 Hello everyone and welcome to the 5 o'clock to 5.30pm session of the 2021 Open Simulator Community Conference. In this session, we are pleased to introduce the presentation, Path of Least Resistance, The Challenge Facing Virtual Environments. Our speaker is Kevin Fienen. Kevin is the founder and president of Nomaz Corporation, an IT management consulting company and RockLiv University Consortium, a professional trade association supporting collaboration and providing managed solutions for educators and institutions using virtual environments. Kevin's 35-year career has included authoring and research in the fields of information management, business processes, education technology, and game-based learning methods. Please check out the website found at conference.opensimulator.org for speaker bios, for details of the sessions, and the full schedule of events. The session is being live-streamed and recorded, so if you have questions or comments during the session, you may send tweets to at OpenSimCC with the hashtag PoundOSCC21. Welcome everyone, let's begin the session. Hello and thank you for having me here today. If you don't mind, I will take questions at the end of the presentation rather than throw the middle. We've all experienced the joys and challenges of working within Second Life and Open Simulator since 2003, however, over the past 10 years, the competitive advantage of environments like Second Life and Open Simulator have not kept paced with technological innovation in general. If we look back at the original positioning of Second Life when it first came out, the platform had distinct advantages over any other technology that existed at the time. The key distinction, however, was that Second Life lowered the barriers to entry for social engagement within a virtual setting that combined several unique and distinct technologies that previously were complex to develop, complex to integrate, difficult to learn, and difficult to share. Second Life and by extension Open Simulator have provided some of the best elements of the worldwide web, virtualization, and game design connected through a blending of both synchronous and asynchronous communications. It was, at the time, the path of least resistance that allowed people to develop content on their own terms in a way that was quick, simple, easy to understand, and easy to consume. What's happened since then has been a confluence of various agendas, trying to figure out how to monetize the platform in order to enable continuing research and development and its growth and usability. In essence, Second Life was and continues to be a technology in search of a problem to solve and not the other way around. If we look at what's happened since 2003, you'll notice that in the roughly 20 short years since Second Life's first introduction, the world around us has changed drastically. Key technologies that have changed everyday life include the following that I feel are important to me specifically because this will highlight the exact nature of the challenge we are currently faced with today. So going back to when Second Life was first introduced in 2003, we saw the introduction of the Android operating system. In 2004, Facebook came on the scene. 2005, we were all introduced to YouTube. In 2006, cloud architectures, including Amazon Web Services. In 2007, the iPhone was first introduced. In 2018, we had Airbnb. We had the initial start of Uber and other crowdsourced services started to take hold. 2009, we had cryptocurrencies, blockchain, Bitcoin all started to make their way onto the scene. In 2010, Apple continued its innovation with iPads. And then in 2011, Google responded with their Chromebooks. In 2012, home hobbyists started to first develop automated architecture and robotics based on the Raspberry PI, allowing people to innovate in their basements that substantially reduce costs. In 2013, we had PlayStation and Xbox. They're changing the way in which we consumed entertainment. In 2014, Tesla started to introduce their first self-driving cars, which has subsequently paved the way for a host of other innovation leveraging robotics and artificial intelligence. 2015, Amazon introduced their Echo device as a home personal virtual assistant. 2016, we had Oculus Rift. In 2017, adaptive security became all the rage. It became a critical factor in protecting people's personal and private information. 2018, artificial intelligence started to make its way out of the back corners of hardcore R&D firms and into the mainstream. 2019 saw the first 5G networks enabling faster mobile communication with greater speed and bandwidth. Last year, we saw the first practical application of quantum computing going beyond a simple theoretical capacity to process highly complex mathematical-based applications in a fraction of the time of using conventional means. For each of these technologies that survived to become household names, even if you don't think you're using these technologies directly, there have been thousands of competitors trying to occupy the same space in order to capture these technological markets. What the survivors all have in common are they tapped into two key aspects of developing a path of least resistance. The first being prioritizing people over technology. The second being the democratization of technology. While not all of the winners in these economic battles have done either well, elements are both necessary in order for people to follow the path of least resistance in overcoming their personal dilemmas in adopting the technology. In the meantime, where have we gone with second life in terms of innovation and experimentation? Well, outside of three core failed experiments, those being second life in a web browser, sansar and the integration of second life with 3D VR headsets, there have only really been five key advancements, one of which has been so late to the game as to be symbolic of how second life as a technology is trailing rather than leading the field. In 2007, second life introduced the integration of Vivox Revoice. In 2008, this community launched the first open simulator region and the introduction of the hypergrid. In 2011, Mesh was introduced into the environment. In 2014, we got pathfinding was introduced to allow greater control over non avatar characters within the environment. And then just in the last 18 months has been second life's move finally catching up with open simulator in that respect to using the cloud using Amazon Web Services. While there have been other major enhancements to the back end of the platform in order to improve stability, almost all other improvements in the platform have been related to transactional improvements rather than transformative and innovative engagement on behalf of its clients. We've seen that this conference, there are a lot of things and greater opportunities in open simulator that are in the pipeline. However, planning is not the same as doing. Second life, the second life that we see today is competitive only in that no other company had, and I refer to this in the past tense, had been able to compete head to head with London Labs lead in developing these types of integrated services in a way that could be cost justified and lead to eventual profitability. While this may have worked to the labs advantage between 2010 and 2020, today the playing field is much different. Google, Microsoft and Facebook are all spending between 16 and 25% of their overall Avenue revenue streams in research and development with a very strong focus on products related to augmented and virtual reality. To put this in context, combined, the largest players are investing upwards of $150 billion per year in research and development compared to an approximate $15 million per year that is available to London Labs based solely on cash flow through annual revenue streams. Recently, Philip Rosedale was interviewed on the implications of Facebook's rebranding as meta. He was quoted as saying, there still arises this waiting question of what it is that's going to cause normal people a lot of time to be willing to go into these online spaces. I feel in this case that this is the second time we've missed the mark in terms of what's actually going on. In the first place, companies like Google and Facebook make the majority of their money passively. By this, what I mean is that they don't require users to be active on their systems all the time in order to generate revenue. It is the simple act of engagement, no matter how small, and the ability to monetize those small interactions that has allowed them to grow to the sizes they are today. We give of our privacy as a currency to support the environments we choose to believe are free when, in fact, they're not. The second point is that Philip's comments presupposes that the technology as a means of social engagement is the primary driver for these types of platforms as compared to providing opportunities to resolve the problems that drive people to explore solutions that help them remove barriers and free up their personal time and money to do other things. Innovation and experimentation on this scale, however, is expensive. Facebook is investing in Spark AR for creating content. Google is investing in its own Google AR system. Microsoft has heavily invested into its HoloLens. With the context of our experience between Second Life and Open Simulator, there is a core failing in the way each of these companies are approaching their immersive experience solutions. It is also one of the things that Second Life got right way back in 2003 when it first watched, and that is the ability to allow the average person to create complex experiences simply. Our competitive advantage is people in problem solving. There's is a desire to monetize interactions with data that allow people to solve problems at some point we need to meet in the middle. Technology trends over the next 10 years that are going to be key to solving modern problems include expanding on existing innovations such as integrated technology architecture, natural language processing, low code platforms, artificial intelligence and machine learning, and data information exchange. All of this with a core focus on experiences that will enable augmented reality to become ubiquitous and how we engage in everyday life such that the technology becomes seamless in the background rather than forward and in your face. Second Life and Open Simulator are at a bit of a crossroads in that. If they try to compete head to head with the big three, they're just simply going to get outspent. However, there is an opportunity to enable these types of platforms to do what they do best. That is to bring complex technology down to the point where it's understandable to allow people to prototype solutions, exchange ideas, to promote opportunities for experimentation across the full spectrum of innovation that's occurred over the past 20 years, and also to stay ahead of new innovations as they come into the market. There are two core questions that need to be asked here. What are the key barriers to entry that are preventing people resolving key or complex problems they are experiencing today? And how can we support people in innovating their own solutions to creating that path of least resistance? The current tools we have available within both Second Life and Open Simulator represent a walled garden cut off from the problems of today. It is exasperated by a lack of integration with external data and applications. It's constrained by an outdated requirement to limit future expansion and are disconnected from revenue models to support ongoing research and development that are common today, but were truly unthinkable in 2003. The first step needs to be to remove the training wheels and to bring the architecture in line with modern methods of application development, allowing the integration of third-party data and extensions to the platform. There is a window of opportunity to at the very least maintain competitive parity with upcoming platforms that are prepared to intrude on this space and all that we hope so gear. In July of this year, Rockcliffe conducted a Second Life Usability Survey wherein educators provided some details of some of the problems and challenges that they are working on trying to overcome. Subsequently, we've been working with Linden Lab to understand the modern need for people conducting education within these environments. While some of the immediate needs are fairly simple feature requests, others are more opportunist, requiring the lab to let go of some long cherished boundaries on what the platform is and where the platform could potentially take us. Some examples include the following. It's been a long limitation of the platform to focus solely on individuals and ignore the needs of organizations and organizational structures, allowing institutions and corporations to effectively manage their intellectual property. Two, the ability to allow integration of third-party applications as extensions to the viewer. While competitively strategic in the early days of Second Life, this is now a limiting factor in the platform's usability in an age of interconnected data. This prevents more cutting-edge applications and experiences from being developed within the platform. Three, the requirement to constrain the development of thoughts and other non-playing characters based on the limitation of the Linden scripting language. Four, the requirement to constrain back-end programming to only allow the Linden scripting language. This eliminates opportunities for developing application programming interfaces between the platform and other cloud services using C, Python, Java, PHP. Pick your language. We can't do it. Five, the requirement to ensure that all external communications run through a proxy service in order to anonymize and redirect identifying information. Which is a concept which is now both outdated and self-limiting. And six, the ability to allow mesh editing directly in the viewer despite mesh being available in this platform for over 10 years. These are just some examples of potential innovative opportunities that have been allowed to go to waste while the rest of the digital landscape around us continues to evolve. And all of this before we start to think beyond the sim. So for example, enabling methods to allow real-world environments to be scanned and imported, allowing greater opportunities to address real-world problems and complex problems. In very real terms, in order to remain competitive, these platforms really need to be thinking in terms of delivering new features and functionalities once a quarter, not once a decade. Time is running short, and while the enemy is not at the gates, they are certainly visible on the horizon. Linden Lab has asked us as a community to challenge them to think outside the box on how the platform could be made better. Both Rocklith and VWEC are stepping up to that challenge and being forthright with the lab, not just in terms of feature requests that will improve our day-to-day experience, but also how to create additional opportunity that may be outside of people's experience with these platforms to date. Most people at this conference here know me. You know I'm dedicated to this community, and I've been a very strong supporter of education in virtual worlds. Rocklith has been engaging with Linden Labs over the past several months to put forward several new features and opportunities based on the survey that was conducted in July and August. Currently, we are confirming meeting schedules and getting agreement on the discussion platform to manage product development ideas. We are hoping that by giving everybody an opportunity to engage in these discussions, that we'll be able to continue to build our own path of least resistance to solve new problems in new ways. We'll be sending out additional information both through the VWEC and the upcoming VWBPE conference as to how we as a community can expand on new ideas for product development within the lab. It's an initial step and one in which I hope will position these types of environments to remain competitive in the face of stiff competition that's making its way into the mainstream over the next three to five years. Thank you very much, and I appreciate being here, and hopefully we have time for a couple of quick questions. Thank you, Kevin, for that wonderful presentation. Are there any questions from our audience looking at the chat here? A few people were whispering to me, but they weren't coming. They were they were comments about what is the maturity of quantum computing today? Is it do we already have supremacy or is that the promise? Depends on who you talk to at 57 qubits, which I think is the last number I saw. They're claiming that represents quantum supremacy. See, one of the challenges my cybersecurity students are always worried about that because they're saying once that reaches a certain level, we won't have encryption worth anything because we'll be able to solve it far too quickly. So, of course, that means a lot more work on our part, right? It does. Any other questions? Yeah, go ahead, Kevin, please. I was about to say, may you live in interesting times? I mean, this is just starting. The interesting thing about innovation, we have, sorry, just as a side note, the interesting thing about innovation. We've had all this technological innovation that's been going on for the past 20, 40 years, right? We're now getting to notwithstanding some of these other neat things that are coming along with quantum computing, we're now getting to the point where business and process innovation is going to start taking over in terms of being the key way in which we need to look at problems because technology is simply a tool, right? We're now at the point where we sort of have the tools, right? They're being improved as we go along, but we have the tools. Now we need to figure out how to use them appropriately. That, I think, is where the real innovation is going to come in over the next 10 to 20 years, not necessarily how the technology is going to evolve. That's wonderful. Well, thank you for the wonderful presentation. And let's see. Can I just jump in for a second? Absolutely. I think there's some folks in the audience too who are asking that kind of question, like in some parts of this conversation, very relevant. Directly to OpenSimulator, because, of course, it's had to be part of this whole technology path too, as technology has evolved around it. But I think there's some of this when you're talking about things like kind of the us, like some of it is this kind of call to Linden Lab. But I mean, I guess any of what part of it also kind of revolves back to the OpenSimulator for folks who are also focused in that platform. It does. There's collaboration as far as I'm aware. There's collaboration going on back and forth. So where goes the lab goes OpenSimulator type of thing, right? At the same time. At least for the viewer, yeah. Yeah. I mean, at the same time, OpenSimulator represents a lot of really unique opportunity to do things that the lab may never consider. So we could move the lab in a particular direction potentially at the same time. Some of these ideas might, the lab might not pick them up, but OpenSimulator might look at them and say, oh my God, why didn't we think about this and just start including them? We need to open up the conversation to get there. We need to understand what the business problems, the educational problems that we're trying to solve are, and then try to figure out how we want to innovate around that so that we're not trying to club it over the head saying, well, we've got this tool, let's apply it here. It needs to be more, I have a problem in which tools are available. And Second Life and OpenSimulator just simply might be one of those, or none of those at all depending on what the problem is. Well, thank you, Kevin, for a great presentation. As a reminder to our audience, you will want to check out the conference.opensimulator.org to see what is coming up on the conference schedule. You won't want to miss our next session, which begins at 5.30 p.m. in this keynote region, and it's entitled, Designing Educational Virtual Simulations. Also, we want to encourage you to visit the OSCC 21 Poster Expo in the OSCC Expo 3 region to find accompanying information on presentations and to explore the hypergrid tour resources in OSCC Expo 2 region, along with the sponsor and the crowd funder booths located throughout all of our OSCC Expo regions. Thank you again to you, Kevin, our speaker, and to the audience.