6 ms·

Go pay the 185k fee and get .startup or .beta and create an official startup tld and regulate how you see fit. Let it compete, like a startup should. I'm sorry

by rooshdi 15y ago

Go pay the 185k fee and get .startup or .beta and create an official startup tld and regulate how you see fit. Let it compete, like a startup should. I'm sorry but most start-ups can't afford 185k for a domain. Plus, re-branding takes another major investment a start-up may not be able to afford. You say "let it compete", but you're defending domain squatters who are making it more difficult to find a good name and market new services to consumers. Hell, there are even some domainers that can't even find a single name for their customer reviews startup. ;)

ohashi 15y ago
185k isnt a domain, it's a registry. Buy the rights to the TLD .startup or .beta and compete with .com for startups business. I don't know any domainer in that position. You've really run out of arguments.
- rooshdi 15y ago
  I don't know any domainer in that position. You don't? By the look of your website's About Page you do: My Current Job(s): Working on my own startup - Still looking for a name, but I am working on a customer reviews startup. Writer at MO.com - I interview entrepreneurs. I've done ~80 interviews as of February 2011 including some big names like Alexis Ohanian (Reddit), Aaron Wall (SEOBook) and David Hauser (Grasshopper.com). Domain Investor (or Domainer) - I buy, sell, and develop domain names. I now see why you are so adamant in your defense of domain squatters.
  - ohashi 15y ago
    I know exactly what you were hinting at, it wasn't subtle. It was pure ad hominem. However, it's outdated, sorry, you're still wrong :( My defense isn't of domain squatters, it's of a free market system that trillions of dollars have been invested in by many stakeholders around the globe. Trying to shift them in favor of one specific group (startups) is a joke. I am fairly certain you just want easier access to a better name without understanding the real impact of any proposed solution you have. I am done arguing with you, you are clearly unable to keep on topic.
    - rooshdi 15y ago
      It was a pure Ad hominem. The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem We obviously have opposing views on the matter. We've made our arguments, let's just agree to disagree.
      - ohashi 15y ago
        No, we don't agree to disagree, you are wrong. You haven't made arguments with any value. You attacked character and it IS a logical fallacy in this case. >Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source). You aren't arguing about what is right or should be done. You are trying to imply I am wrong because of my business interests instead of any real issue. You've ignored solutions which fit within your arguments but you don't like the outcome (like a .startup TLD or using subdomains yourself). You clearly see the value in .com which everyone has recognized but want to monopolize it for yourself under the guise of the greater good. You may be new at this, but because of my history, I've heard each argument hundreds of times, you haven't come up with anything new; thousands of people have whined about domain names and not followed through on a real, workable solution to the system that does accommodate all stakeholders.
        rooshdi 15y ago
        thousands of people have whined about domain names and not followed through on a real, workable solution to the system that does accommodate all stakeholders. I appreciate the dialogue. I admit my proposed solution may not be the best at this moment, and does not accommodate all stakeholders, especially domain squatters. It probably is already too late to implement my proposed solution anyway. The domain system in place right now has evolved to such a state that the .com domain has a monopoly over the domain system. The .com has been ingrained in the mindset of most internet users as the end-all be-all due to the unrestriction and initial web registration mind share. This is now being taken advantage of by domainers. They purchase thousands of domains, in the hopes of profiting off of a lucky few. Who gets hurt in all of this? The others. John can't get the name for his blog, Amy sees her cake business's name is taken, Kevin has to buy ICantFindADotComDomainNameSoIBoughtThis.ly. Why? Because domainers aren't thinking of the external effects of their actions and just want to make an easy buck for themselves, manipulating the system to their sole benefit. In short, Pure Greed. This supply shortage of decent .com names is only going to get worse as internet usage increases. My hope is, as this continues, that .com domains become of less value and internet users become more comfortable with alternative TLDs. Summary: Domainers are of no help to society. They must perish. =)

by rooshdi 15y ago

ohashi 15y ago

185k isnt a domain, it's a registry. Buy the rights to the TLD .startup or .beta and compete with .com for startups business. I don't know any domainer in that position. You've really run out of arguments.

rooshdi 15y ago
I don't know any domainer in that position. You don't? By the look of your website's About Page you do: My Current Job(s): Working on my own startup - Still looking for a name, but I am working on a customer reviews startup. Writer at MO.com - I interview entrepreneurs. I've done ~80 interviews as of February 2011 including some big names like Alexis Ohanian (Reddit), Aaron Wall (SEOBook) and David Hauser (Grasshopper.com). Domain Investor (or Domainer) - I buy, sell, and develop domain names. I now see why you are so adamant in your defense of domain squatters.
- ohashi 15y ago
  I know exactly what you were hinting at, it wasn't subtle. It was pure ad hominem. However, it's outdated, sorry, you're still wrong :( My defense isn't of domain squatters, it's of a free market system that trillions of dollars have been invested in by many stakeholders around the globe. Trying to shift them in favor of one specific group (startups) is a joke. I am fairly certain you just want easier access to a better name without understanding the real impact of any proposed solution you have. I am done arguing with you, you are clearly unable to keep on topic.
  - rooshdi 15y ago
    It was a pure Ad hominem. The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem We obviously have opposing views on the matter. We've made our arguments, let's just agree to disagree.
    - ohashi 15y ago
      No, we don't agree to disagree, you are wrong. You haven't made arguments with any value. You attacked character and it IS a logical fallacy in this case. >Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source). You aren't arguing about what is right or should be done. You are trying to imply I am wrong because of my business interests instead of any real issue. You've ignored solutions which fit within your arguments but you don't like the outcome (like a .startup TLD or using subdomains yourself). You clearly see the value in .com which everyone has recognized but want to monopolize it for yourself under the guise of the greater good. You may be new at this, but because of my history, I've heard each argument hundreds of times, you haven't come up with anything new; thousands of people have whined about domain names and not followed through on a real, workable solution to the system that does accommodate all stakeholders.
      - rooshdi 15y ago
        thousands of people have whined about domain names and not followed through on a real, workable solution to the system that does accommodate all stakeholders. I appreciate the dialogue. I admit my proposed solution may not be the best at this moment, and does not accommodate all stakeholders, especially domain squatters. It probably is already too late to implement my proposed solution anyway. The domain system in place right now has evolved to such a state that the .com domain has a monopoly over the domain system. The .com has been ingrained in the mindset of most internet users as the end-all be-all due to the unrestriction and initial web registration mind share. This is now being taken advantage of by domainers. They purchase thousands of domains, in the hopes of profiting off of a lucky few. Who gets hurt in all of this? The others. John can't get the name for his blog, Amy sees her cake business's name is taken, Kevin has to buy ICantFindADotComDomainNameSoIBoughtThis.ly. Why? Because domainers aren't thinking of the external effects of their actions and just want to make an easy buck for themselves, manipulating the system to their sole benefit. In short, Pure Greed. This supply shortage of decent .com names is only going to get worse as internet usage increases. My hope is, as this continues, that .com domains become of less value and internet users become more comfortable with alternative TLDs. Summary: Domainers are of no help to society. They must perish. =)