I feel like this is real estate 100 years ago - undeveloped so no one wants it but as the internet gets older and more people go on the web as well as more people utilize it, there still will only be one restaurant.reviews and discount.clothing.
Because they benefit no one but the TLD issuing authorities.<p>I as a consumer don't want to know about 12 different urls for the same business.<p>I don't even want there to be TLDs at all.<p><a href="http://cocacola" rel="nofollow">http://cocacola</a>.<p>That should be enough. If someone needs more differentiation they can use subdomains.
I'd say .app is probably a shoe-in. The other short ones have a pretty solid chance of seeing real use.<p>The long ones, not so much. How popular are existing TLDs like .info or .name?<p>Given sufficient time, maybe the others will amount to more than an unabashed cash grab. But not this decade. Probably not the next, either. And at that point, you're talking about a situation where "remembering a domain name" is even more of a broken process than it is today.<p>How will we connect to computers on the global network of fifty years from now? Two hundred? I'm betting it's not going to look like <a href="http://blog.johnjohnson.photography" rel="nofollow">http://blog.johnjohnson.photography</a> or whatever new list ICANN releases next time they want to play.
What makes you think they won't?<p>I don't think they will ever have the gravitas of a dot-com, but the unavailability of good .com domain names has led people to accept other TLDs. The popularity of .io in tech is a good example; people prefer $(name).io to iwanttoget$(name)app.com.<p>I bet we'll see at least one of the new TLDs become as popular as .io. Maybe .app?
Maybe over time. A long time. Lots of folks don't seem to have the mental real-estate to spare to realize there's anything beyond '.com' in the US.