Panels on Trends and Numbers at VW07
The first panel at Virtual Worlds 2007 was on Trends and Numbers, a general discussion of where things might be headed in terms of virtual worlds, moderated by Daniel Terdiman of CNET.
Panelists
Chris Collins, aka SL’s Logan Linden of Linden Lab
Joe Laszlo, senior analyst at Jupiter Research
Steve Prentice of Gartner Research
Justin Bovington of Rivers Run Red
Sibley Verbeck, CEO and founder of the Electric Sheep Company
Sibley: We’re at a point of being still extraordinarily undefined. It still only gives you so much value to look at the metrics of where VWs are today, because the activity around them has been largely exploratory. There’s incredible interest in the potential. People are interested, but VWs are not yet a key part of their business. We have a lot of questions, but not yet a lot of answers.
Justin: We’re just at the point where VWs are being defined as their own medium. It’s not its own solution in its own right, but part of a mix of solutions.
Collins: Growth in Second Life membership we’re seeing now is incredible, especially from overseas.
Prentice: We’re pretty much where the Internet was in the mid-90s. People are interested, but they don’t quite know what to do. Describing it as a media channel is probably one of the most accurate ways of doing it. Corporates are starting to understand that this is a channel that needs to be used along with everything else. But they’re still isolated islands. You can’t yet move your avatar or your assets from one world to another, That’s one of the constraints. There’s only one Internet. Once you can move from one to another, the growth you see today will look pretty stagnant.
Sibley: We’re just getting to the time where companies are interested in pursuing their business models through this new communications medium. Now we’re spending more time looking at designing a project that isn’t just a flash in the pan. Frankly, it’s sobering.
Justin: We thought it was going to get quieter. If anything, it’s got busier. We think 80 percent of the communication happens outside of Second Life. We’re trying to push the paradigm a little further forward.
Collins; How companies are working with SL recently is starting to build more on the community they’ve got. Philip made the great point, on a Web site you’re on your own. Brands want to take that commjunity that’s looking at their Web site and be able to offer a Second Life experience.
Justin: Whgat we’re finding is that a lot of companies are seeing SL as a great way to create additional content, using it as a content generator that then goes back outside Second Life. With VOIP technology coming in, we’re going to see podcasts, video poadcasts.
Sibley: There are a lot of great exaamples of successful businesses and uses of VWs, but they’re outside the VWs we might be talking about here. VWs fundamentally are commjuncaitoins mediua, as such I think the first natural ecosystem to make sense in a VW is entertainment, so all other businesses can find a home if the enteratianment exosystem is there to aggregate audience. If you loook at the most successful VWs, things like Club OPenguin and Gaia Online, especially those younger demographiscs, while they haven’t gone 3D and it’s not as open,. with the narrow focus they’ve shown the way of how do you build an audience, sell things to them, market to them, entertain them. I encourage everyone who’s interested in this to look at these already very successful examples.
Prentice: There’s a great tendency to think about commerce, but one of the biggest opportunities for larger organizations is to create community within the organizaiton. We see the VW not so much as a community space, which it is, but also as a collaboration space. Its an incredibly powerful tool. When you’re actually having a meeting in a virtual environtment, they can be much more involved. For a lot of large organizations, the opportunities lie to better improve their communications and sense presence. It’s like fooling people that they’re actually there. Interesting thing about 3D space is you get to see what the other person sees. You get that sense of being there, it’s a very powerful attribute. Nothing to do with commerce, has to do with oiling the wheels inside large enterprises.
Dan: What about ROI?
Someone makes the point that you can’t do events with much concurrency. Both Sibley and Justin disagree.
Laszlo: A lot of people are willing to experiment. It’s more R&D right now. We’re going to see a transition. In two years time there better be a firm set of metrics. It’s worth spending money to be in a virtual world right now.
Dan: How do you help them choose platforms?
Prentice: Working out metrics is difficult. The numbers just don’t add up. That’s not to say it’s not worth doing. The advice we give is, it’s early days, get in there, experiment, but don’t spoend a large amount of money at this point in time. Put it down to R&D and you will start to understand what works and what doesn’t. Don’t necessarily think about it as building up another media channel.
Justin: This is part of the media mix. We do find it galvanizes internal and external teams to take ownership of a campaign. I do disagree in that measurement and metrics is not just internal. Not hermetically sealed. We know from working with media planning companies that the buzz is amplified ten times outside SL at the moment. Web companies are not driving this. The bniggest uptake is from media planning agencies. My theory is that that’s because they got left behind in 96 and don’t want to get left behind again. If anything, the Web companies are quite hostile to virtual worlds.
Sibley: We try to stay abreast on the growing number of platforms out there and help companies make an informed choice. Have to take into account who your audience is. One natural thing for some media companies is that SL is split between adult and teen grids. Might not make sense, depending on who your audience is. There’s a lot of things to weigh, down to the details of the art assets.
Justin: I think we need more platforms out there. We need to have different experiences for different segments of the market.
Laszlo: There’s really two different things going on. One is beign in a virtualo world that already has a large population and being part of an experince that’s broader than you, versus building your own little island universe. If you have a large audience to bring, you can build your own. If you want to be in a VW that’s more shared, you can think about SL or one of these spaces that’s already established and has a resident population.
Audience member who runs Whyville points out that they had 6,000 kids at the same time at an event. And also that the panel is extremely SL-centric. “I believe that’s doing a disservice to the people sitting in the audience, because there is a lot more out there than SL. Philip said the community aspect is most important, not the graphics. SL is burdened with a platform based on a different conception of what mattered. Is SL thinking of changing that so it can actually do the social things that matter?”
Sibley: The biggest stab that SL is taking toward that end is open sourcing the client side code. Yes there are a lot of features that are not there that woudl be necessary for community-related features, but there are starting to be an opportunity for others to start developing those.
Collins: The lower barriers to entry for people coming into SL and creating whatever they want, it means that it’s evolving, and what Philip was saying is it’s incredible how it does evolve. Similar to how the Web got to where it was now, you can create anything you want to create.
Sibley: That’s true, the low barrier to creation, but what I htink the gentleman is pointing to is a low barrier to entry in enjoying or taking in the experiences. How do you find something that people have created?
Audience Q: Sounds like we’re at the beginning of the next gold rush. Are th eonly people who are going to make money on this the people who sell pickaxes to the gold miners for the next tow years?
Sibley: Now is the time to be helping companies actually sell things in the VW.
Justin: The gold rush was the Internet itself, we think VWs are braodbands killer app. There’s planty of room.
Collins: We’re seeing incredible growth in all areas, economic within SL, new registrations. Retention percentages has kept very consistent, which is incredible to see. [Doesn’t mention that retention is something like 10-15 percent.]
Audience Q: Woudl love to hear analysts talk about models other than SL.
Prentice: I try when talking with our client base to be as mutual as possible. One of the issues for organizations if you’re talking about creating stuff is intellectual property. How do you get money in and out of the world? You’ve got 2D worlds. This stuff does not have to be 3D. If you go down to back to what Nintendo graphics were like, you can do a tremendous amount. The models are different. No one model is perfect, it depends on what you’re trying to achieve. If you’re thinking VWs, do not fixate on Second Life.
Feeds
I agree that it seems too SL-centric. I’d have enjoyed more compare-and-contrast between what’s out there now, and then what’s expected in the near future (e.g. Outback Online and other recently announced offerings). This, however, brings us to one seemingly over-arching point made above: portability.
Is anyone working on moving assets easily and seamlessly between VW’s? Not as far as I know. And that sucks, because I’m wanting something beyond VW-to-VW transfer. I want complete portability not constrained by *any* use.
What we need is a truly uniform 3D standard among *all* companies. What’s out there now just doesn’t cut it.
> Web companies are quite hostile to virtual worlds.
This has not been my experience, to say the least. I think what web companies are hostile towards is the idea that VWs can’t be accessed through the web, hosted on web platforms, and easily bridged to web services.
But… I may be biased. ;-)
> Is anyone working on moving assets easily and seamlessly between VW’s?
There’s RAP, which bridges SL and Open Croquet, and (hopefully) more platforms soon.
csven: most VWs don’t seem very interested in letting you create your own assets at all, let alone transferring them, for whatever reason(s) - enforcing quality/look-and-feel, preserving balance in game worlds, obscenity regulations, or that they want you to buy things with micropayments or though subscription fees for questing time. I don’t think it’s going to be a priority for many companies and lots simply wouldn’t allow it.
The irony is that their designers are probably all using the same creation software - except for in SL, where even Lindens use the build tools. The company who would be the most likely to be interested is the least compatible.
When small companies and individuals can host their own servers, then we’ll start seeing more of that sort of technical move I would say.
@Ordinal: I would add universities to the list of desired VW “hosts.” It seems to me that educational institutions were probably the biggest drivers of the early Web; they also tend to have a much greater interest in making their content “open source” and transferrable (e.g., MIT’s OpenCourseware initiative).
Ordinal, it’s not just the VW’s. Aside from the usual media players, the big CAD/PLM players who are beginning to create their own enterprise-level virtual spaces for product development are just as closed.
I read a nice interview yesterday with the CEO of McNeel and Assoc, the company behind Rhino 3D, and that very same issue came up (for those unaware, Rhino’s file format it open while most others are closed).
What’s needed, imo, is a 3D standard that’s open and far more capable than what we now have.
A couple of years ago I had a long conversation about SL and modeling tools with one of the coders who developed PTC’s Pro/ENGINEER. His thoughts on 3D modeling techniques were pretty interesting, but when I explained my enduser difficulties getting files from one system to another (in ways he never anticipated I’d want) we hit on something pretty compelling that I’d like to see developed (only now I forget what it was! haha).
“Aside from the usual media players, the big CAD/PLM players who are beginning to create their own enterprise-level virtual spaces for product development are just as closed.”
Eh? That’s madness! *sighs* So, it appears that the lesson of open formats still hasn’t been generally learned. Oh well, I suppose we’ll be seeing a big platform fight then.
@Rich: That’s a good point. Universities might be a great source for interoperable VW development. Not only can they use it for actual learning, it can be tied into all sorts of different courses as a component, saving them time and money and giving them publicity as well as drawing in all sorts of interested and creative students and professors. I’d say there would need to be some sort of initiative between them for it to be effective though. If I ever get around to doing that MSc I keep saying I will, I’ll be pushing for that :)
“Eh? That’s madness! *sighs* So, it appears that the lesson of open formats still hasn’t been generally learned. Oh well, I suppose we’ll be seeing a big platform fight then.”
Well, there’s something potentially brewing in that whole market that I’ve not bothered to blog. Some interesting people are shifting around, the most prominent being the guy who helped found Dassault, one of the world’s biggest CAD/PLM companies who also own Virtools. News today is that he’s left Dassault and (get this) taken over as CEO of ParallelGraphics, the VRML company (and my old favorite, though they seem to have stagnated lately). There are other players, but that move is especially noteworthy.
Stay tuned…
Is anyone working on moving assets easily and seamlessly between VW’s? Not as far as I know. And that sucks, because I’m wanting something beyond VW-to-VW transfer. I want complete portability not constrained by *any* use.
What we need is a truly uniform 3D standard among *all* companies. What’s out there now just doesn’t cut it.
——————————————
luckily others have done more than think about it….
web3d.org
khronos.org
u3d.org
web3d.org- 10 years history- ISO approved formats VRML2-X3D
Khronos- 10 years - plus collada support last 2- collada-nice- but OPEN?…maybe..remains to be seen
u3d–UM INTEL.owned:)adobe /macromedia “sold”—open? define OPEN? LOL…no more website or meetings//…
@Rich- universities - have utilized vrml and x3d for the last decade to produce affordable virtual worlds-immersive 3d projects///… they arent reported on because the creators dont have many commercial reasons to do so.:)
What Can be done, and whats funded to be done are not always the same thing in the real world….:)
larryr
c3
I would just add, the people I know are there seem to definitly have thier fill of SL talk at this thing. It seems to be getting almost to backlash point.
Familiar with all those and more, larryr. Not good enough afaic. And I’m happy to admit I’m unable to do more than “think about it”. Feel free to show me - or one of PTC’s former lead coders - how it’s done.
right, well this should be expected by the roster of panel guests… its those who may have/say now and those who say they soon will;)Hopefully at the other’s demise;)
BUT, sadly i believe this is a bad thing for “web3d” since the backlash you allude too “may” only result in “another” decade (or more realistially-5 year period) of “commercial media - we tried that 3d thing and lost money” meme that has happened before…. and before…lol
The silver lining is that the “real future of” immerssive 3d media is already selling VR shoes and Widgets in platforms like SL and others, and wont want to wait that 5 year “re-branding” experience for a medium that they already see as “theirs today”. A Cultural vs Corporate win… interesting:)
But since most of our “costs of living” for professional creators today are paid for by the 5 large media companies or thier advertiser clients, the next “year of the avatar” may well be at Virtual Worlds 2012.:)
May i suggest good honest work and services for clients and culture, and less of the “masters of the metaverse” hyperbole and blogging:)
cube3
formats….open standards.
not good enough? well things are only as good as we make them. And effective as used:)
All 4 efforts have/had major large corporate and small company efforts behind them. some for over a decade of results and usage…that not covered here or known about by the current 3d bloggers, HAVE occured. VRML is an approved standard and is being use daily to move files around between applications and needs….in numbers much greater than reported. X3D or Collada or U3D may one day rival that amount of file usage….
and yes before that dxf on then 3ds where very popular and defacto standards. but NOT open, just used because of the actions of Autodesk.:) but i believe that was a very different time, and that sort of accidental- one company control of digital pipeline will not be popular again with those who learn from history.
But “one” media type for “all” 3d media will i doubt ever take place in our system and economy….just as there isnt one media type for all 2d medias. digital or not.
there are too many narrow cast reasons for 3d media. be it realtime immerssive/ rendered/ or descriptive.But more importantly beyond that everyone in a specific job needs to feel catered too.– thus– in a free open system there will always be another new format or gadget to try… not bad thing:)
larryr
cube3
As I figured, you’ve got nothing.
as i figured, youve done nothing.
hmf.
I want to first apologise to any other interested in web3d who read my last statement, it was accurate but too “flipant” in reaction to past csven comments and notions.
“ive got nothing”?…
Well again i suggest that years of actual recorded experience in the arena of 3d online formats and buisness informs my statements about formats both open and closed, as well as their sucesses and failures, and why they occured or not.
if you mean only that : “I’ve got NO SINGLE FORMAT solution for you and your request of a single format for all the uses of 3d?”, I think my previous post addresses why ,not I, or any organization or individual will most likely ever provide that solution for that request.
larryr
[…] Highlights from the World of Virtual World Business By Wagner James Au | This week, New York City was the white hot center for discussing the business of marketing in online worlds. I wasn’t able to attend, but I’ve been following the copious notes of Mark Wallace, who live blogged many of the sessions at 3pointD. Personal highlights after the break. There’s no concrete ROI on promoting real world brands and products in virtual worlds. That conclusion from Steve Prentice of Gartner Research: “Working out metrics is difficult. The numbers just don’t add up.” Instead, companies should consider their presence in worlds like There and Second Life as experimental: “Put it down to R&D and you will start to understand what works and what doesn’t.” […]
“Well again i suggest that years of actual recorded experience in the arena of 3d online formats and buisness informs my statements about formats both open and closed, as well as their sucesses and failures, and why they occured or not.”
Exactly my point… “3d online formats“… you don’t have enough experience.
The 3D world is a whole lot bigger than simplistic, low-poly models, larryr. I suggest you get some more experience - as in model something for production of real parts - so your statements are better informed and your comments are less flippant.
I’m done here.
“as i figured, youve done nothing.
Missed this. Allow me to respond.
For the record, I made my living last year from work done in “3d online”. And I was working with VRML ten years ago as well. It’s no big deal to me. That I don’t advertise this fact at every opportunity the way you do, in my opinion says more about our relative levels of desperation. I’m not desperate for work in this area. I can do it and so can many, many others. It’s low-poly modeling… for now. And though I’ve been approached with more offers to work in “3d online”, I’m doing other things at the moment; among them spending more time on real world 3D which is the future of online 3D. Prepare yourself, *young* man.
Again, as in your own blaugh, you consitantly show your true personality by attempted personal attacks on me and others with recorded efforts made in the business of design and realtime 3D media.
Your true level of knowledge on your blaughs topics of title are shown by your thoughts about others and their efforts daily.
“Worked with vrml”– “made your living in Web3D THIS year?”
Well Wondeful, but other than “dalily blog posts saying youre knowledgable” i see no history of experience and cant seem to find any evidence to suggest participation in anyway with the realtime3d format/usage business from you. Except your second life account, which well, is had by many and many to paraphrase your attempted insult.
As you belittle the Wed3d.org, NYVRMLSIG, SFWEB3D,Collada,org,U3D.org, Ajax3d.org and Kronos.org group efforts.. i see no evidence you contributed ANYTHING to those open group efforts or provided any effort or support beyond the last 2-3? years blogging about YOUR new “revelations and ideas” about transmedia 3d reality or whatever you call it.
I neither see your “efforts” towards the larger realtime 3d community in evidence by attendence or participation in any of those groups in the last 10 years. Perhaps you created, joined or founded other groups or directed efforts in this area?
Maybe youll provide others with that information so that your attacks on those with public records of experience in these related fields can feel sufficiently “hurt” by your judgements.
And now back to the thread ISSUE, not your ego,your many work offers, or assumptions of me.
Web3D formats, open standards/systems, community development, future directions and adoption by corporations and individuals.
Anything to contribute? Any real item we can validate to contribute? Of course blogs and those recently hyped on web3d will hear all your thoughts on the issue. Lets hope actual experience with the issues and media will win out for those less talented souls who HAVE to do low polygon work;).
And BTW- your assumptions about my experience beyond online web3d are wrong, and i have used digital 3d systems with high and low polygon meshes (lol) for production of real and virtual products for 20+ years. Just dumb assumptions ;) all proven wrong by some googling and or research.
And BTW- one’s WORD on experience in a BLOG is hopefully not going to be “The” RECORD, if it is then bigger issues then 3d formats are at hand.
Please someone return us to relevance….;)
as i “prepare” for the coming of cven ;)
cube3
As I opened the floodgate by responding to a missed comment, this will be my last one in this thread.
I’m only *talking* to you, larryr. Not “attacking”. And I’m not addressing any “others”. So please don’t cower behind human shields from these perceived “attacks”. It’s embarrassing for both of us, given our shared backgrounds.
In my comments I’m addressing the limitations of the “3d online” technology. VRML and online bandwidth have provided for little more than simplistic, low-poly models; as evidenced by the work on your websites representing your “3d online” experience.
That’s not an attack. It’s an acknowledgment of the circumstances. You were working under technical limitations. I understand that.
Now, why do I assume that you’d never modeled to a “production of real parts” level of detail? Fair question. For everyone’s benefit, including some of your (potential) clients, allow me to explain.
First, it was you who framed your experience as being in the “arena of 3d online formats“. I didn’t pigeonhole you. You did that to yourself.
Second, based on some of your previous comments and what I know about Industrial Design as an experienced professional in the field, it’s a valid assumption that you’ve not “model(ed) something for production of real parts”.
Recall that you once wrote: “We’re no longer in ID land, i left in 1992.”
At that time I asked you for more information about your work outside of web3D; your ID work. You never answered with anything related to 3D CAD, to my recollection. Most of what you said was:
Nothing there about the software you were using during this period, or what you were doing with the output.
Now, given the following:
1) most Industrial Designers working today don’t have tooling cut from their 3D files
2) 3D CAD was still in it’s infancy pre-1992 and very rarely used by anyone other than Engineers
I certainly didn’t expect - nor should I or anyone else have expected - that you had such experience. But all you had to do was tell me when I asked during our previous exchanges. Or, you could at some other point have said:
You didn’t say you’d done this in anything I’d previously read. Of course now we know (although please correct me if you don’t actually have that specific experience; we certainly don’t want clients expecting experience you don’t have).
What’s confusing to me is that if you do, in fact, have that experience, then of course my suggestion is not an attack. My comments are then merely irrelevant and uninformed. I wouldn’t think you’d get angry and call that an attack. I’d expect you to simply answer my question, correct my error, and acknowledge that my original comment did indeed go well beyond “3d online” formats, and that you were mistaken to respond to it as if I was talking about such formats, which clearly I wasn’t.
But you don’t do that. Curious.
———————————————————————————————-
Thank you. I’ve certainly benefited from my blog. Quite a number of people far more intelligent and accomplished than I have been complimentary and either been kind enough to mention me in their own writings or pay me a complimentary visit.
People like Bruce Sterling, Nicolas Nova, Jamais Cascio, Michael Frumin, Julian Bleeker, Pete Cashmore, Sibley Verbeck, Paul Hemp, Ilya Vedrashko, Frank Piller, Raph Koster, Piers Fawkes, Linda Zimmer, Reuben Steiger, Andrew Roberts and even an occasional Linden among quite a few others. As the saying goes, I’m not worthy.
However, I’ve also made some people unhappy; like the folks behind IAVRT. But I’m okay with that and I seem to recall that even you had some complimentary things to say about my writing.
———————————————————————————————-
Allow me to chew this up into more easily digestible bits for you, larryr: I used VRML as part of my job ten years ago. But working with VRML wasn’t my primary activity during my employment, nor was that as interesting as the other, high-rez things I was doing. Nor was it my primary method of earning a living at any time until LAST year when the income from such work eclipsed that from designing manufactured products during the same period. I expect THIS year the bulk of my income will revert again to product design; though I will, of course, continue my own “3d online” efforts and perhaps earn a little money from it.
Hopefully you’re no longer as confused and mixed up as your comment indicates you to be.
———————————————————————————————-
“Well Wondeful, but other than “dalily blog posts saying youre knowledgable” i see no history of experience and cant seem to find any evidence to suggest participation in anyway with the realtime3d format/usage business from you.”
First off, I don’t recall posting “dalily[sic] blog posts saying [I’m] knowledgable“. I post about what I read or know from experience, and post related conjecture. And so what? I’ve not asked you to provide a “history of experience“. I’ve only asked a few questions regarding your product design work. Should I now ask you to show CAD screenshots and catalog photographs of the products you designed? Would those even be verifiable? Quite likely, no.
If you want “evidence”, then may I suggest asking the author of this blog to ask around for you if you’re unable to do the research yourself before making an unreasonably incorrect and potentially harmful statement of fact about my experience. Or perhaps just read one of my recent comments here and connect a couple of extraordinarily obvious dots. Surely you’re capable of that.
The difference here, larryr, is that I’m saying I have “3d online” experience, and you’re contradicting it and, in effect, calling me a liar. On the other hand, you’ve not to my knowledge indicated - in anything I’ve read - that you had the kind of experience I rightfully assumed you didn’t have (mentioned above). All you had to do was say you had the experience; I’d legitimately have questioned such a claim, given the extreme unlikelihood of your garnering such experience pre-1992, but if you’d answered a couple of simple questions to my satisfaction, I’d have believed you. And one thing for certain, I wouldn’t be calling you a liar.
The real issue here is that you are wrong in claiming:
This is an unequivocal statement of FACT.
Please notice that I didn’t say you never did anything (I’ve even once credited you with being innovative). I said “You’ve got nothing“. As in, “you do not have the answers to the issue I’m raising regarding a truly unified 3D format that extends to every 3D application…“.
You came out swinging for a fight. Only there wasn’t one. You may now get one.
———————————————————————————————-
Please point to where I specifically belittle these groups or retract this statement.
Watch your words, larryr. I’d rather not be telling someone that I made most of my money THIS year after suing someone for:
a) making libelous comments on a high-traffic and occupationally-related public forum in contradicting my claim of professional experience.
b) making libelous comments claiming I’m “attacking” groups when I’m merely pointing out what you yourself concede:
Product design is a litigenous occupation, larryr. Product liability due to injury. Liability due to intellectual property infringement. Liability when the files can’t be properly manufactured. And much, much more. Perhaps the world of “3d online” has made you forgetful and careless. There aren’t many “boat anchors” in that line of work (and I assume, based on your claim, that you know what I mean by that).
Please check yourself appropriately.
———————————————————————————————-
Are you incapable of comprehending the written word, larryr? Or can you just not read English? Let me bold the appropriate portion of my previous comment:
You don’t see any evidence I’ve contributed because - surprise - I’ve not contributed.
———————————————————————————————-
If I read another factual comment that misrepresents me, I will initiate legal proceedings. You saw my response to the people from IAVRT when they threatened to sue me. You decide if I’m bluffing or not.
———————————————————————————————-
Now that you’ve finally claimed… something, let me ask: what exactly are you claiming? You know I’ve googled you from our past conversations. If there is something I missed that you’d care to share, feel free to post the link for my and everyone else’s benefit. But all I really want to know is if you can make the following claim:
Yes or No question.
———————————————————————————————-
I agree. But then I don’t rely on my blog, so it’s not a concern to me.
What, however, I believe SHOULD be a CONCERN for you, are the exact WORDS you put on the RECORD about OTHER people.
As i suggested, you seem incapable of any valueable insights into web3d formats and standards. You’ve now admited youve not been a part of any of their developments in the past by choice and only are involved now because of its momentary monetary appeal to you.
I know myself and others have different histories and experiences as to what weve done, why we did it, and when it was done.
You find it highly unlikely that someone would have used 3d for CAD and Design before 1992.I know we did and so do the people who worked with me.
You are the blogger/new journalist/reporter, the caller of others as SCAMS, the New Transmedia evangelist, and the blog referring namedropper here. Not I.:)
Any name i mentioned was of an organization focused on web3d standards, many as stated since 1995.
And BTW- who on that LIST of NAMES you dropped was spending time working with web3d and realtime 3D efforts before 1995? Or before 2000 for that matter? Just to keep the thread on subject.
Ive address the issues of web3d formats here, youve addressed who YOU are, and who you want others to think you are and NOW finally what youd like others to think of me.- well thanks for the help-:), But please, do some research and get the information correct.
But, its not by a blogger demand here or anywhere that I “must” prove anything. Your insistance I do shows you may not understand very much about the “legal” threat you plan on unleashing on me.
On this “you may have got nothing” ;)
And yes, some of your written thoughts i did agree with, others i found “odd” “naive” or just “wrong” or “even irresponsable” to my ways of thinking and acting publically. - and until I was attacked personally and then banned, i commented on them at times at your blog.
Frankly “I have alot” but i dont have to offer any of it to you.
To the subject of web3d standards formats/ and their history, thoughts on my expereinces have been recorded here hopefully to assist others in the conversation.
But enough about that, let talk about YOU…. or Me….
Thats a Joke. Just for your lawyers to be sure.
Larryr