Is Domain Speculation Bust? 229
The latest Netcraft survey is more interesting than usual, because it reports a drop in the total number of registered domain names, as well as a decreasing number of sites reachable overall by the survey. It's been a traumatic year in the tech world, but the drop in domain names goes back to domain name buy-ups of 1999 (and looks like it will accelerate the same way domain speculation did in 2000). All is not gloom, though, and the number of registered domain names is not the same as the number of active sites. The Netcraft site points out that "as domains bought for speculative reasons are abandoned, we can expect a higher proportion of sites to be active." Read the rest of the survey report for more interesting information on the state of the domain world.
not only that... (Score:2, Interesting)
As budgets get cut, and people wake up to the reality of the net you will probably see these registrations lapse...
Bad news for .biz (Score:1)
Not that I'm feeling too sorry for them...
Re:Bad news for .biz (Score:1)
Does that mean it's bad news for spam too? The two seem to go hand in hand...
Re:not only that... (Score:4, Funny)
You may have noticed that, since February, entering a typo in the address bar of a browser is much less likely to send you to an advertising site. That's due to the FTC action against Gregory Lasrado [newsbytes.com]. This may have helped reduce the number of registrations.
Once in a while the gov does something right.
Re:not only that... (Score:1)
Thanks,
Matt
Re:Worst squatters are Resisitrars (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Worst squatters are Resisitrars (Score:1)
Thanks,
Matt
Re:Worst squatters are Resisitrars (Score:1)
The ones that *really* piss me off are the wannabe "registrars" (resellers) who scour the master registry and then send me email (to never-used contact email addresses) warning that I need to "act now" to register the
A significant improvement would be if ICANN (or whoever) would just occasionally test the contact information on domain records to insure it's validity?
NetSol was bad enough - now we have a thousand "independant monopolies". Of course, the "government" would only make things worse if they get (more) involved - it's up to us to fix this! If it requires a road trip to Oregon, so be it.
:|
Re:Worst squatters are Resisitrars (Score:2)
Um, who do you think it was that invented the DNS system? Who do you think ran it before NetSol and gave domain names out for free?
Bubble burst? (Score:1, Flamebait)
Speculating (Score:5, Interesting)
But once a few people got rich that way, naturally there was a "gold rush". It's no different than the Florida Land Bubble [paulsann.org], the tulip bubble [businessweek.com], or a zillion other speculative bubbles [clarity.net].
For that matter, how different is the stock market, with its rumor-chasing mentality? Or modern currency, which is valuable only because you can use it to buy Goods and Services -- which are produced only because they're worth money!
Which is not an argument for going back to the Gold Standard or shutting down Wall Street. It's just a reminder that speculation and fiat are both essential parts of a modern economy.
Re:Speculating (Score:4, Funny)
There's an interesting paragraph near the bottom of that eassy, under "1997?". Freifeld tries to make a level-headed assesment of the stock market in 1997, putting it in the perspective of a half dozen bubbles he's just analyzed. His assessment:
there are some telltale signs that the market for stocks has gone a bit too far
But he admits:
The bubble is as difficult to recognize before it's over as it is easy to spot in hindsight.
We all knew it was getting too hot, but we didn't know how far it would go. Anyone who pulled out out of tech in 1997 could have easily quadrupled his money, had he sold in March Y2K instead.
So why don't you
Re:Speculating (Score:3, Funny)
Buy quality for the long term, does the business plan make sense or is it all Blue Smoke and mirrors.
Resource allocation helps a lot, if the riskier tech stocks pick up too much value compared to your solid blue chip's, reallocate.
As far as domain name speculation goes, its about supply and demand. When Companies overestimated the economic potential of the web, names were scarce and therefore valuable in themselves, after the dotBomb most companies are a lot more careful about looking through the BS and some are positively gun-shy, making names plentifull and less valuable.
As far as shorting stocks, you'd better only do it with money that you saved up for a Vegas trip, but remember slots there pay out 98.7%, and are probably a better deal!
Re:Speculating (Score:2, Insightful)
The smart people were already shorting at that point.
And most of those "smart people" got burned with margin calls, forcing them to close their positions long before the bubble burst.
Re:Bubble burst? (Score:1)
I think the record was something like 7 million for business.com (when's the last time you visited business.com? Heh heh)...
So, people actually have gotten rich (or added to their wealth in some cases) doing this, but the time to do it was 2-3 years ago (selling names originally registered 4 or more years ago), not today.
How to get rich (Score:2)
Re:Bubble burst? (Score:1, Troll)
The funny thing is that Microsoft bid up the price just to help accelerate the eventual doom of our fav Linux community website company.
Re:Bubble burst? (Score:2)
***
I don't think so. If I remember right, the person selling that domain only wanted a "serious" bid, but it was mainly based on what plans they had for it. It did not go to the highest bidder.
Re:Bubble burst? (Score:1)
Re:Bubble burst? (Score:2)
Re:Bubble burst? (Score:1)
I just checked on his domain that he was using to sell domain names and it is porn ad site now. Big shock there...
Re:Bubble burst? (Score:3, Interesting)
But that's not the interesting part. The interesting part was back in September 2000, when I noticed someone had taken the .net of my domain. Sure enough, some idiots with more money than sense had registered every possible 3-character .com and .net name that hadn't yet been taken. Not surprisingly, they didn't renew the .net of my domain in 2001.
Of course it's bust (Score:1, Insightful)
All I can say for myself is that I'm glad that bullshit has passed. I will no longer have to worry about having to pay a hefty sum for a domain I want just because it sounds trendy. More power to the people.
Re:Of course it's bust (Score:1)
Re:Of course it's bust (Score:1)
Re:Of course it's bust (Score:1, Insightful)
Then of course, they said "You spent $100M of our money with nothing to show for it? No more financing for you!!"
(But what was really going on was that smart Silly Valley capitalists were snooking backwater old money folks into flushing a bunch of their money into the local economy.
People stopped putting money in because they had been taken for all they were worth. On to the next scam.)
$7.5M (Score:5, Interesting)
business.com sold for -- I kid you not -- $7.5M US in November of 1999 [salon.com]. What were they thinking [business.com]?
-Waldo Jaquith
Re:$7.5M (Score:1)
Re:$7.5M (Score:1)
"Damn I've got a lot of VC ... lessee, where can I throw it", perhaps?
Re:$7.5M (Score:2, Interesting)
It turned out to be more of a signing bonus at the expense of shareholders.
Re:$7.5M (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.canadacomputes.com/v3/story/1,1017,3
Yes, they picked up a few clients and a few employees with the purchasse but it's still got to count for something
Re:$7.5M (Score:3, Funny)
The Cthulhu look-and-feel suit (Score:2, Offtopic)
From: Azathoth, Nyarlathotep and Hastur, Elder Attorneys
Sirs:
Our agents among the mortal herd have brought to Our attention your recent product entitled Windows '95. Therefore We now give you statutory notice of intent of proceedings to be taken against Microsoft by the Many-Angled Ones.
With this suit We will show that Windows '95, and to a lesser extent all of the Microsoft range of products, infringe upon the recognised "look-and-feel" of the Elder Gods, for the following reasons:
Windows '95 is a crawling abomination from the darkest pits of Hell; No man can be in its presence for too long without being driven into gibbering insanity; A cult who worship it exist in secret amongst the mortal herd; Those who associate with it for too long develop common physical characteristics, to wit: pale, clammy skin, bulging eyes, generally unkempt physical appearance, tendency towards nocturnal living, change in diet to that which normal men do not eat (in your case tacos, burgers and Jolt Coke; in Ours, human flesh, Fungi of Yuggoth and the blood of Alien Gods); Mysterious tomes that purport to explain this phenomenon are reputed to exist; they are bound in an unnatural substance and only available at a terrible cost to the user.The Microsoft range of products seek to utterly dominate the world, and force all who dwell there to live in eternal damnation.
As you can see, Our case is very strong, especially when you consider that most judges prefer not to have chittering things with tentacles for faces scoop out their brains and eat them.
We hope that you will consider these points carefully and settle out of court, since it is not Our intention to have your senior partners spend the rest of their mercifully short lives under heavy sedation in a maximum security psychiatric hospital. After all, it was the Lords of the Outer Planes who gave humanity lawyers in the first place.
Respectfully yours,
[Oddly disturbing squiggle in some sort of ichor]
pp. J. Arthur Hastur, LL.B., B.C.L, B.D
And squatting is asking for legal action (Score:2)
Xix.
The Horror (Score:3, Redundant)
Re:The Horror (Score:1)
You're going to get a hiding from the domain name resolution committee....
bada boom, ching!
Re:The Horror (Score:1, Offtopic)
Too late:
[g-clef@vampire g-clef]$ whois teenspanking.com
[whois.crsnic.net]
Whois Server Version 1.3
Domain names in the
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.
Domain Name: TEENSPANKING.COM
Registrar: TUCOWS, INC.
Whois Server: whois.opensrs.net
Referral URL: http://www.opensrs.org
Name Server: NS.ZF.NET
Name Server: DNS.ZF.NET
Updated Date: 05-nov-2001
>>> Last update of whois database: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 16:59:30 EST
The Registry database contains ONLY
Registrars.
[whois.opensrs.net]
Registrant:
NewPic.com Inc.
9 East Loockerman Street
Dover, DE 19901
US
Strange Question... (Score:1)
Seems like nobody made any money and the people that did actually have valuable domains just got sued into the ground. (I am not making any value statement as to whether or not this is right or wrong...)
The rest of us just got annoying spam.
Maybe I'm wrong, though... Does anybody have any stories they can share of people who actually made real money doing this? I mean other than Network Solutions. ;)
Re:Strange Question... (Score:1)
Yeah way back... (Score:2, Insightful)
In short, instead of having business.com, or linux.com, it's probably best to have content ON business, and ON Linux. People can and will bookmark sites.
Not quite yet... (Score:5, Informative)
about a year and a half ago this was a dodgy website for "Melbourne Cups"...
I think domain speculation is going to be with us for quite awhile, but to be honest it really irks me. I hate the whole concept of sitting on something that you know someone else will have to buy off you.
in
Trademarks are a lot easier to enforce as I understand it, than company trading names...
-- Dan =)
Re:Not quite yet... (Score:4, Interesting)
It works the other way around too. Take for example http://www.google.com.au/ which has been registered by a web hosting group that apparrently has nothing to do with the Google Inc. (the search engine we all know and use). Note that except for the URL, the word google is not mentioned anywhere on the abovementioned site, not even on their contact page, where the company is named as Dedicated Hosting Pty Ltd. Also note that Google Inc. owns an Australian Trademark for the word "google" in several computer related classes. Activities like this seem to be contrary to the spirit of the
Anyone can effectively obtain an Australian business name to facilitate the registering of a
Is this an example of an Australian business that has been registered with the sole purpose of domain squatting/speculation?
Re:Not quite yet... (Score:1)
It's interesting to think of what holes there are in the system.
I love the google example! Up until about 12-18 months before the xbox was released, xbox.com.au was a chinese news/information site (I wonder what problems M$ had there?), and would prolly fall under a "legitimate" category...
I think you need some modding up on your points
Re:Not quite yet... (Score:2, Informative)
ICANN was supposed to arbitrate based on which group "deserves" the name, but we all know they tend to favor corporations heavily over normal people...
That said, I really hate squatters
Re:Not quite yet... (Score:2)
The future could still be bright. (Score:3, Informative)
Erm, yes they are! (Score:3, Funny)
Hmmm, p0rn... isn't "bust" largely the point?
Re:Erm, yes they are! (Score:2)
Well, yes, "largely" is usually the operative term, in this case. But it's not the only point...
Somewhat Ironic... (Score:3, Insightful)
Cheap? (Score:2)
And if your activity isn't big enough to justify spending that much, is it big enough to require a top-level domain name? Second level domains are much cheaper -- many presence providers throw them in for free. If your hobby is boondockcountyhistory.org, does it really matter if you have to use boondock.goodhost.com? In fact, it would save a lot of hassle over major, and even minor, domain names if more people did that.
Note that movie studios no longer bother to even contact the squatters who've grabbed ArnoldKillsAgain.com, finding they can make do with ArnoldKillsAgain.net or even bigstudio.com/ArnoldKillsAgain.
Re:Cheap? (Score:2)
It sounds like you've never actually registered a domain name. By all accounts, NSI is staffed entirely by trained chimps who make it impossible to manage or transfer a dn registered with them.
In contrast, the low-cost registrars have provided quite good service to many.
In any case, paying NSI $35 is *not* worth it. Pay less, get more.
go daddy, namebargan (Score:2)
Machines or websites. (Score:1, Interesting)
I also wonder how many of those websites are more or less abandoned and/or derelict websites which are no longer maintained.
The Internet is maturing (Score:2, Informative)
For starters, the days of the ideological, free internet are sadly over. Almost everyone experimented with the free model of the internet and a large proportion of those people failed in their efforts. We have now labelled every commodity with a price, something that will help this medium further.
Then there are the signs that the infant internet is dying. The millions of badly-designed, rearely-updated pages are perishing, and a more well-woven web is taking over. The initial hysteria is gone, most people have already tried their hands at bulilding webpages and have given up due to their lack of talent and/or initiative.
Thus I, for one, am happy at these new state of affairs. I'm not a big fan of paying for content, but that doesnt matter since there are ways of getting around it. I like the better content, the smoother usability and the more complex apps that are emerging today.
Re:The Internet is maturing (Score:3, Insightful)
Say what? Until last year?
First, the hypertext transport protocol does not define the net (that's http to you youngsters).
Second, the net's been around for more than a quarter century, and shows no signs of slowing down.
Third, I think that you might want to hang around for a few years or so before you start to make pronouncements like this one. Check out the posts that Google has archived if you don't think your mistakes live forever. Mine sure do (and I left them there, why not?).
Fourth, the internet is indeed maturing. It will continue to change, and grow, just as it has in the past. Remember, the future is stranger than we can imagine.
Re:The Internet is maturing (Score:2)
I think you are wrong about the web-space sorting out into a big-guys only thing, the same as there are a lot of hard to find specialty magazines, and narrow niche radio staions out there if you know where to look. I've often thought gee if I make a barbeque web-site and actualy made some money off it wouldn't my backyard cookouts become an R&D expense?
Had a cool URL which recently expired... (Score:2, Funny)
Another one... (Score:2)
Must Sell! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Must Sell! (Score:1)
What about this? (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:What about this? (Score:2)
Re:What about this? (Score:2)
Hey, I try.
anyway, the guy said he was tired of his site going down, so he probably wants to move away from winNT.
NT and its successors are generally really stable if you wait a while before patching non-critical things to avoid b0rked patches. Also, it helps to have highly-trained (no, I don't consider having an MCSE to equal being highly trained) admin who knows the OS inside and out and who can nicely plug IIS's holes.
My business partner is our NT admin, and he knows it cold. (I took care of a Linux hosting box for years before I teamed up with him, and I still poke fun at IIS in his presence from time to time.) For example, we haven't been affected by *any* IIS DoS, worm, or hole. Ever.
When I said "hosting by geeks", I didn't mean "hosting by Linux geeks". I meant geeks in an agnostic way.
fear and speculation and the Telemarketing Game (Score:5, Funny)
I called and pretended to be horrified that I would lose all claim to it, and told them our legal department would be in contact with them immediately to negotiate a settlement. The poor lady on the other end of the phone was conpletely thrown for a loop.
The game is scored by minutes kept on the phone plus 5 points for every repeated phrase, and if you get the marketer to swear, we win automatically.
Needless to say, it was great fun.
Re:fear and speculation and the Telemarketing Game (Score:1)
Extra Points for Money Earned (Score:2)
As I've often seen proclaimed on the internet, unsolicited faxes [markwelch.com] are illegal and can earn you some cash. Might be worth looking into.
The Anti-cybersquatting law (Score:2, Interesting)
But, also the Anti-Cybersquatting laws that put penalties for people cybersquatting and typo squatting. These penalties made it unprofitable to speculate. I'd like to see a law that would make it unprofitable to SPAM.
Cable modems create a loophole in 47 USC 227 (Score:2)
Actually there is the junk fax law as the definition of computer will match any computer with a modem and printer attached to it.
I assume you refer to 47 USC 227 [cornell.edu], which requires "a regular telephone line" in the communication chain and thus excludes spam sent from a user on a cable modem service to a user on a cable modem service.
Then get the company that writes the software under contibutory infringment.
Some of these spammers run Free software packages such as Sendmail or Postfix under FreeBSD, Linux, or Cygwin. A judge would laugh your suit out of court on grounds that the mail packages have substantial non-infringing uses.
not smtp servers (Score:2)
That loophole does not hold if you have both a cable modem and regular modem connected to the machine. See 47 USC 227 (b)(1)(c):
Did it ever occur to anyone... (Score:1)
Sad isn't it... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it's really funny that all these nimrods are finally starting to realize that hoarding domain names only works if you get things like 'doctor.com'. I just have to laugh at all those folks who helped keep the registrars business flowing.
Yes, domain speculation is bust (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at GreatDomains.com [greatdomains.com]. Skip the "list prices" for domains, and look at the "recent offers" listings, which are all in the few hundred dollar range. Realistically, that's where the prices are now. And those are offers for ".com" domains. Off-brand domains like ".ws" (Western Samoa), ".tv" (Tuvalu), and ".to" (Tonga) are almost worthless.
ICANN is now starting up a "registry escrow" [icann.org] program to back up the registrars, so that when registrars go bust, the domains don't disappear. It's good that they're thinking ahead. A registrar shakeout is due.
It's over.
Re:Yes, domain speculation is bust (Score:1)
Re:Yes, domain speculation is bust (Score:2)
So now I'm trimming my domains down to my name (and a couple variations) and a "business idea" name that I'm keeping in hopes that somehow someone discovers my 3 year old BizPlanPro business plan I wrote and wants to send me some venture money...
Just so I don't feel like a complete ass, I think everyone should volunteer their stupidest domain name they registered during the frenzy.
-Russ
P.S. Hmmmm, what's this "No Score +1 bonus thing...
Domain auctions are dead and buried (Score:2)
"optimum.com" is available there for £25. If anybody cares.
Some jerk is trying to sell GodBlessAmerica.org [ebay.com] on Ebay, for $250,000 to $1,000,000. 14 minutes to go in the auction, and no bids.
heh (Score:1)
None of them ever came through, though.
The cash woulda been nice, too
New TLDs. (Score:2)
The introduction of the new domains like
Somehow, I doubt it. The new TLDs really don't seem to be working out for anyone -- I haven't seen a single ad or packaging or anything directing me to someone's
I suppose the "we got COM, NET, and ORG, gotta get BIZ!" people like CompUSA might be able to help counter the trend, but I don't think there's enough of those greedy bastards to do it.
Good thing, too. I knew things were getting out of hand when someone squatted [roadflares.org] my domain. [roadflares.org]
--saint
Hurrah! (Score:3, Informative)
I work for a Big Media Company, and when the .tv domain became available for people in the US to buy, we were asked "Shouldn't we hurry and register Big Media Company.TV before someone else gets it?"
Fortunately, cool heads prevailed. We reasoned, a year ago, that the battle was over and .com won. And if anyone dared to put up a site BigMediaCompany.tv that infringed on our trademark in well accepted legal ways, we'd just sue them.
Nobody has ever dared use our "BigMediaCompany.tv" and we saved the $50K that the .tv folks wanted.
Basically, the .tv people were blackmailing the Fortune 500.
Note for the dense: our company name isn't really BigMediaCompany
Re:Hurrah! (Score:2)
ostiguy
Re:Hurrah! (Score:2, Interesting)
Good article (Score:2, Interesting)
Regular cycle (Score:2)
I would hold judgement about E-business for another ten years before pronouncing it mature. Technology can only move as fast as people's ability to learn and take it for granted. Remember a lot of people still do not have computers or internet access. Those of us fortunate enough to work in the IT industry often forget most of the world doesn't percieve the internet the same way.
We'll know when the internet has matured when everyone takes it for granted. Just like cars, trains, telephone, bicycle and planes.
Query re: netcraft (Score:2, Interesting)
You may be inclined to answer "If you aren't on 80, you aren't a Big Player" but that's bullcrap. They count all those "build your own site" pieces of crap, plus everybody who forgot to turn off Personal Web Services. Why not me, too?
Its an avalanche. (Score:1)
Where'd the Microsoft Spike Come From? (Score:2, Interesting)
What is it that caused this surge in Microsoft web servers? And what is it that causes these clueless dweebs to ignore the substantial risks [zdnet.com] of employing Microsoft web servers?
Crispin
----
Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc. [wirex.com]
Immunix: [immunix.org] Security Hardened Linux Distribution
Available for purchase [wirex.com]
I can't believe.. (Score:2)
Domain drop. (Score:1)
Keep the net clean for our children:)
Network Solutions problem (Score:5, Informative)
Domain squatting considered harmful (Score:2)
There was also the odd case of peta.org. Some guy registered peta.org, and set up a web site: People Eating Tasty Animals [mtd.com]. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the somewhat more famous group with the initials PETA, objected to this. They contested the domain name and Network Solutions yanked the domain and handed it over to PETA.
Then there was my own sad story. I looked into who owns the domain name qv.org, and found that a web hosting company is sitting on it; they offered me a chance to take it over for a mere $1000. "It's one of the rare remaining 2-letter domain names," I was told. I suspect it will be a long time before anyone pays them $1000 for a
steveha
Still Going (Score:2)
It's now being glommed onto by *#@(!$ thieves, more's the pity. And the bartender's work has disappeared. Wish I knew where to find it--it did well for me back in school:-)
Re:No online shopping... (Score:1)
Kinda OT [was Re:No online shopping...] (Score:2)
Agreed, if you're talking about picking up a handful of specific textbooks, or a few mass-market paperbacks from your favorite authors - particularly if your favorite author isn't mainstream popular and/or isn't writing franchised s/f, which is all the brick-n-mortar chain stores seem to carry. (Since Borders owns Walden's own Brentano's, there's three choices wrapped up for you.)
Although few shopping experiences (for me anyway) quite match walking into a privately-owned used/vintage bookstore and picking up paperback fiction at a buck or two apiece, stacks at a time. Great way to catch up on books you've been meaning to read without paying $7 or so each.
Re:No online shopping... (Score:1)
I think you're pretty broadly speaking for everyone based on your own observations. Personally I love shopping online for items that I won't get more than a box feel anyways: Computer hardware (in the past 4 years the most I've bought offline is a stick of RAM that I needed pronto), home electronics, etc. I'm the type that peruses the various boards finding the best of the best at a particular price point, and it often is the cast that the local ElectroMegaMart doesn't have in stock a model 2732-AV2 so they try to pimp whatever POS they do have. Online I can find specifically what I want, rather than "What they have in stock". Shipping wise I have NEVER had a problem, and 99% of the time it's at the door the next day. The only things I won't buy online are clothes (well..maybe. To be honest I've never thought about it as an option) or a car, but everything else is fair game.
The only reason that so many .Bombs have occured is because of the gold rush bubble mentality, with every marginal, half-rate, low-profit e-retailer burdening itself with all the assemblage that goes along with being public entities (lawyers, CEOs, COOs, CIOs, accountants by the dozens, etc), rather than operating from the ground and growing. It says nothing for the general state of sales on the net (which last I heard continue to grow by the billions), and I think a much healthier resurgence is in store for the coming year or so.
Re:No online shopping... (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell that to the mail-order industry. Heck - even the Home Shopping Network might enjoy a good giggle over it.
Re:Other news (Score:1)
Netcraft's methodology is to count by host name, not by sever. Therefore, a squatter who has 100 domain names pointed at a single "Buy This Domain" page counts a 100 times in the survey. Due to the popularity of Apache at ISPs and and other hosting environments, this grossly inflates the apparent popularity of Apache in the survey. As small time or 'unused' domains disappear, you should see the Apache continue to decline.
(After I typed all of that, I actually read the Netcraft report: The drop has had particularly evident impact this month at the popular registrar register.com, which has seen the number of registered but unused sites parked at futuresite.register.com drop by 300k, accounting for the drop in Apache numbers this month.)
Re:Other news (Score:1)
Re:Other news (Score:2)
Actually, Apache's percentage of 'active' domains is significantly higher than for all domains. Apparently it's Microsoft that is inflated by inactive domains, not Apache.
Who listens to analysts (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Other news (Score:4, Insightful)
That's NOT what Netcraft actually said.
"The drop has had particularly evident impact this month at the popular registrar register.com, which has seen the number of registered but unused sites parked at futuresite.register.com drop by 300k, accounting for the drop in Apache numbers this month."
In other words the drop in Apache numbers was actually due to lack of registration renewals at Register.com, NOT due to any gains by Microsoft.
If you look at the percentages based on ACTIVE sites, Apache actually INCREASED share this month, from 61.88 to 63.34, +1.46, while Microsoft increased at a much slower rate,
26.40 to 26.62, or +0.22.
Lest anyone claim that Apache's share is inflated by inactive sites compared to Microsoft, the Netcraft survey shows the Apache share for total active + inactive to be lower than the active share, while Microsoft's share adding inactive sites is HIGHER than it's active site share. This clearly Microsoft's numbers are inflated by a large number of inactive sites.
In fact, if you look at total number of active sites for the past THREE months, IIS has actually declined, while Apache has increased .
Re:Other news (Score:2)
Hmmm why? I see nothing in the current concepts or implementations of Web Services that give Microsoft an advantage of any sort over Apache. In fact the availability of lighter weight implementations like XML-RPC that can be harnessed by programmers without making large conceptual investments that Microsoft technologies require seems to me to point to an advantage for Apache. Recent publications on sites the The Server Side also seem to indicate that the Java crowd is adopting the concepts of Web Services without buying into the