4 ms·
You're making a different point. Of course, there are use cases for subdomains, I'm talking specifically about the transition of maps.google.com to google.com/m
by abxyz 2y ago
You're making a different point. Of course, there are use cases for subdomains, I'm talking specifically about the transition of maps.google.com to google.com/maps. google.com/maps always made sense but wasn't technically viable when Google Maps launched and that's why they've transitioned to it now. I'm arguing that Google Maps being on a subdomain was an infrastructure choice, not a product choice.
- msm_ 2y agoI'm not trying to be argumentative, but by saying: >Subdomains are archaic You presented a bit different argument. Also I disagree - maps.google.com is a fundamentally different service, so why should it share a domain with google.com? The only reason it's not googlemaps.com is because being a subdomain of google.com implies trust. But I guess it's pretty subjective. Personally I always try to separate services by domain, because it makes sense to me, but maybe had the internet went a different path I would swear path routing makes sense.