IT.COM

.mobi Purchased for $200,000 Sold for $6,500

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch

dande

Premium DomainsTop Member
Impact
1,981
Probably some you have seen this information but I haven't seen it till today.

Someone purchased Flowers.mobi for $200,000 and later sold it for $6,500 ???

If this happens to ordinary Domainer, heaven will not forgive the person.
 
7
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
True, the idea was, the mobile web is coming (not here yet) and the surest way to access it will be via a .mobi domain, so if we grab them now, we are securing prime real estate on the mobile web.

Problem is, mobile web does not equal .mobi, no matter how much people wanted it to. It would be like saying today video will be big, so register every .tv you can since all vids will be served on .tv.

I agree. That is how it turned out. But I recall at the time reading the web design articles that were saying you would need a .mobi to host your site for mobile phones or it would not work with the coming wave of mobile phones. It is easy for us to look back and say it was silly to pay that much for them, but really, many experts at the time were saying it would be so, and names like Google, Microsoft, etc. do get listened to.

I understand how people bought into believing that it was essential. I can see how they feel burned. But it is not like any other situation in domains as I see it. Is the lesson don't pay a lot for a .com because it may not last and will lose value like .mobi did? Is the lesson don't invest in anything other than .com? I don't think it is either of those. It is .mobi.

Perhaps now with a bright future since we have Mobility Open Blockchain Initiative ! :xf.cool:

Anyway, I can totally see @Rick Schwartz or others who invested at the time investing in them based on the information OF THAT TIME. It is always easy to predict the past, so we should not be critical.

Bob
 
0
•••
Such tax optimization practice is common since 90s...
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Or money laundering in the worst scenario.
 
0
•••
It is always easy to predict the past, so we should not be critical.

Bob

We should be critical because it was only ever a marketing plan, though it might have worked. There was plenty of valid criticism at the time, including outside the domain world. All .mobi did was require a site to serve at least one page - just ONE page - in mobile XHTML, which was basically the successor standard to WAP and very limited (to ensure it worked on many phones). But anyone could create such pages on any domain, and many were already using subdomains like m. or mobile. So magazines or articles saying you needed a mobi were just not accurate, either due to hype or just not understanding the technical standards.

Registrars were supposed to enforce the requirement that a .mobi serve at least one mobile page, but this was not well understood and was not enforced. Some even wildly claimed Godaddy killed .mobi by not enforcing the requirement.
 
1
•••
again, back in the day, there were heated discussions about .mobi
folks in .mobi forum didn't want you to criticize it

https://www.namepros.com/threads/how-much-is-your-evaluation-news-mobi.269116/

and, it's pretty much the same push back mentality, when it comes to other new extensions.
as those who buy in to them (ie: .best, .homes. whatever, etc.), don't want those who criticize them, taking part in the conversation.

imo...
 
1
•••
I think @anunt is the one who bought it, and then sold it for a loss to 1-800 Flowers, he can probably verify though.
 
1
•••
again, back in the day, there were heated discussions about .mobi
folks in .mobi forum didn't want you to criticize it

https://www.namepros.com/threads/how-much-is-your-evaluation-news-mobi.269116/

and, it's pretty much the same push back mentality, when it comes to other new extensions.
as those who buy in to them (ie: .best, .homes. whatever, etc.), don't want those who criticize them, taking part in the conversation.

imo...
Exactly the same attitude you will find it if you look the other way, from .com legacy owners to ngtlds, so this is subjective. In the end, it could go both ways in ten years, so some precaution will be wise on both sides.
 
0
•••
Anyone that hasn’t taken a significant loss at some point in domaining is either very lucky or has not extended themself into the high yield spectrum of the industry.

I remember pre- launch of .mobi , many had high expectations for the extension and were prepared to invest substantially in .mobi

Back in the day most extensions made their run, some had a longer term run than others, but most hit a trendy period. Keep in mind, their was only new county code extensions and .mobi so to speak.

.us picked up some steam back in 2008 and 2009 I believe it was, i myself invested in one word dictionary .us and and LLL.us , I made a little money, I also lost a little money.

The same with .in for me.

The game has changed now with all the name extensions, .life and the ton of other name extensions. They are very very very risky to invest in, even the ones that are only $2.99 a reg, 2.99 a name adds up quick and taking the loss sucks, but for those who believe in the extensions and invest in them are willing to take that chance.

Today, with all those extensions, I see it like buying a lottery ticket and keeping a hope and prayer that some how these extensions will become mainstream.

I don’t have a clue what the internet may use as an address or addresses in 10 years, I speculate .com will still be the main source. But that is pure speculation because technology moves so fast and out with the old - in with new happens so fast I think one can only speculate
 
5
•••
Exactly the same attitude you will find it if you look the other way, from .com legacy owners to ngtlds, so this is subjective. In the end, it could go both ways in ten years, so some precaution will be wise on both sides.

actually, it's not exactly the same attitude.
because back then, which was over a decade ago, .com was king then, as it is today.

those who where hopeful on .mobi, based those hopes on speculation,
while .com was already established as top extension.

.com owners probably engage in those conversations, only to warn those who speculate on new gtld's.
trying to advise them not to proceed, without considering the failure of other extensions that have came and went, before the next new .whatever landrush.

imo....
 
1
•••
actually, it's not exactly the same attitude.
because back then, which was over a decade ago, .com was king then, as it is today.

those who where hopeful on .mobi, based those hopes on speculation,
while .com was already established as top extension.

.com owners probably engage in those conversations, only to warn those who speculate on new gtld's.
trying to advise them not to proceed, without considering the failure of other extensions that have came and went, before the next new .whatever landrush.

imo....
Talking about 10 years in the future, it's speculation, even if .com is established. If something has happened before, doesn't necessary means that it will happen again, you can't compare 2030 with 2010, as I said before, it could go both ways.
 
0
•••
Talking about 10 years in the future, it's speculation, even if .com is established. If something has happened before, doesn't necessary means that it will happen again, you can't compare 2030 with 2010, as I said before, it could go both ways.
I think you're having a complete misunderstanding of the system. If you're so pessimistic about the future, then stop doing anything and wait till you get there. We predict future base on what's happening today.

As long as 99% of the world's biggest platforms are on dotcom, no amount of changes would shift focus from the extension in the next 10, not even in the next 20 years nor in the foreseeable future.

Trying to convince yourself that .com will somehow fade in the next 10 years is nothing but self delusion. You can continue gathering your .whatever, it's just a matter of time before you starts dropping them like they're hot.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
Don’t see why flowers.mobi would be worth even $6500
 
0
•••
Don’t see why flowers.mobi would be worth even $6500
The person who ended up with it at $5k in the end was 1-800 flowers, albeit the second highest bidder when Rick won it for $200k, how is that for irony?

All domainers lost on it, and the end user ended up with it in the end for a fraction of the initial cost.
 
0
•••
.mobi seemed perfect since @Rick Schwartz saw internet traffic will mostly be mobile traffic in the future which is true now proven. Though, that's just 5% reason for buying a nTLD.

Any nTLD has less chance of success if it's more than 3 letters (com standard). Less is better like .io/.ai (though they serves specific category).

.app is similar in nature like .mobi
 
0
•••
I don't think the number of letters in the extension guarantee anything. Just, if it takes off, for whatever reason (i.o. was deemed to be input output techie related, a.i. too artificial int.), it takes off.

What about .ac .ae .ag .al .am .as .ax etc. etc.

.ac
.ae
.af
.ag
.al
.am
.as
.at
.ax
.be
.bi
.bo
.by
.bz
.cc
.cd
.cf
.cg
.ch
.ci
.cl
.cm
.cn
.co
.cr
.cx
.cz
.dk
.dm
.do
.ec
.ee
.es
.fi
.fm
.fo
.ga
.gd
.gf
.gg
.gl
.gp
.gq
.gr
.gs
.gt
.gy
.hk
.hm
.hn
.ht
.id
.im
.in
.io
.ir
.is
.je
.ke
.kg
.kz
.la
.lc
.li
.lt
.lu
.lv
.ly
.me
.mg
.mk
.ml
.mn
.mq
.ms
.mu
.mw
.mx
.na
.ne
.ng
.nl
.nu
.nz
.pe
.ph
.pk
.pl
.pr
.pt
.pw
.qa
.ro
.rs
.ru
.rw
.sb
.sc
.sd
.se
.sh
.si
.sl
.sr
.st
.su
.sx
.sg
.tk
.tl
.to
.tv
.tw
.ug
.vc
.ve
.vg
.vn
.vu
.ws

not every one took off.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
I don't think the number of letters in the extension guarantee anything. Just, if it takes off, for whatever reason (i.o. was deemed to be input output techie related, a.i. too artificial int.), it takes off.
It does imo...any nTLD with 2 letters will do better than other nTLD...is there any 2 letter nTLD?
 
0
•••
Everyone at the time felt that .mobi would be parallel for mobile phones that .com/.net etc were for everything else. Therefore it was seen that the value would be the same as the combined value of the other extensions in that word. If you thought mobile would have 50% of the market, it would be worth as much as the .com+.net etc. This view that the investment was strong was predicated on one thing that never happened (Apple did not play the game) - that each site would NEED a .mobi. They were auctioned to the highest bidders.

The mindset for .mobi was not at all like when the new extensions were later introduced. The idea for .mobi was every site NEEDED just that extension. If anything it is more similar to the idea that every business needs the .com.

Bob

You hit the nail on the head with this statement.
Mobi was getting a lot of hype and many banked on .Mobi being dominate in the evolving world of portable phones.
I hate to admit this here and now but truthfully if you look at the whois history for "Withdrawal.Mobi" you'll find my name lol
I was suppose to be the papal of yesteryear. Even pitched for financing and had backers.

*On topic
Everyone is looking at flowers. Mobi from the flipping for profit view. If either of the past owners actually developed the domain they would have recieved their money back and then some. IMO
 
2
•••
You hit the nail on the head with this statement.
Mobi was getting a lot of hype and many banked on .Mobi being dominate in the evolving world of portable phones.
I hate to admit this here and now but truthfully if you look at the whois history for "Withdrawal.Mobi" you'll find my name lol
I was suppose to be the papal of yesteryear. Even pitched for financing and had backers.

*On topic
Everyone is looking at flowers. Mobi from the flipping for profit view. If either of the past owners actually developed the domain they would have recieved their money back and then some. IMO
Your right .mobi's release of premium names actually broke sedo, people were lining up, fighting each other to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for generic .mobi. That auction ended very badly, especially for music.mobi, which I believe sold for like $600K or something, as the second highest bidder claimed technical issues with the site.
 
1
•••
I don't think the number of letters in the extension guarantee anything. Just, if it takes off, for whatever reason (i.o. was deemed to be input output techie related, a.i. too artificial int.), it takes off.

What about .ac .ae .ag .al .am .as .ax etc. etc.

.ac
.ae
.af
.ag
.al
.am
.as
.at
.ax
.be
.bi
.bo
.by
.bz
.cc
.cd
.cf
.cg
.ch
.ci
.cl
.cm
.cn
.co
.cr
.cx
.cz
.dk
.dm
.do
.ec
.ee
.es
.fi
.fm
.fo
.ga
.gd
.gf
.gg
.gl
.gp
.gq
.gr
.gs
.gt
.gy
.hk
.hm
.hn
.ht
.id
.im
.in
.io
.ir
.is
.je
.ke
.kg
.kz
.la
.lc
.li
.lt
.lu
.lv
.ly
.me
.mg
.mk
.ml
.mn
.mq
.ms
.mu
.mw
.mx
.na
.ne
.ng
.nl
.nu
.nz
.pe
.ph
.pk
.pl
.pr
.pt
.pw
.qa
.ro
.rs
.ru
.rw
.sb
.sc
.sd
.se
.sh
.si
.sl
.sr
.st
.su
.sx
.sg
.tk
.tl
.to
.tv
.tw
.ug
.vc
.ve
.vg
.vn
.vu
.ws

not every one took off.
These ccTLDs man...specific to a geographical region whereas nTLDs are open to everyone
 
1
•••
.site is 1000 times better and extremely relevant than any nTLDs but couldn't do well.

.mobi was hyped. By the way, it was released golden time of domaining. Everything was selling like hot cake (crappy coms) ! 😆
 
1
•••
.site is 1000 times better and extremely relevant than any nTLDs but couldn't do well.

.mobi was hyped. By the way, it was released golden time of domaining. Everything was selling like hot cake (crappy coms) ! 😆

Exactly, 2005-6 was the height of the e-bubble. Then the crash in 2008 ruined alot of lives and dreams.
 
1
•••
It does imo...any nTLD with 2 letters will do better than other nTLD...is there any 2 letter nTLD?
I have not looked deeply but don't ICANN require all other TLD to be 3+ so there is not confusion with country codes? I don't know of exceptions but could be wrong.

.mobi was not a new gTLD (as ICANN define the term) but rather an alternative legacy like .tel, .name, .asia, .pro, .info etc. but to me it does not fit with those either. It was a one purpose extension that tanked because that one purpose did not come to be. The auction driven high values of .mobi names made the fall very hard. I was not active in domains at the time, but feel badly for those who lost big.

Bob
 
0
•••
It was a one purpose extension that tanked because that one purpose did not come to be. The auction driven high values of .mobi names made the fall very hard. I was not active in domains at the time, but feel badly for those who lost big.

To be fair everything in 2008 tanked
I know many who lost everything house, job, wife/husband etc...
People were literally jumping out of windows on wallstreet. I honestly believe that the financial crises in 08 affected .mobi as well as all matters in life.
 
2
•••
These ccTLDs man...specific to a geographical region whereas nTLDs are open to everyone
Less is better like .io/.ai (though they serves specific category).
You referred to .io and .ai and I listed a bunch just like them. Where do you think io comes from? io is a ccTLD too. So is ai

Anyway my point was that whatever the domain, two letters doesn't guarantee success, and I listed a bunch of them. If your point was that two letter nTLDs are better, your listing .io and .ai as examples makes even less sense.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
Where do you think io comes from? io is a ccTLD too. So is ai

You are right. I meant nTLDs with less letters.

I have not looked deeply but don't ICANN require all other TLD to be 3+ so there is not confusion with country codes?

Seems there are many dot com holders in iCANN board! 😉
 
0
•••
Back