10 ms·

I couldn't disagree more with this article and am kinda surprised Paul wrote about this. Domain names are transitioning into becoming useless. When you open an

I couldn't disagree more with this article and am kinda surprised Paul wrote about this. Domain names are transitioning into becoming useless. When you open any web browser or mobile phone and go to look for a company it does a search. The most relevant results come back at the top. This type of trend, as we abstract away from using TLDs, is only going to continue. Owning a .com isn't nearly as meaningful today as it was 5 years ago. What I think will happen is ICANN will continue adding more, useless TLDs as quick cash grabs and the next 10 years you're going to see people stop referring to their domain name at all. I mean, why would you? You're Uber, you look for "Uber" in the app stores, you open your browser and type in "Uber". All of these take you exactly where you need to go. > 100% of the top 20 YC companies by valuation have the .com of their name. 94% of the top 50 do. But only 66% of companies in the current batch have the .com of their name. Which suggests there are lessons ahead for most of the rest, one way or another. Correlation is not necessarily causation; this statistic should be compared with general domain name availability with the time periods mentioned because an incredible amount are purchased every year making it impossible to even compare in this way.

creeble 11y ago
Yeah. I heard this 13 years ago too. http://shirky.com/writings/domain_names.html http://shirky.com/writings/domain_names.html
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  > Yeah. I heard this 13 years ago too. http://shirky.com/writings/domain_names.html http://shirky.com/writings/domain_names.html So because someone suggested it 13 years ago makes it not true today? Look at how the new TLDs are working out; if you want to find a company using a funny TLD you just search for their name and unless the .com is higher ranked the company comes right up to the top. Look at it from a user's perspective; do you know anyone who actually types in a domain name anymore that isn't a technie? If a user wants to find a specific company they just simply use voice and ask their phone or open a browser and just type it in. Typing in a TLD adds friction especially since ICANN added all of these stupid TLDs that no one is even used to. The lower the friction the better, right?
  - creeble 11y ago
    The absolute lowest friction is to have a .com domain. And yes, it's still true.
    - BinaryIdiot 11y ago
      I'm not convinced; if you look at Google Trends there are many, many company names in the top 100 searches. Why are people only searching the company name instead of going directly to their website? Typically their website is the first several results depending on the size of the company. Also, only anecdotal because I can't find any studies one way or another, but I can't find anyone in the younger generation who actually types in any domain names. I even had a frustrating experience telling someone who's used the internet all his life what .com even was as he had never typed it before. Plenty of people in my generation still type it though. Also many of the older generation folks I've worked with who had their internet start with AOL don't seem to type in domain TLDs either. So until I see some solid, current research regarding the behaviors of the different generations I'm not convinced a .com is lower friction; you type less when you just type the company's name and most browsers nowadays will give you the option to autocomplete directly to their website.
  - loup-vaillant 11y ago
    > do you know anyone who actually types in a domain name anymore that isn't a technie? That's a problem. It means we rely more and more on search engines, thus centralising the web (and with it, the internet) more than it needs to be. Centralizing the network means centralizing the power. Not a good idea. It never was.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      DNS is already centralized.
      - loup-vaillant 11y ago
        Yes, and that is a problem. But that's not nearly as bad as having Google and Bing have the same role. DNS goes through a highly decentralised network of name servers, many of which aren't at all controlled by the ICANN. Each country based top level domain has its own set of servers, and there name requests are generally cached on other servers still. But when you type "company name" in a search engine, you give away your search to an ad supported private company in real time. Juicy profiling, no privacy. Much worse than using DNS. Besides, when you click on a link from your favourite search engine, you're still using DNS. Now you have two single points of failure.
- loup-vaillant 11y ago
  Err, I've just read this article, and it seems its main thesis is, domain names are probably not going away. Because people will likely always need memorable, globally unique identifiers. I didn't see any talk about .com going away either.
ThomPete 11y ago
Exactly! Referring to your domain name is something you do so rarely it's not even worth mentioning. Most of the time people get redirected to your website, it's via bitly or a number of other url shorteners.
PhilipA 11y ago
It seems like we are going back to the AOL keyword days... not a good sign.
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  > It seems like we are going back to the AOL keyword days... not a good sign. Not really comparable in my opinion. In AOL, if I remember correctly, you had to register or pay for your keyword much like a domain name. So all keywords were owned by a central authority, could only be used within their ecosystem and had the same type of squatter issues as domain names. What's happening today are "keywords" being associated with specific websites when, and only when, the users are actively looking for and using that website. This isn't centralized (sure most people using Google but people forget Bing is actually really good and used by many!). You can't simply pay for the top spot anymore.
  - bigtunacan 11y ago
    You can "simply pay for the top spot". This is why the results at the very top of the Google search are paid ad placements.
    - BinaryIdiot 11y ago
      I was referring to search results not advertisements. You can pay one fee, like a domain TLD or AOL Keyword, and get that spot. With those advertisements you have to constantly put money in to stay at that spot.
      - jsprogrammer 11y ago
        Domain names are also a constant, on-going cost.
        jaredsohn 11y ago
        While there is an on-going cost (i.e. domain renewals), it is very small compared to the initial payment one might make to acquire a premiere domain.
jsalit 11y ago
You're assuming most people search first; many users don't even understand the difference between entering a search term versus a URL in a browser address bar. Yet, non-techy people know ".com".
- aryamaan 11y ago
  I dont have the data but I would argue such minority is very less and even if they are unable to find what they are looking for in first attempt (by using .com), they do check search engines result afterwards.
- hellofunk 11y ago
  I think it is the opposite. Among most of the "non tech" people I know, they enter a name at a google search box rather than a URL. Even if they know the URL, they enter it at a search field!
  - rokhayakebe 11y ago
    Correct. I have seen this with my own eyes. Me: Go to Facebook. Them: Google, Search Box, Enter Facebook.com in search box, Click.
- rokhayakebe 11y ago
  Actually many non-techy do this: 1) Open browser, 2) Defaults to whatever search engine that add-on they have switch them to, 3) Type facebook, or facebook.com, or whatever they are looking for, 4) Click first result. If fails, go back, look around, click other result.
baddox 11y ago
It sounds (unsurprisingly, of course) like the perspective of an investor or other tech industry insider. Notice the phrases like "it signals weakness" and "suggests you're a marginal company." Those don't seem like phrases most people are ever going to think about a company, and especially not based only on their domain name.
- beambot 11y ago
  I disagree. My parents are typical web users. Fairly tech savvy, but not tech insiders. I recall telling them about bit.ly. It took a while to explain that it wasn't bitly.com, bit.ly.com, etc. They ended up just searching for it instead of typing in the domain name. Think of the added friction this causes... and as we all know, every added interaction detracts from the conversion funnel. Taken in aggregate, many startups cannot afford the attrition of a shitty domain name.
  - baddox 11y ago
    Isn't that a slightly different point? You're talking about ability of a user to discover or find the site, not the user's perception of the strength of the business.
    - just_had_coffee 11y ago
      ...but the point is that to some non-technical users a "new" TLD won't even look like a full URL.
      - baddox 11y ago
        That is beambot's point, and it's valid, but it's different than the point in this essay.
  - rwallace 11y ago
    Don't typical web users these days always search instead of typing in the domain name?
  - 11y ago
tlogan 11y ago
I agree with you. Name of the company and domain name has very little to do with company's success. There so many things you need to worry when company is small and getting domain name or renaming company is really very dangerous distraction. I'm not saying domain name does not play some role but spending time on it is a very dangerous distraction. So, does it show as weakness? Yes. Is that biggest weakness of your company in relationship to how hard to fix it? No - but if answer is Yes then you are already made it and all this discussion is moot.
AJ007 11y ago
An easy thing for a well funded start up to spend money on is their domain name. A good question to ask is when did the top 20 YC companies by valuation buy theirs. Did they pass over really talented devs just so they could drop $500k on a dot com? Things are changing. Talk to 18-20 year olds about how they are using the internet. Throw out an address using one of ICANN's new extensions. Do they even recognize its a website? EV Certs don't even show URLs in some browsers. Do mobile users look for you on Google, or in the app/play/other store? Personally I'm uncomfortable with the positions ICANN has taken.I don't trust them to protect domain's owner rights. We need better alternatives.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
escaped_hn 11y ago
Google's search results page is pretty much a DNS Server.
natch 11y ago
You completely ignored PG's argument about it signaling weakness. This is one of those perception versus reality things, where people's perceptions (those who are judging a startup) ARE the reality, whether those perceptions are theoretically refutable or not. In other words, let's say you're right, and owning the .com domain name is becoming less meaningful (an argument that PG already addressed, by the way). That doesn't mean that .com domains are becoming significantly less meaningful to people's perceptions. And perceptions matter, when going after customers, funders, employees, business partners, etc. I wouldn't say that the perception that having the .com domain name is important is an incorrect one. Maybe you would disagree and say it is an incorrect perception. But even if you think the perception is incorrect, the perception is still part of the reality that the startup lives in. This classic "perception IS reality" pattern is something that a lot of people miss.
- ThomPete 11y ago
  signaling weakness is an important factor for a fraction of companies for most others that is the very least of their worries. PG talks from a perspective that does not apply to most companies in this world. Again if you get a .com name that is great. But whether it's worth the effort of finding one it if you don't have it already is another discussion all together.
  - chaostheory 11y ago
    > But whether it's worth the effort of finding one it if you don't have it already is another discussion all together. Whether or not you agree with pg, finding a decent .com is pretty cheap in terms of time and money when you have free domain name checking services that give you available .com variants of desired keywords. Even though I know this, I'm still always surprised when I see the 2-3 syllable .com domain names that I wanted, being available without auction or private seller inquiries.
    - ThomPete 11y ago
      Thats just not true. It's not some universal law you can apply. You have to take into considering the amount of time and what kind of name you have access to.
pbreit 11y ago
The preponderance of the evidence suggests (proves?) you're wrong.
brianmurphy 11y ago
Remember this is in the context of startup businesses who may not have much on the web. Your position works out okay if you are confident in google's "I'm feeling lucky" kind of search. For everybody else, having a solid .com name still reigns supreme.
capkutay 11y ago
> Domain names are transitioning into becoming useless That's an astute observation...however, they are not useless YET. Perhaps in 5 years .com's will be obsolete and every browser will have powerful company lookup utilities that everyone can use. The issue is that startups don't have the luxury of losing that sort of time.

creeble 11y ago

Yeah. I heard this 13 years ago too. http://shirky.com/writings/domain_names.html http://shirky.com/writings/domain_names.html

BinaryIdiot 11y ago
> Yeah. I heard this 13 years ago too. http://shirky.com/writings/domain_names.html http://shirky.com/writings/domain_names.html So because someone suggested it 13 years ago makes it not true today? Look at how the new TLDs are working out; if you want to find a company using a funny TLD you just search for their name and unless the .com is higher ranked the company comes right up to the top. Look at it from a user's perspective; do you know anyone who actually types in a domain name anymore that isn't a technie? If a user wants to find a specific company they just simply use voice and ask their phone or open a browser and just type it in. Typing in a TLD adds friction especially since ICANN added all of these stupid TLDs that no one is even used to. The lower the friction the better, right?
- creeble 11y ago
  The absolute lowest friction is to have a .com domain. And yes, it's still true.
  - BinaryIdiot 11y ago
    I'm not convinced; if you look at Google Trends there are many, many company names in the top 100 searches. Why are people only searching the company name instead of going directly to their website? Typically their website is the first several results depending on the size of the company. Also, only anecdotal because I can't find any studies one way or another, but I can't find anyone in the younger generation who actually types in any domain names. I even had a frustrating experience telling someone who's used the internet all his life what .com even was as he had never typed it before. Plenty of people in my generation still type it though. Also many of the older generation folks I've worked with who had their internet start with AOL don't seem to type in domain TLDs either. So until I see some solid, current research regarding the behaviors of the different generations I'm not convinced a .com is lower friction; you type less when you just type the company's name and most browsers nowadays will give you the option to autocomplete directly to their website.
- loup-vaillant 11y ago
  > do you know anyone who actually types in a domain name anymore that isn't a technie? That's a problem. It means we rely more and more on search engines, thus centralising the web (and with it, the internet) more than it needs to be. Centralizing the network means centralizing the power. Not a good idea. It never was.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    DNS is already centralized.
    - loup-vaillant 11y ago
      Yes, and that is a problem. But that's not nearly as bad as having Google and Bing have the same role. DNS goes through a highly decentralised network of name servers, many of which aren't at all controlled by the ICANN. Each country based top level domain has its own set of servers, and there name requests are generally cached on other servers still. But when you type "company name" in a search engine, you give away your search to an ad supported private company in real time. Juicy profiling, no privacy. Much worse than using DNS. Besides, when you click on a link from your favourite search engine, you're still using DNS. Now you have two single points of failure.
loup-vaillant 11y ago
Err, I've just read this article, and it seems its main thesis is, domain names are probably not going away. Because people will likely always need memorable, globally unique identifiers. I didn't see any talk about .com going away either.

ThomPete 11y ago

Exactly! Referring to your domain name is something you do so rarely it's not even worth mentioning. Most of the time people get redirected to your website, it's via bitly or a number of other url shorteners.

PhilipA 11y ago

It seems like we are going back to the AOL keyword days... not a good sign.

BinaryIdiot 11y ago
> It seems like we are going back to the AOL keyword days... not a good sign. Not really comparable in my opinion. In AOL, if I remember correctly, you had to register or pay for your keyword much like a domain name. So all keywords were owned by a central authority, could only be used within their ecosystem and had the same type of squatter issues as domain names. What's happening today are "keywords" being associated with specific websites when, and only when, the users are actively looking for and using that website. This isn't centralized (sure most people using Google but people forget Bing is actually really good and used by many!). You can't simply pay for the top spot anymore.
- bigtunacan 11y ago
  You can "simply pay for the top spot". This is why the results at the very top of the Google search are paid ad placements.
  - BinaryIdiot 11y ago
    I was referring to search results not advertisements. You can pay one fee, like a domain TLD or AOL Keyword, and get that spot. With those advertisements you have to constantly put money in to stay at that spot.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      Domain names are also a constant, on-going cost.
      - jaredsohn 11y ago
        While there is an on-going cost (i.e. domain renewals), it is very small compared to the initial payment one might make to acquire a premiere domain.

jsalit 11y ago

You're assuming most people search first; many users don't even understand the difference between entering a search term versus a URL in a browser address bar. Yet, non-techy people know ".com".

aryamaan 11y ago
I dont have the data but I would argue such minority is very less and even if they are unable to find what they are looking for in first attempt (by using .com), they do check search engines result afterwards.
hellofunk 11y ago
I think it is the opposite. Among most of the "non tech" people I know, they enter a name at a google search box rather than a URL. Even if they know the URL, they enter it at a search field!
- rokhayakebe 11y ago
  Correct. I have seen this with my own eyes. Me: Go to Facebook. Them: Google, Search Box, Enter Facebook.com in search box, Click.
rokhayakebe 11y ago
Actually many non-techy do this: 1) Open browser, 2) Defaults to whatever search engine that add-on they have switch them to, 3) Type facebook, or facebook.com, or whatever they are looking for, 4) Click first result. If fails, go back, look around, click other result.

baddox 11y ago

It sounds (unsurprisingly, of course) like the perspective of an investor or other tech industry insider. Notice the phrases like "it signals weakness" and "suggests you're a marginal company." Those don't seem like phrases most people are ever going to think about a company, and especially not based only on their domain name.

beambot 11y ago
I disagree. My parents are typical web users. Fairly tech savvy, but not tech insiders. I recall telling them about bit.ly. It took a while to explain that it wasn't bitly.com, bit.ly.com, etc. They ended up just searching for it instead of typing in the domain name. Think of the added friction this causes... and as we all know, every added interaction detracts from the conversion funnel. Taken in aggregate, many startups cannot afford the attrition of a shitty domain name.
- baddox 11y ago
  Isn't that a slightly different point? You're talking about ability of a user to discover or find the site, not the user's perception of the strength of the business.
  - just_had_coffee 11y ago
    ...but the point is that to some non-technical users a "new" TLD won't even look like a full URL.
    - baddox 11y ago
      That is beambot's point, and it's valid, but it's different than the point in this essay.
- rwallace 11y ago
  Don't typical web users these days always search instead of typing in the domain name?
- 11y ago

tlogan 11y ago

I agree with you. Name of the company and domain name has very little to do with company's success. There so many things you need to worry when company is small and getting domain name or renaming company is really very dangerous distraction. I'm not saying domain name does not play some role but spending time on it is a very dangerous distraction. So, does it show as weakness? Yes. Is that biggest weakness of your company in relationship to how hard to fix it? No - but if answer is Yes then you are already made it and all this discussion is moot.

AJ007 11y ago

An easy thing for a well funded start up to spend money on is their domain name. A good question to ask is when did the top 20 YC companies by valuation buy theirs. Did they pass over really talented devs just so they could drop $500k on a dot com? Things are changing. Talk to 18-20 year olds about how they are using the internet. Throw out an address using one of ICANN's new extensions. Do they even recognize its a website? EV Certs don't even show URLs in some browsers. Do mobile users look for you on Google, or in the app/play/other store? Personally I'm uncomfortable with the positions ICANN has taken.I don't trust them to protect domain's owner rights. We need better alternatives.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

escaped_hn 11y ago

Google's search results page is pretty much a DNS Server.

natch 11y ago

You completely ignored PG's argument about it signaling weakness. This is one of those perception versus reality things, where people's perceptions (those who are judging a startup) ARE the reality, whether those perceptions are theoretically refutable or not. In other words, let's say you're right, and owning the .com domain name is becoming less meaningful (an argument that PG already addressed, by the way). That doesn't mean that .com domains are becoming significantly less meaningful to people's perceptions. And perceptions matter, when going after customers, funders, employees, business partners, etc. I wouldn't say that the perception that having the .com domain name is important is an incorrect one. Maybe you would disagree and say it is an incorrect perception. But even if you think the perception is incorrect, the perception is still part of the reality that the startup lives in. This classic "perception IS reality" pattern is something that a lot of people miss.

ThomPete 11y ago
signaling weakness is an important factor for a fraction of companies for most others that is the very least of their worries. PG talks from a perspective that does not apply to most companies in this world. Again if you get a .com name that is great. But whether it's worth the effort of finding one it if you don't have it already is another discussion all together.
- chaostheory 11y ago
  > But whether it's worth the effort of finding one it if you don't have it already is another discussion all together. Whether or not you agree with pg, finding a decent .com is pretty cheap in terms of time and money when you have free domain name checking services that give you available .com variants of desired keywords. Even though I know this, I'm still always surprised when I see the 2-3 syllable .com domain names that I wanted, being available without auction or private seller inquiries.
  - ThomPete 11y ago
    Thats just not true. It's not some universal law you can apply. You have to take into considering the amount of time and what kind of name you have access to.

pbreit 11y ago

The preponderance of the evidence suggests (proves?) you're wrong.

brianmurphy 11y ago

Remember this is in the context of startup businesses who may not have much on the web. Your position works out okay if you are confident in google's "I'm feeling lucky" kind of search. For everybody else, having a solid .com name still reigns supreme.

capkutay 11y ago

> Domain names are transitioning into becoming useless That's an astute observation...however, they are not useless YET. Perhaps in 5 years .com's will be obsolete and every browser will have powerful company lookup utilities that everyone can use. The issue is that startups don't have the luxury of losing that sort of time.