Do Virtual Worlds Really Matter for Business?

Organizations are constantly pushing for innovation in some form or another. Do virtual worlds hold any realistic promise as a platform for innovation?

Tags: businessinnovation

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ken Rigby (MellaniuM, Tele3DWorld) on November 27, 2007 at 2:47pm: I see Virtual Worlds will be developed individually and hosted locally and globally. VRWs are graphically rich and can be developed using commercially available tools. I see business using them as a shop and showroom for their products. Access by password and invitation will enable an environment like the RW.
See Tele3dworld for examples.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Linda Zimmer | Znetlady Isbell on November 28, 2007 at 11:53am: Thanks for the link, Ken! I've actually seen four different applications of this type of thing in the last month...Brookstone retailers are trying it now, Kimberly Clark one of the largest companies in the world built a 3D video approach to research buying patterns, and a developer is putting up 3D malls on the web using such tools.

I'd say VWs are getting a lot more attention toward innovation than the media would have us believe!; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by 9mmbooks on November 28, 2007 at 1:18am: Are you kidding... The current configurations of hardware and software have just barely enabled Virtual Worlds to be available to the global market. The lack of fidelity in the current configurations of hardware and software that support the current collection of Virtual Worlds is/will be a primary motivator for innovation. I can only imagine what the future Mother Board design will be to support multiple CORES each with private Memory banks and Multiple Graphics Cards and other Tactile devices. Not to mention the innovation in operating systems to support these advanced hardware configurations.

In parallel with innovations in hardware and software to refine the fidelity of our tactile experience we will see tremendous innovation in Systems Architecture at the Server Farm Level.

All of this will drive demand for more bandwidth which will stimulate innovation as well.

9mmbooks; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Alex Fedotov on November 28, 2007 at 6:38am: This is not entirely accurate, 9mmbooks.
For instance, 4 SL simulators are running simultaneously on a single Xeon server. It's not exactly what hardware people call 'Google computer' if you know what I mean, but it's pretty much a junk-quality hardware (1.5-2k USD a piece). Better hardware - multi-core, 64 bit and high frequency exists for more than 3-4 years but it costs an order of magnitude more. Overall computational power of a service built without this 1/4 of a server per sim 'architecture' on a contemporary MEDIUM class servers would be TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE MORE, which means - 100 times more of EVERYTHING in-world.
It's only a question of economy. And it works like this: non-paying customers are a load, but they don't contribute any money > you can't buy better servers > you can not TEST better software solutions > you can not hire personnel capable of dealing with good hardware... voila! - here's what we all have.
'Land sales', 'Virtual goods sales' are NOT business-models that can support high-quality VW. Industry is looking for other models, probably 'sponsored' model (as the TV in it's present state) is the only option.

P.S. This was about the server side, which is a bottle-neck right now. On a client-side - try something like 4GB of memory computer wit dual GeForce SLI graphics card and you will forget about hardware problems for a long time.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by 9mmbooks on November 28, 2007 at 10:34am: What is not "entirely accurate"??

That the current configuration of Hardware, Software and Systems Architecture are motivators of innovation (the question posed by Linda)???

OR my imagination of Mother Board architecture innovation will not happen... Supporting Multiples of resources which will require an innovation in Platform Operating Systems???

OR are you saying that there will not be any Server Farm Systems Architecture Innovation because there exists all that there needs to be???

OR are you saying that the 4GB memory computer that exists now will suppress innovation because its "supposedly" sufficient for a very long time???

One source of innovation is the PhD students at the Major Universities looking for a thesis.... When the guys and gals at Carnegie Mellon, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA and Standford begin to consider the Systems Architectures that support Virtual Worlds the current Server is history.

9mmbooks; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Alex Fedotov on November 28, 2007 at 10:44am: Yes, "there exist all that needs to be" in terms of HARDWARE. Architectures - it's a bit different story. Architectures are just business-decisions driven by costs and business-model. That's what I was talking about. Current business-models don't provide sufficient cash flow for hardware, software and maintenance. Other business-models PROBABLY can.

Yeah. :) I know this tune (about Ph.D's... btw, I have Ph.D. in plasma physics :) ). I guess the last innovation in systems architecture I saw was Google File System (GFS), the rest is... just copy-pasted thesises, I agree. :)

P.S. CS is not a 'science' per se, it's engineering. :); ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Linda Zimmer | Znetlady Isbell on November 28, 2007 at 12:01pm: Alex, isn't innovation "forward looking?" It seems to me that real innovation comes from unexpected sources, not linear, predictive ones.

Or am I completely misunderstanding what you are saying?; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by 9mmbooks on November 28, 2007 at 1:08pm: Hmmm I wonder if Alan Turing would agree with your premise that Architectures are just business-decisions driven by costs and business models.

Whoa... "CS is not a 'science' per se, its engineering"... as an engineer of plasma physics I can see why you might think that programming isn't computer science but engineering. Programming is a tool within Computing Machinery which I'm sure you used a computer to engineer with. BUT if you had studied Automata Theory, Computability Theory, Recursion Theory, State Machines and Computing Languages and Grammars you might not denigrate the work of Chruch, Kleene and Turing so easily. True all of these Theories are based in Mathematics and Computer Science uses these Theoretics to form the Field... As Astronomy, Chemistry and Physics does similarly draw from Mathematics in the formations of these Fields of Science .

I will grant that there is the following relationship
Engineering Methodology is an OutCome of Computer Science which is an OutCome of Mathematics.

Please take a course in Automa Theory before taking a broad stroke and claim Computer Science is merely Engineering.

9mmbooks ;-); ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Alex Fedotov on November 28, 2007 at 1:47pm: It's much simpler, 9mmo, belive me.... and btw I studied it all quite some time ago and have been using my knowledge ever after...

Just start doing something on this scale, you will see what I mean by 'architecture is a pure business-decision'.

And thank you for reminding me to study English more, I'm still not so good at it, it's my second language after all. :); ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by 9mmbooks on November 28, 2007 at 2:37pm: Apparently you have never looked at the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Program of the U.S. Government. The Solicitations on Systems Architectures are not motivated on business-decisions but on organizational decisions, optimization and systems interoperability.

AND Yes there is always economic impact on all projects. Can't get away from that.

BUT it wasn't monetary economics that motivated Tim Berners-Lee to innovate a resultant change in the architecture of Information. It was a need to increase the fidelity of sharing information.

AND when you think of business-decision driven architectures that are inside out...
lol... consider what motivated Linus Torvalds to recast Unix into Linux changing the landscape of operating systems.

The motivations of the Open Source software groups are directly the result of Business-Decision-Profit based projects. Their credo is Software should be free.

Now don't get me wrong Alex I'm a Capitalist and a Mathematician. Hence when I hear an all encompassing statement like 'architecture is a pure business-decision' I have to show that the statement is just not true.

9mmbooks; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Alex Fedotov on November 28, 2007 at 3:13pm: :) You may disagree about it. I'm not trying to convince you. :)
My point was about building contemporary large scale systems/projects. There- the realites are like this: hardware options are in excess, all 'parts' of software are there (maybe you need to 'repolish' a couple of things and assemble them together), all architectural solutions are KNOWN FOR DECADES, cheap HR are incompetent, competent HR are not cheap. You need to do it. :) And it's always like that. :) In this absolutely real situation, completely applicable to VW deployments that we ARE discussing - mmm... sorry to say that, but... 'architecture is a pure business-decision'. :); ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ken Rigby (MellaniuM, Tele3DWorld) on November 28, 2007 at 3:52pm: I'm sure most pseudo managers would like to think that they have an input to the architecture but they just bean count with the accountants. Innovation needs lateral thinking not linear or business model ordered. Innovation comes from people who have the quality of vision and know that it will work.
We need synchronous Broadband at 100Mb and you will see lots of innovation. The Hardware is in development and will roll out at the speed of demand.
SW Tools have become capable and are becoming more efficient and integrated to generate models, animations, textures at low cost; there is a skill shortage in this area.
Web3D and Web4D will see huge advances for business and Marketing applications.
See Como Forum.