Dynadot

discuss The curious case of dot com domination

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch
Impact
4,398
TLDs of all kinds have risen then fallen, most of them passed by with no impact, some of them held out a little before collapse, domains market was shaken many times, but king do com stayed on top untouched laughing at the miserable pitiful TLDs while they were fighting between each other for a peace of the cake, all which benefited king do com as in the old strategy "divide and conquer". At the end king dot com emerged victorious and his throne stayed unshaken.

After the flood of new extension I expected at least to see a slow down in dot com growth, but that didn't happen and dot com now is stronger than ever!

Why despite all the hype about alternative TLDs, in the past and the present, dot com stayed unshaken?

Please discuss
 
Last edited:
1
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
First mover advantage (.us too restrictive at first as I remember). Major global brands adopting .com. .com being king in USA and China, the 1st and 2nd largest economies in the world.
 
Last edited:
2
•••
Why to discuss???
There are many holywar threads already...
Searchbox - if you can't live without them.
 
1
•••
It's worth pondering, particularly if it helps make people better domainers.

I would say the early history of the Internet is that it is dominated by huge winners.

Google in search, Amazon in shopping, YouTube in video, Expedia in travel...who would of thought it would end this way, with such huge winners?

My take is dot-com is the big winner of the domain extension natural selection process.

Hilarious to see the insiders try to take it down.
 
1
•••
Why to discuss???
There are many holywar threads already...
Searchbox - if you can't live without them.

I think ur new gTLD bias is showing. :xf.wink:
I am really looking forward, to this thread,

Good luck defending new gTLD babies,
Their integrity and future outlook will be under attck
 
Last edited:
0
•••
My bias is everywhere - where I can make money.
 
Last edited:
2
•••
My bias is everywhere - where I can earn money.

By the looks of it, you make good $$ from ngTLD but many (including me) are still (mostly) stuck our ways.

I stick wit thesis: whichvr SELLS, we ALL benefit!
stands to reason, doesnt have be “this or that”!!
maybe i’m just too kind :)
 
Last edited:
1
•••
I invest into legacy and new TLDs ~50/50...
And 2019 - 1st year when my nTLD income is significantly better than legacy stream...
 
2
•••
Profit does not consider the extension. Profit has no bias.

There are some who are playing with house money in .com. As well, there are some playing with house money who invested in the NewG's.......
 
3
•••
Google in search, Amazon in shopping, YouTube in video, Expedia in travel...who would of thought it would end this way, with such huge winners?

Who didn't think that would happen, as that's how a marketplace works - as it matures, there are fewer and larger big players until usually one takes a commanding position.
 
1
•••
Who didn't think that would happen, as that's how a marketplace works - as it matures, there are fewer and larger big players until usually one takes a commanding position.

Isnt Priceline (BKNG) the leader in travel?
Priceline stock is $2K+ (rebranded to bookingtravel)

I do like, and use Expedia (EXPE) more
though its stock is “only” $136 ;p
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Isn't that stock price for the whole umbrella corporation of Booking Holdings Inc (which includes a lot of companies), and not just PriceLine?

Stock price means nothing (Expedia could have had hundreds of splits for all we know), and you'd have to take out PL from the parent, and then figure out the net worth of each individual company.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Isn't that stock price for the whole umbrella corporation of Booking Holdings Inc (which includes a lot of companies), and not just PriceLine?

You'd have to split out PL from the parent, and then figure out the net worth of each company.

Yes, i believe Priceline owns Kayak, Booking...more
They rebranded booking: “Booking.com accounts for majority of gross bookings operating profit.”

But Expedia owns: Orbitz Travelocity hotels... more.

But you are right; Priceline’s err Booking Holdings has a bigger umbrella of sub companies, although believe Booking & Expedia subsidiaries’ same niche.

Difference isnt big enough to be $136 and $2K imo!
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Difference isnt big enough to be $136 and $2K imo!

But the individual stock price doesn't mean anything, unless miraculously neither company has had a stock split or a buy-back, and both have the exact same number of stocks outstanding.

Not much chance of that happening.

I tried looking it up, and although Priceline does look to have a higher net worth, it's virtually impossible to separate it from all the other umbrella companies, while Expedia was spun off into its own entity.

So Priceline > Expedia, but without a lot of work parsing out financial results, it's impossible to tell by exactly how much.

William Shatner might know. :xf.grin:
 
Last edited:
1
•••
Its about global recognition, trust & .com popularity with end users, but also simplicity, your company, service or product, needs a .com for its "commercial" use, presentation etc. Simple


imo
 
1
•••
I heard that many companies that adopted nTLDs converted to .com, mainly because of losing traffic to dot com competitors. But I am not sure about this info, can someone confirm it?
 
0
•••
I heard that many companies that adopted nTLDs converted to .com, mainly because of losing traffic to dot com competitors. But I am not sure about this info, can someone confirm it?

Not only because losing the traffic to the .com, but because of brand recognition.
If you don't have the .com, you don't have the brand. As simple as that.
IMO
 
2
•••
Traffic loss is very minor, almost 0.
It should be definitely very popular nTLD website to lose traffic.
From my experience with .COMs which were ignored by companies on nTLDs.
 
0
•••
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back