One Word Company Names

One of the most important things a company can do for itself is pick a good name. Historically, blue-chip American companies have names such as Bank of America, Coca-Cola, General Mills, and IBM. Lately, I've been noticing a trend in upstart American companies: they are all picking one-word company names.

Are these new generation of entrepreneurs trying to copy the success of Apple and Google? Possibly. Here are some of the new company names I've run across lately:

Box - Secure online file storage
Bump - Media sharing for smartphones
Canary - Wireless home security system
Coin - Replace multiple credit cards with one single card
Nest - The "learning" thermostat
Paper - Digital sketch book for iPad
Simple - Personal finance software
Square - Mobile payment processing
Stripe - Web payment processing
Vine - Looping video app from Twitter

Based on these companies, I have developed a formula for people looking to launch their own one-word startup company. Follow these easy steps and you'll be on your way to startup success in no time!

1. The Name
Obviously, it has to be a one-word name. It should not be a portmanteau or empty vessel name like Groupon or Hulu, but an everyday word from the dictionary (preferably a noun).

2. The Website
The website must look really slick. Clean design with lots of whitespace and no more than 3 colors. Bonus points if your entire website is one long scrolling page (like an Apple product page).

3. The Video
The focus of your website is to get people to watch your introductory video, which is naturally hosted on Vimeo instead of YouTube, lending credence to the far more artistic-thinking audience your company cultivates. The video should not have any spoken dialogue, but should illustrate your company's product or service through a clever sequence of shots backed by an upbeat instrumental track and some inspirational words at the end.
(The similarities between Nest, Simple and Paper's videos are stunning).

4. The Press
Your company has to be mentioned absolutely everywhere. Not in mainstream media like the New York Times or Time Magazine, but on the web! You need profiles in FastCompany, TechCrunch, Engadget, Gizmodo, Huffington Post, Reddit, and all of the lower tier websites that scrape or syndicate content from the bigger ones.

5. The App
Whether the app IS your product/service or simply facilitates one, you need a mobile app. It has to be available for both iOS and Android platforms.

6. The Business Model
The product should use the freemium model in which some of the functionality is given for free, and members can subscribe for a low monthly fee to enable complete functionality. For product based models (such as Tesla or Nest) there should be no more than 3 variations of the product. Keep it simple.

Here are some new companies I have just now invented using my own formula:

Bound - An on-demand publishing service similar to LuLu, Blurb, and others.

Chain - A social app for cyclists. Hu ge with the fixed-gear hipster crowd.

Green - Um, I don't know? Something to do with finance and smartphones...

Ink - A cloud based printing service of some sort.

Ring - A virtual telephone number service (similar to Google Voice and Skype).

Snooze - Find a hotel room from your smartphone.

Whirl - A location-based photo sharing app (FourSquare meets Instagram).

2010: Year of the Redesign

Sometimes change is a good thing. I like when computers get faster, when cars get more powerful and more efficient, and when a band I like releases a great new album. Sometimes change is not a good thing, like when a website you visit regularly undergoes a major design change for the worse. This is the situation I have found myself in several times so far this year! In case you haven't noticed, I have a hard time dealing with change.

#1 - YouTube's 2010 Redesign
It all began with YouTube's new site design which launched at the end of March 2010. I feel that YouTube's new look is vastly worse than the previous version in several ways.

My grievances include:
· Video summary moved below player from right-hand side
· Home and History links disappeared
· Subscribe and Upload buttons moved, became colorless and joyless
· Five-star rating system discontinued
· Blatant Facebook ripoff "Like/Dislike" rating system implemented
· User comments no longer displayed in chronological order
· No separator bars between user comments
· Player volume control now horizontal instead of vertical

YouTube before and after the 2010 redesign.

In all honesty, the new YouTube redesign ranks up there with the Edsel, the Arch Deluxe, and New Coke in terms of failures. I'm not the only one who feels this way! Check out the 2,500+ comments on the YouTube Blog that echo my sentiments. The new design is an absolute travesty. Everything familiar has been discarded in favor of a new look that is about as intuitive as a tangled extension cord: where do you even begin?

This is a real shame because I used to love spending hours on YouTube looking up videos about anything and everything. Since their new design launched, I find I am spending less time on there and the time I do spend there is less enjoyable.

#2 - Google's 2010 Redesign
Next, we have the new Google homepage. Google is great at helping me find what I am looking for, but they are slipping when it comes to displaying that information to me. First things first: their logo changed in 2010. The new colors have more of a pastel look and the drop shadow is gone. Instead of looking at a search engine, I feel as though I am looking at a flat, two-dimensional page made for little kids.

Google's 2010 redesign features a subtle new logo.

But wait, it gets worse. The search results page now features a vertical column on the left-hand side of the page. Rather than filtering my search results to show only Images, News, and Videos on top of the search results page, the filter links are now on the left hand side. I don't like this position on the page, I don't like the icons, and I don't like that I cannot collapse the sidebar completely.

Comparison of Google and Bing Results Pages.

Most of all, I hate that the search results sidebar is a blatant rip-off of Bing. While we're on the subject, Google recently introduced a new "feature" that lets users randomize the background image on their homepage in June. Seriously, if I wanted my search engine and results page to look like they were made by idiots, I would just use Bing. Now that both search engines have nearly identical layouts, I'm left with no good alternatives.

#3 - Wikipedia's 2010 Redesign
Finally, let's take a look at the Wikipedia redesign which launched in April 2010. The new default theme is "Vector," which features clean lines and abundant gradients that have a very Microsoft-esque quality about them. The web's most famous peer-edited website is now one of the goofiest looking websites out there.

Wikipedia before and after the redesign.

But the worst offense by far is the relocation of the search box from the left-hand navigation to the top right corner of the page. I never realized how much I use the search box until they moved it! After using Wikipedia regularly for years, I find myself frustrated and angry when I position the mouse cursor on the left hand side and my search box is gone! Arrgh!

They really missed the mark on this one. Articles written by committee seems to be working well for Wikipedia, but design by committee is not.

#4 - NewEgg's 2010 Redesign
NewEgg is the Internet's second-biggest Internet-only retailer after Amazon. They stock a wide variety of consumer electronics, computer parts, gadgets, and even appliances for sale. In 2010 their website underwent a face-lift, and I think the new look is definitely NOT an improvement.

First, the daily deals have been moved off the homepage to their own separate page. Now it takes an extra click to see what's on sale today. Content should get easier to find rather than being buried deeper into the site.

NewEgg's New Look for 2010.

Next, the font size on the product listing pages grew a few sizes. I'm not sure what it is about the font, but it doesn't look right in the context of the page. It's hard to get more specific about it, but I just don't like the way it looks.

Closing Thoughts
If I could communicate one thing to web designers, it would be this: remember that your site's user interface does not belong to you, it belongs to your users! Ask them for feedback, listen to the responses, and for God's sake if it's not broken, don't fix it!!

Let's just hope that craigslist never updates their interface.

I'm not the only one who feels this way:
http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-video-page-launches-for-all-users.html
http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/an_inconvenient_drop_shadow.php
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/a-new-look-for-wikipedia/

Rate Me

The most popular websites on the Internet these days are the ones that focus on user-generated content. Sites such as MySpace, Facebook, Digg, YouTube, CarDomain, LinkedIn, Orkut, LiveJournal, and Blogger are offering more than just "social networking;" they offer a chance for both friends and strangers to pass judgment about you and every aspect of your life. Thanks to the Internet, we have a growing population of kids and teens who are increasingly self conscious about what other people think of them.
Let's say you sign up for an account with CarDomain.com and post a few pictures of your car. Other users can sign your guestbook and tell you exactly what they think of your vehicle, good or bad. Most people don't sign up anticipating that they will receive a bunch of negative comments, but it can and does happen. You could work really hard on your car and make it exactly the way you like it. Then when you share it with the world, they might attack you. Now how do you feel about the car? How do you feel about yourself? Do you second-guess yourself or do you write them off as random Internet jerks?

Let's take it a step further and talk about the infamous HotorNot.com. Instead of ranking cars, you're ranking people. Yep, just a headshot or a picture of you will do. Post it on there and let the world vote for you based solely on your physical appearance. If you're beautiful it may boost your self-esteem to find yourself ranked highly, but at the same time, someone has to be at the bottom of the list as well. Unless you spend money on things like hair dye and plastic surgery, you're pretty much stuck with who you are. In the real world you wouldn't go around telling strangers if you find them attractive or not, but on the Internet it's more than okay - it is entertainment.

YouTube is a great way to show off your special talent to a worldwide audience. Whether it's playing the Super Mario theme on a musical instrument or a video of your best skateboarding tricks, the site can turn an ordinary person into an Internet celebrity overnight. There are also plenty of ways for people to cut you down through hurtful comments and video replies. What if you spent countless hours perfecting a song and everyone who watched your video said it was stupid, that it sucks, and that you have no talent? How would you feel about yourself then? Pretty awful, no doubt.

The king of all "social networking" sites is MySpace. On MySpace, users sign up and post everything from personal information about their job and their education to their private thoughts, pictures of friends and family, and information about their favorite books, movies, and music. It's like a living obituary of everything you'd ever want to know about a person. In fact it's very common for people to update their pictures when they buy a new car, move to a new house, get a tattoo, have a baby, or do something newsworthy.

In those situations, the voice of the global community is not far behind. There are profile comments, picture comments, video comments, and blog comments so everyone can tell you (and other viewers) exactly what they think of you. The surveys that people post and repost are even more intimate. Does the world need to know if you sleep with your clothes on or who the last person to text message you was? Do they want to know? Should you tell them? What judgments can a person make about you from the information you give? There's plenty of room for harsh ones.

The point is not to discourage people from having fun and sharing their interests online. The point is that now your entire life can be showcased on the Internet for all to see, to be commented on and voted for, starred, dugg, ranked, and rated in an infinite number of ways. This has given birth to a new generation of "attention whores" who have an uncontrolled desire for attention and approval. It leads to statements like "PLEASE comment my new pix" and "tell me what u think of my new haircut, shoes, girlfriend, boyfriend, tattoo, gun, car, or whatever." I wonder if the Internet is simply a gathering ground for the vain people of the world or if the Internet makes people excessively vain and self conscious?

It seems to me like some of these people's lives revolve around seeking the approval of "the community." There are now an infinite number of ways for the world to tell you what they think of you. It is easy to forget that the only thing which really matters is what YOU think of yourself, and not what other people think of you. If you like your car a certain color or your hair combed a certain way or a certain type of music, that's your personal choice. If your roommate or classmate or co-worker thinks your favorite band is lame, your best answer should be "Don't listen to them, then."

Maybe you've heard the popular saying that "opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one." Well, it's true. So here is my opinion: don't live your life by changing yourself and your values to get approval from other people, especially strangers and the Internet crowd. If you're not living your life for yourself, then who are you living for?

Just a quick disclaimer: the preceding statement does not mean I advocate going out and breaking laws if you believe in Anarchy. Please understand I am encouraging people to be nonconformist in safe and legal ways here. Use good judgement and common sense, and ALWAYS remember the Golden Rule: "Treat others as you wish to be treated." The bottom line is this: be yourself, but don't be an asshole, either.


I'm not the only one who feels this way:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=attention+whore
http://www.pauldavidson.net/2005/07/22/words-for-your-enjoyment-attention-whores-2/
https://web.archive.org/web/20081029083132/http://nmallory.exit-23.net/20060920/approval-whore
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/03/26/2009-03-26_14yearold_new_jersey_girl_may_get_sex_of.html
http://whitneyhess.com/blog/2008/06/05/the-stranger-aversion/
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090325084728AAuZ2jt
http://www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/why-are-sites-like-myspacefacebook-popular
https://web.archive.org/web/20100728222102/http://fastandloud.com/the-myspace-whore-collective-friendwhores-scenewhores-attentionwhores-camwhores-and-regular-whores/
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts6913048.aspx
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/MySpace_Whore

Why I Hate Twitter

One of the most popular social-networking sites of the past few years is Twitter. Members of the site post brief, 140-character long messages known as "tweets" whenever they feel like it. This allows friends and family to keep up with the user's activities throughout the day. Twitter is free to use, explosively popular, and utterly stomach-churning to me.

There are lots of reasons why I hate Twitter, starting with the absolutely awful name. If Twitter is the name of the website, does that mean its members are all "Twits?" Last time I checked, that was a pretty undesirable thing to be called.

The second reason I hate Twitter is the nature of the service that they provide. By posting "tweets," your friends and family can know what you're doing at any moment throughout the day. I guess the telephone, the answering machine, the cell phone, the voicemail box, the text message, the letter, the handwritten note, email, instant messaging, MySpace comments and messages, blogs, and good old fashioned talking to your friends just aren't enough to keep in touch in these modern times! With so many ways to communicate with one another, is one more really necessary?

Third, the type of information that people post on Twitter is so boring, useless, and inane that I cannot believe anyone cares about this stuff. Does my cousin across the country really care that I ate a burrito for lunch today? Is it critical that my friends and co-workers know when I am procrastinating on my homework? Does anyone at all need to know that I got a new pair of shoes or got my car's oil changed this weekend?

The information people post on Twitter is beyond trivial; it has no value to anyone. If I did something truly noteworthy like get engaged, move to a new house, or change careers, I'd let my friends know with a telephone call, email message, or other form of communication mentioned above.

When people make a post such as: "Just got dressed, heading out to work now" it is really not noteworthy. What do you want, praise for accomplishing a simple everyday task? Do you expect a pat on the head for that meager accomplishment, or are you just a whore for attention?

The whole Twitter phenomenon reminds me of the popular catchphrase of the 1990's: TMI, or Too Much Information. In context, the expression is used when someone tells you all the dirty details and it makes you uncomfortable. I certainly don't think strangers on the Internet need to know that I'm heading out to the library to return an overdue book or that I was late to work this morning because I had to clean up a big pile of cat barf on the rug. I hesitate to tell those things even to close personal friends, but apparently some people have no shame (especially when it comes to very personal medical problems).

The fourth reason that Twitter sucks is its 140-character limit. With an email or telephone call, I am free to say as much as I want to, whether it's ten words or ten thousand words. I am free to add pictures, video, and anything else I want to get my message across. The Internet is all about removing boundaries on creative self-expression, unless you're on Twitter in which case you are required to stay in your 140-character corral. After all, you don't want to get too detailed or anything.

Finally, I hate Twitter because it is made for the laziest kind of people. I view Twitter users as people too lazy to place a telephone call, compose an email, or tap out a text message because it takes too much work. For them, Twitter is a quick and easy way to say "Hey world, pay attention to me!" without the effort of picking up a phone, writing a blog, or doing anything creative that takes real effort.

To summarize, Twitter has a terrible name, it is unnecessary in our thoroughly-connected modern society, it is full of useless information, its members have no shame about what they share, and it's the quickest path to becoming an attention whore ever devised. Fuck Twitter.

I am not the only one who feels this way:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18445274/ 
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1877187,00.html 
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1879169,00.html
http://www.zazzle.com/i_hate_twitter_tshirts-235256829573788183

Web Pollution 2.0

I've noticed something new on the web these days. Every story, every article, every post on every newspaper and blog is now adorned with a set of cutesy-colorful "social bookmarking icons." The madness is spreading like wildfire.


About.com recently ran an article about social bookmarking and of course, in the box right next to the story was a "submit to digg" link. It should come as no surprise that social bookmarking is popular with bloggers and websites with user-generated content such as Instructables and GetRichSlowly. What surprises me is how many major newspapers have also latched on to this Internet epidemic.

The New Yorker has stuck to text links for its social bookmarking, but still allows you to instantly add any story to digg, del.icio.us, and reddit. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is out of control with a whole box of buttons after every article. The New York Times offers the same "convenience" in a collapsible menu.

So what exactly is the problem here? These sites are just making it convenient for people to integrate news, events, and information into their own little social networks. What's wrong with that?

Well, I'm kind of upset that major newspapers are even concerned with "social bookmarking" sites to begin with. To me, social bookmarking is nothing but a big popularity contest. Before social networking, writers, bloggers, journalists, and reporters wrote articles because they had something to say. They wrote to get a point across or to communicate a message to an audience.

It seems that now, articles are being written just to win the approval of a crowd. Newspaper columnists may add keywords like "Apple" and "Google" to their headlines more than they used to, because those terms rank highly on social news sites like Digg. Articles speculating on what a high-tech company may or may not do in the near future are hastily slapped together with little regard for facts. Journalism has been reduced to a beauty pageant in which the article the crowd approves of most wins, regardless of the contestants' true character.Secondly, I cannot believe that every thought that moves from some hack writer's mind to their keyboard is WORTHY of such instant, overnight, global promotion on the mainstage of Internet news outlets. Basically, who decides what is news and what isn't?

When you have a fully staffed newspaper, it is often the editor who decides if a story is newsworthy. This editorial process helps filter out the boring, incomplete, inaccurate, and uninteresting stories from ever getting printed. With social bookmarking, any wacky story has the potential to become front-page news.

So you cracked the screen on your iPod nano and feel entitled to a replacement? SO WHAT. So you beat Super Mario on NES in five minutes? GOOD FOR YOU. So you compiled a list of the top CSS tutorials on the web according to you? GIVE ME A BREAK. This is not news.

The simple fact is that not every story, blog, or article ever written is worth reading. I have found many of the front-page articles on social news websites to be irrelevant and lacking in substance, facts, and even proper spelling and grammar. Whatever ridiculous story is headline news today will be forgotten by tomorrow in the wake of an even more fantastic story.

Please stop cluttering up my web browsing experience with your stupid social bookmarking icons. Good newspapers and websites are about CONTENT, not about how quickly they can be spread around the web. I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Check out:Signal vs. Noise: It's the content, not the icons
ProBlogger: Social Bookmarking Icons - Are they Worth It?
ValleyWag: Fight Social Bookmark Icon Pollution
MezzoBlue: Mooching 2.0
Shakk.Us: Mother of all social bookmarking services icons

I don't look at social bookmarking icons as adding convenience to users, I look at them as catering to lazy people. How hard is it to copy a link and email or IM it to your friend? If the article is really THAT good, it's no trouble at all. You won't see any of those fugly little icons on any of my articles as long as I can help it. That's all.

[Note: This article was originally written August 22, 2007 and revised February 5, 2009.]