While I give
@OnlineDomainCom a grade of A+ for eye-catching headline choice (even his backup ones were pretty sensational) and I actually agree with him about the main conclusion that the extension does not make sense as a domain investment for the names with premium price/renewals or even in general, there are a few points that I think could be respectfully debated.
- He makes the case that one argument against dev is that who talks "dev" in everyday language. While I don't talk dev I also don't talk com outside the domain community
. The abbreviation 'dev' yields 544 million Google search results, even before the TLD came out. Actually if you look at popularity of term in everyday language net blows com out of water, but top is way more talked about than either of them in everyday language. Check NGram viewer for the stats.
- He argues, and I agree it is a good point, that with so many extensions why do we need one more? I think that Google would probably respond that while yes there are many choices this is only the third choice that is a TLD secure space. The whole secure space angle is missing from the article, and I think many pundits are missing how important this is. Google have 62% (some say more) of the browser market with Chrome, when they say secure pre-load is important, it will be. If there is one space where security makes sense it is one aimed at code developers.
- I think he implies that the end user market is limited but I would not agree. There are about 18 million individuals and companies who identify themselves as developers, not counting all the aspects of development (educational, social, real estate, etc.) that have nothing to do with code.
- I think he overlooks the fact that Google are the masters of search. They control about 70% of search market currently. I have no clue what Google were thinking with some of their TLD choices, but I think with the last three they are saying an extension that helps show what the site will be about clearly makes sense. There is a well defined .dev community and the promotion has been clearly aimed at getting early adopters large and small in that community.
- He points out that at least so far .app has had sales but is not a domainer success. I agree. It was hopelessly over speculated by domainers. I think we don't yet know the long term domain reselling prospects for .app. The sales record is less than 9 months with 14 sales on NameBio with an average price of just over $4000. I agree that .dev does not hold many opportunities for domainers.
- He says because some Google efforts were unsuccessful, we can discount chance for success in domains. I disagree. Yes some Google things have not worked out. But many have. Just as in domaining we should not judge by the a few failures or a few huge successes, we should look at the big picture. Look at the size and profitability of Google, their dominance in the search, browser, mobile operating system and other spaces. This does not mean they will be successful as a domain registry, but neither does the abandonment of a few ventures mean they will not be.
As I said, I agree with the overall view that .dev is probably not a good place for domain investment unless you manage to snag a great future trend word that they somehow missed in premium list. I also agree that it will see competition from some other ngTLDs including the ones he lists.
I'm not trying to be difficult. I just try to push for balance on issues.
Just my opinion (I own zero .dev domains)
Bob
