3 ms·

Quoting Paul Graham [http://messymatters.com/pgnames.html http://messymatters.com/pgnames.html]: "Nothing could be less cool, at this point, than calling a sta

by dreeves 15y ago

Quoting Paul Graham [http://messymatters.com/pgnames.html http://messymatters.com/pgnames.html]: "Nothing could be less cool, at this point, than calling a startup 'cool.com.' A company with a name like that could not have arisen organically. 'Cool.com' smells of a media conglomerate trying to create a web spinoff." He has a point, yet getting the do.com domain proves they're taking this quite seriously. I guess the two signals cancel and I'm left neutral about the name. :) Where that really matters, of course, is for startups like stripe.com and simple.com (formerly banksimple). They have justifiably huge value for their expensive domain names: being taken seriously is life-or-death for them. Although I dislike all these expensive names -- especially "do" -- on other grounds: http://messymatters.com/nominology http://messymatters.com/nominology Btw, I'm curious how do.com compares to trello.com...

bvi 15y ago
The whole "productivity app" market is saturated, yet new startups or apps come out all the time. Trello is one, Asana is another. And now, Do.
corin_ 15y ago
> A company with a name like that could not have arisen organically And yet it actually did arise organically in a way, as it is based on an app that the parent company acquired.
- foobarbazetc 15y ago
  It's hardly organic when SalesForce probably put down a giant chunk of change for it.
  - corin_ 15y ago
    I mean the product was organic. It wasn't, as pg wrote, a big company going "let's make a product called cool.com!", it was them buying a product, reworking it then changing it's name to cool.com
maaku 15y ago
"do.com" and "cool.com" are not comparable. 1) "do" is a verb 2) "do" describes exactly the value proposition 3) "do" describes the product, not your relationship to it
- dreeves 15y ago
  Good point, "do" is certainly more evocative a name than "cool" would be (unless the latter were in the refrigeration space). I think it's a lousy name otherwise though. It's, ironically, not even really verbable. Technically it is a verb but not one that you can use to invoke do.com. Imagine swapping 'trello' for 'do' in this sentence: "Our task list is getting out of hand -- we should trello this."
- itsnotvalid 15y ago
  I think "cool.com" is only comparable to "com.com" which now always redirect back to cnet.com so to speak.

by dreeves 15y ago

bvi 15y ago

The whole "productivity app" market is saturated, yet new startups or apps come out all the time. Trello is one, Asana is another. And now, Do.

corin_ 15y ago

> A company with a name like that could not have arisen organically And yet it actually did arise organically in a way, as it is based on an app that the parent company acquired.

foobarbazetc 15y ago
It's hardly organic when SalesForce probably put down a giant chunk of change for it.
- corin_ 15y ago
  I mean the product was organic. It wasn't, as pg wrote, a big company going "let's make a product called cool.com!", it was them buying a product, reworking it then changing it's name to cool.com

maaku 15y ago

"do.com" and "cool.com" are not comparable. 1) "do" is a verb 2) "do" describes exactly the value proposition 3) "do" describes the product, not your relationship to it

dreeves 15y ago
Good point, "do" is certainly more evocative a name than "cool" would be (unless the latter were in the refrigeration space). I think it's a lousy name otherwise though. It's, ironically, not even really verbable. Technically it is a verb but not one that you can use to invoke do.com. Imagine swapping 'trello' for 'do' in this sentence: "Our task list is getting out of hand -- we should trello this."
itsnotvalid 15y ago
I think "cool.com" is only comparable to "com.com" which now always redirect back to cnet.com so to speak.