So it feels like this is a prejudice against startups who aren't using the .com TLD and I suspect would come more from investors and partners than users. Maybe

So it feels like this is a prejudice against startups who aren't using the .com TLD and I suspect would come more from investors and partners than users. Maybe the point is that for startups that do get traction and funding, finding a .com is an inevitable task, one that could save a lot of money/energy by addressing it in the early stages. That inevitable task may be borne out of the CEO being tired of answering why they didn't go for a .com. There has actually been no justification as to why a .com is required. Simply saying non .com is "marginal" and "it signals weakness" is not a root reason. All it shows is that some people have a differing opinion on the value of a .com and not agreeing with 'them' means you're weak. I personally do feel more comfortable having a good sounding .com, but if I'm going to do it, it has to be for the right reasons. That I don't think has been clearly expressed in this essay. My reasons are that it's a global identity, globally indexable by search engines, the most common global LTD and therefore the most memorable by end users, and more stable from a root server point of view. Would I think a startup with another name is weak? No. I would assume that they understand the implications of a non-.com TLD.