Hacker News Reader

Comment by wulczer | Hacker News Reader

I'd say that the URL for Apple iPod is:

  http://google.com/search?q=apple%20ipod

and for Sony Walkman:

  http://google.com/search?q=sony20walkman

Really, I see people going to their GMail by typing "gmail" in Google. And ask 100 strangers on the street how important the tidyness of the text in their browser's address bar is to them.

View on HN

Yup... and unfortunately for Sony, the top hit for "sony walkman" is Wikipedia. If their URLs didn't completely suck maybe they would have better luck with their SEO.

I think it's Wikipedia because "walkman" has a much longer history as a brand name, from cassette players to cell phones.

I remember times where back where I lived "walkman" was a plain noun meaning "any kind of portable cassette player".

Well, in a way the same thing is true with "iPod" now: It's used to refer to "any kind of MP3 player". But search for "ipod" on Google, and the Wikipedia page telling you all about the history of the iPod is not the first result, it's a page where you can actually buy one. Several pages, actually.

Hmmm. I don't believe people use the term 'iPod' to refer to any old MP3 player.

Some do (my parents for example), and I suspect even among those who recognise different brands, there's decreasing awareness of what MP3 is. It's not uncommon for a brand to become synonomous over time - Walkman was an earlier example in this thread, but others include Liquid Paper, Roller Blades, and even Biros. Dangerous territory, because in the instance where it does become generic your trademark protection disappears (see also the battle Xerox continues to wage in that regard).

Also, Kleenex. Possibly the "Duck" brand of tape as well since people seem to have trouble saying duct tape.

Actually duct tape vs duck tape isn't all that clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duct_tape#Etymology

Duck Tape is trademarked, but it's possible that was the original term for it. It's weird.

Many of my friends do; also many older more "technically-challenged" people I know do.

I don't appreciate the downvote.

I know of no-one who does, technically challenged or otherwise. Also, I don't have downvoting rights.

I suspect Wikipedia's massive page rank helps with that. Pretty soon wikipedia will own most keywords.

You're right. URLs like Sony's are exactly the reason why people completely ignore URLs, and the only URL that any average joe ever types in the address bar is www.google.com.

Despite the google argument, URLs still count for sharing links with people. If you have to email someone a nasty unreadable 140-char URL, it depresses the shareability of that link in every way - digitally, orally and written.

Actually, no, it goes deeper than that.

Most people never learn how to use the address bar. Period. It's not that the URLs are too hard or complex to learn, it's that they don't know there's anything they could learn to type in there.

Well, part of the reason for that is that people never actually need to learn about URLs, Google is perfectly adequate for the average web browsing needs. And I would say most people know how to copy/paste URLs to share them, so it's not a problem of 'learning' what they are and what they're for.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com