3 ms·
Not a lot better. Possibly no better. But certainly much worse than "Excite" or "Yahoo," whose lunches Google ate. That's my point here.
by pg 16y ago
Not a lot better. Possibly no better. But certainly much worse than "Excite" or "Yahoo," whose lunches Google ate. That's my point here.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- philwelch 16y agoMy point here is that "Google" attains a level of adequacy that "Wesabe" doesn't seem to, for the reasons I pointed out. Past adequacy, I agree that "Google" was a worse brand than its competitors and that it didn't matter.
- illumen 16y agoIt sounds like goggles, and goggling - ie looking. It also means the large number 'googl' 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 - vast scale. It's not meaningless, and does relate to their product. The google brand and message - with its single input box, and 'just search' focus was awesome. Wesabe is a completely wrong name on so many levels for a financial company. Any decent branding consultant would have told them that.
- 83457 16y agoGoogle sounds like goggles? I'm not sure I have heard someone suggest that, nor do 99% of Google users know about the mathematical significance of the name. I think it is a good name because it is simple, unique, easily spelled and the name of the best search engine for the last 10 years.