Dot Net. vs Dot Com

[Nomad]

Dot net and dot com along with 4 other domain extensions were launched by IANA in 1985. However, dot net couldn't be as popular as dot com, based on the domain registrations. Dot com is the most registered domain whereas dot net is at the 4th position. Do you think dot net is as brandable as dot com? Do you think people trust dot net just like dot com?

 

[Arantor]

.net was designed for networking/telecoms companies (like ISPs) originally, .com was always the space for actual companies when IANA set it out - .net wasn't *allowed* to be bought by just anyone to start with, while .com was.

By the time .net was opened up to everyone, .com had long been assiliated into the culture of the general users as 'this is the one you use'.

 

[Tracy]

In the long run.. your normal internet user is going to expect a .COM domain.. that's what they are "trained" to use.... so yes, you can have other domain(s) that you prefer to be priority... but ultimately you need the .COM to point back to whatever you decide your site home domain is.
As an example.. currently I have https://dso.photos pointing back at my .COM domain.. but I could easily do the opposite.
In the near future.. the .COM domain will continue to be the "standard" that most users think of. As us "olds shits" die off... that will become less of an issue.

 

[Arantor]

Nope, even the newer TLDs aren't seeing much take-up from the newer generations. Partly this is because many of them are more expensive but mostly because the .com conditioning is just that strong.

 

[Tracy]

Some are.. but not near to the level that they blasted out as new TLD's.... the biggest issue with uptake of them is the $25-$200 yearly prices...
Simply one more case of folks trying to cash in on a "gravy train" that hit the wall already.

 

[ClicketyKat]

I have a strong preference for .com over .net. I'm pretty sure I was just programmed to believe it's better?

 

[Cedric]

Personally I don’t mind a .net domain, if the .com wasn’t available. Although you could use a “-“ between the name or keywords. Arguably a “-“ isn’t the best choice SEO-wise, but I honestly think it doesn’t matter that much for normal use. Now if you are competing against a major player, that’s a different story.

 

[Ravenfreak]

Most of us are more accustomed to .com over .net and now that I've read Arantor's post it makes sense. I never actually knew that only certain companies were originally allowed to use .net while everyone else had to use .com. You learn something new every day it seems.

 

[Arantor]

You'd also be surprised which registrars have restrictions today on things. You want a .bb domain for a forum? Good luck with that, you need to find a registrar with a physical presence in Barbados who is willing to sell it to you as a non-citizen (which is... dubiously allowed at best)

It's mostly the country TLDs that have country restrictions, as opposed to the new breed of random TLD, though there are restrictions like 'must be based in the EU' for the .eu domain, some of them are 'must be a company', all of the academic ones come with 'must be an actual academic institution' and .museum does require you are a legitimate museum. I know .jobs at one point mandated you could only buy such a domain for a hiring portal or similar, don't know if they've relaxed that though.

 

[Jason]

Many competitive hosting companies like .net. Also, .net is sometimes used for businesses that would advertise on radio and TV. It's definitely a go-to domain when you don't want and/or can't get a .com.

 

[Tracy]

In the old days:
.COM - Commercial ventures
.NET - Networks (like social groups, networking between people)
.ORG - Organizations like Red Cross, charities and such (usually non-profit)

Then you had folks grabbing the NET/ORG domains when they couldn't get the COM domain... and the original intended structural use of the TLD's went to hell in a handbasket!
And now, it's all about the money... that's why you see some "custom" TLD's going for hundred-thousands of dollars to register them.. it's what the market will bear, not what it costs to maintain them.