I see it mentioned here and there about the demise of Windows Live. I have been a member of this service for several years now. No, I don’t have too many friends on it. But I have to say that it has not been for lack of trying. The people I know on other services simply aren’t interested in Windows Live. I think the service is great. The pages are well designed and clean looking. The functions are well thought out and include everything you could ever need in a social network except for one very critical element –people. A social network isn’t very social without people and this is the one area where the planners of Windows Live missed the mark badly in my opinion. Secondly, is the spam problem. I’m not sure why Windows Live is deluged with such an enormous amount of spammers but they undoubtedly are. Other services such as Facebook, MySpace, etc are all open to the same attackers and are infiltrated to a degree but not to the extent that Windows Live seems to be. I don’t know why. But what I do know is that it drives users away.
With a seemingly endless choice of social networks, why would someone choose Windows Live? I do because I’m a die hard fan (however foolish) of the Microsoft brand and philosophy of connectivity. Of people and devices. I like the idea of being connected and their products and services facilitate that ideal for me. But why would someone else choose Windows Live? A social network for me is not a single stand alone brand or product but rather a collection of brands and services. All of which are interconnected and benefiting the user by providing different services and groups of people to the user. I find the latter half to be lacking in Windows Live. For example, if I am on youtube, and I see a video that I like. I will probably look on the user’s channel page to see what other videos that user has and if I like them, I will probably subscribe to the channel. I may also add them as a friend. The thing that introduced me to that user was the video. There is no central hub of visibility for Windows Live. Yahoo has chat. Chat may be circa ‘90’s but it provides a central hub for people to meet other people. Windows Live does not have a central hub. It has no place for people to casually interact without making a commitment of “friending” someone. And I see this as a major failing in an otherwise extraordinary service. Of course with the added visibility comes the visibility to spammers so the spam problem definitely needs to be contained. Maybe the idea was to have the “Clubhouse” serve double duty in being that hub while at the same time, to Microsoft’s benefit, allowing users to handle the bulk of what used to be considered “technical support”. If so, I don’t believe that concept is working out. Not everyone wants to blog about how to adjust settings in Windows Live Writer. There has to be a more diversified hub. It can not just be about using the products.
So in short. I believe if the service is to survive it will need a central hub. The spam will have to be contained. And it should be looked on as an addition to your social network that co-exists with your other services such as Facebook and MySpace but to do so has to provide some content value to the user and that would be people. Without the people, it’s just a bunch of nice ideas. So make the links live in the “what’s new” feed. People won’t jump ship just because they follow a link to Facebook and add a central hub.
