Some context for 3 things.
Just as I did for AmazonBay, it is probably worth taking 5 minutes to put a bit of context around the 3 things presentation. Once again, the premise was to take 3 examples or metaphors - distillations - for 3 broad concepts. When I originally gave the presentation in person, the audience had no problem ‘getting this’ for the Digital Generation (changing behavioral patterns and expectations driven by generational shifts) and the Singularity (impact of exponential vs linear change in power of technology) but got hung up on Second Life as being my point; when in fact my point (admittedly the most oblique metaphor amongst the three) was that the UI was likely to evolve significantly over the coming years (think branch -> telephone/fax -> internet browser -> virtual reality(?) a la Second Life… We discussed this at the end of the ‘film’ and then extensively in small groups during coffee and dinner later in the day. I suspect this might also be the case for those of you watching the slideshow for the first time and so thought it worth clarifying.
Aside from this metaphor being perhaps the least obvious, I think one of the reasons it sparked so much debate is that - of the three - it created the most discomfort from the crowd (mostly 40 to 50 something successful white males in senior executive positions at financial services firms.) They ‘get’ that the next generation is different (indeed as ‘Baby Boomers’ they can relate to such a generational change, whether they can adapt is obviously a more open question…); they ‘get’ or at least can understand the argument, that technology is transforming business and at an accelerating pace. However - and perhaps only at a subconcious level (although here I could well be being presumptuous) - the idea of conducting ’serious business’ in what to them appears only as some kind of interactive video game, well that is a cognitive step too far. Even for those whom I felt suspected I might actually be on to something, seemed to react defensively as if in self-admission that this was something they could not adapt to and so to deny its plausibility was an exercise in intellectual self-preservation. And for those (surprisingly few) with some previous knowledge of Second Life, the manifest weaknesses of the platform and well-founded scepticism as to its ultimate future got in the way of the ‘idea’: instead of discussing the idea, it became all about Second Life specifically. Clearly this is a much more debatable point, to which I myself am completely agnostic and have no real value to add as to whether or not Second Life will become the next de facto UI or will just be a historical footnote.
Anyhow I obviously welcome comment and debate on these ideas - and indeed I felt it was successful in doing just that on the day in Monaco, but wanted to head off at the pass so to speak, debate specifically centered on the strengths and weaknesses of Second Life. Not that it is not a fascinating subject but because I don’t think I have anything particularly insightful or informed to add to that debate which has also so ably been carried on in other forums. (For those interested in that debate, try starting here or here or for a summary Bruno’s post (who btw pointed out that it was perhaps worth writing this contextual clarification.)
