Microsoft Confused About Its Own Virtual World Strategy

Last July I noted all the many signs suggesting Microsoft's interest and involvement in virtual worlds, specifically OpenSim and Second Life; last week, the Industry Standard's Ian Lamont sent me an article he wrote covering a presentation by Craig Mundie, Microsoft's chief research and strategy officer.  In it, Mundie dismissed Second Life, saying,  "Our view was that there was a fairly limited audience who was willing to deal with the construction of avatars and operating in that virtual space."  Instead, he believes the future in 3D belongs to Microsoft's Photosynth, a very cool technology that creates immersive spaces from composites of 2D photographs.  (Here's a demo video.) 

And while there's no doubt technologies like Photosynth have great potential, it's an odd statement for several reasons-- for starters, if that's "our view", why are so many Microsoft developers investing so much effort in Second Life and OpenSim?

"I can't explain why other MSers are bullish on SL," Ian told me, when I pointed that out to him in e-mail, "unless it's a case of them testing the waters like Intel, IBM, and Sun.  Note that Mundie is really focused on medium- to long-term projects; he said the timeline for some of his planning is 20 years out." 

Lamont went on to make another point about Mundie's presentation.

"Conspicuously absent from his talk was gaming. Mundie did not mention how Photosynth or immersive environments would intersect with the gaming world. I am not sure if that's because Microsoft Research  avoids Xbox-related issues, or he doesn't think that there are such applications with Photosynth, but that would be an interesting tangent to explore."  Indeed it is:  Xbox Live developers recently added avatars to their system.  Didn't they get the memo from Mundie that avatars only appeal to "a fairly limited audience"?

Of course, it's totally unsurprising to see branches of a massive corporation working at cross-purposes with each other.  Judging by reports from UgoTrade, however, Microsoft's efforts in SL and OpenSim seem far beyond the point of water testing.  The mixed messages suggest some interesting internal conflict going on in Redmond.  My guess is we're soon to see them play out in public.

Image credit: ThinkBalm.

Comments

[Domchi Underwood]

Hamlet, you're right, this doesn't surprise me either. This is typical Microsoft, with all its strengths and weaknesses.

From the outside, it does seem a bit schizophrenic, but consider this: Microsoft is simply too big to have consistent opinions about anything which is not their core business (Windows & MS Office). But in contrast to other big corporations which care about internal consistency and fail to achieve it, this is exactly how Gates wanted Microsoft to work - several competing teams engaging new technology in different ways, testing what works and what doesn't. Eventually, one team wins - or if it doesn't, Microsoft is okay with both approaches at the same time.

As for Mudie's comments, SL and Photosynth are barely related; I would guess that Mundie is simply the wrong person to talk about SL in Microsoft.

[Ann Otoole]

Microsoft can't control the metaverse so they will try to burn it down. This sounds more like miffed megalomaniacs angry that they have been ignored. Perhaps they tried to buy Secondlife and were simply ignored. That sort of thing really makes "powerful executives" mad. Seen any Lindens making advances at Microsoft execs on their personal blogs lately? If so then why would they be doing that?

[Osprey Therian]

It's a bit like comparing an MRI with a painting of a dream. Photosynth is looking closely at the structure of the world, but SL is exploring desires and imagination and things we want to have be possible, but which can't be so in the real world. Both have value; the two aren't in competition.

[Ignatius Onomatopoeia]

Microsoft cannot get anything right, can they, when they look ahead?

What was the famous quip attributed to Gates? "640K ought to be enough for anybody"? And then consider how MS was dismissive of the "flat" Web.

This is a company that never innovates in a major way...but are great at adapting others' ideas. They see a success like GUIs or a browser and copy the idea, if not the code itself.

What a hoot--MS has become like IBM used to be, stodgy and sluggish and big. Meanwhile IBM gets hip and invests heavily in SL...

This is why I no longer fear "The Evil Empire," but take the long view...and consider what happened to IBM.

[joe gelb]

i dont love/hate microsoft but do you think microsoft is going to exist in 20 years through non headlining things or do you think microsoft will eventually dilute?

[Ignatius Onomatopoeia]

Joe, I hope they are around (I love MS Office, even though I'm a diehard Mac user). I think that like IBM in the 80s, they'll lose their monolithic position and learn to re-focus, even innovate.

That's my $.02 worth as a prophet.