321–330 of 378 posts
Just for fun, I tried these domain names via the url get.app: apple.app facebook.app instagram.app twitter.app ycombinator.app * snapchat.app * producthunt.app * whatsapp.app amazon.app microsoft.app google.app hotmail.app * dropbox.app intercom.app * pivotal.app * tesla.app dell.app ibm.app * * AVAILABLE
Why does "his.app" cost $499.99 for pre-registration, but "her.app" only costs $249.99? :) Is this some built-in gender bias?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Preregistrations don't really mean anything. We only do GA launches, which is on May 8.
Please get google to add you to https://www.registry.google/about/register.html Lots of registrars are in there that aren't part of the Early Access Program.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So would someone be able to register on namecheap and have a chance at a .app domain against someone that used priority pre-registration at godaddy?
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...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tech lead of Google Registry here. I can help answer some questions. HSTS preloading offers the highest possible level of security, as the user's browser is enforcing the use of HTTPS. Merely serving via HTTPS is only optional security, as any man-in-the-middle attacker can strip that encryption (see sslstrip, released six years ago). For more information see my blog post from last year: https://security.googleblog.c…
I'm not saying I agree with his stance, but I think it's important to mention Dave Winer's concerns re how the ongoing transition to HTTPS will affect older sites. Many of these played an important role in the web's rise to prominence, but could lose out if HTTPS becomes the baseline for trustworthy content. Some can be moved - Let's Encrypt has been a great help to this effort - but many others can't. Has there been…
Yeah, the play store of websites. Where we need to get permissions and approvals and can get banned. No thanks, Google is trying to bring their walled garden idea for websites. Don't trust Google on this. They just turned off their service rather than support signal, what if signal was signal.app would they block em? Don't trust Google on this. It's a decent idea but no.
I could only find Google Terms of Services, so they also apply to .app ??? So what if I host e.g. adult related material on .app will they ban me? The usage policy is totally in the dark for this domain.
UPDATE: Found something here https://v4.gandi.net/static/contracts/en/app/pdf/special_con... and here https://portal.icann.org/servlet/servlet.FileDownload?file=0...
Yeah, the play store of websites. Where we need to get permissions and approvals and can get banned. No thanks, Google is trying to bring their walled garden idea for websites. Don't trust Google on this. They just turned off their service rather than support signal, what if signal was signal.app would they block em? Don't trust Google on this. It's a decent idea but no.
Is there any precedent for a TLD owner doing what you describe? I think this is HSTS preload and nothing more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
sex.app returns this "available: false, reason: in use" . dating.app returns this "available: true, tier: premium"
why is it premium?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, so you put out this launch announcement telling people they can early register .app domains. It links to a bunch of partners including Google Domains, but you have no idea whether I can actually register a domain there or not? Why promise it in your launch announcement then?
They put this announcement out so they can sell spots on the "Priority Pre Registration" list for $16,000. It's just another fucking cash grab.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The comment referred to Google flagging other content as insecure; Google does that for HTTP content, not non-.app content. The problem is either the “not necessarily” part is wrong (in regard to flagging HTTP) or the criticism is directed at a fantasy that isn't actually occurring (in regard to flagging things that aren't .app). Either way, the criticism is defective.
Nope: > 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 This is what patrickg_zill's comment said, just with some newlines and emphasis to make it more understandable. The not necessarily does not refer to HTTP, it refers to non-.app domains. And there…
They -could- have meant .app, but we'd need the guys word to know for sure. It's not as straightforward of a comment as you think it is.