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.
This seems to me a clear case of reversing (most of) the causation.
turns out when you’re a billion dollar startup you can afford to buy the .com of your name regardless of what it is.
Exactly.
Which makes it a good target for signalling. If you want to seem strong, you get the domain.
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.
I have no experience with startups, but I imagine most startups fail because of apathy (from either customers or investors), rather than enemy action.
That’s true… I wonder, would a .com provoke non-apathy?