Yesterday in San Francisco Microsoft unveiled Windows Live, their first attempt at this whole online, software as a service, web2.0 stuff that we hear so much about these days. Despite all the FUD, it seems to me that many in the valley fear death by defenestration.
Both Fred Wilson and Ross Mayfield took the opportunity on their blogs to remind everyone that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist and has engaged in uncompetitive practices. Funny, I always thought the argument was that Microsoft was a bloodthirsty competitor. And can you really take any monopoly charge seriously when the crux is that Windows comes loaded with Windows Media player or a free browser? What a joke. When held up against the likes of Standard Oil or even Ma Bell, Microsoft's monopoly looks pretty weak.
Furthermore, Microsoft's monopoly really has provided the blueprint for what every Web2.0 company aspires to be today: A common platform upon which other services can be rendered with a big enough user-base that creates network effects, switching costs, and economies of scale.
Will the same angry Web2.0-types jump up and down when Skype tries to sell paid voicemail services with their phone offering? Will they say that Skype should be obligated to allow competitors voicemail products to operate on their network? Who knows, maybe they will.
I'm not gonna get into the details of what Windows Live is, or whether it will be a success or not. Plenty of others can take care of that, but one thing that I've stated before is that Microsoft is really trying to take all this web2.0, RSS stuff and sell it to business. It may not sound as sexy as, say Rollyo, Zimbra, or Plazes, or even Meebo* for that matter, but I wouldn't count them out just yet.
Update: This entry could probably be more useful with some links to analysis of Windows Live. Here's an interesting piece from Tim O'Reilly.
*yes, those are all real company names, not the Ghosts from Ms. Pac Man.
"Yahoo!" doesn't sound more respectable than Rollyo, Meebo, Zimbra. The point is to be unique, as Seth Godin pointed out in The new rules of naming, first quoting the fact how he became to like his own name since it googled so well.
I'm not saying that "Squidoo" doesn't sound a bit cheesy. And of course, out of 100 funny names, 95 will disappear, just the same as those made up in 1997-99. But some will stay, and if it just happens that one of them will be out of the four you mentioned, it will be fun to look at your post in 2009 and to read how you thought a now household name back then sounded like the son of Ms. Pacman. So please keep the permalink permanent.
Posted by: Peter Hogenkamp | November 03, 2005 at 06:14 AM