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).
OfficeMonkey@lemmy.today 2 days ago
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.
Deebster@programming.dev 2 days ago
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).