111–120 of 355 posts
The advice seems like a bit of an anachronism in the mobile world. Nice, short .com domain names were probably more important for desktop web browsing -- and I suspect are less relevant to startups that are focused on the iOS App Store, Google Play Store, third-party app stores, Twitter, Facebook, etc. for discovery.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of things can be advantageous. But lets keep in mind that 99.99% of all companies are not going to be unicorns with budgets to buy +100K domain names anytime soon. That doesn't mean they can't become a hugely successful company. My general point is just that you shouldn't prematurely optimize because you end up spending a lot of time on it. Unless you stumble on a great name that you can afford it's most of the…
How many jokes have been told about 1990s-era dot-coms spending $200k on domain names and then going under 6 months later.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can "simply pay for the top spot". This is why the results at the very top of the Google search are paid ad placements.
I was referring to search results not advertisements. You can pay one fee, like a domain TLD or AOL Keyword, and get that spot. With those advertisements you have to constantly put money in to stay at that spot.
>100% of the top 20 YC companies by valuation have the .com of their name. 94% of the top 50 do. But only 66% of companies in the current batch have the .com of their name. Which suggests there are lessons ahead for most of the rest, one way or another. How much of that is due to the pressure that he admittedly puts on them to change names? (And that higher valued ones are likely to be older and have had this pressur…
In addition to having had the pressure for longer, they have the money from having raised multiple rounds of financing.
>Don't believe a domain is for sale unless the owner has already told you an asking price. One of my favorite examples: http://nissan.com
I couldn't disagree more with this article and am kinda surprised Paul wrote about this. Domain names are transitioning into becoming useless. When you open any web browser or mobile phone and go to look for a company it does a search. The most relevant results come back at the top. This type of trend, as we abstract away from using TLDs, is only going to continue. Owning a .com isn't nearly as meaningful today as it…
Yeah. I heard this 13 years ago too. http://shirky.com/writings/domain_names.html
There's no point in buying an expensive domain name for a company that may not survive past the startup stage.
Note: a large swath of web users don't even understand the concept of a domain name or address bar...instead they google terms like "Gmail" and "YouTube" thinking this is how they are supposed to visit web sites.
What's more, tech-savvy users wouldn't think twice about visiting domain name ending in ".io", ".ly" and so on. (Hence their proliferation.)
*
I can't help but wonder if this article is some kind of prank--it's far too ill-considered compared to Graham's usual standards.
The latest "new TLD" thing was a money-making scheme for domain registrars. Nobody goes to those domains. Even the previous round of TLDs (".museum", ".aero") are not used much; ".aero" has entries for all the major airport codes, but they're redirects. Amusingly, even if you have your very own TLD, it doesn't help you. Most browsers send single-word lookups to a search engine before they send them to DNS. Try "ca" i…
There is no website at "ca". Did you mean www.ca? That redirects to circa.ca
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, because his thesis is "change your name", not "start out with .com"
But he's implying that having a .com correlates to success - so % starting with a .com would be a more apt comparison.
I have a domain name which is registered as trademark by one of the organizations, can the organization claim the domain name since they own the trademark ?