I knew they'd lost it when they rebranded Hotmail as Outlook. Now I have to use extra words when I want to clarify whether it is the desktop program or the web service.

Or Xbox One, which previously meant 'the first Xbox', but stuff continuity right? Or using a restyled Internet Explorer icon for the original Edge browser, when what they really needed to do was distance their new browser from IE. 'Visual Studio Code' never clicked with me. And slapping the word 'Xbox' on to anything to do with their entertainment offerings is just silly. Renaming 'Xbox Live' to something else was unnecessary and makes me feel old when I bring it up.

Other names are good and mean one unique thing, while also tying in with the item's purpose. Like Word, PowerPoint, Windows, DirectX, Surface. But these are increasingly the exceptions.

I have an issue with ".net", it really seems like someone was asked to pick the worst possible name and did a good job.

Maybe they were trying to troll everyone with a name that didn't work when said aloud like "slashdot"?

DirectX is not obvious.

DirectX is a collection of libraries, mostly for game programming, they all used to start with "Direct": Direct3D, DirectPlay, DirectSound, DirectDraw,...

Now, DirectX is mostly just Direct3D, for other components, is a bit of a mess, especially since it overlaps with the Xbox branding and components.

Word and Windows used to be controversial names. Remember that they were created when there was still an ecosystem of word processors and windowing environments.

So there are 10 windowing environments, and MS has the arrogance to take the generic word windows for theirs, implying there is only 1 real choice. Same with word.

Then they asked to de-generify these terms, as they had troubles using them as trademarks.

At least with Word and Windows, we quickly learned to prefix them with Microsoft for clarity.

How does this keep happening? There is also Defender for Microsoft 365, which consist of Defender for Endpoint, Defender for Office 365, Defender for Identity, and Defender for Cloud Apps (which used to be called Microsoft Cloud App Security up until a couple of months ago). Oh and dont forget about Defender for Cloud (which is different from Defender for Cloud Apps, and is not a part of Defender for Microsoft 365). Go figure

This is what happens when you think that brands are a fungible resource that you can just move around to give a free boost when launching products. People generally like windows Defender so they use the name for five other unrelated products until the name is diluted to nothing.

Well I use Linux, so I thought they were talking about the game.

And it trains users that product names change constantly, so they're easier to phish. Normal users never learn good habits because they can't keep up with the constant churn.

Google having umpteen comms systems that aren't interoperable is the inverse of the problem. Neither extreme is good.

Not saying the rebrand makes sense, but this new product is called Microsoft Defender, while the one in Windows was called Windows Defender.

Like Microsoft Update and Windows Update?

It used to be called Windows Defender, until they renamed it to Microsoft Defender some time ago

Yes, but that's precisely because they intended to ship a (newly) cross-platform product. From my understanding, the goal is that on Windows one is supposed to find Windows Security Center + Microsoft Defender or another antimalware software. Not fully modular but hotswappable.

What a mess. Common people are already confused by security products, why make it so hard for everyone.

Because now they can sell the "better" one. "Look, we have MS Defender for Small Business which is better than MS Defender for very Small Business".

This is so confusing, on the corporate side I just say "the defender that comes with E5 license?" Or E3,etc... because the brand name is meaningless.

Other brands like Carbon Black are like this too. It is truly remarkable that someone at these companies just utterly mucks up their brand name and yet the products survive due to reputation and value yet they could be so much more with the right brand name.

It's like when Netflix was renamed Qwik one time.

My theory is some C level person has too much ego and not a whole lot do and they want to seem relevant for political reasons and this is the result. Bad CEO or weak CEO (same thing really).

when two companies try to use the same name for something they get into a trademark dispute.

when two teams in the same company want to use the same name, do they battle it out using swords and office chairs?

Yeah, this is ridiculous. Microsoft has never done well with naming their offerings.