[robertlagrant]

Too early and didn't want to be a tech company. If Google had made this, we'd probably all be using it.

Still, at least Yahoo has a great exclamation mark in the logo now.

[smcl]

At the risk of appearing to take a cheap shot - I think if this was built at Google there’s a good chance it would’ve been abandoned or cancelled there too

[nness]

In fact, Google had, it was called the "Google Mashup Editor" and was closed in 2009.

[smcl]

Wow, I had no idea! What an awkward name, too. It's funny, "Pipes" doesn't on its own doesn't stand out as a spectacular name, but compared to "Mashup Editor" it's clearly superior. I wonder why - one syllable vs five, with a nod towards *nix pipes maybe?

[jsjohnst]

Both Mashup Editor and the fact the name is based off Unix pipes is called out in the Wikipedia article, as well as describing the difference (albeit trivially) between Google and Yahoo’s offering.

[smcl]

It's clear where the name is from - I was just wondering why Pipes feels like a good name and why Mashup Editor doesn't.

[headhasthoughts]

One sounds like an actual product and the other sounds like an add-on to something else.

"Yahoo Pipes! $7.99 a month with a generous free tier!"

"Mashup Editor included with every Google Cloud subscription above $5/month."

You never want a product to sound like an add-on: Add-ons are low-value and generally used to rent seek off of people who are already locked in. Naming something in a way that it feels like its own standalone product will inspire consumer confidence.

Generic word + descriptor is an easy way to sound like an add-on.

"Video Editor" could be for anything, but is certainly not an independent product.

"Pachi Video Editor" sounds a bit more like its own thing.

"Pachi Cutting Room" is closer to the mark, despite being two words and a company name.