TLDs like .google and .microsoft really makes me think about how ridiculously gigantic those companies really are. They’re so big they got their own freaking TLD.
TLDs like .google and .microsoft really makes me think about how ridiculously gigantic those companies really are. They’re so big they got their own freaking TLD.
“Well actually…” I understand that some of the large companies are leveraging it to ease filtering for customers. No one wants to block all .com, but you can opt to unblock/block all of .microsoft or .google, that would be useful.
Third or fourth hand information, so I don’t know how far along any of these companies in implementing, but… It kinda feels like they’re trying to build a centralized version a la CompuServe or Prodigy or even AOL over the internet that a company can choose to connect to.
You can block *.google.com as easily as *.google, so I don’t think that makes much sense.
It’s so that you can approve .Google and only .Google .
Equally, you can only allow *.google.com as easily as *.google, so I still don’t think that makes much sense.
Google.com and YouTube.com and goo.gl. OneDrive.com and office.com and PowerPoint.com. It’s because as every company’s footprint expands they’ve proliferated domains and they’re not all subdomains of the obvious ones.
I wonder if it also overall lowers their costs, as they no longer have to pay for hundreds of .com registrations.
That argument only works if you’re expecting Google to move youtube.com to youtube.google, which I can’t see happening. If a brand’s a household name and can be found at brand.com, then it stands to reason that they’d leave it like that.
For Google/Microsoft budgets, domain name registration is irrelevant as a cost. Besides, even if they did move the domains, they’d still keep the old ones alive for forwarding and to stop anyone else taking them. For example, Google still has googleplus.com, despite that that was never the official address (they used a subdomain: plus.google.com).