Massively^™

Good job scooping this story, moo, I guess the Herald slept through this one, and all I did was predict something like this a year ago:
http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2006/12/my_predictions_.html

My guess was that it was about Googlizing and open-sourcing Second Life faster than it could really prudently go.

Reply

Prokofy, go away.

Reply

Prokofy, your guess is as good as any other guess ;)

Reply

Maybe Cory thought LL should provide some sort of customer service or run itself ethiclly. Clearly this is not the direction LL has chosen to go in.

Reply

So sayeth the Bill O'Reilly of SL....go stroke yourself elsewhere. 8P

Reply

Predicting a high level employee of tech oriented business will leave in the next year is like predicting it will snow in International Falls this within the next year.

But don't let that stop you (Prokofy) from bragging up this "prediction" on any forum or blog that still allows you to spout your cockamamie pablum.

On the actual TOPIC, I think this is a good thing, and the next thing that should happen is that Philip should step away from the machinery himself, and let people whose minds aren't clouded by starry-eyed naivety run things.

Robin should go too. New blood, because this baby is stagnating bad.

Reply

This means that LL is in serious trouble. I give SL a year, if that. The big entrepreneurs are cashing out. They are done. This firing may make Phil feel good, but it marks the end of his success with SecondLife.

Reply

Clearly this shows that LL is in touble. It is time for a new virtual world. SecondLife reached is course and it is now spinning down fast. Big residents are cashing out. Firing Cory may make Philip Rosedale feel good, but it means that his luck has run out.

Reply

Nahh, it means that LL is in serious trouble. I give SL a year, if that. The big entrepreneurs are cashing out. They are done.

Reply

Touissant, if one of your own had made this prediction, you'd be trumpeting it. I merely pointed out that I did predict it, and it's precisely because ventures like this with idealistic pioneers always end up having to give up their vision at some point to normalize, and that can bring clashes among the founding fathers. Think Will Wright and Maxis and Electronic Arts, for example.

I don't see why Robin should leave at all, my God, she's the only grown-up there and has had to handle all the most difficult public tasks like lawsuits and verification and much on her own, especially with the customers.

I don't see why Cory's departure spells doom, which is something that I know some other Lindens and their fans who have left are promoting as a concept too. There's always another guy to buy the island. There are plenty of other virtual worlds, but this one is special and has more to offer and will continue to do so.

I hardly think Philip would fire Cory "to feel good"; maybe he just needs to find someone who can take direction.

Reply

Whether he was 'fired' or decided to leave is really irrelevant. At Cory's level, when a firing results from irreconcilable differences, it doesn't mean the same thing as when a normal employee is fired due to incompetence or negligence. It's much more interesting to ask (and find out, definitively) about the nature of the disagreement.

While we can speculate, I really wish Philip and Cory would agree to be transparent about the nature of the disagreement, outside of any contracual or legal obligations that they must adhere to.

They have both implied in some way that it was a disagreement about the future direction of the company. Second life has the media attention and 'mindshare' that's necessary to grow into the fundamental VR platform of the future. However, if the "invitations go out", and the party sucks, they run the risk of burning through that 'advertising capital' without leveraging it in a way that benefits the company, the customer base, and ultimately, the world.

So the specifics of their disagreement, especially if these disagreements are around the current readiness of the SL platform (in terms of scalabilty, feature set, managability, etc.) prior to any major expansion of scope, are far more relevant to SL-ers.

On one hand, you're never completely prepared for the next round of expansion. It's healthy and natural to have some anxiety around any major shift, but you can't let it stop you from growing. Risk adversion has sunk many companies after their initial successes.

On the other hand, there are some fundamental elements of Due Diligence that customers expect, prior to any major shift in direction, architecture, etc. Ignoring these fundamentals has sunk many companies after their initial successes.

Hopefully, one or both of them will share further details about this 'difference in future direction' when things calm down.

Stu

Reply

"Of course, I'm not going to go into the details of these differences. This is one of those times when, in having me as your leader, you will also have to trust me in my decision."

It sounds like even LL employees may never find out what the differences were, so what chance will we ever have of finding out? And that's a shame.

I am disappointed with both of them for not being able to work together, so badly that they can't even make this final decision in common accord and Philip has to make it unilaterally. It is a failure for both of them and neither one even admits it. I, personally, would respect them more if they did. I am especially disappointed with Philip. IMO, a good leader does not call himself a leader and especially doesn't say "you will have to trust me". No one "has to" trust anyone, trust is a very sensitive thing that should not be taken for granted and statements like that can only erode trust.

Reply