- Impact
- 8,633
Interesting article from Forbes...
".COM still holds about 22% of all TLD registrations, according to data from Domain Name Stat"
".COM still holds about 22% of all TLD registrations, according to data from Domain Name Stat"
Interesting article from Forbes...
".COM still holds about 22% of all TLD registrations, according to data from Domain Name Stat"
The number is surprisingly low.
Interesting article from Forbes...
".COM still holds about 22% of all TLD registrations, according to data from Domain Name Stat"
With over 100k new users joining the internet for the first time every day, new domain extensions are needed to support startups and to give new and existing entrepreneurs branding choices. There should be a group of people actively promoting them (there probably is one but not very active), regardless of who owns/sells each particular one.
If it is purely a numbers game, then .COM wins easily. The author of the piece in Forbes is clueless about the domain name business. What distinguishes a "good" gTLD from a "bad" gTLD is usage. If a gTLD has more developed websites that are spidered by Google, then it will appear to be a much healthier gTLD than one that has millions of registrations and very little natural development and usage. In terms of registration volume, .COM wins as it has around 148.8 million active registrations and approximately 30% of those are developed. To people outside the industry, the registrations volume is all that they understand and the basis for their comparisons. A small new gTLD may actualy be outperforming .COM in terms of development and renewals but its small search engine footprint will ensure that few, if any, of the sites will appear high in Google search results.There are now 33,660,367 registered new gTLDs - last time I was checking it, it was only around 20 mil or so ... growing quite quickly, in my opinion
There are now 33,660,367 registered new gTLDs - last time I was checking it, it was only around 20 mil or so ... growing quite quickly, in my opinion
The number is surprisingly low.
I am sorry that the Forbes article has not bring anything interesting to you .. but that publication is read by CEOs, politicians, and decision-makers all over the world .. so just thought it would be interesting to share what THEY are reading these daysDidn't see anything interesting, there is nothing new in the article.
Didn't see anything interesting, there is nothing new in the article.
It looks like a Phil Space article and is poorly sourced. Google isn't exactly known for its expertise in running successful new gTLDs either.It's also poorly written. Needs an editor.
Not sure about Google but some NGTs were sold to XYZ recently. Given Daniel Negari's marketing ability, it will be very interesting to see what happens with them. Many new gTLDs are nic-only zones and have not launched. Numerically, 2020 has been an insane year in the industry and there has been a massive race to quality with surges in the ccTLDs earlier in the year. The .COM also experienced some increase.i couldve sworn they sold theirs to XYZ?
didnt google sell some?
Do we even trust google?
How long Google Domains in BETA, @jmcc?
Seriously, not hyperbole to say record
The Googlers dealing with it probably do but Google has to work with registrars and they generally focus on what sells best and makes them a profit. Domain names are a means for registrars and hosters to upsell the customer. They want the customer to buy hosting and other services as the profit on domain names is not really that high.Does Google even take this side biz seriously?
I partially agree with some statements. But you know, I do not think the author is clueless - when discussing the complex topic as new gTLDs (basically hundreds of extensions) you can write articles that are shorter but are readable to a broad audience, while you need to sacrifice some exactness and explanation in them in order to make them short and readable, and so you must make some larger summarisations.If it is purely a numbers game, then .COM wins easily. The author of the piece in Forbes is clueless about the domain name business. What distinguishes a "good" gTLD from a "bad" gTLD is usage. If a gTLD has more developed websites that are spidered by Google, then it will appear to be a much healthier gTLD than one that has millions of registrations and very little natural development and usage. In terms of registration volume, .COM wins as it has around 148.8 million active registrations and approximately 30% of those are developed. To people outside the industry, the registrations volume is all that they understand and the basis for their comparisons. A small new gTLD may actualy be outperforming .COM in terms of development and renewals but its small search engine footprint will ensure that few, if any, of the sites will appear high in Google search results.
The problem with the new gTLDs is that the larger new gTLDs skews things. Taking all the new gTLDs as a single TLD and using that 30M or so registrations as a comparison with .COM is not a good thing. It isn't even a fair comparison. Apart from the large NGTs relying on discounted registrations to inflate their zones, the new gTLDs are quite a complex set of TLDs. Some are borderline dead. At least one is in ICANN's graveyard (EBERO). Others are serving the markets that they are aimed at. None of them are going to be .COM killers and the expectation that the new gTLDs were .COM killers was wrong. It was promoted by people who really didn't understand how the domain name industry was changing and how many of the new gTLDs had effectively fallen down a gully between the legacy gTLDs and the ccTLDs. They were a great idea when Domain Tasting was stopping people getting good domain names but as soon as large-scale Domain Tasting was killed off, the demand for many of the new gTLDs was also reduced.The ccTLDs managed to capture most of that demand before the new gTLDs even hit the market.
The zone stuffing with discounted registrations has made registration volume an unreliable metric when it comes to the larger new gTLDs and some of the legacy gTLDs.
Regards...jmcc
Writing an article with the facts is good. The author of the article didn't have the facts and was making assumptions that were not supported by anything other than his own opinion. While he might be quite well informed on the Alphabet/Google situation, he does not understand the domain name industry or Google's place in it.I partially agree with some statements. But you know, I do not think the author is clueless - when discussing the complex topic as new gTLDs (basically hundreds of extensions) you can write articles that are shorter but are readable to a broad audience, while you need to sacrifice some exactness and explanation in them in order to make them short and readable, and so you must make some larger summarisations.
Or you can write articles in a more detailed style, which I usually prefer to do, maybe having more emphasis on subtle details, but then having most people complaining that they are too complex, long, and boring
You can never satisfy everyone. But I think it is important for us to learn what other people are reading in such publications (which are totally outside the domainer's bubble).
objectively speaking, there is nothing golden or advanced about dot com.
There are now 33,660,367 registered new gTLDs - last time I was checking it, it was only around 20 mil or so ... growing quite quickly, in my opinionIf you're talking about the .com number, there are a lot of country codes out there. It looks like if you took all the new gtlds together, .com has 5x as many regs.
Haven't checked in awhile, looks like the overall new gtlds numbers dropped almost 10% this year, down about 3 million.
https://ntldstats.com/
Where can we find data on the percentage of .com developed? ThanksCOM wins as it has around 148.8 million active registrations and approximately 30% of those are developed.