THE MAGIC OF A MILLION

Tateru thought Thanksgiving, given growth rates at the time, but in the end, the millionth SL user came far earlier than that.  (Around the time, as it happens, that the US announced its 300 millionth citizen.)  Note also the concurrency rate of 12,000 plus, a boost of 2000 in just over a month. 

Here come the caveats:  yes, yes, according to current statistics, but 40% of those residents have come into the world in the last two months, while just under 200,000 in the last two weeks.  But a million is a million-- at minimum the number of those who can, all else being equal, interact in the world at a moment's notice, and at maximum, the number of those who retain their citizenship with an occasional visit.  (Assuming that Cory Linden's estimate earlier this year, that 90% of residents enter the world at least once every three months, still holds true.)

Update, 10/19:  Tateru's predictions were off, but then again (it just occured to me), so were Philip's:

Philip Linden [in June 2004]:  So OK... let me wrap this into a prediction. I think that SL will continue to grow rapidly over the next year.... but will not enter into consumer mainstream usage. But beyond 24 months, we will have solved the hardware and usage time problems. And we will them see a real 'tip' into the consumer market. So, giving us a bit of wiggle room, I'd say that SL will have 1M users in about 3 years. How's that?

Comments

[starcomber Vig]

Given the recent massive splash impacting demographic distribution and SL average age we should expect the next month to be very interesting.

[Tom]

That really isn't what Cory said.

The actual quote was, “concurrency numbers are rapidly approaching 4500, about 17,000 residents were in SL in the last 24 hours, and 50,000 in the last 30 days… If you go back even 90 days you get about 90% of the accounts having logged in.” A *very* different thing from "90% of accounts log in as least once every three months"

The probable reason for 90% of all accounts having logged in over the past 90 days is because most of them were *created* during that time.

If you examine the economic stats and filter out the accounts created in the 7, 14, 30, and 60 day time windows, the numbers tell a different story. In fact, only about 4.2% of the accounts that existed 60 days ago have logged in during the past 60 days. The rest of the logins appear to have been due to new signups.

So, reaching one million accounts created is decent from a market penetration point of view, but the statistics are not very good in terms of user retention.

[Hamlet Au]

> "... If you go back even 90 days you get about
90% of the accounts having logged in.” A *very* different thing from "90% of accounts log in as
> least once every three months"

Maybe I'm dense, but I'm not seeing the difference between the two statements.

You make valid points about user retention, though my experience at Linden Lab and in-world suggest those numbers are very good for Residents who got past the first 4 hour hurdle. (A big hurdle indeed.) I'll try to find a better publically available cite to capture that, or better ask Cory for an update.

[Tom]

Picture it like this:

I run an online service that has 1000 members, 10 of whom log in consistently. Then, yesterday, I'm featured on Yahoo and get 100,000 new signups. Three months from now, I have 50 users log in consistently.

Although 99% of my users have logged in over the past 90 days, the statement that "99% of my users log in at least once every three months" is not true in any meaningful sense. It is also *very* different from the (true) statement that "If you go back 90 days you get about 99% of the accounts having logged in."

See the difference?

[therian]

so sl paid residents to make up secondary accounts to inflate their numbers how lame

[Tom]

I don't think anybody is claiming that. All I'm saying is that the numbers they are publicizing don't really tell the whole story.

[Hamlet Au]

Tom, Cory gave out those figures at a time when the growth rate was *much* slower than it has been in the last ten months, so I don't think it's true that the "90% visit every 3 months" is simply a function of 90% new users joining in those three months. I don't have a better cite handy, however, so your skepticism is duly (and fairly) noted.

[Tom]

Cory gave out those figures at a time when the growth rate was *much* slower than it has been in the last ten months, so I don't think it's true that the "90% visit every 3 months" is simply a function of 90% new users joining in those three months.
But, Hamlet, it was *you* that said "90% visit every 3 months", not Cory.

Cory said "... If you go back even 90 days you get about
90% of the accounts having logged in." Regardless of how SL's rate of new account registrations has changed over time, the two statements are not equivalent.