I'll grant that they're unrelated skills, but I still think that it is a skill that can be developed and a skill that is worth investing in. It may not be a smart time investment for a hacker to cultivate that skill themselves, but it is probably a good investment to hire or consult with someone that can come up with a a quality name FOR them. [Business and marketing geeks need love to, you know? There are branding geeks on every college campus too, believe me.]
I think the importance of a good name is often underestimated in the overall scheme of things. Founders and VCs don't flinch too much when they spend several grand hiring a legal specialist to draw up incorporation documents (which is another story)...but it never even occurs to them to spend more time and/or money on something that will likely have a greater impact on their overall success, such as their identity in the marketplace.
I'd also argue that part of it goes to TASTE, PG :-)
> Google is a pretty bad name, actually.
I couldn't agree more. But they're one of the instigators of this current naming trend (two O's, seemingly nonsensical), so they almost have grandfather status. It's all of the followers that make these naming trends pathetic. You don't get lost in the shuffle if you're one of the first. After a certain point, it's the volume of the similar names that is comical. During the electronics boom, everything was -etics this and -tek that, then you had iThis and eThat during the late '90s. Now it's Teletubby names. Why get lost in the shuffle? Why choose obviously bad names?
It's like a mother that goes through 9 months of pregnancy, X hours of labor, and then names her kid Harry Richard McNuttsac or something because she was too lazy to think it through or consult a book of baby names.
I think the importance of a good name is often underestimated in the overall scheme of things. Founders and VCs don't flinch too much when they spend several grand hiring a legal specialist to draw up incorporation documents (which is another story)...but it never even occurs to them to spend more time and/or money on something that will likely have a greater impact on their overall success, such as their identity in the marketplace.
I'd also argue that part of it goes to TASTE, PG :-)
> Google is a pretty bad name, actually.
I couldn't agree more. But they're one of the instigators of this current naming trend (two O's, seemingly nonsensical), so they almost have grandfather status. It's all of the followers that make these naming trends pathetic. You don't get lost in the shuffle if you're one of the first. After a certain point, it's the volume of the similar names that is comical. During the electronics boom, everything was -etics this and -tek that, then you had iThis and eThat during the late '90s. Now it's Teletubby names. Why get lost in the shuffle? Why choose obviously bad names?
It's like a mother that goes through 9 months of pregnancy, X hours of labor, and then names her kid Harry Richard McNuttsac or something because she was too lazy to think it through or consult a book of baby names.