Ian Garlic, an “Internet marketing expert”, wrote a blog post in mid-December, alleging that the end of the .com era has cometh.
Garlic boldly asserts that the end of relevancy for dot .com domains is the expected onslaught of gTLDs, ending an era during “which .com and .org were a badge of ‘trust’ for companies looking to establish themselves online.”
Garlic’s post is titled “Yahoo Proves Domain Names will become obsolete, .COMs the next .BUST“.
Now then, where have we heard that argument before?
Definitely not from Rick’s Blog, who delivers a message regarding failed attempts at disturbing a successful recipe such as that of Coke.
Garlic further utilizes a recent Yahoo! sale of domain names they stashed for years, after acquiring the companies that operated them, as an argument for the supposed declining value of so-called “empty domains.”
We thought we were reading The Onion, honestly.
Not sure if Garlic recently visited Colorado, but those ‘high’ claims about gTLDs and Yahoo! could be attributed to the effects of some quality ganja! 😀
This post is 100% true!
What a hoot!
Let me get this, so domain names are useless, Yahoo is selling them off, but some smart investors are bringing and putting in hundreds of millions in hundreds, if not thousands of them, and taking them to the same obsolete market?
The market is the market? Something doesn’t add up in Garlic’s piece. The market usually works the other way around. Smart money doesn’t dive into obsolescence.
But nice try.
If anyone wants to dump their .com, I’m buying. Good luck with your dumbass gtld’s.
Domenclature – Obviously, there are limits to one’s arguments, and his clearly fails to pass the test.
Trumpster – Nobody wants to dump their .com, but gTLDs are here to stay.
———————————————————–
I’d say some people here, including the author, don’t understand the concept of tongue-in-cheek. He’s simply saying that the company itself is more relevant than the domain name.
Maybe you should ask Ask.fm if a company NEEDS a .com domain to be successful?
Ian’s point, for the reading comprehension-challenged*, is that a lawyer (for example) won’t need to pay an arm-and-a-leg for Goldberg.com when they could just as easily go for Goldberg.law, or Goldberg.lawyer.
Which company is more trustworthy? Goldberg.com, Goldberg.law, Goldberg.lawyer? Well, aligning with Ian’s opinion, it is THE BUSINESS ITSELF which builds trust, not the domain. Goldberg.com could be owned by a con-artist scumbag lawyer a la Sal in Breaking Bad. Or worse, by domain squatters and speculators…
*DomainGang
———————————————————–
“Of the technology giants, Google has filed for 101 new gTLD strings, Amazon comes 2nd with 76 strings, and Microsoft has filed for 11.[39]” (Source:Wikipedia)
No, really, I’m sure that gTLDs are going nowhere… /sarcasm
————————————————————
Corey – I’m afraid you missed the point of this article, which is to highlight the ridiculous claim that because Yahoo! is selling long-stored and unused domain assets, that is a sign of the ‘death of the .com’. This argument is childish and dangerous, as it’s inaccurate and has the potential to affect current holders of .com domains and the overall market.
That being said, we covered every single aspect of gTLD investment by Donuts, Inc., Amazon and Uniregistry so no confirmation from Wikipedia is necessary.