IBMbarrassed

After visiting IBM's 12-sim Second Life presence, I'm reminded again of the difference between theory and practice. If everything IBMers have put out lately about SL is true, they "get it."

So why is their space such an embarrassment?

Let's begin with a confession: I want IBM to succeed in SL. Beyond that, I want IBM to put its monumental collective intelligence to good use in the creation and exploration of synthetic worlds.

Here's the problem: It's got to be the IBM that gave us the best-in-class ThinkPads, not the IBM that told Bill Gates he could keep the rights to DOS. It's got to be the IBM that gets the theory and the execution right. But that IBM seems to have stayed home.

Fly around IBM. Check out the cheap-to-free buildings scattered across the sims. What's the point? To teach IBMers how to shop at the Gnubie store? This can't be the grand plan.

How about the theaters? Big ol' theaters - each efficiently located at the intersection of four sims - but without seats or pose-scripts. And check out what happens to your legs when you walk around - they're neatly sliced at the knees. Interesting... but not good.

Let's go out on a limb here and assume that IBM really does "get it." IBMers will come to know and use SL and other synthetic worlds platforms and (no doubt) develop their own.

Then perhaps what IBM hasn't yet figured out is the SL aesthetic. The beauty of many SL builds really is only skin deep, but it's at least that - beautiful. IBM should know that within SL, cheap and ugly is hemlock for the reputation. The land is pricey, but the build is awful. It should be beneath IBM.

That may be the root of the problem. We (you, me, anyone else who visits) know it's unacceptably ugly. IBM may not. IBM may not know how bad this build looks to folks who have been around SL for more than a few hours.

The philosopher Socrates was a wise fellow - at least that's his rep. He was wise because he recognized his own ignorance. He didn't pretend to know what he didn't know. He didn't pretend to truly "know" anything. Socrates was wise because he (as Eastwood would say) knew his limitations.

Does IBM?