Windows Live or Dead?
by
on August 10, 2007,
Yesterday Microsoft began testing a new dashboard view for its Windows Live services. Windows users can now view new emails, blog postings; contact updates or use other Microsoft services including antivirus and spyware scans. Microsoft is attempting to further engage the over 300 million Windows Live users to compete with Google and Yahoo in the Internet advertising race. But my question is why is Microsoft always playing catch up?
Chris Jones VP of the Windows Live group told Reuters: “It is a quick view and summary for all of the services you are using on Windows Live.” This move is obviously designed to drive traffic to Windows' other less popular services via the massive user base using mail and messaging. All in all the new service seems a little low tech to me, but I must say it is effective. Microsoft says a new wave of Windows Live services is due later on this year.
Grinding Gears
Is it just my imagination or does Microsoft seem to be just grinding to a virtual standstill on the Web? This latest release is nice and obviously Microsoft needs to keep Hotmail and Windows Live stay “alive”, but shouldn't we expect more from them? Personally I like some MS stuff and would love to see them excel at more than the X-box 360. Perhaps I envision any company so powerful as capable of taking the lead in every venue. Windows Live is actually very effective if only an attempt to catch up, but is this all there is? Without going into a Web 2.0 philosophy dialogue - shouldn't Microsoft be into cutting edge innovation?
A new dashboard and finally naming their online hard drive does not constitute Web 2.0 - cutting edge innovation and market share magic. I always feel badly about (or for) companies when an objective review heads South under my keyboard, but this is Microsoft Corporation. I have tested 200 startups with more innovation and just plain cool - and many developed by one or two people. Watching these behemoths of Industry struggle to eek out a weeks work is like watching George Bush struggle with phrases bigger than; ”It's hard work people!”
Conclusion
Windows Live services like SkyDrive, OneCare security, integrated IM and other cool services actually makes Windows Live more functional than MySpace and many other social networks. The point is they should have been first. One has to wonder if Microsoft is not so much an innovator as an emulator. Perhaps Windows really was an Apple OS overlay, maybe X-Box is just a tweaked PS and Microsoft is just about upping the ante rather than actually creating innovation. If this is true, then it is kind of a sad commentary on an icon of our connected world. Maybe we expect too much?
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to profy RSS feed!
Bighorn
kalipso
Opensource 
Michael Fidler 
I think they are late to the party. If you follow the history of the Internet, MS never did take ownership or embrace the web as they could have. Now they have to play catch up.
Moreover, it is kind of difficult to imagine they will catch up at all - after all, they only promised to bring their office solutions online by 2013. Is not it ridiculous given the fact that Google is already providing us with an excellent online alternative (and many others work in the field)?
The dashboard has a “Spartan” approach — No-frills. I noticed the Inbox link had problems connecting to my mail, even though I was logged into my hotmail. But in all fairness to MS, it’s still in beta.
Well if you think about it, Microsoft was never an innovator. DOS was bought from another company. Windows was an attempt to bring Xerox technology to PC’s. The got on the internet long after Netscape was already there.
They still do pretty well without innovating by leveraging their position in the marketplace.
you are worrying too much :-))
Microsoft business has never been to lose money on something
they dont know if it works. Their strategy is always longterm on something they know it works and is there to stay. why invest money if you dont know that the technology will be there tommorrow.
Everybody knows the gaming consoles will stay.
Google yes but look at the 2 businesses.
Microsoft has a bunch of profitable operations in comparison to google.
Microsoft wins on complexity and intelligence.
With a huge portfolio of businesses it doesnt make sense to go after small innovations.
When the time is right they will be the largest player in the internet world. Its just not there yet because i think the revenues
made on the internet are just becoming really big.
I think we worry too much about the Giants. Let’s give more attention to small corporations that have potential and will certainly make a difference.
All Live, Google and Yahoo depend on the users. All of them need to satisfy these users in order to win their place on the market. Everything they do is strategic and nothing comes for free.
Anyway, Phil, I don’t really think Microsoft is “just grinding to a virtual standstill on the Web”. I just think they are missing up the point… Or maybe they are not interested in catching up? Besides… Google itself has a lot of catching up to do… Should we go into details? They are late with some projects, they keep others behind closed doors and even deny their existence if we get the chance to take a peak through the keyhole…
Thanks for the fantastic comments guys! I agree with most of what has been said about Microsoft, Google and other issues. My big point here is not to describe MS or Google’s money making strategy or even to evaluate any one of their entities. I am very big into symbolism and “indicators” of intent, value, excellence and nearly every other characteristic displayed by people and companies.
In the end, as sentient and sensitive beings we can evaluate things much more quickly by just looking at the symbolic representations of things most of the time. MS and Google are just about money. Excellence is a hap hazard by product of the necessity to either keep up or attract a market share. There is no “art” to it any more - they simply want your money and at the cheapest and easiest price at that.
We have all been lulled into a sort of collaborative acceptance of one giant over another to the point where technology is as much about politics and a Presidential election. These companies would just as soon “brainwash” their clientèle as spend a dollar more to make something really valuable. I guess the point is, it is down right pitiful that entities with so much actually produce so little real (I mean real real) value for people.
I can’t wait until someone comes up with something that will render their “money” machines archaic. It will happen sooner or later - this is not the oil business but technology. Some kid in a garage somewhere could create AI tomorrow - why can’t these guys do something fantastic instead of telling us these gadgets are? It is us that need to expect and demand more. That is what I meant really.