On OpenSim: I’m an OpenSim user and have been for quite a while. But when talking about it at companies, I’ve been told, several times, that an open source product that still claims to be at an alpha stage of code maturity isn’t going to be an easy sell in a corporate environment: no formal organisation or support channels and not as established like Firefox or Open Office. I like OpenSim, but larger corporations will most likely go with Nebraska first.

Many griefers and porn addicts are just much more creative, and much better at design and coding, than most people in corporate IT. It is a well known fact of life.

I also agree with Justin: corporate IT departments want solutions without headaches.

This probably means that most corporations may prefer the Nebraska solution, or whatever it will be called, but developers will need to stay in the open SL to tap the innovation stream.

Having re-read the replies, I feel the need to comment further, especially as I believe we’re missing a vital issue:

Tools not Toys.

Again, from our own experience in this space, plus working with our great partner network. The clients are not looking for a “platform” they’re looking for the best “solution” for their needs and challenges.

Now, this may sound obvious, especially as we all know this is logical.

So why is this important?

Arguably, over the last three years, the features and functionality of the various platforms have dominated the majority of our conversations. About six months ago, the Enterprise sector finally seems to have realized the opportunities on offer by adopting Virtual Worlds as a ‘real space’ of work.

We feel this has come from the hard work of the other platform vendors, also the validation from Gartner, Forrester and other analysts. They’ve all beaten a well-trodden path, I believe LL’s entry into the space is an important validation: something that will benefit everyone.

Enterprise is now asking us for a business led SOLUTON. With non-technology based departments asking us for consultancy and strategic recommendation for various challenges: retail design systems, immersive meeting systems, data visualization, planograms, healthcare training… to name but a few.

A fact for you: Google Wave is not going to be adopted at an a Enterprise level. Not in the way that corporations currently run their operations. (of course, this might change, but not today or in the mid-term).

The important point: This is not a technology issue. It’s about a SOLUTION. Yes, I know. I’m using that a word a lot today. But I hope you get my point, the issue is not about individual related issues like MediaAPI and content etc. It’s about how all that is ‘packaged’ up and presented to the client. A client may not be a ‘technology evangelist’, this is a marked difference to the past. When the “evangelist” was the commissioner of projects. The era of just tinkering is passing. Virtual Worlds are starting to go mainstream, crossing over and becoming real tools.

The secret? Adapting and working with popular Enterprise tools used within the main corporations. Or developing bespoke solutions that deliver results and reduce associated costs.

A recent Enterprise engagement created the following as the criteria for selection:

Accountability: a secure and safe environment, the solution hosted within the client’s own firewall.

Relevance: Designed for business and developed as a business tool and a real business led opportunity, the ability to share and create proprietary content and data.

Support: Tier 1 and Tier 2 support, with a Service Level Agreement. An understanding of where the solution is heading, a detailed road map.

Costing: A strategic understanding of the revenue commitments, return on investment opportunities and the commitment of cost implications needed on an internal level (IT integration cost, change management etc.)

Strategy: The commissioned developer has the depth; scalability to support and strategically understanding the clients needs and be proactive on their behalf. They also have the dedicated staff levels and facilities to support the proposal. The developer has the experience, the solution and a ‘bricks and mortar’ commitment. A trading history of accounts of at least 3/5 years to be submitted. A detailed account of the key personnel associated and dedicated for this projects life cycle.

You make some really valid points about ‘their own APIs’ although I’m not entirely clear what your examples might be.

The ones that occur to me personally include things like fully integrated artificial intelligence (bots that aren’t just hacked avatar accounts), tracking, and stuff with the physics. What else would a company want to do that they currently can’t?

The things I mentioned were my own Noob take on integration with log-in systems. Nebraska will clearly allow companies to let their employees log-in with whatever accounts they use internally. It’s not so much an “app” as making sure that you don’t need some separate registration system for avatars in an enterprise solution.

But seriously, the MediaAPI is a MUST HAVE. If you can pull Word documents in from internal servers, or a sales forecast, or pipe in data for visualization, it totally changes the game for what’s possible both in SL in general and Nebraska in particular.

Bottom line is when I say integration, I’m talking about the kind of integration that can only happen if you can hook the user database into existing systems, or hook the in-world content into existing databases. Examples would include:

- Sharepoint integration and ability to pull, review and revise documents directly in the environment
- LMS integration, for example with Blackboard and linked in to a school system’s student database
- Exchange and other calender integration like what Rivers has done with Immersive Workspaces where you can book a meeting room in a virtual room and it appears on your Outlook or whatever
- Google Wave integration when it comes

I’m really curious to hear what you mean, however, Coyle.

Oh – and Graham – I really do care about Qwak. Er, Teleplace. In fact, we’re a customer. It’s an incredibly useful app, especially for document sharing and review. I have some thoughts on their customer service and stuff, but that’s another post.

It’s just too bad they needed to re-brand although I’m happy they did…we wanted to use Qwak for some meetings with physicians but they wouldn’t log on to a system that reminded them that physicians are often called, um, quacks.

As the official LL blog states:

“Nebraska’ is the much-anticipated behind-the-firewall solution which will allow enterprise to host their own virtual world environments within their organizations”

This means *NOT* connected to the main grid, it’s going to be a stand alone solution.

From our own developments, this means no traffic in or out. It will run as it’s own space, no interaction with the wider SL eco-system. It will runs it’s own defined content and, a great example of this type of solution, Immersive Workspaces.

I cannot say much more, as a lot of information is under NDA. We’re also making an announcement on the same day, the 4th Nov, should be an interesting day.

I would though like to add. As it currently stands, OpenSim is a very different proposition. It’s a fantastic experimental space, for now anyway.

OpenSim is still an Alpha/Beta product. Also, a lot of Enterprises look to the SLA as basis of engagement. This means, the solution has to offer, accountability and support as a prerequisite.

Why would content creators pay for an instance of Nebraska (it isn’t free I’m assuming), when the obvious alternative is to freely download and install the OpenSim “platform”, run it on their server or home PC, and create content on it for free? A tool like Second Inventory could even allow the created assets on a local OpenSim installation to be uploaded to SL’s main grid and refined if needed.

Why would developers pay for an instance of Nebraska at all? The MediaAPI is the same whether you are programming against it on your Nebraska install or against the public SL servers. If a client wants a behind-the-firewall solution, I can still do my development and testing against the public servers, then just take my code behind the client’s firewall, change the URI, and I’m done.

The official LL blog regarding the upcoming reveal Nov 4th states, “‘“Nebraska’ is the much-anticipated behind-the-firewall solution which will allow enterprise to host their own virtual world environments within their organizations”. Enterprise, enterprise, enterprise. Mark said “enterprise”. So I’m anxious to hear more about this Nov 4th, the price (because an alternative is free), the “integration”, and opportunities for the Solution Provider community to be made aware of, and included in the bidding for assisting these enterprise customers.

See you on the 4th.

As for integration, I think Nebraska should offer the ability to “hypergrid” with Mainland/Main Grid what have you. But this seems counter-intuitive to the product’s design as a stand-alone implementation. If Nebraska is to integrate, it should not only offer the option to integrate with Mainland, but also with XStreet.

When Linden Research starts treating their existing customers more like members of a community and less like temporary food maybe they can start calling on “the community” for help.