Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Top-Level Domain .App Is Now Open For General Registration (googleblog.com)

Posted by msmash on from the psa dept.

Christina Chiou Yeh, writing for Google Registry: On May 1 we announced .app, the newest top-level domain (TLD) from Google Registry. It's now open for general registration so you can register your desired .app name right now. We begin our journey with sitata.app, which provides real-time travel information about events like protests or transit strikes. Looks all clear, so our first stop is the Caribbean, where we use thelocal.app and start exploring. After getting some sun, we fly to the Netherlands, where we're feeling hungry. Luckily, picnic.app delivers groceries, right to our hotel. With our bellies full, it's time to head to India, where we use myra.app to order the medicine, hygiene, and baby products that we forgot to pack. Did we mention this was a business trip? Good thing lola.app helped make such a complex trip stress free. Time to head home now, so we slip on a hoodie we bought on ov.app and enjoy the ride.

82 comments

  1. But I already have .com for my DOS apps. by xack · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why do we need another operating system and domain?

    1. Re:But I already have .com for my DOS apps. by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      OSX already uses the .app extension for application bundles, so get ready for a new domain race for Apple developers.

    2. Re:But I already have .com for my DOS apps. by orudge · · Score: 1

      Nah, this is for your GEM applications - PAINT.APP, BASIC2.APP, and good ol' DOODLE.APP. :)

    3. Re:But I already have .com for my DOS apps. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do we need another operating system

      Because no-one has made one without flaws yet?
      While someone writes a new OS, others tries to patch out flaws in the ones already existing.
      People won't stop writing new operating systems until the last update that makes an existing OS perfect is made.

      and domain?

      We don't, but on the other hand, why does top level names need to be limited at all?
      Why not allow registration of arbitrary TLDs? The limitation seems artificial now.

  2. Nope. by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2

    >> Crappy TLD ".app" is now taking money from suckers.

    Nope.

    1. Re: Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who owns manages about 100 domain names, I feel like .App will be the next big thing.

    2. Re:Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another TLD going into my work's global reject filter along with .win, .ninja, .bid, .click, .loan, etc. No legit emails will ever come from .app. The only business we'd ever conceivably do with it would be through the web, not email.

    3. Re:Nope. by nine-times · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I understand what you're saying, but on the other hand, I could see some possible value from increasing the number of TLDs.

      One of the problems with the domain naming system is that there are a lot of squatters. For a long time, there's been a land-grab to gobble up every desirable .COM domain and hold out for a big payday. There are a lot of companies that go to buy a domain that matches the company name, only to find that [company-name].com is taken, and so are most of the variations that they would want. They end up paying hundreds, thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to get the domain that they want, from someone who isn't using it and doesn't even want it. There are actually cases where domain names went on sale for tens of millions of dollars.

      There are various ways to try to solve this problem. One part of the reason the land-grab works is because there's so little land being sold for such small amounts of money that it makes a lot of sense to buy as many potentially useful domains as you can, and sit on them until you find a buyer. One way to try to address that is to increase the cost of a domain, such that sitting on unused domains is less profitable. However, that also creates a big barrier to people who want to start a website without spending a ton of money.

      Another approach is to drastically increase the amount of land. If there are nearly infinite combinations of domains, then it becomes much harder (or at least more expensive) to monopolize all of the memorable combinations. As a result, domain squatters have less leverage-- they may have the exact domain that you want, but you should be able to come up with some other acceptable variation.

    4. Re:Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But attacks are easier. I can buy slashdot.app, duplicate the interface, spam you a password rest warning, and steal your account.

      URLs were improperly designed. It should have been org.slashdot.... The way it currently is you can hide the domain: slashdot.org.somewhere.myplace..is.secure.home.the.best.ever.whatnow.my.app.wins/how.are.you.doing.today/my.best.best.bud.slashdot.org

      Browsers could improve the issue with a tiny UI change, but they seem allergic to useful UI improvements. Well, after I typed that I looked at my URL bar and slashdot.org is in black and the rest of the URL is in gray. So good for them, though I never noticed it before so maybe they should increase the contrast. (Firefox 56.0b1)

    5. Re:Nope. by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

      Another way would be that if you register XYZ.com then any established business called XYZ can boot you out unless you can come up with a good idea why not.

      I mean your friends might call you Mercedes. It might say that on your doorbell and business cards. But when I go to mercedes.com I'm looking for the car company, not you.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re: Nope. by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      He's going to be re-elected because of you. Is that your plan?

    7. Re: Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The AC is going to cast the critical vote in favor of Trump that gets him re-elected?

      If enough voters don't understand the fallacy of sunk costs well enough that they'll be pushed into voting for Trump by mere shorthand allegations of his corruption, what's the point in concerning yourself with politics in the first place?

    8. Re: Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody is looking for a mercedes, unless you're a taxi driver.

    9. Re: Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to Trump supporters, they voted Trump because Liberals either criticized Trump's policies, pointing out their concerns about the obvious links with neo-nazi ideology, attacking and scapegoating racial and religious minorities combined with his promotion of violence and the abuse of law against opponents, or because they pointed out that at an early stage of Trump's election campaign, around 50% of Trump's supporters appeared to be horribly racist and/or sexist individuals, with people like David Duke strongly backing him.

      Why, you might ask, would Trump supporters want to blame liberals for them voting Trump? That would imply that voting Trump was wrong, after all. Well, it's because Trump voters are conservatives, and conservatives do not believe in personal responsibility. Everything is everyone else's fault.

    10. Re:Nope. by nine-times · · Score: 2

      Another way would be that if you register XYZ.com then any established business called XYZ can boot you out unless you can come up with a good idea why not.

      Right, like I said, there are various ways to try to solve the problem. However (and I'm sorry if this is rude), what you're suggesting is not a particularly good solution. It'd be courting controversy, and there'd bound to be a lot of administrative overhead.

      Because think about this: What constitutes a "good idea why not"? Someone needs to come up with a set of reasons why it's ok to own a domain, and why not, when someone can have their ownership challenged, and when they can't. And then once the rules are set, there needs to be some kind of court or governing body that decides whether a given situation falls under some particular rule. Then lawyers will get involved. Next thing you know, there's a billion-dollar legal industry set up for the sole purpose of manipulating this governing body, and who has a "good reason" for owning a domain becomes about who has the most money to spend on lawyers.

      And even if you can come up with a reasonable and iron-clad reason why the current owner shouldn't have access to XYZ.com, so you revoke their ownership, but now 10 different companies all come forward claiming they they should be granted owership-- how do you decide who has the best claim.

      No doubt we could come up with a plan to address some of these things, but I think it's going to be a problem as long as you're relying on a "good reason", which is going to be judgement-based. I could see there being a more technical justification like, "there is no original content on the website" or "the website has not been updated in [X] years." However, I could see either of those being abused/manipulated. What constitutes "original content"? What constitutes and "update"? What if you just use a domain for email, and not for a website?

      I think there should be (and actually I believe there is) some mechanism for revoking domain ownership in case of obvious abuse. If you somehow hijack Microsoft's domain and use it to spread malware, I'm pretty sure that'll get shut down and returned to Microsoft. Otherwise, because of the scale of the Internet and the number of controversies that are bound to arise, I think the solution should probably be more technical than legalistic.

    11. Re:Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Crappy TLD ".app" is now taking money from suckers.

      >Nope.

      Yep. QED.

    12. Re:Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find I have to continually convince the shit-asshole designed browsers to actually fucking display the URL. The default "dithering fucking idiot" mode is to be "friendly" and fucking "hide" shit everywhere.

      All browser UI designers (actually that is almost all UI designers as they are all fucking arsehole morons) should be taken out into a field a shot in the head.

    13. Re: Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and conservatives do not believe in personal responsibility. Everything is everyone else's fault.

      I think you've got that backwards there, mate.

    14. Re: Nope. by reanjr · · Score: 1

      What actually defines Trump voters is pro-life. Which party doesn't like responsibiliity again?

    15. Re: Nope. by reanjr · · Score: 1

      Now that selling TLDs is a thing, wouldn't it be easier to whitelist .com, .net, .org, .gov, and all the country TLDs?

    16. Re: Nope. by reanjr · · Score: 1

      ok, but I buy fuckmercedes.com, Mercedes shouldn't be able to come along and suppress my speech because of my fair use of their trademark.

    17. Re: Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem is, sooner or later someone provides an e-mail service with an accompanying e-mail app that people starts to use because it has some feature that makes it easier for users to do whatever from the phone.
      Then you'll get your first legit e-mail from imsoveryimportant@niftymail.app and someone asshat will be angry that you aren't answering their mails.

    18. Re:Nope. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Makes me wonder... is cr.app already taken?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    19. Re:Nope. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Yeah you're right. It's too hard having laws about anything. Settle it with a duel, or perhaps scissors-paper-stone.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    20. Re:Nope. by nine-times · · Score: 1

      No, laws are good, but you don't want to make vague laws so every single thing that comes up needs to be settled in court. Especially when you're talking about things that involve a lot of small transactions, and there's a more technical solution available.

  3. Done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    With https://f.app the internet is now complete.

    1. Re:Done by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 3, Insightful

      With https://f.app/ the internet is now complete.

      I wonder if cr.app is taken yet...

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re: Done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn it, top.app is taken. Now I can't make a 'top [hat]' joke.

    3. Re:Done by godrik · · Score: 3, Funny

      I am more interested in beeront.app

    4. Re:Done by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      I actually noted below that it seems to have been pre-registered (2018-05-08). crr.app seems to be available still.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    5. Re:Done by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      Should also note that that was checked via WHOIS, as their site did not work for me.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    6. Re:Done by SinGunner · · Score: 1

      I checked and these were taken on the first day: mindtheg.app, cr.app, takean.app, theh.app, itsatr.app, f.app, so.app, doublet.app, mish.app, ballc.app, bitm.app, deathtr.app, handic.app, giddy.app, syr.app, hicc.app, marketc.app, dda.app

    7. Re:Done by SinGunner · · Score: 1

      ccrra.app is available if you just want to double each letter.

    8. Re:Done by TheDarkener · · Score: 1

      f.app ...hahahahaha

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  4. Apping app app app appers app by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Only true appers app with appers.app.app.app. Only LUDDITES USE .COM. Appers.app.

    1. Re:Apping app app app appers app by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apps.app!

    2. Re:Apping app app app appers app by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cr.app

    3. Re:Apping app app app appers app by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      App the apping appers and the appers that app them!

  5. cr.app by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Sorry, cr.app is taken."

  6. But when... by Junta · · Score: 1

    When can I register .luddite domains?

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    1. Re:But when... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      When someone pays the $135K fee for "your TLD here"

    2. Re: But when... by reanjr · · Score: 1

      Oh the stupid things I would do if I were rich. I would turn .luddite into a web ring of conspiracy theory sites and joke sites about the Amish.

  7. What a load of cr.app by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

    Every domain I enter on their thing gives a useless error message "please enter a valid blah blah". Anyhow, only domain I would've been interested in registering would have been cr.app, which was registered on 2018-05-08, so I suspect they're going to squat their own ultra-short names, and possibly everything potentially profitable that gets entered in that search box (if so, then it's a tr.app!). If someone can get it to work, crr.app seems to be available (per whois), so get it while it's hot!

    --
    There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
  8. This plethora of new TLDs are a godsend! by aicrules · · Score: 2

    I will now have no trouble identifying what a website is for just by looking at its URL!

    1. Re:This plethora of new TLDs are a godsend! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      itsatr.app

    2. Re:This plethora of new TLDs are a godsend! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will now have no trouble identifying what a website is for just by looking at its URL!

      Yeah, because we could always tell what a website was about just from the name.

  9. Now we need .exe by crow · · Score: 2

    It's high time we move all of .com to .exe.

    1. Re: Now we need .exe by reanjr · · Score: 1

      But then we'll have to process a bunch of extra headers that serve no purpose other than to make it compatible with platforms no one uses.

  10. Looks like APK has even more work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like APK has even more work in addition to porting to linux. He will need to roll out a whole new version of his software to support this new TLD.

    1. Re: Looks like APK has even more work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except you canâ(TM)t do it in a hosts file and it is trivial to blacklist tlds in a dns server that serves your home network - all your devices with one setting

  11. URL for Apps? by sawka · · Score: 1

    Isn't the whole point of an "app" that it is on your phone and doesn't need an URL? Why would anyone ever need to visit these websites?

    1. Re:URL for Apps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm... "Web apps"

      Also, a site that has information about an "app" might have a domain under .app , like "firefox.app"

    2. Re: URL for Apps? by reanjr · · Score: 0

      No, that's Apple's recent attempted re-definition of "app". The rest of the English speaking world has used "app" to mean something quite different for at least 20 years or so.

    3. Re: URL for Apps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we are getting close to the 30 year anniversary of Commodore introducing Apps on the Amiga.
      AppWindows, AppIcons and AppMenus were introduced as a useless desktop feature in 1990.

  12. yes by mevanchik1695 · · Score: 1

    hotnew.app is mine!

  13. Darn by mamono · · Score: 1

    fappf.app is already taken. How about a different name?

  14. z.app by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1

    >> z.app
    z.app is already taken. How about a different name?
    >> zz.app
    zz.app is already taken. How about a different name?
    >> zzz.app
    zzz.app is already taken. How about a different name?
    >> zzzz.app
    zzzz.app is already taken. How about a different name?
    >> zzzzz.app
    zzzzz.app is already taken. How about a different name?
    >> zzzzzz.app
    zzzzzz.app is already taken. How about a different name?
    >> zzzzzzz.app
    How exciting! zzzzzzz.app is available.

  15. Found the LUDDITE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Modern app appers only use APP apps on app.app/app!

    Apps!

    1. Re: Found the LUDDITE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Came here only for this, left satisfied.

      App guy was finally on topic.

    2. Re: Found the LUDDITE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No these days it app.app/#!app

    3. Re: Found the LUDDITE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love app guy!

  16. Domain isn't what it used to be by seoras · · Score: 1

    Back in the early days you'd stick the topic name in front of ".com" and you'd find a website.
    In those days search wasn't great. Webcrawler, AltaVista ?
    Then along came google and we began to see invented names like Skype. In fact who had even heard of a "google" until then?
    Naming became irrelevant as search ranking became everything.
    When I look at my website and app's analytics I see an annual downward trend in website usage and an increase in app usage.
    IMHO App store search is now king. App names are free with no annual fee.

    Selling domain names feels like a "get rich quick" scam.
    You bag a domain, that you think it cute, and you're already thinking about booking the ship yard for construction your super yacht.
    Yet all you've really done is set yourself up to make annual payments for a piece of virtual real estate which will probably never get visited.
    Yes, sure, google mystical page ranking algorithm gives brownie points for domain name relevance but still doesn't guarantee 1st page in search.

    Adding TLD's just adds more clutter and creates more opportunity for the domain re-sellers to collect dreamer's tax.

    1. Re:Domain isn't what it used to be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, but go and tell Disney that they should trade in disney.com for 123456789.org or whatever random number and rely only on search results. Also, do a search for Facebook support and see how many sites come up... Are all those sites really Facebook support sites?

    2. Re: Domain isn't what it used to be by reanjr · · Score: 1

      Naming is definitely relevant to those search engine rankings.

    3. Re:Domain isn't what it used to be by Time_Ngler · · Score: 1

      > Then along came google and we began to see invented names like Skype. In fact who had even heard of a "google" until then?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  17. Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another domain that is so generic it means nothing at all.

    Why not store everything, and I mean everything, at "website.url"?

  18. whats.app by dafradu · · Score: 1

    I was too slow, whats.app is taken :(

    Those new TLD only interest search engine operators since we'll have no idea what kind of naming standard each site or service is using.
    I'm already seeing things like bank.example1 as the URL, meanwhile the others still use www.example2.com. Soon example1.app ? Why?

    1. Re: whats.app by reanjr · · Score: 1

      They had a pre-sale where anyone with a corporate interest could register names associated to their businesses. It's unlikely you'd be able to find any good squattable .app domains.

    2. Re: whats.app by Mean+Variance · · Score: 1

      As of this post, you can squat on shipl.app and try to sell it to Chip and Joanna Gaines.

  19. Domain Blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for the notice.

    TLD is blocked.

  20. All these garbage TLDs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All these garbage TLDs do is serve to line the pockets of the registrars from people who have to protect their trademarks. Back in the day you really only had to worry about registering your trademark in .com, .net, and .org. Now there are hundreds of these useless TLDs you have to register your trademark with, or else he holden to some scammer that acquires the domain.

    even if they dont use them, or even have services hosted on them, you can bet companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook and the like have had to do this so the scammers dont get ahold of them. Sorta reminds me of the scams of crypto currency alt coin ICOs, except you are forced to play their game or let the scammers have fun at your expense. Come up with some unique TLD, hope you can get it approved. cha ching!!

    1. Re: All these garbage TLDs by reanjr · · Score: 1

      ok, but even those old names weren't all needed. We could have put everything on the .us domain. The fact is all those old TLDs were abused to host things they weren't inteded for. Personal homepage on .com? Misuse. News site on .org? Misuse. E-commerce site on .net? Misuse.

      Having new TLDs makes it easier to find a reasonably good domain under a relevant TLD.

      Even before TLD proliferation, a reasonably sized corporation would need to register all the 100+ country TLDs (or at least public ones). Adding a few more TLDs doesn't matter much.

      The issue is more on the browser side. Why does your browser present https://microsoft.com/ the same as it does https://microsoft.com.hack.you... ? Because the browser designers haven't updated their address bar design in over a decade, corporations are forced to buy all possible domain permutations in order to protect their visitors.

    2. Re: All these garbage TLDs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back in the old days. A company like microsoft could convincingly have registered multiple TLDs for different purposes. .com for their customer visible website/mail. .net to cover their not really meant to be publicly visible infrastructure. .org, well trademark CYA purposes., or maybe a MS run charity. Back in the day the barrier to entry was so much higher for the internet, that most on the internet would have recognized a .us TLD as fishy. Though legitimate, they were so widely unused for any real purpose in the US. I know I would sure as hell proceed with caution or not at all if an email came though with a link to microsoft.us or google.us. Also a lot of .us domains i have seen in the past tended to be regional maybe something like yourdomain.orlando.fl.us really probably meant more for the personal website rather than a commercial entity.

      These days with there being nearly no barrier of entry to the net other than that of being able to afford a device to get online with and to have service available. a vast majority of those on the net now have absolutely no clue of the original designations of TLDs and any organization is going to need to register under EVERYTHING to CYA

  21. is your mouth.app compatible with my cock.app? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Important Stuff

            Please try to keep posts on topic.
            Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
            Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
            Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
            Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)

    1. Re: is your mouth.app compatible with my cock.app? by reanjr · · Score: 1

      So, you're new to Slashdot?

  22. Dibs on GuckFoogle.app by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'll totally grant me that.

  23. $250 domains? by WiseWeasel · · Score: 1

    Glad they're keeping the riff-raff out.

    --
    "I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
  24. Re:$250 domains? - correction by WiseWeasel · · Score: 1

    Actually, it seems like some domains are listed for more than others, but most are $17/yr.

    Currently $17 (along with most available ones): https://www.name.com/domain/se...

    Currently $250/yr for some reason: https://www.name.com/domain/se...

    --
    "I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
  25. News for nerds? Stuff that matters? by pjt33 · · Score: 1

    I can see how "New TLD open for general registration" can fall under news for nerds, but what's with the copy-pasta of a load of advertising copy for random companies who registered before it was opened to the public? How is that news for nerds or stuff that matters?

  26. Re:You just proved you're a SOYBoy (lol) then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should at least attack them for something realistic, e.g. their use of "smart" punctuation.