Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 378 posts

Re: Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web

#141

Post by nathantotten »

patrickg_zill wrote: post #130

Is being cynical about this allowed? Google throws down a few hundred grand to get the .app domain, in concert with modifying their web browser to deliberately mark others' traffic as "Insecure" (it is not necessarily!), and reaps the fees now and in perpetuity ever year thereafter for maintaining a simple database of DNS glue entries which you literally could maintain using MS Access (by which I mean, the database s…

> it is not necessarily

Sure, but labeling a site as “Possibly not secure” wouldn’t be a very effective way of communicating the risks to users.

Re: Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web

#142

Post by MichaelGG »

WorldMaker wrote: post #118
MichaelGG wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would Chagos get .io if it wasn't British Indian Ocean Territory?

Chagos is the preferred name for the atoll that the British named to be "their" Indian Ocean Territory in the colonial empire era. Chagos should get direct control of .io, but it is a weird political fight. One awareness campaign: http://www.thedarksideof.io/

I mean why would Chagos, free of ever having the British, end up with IO as a country code?

Re: Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web

#143

Post by timdavila »

ucaetano wrote: post #133
patrickg_zill wrote: post #130

Is being cynical about this allowed? Google throws down a few hundred grand to get the .app domain, in concert with modifying their web browser to deliberately mark others' traffic as "Insecure" (it is not necessarily!), and reaps the fees now and in perpetuity ever year thereafter for maintaining a simple database of DNS glue entries which you literally could maintain using MS Access (by which I mean, the database s…

> and reaps the fees AFAIK Google does not have a monopoly on .app registrations: https://get.app/

Google owns and operates the TLD.

Many registrars will sell .app names, but they pay a portion of every sale to Google.

Re: Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web

#144

Post by scosman »

21 wrote: post #129
landric wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GoDaddy thing is basically, "Pay us extra and we'll click for you automatically on May 8th." It's like paying Southwest Airlines $15 to check you in right at t-minus 24 hours before your flight...

They say they will completely refund you if you don't get the domain.

Not from what I see. It's listed as "Early Registration Fee (non-refundable)" in the cart.

Re: Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web

#145

Post by scosman »

dberg wrote: post #83

Does GoDaddy refund if you dont get the domain ? EDIT: Found the FAQ - Does pre-registering a domain guarantee I'll get it? No. Pre-registering reserves your place in our queue for that domain. The instant the registration phase opens, we'll submit our list of registrations electronically. If you don't get the domain you've pre-registered, we'll refund the cost of the registration. Any application fees are non-refund…

Is the "Early Registration Fee" considered a "cost of registration" or "application fee"? It's listed as "Early Registration Fee (non-refundable)" in the cart.

Re: Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web

#146

Post by timdavila »

z3t4 wrote: post #115

Does this mean all request's will go via Google servers ? Like cloudflare ? Or how else would they enforce httpS ?

No. The TLD ".app" is on the HSTS preload list shipped with the browser, so the browser will only accept connections over SSL. It's up to you as the domain registrant to make sure your site supports it.

Re: Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web

#147

Post by manigandham »

gadders wrote: post #72
panarky wrote: post #47

Took me a while to figure out that Google Domains isn't participating in the Early Access Program. Apparently the "additional fee" for early access is extraordinarily high from some registrars. For example -> https://imgur.com/a/E9WRqTI

I just tried to buy one. Got an email saying I'd be invoiced on allocation of that domain to the registrar. WTF does that mean? How can they take my money if they don't even know they'll have the domain to sell?

"on allocation" means if/when they acquire it themselves to assign to you. If that doesn't happen, you don't get invoiced.

Re: Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web

#148

Post by khc »

VikingCoder wrote: post #69
lambda wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a list of which registrars are participating in the early access period? None of the ones I tried seemed to recognize .app.

hexonet.net does. $11,080 then $3,205 $1,625 $1,130 $690 $580 This sucks. This is like, truly evil. There's two hard problems: Naming things Cashing [sic] : Paying for the right to name things

the actual two hard problems are cache invalidation and naming things, but cash invalidation doesn't quite fit into that :-P
Post reply on HN