Talking to Eurogamer, Chris Lewis, said
I would only say it’s too long if things are stagnating. If developers are finding they’re bumping their heads against the glass ceiling of development scope, if we weren’t bringing revolutionary technology like Kinect, if we weren’t able to, frankly, completely update the UI of Xbox Live without predicating that on people buying new hardware, were those things not true I might be more in agreement with your assessment.

I actually don’t think it’s too long if the experience continues to grow, if people continue to flock to it and they feel like they’re getting great value. That is everything we’re experiencing right now. That’s how I’d answer that.
Continuing:
I’m being charged with more growth this year versus next year. Sure, I chew the back of my hand a little bit when I think about what that means. We had a very good year last year. But, I do also believe there is sufficient in what’s coming and exists right now for that to be a very realistic ambition. We’re not talking about any additional or new generations of hardware at the moment. We’re fixated on what we’ve got going on right now.
Later, when asked whether the Xbox 720 was being researched and developed, he said:
Sure. As you can imagine, of course we’re working on all sorts of different things. We do that all the time. Frankly, in all aspects of Microsoft, not just what we do with Xbox, our R& investment is second to none. But to your point about life cycle timing, we’re in pretty good shape.
As long as hordes of casual gamers continue to buy Kinect, it is clear that Microsoft will continue to support the 360, but with the Wii U out next year, how long can they wait?

Why would anyone be disappointed by the name of a console if its not original, I don't even care.

You don't care. That doesn't mean others don't.

I suppose it's just because there are so many developers out there with lots of wonderful ideas, and they get pushed down because of games like Call of Duty which use the wash-rinse-repeat method. Sure, it works, but not for everyone.

Those devs deserve a lot more, specifically the ones who actually do someone unique, creative, and artistic.

Call of Duty was a great game, when it was a breath of fresh air. Now it's like drinking week-old milk. It's just not satisfying anymore.

My whole point is creativity is far too often suppressed so that money can be made by doing the least amount of work, and that's no fun for the consumer.

Creativity involves risk. Risk loses profits.

Sony named the PS3, we didn't.

Microsoft has a chance to be unique, and if it doesn't use that chance, then I'm sure a lot of people are going to be disappointed.

That is assuming that the next PlayStation is going to be called the PS4, as it seems to at least be hinted had. MS hasn't said a thing about naming. Otherwise, Sony has a chance too.

you're missing the point. Nothing has a good name in development. If you have an android phone odds are in development it had some ridiculous name. The droid x was called the shadow and the xtreme (yes spelled gay like that) in development. Why? because the name is decided by marketing. the dev name is made by engineers as a working title. Just like books don't get titled with their final title until they're done. It has nothing to do with being uncreative, it's how the business model works. In the end, it'll be named what a group of people that microsoft brings in (called an interest group) vote on. They'll give them a list, say pick one. and the one with the most votes will win. That group will be made up of the people that microsoft thinks best represents the demographic that will buy the "720". Sadly I think it won't have a name for at least 2 more years. Possibly 3. If they're really smart, 4, but they'll rush it out before all testing so 3 years is my guess. Just how these things work out.