September 2007 - OurView: The Opinion Blog

On Wednesday, I'll be at "Searchification" where Microsoft will be presenting their improvements to Live Search, some of which we've already seen.  While even the likes of Mini Msft seemed to be pretty impressed by what they saw at the company meeting, the sobering fact is that Live Search has not made much of an impact in the market so far, and continues to mirror the MSFT stock price (that is, flat).

The Nielsen Netratings, Hitwise, and Comscore have all come out in the last week with the latest search comparison numbers.  In all of them, Live Search lost a point or so between July and August, after having gained some (due mainly to the Live Search Club). Search Engine Land put together a Nielsen graph showing search share over the past year:

source: SearchEngineLand.com

While there is an encouraging little blip at the end, Live Search has underperformed, and still has yet to make significant gains from where MSN Search was when it was powered by Yahoo.

Gaining search share is a two part problem: building a search engine that's better than Google, and then convincing people to switch.  There isn't any question that Microsoft thought building a better search would be easier than it turned out to be. Users both external, and more telling internally within Microsoft, have been unimpressed with Live Search.  Google has proven to be just a much better experience up until now.

That may be changing with the unveiling of Live Search 2.0.  From what little we've seen (and we're looking forward to seeing more at Searchification), Live Search may be catching up in terms of usability and relevance.  The hints we've seen about video search may even provide a better experience than what's available now. 

However there's another, perhaps even more daunting problem: and that's how to get users to switch.  While in general search is not "sticky", that is users are not locked into using one search engine, Google has done well to build a brand around search.  Google means search, it implies (and delivers) quality, speed, and relevance.  The Windows Live brand has had much less success in its clarity of vision.  Live Search will have a lot of work to do to shed the image of a second rate product, an image reinforced by the bungling that marked the first year of Windows Live branding.

This weekend, Hugh Macleod and Robert Scoble started a conversation about Microsoft telling a better story.  That deep pockets alone aren't enough.  As Hugh says:

I still happily stand by what I said about Microsoft, late last year:

For too long, Microsoft has allowed other people- the media, the competition and their detractors, especially- to tell their story on their behalf, instead of doing a better job of it themselves.

We firmly believe that Microsoft must start articulating their story better- what they do, why they do it, and why it matters- if they're to remain happy and prosperous long-term.

Let me put it another way: The future of Microsoft, and how Microsoft talks to people in the future, are one and the same. Yes, Virginia, the future of Microsoft is "Conversation."

Macleod knows what it takes to build a brand, he's built some pretty successful ones.  How Microsoft talks to people about Live Search will in many ways define its success.

And Scoble is right about expectations.  Just being close in relevance isn't good enough.  Live Search not only must be better, it SHOULD be better.  This is Microsoft, with lots of money, lots of smart people, and lots of tools. 

The association with Microsoft, and Windows Live, provides opportunities to embed Live Search into services such as messenger and mail, and across Microsoft products (problems with the EU notwithstanding).  The short term success of Live Search Club has shown that there are opportunities to get users to at least try Live Search, if there is enough incentive.  Of course the problem up until now is that there hasn't been a compelling reason to stay, nor a compelling story being told.

Will Live Search 2.0 make a difference?  What will it take for Live Search to succeed (or is this as good as it's going to get?)  Leave your comments and questions on Live Search here, and I'll take them along to share at Searchification.

So there is a lot of talk going on about the EU anti-competive ruling today that upholds almost the entirity of the previous EU ruling. Here's my three point summary why this ruling has been good already for Windows Live and its users:

• Windows Live has to increase market share by innovation and new features, not by being "bundled" with Windows. If this ruling hadn't been made in the first place, Windows Live would have surely had a much greater presence in Windows Vista than it does now (mainly a few links on the welcome screen).
  
• Windows Live is constrained less by the Windows development schedules and requirements. We all know internet services develop much more quickly than Windows does, increasing the separation between the two parts means there is less risk of Windows Live development/shipping slowdown (sure there is still some, this isn't a perfect world).
  
• Just as nobody likes the closed social networks that have emerged (Facebook is the one getting the most criticism recently), Windows Live has moved towards a much more open platform compared to its predecessor MSN. Sure the developer side to Windows Live has grown slowly, but as we saw at Mix UK, its definitely picking up steam.

There are other benefits to Microsoft as a whole as well, and of course there are disadvantages too. Here's a few other opinions on the ruling. 

Official Microsoft statement:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2007/sep07/09-17Statement.mspx 

Other bloggers:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=719
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/121933.asp
http://www.hunterstrat.com/news/2007/09/17/eu-court-rejects-microsoft-antitrust-appeal/

In other news, would anybody have predicated 4 years ago at the original ruling that today would see Microsoft having its own brand of wine? Probably not - that's progress for you. Congratulations to Hugh and Steve (they get a mention as Steve has a sticker on his laptop.)

OK the truth is I really wanted to rip the NY Times article for what it was, a PR hack job.  An embarrassingly bad PR hack job, at that.  But then first of all I'm only some guy who's been following Windows Live everyday for the past year or more vs. The New York Times, fergawdsakes.

And then, there was a kernel of actual news in the post.  The Windows Live Installer (and part of what's funny here is that it isn't even a new product, it's just a way of installing products that we all have installed anyway, woohoo) has been expected to come out in early September, and here's the Times confirming that.

So I took the high road and just reported the news, such as it was, and kicked myself a bit.

But my new hero, Fake Steve Jobs, has come to my rescue (and btw, notice how now that we know who it is, it doesn't even matter?  This stuff is just too good and too on the mark to be derailed by the mere fact that we know who it is).  In Another big sloppy wet kiss for the Borg, Fake Steve nails both what's wrong with the Times article and what's wrong with Windows Live all in one fell swoop.

One thing I do know is how the Borg develops software. Imagine a hundred separate teams of Keebler elves all smoking crack and then being told to sit down in different parts of the world, without being able to communicate with each other, and dream up new cookie flavors, and you've got an idea how the Borg created Windows Live. Then a bunch of generic, soulless, humorless lab-produced MBA replicants (photo) who don't know anything about technology and only went to Microsoft because they didn't get offers from Procter and Gamble are put into a conference room and told to create some marketing plan for this pile of dog ***. Dream up a slogan and a name and some advertisements that will mislead people into thinking that Windows Live is all one big wonderful suite of software that was developed from the ground up to work as an organic whole, even though the pieces are all being rolled out at different times in different locations on different websites.

For someone who has been trying to make sense of Windows Live for the past year and a half or more, that paragraph is pure poetry.  We've called on Ray Ozzie, or anyone at Microsoft, to step up and take this bull by the horns, to take some responsibility for cutting through the MBA replicants and to connect with users. 

Now I'm not involved with LiveSide because I think that Windows Live is without promise.  I've been using Hotmail since 1998, and it's now among the best in web based mail, even though the name was a copout.  SkyDrive holds a lot of promise, although offering a measly 500mb of storage is just laughable (geez you get 5gb with Hotmail now!).  We're hoping to be blown away with the amount of storage when the service comes out of beta, if the replicants don't get their hands on it.  OneCare is turning out to be a pretty good product, although it's yet to be seen if it can actually catch a new virus in the wild.  Live Writer is great, and getting better, and Windows Live Photo Gallery is a useful upgrade.  Live ID is where Windows Live shows real promise, in the ability to tie services together, to layer permissions based on address books and friends lists, and to federate out to anyone who cares to use the service (like we did on LiveSide, for a start).

But still, much of Windows Live is more Keebler elves than elegant software.  The Spaces photo size limits upgrade last week was design by committee, at best.  Where's Silverlight?  Where's user control of photo size?  From what we're hearing, the long awaited Calendar (and how long can it take to make a calendar?) is going to underwhelm. And in all of this, the best we get from Windows Live Marketing is the "corny and stupid" Messenger Cafe, and a hack job from the NY Times.

Someone in Redmond better start doing better than this, or Real Steve is going to eat Windows Live for lunch.