Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The “.ro” Gold Rush (2018)

viorel.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 68 posts

Re: The “.ro” Gold Rush (2018)

#51

Post by rhizome »

mistercow wrote: post #26
altairiumblue wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Economically, this is called rent-seeking behaviour. While perfectly legal, this feels unfair because the middleman adds no value whatsoever.

I'm not sure this really fits as rent-seeking. Usually, with rent-seeking, you manipulate either the political or economic landscape to give yourself a benefit without creating any value. In this case, resellers are taking advantage of a poorly designed system that was already in place to create a market for something that was being allocated stupidly. And I think a key point here is that some form of this was inevit…

>a poorly designed system that was already in place to create a market for something

So...an economic landscape?

Re: The “.ro” Gold Rush (2018)

#52

Post by mistercow »

rhizome wrote: post #51
mistercow wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure this really fits as rent-seeking. Usually, with rent-seeking, you manipulate either the political or economic landscape to give yourself a benefit without creating any value. In this case, resellers are taking advantage of a poorly designed system that was already in place to create a market for something that was being allocated stupidly. And I think a key point here is that some form of this was inevit…

> a poorly designed system that was already in place to create a market for something So...an economic landscape?

Yes, but not one they manipulated for this end, at least as far as the we can tell from the information in the article.

Re: The “.ro” Gold Rush (2018)

#53

Post by stevekemp »

charlesdm wrote: post #27
ilogik wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm from Romania, and my firstname.ro was available late last year, but someone else bought it...I don't have a problem with that...I was willing to pay 50 euros, since it's a common name, I assume it went for a lot more. I don't understand why it would be 500 euros/year. Once you bought it, it's yours, you can renew it for 9/year.

I got firstname.be a while back, and I did pay more for it than 50 euros. Guess it depends on how much you want it -- I'd been waiting nearly 16 years until the domain finally expired. Didn't really feel like waiting another 16 years... :)

I've had steve.org.uk for a good few years. Then I moved to Finland, and saw that steve.fi was due to expire in about four months.

Believe me I hammered their registrar the day the domain expired, looking to purchase it. Of course it then went into a redemption-state. But eventually, it became mine. Thankfully the previous-owner was willing to let it go.

Re: The “.ro” Gold Rush (2018)

#54

Post by charlesdm »

hycaria wrote: post #32
charlesdm wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got firstname.be a while back, and I did pay more for it than 50 euros. Guess it depends on how much you want it -- I'd been waiting nearly 16 years until the domain finally expired. Didn't really feel like waiting another 16 years... :)

All this and not even a drop of css!

Hey, it's in development !

Re: The “.ro” Gold Rush (2018)

#55

Post by Florin_Andrei »

kokokokoko wrote: post #49
RankingMember wrote: post #31

> Because that’s not quite sustainable (hindsight is 20/20), they decided to switch all the domains they already sold for life to yearly subscriptions. What? At least in the U.S., if you sell something with a lifetime ownership term, you can't just renege and change the terms after the fact (well you can try, but you're asking to be sued).

Almost everything at this level of consumer has a TOS that allows the larger company/organization to basically change anything. And if it didn't most customers still wouldn't have the legal resources to challenge it. One of those interesting quirks of consumer free markets.

> most customers still wouldn't have the legal resources to challenge it

The weaponization of the legal process. Those with the biggest armies win.

Re: The “.ro” Gold Rush (2018)

#56

Post by lgeorget »

I wonder if domain names are not overvalued... I know your domain name is part of a brand but isn't it better to pick an original name than a common name to have people remember you? Especially now that the URL bar is also a search bar in most browsers.

How many books a year are sold books.com? How many requests does search.com serves daily?

Re: The “.ro” Gold Rush (2018)

#57

Post by jaysonelliot »

You'd think by now that people would have learned the only TLD with real value is .com, and to avoid "gold rush" mentality on country codes or newly minted TLDs.

And if they didn't learn that, at least learn not to trust an entity that was willing to break contracts or change the terms whenever it was in their financial interest to do so.

What's even attractive about the letters .ro? That's not a common suffix for English words, and it's not particularly memorable.

Re: The “.ro” Gold Rush (2018)

#58

Post by pryelluw »

lgeorget wrote: post #56

I wonder if domain names are not overvalued... I know your domain name is part of a brand but isn't it better to pick an original name than a common name to have people remember you? Especially now that the URL bar is also a search bar in most browsers. How many books a year are sold books.com? How many requests does search.com serves daily?

.com domains are in a similar space as 1-800 numbers in terms of branding.

Re: The “.ro” Gold Rush (2018)

#59

Post by benologist »

kokokokoko wrote: post #49
RankingMember wrote: post #31

> Because that’s not quite sustainable (hindsight is 20/20), they decided to switch all the domains they already sold for life to yearly subscriptions. What? At least in the U.S., if you sell something with a lifetime ownership term, you can't just renege and change the terms after the fact (well you can try, but you're asking to be sued).

Almost everything at this level of consumer has a TOS that allows the larger company/organization to basically change anything. And if it didn't most customers still wouldn't have the legal resources to challenge it. One of those interesting quirks of consumer free markets.

Facebook liked to call it "Friendly Fraud" when they were stealing from children, the phrase suits a lot of shitty company behavior.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19002596

Re: The “.ro” Gold Rush (2018)

#60

Post by Rebelgecko »

Scarblac wrote: post #46
jchw wrote: post #44

It's amazing how weirdly managed some TLDs are. There was the controversy with .io, but my favorite experience was .pn (Pitcairn Islands apparently.) I had a .pn domain for a year, that I bought directly from their nic. The trouble is, it's practically all managed manually. Luckily I didn't really need to, but I was not sure at all how to renew a .pn domain because I purchased it from a form that let me specify names…

Pitcairn only has 50 inhabitants according to Wikipedia! Apparently there was a conflict between the islander who had management of the domain and the island's Council (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.pn ).

Pitcairn Island is (was?) a bit of a mess. It probably sets records for the ISO region with:

* most people with wikipedia articles per capita

* the most sex offenders per capita

* least variety of last names (something like half the people there have the last name Christian)

Tom Christian, the previous .pn administrator, and his wife were apparently both shunned by the community when they spoke out against the sexual abuse of children and the claims of some of the men on the island that it was part of their traditional way of life. Most of the men convicted got off with slaps on the wrist because the island doesn't have the resources to support locking up a substantial part of its adult population.

Post reply on HN