Oops: Microsoft accidentally reveals secret social project • Hacker News Board

Re: Oops: Microsoft accidentally reveals secret social project

#51

Post by Hov » Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 10:27 AM UTC

andywhite37 wrote: post #19

Part of me wants to see this come into fruition, and I think that's the same part of me that wants to look at car accidents on the side of the road as I drive by.

It would probably be useful to simply ban anything Microsoft related from HN. The comments sink to Slashdot levels.

I mean, your comment jumps to the conclusion that a MS social network would be a failure, and yet Google has failed at "social" at least three times that we know of and still gets an immediate pass here.

sigh For what it's worth, I don't see why MS would want in on this space when they're probably better positioned to take advantage of the network effects of twitter, facebook and G+.

Re: Oops: Microsoft accidentally reveals secret social project

#52

Post by CurtHagenlocher » Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 11:02 AM UTC

Flenser wrote: post #49

pedalpete wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

having the header domain like social won't do anything for them. They've got live.com, and look how little they've been able to do with that.

at least live.com was a distinct brand. Having the domain social.com is like inventing a new vacuum cleaner and calling it "Vacuum".

Or creating a windowing UI and calling it Windows?

Re: Oops: Microsoft accidentally reveals secret social project

#53

Post by Jgrubb » Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 11:17 AM UTC

Help me out, fellow pedants.

Shouldn't it be either "makes finding what you need and sharing what you know easier than ever" or "find what you need and share what you know _more easily_ than ever"?

Re: Oops: Microsoft accidentally reveals secret social project

#54

Post by ig1 » Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 11:18 AM UTC

oldstrangers wrote: post #28

ajma wrote: post #20

Microsoft Research projects seem to rarely turn into real projects. This will probably be the first and last we see of this.

Yeah, how long ago was I supposed to see surface tablets at my local restaurants/bars? And that was something I actually wanted...

There's a few restaurants in London which do this like http://www.inamo-restaurant.com/ but it's never really taken off. There's not much value add for the customer.

Re: Oops: Microsoft accidentally reveals secret social project

#55

Post by Flenser » Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 11:25 AM UTC

CurtHagenlocher wrote: post #52

Flenser wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

at least live.com was a distinct brand. Having the domain social.com is like inventing a new vacuum cleaner and calling it "Vacuum".

Or creating a windowing UI and calling it Windows?

They named windows before most people knew what a windowing UI was. They're trying to come into an already mature market, they won't be able to create much awareness with a generic brand.

Think how it will be referred to on broadcast news which loves quoting what people are saying on social networking sites as it's cheap to produce (and is how most people will first hear of it).

"we've been getting lots of reports in via Twitter, Google Plus, Facebook and Social"

"there have been outpourings of grief on the social networking sites Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus and Social"

They might call it "Microsoft Social" but that's a bit long. I don't think Google Plus is much better in that regard. Facebook and Twitter are the better brands at two syllables and not having any association outside of social networking.

Re: Oops: Microsoft accidentally reveals secret social project

#56

Post by vegasbrianc » Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 11:53 AM UTC

It looks as though Microsoft feels pressure to rush and start "leaking" their social presence to counter Google.

Re: Oops: Microsoft accidentally reveals secret social project

#57

Post by pbhjpbhj » Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 12:06 PM UTC

pedalpete wrote: post #23

kevin_morrill wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also a pretty sleazy Indian casino.

can we just call it a sleazy casino, and not let prejudice creep in because it's on native land.

Flying total OT here but how is it prejudice to describe the place that way? "sleazy Indian casino" is obviously a personal opinion of an Indian casino; why does he have to give less information simply because he dislikes the casino?

If I say "sleazy American diner" is that prejudice too?

Re: Oops: Microsoft accidentally reveals secret social project

#58

Post by msabalau » Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 12:24 PM UTC

aik wrote: post #3

I have trouble believing all these "accidental leakages" are actually accidents. The new trendy marketing gimmick?

Trying to overhang the market may be trendy, but it's certainly not new.

Anyway, in the absence of any reason to believe that this thing, whatever it is, will solve some problem in a compelling new way, revealing it's existence doesn't accomplish much. I'd say it seems more likey that this is simply a mistake, rather than a weak marketing stunt.

Re: Oops: Microsoft accidentally reveals secret social project

#59

Post by halo » Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 12:34 PM UTC

Flenser wrote: post #49

pedalpete wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

having the header domain like social won't do anything for them. They've got live.com, and look how little they've been able to do with that.

at least live.com was a distinct brand. Having the domain social.com is like inventing a new vacuum cleaner and calling it "Vacuum".

Or a word processor and calling it Word?

Re: Oops: Microsoft accidentally reveals secret social project

#60

Post by goatforce5 » Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 12:36 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #57

pedalpete wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

can we just call it a sleazy casino, and not let prejudice creep in because it's on native land.

Flying total OT here but how is it prejudice to describe the place that way? "sleazy Indian casino" is obviously a personal opinion of an Indian casino; why does he have to give less information simply because he dislikes the casino? If I say "sleazy American diner" is that prejudice too?

It's "a sleazy Indian (operated) casino" vs. "sleazy American (cuisine) diner".

The first is referencing the ethnicity of the casino's operators, the second is referencing the style of the diner and doesn't infer anything about the ethnicity of the owners.