4 ms·

And that's why you don't start a company without owning the domain name.

by smackfu 15y ago

qeorge 15y ago
Not always. Dropbox did the same thing, and I thought it was smart. Couple of factors: 1) Time-value of money. Say they could have gotten it for $30k before they started vs $1 million later. $30k when you're starting up can be "worth" more than $1MM when you're already killing it. 2) If you get big (like Dropbox) you own the namespace anyway. So even though the current owner has leverage over you (they have the only domain you want), you have leverage over them (you're the only potential buyer). 3) High chance the startup won't work out anyway or you'll want to pivot. Keep the cost of rolling the dice low. The alternative is to give your product a less than ideal name. I think that's often a bad trade off which will be more painful to change later than acquiring the domain.
- larrys 15y ago
  "you have leverage over them (you're the only potential buyer)." An excellent point which many people in the domain business fail to understand. The name becomes a bastard name and can't even pass to another buyer without potentially giving the "only potential buyer" a basis to file a UDRP once the ownership change takes place.
danvideo 15y ago
I don't know why this is considered a good thing - a congratulatory post that the domain owner could get a million dollars for a site name? It's an example of excessive domain name costs, which - exactly as smackfu is saying - hampers startup's flexibility with names.
- tnd 15y ago
  "It's an example of excessive domain name costs, which - exactly as smackfu is saying - hampers startup's flexibility with names." Excessive land costs hamper me from buying a beautiful home in my desired neighborhood.
  - danvideo 15y ago
    Yeah and I'd agree there as well. There are plenty of places where land is too expensive and developers buy up property for speculation and not for building or community value. So congrats on the fact the market does what it does? I'm not anti-capitalist, obviously products deserve market value, but that doesn't mean I'd cheer on something that makes startup's lives harder.
    - tnd 15y ago
      Do you know how Dudu.com was used prior to the sale? Maybe the owner had big plans for it or already built something. I have no idea, but I did hear it was not for sale at the time of the purchase. It's not like the social network started out on godudu.com and the seller then bought dudu.com with the hopes of selling it to the startup.
- larrys 15y ago
  "hampers startup's flexibility with names" A certain well known funded startup wants a certain name. But the name is owned by google (and not in use). If a domainer owned the name it wouldn't be cheap but it would be possible. Likewise the perfect name that a startup wants that is owned by a local distribution company with 50 employees isn't going to be had for a trivial amount of money either. Startups who can't get the name they want always assume that nobody would have the name until they wanted it. And it would just be sitting there. If you know the domain business you would realize that the people who own names (lots of names) know when to fold their hand and not wait possibly forever for another deal to come along. dudu.com by the way has pretty consistent content (it's in chinese) that goes back to the 90's. So most likely it was an operating site and a company that had to be compensated. If this domain was owned by a domainer it would have sold for a 10th of the price or less.

And that's why you don't start a company without owning the domain name.

by smackfu 15y ago

And that's why you don't start a company without owning the domain name.

Not always. Dropbox did the same thing, and I thought it was smart. Couple of factors: 1) Time-value of money. Say they could have gotten it for $30k before they started vs $1 million later. $30k when you're starting up can be "worth" more than $1MM when you're already killing it. 2) If you get big (like Dropbox) you own the namespace anyway. So even though the current owner has leverage over you (they have the only domain you want), you have leverage over them (you're the only potential buyer). 3) High chance the startup won't work out anyway or you'll want to pivot. Keep the cost of rolling the dice low. The alternative is to give your product a less than ideal name. I think that's often a bad trade off which will be more painful to change later than acquiring the domain.

larrys 15y ago
"you have leverage over them (you're the only potential buyer)." An excellent point which many people in the domain business fail to understand. The name becomes a bastard name and can't even pass to another buyer without potentially giving the "only potential buyer" a basis to file a UDRP once the ownership change takes place.

danvideo 15y ago

I don't know why this is considered a good thing - a congratulatory post that the domain owner could get a million dollars for a site name? It's an example of excessive domain name costs, which - exactly as smackfu is saying - hampers startup's flexibility with names.

tnd 15y ago
"It's an example of excessive domain name costs, which - exactly as smackfu is saying - hampers startup's flexibility with names." Excessive land costs hamper me from buying a beautiful home in my desired neighborhood.
- danvideo 15y ago
  Yeah and I'd agree there as well. There are plenty of places where land is too expensive and developers buy up property for speculation and not for building or community value. So congrats on the fact the market does what it does? I'm not anti-capitalist, obviously products deserve market value, but that doesn't mean I'd cheer on something that makes startup's lives harder.
  - tnd 15y ago
    Do you know how Dudu.com was used prior to the sale? Maybe the owner had big plans for it or already built something. I have no idea, but I did hear it was not for sale at the time of the purchase. It's not like the social network started out on godudu.com and the seller then bought dudu.com with the hopes of selling it to the startup.
larrys 15y ago
"hampers startup's flexibility with names" A certain well known funded startup wants a certain name. But the name is owned by google (and not in use). If a domainer owned the name it wouldn't be cheap but it would be possible. Likewise the perfect name that a startup wants that is owned by a local distribution company with 50 employees isn't going to be had for a trivial amount of money either. Startups who can't get the name they want always assume that nobody would have the name until they wanted it. And it would just be sitting there. If you know the domain business you would realize that the people who own names (lots of names) know when to fold their hand and not wait possibly forever for another deal to come along. dudu.com by the way has pretty consistent content (it's in chinese) that goes back to the 90's. So most likely it was an operating site and a company that had to be compensated. If this domain was owned by a domainer it would have sold for a 10th of the price or less.