WORDS

Microsoft Naming

Being as large as they are, Microsoft can get away with surprisingly generic names for specific products. Microsoft's naming scheme assumes that their product will be the default, and it seems to be working. Officially, they'll often have a qualifier, such as "Microsoft SQL Server", but in most marketing, documentation, and articles, the qualifier is excluded.

At the outset, I'd like to note the name of this very blog, "Words", which is also a very generic name. The difference is that I won't be marketing it under that name, instead saying something like Words by Dan Wolff.

Appropriation

Some product names are particularly egregious, where they've simply taken an existing concept and used the generic name for their product, subsequently causing confusion. Here are a few products with appropriated names.

  • SQL Server. There are quite a few SQL servers, of which "Microsoft SQL Server" is just one. Other popular SQL server software includes PostgreSQL, MariaDB, MySQL, and Oracle.

  • MVC. Model-view-controller, frequently abbreviated "MVC", is an architectural pattern for developing user interfaces. Microsoft's "ASP.NET MVC" is just one implementation of such a framework.

  • Web API. To their credit, Microsoft frequently markets this library as "ASP.NET Web API", but most people simply say "Web API". You can implement a web API with any of a very large number of frameworks, of which even Microsoft has created at least two others: MVC and WCF.

  • Office. One of several office suites. Others include LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice, OpenOffice.org.

Generic names

In many cases, Microsoft has simply created a name that to a large extent explains what the product is for. I suppose that makes it easier for users to understand, but I'm not sure I like that they're hogging these generic names.

  • Windows. The operating system was created at a time when windows were a major selling point, as part of the WIMP (window, icon, menu, pointer) paradigm.

  • Word. A word processor.

  • .NET. As the internet was taking off, during the dot-com bubble, Microsoft's ".NET strategy" took form. It later morphed into what we now know as .NET Framework, even though it has very little to do with the networks, the internet or the .net TLD.

  • Internet Explorer. The Explorer suffix makes it enough non-generic, but I still wanted to mention it, as I'm sure part of their goal was that people say that they're "opening Internet", when using Internet Explorer.

  • Entity Framework. Microsoft's ORM (object-relation mapping) framework is just one of the many frameworks that deal with database entities. I suppose we should be happy that they didn't call it "ORM".

  • Typescript. Their scripting language Typescript is of course only one of many scripting languages with types. I'm not sure a smaller actor could get away with simply calling a language "Typescript" but Microsoft did.

  • Common Language Runtime. While it sounds like it would be a common runtime for all or most languages, "Common Language Runtime" (CLR) only works for languages based on .NET. Couldn't they have called it ".NET Runtime"?

  • Common Intermediate Language. Just like CLR, the "Common Intermediate Language" (CIL) only works for languages based on .NET. To their credit, Microsoft originally called it "Microsoft Intermediate Language" (MSIL), and it's only as part of ECMA standardization that it got the name "Common Intermediate Language".

Notable mentions

There are a few applications that basically work as components of a larger whole, and are rarely used in marketing.

  • Paint. Part of Windows. The name is usually not translated into different languages. Paint is not a selling point for Microsoft technology, so I'll let it slide.

  • Notepad. Part of Windows. The name is translated into different languages. Not a selling point.

  • Command Prompt. Part of Windows. The name is translated into different languages. Not a selling point.

  • Unnamed library for dependency injection. Annoyingly, Microsoft doesn't have a name for its dependency injection library. Instead, they assume that everyone will use the "built-in" library instead of competitors. This makes it very difficult to search for.

  • Unnamed library for unit testing. Equally annoying, is the fact that Microsoft hasn't given their unit testing library a name.

  • Visual Studio Code. The full name is fine, but why have they named the executable code.exe (simply code on Linux)? Couldn't they have gone with vscode.exe or something like that?

Other companies

Of course, Microsoft isn't the only company to give its products too generic names, even though they seem to use this tactic the most. A few of the other internet giants' products are listed below.

Google

  • Chrome. Before Google's Chrome came into existence, it was common to talk about the browser chrome. The chrome of the browser is everything that isn't web page content, such as the URL bar, window menus, and back and reload buttons. It's particularly ironic, as Chrome was a browser that had much more minimalistic chrome than other browsers.

  • Drive. Google Drive is often marketed simply as "Drive". Of course, there are many other network drives in existence.

  • Docs. Similarly, Google Docs is often marketed simply as "Docs". They clearly want their solution to be the default online office suite.

  • Blogger. A very generic name for a blogging platform, but it's still better than simply "blog", so I'll let this one slide.

Facebook

  • Messenger. There have been a large number of messengers available, but Facebook named theirs simply "Messenger". This one in particular grinds my gears.

  • Graph API. There are many APIs for working with graphs, but the "Graph API" is only for social graphs on social networks.

  • Workplace. Facebook is trying to market its social work network as "Workplace", without any "Facebook" prefix. If they succeed widely, they will completely have appropriated the word "workplace", as they've already done with "facebook".

Apple

  • App Store. This one is particularly egregious, as Apple actually sued Amazon for using the same term (unsuccessfully). They clearly want the concept of selling apps to be uniquely associated with their platforms.

  • Pages, Numbers, and Keynote. If Microsoft's Word is a generic name, I'll have to call out Apple's "Pages", "Numbers" and "Keynote" as well.

  • Clips. This is Apple's video editing software for short clips.

Mozilla

  • pdf.js. Any PDF software written in Javascript could be called "pdf.js", but Mozilla was first.

Amazon

I can't seem to find any of Amazon's products that have generic names. On the contrary, they seem to love inscrutable names.

Generic trademarks

Don't let large companies get away with appropriating generic names, effectively making them their trademarks. When possible, use a fuller name, even when the company won't do it!