[probdist]

I guess I don't really understand this at least with respect to bothering to change the name. I'd try to draw a parallel to what Google did in becoming Alphabet but that doesn't seem to be a congruent situation.

The organization of the company around developers as core users makes sense. Not sure if a name change is supposed to do much for the average developer in caring about their product offerings more or less.

[WorldMaker]

It's kind of a reverse Alphabet situation: doubling down on (and returning to) the brand people actually know/trust (Stack Overflow/Google) over the brand people only met if they got involved in some meta-discussions (Stack Exchange/Alphabet), even as they continue to diversify.

I'm not sure whose is the better approach. I think the name change has a bigger impact on Alphabet (the shareholder shuffle, trying to get greater focus on "side projects" outside of the Google core search products) than it will on Stack Overflow. Certainly Stack Overflow doesn't seem to be doing it for outside shareholders, it seems like they are simply doing it to help coalesce their own corporate identity and how they talk about it amongst themselves. It might not directly impact the average developer in caring about their product offerings, but maybe it will help lead communications internally for them in making those product offerings better and selling those product offerings to themselves as important/core to their future. I certainly wish them luck in that case that the name change will indeed benefit their cultural stability and future.

[POWERSTOMP]

Spot on, WorldMaker!

[isxek]

The closest example I can probably give is that of Basecamp. They were formerly known as 37signals, and IIRC, they changed their name to Basecamp because it's their most well-known product, among other reasons.