Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

Jon, I'm trying to understand a sentence you've used a few times now ---
here are a couple of instances:

On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 1:45 AM, Jon Watte <[e-mail]> wrote:

*So, if no users want to pay money for the convenience of not having to
install two separate clients, exactly why would any profit-seeking company
implement a second protocol in their client?*

And another:

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 17:46:17 -0700, Jon Watte <[e-mail]> wrote:

*In fact, I doubt you could even get very many people to pay a single dollar
for the convenience of not having to install two clients to be able to visit
two different worlds*


I don't fully understand what the highlighted phrases mean.  On the face of
it, your words "*two clients ... two different worlds*" seem to suggest that
you're advocating that users should have one client per virtual world, but
since we're envisaging a metaverse of millions of worlds and thousands of VW
providers, that can't be what you mean, because thousands of clients on a
desktop is, well, bizarre.

What's more, you've previously suggested that VWs should interoperate
through their servers, as per the OLIVE and LESS models, so multiple clients
do not arise there.  And as you know, the OGP model also uses the single
client model, speaking a common protocol and using cross-world object
representations, so multiple clients do not arise there either.

For interop to happen, all parties are going to have to develop new
interfaces *somewhere*, either in their servers or their clients or both,
but it's their own choice where.  In your case the new interfaces seem
likely to appear in OLIVE or LESS servers, as that is the model you prefer.

Since nobody is advocating multiple clients then, why do you keep mentioning
"*not having to install two clients"?
*
This has confused me on various occasions so I've found it hard to follow
your line of reasoning.  Could you elaborate please?


Morgaine.








On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 1:45 AM, Jon Watte <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Morgaine wrote:
>
>> I would go further and say that this is even compatible with Jon's models,
>> given a willingness to be flexible.  Current OLIVE clients may not be able
>> to talk to other systems, but this is no bar to new clients of OLIVE being
>> able to do so.
>>
>>
> So, if no users want to pay money for the convenience of not having to
> install two separate clients, exactly why would any profit-seeking company
> implement a second protocol in their client?
> Note that there is significant economic incentive to implement server-side
> interop -- and separately, strong economic incentive to *not* implement
> client interop. In general, standards tend to be adopted when they make
> business sense, and not adopted when they don't.
>
>
>
>> And there are other solutions as well.  Nothing precludes OLIVE servers
>> from performing the role of a client in an OGP endpoint.  Some detailed
>> analysis of inbuilt assumptions would be required to be sure that this can
>> work, but in principle an OLIVE (or LESS) server could obtain all the
>> necessary data in this way from which to build a local simulation for its
>> clients.
>>
>
> Except that, if I implement OGP today, I get exactly zero available
> interop, because the circuit of other needed protocols is very large.
> Specifically, the only people who can get interop from OGP today is the
> people who already speak the same client protocol, and use the same
> server-side object execution environment -- which means Second Life and Open
> Sim. If you actually expect acceptance from other vendors, and actually are
> interested in interoperating outside that circle, OGP isn't the way to go.
> If you don't care, then of course you'll standardize what you already have.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> jw
>
>