Ah, I think *this* is where I should have come in... =3
On 3/13/07, Peter Amstutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ken -- as Reed said, you've pretty much nailed our planned revenue
> model, but it's good to see you come up with the same ideas, meaning
> they arn't too exotic (and thus will appeal to potential investors.)
And Investors are who you want, right?
> > Of course, for *any* of this to make money, people will have to want
> > to use VOS, and you'll need a solid product and good user base to
> > start with. So a big question you have to address is... why VOS, and
> > why not some other multi-user shared-space technology? How exactly are
> > you going to "crush" the huge foothold that second-life has at the
> > moment?
The best way to get a good user-base is to offer something for free.
Look at AOL.
> Having a solid product is absolutely the biggest step, which is
> precisely why we're seeking funding to support full time development. I
> have been working on some demos for s4, and it was interesting to come
> back after not working on it for a while and refresh my mind as to what
> does work well and what doesn't.
A solid product... Yep, definately the right thread!
> Interestingly, a lot of VOS development has been driven by what makes
> the 3D browser easy to implement. Since the non-threaded s3 Ter'Angreal
> would often go nonresponsive for many seconds due to I/O waiting, s4
> introduced threading, including asynchronous callbacks that could happen
> in any thread. As it turns out, the threading model in s4, while fine
> for the server process, was disasterously bad for Ter'Angreal stability.
> The upcoming s5 will address concurrency again with a new model that
> should prove much easier to use. Our greatest advantage, fundamentally,
> is that we've gone through a a number of iterations of design and
> implementation already, and so we bring a lot of experience to the table
> in connecting our ideas about the architechture to actual implementation
> issues that crop up when you sit down to write a real user-facing
> application.
The best way, imo, to make the browser easy to implement, is to be
able to code it specifically for the processor itself... And perhaps,
only refer to the hardware in an object-oriented way, so that it would
be easy to port to OTHER processors. Make the system modular, and it
should be easy to port to different hardware. I do have ideas about
the next iteration of course, but I'm certain some people see where
this is leading. I'll tie it all together in a few moments.
> Being free software is our other big advantage, since that narrows down
> the field of serious competition to Verse and Croquet. Second Life
> doesn't count unless/until Linden Labs releases their server software,
> or people start running their own servers based on OpenSim in large
> numbers, which would effectively constitute a major fork of the Second
> Life platform.
Free software, however, doesn't attract investors. =\
I, however, do have ideas that can both attract investors AND put you
in an entirely seperate (and GREATER) market, and user base, than
secondLife could ever hope to achieve.
> > Well I like to think of it as an analogy - right now second-life is king.
> > And services like second-life, there, and active worlds are much like the
> > proprietary online service providers of the early 90s. Back then, AOL was
> > king, and prodigy and compuserve held solid places in the market as well.
> > But then came the web - an open, decentralized system that anyone could
> > serve content on. For a while, the proprietary ISPs and the web were
> > side-by-side, but eventually the web overtook everything and the ISPs had to
> > re-factor their services to work within it.
> That's precisely the analogy I've been using, and I think it's pretty
> accurate.
SecondLife is king of what? King of the ActiveWorlds clones? o.o
> > VOS is kinda like the web ("Web 3.0"? Maybe. I'm not sure I like these
> > buzzwords... but some VCs might!). It's slated to be an open, decentralized
> > technology through which anyone can publish content and which not any one
> > company controls. My prediction is that the "AOL" that is second-life will
> > never really go away, but eventually the proprietary, closed, separated
> > systems will have to move aside and make room for an open, decentralized,
> > interconnected metaverse platform. And what you need to do is convince
> > some VCs that VOS is going to be that platform ;)
Secondlife will go away just as fast as Furcadia or Microsoft. They're
like the Rubik's cube or the Slinky, in fact, when you think about it.
Not necessarily bad products in and of themselves... But they're not
the best thing in the world either.
There's one way that VOS is going to be that platform, and I do see the way.
> People have coined the term "Web 3.D"... But except for the actual
> Web3D (VRML/X3D) efforts, when you start to dig into aspects of the web
> that really made it successful I don't know of any technology besides
> VOS that really survives the Web analogy. (VRML would have been great
> had they addressed multiuser issues a lot sooner, and not created
> something so topheavy that it requires months of effort to do anything
> more complicated that import/export static meshes.)
So why not make an in-browser object editor, that supports 3d-graphing
calculations, and 3d object primitives/object systems, as well as 2d
procedural interfaces?
> Announcements of new 3D virtual worlds seem to be coming weekly if not
> daily, so my hope is the odds are good that we'll be able to find some
> investor who's palms are itchy to get in on the 3D market ;-)
And I am getting to the idea that will make your 3D "Virtual World"
stand about above the rest... Speaking entirely as a QA person... I
will propose a sort of software version of a "Chimera". I can see this
program functioning as two different applications at once, and
therefore being better than the programmers of either could hope to
achieve.
> I actually have been strongly advised to avoid venture capital at this
> stage, and instead have been working connections with people who are
> interested in funding free software development.
True. Venture Capital means that you are forced to make the changes
that "the money provider" wants you to make, rather than accepting
free critiques and making the changes you want to make.
> > (Of course, there's another huge part of all this that I haven't covered,
> > and that's convincing the VCs that not only does your technology have
> > potential, but that you're going to be able to properly manage the project:
There's the only drawback to my plan. I doubt we have the programming
potential to be able to make this happen. But I do have connections,
and if you agree with my "Chimera" (And possibly, my subsequent
"versions"), then maybe I can network the resources to make this work!
> Very true. Well, I hope that I can at least point to active community
> here on our little mailing list to show that people are really
> interested in this, and that we've managed to create a small but stable
> community.
*stands up and waves a little VOS flag*
> > So in conclusion, your business plan should look something like this:
> > Step 1) Create an open platform for the online metaverse
> > Step 2) ???
> > Step 3) PROFIT!
xD Spoken like a true 4cha... err... Nevermind!
And yes, I'm getting around to Step 2, here. =3 This should be a major
part of the presentation to potential investors.
> Actually, the real plan is get funding for s5 development (Step 1).
This is a good plan for now, and it fits in with my vision for the project.
> The goal would be to the point where we have a minimal platform that is
> usable by moderately technical people (say the average Linux geek) to
> make their own interactive spaces without requiring a whole C++ build
> environment or the exchange of many long support emails. At that point,
> we will start to build a real, long-lasting end user community.
Ah, true. But what sets this apart from the other interactive 3d world
softwares out there? "There are so many other communities, communities
with names for themselves, why should I invest in VOS?" This is what
the investors will say. "How does VOS stand apart from the crowd? What
do I get in return? I'm not sure I fit in with a community of Linux
Geeks." Well, unless you find a linux-oriented investor. I'm not
saying it's impossible. I'm just saying that I have an idea that might
make the idea a lot more appealing, and I know some people who can
help set it up this way...
> That will get us to Step 2, which is to go for more significant investment
> funds and build a company that can capitalize on the platform more
> directly. Then we sell VOS services far and wide, show up on the covers
> of magazines, and hopefully make it to Step 3 :-)
So, you want to know my idea by now, and some of you may already have
guessed... (Especially those who know me, or have payed attention to
my previous rantings...)
I propose we take VOS, and recode its back-end architecture to run
just a little bit closer to the hardware, and add a software-rendering
option. Give it power over various filesystem commands by using simple
filesystem descriptor "plugin-files". Give it the ability to access
myriad protocols, to fill 3d objects with various online 1d and 2d
content.
Give it, also, if you're still with me, the ability to intercept,
interpret, and render the window and terminal functions that are
called by normal ELF binaries and drivers, as though these programs
were actually running inside VOS itself (perhaps with their own
descriptors so as to eventually support binaries from other OSs!). And
for the final step, give it it's own hardware drivers, and create
bootloader entries that call this program into it's own kernel mode!
At that point, with these things: Specialized rendering, Filesystem
access, Protocol access, and Parenting other processes, what need is
there for any other Windowmanager? Since you can design your own
interfaces within VOS, and create objects that, with a single click,
hardlink/shortcut to open locations within protocols or filesystems,
you don't need KDE, Gnome, or any other windowmanager. Since the
descriptors are in place, there would be an open architecture to
expand support for new filesystems, as well as child-binary emulation
support, perhaps more advanced than WINE, since it aims at more than
just Windows.
That would make the VOS project MORE than just a simple SecondLife.
SecondLife and ActiveWorlds are mere child's toys compared to the
power contained in what I envision to be the VOS S6 architecture.
Microsoft couldn't compete, even with it's proprietary Aero interface.
Even Linux XGL would likely be surpassed by such a
"3d-object-oriented" system.
And finally, if you think the ideas presented herein for S6 are wild
and beyond the scope of VOS, you should hear what I envision for S7.
I'll just say that when I was talking about "Infinite Virtual Space to
represent the earth, solar system, and galaxy", I had something in
mind.
Wouldn't YOU invest in something like THAT?
--Steve
_______________________________________________
vos-d mailing list
vos-d@interreality.org
http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
