I did read the article, and what he's really complaining about is words that are "meaningless" and "silly", and still are not "catchy" (oxford: instantly appealing and memorable). He's most concerned about the fact that the names are not memorable.
There is obviously an implied claim that startup names matter to a degree, but I think he makes it clear he doesn't think it's priority number one. Not to mention, it wasn't a whole article, it was a blog post. He writes for the Times, and he certainly didn't choose to make this the topic of one of his printed articles. He certainly isn't the first, nor will he be the last, to complain in his blog that web startup names these days kind of suck. I'm not naive enough to think David Pogue's blog is anything like mine or most, but it's useful to gain some perspective.
There is obviously an implied claim that startup names matter to a degree, but I think he makes it clear he doesn't think it's priority number one. Not to mention, it wasn't a whole article, it was a blog post. He writes for the Times, and he certainly didn't choose to make this the topic of one of his printed articles. He certainly isn't the first, nor will he be the last, to complain in his blog that web startup names these days kind of suck. I'm not naive enough to think David Pogue's blog is anything like mine or most, but it's useful to gain some perspective.