Some recent announcements show movement on the part of Linden Labs to open up their protocols for Second Life such that others can host servers to participate in a federated, 3D version of the world wide web.
This is not Linden Labs first journey into open source when they released an open source version of their HUD. What's different this time is that they are taking steps toward releasing server code and protocols such that others can host virtual worlds on their networks which you could teleport to using the Second Life HUD. It still has a long way to go but it is a step in that direction.
Linden Labs isn't the only one using open source as a way to leverage themselves into a larger market where they have to share. This larger trend of moving from content provider to content platform provider means that Linden Labs has to give up a share of the revenue pie in order to be a founding participant in the vision of a World Wide Web where web pages are replaced with 3D virtual spaces and surfers who happen to be visiting that place at the same time get to text message each other.
Considering the impact of Web 2.0 and social networking on the web, I believe this to be a very natural and obvious evolution of the web. There are plenty of competitors who would love to beat Linden Labs to this punch so perhaps that is their "bottom line" motivation to move in this direction.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Sunday, June 29, 2008
The Rewrite Game
While drinking my morning cappuccino, I ran across this opinion piece on page 4 of the business section in the Sunday edition of the New York Times. Basically, the author is asking Microsoft to rewrite their operating system completely from scratch instead of continuing to enhance it as they have done for decades. He uses Apple as an example of this. They did a complete rewrite of their operating system when they moved from version 9.8 to 10. This is not the first time that an Apple advocate has publicly called on Microsoft to rewrite their operating system.
Why is this noteworthy? Anyone who has written software for public consumption will eventually be faced with the very hard question of whether or not it is time to rewrite. As you enhance or fix software, every change makes the software a little bit more brittle. Over time, this raises the cost of maintaining software. This is really not that much different from the car buying decision. You buy a new car and for years it just runs and all you have to do is normal maintenance stuff like oil and tire changes. As the car gets older, it starts to break down more and more. Eventually, you realize that you are paying more in repair bills than what a car note would be.
Why hasn't Microsoft rewritten their operating system? Because it is too expensive. It has been theorized that Vista has over fifty million lines of code. Think about that number for a minute. You would have to have already celebrated your 95th birthday in order to have lived that many minutes. It takes a lot more than a minute to write a line of code, especially when you are talking about operating system code. Time, mind, and money spent to rewrite what they already have is time, mind, and money not spent on entering all these markets that Microsoft so ambitiously wants to enter in. Google would like nothing more than for Microsoft to rewrite their operating system.
How did Apple do it? They didn't worry about backwards compatibility. If you bought a software product for Macintosh version 9.8, then it would not work on OS X. You would have to make another software purchase just to get the same functionality on the new operating system. Apparently, IPod hugging kids with strange facial hair are more willing to part with their hard earned cash than those pudgy business suit types who just might take their unhappiness to a more litigious level.
Why does backwards compatibility make the rewrite so much more expensive? Well, for one thing, Apple didn't really rewrite OS X from scratch. They took their work on Next Gen and BSD and started from that. Microsoft doesn't have that luxury.
Will Microsoft ever rewrite their operating system? Who can ever say? They do rewrite parts of it from time to time. Also, they really have two operating systems now, one for servers and the other for workstations. Nobody, that I know of, ever really complains about the server OS which I believe to be more strategic for the company over the long haul. It's probably easier and more in line with their long term objectives to relinquish the workstation market to the Apples and the Linuxes of the world than to rewrite Vista.
Why is this noteworthy? Anyone who has written software for public consumption will eventually be faced with the very hard question of whether or not it is time to rewrite. As you enhance or fix software, every change makes the software a little bit more brittle. Over time, this raises the cost of maintaining software. This is really not that much different from the car buying decision. You buy a new car and for years it just runs and all you have to do is normal maintenance stuff like oil and tire changes. As the car gets older, it starts to break down more and more. Eventually, you realize that you are paying more in repair bills than what a car note would be.
Why hasn't Microsoft rewritten their operating system? Because it is too expensive. It has been theorized that Vista has over fifty million lines of code. Think about that number for a minute. You would have to have already celebrated your 95th birthday in order to have lived that many minutes. It takes a lot more than a minute to write a line of code, especially when you are talking about operating system code. Time, mind, and money spent to rewrite what they already have is time, mind, and money not spent on entering all these markets that Microsoft so ambitiously wants to enter in. Google would like nothing more than for Microsoft to rewrite their operating system.
How did Apple do it? They didn't worry about backwards compatibility. If you bought a software product for Macintosh version 9.8, then it would not work on OS X. You would have to make another software purchase just to get the same functionality on the new operating system. Apparently, IPod hugging kids with strange facial hair are more willing to part with their hard earned cash than those pudgy business suit types who just might take their unhappiness to a more litigious level.
Why does backwards compatibility make the rewrite so much more expensive? Well, for one thing, Apple didn't really rewrite OS X from scratch. They took their work on Next Gen and BSD and started from that. Microsoft doesn't have that luxury.
Will Microsoft ever rewrite their operating system? Who can ever say? They do rewrite parts of it from time to time. Also, they really have two operating systems now, one for servers and the other for workstations. Nobody, that I know of, ever really complains about the server OS which I believe to be more strategic for the company over the long haul. It's probably easier and more in line with their long term objectives to relinquish the workstation market to the Apples and the Linuxes of the world than to rewrite Vista.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Bucky Fuller Revisited
I ran across an article in last Sunday's New York Times about everyones favorite cold war era stalwart visionary inventor, engineer, author, and architect Richard Buckminster Fuller.
Like almost any modern example of good journalism, the New York Times article references a recent event and presents a mild expose. The recent event is an upcoming exhibit (June 26, 2008 through September 21, 2008) of his work at the Whitney Museum of American Art. The expose is a debunking of his "suicide story" in which he claims that, after dropping out of college, failing at business, and becoming a heavy drinker, he seriously considered suicide. Just as he is on the precipice of that dark commitment, he receives an epiphany which causes him to devote his life to the betterment of mankind as a sort of cosmic experiment. Based on research at Stanford University and an upcoming book called "Reassessing R. Buckminster Fuller," the New York Times counter-claims this famous suicide story to be a myth created by Bucky himself. This research does assert that he did have a nervous breakdown after an extra-marital affair, with a women half his age, fell apart.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Gaming and Video Convergence Reloaded
I keep my eyes open for examples of technology convergence such as the convergence between the movie and the video gaming industries. That's why this announcement caught my attention.
The details are a bit sketchy at the time of this writing and the announced deadline is way out but it looks like the Sci Fi Channel is going to simultaneously co-produce both a TV show and an MMORPG.
How is this is different from other movie/MMORPG combinations such as Star Wars and The Matrix? In those two Sony franchises, the movies were made first then the MMORPG followed. The story arc of the game always follows what has already been revealed in the movies.
It appears that what might be different this time is that both the television producers and the game designers will have equal creative say in the franchise. The writers of the series will study what the gamers have done online to work plot elements into the show. They may also schedule events online that dovetail with what is going on in individual episodes. This new innovation kicks media demographic research up a notch from other convergence ties such as CSI:NY on SL.
The details are a bit sketchy at the time of this writing and the announced deadline is way out but it looks like the Sci Fi Channel is going to simultaneously co-produce both a TV show and an MMORPG.
How is this is different from other movie/MMORPG combinations such as Star Wars and The Matrix? In those two Sony franchises, the movies were made first then the MMORPG followed. The story arc of the game always follows what has already been revealed in the movies.
It appears that what might be different this time is that both the television producers and the game designers will have equal creative say in the franchise. The writers of the series will study what the gamers have done online to work plot elements into the show. They may also schedule events online that dovetail with what is going on in individual episodes. This new innovation kicks media demographic research up a notch from other convergence ties such as CSI:NY on SL.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Facebook Joining the Open Source Bandwagon
It is expected that predominant social networking web site Facebook will soon announce the re-release of its platform as open source. Competitive pressure is credited as the reason behind this move as competing web sites are already positioning to get behind another open source platform for exchanging social information. This is driven by a larger trend in which content providers leverage Metcalfe's law by transforming themselves into content platform providers.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Microsoft Boosts Support for Rival Formats in Office
In a recent news article, Microsoft has announced plans to provide native support for the Open Office file formats in its own office productivity suite.
Open Office is an open source office productivity suite whose development is mostly under the guidance of Sun Microsystems.
Microsoft has made a lot of money off of their own office productivity suite. Over the years, this profit has been used to underwrite Microsoft's attempts to acquire increased share in the markets that Sun traditionally occupies.
I find Open Office to be an excellent office productivity suite. Because of this, I have neither personally used nor purchased a copy of Microsoft Office since 1995. I have used later versions of MS-Office while working for various corporations where that productivity suite is part of the standard, corporate desktop image.
Although MS-Office still enjoys predominance in the marketplace, the list of companies that have switched to Open Office continues to grow. I believe that more and more companies will re-examine their position on MS-Office and its premium pricing as the market of office productivity suites becomes more and more of a commodity.
Open Office is an open source office productivity suite whose development is mostly under the guidance of Sun Microsystems.
Microsoft has made a lot of money off of their own office productivity suite. Over the years, this profit has been used to underwrite Microsoft's attempts to acquire increased share in the markets that Sun traditionally occupies.
I find Open Office to be an excellent office productivity suite. Because of this, I have neither personally used nor purchased a copy of Microsoft Office since 1995. I have used later versions of MS-Office while working for various corporations where that productivity suite is part of the standard, corporate desktop image.
Although MS-Office still enjoys predominance in the marketplace, the list of companies that have switched to Open Office continues to grow. I believe that more and more companies will re-examine their position on MS-Office and its premium pricing as the market of office productivity suites becomes more and more of a commodity.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Media Economy 2.0
I just recently ran across this blog entry by Dennis Haarsager who has become CEO of NPR. He has been promoting the quest for the Long Tail in broadcast media for years. I have no access to the political internals of public broadcasting so let me simply hope that this move is indicative of a healthy change in the industry.
Broadcast media and retail music has always acted in fear of the Web 2.0 movement. They appear to see it as a threat, mostly in terms of intellectual property theft and loss of revenue. My hope is that they can begin to see it as a great opportunity for expansion in new markets. It looks to me like public broadcasting is about to lead the way.
May 15 update: The public sector isn't the only sector finally getting it. CBS announced today that they are purchasing CNet. Though not exactly considered the darling of the Web 2.0 world, CNet's extensive technology and gaming reviews and news shows that it does have an understanding of the long tail.
Broadcast media and retail music has always acted in fear of the Web 2.0 movement. They appear to see it as a threat, mostly in terms of intellectual property theft and loss of revenue. My hope is that they can begin to see it as a great opportunity for expansion in new markets. It looks to me like public broadcasting is about to lead the way.
May 15 update: The public sector isn't the only sector finally getting it. CBS announced today that they are purchasing CNet. Though not exactly considered the darling of the Web 2.0 world, CNet's extensive technology and gaming reviews and news shows that it does have an understanding of the long tail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
