Musings on LL as IANA or W3C in a 3D Web (was RE: [sldev] Opening the server source?)

[Matthew Dowd]

> Which means - LL has a lot of work to do and the code is only a part of
> it. Stage whisper that wherever you can, because it is true even without
> the server source being opened.

I did some thinking over the weekend and if we take the metaphor of SL being the 3D Web, I think that LL would be better off becoming the W3C equivalent than the IANA equivalent.

As discussed, an open Grid future for SL will require some centralised servers. The fundamental problem preventing SL becoming a completely distributed system ala the Web is the permission system for objects and the monetary system (although the latter presumedly could ultimately be replaced with real money?). The issues in protecting SL objects aren't too disimilar to protecting software (with the added complication that objects can move sims which is the equivalent of software moving between different computers). If we can solve that, someone still needs to run some backend systems for the world map (either via a registration model ala DNS or a discovery model ala Google); if (which is probably more likely in the short term) we can't someone needs to run the asset servers etc.

Someone/somewhere will attempt to run their own Grids so there will be competition, and as mentioned there will be a few major accepted Grids and then lots of small "enthuasist" Grids. 

In order to run one (or as LL may hope *the*) major Grids, you need service level agreements (not TOS denying all responsibility), 24/7 reliability, 24/7 support, clear policies etc. things LL has got a particularly good track record of late. However, adoption of a major mainstream Grid in this scenario is not driven by innovation but by stability, as whilst early adopters may be driven by innovations, the mass market is driven by familiarity (just look at those who run Microsoft software - is innovation was the main driver everyone would be on Vista and Office 2007!)

Not only would LL need to do a lot of work in order to play this "IANA" type role but LL would have to change to something very different - its whole philosophy (from the Taoi of Linden to the strategy of "out innovating our competition") would need to dramatically change. Not only that but its entire skillset needs to dramtically change - to place this "IANA" role it needs systems/network engineers and managers, database engineers and managers - not graphic/game engine specialists and UI specialists.

If LL doesn't change, then someone else (possible multiple providers) will step in and play this Grid backbone role - leaving the LL grid as one of the small fringe Grids where the innovation can happen before being rolled out onto the main Grids.

However, is this latter scenario bad for LL? If anything it plays to their strengths, they could play the role of W3C in this 3D grid - defining the standards and the technologies, testing them out on a fringe "beta grid" whilst allowing others to run the main Grids. This seems to play far more to their strengths and removes the service "distractions" which they have had so much trouble with of late.

My main concern, however, is that whilst I believe that both the IANA or the W3C endgame are economically viable in that a company playing that role could remain financially solvent - neither seem to offer the sort of high level returns that LL's investors may be expecting.

Matthew




_________________________________________________________________
Try Live.com - your fast, personalised homepage with all the things you care about in one place.
http://www.live.com/?mkt=en-gb