Comments on: Start.com vs Live.com http://www.techsoapbox.com/startcom-vs-livecom/ Soapboxing every damn day Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:35:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Ahmed http://www.techsoapbox.com/startcom-vs-livecom/#comment-26624 Ahmed Mon, 24 Dec 2007 17:08:32 +0000 http://www.techsoapbox.com/startcom-vs-livecom/#comment-26624 Well Hany - it is about branding and perception. It is hard for a brand to be considered #1 in everything. Right now, when you think of search - what do you think of? (I'm gonna guess Google). And what about video? YouTube. So while Google tries to make it obvious that Google owns YouTube, YouTube is considered the #1 product in video - so they leave it alone. I believe the same thinking was with MSN. As a site, it was already viewed as a place of content. Microsoft otoh is known for its tech products - software and hardware. And so Live.com was/is used as its brand of services and tools - from search to maps to online storage. I just think that Start.com is a much nicer and easier to remember brand. Well Hany - it is about branding and perception. It is hard for a brand to be considered #1 in everything. Right now, when you think of search - what do you think of? (I’m gonna guess Google). And what about video? YouTube. So while Google tries to make it obvious that Google owns YouTube, YouTube is considered the #1 product in video - so they leave it alone.

I believe the same thinking was with MSN. As a site, it was already viewed as a place of content. Microsoft otoh is known for its tech products - software and hardware. And so Live.com was/is used as its brand of services and tools - from search to maps to online storage.

I just think that Start.com is a much nicer and easier to remember brand.

]]> By: Hany http://www.techsoapbox.com/startcom-vs-livecom/#comment-26570 Hany Mon, 24 Dec 2007 05:46:30 +0000 http://www.techsoapbox.com/startcom-vs-livecom/#comment-26570 Here's what I don't understand... Instead of building two different sites with different services (all made by the same company), why don't they just combine these two sites and make ONE even bigger site? That's what Go.com is all about, several different services all put under one domain name. If live.com and msn.com and microsoft.com (and all the other microsoft-owned sites) would combine, wouldn't that make an even bigger site? A similar proposition is that YouTube and Google combine. YouTube having a sub-domain or something, like youtube.google.com, so that Google.com itself becomes bigger. I don't understand why these companies don't unite their properties like this. Any thoughts? Here’s what I don’t understand…

Instead of building two different sites with different services (all made by the same company), why don’t they just combine these two sites and make ONE even bigger site?

That’s what Go.com is all about, several different services all put under one domain name. If live.com and msn.com and microsoft.com (and all the other microsoft-owned sites) would combine, wouldn’t that make an even bigger site?

A similar proposition is that YouTube and Google combine. YouTube having a sub-domain or something, like youtube.google.com, so that Google.com itself becomes bigger.

I don’t understand why these companies don’t unite their properties like this. Any thoughts?

]]> By: Tim L. Walker http://www.techsoapbox.com/startcom-vs-livecom/#comment-26500 Tim L. Walker Sun, 23 Dec 2007 23:21:10 +0000 http://www.techsoapbox.com/startcom-vs-livecom/#comment-26500 Well, they've owned Start.com forever, haven't they? Is that what they sort of used after they launched Windows 95? Well, they’ve owned Start.com forever, haven’t they? Is that what they sort of used after they launched Windows 95?

]]> By: Ahmed http://www.techsoapbox.com/startcom-vs-livecom/#comment-26495 Ahmed Sun, 23 Dec 2007 21:39:38 +0000 http://www.techsoapbox.com/startcom-vs-livecom/#comment-26495 Hany - yes Start.com is where they tested out their new platform before going live with ... Live.com I've always seen it as MSN.com = content, Live.com = tools/services. Hany - yes Start.com is where they tested out their new platform before going live with … Live.com

I’ve always seen it as MSN.com = content, Live.com = tools/services.

]]> By: Hany http://www.techsoapbox.com/startcom-vs-livecom/#comment-26493 Hany Sun, 23 Dec 2007 21:37:03 +0000 http://www.techsoapbox.com/startcom-vs-livecom/#comment-26493 I wasn't aware that Start.com was owned by Microsoft as well. I still don't understand why they had to re-brand. What was wrong with MSN? Why did they have to re-brand to live.com? I wasn’t aware that Start.com was owned by Microsoft as well.

I still don’t understand why they had to re-brand. What was wrong with MSN? Why did they have to re-brand to live.com?

]]> By: Ahmed http://www.techsoapbox.com/startcom-vs-livecom/#comment-26491 Ahmed Sun, 23 Dec 2007 21:19:47 +0000 http://www.techsoapbox.com/startcom-vs-livecom/#comment-26491 A sort of obvious-extension - LiveOnline.com vs StartOnline.com - go look at both ;) A sort of obvious-extension - LiveOnline.com vs StartOnline.com - go look at both ;)

]]> By: Tim L. Walker http://www.techsoapbox.com/startcom-vs-livecom/#comment-26490 Tim L. Walker Sun, 23 Dec 2007 21:07:23 +0000 http://www.techsoapbox.com/startcom-vs-livecom/#comment-26490 You know, I'd kinda forgotten about Start.com... but now that you bring it up, I totally agree with what you're saying. In addition, there's the live (a live here) vs. live (a live show) issue... I've heard it pronounced both ways, which is brutal for WOM marketing. You know, I’d kinda forgotten about Start.com… but now that you bring it up, I totally agree with what you’re saying. In addition, there’s the live (a live here) vs. live (a live show) issue… I’ve heard it pronounced both ways, which is brutal for WOM marketing.

]]>