For all those unhappy about the name "Dash", have a think about a few things before you throw the baby out with the bathwater...
It isn't the job of a name to inspire - that's the job of the underlying product who's identifying characteristics are then taken on by the name. The name needs to be an easy handle to hold, that's all. Something thats easy to grab onto, pronounce, write, display, remember etc.
I was around and programming when the name "Macintosh" first came on the scene. Believe you me, at the time that sounded a lot worse than "Dash" and nothing remotely to do with "taking on the world". The name simply became synonymous with the product and took on all of its sentiment of inspiration, dynamism and creativity. Part of the reason it was successful is exactly because the name carried few overtones of its own at the start.
What could be less threatening than a raincoat ?
A good name can easily have that initial ambiguity. Think of it like the onions that go into making an Indian curry. You start with the most insignificant ingredient of all. One that is nothing in itself but can act like a sponge to catalyse the dynamism in the dish.
As they settle in and start to brown, you add the garlic, chilli, corriander, cumin and the onions are perfectly placed to take on all of that complexity and start to serve as a conduit for tastes. At the end of it all you have a coherent wonder with flavours resonating thorought the dish. You can't taste the onions any more but they're everywhere all the same.
The name is nothing. An empty shell. It's what your turn it into that makes it good or bad. What you make it mean.
A good name will transmit whatever message is there without getting itself in the way too much while still giving a subtle clue as to the nature of the underlying product (unless that product is called 'Macintosh' of course
)
P.S. Having done the research for that post I'm now starving. See you all later !
Thanks.
