|
End of the Worlds (Community)
End of the Worlds // Community
Jan 3, 2002, 2:45am
I read the latest SEC (a dirtier word than damn around here) report for
AW a few months ago. I don't think anybody bothered to post the link in
any of the counter cultural hangouts (which is an interesting change
from the past).
What it said was (and I'm a little vague on the details) that at the
rate they are losing money, AW has about a year worth of reserves left
(that was then, less than a years worth by now).
I shared with a few friends the prediction that this would be the final
end for the VR we love and hate. Just from doing the math, I predicted a
year or less.
Another stock issue is out of the question. No more Juno type deals to
be found I am sure. Sales to big companies for 3D training, virtual
malls and the like become harder and harder when there isn't even one
success story to point to.
They want to increase the prices by a factor of 6 or so. I'm sure they
have calculated this amount assuming a significant loss of users.
They'll probably want to raise world prices too.
Some of us have the means, and will be willing to pay the new rates,
whatever they are. But we will be doing it so that we can share our
worlds, our "works of art" with an ever dwindling audience. What will be
the point, other than determining the point of no return?
Frankly, I think we have reached that point already. What WAS needed,
because its really too late now, was a spark of creativity at the head
office.
Chasing all the creative people off was probably not such a good idea.
Those who wanted to have it all for themselves, will ultimately end up
with nothing. Just like in Snowcrash. How fitting. How sad, for those
who really cared.
Yeah, I'll go sign the petition. But it won't matter. Really.
Jan 3, 2002, 2:48am
AW has in fact a lot of reserves. :) Not only that they shouldn't be paying
an increase in anything or charging, there's no need to. They could
probably generate profits for another 3 or 4 years. Before they'd need to
raise it a little, but 600% is too much for the surplus they currently have.
Their analyst doesn't seem to know too much about economies..
--Bowen--
[View Quote]"macb" <Z at X.Y> wrote in message news:3C33DFFC.1000600 at X.Y...
>
> I read the latest SEC (a dirtier word than damn around here) report for
> AW a few months ago. I don't think anybody bothered to post the link in
> any of the counter cultural hangouts (which is an interesting change
> from the past).
>
> What it said was (and I'm a little vague on the details) that at the
> rate they are losing money, AW has about a year worth of reserves left
> (that was then, less than a years worth by now).
>
> I shared with a few friends the prediction that this would be the final
> end for the VR we love and hate. Just from doing the math, I predicted a
> year or less.
>
> Another stock issue is out of the question. No more Juno type deals to
> be found I am sure. Sales to big companies for 3D training, virtual
> malls and the like become harder and harder when there isn't even one
> success story to point to.
>
> They want to increase the prices by a factor of 6 or so. I'm sure they
> have calculated this amount assuming a significant loss of users.
> They'll probably want to raise world prices too.
>
> Some of us have the means, and will be willing to pay the new rates,
> whatever they are. But we will be doing it so that we can share our
> worlds, our "works of art" with an ever dwindling audience. What will be
> the point, other than determining the point of no return?
>
> Frankly, I think we have reached that point already. What WAS needed,
> because its really too late now, was a spark of creativity at the head
> office.
>
> Chasing all the creative people off was probably not such a good idea.
> Those who wanted to have it all for themselves, will ultimately end up
> with nothing. Just like in Snowcrash. How fitting. How sad, for those
> who really cared.
>
> Yeah, I'll go sign the petition. But it won't matter. Really.
>
|
Jan 3, 2002, 3:59am
I'd like to know where you got that prediction from.
SW Chris
[View Quote]"bowen" <bowen at omegauniverse.com> wrote in message
news:3c33e2ae$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> AW has in fact a lot of reserves. :) Not only that they shouldn't be
paying
> an increase in anything or charging, there's no need to. They could
> probably generate profits for another 3 or 4 years. Before they'd need to
> raise it a little, but 600% is too much for the surplus they currently
have.
> Their analyst doesn't seem to know too much about economies..
>
> --Bowen--
>
> "macb" <Z at X.Y> wrote in message news:3C33DFFC.1000600 at X.Y...
>
>
|
Jan 3, 2002, 8:34am
Well, didn't everyone predict more or less the same back in 1997 when the
charging started?:) I don't think that the charging changed AW in a negative
way, it just "trimmed" AW's user base a little bit, as a higher percentage
of the user became active and caring.
This might give a positive effect on AW's community once again, although I
do expect the new annual charge to make many of my AW friends to find
something else to do, cause the raise is pretty heavy.
I'm sure AW will survive though, I just hope the community will still be a
part of it, and not that in the future the majority of the users will run
their own worlds because in order to get most in return for the charging. To
me AW is very special because of the interactivity and great community
(surprise!:).
Bille
[View Quote]
> I read the latest SEC (a dirtier word than damn around here) report for
> AW a few months ago. I don't think anybody bothered to post the link in
> any of the counter cultural hangouts (which is an interesting change
> from the past).
>
> What it said was (and I'm a little vague on the details) that at the
> rate they are losing money, AW has about a year worth of reserves left
> (that was then, less than a years worth by now).
>
> I shared with a few friends the prediction that this would be the final
> end for the VR we love and hate. Just from doing the math, I predicted a
> year or less.
>
> Another stock issue is out of the question. No more Juno type deals to
> be found I am sure. Sales to big companies for 3D training, virtual
> malls and the like become harder and harder when there isn't even one
> success story to point to.
>
> They want to increase the prices by a factor of 6 or so. I'm sure they
> have calculated this amount assuming a significant loss of users.
> They'll probably want to raise world prices too.
>
> Some of us have the means, and will be willing to pay the new rates,
> whatever they are. But we will be doing it so that we can share our
> worlds, our "works of art" with an ever dwindling audience. What will be
> the point, other than determining the point of no return?
>
> Frankly, I think we have reached that point already. What WAS needed,
> because its really too late now, was a spark of creativity at the head
> office.
>
> Chasing all the creative people off was probably not such a good idea.
> Those who wanted to have it all for themselves, will ultimately end up
> with nothing. Just like in Snowcrash. How fitting. How sad, for those
> who really cared.
>
> Yeah, I'll go sign the petition. But it won't matter. Really.
Jan 3, 2002, 10:36am
Common sense from this:
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/011114/awldw.html
it's pretty obvious they have quite a bit of money and are no where near the
"hole" yet. Decrease spending and cut salaries if you're having trouble..
that's what should be done first.
--Bowen--
[View Quote]"sw chris" <chris at skywalkeronline.net> wrote in message
news:3c33f334 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> I'd like to know where you got that prediction from.
>
> SW Chris
>
> "bowen" <bowen at omegauniverse.com> wrote in message
> news:3c33e2ae$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> paying
to
> have.
for
in
final
a
be
>
>
|
Jan 3, 2002, 5:41pm
right....with like 80% of aw users being teens, they cant afford it, NONE of
my 30+ online teen freidns can sucker there parents into spending that much
and are already sayign they are leaving when their cit expires
[View Quote]bille <bille at hinsides.no> wrote in message
news:3B3AF7C2.2CE351F4 at hinsides.no...
> Well, didn't everyone predict more or less the same back in 1997 when the
> charging started?:) I don't think that the charging changed AW in a
negative
> way, it just "trimmed" AW's user base a little bit, as a higher percentage
> of the user became active and caring.
>
> This might give a positive effect on AW's community once again, although I
> do expect the new annual charge to make many of my AW friends to find
> something else to do, cause the raise is pretty heavy.
>
> I'm sure AW will survive though, I just hope the community will still be a
> part of it, and not that in the future the majority of the users will run
> their own worlds because in order to get most in return for the charging.
To
> me AW is very special because of the interactivity and great community
> (surprise!:).
>
> Bille
>
> macb wrote:
>
>
|
Jan 3, 2002, 5:42pm
dont plan on anymore big companies doign things like juno did. maybe someone
might but with tons of businesses already going down the drain due to the
economy and all that, i dont know if any will even bother
[View Quote]macb <Z at X.Y> wrote in message news:3C33DFFC.1000600 at X.Y...
>
> I read the latest SEC (a dirtier word than damn around here) report for
> AW a few months ago. I don't think anybody bothered to post the link in
> any of the counter cultural hangouts (which is an interesting change
> from the past).
>
> What it said was (and I'm a little vague on the details) that at the
> rate they are losing money, AW has about a year worth of reserves left
> (that was then, less than a years worth by now).
>
> I shared with a few friends the prediction that this would be the final
> end for the VR we love and hate. Just from doing the math, I predicted a
> year or less.
>
> Another stock issue is out of the question. No more Juno type deals to
> be found I am sure. Sales to big companies for 3D training, virtual
> malls and the like become harder and harder when there isn't even one
> success story to point to.
>
> They want to increase the prices by a factor of 6 or so. I'm sure they
> have calculated this amount assuming a significant loss of users.
> They'll probably want to raise world prices too.
>
> Some of us have the means, and will be willing to pay the new rates,
> whatever they are. But we will be doing it so that we can share our
> worlds, our "works of art" with an ever dwindling audience. What will be
> the point, other than determining the point of no return?
>
> Frankly, I think we have reached that point already. What WAS needed,
> because its really too late now, was a spark of creativity at the head
> office.
>
> Chasing all the creative people off was probably not such a good idea.
> Those who wanted to have it all for themselves, will ultimately end up
> with nothing. Just like in Snowcrash. How fitting. How sad, for those
> who really cared.
>
> Yeah, I'll go sign the petition. But it won't matter. Really.
>
|
Jan 3, 2002, 8:05pm
Decreasing spending means decreasing the features in future versions of AW
3.3 and beyond. Less programmers to make more updates, and all that.
SW Chris
[View Quote]"bowen" <bowen at omegauniverse.com> wrote in message
news:3c345059$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Common sense from this:
>
> http://biz.yahoo.com/e/011114/awldw.html
>
> it's pretty obvious they have quite a bit of money and are no where near
the
> "hole" yet. Decrease spending and cut salaries if you're having trouble..
> that's what should be done first.
>
> --Bowen--
>
> "sw chris" <chris at skywalkeronline.net> wrote in message
> news:3c33f334 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
need
> to
> for
> in
left
> final
predicted
> a
to
one
they
will
> be
needed,
head
idea.
up
those
>
>
|
Jan 3, 2002, 8:15pm
Their market "expert" that came up with this plan doesn't realize that a
little over $50,000 a year is a lot of money for the head programmer in a
small company. The other programmers are payed around $40,000.. so I'm
told. Why wouldn't this be enough for updates.. they know what they're
doing it's their job. They make more then enough money for this at the
moment just from citizens of the approximate 30,000 cits that pay $20 a year
and for the world licenses on average of $30 per world of the 1500 non
trial-like worlds alone to pay those costs.
--Bowen--
[View Quote]"sw chris" <chris at skywalkeronline.net> wrote in message
news:3c34d590 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Decreasing spending means decreasing the features in future versions of AW
> 3.3 and beyond. Less programmers to make more updates, and all that.
>
> SW Chris
>
> "bowen" <bowen at omegauniverse.com> wrote in message
> news:3c345059$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> the
trouble..
be
> need
currently
report
link
change
the
> left
> predicted
deals
> to
virtual
> one
> they
rates,
our
> will
> needed,
> head
> idea.
end
> up
> those
>
>
|
Jan 3, 2002, 10:20pm
Employees salary ceilings are guaged from the value of that individual to
the company - can't be judged from outside.
[View Quote]"bowen" <bowen at omegauniverse.com> wrote in message
news:3c34d7e4$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Their market "expert" that came up with this plan doesn't realize that a
> little over $50,000 a year is a lot of money for the head programmer in a
> small company. The other programmers are payed around $40,000.. so I'm
> told. Why wouldn't this be enough for updates.. they know what they're
> doing it's their job. They make more then enough money for this at the
> moment just from citizens of the approximate 30,000 cits that pay $20 a
year
> and for the world licenses on average of $30 per world of the 1500 non
> trial-like worlds alone to pay those costs.
>
> --Bowen--
>
> "sw chris" <chris at skywalkeronline.net> wrote in message
> news:3c34d590 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
AW
near
> trouble..
> be
could
> currently
> report
> link
> change
> the
reserves
the
> deals
> virtual
even
sure
users.
> rates,
> our
the
> end
Really.
>
>
|
Jan 3, 2002, 11:45pm
Agreed, should be and should stay like this. Same
for hiring or not hiring people.
The salaries are not to be means of public discussion
and should not even be known in public.
[View Quote]grimble wrote:
>
> Employees salary ceilings are guaged from the value of that individual to
> the company - can't be judged from outside.
|
--
"_
|
/\
\ /
__/ /_
Jan 4, 2002, 1:59pm
LOL that's half the money a good programmer can make in the big city. Do some salary searches on the web.
Roland is worth Double that.....it's none of our business but he better be making a lot more than 50 G's :)
Hell i live in the sticks in northern michigan and i make that much.
Leo :) aka BinaryBud
[View Quote]"bowen" <bowen at omegauniverse.com> wrote in message news:3c34d7e4$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Their market "expert" that came up with this plan doesn't realize that a
> little over $50,000 a year is a lot of money for the head programmer in a
> small company. The other programmers are payed around $40,000.. so I'm
> told. Why wouldn't this be enough for updates.. they know what they're
> doing it's their job. They make more then enough money for this at the
> moment just from citizens of the approximate 30,000 cits that pay $20 a year
> and for the world licenses on average of $30 per world of the 1500 non
> trial-like worlds alone to pay those costs.
>
> --Bowen--
>
> "sw chris" <chris at skywalkeronline.net> wrote in message
> news:3c34d590 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> trouble..
> be
> currently
> report
> link
> change
> the
> deals
> virtual
> rates,
> our
> end
>
>
|
Jan 4, 2002, 2:59pm
[View Quote]"binarybud" <lmauk at traverse.net> wrote in message =
news:3c35d177$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> LOL that's half the money a good programmer can make in the big =
city. Do some salary searches on the web.
> Roland is worth Double that.....it's none of our business but he =
better be making a lot more than 50 G's :)
> Hell i live in the sticks in northern michigan and i make that much.
>=20
> Leo :) aka BinaryBud
|
Hey Bud, I live in the sticks in northern michigan too. :D
Marquette County?
=C1ine
|