Microsoft scrapes Windows Azure name off cloudy kit

Re-brand to hide the failures...

Too many references to the epic fails Azure has had since its introduction. Getting rid of the Azure brand may help to hide these failures from new customers...

On the value of code names

"Cloud Services", eh? I'm totally certain that searching for such a phrase on the internet search engine of your choice will totally return entirely useful results about Microsoft's products. Having an identifier with limited ambiguity is a good thing; why is it that the MS branding folk don't seem to understand that?

Still, its a hell of a lot less irritating than 'dot net'.

How odd then...

that just below the article I am being offered a free 90 day trial of Windows Azure...

Branding realignment? Maybe not...

The linked article states that they think it is just a billing change, not an overall branding realignment.

"The company isn't clear on whether or not they'll be retaining the Azure branding though, or if this is just a simple change to billing. It appears to be the latter, however, to simplify the way that customers are billed to avoid using the services' names multiple times in one statement."

I think they're onto something here.

If there's one thing Microsoft has done time and time again its releasing a product which was "so so" only to improve on it later (IMO usually very well executed improvements, but I will admit to be biased here and there).

Same has applied to Azure IMO. I'm not claiming it didn't have any potential, but initially it sure had a big label stamped on it: "Expensive!". Renting a virtual database with a good storage (2Gb) and fixed bandwith would cost a multiple factor more than renting a /whole/ virtual Linux environment (which, as the reader may know, could easily host /multiple/ virtual databases). Worse: many service providers also support virtual Window servers; Windows Server 2008 - optimized for web usage (so; with IIS, MS SQL, etc)? No problem. More expensive than a Linux server, but still /way/ cheaper than an Azure solution (which only provides the database aspect).

Now, I'm sure there is more to Azure than that. For example, i'm not taking things like redundancy, backups, and all of that into account. But nonetheless it sure did seem that you'd spend a lot of money on something which could be less expensive if only it didn't have the name 'Microsoft' attached to it.

So if MS is really going for the cloud services then I think it makes sense to "start over" this way; drop the name and embed the 'engine' in a broader package. At the very least it is bound to kill any prejudice because most people will most likely eventually approach it as something "new".

And that may very well give them opportunity to approach the consumer market as well.

You got to start somewhere, and I think this could be a step in the right direction.

They finally worked it out.

So they finally worked out that Azure is a word that many people will associate with blue skies.

Not a cloud in sight.

Mine's the raincoat with the telescopic umbrella in the pocket. Not that I'll need it with Microsoft clouds.

An apparent title

"...The nomenclature change has emerged in an apparent email to customers..."

An apparent email, eh? What's that –something which looks like an email, but might not be?

Never made any sense and it's time to blur the painfully bad reliability track record...

...so maybe, eventually, sometime, at some point, in the future etc etc it will be competitive?

That'd be something.