Is Domain Speculation Bust?

The latest Netcraft survey is more interesting than usual, because it reports a drop in the total number of registered domain names, as well as a decreasing number of sites reachable overall by the survey. It's been a traumatic year in the tech world, but the drop in domain names goes back to domain name buy-ups of 1999 (and looks like it will accelerate the same way domain speculation did in 2000). All is not gloom, though, and the number of registered domain names is not the same as the number of active sites. The Netcraft site points out that "as domains bought for speculative reasons are abandoned, we can expect a higher proportion of sites to be active." Read the rest of the survey report for more interesting information on the state of the domain world.

Of course it's bust

[SumDeusExMachina]

Domain speculation was based on the same principles, and tied to, the dotcom revolution. As soon as people realized that speculating in companies that had no business plan to speak of, they pulled their money out of the market, which consequently left the dotcom people without any money to blow on expensive domain names. Thus, no one can sell obvious things like "business.com" for $400,000,000,000,000 or whatever.

All I can say for myself is that I'm glad that bullshit has passed. I will no longer have to worry about having to pay a hefty sum for a domain I want just because it sounds trendy. More power to the people.

Somewhat Ironic...

[instinctdesign]

Its somewhat ironic that the drop is happening now, just as getting a domain name is cheaper and easier than ever before. I remember lot too long ago when I went to register my first domain name (www.instinctdesign.com) and the only option was Network Solutions at a wonderful 70 dollars a pop for the first two years. Since the break-up of that particular monopoly I have registered a number more for only ten dollars a year and if you buy in bulk (thank you, I'm not that nuts) it can get even cheaper prices. Odd though that the new TLDs only got a passing mention, sure was a lot of whoopla over what seems to have turned out to be... well, not much.

Re:The Internet is maturing

[shrdlu]

IMO, this is further indication that the internet is maturing as a communications medium. Until last year, the net was fairly new and its nature and content evolved every month. I think we are finally beginning to realize what we are going to do with it.

Say what? Until last year?

First, the hypertext transport protocol does not define the net (that's http to you youngsters).

Second, the net's been around for more than a quarter century, and shows no signs of slowing down.

Third, I think that you might want to hang around for a few years or so before you start to make pronouncements like this one. Check out the posts that Google has archived if you don't think your mistakes live forever. Mine sure do (and I left them there, why not?).

Fourth, the internet is indeed maturing. It will continue to change, and grow, just as it has in the past. Remember, the future is stranger than we can imagine.

Yes, domain speculation is bust

[Animats]

I expected this to happen, which is why I was against ".biz" domains as unnecessary. By now, everybody who has a viable business and wants a domain name has one. There's not much of a market left in names alone.

Look at GreatDomains.com [greatdomains.com]. Skip the "list prices" for domains, and look at the "recent offers" listings, which are all in the few hundred dollar range. Realistically, that's where the prices are now. And those are offers for ".com" domains. Off-brand domains like ".ws" (Western Samoa), ".tv" (Tuvalu), and ".to" (Tonga) are almost worthless.

ICANN is now starting up a "registry escrow" [icann.org] program to back up the registrars, so that when registrars go bust, the domains don't disappear. It's good that they're thinking ahead. A registrar shakeout is due.

It's over.

Re:Of course it's bust

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's a bit more complicated than that -- lots of perfectly good ideas (or "business plans") were ruined because the investors said "You no longer have 'First Mover Advantage', and therefore you need to spend $100M in marketing in one year to build a customer base".

Then of course, they said "You spent $100M of our money with nothing to show for it? No more financing for you!!"

(But what was really going on was that smart Silly Valley capitalists were snooking backwater old money folks into flushing a bunch of their money into the local economy.

People stopped putting money in because they had been taken for all they were worth. On to the next scam.)

Yeah way back...

[Simon Carr]

Every once and a while people will, or should I say would have during the obvious period of madness. Now I'm not so sure. Search engines, especially good search engines like Google, have made it less profitable to just own the name and more profitable to have meaningful content or services.

In short, instead of having business.com, or linux.com, it's probably best to have content ON business, and ON Linux. People can and will bookmark sites.

Re:No online shopping...

[_Sprocket_]

Most people feel more comfortable being able to touch products they're going to spend their hard earned cash on, and can then take home that day. Clicking a button and then waiting like a puppy by your mailbox is not a fun way to shop.

Tell that to the mail-order industry. Heck - even the Home Shopping Network might enjoy a good giggle over it.

Re:Other news

[the eric conspiracy]

Microsoft's server market share is at its highest level ever, with much of the increased share coming from Apache.

That's NOT what Netcraft actually said.

"The drop has had particularly evident impact this month at the popular registrar register.com, which has seen the number of registered but unused sites parked at futuresite.register.com drop by 300k, accounting for the drop in Apache numbers this month."

In other words the drop in Apache numbers was actually due to lack of registration renewals at Register.com, NOT due to any gains by Microsoft.

If you look at the percentages based on ACTIVE sites, Apache actually INCREASED share this month, from 61.88 to 63.34, +1.46, while Microsoft increased at a much slower rate,
26.40 to 26.62, or +0.22.

Lest anyone claim that Apache's share is inflated by inactive sites compared to Microsoft, the Netcraft survey shows the Apache share for total active + inactive to be lower than the active share, while Microsoft's share adding inactive sites is HIGHER than it's active site share. This clearly Microsoft's numbers are inflated by a large number of inactive sites.

In fact, if you look at total number of active sites for the past THREE months, IIS has actually declined, while Apache has increased .

Re:Speculating

[anthony_dipierro]

The smart people were already shorting at that point.

And most of those "smart people" got burned with margin calls, forcing them to close their positions long before the bubble burst.