RSS
Re-using Failed Company Names From Web 1.0?
from the they're-baaaaaaaack,-sort-of dept
Alarm:clock has a post talking about how Xoom, an online competitor to Western Union for sending cash around the world, has raised a lot of money from a bunch of top tier VC firms. However, the name stood out, because Xoom was the name of one of the more ridiculously overhyped (and underdelivering) dot coms of the first bubble era. It's clear that this Xoom has nothing to do with the original Xoom, but it seems odd that a company would want to associate itself with a company that had a terrible reputation, constantly over-promoted itself, and kept trying to come up with a an idea that actually worked (their main thing was selling clip art, but they were mostly known for being a GeoCities clone). The company did eventually sucker NBC into buying it and merging it with its own struggling Snap/NBCi web portal, before the whole thing collapsed due to the complete pointlessness of the offering (Snap.com having also recently been reborn as a new, totally unrelated company). It's fun to mock the names of some web 2.0 companies, but are the naming choices really that thin that it's worth bringing back names that were closely associated with big flameouts and only died a few years ago?
23 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- Cybersecurity Bill Backers Insist This Isn't SOPA... But Is It Needed?
- If The RIAA Wants To Talk About Misinformation Campaigns, Let's Start With The RIAA's Misinformation Campaign
- UK Report Blames The Internet For Terrorism, Says ISPs Should Take Down Content
- NY Times: RIAA & MPAA Exaggerate Piracy Impact Stats... But We're Going To Assume They're True Anyway
- Author Jonathan Franzen Thinks That Ebooks Mean The World Will No Longer Work
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
free traffic
Think of all the old websites out there that still link to the old xoom site, links advertising free hosting, or to homepages that no longer exist on xoom. This sort of traffic could bring in several hundred visitors a day. and all absolutely free.. they could build a very successful business this way.
I've actually been thinking I should buy Flooz.com for my new web 2.0 version of pets.com for this very reason.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
YaY
If you make a Podcast on your Blog about bulding the Web2.0 version of Pets.com on the Flooz.com domain because of the the old incoming links are good for business , I am totally RSSing that .
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Lack of Good Domains
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
nunya_bidness
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
exhume?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Cant have it all
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Cant have it all
J
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
There is no web 1.0 or web 2.0
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Tired of Web 2.0 already
In fact, when I first started hearing about this, I thought that the web was expected to shift to Internet 2 or some other more advanced network technology like using IPv6 or something bringing about a new era in security and robustness.
Instead, this is some garbage buzzword used to describe to luddites (i.e. Wall Street Stock Brokers that know nothing about technology) that something has changed in the web to warrant them locking back to the web for investment opportunity.
It is the keyword for a new Dot.Com bubble that is expanding towards another sharp pin.
All that has changed is that over the last 5 - 10 years, there has been an increasing focus on delivering online web applications which can mimic desktop application by using AJAX or some other technology that doesn't require full page refreshes in order to show changes in UI states. The only reason why they are calling this Web 2.0 is that some somewhat clever marketing guru over at O'Reilly Media needed a hook to start getting people to buy more books about web development, so they coined the phrase Web 2.0. Wall Street picked it up as a way of invoking some sense of urgency in re-examining the web as an investment opportunity and source of lucrative IPO's.
It is a CORPORATE fabrication, only idiot CEO's and ignorant web columnists and bloggers promote the idea that the web has undergone any evolutionary change and continue to promote this concept.
If your website is worth anything, then you will drop Web2.0 except in mock and ridicule.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
It's short attention spans.
--
Howard Lee Harkness
The Celtic Fiddler Violins and accessories
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Tired of Web 2.0 already
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
name re-use....
I think not. Call me a little bit supersititious but coming from an old nautical family the one thing we take very seriously is the history associated with naming things. If a name has a bad history, don't use it again!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Web 2.0
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: There is no web 1.0 or web 2.0
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Brand recognition
These company names are HOUSEHOLD brand names that cost a company billions in advertising to make sure you remember their name. And since the public's memory is incredibly short it's rare to find someone that remembers that Atari and others actually went bankrupt years ago. All the new company has to do is get a product out there and make sure the public knows about it, in effect let them know they are still around.
It's a major win to grab a household word as your company name. If you can't find a household word, just follow Microsoft's example and grab something descriptive from the house itself:
word
office
windows
notepad
power
point
...etc etc.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Tired of Web 2.0 already
Amen 2.0, brotha...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: There is no web 1.0 or web 2.0
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner... ;)
Yeah, sometimes it's so easy to forget that sarcasm and irony HTML tags don't work in all browsers.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re-use
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
drqx xtpqok
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
oycjnx peduvtz
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Smestaj u Sokobanji
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment