←back to thread

Riot is now Element

(element.io)
550 points J_tt | 5 comments | 15 Jul 20 07:07 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
badrabbit ◴[15 Jul 20 10:07 UTC] No.23843202[source]▶
No!!! Of all the names in the world why this. "Hey bro, let's chat on Element" ,not quite a ring to it.

The hardest problem in computer science strikes again!

Matrix,Riot and Libolm are epic projects, I wish them all the success but man, even Riot was a hard sell as a brand. I would seriously be dissapointed if it loses popularity over this. I don't think the project maintainers understand that their core users/fans are waiting for a product they can sell to friends,family and coworkers.

People who don't know tech rely on branding/brand reputation and word of mouth reputation to decide if they are intetested in even trying out a product to begin with.

Which of these is unlike the others?

1) Signal

2) Telegram

3) Element

4) Whatsapp

Hint: The theme is messaging and communication.

replies(23): >>23843237 #>>23843275 #>>23843279 #>>23843307 #>>23843441 #>>23843534 #>>23843568 #>>23843577 #>>23843744 #>>23843874 #>>23843920 #>>23843923 #>>23844147 #>>23844323 #>>23844327 #>>23845596 #>>23847596 #>>23847764 #>>23847933 #>>23854492 #>>23854968 #>>23863522 #>>23877413 #
teekert ◴[15 Jul 20 10:12 UTC] No.23843237[source]▶
Tbh, I don't see any problems with the name? I like it.
replies(4): >>23843285 #>>23843292 #>>23843367 #>>23843709 #
badrabbit ◴[15 Jul 20 10:20 UTC] No.23843292[source]▶
May I ask if you are a native english user and what country? Perhaps the branding works for EU markets?

Element has nothing to do with messaging. In my example,signal has something to do with communication(signaling),telegram is obvious, whatsapp is what you say when you talk to someone like 'hello'(what is up?). Element sounds like something I hear about in a chemistry class.

It also has to be catchy. At least Riot was catchy even if it made no sense. A brand name is not a mission stateme t, it's marketing material, full stop.

replies(5): >>23843374 #>>23843376 #>>23843385 #>>23843514 #>>23843747 #
neutronicus ◴[15 Jul 20 10:55 UTC] No.23843514[source]▶
Even a "Riot" is a kind of boisterous conversation - like a chat, but less commoditized and more populist
replies(1): >>23843757 #
1. dividedbyzero ◴[15 Jul 20 11:33 UTC] No.23843757[source]▶
I'm not a native speaker, but I associate a riot with group violence, vandalism, looting, that kind of thing.
replies(3): >>23843951 #>>23844822 #>>23844923 #
2. Macha ◴[15 Jul 20 12:00 UTC] No.23843951[source]▶
I am a native speaker, and I've heard "a riot" used to describe "a good time", but in isolation I'd definitely also picture the violent protest type of riot.

That said, this doesn't appear to to be a common usage in the US. Webster doesn't have this usage, Wiktionary describes it as obselete and pairs it more with excess than I would, (also they use fifteenth century examples), though Oxford has it.

replies(1): >>23846090 #
3. neutronicus ◴[15 Jul 20 13:22 UTC] No.23844822[source]▶
This is politicized in the US.

Conservatives invariably describe liberal demonstrations as "riots," in order to insinuate exactly the type of things you're describing. In response, liberals

1. View the term as something of a badge of honor

2. Have in fact grown more supportive of "vandalism" and "looting," using one's attitude towards them as a sort of litmus test of the value one places on the cause relative to property rights

If you want to sell to a left-aligned US business[^1], I think they'll view the term favorably.

[^1] For example, my wife is an aspiring design professional, and the consultancies in this space, including ones explicitly targeting conservative clients are overwhelmingly left-leaning.

4. billyruffian ◴[15 Jul 20 13:30 UTC] No.23844923[source]▶
I am a native speaker (UK) and concur. My grandmother would always threaten to "read us the riot act" if we were in real trouble https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_Act
5. CameronNemo ◴[15 Jul 20 14:59 UTC] No.23846090[source]▶
I recently read a BBC article that contained the usage. Perhaps it is more common in British English.