RE: [x3d-public] Why X3D Looks Better and Better

["Len Bullard" <cbullard@hiwaay.net>]

Agreed.  Peer to peer takes more out of the customer in terms of know how,
nerve, and willingness.  That is the market challenge and why Microsoft does
so well, that is, any shrinkwrap does open source not withstanding.  The
average customer is not a geek; just a wannabe with a yen to be entertained
or involved.

Ultimately, however, there are limits to server farms and the investors
figure that out.   Then applications in the niches of the long tail are
looked into more seriously.   The artists need to wake up to the realities
of the marketplace and quit listening to the VCs or the technology moguls.

I look hard at the immersive album over the MU or real-time manipulation
aspects because it is immediately within the reach of the average indie with
moxie and gives them product control.  The labels may pick it up because the
complexity of it makes it harder to duplicate (slightly) and the
interactivity of it makes it a bigger hunk of burning love as entertainment
goes.  There is plenty of room for the artists to innovate and that goes
some way toward solving the problem that the technologists take all of the
money and the content authors are left to give it away or 'share'.  The Joi
Itos of the market need to 'share' their Ferrari's by leaving the keys in
them parked on the street next to Starbucks.  Then I'll buy into their
philosophy of business.  Until then, it's yet another scam.   Money buys
access, not talent.  Talent creates content.  Technology and talent creates
market.  It's a partnership if done right; it's a burglary otherwise.

If that sounds like a bitter approach it is because experience is.  On the
other hand, when value is exchanged for value, cream sweetens the java.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: J. A. Stewart [mailto:alex.stewart@crc.ca] 
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 8:02 AM
To: Len Bullard
Cc: www-vrml@web3d.org; x3d-public@web3d.org
Subject: Re: [x3d-public] Why X3D Looks Better and Better

Len;

> That's a heckuva good argument to move away from the server farm concept
and
> back to the peer-to-peer concept using open technology for metaverses.  It
> will take the press a while to catch up to this.   But this means there is
a
> negative pressure on the Electric Sheeps of the industry that they may not
> feel yet.

Our MVIP protocol work is peer-to-peer. Unfortunately, for many
reasons, some real, some marketing-hype, peer to peer is difficult
to do. (look in the Web3D Conference proceedings; 2000 and 2003)

Another reason for peer-to-peer is that client-server takes more time
to execute than peer-to-peer, leading to better "fidelity". Take a google
at application-layer multicast, for instance, as a way of spreading
p2p.

We have run our MVIP-II p2p protocol successfully across the Atlantic,
and the Pacific (well, to Hawaii) during conferences and trade shows.

John Stewart
CRC Canada.




----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
for list subscription/unsubscription,
go to http://www.web3d.org/cgi-bin/public_list_signup/lwgate/listsavail.html