Why dot com is and always will be king.

[baseballworld]

besides all the mumbo jumbo reasons like branded, people know it, etc here is my reasoning why it's always gonna be king. Humans as a past time have always kept an order. Kings and queens from centuries ago are still respected and held high and followed. Look at modern days even the united states we teach of the first presidents and continue to learn about them generation after generation. Therefore much like the universe was created and man evolved so did this internet and people will always bow to the creators and kings such as the dot com's. Hence why smart phones came with a dot com hot key net a dot info. lol

 

[hawkeye]

Let's keep also in mind that humans used for centuries and centuries and centuries, the power of horses and carts/buggies for transportation. And though today horses are still ridden, cared for and loved; as man has evolved and learned to adapt...the 'horse power of today' is fueled by gas and electricity, not hay or grass.

Which do you 'bow to' and use to get around town?

..just sayin..

 

[ulterios]

besides all the mumbo jumbo reasons like branded, people know it, etc here is my reasoning why it's always gonna be king. Humans as a past time have always kept an order. Kings and queens from centuries ago are still respected and held high and followed. Look at modern days even the united states we teach of the first presidents and continue to learn about them generation after generation. Therefore much like the universe was created and man evolved so did this internet and people will always bow to the creators and kings such as the dot com's. Hence why smart phones came with a dot com hot key net a dot info. lol

Nice points, I like it.

However, can you be sure they won't have a hot key for other extensions in the future?

Perhaps one day smartphones will have hot keys/buttons for .rocks, .ninja, .guru, .pink or even (Heaven forbid) perhaps:

 

[mhdoc]

Who needs keys and buttons? My grandkids just talk to their iPads

 

[JB Lions]

Let's keep also in mind that humans used for centuries and centuries and centuries, the power of horses and carts/buggies for transportation. And though today horses are still ridden, cared for and loved; as man has evolved and learned to adapt...the 'horse power of today' is fueled by gas and electricity, not hay or grass.

Which do you 'bow to' and use to get around town?

..just sayin..

Automobiles were an actual improvement/advancement. Are you saying .ooo, .center etc. is an improvement over .com? It's like being with (fill in who you think is the hottest woman in the world) and saying, let me go try Roseanne Barr now.

 

[baseballworld]

Let's keep also in mind that humans used for centuries and centuries and centuries, the power of horses and carts/buggies for transportation. And though today horses are still ridden, cared for and loved; as man has evolved and learned to adapt...the 'horse power of today' is fueled by gas and electricity, not hay or grass.

Which do you 'bow to' and use to get around town?

..just sayin..

Think of the invention of the wheel. No matter how people tried to replicate it the original was the on to be used. Far as the automobile goes it never really changed from a buggy. Method to move it around did so that would be like changing the internet not the dot com.

 

[hawkeye]

Are you saying .ooo, .center etc. is an improvement over .com?

All I'm pointing out is that it was said over and over back in the late 1800s and early 1900s that these 'horseless carriages' will never catch on. Same thing we hear now from those in regards to something that is only 25 plus years old, and only 'really' being used/accepted the last 15 years+ years. You can think, surmise, etc. what 'will always be', what you'd like.

 

[baseballworld]

All I'm pointing out is that it was said over and over back in the late 1800s and early 1900s that these 'horseless carriages' will never catch on. Same thing we hear now from those in regards to something that is only 25 plus years old, and only 'really' being used/accepted the last 15 years+ years. You can think, surmise, etc. what 'will always be', what you'd like.

There is a point to a degree of similarity here. very few will catch on to a degree never to be the same degree. 95% will fail over time regardless in comparison. I mean some domains catch on for a while but then die off. The real catch on was the GOLD RUSH to get them cause some big shot said it will be great. In reality he used everyone to jack the market and then sold off and ran leaving them full of worthless crap and out of business.

 

[JB Lions]

All I'm pointing out is that it was said over and over back in the late 1800s and early 1900s that these 'horseless carriages' will never catch on. Same thing we hear now from those in regards to something that is only 25 plus years old, and only 'really' being used/accepted the last 15 years+ years. You can think, surmise, etc. what 'will always be', what you'd like.

Sorry, but this falls in line with other ridiculous comparisons people have made. Talked about another one recently where somebody compared .com to the first cell phones and new gtlds to today's smartphones. Again, automobiles were an advancement, whoever said they wouldn't catch on was an idiot. These are nothing more than second rate alternatives, you guys are trying to blow them up into something they're not. You're trying to find something successful in the past and tie that to these, when I can do the opposite and find failures and compare those to new gtlds. Take these for what they are, don't try to make them into something unrelated. These aren't horses, cars, or smartphones, they're just alternative gtlds and underperforming ones at that. None of these have hit early predictions. ICANN predicted 33 million at this point, only 6 million + and how many of those are freebies or fall into the $1-$3 range. Individual new gtlds, go take a look at what they thought they would get, and see where they're really at. Underperforming alternatives.

Well, it'd be nice to be one of those that 'know' what will and won't always be. Not all of us were born with that all foreseeing insight to know what mankind will only accept and use in the upcoming future.

Peace out...

It is nice, keeps me from wasting money. The majority of these are just niche extensions that will never get big reg numbers or development, simply because there are a small number of keywords that make sense, and a lot of those will be in the hands of domainers just like most good keywords are in other extensions. And the general ones just aren't that good.

 

[baseballworld]

Sorry, but this falls in line with other ridiculous comparisons people have made. Talked about another one recently where somebody compared .com to the first cell phones and new gtlds to today's smartphones. Again, automobiles were an advancement, whoever said they wouldn't catch on was an idiot. These are nothing more than second rate alternatives, you guys are trying to blow them up into something they're not. You're trying to find something successful in the past and tie that to these, when I can do the opposite and find failures and compare those to new gtlds. Take these for what they are, don't try to make them into something unrelated. These aren't horses, cars, or smartphones, they're just alternative gtlds and underperforming ones at that. None of these have hit early predictions.

He has a point being the .com name is a 1 of 1 if you don't have it only way to get the name even is through a second rated source.

 

[hawkeye]

Sorry, but this falls in line with other ridiculous comparisons people have made.

Well, it'd be nice to be one of those that 'know' what will and won't always be. Not all of us were born with that all foreseeing insight to know what mankind will only accept and use in the upcoming future.

Peace out...

 

[baseballworld]

Well, it'd be nice to be one of those that 'know' what will and won't always be. Not all of us were born with that all foreseeing insight to know what mankind will only accept and use in the upcoming future.

Peace out...

It's not about technically knowing as much as it is realizing the probability percentage of something being used by the normal person using the internet who's not involved in the workings of the internet behind the scenes. A rocket scientist trying to explain to a kid playing with a toy rocket the formula to launch a rea;l one is not gonna get the point across. The kid is never gonna understand why he has to do it a certain way only understand that everyone around him says thats just how it is. Which is what the .com has been done with.

Everyone knows of the dot com because thats all they hear about and is passed along over time.

 

[hawkeye]

Everyone knows of the dot com because thats all they hear about and is passed along over time.

And of course this 'passed along over time' (of a whole 25 years) is an embedded always to be 'sure thing' in the scope of human acceptance of 'what is'.
..o..kaayy...

 

[baseballworld]

And of course this 'passed along over time' (of a whole 25 years) is an embedded always to be 'sure thing' in the scope of human acceptance of 'what is'.
..o..kaayy...

There yah go with that logic now buy all those others. pay 30 years in renewals hoping 1 will offer you current registration fee. Then sell that 1 domain and say it paid for that whole portfolios 25 year expenses. lol think about that logic there.

 

[Domainace]

All I'm pointing out is that it was said over and over back in the late 1800s and early 1900s that these 'horseless carriages' will never catch on. Same thing we hear now from those in regards to something that is only 25 plus years old, and only 'really' being used/accepted the last 15 years+ years.

The problem with that is this: "It will never catch on" has been said about virtually everything ever invented, successful or unsuccessful. It's not a barometer of anything, except of how reflexively people resist change (a point in favor of .com, incidentally).

If we use the past to predict the future, it would be wiser to focus on things that have separated the winners from the losers. Show me something that unsuccessful past innovations haven't had, that successful past innovations have had, and that the new TLDs also have.

Investing (long term) in new TLDs seems silly either way. If new TLDs become common as water, then the value of domains in general might collapse.

 

[hawkeye]

If new TLDs become common as water, then the value of domains in general might collapse.

And herein lies what is probably the backbone of the anti-gtld sentiment for so many. 'That this new and only 20 year old cottage industry of reselling domains, could become a not so easy and lucrative industry, as it has been.'

Yeah, that would be a bummer to all us domain investors of today. But then again, and unfortunately also to the mass majority of gold panning prospectors, the great gold rushes even eventually died off to become a hobby.

 

[Paully]

Without gTLDs most domainers would be restricted to looking in awe at the sales of the premium domains, or scratching about with hand registering domains they hope they could make a few bucks on.

Even though they are almost without an exception just money grabs, they are giving people who could never get near a premium keyword dot com a chance to at least try and join the party.

 

[johname]

Here some principles I came up with before the big gTLD launch. Enjoy.


1) gTLD are not going anywhere (they are here to stay) Don't expect them to go because they will bend the rules to keep the ones in the red around. It's too normal to have the right of the dot be a word.

2) There not enough enduser interest for domainers to attack the gTLD's The house owns the Aces and face cards, the 9's and 8's are regged the first day or so. If gTLD's become greatly accepted there will be time to get in them. It's comparable to waiting for a downward stock to actually turn the corner and go up before you buy it. Buying gTLD a few days after the extension party a quick way to get into a domainer hole.

3) Dot com will always be the gold standard.

4) By the time dot com is no longer the gold standard there will be something else other than domains.

 

[baseballworld]

And herein lies what is probably the backbone of the anti-gtld sentiment for so many. 'That this new and only 20 year old cottage industry of reselling domains, could become a not so easy and lucrative industry, as it has been.'

Yeah, that would be a bummer to all us domain investors of today. But then again, and unfortunately also to the mass majority of gold panning prospectors, the great gold rushes even eventually died off to become a hobby.

But there is still record numbers of gold being pulled up from the 10 worlds largest mines. The originals still going strong. Plus not top mention the parking revenue of some of those dot com type in domains will insure it for time to come regardless of domain value based on characters, etc.

No one I know is typing there keyword phrase and any other extension then .com to get there results. Maybe a couple .orgs or .nets

 

[baseballworld]

Here some principles I came up with before the big gTLD launch. Enjoy.


1) gTLD are not going anywhere (they are here to stay) Don't expect them to go because they will bend the rules to keep the ones in the red around. It's too normal to have the right of the dot be a word.

2) There not enough enduser interest for domainers to attack the gTLD's The house owns the Aces and face cards, the 9's and 8's are regged the first day or so. If gTLD's become greatly accepted there will be time to get in them. It's comparable to waiting for a downward stock to actually turn the corner and go up before you buy it. Buying gTLD a few days after the extension party a quick way to get into a domainer hole.

3) Dot com will always be the gold standard.

4) By the time dot com is no longer the gold standard there will be something else other than domains.

I believe once number 4 starts to kick in most domain name investors will transfer over investing funds to the new means or methods of doing things.

 

[Ms Domainer]

For now, the King .com rules.

We can't know the exact future of the new G's, but it is certain that some G's will succeed and others will fail.

But, for now, it doesn't look good for the new G's, and I say this as someone who has invested in a few of them, so what I'm saying is not sour grapes.

Some of the dodgy practices by some registries are mind-boggling, such as the current clawbacks by the .ooo registry. How can one instill customer trust, when the foundation of one's business is built on shifting sands? More than anything, the blatant greed demonstrated by the registries could kill the new G's even before they get off the ground.

Also, even if the registries were filled with pious altar boys, keep in mind that not all forward-thinking inventions have succeeded. Buckminster Fuller's famous "Dymaxion" (... which was not an automobile per se, but rather the '"round-taxying mode" of a vehicle that might one day be designed to fly, land and drive — an "Omni-Medium Transport" for air, land and water -- Wikipedia) was a miserable failure. On the surface, consumers en masse should have fallen all over the car that could morph into a flying car and a watercraft, but they didn't, and we are still stuck with our old boring land-locked vehicles. It is more likely that improvements in the automotive industry will focus on self-driving cars and better roads that are connected to the web and avoid anything that fills an already-crowded and scary airspace.

The bottom line: if the masses don't adopt the new best thing, it will fail.

It is possible that greedy ICANN and its naughty stepchildren have created a need that is, well, not needed. One could live an entire life without a new gTLD and not even notice or care. Heck, I know several people who barely know .com, except as a curiosity...

From a practical standpoint, the new G's are not really "needed" in the sense that mobile phones are needed (which explains their breathtaking popularity in a short time), for a dotcom offers an infinite number of possibilities -- some of them notoriously bad, of course -- but small business owners don't seem to care, judging by the awful urls I see every day on billboards.

So while I would love the new G's to take off in a spectacular manner, I don't think they will, until ICANN and the registries get their sh*t together and begin thinking long-term and less on the quick buck, which means offering a stable and reliable product at decent prices.

Most importantly, Ma and Pa small business owners need to be convinced that MaPaFood.Store is better than MaPaFoodStorePodunk.com, and that task will be up to the registries, not domainers.

 

[DomainVP]

There is no need for them, nobody relevant uses them, and the ones that have tried them wish they never had; excluding 'exact match' hacks.

Most of the new extensions are useless, and there is so much money tied up into .COM that the entire world props it up; it's not going anywhere any time soon unless there is a significant benefit to owning another extension that outweighs brand recognition and familiarity.

My wife has a younger sister in her teens, she knows there is .COM and .NET; and that was it. This 'new generation' nonsense is just spin trying to position these extensions as valuable. Even a teenager with little tech experience knows .COM is where you want to be.

I don't mind them, because all they are doing is making .COM more expensive, which is what I think one of the end games is for this whole program. It's a cash grab for ICANN, registries can't lose a dime on owing an extension because over a 5-10 year span of low adoption even the worst extensions will break even. So with a moderate adoption there can be direct profit.

.COM is king, and not just because I say so, but because there is no reason to change a system that is profitable to those 'in control'.

 

[mhdoc]

For many sites I don't think the extension matters all that much. I have an old site that gets about 8,000 uniques per month. Over 90% come via long tail searches. I doubt most visitors have any idea or care that it is a dot com. They do a search, click the top result without looking at the domain.

Given this I thought the comment about all the new extrnsions devaluing the existing ones had some merit.

The Ma & Pa store thought was good too. I could never touch Bugs.com, but I'm thinking hard about what I could do with Bugs.expert.

 

[baseballworld]

For many sites I don't think the extension matters all that much. I have an old site that gets about 8,000 uniques per month. Over 90% come via long tail searches. I doubt most visitors have any idea or care that it is a dot com. They do a search, click the top result without looking at the domain.

Given this I thought the comment about all the new extrnsions devaluing the existing ones had some merit.

The Ma & Pa store thought was good too. I could never touch Bugs.com, but I'm thinking hard about what I could do with Bugs.expert.

Yeah good ideas. Does seem for non type in even to get the actual other extensions to rank as well too. Unless verified by a reputable .net, .org website, etc

 

[NameFu]

New GTLDs are not an improvement. They're just more options. More options can scare some people off and excite others. In the long run dot com will still be "king", but all it takes are a few praising comments from a few thought leaders, advertisers, celebrities, large companies and so on to start the gold rush for certain nGTLDs. This doesn't mean that all of them will be be successful, but I expect a small handful of them to become prized possessions in *some* small niches someday...and maybe even more preferred than .com for those particular small niches. I could be wrong, but it's not impossible...