Well, so far that's true, but it doesn't mean that will persist as the ability to hand reg a .COM anywhere near reasonably fitting for an arbitrary endeavor is becoming nearly impossible.
Okay, say that .com is saturated and will no longer grow (not true). It's still 104M registrations, a number of which are still coveted domains.
Yeah, but most of those extensions are tacky or have some blatant inherent liability, IMO.
...
.pro sounds great, but the the rules are too idiopathic to fathom in some ways. That can be fixed.
...
Some of the new proposed gTLDs seem less saddled with the same liabilities and may stand a better chance. Only time will tell.
The new extensions all share one common flaw: they are not needed or wanted. But sometimes they can find a niche where they fit in: .me would be an example.
One problem of .pro is being in competition with .com, just like .biz or .co. So it's nothing special really.
In the early days, .pro was 'special' because you had to be vetted in order to own a .pro but the system was pointless because it was restricted to 4 countries and a limited range of professions.
But there is no tangible benefit because consumers are unfamiliar with the extension, and don't even know that it's more 'trustworthy' with the vetting in place.
We know that extensions with red tape and restrictions are unpopular. But people never learn, for example the guys behind the pointless .secure TLD essentially want to pick up where .pro .jobs and others failed.
In the next few years we could have .inc, .llc, .ltd, .corp and I wouldn't be surprised if each of these quickly outnumbers .pro.
The weak extensions will be diluted, not those that are established.
.COMs aren't going anywhere, but people can't afford them as the namespace is saturated and people hoard and squat on them and jack up the prices. I don't see .COM as losing its prestige for a long time if ever. But people are being forced to find alternatives, and so far I don't see really fitting alternatives offered, but that could change.
The so-called scarcity of domains is the biggest scam from icann and its shareholders, I mean stakeholders :p
There is no scarcity of domain names, there is scarcity of quality but it's the nature of things. Each domain is unique. So there is only one sex.com. You don't create quality by setting up new arbitrary extensions. If the problem was so serious, people should have been flocking to the new TLDs that were set up post-2000. That didn't happen.
Now if somebody is looking for alternate extensions, there are plenty of alternatives already. Somebody who doesn't want to pay more than regfee is not going to buy your .com at a premium anyway so it's not business lost to domainers.
So you're telling me that being patient is the wrong thing to do. Instead I should assume that they are never going to increase in value so I should do what ???
My message has always been simple: not all extensions are equal. Domainers must be able to sort the wheat from the shaft, that is identify the extensions with potential and stay away from the extensions that are doomed to stagnate. Generally speaking and to make things clear,
that means all new extensions, not .pro in particular.
Domaining is no rocket science at all. We focus on the extensions that are
already valuable today because they have been embraced by end users. Investing in a new extension is completely different, it's gambling. It's anticipating that it will become big and desirable one day. History has shown that this scenario never happens.
Among the new extensions .info is probably the most successful (in numbers). Yet there is little value in it...
In 2005 I had the belief that .us could become a giant like .de or .co.uk and even bigger due to the larger US market. Later I came to the conclusion that it doesn't have to be like that, each TLD and market is different. .us could very well remain marginal, and .com dominant in the US - unlike the other industrialized countries where ccTLDs are dominant.
I simply acknowledged the reality and adjusted my strategy and expectations. No wishful thinking, no delusion.
I'll agree with "Most," but not "All." De, In, Co.Uk off the top of my head.
What are you talking about.
These are not new extensions, there are
ccTLDs... that are very old !
New extensions are the artificial stuff like .biz .info .coop .aero .pro etc
But .co is a relaunched, branded ccTLD. It's not a new extension. Same for .tv.
Domainers seem to have blinders on, it took them many years to take notice of the ccTLDs, now many still believe that .co.uk or .de are the only ccTLDs that have value
---------- Post added at 07:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:37 AM ----------
He said that "the internet is also a curious place and I think you have to be prepared for the possibility that the public could quickly change their mindset and explore other options.
I understand the statement like this: "Consumers could become more open to alternate extensions in the future".
That doesn't mean the established stuff becomes obsolete.
And one example of that is Org leap frogging over Net. People were laughing at Orgs three years ago.
Who ? The people who were laughing at the ccTLDs I suppose.
.org has its own 'niche', with plenty of end users who would never want to 'upgrade' to .com.
.net is different, many were registered because the .com was taken.
.org is a solid extension, but for domaining purposes the opportunities are more limited than .com for example. The less popular the extension is, the fewer opportunities.
And again, I am in the Black with Pros. Why would I dump anything that is in the Black?
I guess Mike Mann must be in the black with .co too, but that does not mean .co is is good for domainers as a whole, is a good investment, or has a bright future.
Surely he is not thinking for a second .co is going to be a major extension. He just flips the names and moves on. He has an exit strategy.
My advice would be to shift your focus elsewhere when you stop being in the black.
The big Zip Code buy was a peculiar thing to watch. One year ago someone thought that was a hot idea. One year later, they obviously changed their mind. Feel free to explain that one to me when you have the time.
Is that a question for me ?
