Google Announces .new Domain Availability(whats.new)
whats.new
Google Announces .new Domain Availability
https://whats.new/
165 comments
Other way around: repo.new would redirect to github.com/repositories/new.
Imagine a webapp whose landing view page is very heavy-to-load because it’s a view of your library of documents. Like, say, Google Docs. Now imagine there’s a thing you can type instead of docs.google.com (i.e. https://docs.new) that’ll let you skip past that library view, straight to a blank new document view, so you can immediately start typing. That’s the idea here.
Imagine a webapp whose landing view page is very heavy-to-load because it’s a view of your library of documents. Like, say, Google Docs. Now imagine there’s a thing you can type instead of docs.google.com (i.e. https://docs.new) that’ll let you skip past that library view, straight to a blank new document view, so you can immediately start typing. That’s the idea here.
> Other way around: repo.new would redirect to github.com/repositories/new.
Look at that!, it does redirect to github.com/new/
I guess that will be useful for some people? It feels a little bit like mystery meat though; how do I discover these super useful shortcuts?
If I am someone who would benefit from learning a quick-to-type shortcut for performing an action, say because I create these things all the time, what does this offer over a bookmark or autocomplete in the address bar?
Look at that!, it does redirect to github.com/new/
I guess that will be useful for some people? It feels a little bit like mystery meat though; how do I discover these super useful shortcuts?
If I am someone who would benefit from learning a quick-to-type shortcut for performing an action, say because I create these things all the time, what does this offer over a bookmark or autocomplete in the address bar?
You can type it on arbitrary people’s computers, not just your own. Same reason text-editor default shortcuts are important.
Not sure about discoverability. Probably they’d just mention the shortcut on the canonical page.
Not sure about discoverability. Probably they’d just mention the shortcut on the canonical page.
You still need to login in your account then, which can took a significant amount of time especially with 2FA. Then the time gain is so marginal it's insignificant.
Not if your app is structured in the way where you can use the create flow in the context of an ephemeral session, and then get asked to log in when you go to save.
But yeah, in general, apps don’t do that much, and I wouldn’t see many being pushed to do so just to add such a shortcut.
Maybe the case here is where the login will be automatic (e.g. OpenID Connect based)? So, in the case where you’d be using some random workstation, but you happen to be authed to it anyway, by e.g. creating a temporary browser profile and logging into the sync on that. But in that case, the browser sync would still give you access to your bookmarks....
Okay, maybe it was never about browser address bars at all. It seems like a lot of these blurbs on the registrar page are talking about how these things are equivalent to certain API calls you can make to these sites. So maybe the point here is to create memorable API endpoints, such that you can now do something like (not saying this works, but it might):
This would make more sense, because you don’t really have access to your browser’s bookmarks from a terminal; and you might want random agents that you write, which aren’t “logged in” in any particular sense (like a CI bot) to use these shortcuts as well.
But yeah, in general, apps don’t do that much, and I wouldn’t see many being pushed to do so just to add such a shortcut.
Maybe the case here is where the login will be automatic (e.g. OpenID Connect based)? So, in the case where you’d be using some random workstation, but you happen to be authed to it anyway, by e.g. creating a temporary browser profile and logging into the sync on that. But in that case, the browser sync would still give you access to your bookmarks....
Okay, maybe it was never about browser address bars at all. It seems like a lot of these blurbs on the registrar page are talking about how these things are equivalent to certain API calls you can make to these sites. So maybe the point here is to create memorable API endpoints, such that you can now do something like (not saying this works, but it might):
sort -n mydoc.csv | http sheets.new
This would make more sense, because you don’t really have access to your browser’s bookmarks from a terminal; and you might want random agents that you write, which aren’t “logged in” in any particular sense (like a CI bot) to use these shortcuts as well.
You know how, when you've just recently pushed a new branch to master, and then you go to GitHub, it'll auto-suggest creation of a new pull request with the correct source and destination repos/branches automatically selected, and all you have to do is confirm to send it?
That's what I think pr.new should do. I'd definitely use that one a lot.
That's what I think pr.new should do. I'd definitely use that one a lot.
Yes, this one sounds like a perfect use case.
I use docs.new and sheets.new several times a day. It saved me a couple of clicks per action, but subjectively it made so much smoother to stay within Google's ecosystem.
I use docs.new and sheets.new several times a day. It saved me a couple of clicks per action, but subjectively it made so much smoother to stay within Google's ecosystem.
> what does this offer over a bookmark or autocomplete in the address bar?
google keyword ownership
you don’t necessarily need a bookmark. eg github.com/new is a reasonable enough shortcut
google keyword ownership
you don’t necessarily need a bookmark. eg github.com/new is a reasonable enough shortcut
I just have no idea why anyone would use a whole .new domain to achieve the stated purpose!
Domain squatting is so last decade. The 20's are going to be all about corporate TLD squatting.
Domain squatting is so last decade. The 20's are going to be all about corporate TLD squatting.
google's already got a pretty good head start, too...
100%
docs.new is pretty convenient
I wonder if CLI commands is a valid use case, e.g:
curl -L https://myapp.new | bash
curl -L https://myapp.new | bash
But we already have .sh [1]!
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.sh
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.sh
But sh is not a top-level domain.
This is the first sentence of the wikipedia article linked in the comment you responded to: .sh is the Internet country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for Saint Helena
I meant it's not a "generic top-level domain" like .com or .org so its semantic meaning is the "domain name for websites for St Helena." This is similar to the situation for .io, which was really intended for the British Indian Ocean territory but has been appropriated by the tech industry. I'm in favor of using generic TLDs if at all possible. I believe google also treat generic TLDs differently than country-specific TLDs.
> That means that all .new domains registrations must: ...
I don't get why anyone would want this over a regular domain with which they can do whatever they want with no restrictions.
It's just another way for Google to control and have a say over other people's businesses. For sure we'll see again posts about people having had their product destroyed because Google cut them off with no way to appeal.
I don't get why anyone would want this over a regular domain with which they can do whatever they want with no restrictions.
It's just another way for Google to control and have a say over other people's businesses. For sure we'll see again posts about people having had their product destroyed because Google cut them off with no way to appeal.
This is pretty normal, all registras have usage restrictions. Most are poorly enforced but googles reqs seem pretty reasonable, The problem with all registers is you have very little recourse.
I quite like gsuite but if your only domain is bought as a google TLD on google domains with your gsuite account via google pay with google voice contact details and gmail contacts. God help you.
I quite like gsuite but if your only domain is bought as a google TLD on google domains with your gsuite account via google pay with google voice contact details and gmail contacts. God help you.
> all registras have usage restrictions.
Sure, but I never saw anything as ambiguous as:
* Be used for action generation or online content creation;
* Take the user directly into the action generation or content creation flow;
* Allow Google Registry to verify compliance at no cost.
That some AI script with a failure quote of ~2% will verify your compliance wont help also.
And the only way to get some human support in those cases is when you manage to get on page 1 of HN with your "crying for help" tweet.
Sure, but I never saw anything as ambiguous as:
* Be used for action generation or online content creation;
* Take the user directly into the action generation or content creation flow;
* Allow Google Registry to verify compliance at no cost.
That some AI script with a failure quote of ~2% will verify your compliance wont help also.
And the only way to get some human support in those cases is when you manage to get on page 1 of HN with your "crying for help" tweet.
That still seems pretty reasonable. They want ".new" to be seen and used as an interaction element, not as a random TLD. E.g. if twitter would get one, twitter.new would bring you somewhere where you could directly start typing a new tweet.
Well, good luck when your app gets flag by their bot, broken because the .new no longer works, and you can't get a hold of Google to remove you from their blacklist.
Just read all the horror stories about apps on Google Play.
Just read all the horror stories about apps on Google Play.
Well that would be a different issue... But their requirements / vision for the .new domain are not unreasonable or ill-intentioned.
Well intention doesn't help you if the execution sucks.
What about "car.new", where you can buy cars? Would that be enough "action generation"?
tesla.new where you can order directly online, yeh probably. That's I reckon exactly the kind of distinction I think they're going for. ford.new would make me go to a dealer so I think they should be able to never get one.
But when you can book an appointment at a ford dealer next to you that would be kind of "action generation".
Or what is when Ford will never get ford.new, is it free to register by anyone?
Or what is when Ford will never get ford.new, is it free to register by anyone?
> Or what is when Ford will never get ford.new, is it free to register by anyone?
Trademark law still exists, this is a solved problem.
Trademark law still exists, this is a solved problem.
Would only apply is the domain is being used with cars. Ford is a common last name.. could be dentist call to action.
[deleted]
As a user I don't think I'd ever go to .new directly. If you've got some other way to get users there from the main site, you might as well use a query string, path, subdomain or some combination of the three.
I'm not a web dev, but I've dabbled a bit over the years. So I guess I could be missing something. I'm sure the right marketing could make this work.
I'm not a web dev, but I've dabbled a bit over the years. So I guess I could be missing something. I'm sure the right marketing could make this work.
[deleted]
They seem quite different, restrictive, and onerous to me. In particular "registrations must have websites that are both live and compliant within 100 days of registration". You can't register a domain to use later, you have to get something up quickly, something that satisfies Google's vague "action" requirements.
That part is actually positive though - if you want to squat a domain for over 100 days too bad.
I am pretty new to this space and I have a couple domains registered for some site ideas I would like to pursue in the future. Do all non-.com domains have these kind of restrictions? I thought they were always recommendations? How and why would Google ever think it is cool to restrict how I use a domain, other than the obvious illegal activities I guess?
Anyway.. anything Google or Facebook does these days.. give me creeps .. I am worried that internet evolution is going towards corporate censorship with licences and we have to have lifeline socket open to Google's data center 247.
That's real HALLOWEEN for me tbh.
That's real HALLOWEEN for me tbh.
Exactly what I was thinking too.. well said. BigUp!
The only super useful version of this idea is a privacy law that requires services that collect data to offer a “facebook.delete” link to temporarily and permanently remove personal data.
I'm not keen on legally mandating the use of a particular domain extension, unless that extension is managed by a non-profit. Some of the newly-added TLDs have exorbitant annual fees, and if businesses were legally required to use them they could charge whatever they pleased.
Plus, you'd have a collision problem. What if one company has foobar.com and another has foobar.net, and they both collect data? (Imagine they're in completely different industries and the term itself is fairly generic, so there's no possibility of a trademark dispute.) They can't both get the ".delete" version of their second-level label.
(I realize I'm probably overthinking this.)
Plus, you'd have a collision problem. What if one company has foobar.com and another has foobar.net, and they both collect data? (Imagine they're in completely different industries and the term itself is fairly generic, so there's no possibility of a trademark dispute.) They can't both get the ".delete" version of their second-level label.
(I realize I'm probably overthinking this.)
You'd have to create the real TLDs as SLDs on .delete, and then the way to make a .delete domain would simply be to append .delete to the existing FQDN.
So you'd thus have foobar.com.delete and foobar.net.delete, no collisions.
Not saying it's great, but it'd work.
So you'd thus have foobar.com.delete and foobar.net.delete, no collisions.
Not saying it's great, but it'd work.
Instead you could just have delete.foobar.com and delete.foobar.net instead, wouldn't need buying a new pricy domain name...
Or simply standardize a mandatory "example.com/delete-all-my-data" path on the same domain.
facebook.com/.well-known/delete would be a better endpoint. .well-known is already standardized, facebook.com/.well-known/change-password is already implemented, and you have proof you’re dealing with the right party.
Please, please, please let this become a thing. I hate how many sites force you to jump through hoops to remove your data and/or close your account.
A lot of those hoops are an important security measure though. Imagine if someone else could quickly and easily delete your account if they managed to steal your password.
No, a lot of hoops are barely even legal.
Many services don't even allow you to delete your account, just to disable it and have it hang around in their database as long as they want. That's a blatant violation of privacy.
Many services don't even allow you to delete your account, just to disable it and have it hang around in their database as long as they want. That's a blatant violation of privacy.
no, most of the hoops are a dark pattern to discourage you not to delete and/or trick you into incomplete deletion.
presumably a .delete domain wouldn't be "quick and easy", you'd still have to authenticate and perhaps verify intent via OOB method. however, the link to the action would be well known and obvious, instead of having to dig dig dig around a website.
presumably a .delete domain wouldn't be "quick and easy", you'd still have to authenticate and perhaps verify intent via OOB method. however, the link to the action would be well known and obvious, instead of having to dig dig dig around a website.
So Google are doing their best to 'kill off' URLs in Chrome and Search, but are simultaneously launching a new gTLD with rules that dictate exactly what URLs under .new should use?
This seems like a case of 'the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing'.
This seems like a case of 'the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing'.
[deleted]
I'm still of the opinion that tld's are a complete scam. There should be a flat rate across all of them. Google and Donuts are a drain on the internet infrastructure.
I like the concept behind this but I think the implementation is flawed as it binds the actions to specific providers. For example - repo.new only creates repos on GitHub, playlist.new only creates playlists on Spotify and the music.new thing for OVO Sound is just odd, being specific to a custom cover art generator thing.
For me, the better implementation would be where for each "action" there are numerous providers and at a user level you could define which one you want to use. So user A goes to repo.new and gets redirected to GitHub, user B goes to GitLab, user C to Bitbucket and so on. The first time you go to the action you're prompted to select which service you want to use by default and from then on you go straight through.
For me, the better implementation would be where for each "action" there are numerous providers and at a user level you could define which one you want to use. So user A goes to repo.new and gets redirected to GitHub, user B goes to GitLab, user C to Bitbucket and so on. The first time you go to the action you're prompted to select which service you want to use by default and from then on you go straight through.
I think you might have wires crossed, .new is a domain. So if github buy repo.new then they can host on it. Good names are first come, first served
If Pizzahut bought pizza.new they could host a webservice on there provided the webservice resulted in something new.
If Pizzahut bought pizza.new they could host a webservice on there provided the webservice resulted in something new.
Yeah I get that, but rather than Google opening it up for open registration and having the usual domain land grab, they could have created domains for each action and allow service providers to register intents in their services for each action. It's going to make discovery of actions much harder if there are different actions for different providers. It will also mean the usefulness of the pattern will be limited based on the services I choose to use.
In your example - if I prefer Domino's to Pizza Hut, what do I go to? I need to go to pizza.new to discover that it's linked to Pizza Hut and then try to figure out what Domino's action might be. In the end I'll just end up going to the main site instead. I think the value of this concept is completely nullified by binding the actions/domains to specific providers.
In your example - if I prefer Domino's to Pizza Hut, what do I go to? I need to go to pizza.new to discover that it's linked to Pizza Hut and then try to figure out what Domino's action might be. In the end I'll just end up going to the main site instead. I think the value of this concept is completely nullified by binding the actions/domains to specific providers.
They could have used subdomains:
dominos could register dominos.pizza.new and pizzahut could register hut.pizza.new
pizza.new could then list and search through all the registered subdomains (and would be hosted by google).
dominos could register dominos.pizza.new and pizzahut could register hut.pizza.new
pizza.new could then list and search through all the registered subdomains (and would be hosted by google).
Typing: dominos.pizza.new / login and select last order / reorder
vs typing dominos / click the link / login and select last order / reorder.
vs typing dominos / click the link / login and select last order / reorder.
I use a .io domain and I get why .com isn't sufficient, but I really fail to see the value that this, along with most of the other cute new tld's, bring to the world.
More than anything, I fear that it will teach my parents that domains can look like anything, so that link in the email is probably fine.
More than anything, I fear that it will teach my parents that domains can look like anything, so that link in the email is probably fine.
It's pretty much a fix for squatting.
You get a fair bit of defense for it around here, but ultimatly it's just rent seeking. Keeping younger generations out from having decent name just because you arrived earlier doesn't really promote a healthy web, nor provide real economic value.
Of course, most squatters would respond "I was planning on using that domain", so it's easier politically to just flood us with new ones.
My company name is squatted on several tlds ( by different people, obviously no intention to use them ). The .com owner wanted to charge me $40,000 or $1000 p/m. Fuck that. I used an alt tld.
You get a fair bit of defense for it around here, but ultimatly it's just rent seeking. Keeping younger generations out from having decent name just because you arrived earlier doesn't really promote a healthy web, nor provide real economic value.
Of course, most squatters would respond "I was planning on using that domain", so it's easier politically to just flood us with new ones.
My company name is squatted on several tlds ( by different people, obviously no intention to use them ). The .com owner wanted to charge me $40,000 or $1000 p/m. Fuck that. I used an alt tld.
> domains can look like anything
The funny part is ads having to add the "www." part, again, instead of just "word.[recognizableTLD]".
The funny part is ads having to add the "www." part, again, instead of just "word.[recognizableTLD]".
You could always be sent to a sketchy .com domain too. You can still register googlemailsender.com and scam unsuspecting people; that hasn’t changed.
There's a requirements list, by the way:
"That means that all .new domains registrations must:
- Be used for action generation or online content creation;
- Take the user directly into the action generation or content creation flow;
- Resolve to the action within 100 days of registration;* and
- Allow Google Registry to verify compliance at no cost."
"That means that all .new domains registrations must:
- Be used for action generation or online content creation;
- Take the user directly into the action generation or content creation flow;
- Resolve to the action within 100 days of registration;* and
- Allow Google Registry to verify compliance at no cost."
Amusingly, they list these requirements on "whats.net" - a site which clearly violates these rules.
whats.new, not whats.net
And yes, you're right.
And yes, you're right.
Haha, whoops. I guess I type ".net" so much my brain autocorrected.
checked link.new which is owned by bitly, it goes to bitly sign up page instead of link shortener. This is bad
That is an exception in the reqs
"An exception is provided for services that require a user to be logged in, navigation to a .new domain may bring a logged-out user to a sign up or sign in page"
bit.ly does not require you to be logged in to create a new short link, so they don't seem to be in compliance.
mail.new seems broken as well, it hard-requires an @google.com login.
Lol, looks like google engineers forgot about their entire g suite customer base.
Even free users. It's the corporate email domain.
Public mail is [email protected]
Well yes but also they forgot about gmail. It requires @google.com not @gmail.com
It's not launched yet.
I'm wondering how that would work for an online shop. Lets say I went to amazon.new - what should I expect to see?
Maybe a new empty shopping cart?
Or a list of new products that have just been added to the store?
I think new products would be most intuitive for a shop.new domain...
Maybe a new empty shopping cart?
Or a list of new products that have just been added to the store?
I think new products would be most intuitive for a shop.new domain...
Certainly sounds like an analytics goldmine.
Been using https://docs.new for the past 2-3 months.
It's absolutely game-changing as I'm writing a bunch of stories and need to iterate fast and recompile my thoughts just by typing in 8 characters.
It's absolutely game-changing as I'm writing a bunch of stories and need to iterate fast and recompile my thoughts just by typing in 8 characters.
> It's absolutely game-changing as I'm writing a bunch of stories and need to iterate fast and recompile my thoughts just by typing in 8 characters.
Is it? Or are you being sarcastic? Every word processor/text editor that has ever existed on this planet has a shortcut for that. Every phone that is internet connected has a notes app only one click away and the option to 'share' whatever you wrote.
These cloud tools have only one appeal, easy synchronization, and for the rest a big list of drawbacks. As this 'revolutionary' (but still worse) functionality demonstrates.
Is it? Or are you being sarcastic? Every word processor/text editor that has ever existed on this planet has a shortcut for that. Every phone that is internet connected has a notes app only one click away and the option to 'share' whatever you wrote.
These cloud tools have only one appeal, easy synchronization, and for the rest a big list of drawbacks. As this 'revolutionary' (but still worse) functionality demonstrates.
Ctrl+N
If it's something I do frequently, my browser autocompletes an ordinary long URL after 1-2 characters. It doesn't seem very game-changing to have to type in a whole short URL instead. What am I missing?
My browser is not reliably auto-completing URLs to specifically post a new tweet, or create a new calendar entry, or write a new email, etc. Those URLs are often long and bulky.
The intent of .new is when you know you want to perform a specific action (like write a new doc), you type in the first few characters of the related .new domain name, let the browser autocomplete do the rest, and now you've already got the new thing and are working on it instead of having been deposited at the home page of the site in the question and then have to navigate through the UI to make the new thing yourself.
The intent of .new is when you know you want to perform a specific action (like write a new doc), you type in the first few characters of the related .new domain name, let the browser autocomplete do the rest, and now you've already got the new thing and are working on it instead of having been deposited at the home page of the site in the question and then have to navigate through the UI to make the new thing yourself.
You can usually teach the browser URLS by typing the start of the long bulky address and pasting the rest and pressing enter, then repeating that a few times. If you always do it by going to the homepage and navigating, that's what the browser learns.
I'm using with some friends a thing like that...https://telegra.ph/
The only problem is if you don't access from Telegram then it's accessible for editing just in the authoring device.
The good thing for some people is that is very useful for tethered connections.
huh. the sunrise period has only been 2 weeks so far. how did this exist for 2-3 months? that's unfair.
"The Qualified Launch Program (QLP) Addendum is available for new gTLD registry operators as of today. The QLP Addendum allows a registry operator to register up to 100 domain names to third parties prior to the Sunrise Period for purposes of promoting the TLD, under certain conditions."
https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announ...
https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announ...
Didn't actually realize it was a .new domain (and didn't think .new was actually a new domain) since some people recommended it to me a while back (as far as December 2018 even... I think).
Obviously since it's Google, they are going to show off all the features first-hand.
Obviously since it's Google, they are going to show off all the features first-hand.
It's so unfortunate that an idea like this is completely spoiled by who gets what term going to the highest bidder instead of to the services you personally use.
docs.new doesn't do me any good if I use a competing product to Google Docs. Similarly, I might want to use playlist.new without Spotify.
Sure, these are just domains, but it really sours this weird use of this tld as a "way to do things" that it's set to specific companies' services.
docs.new doesn't do me any good if I use a competing product to Google Docs. Similarly, I might want to use playlist.new without Spotify.
Sure, these are just domains, but it really sours this weird use of this tld as a "way to do things" that it's set to specific companies' services.
The registration site had better be at Https://new.new
That domain appears to not be registered
So Google wants to get into the "AOL keywords" business. Just like bell-bottoms, everything comes around again after 20ish years.
It's like they're trying to turn the address bar into a terminal. I really don't get it.
The address bar is a thousand times cooler than my terminal because it understands English and does package management automatically, often in under a second.
I just wish it could convert files.
I just wish it could convert files.
They're trying to make some extra $$$ before Chrome starts hiding the TLD for user convenience
This certainly rings bells of AOL keywords...
http://repo.new/ goes to github... sorry gitlab - you lose this round.
http://repo.new/ goes to github... sorry gitlab - you lose this round.
$452 per year on Gandi (I queried two-letter names up to a dozen; they were all the same price). I get there is some cost to enforcing the intent of the TLD, but that seems rather high to query a domain and check. It should take all but a few minutes.
Wouldn’t it be so much better if domains were specified the other way?
new.github.repo
It makes more sense and sounds better in most languages too
Although from the point of view of HTTP we already have verbs for that. It should really be
POST github/repo
Or maybe in user friendly display:
new github/repo
I guess maybe usa.github and in.github can be different domains because different organizations may have same name in diff countries
Treating a TLD as a verb is just silly. It comes at the end of the sentence...
Also it encourages stuff like repo.new to be owned by only one company - github - but what about atlassian butbucket etc?
Better to just have decreasing specificity. Like you have after the slash!
new.github.repo
It makes more sense and sounds better in most languages too
Although from the point of view of HTTP we already have verbs for that. It should really be
POST github/repo
Or maybe in user friendly display:
new github/repo
I guess maybe usa.github and in.github can be different domains because different organizations may have same name in diff countries
Treating a TLD as a verb is just silly. It comes at the end of the sentence...
Also it encourages stuff like repo.new to be owned by only one company - github - but what about atlassian butbucket etc?
Better to just have decreasing specificity. Like you have after the slash!
Actually, I feel like `new` can be a really good command line tool.
Think about it:
- new `github/repo` will open a browser tab for new github repo
- new `text` <document-name> will create a new txt document
can be extended by adding more definitions
- new `github/repo` will open a browser tab for new github repo
- new `text` <document-name> will create a new txt document
can be extended by adding more definitions
"Treating a TLD as a verb is just silly. It comes at the end of the sentence..."
Yes, ending a sentence in English with a verb is definitely something that you never do. Can you imagine how ridiculous that'd be?!
Yes, ending a sentence in English with a verb is definitely something that you never do. Can you imagine how ridiculous that'd be?!
You should read Mark Twain’s essay about the “terrible German language”.
Fine — it’s not a verb, it’s an adjective after a noun.
Fine — it’s not a verb, it’s an adjective after a noun.
> POST github/repo
YES. Give HTTP verbs a place in the URL bar. That'd be huge.
YES. Give HTTP verbs a place in the URL bar. That'd be huge.
This seems rather... useless. I've bought a few tld's mainly in just a land-grab/cover-my-bases fashion but by and large they are all useless. Every bit of traffic is coming from HN/Twitter/FB/Google. The direct traffic is low enough that it's probably coming from either me. It doesn't matter if I have an .co/.io/.com/.dev they are all the same at the end of the day.
These new TLD's strike me as just a money grab before some people realize a domain name matters FAR less than most people thing.
Maybe I'm just not the target audience but I don't ever see myself typing "gist.new" into my address bar. Anyone who knows what a gist is is going to go to github and if you don't know what a gist is then you aren't going to know to type "gist.new" into the address bar.
These new TLD's strike me as just a money grab before some people realize a domain name matters FAR less than most people thing.
Maybe I'm just not the target audience but I don't ever see myself typing "gist.new" into my address bar. Anyone who knows what a gist is is going to go to github and if you don't know what a gist is then you aren't going to know to type "gist.new" into the address bar.
The new TLDs are very much selling as a branding thing. How business owners value marketing and branding is very hard to understand.
On a practical note, if you are gunning for a promotion, setting up "widget.new" would make for a cool demo for management.
On a practical note, if you are gunning for a promotion, setting up "widget.new" would make for a cool demo for management.
Google is trying to be the central authority on what the central authority to do a thing is. Probably a good business move but it creeps me out.
Since when is an arbitrary cross-origin domain name a valid user interface choice?
From a security standpoint, using the _path_ of a trusted domain is still a thousand times more secure and convenient, rather than navigating to another arbitrary domain name with no validation of whether it is affiliated with the domain where you've come from.
If Google push this sort of mechanism, it's opening up a whole load of fraud capabilities! If I'm on gmail and receive a phishing attack email, tricking me into navigating to "gmail.new" which asks for my google password, should I type it into the box? There is a green padlock in the URL so it must be fine.
From a security standpoint, using the _path_ of a trusted domain is still a thousand times more secure and convenient, rather than navigating to another arbitrary domain name with no validation of whether it is affiliated with the domain where you've come from.
If Google push this sort of mechanism, it's opening up a whole load of fraud capabilities! If I'm on gmail and receive a phishing attack email, tricking me into navigating to "gmail.new" which asks for my google password, should I type it into the box? There is a green padlock in the URL so it must be fine.
On FF+uMatrix, a popup that won't go away shows this "exciting" message:
[[domainSearchCtrl.getMessage('How exciting! {domain} is available.')]]
As mentioned on the linked page, http://docs.new, http://sheets.new, and http://slides.new exist as shortcuts to get to a new google doc, but it doesn't play well with Chrome's address bar - using them makes getting to existing docs and sheets take an extra step. Not the worst, but still, kind of annoying.
If you have a both a personal gmail account and a for-work "google for business" account - the shortcut will take you to whatever account you signed into first.
If you attempt to switch to a different account after accessing https://docs.new/, that will trigger an "ask for permission to access document" dialog.
Not awesome.
(AFAIK, the only way to fix this is to sign out and then log back in, in the "correct" order.)
(This is on a Windows desktop running Chrome.)
If you attempt to switch to a different account after accessing https://docs.new/, that will trigger an "ask for permission to access document" dialog.
Not awesome.
(AFAIK, the only way to fix this is to sign out and then log back in, in the "correct" order.)
(This is on a Windows desktop running Chrome.)
You can try docs.new/1 and docs.new/2.
Nice!
I do understand why you didn't advertise that on the web site.
This problem is a common theme amongst all of the Google properties. (I run into it so much in the GCP console, too.) I would really like an explicit option to select the "default" or "primary" account, in that top-right user dropdown.
I do understand why you didn't advertise that on the web site.
This problem is a common theme amongst all of the Google properties. (I run into it so much in the GCP console, too.) I would really like an explicit option to select the "default" or "primary" account, in that top-right user dropdown.
multilogin just won't go away, will it?
Note on Android this actually works great. Typing docs.new gives me a modal where I can choose between my work and personal account, and then dumps me in the docs editor app with a new doc.
Surely "PCs" must the dominant form factor for Google Docs/Sheets/Slides authoring? Still?
I mean, it's neat that you can edit a google doc on your phone, but who actually spends hours authoring that doc, tapping on a software keyboard on 5 inch touch screen?
I mean, it's neat that you can edit a google doc on your phone, but who actually spends hours authoring that doc, tapping on a software keyboard on 5 inch touch screen?
Lots of people don't have a PC at all. If they're using Google Docs, it's with their phone.
On chrome for Android, I am asked which account to use.
On chrome desktop, I have separate profiles for work and home so nothing is intermingled.
On chrome desktop, I have separate profiles for work and home so nothing is intermingled.
Works great with container tabs in Firefox.
oooh neat! this is something i can see myself using quite often.
i've got google drive bookmarked, but i do also type in drive.google.com or docs.google.com etc into the url bar quite a lot, often times to make a new document.
now i can just do ctrl+t->docs.new->start typing words on a page
now i can just do ctrl+t->docs.new->start typing words on a page
I'm looking forward to .old
I'm really sad that registering clin.sucks would cost me $250USD or whatever. The intent of the TLD seller is to hold companies to ransom (buy yourcompany.sucks, or someone that hates you will).
I'd kill clin.sucks as a mail domain.
I'd kill clin.sucks as a mail domain.
Even without the TLD, someone could register a multitude of other names, e.g., brandsucks.com. Or brandreallysucks.com. You couldn't buy all of them.
Yeah, but apple.sucks is far more iconic than applesucks.com. I'm sure companies as large as Apple would have purchased both, and other variations as a defensive move.
I can't think of any other justification for .sucks to charge as much as they do for registration other than to ransom large companies.
TLDs are a complete wasteland any way you look at them.
com.au domains (owned by AUDA) at have a policy against squatting but it's reactive, toothless, time consuming and painful. On releasing a squatted domain, it's flagged as being a squatted domain (rather than expired) and AUDA approved registrars such as drop.com.au host blind auction domains, with the highest bin winning. Meaning you're either paying more than you need for a resource that should cost $15AUD to fight off real or imaginary squatters who will offer you the domain at a highly inflated cost. If you lose the auction any money you bid ends up as non-refundable credit within Drop.com.au ecosystem. I'm still unsure if it's good intentions gone bad, or just blatantly corrupt.
/rant
I can't think of any other justification for .sucks to charge as much as they do for registration other than to ransom large companies.
TLDs are a complete wasteland any way you look at them.
com.au domains (owned by AUDA) at have a policy against squatting but it's reactive, toothless, time consuming and painful. On releasing a squatted domain, it's flagged as being a squatted domain (rather than expired) and AUDA approved registrars such as drop.com.au host blind auction domains, with the highest bin winning. Meaning you're either paying more than you need for a resource that should cost $15AUD to fight off real or imaginary squatters who will offer you the domain at a highly inflated cost. If you lose the auction any money you bid ends up as non-refundable credit within Drop.com.au ecosystem. I'm still unsure if it's good intentions gone bad, or just blatantly corrupt.
/rant
I'm looking forward to .old
If you're .old enough, you might want to register coke.new.
If you're .old enough, you might want to register coke.new.
Why do we need this?
Cynically, any new tld is banking on the legion of big companies that will pay fof theirname.whatever so nobody else can.
Hopefully, if enough of these tlds are around, there's too much real estate for it all to be squated on. Although I have a feeling it's still going to be a .com world for a long time.
Edit to add: the terms are pretty weird on this. I would not want to build my brand around a domain thag Google could take away capriciously because they didn't think you followed their terms enough.
Hopefully, if enough of these tlds are around, there's too much real estate for it all to be squated on. Although I have a feeling it's still going to be a .com world for a long time.
Edit to add: the terms are pretty weird on this. I would not want to build my brand around a domain thag Google could take away capriciously because they didn't think you followed their terms enough.
Why would TLDs need to be created based on need? What’s wrong with a company making a TLD as a whimsical cute idea (and still expecting to be profitable doing so, because whimsical people will go along with it)?
I'm not necessarily talking about the TLD. This is more like a "service" that's controlled by google and certain rules are enforced to those who hold the domain.
This makes very little sense to me. I get that it's nice to have a short domain that points to some action. But why do you need a completely separate namespace for this?
This makes very little sense to me. I get that it's nice to have a short domain that points to some action. But why do you need a completely separate namespace for this?
Using .new for something "cute" means it can't be used for something useful anymore.
This is awful. Google Docs is a place where you can create a new document, not the place. Same for Spotify etc.
Giving the .new domain to the dominant company just makes it harder for everyone else to compete with them. Which is probably the point.
Giving the .new domain to the dominant company just makes it harder for everyone else to compete with them. Which is probably the point.
I'm a bit confused. Are these domains only usable as web redirects? Or is it just that the examples shown are used as such, but we can use the domain as any other one?
I wonder how having multiple entries to the same page will affect page ranking.
Looking up gist.new, I wonder why there are 2 requests done:
307 Internal Redirect
301 Moved Permanently
Before getting the 200 request to https://gist.github.com/.
Looking up gist.new, I wonder why there are 2 requests done:
307 Internal Redirect
301 Moved Permanently
Before getting the 200 request to https://gist.github.com/.
Due to HSTS (It maybe preloaded in your browser), the browser internally redirects http://gist.new to https://gist.new. And then receives a 301 from the web server (which is cacheable) to redirect you to your final destination.
Edit: It is (https://hstspreload.org/?domain=gist.new)
Edit: It is (https://hstspreload.org/?domain=gist.new)
In fact, the entire .new TLD is preloaded: https://hstspreload.org/?domain=new
How can they own and control the registration and dictate its policy for this new domain (pun somehow intended)? Will it ever be available to other providers to sell this domain with perhaps different rules?
Google bid for the gTLD (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/) and won it (https://icannwiki.org/.new), so they have full control over it.
searchengine.new
I really hate how they want generic domains, like doc.new instead of googledoc.new :(
Also the price seems a bit high for a TLD :G
Also the price seems a bit high for a TLD :G
eBay gets “sell.new”? RunKit gets “api.new”?
This is awful.
This is awful.
Who decided that, for example, music.new goes to OVO and not itunes? Was there an auction?
Am I the only one who looks at new TLDs and immediately starts thinking of puns you can use in the URL?
re.new k.new si.new
Not much there. I guess you can use phrases:
outwiththeoldinwiththe.new
There is just a lot more possibility with Google's "app" TLD.
re.new k.new si.new
Not much there. I guess you can use phrases:
outwiththeoldinwiththe.new
There is just a lot more possibility with Google's "app" TLD.
I typed word.new and I got a cert error. Use at your own risk.
That certificate is for *.oneroute.microsoft.com. It appears that Microsoft is in control of the domain. It just isn't configured properly.
I believe the entire .new TLD uses HSTS. In up-to-date browsers you will never make a request on port 80, even if you omit the protocol in the URL.
Probably Microsoft didn't get around to re-issuing the cert yet...
Probably Microsoft didn't get around to re-issuing the cert yet...
tld.new
lets just go back to IP addresses at this point
Nothing’s stopping you, perhaps besides certificate problems.
This is unnecessary.
.api would be more useful.
how about https://api.new
You need http://tld.new
[deleted]
[deleted]
So it's expecting users to go to a different website to perform one specific action, and then return to the original website?
If I'm on github.com, click the new repo button, and get redirected to 'repo.new' I'm assuming the website has been hacked.
If I want to create a new repo on github the last thing I'm going to think is 'oh yeah, I'll just type repo.new and that will be super easy' - I'll go to github.com and click the new repo button.
I just have no idea why anyone would use a whole .new domain to achieve the stated purpose!