

boboski said:Haven't heard anything from or about demand media and dot tv lately? hmmm
MillersCrossing said:havent heard anything from them since their launch party
A, Yes, I noticed this acknowledgement that their ChannelMe.TV (me.tv) business model was a dud. As we all know they never put the resources behind this idea - in server uptime, customer support, etc. It was almost stillborn.Ammudamus said:CarryOn,
Here is a piece that is quite interesting:
"There have been occasional duds, such as the plan to resell domain names ending in .tv along with video and social networking tools. Not every website, it turns out, aspires to be a new-media business."
Best,
A
CarryOn said:A, Yes, I noticed this acknowledgement that their ChannelMe.TV (me.tv) business model was a dud. As we all know they never put the resources behind this idea - in server uptime, customer support, etc. It was almost stillborn.
The journalist failed to separate .TV from ChannelMe.TV. Clearly the article's thrust was Richard and DM and not the nuances of dot TV and the natural organic growth of this extension.
MillersCrossing said:couldnt have said it better myself.......except may be to say it was actually stillborn at birth.
And like you say there is no way a journalist without doing extensive homework in the arena of domaining and extensions will grasp the **** up on Channel Me versus the complete neglect of .tv


