Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

nerology.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 201 posts

Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

#61

Post by mrweasel »

herbst wrote: post #36
mrweasel wrote: post #5

One letter domains has the same issue as many of the gTLDs, they aren't particularly useful in terms of brand recognition. X.com is pretty stupid as well, you can't meaningfully use it as a brand. Take bob.builders, it's a perfectly valid domain, but if you see it on the back of a van, even if it's www.bob.builders, it's not recognizably as a website. www.b.com has the exact same problem, even x.com / www.x.com is ju…

X.com probably makes sense in the assumption that he turns Twitter into a WeChat clone as kinda 'everything app' which would obviously fail. But as 'everything app' X is kinda a strong brand IMO.

If "X" can transition to a WeChat clone, then maybe, until then it's a shitty brand. The media always needs to present is as: "The social media platform X", "X, formerly Twitter" or "Elon Musks X". The last one seems to indicate the Elon Musk is a bigger brand than "X".

Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

#62

Post by [deleted] »

red_trumpet wrote: post #53
thih9 wrote: post #19

I don’t like the letter “x” being used as a company name, I find it impractical and confusing. I’d like to call it something different, and since many people say “x/twitter”, I guess others have similar thoughts. I’m not unhappy that there are few other single letter domains, especially if they were to be claimed by corporations.

I think we really should adopt the name "X". Because Musk took Twitter and turned it into something else, which is not the old Twitter anymore. So giving it a different name is fitting. That said, I don't necessarily like the name "X".

[deleted]

Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

#63

Post by andsoitis »

mrweasel wrote: post #5

One letter domains has the same issue as many of the gTLDs, they aren't particularly useful in terms of brand recognition. X.com is pretty stupid as well, you can't meaningfully use it as a brand. Take bob.builders, it's a perfectly valid domain, but if you see it on the back of a van, even if it's www.bob.builders, it's not recognizably as a website. www.b.com has the exact same problem, even x.com / www.x.com is ju…

> X.com is pretty stupid as well, you can't meaningfully use it as a brand.

I don't know that it is self-evident.

The open source implementation of the X Window System is provided by the x.org foundation. https://x.org/wiki/

Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

#64

Post by 7ewis »

swozey wrote: post #59
EarthLaunch wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just disappointed that people go along with takeovers of useful words: x, meta, alphabet. If one was renamed "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" would people still go along with it? What's the limit?

Alphabet is such a cringe name for a company no less. Especially with the meaning google infers. I bet they giggled like little kids in the board room that day. We're so cunning and witty! hehe!

What meaning do they infer?

Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

#65

Post by blowski »

mikehollinger wrote: post #13
eli wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People just google “bob builder” anyway. Domain doesn’t matter so much.

> People just google “bob builder” anyway. Today they do. When a domain was $200 to register in the 90’s, people treated URLs like phone numbers were also treated at the time - to be written down, memorized and then typed precisely in (with slashes!) to find whatever Bob the builder was offering. It’s odd to me tbh that phone numbers were solved with contact lists and address books, along with the occasional “new pho…

> It’s odd to me tbh that phone numbers were solved with contact lists and address books

What's odd about that? I didn't really understand your comment.

Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

#66

Post by FartyMcFarter »

sublinear wrote: post #37
mrweasel wrote: post #5

One letter domains has the same issue as many of the gTLDs, they aren't particularly useful in terms of brand recognition. X.com is pretty stupid as well, you can't meaningfully use it as a brand. Take bob.builders, it's a perfectly valid domain, but if you see it on the back of a van, even if it's www.bob.builders, it's not recognizably as a website. www.b.com has the exact same problem, even x.com / www.x.com is ju…

> X.com is pretty stupid as well, you can't meaningfully use it as a brand. Just "x" alone isn't really the brand. It's more like "x.com" is the canonical name. From that perspective, "x" or "x.com" is about as good as brand recognition can get. It's simple and perfectly descriptive of an "everything app" and payment processing business.

> It's more like "x.com" is the canonical name.

It sounds like a porn website. I don't think most business owners would want this as their brand, but I guess Elon is special in this way as well.

Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

#68

Post by rany_ »

swozey wrote: post #55
extheat wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I disagree with the idea that one letter domains look wrong. Especially with the many new TLDs, more often than not short URL services use single character domains. Take g.co for example—google uses that in ads everywhere. It’s modern equivalent of calling a short code phone number unrecognizable. But yet most people still instinctively know how to text them for information. However for really esoteric TLDs, I ca…

When I see a t.co (x.co now?) link I have literally no idea where it's going to take me at all and I am far, far less likely to click one of them knowing that it's a url shortener. This is such a common thing that there are browser extensions/slack(discord/teams/etc) options to unfurl urls.

Looks like x.co has a minimum asking price of 1 million USD. I wonder who this offer is directed towards ;)

See https://x.co

Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

#69

Post by swozey »

7ewis wrote: post #64
swozey wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alphabet is such a cringe name for a company no less. Especially with the meaning google infers. I bet they giggled like little kids in the board room that day. We're so cunning and witty! hehe!

What meaning do they infer?

That they're going to make a ton of stupid company names and it's their company-name umbrella dad-joke used for tax and legal purposes?

We didn't just all get the memo that that's the joke?

Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

#70

Post by swozey »

rany_ wrote: post #68
swozey wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I see a t.co (x.co now?) link I have literally no idea where it's going to take me at all and I am far, far less likely to click one of them knowing that it's a url shortener. This is such a common thing that there are browser extensions/slack(discord/teams/etc) options to unfurl urls.

Looks like x.co has a minimum asking price of 1 million USD. I wonder who this offer is directed towards ;) See https://x.co

That's actually surprisingly cheap. I used to be at a 4 letter .com and we paid over $1mil for it in 2015 back when domains were still worth something.
Post reply on HN