On 1/9/07, Len Bullard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Letting out the viewer is something of a SOP. I think the server-side is > possibly more important given that there are any number of open source > viewers out there for 3D platforms that are just as good or better. It is > the management of the server farm that makes the difference, that and a big > budget for marketing. yes the server side services *and* the networking: SL uses UDP, X3D has little in the way of networking capability - direct from the client. I have been trying for two years to get improved networking and web services capability into X3D, but it is arduous. It became a working group proposal a year ago and still have not got the WG approved. The Consortium is slow to recognise what, I think, is essential to its success.
chris > > Yes, I think they are looking at migrating the building market, but the only > thing that brings in the bigCos is the site traffic. Otherwise, to Sears, > there is no advantage to being there. IBM can talk a lot about boardroom > VR but they are a services company in this market and without other > companies willing to host on private farms, there is no market. > > There is a lot of puff in the online worlds market. Of what value is it to > own content that you can't move because it only works on that platform? So > like a Macintosh or a Mall, without a big membership that is actually going > there often, having a presence there is largely a decorative bauble, a loss > leader for being 'in the know'. This market is relying on the naivete of > the IT groups of the companies hosting there. > > The in-world economy is a fascinating experiment in waiting to see when the > Feds will begin to look at it the same way they look at church bingo. They > tend to wait until the value is high enough that they can safely take their > cut without killing the game. > > len > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Or Botton > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 10:06 AM > To: VOS Discussion > Subject: Re: [vos-d] SecondLife client goes Open Source > > Granted, it was expected, but there is one major issue thats a big > bad omen: And thats content copy protection. > > SecondLife has been largely tauted as a place where you can make a > "quick buck" by creating and selling copies of content. This is > mostly an artificial market created by placing DRM on objects - being > able to flag a texture, model, script or an entire package as non > copyable, modifyable or transferable. > > Personally, I am all for an opensource platform with no DRM involved. > I believe that a VR platform can only become mainstream and > widespread if it is open and free. But SecondLife's act is more self > destructive because by nature they are not open and free. > > With the source out, it would be a rather easy task to duplicate > models and textures of objects, pretty much "breaking the DRM" with a > very casual effort from the programmer. This could be very damaging > to their internal economy. Again, I do not support the concept of > having virtual economies, but doing what they just did is more like > shooting their own foot. > > Perhaps this signs that LindenLab now views the big gamers - > companies and such as the real customers now? These people will have > much less of an issue to "enforce their copyrights" then the regular > person. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > vos-d mailing list > vos-d@interreality.org > http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d > _______________________________________________ vos-d mailing list vos-d@interreality.org http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
