Why M$ Live is dead and other views

After reading Ravenii's post; VOIP IP Telephony: M$ drops Live and adds VOIP to Communication server 2007 and wondering why Microsoft is dropping "LIVE" from products, I set out to look for reasons.
I did not have to go far, the attention blog directed me to New York Times article.
One paragraph from the interview was enough for me and I came back to The attention.

"“I don’t know if Live is the right name,” he said, saying he had not decided what to do about it. But before he gets around to deciding whether to change the brand, he wants to make Microsoft’s search engine itself more appealing to consumers.", This is from Steve Berkowitz who runs microsofts online services unit.

The Attention has put together some of the revelations by M$ online head honcho into understandable sections. I am sure you will understand some of the M$'s problems and hope M$ listen to it's own people. Looks like live is dead.
The best of The Attention got me laughing.
"However, Berkowitz does hit upon the key challenge for Microsoft at the end of the interview.

“You don’t win in the first 90 percent; it just gets you in the game,” [Berkowitz] said. “What matters to people is emotional attachment. And I think that’s the last 10 percent.”"

Only emotion I got about M$ was when crappy windows crash on me when I for get about WGA. So you know what it is.

Links;
My own WGA feelingsGeemodo: WGA, OGA, Vista EULA and Happy Feet

The Attention's Losing customer
New York Times Article

Tags: M$, Microsoft live, Microsoft dead