SecondLife is doing something that few other virtual worlds are attempting, and it's not about gaming. To analyze it using the same yardstick as one uses for WoW or other FPS MMORPGs is missing the point in a laughable way, and does no credit to those glib critics/commentators who do so.

Re: Second Life was the darling of the technology and business press in 2006
>> SecondLife fell victim to the overblown expectations of media-created hype (prompted, no doubt, by a degree of effort from Linden Labs itself.) Many of the breathless predictions for SL were created by those who make a living making breathless predictions, and not by Linden Labs or SL residents. In a way, the media put on its own rose colored glasses and then removed them. It seems silly to judge the success of a venture by the rise and fall of pundit feedback about it.

Re: A terrible UI.
>> Says you. As an application developer I know how difficult it can be to create a decent interface, especially when confronted by the sheer weight of features constantly emanating from the company in response to user demand, and I think Linden is doing a yeoman's job. It's also true that users don't like change, so it's natural that users grown comfortable with one UI solution would say that "every 'upgrade' seems like a downgrade." In fact, things change, so it's probably wise not to take change personally. What you dislike may easily be someone else's favorite feature. And if you don't like it, wait a while because it will probably change.

The point of SL isn't the interface anyway - it's what you can do with the world itself, and *that* is compelling on many many levels. There are important sociological things going on in SecondLife - I like to say that there are at least a thousand masters theses waiting to be written about SL, which I would daresay is less true for most other MMORPGs, and has nothing to do with interface.

Re: Many new residents try out the world and never return, and growth in new residents and concurrent visits has started to level off.
>> Fair enough. But compared to what? In 2006 and 2007 SL saw large growth numbers fueled by media hype - now that the hype has calmed down those numbers have changed. Are we saying that unless SL grows to encompass the entire Net that it is a failure? Or that unless it's growing like a rocket that it's worthless? The number of households with PCs is "leveling off," but I don't think any of us would consider personal computing a failure.

There are also a host of unanswered questions relating to in-world business practices, foreign laws, taxation, and ethics.
>> Again, nothing untrue there. But why is this a problem? There are unanswered questions about foreign laws, taxation and ethics in *every* aspect of the Net, and will continue to be for our lifetimes. Linden has made a tremendous step forward on business practices with their Grid program, and the publishing of standards has made it possible for groups who want to depart from Linden's rules to do so.

It is wise to be wary of critics. Glib "who's up, who's down" articles like this are no credit to their authors, or the editors who frame discussions this way. As one critic once said about his profession, "In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so."