Home Interviews Developers Our View Blogs We Like The List

This Blog

Syndication

LiveSide - News blog

NY Times: Will Berkowitz keep Windows Live?

Still no sign of Ray Ozzie, but Online Services Group Senior Vice President Steve Berkowitz has been popping up all over the place lately, and the bottom line seems to be a return to supporting MSN at the expense of Windows Live innovation.  In a report in Saturday's (Dec 9 2006) New York Times, Berkowitz isn't even sure if Windows Live is the right name:

Mr. Berkowitz does not defend the brand choice he inherited.

“I don’t know if Live is the right name,” he said, saying he had not decided what to do about it. But before he gets around to deciding whether to change the brand, he wants to make Microsoft’s search engine itself more appealing to consumers.

According to Berkowitz in the Times article, Microsoft has "lost its way" because it became too enamored with "software wizardry, like its new three-dimensional map service"

“A lot of decisions were driven by technology; they were not driven by the consumer,” he said. “It isn’t always the best technology that wins. It is the best experience.”

Berkowitz has decided to turn his attention back on to MSN, a strategy that seems to explain some of the confusion we've been commenting on here recently, including the MSN Soapbox branding, the use of "Live" instead of "Windows Live", and a general lack of movement in new products for Windows Live.

So for now, Mr. Berkowitz has decreed that Microsoft will promote at least two Internet services. MSN, in Mr. Berkowitz’s conception, is a conventional portal with links to programming on various topics that competes with Yahoo and AOL. Windows Live, which uses the Live.com site, is meant to look much like Google, a spare-looking page that can be customized with modules from various services and news feeds.

What does this mean for Windows Live?  Well for one thing it means some pretty disheartened workers.  Niall Kennedy is quoted in the article, saying “Microsoft is no longer the primary place for technical talent”, as funds for his group dried up this summer when Microsoft stock fell sharply, primarily on news of increased spending for Windows Live.  Kennedy only lasted 4 months before he gave up.

At the risk of moving this article over to the opinion blog, many of the problems Berkowitz faces were caused  not by too much focus on technical wizardry, but by a lack of clear direction, both for MSN and for Windows Live.  It's not clear that Berkowitz understands that, but at least he's surfaced.  Hopefully a clearer picture will emerge.

Comments

 

Khristopher said:

Well this makes me thrilled that someone at MS has realized this!

Windows Live was a horrible horrible name to choose. But is it too late to change the name now? I don't think it is.... I think they could manage it if they want to.

I was just thinking about this the other day, hoping a name change may happen...

Well I hope it does!

December 10, 2006 5:48 AM
 

tophtucker said:

Ugh... this is getting pretty messy. Actually, it was from the beginning. But would another name change kill the service outright? Judging by the latest numbers, the Live rebranding appears to have driven customers away from the old MSN Search.

I hope Microsoft doesn't turn its back on Windows Live. It has a lot of potential, and could be crucial in the battle for internet supremecy (or whatever).

December 10, 2006 6:43 AM
 

Hb8 said:

I'm surprised.  The users have for a long time been saying that people are confused.  Those of us who have really stuck to the Live services concept obviously get it (for the most part) but trying to show new people what Live does in nigh on impossible.  They lose interest in the first few seconds and then it's practically impossible to get them to use it.

Switching names midstream is only going to cause further confusion and drive more people away.  They really need to focus, and get everyone playing on the same team instead of all the seperate teams doing their own little thing.  Live still isn't functioning like a cohesive unit and that's where they are losing.

just an opinion mind you

December 10, 2006 8:28 AM
 

Chris said:

You're right, a name change would be very messy. I personally don't see it happening formally, rather as Kip describes the gradual dropping of the "Windows" prefix.

Q: If they did drop the "Live" altogether though, what name should they use - MSN or something new?

December 10, 2006 8:36 AM
 

rb1385 said:

The one thing about Windows Live for me has always been that the company seemed so confused that they couldn't explain what was happening.  Trying to be Google isn't going to get them anywhere.

Innovation and being quick to react in developing new services or improvements is the only thing that will help.  No one is on the Windows Live team, they are all little individual groups.

The name isn't important, having services the customer wants and understands is the name of the game.

December 10, 2006 2:34 PM
 

kenbw2 said:

What good is a manager who doesnt believe in his company? Shouldn't they be appointing someone who actually believes in Windows Live?

December 10, 2006 8:20 PM
 

wideawakewesley said:

I have to say the Windows Live branding has been a failure so far. Personally I like the fact we have services unified under one banner and that they all have a similar appearance, but the name is very unweidly and feels far too corporate (cool services deserve a cool name). It may be new and fresh, but it's definitely not hip.

As a Live Spaces (I hate typing Windows in front of that) blogger and Live Messenger user, I know many people that still use the MSN monkier, mix the two brands e.g. MSN Live Messenger, or leave off the branding completely e.g. Spaces or Messenger. I don't think I have a single person on my Live Messenger contact list (except for Chris@Liveside) who uses the Windows Live branding when talking about those services.

I've asked Mike Torres for his opinion on the branding a couple of times, but I'm yet to see a blog about it...which kinda leads me to think he can't have anything good to say (or at least without not saying anything bad).

December 10, 2006 11:19 PM
 

bf1977 said:

I prefer that he is as Windows Live same. After all it is as if we were livings creature in the net. If they want to change the name I find that it is late for changing the name of the product, already is with a good spreading with this name. But I find that the Microsoft must have been with same Hotmail and MSN. invested more in these products that already well are known. But I find that Windows Live came to be!

The Windows are alive in the Browsers! : D

December 11, 2006 3:43 PM
 

sxmangel said:

As my Spanish teacher always told me....K.I.S.S. Keep It Simple Stupid!!

The Live thing is already floating around, so keep it simple and stick with it, rather than trying to come up with something new. Besides I like the Live theme, it's catching on [hey...progress is a slow process!!!]

Again to the K.I.S.S. principle. Drop the Windows thing, just call it Live.

Silly me...I assumed someone at Microsoft has a degree in Marketing.

December 12, 2006 3:57 AM
 

wizact said:

First, I think LIVE is much better than XP, ME, or some numbers like 3.1, 95, 98... but in other hand it's obvious that this name created by MS not someone that expert in choosing names.

Second, Live ( if we mention it as a platform ) is as revolutionary as windows 95 was in desktop platforms but the difference is that we (as ordinary users) are aware of project during its development...

They find their way.

December 12, 2006 7:03 PM
 

ewright said:

My issue with Windows Live is the lack of partner engagement.  My company tried for months to get ahold of a business development person within Windows Live team, for at least three purposes:

- to migrate our userbase to Live ID

- to migrate a legacy webmail solution to Live Mail/Live Custom Domains

- to syndicate data to Live Expo

We'd send mails to biz-dev people and never get a response.  Tech people, who are more available, would simply direct us to those same people.  Meanwhile, Google continues to engage us and expand their presence within our solution - maps, sitemaps, local, base, adwords, etc.  I really want to move towards the Live vision - I'm sold on it - but Microsoft just doesn't want my business.

My point is that the problems with Windows Live as a consumer-facing solution are one thing, but the deeper problem is with Windows Live as a partner-facing platform.  Just as is the case with Windows, it will succeeed insofar as it is integrated into partner solutions.

December 14, 2006 4:06 PM
 

cykotoxik said:

I totally agree with phunky.  "Live" was a horrible name to start with.  Someone at Microsoft should have disallowed this name.  Microsoft can be the butt of jokes with LIVE ===> EVIL.

A billion dollar corporation, and the marketing team can only think of "Live"?!?  Sheesh!  MSN should have been the primary focus.  MSN is short, simple, even businesslike, and can easily associate with Microsoft.  MSN Messenger...MSN Mail...MSN Search...that sounds and looks better.

Or...Microsoft marketing team...I'm sure you're being paid lots of money...think of a better word!

December 15, 2006 2:57 AM
 

Chris said:

ewright drop me an email if you want to talk about that.

December 15, 2006 10:47 AM

Trackbacks

 

Copyright (c) 2006-2007-2008 Liveside
Listed on the Offical CS Listings Powered by Community Server, by Telligent Systems Themed By nb development Logo By pxb Designed By Mark Sutherland