4 ms·

Related article: http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/23/color-looks-to-reinvent-social-interaction-with-its-mobile-photo-app-and-41-million-in-funding/ http://techcru

by d_r 16y ago

Related article: http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/23/color-looks-to-reinvent-social-interaction-with-its-mobile-photo-app-and-41-million-in-funding/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/23/color-looks-to-reinvent-soc... According to one of the comments at TC, the domain cost $350K. It's cool to see newer (and well-funded) startups going for non-"web 2.0" names, e.g. Path, and now Color.

duck 16y ago
I wonder how important is a domain name for a mobile type app?
- kloncks 16y ago
  Given the $350,000 price tag, I sure hope it's somewhat important.
  - staunch 16y ago
    I couldn't forget their product name and domain if I tried.
- danielrhodes 16y ago
  It's important, but only because the idea that you can have an exclusively mobile content sharing product is not realistic (right now). There's an expectation among users that they should be able to access the service from whichever screen they are using at that moment. Ironically in Color's case, they don't even ask you to login, so there's really no way to do that. Therefore, the $350K has gone towards a really expensive splash page.
- thought_alarm 16y ago
  > I wonder how important is a domain name for a mobile type app? Very important, given the crowded state of the App Store and the unorganized state of the Android Market. This app will be spread among friends. If you want to install it, goto Color.com. Easy.
  - ThomPete 16y ago
    I am not so sure. It seems that we share by sending links not by saying the name out loud.
jhen095 16y ago
I'm from one of those countries where 'color' is spelt 'colour' and I'm glad to see www.colour.com is owned by them also. I doubt it cost as much though. It would also be interesting to see if searching for 'colour' in the respective app stores also brings you to 'color' so that they are truly interchangeable
sudonim 16y ago
It's a warning sign when startups have the cash to invest in a domain name before they have traction. Talk about putting the cart before the horse.
- nopassrecover 16y ago
  Particularly for a mobile-app - surely the site barely matters when it just links to the relevant app-store / Android marketplace.
- wyclif 16y ago
  That sounds like Scoble's take on it. http://www.cinchcast.com/scobleizer/194769 http://www.cinchcast.com/scobleizer/194769
- pclark 16y ago
  A domain is an asset, why would it be worth notably less after a few years if the startup were to fail?
  - barefoot 16y ago
    Exactly: provided that $350,000 was a decent price (which doesn't seem too unreasonable) and the fair value does not decline they now have a $350,000 intangible asset on their balance sheet that will not likely decline in value. You can't say the same for a similar amount of put into high end office furniture, for example.
  - trotsky 16y ago
    c.f. cnet & com.com
  - sudonim 16y ago
    For one, a glorious failure taints the name. Not many (any?) ships are called "Titanic" anymore. I tried to find good examples of famous failures having their domains reused but wasn't able to. webvan.com still exists as part of amazon. pets.com points to petsmart.com An untainted domain is an asset, which is why there are many squatted domains. A tainted domain is a liability.

by d_r 16y ago

duck 16y ago

I wonder how important is a domain name for a mobile type app?

kloncks 16y ago
Given the $350,000 price tag, I sure hope it's somewhat important.
- staunch 16y ago
  I couldn't forget their product name and domain if I tried.
danielrhodes 16y ago
It's important, but only because the idea that you can have an exclusively mobile content sharing product is not realistic (right now). There's an expectation among users that they should be able to access the service from whichever screen they are using at that moment. Ironically in Color's case, they don't even ask you to login, so there's really no way to do that. Therefore, the $350K has gone towards a really expensive splash page.
thought_alarm 16y ago
> I wonder how important is a domain name for a mobile type app? Very important, given the crowded state of the App Store and the unorganized state of the Android Market. This app will be spread among friends. If you want to install it, goto Color.com. Easy.
- ThomPete 16y ago
  I am not so sure. It seems that we share by sending links not by saying the name out loud.

jhen095 16y ago

I'm from one of those countries where 'color' is spelt 'colour' and I'm glad to see www.colour.com is owned by them also. I doubt it cost as much though. It would also be interesting to see if searching for 'colour' in the respective app stores also brings you to 'color' so that they are truly interchangeable

sudonim 16y ago

It's a warning sign when startups have the cash to invest in a domain name before they have traction. Talk about putting the cart before the horse.

nopassrecover 16y ago
Particularly for a mobile-app - surely the site barely matters when it just links to the relevant app-store / Android marketplace.
wyclif 16y ago
That sounds like Scoble's take on it. http://www.cinchcast.com/scobleizer/194769 http://www.cinchcast.com/scobleizer/194769
pclark 16y ago
A domain is an asset, why would it be worth notably less after a few years if the startup were to fail?
- barefoot 16y ago
  Exactly: provided that $350,000 was a decent price (which doesn't seem too unreasonable) and the fair value does not decline they now have a $350,000 intangible asset on their balance sheet that will not likely decline in value. You can't say the same for a similar amount of put into high end office furniture, for example.
- trotsky 16y ago
  c.f. cnet & com.com
- sudonim 16y ago
  For one, a glorious failure taints the name. Not many (any?) ships are called "Titanic" anymore. I tried to find good examples of famous failures having their domains reused but wasn't able to. webvan.com still exists as part of amazon. pets.com points to petsmart.com An untainted domain is an asset, which is why there are many squatted domains. A tainted domain is a liability.