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?

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Topher3105, 20 Jun 2006 @ 6:00am

    Tired of Web 2.0 already

    Look, nothing has changed on the web, there is no version 2 of the web out their.

    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.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.