Will .Com ever die?

[D. Wells]

I am a strong believer that ".Com" will always be King, but when I talk to a lot of other domainers, they suggest that ".Com" will die within the next few years.

Just wanted to here some opinions on this.

 

[DU]

And those small and medium businesses you're talking about, most of them want to get bigger. It's like the lil experiment I did earlier, going thru my stores bookmark folder, 38, all .com.

That's a lot like saying all the TV shows I watch are on the TV, or a lot of things I "like" are on Facebook.

I've not said .com will die.. I've said the valuation and important of .com will shift and change.

Other avenues will be MORE important to small / medium business than their URL - in part because of the return on investment that can be achieved through other means.

The investment will be commensurate with value. That value will change - most likely LOWER. I believe that you can find a top notch (I hope Elliot doens't have that TM) domain for under $1000. That doesn't keep a lot of domain investors in business. If the investment becomes "niche" for a few top dogs - then .com is essentially dead from a domain investment standpoint... I think that's the "death" we're really talking about, not a literal "no more .com"

 

[JB Lions]

"I've not said .com will die.. I've said the valuation and important of .com will shift and change."

Might go up.

"Other avenues will be MORE important to small / medium business than their URL - in part because of the return on investment that can be achieved through other means."

Again, with the leakage. That's why you invest smartly from the start. Yes, you can build great stuff on other extensions. But I go back to how much is even a single customer worth to a business. Now, how much is many, how much is a livelong customer. Yeah, you can try another extension but your initial investment into a .com is going to pay for itself many times over vs. what you lose if you don't have it. And you see that in the 38 stores in my bookmark folder and your 2 favorite ones. They get it.

"I believe that you can find a top notch (I hope Elliot doens't have that TM) domain for under $1000. That doesn't keep a lot of domain investors in business"

If you can find them for reg fee or even $100 or so. $1,000 won't get you running around in the street with joy, but if you're buying domains at $100 and selling them at $1000, there's not much in this world where you can make 10x your investment.

"then .com is essentially dead from a domain investment standpoint."

Except for all that development out there and the continual development on that extension. I don't see that stopping. And again, with domain investment. If the market shifts, smart investors adapt. Their money can just as easily go into other extensions. Not a big deal. Time will tell, stick and move.

 

[surprise]

ofcourse it will die and it will disappear it is only matter of time everything changes , that's a fact of life for god sake , iphone , tablets ... etc all will change , .com .net etc will change as well , to what ? i don't know . when ? i don't know , but it started already , really most of the time i don't type an extension i either goggle it or the browser will give me options to choose from before i type the extension , who needs it anyway , doesn't sound great dot com ! common get real this is the 90s , i think the next thing is domains without an extension !

 

[nsquare]

I don't think it's going to die soon.
Number 1, User's perspective: for this generation of internet users .com is the default extension. E.g. if Somebody shows me a flash game on site <xyz> .net, by I remembered the name <xyz> but forget the extension. So next thing I would try is to find xyz.com if I don't get it I usually try .net else search google.
Number 2, Publisher's perspective it's always easy to remember or default to one extension than remembering several. So if I am a publisher, publishing Soccer News and I don't get SoccerNews.com so even if SoccerNews.co.uk or SoccerNews.in is available, I tend to see if I can get SoccerNewsLive or Soccer-News or something else which is related unless you have a brand name.

If it dies, it will take atleast 1 generation to happen so, in my opinion.

 

[namemarket]

Just 2 are likely to survive, dot-com and dot-org since they have their own well established and unique identities, often getting typein traffic too which only dot-com and dot-org (in relevant categories) are inclined to get in my experience). The other extensions such as .net .info .biz .us and others are very unlikely to even maintain the status-quo and should decline significantly in use and value what with 1,900 new extensions coming soon and tens of 1,000s more in the future as the cost of buying an extension is expected to decline big time. Thus I am letting almost all my non-com and non-org names expire, with relatively rare exceptions.

 

[kristiws]

.org and .com will survive and .net I don't think so .net really never had any thing going for it specially now that thousands of tlds will flood the market if for example someone wants to buy a (geo).net name they can simply buy (geo).web, .net is in trouble - .com and .org will be fine.

 

[sonu rey]

such predictions are just predictions. fact is fact. how can we say .com alone would die?

 

[kristiws]

Just 2 are likely to survive, dot-com and dot-org since they have their own well established and unique identities, often getting typein traffic too which only dot-com and dot-org (in relevant categories) are inclined to get in my experience). The other extensions such as .net .info .biz .us and others are very unlikely to even maintain the status-quo and should decline significantly in use and value what with 1,900 new extensions coming soon and tens of 1,000s more in the future as the cost of buying an extension is expected to decline big time. Thus I am letting almost all my non-com and non-org names expire, with relatively rare exceptions.

I actually was thinking. What would really happen to .com if ICANN in the near future says the applications price to file for an extension has been dropped from 180 000 to 200 dollars per say. Wouldn't every person from every creed culture and religion try to get their own extension then? and what would really happen to .com? Ahhh I don't even care about .net(s) specially now that thousands of extensions will be available. Why would anyone want to pay for a (geo).net name for example when they can get the same exact name in .web coming up? ha?

 

[sky]

Is .COM going to die? In 4 billion years, when the Sun turns into a red giant, it is possible that .COM will die, unless we can put it on an interstellar space craft and find a new planet for it to live on.

What does that even mean, "die", for a TLD? .COM isn't going anywhere. The question is, will it gradually lose market share, and continue to command the prices it currently does? Or will increased supply, a freer market, and competition gradually force it reign in its prices ? Obviously too many companies and people are well-established invested in .COM and fully committed to .COM for it to wither on the vine in the foreseeable future. People well-established in .COM aren't going to suddenly drop their investment in .COM and migrate to other TLDs. What would be the compelling reason to? The whole new gTLD situation is going to take a long time to prove out.

If the proliferation of alternate TLDs is ever going to devalue .COM, it will almost happen slowly, unless some athlete wins a highly publicized event to everyone's amazement and says they owe it all to .GATORADE; or the rebel forces launch an attack on .COM, and, when ultimately cornered in TLD-to-TLD combat, confesses ".LLC - I'm your father!"

I'm sure .COM will keep its mystique. Eventually maybe it will be seen more as a collector's item or an antique, or make it into the TLD hall of fame. That 70's show will be replaced by That Dot COM Show and all the teenyboppers will want one to be retro-cool. Unless .COM gets wiped out by a WTD (Weapon of TLD Destruction) at some point.

 

[Archangel]

.net is too established. I'd bet my rent money .net will never just go away. Just the idea sounds prudish.

 

[Kate]

What would really happen to .com if ICANN in the near future says the applications price to file for an extension has been dropped from 180 000 to 200 dollars per say.

While it can be expected that the cost of running a TLD will plummet, you cannot have an infinite number of extensions, for practical reasons. 200 dollars per year sounds very optimistic to me, in any even it's going to be significantly more than standard regfee.

What will happen to .com ? The millions of businesses that are already branded on .com have no incentive to move. Even the companies that applied for TLDs are not going to ditch their own .coms.

Why would anyone want to pay for a (geo).net name for example when they can get the same exact name in .web coming up? ha?

People who don't want to pay more than regfee already have plenty of alternatives.
There is an aftermarket for domains because end users realize that not all extensions are equal. Some are more established and more credible than others. New extensions are not going to change that situation.
By definition, all new extensions will be unproven. And we know that even 'backing' from big players is no guarantee of success.

In fact, there is no pressing need for new extensions. It's a money grab set up by Icann and vested interests. Now I'm sure many people genuinely believe it's necessary because domains have become 'scarce', but it's a flawed reasoning. When you actually offer new extensions to consumers, they shun them. They must be thinking to themselves "sounds like a good idea... for the others"

 

[Archangel]

Very true. And let's use another perspective here. Assuming the fee was $200--would this in any way hurt .com? No. It'd strengthen it beyond proportion. "Yay!!!!!!!!!!!! I have $200 & wanna start .arch! Yeah, it'll be great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Okay, sure. Whatever. I now hypothetically own .arch. Great. Now, how would I go about advertising it? Getting users/buyers/investors? And what is .arch? Answer: Just another brick in the wall. Just another no-name extension for ppl to look at. Who's gonna choose .arch over .meet or .orange or .copy or any of the other inane ext. we'd surely see? Now, ppl might read this and counter with, "But Apple or IBM has the money to advertise. You don't." That argument doesn't even exist, ppl. Do you think it'd matter if .ibm was advertised more than .arch? No--in the eyes of net users, .arch and .ibm are, again, just another brick in the wall. (Cue Pink Floyd song here) There would be so much to remember if there were 200+ more extensions out there. The ext that ppl will remember? .com. .arch is forgettable. .ibm is the same albeit not AS forgettable. But with so many new extensions to memorize, business and even us normal folks would rather use something ppl won't likely forget in the mess of extensions. This only makes .com more desirable.

While it can be expected that the cost of running a TLD will plummet, you cannot have an infinite number of extensions, for practical reasons. 200 dollars per year sounds very optimistic to me, in any even it's going to be significantly more than standard regfee.

 

[mjnels]

i agree that most people see .com as more "credible" but really if we're honest - an entire namespace cannot be credible. the public is confusing popularity with credibility. however, it really doesn't matter what logic or lack of logic its based on, just that it is. i do think with time the public and new businesses will start to understand the difference between popularity and credibility.


also, defaultuser - great posts in this thread. may not agree with everything but its not about that - forums need more of this style of thought provoking level-headed posts.

 

[Archangel]

1.) No one said the domain industry is credible. It's a point of the .com being most credible.

2.) The public isn't confusing either. People stick to what they know. They know .com; they don't know .pro or similar. They register them because of that, among other factors.

i agree that most people see .com as more "credible" but really if we're honest - an entire namespace cannot be credible. the public is confusing popularity with credibility

 

[mjnels]

1.) No one said the domain industry is credible. It's a point of the .com being most credible.

the .com namespace is what im talking about, not the domain industry.

2.) The public isn't confusing either. People stick to what they know. They know .com; they don't know .pro or similar. They register them because of that, among other factors.

exactly - people are comfortable with things they recognize but credibility is the wrong word.

in the brick-and-mortar world it would be like trusting a new business just because theyve opened in an "established city".. people will be more "familiar" with your location in an established area but this shouldn't offer any instant credibility just because you are sharing a city with already credible established businesses.

 

[alien51]

People stick to what they know. They know .com; they don't know .pro or similar.

This reasoning means, that it's a MARKETING problem.

And Marketing, is driven by perception and experience.

So if you want the new TLDs to gain a foothold on market share, you should take steps to PREVENT sending the WRONG PERCEPTION and BAD EXPERIENCE to internet consumers about these new TLDs.

And i don't think giving out these new TLDs to DOMAINERS will send the correct perception and experience.

Take for example the thread here in NamePros, about the launching of the .GREEN tld. Tons of money are being SPENT on marketing the TLD to DOMAINERS.... not end-users. WHY? Because the TLD is being proposed as a NON-RESTRICTED tld. Meaning, once you own a .GREEN domain, you can do whatever you want with it. You can put a website about conservation of the environment, alongside .GREEN domains selling VIAGRA, CIALIS, PONZI SCAMS, PORN, TORRENT SITES, NON-AUTHORITATIVE MINI-SITES WITH SPIN-UP ARTICLES, and possibly hundreds of PARKED PAGES, and DOMAINS FOR SALE sites.

If you want to change people's PERCEPTION and EXPERIENCE about a new stuff, you should PREVENT the things that will ruin its reputation. And opening up the registration to just about every Dick and Harry, is not going to help the cause.

 

[mjnels]

bingo! perception. perception isnt always based on rational thought.

put simply - why should i have less credibility because i decided to use .somethingelse ? these discussions tend to get confusing because many times we're talking about the same thing just from many different angles.

 

[Archangel]

I just read this article. Not ALL of it applies to domainers or domaining itself but it puts some things into perspective, with the mindsets ppl are having with this debate. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/21-ways-rich-people-think-differently.html?page=1

 

[mjnels]

good article. i like to say that money cant buy you happiness but it can certainly buy you time which is the most important thing in the world. if you have your rent/mortgage/bills paid for your entire lifetime you've basically purchased yourself a blank slate of time and everything else is up to you after that.

 

[Kate]

in the brick-and-mortar world it would be like trusting a new business just because theyve opened in an "established city".. people will be more "familiar" with your location in an established area but this shouldn't offer any instant credibility just because you are sharing a city with already credible established businesses.

Good point.
Just because you use .com doesn't mean you're more credible or trustworthy. But the opposite may be closer to the truth: not using .com (or ccTLD if outside the US) could hurt your credibility.
Even non-domainers understand that if you use a .net it must be because the .com was taken, and you are a latecomer, more than a pioneer in business. There is mental classification instantly taking place in the minds.
.org is a different story.
.biz is even worse, .us is not first choice either.
I'm not saying this is rational, it's just the way it is. Consumers do not expect to see businesses on arbitrary extensions, they expect one in particular, anything else will arouse suspicion unnecessarily.

I have the same reaction when I see a company using a generic domain: either they were early in the game, or they purchased it, which means they take their image seriously.

When the new TLDs were launched, some marketing 'geniuses' wanted to make them more trustworthy than what already exists. So they implemented screening, red tape and restrictions. That didn't work.
At the end of the day extensions like .pro or .jobs or whatever, that involve vetting of the applicants, do not provide any benefits in terms of credibility, simply because the layman is unaware that these TLDs are restricted... they couldn't care less if you had to take the polygraph test to get your domain.

Ten years down the road .info .biz .pro .etc are still not considered worthy extensions. This is the benchmark for the future. The reality is that ordinary users are not eager to see new extensions.

In practice, credibility means being where your competition is - not in the ghetto.
imho...

 

[Archangel]

This is what I've been preaching. I'd put my debit card on items.com before I'd even consider trusting items.biz. I think the vast majority of ppl see credibility in .com opposed to the next-gen extensions.

Good point.
Just because you use .com doesn't mean you're more credible or trustworthy. But the opposite may be closer to the truth: not using .com (or ccTLD if outside the US) could hurt your credibility.
Even non-domainers understand that if you use a .net it must be because the .com was taken, and you are a latecomer, more than a pioneer in business. There is mental classification instantly taking place in the minds.
.org is a different story.
.biz is even worse, .us is not first choice either.
I'm not saying this is rational, it's just the way it is. Consumers do not expect to see businesses on arbitrary extensions, they expect one in particular, anything else will arouse suspicion unnecessarily.

I have the same reaction when I see a company using a generic domain: either they were early in the game, or they purchased it, which means they take their image seriously.

When the new TLDs were launched, some marketing 'geniuses' wanted to make them more trustworthy than what already exists. So they implemented screening, red tape and restrictions. That didn't work.
At the end of the day extensions like .pro or .jobs or whatever, that involve vetting of the applicants, do not provide any benefits in terms of credibility, simply because the layman is unaware that these TLDs are restricted... they couldn't care less if you had to take the polygraph test to get your domain.

Ten years down the road .info .biz .pro .etc are still not considered worthy extensions. This is the benchmark for the future. The reality is that ordinary users are not eager to see new extensions.

In practice, credibility means being where your competition is - not in the ghetto.
imho...

 

[mjnels]

yeah, its a case of perception becoming reality. as a business why go against the grain if you dont need to. i know its cliche to say but i cannot get past the thought that 1,000 TLD's being spit out at once is "different this time" then just 1-2 per year. so far, nothing else has really "stuck" generally speaking.. because beyond lacking perceived credibility most people dont even know they exist.

i remember thinking the paypal idea would not pan out. im pretty sure other people had tried what they were doing before but somehow they gained traction.. timing i guess. and maybe those $10 referrals they paid you when you got people to sign up. definitely seemed like "funny money" tho at the time and i remember people constantly asking if it was a scam _\|/_

 

[DomainTalker]

In practice, credibility means being where your competition is - not in the ghetto.
imho...

Bingo!...In a nutshell


.

 

[alien51]

When the new TLDs were launched, some marketing 'geniuses' wanted to make them more trustworthy than what already exists. So they implemented screening, red tape and restrictions. That didn't work.

It didn't work, because they succumbed to MONEY. They need to earn MONEY.

They found out that if they are very STRICT in implementing these screening and restrictions, and vetting processes, few LEGITS are signing-up. MONEY IS NOT COMING IN.

Solution: OPEN THE TLD TO DOMAINERS, SPECULATORS, AND SQUATTERS.

For a Registry, you make money if people buy domains.

Once the speculators and traders entered the scene, the TLD credibility was ruined. So now, the Registry is earning money from speculators, rather than from legits.

At the end of the day extensions like .pro or .jobs or whatever, that involve vetting of the applicants, do not provide any benefits in terms of credibility

Because nobody was willing to SPEND marketing dollars to tell ordinary people "what makes something credible".

I guy on the street would say: "How would i suppose to know .PRO means i can trust you?? Nobody is telling me that. I never heard Oprah talking about .PRO"

Ten years down the road .info .biz .pro .etc are still not considered worthy extensions. This is the benchmark for the future.

Because these extensions have already been POISONED by non-restricted usage. It's impossible to do ethnic cleansing on these TLDs anymore.

The sad part, is that businessmen are trying to SEIZE ownership of future new TLDs, for the purpose of selling "non-restricted usage" of domains. They are hoping to lure Domainers again as their own pet CASH COWS.

 

[999names]

It didn't work, because they succumbed to MONEY. They need to earn MONEY.

They found out that if they are very STRICT in implementing these screening and restrictions, and vetting processes, few LEGITS are signing-up. MONEY IS NOT COMING IN.

Solution: OPEN THE TLD TO DOMAINERS, SPECULATORS, AND SQUATTERS.

For a Registry, you make money if people buy domains.

Once the speculators and traders entered the scene, the TLD credibility was ruined. So now, the Registry is earning money from speculators, rather than from legits.





Because nobody was willing to SPEND marketing dollars to tell ordinary people "what makes something credible".

I guy on the street would say: "How would i suppose to know .PRO means i can trust you?? Nobody is telling me that. I never heard Oprah talking about .PRO"





Because these extensions have already been POISONED by non-restricted usage. It's impossible to do ethnic cleansing on these TLDs anymore.

The sad part, is that businessmen are trying to SEIZE ownership of future new TLDs, for the purpose of selling "non-restricted usage" of domains. They are hoping to lure Domainers again as their own pet CASH COWS.

I wil not be a pet cash cow I promise you that. The only tld I might be reg some names is .web not that dot web would be any competition for .com, .web would be competition for .net.