The CEO of my company just asked me to get him .(companyname) so we could have (companyname).(companyname) as a domain.
FML.
This looks problematic. And a bit ghetto. I'm more worried about stuff like X.amazon and X.google. That's tacky and limited use and only goes to show that people with money can run the web. I'm more fond of stuff like .app, as it has a wider use an much more people can actually take advantage of that. The other thing that worries me is how many TLDs are being added. Soon it'll be that each domain has it's own TLD. Like Hub.ski, Redd.it, G.oogle, Ama.zon, Face.Book, You.tube. Or hell, even stuff like WebsiteFunction.WebsiteName. So like: Play.youtube or SearchQuery.google. It's going to be a fucking mess. And as the article writes, people are starting to pay less and less attention to the TLDs and the URL in general. Which will make phishing easier. Imagine a google.shop or google.search. Is that a valid google URL? Should you punch in your credit card info to that site? Who knows? What about amazon.shop or electronics.amazon (or amazon.electronics)? And if the company TLDs start selling to other companies, should you buy from TigerDirect.Amazon? What about Newegg.Electronics? Any one of those sites could have a phishing page set up. And on top of that, how the hell do you know which site to go to? My guess: the sites will be around for their gimmicky purpose, and the majority of sites will still use the usual domains. Similar to how .tk is used now (or .mobi, or .info, or any other gimmick TLD).
Where the hell is ICANN in the midst of this? I'm genuinely confused. I'm an owner of a ".cc" domain because I wanted a specific prefix that was taken in every other gTLD. I understand wanting your own domain prefix without adding characters, but this is ridiculous. I could understand adding ten gTLDs, maybe twenty, but this... I predict that registrars will join together in a group and only accept certain domain names.
I know a number of older people (late 40s and up) who primarily navigate to every website by google search. I'm not sure they even know URLs for facebook or other common sites. (Hell, as far as I know they might not even know what a URL is.) This makes Chrome's all-in-one search and address omnibar make a lot of sense. In terms of usability, it's really ingenious, in my opinion. Unfortunately, it means that google can track literally everywhere a person goes on the web, and they can display ads ever increasingly for ever increasing numbers of queries (for people who just google every site they want to navigate to).
I do agree with you; .com will continue dominance, but I think URLs will become increasingly meaningless because of the "Chrome-all-in-one-search-and-address-bar" effect. If I want to go to facebook I just throw "facebook" up in the omnibar. If I've never been to the site, it'll be the first search result (after a couple ads, of course). Otherwise, it'll auto-populate and I can hit enter after I type "fa". No (understanding of) URLs needed. Same with any other site. I'd wager a guess it this will be the case increasingly often as time goes on that a URL plays almost no role in navigating to a site. Especially for 1: people who are growing up now and just figuring out the web, for whom there's little point in learning about URLs, and 2: older people currently using the web who are unfamiliar with what a URL is. I prefer Firefox and keeping my search box separate, but it's hard to deny that the omnibar is a great solution to make the browser much easier to use for those who are dissuaded from using computers and the internet..com will always be king
I day-dreamed that you worked at Shpoonkle, insomniasexx. As I drifted ... I believed that you managed to do the same thing with the ports on the machines on your network. Because I want to go to Shpoonkle.shpoonkle on port Shpoonkle. Just give me shpoonkle all the way down. /not an ad for shpoonkleShpoonkle, anyone?