I think the huge amount of domain camping implies that .com could stand to be a whole lot more expensive to hold and do nothing with. If you're using it for something important, $20/yr probably isn't going to break the bank. If anything, I think it should be much more.
13 year old me would disagree. A .co.uk domain at the time was if I recall correctly about £5/year, equivalent to a week's wages from my paper round. A .com was around £12-15/year which I found too expensive. I learned a lot hacking around with DNS, subdomains, etc. and I wouldn't want to price today's kids out of doing the same. Saying that, back then there were only a few TLDs to choose from. I guess if there are still at least _some_ super cheap TLDs available then I probably wouldn't mind if .com in particular got more expensive given it seems to suffer the most from squatting.
There's probably ways to monetize now that aren't trivially bypassed with a line of JavaScript. Think CloudFlare and their app injections. New Namezero could require you to use their ad-injecting/enforcing nameserver.
Whoever said anyone ensures a .com is credible? I don’t think anyone said a .com guarantees credibility. I said, other tlds aren’t as credible, and everyone knows that.
Oh, please. Technology is deflationary. Significant, repeated, above inflation price rises aren't the fault of users: it's the US Government enabling monopoly corruption.
What value do you imagine Verisign provides? Verisign has nothing to do with .com's reputation. Most people have never heard of it. They didn't even run it until the peak of the .com bubble when everyone had already made their associations with .com.
It currently costs me 3x$8.18 a year to renew my personal domain, my parents, and a hobby site. It will cost me $409ea over the next 50 years. $1200 vs $3000 isn’t nothing to me.
That seems like taking it to a logical absurdity. A developer making okay (non-SV) money right now with only cost-of-living adjustments for the next 50 years (assuming they'd work that long...) will make over 10 million dollars. $3000 is nothing on that scale.
> next 50 years (assuming they'd work that long...)
I don't think this is reasonable, even if you started working at age 20 at a FAANG, you're not going to work until you're 70.
Keep in mind this industry is very ageist, you'd be lucky to even get 30 years of high salary income if you're not exceptionally good. That's assuming you don't burn out.
I'm surprised folks still use unrealistic examples such as these to move discussions in a certain direction.
> Keep in mind this industry is very ageist, you'd be lucky to even get 30 years of high salary income
In the valley maybe, at a FAANG. In the regular world, esp F500 companies, there are lots of old folks. I work with several developers in their 60s. Could they get Google to hire them? Maybe not. They're still pulling down middle 100s.
> I'm surprised folks still use unrealistic examples such as these
You're referring, I hope, to the original comment that $3000 over 50 years was a deal breaker. I am not the one who thought that a 50 year time horizon made any sense at all for this discussion, I'm just playing along.
