That seems like a very weird branding move to me (dropping the part of your brand name that actually makes it recognizable), but I guess I just don't understand the marketing 4D chess at play here.
Is this some kind of marketing flex? "We are so recognizable, we can afford drop the only thing from our name that makes it make object level sense"?
Other examples: Transferwise -> Wise (despite them still doing transfers as their main business), WeWork -> We (ok, to be fair in my experience not so much work got done there at the best of times) etc.
These things also usually completely kill SEO. Like, how am I supposed to google for the nearest coworking space? "we near me" sounds ridiculous to type into a search engine.
dx034 451 days ago [-]
Transferwise makes sense to me. They used to be just about transferring money abroad. By now, they offer full bank accounts including card payments. I guess they dropped the transfer to make people aware that they’re a proper bank now.
fkyoureadthedoc 452 days ago [-]
This seems more like a story people like to repeat than an actual reality, like we're just relaying wisdom from 1999.
However, chat.com is blocked on my work computer as pornography.
patapong 451 days ago [-]
Do you happen to be in France?
fkyoureadthedoc 451 days ago [-]
No, the company I work for has some presence in France (and every other country) though.
wseqyrku 452 days ago [-]
> dropping the part of your brand name that actually makes it recognizable
This feels a lot like Twitter -> X, I guess we have to get used to this.
kmeisthax 452 days ago [-]
Twitter -> X is such a terrible rebrand even Elon Musk doesn't use it consistently.
dmonitor 452 days ago [-]
I don't get why he didn't rebrand it as "twitter on X", X encompassing the chatbot, job search, group voice calls, etc and "twitter" being an "app" on X
basch 452 days ago [-]
because then the press wound still refer to it as twitter.
who calls alphabet alphabet? meta ended up slightly better only because they had three or four really strong consumer brands.
sunaookami 452 days ago [-]
>who calls alphabet alphabet?
Not the same as Alphabet is the parent company and media do call it so when the parent company is fined for example. Same for Meta. Also, the press does write "X" or "X (formerly Twitter").
basch 448 days ago [-]
I replied to a comment suggesting X be a parent company to Twitter.
dmonitor 445 days ago [-]
Not exactly. I was saying Twitter should be the product, X should be the platform. The current situation would be as if Google renamed Youtube to Google
mcperr3 452 days ago [-]
I don't call alphabet anything because I don't talk about alphabet. Google is a subsidiary within alphabet.
basch 448 days ago [-]
I replied to a comment recommending Twitter be a subsidiary of X.
insane_dreamer 451 days ago [-]
It’s because X was supposed to become a one app to rule them all like WeChat in China, and that obviously never happened (maybe because he fired everyone?), instead X is just Elon’s personal Twitter.
type0 451 days ago [-]
It's sad but it might eventually. I would imagine to the end of Trump cadence we'll be paying with x-coin in supermarkets, both he and Elon will be making tons of money. Trumps and Elons x-coin will have tariffs built in to it and you won't be paying taxes if you use it /s
sebazzz 451 days ago [-]
He jumps consistently in an X shape every time he makes a public speech though. He is pretty… important about the X.
swyx 451 days ago [-]
also openai is moving to a post gpt world
ChemiSpan 452 days ago [-]
They didn't change anything; chatgpt.com is still the main domain. chat.com simply redirects to chatgpt.com.
lxgr 452 days ago [-]
Good point, although chatgpt.com used to redirect to chat.openai.com for a while too, until the former eventually became the default.
mFixman 450 days ago [-]
I have four different apps on my phone all called "Messenger".
There must something about companies wanting their customers think that they don't need to use the competition.
chrisweekly 452 days ago [-]
I have a similar "huh?" rxn to HBO rebranding as "Max". At first I thought someone in my family had signed up for CineMax. I still call it HBO.
com2kid 452 days ago [-]
There never was a digital service called HBO.
There was HBO Go and HBO Now, one of which you could subscribe to yourself, the other of which was an option you could get through your cable provider. There was massive amounts of confusion about the entire situation.
HBO Max was combining the two apps into a single digital streaming platform.
lxgr 452 days ago [-]
But then to drop the HBO out of "HBO Max" is certainly a decision.
3836293648 449 days ago [-]
Yes there was, just not in America
tim333 451 days ago [-]
I guess short words are cooler and more expensive. Like Facebook starting as www.thefacebook.com and then getting facebook.com later. Not sure how meta.com is working out for them though. I guess the stock is up.
lxgr 451 days ago [-]
Meta is a company though, not (primarily) a brand. People don't need to google or remember "Meta"; they'll search for "WhatsApp", "Instagram" etc. (In fact, I suspect that getting as far away in semantic space from Facebook with these other properties was part of the motivation for the rename.)
If OpenAI renamed itself to just "AI" I'd sigh and shrug (and applaud the honesty), but ChatGPT is a product and well-known brand name.
type0 451 days ago [-]
FB rebranded to Meta and obfuscated that they are behind those apps, it worked, most users still have no idea that Meta is FB
mewpmewp2 451 days ago [-]
This was just Justin Timberlake's idea, right.
YetAnotherNick 451 days ago [-]
How did you forgot x.com, the biggest flex and disaster at the same time.
bennycha 451 days ago [-]
I always assumed something like ChatGPT is artificially boosted by Google... do they really have people doing SEO?
8n4vidtmkvmk 451 days ago [-]
Why would Google artificially boost it? They're competing. They shouldn't give it any special treatment whatsoever
ein0p 451 days ago [-]
Are they? Have you tried Gemini lately? They might be competing on the services side, but the only two peer competitors in the chatbot space are Anthropic and OpenAI.
8n4vidtmkvmk 450 days ago [-]
They do have a chat ui. It's not as robust afaik, but I don't see why they can't expand on it. It would be a nice addition to their storage/Google one offering
j0hnyl 451 days ago [-]
Are you suggesting that chatgpt is as popular as it is because it's propped up by google in the serps?
hanspeter 451 days ago [-]
I think they're suggesting that highly popular sites like ChatGPT get a ranking boost beyond regular page rank, making SEO efforts unnecessary.
But I don’t think that’s the case, at least not artificially. These sites tend to rise naturally in search rankings because they have a huge volume of links and media coverage. Which still makes SEO efforts unnecessary.
jerrygoyal 451 days ago [-]
they are taking a common lingo (i.e. chat) and making a brand out of it. Could be a genius move.
bdjsiqoocwk 449 days ago [-]
Usually brands make the conscious effort to avoid that, because they might lose their trademark.
3np 451 days ago [-]
Good luck defending any trademark, though.
sixtyj 451 days ago [-]
Could be.
Me: I will ask ChatGpt… changed to “I will ask Chat”
So Mom: Who is Chat?
Me: Gpt.
They could buy Chad.com as well, then it would make sense /s
joseda-hg 451 days ago [-]
They could also be banking on the emergence of "chat" as an imaginary external party to a conversation which apparently has started becoming a thing with _the youths_
- Chat, is this real?
- GPT, Being intentionally obtuse: Nah dude, chill
8n4vidtmkvmk 451 days ago [-]
I still think Cortana was the best naming/branding. It's sufficiently unique, has a fun history, probably has enough syllables for voice activation, is an actual name that doesn't sound dumb to call an entity. Too bad MS squandered it.
mewpmewp2 451 days ago [-]
They should probably buy skibidi.com
Yizahi 452 days ago [-]
Also Golang to Go
BrandoElFollito 452 days ago [-]
Golang and Go coexisted since the beginning. Go was the favorite name but Golang was used in parallel to make search possible
normalaccess 452 days ago [-]
Every time I go to chatgpt.com I type chat into the address bar and it autocompletes to the correct site. Also when talking to my coworkers it's taken the same status as "googling" something. We just call it "chat". So yes, I also feel it's odd to see chat.com go to chatgpt but it's the shorthand some people are already using.
Examples of what my coworkers and I say at the office:
"What does chat have to say about x?"
"Did you ask chat"
"Did chat find the answer?"
"Yeah, chat scripted that one."
saberience 452 days ago [-]
I’ve literally never heard anyone refer to chatgpt as “chat”. In fact, I don’t believe your anecdote.
normalaccess 452 days ago [-]
My coworkers also watch a lot of twitch so chat was already something they said before.
It's for sure something I say...
normalaccess 452 days ago [-]
And it's why better than someone calling it chat gip-uh-dee (pronounced with a J sound like GIF :) )
8n4vidtmkvmk 451 days ago [-]
Jippity sounds dumb but it's growing on me. I wonder if that domain is still available... No, registered in 2023
mewpmewp2 451 days ago [-]
I just call it "cat".
dmonitor 452 days ago [-]
If someone talks about "chat" I assume they're talking about a livestream's chat feed, or the other members of a group message channel.
normalaccess 452 days ago [-]
Yeah, me too. And if you squint your eyes and tilt your head you can kind of make the connection. Any large Language Model is made of the "chat" from billions of messages floating around on the internet.
So when you ask chat a question you are in reality asking an algorithmic simulation of mass internet communication.
In my mind the connection works, which is convenient with the new chat.com domain and all...
8n4vidtmkvmk 451 days ago [-]
Kind of funny, because there's another product we use that's just called Chat, so we'd never say that. "GPT" is a better shorthand IMO. It's also not specific but I don't know of any other product that uses it in the branding.
Someone who has't been visiting the site for a while will be very disappointed, ChatGPT does only text, voice and images
thumbsup-_- 452 days ago [-]
May be they will just think that the UI is updated and start sexting with chatgpt
mrtksn 452 days ago [-]
Then get schooled for not abiding to the SV morals
nuz 452 days ago [-]
I kinda feel like the sort of kiki weird odd name of chatgpt helped it gain traction. People care way less about pleasurable brand names than marketing people think. Just 'chat' is way too generic etc (sounds like many unoriginal SF companies)
soneca 452 days ago [-]
I agree. WhatsApp is by far the most popular app in Brazil (of all kinds, not only messengers). Yet…
- Its name is unpronounceable for 90% of its users (we short it to ”zap”)
- The word itself has unfamiliar letter combinations (“wh” and “pp”).
- The intended pun doesn’t work at all, since no one here uses “What’s up” (not even the 10% that understands English)
Similar to what happens with “Google” and “Facebook”, btw.
LeoPanthera 452 days ago [-]
I'm a native English speaker and I didn't get the "pun" for years. Almost a decade, even.
Sure, but there are countries where the accent of people speaking English makes the pun very obvious. I wonder if the original WhatsApp people were foreigners.
RugnirViking 451 days ago [-]
Same, and I just figured it out NOW. And I use it every day....
com2kid 452 days ago [-]
> - The intended pun doesn’t work at all, since no one here uses “What’s up” (not even the 10% that understands English)
Well until you wrote this I never realized it was supposed to be a pun, and I'm a native English speaker...
HPsquared 452 days ago [-]
All those super generic .COMs always make me think "probably a domain squatter". Easy to remember though I guess.
jjmarr 452 days ago [-]
ChatGPT is an amazing name. Extremely percussive.
BoorishBears 452 days ago [-]
An sizeable number of people get confused and call it "ChatGTP": enough that you can search "ChatGTP" and find pages of posts and articles misnaming it
An initialism is not exactly an amazing name for a consumer product.
basch 452 days ago [-]
It is a great word spoken. Written it is visually identifiable as a symbol. It also seems to break every rule of naming, and is almost nonsensical.
Eggpants 451 days ago [-]
ChatBLT would’ve been more honest.
fragmede 452 days ago [-]
How do you pronounce it? G as in Gif or G as in jpeg? Chat-gee-pee-tee? Chat-guh-pt? Chat-Gipity?
techjamie 452 days ago [-]
I like to use both gee-pee-tee and the Primeagen style "chat jippity" interchangeably, depending on who I'm talking to.
lozf 451 days ago [-]
Hard G in GIF as in Graphics (which is what it stands for),
Soft G in GPT as in Generative (which is what it stands for)... Simple.
You might get away with "Gippity" in some contexts.
bdangubic 452 days ago [-]
chat is basically prepping us for the future where the only “thing” we will chatting with is “AI” :)
minimaxir 452 days ago [-]
ChatGPT's name was always an albatross: OpenAI didn't expect the original ChatGPT research demo in November 2022 to go as megaviral as it did, but once it did it was too late to give it a more business-friendly name.
It wouldn't surprise me if they eventually rebrand ChatGPT to just Chat, Justin-Timberlake-style.
sebzim4500 452 days ago [-]
I think it reached "so bad it's good" status. If they had launched with a more typical silicon valley name like Gemini then I don't think it would have become the generic term for a chatbot among non-tech people.
andai 452 days ago [-]
I've been working at public libraries and I hear young people say "ChatGPT" several times per hour.
teaearlgraycold 452 days ago [-]
Most people have no idea what GPT means or what GPT products existed before ChatGPT. But that means those 3 letters occupy their own space in their head and that space is the same as "AI chatbot". That gives OpenAI a lot of power that Anthropic won't have with "Claude" or Google with "Gemini".
jsheard 452 days ago [-]
Wasn't OpenAIs bid to trademark "GPT" rejected though? That name isn't a moat if anyone can use it.
xeromal 452 days ago [-]
It was rejected but it doesn't mean people can't assume GPT means chatgpt
londons_explore 452 days ago [-]
Obviously a legally protected name is best. But "GPT" will end up morally protected even without legal protection.
"This AI is dumb. Bob, did you get all this research from a fake ChatGPT cos you're too cheap to buy the real thing?"
HPsquared 452 days ago [-]
A new name for a new thing.
pants2 452 days ago [-]
I'm just happy OpenAI hasn't gone through a half dozen rebrandings like Google has with Assistant / PaLM / Sparrow / Bard / Gemini
seydor 452 days ago [-]
But then it won't be Search.com
keiferski 452 days ago [-]
It looks like Chat.com is just redirecting to ChatGPT.com and hasn't replaced the brand name (yet.)
If the intention is to rebrand as Chat.com / Chat, the interesting question is whether this commits them to the chatbot-based model of using AI tools. Personally, I think that is something of a mistake – the chat model is fine for now, but it requires too much pre-knowledge to use effectively. The most effective AI tools I've used have more elaborate UIs that help "corral" the created material into more usable formats.
londons_explore 452 days ago [-]
The human word "Chat" seems too generic to be a good brand name too. I think it would be a dumb move to rebrand right now.
tim333 451 days ago [-]
While I quite like it, I see if I google "chat" the top result is Google Chat.
Optimal_Persona 450 days ago [-]
The French would claim it’s a feline word ;-)
chrisweekly 452 days ago [-]
Reminiscent of "Wired" magazine, in the era of wireless / mobile taking over.
LeoPanthera 452 days ago [-]
Misleading? chat.com redirects to chatgpt.com, and chat.com is registered at GoDaddy while chatgpt.com is registered at Markmonitor.
mkagenius 452 days ago [-]
Redirection is dirty quick thing they might have done in the meantime they switch all other APIs or make sure nothing breaks.
452 days ago [-]
steve_adams_86 451 days ago [-]
If they're moving to drop GPT, I'll miss "chat gippity". I don't think I'll stop referring to OpenAI's chat solutions as that, no matter what they call it.
"What does the SEC do?"
"Securities market stuff? I'm not sure, you should ask gippity"
andrewstuart 451 days ago [-]
Feels a bit like Twitter.com versus x.com
I didn’t like ChatGPT as a product name and I still don’t but it’s established,recognized,distinctive and SEO friendly.
Why would you trade all that fir something else?
robomartin 451 days ago [-]
Who negotiates these large domain acquisition deals?
I imagine that without a professional negotiator in the process many domain owners would easily leave lots of money on the table.
Historically, it was owned by CNet's download.com (remember that?) and it redirected to their chat apps category.
jsheard 452 days ago [-]
Huh, I wonder how many adult content filters that domain is still on. That might be an impediment to them making it the primary domain in the short term.
> BREAKING NEWS: Secret acquirer of $15+ million domain chat .com revealed and it's exactly who you'd think.
> For those of you that have been following me for a while, you may recall that I announced earlier this year that I had acquired the domain chat .com for an "8 figure sum" (which was later reported as being $15.5M).
> I also shared that I had sold the domain to an undisclosed buyer.
> I was not at liberty to share who the acquirer was (I was going to leave that to them, when they were ready).
> Well, in a 8 character tweet (talk about brevity), Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI revealed that they were the buyer. If you visit the website now, it goes to ChatGPT.
loceng 452 days ago [-]
"Some" cash + mucho shares in overinflated company?
Some still think "OpenAI has no moat", keep on beating that horse, lol.
seydor 452 days ago [-]
If openAi wants to eat the market they must buy chrome's omnibar
dartos 452 days ago [-]
What is their moat besides incredibly deep war chests?
It’s the same for all foundation model companies. The moat is how much money that have to sell inference and pay for training.
CharlesW 452 days ago [-]
ChatGPT is more than a foundation model. To use Claude as an example of where competitors are failing in comparison, you can't even do extremely basic stuff like upload PowerPoint decks or Excel spreadsheets, much less create custom GPTs.
dartos 452 days ago [-]
Sure, but none of that is moat.
It’s just a feature on someone’s backlog.
The proof of that is chatgpt itself. OpenAI did not pioneer a lot of those kinds of features. They saw startups doing it and just did it themselves since it’s fairly straightforward to implement.
A scrappy startup can copy the vast majority of chatgpt features with another foundation model.
Custom GPTs are just prompts.
lumost 451 days ago [-]
>A scrappy startup can copy the vast majority of chatgpt features with another foundation model.
Software is expensive to build, adoption is more expensive. If you ever try to convince someone to migrate in a B2B setting - you'll learn that its not enough to be cheaper, or better - you need to either be 10x cheaper or provide a next level experience that makes the existing product seem like a liability.
If you could copy ChatGPT's functionality (getting more expensive by the day), and offer it for $2/month - then folks might migrate. Otherwise the switching cost is too high for most.
dartos 451 days ago [-]
> If you could copy ChatGPT's functionality (getting more expensive by the day)
You can. You can also make the core functionality of Twitter in a weekend.
Building software at this high a level isn’t too expensive or difficult, especially since the LLM provider you’d use handles the most difficult scaling issues for you.
> and offer it for $2/month
This you can’t really do. OpenAI can’t either tbf, they just have the runway to charge whatever they feel like… that cash is their moat.
CharlesW 452 days ago [-]
> Sure, but none of that is moat.
Not for foundation models, and not when considered individually. But as long as OpenAI continues killing it with foundation models, continues moving up the stack with applications built on those models, and continues establishing market-leading parterships/integrations with companies like Microsoft and Apple, that's a moat.
moofer9 451 days ago [-]
That’s…not a moat. Here, I’ll let chatgpt tell you:
True moats often involve factors like network effects, brand strength, intellectual property, or significant operational efficiencies that are harder to replicate.
Superman doesn’t have a competitive moat, even if he manages to be the strongest and produce random powers out of nowhere - other superheroes pop up and monopolize various cities despite being nowhere near as powerful. Why? They are the recognizable local brand. That’s a moat. It’s not something Superman can easily do anything about. Heck, Superman’s strength even makes him unrelatable to most humans, actively harming him in the brand area.
CharlesW 451 days ago [-]
The Superman analogy is fun, but moats are rarely that simple. About the real-world scenario I described, ChatGPT generated:
"The combination of OpenAI’s advancements in foundation models, application development, and strategic partnerships collectively creates a robust moat for several reasons: [list of reasons]
"Together, these elements form a substantial moat. OpenAI’s cutting-edge models create a technological barrier, its applications generate a sticky user base, and its partnerships expand its influence and operational support, making it difficult for competitors to replicate its entire ecosystem. This combination of technological, user-based, and strategic advantages creates a robust, multi-layered moat around OpenAI in the competitive AI landscape."
ThalesX 452 days ago [-]
I use it for some reports every month and Claude is so much better than OpenAI's frontier models it's not even funny.
I can upload CSV, JSON, PDF, any type of text file...
minimaxir 452 days ago [-]
> you can't even do extremely basic stuff like upload PowerPoint decks or Excel spreadsheets
That's a UX implementation, not a moat. There's nothing ChatGPT-specific about vector stores/the Assistants API that Claude can't copy if there's enough demand.
jjmarr 452 days ago [-]
Good UX is a moat. Otherwise we'd be in the year of the Linux desktop.
minimaxir 452 days ago [-]
An operating system is indeed a moat because a user can't easily switch operating systems due to the ecosystem it extends. That's not a UX thing.
aipatselarom 452 days ago [-]
Yeah, you're right.
They'll be out of business very soon!
/s
dartos 452 days ago [-]
I never once suggested that…
You can stay in business for a long time with no moat and billions of dollars.
Long enough to find a moat even.
452 days ago [-]
hydrolox 452 days ago [-]
not sure about reducing it to just chat but using the entire "chat gpt" as a verb is really common like "let me chatgpt this assignment" (love it or hate it is very common in schools)
codingwagie 452 days ago [-]
They already have something like 80% of the gen ai revenue
karaterobot 452 days ago [-]
But they're still not making a profit. Maybe the analogy would be if the moat was filled with water, and it started leaking into the castle.
codingwagie 452 days ago [-]
Their goal isnt revenue, they can turn ads on and turn into google. the goal is growth
karaterobot 452 days ago [-]
It seems like they already own 80% of the market, and have hundreds of millions of users. They became a for-profit company, so hopefully their goal is going to be profit eventually.
I wonder whether running an ad on a ChatGPT conversation even pays for the cost of that conversation. I know the agent my company runs costs us 10x more to generate each response than an ad click would bring us in revenue. So, even if someone clicked on an ad every time they asked a question, we'd still lose money. Hmm.
GaggiX 452 days ago [-]
Honestly right now Anthropic offer a better service, at least if you are a programmer, I don't really see the moat.
evanmoran 452 days ago [-]
I find it funny to think that SnapChat did the opposite and removed Chat to become Snap.
Either way it’s a bold move. It’s clearly easier to type and say. I wonder if they found GPT is just too unpleasant to say so trying to switch the brand is worth it to them.
pentagrama 452 days ago [-]
Current post title:
ChatGPT now on chat.com
I think a more accurate title may be:
chat.com now redirects to chatgpt.com
fsniper 452 days ago [-]
I am not a marketing guy, however feels like this is an unnecessary move.
Haven't they already have the "Xerox" brand/verb of LLM Chat bots?
ppetty 452 days ago [-]
What if it’s not about marketing & more about new functionality? In another comment this was compared to Twitter changing to X … what if this is ChatGPT becoming a chat app for peers & with gpt? Or a social network? People share their GPT chats so maybe they want to be the chat platform… sound too bold? They did search.
Clicking the link opens the Ticketmaster app on my phone.
reportgunner 450 days ago [-]
Haha can't wait until new people think that everything that has a chat also has AI because chat.com is AI
mv4 452 days ago [-]
Bad marketing move. This dilutes the brand.
GaggiX 452 days ago [-]
They just bought the domain, similar to what Google does with gogle.com.
mv4 452 days ago [-]
Except Google didn't announce the introduction of gogle.com and other misspellings.
Based on the reaction, the co had other plans for it and now backpedaling ("it's just a redirect!")
forgotpwd16 451 days ago [-]
Has there been an official announcement regarding chat.com? The submitted title says ChatGPT is on chat.com but currently is just a redirect to good 'ol chatgpt.com.
GaggiX 452 days ago [-]
By announcing you mean a tweet from Sam saying "chat.com"?
mv4 451 days ago [-]
Yes. Also, I am pretty sure google did not pay $15M for gogle.com.
I feel it's not the same.
mv4 451 days ago [-]
all their product people are now posting about it on LinkedIn.
ChrisArchitect 452 days ago [-]
This is more likely just to help with incomplete/mistyped urls. As in gogle.com -> google.com
mousepad12 452 days ago [-]
ai.com has historically redirected to chatgpt, then grok, then google gemini and now chatgpt again
I'm all for cleaner, but "Just use chat" really does not confer the same intent.
dionian 452 days ago [-]
good point. counterpoint: it'll catch on with more users in the general public with a shorter, easier name. gpt has to be repeated a few times or possible to make mistakes. gtp? gpd?
lucasyvas 451 days ago [-]
But it’s not a chat service…
karaterobot 452 days ago [-]
Meanwhile, chattyg.com is taken, but doesn't point to anything.
intellix 452 days ago [-]
I mean I know what domain I'm telling my parents to visit and it isn't chat.openai.com or chatgpt.com. Don't think they need to rebrand but it's a good enough shortcut
stonogo 451 days ago [-]
You can take the boy out of silicon valley venture-backed web startups, but you can't take the silicon valley venture-backed web startups out of the boy
s2288214 447 days ago [-]
hi
s29375748 452 days ago [-]
essay fo
bobse 452 days ago [-]
[dead]
Rendered at 12:46:43 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
Is this some kind of marketing flex? "We are so recognizable, we can afford drop the only thing from our name that makes it make object level sense"?
Other examples: Transferwise -> Wise (despite them still doing transfers as their main business), WeWork -> We (ok, to be fair in my experience not so much work got done there at the best of times) etc.
These things also usually completely kill SEO. Like, how am I supposed to google for the nearest coworking space? "we near me" sounds ridiculous to type into a search engine.
However, chat.com is blocked on my work computer as pornography.
This feels a lot like Twitter -> X, I guess we have to get used to this.
who calls alphabet alphabet? meta ended up slightly better only because they had three or four really strong consumer brands.
Not the same as Alphabet is the parent company and media do call it so when the parent company is fined for example. Same for Meta. Also, the press does write "X" or "X (formerly Twitter").
There must something about companies wanting their customers think that they don't need to use the competition.
There was HBO Go and HBO Now, one of which you could subscribe to yourself, the other of which was an option you could get through your cable provider. There was massive amounts of confusion about the entire situation.
HBO Max was combining the two apps into a single digital streaming platform.
If OpenAI renamed itself to just "AI" I'd sigh and shrug (and applaud the honesty), but ChatGPT is a product and well-known brand name.
But I don’t think that’s the case, at least not artificially. These sites tend to rise naturally in search rankings because they have a huge volume of links and media coverage. Which still makes SEO efforts unnecessary.
Me: I will ask ChatGpt… changed to “I will ask Chat”
So Mom: Who is Chat? Me: Gpt.
They could buy Chad.com as well, then it would make sense /s
- Chat, is this real?
- GPT, Being intentionally obtuse: Nah dude, chill
Examples of what my coworkers and I say at the office:
It's for sure something I say...
So when you ask chat a question you are in reality asking an algorithmic simulation of mass internet communication.
In my mind the connection works, which is convenient with the new chat.com domain and all...
Someone who has't been visiting the site for a while will be very disappointed, ChatGPT does only text, voice and images
- Its name is unpronounceable for 90% of its users (we short it to ”zap”)
- The word itself has unfamiliar letter combinations (“wh” and “pp”).
- The intended pun doesn’t work at all, since no one here uses “What’s up” (not even the 10% that understands English)
Similar to what happens with “Google” and “Facebook”, btw.
"App" does not rhyme with "Up".
It does if you're from Boston.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whassup%3F
Well until you wrote this I never realized it was supposed to be a pun, and I'm a native English speaker...
An initialism is not exactly an amazing name for a consumer product.
Soft G in GPT as in Generative (which is what it stands for)... Simple.
You might get away with "Gippity" in some contexts.
It wouldn't surprise me if they eventually rebrand ChatGPT to just Chat, Justin-Timberlake-style.
"This AI is dumb. Bob, did you get all this research from a fake ChatGPT cos you're too cheap to buy the real thing?"
If the intention is to rebrand as Chat.com / Chat, the interesting question is whether this commits them to the chatbot-based model of using AI tools. Personally, I think that is something of a mistake – the chat model is fine for now, but it requires too much pre-knowledge to use effectively. The most effective AI tools I've used have more elaborate UIs that help "corral" the created material into more usable formats.
"What does the SEC do?"
"Securities market stuff? I'm not sure, you should ask gippity"
I didn’t like ChatGPT as a product name and I still don’t but it’s established,recognized,distinctive and SEO friendly.
Why would you trade all that fir something else?
I imagine that without a professional negotiator in the process many domain owners would easily leave lots of money on the table.
That can't have been cheap.
Though it looks like they were already trying to sell the domain: https://web.archive.org/web/20221208222423/https://www.chat....
Historically, it was owned by CNet's download.com (remember that?) and it redirected to their chat apps category.
Copy & paste for those who can't visit Twitter:
> BREAKING NEWS: Secret acquirer of $15+ million domain chat .com revealed and it's exactly who you'd think.
> For those of you that have been following me for a while, you may recall that I announced earlier this year that I had acquired the domain chat .com for an "8 figure sum" (which was later reported as being $15.5M).
> I also shared that I had sold the domain to an undisclosed buyer.
> I was not at liberty to share who the acquirer was (I was going to leave that to them, when they were ready).
> Well, in a 8 character tweet (talk about brevity), Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI revealed that they were the buyer. If you visit the website now, it goes to ChatGPT.
Called it a couple weeks ago → https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41884821.
Some still think "OpenAI has no moat", keep on beating that horse, lol.
It’s the same for all foundation model companies. The moat is how much money that have to sell inference and pay for training.
The proof of that is chatgpt itself. OpenAI did not pioneer a lot of those kinds of features. They saw startups doing it and just did it themselves since it’s fairly straightforward to implement.
A scrappy startup can copy the vast majority of chatgpt features with another foundation model.
Custom GPTs are just prompts.
Software is expensive to build, adoption is more expensive. If you ever try to convince someone to migrate in a B2B setting - you'll learn that its not enough to be cheaper, or better - you need to either be 10x cheaper or provide a next level experience that makes the existing product seem like a liability.
If you could copy ChatGPT's functionality (getting more expensive by the day), and offer it for $2/month - then folks might migrate. Otherwise the switching cost is too high for most.
You can. You can also make the core functionality of Twitter in a weekend.
Building software at this high a level isn’t too expensive or difficult, especially since the LLM provider you’d use handles the most difficult scaling issues for you.
> and offer it for $2/month
This you can’t really do. OpenAI can’t either tbf, they just have the runway to charge whatever they feel like… that cash is their moat.
Not for foundation models, and not when considered individually. But as long as OpenAI continues killing it with foundation models, continues moving up the stack with applications built on those models, and continues establishing market-leading parterships/integrations with companies like Microsoft and Apple, that's a moat.
"The combination of OpenAI’s advancements in foundation models, application development, and strategic partnerships collectively creates a robust moat for several reasons: [list of reasons]
"Together, these elements form a substantial moat. OpenAI’s cutting-edge models create a technological barrier, its applications generate a sticky user base, and its partnerships expand its influence and operational support, making it difficult for competitors to replicate its entire ecosystem. This combination of technological, user-based, and strategic advantages creates a robust, multi-layered moat around OpenAI in the competitive AI landscape."
I can upload CSV, JSON, PDF, any type of text file...
That's a UX implementation, not a moat. There's nothing ChatGPT-specific about vector stores/the Assistants API that Claude can't copy if there's enough demand.
They'll be out of business very soon!
/s
You can stay in business for a long time with no moat and billions of dollars.
Long enough to find a moat even.
I wonder whether running an ad on a ChatGPT conversation even pays for the cost of that conversation. I know the agent my company runs costs us 10x more to generate each response than an ad click would bring us in revenue. So, even if someone clicked on an ad every time they asked a question, we'd still lose money. Hmm.
Either way it’s a bold move. It’s clearly easier to type and say. I wonder if they found GPT is just too unpleasant to say so trying to switch the brand is worth it to them.
ChatGPT now on chat.com
I think a more accurate title may be:
chat.com now redirects to chatgpt.com
Haven't they already have the "Xerox" brand/verb of LLM Chat bots?
https://techcrunch.com/2024/11/06/openai-acquired-chat-com/
Based on the reaction, the co had other plans for it and now backpedaling ("it's just a redirect!")
I feel it's not the same.
(context: https://the-decoder.com/goldman-sachs-blunder-adds-to-ai-sto...)