7 ms·

Remember when .NET came out? Everything was .NET. As a result, no-one really had any idea what .NET actually was. Eventually we figured out it was "Microsoft'

Remember when .NET came out? Everything was .NET. As a result, no-one really had any idea what .NET actually was. Eventually we figured out it was "Microsoft's Java". Windows also went through a phase in which seemingly everything was Windows.

mc3 7y ago
That's not even the best example. .NET Core vs. .NET Standard was a wtf?
- Someone1234 7y ago
  That's not really an example of what they're bringing up. Microsoft has the .Net ecosystem (as the above poster described it "Microsoft's Java," which it largely is). However for a period Microsoft was naming other products and services ".Net" that were completely unrelated. Specifically this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_.NET_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_.NET_strategy Both .Net Core and .Net Standard are part of the .Net ecosystem for real, making them not an example of the marketing phenomenon being discussed here. Which isn't to say the names aren't confusing, just that it isn't in the same pattern. PS - .Net Framework: Legacy/Classic .Net. Windows Only. Started in 2002. 4.8 is the final major version. .Net Core: Light weight/cross platform "reboot" of .Net Framework. Started in 2016. .Net Standard: Minimum subset of both that allows libraries to be cross-compatible with .Net Framework and .Net Core. Also assures they lack Windows specific dependencies. Allowing a bridge to migrate to .Net Core.
- snuxoll 7y ago
  I never found it confusing, but I also remember the hell of PCL’s so .Net Standard was a breath of sanity.
- code_sloth 7y ago
  > .NET Core vs. .NET Standard was a wtf? At least they named it core and standard so you know which mess you're referring to. With Apple TV you have to make up your own qualifiers. Apple's marketing team seems to failing at their jobs right now. They had iPhone had X/Xr/Xs/Xs Max at some point, and I never figure out which was which. The most recent 11/11 pro/11 pro max makes a lot more sense, but it sounds dated.
  - saberience 7y ago
    Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it a "mess" .Net Core and Standard are two of the best things Microsoft has done in the past 5 years and part of the reason why .Net is doing so well and is super popular.
    - giancarlostoro 7y ago
      To be fair just before .NET Standard it was much more confusing. Then by .NET Core 3 (which I kept telling people wait till .NET Core 3 for things to get better since it wasnt till .NET Framework 3 that I saw huge adoption of .NET) it got way better. Also now we are seeing cross platform UI frameworks for .NET as well. I have been wanting to experiment with some of them but I am letting the ecosystem grow and mature a bit more. .NET Core is the best thing Microsoft did even if it sucks they basically redid .NET Framework. It sucks when companies do that kind of thing but the end result is a much more powerful .NET ecosystem. The confusing bit is old .NET Framework libraries that may or may not work at all with .NET Core.
- sebazzz 7y ago
  They should have it called [The] .NET Standard [API specification] but that is a bit long, isn't it?
etaioinshrdlu 7y ago
Even Sun Microsystems had a phase where they made thought-terminating illogical statements. My 2 favorites: "The network is the computer" - No, it's not, and Sun's tech at the time, just Unix servers, definitely did not have any enlightened concept of networking that others lacked. It had Berkeley sockets and NFS. Such a statement makes me think of single-system image cluster computing, or other cool stuff, but they didn't have it! Lame. "We put the dot in dot-com" - ??? - I think they got scared that they were starting to lose relevancy in the internet age. It turned out that Sun hardware was a poor choice if you really wanted to scale.
- pram 7y ago
  “The network is the computer” is truer today than it’s ever been though.
  - randomidiot123 7y ago
    It's as gibberish today as it's always been.
  - DonHopkins 7y ago
    "The door is a jar." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkmoQvbMRFk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkmoQvbMRFk
- mc3 7y ago
  I remember the dot in dot-com ads. I was thinking of starting a blog titled: "I put the dot in dotnet"
- dottrap 7y ago
  > "We put the dot in dot-com" - ??? Yes, it's marketing fluff (as with any marketing), but I liked that one. For all you tech people like me that have problems answering to non-techie family members what you do, I thought that was an example of a beautiful succinct answer that still conveyed enough of an idea to be satisfying to laymen. As for one I really hated from Sun: "Java Desktop System", which was just a distro with GNOME, and had nothing to do with Java.
sk5t 7y ago
Microsoft has gone through some pretty dark times w.r.t. naming stuff. Up there with "Windows" everything and absurdities like ".net Passport" was their unslakable thirst for "Active." ActiveX, Active Server Pages, Active Data Objects. However, none of it holds a candle to IBM's mania for making everything "Websphere."
- jjtheblunt 7y ago
  Or Watson
  - sk5t 7y ago
    For sure, although whereas the Websphere-ing of the product line seemed like a plausible effort at consistent branding, Watson feels more like a cynical measure to appear relevant, but nobody's buying it. On the "active" bandwagon, I forgot to mention Active Directory, which is kind of funny given that I spent the better part of a decade specializing in development and projects largely oriented around AD and ADFS, and which is maybe the only Active-branded thing still going strong.
    - sebazzz 7y ago
      I don't think anyone refers to it as Active Server Pages .NET Core but the abbreviation still carries it.
    - giancarlostoro 7y ago
      I have a feeling business people eat up Watson. Nobody got fired for buying IBM as they say. I was at a telecoms conference and they did a demo and mentioned the systems could use Watson for speech to text functionality. Someone somewhere is buying into it whether directly or indirectly.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Pxtl 7y ago
  Dark times are still happening. Right now they're renaming everything Azure regardless of whether it's part of their cloud offerings. Also, Live was another Microsoft naming phase. For me, the canary in the coal mine of ms naming is their messenger. Msn messenger, live messenger, Skype, Skype for business, Teams... I assume the next iteration will be named Azure Teams.
Scapeghost 7y ago
How about the New Nintendo 3DS XL or Xbox One, now with 30% more confusion in conversations.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- gargravarr 7y ago
  Xbox One X. Now with 40% more confusion.
me551ah 7y ago
Actually, Microsoft's Java existed. Microsoft built their own JVM ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Java_Virtual_Machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Java_Virtual_Machine ) and Java was supported as a language in Visual Studio in the past. It was the fastest Windows-based implementation of a Java virtual machine when it came out. But Microsoft being itself added some custom features on top of JVM ( like IE ) and Sun sued them. In retaliation, Microsoft removed JVM from Windows and built C#. Everybody at that time knew C# was Java, though C# has evolved to be a much better language to code in than Java.
- akandiah 7y ago
  They even had a version of Java for .Net called J# (J-Sharp). That didn't last long.
  - giancarlostoro 7y ago
    It was for migration purposes if I remember correctly.
maram 7y ago
Seems like Apple is going through Xerox phases..Very soon they will have to explain everything. There was a time when Xerox had to explain what their products were for. In one of the computer ads the headline said "This Xerox machine can't make a copy" https://ries.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/16/xeroxcopy_2.jpg https://ries.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncatego...
- DonHopkins 7y ago
  Not even Xerox can Xerox. [1] [2] Not even Lego has Legos. [3] But even Google can Google. [4] [1] https://beta.worldcat.org/archivegrid/collection/data/880574886 https://beta.worldcat.org/archivegrid/collection/data/880574... >Just a little reminder from Xerox / prepared by Needham, Harper & Steers Advertising, Inc. -- Not even Xerox can Xerox / prepared by Needham Harper Worldwide, Inc. (March 1985) -- Once a trademark, not always a trademark / [Xerox Corporation]. [2] https://trademarkmusings.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/not-even-xerox-can-xerox/ https://trademarkmusings.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/not-even-x... >Though it was a long time ago, I recall that my law school Business Torts casebook contained a copy of Xerox’s old ad, “Not Even Xerox Can Xerox”, which Xerox used to promote proper use of its trademark and fight genericide. Back in the day, Xerox was by far the most well-know copier brand, leased by offices all over. In this day and age, now that most people have a copier at home (as part of a multifunction printer) and it could be a Canon, HP, Brother, Epson or other brand, I think the younger folk are not so likely to refer to copying as “Xeroxing”. It poses an interesting quandary: Xerox may be winning the genericide war but they are no longer dominating the competition. Which is preferable? [3] http://www.lego.com/en-us/legal/legal-notice/fair-play http://www.lego.com/en-us/legal/legal-notice/fair-play >Proper Use of the LEGO Trademark on a Web Site >If the LEGO trademark is used at all, it should always be used as an adjective, not as a noun. For example, say "MODELS BUILT OF LEGO BRICKS". Never say "MODELS BUILT OF LEGOs". Also, the trademark should appear in the same typeface as the surrounding text and should not be isolated or set apart from the surrounding text. In other words, the trademarks should not be emphasized or highlighted. Finally, the LEGO trademark should always appear with a ® symbol each time it is used. [4] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=65cb8ea7-6425-4263-a7d4-c8330ae8ec3a https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=65cb8ea7-6425... >In a well-reasoned opinion, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that the GOOGLE trademark has not suffered death by genericide – even if the public uses it as a verb for searching the Internet. >The case before the court sprang from the registration of 763 domain names that incorporated the term GOOGLE. After losing a domain name dispute arbitration, the domain name owners sued to have various trademark registrations for GOOGLE cancelled, claiming that the mark had become generic for the act of searching the Internet. The court rightly observed that a claim of genericide must always relate to specific goods or services, and that use of “google” as a verb for searching the Internet was not sufficient evidence that GOOGLE had become generic for “search engine services” or any other goods or services. >The general rule of thumb is that trademarks are best thought of as “adjectives” that modify a generic noun. But this “part of speech” approach is not determinative to whether a mark has become generic. And while for years Xerox sought to instill in the public’s mind the trademark significance of XEROX by stating that “not even Xerox can xerox,” evidently Google can google without destroying the mark.
amanzi 7y ago
Windows Server 2003 was briefly called Windows .Net Server during its beta phase.
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  There was a Visual Studio .Net as well, 2002 if I remember correctly.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

mc3 7y ago

That's not even the best example. .NET Core vs. .NET Standard was a wtf?

Someone1234 7y ago
That's not really an example of what they're bringing up. Microsoft has the .Net ecosystem (as the above poster described it "Microsoft's Java," which it largely is). However for a period Microsoft was naming other products and services ".Net" that were completely unrelated. Specifically this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_.NET_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_.NET_strategy Both .Net Core and .Net Standard are part of the .Net ecosystem for real, making them not an example of the marketing phenomenon being discussed here. Which isn't to say the names aren't confusing, just that it isn't in the same pattern. PS - .Net Framework: Legacy/Classic .Net. Windows Only. Started in 2002. 4.8 is the final major version. .Net Core: Light weight/cross platform "reboot" of .Net Framework. Started in 2016. .Net Standard: Minimum subset of both that allows libraries to be cross-compatible with .Net Framework and .Net Core. Also assures they lack Windows specific dependencies. Allowing a bridge to migrate to .Net Core.
snuxoll 7y ago
I never found it confusing, but I also remember the hell of PCL’s so .Net Standard was a breath of sanity.
code_sloth 7y ago
> .NET Core vs. .NET Standard was a wtf? At least they named it core and standard so you know which mess you're referring to. With Apple TV you have to make up your own qualifiers. Apple's marketing team seems to failing at their jobs right now. They had iPhone had X/Xr/Xs/Xs Max at some point, and I never figure out which was which. The most recent 11/11 pro/11 pro max makes a lot more sense, but it sounds dated.
- saberience 7y ago
  Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it a "mess" .Net Core and Standard are two of the best things Microsoft has done in the past 5 years and part of the reason why .Net is doing so well and is super popular.
  - giancarlostoro 7y ago
    To be fair just before .NET Standard it was much more confusing. Then by .NET Core 3 (which I kept telling people wait till .NET Core 3 for things to get better since it wasnt till .NET Framework 3 that I saw huge adoption of .NET) it got way better. Also now we are seeing cross platform UI frameworks for .NET as well. I have been wanting to experiment with some of them but I am letting the ecosystem grow and mature a bit more. .NET Core is the best thing Microsoft did even if it sucks they basically redid .NET Framework. It sucks when companies do that kind of thing but the end result is a much more powerful .NET ecosystem. The confusing bit is old .NET Framework libraries that may or may not work at all with .NET Core.
sebazzz 7y ago
They should have it called [The] .NET Standard [API specification] but that is a bit long, isn't it?

etaioinshrdlu 7y ago

Even Sun Microsystems had a phase where they made thought-terminating illogical statements. My 2 favorites: "The network is the computer" - No, it's not, and Sun's tech at the time, just Unix servers, definitely did not have any enlightened concept of networking that others lacked. It had Berkeley sockets and NFS. Such a statement makes me think of single-system image cluster computing, or other cool stuff, but they didn't have it! Lame. "We put the dot in dot-com" - ??? - I think they got scared that they were starting to lose relevancy in the internet age. It turned out that Sun hardware was a poor choice if you really wanted to scale.

pram 7y ago
“The network is the computer” is truer today than it’s ever been though.
- randomidiot123 7y ago
  It's as gibberish today as it's always been.
- DonHopkins 7y ago
  "The door is a jar." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkmoQvbMRFk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkmoQvbMRFk
mc3 7y ago
I remember the dot in dot-com ads. I was thinking of starting a blog titled: "I put the dot in dotnet"
dottrap 7y ago
> "We put the dot in dot-com" - ??? Yes, it's marketing fluff (as with any marketing), but I liked that one. For all you tech people like me that have problems answering to non-techie family members what you do, I thought that was an example of a beautiful succinct answer that still conveyed enough of an idea to be satisfying to laymen. As for one I really hated from Sun: "Java Desktop System", which was just a distro with GNOME, and had nothing to do with Java.

sk5t 7y ago

Microsoft has gone through some pretty dark times w.r.t. naming stuff. Up there with "Windows" everything and absurdities like ".net Passport" was their unslakable thirst for "Active." ActiveX, Active Server Pages, Active Data Objects. However, none of it holds a candle to IBM's mania for making everything "Websphere."

jjtheblunt 7y ago
Or Watson
- sk5t 7y ago
  For sure, although whereas the Websphere-ing of the product line seemed like a plausible effort at consistent branding, Watson feels more like a cynical measure to appear relevant, but nobody's buying it. On the "active" bandwagon, I forgot to mention Active Directory, which is kind of funny given that I spent the better part of a decade specializing in development and projects largely oriented around AD and ADFS, and which is maybe the only Active-branded thing still going strong.
  - sebazzz 7y ago
    I don't think anyone refers to it as Active Server Pages .NET Core but the abbreviation still carries it.
  - giancarlostoro 7y ago
    I have a feeling business people eat up Watson. Nobody got fired for buying IBM as they say. I was at a telecoms conference and they did a demo and mentioned the systems could use Watson for speech to text functionality. Someone somewhere is buying into it whether directly or indirectly.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Pxtl 7y ago
Dark times are still happening. Right now they're renaming everything Azure regardless of whether it's part of their cloud offerings. Also, Live was another Microsoft naming phase. For me, the canary in the coal mine of ms naming is their messenger. Msn messenger, live messenger, Skype, Skype for business, Teams... I assume the next iteration will be named Azure Teams.

Scapeghost 7y ago

How about the New Nintendo 3DS XL or Xbox One, now with 30% more confusion in conversations.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
gargravarr 7y ago
Xbox One X. Now with 40% more confusion.

me551ah 7y ago

Actually, Microsoft's Java existed. Microsoft built their own JVM ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Java_Virtual_Machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Java_Virtual_Machine ) and Java was supported as a language in Visual Studio in the past. It was the fastest Windows-based implementation of a Java virtual machine when it came out. But Microsoft being itself added some custom features on top of JVM ( like IE ) and Sun sued them. In retaliation, Microsoft removed JVM from Windows and built C#. Everybody at that time knew C# was Java, though C# has evolved to be a much better language to code in than Java.

akandiah 7y ago
They even had a version of Java for .Net called J# (J-Sharp). That didn't last long.
- giancarlostoro 7y ago
  It was for migration purposes if I remember correctly.

maram 7y ago

Seems like Apple is going through Xerox phases..Very soon they will have to explain everything. There was a time when Xerox had to explain what their products were for. In one of the computer ads the headline said "This Xerox machine can't make a copy" https://ries.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/16/xeroxcopy_2.jpg https://ries.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncatego...

DonHopkins 7y ago
Not even Xerox can Xerox. [1] [2] Not even Lego has Legos. [3] But even Google can Google. [4] [1] https://beta.worldcat.org/archivegrid/collection/data/880574886 https://beta.worldcat.org/archivegrid/collection/data/880574... >Just a little reminder from Xerox / prepared by Needham, Harper & Steers Advertising, Inc. -- Not even Xerox can Xerox / prepared by Needham Harper Worldwide, Inc. (March 1985) -- Once a trademark, not always a trademark / [Xerox Corporation]. [2] https://trademarkmusings.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/not-even-xerox-can-xerox/ https://trademarkmusings.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/not-even-x... >Though it was a long time ago, I recall that my law school Business Torts casebook contained a copy of Xerox’s old ad, “Not Even Xerox Can Xerox”, which Xerox used to promote proper use of its trademark and fight genericide. Back in the day, Xerox was by far the most well-know copier brand, leased by offices all over. In this day and age, now that most people have a copier at home (as part of a multifunction printer) and it could be a Canon, HP, Brother, Epson or other brand, I think the younger folk are not so likely to refer to copying as “Xeroxing”. It poses an interesting quandary: Xerox may be winning the genericide war but they are no longer dominating the competition. Which is preferable? [3] http://www.lego.com/en-us/legal/legal-notice/fair-play http://www.lego.com/en-us/legal/legal-notice/fair-play >Proper Use of the LEGO Trademark on a Web Site >If the LEGO trademark is used at all, it should always be used as an adjective, not as a noun. For example, say "MODELS BUILT OF LEGO BRICKS". Never say "MODELS BUILT OF LEGOs". Also, the trademark should appear in the same typeface as the surrounding text and should not be isolated or set apart from the surrounding text. In other words, the trademarks should not be emphasized or highlighted. Finally, the LEGO trademark should always appear with a ® symbol each time it is used. [4] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=65cb8ea7-6425-4263-a7d4-c8330ae8ec3a https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=65cb8ea7-6425... >In a well-reasoned opinion, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that the GOOGLE trademark has not suffered death by genericide – even if the public uses it as a verb for searching the Internet. >The case before the court sprang from the registration of 763 domain names that incorporated the term GOOGLE. After losing a domain name dispute arbitration, the domain name owners sued to have various trademark registrations for GOOGLE cancelled, claiming that the mark had become generic for the act of searching the Internet. The court rightly observed that a claim of genericide must always relate to specific goods or services, and that use of “google” as a verb for searching the Internet was not sufficient evidence that GOOGLE had become generic for “search engine services” or any other goods or services. >The general rule of thumb is that trademarks are best thought of as “adjectives” that modify a generic noun. But this “part of speech” approach is not determinative to whether a mark has become generic. And while for years Xerox sought to instill in the public’s mind the trademark significance of XEROX by stating that “not even Xerox can xerox,” evidently Google can google without destroying the mark.

amanzi 7y ago

Windows Server 2003 was briefly called Windows .Net Server during its beta phase.

tonyedgecombe 7y ago
There was a Visual Studio .Net as well, 2002 if I remember correctly.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]