NY Times: Will Berkowitz keep Windows Live?

MSN Revival - The January Effect

LiveSide - News blog — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 01:26:29 GMT

With the announcement of Windows Live in November 2005, and the transition of most existing services

re: NY Times: Will Berkowitz keep Windows Live?

Chris — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:47:07 GMT

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

re: NY Times: Will Berkowitz keep Windows Live?

cykotoxik — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 08:57:40 GMT

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!

re: NY Times: Will Berkowitz keep Windows Live?

ewright — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 22:06:36 GMT

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.

re: NY Times: Will Berkowitz keep Windows Live?

wizact — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 01:03:59 GMT

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.

re: NY Times: Will Berkowitz keep Windows Live?

sxmangel — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:57:18 GMT

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.

Windows Live and MSN: Who Owns What

Dare Obasanjo aka Carnage4Life — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:29:36 GMT

re: NY Times: Will Berkowitz keep Windows Live?

bf1977 — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 21:43:31 GMT

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

re: NY Times: Will Berkowitz keep Windows Live?

wideawakewesley — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 05:19:01 GMT

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).

re: NY Times: Will Berkowitz keep Windows Live?

kenbw2 — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 02:20:33 GMT

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

re: NY Times: Will Berkowitz keep Windows Live?

rb1385 — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 20:34:55 GMT

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.

re: NY Times: Will Berkowitz keep Windows Live?

Chris — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 14:36:23 GMT

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?

re: NY Times: Will Berkowitz keep Windows Live?

Hb8 — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 14:28:50 GMT

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

re: NY Times: Will Berkowitz keep Windows Live?

tophtucker — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 12:43:43 GMT

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).

re: NY Times: Will Berkowitz keep Windows Live?

Khristopher — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 11:48:53 GMT

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!