The Microsoft Rebrand Registry

Statistics, speculation and stationery The Rebrand Forecast What can several decades of Microsoft naming history tell us? Mostly that a product name is less a permanent identity and more a medium-term tenancy agreement. Analysis uses the registry’s reproducible “as of” date. Days since last rename The nameplates have remained still Measured against the registry’s reproducible “as of” date. Rename vital signs The paperwork at a glance The family league table Where names have the shortest lease Families are compared without silently merging categories. “Limited history” means fewer than two completed renames, where a confident conclusion would require more optimism than data. | Product family | Products | Renames | Median former-name run | Evidence | |---| Rename waves When the nameplates moved Completed name periods grouped by the year the next identity began. Repeat offenders Most documented identities A leaderboard nobody explicitly asked to win. The Rebrand Risk Index What might be renamed next? The index weighs current-name age (45%), prior identities (35%), and family rename frequency (20%). It measures historical rebrand pressure, not probability. Corporate naming committees remain stubbornly non-deterministic. How this was calculated Enough method to keep the joke honest Measured All figures are calculated in the browser from the canonical registry. Durations use completed name periods; current-name age ends at the dataset’s “as of” date. Medians limit distortion from unusually durable names. Limited The registry includes surviving products only, so discontinued products are absent and the analysis has survivorship bias. Family sizes differ, partial dates retain their documented precision, and correlation is not a secret product roadmap. Predicted, technically Scores are deterministic rankings of three historical signals. Status bands are deliberately broad: ● Elevated, ◐ Watchlist and ○ Not imminent. A high score means “good setup for a joke,” not “confirmed for Build.”