.CA vs .IN

[Yaadoo]

Also with the option of co.in or .in for India. That lowers the value of it. It`s like printing more money and it inflates.

I don`t know if there another tld for Canada other than .ca, but if there was it`s very unpopular that it probably doesn`t even matter since I never heard of such.

[Irish31]

I believe we have third level registrations, at provincial level: Jay.on.ca.


Not as popular, no, but it is there.

[hugegrowth]

It would be nice if India had just .in or .co.in, but with over 1 billion people I think they can absorb two main extensions. As a company I'd hate to market my company name under .in and not own the .co.in though. I can imagine all the typos that happen with two extensions like that.

[mediawizard]

I'd say the third level extensions .co.in and .net.in and .org.in are likely to lose traffic to the .in, can't see it happening the other way around.

And from a brand perspective, I'd rather go with .in - its short, sweet and a preposition to boot.

I'm going to agree with hugegrowth here - China and India are already powerhouses, the 10 yrs or so is just a western viewpoint, certainly not the facts.

[PRED]

can anyone reg .co.in & .in?

[mediawizard]

Yes, there is no nexus requirement.

[hugegrowth]

There are some posts up today in dnf with lists of available NNN.co.in and L-L.co.in

I'm surprised you can still buy NNN.co.in, looks like lots available. In .in they are all taken (L-L too).

Domainers seem split on whether .co.in or .in is the better one to reg.

[Anthony Ng]

You mean .CN vs. .IN, do you? Comparing Canada to India?? Hmm ...

[Yaadoo]

.cn is China, .ca is Canada

[Anthony Ng]

.cn is China, .ca is Canada

Thanks for the info.

[ktechsite]

There are some posts up today in dnf with lists of available NNN.co.in and L-L.co.in

I'm surprised you can still buy NNN.co.in, looks like lots available. In .in they are all taken (L-L too).

Domainers seem split on whether .co.in or .in is the better one to reg.

that has been the case


And what i feel is due to this .in's won't be able to flourish as .co.in exists.

People would go for .co.in instead of paying more for the .in's

[mediawizard]

LOL, Not another one of these. If you're planning to sell a domain for $500 or more, reg fees are hardly a consideration. The kind of people who'd choose to pay $8 v/s $15 are not my target audience.

And if .co.in is so popular, how come most of the sales are for .in?

If anyone wants to know why .in over .co.in, please read my next blog entry later this week.

[whitebark]

I'm going to agree with hugegrowth here - China and India are already powerhouses, the 10 yrs or so is just a western viewpoint, certainly not the facts.

How is it not the facts?

Show some stats on how much Indians and Chinese spend online. People with an average yearly earning of $4000 don't have anywhere near the spending power of those earning ten times as much.

Back in the real world - why do you think online advertisers are still only willing to spend .10 or less on any click from India or China? Clearly it's because they don't buy nearly as much as Westerners.

The economies of India and China are big only because of the sheer numbers of people living there. Both are second world countries undergoing their own brands of industrial and social revolutions that took place in the West 100 years ago. They are doing it at an accelerated rate, but are still a decade off from being what could really be considered economies where everyone has a piece of the action. Income disparity is also terrible - many of those online users in those nations don't earn the $4000 a year either.

In India, 390 million people still live on $1 a day or less. That's hardly the hallmark of an economic powerhouse.

[Banned: domain newbie]

.ca ~ grab if you can have it


http://www.google.com/trends?q=.in%2C+.ca

[mediawizard]

Show some stats on how much Indians spend online.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...ow/2134265.cms
Rs5500 crores = $1,375,000,000
This is expected to grow at least 150% year on year till 2012.
And thats only B2C.

Back in the real world - why do you think online advertisers are still only willing to spend .10 or less on any click from India or China?

Its a question of numbers, what would you prefer - 1000x$0.10 v/s 100x$0.50

The economies of India and China are big only because of the sheer numbers of people living there.

Is absolutely correct. In fact a large number of Indians live in Canada and US. They're a part of the market too.

Both are second world countries undergoing their own brands of industrial and social revolutions that took place in the West 100 years ago. They are doing it at an accelerated rate, but are still a decade off from being what could really be considered economies where everyone has a piece of the action.

Both are developing nations (second world and third world are politically incorrect terms btw) and the fact of the matter is you're agreeing that the economies are growing at an accelerated rate, how can that be a bad thing?

If you think we're 100 years behind the west in industrial terms you are totally mistaken. I'd recommend you take a look at most of the products available in your shops, a large percentage of them will be made in China. Then look at all the fashion industry sources and you'll find Indian products there. Outsourcing is a big issue in the US because its a huge industry too.

And I don't think any country in the world can claim 'everyone' has a piece of the action.

Income disparity is also terrible - many of those online users in those nations don't earn the $4000 a year either.

Almost all online users would be earning more than $4000 a year, at least those being counted in the ecom stats quoted above. $3,800 was per capita income in 2005. And per capita includes the $1/day crowd too.

A fresh graduate with no skills today makes a start of $500+ per month, professionals get $1000+ at the start. And this increases exponentially with length of service.

In India, 390 million people still live on $1 a day or less. That's hardly the hallmark of an economic powerhouse.

US and Canada have their share of homeless, poor and disenfranchised too. While the percentage might be lower, its a matter of concern that even first world countries can't feed, clothe and shelter everybody.

Economic disparity is a fact of life, everywhere in the world. Its the people in between the rich and the poor who are the regular and potential users of the internet and here sheer numbers and growth potential are both upsides imho.

Facts as I see them -

1. .ca can only be used by Canadians. .in already has a dev base in Germany, Russia and India. And I'm sure it will have acceptance beyond these countries due to 'in' being a preposition and lending itself well to hacks.

2. Both .ca and .us are overshadowed completely by the .com in local markets. .in is too, but its changing. Very little scope of that happening for ca/us.

3. And as far as growth potential goes -
As per http://www.internetworldstats.com
Canada has 66% internet penetration with 33 million users.
USA has 71% internet penetration with 300 million users.
China has 15% internet penetration with 210 million users.
India has 5% internet penetration with 60 million users.

I'll let you draw your own conclusions. I hope I have not offended anyone, just offering my viewpoint.

[Yaadoo]

.ca has been here for quite long and proven stable. Not thing huge is forseeable in growth but it is a lot more stable that .in.

Buying .in is honestly playing with fire and personally I don`t think it`s a smart smart choice either.

[Anthony Ng]

It is bigger by sheer numbers but that shouldn't be confused with what people can actually spend.
...
India and China are both still a decade away from being true powerhouses.

Not sure about India, but I guess you TOTALLY miss it about China. China remains a developing country AT WILL on the political level, and mostly because of its disparity in wealth distribution on the practical level. Research a bit more, or better still take a short tour of Pudong (Shanghai) or Beijing, and you'll know how backward Canada is. Living standard (not just prices) there is DEFINITELY higher than that in Toronto or Montreal, and even their other DOZENS (as in 50+) of metropolises (cities with population of more than 1 MILLION) are more advanced in almost every aspect than say Winnepeg or Edmonton.

More importantly, those SHEER NUMBERS do matter: they translate into a higher ABSOLUTE NUMBER of well-off people. In other words, there is a way much larger upper middle class (using the same North American standard) in China than in Canada.

To cut it short, China IS ALREADY a powerhouse, and a much stronger powerhouse than Canada.

[PRED]

Yes, there is no nexus requirement.

thanks samit

[Anthony Ng]

Both are second world countries undergoing their own brands of industrial and social revolutions ...

The Second World was actually used to refer to the Eastern Bloc Communist states like Poland and Czechoslovakia. It's more a histoical term now, and has NEVER been used to describe more advanced developing countries.

Both are developing nations (second world and third world are politically incorrect terms btw)

These terms were more products of the Cold War. When we use say the Third World to describe an African country, it usually hints at their being exploited (by the First World) than they are backward (derogatory). China for instance has always identified itself as a Third World country IN ORDER TO project a non-superpower (hegemony) image.

[ktechsite]

Well it seems .in's are moving up

Just saw defend.in

at sedo auction with one bid

6k euro

Not bad