PDA

View Full Version : Apple Applies for '.apple' Domain Name Suffix




MacRumors
Jun 13, 2012, 09:46 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/13/apple-applies-for-apple-domain-name-suffix/)


As noted by the Associated Press (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-auto-among-internet-suffixes-122218939.html), the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has published a list (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/application-results/strings-1200utc-13jun12-en) of nearly 2,000 applications it has received as part of an expansion of the domain naming system that is planned to add new suffixes, including some based on brands to allow companies to simplify URLs for their sites and enhance their branding.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/06/dot_apple_application.jpg


Apple is included in the list, having paid the $185,000 application fee to request the ".apple" suffix, although it is unclear whether Apple plans to make high-profile use of the new suffix or if its application is primarily for defensive purposes to prevent another company from taking it.If approved, the new suffixes would rival ".com" and about 300 others now in use. Companies would be able to create separate websites and separate addresses for each of their products and brands, even as they keep their existing ".com" name. Businesses that joined the Internet late, and found desirable ".com" names taken, would have alternatives.Apple is the only company to request the .apple suffix, while others such as .app, .shop, and .web have seen multiple applicants vying for the rights. Google, Microsoft, and Amazon are also active participants in the application process, with each of them seeking to secure a number of suffixes related to their businesses.

Should Apple's application be approved, Internet users could find themselves accessing product pages for the iPhone and iPad at iphone.apple and ipad.apple respectively, simplifying advertising and making the URLs shorter and easier to remember.

Article Link: Apple Applies for '.apple' Domain Name Suffix (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/13/apple-applies-for-apple-domain-name-suffix/)



jasonxneo
Jun 13, 2012, 09:47 AM
lol no more ".com" it's ".apple"

tendicott
Jun 13, 2012, 09:49 AM
apple.apple?

Diode
Jun 13, 2012, 09:50 AM
apple.apple?

My guess for things like store.apple, imac.apple, iphone.apple etc.

brianbauer04
Jun 13, 2012, 09:51 AM
For just $9.95 a year, your public documents are available at

http://youricloudusername.apple

Mad Mac Maniac
Jun 13, 2012, 09:51 AM
maps.apple?

iCloud.apple?

iWork.apple?

lifeinhd
Jun 13, 2012, 09:52 AM
TBH, I think this is more confusing than just remembering .com, .org, or .net, which are the only important ones.

bushido
Jun 13, 2012, 09:53 AM
didnt they become kinda obsolete anyway? i never type "WWW.xy.COM" anymore. simply "amazon" or "apple" does the trick nowadays

Kaibelf
Jun 13, 2012, 09:54 AM
didnt they become kinda obsolete anyway? i never type "WWW.xy.COM" anymore. simply "amazon" or "apple" works just the same nowadays

This might be a way to cover themselves, instead of having someone put .apple at the top of some adult site.

nvbrit
Jun 13, 2012, 09:55 AM
Exactly how is iPhone.apple and iPad.apple shorter and easier to remember than the respective names with .com after them?

macmastersam
Jun 13, 2012, 09:58 AM
nice, its kinda cool when a domian has a .(suffix) instead of a .com or .uk suffix IMO. not that there is anything wrong with the '.com' or the '.uk', but i think it also makes the website and the company look more private as well :)

Josh M
Jun 13, 2012, 09:58 AM
Hope they secure '.app'.
Huge potential for developers especially with .app.

Imagine something like airbnb.app or instagram.app as a domain to directly find these app pages/downloads etc.

Also, remember they may not use these domain names, rather may be securing them from other domain sitters.

WannaGoMac
Jun 13, 2012, 09:59 AM
Such stupidity these domains. So now we have:

WWW.APPLE.APPLE

SPUY767
Jun 13, 2012, 09:59 AM
Likely merely a defensive move. ".apple" is rather cumbersome to type.

ArtOfWarfare
Jun 13, 2012, 10:00 AM
apple.apple?

Nonono,

com.apple

Apple already has that as bundle identifiers all over the Mac's library...

arbitter
Jun 13, 2012, 10:00 AM
I don't see why you would by a whole top-level domain. iphone.apple.com or apple.com/iphone looks nicer to me than iphone.apple.

But as said, could be just to cover themselves from malafide/adult material. Or perhaps handy for future expension.

Anyhow, it is indeed going to get complicated if certain companies stop having .com domains and only .company domains, for the companies that are 'late' for getting a good .com domain. Others can just redirect ofcourse.

mkoesel
Jun 13, 2012, 10:00 AM
It seems to me that apple.iphone, apple.ipad, apple.macbook, apple.imac etc. would be more natural and easier to remember. So I would not be surprised to see Apple, with their huge cash reserves, to apply for all of these suffixes and others.

I wonder if single letter second level names will be allowed with these new suffixes? Such as a.apple? Or, perhaps even better, a.pple? Those are not allowed (reserved by IANA) for the standard .com, .net, .org, etc, but are allowed for the country specific and other suffixes.

D.T.
Jun 13, 2012, 10:01 AM
Maybe for their eventual entry into the produce market:

grannysmith.apple
fuji.apple
reddelicious.apple

ForzaJuve
Jun 13, 2012, 10:02 AM
I am kind of curious to see how many applied to the .porn domain.

I like the idea of the .company name and the application fee expensive enough to prevent everyone and their moms to try and snatch every possible and imaiginable random domain name to make a future profit form selling it in case it turns out to be a good one.

unlinked
Jun 13, 2012, 10:03 AM
Exactly how is iPhone.apple and iPad.apple shorter and easier to remember than the respective names with .com after them?

They are a little shorter but not really any easier to remember.

They have iphone.apple.com and iphone.com now. Do they ever use them?
I think they will stick with just putting the hot product of the moment on the front page of apple.com.

KnightWRX
Jun 13, 2012, 10:04 AM
ICANN is nuts to be offering this. Comon words as TLDs just reverts the Internet to some kind of AOL like keyword system. Proper DNS hierarchy wasn't broken, this breaks it if anything. The root-servers are going to get hit hard when TLDs multiply.

Way to destroy a good system in the name of profit.

rdas7
Jun 13, 2012, 10:06 AM
Surely that would be apple/ipad and apple/iphone ? Why a subdomain?

Also, this ties in nicely with the next version of Safari getting a unified search/url bar (ie. one box instead of 2 separate ones). If you were to type in 'apple' you'd go straight to their site, instead of over to google with the results of a search for the word "apple".

KnightWRX
Jun 13, 2012, 10:06 AM
It seems to me that apple.iphone, apple.ipad, apple.macbook, apple.imac etc. would be more natural and easier to remember. So I would not be surprised to see Apple, with their huge cash reserves, to apply for all of these suffixes and others.

I wonder if single letter second level names will be allowed with these new suffixes? Such as a.apple? Or, perhaps even better, a.pple? Those are not allowed (reserved by IANA) for the standard .com, .net, .org, etc, but are allowed for the country specific and other suffixes.

Once you control your own TLD, you can do whatever you like after wards, you're in charge of the zone file.

That extends to anything, as soon as you have authority over a certain zone. It's yours, manage it how you want.

Diode
Jun 13, 2012, 10:08 AM
Exactly how is iPhone.apple and iPad.apple shorter and easier to remember than the respective names with .com after them?

iphone.apple is about 4 characters shorter then iphone.apple.com

KnightWRX
Jun 13, 2012, 10:08 AM
Surely that would be apple/ipad and apple/iphone ? Why a subdomain?

Also, this ties in nicely with the next version of Safari getting a unified search/url bar (ie. one box instead of 2 separate ones). If you were to type in 'apple' you'd go straight to their site, instead of over to google with the results of a search for the word "apple".

Depends how the bar treats single words, with no dots or indication that it is actually a URL. Will it send the single word as a DNS query first and only as a search query if it receives an NXDOMAIN response ?

I don't have a Chrome installation handy, I'm curious, I never noticed how Chrome treats it. My internal domain uses a custom TLD (not available on the Internet of course), I could give this a try and see how Google treats it.

celui
Jun 13, 2012, 10:08 AM
Hope they secure '.app'.
Huge potential for developers especially with .app.

Imagine something like airbnb.app or instagram.app as a domain to directly find these app pages/downloads etc.


App is the most wanted one with 13 applicants. Apple is not one of them.

topmounter
Jun 13, 2012, 10:11 AM
google.apple :eek:

nvbrit
Jun 13, 2012, 10:12 AM
iphone.apple is about 4 characters shorter then iphone.apple.com

It's not shorter than iphone.com or ipad.com
That was my point!

yetanotherdave
Jun 13, 2012, 10:12 AM
didnt they become kinda obsolete anyway? i never type "WWW.xy.COM" anymore. simply "amazon" or "apple" does the trick nowadays

Not if you are visiting amazon.co.uk or apple.com/uk

pdjudd
Jun 13, 2012, 10:13 AM
I am kind of curious to see how many applied to the .porn domain.

I don't think alot of the companies that make porn are really happy with this operation (along with the .xxx domain) since they often times have multiple domains already that they actively use in their branding - doing this means additional expenses in buying more domain extensions to protect their names from people who would abuse their legal rights or try to censor them or whatnot.

Imagine a .com adult company with 10 or so other existing .com sites that they operate. Right now they already have to obtain lots of alternates extensions (like .net) for each of their sites, lest somebody else buy them and try to hold it hostage. Buying an entire domain isn't cheap either. Apple can easily afford the 100+ grand, but they are just one company, an adult company may have several companies with completely separate branding and identities separate from each other.

foodog
Jun 13, 2012, 10:14 AM
Exactly how is iPhone.apple and iPad.apple shorter and easier to remember than the respective names with .com after them?

http://www.apple.com/iphone is shorter than http://iphone.apple?

mrgraff
Jun 13, 2012, 10:16 AM
If typing website.:apple: actually worked, that might be cool.

adildacoolset
Jun 13, 2012, 10:17 AM
maps.apple?

iCloud.apple?

iWork.apple?

I was thinking that. Also iPod.apple, iPad.apple, iPhone.apple, iforgot.apple, etc. All can make it very easy then.

Josh M
Jun 13, 2012, 10:17 AM
App is the most wanted one with 13 applicants. Apple is not one of them.

I hope that changes.
Then again there are other ways of making something like my suggestion happen.

JanFredrikB
Jun 13, 2012, 10:22 AM
I really can't understand why Apple didn't apply for .app!

That is most likely the one who is most worth and would be most useful for apple.

instagram.app, twitter.app, facebook.app, iphoto.app, pages.app…

It's so useful!

CodexMonkey
Jun 13, 2012, 10:23 AM
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=343101&stc=1&d=1339600888

polka.apple

JanFredrikB
Jun 13, 2012, 10:25 AM
.apple is also nice for emails!

tim@cook.apple
sandra@itunes.apple
peter@iphoto.apple
mario@aperture.apple
simon@economy.apple

mkoesel
Jun 13, 2012, 10:25 AM
ICANN is nuts to be offering this. Comon words as TLDs just reverts the Internet to some kind of AOL like keyword system. Proper DNS hierarchy wasn't broken, this breaks it if anything. The root-servers are going to get hit hard when TLDs multiply.

Way to destroy a good system in the name of profit.

Good point. I was wondering about that as well. It definitely does seem as though it will have the side effect of creating a lot more overhead than exists today.

Also, If they are allowing an arbitrary number of root names now, then they might as well allow single-level names to resolve to a host, such as just "http://apple".

spazzcat
Jun 13, 2012, 10:25 AM
Such stupidity these domains. So now we have:

WWW.APPLE.APPLE

no, just www.apple

clukas
Jun 13, 2012, 10:26 AM
.apple is still easier/better to type than .microsoft or .windows :p.

nvbrit
Jun 13, 2012, 10:27 AM
http://www.apple.com/iphone is shorter than http://iphone.apple?

No but iphone.com is shorter than both and is already active and directs to Apples iPhone page today!

eyhk
Jun 13, 2012, 10:28 AM
Nothing more than a money grab by ICANN preying off of corporations buying for defensive purposes. Despicable.

gpat
Jun 13, 2012, 10:30 AM
Apple.com could be changed to home.apple, and so
ipod.apple
iphone.apple
imac.apple
ipad.apple
appstore.apple
store.apple
macbook.apple
iforgot.apple
findmy.apple
icloud.apple
me.apple

and it would be totally awesome to have iCloud mails like
myname@me.apple
or
myname@mail.apple
or something like that

mkoesel
Jun 13, 2012, 10:30 AM
Maybe for their eventual entry into the produce market:

grannysmith.apple
fuji.apple
reddelicious.apple

big? road? fiona?

Antares
Jun 13, 2012, 10:31 AM
http://www.apple.com/iphone is shorter than http://iphone.apple?

To be clear, that would technically be: http://www.iphone.apple The "www" part would remain as it would be part of the world wide web and not another part of the internet.

no, just www.apple

No. Think about it...is there a site that is just "www.com (http://www.com)?" It would still need to be "www.something.apple"

belltree
Jun 13, 2012, 10:40 AM
Nothing more than a money grab by ICANN preying off of corporations buying for defensive purposes. Despicable.

Precisely. 99% of these insanely expensive gTLDs will become dismal failures.

JanFredrikB
Jun 13, 2012, 10:42 AM
To be clear, that would technically be: http://www.iphone.apple The "www" part would remain as it would be part of the world wide web and not another part of the internet.



No. Think about it...is there a site that is just "www.com (http://www.com)?" It would still need to be "www.something.apple"

http://www.com is a website, yes. And of course Apple can have http://www.apple if they win the .apple TLD.

applesith
Jun 13, 2012, 10:43 AM
Surely that would be apple/ipad and apple/iphone ? Why a subdomain?

Also, this ties in nicely with the next version of Safari getting a unified search/url bar (ie. one box instead of 2 separate ones). If you were to type in 'apple' you'd go straight to their site, instead of over to google with the results of a search for the word "apple".

That's not how domains work. You need SOMETHING.TOPLEVELDOMAIN

pgiguere1
Jun 13, 2012, 10:45 AM
I don't get those new domains suffixes. Why not just type "iphone.com" and "ipad.com" instead of "iphone.apple" and "ipad.apple". It redirects you to the right page anyway.

Seems confusing for nothing and I hope Apple doesn't use this unless they have some clever use I haven't thought of.

clukas
Jun 13, 2012, 10:50 AM
.apple is also nice for emails!

tim@cook.apple
sandra@itunes.apple
peter@iphoto.apple
mario@aperture.apple
simon@economy.apple


and it would be totally awesome to have iCloud mails like
myname@me.apple
or
myname@mail.apple
or something like that

That would be so cool. Pleaaaaaase apple make this happen.

GenesisST
Jun 13, 2012, 10:51 AM
Maybe for their eventual entry into the produce market:

grannysmith.apple
fuji.apple
reddelicious.apple

rotten.apple

Preemptive edit for people that see haters everywhere:
Geez, lighten up: Not a commentary against Apple, just a joke in continuation of the fruit names.

Peace
Jun 13, 2012, 10:56 AM
iphone.apple is about 4 characters shorter then iphone.apple.com

It's not shorter than iphone.com or ipad.com
That was my point!

No but iphone.com is shorter than both and is already active and directs to Apples iPhone page today!

This.

Apple is just protecting the Apple name so nobody else grabs it.

The Tech Fish
Jun 13, 2012, 10:57 AM
I would prefer it to be 'apple.ipad' or 'apple.mac' etc instead, just think it goes better that way.

D.T.
Jun 13, 2012, 10:58 AM
rotten.apple

Preemptive edit for people that see haters everywhere:
Geez, lighten up: Not a commentary against Apple, just a joke in continuation of the fruit names.

Hahaha, I guess Id like daddywhereismy.apple with a locator service in iCloud for fresh fruit.

My 4 year old has become obsessed with eating whole apples, but we find them abandoned all over the house, in strange places, partially eaten. :D

iVoid
Jun 13, 2012, 10:58 AM
didnt they become kinda obsolete anyway? i never type "WWW.xy.COM" anymore. simply "amazon" or "apple" does the trick nowadays

Not anymore. That'll break now that there are unlimited root domains available.

This is purely to make money, not to keep any sort of order on the DNS system. Which is what I thought the naming organizations were supposed to do: Keep some semblance of order in the naming structure of the internet.

topmike
Jun 13, 2012, 11:00 AM
To be clear, that would technically be: http://www.iphone.apple The "www" part would remain as it would be part of the world wide web and not another part of the internet.



No. Think about it...is there a site that is just "www.com (http://www.com)?" It would still need to be "www.something.apple"

Well, that's not entirely true.

Based on your comment, then I guess you know about name servers and IP addresses.
A name server translates any DNS name to an IP address. When you type a URL like http://www.apple.com into your browser, the browser contacts its default name server and asks, "Have you ever heard of www.apple.com?" If this is the first time the name server has heard of www.apple.com, it finds the .com TLD name server and asks if it knows of the name server handling apple.com.

If so, your name server connects to the name server for apple.com and asks it about www.apple.com. If the Apple name server has a listing for the www prefix, it returns the IP address for "www.apple.com" and your browser connects to that IP address.

The network administrator for the domain "apple.com" is in charge of mapping the names in the apple.com domain to specific machines and their IP addresses. In many large companies, there will be different machines (with different IP addresses) handling WWW, FTP, Telnet and other traffic. On smaller sites, the same machine can handle everything.

The network administrator makes a list of names and IP addresses,

www.apple.com - 184.85.205.15
IPhone.apple.com - 17.172.224.28 and 17.149.160.28
Support.apple.com -184.85.200.143

The* administrator can put anything in that list, because the name servers don't care. The administrator could put in ilovemicrosoft.apple.com, iLove.google.apple.com, or I.love.microsoft.and.google.com, and when someone types in those names the name server will return the IP addresses associated with them.

In the case of Web sites that happen to work without the "www" prefix, it simply means that the administrator has decided that if there is no prefix, the IP address returned should be the IP address for the Web server.

Therefore, iPhone.apple is valid and would be able to return a valid IP.

Peace
Jun 13, 2012, 11:00 AM
Not anymore. That'll break now that there are unlimited root domains available.

This is purely to make money, not to keep any sort of order on the DNS system. Which is what I thought the naming organizations were supposed to do: Keep some semblance of order in the naming structure of the internet.

It might have something to do with the IPV6 domain name resolution now in effect.

faroZ06
Jun 13, 2012, 11:04 AM
Apple, don't try to become an internet giant.

KnightWRX
Jun 13, 2012, 11:09 AM
Good point. I was wondering about that as well. It definitely does seem as though it will have the side effect of creating a lot more overhead than exists today.

Also, If they are allowing an arbitrary number of root names now, then they might as well allow single-level names to resolve to a host, such as just "http://apple".

With this system, since Apple gets controlled over the tld, they can very much point it to an A record without issue. Just like it's possible now with http://apple.com/ without adding a sub-domain

----------

It might have something to do with the IPV6 domain name resolution now in effect.

Nope, IPv6 doesn't change anything in the actual hierarchy of DNS. It simply adds a few record types for IPv6 address resolution.

This is an ICANN money grab. It breaks DNS in a bad way.

----------

Apple, don't try to become an internet giant.

Apple is not to blame for anything here.

BassPlayer
Jun 13, 2012, 11:10 AM
It seems to me that Apple could be doing this as a way to mitigate the possibility of people squatting on future site names. Thus, "iphone7.com" wouldn't matter to them anymore because all of their sites would be in the .apple domain. No porn or malware redirects to worry about because everyone will be instructed that only .apple sites are legit.

So Random
Jun 13, 2012, 11:17 AM
Apple, don't try to become an internet giant.

Would you prefer them?

http://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-applies-for-windows-and-xbox-top-level-domains

babyj
Jun 13, 2012, 11:19 AM
It breaks DNS in a bad way.

How does it break DNS?

It's no different to when they added the .XXX and many other TLD's. There is already well over 250 TLD's, even bumping that number up 10 fold isn't going to cause that much of an additional overhead.

waldobushman
Jun 13, 2012, 11:20 AM
There is no value in these new naming standards, except to those who selling something of no inherent value.

Apple and every company wil have to buy any name that might be used by them or would confuse the public. There is then no net increase in the number of names.

An analogy would be like allowing every company or entity to create their own currency (or what it is like now, where the market is allowed to determine the value of each currency).

Just like the Onion News said, we have to invent the next bubble economy to get out of the previous bubble economy.

gnasher729
Jun 13, 2012, 11:34 AM
Nonono,

com.apple

Apple already has that as bundle identifiers all over the Mac's library...

That's because bundle identifiers are backwards from URLs. You start with the biggest category (com vs. org or net etc.), this is followed by the entity (apple in this case), then followed by more specific information.


rotten.apple

Preemptive edit for people that see haters everywhere:
Geez, lighten up: Not a commentary against Apple, just a joke in continuation of the fruit names.

You're so funny. Insulting people and then saying "joke" doesn't make it a joke.

iSee
Jun 13, 2012, 11:37 AM
including some based on brands to allow companies to simplify URLs for their sites and enhance their branding....Apple is included in the list, having paid the $185,000 application fee

Seems more like a way to shake a few hundred grand a piece from big brands.

JtheLemur
Jun 13, 2012, 11:41 AM
Internet users could find themselves accessing product pages for the iPhone and iPad at iphone.apple and ipad.apple respectively, simplifying advertising and making the URLs shorter and easier to remember.

Simplifying? Yeah, right. Anyone that thinks Apple marketing would be stupid enough to actually use a .apple suffix is as high as a kite.

In fact, no one in their right mind would use any of these new gTLDs in any wide marketing or advertising. It's taken forever to get your average human to even the "blahblah.com" and "blahblah.net" point –most still just use Google to find whatever they're looking for instead of typing in a URL – that introducing something new like ".apple" or ".google" is simply nuts.

KnightWRX
Jun 13, 2012, 11:49 AM
How does it break DNS?

It's no different to when they added the .XXX and many other TLD's. There is already well over 250 TLD's, even bumping that number up 10 fold isn't going to cause that much of an additional overhead.

10 fold increase in request on the root-servers cannot be bad right ? :rolleyes: You do have an idea of the infrastructure required by the current a.root-servers.net "server" (server is in quotes, because we're talking about a whole distributed database over many nodes running at different geographical locations).

Yes, it breaks DNS in a bad way, moving a whole lot of load up to the root instead of where it belongs down in the hierarchy. It also makes the whole hierarchy system obsolete, turning DNS into a "keyword" system. It's a big cash grab.

----------

You're so funny. Insulting people and then saying "joke" doesn't make it a joke.

He's not insulting anyone, he's continuing the fruit metaphors started in the post he replied to. His edit was aimed at people that would reply just like you did. Seems you still weren't getting it when he explained it though.

Some people just like to see hate where there is none I guess.

griz
Jun 13, 2012, 11:52 AM
Exactly how is iPhone.apple and iPad.apple shorter and easier to remember than the respective names with .com after them?

Well lets see...

www.apple.com/iphone
or
apple.com/iphone
or
iphone.apple.com
or
iphone.apple

Seems pretty clear to me which one is shorter.

Trygil
Jun 13, 2012, 12:03 PM
apple.apple?

If they own the entire TLD, they'll be able to use simply apple.

Tiger8
Jun 13, 2012, 12:04 PM
ugh, more domain extensions? Haven't we learned anything from the flop of .BIZ, .INFO, .MOBI and others I don't even remember now?

unlinked
Jun 13, 2012, 12:26 PM
Well lets see...

www.apple.com/iphone
or
apple.com/iphone
or
iphone.apple.com
or
iphone.apple

Seems pretty clear to me which one is shorter.

None of them are shorter than iphone.com.

zemoleman
Jun 13, 2012, 12:40 PM
.apple is NOT shorter or simpler than .com, not in any Universe, not even the .apple universe.

faroZ06
Jun 13, 2012, 12:45 PM
Would you prefer them?

http://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-applies-for-windows-and-xbox-top-level-domains

Yes. It will make MS lose more money, which I want. If Apple tries to do this, they will lose money, which I don't want (I hold AAPL).

Bing.com is really an antitrust website: Microsoft makes it the default homepage and search engine of IE, using their dominance in the PC market to gain viewers on their horrible, ad-filled site, and they get money from the ads. People who don't know better stick with IE and accidentally install the Bing Bar, free with every MS software update.

----------

ugh, more domain extensions? Haven't we learned anything from the flop of .BIZ, .INFO, .MOBI and others I don't even remember now?

Hey hey watch it! .info is the new .com! I use it for my site because it's waaaaay cheaper.

Vizin
Jun 13, 2012, 12:51 PM
.

Dangerous Theory
Jun 13, 2012, 12:54 PM
This might be a way to cover themselves, instead of having someone put .apple at the top of some adult site.

$185k just to apply for the domain. A porn company wouldn't even bother, like they'd have that kind of money anyway.

clickerman
Jun 13, 2012, 12:54 PM
If I went out and got .ipad or .iphone or .icloud how much do you think Apple would pay me for them?

Relativistic
Jun 13, 2012, 01:03 PM
Yes, it breaks DNS in a bad way, moving a whole lot of load up to the root instead of where it belongs down in the hierarchy. It also makes the whole hierarchy system obsolete, turning DNS into a "keyword" system. It's a big cash grab.
Load on the root servers is a non issue. All a dns server does is memcpy stuff from one address to another. A low spec server can handle 30000 qps which is ~2.6 billion queries per day. There are 13 beefy root clusters (each has collection of anycasted servers) running the entire system.

I completely agree though that it is a desperate money grab.

hchung
Jun 13, 2012, 01:26 PM
I agree with those saying it's a dumb move on ICANN's part...

Think of the confusion it could cause even outside of the web browser.
Incoming request from an organize crime group trying to register for *.exe in 3....2....1..... ?

StrudelTurnover
Jun 13, 2012, 01:45 PM
Seems more like a way to shake a few hundred grand a piece from big brands.

Businesses that joined the Internet late, and found desirable ".com" names taken, would have alternatives.

Desireable .com names have also sold for $185,000. Alternatives indeed. *moustachetwirl* :rolleyes:

mrxak
Jun 13, 2012, 02:02 PM
I'd call ICANN dumb, but I'm pretty sure they know exactly what they're doing, and it's not in the interest of the Internet or anyone on it.

Perhaps Apple will use .apple internally. That's what I'd probably do. Apple can put all of their company email and HR servers and whatnot on .apple. I really doubt Apple will use the TLD for any marketing. <product>.com works just fine, is shorter, and customers know what .com means.

mrsir2009
Jun 13, 2012, 02:04 PM
Surely that would be apple/ipad and apple/iphone ? Why a subdomain?

Also, this ties in nicely with the next version of Safari getting a unified search/url bar (ie. one box instead of 2 separate ones). If you were to type in 'apple' you'd go straight to their site, instead of over to google with the results of a search for the word "apple".

What if you wanted to Google 'Apple'?

brdeveloper
Jun 13, 2012, 02:10 PM
Looks like a source of revenue for ICANN and a way to privatize lots on the internet, as these domain suffixes won't cost the same as standard .com ones.

That is, if you are big and rich, you'll have your own ".your_company". If you're a startup, you'll be a mere dot com.

Navdakilla
Jun 13, 2012, 02:26 PM
Such stupidity these domains. So now we have:

WWW.APPLE.APPLE

lolz

thornguy
Jun 13, 2012, 02:28 PM
This is a great security feature ICANN is starting.
Someone getting a link in an email to go to myaccount.chase will know that it's accurate and not a scam link that's really myaccount.chasse since scammers can't afford and ICANN won't allow non-valid business names to be a TLD.

bawbac
Jun 13, 2012, 02:29 PM
Wow, Apple found another creative way to data mine their sheep.:D

scottsjack
Jun 13, 2012, 02:33 PM
OMG Apple applies for .apple?

Front page news if ever there was some.

gnasher729
Jun 13, 2012, 02:43 PM
If I went out and got .ipad or .iphone or .icloud how much do you think Apple would pay me for them?

Nothing. You would end up paying the registration fees, your lawyers, and lose the name, because you would be acting in bad faith.

Hexiii
Jun 13, 2012, 02:50 PM
http://www.com is a website, yes. And of course Apple can have http://www.apple if they win the .apple TLD.

but that's just www.www.com, you don't have to type www.apple.com either, just apple.com

gnasher729
Jun 13, 2012, 02:50 PM
He's not insulting anyone, he's continuing the fruit metaphors started in the post he replied to. His edit was aimed at people that would reply just like you did. Seems you still weren't getting it when he explained it though.

Some people just like to see hate where there is none I guess.

"Rotten Apple" is insulting. Do you claim otherwise? Seriously?

And believe me, I recognize a joke. There wasn't one. Insults are not funny. And _you_ fell straight into his trap.

sjwk
Jun 13, 2012, 03:01 PM
I don't have a Chrome installation handy, I'm curious, I never noticed how Chrome treats it. My internal domain uses a custom TLD (not available on the Internet of course), I could give this a try and see how Google treats it.

Ditto on this. I've found Chrome sometimes - not always, but more than just the odd occasion - doesn't even try to resolve and connect to the internal hosts but just assumes it's a search term and trundles off to Google.

That said, this may be because I only have my primary DNS pointing to my server that resolves my TLD with secondary DNS pointing to our official DNS server as a fallback so maybe it only does the search thing if it is talking to the secondary server.

Steve.

iHEARTcartoons
Jun 13, 2012, 03:14 PM
So what happens when someone tries to register dirtywhores.apple? Does Apple have final say and control over their sector of the internet?

rmwebs
Jun 13, 2012, 03:39 PM
Hope they secure '.app'.
Huge potential for developers especially with .app.

Imagine something like airbnb.app or instagram.app as a domain to directly find these app pages/downloads etc.

Also, remember they may not use these domain names, rather may be securing them from other domain sitters.

They wont. They didnt apply for .app, as the article explains. DirectI, Amazon and Affilias have applied for .app, so only one of those three will get it (and its more likely to be Affilias or DirectI than Amazon).

----------

but that's just www.www.com, you don't have to type www.apple.com either, just apple.com

What he was implying is that IF apple are granted ownership to the '.apple' suffix, they can setup a domain as 'www.apple'. So it would work as 'www.www.apple.com' and 'www.apple' without a .com

That being said, nobody types 'www.' anymore as there is no need unless the site is run by an idiot. Funnily enough, a bunch of UK government sites only work if you use 'www.' - go figure :rolleyes:

----------

If I went out and got .ipad or .iphone or .icloud how much do you think Apple would pay me for them?

You'd need about $100,000 to apply for it, and even then there is no guarantee you'll get it. In fact you wont get it as its a well known trademark.

----------

Not anymore. That'll break now that there are unlimited root domains available.

This is purely to make money, not to keep any sort of order on the DNS system. Which is what I thought the naming organizations were supposed to do: Keep some semblance of order in the naming structure of the internet.

No. It really wont.

When you type in 'amazon' or 'google', your browser automatically searches Google and does an I'm feeling lucky. For browsers that dont do this, they first check for a local domain record on your machine, and when it doesn't find that, tries slapping a .com on the end of what you typed.

The Root DNS servers dont have 'shortcuts' for people who dont add the extension. This will have zero effect on that.

----------

ICANN is nuts to be offering this. Comon words as TLDs just reverts the Internet to some kind of AOL like keyword system. Proper DNS hierarchy wasn't broken, this breaks it if anything. The root-servers are going to get hit hard when TLDs multiply.

Way to destroy a good system in the name of profit.

Whilst I do 100% agree with you, it creates zero extra overhead on the root servers. They store billions of domain records, a few more makes no difference to them at all. The extension really doesn't matter, they literally just store text.

weckart
Jun 13, 2012, 03:57 PM
Maybe for their eventual entry into the produce market:

grannysmith.apple
fuji.apple
reddelicious.apple

You forgot the most obvious one - mcintosh.apple

haravikk
Jun 13, 2012, 04:02 PM
What would the main website be called? apple.apple seems a bit weird :)

PeterQVenkman
Jun 13, 2012, 04:10 PM
I want www.dot.dot

bananas
Jun 13, 2012, 04:15 PM
Should Apple's application be approved, Internet users could find themselves accessing product pages for the iPhone and iPad at iphone.apple and ipad.apple respectively, simplifying advertising and making the URLs shorter and easier to remember.


I think it's more likely that we will see URLs more like the current ones, but with .com omitted. Eg. developer.apple and store.apple/ipad and icloud.apple. Using product names as sub domains might be confusing to customers and not appropriate usage in my opinion.

brdeveloper
Jun 13, 2012, 04:17 PM
I want www.dot.dot

me.too

bananas
Jun 13, 2012, 04:24 PM
If typing website.:apple: actually worked, that might be cool.

That could be done in Safari. Opera used to have /. as a shortcut for slashdot.org. But I don't think Apple would do it.

D.T.
Jun 13, 2012, 05:12 PM
You forgot the most obvious one - mcintosh.apple

Hahaha, I did indeed :D Nice catch :)

KnightWRX
Jun 13, 2012, 05:14 PM
Whilst I do 100% agree with you, it creates zero extra overhead on the root servers. They store billions of domain records, a few more makes no difference to them at all. The extension really doesn't matter, they literally just store text.

Root servers don't store billions of domain records. You're thinking of ccTLD servers or GTLD servers. And frankly, even those don't store "billions" of records (except maybe .com's a.gtld-servers.net and company). Adding TLDs moves the load up from the ccTLD and GTLD servers back to the Root servers.

Look, it's easy to see. Let's just ask a.root-servers.net what it knows about apple.com :

$ dig apple.com @a.root-servers.net

; <<>> DiG 9.7.3-P3 <<>> apple.com @a.root-servers.net
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 51777
;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 13, ADDITIONAL: 14
;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;apple.com. IN A

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
com. 172800 IN NS g.gtld-servers.net.
com. 172800 IN NS i.gtld-servers.net.
com. 172800 IN NS k.gtld-servers.net.


Yep, it basically knows .com. is hosted in the X.gtld-servers.net servers. It doesn't actually know of apple.com or its delegated DNS. If we then ask one of the GTLD servers, then we get a proper answer about who has authority for apple.com (notice we don't actually get any answers about subdomains or address records or CNAMEs from the gtld server, only authority information) :

$ dig apple.com @a.gtld-servers.net

; <<>> DiG 9.7.3-P3 <<>> apple.com @a.gtld-servers.net
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 28186
;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 6, ADDITIONAL: 6
;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;apple.com. IN A

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
apple.com. 172800 IN NS nserver2.apple.com.
apple.com. 172800 IN NS nserver.euro.apple.com.


Same for apple.ca really, the root servers only point us back to .ca ccTLD servers :

$ dig apple.ca @a.root-servers.net

; <<>> DiG 9.7.3-P3 <<>> apple.ca @a.root-servers.net
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 63819
;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 10, ADDITIONAL: 14
;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;apple.ca. IN A

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
ca. 172800 IN NS tld.isc-sns.net.
ca. 172800 IN NS k.ca-servers.ca.
ca. 172800 IN NS c.ca-servers.ca.


This nice hierarchy works, distributes the load accross multiple servers and limits requests to the root and the different TLD servers (notice those TTLs on .com. and .ca. authority information, 48 hours, so essentially, your local resolver server will store the information for every .com. request for 48 hours and not have to ask the root servers again for all the requests from all its users about .com. again for that period).

Now imagine if instead of 200-300 TLDs there were 3000. 30000. Yes, before you ask, I'm somewhat of a DNS geek, having been heavily involved in an ISP in a past life and in domain hosting. I dabble less in it these days, but I still follow it and the system hasn't changed for quite a while.

D.T.
Jun 13, 2012, 05:16 PM
I want www.dot.dot

Back in the 90s we registered a bunch of odd/random domains, I wound up letting most of mine lapse, but one of us had comdotcom.com :D

KnightWRX
Jun 13, 2012, 05:16 PM
"Rotten Apple" is insulting. Do you claim otherwise? Seriously?

I have rotten apples in my fridge, nothing insulting about them. They're fruit and they go bad. I'll throw them out right now in fact.

Chill. No one insulted your family or friends here.

brdeveloper
Jun 13, 2012, 05:30 PM
Root servers don't store billions of domain records. You're thinking of ccTLD servers or GTLD servers. And frankly, even those don't store "billions" of records (except maybe .com's a.gtld-servers.net and company). Adding TLDs moves the load up from the ccTLD and GTLD servers back to the Root servers.

Look, it's easy to see. Let's just ask a.root-servers.net what it knows about apple.com :

$ dig apple.com @a.root-servers.net

; <<>> DiG 9.7.3-P3 <<>> apple.com @a.root-servers.net
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 51777
;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 13, ADDITIONAL: 14
;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;apple.com. IN A

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
com. 172800 IN NS g.gtld-servers.net.
com. 172800 IN NS i.gtld-servers.net.
com. 172800 IN NS k.gtld-servers.net.


Yep, it basically knows .com. is hosted in the X.gtld-servers.net servers. It doesn't actually know of apple.com or its delegated DNS. If we then ask one of the GTLD servers, then we get a proper answer about who has authority for apple.com (notice we don't actually get any answers about subdomains or address records or CNAMEs from the gtld server, only authority information) :

$ dig apple.com @a.gtld-servers.net

; <<>> DiG 9.7.3-P3 <<>> apple.com @a.gtld-servers.net
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 28186
;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 6, ADDITIONAL: 6
;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;apple.com. IN A

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
apple.com. 172800 IN NS nserver2.apple.com.
apple.com. 172800 IN NS nserver.euro.apple.com.


Same for apple.ca really, the root servers only point us back to .ca ccTLD servers :

$ dig apple.ca @a.root-servers.net

; <<>> DiG 9.7.3-P3 <<>> apple.ca @a.root-servers.net
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 63819
;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 10, ADDITIONAL: 14
;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;apple.ca. IN A

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
ca. 172800 IN NS tld.isc-sns.net.
ca. 172800 IN NS k.ca-servers.ca.
ca. 172800 IN NS c.ca-servers.ca.


This nice hierarchy works, distributes the load accross multiple servers and limits requests to the root and the different TLD servers (notice those TTLs on .com. and .ca. authority information, 48 hours, so essentially, your local resolver server will store the information for every .com. request for 48 hours and not have to ask the root servers again for all the requests from all its users about .com. again for that period).

Now imagine if instead of 200-300 TLDs there were 3000. 30000. Yes, before you ask, I'm somewhat of a DNS geek, having been heavily involved in an ISP in a past life and in domain hosting. I dabble less in it these days, but I still follow it and the system hasn't changed for quite a while.

Nice explanation. That's why - perhaps - such privileged domains will cost a lot more than a dotcom. They'll require additional hardware to process requests. Maybe root DNS servers will redirect anything it doesn't know as a standard suffix to a special, load balanced, root server just for handling these requests. This will probably require a hack on the DNS service to point these unknown entries (not found in the database) to an alternative root-server.

Example:
$ dig iphone.apple @a.root-servers.net

; <<>> DiG 9.7.3-P3 <<>> iphone.apple @a.root-servers.net
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 51777
;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 13, ADDITIONAL: 14
;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;iphone.apple. IN A

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
apple. 172800 IN NS a.root-alternate-servers.net.

KnightWRX
Jun 13, 2012, 05:44 PM
Nice explanation. That's why - perhaps - such privileged domains will cost a lot more than a dotcom. They'll require additional hardware to process requests. Maybe root DNS servers will redirect anything it doesn't know as a standard suffix to a special, load balanced, root server just for handling these requests. This will probably require a hack on the DNS service to point these unknown entries (not found in the database) to an alternative root-server.

That would be kind of pointless. It might as well just serve up the proper TLD servers right away. Pointing to an alternate root still requires receiving, processing and responding to a request.

The root-servers are already massively load balanced, both geographically and physically.

babyj
Jun 13, 2012, 06:28 PM
10 fold increase in request on the root-servers cannot be bad right ? :rolleyes: You do have an idea of the infrastructure required by the current a.root-servers.net "server" (server is in quotes, because we're talking about a whole distributed database over many nodes running at different geographical locations).

Yes, it breaks DNS in a bad way, moving a whole lot of load up to the root instead of where it belongs down in the hierarchy. It also makes the whole hierarchy system obsolete, turning DNS into a "keyword" system. It's a big cash grab.

A 10 fold increase in the number of TLD's will not result in a 10 fold increase in requests to the root servers - the impact will be minimal and if you don't believe me then check with ICANN.

thermodynamic
Jun 13, 2012, 06:32 PM
Well, how d'you like them apples? :eek::D:cool::rolleyes::p:D

----------

This.

Apple is just protecting the Apple name so nobody else grabs it.

Agreed.

Patent trolls can be anywhere, and ours is a system in which they can thrive.

KnightWRX
Jun 13, 2012, 06:46 PM
A 10 fold increase in the number of TLD's will not result in a 10 fold increase in requests to the root servers - the impact will be minimal and if you don't believe me then check with ICANN.

How do you figure ? With TTLs already being 48 hours and these TLDs being top brands/word (apple., sex., porn., etc..) how do you figure that every resolver in the world won't hit up the root servers as much as they do for .com., .org., .ca., etc.. every 48 hours (which also all seem to have the same 48 hours of TTL from the root servers) ?

Again : Big cash grab. ICANN is the not one providing root-server hosting, so they don't really give a damn either way, Verisign, RIPE, APNIC, ARIN and all the other players hosting the actual infrastructure will get to deal with it.

Also, making the Internet keyword based instead of the proper name hierarchy it currently is means nothing to ICANN, all they care about is 185,000$ per "suggestion" they are receiving (185,000$ doesn't even guarantee your word will be up for auction or granted...).

Anyway, believe what you want, I don't see the good in this.

----------


Agreed.

Patent trolls can be anywhere, and ours is a system in which they can thrive.

What does any of this have to do with patents ?

gnasher729
Jun 13, 2012, 06:50 PM
So what happens when someone tries to register dirtywhores.apple? Does Apple have final say and control over their sector of the internet?

If Apple owns the .apple domain suffix, then Apple doesn't just have the final say, Apple has absolute total control over that suffix. Every DNS server looking for xxx.apple would ask a server controlled by Apple.

babyj
Jun 13, 2012, 07:16 PM
How do you figure ?

Again : Big cash grab. ICANN is the not one providing root-server hosting, so they don't really give a damn either way, Verisign, RIPE, APNIC, ARIN and all the other players hosting the actual infrastructure will get to deal with it.

Also, making the Internet keyword based instead of the proper name hierarchy it currently is means nothing to ICANN, all they care about is 185,000$ per "suggestion" they are receiving (185,000$ doesn't even guarantee your word will be up for auction or granted...).

Anyway, believe what you want, I don't see the good in this.

I actually go to the bother of reading up on things to check my facts first and so I know what I'm talking about. There are ICANN documents which consider the potential for increased traffic and they discount it as a factor.

ICANN also explain the pricing structure for the new TLD's, they are simply covering the costs involved and the prices will be adjusted accordingly in future if their calculations were wrong.

Could you maybe provide some evidence for your claims? Or do we just have to take your word over ICANN?

KnightWRX
Jun 13, 2012, 07:47 PM
I actually go to the bother of reading up on things to check my facts first and so I know what I'm talking about. There are ICANN documents which consider the potential for increased traffic and they discount it as a factor.

So you're taking the word of the entity profiting from it that "everything will be ok after we've lined our pockets with cash" over simple logic ? :rolleyes:

https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wnagele/increased-query-load-on-root-name-servers

A temporary spike in queries lead to a degration in performance in the root server architecture. Now imagine a permanent increase. This will require some infrastructure investment, wonder if ICANN will "pitch in" to help ?

Anyway, I don't have a stake in this either, it's not my infrastructure that's going to get hammered, so frankly, debating this with you is a worthless endeavour. Let the hosting providers duke it out with ICANN.

Gordon Werner
Jun 13, 2012, 07:59 PM
forget .apple ... I'm looking forward to .vodka

jamesrt2004
Jun 13, 2012, 08:55 PM
.apl would be better :o

teejaysplace
Jun 13, 2012, 11:42 PM
I get that the company's Apple, Inc. and makes a lot more than just computers but wouldn't the ".mac" suffix be easier to use? www.apple.mac sounds a lot better than www.apple.apple

the8thark
Jun 14, 2012, 02:41 AM
It's obvious to me what Apple plans to do with this.
You will have www.Apple.com/iphone and www.iphone.apple And one of the will redirect to the other. And also as a defensive measure so others can't steal .apple.

Vizin
Jun 14, 2012, 02:45 AM
.

Thex1138
Jun 14, 2012, 02:49 AM
apps.Apple

or..

Apple.:apple:

choices!

babyj
Jun 14, 2012, 03:02 AM
So you're taking the word of the entity profiting from it that "everything will be ok after we've lined our pockets with cash" over simple logic ? :rolleyes:

https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wnagele/increased-query-load-on-root-name-servers

A temporary spike in queries lead to a degration in performance in the root server architecture. Now imagine a permanent increase. This will require some infrastructure investment, wonder if ICANN will "pitch in" to help ?

If you'd read the post-analysis of the spike you refer to you'd know it didn't cause any service degradation;

https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wnagele/analysis-of-increased-query-load-on-root-name-servers

Seeing as ICANN is a non-profit, whose pockets are you claiming are going to get lined? What do you think happens to the money ICANN generates? Try reading up on such subjects before making wild accusations.

mrklaw
Jun 14, 2012, 03:13 AM
domain names are stupid and a waste of time. This doesn't simplify things, it makes things more complicated.

You think 'apple' or 'google' you just want to type in 'apple' or 'google' in the address bar. Maybe slap a .com on the end just in case. I don't want to have to remember the specific domain name for a website

all this will do is have more people using google.com as their address bar

syndalis
Jun 14, 2012, 09:49 AM
domain names are stupid and a waste of time. This doesn't simplify things, it makes things more complicated.

You think 'apple' or 'google' you just want to type in 'apple' or 'google' in the address bar. Maybe slap a .com on the end just in case. I don't want to have to remember the specific domain name for a website

all this will do is have more people using google.com as their address bar

google put their bid in for .google, just so you know.

babyj
Jun 14, 2012, 12:53 PM
domain names are stupid and a waste of time. This doesn't simplify things, it makes things more complicated.

You think 'apple' or 'google' you just want to type in 'apple' or 'google' in the address bar. Maybe slap a .com on the end just in case. I don't want to have to remember the specific domain name for a website

all this will do is have more people using google.com as their address bar

A few years ago Bill Gates said that domain names wouldn't be around for ever, or at least wouldn't be very important - you'd just search or use keywords to get to what you wanted. Obviously we're not there yet but we're getting closer.

I really don't see the point of the generic TLD's and would imagine a lot of companies (including Apple) are just registering them to protect themselves. They either won't use them or will just redirect content, so something.apple.com is the same as something.apple.

If you look through the applications there are a few companies that have applied for quite a few which I guess they'll be using to launch new branded sites. Amazon and Google are the big players to do this, though there were a few others doing the same.

foodog
Jun 19, 2012, 07:11 AM
To be clear, that would technically be: http://www.iphone.apple The "www" part would remain as it would be part of the world wide web and not another part of the internet.


Another part of the internet? What the hell are you talking about? Oh I get it it must be down one of those "other" tubes that the www tube.


No. Think about it...is there a site that is just "www.com (http://www.com)?" It would still need to be "www.something.apple"

There is no requirement to have a www. The hostname can be null or anything you want it to be. Try this go to http://comcast.net. Its quite shocking how the site works without www

Antares
Jun 19, 2012, 02:30 PM
Another part of the internet? What the hell are you talking about? Oh I get it it must be down one of those "other" tubes that the www tube.
Most people think of the internet as the "world wide web." In reality, the world wide web is just one component of the internet. In my example, you can have an address like "http://ftp.iphone.apple" which would direct you to an ftp internet connection of the apple domain rather than "http://www.iphone.apple" which would direct you to the website of the apple domain. You can also connect to a mail server or buletin board which are also separte from the web. In all cases you are using a name server directing you to the IP address of the computer that you are actually connecting to.


There is no requirement to have a www. The hostname can be null or anything you want it to be. Try this go to http://comcast.net. Its quite shocking how the site works without www

Of course not. Browsers haven't required the "www" for many years. The web address is still "http://www.comcast.net" regardless of whether you have to type "http://www" before the "comcast.net" or not. Modern browsers assume you are navigating to a website....which is logically the case for 99.99% users.

Vizin
Jun 19, 2012, 11:27 PM
.

twoodcc
Jun 20, 2012, 08:31 PM
interesting. i guess it makes sense for apple to grab it before someone else does

danahn17
Jun 22, 2012, 09:28 AM
I get that the company's Apple, Inc. and makes a lot more than just computers but wouldn't the ".mac" suffix be easier to use? www.apple.mac sounds a lot better than www.apple.apple

I think so too. I think it's cool if they used ".mac" since it'd be a blast from the past... wasn't .mac the MobileMe predecessor? Or maybe that's exactly the reason Apple didn't go for it. :confused:

But even if they picked .mac, it'd still make sense to at least buy the .apple suffix as a defensive move.

eucsstamticc
Jun 23, 2012, 09:02 PM
Haven't read all 5 pages but has anyone considered an email account "yourname@apple.com" instead of @yahoo.com

just a thought
:apple:

Demosthenes X
Jun 23, 2012, 09:06 PM
Haven't read all 5 pages but has anyone considered an email account "yourname@apple.com" instead of @yahoo.com

just a thought
:apple:

Seems unlikely, given that's what Apple employees use...

Vizin
Jun 24, 2012, 04:55 AM
.

Mal
Jun 24, 2012, 08:08 AM
Haven't read all 5 pages but has anyone considered an email account "yourname@apple.com" instead of @yahoo.com

just a thought
:apple:

What does this have to do with the topic? Apple already owns apple.com and could do this if they wanted. This thread is about them wanting to own .apple (no .com). So they could offer "yourname@mail.apple" instead, but apple.com is not the topic of discussion here.

jW

maflynn
Jun 24, 2012, 08:10 AM
tbh, I think some of these TLDs offers some opportunities, but in general will just add to confusion.

I'm not seeing how iCloud.apple will be that much more helpful, people will still type in iCloud.com and .com/.net/.org will still be highly sought after TLDs