3 ms·

That's a broken analogy. All domains start off costing the same. An apartment in times square always costs more than a 5-bedroom in Iowa, and for very tangible

by tdavis 17y ago

That's a broken analogy. All domains start off costing the same. An apartment in times square always costs more than a 5-bedroom in Iowa, and for very tangible reasons. If I buy abc.com for a million dollars, it's not like that domain is intrinsically worth a million dollars more than weqporjewroq.net. If I have no ability to turn that domain into a monetized site, well, it is worth the same $9.95 the talentless schmuck domain squatter bought it for. If you buy a domain for $9.95 and sell it back to me for $15,000, there's a word for that: extortion. Maybe my argument truly is illogical and I'm missing something. I've spent my life gaining wealth by providing tangible value and I hate that people exist who profit hugely for providing none whatsoever. Maybe that bias is at play.

nico 17y ago
If you truly believe in the market, then things are worth what someone's willing to pay for them. If I buy a domain for $9.95 and then try to sell it to someone for $15,000, but they won't pay, then I'm pretty sure it's not worth $15,000. The problem is when people/companies whose domains have been squatted, pay the squatters, hence making it a profitable business. In spite of the above, I believe there should be better regulation mechanisms to let people/companies protect their names/trademarks. Although probably those mechanisms/policies will be exploited in someway too.
jpwagner 17y ago
I hate the idea of defending misunderstood analogies, so I'll limit myself here and simply say that a memorable domain is worth more than an obscure one because of the traffic it draws simply by being memorable. Maybe a better analogy is branding. A better brand can charge more simply because of the public perception with no change to the service value provided. If pepsi completely ceased selling all physical products and put up for sale the right to use the "pepsi" name, you better believe the bidding would be higher for that name than for "pepsa." "But," you say, "pepsi spent years building the pepsi name." True, but consider this: abc spent years being the first three letters of the alphabet and weqporjeqwroq spent forever being nothing. As an aside, please don't bring this "holier than thou" attitude around this forum. It's a leak in your character and benefits zero readers.

by tdavis 17y ago

nico 17y ago

If you truly believe in the market, then things are worth what someone's willing to pay for them. If I buy a domain for $9.95 and then try to sell it to someone for $15,000, but they won't pay, then I'm pretty sure it's not worth $15,000. The problem is when people/companies whose domains have been squatted, pay the squatters, hence making it a profitable business. In spite of the above, I believe there should be better regulation mechanisms to let people/companies protect their names/trademarks. Although probably those mechanisms/policies will be exploited in someway too.

jpwagner 17y ago

I hate the idea of defending misunderstood analogies, so I'll limit myself here and simply say that a memorable domain is worth more than an obscure one because of the traffic it draws simply by being memorable. Maybe a better analogy is branding. A better brand can charge more simply because of the public perception with no change to the service value provided. If pepsi completely ceased selling all physical products and put up for sale the right to use the "pepsi" name, you better believe the bidding would be higher for that name than for "pepsa." "But," you say, "pepsi spent years building the pepsi name." True, but consider this: abc spent years being the first three letters of the alphabet and weqporjeqwroq spent forever being nothing. As an aside, please don't bring this "holier than thou" attitude around this forum. It's a leak in your character and benefits zero readers.