Well, if VRML had problems with too much hype early on that it couldn't deliver, I kinda feel the same way about the next yet-another-social-space promising the "metaverse." But I guess most people don't really take that term the same way I do.
There is a lot of wisdom in what you've written. I can tend to be idealistic -- if I had been involved back in the early days of VRML, I probably would have been at the frontlines of the disputes about its "vision" :) ... However, I think we've learned a lot about what it takes to do large-scale immersive shared environments, and technology has grown a lot since those early days of VRML, and I think some of these visions are a bit more attainable and realistic now. I'm afraid that the bad experiences of VRML are almost making people too cautious and pessimistic in this area. But yeah, I should probably hold my tongue a bit more whenever new hype floats around for the next-big-virtual-world-thing. I do still stand by the criteria I listed in the first post, though, and really hope to see a standard emerge that can support those kinds of features. Ken ----- Original Message ----- From: "Len Bullard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'VOS Discussion'" <vos-d@interreality.org> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 8:55 AM Subject: Re: [vos-d] Flux Worlds Server Announcement > >First of all I should mention that I don't speak for VOS/Interreality 3D -- > > >which you seem to be assuming I do. I'm just an enthusiast following their > >progress and hoping to contribute a bit. > > I've lurked on the list for a few years now. There are lots of projects but > this one has staying power based on the core of people building it. That I > support. I am a VRML content builder among other things, but I support > real-time 3D in general. > > >I know what *I* want the metaverse > >to be, and I'm especially annoyed at the Lindens for attempting to > >appropriate the term and therefore am a bit sensitive to new press releases > >making hype about the "metaverse." And that's basically it. > > That will only frustrate. The press, the Lindens, their investors, all will > work hard to create a patina of invention and legitimacy up to and including > rewriting history. That is how the web was won. Can you imagine how > irritating it was for the SGML hypertext community to read that Tim > Berners-Lee had *invented* hypertext and THE hypertext markup language? The > history wasn't that well known so it worked at scale. Hype works. > Investors expect it. The way to fight that is to correct the press, but > don't fight over terms like *metaverse*. It is already a hype term that has > very little meaning. > > What is a 'metaverse'? > > We have the same problems with 'virtual reality'. It is just a genre of > real-time 3D. VOS has yet to find a genre that is easily summarized. That > might be good because it continues to fly under the radar. About the worst > thing that can happen is to have the press locusts descend on it before it > is ready. I can't count the number of web projects gone South that I've > seen because the fringes decided it needed a big press boost or more cred > than it had earned. Of such is a bubble made. > > The VRMLers are careful to acknowledge VRML's roots in practical commercial > products, eg, SGI Open Inventor. As a result, when a blogger or press > release talks about how VRML was created on the web, but is not a practical > product, it is easy to point to the evolution from the SGI product line and > correct that. One thing the press really hates is to have their credibility > ripped from them with factual reporting. > > >I do think -- if they do it right -- Flux Worlds will be a useful product > >and an important step in open-standard virtual-worlds. But I maintain that > >it's an evolutionary step, not a revolutionary one -- > > There are revolutions of technology and revolutions of scale and market. > HTML was not a revolution. It was a design that was decades old. The > markup design was essentially the work of Truly Donovan, not Tim or Dan. > The US Army had a DTD-less stylesheet driven markup hypertext browser years > before XML. HTTP is even less of a revolution. In combination, they caused > a scaling effect that was a market revolution. A generation of > not-very-adept programmers picked it up and did cool things with it, but the > generation that took it to the next level was already very adept and mostly > 40-somethings. The press didn't find that very good reading. Fifteen years > later, none of it matters, but don't underrate the power of the press to > fuel a revolution in market where there was no revolution in technology. > > > and it's no reason >not to aim farther ahead, or to abandon all alternate > > paths. > > I agree and those paths are also no reason to slag the sincere and working > efforts of the VRMLers to get the next piece of their puzzle in place > because of the term 'metaverse'. The press made the term popular, not the > technologists. You don't own it. The Lindens don't. Parisi doesn't. > Everyone will use it as they see fit. It may even die fast because it is a > hype term subject to dissolution because it has no insolvent core meaning. > > >Also, as far >as I've seen, VOS isn't making lots of "publicity" or > >"preannouncements" -- > >Peter, Reed et al have been quietly working away for a few years trying to > >get a good base technology working from the ground up. And they *do* have > >running code. > > I know. I keep track. I am waiting to see what this emerges as because so > far, it is *geekSpeakBound* and while that is good for the programmers, it > won't mean a thing to the content developers or the market. I'm waiting for > that synergy when hot content and new technology merge. I warn you though, > technology is largely invisible. If VOS creates yetAnotherSocialSpace, it > is an also ran. Customers are never wowed by how neat your classes are. > > >So I'm really not sure where a lot of your comments are coming from. > > 25+ years of experience. Don't get hung up on the terms or claims to > primacy as if this project were THE Metaverse. That will just earn these > guys enemies where they don't earn them themselves and critics where it > isn't in need of critique. So far, VOS is a small personal project with a > mail list and some running code, but nothing yet to show that will impress > the market. > > I am impressed by the staying power of the core contributors. I've learned > that is the single most important quality to look for when tracking > different projects competing in an emerging market. The Lindens have it and > that is why they are ahead of everyone in mindshare. The VRMLers have it > and that is why they are still standing post-dot.bomb blowout. They > eviscerated themselves internally with fights over "the vision" with exactly > the kinds of posts people make when they get jealous or feel left out. A > vision is good, but core community focus on the work at hand is what will > get you to the goal. Don't lose it over *words*. Don't bother to care. > > In entertainment, if someone else releases a new movie, album, whatever and > it gets a lot of attention, the best thing is to send congratulations, best > wishes, hope to see you on the road, then get back to the next session. The > worst thing to do is to be on record making cutting remarks unless you are > correcting factual errors. I root for the Lindens because their success > makes a real-time 3D market bigger and more credible. I build with VRML > because ten years later, my content still runs on tools built last week. It > will not run at SL and ten years from now, SL content may not run at all > anywhere. That is their next job and they are probably savvy enough to know > that. > > len > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
