×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Terminates Lively

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the we-hardly-knew-ye dept.

Google 186

FornaxChemica writes "In a surprise move, Google announced today, both on-site and in its blog, that it will permanently shut down its 3D virtual world, Lively, by the end of the year. This makes Lively one of Google's few scrapped products, and one of the most short-lived, too, barely lasting 6 months. No official reason was given, only that Google wants to 'prioritize [its] resources and focus more on [its] core search, ads and apps business.' Lively might have taken too much and given back too little, even by Google's standards."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

186 comments

Oblig. (4, Funny)

cosmocain (1060326) | more than 5 years ago | (#25831841)

...They should change the name in Deadely.

Re:Oblig. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25831931)

No, it wasn't evil enough

Anthropomorphism (4, Funny)

multisync (218450) | more than 5 years ago | (#25831861)

Google wants to 'prioritize his resources and focus more on his core search, ads and apps business.'

Google wants to prioritize his resources?

Well, good for "him."

Re:Anthropomorphism (1)

FornaxChemica (968594) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832097)

My bad, sorry! I should have proofread my submission more carefully.

Oddly, this announcement does not appear on the front page of the Google Blog [blogspot.com]. Maybe they want a quiet exit, or is it just a cache problem on my side?

Re:Anthropomorphism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25833567)

WOW. A content submitter who cares, checks comments, and apologizes for typos?

Where am I and what did you do with my /. ?!

That's Mr. Google to you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25832143)

And don't you forget it!

Re:Anthropomorphism (4, Funny)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832207)

Oh, you haven't heard? Google's become a sentient being. Google scrapped the project because there's no reason for him to live in a virtual world when he can simply live in the real one.

Re:Anthropomorphism (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25832667)

Glad I got that unlisted number.

--Sarah Connor

Re:Anthropomorphism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25832249)

I think Google is a pretty awesome guy. He controls the Internet and doesn't afraid of anything.

Re:Anthropomorphism (1)

Naked Jaybird (1190469) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833969)

Thanks to President Bush, I have been calling it "The Google." Thanks to you, from now on, I will call it "him."

Mis-quoted (4, Informative)

daybot (911557) | more than 5 years ago | (#25831875)

The odd gender usage is a mis-quote:

TFS:

prioritize his resources and focus more on his core search, ads and apps business

TFA:

prioritize our resources and focus more on our core search, ads and apps business

Re:Mis-quoted (4, Funny)

ari_j (90255) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832201)

The standard rule on Slashdot is that the summary can only correctly quote the original article if it does so in a way that makes context inscrutable. Otherwise, the only option is to horrendously misquote the article.

The best part here is that the summary uses the right possessive pronoun to refer to the blog that it quotes, but changes to the wrong one in the quote.

I didn't even know about this (4, Insightful)

djm300 (1411753) | more than 5 years ago | (#25831879)

Google seemed to be surfing the Second Life wave...

Requires Windows Vista/XP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25832361)

and their client program, so I never tried it either

Nothing of value was lost (2, Insightful)

metamatic (202216) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832743)

Yup. How they expected to compete with Second Life with a Windows-only client I don't know. Good riddance.

Re:Nothing of value was lost (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25832933)

How is Second Life supposed to draw non-windows users when most of those don't even have a first life? This doesn't make sense!

Re:Nothing of value was lost (2, Insightful)

Kent Recal (714863) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833101)

They probably intended to compete over the 98% windows users before caring about the other 2%...

Re:Nothing of value was lost (2, Insightful)

Retric (704075) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833921)

Windows is below 92% of the market and falling fast. Going windows only is probably costing you 10-15% of future sales.

Re:Nothing of value was lost (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25833857)

Faggot.

Re:I didn't even know about this (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#25834045)

Yeah, Lively is just like Second Life, only without the virtual sex... hence the epic fail. It is a difficult balance; you need to allow user created content to be successful as a virtual world, but if you do, then users are going to create a lot of crap that you don't want in your virtual world. Obviously some form of review or moderation is necessary, but nobody has made it work yet.

Not surprising... (5, Informative)

new_breed (569862) | more than 5 years ago | (#25831899)

..as this idea was laughed at multiple times on slashdot;)
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/10/1428221 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/09/1210218 [slashdot.org]

Re:Not surprising... (5, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832047)

Then again, so was going outside, soap, and leaving the basement.

Line of thought (5, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832251)

> Then again, so was going outside, soap, and leaving the basement.

"Leaving the basement IS going outside. What's he talking about?"

"hmm"

"I should make a post pointing that clear mistake... clickity post reply... Let's see... how to point the mista... waaaaaait a second..."

OUTSIDE THE ENTIRE HOUSE?!

Re:Line of thought (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25832431)

There's a house upstairs?

Re:Not surprising... (2, Funny)

jambox (1015589) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833381)

SOAP? WE use that all the time thanks. Nothing wrong with lightweight text interchange protocols...

Good Riddance (5, Interesting)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 5 years ago | (#25831925)

No, srsly. Good by, Lively. Of all Google betas, this one has stinker written on it from the start. I have a reasonably fast PC, memory and internet connection, and Lively was a dog! A one-legged dog trying to run in the 100 yd dash.

Maybe instead of a multi-user interactive world, they can turn search results into 3D experience. You enter your search term and a cloud of results appear. You move about, click on a result to see the page, or click on it to get a different set of search results. Efficient? No. High Eye-Candy factor? Yes.

Re:Good Riddance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25832117)

A revolution in searching for porn.

Re:Good Riddance (3, Insightful)

xpulsar87x (305131) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832573)

Didn't they try this back in 1997 with VRML? It was useless then, it hasn't changed now.

Re:Good Riddance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25833377)

For search results specifically, Excite had a 3D interface called Excite Extreme back in 1998. It was a "failure" in the sense that no one wanted it (of course); but from our perspective it was written to satisfy a business partner and it succeeded fine, there.

Re:Good Riddance (1)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833445)

just because it never caught on doesn't mean it's a bad concept or useless. VRML has been succeeded by X3D, which continues to be developed. but without mainstream adoption by popular browsers we'll never know if it's useful or not.

web technologies in particular need to be implemented by multiple applications and gain universal support before they're of any use to developers. that's why while SVG and VML are clearly useful standards, they're not being used in many applications because there still isn't universal support for these standards.

there are plenty of useful web applications for interactive 3D vector graphics. data visualization, VR environments, and 3D modeling are the most obvious uses. right now the only means of implementing these features is through Java applets, processing, and Flash, all of which require installing 3rd-party plugins. a standardized 3D vector format/API natively supported by all popular browsers would open the door to a whole new range of web applications and create new possibilities for web interfaces.

just like AJAX changed the look and feel of web applications, making them more responsive and more similar to desktop applications, so too would the widespread adoption of X3D.

Re:Good Riddance (4, Interesting)

bendodge (998616) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832997)

3D interfaces are nothing but eye candy without a 3D HID. That's the reason people are willing to pay for something like Google Sketchup, which is generally underpowered as a 3D design environment, but has a decent interface to hack a 2D mouse into a 3D environment. We need to get over the idea that 3D interfaces are going to make it big. They will never do that while we are using 2D pointers.

Re:Good Riddance (3, Informative)

rho (6063) | more than 5 years ago | (#25834149)

It's worth noting that Google didn't write SketchUp. Google bought SketchUp. The app's original authors deserve the credit for creating a first-rate schematic design tool.

What's that? (3, Insightful)

goodmanj (234846) | more than 5 years ago | (#25831997)

Maybe the fact that nobody's ever *heard* of this obscure Google service is part of the reason it hasn't been successful.

Re:What's that? (0, Flamebait)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832071)

What's that? You read the article on slashdot about it shutting down, but not the two articles about it starting up, also on slashdot? You must be new here.

Re:What's that? (2, Insightful)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832269)

I didn't realize google announces their new products on ./, I thought they had a homepage of their own, which draws significantly more traffic. If google would draw some attention to the stuff they launch on their own homepage then it might actually work.

It would also help if the service wouldn't suck, but that's another matter, that would serve to keep the people once they've found it.

Re:What's that? (2, Insightful)

multisync (218450) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832785)

If google would draw some attention to the stuff they launch on their own homepage then it might actually work.

If Google did that, their homepage would look like a MySpace page and nobody would want to use it anymore.

Re:What's that? (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832869)

That would break google's rule about the number of words on their front page. Google is hardcore about making their front page as simple as possible. I like it. I hate Yahoo and everything else that has 10,000 articles surrounding the search box.

Re:What's that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25833385)

That's because Yahoo is an internet portal. If you only want Yahoo Search [yahoo.com], you should go there.

Posted Anonymous because I've moderated above. I wonder if it destroys moderation from the same IP even from a different client.

Re:What's that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25832927)

This is oodaloop, posting anonymously so I don't lose karma.

  I didn't realize google announces their new products on ./

Oh, you tongue in cheek little monkey, Google announces their new products on "dot-slash?" It's slash-dot, /., but let's ignore your stupidity in this area for now, and let me just say...

WELL YOU'RE READING IT NOW ASSHOLE. God, people like you sicken me. I hate everything about you.

Re:What's that? (4, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832339)

It's not that we hadn't heard about it, it's that we heard about it and dismissed it immediately as a bad clone of a bad idea, and ignored it after that.

It's possible that with everyone scared about the economy these days, Google will finally do what every other company does and seek to monetize all of its offerings. If it has something that costs a lot of money without bringing any revenue in, that thing will be gone. Even Google will run out of cash eventually if it spends all its money supporting every dumb idea its employees come up with.

Re:What's that? (1)

caffeinemessiah (918089) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833253)

Maybe the fact that nobody's ever *heard* of this obscure Google service is part of the reason it hasn't been successful.

At AAAI this year (one of the largest and most well known A.I. conferences), they had a demonstration of Lively (not sure how it fits the A.I. moniker). It basically consisted of a what was probably a (very smug) recent college grad sitting around a Lively set up and playing with it himself. Of course, that mainly consisted of him sitting around in a virtual "room" waiting for someone to show up, which didn't happen.

All in all, it looked like a sad throwback to 1998's VRML and the promise of how it was the "next step" and would "change the web". Then, as now, I ask -- WHY?!@?!?!

Re:What's that? (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 5 years ago | (#25834267)

>Maybe the fact that nobody's ever *heard* of this obscure Google service is part of the reason it hasn't been successful.

One of my pet peeves is statements like these. The failure of something is almost never attributed to lack of marketing and advertising. Its actually rare, especially when you are talking about multi-billion dollar corporations. What is common is making up excuses for failure. Google got many headlines and tech enabled people who would participate in this kind of thing knew all about it, but decided not to play. In reality this is what I think happened:

1. Google took a gamble with a SL clone. There's barely a market for SL, let alone a clone.
2. 3D worlds are clunky wastes of time. The business world has almost universally rejected them.
3. Many business PCs dont have 3D capabilities or have it done via software (intel) which makes it slow and unstable.
4. Google was hoping for a kid friendly SL. SL's popularity exists because its not kid friendly.
5. Google was hoping for a non-profitable SL. SL's popularity also exists because people make money off selling land and items.

This was a bad idea all around. It really deserved to fail. All the marketing in the world is just lipstick on a pig.

many still lively? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25832001)

'course it would do us good to see a few of those self-idolators having to take the bus to 'work', & less of that disastrous manufactured 'weather'?

that aside, we still feel hopeful about president obama. he is going to try to help us. God's continued speed to you sir.

Dear Google, (5, Interesting)

ticklejw (453382) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832027)

If you're just going to outright shit-can it, why not open-source it? At least then people can benefit from the energy you put into it instead of just throwing that all away.

Re:Dear Google, (4, Interesting)

Lodragandraoidh (639696) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832185)

Actually that energy would be better spent working on the OpenSim project [opensimulator.org] to improve a well established grid and help solidify standards for interaction between the Second Life grid and other grids, than to waste energy on a dog that doesn't have a fraction of the capabilities already present in the open simulator.

Re:Dear Google, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25832689)

the graphics in that look like shit.

Re:Dear Google, (4, Informative)

kripkenstein (913150) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832781)

If you're just going to outright shit-can it, why not open-source it? At least then people can benefit from the energy you put into it instead of just throwing that all away.

Probably not an option for several reasons.

The first is that the Lively client is based on Gamebryo. This is closed-source, and extremely expensive at that (it's a top-tier game engine, these things can cost $100,000 or more, easily). So the client code is essentially useless for open source purposes (as part of a derivative work of Gamebryo, doing so might even be prohibited according to the Gamebryo license, but I don't know).

As for the server, Google generally isn't in the business of open sourcing server components of theirs (although exceptions have happened), so I doubt it will happen in this case.

Re:Dear Google, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25834093)

The proper word is "derez".

Wasnt a bad concept (2, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832075)

Integrating virtual worlds with the web, or adding a new level to the communities you build around a site are things that should take off in some moment, not sure when, or if lively's implementation was the right one.

Probably something similar will appear shortly, or exist already, at least if the biggest problem of lively wasn't of the concept but that it dont fit in google's main focus.

Hefty bills (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832079)

An entire 3D chat world is a pretty huge expense (even with Google ads revenue) just to have a bunch of immature users telling each other "a/s/l?" and "ur gey".

Re:Hefty bills (1)

changos (105425) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832363)

An entire 3D chat world is a pretty huge expense (even with Google ads revenue) just to have a bunch of immature users telling each other "a/s/l?" and "ur gey".

ur geyer....!

It's not an easy thing to do... (5, Interesting)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832123)

I've never tried lively, but I did give Second Life (with it's rather amazing content creation and scripting abilities) a try. The way I see it there's one major obstacle to these worlds: The "ghost town effect".

It's very resource intensive to simulate a 3D world, especially a vast one. Making the world big is eeexpeeensive, and the power required to run an arbitrary world is huge.

With MMORPGs people are paying each month, and a lot of the on screen action relates to NPCs. In something like Second Life every character is a real person with associated lag etc. It's also impossible to optimize a user generated world like a game, which imposes certains limits within a level.

All in all, Second Life at least is a huge world with comparatively small amounts of people scattered all over. The world just doesn't seem "right" when you go exploring, and most areas are empty. Sure, people gather here and there, but overall it feels like the tech just isn't there yet...

Re:It's not an easy thing to do... (5, Insightful)

GMonkeyLouie (1372035) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832749)

Seems accurate. The "ghost town effect" as you put it plagues many otherwise cool games/forums... or I guess sites that would be cool if more people were using them. Generally if you're not one of the first comers to the market to snap up a share of the early waves of people to realize the potential for a service, you can never recover. Tabula Rasa will never ever compare to WoW because it just never got the same kind of mass membership momentum and nothing can compete with that. Same goes for other social networking sites trying to compete with Facebook and MySpace, although I guess that's about the same because they're really text-based MMORPGs. Nyerk.

Re:It's not an easy thing to do... (1)

Tychon (771855) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833219)

I typed north, east, and even tried northeast, but it never let me go anywhere. Worst MUD ever.

Re:It's not an easy thing to do... (3, Insightful)

demi (17616) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833537)

I'm not sure I can agree with that. Remember that WoW was very late to a market that had already been developed my many MMORPGs--EverQuest, notably, and AC and others. I think that sometimes being first to market isn't an advantage at all, and Google of all companies is in a position to appreciate this, as Google succeeded largely by being very late to the search engine market.

WoW and Google succeeded so dominantly because they were better, and a big part of why they were better than the established players was because they learned from the existing market, and because they had no established customers they were worried about losing.

Re:It's not an easy thing to do... (1)

GMonkeyLouie (1372035) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833753)

I suppose I agree that by the time WoW and Google hit there were already established markets in terms of thirsty audiences, but I would still say those qualify as "early entries" into those markets because they both took advantage of improving technological capabilities to provide user experiences that came to represent the industry standard for the product. I guess they redefined the market from "MMOs" to "MMOs that are at least this pretty and accessible". Entering after that standard had been established, other search engines and MMOs find themselves having to measure up to the monumental success and popularity of these giants. So I guess I would state that Google and WoW took emerging markets and choked off their... emerginess.

Re:It's not an easy thing to do... (2, Interesting)

smellsofbikes (890263) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833347)

SL ghost-towns for the same reason that so many other VR's, both textual and visual, have.

1. People go there and build a few cool things and then realize that they're social and want to hang out with other people.

2. People don't live there; they only go there when they want to do something interesting. So there aren't people sleeping and eating and *using* all that space that they've created: they're all gathered together in a few small spaces, interacting.

I think that's a fundamental problem -- not even a design problem, just a problem with human psychology -- that makes any non-goal-oriented VR end up as a vast barren wilderness full of abandoned artistic creations, with all the inhabitants hanging out in one place.

Re:It's not an easy thing to do... (1)

MythoBeast (54294) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833473)

I'll second the ghost-town effect. The other day I was shopping in a fairly large store, and there were an entire eight people in the store at the same time. I was thinking "wow, this place is popular!" Most of the time it's like wandering through a deserted museum.

The primary problem I found with second life scripting was that any script that interacts with other scripts runs into serious issues with lag and undelivered information packets. There are no internal mechanisms for dealing with this, and writing delivery reliability code into your scripts is very resource intensive.

Now let's look back on some stupid reporting (5, Funny)

patmfitz (517089) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832319)

http://blogs.computerworld.com/why_googles_lively_is_great_for_telecommuters [computerworld.com]

Remember the date: July 8, 2008. Today is the day virtual worlds go mainstream. The reason is that Google has launched its own 3D virtual world called Lively. It's free. And it changes everything. Especially for telecommuters.

The current iteration of Lively seems to border on the goofy and cartoonish. But eventually, it's likely that Google's virtual world will become mainstream to the point where enterprises actually conduct real business there.

Like instant messaging and social networking, Lively will probably start out as a trendy hangout for teens, only later to become indispensable for professionals first for internal communication, then later to replace some business travel and even trade shows and the like.

Kudos to you, Mike Elgan, for your keen insight.

Re:Now let's look back on some stupid reporting (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832969)

meh, just more media sensationalism. No different than how they report anything else. Everything from Google and Apple is a world changing testament to mankind's ability to innovate. Everything from Microsoft is obviously just some sad ripoff of someone else's tech.

The election was treated the same way. Ridiculously insignificant and borderline facts get prime time coverage.

Good (3, Funny)

ethana2 (1389887) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832377)

Those resources are better used porting sketchup to linux. You know, after Duke Nukem 3 is out..

Re:Good (3, Funny)

ethana2 (1389887) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832425)

Grarghg, Duke Nukem Forever, sorry. Duke Nukem 3 has been out for a while I think.. Comment preview needs to be a post-post edit period.. When you just want to post something, how long are you going to look it over for typos you're sure you haven't made? How do you edit comments here? ..hmm.. Evidently not after posting. Which is just like.. you can't. Blast.

And does anyone care? (5, Interesting)

NoNeeeed (157503) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832497)

It's as if a million voices cried out and then went: "Lively? What's that?"

Seriously, a knock off of Second-Life? What were they thinking. SL is pointless enough, did anyone there really think that this was going to be a goer?

There is this obsession with 3D worlds, computer interfaces, or file managers. People are convinced that just because something is technically more complex and sophisticated that it must be better. People keep telling us that soon we will be using voice controlled 3d AI interfaces, while missing the fact that none of these things actually make life easier. Why should I have to use a 3D world just to talk to someone? Why use a video phone when I just want to talk, not see their face?

Just because voice recognition is more sophisticated than a keyboard doesn't mean that it is intrinsically better.

The TV didn't kill the radio star. No matter how much more technically complex it might be, you can't watch TV while driving the car or walking down the street.

Re:And does anyone care? (5, Insightful)

default luser (529332) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832967)

Well said! And conversely, the video phone has yet to kill the audio-only phone, although the tech has been around (and affordable) for 40-odd years [wikipedia.org]. Picturephone used only three twsted pair wires, which was well within the capabilities of 1960s telephony tech. And sure, Picturephone was expensive, but today the tech is much cheaper, and yet there is little uptake.

About the only place you'll see video phones today are small niche markets (like field reporters, or soldiers on tours of duty phoning home). For most people, video phones are a solution searching for a problem.

Re:And does anyone care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25833021)

I tried Second Life for a half hour total. I wish I had heard about Lively... I might have given it 45 min just because it is google.

Re:And does anyone care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25833201)

> you can't watch TV while driving the car or walking down the street.

Ha! Shows what you know! I'm driving and watchi

Re:And does anyone care? (1)

Forzan (1132007) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833225)

We walked ten miles, uphill, both ways, in the snow, and we liked it! You're going to feel really old when all of your kids are buzzing around in 3D interfaces and you're still using your 2D Luddite display.

Re:And does anyone care? (1)

NoNeeeed (157503) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833589)

But my point was that these are not new, and yet have never taken off.

There have been attempts at making 3d interfaces stretching back decades, yet none of them were actually easier to use than the 2d interface that we use today, and the limiting factor has never been the technology.

3d user interfaces are like functional programming, clever people keep telling us that they are better than what we use today, and yet we never seem that impressed and they have both yet to dominate. Having said that, elements of all leak into the mainstream, which cherry picks the bits that it likes.

The same goes for voice control. Nice idea, up until you have to work in an office with three other people.

I'm not ruling out someone creating a working 3d interface, but personally I have more faith in the likes of tactile surface computing, especially for home gadgets.

Re:And does anyone care? (1)

MythoBeast (54294) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833583)

I can understand why they might want to do this. As a software developer, I often think to myself "I'm SURE I could write something more responsive than this" while playing Second Life. If I had an infinite amount of free time, I'd probably even give it a whack just to see if I can figure out what the big issue is.

Change ownership (1)

xonar (1069832) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832517)

I wonder if they'd be willing to turn it over to the open-source community? Just host it on google code and let people go wild.

It couldn't have lasted long (1)

awshidahak (1282256) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832729)

FTA:

We've learned a lot about how users interact in rich social environments,

It was all just a test so that the hardcore geeks there could learn how to go to clubs and bars and not be completely awkward.

as opposed to... (3, Insightful)

Lord of the Fries (132154) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833637)

This makes Lively one of Google's few scrapped products...

...as opposed to most of the rest of Googles products which are still in Beta.

Google now pronounces you Man and Wife (1)

Tarmus (1410207) | more than 5 years ago | (#25834319)

So 6 months is surely enough time for a virtual couple to get married on Lively. So which one of you was it? Fess up.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...