Product naming at Microsoft has gotten so bad that even their fans are getting frustrated. Robert McLaws, a well-known developer and writer relates his frustration at Microsoft's product naming fiascos, as does the very prolific and well-respected Ed Bott, author of many books relating to Microsoft products. Others in the blogosphere are piping up all over the place to voice their displeasure.

It's gotten so bad that ever-optimistic Robert Scoble has weighed in on the subject, and quite definitely on the side of needing better product names. Interestingly, he actually got a comment on that post by David Webster, who is the guy that is ultimately responsible for Microsoft's product names. In his long and illuminating comments, David says:

Even if you're not interested in protecting the name, you still need to find a name you can safely use. This isn't a matter of "lawyers running the company".

He then goes into three paragraphs describing exactly that - the legal reasons it is problematic to choose good codenames or product names. His argument comes down to the fact that Microsoft is a large legal target, which, while true, is weak. He points to Apple's legal problems when using a codename of "Sagan" as an example of why they need to be careful.

And I think that gets right to the point. Why is Microsoft perceived as boring? Because everything they do is careful. David is right; Windows Live Mail Desktop is certainly never going to be claimed by anyone else, because the name is so godawful that nobody would should admit to having creating it.