ireland.com

[Systreg]

Just seen this sale mentioned, great name and a great price they paid for it, thought it would be worth more than that.

The Irish Times has agreed a deal to sell the ireland.com domain name to Tourism Ireland for €495,000.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1016/ireland-com-domain-sold-to-tourism-ireland-business.html

 

[Jamie101]

Ah, I meant to post about this yesterday. Also think it went a bit cheap but then again there's only 4-5 million people in Ireland.

Feel sorry for the people with @ireland.com email addresses that will not be in use very soon. Not sure if it mentions that in that link but I've read about it.

 

[Systreg]

@ Jamie, yes, it mentions that the email address services will be ceasing on November 7th.

Even with the lowish population of Ireland, I still thought this would have gone for a fair bit more than it did, as it'll be aimed at drawing visitors from worldwide, rather than the population of Ireland.

 

[Jamie101]

@ Jamie, yes, it mentions that the email address services will be ceasing on November 7th.

Even with the lowish population of Ireland, I still thought this would have gone for a fair bit more than it did, as it'll be aimed at drawing visitors from worldwide, rather than the population of Ireland.

Yeah, not giving people a lot of time to sort out their email addresses.

That's true, the site will probably be aimed at Americans that want to have a picture taken with a leprechaun

 

[accelerator]

Just seen this sale mentioned, great name and a great price they paid for it, thought it would be worth more than that.

Maybe the Irish Times needed the money, what with all the competion from the internet.

Rgds

 

[websaway]

@ Jamie, yes, it mentions that the email address services will be ceasing on November 7th.

Even with the lowish population of Ireland, I still thought this would have gone for a fair bit more than it did, as it'll be aimed at drawing visitors from worldwide, rather than the population of Ireland.

Yes a huge tourist destination.
I think this may not have been an open market thing. I think it's the Irish Tourist Board that bought it, looks like a desired buyer.
It's on domainnews dot com

 

[Admin]

re-opened

 

[Jamie101]

Thanks admin.

Just wanted to update this to tell people the site is now up on it, but at a cost.

Our government wasted €2,500,000 on the site design and it doesn't even work on a mobile phone. Not only that, but there are loads of problems with the site. Might write about it on my site later if anyone's interested?

 

[Stephen]

€2,500,000?

Thanks admin.

Just wanted to update this to tell people the site is now up on it, but at a cost.

Our government wasted €2,500,000 on the site design and it doesn't even work on a mobile phone. Not only that, but there are loads of problems with the site. Might write about it on my site later if anyone's interested?

Are you sure of €2,500,000 it looks like a £25,000 website to me, as all the booking facilities seem to go to 3rd party sites.

 

[Jamie101]

Are you sure of €2,500,000 it looks like a £25,000 website to me, as all the booking facilities seem to go to 3rd party sites.

Yes, read here : http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2013/0123/breaking54.html

It's sickening, unbelievable. Will post more about it later.

 

[domainseller200]

Thanks admin.

Just wanted to update this to tell people the site is now up on it, but at a cost.

Our government wasted €2,500,000 on the site design and it doesn't even work on a mobile phone. Not only that, but there are loads of problems with the site. Might write about it on my site later if anyone's interested?

At least they didn't do what most domainers do and spend £50k on a premium domain name and then £50 on a site design

 

[figleaf007]

25,000? It looks more like 2500, it is horrendous...

 

[Jamie101]

The Disappointing launch of Ireland.com

Just wrote that, I'd seriously appreicate if people could share it, I'm so angry about this.

 

[Admin]

What an annoying site interface, closed after 2 clicks as found it so bad.

Admin

 

[retired_member34]

I must be looking at the wrong site? Admittedly it is not responsive, but it works on my tablet and phone, and seems to me a good, if unconventional, solution to what is basically trying to present a very large data set in an attractive way. Some of the full screen maps and photos are pretty impressive.

 

[Jamie101]

I must be looking at the wrong site? Admittedly it is not responsive, but it works on my tablet and phone, and seems to me a good, if unconventional, solution to what is basically trying to present a very large data set in an attractive way. Some of the full screen maps and photos are pretty impressive.

Don't mean to sound rude, but have you looked at some of the things that I mentioned on my site? For something that cost €3,000,000 - it's a joke!

 

[Edwin]

I guess you missed/ignored this part of the Independent article: "A smartphone version will be rolled out this spring"

My assumption is that this will be included in the overall budget but just hasn't been delivered yet (staged rollouts of large sites are quite common).

 

[Jamie101]

I guess you missed/ignored this part of the Independent article: "A smartphone version will be rolled out this spring"

My assumption is that this will be included in the overall budget but just hasn't been delivered yet (staged rollouts of large sites are quite common).

I spotted that, I'd also assume that (well, I'd like to think the mobile version will be included anyway since it wasn't exactly cheap). Will definitely be interesting to see what the mobile site looks like.

 

[Edwin]

I spotted that, I'd also assume that (well, I'd like to think the mobile version will be included anyway since it wasn't exactly cheap). Will definitely be interesting to see what the mobile site looks like.

Makes a nonsense of most of your article bashing it, then. I'm surprised you published what you did, given that you already knew that the smartphone version wasn't yet launched.

 

[Jamie101]

Makes a nonsense of most of your article bashing it, then. I'm surprised you published what you did, given that you already knew that the smartphone version wasn't yet launched.

Fair enough, but in the article I only made one point about it not looking good on a mobile. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but I just can't see how this is worth the money that was spent on it, even if the mobile version turns out to be brilliant.