Now they do say (too much, mainly) that there is nothing new, and similarly this post is nothing more than a bit of digested blogsphere, i.e. this is what I have drawn from various posts, Botgirl, Lalo, Dusan and Crap (I do still love you) being the main ideas generators I read.
So...in no particular order or accurate attribution....
A company, as an individual, needs a Why. Without this he/she/it is blown like a leaf in a gale and usually ends up swirling round, chasing its own bum. Adopted trends are used and discarded by the time they are instigated. (This years fashion is next years tank-top).
Now it seems pretty obvious that those in charge of steering SL for the last while have very little idea as to what SL is. It has been seen as a product which needs to be sold to as many people as possible.
Now, the end (goal) never justifies the means (method). This is particularly true when the product is an experience (SL and the psychology of virtual experience). If you dilute the experience so that more people can get it you end up with a product (experience) that most people can manage without.
Example: If climbing Everest is a life-changing experience, building a small hill in your yard so more people can climb.... duh!
Now...based on current trends some bean-counters have seen the SL future as a 3D Facebook. That is as stupid as deciding to have plastic surgery so you will look like Elvis when, in fact, you have the talent to be better than the King.
The only thing, as far as I can see, that Philip can change, in spite of the mass optimism, is that he understands a bit better than Mark, the experience that is Second Life, that he resurrects the Why.
If he does, he will secure the future of Second Life..
......and the chat lag, groups, megas, censorship, content theft, etc. will all seem like secondary issues.
Important cultural issues it is true,.... Our issues.