Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

GoDaddy Up For Auction

samzenpus posted about 4 years ago | from the what's-in-a-name? dept.

Businesses 191

An anonymous reader writes "GoDaddy.com, the closely held website that registers Internet domain names, has put itself up for sale in an auction that could fetch more than $1 billion, people familiar with the matter said. The company, which currently has more than 43 million domains under management, is well known for its edgy advertising, including Super Bowl commercials and ads featuring different 'Go Daddy Girls,' including racing car driver Danica Patrick."

cancel ×

191 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oh... (-1, Troll)

Hatta (162192) | about 4 years ago | (#33544824)

Pump and dump. Figures.

Re:Oh... (4, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | about 4 years ago | (#33544860)

the company is 13 years old. this isn't exactly flipping a house after a few months and minor work. Not sure 'pump and dump' is really accurate.

Re:Oh... (2, Informative)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | about 4 years ago | (#33545398)

also it's privately held so there isn't anything to pump.

Re:Oh... (2, Interesting)

poetmatt (793785) | about 4 years ago | (#33545574)

godaddy also has probably half of all the spam domains that exist - due to their lovely "auto-register a domain you searched for" shit.

Re:Oh... (2, Informative)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | about 4 years ago | (#33547270)

I haven't used GoDaddy in almost 8 years. The stuff being talked about at nodaddy was enough to split my registrar and hosting up (I now use PairNIC, while more expensive has a better policy IMO, for my registrar). My web host is a free host (000webhost.com) so not much to brag on there (aside from a few neat features).

Re:Oh... (2, Insightful)

derGoldstein (1494129) | about 4 years ago | (#33545576)

Strictly speaking, you're right -- the "pump" refers to inflating stock values. However metaphorically it could still work with privately held companies. Many startups are built (get their funding) on the basis that they'll make themselves an attractive buy for a larger company. Their goal isn't to prove a business model on their own, but to create a modular subsystem and then parade their tech in large company showrooms. It's kind of like the "Buy Now" button on E-Bay that ends the auction (potential IPO).

Re:Oh... (1)

WidgetGuy (1233314) | about 4 years ago | (#33546428)

You are correct. In fact, this is probably the way most tech startups make their founders (and angel investors) rich. Not as rich as they would have been if they'd taken the company to a successful IPO, but still "millionaire rich" with 100 times less risk. The folks at Y Combinator [ycombinator.com] (a Silicon Valley angel investing group) are fully aware of this reality and will not stop a company they've backed from selling privately.

The most successful (financially) startup I was a key participant in was sold directly to General Magic (mostly for a patent we held in the speech recognition field, but they also wanted -- and got -- "the software guy"). (I went along because I wanted to make sure the technology got incorporated into their products correctly. But, it was my last job as an employee! Almost 15 years ago now. Whew -- time flies.)

Re:Oh... (4, Informative)

Peach Rings (1782482) | about 4 years ago | (#33545556)

No, it's more like buying a shiny new house, smashing down walls for 13 years, and trying to foist it off onto a naive buyer.

GoDaddy is infamous. When someone posted MySpace passwords to a mailing list archived by seclists, MySpace complained and GoDaddy immediately shut down seclists.org with less than 1 minute's notice. They weren't even hosting the material, just the DNS record. GoDaddy's counsel said [alternet.org] "I think the fact that we gave him notice at all was pretty generous."

As covered on slashdot [slashdot.org] they also have a habit of coming up with reasons to suspend customers' accounts and not just terminating service but refusing to release the domain to a different registrar unless you pay exorbitant fees.

Also GoDaddy shut down [domainnamewire.com] some guy's personal website because they sent him an email to update his invalid email address in the whois information and he didn't reply to it. They didn't just shut down the domain, they sold it.

What kind of joke of a service provider complies with random complaints from non-customers against customers without court order?

Re:Oh... (4, Informative)

dgatwood (11270) | about 4 years ago | (#33546260)

I briefly hosted a subdomain on GoDaddy.com. I dumped them because:

  • Their servers were a train wreck, with 30 second maximum execution times for all processes. This meant that copying data to or from their servers required copying one file per connection, and if that RAW file was a little too slow, boom, you had to copy it a second time, or a third, or a fiftieth....
  • Their servers, despite being faster than dialup on average, randomly wedged and failed to respond to requests for minutes at a time. Somebody was obviously blocking Apache with a long-running PHP script (I was serving static content, so I can safely say that, as the only other possibility is a network outage on their end). They refused to look into it despite me giving them detailed, down-to-the-second logs of when it happened, proof of barely 90% effective uptime, etc. and they refused to move me to a different server, so I demanded a refund.
  • I applied for a 10-year SSL cert, which they sold me, then refused to issue claiming that their new policy was that they could only sell certs for a much lower number of years. I threatened to sue. They refunded my money, and it was shortly after that when I demanded the refund on the ISP service as well. I now have a free SSL cert that is just as good as theirs would have been (except for having to renew it once a year), and am happily serving my static images off of DreamHost.

If someone had told me how much of a disaster GoDaddy was beforehand, I wouldn't have believed it. I would have thought, "There's no way anybody could be THAT incompetent." Einstein put it best when he said, "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe."

Maybe I should start the bidding at a dollar.

Re:Oh... (1)

ChipmunkDJE (1231596) | about 4 years ago | (#33546480)

If we aren't to use GoDaddy.com, who do you suggest that we use? I was about to launch a new site and had hopes that GoDaddy.com would have sufficed. Where else can you find online hosting for really cheap ($20 or less/month)? Inquiring minds like mine want to know! =)

Re:Oh... (1)

Peach Rings (1782482) | about 4 years ago | (#33546834)

Pretty much anywhere, GoDaddy doesn't have particularly great pricing. I use NearlyFreeSpeech.NET but that's a pre-paid service recommended for when you want to leave a little bit of content up for years at a time without much load. No reason to pay $20/mo if you're only hosting 20MB with a GB or so of transfer monthly.

Re:Oh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33547034)

GoDaddy is very cheap($5 month hosting).. thats why people flock to them. However you get what you pay for.

Re:Oh... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33546266)

Invalid email address in whois is grounds for forfeiture of the domain. Those are the ICANN rules. That is one thing that should happen a lot more often.

Re:Oh... (1)

BangaIorean (1848966) | about 4 years ago | (#33546642)

Also GoDaddy shut down [domainnamewire.com] some guy's personal website because they sent him an email to update his invalid email address in the whois information and he didn't reply to it. They didn't just shut down the domain, they sold it.

This, at least, isn't GoDaddy's fault. ICANN rules mandate that correct contact information must be provided in whois, failing which you lose your domain. There is an ongoing debate about whether demanding such information is fair, since the whois database can be accessed publicly, worldwide, free of charge. But till such time as the debate is ongoing, you've got to provide accurate info.

Re:Oh... (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about 4 years ago | (#33546322)

and why would they bail now? selling in a recesion is never a good idea and its a trade sale and not an issue.

Network Solutions redux (1)

jewishbaconzombies (1861376) | about 4 years ago | (#33544826)

I remember when Verisign paid wwwwaaaaayyyy too much or Network Solutions - on the order of 21 - freakin' billion dollars. Has anyone pegged a true value for companies like these?

On the bad news side, I guess that means imminent layoffs for more geeks in Arizona.

Re:Network Solutions redux (2, Informative)

bsDaemon (87307) | about 4 years ago | (#33544844)

If all their customers renew their domain for just one more year, that's already almost $500,000,000 in revenue right there, just on repeat business, and that's nothing to say about SSL certificates, hosting, or any of their other products. $1,000,000,000 is a pretty good deal for a company that almost certainly makes at least that per year.

Re:Network Solutions redux (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33544878)

> makes at least that per year

Revenue != profit

Re:Network Solutions redux (2, Informative)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 4 years ago | (#33545082)

Yes, but a reasonable first approximation for the market value of a company is their annual revenue. After that other considerations may increase or reduce that value.

Re:Network Solutions redux (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 4 years ago | (#33545152)

In theory will someone come along with a much cheaper system?
With brand name 'buzz'? So in theory someone who is registered will on average renew their web product with the company they have been with.
What could change? Any massive drop in the core service price? Strange new site ID laws in the US?
So it seems safe but does it have any growth area?
A steady milking of users over years on a known product.

Re:Network Solutions redux (3, Insightful)

xous (1009057) | about 4 years ago | (#33545390)

Hi,

Anyone that uses gross revenue as the sole basis for valuating a company is an idiot. GoDaddy's profit margins on domains are next to insignificant as they are paying Versign $7.34 for every .COM registration. GoDaddy often sells domain registration at a loss to sell their extra services.

Re:Network Solutions redux (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 4 years ago | (#33545638)

Read the fine posting. It said 'first approximation' denoting that it isn't unusual for a company to sell around its annual revenues. Some go for more, others less. Clearly other factors will be considered as people develop their specific bids.

Re:Network Solutions redux (1)

xous (1009057) | about 4 years ago | (#33546008)

I don't think I'd even use it for a rough approximation as it really does not describe the profitability of the company. It would be like looking for jobs and they each say: $1000, $100000, $1000000 without providing the period of time you earn it in. It could be a month, a year, or 100 years which changes things drastically and the numbers alone don't even hint at what is the better option.

Re:Network Solutions redux (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33546724)

Now that's a pointless analogy. Annual revenues have a time frame. So that number tells you something.

As you rudely pointed out, using that as a sole criteria when purchasing a company wouldn't be a good idea, but using it for a discussion on slashdot is just fine.

(niot the original poster)

Re:Network Solutions redux (2, Interesting)

Locutus (9039) | about 4 years ago | (#33546786)

Interesting, so....

Maybe that 5 year deal with Microsoft for parking new websites on Windows IIS servers is ending so they don't know where to make profits this time. I would not leave out the option of Microsoft buying them just to keep Windows IIS marketshare numbers up and to possibly grow them.

If you don't know, Microsoft was paying GoDaddy to place parked web domains on Microsoft IIS based servers so that netcraft and other web server counting systems looked more favorable for Microsoft's web server( IIS ). Prior to that business deal, GoDaddy was parking domains on GNU/Linux apache based servers.

LoB

Re:Network Solutions redux (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33545212)

Do you really think they have no costs? Your ignorance is astounding.

Re:Network Solutions redux (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about 4 years ago | (#33545444)

Do you understand what revenue means?

Re:Network Solutions redux (1)

zippthorne (748122) | about 4 years ago | (#33546832)

To be fair, you should've said "gross revenue." The way you wrote it has two interpretations, one of which makes you look stupid, therefore the AC chose to believe that's the one you meant.

I need GoDaddy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33544832)

I bid one meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelion dollars!!! Muhahaha. C'est gagne, et la premier poste aussi!

This Is Why Privately-Owned Registrars Are Bad (1, Interesting)

the roAm (827323) | about 4 years ago | (#33544836)

Whoever buys it is able to do a rate hike and truly screw over pre-existing consumers, and that's just if they're feeling generous. There's far worse they could potentially do.

Re:This Is Why Privately-Owned Registrars Are Bad (1)

kestasjk (933987) | about 4 years ago | (#33545024)

Then again they do have advanced privacy protection for only $9.95 extra.

Re:This Is Why Privately-Owned Registrars Are Bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33545028)

Then those customers can take their business elsewhere. At least there is competition in domain registrars these days. You must be an apple fan if you cannot see beyond the current supplier of a product.

Re:This Is Why Privately-Owned Registrars Are Bad (3, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 4 years ago | (#33545110)

If they do a big rate hike there will be a mass exodus.

It isn't like they have a massive customer goodwill or anything like that.

Re:This Is Why Privately-Owned Registrars Are Bad (2, Informative)

AHuxley (892839) | about 4 years ago | (#33545180)

A rate hike for a product that is not unique? Thats hard. All you can do is keep most of the users happy long term and try and pull more in.
Good to hold long term but no instant bump of growth.

Re:This Is Why Privately-Owned Registrars Are Bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33545238)

Well dammit! I just recently bought a domain there! MY domain! And now they're up for auction?

You mention "that's why privately owned registrars are bad". Can you give an example of a non-privately owned registrar? How can I actually OWN my own domain? Can I switch away from GoDaddy if they go berserk and still keep my own URL?

Re:This Is Why Privately-Owned Registrars Are Bad (2, Informative)

Sudheer_BV (1049540) | about 4 years ago | (#33545516)

Lot of companies offer domain transfer service. You transfer the domain to another registrar, pay for another year of renewal.

This Is Why Privately-Owned Companies Are Bad (4, Funny)

Luke has no name (1423139) | about 4 years ago | (#33545266)

Whoever buys it is able to do a rate hike and truly screw over pre-existing consumers, and that's just if they're feeling generous. There's far worse they could potentially do.

Everything should be owned by the Government! That way no-one would ever be screwed over.

Re:This Is Why Privately-Owned Companies Are Bad (0, Offtopic)

CaptainNerdCave (982411) | about 4 years ago | (#33545766)

Troll? Is Saturday the day when everyone's sarcasm detector is off? If I had mod points left, I would be giving this something positive.

Re:This Is Why Privately-Owned Companies Are Bad (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33546626)

This was a good example of the manipulation I've witnessed here. There is a group with mod points here that is completely against any private industry and any religion. It started around November of 2008. I'm still trying to figure out if they still think they have any influence at all.

Re:This Is Why Privately-Owned Companies Are Bad (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33546922)

Whoever buys it is able to do a rate hike and truly screw over pre-existing consumers, and that's just if they're feeling generous. There's far worse they could potentially do.

Everything should be owned by the Government! That way no-one would ever be screwed over.

That could quite possibly be the dumbest thing I've ever read on /.

No one has EVER been screwed over by the government, right?

There's really no reply to this Idiot, and it is obvious he was taught in a government school...

Re:This Is Why Privately-Owned Registrars Are Bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33545296)

Well, I'm good. I think within the past couple years, I renewed my domain until like 2018 at a very good discount. (I called them up and asked.)

Let's hope whoever buys them does the company good.

Re:This Is Why Privately-Owned Registrars Are Bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33545340)

How is that any different from any other type of business?

Re:This Is Why Privately-Owned Registrars Are Bad (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | about 4 years ago | (#33545432)

I didn't even notice the title.

Privately-owned registrars are GOOD. Shareholders care nothing for the customer, only their own pocket-books (though GoDaddy isn't known for their customer's goodwill).

Ugly UI (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33544934)

Will bidders for GoDaddy have to use the same sort of hideous web interface that they make their users use? Shame that they will have to forgo that lovely experi- FOR EXTRA $5,000,000 YOU CAN HAVE 50% AOL STOCK IN OUR SuperStock Special Plus++ Plan!!!!! CLICK >HERE!

Re:Ugly UI (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33545162)

No, but if you place a bid with your real name and decide to not actually follow up on it... You'll find out that GoDaddy will "squat" your offer automatically for you.

Re:Ugly UI (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33546226)

Awesome. I actually stopped using them because of that shit.

Re:Ugly UI (1)

nuclear305 (674185) | about 4 years ago | (#33546670)

Ugh. I used them for a year or two. Sure, it was easy signing up...but when I had multiple domains to renew every year I had to uncheck a dozen "option packages" on 4 different pages just to renew a domain. Transferring out to another registrar is even more of a pain. Despite following the exact steps required Godaddy still denied the transfer saying I had not responded.

I made sure to tell them the sole reason for my transferring my business to another registrar was solely based on their annoying website. I'd gladly pay their outrageous fees for things such as WHOIS privacy if only their website offered a basic, functional, non ad-ridden UI for managing my domains.

I sincerely hope one of two things happens: Either nobody buys them and they go out of business; or another decent company buys their assets and flushes the brand down the toilet. I know--I can dream.

Could we see a WikiLeaks dump (3, Interesting)

Compaqt (1758360) | about 4 years ago | (#33544968)

of GoDaddy's deep dark secrets?

Like the way they (supposedly) steal customer domain ideas after you whois a domain?

Somebody on the inside? How about it?

Also, does anybody have the link for that story from Slashdot a couple years ago, I can't find it.

Re:Could we see a WikiLeaks dump (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33545128)

That was NetSol that was caught snapping up unregistered domains.

GoDaddy is shitty and horrible for many reasons, but that's not one.

Re:Could we see a WikiLeaks dump (1)

RabidGoose (901081) | about 4 years ago | (#33545204)

Many different registrars have been accused or suspected of frontrunning. netsol got caught doing it. Others have probably done it. But for the most part accusations of registrars doing it are dubious at best. Not saying registrars are Snow White, and GD does have some deep dark secrets, but frontrunning is the least the lot of them has done.

Re:Could we see a WikiLeaks dump (2, Informative)

HungryHobo (1314109) | about 4 years ago | (#33546492)

accused?
you make it sound like there was some doubt that they did that.

When pricing a domain name for a friend I had to use a slightly altered domain name because after checking with the first registrar(godaddy in my first few tests) the domain would get locked in for (I think)72 hours so no other registrar could be used.

Essentially it locked people in to whatever service they checked the availability with first unless they were willing to arse around and wait for the registrars to unlock it.

It's shady as fuck and they seemed to have been forced to stop doing that since then.

Re:Could we see a WikiLeaks dump (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33545430)

If it does happen, it's almost surely very rare and only at the individual sales rep level, rather than some systemic corporate policy.

Re:Could we see a WikiLeaks dump (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | about 4 years ago | (#33545448)

I remember reading about that forward-registering scam from WHOIS searches but I'm pretty sure it wasn't godaddy. It was some foreign registrar. But I do hate Godaddy just because of their idiotic, low budget looking site and borderline spam signup process. Does anyone know a better alternative registrar?

Re:Could we see a WikiLeaks dump (3, Informative)

theskipper (461997) | about 4 years ago | (#33545774)

I've used all the big names and Moniker.com or Namecheap.com come out on top imho.

The control panel UI is "better" at Namecheap but Moniker's is just fine too. Customer service is good at both. Namecheap has coupons to get the cost down to $9, Moniker is flat-out $9 for a .com.

Note that all registrars need to upsell (figure profit on a domain registration is only around $1). These two are comfortably subtle about it.

Neither do the scummy 60-day lock-in that Godaddy relies upon (i.e. no transfers for 60 days for any registration and/or whois changes).

Lots more detailed reasons but I'll stop there.

Bottom line is that there really is no reason to use Netsol or Godaddy.

Re:Could we see a WikiLeaks dump (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33547326)

Namecheap isn't great. Their URL redirect/page parking IP addresses have been blacklisted before, and when this happens they are unresponsive and may even go so far as to blame the customer for the problem, telling them to stop using the redirect service.

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=544386 [webhostingtalk.com]
http://www.wickedfire.com/shooting-shit/54698-namecheap-shutting-down-domains.html [wickedfire.com]
http://www.dnforum.com/f34/blacklist-status-thread-97021.html [dnforum.com]

Re:Could we see a WikiLeaks dump (1)

asdf7890 (1518587) | about 4 years ago | (#33545824)

Does anyone know a better alternative registrar?

Very much depends on what you want that would make one better over the others. I use NameCheap for most things these days, having used GoDaddy in the past. I took one domain with NC to take advantage of some special offer (I remember not what, it was some time ago) and found their interface to be a *lot* less spammy though that was not enough to make me want to bother switching my other existing domains. I came close to switching as the GoDaddy interface became progressively more irritating and finally switched over something small (again I remember not what, was it them who were allegedly paid to switch their domain holding servers to IIS to game the netcraft survey and similar stats? or it could just have been the increasingly immature impression the companies advertising gave off that I wanted to step away from).

Anyway. NC have done nothing to irritate me in the few years I've been using them, and the free SSL cert is sometimes worth having if they still have that offer on, but many registrars are pretty much the same where it really counts (you have a domain, your DNS reliably resolves) so shop around rather than taking my current preference as meaningful.

Re:Could we see a WikiLeaks dump (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33545894)

http://domainhelp.tucows.com/tucows-domain-promise/

If you have bunch of domains, just become a reseller and you have no shit interface. I plan to do just that with my GoDaddy domains soon.

Re:Could we see a WikiLeaks dump (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33546126)

Try internet.bs

Re:Could we see a WikiLeaks dump (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33545652)

Domain tasting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_tasting) essentially doesn't exist now. Back in Aug 2009 15 million domains were being tasted per month. Currently it is down to less than 60,000.

  Icann adopted a 20 cent charge for each domain that was tasted. Beyond that, a number of TLDs upped the charge to several dollars.

It went from a totally free way for companies to check the value of domains to being a very expensive way.

Let's buy it! (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33544984)

I'm sure we could scrape together 1-2 measly billions. Who wants to setup the PayPal account for donations?

Re:Let's buy it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33545182)

I wadger 2billion quatloos!

Re:Let's buy it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33545334)

I'd love to set that PayPal account up for donations!

Just don't expect to get any of that money back if we don't raise enough...

Re:Let's buy it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33545360)

Put 2 billion dollars into a paypal account? Oh suuure, they just froze Notch's account with half a million euros in it and threatened to take it all for themselves. I'm sure they won't try anything if we stick nearly four times that amount into an account.

Re:Let's buy it! (2, Funny)

formfeed (703859) | about 4 years ago | (#33547036)

That includes Danica Patrick?

Going... (2, Funny)

shikaisi (1816846) | about 4 years ago | (#33545094)

... going... Gone Daddy

Re:Going... (4, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | about 4 years ago | (#33545496)

Already taken. gonedaddy.net is available, and so is gonedaddy.org

Domain Name: GONEDADDY.COM [gonedaddy.com]
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com/ [networksolutions.com]
Name Server: NS.ARTNET.NET
Name Server: NS2.ANET.NET
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Updated Date: 21-jun-2010
Creation Date: 23-jun-1999
Expiration Date: 23-jun-2011

goatdaddy.com [goatdaddy.com] is also taken (no, I am NOT going to click on the link and see where it leads), foedaddy.com, gomommy.com, nogodaddy.com, goaddy.com, g0daddy.com, but h0daddy.com is availabile, and so is goatdaddie.com. Knock yourselves out.

Re:Going... (1)

SpzToid (869795) | about 4 years ago | (#33546160)

Yeah. Internet domain names are like most of the women out there. All the ones that I could probably have any serious, long-term interest in, worth committing to, well they were already spoken for and taken a long time ago.

Re:Going... (1)

tomhudson (43916) | about 4 years ago | (#33546360)

Yeah. Internet domain names are like most of the women out there. All the ones that I could probably have any serious, long-term interest in, worth committing to, well they were already spoken for and taken a long time ago.

And women say "All the good men are either married or have boyfriends." :-)

It's simply not true that all the good domain names are taken. Sure, I've seen people register longdomainnameatsoandsoplaceihavenoida.com because they have no imagination, but the supply of good short names is nowhere near depleted, even in the dot.com hierarchy. I picked up a nice 6-character one this year in the com, org, and net tlds. You just have to be a bit imaginative.

Go Daddy? (0)

jmerlin (1010641) | about 4 years ago | (#33545214)

Do not want.

Oh great... (1)

kilodelta (843627) | about 4 years ago | (#33545230)

I've got about a half dozen domains registered with them. What the hell do I do now?

Re:Oh great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33545276)

Absolutely nothing, until you have a reason to.

Re:Oh great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33545300)

Why do you think you should do anything?

It's sad how many supposedly smart people on here don't even think about what's going on and just jump to retarded conclusions.

Learn to fucking read and figure what to do now for yourself.

Re:Oh great... (2, Funny)

jeepien (848819) | about 4 years ago | (#33545640)

I've got about a half dozen domains registered with them. What the hell do I do now?

I dunno. What the hell have you been doing up till now?

Re:Oh great... (1)

kilodelta (843627) | about 4 years ago | (#33545714)

Well they don't expire anywhere from 1 to 3 years. So I'm good.

Re:Oh great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33546814)

They might end up in the hands of the good guys, like say, Microsoft.

Re:Oh great... (1)

Larryish (1215510) | about 4 years ago | (#33546942)

Transfer them to Domainsite.com

Good price points, and customer support there rocks. The company owner has actually called me a few times when I had database trouble with their backend.

I think they overvalue themselves... (1, Interesting)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 4 years ago | (#33545378)

I don't know that GoDaddy (or any internet registrar, for that matter) really needs to advertise at the superbowl - or any other mainstream television event. Every super bowl since they've started advertising, I've had to explain to at least one person what GoDaddy is and what they do; which generally leads to a rather long discussion of why it matters at all.

They should have been smart enough to realize that anyone who needs their services already knows who they are. I highly doubt there was a Joe Six-Pack watching the super bowl who arrived at the idea after seeing the ad to go look up what a GoDaddy is, and then buy a new domain name from them.

Re:I think they overvalue themselves... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33545634)

Lots of contractors, realtors, etc. that watch the Superbowl have their own websites. Problem is, very nearly all of them pay someone else to create and/or manage it, which includes selecting the domain register. So I guess I agree with you, although the effects of advertising are never easy to estimate.

Re:I think they overvalue themselves... (1)

Voyager529 (1363959) | about 4 years ago | (#33546454)

Manual mod +1 insightful. GoDaddy's advertising isn't necessarily direct like soap and gatorade, but it does breed familiarity so when people go to make a website, "Godaddy" is the only name they've heard of.

Re:I think they overvalue themselves... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33545778)

I don't know that GoDaddy (or any internet registrar, for that matter) really needs to advertise at the superbowl - or any other mainstream television event. Every super bowl since they've started advertising, I've had to explain to at least one person what GoDaddy is and what they do; which generally leads to a rather long discussion of why it matters at all.

No. It builds the broader market of setting up an internet website to the unwashed masses.

Re:I think they overvalue themselves... (5, Insightful)

anomnomnomymous (1321267) | about 4 years ago | (#33545782)

They should have been smart enough to realize that anyone who needs their services already knows who they are.

So, you're saying that pretty much any big brand might as well stop advertising?
Everyone knows Coca Cola by now... They might as well stop advertising, because anyone feels like cola, they just buy Coca Cola!

And most commercials don't work directly: It's just for those moments when the consumer actually wants to buy a domain, the name will ring a bell. At such time, GoDaddy is more likely to be chosen by someone with not enough knowledge of what is important in a webhost; but they'll be remembered by those 'funny' commercials at the Superbowl.

Re:I think they overvalue themselves... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 4 years ago | (#33546964)

They should have been smart enough to realize that anyone who needs their services already knows who they are.

So, you're saying that pretty much any big brand might as well stop advertising?

No, I'm saying GoDaddy's advertising is futile.

Everyone knows Coca Cola by now... They might as well stop advertising, because anyone feels like cola, they just buy Coca Cola!

That isn't even remotely a reasonable comparison. Most people who are alive today have had a soda of some sort, somewhere, or will before they die. It might not be coke or pepsi, but if you say soda (or pop, or coke, or whatever term is used in their part of the world) to them they will know what you mean. On the other hand, domain registrars have a very limited market. Even amongst the fraction of the world that uses the internet plenty of people have no idea what a domain registrar is or why they would ever want to use one. Even amongst the people who might decide they want a website this year, few of them will actually care what registrar they use - they will likely let whoever sets up and hosts their website pick a registrar for them. For that matter, many people don't even know the difference between web hosting and domain registration.

It's just for those moments when the consumer actually wants to buy a domain, the name will ring a bell.

You're making the assumption that the people who are likely to buy domains to start websites in the coming years will actually care who they buy that domain from. Being as many people who will be buying in the future will likely be less technically proficient than those who have purchased in the past, the likelihood of those consumers making the purchase decision on their own is not very high.

Re:I think they overvalue themselves... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33547136)

Yes, Coca-Cola should stop advertising. The inserts for the CD 'Dispepsi' by Negativland explain why both companies (Coke and Pepsi) should stop advertising, if they both did it the resulting change in sales patterns would be negligible and all that cash is freed up to do... well Negativland probably wanted it spent on orphans or something, I don't remember. But anything really.

Re:I think they overvalue themselves... (2, Interesting)

billsayswow (1681722) | about 4 years ago | (#33545796)

My father never heard of the place, or thought about anything related to domain names, until he saw commercials for GoDaddy. Now he makes a decent sum of money on the side, simply by registering and selling domain names, speculating.

Re:I think they overvalue themselves... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33546486)

Your father is a horrible person. He contributes nothing, merely creates inefficiency to profit himself.

It's a rat's nest in there. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33545514)

It's full of windows machines running customer websites. Who want's that kind of headache?

Advertisements (3, Interesting)

fermion (181285) | about 4 years ago | (#33545682)

I don't normally complain about advertisements posing as articles, but as many of us know Godaddy is well known for board line ethics in the drive for profits and no regard for customers. There is nothing wrong with this, but I simply choose not to do business with them. All my domains have been resisted elsewhere for years. This sale, I suspect is the result of such shady er edgy, business practices.

What practices? The most telling is the holding of domain names hostage. Any expired domain is held hostage for an amount of time until someone pays the release fee, above and beyond the registration fee. Some business will fall for this tric, but I suspect it is mostly the small user that gets hurt, losing a domain because in the pressures of family and work a domain was not renewed prior to expiration. What same person would work with such a company? Is it any wonder they are selling?

edgy advertising? no. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33545810)

Their ads are not edgy, they're moronic. Slutty girls have been done before, oh like a trillion quintillion times. GoDaddy is a terrible registrar; their service stinks and they are spammer-friendly. If they are acquired, the purchaser is going to inherit a lot of problems.

Worst Commercials ever..... (3, Interesting)

Brad1138 (590148) | about 4 years ago | (#33545870)

I like scantily clad women as much as the next guy, but the Go Daddy commercials are the worst commercials I have ever seen, regardless of how many bimbos they put in them. I was very disappointed in Danica Patrick for selling out to them. She completely lost all respect she had earned as the best or most prominent female Indy/Nascar driver (for the most part, I don't watch Car racing). But more to the point, the commercials are so blatantly, "we must be great, we show bimbos on TV". Hopefully they will go way with new ownership.

Re:Worst Commercials ever..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33546292)

Go Daddy is the Carl's Jr. of domain registrars.

Re:Worst Commercials ever..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33546400)

I, OTOH, didn't even know there was a hottie racing cars until she became all slo-moed & chesty to get my attention for them. I think, rather than have the world change for you, you simply need to limit your viewing habits.
Wonder if the marketing department is going to stay the same there...

Re:Worst Commercials ever..... (1)

sirrunsalot (1575073) | about 4 years ago | (#33546550)

SSSSEEEEEEEEXXXXXXXX!!!!!!!!! sells. I actually started a list of companies whose advertising/business practices disgust me. GoDaddy is on the list.

Re:Worst Commercials ever..... (1)

zippthorne (748122) | about 4 years ago | (#33546896)

like scantily clad women as much as the next guy, but ...

I submit that you do not.

Re:Worst Commercials ever..... (1)

Brad1138 (590148) | about 4 years ago | (#33547072)

I submit that you do not.

Hey, I am married... so........, maybe you are right.... :)

It is about how the commercials are done, there is no tact what so ever, they just throw them up there for the sake of throwing them up there. If I want to look at nearly naked or naked women, I can do a lot better than their commercials or web site.

Re:Worst Commercials ever..... (1)

jewishbaconzombies (1861376) | about 4 years ago | (#33547172)

I guess John C Dvorak's "Cranky Geeks" are going to have to get another sponser.

In up to my pits.. (3, Interesting)

SuperCharlie (1068072) | about 4 years ago | (#33546522)

I have 20 or so domains registered there.. a lot for my personal biz stuff.. and any time you mess with the technical stack of bb's it makes ya nervous. Yes, their web interface is a gaudy heavy wtf nightmare, yes their hosting is hell in a handbasket, but I have never had a problem with their registrar services and once I set up or change a domain name it propogates usually in less than an hour and never has any problems afterwards and they have always always been one of the least expensive options for registering domains. It makes me terribly nervous to see this go up for sale.

everyone.. (1)

PPNSteve (1287174) | about 4 years ago | (#33546658)

EVERYONE, who is in a position to know, knows (No)GoDaddy sucks big time and would never use or recommend any of their services.

Alternatives? (1)

Camel Pilot (78781) | about 4 years ago | (#33547390)

I despise Godaddy's upsell hell interface and their advertising is crude. Anyone here have recommendations or share experiences on alternatives?

The commercials suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33547410)

Good! I'm glad they may be bought out, maybe then we won't have to bear the commercials thought up by a dirty old man anymore.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>