Comments on: IBM: Like the Web, virtual worlds will be become business friendly

At an event at the MIT Media Lab, IBM executives and virtual world experts sketch out the potential and pitfalls of virtual worlds for business and society.

[chudson3]

Virtual Goods Summit

I'm glad to see an increasing number of folks talking and thinking about these issues. On Friday, June 22 there will be a Virtual Goods Summit at Stanford focused on exploring the emerging opportunity for virtual goods and virtual worlds. Check out the website at http://www.vgsummit.com

[Len Bullard]

Virtual Worlds are MU. Not all Apps Are.

One wonders why Second Life is a tag for this article and World of Warcraft isn't. Sigh...

Applications for virtual worlds presume multi-user sites. Be clear about that. Uses for real-time 3D systems don't assume MU. Is Google Earth MU? No. Can it be? Yes. Should it be? Ask the ad agencies. But the so-called killer-app for 3D on the web is mapping, not MU. We can take up what "business friendly" means another time. Real-time collaboration does not presume real-time 3D representation. It is simply a bit more helpful than video and there are lots of visual indicators one can apply (similar to avatars with badges or uniforms).

BTW while here:

The only reason Google StreetLevel uses photos is it is a cheap means to get accurate recognizable textures. They can:

1. Use a real-time 3D model such as Planet9 provides to its customers with high enough fidelity that the same applications such as navigation by familiar recognizable landmarks can be achieved. Why use stale images if you don't need them?

2. If they insist on it (find out why they insist on it), insist back that by geocode reference, the legal occupant or owner of a location referenced by geocode can log in and set an attribute declaring no-real-image for that geocode. OTW, by default, it can stay on. This is an opt-out policy vs an opt-in policy and works reasonably well.

Unless Google does something smarter sooner, they will soon rise above Microsoft on the Most Reviled list.

[CyberWoLfman]

Already created a virtual world

There's already programs out there like 3D chat programs that allow you to create your own world. They've been around since shortly after Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson came out. Heck, I've got one, myself, with things like a vidfeed pavilion, streaming music and bots that let you play games like chess and trivia. It's at cyberwolfman.com/thisisit.htm (personal site, not even any ads) and people from all over the world pop into it.

Been reviewing programs like this for over a decade, now, chatting with people, building, making bots to interact with users, et cetera. There is potential for them to be so much more, provided that people don't see them as just ways for businesses to make money off of others.

The Internet's a great place for people to interact, and by using an avatar/toon/character, they can do so safely without fear of violence, and make themselves look like whatever they wish.

[Len Bullard]

What Are IBM's Qualifications for This?

Yeah, Cyberwolfman, I think one should accept that IBM doesn't invent markets. They enter emerging markets and acquire presence and influence. Ok.

But standards work is a little different and that is the continual sub-topic of these well-placed articles and events. So far, they have experience such as you and I do: building some worlds on existing platforms. So one might say they have content experience. Good.

But standards? I have to ask the tough questions.

When a company with the size, reach and financial clout of IBM enters a market such as 3D on the web, how should it be regarded vis a vis standards activities? It invested in content but it doesn't build 3D browsers or servers. In fact, it offers no 3D services at all. It as a company, is dabbling. Is that enough?

Initially, some are enchanted by the thought of that much money being put into the effort, but where does it go? It is good to have them as a member but what do they contribute beyond the membership fees?

Traditionally, the browser makers have had the most input to the standard itself. That made sense in terms of technical knowledge and experience. They understand the no-compromise qualification that is frame rate and the twin peaks of rendering and behavioral fidelity, how to achieve that while adding features, the trade off and so on.

Then a well-heeled company with money to spend decides it wants to invest in the 3D market. It gives that task to some of its staff. Well-placed articles are bought or given out to position them as experts representing their companies. The company purchases services from a non-standard but popular platform. Does this provide sufficient experience to be accepted as an equal in the technical contributions or as another content-provider similar to how the authors are accepted in the W3DC?

I understand the rules for participation in the W3DC because I helped write them. I don't know how well they will work in a situation where everyone desires the investors but haven't asked the hard questions about equity of contributions or the need for them to be appropriate to the goals of the existing standards.

IBM has money. It will be gratefully accepted everywhere. What else does it have to contribute in terms of real world experience where it counts in a standard? Editors we have. 3D graphics experts we have. Existing standards we have.

What are IBM's goals for itself as a contributor to the 3D standards and how does it qualify itself for meeting those goals?

[play7]

IBM again?

This is getting old! Showing photos of IBM Corp leaders does not prove anything between SECOND LIFE and IBM! If there was any meaning to this writting look up the stockholders reports on IBM about Linden Labs involment. REALLY there is NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE! Just like Second Life its VR relation between Linden Labs and IBM.....Sooner of later there wil be FCC involment to deal with these fail reports. Because anytime you start tempering with stockholders reports and shadey news leaks.