181–190 of 212 posts
You could condense the entire Silicon Valley startup funding scene into a single transaction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and there's something to be said for "launch now, iterate later". A "good enough" domain/logotype is sufficient for an MVP.
It's probably sufficient for the long run too. We fetishize this stuff in ways that real customers do not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are we entertaining the idea that there's an argument to be had about domain squatting? I wish we had enacted policies against squatting back in the '90s. But Internet governance did very much the opposite thing. This argument ended a long time ago. Why piss in the wind about it? In the post-domain-squatting world, this is a great offering.
"I wish we had enacted policies against squatting back in the '90s." What would your suggestion be as far as a policy that could have stopped domain squatting? I can't think of a scenario that you could have that would allow someone to purchase a name but then not allow them to sell the name. So what you would end up with is names that are registered but have not found their way (through the free market) to the best…
I've often thought of this. I think $500/year or $1000/year is an entirely reasonable price for a .com domain, and would immediately clear out mountains of cruft. Even $50 or $100/year would get 50-75% of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everybody "domainsquats". People joke with each other about how many names they have in their registrar account. These particular people chose an extraordinarily reasonable price point just for the name , and added design services on top. They could charge 4x as much and probably close just as much business, because $1000 is a rounding error for a serious 2-person startup. I don't see why you're bagging on them.
I think a reasonable argument to make against domain squatting is that those who do it as a business… are just charging you a fee solely because they thought of it first. It feels very much like a pure wealth transfer from me to a more entrenched player. It's somewhat analogous to say most software patents, in that their sole purpose seems to be enacting a social cost. You're not going to do anything with that patent…
Do you think people should be allowed to buy and sell things they own?
All arbitrage is a "pure wealth transfer", but it's also how we increase the liquidity of markets.
If someone else is using a domain name you'd like to use, and they're willing to sell it to you for a price you find reasonable, that's OK, right? Why should the sale be forbidden if they're not currently using the name?
@stylater
Quick question: why tags with no listings? ie. Health and Jobs. Did you create the tag list first?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I wish we had enacted policies against squatting back in the '90s." What would your suggestion be as far as a policy that could have stopped domain squatting? I can't think of a scenario that you could have that would allow someone to purchase a name but then not allow them to sell the name. So what you would end up with is names that are registered but have not found their way (through the free market) to the best…
> What would your suggestion be as far as a policy that could have stopped domain squatting? I've often thought of this. I think $500/year or $1000/year is an entirely reasonable price for a .com domain, and would immediately clear out mountains of cruft. Even $50 or $100/year would get 50-75% of it.
But it would also prevent many people from getting their own site because of the cost. I don't think you would have many people taking as many chances as has happened with the current pricing.
Lowering costs has helped the net even though there are undesirable consequences as with anything.
I think it's a great idea. They need way more domain names though (100x).
This epitomizes what packaging and convenience to provide to a simple concept. Bravo!