However, none of it holds a candle to IBM's mania for making everything "Websphere."
Also, Live was another Microsoft naming phase.
For me, the canary in the coal mine of ms naming is their messenger. Msn messenger, live messenger, Skype, Skype for business, Teams... I assume the next iteration will be named Azure Teams.
The messenger naming example is also apropos because each successive generation of bad naming is also a generation of product that is measurably worse in some way. It goes to demonstrate the durability of software canaries!
All the other ones are literally different products each. I expect different products to have different names.
Why there were so many messenger products is a different question. Anyone from Google wanna jump in and explain this one? ;)
After like 2013 I never used Skype again. Now everyone I know either uses Discord or Slack. Teams was at least the right direction for business focus but it seems they shoulda QAd it much more. I dont hear much positive about Teams.
We have a similar issue in education. First it was MSDN-AA, then DreamSpark, then briefly Microsoft Imagine. Now it's called Microsoft Azure Dev Tools for Teaching.
Live is the one for gaming.
Outlook is the business one.
But the mail client on windows is not outlook, that’s just windows mail.
It surprises me that they didn't release 'Windows Live Office' in that era.
But if I type in Live.com, I'm redirected to the same page that says 'Outlook' but is actually outlook.live.com
So Hotmail is Outlook but Outlook is Live.com but Live.com itself is Outlook
I learned just recently that Microsoft Visual Studio is completely different from Visual Studio Code.
But yes, dark times indeed.
.NET Passport went thru series of rebranding: Microsoft Passport, Windows Live ID and of course the current Microsoft Account. In some places they also tried to roll everything under MSN brand which later was replaced partially by Windows Live and then again, once they managed to combine their services, MSN applications were bundled with Windows 8 and 10 (News, Weather, Sports etc.). Not mention all GUI changes across the years...
Microsoft trying to figure out what's its brand identity it's like a kid who tries to combine a single image of various jigsaw puzzles sets, periodically smashing pieces together to fit
having to click the "start" button to shut down your computer is probably the most illogical one. and somehow it managed to stay that way for 15 years until someone got the bright idea to just but an icon there instead
"microsoft windows phone 7 series" was a mouth full compared to "apple iphone". luckily they changed that soon after but its crazy to think of the amount of people that were involved in that project and none of them spoke up about how stupid the name sounded
a recent one is the app "your phone". it just doesn't sound right. i imagine it would be even more awkward when someone has to search the term. "hey google, my your phone isnt working"
windows security centre changes its name every year. I could go on
The first time Win95 was started, a giant arrow pointed to the start button. It was rather discoverable.
Now Win8, I had to look up how to shut it down, the rtm version was a UX disaster.
On the "active" bandwagon, I forgot to mention Active Directory, which is kind of funny given that I spent the better part of a decade specializing in development and projects largely oriented around AD and ADFS, and which is maybe the only Active-branded thing still going strong.
But Microsoft being itself added some custom features on top of JVM ( like IE ) and Sun sued them. In retaliation, Microsoft removed JVM from Windows and built C#. Everybody at that time knew C# was Java, though C# has evolved to be a much better language to code in than Java.
"We put the dot in dot-com" - ??? - I think they got scared that they were starting to lose relevancy in the internet age. It turned out that Sun hardware was a poor choice if you really wanted to scale.
Microsoft: "Oh yeah? Well we put the COM into dot-com. Pthththth!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Component_Object_Model
IBM: ”When they put the dot into dot-com, they forgot how they were going to connect the dots. Badoom psssh!”
https://www.itbusiness.ca/news/ibm-brings-on-demand-computin...
Yes, it's marketing fluff (as with any marketing), but I liked that one.
For all you tech people like me that have problems answering to non-techie family members what you do, I thought that was an example of a beautiful succinct answer that still conveyed enough of an idea to be satisfying to laymen.
As for one I really hated from Sun: "Java Desktop System", which was just a distro with GNOME, and had nothing to do with Java.
[0] https://serverfault.com/questions/134611/why-no-final-dot-fo...
"You know, the one you've never heard of."
There was a time when Xerox had to explain what their products were for. In one of the computer ads the headline said "This Xerox machine can't make a copy"
https://ries.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncatego...
Not even Lego has Legos. [3]
But even Google can Google. [4]
[1] https://beta.worldcat.org/archivegrid/collection/data/880574...
>Just a little reminder from Xerox / prepared by Needham, Harper & Steers Advertising, Inc. -- Not even Xerox can Xerox / prepared by Needham Harper Worldwide, Inc. (March 1985) -- Once a trademark, not always a trademark / [Xerox Corporation].
[2] https://trademarkmusings.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/not-even-x...
>Though it was a long time ago, I recall that my law school Business Torts casebook contained a copy of Xerox’s old ad, “Not Even Xerox Can Xerox”, which Xerox used to promote proper use of its trademark and fight genericide. Back in the day, Xerox was by far the most well-know copier brand, leased by offices all over. In this day and age, now that most people have a copier at home (as part of a multifunction printer) and it could be a Canon, HP, Brother, Epson or other brand, I think the younger folk are not so likely to refer to copying as “Xeroxing”. It poses an interesting quandary: Xerox may be winning the genericide war but they are no longer dominating the competition. Which is preferable?
[3] http://www.lego.com/en-us/legal/legal-notice/fair-play
>Proper Use of the LEGO Trademark on a Web Site
>If the LEGO trademark is used at all, it should always be used as an adjective, not as a noun. For example, say "MODELS BUILT OF LEGO BRICKS". Never say "MODELS BUILT OF LEGOs". Also, the trademark should appear in the same typeface as the surrounding text and should not be isolated or set apart from the surrounding text. In other words, the trademarks should not be emphasized or highlighted. Finally, the LEGO trademark should always appear with a ® symbol each time it is used.
[4] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=65cb8ea7-6425...
>In a well-reasoned opinion, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that the GOOGLE trademark has not suffered death by genericide – even if the public uses it as a verb for searching the Internet.
>The case before the court sprang from the registration of 763 domain names that incorporated the term GOOGLE. After losing a domain name dispute arbitration, the domain name owners sued to have various trademark registrations for GOOGLE cancelled, claiming that the mark had become generic for the act of searching the Internet. The court rightly observed that a claim of genericide must always relate to specific goods or services, and that use of “google” as a verb for searching the Internet was not sufficient evidence that GOOGLE had become generic for “search engine services” or any other goods or services.
>The general rule of thumb is that trademarks are best thought of as “adjectives” that modify a generic noun. But this “part of speech” approach is not determinative to whether a mark has become generic. And while for years Xerox sought to instill in the public’s mind the trademark significance of XEROX by stating that “not even Xerox can xerox,” evidently Google can google without destroying the mark.
At least they named it core and standard so you know which mess you're referring to.
With Apple TV you have to make up your own qualifiers.
Apple's marketing team seems to failing at their jobs right now. They had iPhone had X/Xr/Xs/Xs Max at some point, and I never figure out which was which. The most recent 11/11 pro/11 pro max makes a lot more sense, but it sounds dated.
.Net Core and Standard are two of the best things Microsoft has done in the past 5 years and part of the reason why .Net is doing so well and is super popular.
.NET Core is the best thing Microsoft did even if it sucks they basically redid .NET Framework. It sucks when companies do that kind of thing but the end result is a much more powerful .NET ecosystem. The confusing bit is old .NET Framework libraries that may or may not work at all with .NET Core.
Microsoft has the .Net ecosystem (as the above poster described it "Microsoft's Java," which it largely is). However for a period Microsoft was naming other products and services ".Net" that were completely unrelated. Specifically this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_.NET_strategy
Both .Net Core and .Net Standard are part of the .Net ecosystem for real, making them not an example of the marketing phenomenon being discussed here. Which isn't to say the names aren't confusing, just that it isn't in the same pattern.
PS - .Net Framework: Legacy/Classic .Net. Windows Only. Started in 2002. 4.8 is the final major version.
.Net Core: Light weight/cross platform "reboot" of .Net Framework. Started in 2016.
.Net Standard: Minimum subset of both that allows libraries to be cross-compatible with .Net Framework and .Net Core. Also assures they lack Windows specific dependencies. Allowing a bridge to migrate to .Net Core.
Now with 40% more confusion.
Windows also went through a phase in which seemingly everything was Windows.