.CO Domain Registry to announce additional high profile domain name deals in coming months
.CO Internet S.A.S., the official domain registry for the .CO domain, announced today that it has signed an agreement with Amazon.com, Inc., in which the world's largest online retailer has acquired the registration rights to the single letter domain names A.CO, K.CO and Z.CO; and to the premium reserved domain name Cloud.CO.
While the terms of the acquisition will remain confidential, Amazon.com will join the ranks of other leading online businesses, brands and entrepreneurs that are using .CO domain names to more easily connect, communicate and engage with the world of mobile and socially connected consumers, including, among others, Twitter, Politico, GoDaddy and Overstock (which, of particular note, recently rebranded its international business from Overstock.com to O.CO).
Less than one year since the launch of .CO to the general public, nearly one million .CO domain names have been registered by individuals, organizations and businesses in over 200 countries worldwide.
David Taylor, Partner at the international law firm of Hogan Lovells and head of their Domain Name Practice who assisted Amazon on the acquisitions commented:
"Single character .CO domain names are increasingly considered to be strategic acquisitions by brands seeking a competitive edge in the escalating battle to attract, engage and retain customers online. While starting out as shortcuts to help Internet users access products and services more easily, over time such domain names will likely be leveraged in new and exciting ways."
"Amazon is famous for defining and redefining the platforms that have revolutionized the way that consumers shop online," said Lori Anne Wardi, Director of Global Communications for the .CO Registry, "and we're thrilled that this visionary company will leverage the .CO domain as a new platform to enhance the shopping experience for its customers around the world."
Recognized by the global trademark community for implementing unprecedented rights protections for brand owners, the .CO registry is often cited as a role model for future applicants of ICANN's new generic top level domain (gTLD) program, which is expected to result in the launch of hundreds of new domain extensions in the years to come.
The .CO Registry expects to announce additional high profile domain name deals in the coming months.
About .CO Internet S.A.S.
.CO Internet S.A.S. is the Registry Operator for the .CO top-level domain. The .CO domain offers individuals, organizations and businesses a truly global, recognizable and credible web address for branding their online presence.
2011年5月18日水曜日
Google Sells Debt to Add to Cash Stash
Google started the year off right with a 10% raise to employees, went zipping around the internet on a hiring spree to add bodies to their product development bull pen dedicated to improving Chrome and push into markets that are inhabited by Microsoft and the younger rivalFacebook.
Speculation is that Google is warming up for some expansion, however a good portion of Google's cash is tied up offshore and would incur stiff penalties if brought back into the United States.
By borrowing while the cost is low gives Google more flexibility, locking long term, and record low borrowing costs here in the States was good business sense. Google is filling its war chest at bargain prices as Microsoft and Facebook scurry to ward off a push further into their share markets. Facebook admitted they hired a PR firm to embellish stories about user privacy issues at Google and the Microsoft BPOS scandal with email being down has certainly helped Google to reach further into their shared target market.
Already sitting on a pile of cash, Google execs decided to tap into the bond market for more money by issuing $3 billion in debt at low interest rates, this is their first foray into the corporate market for more flexible cash and after paying the bills, Google will gain about $2.07 billion in return. The plans are to repay short-term debt, and the rest is to be stashed for use later..a new car? Or are they hoarding it for later?
The sale was divided into three pieces (tranches) $1 billion - interest rate of 1.25% and due in 2014, $1 billion at 2.125% and a 2016 mature date; finally $1 billion - interest rate of 3.625% that will be due in 2021. The rating for the debt from Standard and Poor is AA-, which is only 4 notches away from a triple-A rating. The ratings firm Egan-Jones stated in an article by John Letzing, MarketWatch said: "The company's credit quality is at the top end of the spectrum and is unlikely to shift significantly over the next couple of quarters." All of the pieces where launched with a narrower than in the guidelines preliminary pricing indicating there was demand from folks, some mentioned mom and pop businesses.
Speculation is that Google is warming up for some expansion, however a good portion of Google's cash is tied up offshore and would incur stiff penalties if brought back into the United States.
By borrowing while the cost is low gives Google more flexibility, locking long term, and record low borrowing costs here in the States was good business sense. Google is filling its war chest at bargain prices as Microsoft and Facebook scurry to ward off a push further into their share markets. Facebook admitted they hired a PR firm to embellish stories about user privacy issues at Google and the Microsoft BPOS scandal with email being down has certainly helped Google to reach further into their shared target market.
Already sitting on a pile of cash, Google execs decided to tap into the bond market for more money by issuing $3 billion in debt at low interest rates, this is their first foray into the corporate market for more flexible cash and after paying the bills, Google will gain about $2.07 billion in return. The plans are to repay short-term debt, and the rest is to be stashed for use later..a new car? Or are they hoarding it for later?
The sale was divided into three pieces (tranches) $1 billion - interest rate of 1.25% and due in 2014, $1 billion at 2.125% and a 2016 mature date; finally $1 billion - interest rate of 3.625% that will be due in 2021. The rating for the debt from Standard and Poor is AA-, which is only 4 notches away from a triple-A rating. The ratings firm Egan-Jones stated in an article by John Letzing, MarketWatch said: "The company's credit quality is at the top end of the spectrum and is unlikely to shift significantly over the next couple of quarters." All of the pieces where launched with a narrower than in the guidelines preliminary pricing indicating there was demand from folks, some mentioned mom and pop businesses.
Why Isn't Google Chrome A Part Of Android?
Over the past couple of years covering Google, there's one seemingly simple question that comes up again and again, that Google just can't seem to answer. Why isn't Chrome a part of Android?
Read the wrong way, that could seem like a deep question. But it almost never means "why isn't Chrome OS simply merged with Android?" or the like. Most of the time, it's simply a question wondering why Google's very popular web browser is not a part of their very popular mobile operating system? After all, that OS has a browser (the aptly-named "Browser"), but it's not Chrome. Why not?
Unsurprisingly, the question came up once again at Google I/O last week. During a panel with a bunch of engineers on the Chrome team, it was one of the first questions asked. The response? "It's not something we're talking about right now." Ouch.
"I don't know how to answer that," the engineered continued. Okay…
Another team member, probably realizing those answers sounded both cryptic and harsh, chimed in. "The important thing at the end of the day is to make browsers better. While it's not strictly Chrome, we share a lot of code with the Android team. We'll share more over time." Okay, that's better. Still, a bit odd.
Based on my understanding, after having a number of discussions on this topic over the years, it would seem that boils down to a few things. First, the Android team is a completely separate team from the Chrome team. Second, it's a branding issue that Google isn't quite sure how to resolve. Third, the Android browser, while similar to Chrome, really isn't Chrome.
The first and second issues are interesting because more and more, they're related. As they showcased at I/O this year, Google now is fully backing two horses in the OS race: Android and Chrome OS. Each are made by two entirely different teams that don't often mix with one another.
As Google executives kept saying over and over again when asked last week, the two OSes have different goals - and are going about things in completely different ways. While Chrome may have started out as a web browser, it's now much more from an ideology perspective inside of Google. No one will admit this, but if they're to ultimately succeed, they sort of have to believe that Android won't. That makes it hard to work together.
When Android first launched in October of 2008, it seemed like either a small oversight or precautionary measure that the browser bundled with it wasn't branded as Chrome. After all, Google's browser had just launched in beta (on Windows) the month before. Assuming people liked it, you would have assumed that Google would transfer the branding over to use in Android, right?
Well people did like Chrome. A lot. And yet, Google never moved it over. This despite the fact that Apple did just that on the iPhone with its much less successful Safari browser. Meanwhile, Opera and Mozilla's Firefox were committed to mobile versions of their popular browsers as well. But Google stuck with "Browser" for Android.
And now they may be stuck with it for good. The problem is that Chrome, for better or worse, is now associated with another product that is similar but different from Android - again, Chrome OS. Imagine if they start including a Chrome browser on Android tablets and then next year Chrome OS tablets launch. Consumers will wonder what the hell the difference is? (And this may already prove to be an issue on the PC/Chromebook side of things, we'll see.)
All that aside, it is still important to remember that Android's Browser really isn't Chrome. The two are both based on WebKit and use Google's V8 JavaScript engine, but there are dozens of other features that Google is trying to associate with Chrome that they couldn't possibly squeeze into a mobile web browser (at least not yet).
The same issues are true with Apple's regular Safari browser and their mobile one. But that browser generally seems to be less feature-focused, so the branding might not be as big of an issue. Plus, even if the two sides don't work closely together inside of Apple (though it seems like they might), does anyone really believe there's anyway in hell Steve Jobs would let the browser in iOS be called anything but Safari?
Back to Google, on the flip side of things, the Android team has their own wants and needs for the browser bundled with their software. And imagine if a problem on the Chrome team was stalling a new Android build? Or vice versa?
But with the launch of Honeycomb, Android's Browser is now starting to look a lot more like Chrome as well, thanks to the tabbed browsing experience it offers. This will only lead to more questions. And it's only a matter of time before users start demanding that elements are fully synced between the two (Chrome and Android's Browser).
At that point, Google may have to consider this question yet again. Is it time to bring Chrome to Android?
Read the wrong way, that could seem like a deep question. But it almost never means "why isn't Chrome OS simply merged with Android?" or the like. Most of the time, it's simply a question wondering why Google's very popular web browser is not a part of their very popular mobile operating system? After all, that OS has a browser (the aptly-named "Browser"), but it's not Chrome. Why not?
Unsurprisingly, the question came up once again at Google I/O last week. During a panel with a bunch of engineers on the Chrome team, it was one of the first questions asked. The response? "It's not something we're talking about right now." Ouch.
"I don't know how to answer that," the engineered continued. Okay…
Another team member, probably realizing those answers sounded both cryptic and harsh, chimed in. "The important thing at the end of the day is to make browsers better. While it's not strictly Chrome, we share a lot of code with the Android team. We'll share more over time." Okay, that's better. Still, a bit odd.
Based on my understanding, after having a number of discussions on this topic over the years, it would seem that boils down to a few things. First, the Android team is a completely separate team from the Chrome team. Second, it's a branding issue that Google isn't quite sure how to resolve. Third, the Android browser, while similar to Chrome, really isn't Chrome.
The first and second issues are interesting because more and more, they're related. As they showcased at I/O this year, Google now is fully backing two horses in the OS race: Android and Chrome OS. Each are made by two entirely different teams that don't often mix with one another.
As Google executives kept saying over and over again when asked last week, the two OSes have different goals - and are going about things in completely different ways. While Chrome may have started out as a web browser, it's now much more from an ideology perspective inside of Google. No one will admit this, but if they're to ultimately succeed, they sort of have to believe that Android won't. That makes it hard to work together.
When Android first launched in October of 2008, it seemed like either a small oversight or precautionary measure that the browser bundled with it wasn't branded as Chrome. After all, Google's browser had just launched in beta (on Windows) the month before. Assuming people liked it, you would have assumed that Google would transfer the branding over to use in Android, right?
Well people did like Chrome. A lot. And yet, Google never moved it over. This despite the fact that Apple did just that on the iPhone with its much less successful Safari browser. Meanwhile, Opera and Mozilla's Firefox were committed to mobile versions of their popular browsers as well. But Google stuck with "Browser" for Android.
And now they may be stuck with it for good. The problem is that Chrome, for better or worse, is now associated with another product that is similar but different from Android - again, Chrome OS. Imagine if they start including a Chrome browser on Android tablets and then next year Chrome OS tablets launch. Consumers will wonder what the hell the difference is? (And this may already prove to be an issue on the PC/Chromebook side of things, we'll see.)
All that aside, it is still important to remember that Android's Browser really isn't Chrome. The two are both based on WebKit and use Google's V8 JavaScript engine, but there are dozens of other features that Google is trying to associate with Chrome that they couldn't possibly squeeze into a mobile web browser (at least not yet).
The same issues are true with Apple's regular Safari browser and their mobile one. But that browser generally seems to be less feature-focused, so the branding might not be as big of an issue. Plus, even if the two sides don't work closely together inside of Apple (though it seems like they might), does anyone really believe there's anyway in hell Steve Jobs would let the browser in iOS be called anything but Safari?
Back to Google, on the flip side of things, the Android team has their own wants and needs for the browser bundled with their software. And imagine if a problem on the Chrome team was stalling a new Android build? Or vice versa?
But with the launch of Honeycomb, Android's Browser is now starting to look a lot more like Chrome as well, thanks to the tabbed browsing experience it offers. This will only lead to more questions. And it's only a matter of time before users start demanding that elements are fully synced between the two (Chrome and Android's Browser).
At that point, Google may have to consider this question yet again. Is it time to bring Chrome to Android?
登録:
投稿 (Atom)