Remember all of the buzz a few months ago regarding Microsoft's upcoming release of its rebranded online search engine dubbed "Kumo"? It appears as if Microsoft is finally going to be showing the world what it has been working on over the past few months this June. Despite the fact that we still don't know what the actual rebrand name is going to be, there is going to be something big happening on June 2nd at SMX Advanced 2009 in Seattle. One of our forum members recently visited Microsoft's campus and noted that there were LCD TV's displaying a countdown with a preview of codename Kumo.
From what we've calculated the countdown is right on target with the keynote session at SMX Advanced 2009 featuring Microsoft's Online Services Division, Dr. Qi Lu. This is the first time that Dr. Qi Lu has given a presentation to the search marketing community since joining Microsoft, and given the fact that Microsoft is counting down to his keynote there is surely going to be a big announcement.
Maybe Microsoft has finally picked out a name for its online search engine, who knows. But we're definitely going to be seeing something on June 2nd. Possibly even a public preview as some sources close to the company have hinted at.
As soon as we know more about this, we'll let you guys know. Keep in mind though, Microsoft and Yahoo are still in talks once again for a search partnership. As if this couldn't get any more confusing.
I know, but not yet it isn't, which is why I am referring to it as Live.
Yes, but given its getting rebranded to Kumo, and the article talks about Kumo, it seems appropriate to name it kumo
Also, Windows Kumo Messenger.
Windows Search
Windows Messenger
Windows Mail
etc.
Okay so Windows Messenger is technically a different thing to Windows Live Messenger, but my point is we dont need all these silly branding titles being put into the product names.
Windows Search
Windows Messenger
Windows Mail
etc.
Okay so Windows Messenger is technically a different thing to Windows Live Messenger, but my point is we dont need all these silly branding titles being put into the product names.
There needs to be a brand for the INTERNET services.
Windows Search
Windows Messenger
Windows Mail
etc.
Okay so Windows Messenger is technically a different thing to Windows Live Messenger, but my point is we dont need all these silly branding titles being put into the product names.
There needs to be a brand for the INTERNET services.
Don't you mean the easy on the eyes, quick loading plain jane no frizz just give me the information Google?
though Colliris is neat
Google NEEDS Graphic and web Designers BAD.
as great as google is, a bit of a[n optional] redesign wouldn't go a miss
There is such thing as to clean, or to basic.
Use iGoogle as your portal if regular google is too plain. You can put whatever you want on it.
www.google.com/ig
Yes
It just looks disgusting as it is.
www.google.com/ig
That may be an option, but I just don't see why they can't update their default design so it actually looks nice. Like I said, even a nicer shade of blue on the links would be an improvement.
Google's newest favicon looks pretty good, they could easily make a nice design to go along with it.
Whoa, that comment is scary!
Yes, well, if they maintain the minimalism. Alright -- if they want to, they can change their logo and background color or something, but they shouldn't ADD graphics at least.
Yes, well, if they maintain the minimalism. Alright -- if they want to, they can change their logo and background color or something, but they shouldn't ADD graphics at least.
They shouldn't add graphics? I see no problem with adding a few nice gradients. Many websites have images and people don't have a problem with that. A lot of websites which have images also load incredibly fast. This is 2009, not 1999.
Yes, well, if they maintain the minimalism. Alright -- if they want to, they can change their logo and background color or something, but they shouldn't ADD graphics at least.
They shouldn't add graphics? I see no problem with adding a few nice gradients. Many websites have images and people don't have a problem with that. A lot of websites which have images also load incredibly fast. This is 2009, not 1999.
We are in the process of moving to web 3.0
Its not ugly/messy, its just simple. I agree its not elegant, but its not trying to have glitter all over it. Why add "bloat", unless it improves user access then its almost pointless. Adding images and complex css would just increase load etc. for no reason. There needs to be a positive apart from "looking pretty" for it to be a good reason.
Yes, well, if they maintain the minimalism. Alright -- if they want to, they can change their logo and background color or something, but they shouldn't ADD graphics at least.
Remember-- adding just 1k to a page generated 10 million times per day is 10Gb of bandwidth extra every month.
The rules are different when you get that big.
I really do like the current Live Search look, but it needs a better name than Kumo and much more improvements to compete well with Google.
Its not ugly/messy, its just simple. I agree its not elegant, but its not trying to have glitter all over it. Why add "bloat", unless it improves user access then its almost pointless. Adding images and complex css would just increase load etc. for no reason. There needs to be a positive apart from "looking pretty" for it to be a good reason.
I disagree completely. It isn't because it's 'standard'. A white background with that shade of blue on the links just looks awful in my opinion. With today's internet connection, I see no problem with adding images and a bit more CSS to create something which is enjoyable to use. At the moment, Google is not enjoyable to use for me. What is wrong with a couple of extra seconds on the load time if you are sacrificing those couple of extra seconds for a design which actually looks nice?
And maybe that is exactly one of the reasons it become so popular?
On the other hand it just could have been random chance,
and they just don't know what they're doing, they're just doing the best in it. :-)
To an extent, but I think they had an early edge due to the design after all the other search players became bulky, over-blown portals on the home page (I recall using the AltaVista text-mode interface because it was simply far more usable on 33.6)
just like live doesn't sounds right for majority of the world right now.
Fairly sure it's pronounced koo-mo, y'know.
Yes, if we end up reading it like that, it would be phonetic pronunciation. The "u" is pronounced as in "put" thus "kumo". Phonetic languages are very easy to read if you can read phonetically. So initially you'll end up reading the language but you won't have a clue what you are reading
Back on the subject, I have never liked MS' search just because personally I don't trust Microsoft's search results and I feel with Google I get more. Whenever I need to search something, "Google" is the first thing that comes to my mind naturally. It is my default response...I am so addicted to Google search, I treat it as if was the only search engine in the world. Before Google, I used to use metacrawler. It was the search engine of choice back then...
Given Microsoft's track record in the search business, I doubt it, but I'll keep an open mind and at least try it out once it's released.
That was Cujo!
Scarry movie lol
Because they want you to think it is new and different and better. Who cares if it is, possibly, just a minor improvement of the previous version.
a lot do.
Um.... just a wild guess.... but.... Kumo?
Depends - Google guys could have been told that when they set up re: Yahoo! or Alta Vista. But you're probabally right
'Kumo' better do something better and different than Live Search. Live Search results are usually just fine for me, but there needs to be MORE. There's a bazillion ways to improve a search engine, and just a new name and look will not make it better than Google.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.