.tv Could "Smart TV" be the Answer to .TV?

[lexisdomains]

With the advent of Smart TV (Internet TV web browsers)... Could this be the big break that .TV has been waiting for?

Speaking of Smart TV - Intel CEO Paul Otellini told the Financial Times that "The revolution we’re about to go through is the biggest single change in television since it went color."

Here's an example of how .TV domains are already being used -

See Clicker.tv

PS: This web site is not mine


Please Share Your thoughts...

 

[snoop]

I would imagine companies won't need any special url for this, reminds me of the .mobi arguments.

 

[DU]

I would imagine companies won't need any special url for this, reminds me of the .mobi arguments.

With all due respect the initiatives aren't quite the same.

.mobi was supposed to be a mobile solution and sponsored as such.

The premise was to standardize and police. The standards were written but the policing never implemented. Is .mobi dead? No, I get emails with links to a mobi almost daily. Is it heavily invested ? If NP is to be the source... no. But then it seems that even .COMs are a dead market.

.TV was not supposed to be a tv solution

What is coming is a move to a new move towards TV applications and a crossover world. The internet to TV, the TV to the internet.

Does this space NEED .TV? No.

Is there an obvious synergy ? Yes. That synergy is name recognition and obvious relationship. A .TV for a TV app? It's a no brainer.

Does this mean .com won't be used?
Does this mean .us won't be used?
Does this mean .me won't be used?
Does this mean .org won't be used?

NO. It doesn't.

You could probably get by without a dedicated domain at all!


BUT if I were to try and launch a site targeting the TV / Internet market I would definitely consider a .TV . Even if I bought a tv.com I'd consider .TV as a defensive reg at which point I *have* to ask the question - what *is* the brand I am building?

In terms of access - the notion of a browser and type in no longer will apply imho. It will be about a brand and a logo. A .TV makes sense in a world where the domain name still matters. The future?


So - is it NEEDED? No.

Will people base TOO MUCH emphasis on it? Perhaps

Is there an obvious link ? Absolutely.

It would take someone brain dead NOT to see that TV is part of the move forward in terms of the name. No one talks about Smart SOMETHING ELSE.. no, it's Smart TV.

I have a ROKU and get NETFLIX over the net.... I can tell you for a fact that TV is used for branding on a number of the channels. MLB.TV DreamTV... the TV in the name tells you the target for the channel and an indicator of what is delivered.

They don't all use the .TV but I think if the trend continues to name yourself as SomethingTV the interest will increase. Will this guarantee the future? No.

There are PRO-TVers I think are crazy optimistic.
There are ANTI-TVers I think are crazy pessimistic.

The truth lies somewhere in between - it's how far the needle sways that makes it interesting. I'm definitely leaning forward.

 

[snoop]

With all due respect the initiatives aren't quite the same.

.mobi was supposed to be a mobile solution and sponsored as such.

The question proposed is could web tv be the big break for .tv. It is a very similar question that was brought up regarding .mobi and the answer is much the same. The vast majority of websites will use the same domains they use now. If a new site is launched it will probably be on an extension people are familiar with.

But then it seems that even .COMs are a dead market.

It is a market that has crashed, ie values down 50%+ but to say it is dead is heavily exaggerated.

BUT if I were to try and launch a site targeting the TV / Internet market I would definitely consider a .TV . Even if I bought a tv.com I'd consider .TV as a defensive reg at which point I *have* to ask the question - what *is* the brand I am building?

Of course you would. The question is what do most people outside of the .tv sub forum do?

 

[DU]

The question proposed is could web tv be the big break for .tv. It is a very similar question that was brought up regarding .mobi and the answer is much the same. The vast majority of websites will use the same domains they use now. If a new site is launched it will probably be on an extension people are familiar with.

I don't think any single technology will do anything to make or break an extension. I don't know what was brought up regarding .mobi so I can't really comment.

I do believe that most existing sites WILL use the same domains as they use now; however, there will be a subset that ADD a .TV as a different marketing channel and analytic base... and others that will try a new approach - as well as others that are starting something new.

Familiarity is a tough question - most people should use a domain that they think is memorable and not just base it on an extension. The reality is that most people don't do the right/best thing - whether that be .us/.tv/.me/.com or other. I won't say .org because most people that need an .org tend to get that right (non-profits/clubs etc..)

That said, it's not a question of most people. It's a question of those people that have an interest in using a more video-centric marketing approach.

I used to think that .TV was the single most ridiculous extension in existence; however, times have changed and my opinion has changed with it. I would describe myself NOT as Pro-TV but as someone who would definitely encourage people to consider a .TV if it met their targeted goals.

If they choose to use a .com that's perfectly fine by me. I'm not bigoted any way or the other. I've definitely seen some difficulty in people understanding that not everything is .com (this is something I see in USA a lot more than Europe).

I don't think that Smart TV will make .TV be the next .com On the flip side, it definitely DOESN'T HURT and even you'd have to admit that

[insert 'random xxx event doesn't hurt either.. comment]

It is a market that has crashed, ie values down 50%+ but to say it is dead is heavily exaggerated.

True. I should have said that on NP and other reseller markets there is significant decrease in activity and value in the typical domains that one sees. Dead is far from the reality.

I don't feel like getting into a big discussion. We agree for the most part on .US and .COM and .CO and disagree for the most part on .TV.

That's cool with me. Don't think I need to go round and round again:loveyou:

 

[discovernow]

With all due respect the initiatives aren't quite the same.

.mobi was supposed to be a mobile solution and sponsored as such.

The premise was to standardize and police. The standards were written but the policing never implemented. Is .mobi dead? No, I get emails with links to a mobi almost daily. Is it heavily invested ? If NP is to be the source... no. But then it seems that even .COMs are a dead market.

.TV was not supposed to be a tv solution

What is coming is a move to a new move towards TV applications and a crossover world. The internet to TV, the TV to the internet.

Does this space NEED .TV? No.

Is there an obvious synergy ? Yes. That synergy is name recognition and obvious relationship. A .TV for a TV app? It's a no brainer.

Does this mean .com won't be used?
Does this mean .us won't be used?
Does this mean .me won't be used?
Does this mean .org won't be used?

NO. It doesn't.

You could probably get by without a dedicated domain at all!


BUT if I were to try and launch a site targeting the TV / Internet market I would definitely consider a .TV . Even if I bought a tv.com I'd consider .TV as a defensive reg at which point I *have* to ask the question - what *is* the brand I am building?

In terms of access - the notion of a browser and type in no longer will apply imho. It will be about a brand and a logo. A .TV makes sense in a world where the domain name still matters. The future?


So - is it NEEDED? No.

Will people base TOO MUCH emphasis on it? Perhaps

Is there an obvious link ? Absolutely.

It would take someone brain dead NOT to see that TV is part of the move forward in terms of the name. No one talks about Smart SOMETHING ELSE.. no, it's Smart TV.

I have a ROKU and get NETFLIX over the net.... I can tell you for a fact that TV is used for branding on a number of the channels. MLB.TV DreamTV... the TV in the name tells you the target for the channel and an indicator of what is delivered.

They don't all use the .TV but I think if the trend continues to name yourself as SomethingTV the interest will increase. Will this guarantee the future? No.

There are PRO-TVers I think are crazy optimistic.
There are ANTI-TVers I think are crazy pessimistic.

The truth lies somewhere in between - it's how far the needle sways that makes it interesting. I'm definitely leaning forward.

You have great posts. Very thoughtful.

 

[lexisdomains]

Helping the .TV cause

I have a ROKU and get NETFLIX over the net.... I can tell you for a fact that TV is used for branding on a number of the channels. MLB.TV DreamTV... the TV in the name tells you the target for the channel and an indicator of what is delivered.

Absolutely brilliant post DefaultUser. And as you stated. SmartTv will only help the cause of .TV


Learn more about Smart TV

 

[DnEbook]

in the end it will be the people not the tv that decides , there will be many multi media devices capable of accessing .tv website

 

[hgh.tv]

dot tv is the future

 

[DU]

dot tv is the future

death is also the future

Care to elaborate?

 

[steven4523]

Personally I think the .TV extension will be the default extension for video-centric sites, someone already mentioned MLB.TV, I could see that being the main site for the MLB. Why? because people want to watch the players playing baseball, they want video, and .TV implies audio/video. First and foremost, video, and .TV fits a hell of alot better than .com. I think the MLB is ahead of the curve by grabbing their .TV extension. I can see a time where .TV will become the most important extension for sports clubs, online moves etc. It just works perfectly for these types of entities.

Another member also said its only in the US that .com's are king, I think thats true, in the UK, its .co.uk, but I could see chelsea.tv (chelsea being a big soccer club here) becoming the focal point of their online presence, I think they already have a digital tv channel called 'ChelseaTV'.

 

[DnEbook]

its possible that the next gen of tvs come with their own network pre installed

example would be a 'a fox tv'

 

[lexisdomains]

Media Companies aren't that daring!

its possible that the next gen of tvs come with their own network pre installed

example would be a 'a fox tv'

Most big media companies are not daring enough to delve into the TV market. It was even a big risk for Google to jump in, but all is working well for them. What were finding is that these internet tv's are coming pre-installed with some type of movie service like - NetFlix, Voodoo & others.

I still feel that .tv domains are big in this instance, that's why I'm developing BuyMovies.tv

 

[vincenzo]

In the UK and Europe, you also see many channels on Sky satellite service that are using .TV

i.e. Current.TV and many others.

So exposure is good to all that use the Sky service.

- Vincent

 

[Kate]

Advances in technology are completely unrelated to domain extensions.
IMO people need to stop looking at technology as the savior.
The one good thing .tv has is the branding aspect. Nothing else will save .tv :imho:

 

[gr8trfoo]

Advances in technology are completely unrelated to domain extensions.

Were it not for technology there would be no domains.

 

[Kate]

Were it not for technology there would be no domains.

Then perhaps we should think about a .3d domain extension to accommodate the 3D 'revolution'.
I would personally not wait for a 'breakthrough' that will never come, especially after so many years.

*
A while back we bought a flat screen TV, that allows you to surf the web: Philips Net TV Partnerships
We don't use the feature presently, but if we did we would surf the exact same websites we visit on a daily basis. We would not switch to .tv websites, and the manufacturers don't use .tv either when promoting their products to consumers. End of the story.

 

[snoop]

Were it not for technology there would be no domains.

True but it has nothing to do with the point being made. New technology doesn't do much for new extensions. Mobile surfing doesn't need a new extension, Internet in the living room doesn't need a new extension. 99% of companies will just use what they already use.

 

[DU]

A while back we bought a flat screen TV, that allows you to surf the web: Philips Net TV Partnerships
We don't use the feature presently, but if we did we would surf the exact same websites we visit on a daily basis. We would not switch to .tv websites, and the manufacturers don't use .tv either when promoting their products to consumers. End of the story.

Far too simplistic a view.

Do you think the content that is available will be the same?
Do you think that the method of access will continue to be the same?

If the answer to these questions is YES on both counts then there is no innovation going forward and we are stuck where we are. I don't see this as being the case.

The questions that are relevant:

How do you think the content available will change?
How do you think the access to that content will change?

And Finally

How is this the same or different than other initiatives such .mobi?

Then you come to your conclusion. I'm not here to tell you what that should or shouldn't be.

 

[jlc]

As a domainer and a small business owner, with the dot com of our business name already taken, I say .tv is a great alternative. With Smart tv's finally gaining ground more people will get .tv.

JLC