You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Username comments on Open thread, Aug. 10 - Aug. 16, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: MrMind 10 August 2015 07:29AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (283)
Tags: open_thread

Comments (283)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Username 10 August 2015 01:11:59PM 1 point [-]

Change your name by Paul Graham

If you have a US startup called X and you don't have x.com, you should probably change your name.

The reason is not just that people can't find you. For companies with mobile apps, especially, having the right domain name is not as critical as it used to be for getting users. The problem with not having the .com of your name is that it signals weakness. Unless you're so big that your reputation precedes you, a marginal domain suggests you're a marginal company. Whereas (as Stripe shows) having x.com signals strength even if it has no relation to what you do.

...

100% of the top 20 YC companies by valuation have the .com of their name. 94% of the top 50 do. But only 66% of companies in the current batch have the .com of their name. Which suggests there are lessons ahead for most of the rest, one way or another

Comment author: [deleted] 11 August 2015 03:22:17AM 3 points [-]

This seems to me a clear case of reversing (most of) the causation.

Comment author: SolveIt 11 August 2015 04:41:16AM 4 points [-]

Which makes it a good target for signalling. If you want to seem strong, you get the domain.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 August 2015 04:52:15AM *  0 points [-]

Yes, but I don't see why Paul thinks that's a good thing when you're actually not strong.

Usually, I think his advice is spot on, but in this case his advice that you want to signal that you're strong when you're actually not seems backwards. You don't want to be seen as a credible threat to competitors until you're ACTUALLY able to defend yourself.

Comment author: SolveIt 11 August 2015 06:46:37AM 2 points [-]

I have no experience with startups, but I imagine most startups fail because of apathy (from either customers or investors), rather than enemy action.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 August 2015 07:49:39AM 0 points [-]

That's true... I wonder, would a .com provoke non-apathy?

Comment author: drethelin 11 August 2015 04:01:30AM 4 points [-]

turns out when you're a billion dollar startup you can afford to buy the .com of your name regardless of what it is.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 August 2015 04:02:20AM 1 point [-]

Exactly.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit