Twitter Goes With A .CO For New Mobile Video Creation Service: Vine.Co

The Tech World has been reporting on Twitter’s new mobile video creation service, Vine.

The service, allows users to create and share looping videos.

“Like Tweets, the brevity of videos on Vine (6 seconds or less) inspires creativity,” the company said in an official blog post. “Now that you can easily capture motion and sound, we look forward to seeing what you create.”

Vine.Co has had a bunch of stories written about it in Mashable.com, you can read here and here; as well as TechCrunch.com, news publications like guardian.co.uk, and ABCNews.com and Businessinsider.com called it the “Most Exciting New App We’ve Seen In Months”

While the Tech world is buzzing about Vine.co, the domain world seems to have missed that  Twitter went with .Co domain name for the service.

The domain name Vine.co is actually owned by Vine Labs, Inc. of New York.

The domain was registered in 2011 and owned by a Ivan Stefanov of Georgia which looks to have sold the domain within a few months of registration.

Vine.com is owned by Quidisi

Twitter.com is of course no stranger to the .Co registry as it uses T.co as its official shortener.

Another huge feather in the cap for the .Co registry

 

Comments

  1. sweetie says

    Europeans do not seem to have a problem noticing domain extensions other than .com. Hell we use several different once withing the same country (although the ccTLD’s dominate even though .com was introduced first). How come Americans have such a hard time noticing anything other than .com?
    It’s an interesting question and if nothing changes all the upcoming TLD’s are destined to fail.
    I think .co (or something else) will be noticed eventually as there is an obvious need for an alternative to .com

  2. Alan says

    Maybe there is hope after all for .co Who know what will happen in the next 5-10 years as
    there will have to be an gtld alternative to .com,.net and .org.

  3. says

    Just because 60% of traffic currently bleeds to .COM is no guarantee that this will always be the case. I remember, in 2005, when I would debate the long term viability of domain parking, and many domain investors told me I was crazy to believe that as the Internet evolved, parking revenues would fall off dramatically. Of course, nobody much remembers those conversations today.

    Time passes, and as it does, change is the only thing that we can really be sure of.

    Does anybody remember when Times Square NYC, was NOT the tourist draw it is today? And of course, CBS Evening News at 6PM sets the current standard for the entire broadcast industry. Sure it does. When was the last time you picked up a video at your local Blockbuster? Oh… and those guys that were planning to subsidize their retirement incomes with revenue generated from carefully selected pay phone routes they secured decades ago — how’s that working out?

    Well, it’s commitment to new ideas and concepts that bring about real and lasting change. When major players commit to an emerging TLD, it has the potential to change the status quo — influencing future trends and future consumer behavior. In the case of domains, changes like this may well translate into decreased .COM market share and popularity over time. And, as .CO achieves even greater success, it only quickens the pace at which .CO’s popularity rises — becoming part of an ever accelerating feedback loop that directly benefits the emerging market player – to the exclusion of the market leader.

    It’s all happened before, and it will all happen again.

    While many of us hope (and pray) that .COM will always and forever remain the undisputed king of all domain extensions, this, in and of itself does not make it so. When the naysaying, ridicule and piling on that comes from those who resist change has finally played itself out, and the result is neither what we hoped for nor what we expected, the new normal often gives rise to an altogether different emotion: nostalgia – and a return to the good old days.

    I’ll bet Kodak and the New York Times know a little something about that. Microsoft, too. And, as for those prognosticators who, years ago, absolutely delighted in telling me that my Mac computer would become the “most expensive doorstop I ever owned,” and that my Apple stock was fast on its way to becoming worthless, I trust your predictive skills have improved with time and experience.

  4. says

    “Another huge feather in the cap for the .Co registry”

    And another huge win for the .com owner!

    I’m guessing Twitter couldn’t negotiate the purchase of vine.com and needed a domain quick so they chose a sub-par domain name for speed NOT because they actually wanted to build on a .co

  5. says

    Rob

    Your assuming that they

    1. had to name their product Vine

    2. They wanted to use a .com

    3. They passed on using another ccTLD that are still available today for a registration fee according to name.com:

    Vine.travel

    Available
    $99.00

    Vine.vc

    Available
    $39.00

    Vine.tl

    Available
    $40.00

    Vine.gs

    Available
    $55.00

    Vine.sc

    Available
    $85.00

    Vine.re

    Available
    $17.99

    Vine.jobs

    Available
    $99.99

    Vine.mn

    Available
    $55.00

    Vine.hn

    Available
    $138.00

    Vine.ag

    Available
    $89.00

  6. Louise says

    Nice thought piece, @dnfactorhi@aol.com! I agree, except I do not know where the precept, “60% of traffic currently bleeds to .COM” comes from! Is it because of Overstock? That is one example. That’s it. Where is the study you quoted?

  7. says

    @Louise

    You raise a very good point. I have no statistics supporting the 60% traffic spillover assertion. I’d like to see solid evidence on that, too. My reply simply assumes 60% for the sake of argument. It’s certainly possible that the problem is not nearly so pervasive. I’d welcome feedback from anybody with reliable data on the topic. However, even if true, I’m concerned that domain investors whose .COM registrations precede the first use and filing dates of third party trademark registrations containing the exact same keyword(s) or phrase(s) contained in the domains of the .COM parked pages may find themselves unable to monetize that 60% traffic spillover for the class of products or services suggested by the domain names. Here’s how I’d frame the question for a trademark attorney:

    “If I had registered and parked the domain name, iPhone.com, prior to Apple’s first use and registration of the mark, “iPhone”, would I be prohibited or otherwise restricted from feeding mobile phone related advertisements to my parked page following the USPTO’s granting of Apple’s trademark application?”

    If the answer is yes, it seems to me that the value of the .COM plummets because the highest and best use of the domain name occurs only when the domain is associated with mobile phone offerings from the trademark registrant, Apple. So, if Apple balks at what it considers to be an inflated price tag for the .COM, how am I going to extract value or otherwise monetize the domain name and the traffic it produces? Sure, I could offer ad feeds altogether unrelated to the mobile phone industry, but to what end? There are currently many i[Word] and e[Word] titled apps, products and services with valid trademark registrations filed long after their .COM counterparts were registered and parked by domainers. If push comes to shove, what are the respective rights and obligations accorded to the competing interests? Suffice it to say, I’m not a trademark attorney (but I could play one on TV!), so, I’d be very interested in hearing from anybody with the legal expertise to tackle this issue.

  8. Louise says

    However, even if true, I’m concerned that domain investors whose .COM registrations precede the first use and filing dates of third party trademark registrations containing the exact same keyword(s) or phrase(s) contained in the domains of the .COM parked pages may find themselves unable to monetize that 60% traffic spillover for the class of products or services suggested by the domain names.

    The top domainers are a rare breed who enjoy OWNING the premium dot com. Parking revenue isn’t a concern for that category of premium dot com, IMHO. Revenue from lesser domains may support the renewal fees of the premiums. In other words, the revenue a dot com which takes on value with a company’s product release is still small, compared to the value it would bring in branding for the company.

    It’s a nebulous premise, as few in mainstream marketing concede the importance of the exact match dot com in branding, whether for product, service, or brand.

  9. Louise says

    So the 60% traffic spillover cited is comes from Overstock, which claimed that they lost 60% of the traffic from O.co to O.com

    Thanx for clarifying. Besides the loss of traffic, rebranding from years’ old Overstock to the impersonal and meaningless O.co may have been too much of a switch, IMO. Remember NutsOnline to the superior Nuts.com also saw confusion among customers used to a particular brand!

  10. says

    Lots of startups, primarily in the West Coast, use .CO. Domainers, of course, want .com to be the only option. My consistent sales of .net and .org domains in addition to .com say otherwise.

    You don’t need a .com to run a business, or ccTLDs would be obsolete.

Comment Policy:

TheDomains.com welcomes reader comments. Please follow these simple rules:

  • Stay on topic
  • Refrain from personal attacks
  • Avoid profanity
  • Links should be related to the topic of the post
  • No spamming. Listing domains, products, or services will get the comment deleted

To report spelling errors or other mistakes, please email raymond@thedomains.com instead of adding a comment. We thank you for the heads up, but want to keep the discussion on topic.

We reserve the right to remove comments if we deem it necessary.

Join the Discussion