape and mold themselves around Second Life.
Second Life must not shape and mold itself around the businesses.


Businesses are an independent aspect of the Second Life community.
Businesses are not the Second Life community.
The Second Life community should grow independently and freely while businesses adjust themselves to Second Life changes.
Second Life should never adjust itself around businesses.

Businesses know and understand before they even start business in Second Life that there is risk that changes made in Second Life may cause their business to suffer. It is a risk that businesses take, and must be prepared for.

When people complain that certain improvements might hurt certain businesses, they do not understand this concept. We need to allow Second Life to change, and grow freely. We need to adjust our businesses to these changes. Second Life should never hold itself back for the sake of the businesses. Second Life is not, and does not need to be responsible for the businesses. Businesses need to be responsible for themselves. Businesses need to be independent.

Our businesses may suffer because of a change. We may totally go out of business because of a change. And nobody needs to feel sorry for anybody because of it. Second Life needs to allow businesses to suffer. Second Life needs to allow players to go out of business. The same way Second Life allows businesses to prosper. All independently.

Second Life owes nothing to the businesses. Anybody believing that Second Life should be “good to the businesses” because of all the great things the businesses do/have done for Second Life is not being fair. Second Life owes nothing to the businesses. Businesses need to see themselves as an independent aspect of Second Life, and discontinue expecting Second Life to make accommodations for them. Any expectation that Second Life needs to grow without hurting the businesses is not independence. Complaints about how something is or would not be fair to the businesses is not independence. Businesses need to be independent, and allow Second Life to grow independently.

There is justification that businesses play a function for the betterment of Second Life. Therefore, the best interest of the businesses is equal to the best interest of Second Life. This justification is by far not independence. It is not responsibility. We should not delude ourselves into thinking so. In fact, this is not so.

Point: The best interest of the businesses does not equal the best interest of Second Life.

Second Life relies on the end-user, and the end-user relies on Second Life. That is the relationship between the end-user and Second Life. Businesses are an independent feature of Second Life. No matter what specific businesses do to improve Second Life as a whole, it is an independent function. Not a dependence. This leads me to my next point.

Point:
The best interest of Second Life is equal to the best interest of the end user.
This point is fully independent of the best interest of the business/businesses.
The business and the end-user are two different entities.

In doing anything in Second Life whether exploring or doing business I am acting as an end-user. I acting as an end-user partaking in business, am acting as a business. Me as a business is completely independent of me as an end-user.

The end-user and only the end-user should be the focus on any and every changes/improvements/flaws in Second Life. Meanwhile the end user’s business (the businesses) should be allowed to remain independent.


Scenario:
We all are in Second Life as end-users. Perhaps you might engage in transactions or jobs here and there. Perhaps you are doing full business. Changes in Second Life may not really affect your doing business. Even if they did, you would not feel that this is Unfair to you. That is because the importance of the improvement of Second Life (change for the best interest of the end-user) ultimately outweighs (and is separate from/independent of) the importance of whatever business you engage in. In other words, although you as a business suffer, you as an end-user benefit. You might be upset at your loss, but you understand that this is in all fairness. That is because ultimately, the improvement of Second Life is strictly the improvement you as an end-user. Not only does improving Second Life outweigh whatever business you engage in, it is all significant in comparison. This is because you as a business are a completely independent aspect.


Many delude themselves into thinking that the best interest of Second Life is equal to the best interest of the businesses. For example, I might say that the improvement of Second Life outweighs the business you engage in. But why can’t the betterment of Second Life go hand in hand with the betterment of the business we engage in? In other words, why can’t the best interest of Second Life include the best interest of the businesses? As I explained throughout this thread, if we do no allow businesses remain independent and to prosper or suffer independently, changes for the betterment of the end-user will be affected. Therefore, Second Life will suffer all together. To say that Second Life will suffer if the businesses suffer is not realistic because businesses are independent aspects of Second Life. In considering anything regarding Second Life, we should strictly remain focused on how it would be in the end-user/the individual. Therefore, business should be allowed to be independent, and adjust independently.

As an example, consider any change/improvement/flaw in Second Life. Consider how this affects the end-user without regard to how it affects anybody’s profit or loss in a business sense. Ask you self, “despite any profit/loss that may occur, how does this said feature (change/improvement/flaw) affect the end-user?”. When you ask the right questions, you get the right answers. When you begin considering how it will affect businesses/anybody’s profit/loss, you are not allowing business to exist independently. When you consider how said feature might cause businesses to suffer, you are not allowing businesses to exist independently.

What happens when we do not allow businesses to exist independently? We get lost in worrying about what we are going to do to improve Second Life. We prevent the growth and improvement of Second Life because we are too concerned about in whether or not a good feature might cause certain businesses to suffer. With regard to a new feature, we begin to ask who may be affected, and how they might lose business because of it. Rationalizing that after all, we would not want somebody that worked hard to build a business to lose their business. Justifying that after all, these businesses play an important role in Second Life, and deserve to be accommodated. This is not independence. This is not allowing businesses to be independent.

Conclusion:
Whether or not somebody worked hard to build a business, whether or not businesses play an important role in Second Life, businesses should be allowed to prosper and suffer with total independence. We should let them fend for themselves, and stop considering them whenever we make a decision to improve Second Life. We should always put through improvements to Second Life without regard to the profit/loss of businesses. Businesses should know and understand this from the start as well as be prepared for this. The community should stay focused on the end-user, and solely the end user. Improving Second Life means improving end-user interface/game play with complete independence to anybody’s business loss or profit as a result of the change.

This is a very interesting post, and I'm going to copy it to the discussion boards so others can participate in the conversation.

It is certainly our intention, as we strengthen our position as a platform for creativity, socializing and entrepreneurship, to focus on providing the tools and foundation to support residents in any sort of endeavour. Generally speaking the choices we make will be for the betterment of the whole, and hopefully not to the complete detriment of any individual. Change is the nature of Second Life, and planning for change an important part of any business plan. We'll do our best, however, to give people as much advance warning about changes as we can.

I'm wondering who the end-user is, if not people like me, who start out as spenders, eventually learning to make enough $L to cover the costs to be in SL. To me, everyone in SL who isn't hired by LL is an end user. All users are entitled to fair treatment by LL. LL uses the business aspect of SL to bring new users. Many of us end users enjoy playing the economy game. Marketing aspects of SL isn't just about making money, some of us have made it a hobby. We understand there are risks involved. We understand the larger the risk, the larger the reward. End users who create profitable businesses in SL should be considered in any changes. Any government that doesn't consider those who make the economic wheels spin end up a third world nation(like most communist nations).

If people invest thousands of real dollars in SL on a profitable venture, LL should support those end users as much as possible. These people have been here building up SL, it would be rediculous for LL to ignore their concerns because a few new users want their way, be it point to point teleporting or any other change.

Smart people don't cut off their nose to get a better view.

This is not a new topic, but it is an important one.



Disagree: if you define "businesses" as content creators and service providers. LL already does adjust themselves around businesses. LL's business model inherently means that 3rd party businesses are essential to their survival (they know that a socialist commune of freebies will doom them to a fun but tiny existence). What they cannot do is adjust themselves around any one business or any one industry niche. We need a free market which allows people to succeed and fail.



Agree: entrepreneurs in SL are no different from entrepreneurs in real life. Risk comes in many forms: competitive, timing, market/customer, regulatory (i.e. LL policies), etc. If you want to let excellence reign, you have to let people fail as well as succeed.



Comment: While there are probably a lot of new "play-enterpreneurs" in the mix here who don't really understand how darwinian, and even luck-driven real business can be, there are also a lot who completely understand the concept you present and still protest against it. They are lobbying -- they are fighting to preserve their success and their investments. This behavior is expected. It is not immoral, it is natural. But that does not mean that this vocal minority should set policy. I don't disagree with the core concept you present but I wouldn't underestimate the business sophistication of your SL peers quite so readily.



Disagree: businesses and end-users in SL are very intertwined, and it is hard to do a black & white breakdown of consumer vs businessperson because there are so many small businesses. SL relies on both for-profit (note: quite different from being a profiteer) and non-profit businesses/organizations/people for content. Both businesses and consumers are completely dependent on SL. Linden Lab has to chart a compromise path that rewards all parties (reward can be monetary or enjoyment) or it will have to change its business model.



Comment: SL is a complicated fabric of thousands of people with different motivations and priorities. Each evolution of Second Life, whether within the community or within LL's policy and technology, is going to affect each person differently. Some will stay, some will go. Some will evolve their businesses, some will keep static, some will shut down. This is not rocket science, it is the way of the world. Again, when LL makes a policy decision, they have to weigh all the angles and make a guess as to what result will give them overall progress. SL's progress cannot be held hostage to small group of users. But no group of major importance should be ignored as LL tries to chart its path. To do so would be naive and self-destructive. Everyone and everything should be a variable, even if business decisions are made through intuition.



Disagree: again, Linden Lab and the community cannot focus on any one business or any one industry niche, but businesses are as essential to our ecosystem as consumers.


Fundamentally, Boyfriend, you and I agree on the core concept that entrepreneurs need to be allowed to succeed or fail. Sometimes a business will fail on its own, sometimes because of a LL change. This is acceptable in the name of progress and the pursuit of excellence. There should be no state-driven supplements or entitlements.

But businesses in the broad way I define it are essential to Second Life's survival, at least as LL's business model currently stands. One only needs to look at the economic lessons of various Soviet industries to realize that you need incentives for growth at any scale, you need incentives for quality at any scale. We have a complicated ecosystem where LL, 3rd party businesses, and consumers are intertwined and co-dependent, and one would be foolish to oversimplify the situation.

What on earth is going on here ?

Lindens moving things about and recommending/judging the quality of posts ?
And a poster who is currently the only occupant of my personal forum "mute" list. After I carefully evaluated his first few posts and decided I never wanted to see another ? And I don't "mute" easy. Unless I misremember, only other one ever was Prok.

Well - I'm sticking by my judgement, whatever new gem I'm missing. Not likely Robin's judgement is better than mine, at least not for me.

But I must say I find this procedure not at all in line with proper Linden behaviour, regardless of whose post it is. Once started, where could this lead ? Very, very bad precedent.

Phht. Come on, Ellie, cut Robin some slack.

What she said was Customer Service Speak for "I have no idea what you just said, but here's a bunny with a pancake on its head."

What is she supposed to do, spend four hours responding to another classic Newbie Treatise on All That is Wrong With Second Life and How the Entire Grid Will be Swimming in Chaos and Misery Within Six Months if Changes are not Undertaken?

Shoving something over to discussion lets her make a diplomatic response and move on with her day. In any case, this sort of blathering doesn't belong on the Hotline.

I agree that all businesses should be considered independant and allowed to fend for themselves. I think this includes Linden Labs.

All businesses survive based on how well they handle their customers. A business is obviously going to consider their highing payer customers more than their low paying customers.

If you own a store that has customers paying you US$200 a month asking you to paint the walls blue, and you have customers who have only bought one US$10 widget from you saying that they want the walls pink. You are going to paint the walls blue. Your survival is more dependant on the happiness of the US$200 per month customer than it is on the one time US$10 customer.

The small guy still gets more consideration than you think, however. The US$200 a month customer normally is paying that much to be able to sell to their own customers. Most of their customers are the one time US$10 customers of Linden Labs. Linden labs is obviously concerned about these people as well, because they are what Linden Labs has to offer to alot of their higher paying customers.

Linden Labs is a business that needs to take care of their customers, and they need to take care of their customer's customers. They will automatically do this, because their profit is at stake if they don't.

Businesses shouldn't need to be told that they are independant in a darwin like free market. They should already know.

Ah, Ok, Enabran. Light begins to dawn. Linden tact, huh ? Nuff said. Maybe too much already.

Games have communities, platforms have businesses.

Is SL a game? Is SL a platform? No, at the present moment it is something different.

However, even if SL were purely a game, the community of SL is far too wide and diversified for a small company like LL to manage.

They would be much wiser to empower businesses to manage their own communities .. a kind of federation should occur. Forgetting about businesses is not a great way to empower them.

And no stakeholder (tourists, btw, are usually the most important stakeholder .. ask any destination) can be ignored in the way this thread suggests.

It's a complex and intimate series of trade offs and balances that need to occur. It would be nice to say "Forget segement A of the population" to simplify things, but that will simply mean that segment A will go elsewhere.

In other words, to forget about businesses (in the way this thread suggests) is to lose them.

Well, I know you already know this Dark, but to add on to your statement: the volume numbers are as important as the amount and frequency of payment when it comes to determining the financial impact of a customer segment. (volume = number of customers in each category)



exactly. Although we do not have a breakdown of how many land owners also generate L$ -- if there was a large, high-paying leisure class within SL that would change the conclusions. My guess is that a majority of higher-tier customers attempt to offset tier costs through sales or dwell of some kind, which inherantly makes them businesses of some level.



yes, I don't think a treatise was necessary

I agree, and I agree with the original post. IMO the I see to much catering to business in the US government. Comercialism is to the point now where everyone in America values themself by how large thier salaries are, myself included. I'm so poor right now that the only thing that keeps me moving with a since of pride is knowing that I have the potential to make alot more in the future. Never the less I'm infected with the same disease. My economics Professor once asked the class if they believed that people hold some intrinsic value just for being alive. "Don't our lives hold a certain value regaurdless of how much money we can make?" The confused and blank stairs of all the young buisiness students confirmed the great trajety.

This is why impoverished people in the ghetto would rather buy a big screen plazma TV than send children to college. Our material things are now what define us, and are for some, thier only source of pride. We are obsessed, and "things" now run out lives!

In this Second Chance, Let the people decide what our morals and values will be, and let businesses deal with them. Dare we fight commercialism and break the chains that bind us to "things"! Before some terrible huricane or something comes and forces us too!

But I digress. Business is also an integral part of life, and should be given proper respect, and like any other community member, I believe that businesses should recieve assistance when needed. Simply because, we need them. I think that our government in RL should set aside some foundations for the development of (small) business. Something which will help them cope with a changing world. I think that SL would be the perfect place to experement with such a foundation.

LL should ignore businesses when making decisions how to improve SL?

An unpredictable environment is hostile to business. Businesses will require much higher profit margins in order to offset the risks. They will feel that they must recoup investments on very short timeframes, or risk being wiped out by capricious change.

An unpredictable or hostile environment has two effects: First, many businesses will charge much higher prices than they otherwise would. Second, many businesses opportunities will not be pursued at all, because potential profits are not high enough to offset the risk of capricious change.

It is a stroke of genius on LL’s part to provide real incentives for residents to entertain other residents. In effect, LL recruits partners in their efforts to keep everyone interested enough to continue paying monthly fees. I would go so far as to say this is specifically what is different about SL from what anyone else has ever done. Everything else is a logical extrapolation. A real working economy bridged to the real world, now that’s different!

There is a lot of activity in SL that is based on ego and good will. Some people do things to impress other people. Some people do things to help other people. And a lot of people are quite happy to just entertain themselves, or socialize, or explore. So it is wrong to say that “all activity depends on business”.

Business activity is a dynamo, however, and to completely ignore it is an absurd idea.

I wouldn’t suggest that SL completely revolve around business. But creating a stable and business-friendly environment is among the most important factors that will determine SL’s survival. There is no way to scale SL to hundreds of thousands of users by depending solely on ego and good will. The economic dynamo is an essential ingredient. Ignore it at your peril.

Buster

There was a good deal of discussion recently about the decision LL made to create a currency exchange, and the impact that decision has on resident businesses, in particular GOM. When this post showed up in the hotline I made the decision to move it because I think the issue bears further discussion which can't happen on the hotline.

From time to time I move posts like that -- to encourage discussion, rather than using the hotline as a soapbox. This post seemed like a good candidate for that, so I moved it.

Interesting to me that this post illicits an immediate response from LL itself, ...
yet the response is devoid of content.

To me this says that LL is seriously worried about these issues but doesn't want to tell us anything about what side of that business fence they are getting ready to squat on. Perhaps LL feels guilty about their headlong rush into a (heavily), capitalist-oriented "shoot-em-up" adventure land?

I know the current state of affairs would embarass me if I worked for Linden Labs. I'm not leaving and I sitll have hope, but SL is totally *not* what it was advertised to me as when I first heard about it.

I see Adam Smith's dead hand hovering in the skies of SL ...
but all it does is smell bad.

ok Dianne, i hear you, but where's the counter proposal?

if LL doesn't create it's own content, then how is the content that can draw 2 million people into a virtual metaverse going to be created?

in our spare time and purely for fun? That's cool and most of why I do and build in SL lately has been for free, not for commerce, but I just don't think it scales beyond a small, fun little world... which would keep me happy but is not what LL is shooting for.

so how do they get to 2 million people without 1. building their own content/services, or 2. incentivizing 3rd parties to do it?

the passive "if we build it, they will come" approach to business rarely works.

Well most folks dont get the distinction, but I am not against "business" I am against "capitalism" (as a political system and general philosphy).

Business is generally a helpfull and acceptable part of any culture.

- The point at which we start believeing that the capitalist "free market" is the bee-all and end-all of existence and can actually "run the world" for us is the point at which we are talking utter nonsense.

- The point at which we decide that there is no role for "government" (LL) in the shaping of our social utopia (by this I mean social controls or rules for business, price fixing, stabilisations etc.) and that everythign can be left to "the market" is the point at which we are fighting basically *all* of history.

- The point at which we treat corporations like citizens, and stop worrying about monopolies, scams, spams, and all the bad crap that capitalism brings with it and basically put business ahead of the people we are also destroying ourselves and destroying our own culture.

Even Adam Smith would agree with that.

My gripe is that I joined to be part of the "creative commons" not to play games or make money. That is how SL was advertised to me.

Since I have joined (6 months) a lot of the social controls have been taken away and the idea *seems* to be, to just replace them with this stupid "free market" philosophy.

This is crap (to me) and not what I signed on for.
I could go on (and on and on...) but no one is interested much in these ideas.

I take solace in the fact that history will prove me right!
(*is* proving me right).

ah, well actually I agree with you. I'm fundamentally a free-market person, but capitalism unchecked is a horrible beast. In RL, you need things like anti-trust laws, child-labor and working-condition laws, etc etc. to bring balance. I haven't seen where they are necessary within SL yet, though. The need may emerge.

I still think the "creative commons" feel is alive and well within SL... I spend a lot of time building stuff for fun, looking at friend's builds, and helping out on their projects where I can. One can tune in or tune out the capitalism to your hearts desire just by choosing where you go, what you do, and who you make friends with.

Hmm, personal freedom to build your utopia, or government control insisting you do it in a regulated way? Tough choice...

Statement 1 and statement 2 are mutually exclusive.

Catering to business is NEVER, EVER in the best interest of the commonweal. NOT EVER, and a careful review of history and current events can clearly show you this.

Ask the folks in Iraq or the displaced people from NOLA and the gulf coast states whether a government who caters to business interests is giving them "fair treatment".

In SL, no one can hurt you, you never get hungry, never need to sleep etc etc. No way can we compare SL with Iraq.

However, looking history in the eye, I can say any government that ignored the needs of the businesses.... that created jobs .... that paid the taxes.... that made the country run, lost what governing powers it had. Looking at the governments that supported the businesses, one can clearly see the people ended up better off. Again, classic communist v. capitalist argument. Poor people get jobs from businesses. Take away the businesses and you take away the jobs. You kill the tax base.

LL must also realize businesses(people who work hard to make a business) create the content and the functions needed to build a world from the ground up.

This is just my opinion tho, even tho I'm right lol

Your right.
I am just bitter this week I guess.
It's the damned capitalists fault though!

Key point here: I never advocate *ignoring* the needs of business. I advocate *limiting the inherent greed* of business. Two very different things. Business must be encouraged but carefully limited in those ways that hurt the commonweal.

Typical example? Offshoring of our manufacturing base in the past three decades, and more recently offshoring of much of our white collar jobs and tech jobs in the past decade. This is *great* for the corporations but *terrible* for the commonweal. Money *leaves* our economy when you do this, and goes to some other economy. The corporations don't care because they're multinational - they're making better profits than ever. The ratio between executive compensation and that of the average worker has widened since the 70s. The working class are relatively poorer, and the executive level workers are relatively much much richer. The disparity is even greater when you look at the income of the upper class versus the middle and lower classes in even just the past decade.

The U.S. economy is extremely fragile right now because we no longer are a producing nation. Back when the great depression hit, we at least had industry to be able to pull ourselves out of the gutter. What do we produce now? If another crash hits, we have no manufacturing base, no real production base, with which to get the economy back on its feet. All the manufacturing base has been moved overseas specifically because "business wanted it". A smart government concerned about its commonweal would have put disincentives and limits on whether an american-based corporation could move its operations and labor costs overseas.

Thank you for trying to be clear and objective.


Businesses: Includes any profit maker in SL. Whether you are working as a dancer, selling objects, or whatever. Any time you are participating in an activity with intention to make Ls, you are acting as a business. Note that you as an end-user may or may not be acting as a business at any point in the game. Anytime you use SL, you are acting as an end-user whether for business or otherwise.

When I use the phrase “ affecting a business or businesses”, it means “affecting an individual’s capacity for making money which is the same thing as affecting an individual’s source method of income.”

Therefore, when I use the term “end-user” it is to describe what is affecting the end-user without regard to how it affects the end-users business profit or loss. When I say let us focus 100% on the end-user, it is saying that we should focus on improving SL without regard to any business profit or loss to the end user. Let us focus on the end user only period.



First, I do not consider “socialist” a proper term to describe anything we are discussing. It can be used as a loaded term to affect subjective connotations. A socialist by definition is an advocate of socialism. Nobody is advocating socialism, communism, or capitalism.
We need to be free from these labels and any subjective connotation they impose on our judgment.

Second Life is a platform for many things. Socializing, designing, playing mini-games, role playing, adventure, media, and making RL money. Linden Labs promotes Second Life as all of these things. One of the things Linden Labs does, is promote Second Life as platform that can (but not necessarily will) provide users an opportunity to make money. We then have real commerce in the Second Life as a result.


Businesses in SL are not stakeholders, and should not be treated as such.
There is a different relationship between stakeholders, and the company they are dependent on for profit. Such companies provide a platform solely to allow their users to profit. Thus, a company would have a responsibility to its stakeholders. If a company is doing something that is causing its stakeholders to lose money, the stakeholders would be reasonable to complain. If a company is doing something that is unfair to the stakeholders, there is reason to complain.

Businesses in SL are and should be treated as independent. There is no such thing as treating the businesses unfair because SL businesses are not the same thing as stakeholders. SL has no responsibility to these businesses that participate in SL. Not like a company has a responsibility towards its stakeholders.


What you are stating:
Part of the objective of the Second Life platform is to provide end-users with profitable business opportunities. Therefore, it is Linden Lab’s responsibility to ensure their platform is providing its end-users with the most profitable business opportunities. Furthermore, it is in Linden Lab’s best interest to support the businesses. As such, Linden Labs provides various incentives for content creators and event/activity coordinators. In turn, Second Life becomes a richer and better game for all which. A richer and better game means greater membership. Greater membership means more profit for Linden Labs. With more profit to Linden Lab’s and richer content from all of the content creators, the end user gets a better Second Life. A better Second Life means more members. This means more profit, more content, and an even better Second Life. And the cycle continues. Therefore, the best interest of Linden Labs = the best interest of Second Life(the end-user) = the best interest of the businesses.

This theory has too many problems with it.
Namely: The best interest of none of the 3 are equal to each other. They in fact, conflict with each other.

It is extremely important in discussing strategy not to get things confused.

The three categories regarding the Second Life economy:
1. Linden Labs. Best interest is profit for Linden Labs.
2. Businesses. Their best interest is profit for their businesses.
3. Second Life (The end-user represented by the community). Their best interest is to get the most out of Second Life.

It is VERY important when discussing strategy to understand that these 3 are different, and that each has different interests. “Linden Labs”, “Businesses”, and “Second Life” are not the same thing. It would be impossible to treat them as such.

The major problem I am coming across in these threads is that people seem to be under the impression that the best interests of each are the same for the others. My post above was about the best interest of “Second Life” (“Second Life” = “End User”). Not in any sense about the best interest of “Linden Labs” or the “Businesses”.

It is in “Second Life’s” best interest [not necessarily Linden Lab’s) that we stay 100% focused on the individual end-user, and allow businesses to be an independent aspect of Second Life. It is important not to get this confused by thinking that this is also in the best interest of “Linden Labs”. It is not the same thing. This is not in the best interest of “Linden Labs (company profit)”.

Strategically, speaking, it is in “Linden Lab’s” best interest to do whatever it takes to make the most profit without regard to whether or not “whatever it takes” is focused on accommodating the end-user or accommodating the businesses.


More profit to Linden Labs is not the biggest factor in factor in improving Second Life as a whole. They are of course not necessarily equal. Linden Lab’s profits. Second Life may or may not improve. This is why the best interest of Second Life is not the same as the best interest of Linden Labs.

The best interest of Second Life = the best interest of the end-user.
Examples of improvements to the end user:
1. Point to point TP.
2. Interface for currency exchange.
3. Better folders/copy/paste interface.
4. Better graphics/faster load times.
5. Better interface for shaping objects/prims.
The list can go on forever.



Right.

1. Some are here to advocate whatever it takes for their business to profit. They know and understand that doing so may/may not be in the best interest of the Second Life or Linden Labs. They are not jaded because they know and understand the circumstance. They choose to use whatever tactic they can for the sake of their business profit to convince Linden Labs to do one thing or the other.
I never claimed this was wrong or right. What I do claim is that such people understand what they are doing, and not deluding themselves.

2. Others here seem to rant problems in a tantrum to preserve their existence. They use subjective ill-conceived justifications that it is for the good of SL. For example, the situation with GOM. In all fairness, Linden Labs owes GOM zero. People complain as if GOM was abused. They were not. In the case of point to point TP, people complain about it because businesses might suffer. This is not a proper objective perspective. Linden Labs certainly did not abuse GOM. It is certainly not in the best interest of Second Life to worry about the effect on businesses when coming up with a plan for point to point TP.

There is a difference between:
1. Players that know they want their business to profit, and want to convince LL to take whatever action it can in the best interest of their business.
2. Players that under the false impression that anything LL does to cause them or other businesses to lose money is the same thing as being bad for SL.



1. In regards to the best interest of SL I would have to disagree. Linden Labs needs to stay 100% focused on the individual, and allow the businesses to fend for themselves as I stated in my opening.

2. In regards to the betterment of Linden Labs (to maximize their profit), their best strategy is not to get caught up in compromising with this business or that end-user. They would do best to stay focused on profit, capacity for more profit, and that alone. As such, it all depends on the situation. The situation may call for what you propose. For LL “to chart a compromise path”. It may not. It all depends on the situation at hand. If it is profitable for them at said point and time, to not upset the businesses, Linden Labs would do as you proposed. If it is profitable for them to disregard the end-user, they may do that instead. If it is profitable for them to disregard the businesses, they may do that. All in all, it really depends on the situation to decide what is most profitable for Linden Labs.

There is no always single situation that compromising between end-users and businesses will always be profitable. We cannot get lost into thinking that these are rules instead of strategies. There is no rule that says it is always profitable for LL to compromise. Sometimes as I stated, it is more profitable to do something else. It all depends on the situation at that point.


Again, I come across many misinterpretations of businesses such as theories that it is ALWAYS profitable for businesses to be fair to their customers, and treat them well. This is a delusion that has no basis in business strategy. It is lack of understanding of business strategy.

Postulate: A business’s one and only objective is profit.
People tend to misinterpret this as stating that businesses have to be cruel, and take advantage of others. I tend to get misinterpreted a lot. When I state that a business’s sole intention is profit, it is in no way the same thing as saying “a business HAS to take advantage of others”. A business HAS to do one and only one thing. Make profit.

1. If it is profitable for (in the best interest of) a business to be fair and good to people, that is a strategy. Not a rule. A business might believe that their best strategy is not to take advantage of people. There is nothing cruel and wrong about it. That is simple and straight reality.

2. If it is profitable for a business to take advantage of others, that is a strategy.

These strategies always depend on the situation, and it is important for strategists to understand this. It is important for anybody to understand this. The best interest of a business is ALWAYS profit. If you are thinking about anything other than profit, you are not acting as a business. It is very important not to delude ourselves into thinking that we as businesses are a gift to the world. We need to stay grounded. We cannot overestimate ourselves. Your business is a business because its objective is profit. Different businesses have different source methods of profit. Different businesses have different strategies.

You cannot say that it is always in the best interest of the business to not take advantage of others.
Nor can you say that it is always in the best interest of the business to take advantage of others.
The best interest of the business is to choose whichever strategy would provide the most profit.



First, I will address that I never claimed anything about any small group of users.

Second, when LL makes a policy decision, they have to know how it will affect their profits, and how it will affect the end-user. Depending on who’s best interest we are discussing. No matter what strategy LL uses to weigh all the angles, either way (whether for the best interest of Linden Labs or the best interest of Second Life), it has nothing to do with the businesses as long as the businesses are held as an independent aspect. The only time businesses would be considered in terms of a strategy for the best interest of Linden Labs. Not in terms for a strategy for the best interest of the end-user.



This seems to be intermeshing Second Life (the end-user) with Linden Lab’s business. Businesses are essential for Second Life, and they are part of Second Life. This situation is not simplified or over simplified.

1. In terms of the best interest of the end-user: Leaving businesses out of any policy decision making is vital. Businesses can and will adjust themselves accordingly. They need to be able to fend for themselves. The most important thing is a better Second Life for the end-user. As I explained in the opening post, anything other than 100% focus on the end-user(100% business independence )will impede a bigger and better Second Life. As long as we remain focused on the end user, and allow business independence, any impact on the businesses can be dealt with solely by the businesses. Eventually, they must adjust tehmselves accordingly. Thereby, continuing to play their function in Second Life.

2. In terms of the best interest of Linden Labs, again, there is no one thing at every point that Linden Labs should always do. Their strategies will depend on whatever will profit them at any given time.



Disagree. Why unless your blindly subjective towards America and capitalism would you look at the lessons of the Soviet industries? Why even mention Soviet industries? One needs to understand the deficiencies of all industries. Whether Soviet, American, or whatever. We learn lessons from flaws in every industry, every political system, every economic system, every social system, and business as a whole. To single out the deficiencies of Soviet industries over every other industry out there would be warped.





This is rude. Usually the most subjective minded people tend to shun away any form of objectivity that interrupts their paradigms of reality. Ignorance is not the lack of knowledge. Ignorance is the lack of desire for knowledge.

Everything in Ellie’s posts indicate notions about what Linden Labs needs to do to help the businesses under a belief that the businesses are anything and everything that second life is.
Ellie regarding telehubs: “. . . I wish to make a dire prediction of what would result. I hope I don't have to quote this post 12 months in the future when you have all had your way, and it is too late for you to undo what you regret you did”
Need I say more?



Rude. No it is not. By the way, you are extremely rude. The only one that doesn’t belong anywhere is you. You are just mad because you have nothing to say. Therefore, come here to troll. None of your comments have anything to do with the topic. A troll is a person with the intention to tear down threads for whatever reason. They have no intention of participating in a discussion. They have no opinion. Only insults make themselves feel better by putting down. Troll.





There are 2 points about this.
1. Any strategy for Linden Labs can change at anytime in order for them to profit. This does not mean Linden Labs ALWAYS NEEDS to take care of their customers or their customer’s customers. It may be a strategy that would do them well, but strategies always depend on a situation. They will make whatever decision is most profitable for them. Even if that means treating well both their customers, and their customer’s customers.

2. It is important to note that this is in the best interest of Linden Labs, but not necessarily in the best interest of Second Life.



Disagree. Businesses should not be given any assistance. If they go down, they go down. The only thing it means when a business goes down is that they are no longer in demand. When a business goes down, it simply shows that whatever they are providing to SL is no longer in demand. The objective is not to create demand so that businesses can prosper. The objective is to allow SL to be free to grow independently. Anything that the end-user is not getting will be in demand. There are businesses everywhere in SL. If a business or businesses go down, there are other businesses that will be around, and maybe willing to provide content/services for less.



I would not go as far as to presume that LL is worried about anything. I would doubt very much that they feel guilty about anything. There is nothing to feel guilty or embarrassed about. Nobody has done any wrong to GOM. Nobody has treated GOM unfair. What is unfair is to expect LL to impede progress of Second Life for the sake of the end-user simply because a business might go under as a result.

If you can't win them over with your ideas, overload them with words so the get bored and leave