[...] Croquet Project. It’s interesting that you refer it now – I just read this a couple of days ago: http://www.raphkoster.com/2007/03/15/qwaq-commercializing-opencroquet/ I wonder that it does everything you want it to, ‘tho… > > > I’m currently evaluating [...]

[...] Croquet Project. It’s interesting that you refer it now – I just read this a couple of days ago: http://www.raphkoster.com/2007/03/15/qwaq-commercializing-opencroquet/ I wonder that it does everything you want it to, ‘tho… > > > I’m currently evaluating [...]

[...] as an important selling point for current virtual world tools such as Qwaq (see previous post and a discussion I had on Raph’s website).The lesson I draw from the CVE period is that too big a focus on space can [...]

[...] Qwaq: commercializing OpenCroquet article details » http://www.raphkoster.com Posted 7 days ago by Raph feed details » [...]

For example, I give great powerpoint presentation in person; however, the physical presence and complementary physical actions does not translate well in a virtual presentation over slow corporate internet and not so clear international phone connections.

So, in the case of web presentation software we can say that the demand is there but the technology is not meeting the need. It may take 5 more years of development before web presentation tech like Placeware or WebEx become as smooth and useful as Outlook or instant messenger.

Now, I do see a day where a 3D collaborative environment could be an essential business tool, but the tech is just not there yet.

Frank

You really do believe there’s ONE business world don’t you? Well I’m nothing if not an empiricist. We’ll see if a peer-to-peer virtual space application is a killer app I guess. Want to make a friendly wager on what kind of market penetration it gets in the next 2 years? A copy of A Theory of Fun for the stakes?

Not sure I understand what you mean by “ONE business world”. I believe that everything is somehow connected. And that’s why I’m not surprised when companies that manufacture consumer products take an interest in software companies like Google because they perceive them as innovators.

That said, I’d be happy to place a wager. Only I’d prefer the loser donate to the charity of the winner’s choice (say $100). Only I expect we’ll probably need to move it out beyond two years to get a separation in our expectations as I don’t expect any appreciable market penetration in two years. I think we’re looking at almost seven to ten years before a dent is made. Just as some manufacturers resist change in production methods bc they have investments in old machinery; so too do some large software players have their own reasons for slowing things down. It’s going to take some time.

you physically showed them how they could spin the object to see it spatially. they followed suit, it carried over “domino-style” (yet, still with physical transference each time) and It Was Good™.

Not “the object”. An object. I’m not talking about one occasion.

There were times on some projects when there was no meeting to discuss the CAD for a project; only my suggesting they pull up the file when they had a chance. And they did.

if you were not physically there at first, the emotional context (passion, excitement, the sheer coolness, relationship building, whatever) that you added to the encounter would not have been as strong had you (or those passing the word after you) not been in the same room.

Again, you seem to think I’m talking about one project. I’m not. So this metaphysical-physical connection or whatever it is your trying to claim here, falls kinda flat.

i feel like, without that physicality, it needs to get hit with the “productivity” hammer. meaning, a format to assimilate as much information as possible in as small an amount of time as possible. “glance, scan, NEXT!”

We call those “hard models”. Only they can range in cost from a few days time for an inhouse shop making a simple CNC-cut polyurethane foam to $10,000 for someone outside doing one that meets the needs of Marketing when they go on sales calls (words, pics, video aren’t enough). Companies will spend lots of money for hard models they can show to a retail buyer. The stand fan model in my portfolio is just such a model and cost over $10k to have fabricated.

trust me. not trying to idly dismiss any cool thing that you guys accomplished using 3d in a business environment.

And I’m not saying with certainty that I’m right. I’m saying I see a pattern in how technology migrates downward and there’s no reason to believe this won’t either. I’m saying that you can’t be certain of your position; especially based on what you’re claiming as justification from your experiences and what I’ve observed from my own.

You really do believe there’s ONE business world don’t you? Well I’m nothing if not an empiricist. We’ll see if a peer-to-peer virtual space application is a killer app I guess. Want to make a friendly wager on what kind of market penetration it gets in the next 2 years? A copy of A Theory of Fun for the stakes?

your desk, a workstation in your office, a workstation in their department back home, a converted point-of-sale system down at starbucks — doesn’t matter. the point is that you and other physical people had a successful encounter in-person. you were interacting with them physically. you physically showed them how they could spin the object to see it spatially. they followed suit, it carried over “domino-style” (yet, still with physical transference each time) and It Was Good™.

if you were not physically there at first, the emotional context (passion, excitement, the sheer coolness, relationship building, whatever) that you added to the encounter would not have been as strong had you (or those passing the word after you) not been in the same room.

i feel like, without that physicality, it needs to get hit with the “productivity” hammer. meaning, a format to assimilate as much information as possible in as small an amount of time as possible. “glance, scan, NEXT!”

trust me. not trying to idly dismiss any cool thing that you guys accomplished using 3d in a business environment.

m3mnoch.

because if he knew how to use the application on your desktop, he’d already have the application and you’d have sent him a 2k cad file he could spin at his own desk thousands of miles away. that, and well, he wouldn’t be nearly as impressed.

Wrong again.

What I decided *not* to reveal in that previous post and which you obviously didn’t have the imagination to consider was that after the first few times it was done and people (plural) found it helpful, a dedicated workstation was placed in the meeting area. Starting the application, loading the file, and spinning it (depress CTRL and use the mouse) were all well within the abilities of every member of the team after an initial meeting (not a telephone “how to”). Thus “explain the whole thing” did occur. But hey, everyone has to learn. I spent a week offsite learning the package, but I was learning to *make* geometry. All they had to do was pull it up and spin it so that they could better grasp it in spatial terms. To fully wrap their heads around the 3D physicality of the thing.

Yet once again you are so certain when you don’t even know the people! That’s pretty arrogant in my book.

“tho, that didn’t happen. you know why?” – Yes. It did. Too bad you weren’t there to see it.

“because if he knew how to use the application on your desktop, he’d already have the application and you’d have sent him a 2k cad file he could spin at his own desk thousands of miles away.” – No, he wouldn’t. That you apparently can’t figure why indicates to me a complete lack of understanding of the corporate situation for the not-so-bleeding edge companies out there. Here’s a hint: workstations and extra licenses for highend CAD cost money.

“if he’s at his own desk, he’s not going to want to spend 20 minutes with an end net value of “okay, this thing spins in this virtual world. that’s neat.” when he could spend 30 seconds looking at a schematic.” – “He’s Not Going To!” Can’t get more definite than that. What arrogance. All I can say is that people WERE doing this. But again, you indicate to me a clear lack of understanding for anything beyond your own experience. Apparently if you haven’t seen it, it’s impossible. Oh-Kay.

“and, if you just showed him, what the difference between that and a video?” – To make this simple, it’s similar to the difference between telling a child something is bad for them and them finding out for themselves. Some things – especially domino-style cause and effect changes to 3D shapes – are often best understood when there is adequate understanding of something in an interactively-spatial sense. A video doesn’t provide that for many people (and besides, it’d be more difficult to create and send a video than simply provide the path to the the file and say “Changing X impacts Y and Z; look at the CAD.”).

as you explain it, it was a totally OPTIONAL encounter that correctly DID add some additional value to something that was already underway, but it was because he had your physical guidance and emotional cues at your desk, not because he was virtual at his.

Wrong. As I explained it I left it open for the additional information provided above (I would have thought, being as smart as you are, that you would have realized that moving a workstation from cubicle to meeting space would get to be a pain and that if, as I’d previously indicated, it proved useful, a dedicated station would be provided.). You filled in the biased point of view all on your own here. I anticipated that you would and thought I’d wait to see if I was right. Thank you.

and your whole word processor/niche thing is silly. you could haul ass on a word processor vs. a typewriter, it had more functionality and digital text is far more portable than dead trees.

Silly because you obviously don’t understand the point. Let me instead ask if, in the 70′s you ever heard people claiming personal computers were a great idea. I don’t remember people saying PC’s would be useful for everyday people. Quite the opposite; people laughed. Yet look at the industry today.

if you find something niche that pushed to replace something mainstream that didn’t upset the time/cost/quality triangle, i’m all ears.

Why would I? My point is that the niche we’re discussing will do these things! You’re the one apparently denying it will ever happen by making definitive statements about what people ARE or ARE NOT going to do. I don’t do that; I leave myself open to the possibilities that people are going to surprise me. It’s my version of Gibson’s “the street finds its own use for things” observation.

p.s. and the booth designer doesn’t care about shipping. he’s given dimensions to meet (if that), and once he meets those, he could care less about who’s budget the shipping p.o. comes from (product or marketing) or the delivery date or the freight classification or any of that “unimportant” stuff.

Again, you seem to be talking for ALL booth designers. Arrogant.

SOME exhibit designers DO care. I know designers who care. That’s because SUPERIOR designers keep in mind ALL the constraints. AVERAGE designers don’t care about anything but their own little world as if what they do doesn’t impact the overall. Spend some time surfing through design websites and blogs. What’s the latest buzz? Designers learning business. Now WHY would designers give a damn about business issues? Simple: survival. Competition is getting tougher, not easier. That’s the same reason last year the business world was abuzz about taking master’s level design classes and innovation seminars: to learn about something outside Business to help them compete.