[wildmXranat]

No! A $7.99 domain name and what looks like to me a $99 logo thrown is not a steal or a good deal. Let me come at this way: Can I get the domain off of you for %80 off the $250 price ? I presume that the answer is no, because it's a lipstick on pig product designed to glorify domain squatting.

All the power to you for finding a niche market, but suckers be warned that it's highway robbery!

edit: downvoted within 2 minutes of posting this without a reply. i guess you guys were looking for a AAA+++ , would buy again review. what a joke

edit2: Sorry for coming off as harsh, but this sort of domain related shit has been plaguing the net for a long time

[alex_c]

This is the kind of pricing philosophy that plagues HN (and I'll admit, I'm guilty of it as often as not).

The value of a product is usually not cost of labor + cost of materials, it's the value it brings to the buyer. $106.99 won't get me the same value, because I have to spend long frustrating hours trying to find a decent available domain name, then a few more hours going back and forth with a designer for a logo I may or may not like. Not having to do that is easily worth $143.01.

I agree that the domain system is horribly broken, but these guys are closer to a solution than to a problem.

[froo]

The best tool I've found for screwing around with domain names is wordoid which I'll link below

While it seems the database hasn't been updated in awhile, it definitely gives very good/quick results without hours of work.

http://www.wordoid.com

[alex_c]

Wordoid is probably the best. I've also used http://www.nameboy.com/ (which seems to be down at the moment), and http://domai.nr/ (if you don't mind non-.com, del.icio.us style domains).

Even with those tools, I still hate looking for domain names :)

[Ntagg]

Good tip. I really like bustaname.com Their second tab is like wordoid, but they have other tools too.

[wildmXranat]

In the free market, anything goes. In the domain market, there's a finite space within which we have to work in. If you want to buy a domain at a ( 250/8 = 31.25 ) 3100% markup, so be it.

[alex_c]

Well, how much do you value your time, per hour? And how much time does it take you, on average, to find a decent .com domain name and a decent temporary logo? You don't seem to include that in your calculation - unless your time is free, or you're really amazing at finding domain names. In which case, you could be making a mint.

[tptacek]

Everybody "domainsquats". People joke with each other about how many names they have in their registrar account. These particular people chose an extraordinarily reasonable price point just for the name, and added design services on top.

They could charge 4x as much and probably close just as much business, because $1000 is a rounding error for a serious 2-person startup.

I don't see why you're bagging on them.

[phillmv]

I think a reasonable argument to make against domain squatting is that those who do it as a business… are just charging you a fee solely because they thought of it first. It feels very much like a pure wealth transfer from me to a more entrenched player.

It's somewhat analogous to say most software patents, in that their sole purpose seems to be enacting a social cost. You're not going to do anything with that patent/domain, you're just going to wait until someone else thinks of it as well.

[tptacek]

Why are we entertaining the idea that there's an argument to be had about domain squatting?

I wish we had enacted policies against squatting back in the '90s. But Internet governance did very much the opposite thing. This argument ended a long time ago. Why piss in the wind about it? In the post-domain-squatting world, this is a great offering.

[larrys]

"I wish we had enacted policies against squatting back in the '90s."

What would your suggestion be as far as a policy that could have stopped domain squatting?

I can't think of a scenario that you could have that would allow someone to purchase a name but then not allow them to sell the name. So what you would end up with is names that are registered but have not found their way (through the free market) to the best possible use.

People tend to think that if the name they wanted wasn't owned by a squatter who was trying to sell it it would be available when they decided they wanted to use it. It would just be sitting there and not in the hands of someone else for a non squatting purpose.

As recently as 2001 I remember attorneys asking if they could use the domain law.com because "I type it in and nothing comes up". As if nobody thought of using that in the prior years or something (and this happened with many names actually).

I'd really like to know your thoughts on this.

[sneak]

> What would your suggestion be as far as a policy that could have stopped domain squatting?

I've often thought of this. I think $500/year or $1000/year is an entirely reasonable price for a .com domain, and would immediately clear out mountains of cruft. Even $50 or $100/year would get 50-75% of it.

[larrys]

True it would certainly cut down significantly on people registering domain names on speculation.

But it would also prevent many people from getting their own site because of the cost. I don't think you would have many people taking as many chances as has happened with the current pricing.

Lowering costs has helped the net even though there are undesirable consequences as with anything.

[michaeldhopkins]

That would just reduce the pool of desirable names for both squatters and other users, so the problem would not be mitigated at all. Even if a domain cost a million a year, squatters would still exist in proportion to the demand for domains. Raising fees is not a solution at all.

[gridspy]

If it wasn't possible to sell a name, a domain that wasn't worth $10/yr to the current owner would have been released back into the market.

[larrys]

So then you are saying that if you start a business with a name (say a site selling something, even a pet rock) you can't sell that business with the name?

(See where this is going?)

[phillmv]

Hrm. Touché.

[larrys]

"are just charging you a fee solely because they thought of it first."

For some domains, true. In other cases considering that back in the day there were an infinite number of domains that you could register (and by the way they cost $70.00 after they were initially free) and $35 per year (until ICANN and competition dropped the price) I wouldn't say it was simply "thinking of it first".

As somebody who spent much time programming algorithms to figure out which domains to, um, SQUAT on, I would hardly say I own names just because "I merely thought of it". It seems like that way now because now value has been established and it's obvious.

Do you think it was obvious back then? It wasn't. I was there.

[phillmv]

I don't understand why anything you just said invalidates anything I just said – but I would be glad if you took another stab at explaining it to me.

[larrys]

There is a transfer of wealth here simply because the person who gets the name had the knowledge to get the name. (As Zuckerberg said to the Winklevi). And knowledge it took.

It's not something anyone I knew did. I didn't get the idea from anyone or even read about anyone doing this type of thing. It was totally organic.

And it wasn't something my sister or her uncle had either the knowledge or the skills to do. I knew perl and shell scripting and had worked with Unix for some time. (Back before the Internet with 1 or two books on a machine that costs $40,000 that I paid for in 1980's dollars. Meaning $40,000 in 1985 for an AT&T 3b2-400 back when that was simply not done at a company that size at that time.) My point being that I didn't just wake up in the morning and buy a pack of gum and make money.

It's not like patent trolls because there are many possible names that someone can use for their business. And if they have a trademark for a particular term then this is a non issue because there are procedures for getting that domain name (UDRP and other legal procedures). Which by the way are slanted against domainers. (And domainers know this by the way and take it into account in their dealings if they are smart.)

[jleader]

Do you find it reasonable that people can "own" domain names? I think so, because unlike a software patent, a domain name is really hard to share with everyone simultaneously.

Do you think people should be allowed to buy and sell things they own?

All arbitrage is a "pure wealth transfer", but it's also how we increase the liquidity of markets.

If someone else is using a domain name you'd like to use, and they're willing to sell it to you for a price you find reasonable, that's OK, right? Why should the sale be forbidden if they're not currently using the name?

[lurker19]

Because defunct property can be condemned.

[lambda]

In general, I agree with you about domain squatting.

What makes this case a lot more palatable is that they have actually put the time and effort in to mock up a logo to go along with the domain. Sure, it's not much, but they did actually add some value, they are not simply generating names and registering them automatically. It may or may not be worth $250, but it's a lot better than people selling just domains for thousands just because they got there first.

[wildmXranat]

No, not everybody domain squats. We, in the tech business might have a few spare domains left over from unfulfilled projects or ideas and that's absolutely great. I don't agree that putting a 'reasonable' price point on a bad practice is O.K.

Their process does not add value. Let me reiterate: Allow me to buy the name at a discount price, but still at a 600% or so markup over the $8 price. Add value to the process by allowing me to bundle more of your services and maybe you'll have a customer.

[tptacek]

Bluntly: this argument happened over a decade ago. We lost. The domain market is run with all the incentives set for people to hoard domains and sell them dearly on the proposition that they will to the owner eventually be worth 5+ figures.

All you're doing here on HN is --- whether you realize it or not --- brainwashing nerds into believing the market works in ways that it does not.

In the real world, this is an extraordinarily generous offering that absolutely hits a sweet spot in reducing pain for new startups. Every one of the entrepreneurs on this site have gone through days, weeks, sometimes months of pain trying to brand a new product. I have products I haven't started working on yet solely because I can't figure out a name I don't hate.

Please stop conning nerds into thinking the world works the way you want it to.

[rokhayakebe]

They could charge 4x as much

I know someone who does this for a living. And I know for a fact he sold some domain for 500x as much. He has a $100,000 chest just to buy domains and sit on them for years if necessary. For larger domain acquisition he usually gets the money from other sources.

[sneak]

This smacks of "That doctor only spent five minutes in the room, and now he wants $200?!"

There is a lot of other value you're buying here - the selection of the name, the connection of the name and an aesthetic, the skills for which don't magically appear in people overnight.

Did you look at the site? Care and consideration has been exercised in the branding of these names, from colors to typography. If the "raw materials" are indeed $99 + $7.99, then $250 is a good deal for what amounts to 1.5-2 hours of skilled work to create this finished product.

[phillmv]

Most of these logos are poor, which means you're going to throw them out. That's all the service includes.

[This one](http://stylate.com/portfolio/sporous-com/) is just the domain name in a particular font. They don't even include rights to the font! That is bullshit.

I'm echoing the "lipstick on a pig glorifying domain squatting." These guys are like upscale spammers, or group buying discount sites.

[tptacek]

First, it's a logotype. Some of the world's most recognizable logos are, like this, logotypes.

Second, professional designers do not give you the rights to the typeface they use for their logotypes. You ask them, they obtain them, and then they invoice you the several hundred dollars the logotype cost them.

Third, why would you want the font used for this particular logo? It's a terrible display font. Its only value is in creating logotypes like this one.

I find this particular critique unfounded.

[phillmv]

>First, it's a logotype. Some of the world's most recognizable logos are, like this, logotypes.

I'm willing to accept this. Point to your favour.

>Third, why would you want the font used for this particular logo?

Because I might want to tweak it, resize it, use it on letterheads, put it on my business card, create sub products that follow the "brand style", etc. A vector drawing at the minimum is essential.

That said it's entirely moot because I took a look at their FAQ and:

>The logo is a simple mockup designed to feature the domain name but we do send it to you. We have professional logo designers that can tweak or redo the logo if you are interested. Just email us.

Eh. Glorified domain squatting. It makes you feel good about paying through the nose for bogus "intellectual property".

[alex_c]

Why is it moot? It's a simple logo and you can use it right away. Naming and branding has been a huge headache and/or cost on almost every project I've worked on. Picking something off the shelf that lets you get back to the more important work of building your product is a godsend. It's not for every project, but for smaller projects it's perfect.

[sneak]

Yes, and there's something to be said for "launch now, iterate later". A "good enough" domain/logotype is sufficient for an MVP.

[rprasad]

Crucial point you are ignoring: if you do not have the rights to the font, then you do not have the rights to the derivative works based on the font.

A license to use an image does not necessarily include the license to use the elements making up the image.

[wildmXranat]

Value is in the domain name itself. There is no justification in defending domain parking. Like I said, offer the domain names at %80 off. That would still be a 600% markup on a $8 domain.

[larrys]

"There is a lot of other value you're buying here"

Something that has escaped many people who are in the habit of helping people for nothing is that their knowledge has value to others as a time saver among other things.

Back when NSI was essentially the "Internic" a living could be made by simply knowing how to submit a form to them to register a domain on behalf of a customer. If you (as an end user) wanted to take the time to learn how to do the same thing (which didn't require a medical school education of course) you could avoid those charges.

[ljf]

True a $8 name - but times the (hu)man-hours to find a great one, and add a decent looking design. I've not had luck with either $99 logo designers, nor the logos they create - plus my time to brief them, provide feedback and pay them once 'something' is settled on.

[wildmXranat]

Thanks for addressing the comment. Still, the logo is shabby. you will most likely( I would ) get rid of it post-purchase just to get the good domain name.

At that point I'm looking to spend some time and get it done properly.

[tptacek]

The logos on this site are uniformly better than the average "Show HN".

Every one of them clears the bar of "presentable to early customers".

Most clear the bar of "presentable to mainstream customers".

None are distinctive, which is to say, none send the signal "we picked one of The Cool Designers and paid $10,000 for this logo". But virtually nobody needs that.

Think whatever you want about these designs, but if you bring a prototype to market that looks like the typical "Show HN" because you're too cool to buy a cheap design, you'll suffer for it.

[ljf]

If you would replace the logo you are not their target audience. This is for plug and play people without the time or inclination to perfect something as minor (compared to actually launching and interacting with customers) as branding, just to get a product out there.

If you were going to get another logo from the off I'm sure you could spend a few hours thinking of a great (available) name too.

[jessedhillon]

What you are arguing, essentially, is Marxism, particularly the Labor Theory of Value. You are saying that the value of this product is solely the value of materials and labor. That value created in the mind of the buyer, or in time-saved, doesn't matter.

Have you ever spent months of manpower and thousands of dollars coming up with a name for your company? I suspect not, otherwise it would be crystal clear what the value of this service is, and what an absolute steal $250 is. Nobody expects $7 for a domain these days. You might as well complain about how land is so expensive, considering it was all claimed for pennies per acre less than 200 years ago.

I don't even care for the logo -- to me it simply provides a demonstration that it's possible to create a decent sounding/looking brand from the name.

As for highway robbery -- well, that's fine if you think that. Again I wonder if you've ever been told that the minimum offer for a domain is 5 figures. You can go ahead and insist on your non-existent right to a $7 registration if you please, but pragmatic people who need to get things done ASAP will recognize this as an incredible offer.

If you do ever offer a product or service, what will you say when your customer insists that your price solely reflect the cost of materials and labor?

EDIT: updated

[csomar]

What you say is true but doesn't work. With this site, you see before you purchase. When you hire a $99, it's not guaranteed that you'll get something that you'll like or he does understand what you are looking for.

[brackin]

I've spent 2 weeks coming up with a name as for me having a good name is important. It's not number one but I know that good names exist so I put the effort in and go through hundreds of names. Using every tool out there before I usually come to one or two that would work.

This is great, I see two or three on there that'd work for a prototype i'm working on and may decide to release as a proper app.

Saves precious time and is worth it. Some half decent logos as well.

[larrys]

"is not a steal or a good deal"

A steal or good deal is not a reason to buy something in every case. In fact you can end up buying things that you don't need.

This is the philosophy of loss leaders. Things that get you into a store based on a deal only to have you end up buying something you didn't necessarily need on inpulse.

[jsavimbi]

> it's a lipstick on pig product designed to glorify domain squatting

There is no way that it could be said any better.

[clistctrl]

Any tips on finding a good place for a custom $99 logo?

[garethsprice]

I've used http://www.logodesigncreation.com multiple times and they've always provided a reliable, consistent service.

If your local agency that charges $3k for a logo is Ruth Chris Steakhouse, these guys are McDonalds - and I mean that as a compliment.

(No affiliation except as a customer)

[bhartzer]

Try logo.com