.tv Has the .tv market peaked?

[snoop]

I think we are seeing numerous signs to suggest the .tv may have peaked. From what I can see of it, it is fairly common for relaunched/new tlds prices peak to at the time of the major auction, when speculator interest is at its highest, and you have a whole lot of people in the market who wouldn’t normally dabble in it. I’m not sure .tv will be an exception to this rule.

The only thing to change is there is now a large number of names in the market with genuine, real value, much like other extensions. In other words it is now on a level playfield in that respect but it is still only that, "level", not tilted upwards. The exuberance has carried over into a lot of unrealistic viewpoints recently in my view,

eg

-People claim this market is just starting to warm up and will be much stronger in a year. (we’ve heard that before)
-The idea that many of these premiums will be developed (of course that will never happen and is setting the scene for later disappointment).
-People talking about “trying to keep the momentum going” and trying to organize group auctions (as though this is an engine that constantly needs top ups of fuel to prevent breakdown).
-People talking about future .tv millionaires.
-World economies seeing another shock spreading out from Europe.


If you look back a month ago that really was a market with a lot of positive elements rolled into, many factors combining that may never be repeated.

So I put this question out there, do you think the .tv market has peaked?

 

[snoop]

I imagine that the domain name concept will linger as a continued unique entry point; however, the focus will be on rich brands and not on "keywords". The domain will HAVE to convey the site concept/content or, at minimum, be memorable and associative.

Brand names (ie fanciful terms) have typically done poorly over the years, I don't really see that changing. There is just far too many potentials to the point where registering that kind of name has no value most of the time, people will rarely pay any premium for a "brand" name as opposed to a popular keyword name because they can think one up themselves.

Personally I'd bet on the current rather that predicting a big change which even if people can see may leave them empty handed.

---------- Post added at 04:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:14 PM ----------

right on the first part AND right on the second, but i wasnt arguing that a lot of businesses would buy them now did i? i dont give a rats rear if they do or not. i'm buying them for my own use becasue i see the value inherent in their branding power.

In my view there is no hope for domainers planning on developing thousands of names, in reality most of those people haven't developed even one successful site. Development just doesn't work when scaled, it is a tough job, labor intensive and high risk. If a domainer said , I am going to try and develop one or two sites I would say they at least have a fighting chance of building something sustinable over the long term. When people talk about developing thousands in my view that is just wishful thiking. Those sites won't last.

yet another inference one could take away from the ".tv good brand" argument is that a small player (and i am still a pretty small player) could potentialy aquire a very good .tv name and put it to its best use and hopefully parlay their fortunes extraordinarily. i would not try to sell a domain name, i would try to sell the idea of the business that could be built on top of the name as a brand and look for the right partners.

That is the case for most domain sales, it is typically the small and medium sized companies that spend alot on domains, not the major corporates.

you know as well as anyone that economic forces beyond anyone's control have effects. the best we can hope to do is accurately predict the swings and use them advantagously.

i knew the ecomomy was in trouble, that home prices were severely overboiled, but i thought that it wouldnt hurt domain values such as it did. WRONG!

People do badly in domains because of their own poor choices. Booms and busts just move things to the inevitable quicker. They are normal market cycles. If a domain business model can't survive a domain bust then it is doomed because busts are normal.

so as a matter of fact, BASED ON PAST HISTORY, I'M PROBABLY RIGHT ABOUT .TV!

Based on past history you look to be wrong about .tv (given the money lost). Sounds like you were right about .com.

looking back i dropped a lot of .com's way back when too. not everything picked up was worth it. and sometimes the finances were in fact stretched so thin that renewals simply couldnt be made. it happens. some were better off dropped and alas some i've seen resold by others for pretty good money.

Nothing wrong with dropping names as long as the overall model is profitable.

i any case, to tell people not to follow there dreams is the saddest, most pathetic thing i can imagine hearing anyone say.

I said find a model that is profitable *today*, it is doesn't work today it is very unlikely to work in the future.

for another thing, as we have established above, i do have a business model that works well.

Your .tv model is loing money though.

realize) but i do drive the benzo (i happen like them better than porsche).

That is not the same as being able to afford one.

my .tv thing sits on the bedrock of this solid business model that even in the midst of the worst economic downturn in 80 years still provides me with an ample livelyhood. lucky me! funny how i only had to work myself halfway to death to make it happen.

The bedrock is non .tv domains though!

what really bothers me about this entire conversation, and all the rest we've had, is that we know virtually nothing about you.

This is coming from someone who won't post a single example of the supposedly highly valuable domains he owns. Those 6 figures domains picked up years ago for a song, where are they?

 

[discovernow]

Brand names (ie fanciful terms) have typically done poorly over the years, I don't really see that changing. There is just far too many potentials to the point where registering that kind of name has no value most of the time, people will rarely pay any premium for a "brand" name as opposed to a popular keyword name because they can think one up themselves.

Personally I'd bet on the current rather that predicting a big change which even if people can see may leave them empty handed.

---------- Post added at 04:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:14 PM ----------



In my view there is no hope for domainers planning on developing thousands of names, in reality most of those people haven't developed even one successful site. Development just doesn't work when scaled, it is a tough job, labor intensive and high risk. If a domainer said , I am going to try and develop one or two sites I would say they at least have a fighting chance of building something sustinable over the long term. When people talk about developing thousands in my view that is just wishful thiking. Those sites won't last.



That is the case for most domain sales, it is typically the small and medium sized companies that spend alot on domains, not the major corporates.




People do badly in domains because of their own poor choices. Booms and busts just move things to the inevitable quicker. They are normal market cycles. If a domain business model can't survive a domain bust then it is doomed because busts are normal.



Based on past history you look to be wrong about .tv (given the money lost). Sounds like you were right about .com.



Nothing wrong with dropping names as long as the overall model is profitable.




I said find a model that is profitable *today*, it is doesn't work today it is very unlikely to work in the future.



Your .tv model is loing money though.



That is not the same as being able to afford one.



The bedrock is non .tv domains though!



This is coming from someone who won't post a single example of the supposedly highly valuable domains he owns. Those 6 figures domains picked up years ago for a song, where are they?

Snoop Doggie!!!

 

[gr8trfoo]

reply:

In my view there is no hope for domainers planning on developing thousands of names, in reality most of those people haven't developed even one successful site. Development just doesn't work when scaled, it is a tough job, labor intensive and high risk. If a domainer said , I am going to try and develop one or two sites I would say they at least have a fighting chance of building something sustinable over the long term. When people talk about developing thousands in my view that is just wishful thiking. Those sites won't last.

>>> this is mostly lot of nonsense. all your own unfoundable conjectured illusions. a grain of truth for sure but a grain that will not sprout.

again i ask you: what business experience do you have to justify making such broad statements? what kind of guru r u?

If a domain business model can't survive a domain bust then it is doomed because busts are normal.

>>>> yep. if things cant survive then they are doomed. things die if they cant live. very profound insight there snoop. how do you do it?

Based on past history you look to be wrong about .tv (given the money lost). Sounds like you were right about .com.
...
I said find a model that is profitable *today*, it is doesn't work today it is very unlikely to work in the future.

>>>> the .com thing went thru periods of profitability and non. but despite the challenges i held fast, thru many former *todays* long past now where the model "didnt work". i knew it eventually would but in your view i should have let go. accept that your view was wrong.

That is not the same as being able to afford one.

>>>> i always pay cash for my cars. how do you buy yours?

The bedrock is non .tv domains though!

>>>> naturally. didnt i make that clear? again, how many times do you need to repeat back to me the things i've told you???

i'm not suggesting that others attempt what i'm doing. we both agree that these are not fantastic speculative vehicles. unless someone really belives in something and is will to put in exactly the hard effort you describe elsewhere they likely will not succeed in development. in fact even if they do put in the work, statistically speaking, they will also likely not succeed.

This is coming from someone who won't post a single example of the supposedly highly valuable domains he owns. Those 6 figures domains picked up years ago for a song, where are they?

>>>> now its about the value of the names dropcaught? lol! ok, you change it up as you see fit. everyone here can see you're the cowardly lion.

i have shared with the board some pretty detailed information about me and my background. i'm not interested in comparing portfolios with anyone. what i am interested in is knowing is if someone like you who can afford to spend 10 times the amount of time most people do posting and responding to posts and say the outrageous things you often do can actually lay any claim at all to real actually knowledge.

the only one thing i think we do know about you (although i've never heard you actually cop to it) is that you used to be a 1/3 partner in domainstate, before it was sold off for the grand sum of $10,000.

i have a feeling thats all there really is to you. if so then i for one will begin to regard almost everthing you say here as a joke. not like most dont already.

 

[snoop]

again i ask you: what business experience do you have to justify making such broad statements? what kind of guru r u?

Unlike yourself I make no bold claims, other than being in this industry or some time.

the .com thing went thru periods of profitability and non. but despite the challenges i held fast, thru many former *todays* long past now where the model "didnt work". i knew it eventually would but in your view i should have let go. accept that your view was wrong.

Maybe that is another flaw in the model, like I said for the model to have legs it need to work in good market and bad markets. At the moment it sounds like you are selling off the good part of the business to pay for the bad? In my view that isn't logical. Would be better to sell off the bad.

i'm not suggesting that others attempt what i'm doing. we both agree that these are not fantastic speculative vehicles. unless someone really belives in something and is will to put in exactly the hard effort you describe elsewhere they likely will not succeed in development. in fact even if they do put in the work, statistically speaking, they will also likely not succeed.

Hopefully you can see this applies to you aswell.

>>>> now its about the value of the names dropcaught? lol! ok, you change it up as you see fit. everyone here can see you're the cowardly lion.

Your original claim was that these 2 figure names are now 6 figure names. The questions I am asking are the same questions form nearly a year ago, nothing has changed.

i have shared with the board some pretty detailed information about me and my background. i'm not interested in comparing portfolios with anyone. what i am interested in is knowing is if someone like you who can afford to spend 10 times the amount of time most people do posting and responding to posts and say the outrageous things you often do can actually lay any claim at all to real actually knowledge.

Most of it was hyped up hot air rather than real information.

before it was sold off for the grand sum of $10,000.

Was this via chinese whispers?

if so then i for one will begin to regard almost everthing you say here as a joke. not like most dont already.

You'll "begin" to do that? :lol:

I do not expect to be respected by the majority of people speculating in .tv because I've been saying for years they mostly don't know what they are doing, that they have been wasting money, that until the Verisign changes the extension was pretty much a complete write off.

 

[gr8trfoo]

snoop, its been hilarious to watch you dodge, evade, twist and squirm. its quite an amazing talent you possess, the ability to completely ignore the facts and lie and turn everything back around to use against those who challenge you to divert attention away from the real issues raised. you could get a job with some fascist government propaganda dept.

its getting pretty stale though. its like "same s###, different day". i'm actually starting to feel sorry for you. good luck spending your life playing forum god. maybe you'll even get your own forum again someday. or maybe you could smoke a dube and learn to chillax. try being a real human being. find a dream to follow. hahaha.

ciao baby.

 

[GoneWalkabout]

It's been a beautiful, if somewhat pointless, soap-opera-esque thread - so thanks to all for playing you parts so readily.

...of course, big award for best comedy baddie goes to..... (insert name here)

If there is something interesting, and serious, here, it is this - a whopping 49 people are actually believing that .TV has a lot further to go.

That's astonishing - I didn't even know there were that many people into .TV at Namepros. I thought the core of .TVers here (well, those that are not banned) was only about a dozen strong).

Will we see 50 or has Snoop not voted yet?

 

[DU]

If there is something interesting, and serious, here, it is this - a whopping 49 people are actually believing that .TV has a lot further to go.

That's astonishing - I didn't even know there were that many people into .TV at Namepros. I thought the core of .TVers here (well, those that are not banned) was only about a dozen strong).

Will we see 50 or has Snoop not voted yet?

I'd like to change my vote from Yes to No and make it 50. I voted Yes based on "transaction quantity" which I believe has peaked at the gold rush and week immediately following. In terms of end user I think lots of interest has been piqued and the aftermarket is steadily gaining interest. It's not climbing the dot com mountain but it's not sinking into the Pacific either.

I have much respect for Fin for having faith and living towards a dream. I truly hope that it works for him - not for financial reasons but for personal reasons. Succeeding emotionally is FAR superior to succeeding financially imho. (I know you gotta eat, live, and it take money, business is business and all that etc.... but give me my moment of spiritual goodness).

I think that if we take the balance between Snoop and others there's what I would deem a cautious optimism for investment.

I have found the discussion very interesting.:hearts:

 

[donnied79]

That's astonishing - I didn't even know there were that many people into .TV at Namepros. I thought the core of .TVers here (well, those that are not banned) was only about a dozen strong).

I think this is a good point.
Domaining is one of the 1000 way to invest money trying to make a profit.
I've always loved .tv and always thought it has a huge potential.
But I've never invested seriously (just 5/10 names) because of the renewal fee.
And because of this is not a religion war things can change (as happened for the renewal fee) and new opportunities appears.
I really can't understan people that are against .tv like if it is a personal issue.
.tv was a good extension but very hard to invest in and now it's a good extension with great opportunity.
Take .mobi for example. At the moment it's a dead extension and I'll never invest a $ in it.
If tomorrow something will change (maybe mobile device can connect only on .mobi website, just inventing) it can become a good investment opportunity. But there will be people that will continue to against it without any reason.

 

[snoop]

I think this is a good point.

Personally I thought the number of people stating that they thought the market hadn't peaked would be higher than the 90%, would have guessed 90%+ going into the poll. I think the larger the number voting that they don't think it is has peaked the more negative that is for the market so 70% is better than I thought.

 

[Animator]

If tomorrow something will change (maybe mobile device can connect only on .mobi website, just inventing) it can become a good investment opportunity.

I hope this is the case with Google.TV where you can connect only on .TV website.

 

[snoop]

I hope this is the case with Google.TV where you can connect only on .TV website.

Why would google do that? It is a bit like the .mobi people expected phones to have a .mobi button. The only group of people that would be good for is domain speculators.

 

[Kate]

Why would google do that? It is a bit like the .mobi people expected phones to have a .mobi button. The only group of people that would be good for is domain speculators.

Where is that .mobi button yet ?
Never mind I found it.

 

[snoop]

Where is that .mobi button yet ?
Never mind I found it.

Right, the choices reflect what is best for users. Only in domainers wet dreams would Google restrict their device to .tv.

Maybe those same dreams are why Animator called it "google.tv", it is "google tv" and th web address is Google TV.

 

[DU]

Right, the choices reflect what is best for users. Only in domainers wet dreams would Google restrict their device to .tv.

Maybe those same dreams are why Animator called it "google.tv", it is "google tv" and th web address is Google TV.

The choice usually reflects what is (a) Best for the supplier or (b) easiest to implement.

Google TV will flop anyway. It's not a revenue producer. The single most important thing to realize ; however, is that you won't spend hours searching for "channels" or "videos". What you will do is find a list of providers that will place on your launchpad. Or if they are memorable - just type in.

There's that word again. MEMORABLE.

I'm of the opinion (and it's part of what I keep saying) that the most important element is the brandable element. I will want a slick logo, a slick brandable name that is instantly recognizable.

For example I will take DreamTV

Now. There ultimately is no need to actually link that to a real web address; however... I think its perfectly reasonable to believe that DreamTV.com might work well.. but so would Dream.TV (I don't know what they actually did). I do think that Dream.TV works better than LucidNightVisions.com

So Dream.TV is the second choice/first choice imho for THIS PLATFORM and NOT YOUR WEB (necessarily).

Ultimately it will be FIRST choice. Because as Finster says - it makes sense.

So. I'm of the opinion that .TV as a brandable will definitely see some play. The unknown question is - how BIG is this marketspace? Will the new move squash content to a few providers or increase it to many?

Initially I think it will squash

..we'll call this the gold rush panic drop phase...

...but it will grow as the TV allows the adoptions of WIDGETS (Don't get too excited TwoMoon! ) and applications. The SINGLE MOST important ASPECT of getting traction WILL BE YOUR NAME in a LIMITED namespace. .TV FITS that namespace perfectly.

..we'll then see the oh my god there's money left on the drop lists

..and picking up of garbage (obviously)

.TV will become the entertainment brand (pending other TLD movements)
.COM will become the business information brand

Large companies will want both.

Long Tail search domains? They're going bye bye.....Why? Because your widgets will INCLUDE launchpads to all the information you will need.

Google wants it to be Google.

It won't be. Google is too naughties.

Thanks for listening. These words come from the future. I hope this aligns with Finster's dream. :hearts:

---------- Post added at 05:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:11 PM ----------

This will be my last post on NP on this subject for personal reasons

 

[snoop]

The choice usually reflects what is (a) Best for the supplier or (b) easiest to implement.

Best for user experience is likely the same as what is best for the supplier. If phones had a .mobi button or google tv only worked with .tv sites customers will say "What is this all about? Apple fix this up". It makes no business sense to restrict something to a tld very few people actually use.

I think its perfectly reasonable to believe that DreamTV.com might work well.. but so would Dream.TV (I don't know what they actually did). I do think that Dream.TV works better than LucidNightVisions.com

So Dream.TV is the second choice/first choice imho for THIS PLATFORM and NOT YOUR WEB (necessarily).

The above is domainer logic,

-Their existing web address is likely the most obvious choice. Internet tv probably needs .tv as much as mobile phones need .mobi. It wouldn't be hard for a site to auto detect an internet tv device.

-Even still how did we get to .tv being the best choice?

I do think that Dream.TV works better than LucidNightVisions.com.

So do I,

I also thing "television.com" is likely to work better than "mybest-domainohmygod.bz".

I also think it is better to drive to the shops as opposed to walking backwards on my head.

[insert any other bad and unrealistic comparisons that people would never actually make here]

Ultimately it will be FIRST choice. Because as Finster says - it makes sense.

There is tide going that way though. .tv domainers thinking it makes sense is entirely logical. Just like the people who buy Zunes probably think they are better than ipods. If you didn't have the view above you probably wouldn't have bought.

...but it will grow as the TV allows the adoptions of WIDGETS (Don't get too excited TwoMoon! ) and applications. The SINGLE MOST important ASPECT of getting traction WILL BE YOUR NAME in a LIMITED namespace. .TV FITS that namespace perfectly.

No namespace is particularly limited, and I doubt many people think .tv fits it perfectly once you go out of this forum and beyond your friends and relatives.

..we'll then see the oh my god there's money left on the drop lists

..and picking up of garbage (obviously)

.TV will become the entertainment brand (pending other TLD movements)
.COM will become the business information brand

Large companies will want both.

Long Tail search domains? They're going bye bye.....Why? Because your widgets will INCLUDE launchpads to all the information you will need.

Google wants it to be Google.

It won't be. Google is too naughties.

Thanks for listening. These words come from the future. I hope this aligns with Finster's dream.

I guess the worst thing about predictions is they are usually wrong, or at best wrong half the time. Add a whole lot of predictions together and you'll end up with a cocktail of disappointment.

 

[DU]

Best for user experience is likely the same as what is best for the supplier

They might align through fortune. The best thing to happen to capitalist industries in years are the sheer number of people that will develop necessary extensions for them for free.

The above is domainer logic,

I don't consider myself a domainer.
I certainly don't have domainer logic.
I doubt anyone else would label me as such either. At least those who actually know me.

-Their existing web address is likely the most obvious choice. Internet tv probably needs .tv as much as mobile phones need .mobi. It wouldn't be hard for a site to auto detect an internet tv device.

You're thinking like a techie domainer.
You're not thinking like a marketer.

Even still how did we get to .tv being the best choice?

Ok. You GOT me. It's my OPINION. My NON-DOMAINER OPINION.
But to be clear. I am not saying that .TV pre-empts .com, .us, .me, .biz. I am saying that in some cases there will be branding experts who decide that .TV works best for them. People trying to establish/re-establish a brand don't think like people that have an existing brand. They certainly don't think like domainers. Are you a domainer?

This would explain MLB.TV and some of HTC's recent decisions (to pick a non domain interest)

I also thing "television.com" is likely to work better than "mybest-domainohmygod.bz".

I also think it is better to drive to the shops as opposed to walking backwards on my head.

[insert any other bad and unrealistic comparisons that people would never actually make here]

It wasn't a comparison of names. It was a comparison of brandability.

Perhaps if I said Dream.TV is better then Possum.com for a night time relaxation channel it would be clearer.

There is tide going that way though. .tv domainers thinking it makes sense is entirely logical. Just like the people who buy Zunes probably think they are better than ipods. If you didn't have the view above you probably wouldn't have bought.

[insert bad and unrealistic comparisons that people would never actually make here]

No namespace is particularly limited, and I doubt many people think .tv fits it perfectly once you go out of this forum and beyond your friends and relatives.

A namespace by definition is limited but in actuality, I did misuse the word in a way. What I meant to say was that the average brain only can hold so many brand names in short term recall. I'm sure you've been to websites, looked at apps that you later couldn't recall. Then there are others you don't forget.
You see how important this is in industries heavy on public opinion. A bad car name can destroy sales. Think of how magical the Mustang brand has been for Ford.

I guess the worst thing about predictions is they are usually wrong, or at best wrong half the time. Add a whole lot of predictions together and you'll end up with a cocktail of disappointment.

The best things about predictions is that they often involve looking forward, searching for the future, seeking what is going to happen. The most disappointing thing about not making predictions and just deriding others is that it shows a lack of something that I happen to like about people.

Making predictions shows creativity, application of knowledge, a courage (you could be so wrong to look dumb). These are the people that I like to be around. No visionary ever was caught looking backwards.

I'm glad you could find absolutely nothing of positive in my entire post. I've made it clear that I could care less if the .TV extension fell of a cliff. I'm not going to make money if it takes off and I'm not going to lose money (much) if it dies. I have bought SOME < 20 domains for the sole purpose of having something that I can bring to the table... and something that I can use as a baseline for my opinion.

I believe you have more to lose than I. I don't understand why give you have such a look backward position.

 

[snoop]

You're thinking like a techie domainer.
You're not thinking like a marketer.

I'm looing at what companies, there is no need for a seperate url for video devices, this is .mobi repeated.

I am saying that in some cases there will be branding experts who decide that .TV works best for them. People trying to establish/re-establish a brand don't think like people that have a brand.

You were arguing above that it will be the best choice for Internet tv, that is highly unlikely.

This would explain MLB.TV and some of HTC's recent decisions (to pick a non domain interest)

Who do you thing companies will follow with their online strategy, Google, Yahoo, Apple, or MLB?

It wasn't a comparison of names. It was a comparison of brandability.

It was the typical highly unrealistic comparison that we see on the forum. A good quality .tv is compared to a .com that is unlikely to even be registered. The argument is fluff.

A namespace by definition is limited but in actuality, I did misuse the word in a way. What I meant to say was that the average brain only can hold so many brand names in short term recall. I'm sure you've been to websites, looked at apps that you later couldn't recall. Then there are others you don't forget.
You see how important this is in industries heavy on public opinion. A bad car name can destroy sales. Think of how magical the Mustang brand has been for Ford.

What does all this mean in reality?

You can either get a longer .com or a shorter alt tld. In reality with the alt tld you need to remember the tld aswell. Because it is not the "default" extension that people would expect, it actually adds length to what needs to be remembered. Something like dream.tv I'd compare to a 2 word .com in term of memorability. But you've also got a confusion element aswell. "What is this .tv?"

Making predictions shows creativity, application of knowledge, a courage (you could be so wrong to look dumb). These are the people that I like to be around. No visionary ever was caught looking backwards.

In terms of domaining, creativity is generally something that isn't rewarded. Obvious is good, creative is not. You are hoping for a string of radical changes...good luck with that.

I've made it clear that I could care less if the .TV extension fell of a cliff.

Really? that is not what I am reading.

I'm not going to make money if it takes off and I'm not going to lose money (much) if it dies. I have bought SOME < 20 domains for the sole purpose of having something that I can bring to the table... and something that I can use as a baseline for my opinion.

I believe you have more to lose than I. I don't understand why give you have such a look backward position.

Sounds like Finster, expect he has 4000 domains that "aren't for speculation".

 

[DU]

I'm looing at what companies, there is no need for a seperate url for video devices, this is .mobi repeated.

That's embedded in my point. All this is stop gap branding.
A HUGE difference
.MOBI was sold to BE the platform.
.TV is just well placed to BE ON the platform

You were arguing above that it will be the best choice for Internet tv, that is highly unlikely.

No. I was stating that it is my opinion right now that some will see the brandability of the .TV name between now and longer term future where the notion of "extensions" will no longer be considered the DIFFERENTIATOR it is now by domainers.

Who do you thing companies will follow with their online strategy, Google, Yahoo, Apple, or MLB?

I'll invest in leaders not followers, so I don't really care.

But given the choice? It depends on my market. If I'm in entertainment I'll go with MLB. If I'm into hardware, I'll go with Apple (their non-hardware online strategy is FAIL). If I'm into just blowing up business models and seeing what shit hits the fan, I'll go with Google.

Don't know enough about Yahoo to comment.

Funny you didn't use Ning, Facebook, Twitter... much better choices with must broader success and failure points.

It was the typical highly unrealistic comparison that we see on the forum. A good quality .tv is compared to a .com that is unlikely to even be registered. The argument is fluff.

I explained this. Thanks for ignoring..please go up two posts and try again.

You can either get a longer .com or a shorter alt tld. In reality with the alt tld you need to remember the tld aswell.

And you say I think like a domainer? You're so far behind in your thinking you don't even need to be made backward compatible.

Because it is not the "default" extension that people would expect, it actually adds length to what needs to be remembered.

And what is the default?

Something like dream.tv I'd compare to a 2 word .com in term of memorability. But you've also got a confusion element aswell. "What is this .tv?"

What is this .tv?
What is this .com?

Depends where you're coming from really. Type in browser or abstracted platform. The former will give way to the latter for a SEGMENT of the market.

In terms of domaining, creativity is generally something that isn't rewarded. Obvious is good, creative is not. You are hoping for a string of radical changes...good luck with that.

Many have HAPPENED.
Many are HAPPENING.
Many are my prediction.

Talk to people who work in the data space (Clouds/SaaS), talk to people that work in the network space (Security/Accessibility), talk to people that work in marketing (Sales/Branding), talk to people building platforms (Semantic/Sharing) talk to people who are IN the TV industry (All the above). Stop trolling in here. Learn something. I have family/friends irl in ALL those areas... not ONE in domaining.

Really? that is not what I am reading.

Sounds like Finster, expect he has 4000 domains that "aren't for speculation".

My last post because I can't be clearer...
But answer me this.

One place to invest $10,000 a year from now until 2020 in the realm of domaining. Where to put it and why ?

 

[snoop]

If I'm in entertainment I'll go with MLB. If I'm into hardware, I'll go with Apple (their non-hardware online strategy is FAIL). If I'm into just blowing up business models and seeing what shit hits the fan, I'll go with Google.

Why would people go with MLB when dozens of similar sites don't? .tv has a small share of the online video market, it is a niche extension. People aren't going to follow the lead on mass of a small player.

And what is the default?

It depends on the market, but the default is .com and dominant local country codes.

What is this .tv?
What is this .com?

All internet users have heard of .com, the latter isn't a question that they ask.

Talk to people who work in the data space (Clouds/SaaS), talk to people that work in the network space (Security/Accessibility), talk to people that work in marketing (Sales/Branding), talk to people building platforms (Semantic/Sharing) talk to people who are IN the TV industry (All the above).

How about talking to people in domaining.

Stop trolling in here. Learn something. I have family/friends irl in ALL those areas... not ONE in domaining.

Just when I thought we were having a serious discussion.

My last post because I can't be clearer..

Hang on, you said that a few posts up?

One place to invest $10,000 a year from now until 2020 in the realm of domaining. Where to put it and why ?

I'd put it in keyword .com's, because it is the dominant tld with a liquid market and has outpeformed other extensions over time. You've also got a yield (parking) from these names which brings it more in line with investing rather than speculating.

But that is working with your assumption it has to be into domains and personally I am mildly negative overall on the domain market right now including .com and have been since early 2008. With free choice I would not invest the money into domains in the current market. As far as 10 years I can't tell you where I'd invest money in 2015, I can only give an opinion about today.

 

[DnEbook]

and the world keeps spinning regardless of this thread

 

[DU]

and the world keeps spinning regardless of this thread

Segregation, determination, demonstration,
Integration, aggravation,
Humiliation, obligation to our nation
Ball of Confusion
That's what the world is today

---------- Post added at 09:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:47 PM ----------

Just when I thought we were having a serious discussion.

I regretted that statement and I apologize. It was a result of what I view as nit picking statements out of a greater context.

I am breaking the internet down into smaller components. It's not just ONE thing in 2010. It's not just a browser and a keyboard anymore.

That's what domainers don't understand. It's not all about Google search which itself is beginning to adjust to the new dynamics of the way information and real life interact.

 

[snoop]

I am breaking the internet down into smaller components. It's not just ONE thing in 2010. It's not just a browser and a keyboard anymore.

That's what domainers don't understand. It's not all about Google search which itself is beginning to adjust to the new dynamics of the way information and real life interact.

All the philosophising in the world will not change the fact that this extension hasn't gone far in 14 years, it is what it is. In my view all the above arguments can be summarized down to two words: wishful thinking.

---------- Post added at 09:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 PM ----------

I regretted that statement and I apologize. It was a result of what I view as nit picking statements out of a greater context.

Ok, thanks for that.

 

[DU]

All the philosophising in the world will not change the fact that this extension hasn't gone far in 14 years, it is what it is. In my view all the above arguments can be summarized down to two words: wishful thinking.

It's not wishful thinking because I'm not set to make anything should it happen. All I get is a "told you so".

People said the same thing about Apple - a going nowhere company. Microsoft is kind of like the .com. Predictions of its demise are probably a little premature.

 

[Animator]

I wish people stop remembering .com and start remembering of .tv or .co

 

[snoop]

People said the same thing about Apple - a going nowhere company. Microsoft is kind of like the .com. Predictions of its demise are probably a little premature.

These types of comparisons don't mean much, you can just as easily find one with the opposite result. The fact is not much is happening with .tv as far as usage, and that has been the case for a long time. A great comeback story does not mean .tv is about to have a comeback or that one is likely, actually it never really arrived in the first place, not in a mainstream way.

Instead of worthless analogies and unrealistic comparisons lets look at the facts, what is really happening and make decisions based on that.

---------- Post added at 09:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:34 PM ----------

I wish people stop remembering .com and start remembering of .tv or .co

Might be better to "wish" for something that is likely, or even better focus your efforts on what actually works now.