It's not just about the name but how it is branded, what the service offers etc. Microsoft could have been a complete failure just as easily, it was not the name that made them but what they offered.
It's all about retention - can I remember that domain? In the case of McDonalds, Microsoft etc, they acheived this in a standard way, appealing to logic ("Ok, Microsoft.com must be for Microsoft"). With domain availability getting sparser and sparser, Web 2.0 sites especially need to become creative and enable retention in another way. For example, if I offer a tagging service, am I more likely to be remembered if I'm "MySocialTagging.com" or "TagMe.com"? And how well would a standardized namimg fit in with the branding of Web 2.0? It's a genre that's based on people being creative and extrovert - if the shoe fits...
The lack of generic names available is a reason why people go towards short catchy names for their site. ARonald
hehe. I just got this the other day... iamsofakingwetodddid.com say it out loud... I am sofa king we todd did.