[Web4lib] The end of MySpace, SecondLife, and Twitter

[Steve Cramer SMCRAMER]

For different organizational (or corporate) perspectives on applications 
of virtual worlds, and news about SL-alternatives, check out this recent 
article from Business Week:

"In Virtual" 
McConnon, Aili; Jana, Reena. 
Business Week, 6/11/2007 Issue 4038, Special Section p24-25, 2p
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_24/b4038417.htm

"This article examines several companies who have launched virtual worlds 
in competition with the social network service Second Life. These 
alternative virtual worlds are being used by businesses because they offer 
greater security and control, as well as more flexibility and 
customization than Second Life. Some of the companies that have pulled out 
of Second Life include, Walt Disney and Wells Fargo. "

--Steve
smcramer at uncg.edu




"Thomas,Dylan" <iss60c at bangor.ac.uk> 
Sent by: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org
06/22/2007 04:42 AM

To
Lars Aronsson <lars at aronsson.se>
cc
web4lib at webjunction.org
Subject
Re: [Web4lib] The end of MySpace, SecondLife, and Twitter






Lars Aronsson wrote:
> Will Kurt wrote:
> 
>> But what are we really debating? MySpace, Twitter, and SL aren't 
>> ideas: they exist, they have millions of users, and they all 
>> make tons of money.
> 
> Does Twitter make tons of money?  How?  I decided to try it out 
> (http://twitter.com/LA2) and I don't pay anything and I don't see 
> any advertising.  So how do they make money?  From sending SMS?
> 
> Many years ago I heard about there.com, and they seem to be around 
> still.  I guess there are at least a dozen (?) similar virtual 
> worlds out there.  But all everybody is talking about is Second 
> Life.  How can that be?  Superior marketing?
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There.com
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Virtual_reality_communities
> 
> 
I went to a presentation last night on SL, which only focussed on SL, 
and how "brilliant" it was/can be. But also the basics in terms of 
making money from the service was explained, as well was the emphasis on 
that if it went under, then anyone involved would lose all of their 
money. I had a problem actually understanding why someone would want to 
get involved with SL in the first place, aside from the potential to 
make money - but very soon I stopped thinking in that way, which was 
futile. In the "web world", or indeed the entertainment world, there is 
very often no rationale present within the consumerist, the effects of a 
capitalist post-modern society/culture (Jameson).

However! The monthly running costs for SL are apparently massive, so the 
"youtube formula", get big, spend a lot, become popular, and then 
sell..., but I can't see how this would happen for SL, if that is their 
intention.