4 ms·
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.
by 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 agoParticularly for a mobile-app - surely the site barely matters when it just links to the relevant app-store / Android marketplace.
- wyclif 16y agoThat sounds like Scoble's take on it. http://www.cinchcast.com/scobleizer/194769 http://www.cinchcast.com/scobleizer/194769
- pclark 16y agoA domain is an asset, why would it be worth notably less after a few years if the startup were to fail?
- barefoot 16y agoExactly: 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 agoc.f. cnet & com.com
- sudonim 16y agoFor 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.