Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway8879 | Hacker News Reader

Somewhat tangential, but how many internet users(except us old-timers) really make use of domain names in their use/workflow these days?

I wonder if there's some research on this. I'd assume that most of the internet population have their smartphones/app ecosystems for getting to Amazon or even looking up hypothetical Brazilian tourist info through Google.

I understand why both sides want the TLD but I'm not sure what significant usefulness it has other than property rights regarding domain names and the future of how these cases will be settled.

View on HN

More clear to write " go to brazil.amazon" than "please Google 'Brazil Amazon official tourism board"

Why not "go to amazon.br"? It's even shorter.

Most would expect that to be the Amazon store in Brazil, similar to amazon.de or amazon.fr.

It would be funny, if not poetic justice, if Brazil decided to do just that following this decision. Likely Amazon would sue them and an arbitration court would side with Amazon though.

Countries have a lot more freedom on how to administer their two-letter ccTLDs than do the operators of the gTLDs. I don't believe they're required to defer to trademark holders in the way you describe, though many choose to.

I didn't mean to imply that they have to defer to Amazon. On the other hand, countries have in the past done things that were within their rights and were still sued for large sums. I was thinking of cases like Occidental v. Ecuador.

>Likely Amazon would sue them

Amazon would have to be pretty dumb (and petty) to do that after this kerfuffle.

More clear to write "mainstreet-mom-n-pop-store-killers-dumping-cheap-junk-for-ever-lower-prices-who-cares-about-any-future.com"

They're only this successful because consumers prefer them. There's not some noble meaning or morality to having a "mom-n-pop" store.

Of course they "are successful because consumers prefer them", that's kinda definition of being successful. This is saying nothing. What would be a little more revealing is to give a real explanation of why consumers prefer them. And, as it happens, a whole lot of this explanation would consist of what basically is dumping, very dubious anti-competitive practices and other things that kinda-sorta are considered violating antitrust laws. And sometimes it is so blatant, that I can only admire the virtue of lawyers managing to keep this thing afloat. And antitrust laws exist for a reason as well, because game theory offers plenty of ways to make people choose what is worse for everyone in the long run.

So saying there's nothing intrinsically good about "mom-n-pop" stores compared to what Amazon is is a very dubious thing to say. To re-iterate, sure, consumers chose Amazon for a reason, but things are not black-and-white and deciding if something is good or bad is far more nuanced than just that.

It says everything. Consumers don't care to support small local stores because they would've otherwise. You realize Walmart was around for 30 years before Amazon? And several other major chains? People want the prices and selection of online shopping and so that industry has changed.

I'm not sure where this rustic idea of "mom-n-pop" general stores comes from because there are still millions of thriving small businesses well integrated in their local communities. The key is that they don't sell the same basic goods that Amazon sells.

There are a lot of people that _do_ believe there is something noble and moral about mom and pop stores and supporting them. I believe the belief flows from the idea that local communities are important, and such stores are an integral part of them.

If all those people believed in them then they would buy from them. Their actions prove otherwise.

It's fine to be an entrepreneur and own a small business that takes part in the local community, but that has nothing to do with the business you're in. Selling regular household merchandise is not a good business anymore.

What's the difference between a bourgeoisie middle class stealing labor from the masses of workers, and one titan of industry? The difference is a rounding error to the mass public.

I think the concern from these complainants is precisely for this bourgeoisie, not for mass labor.

To be clear, they're only this successful because they were in early with a lot of cash behind them, and didn't have to charge sales tax. Fairly quickly they got to a size where they could simply steamroll over the competition or buy it, and instead of taking profits, they could reinvest them, because as a future monopoly, they would have free rein to raise prices.

If they were always going to be just a piece of the market, they would have had to show profits for that, what, 15 years that they didn't have to? This put brick and mortar stores at an extreme disadvantage.

Walmart existed for 30 years before Amazon was founded. It was much bigger, better capitalized, sold far more than books and was responsible for putting entire malls out of business.

Amazon just executed better. Competition is good for consumers who have clearly stated they prefer the prices and availability of online shopping. Small neighborhood stores no longer served the market.

Of course that helped Jeff Bezos get $100B, but even with sales tax, there's no way small companies can survive as major players in a commodity market at national to global scale.

The Amazon and its tributaries flow through the countries of Peru, Bolivia, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, and Brazil before emptying into the Atlantic Ocean 6, 437 kilometers (4,000 miles) from the Amazon's headwaters high in the Andes mountains of Peru.

So, no it's not the exclusive property of Brazil.

Having it as a tld makes it clear, since you could easily have brazil.amazon, bolivia.amazon, peru.amazon, etc. That's more hierarchically correct than amazon.com.br, amazon.bo, amazon.pe.

For most people though I don't think it makes a difference, as I don't think DNS hierarchy is well understood by most internet users.

I get what you are saying, however, Brazil(br) "hosts"-has it in- The Amazon; as do the other countries. I would expect a resolver to go to a top level namespace- i.e. a country that has people to run the infrastructure and not a river- and all those places scope out certain features contained with in them.

In my mind: .(root server) > (global feature/country/company) > (feature/host) e.g.

. > .br > amazon

makes more sense than

. > amazon > ccTLD.

I think a better example for your point would be `.ocean` as the logical way to divided it would be pacific.ocean, atlantic.ocean, etc. however no one entity "owns" the whole or said parts of the ocean and dolphins do not want to administer DNS servers. That said, naming things is hard.

> So, no it's not the exclusive property of Brazil.

I don't think that was the claim, it was just an example

Reply on news.ycombinator.com