Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

Why do we still need to show "http://"? Can't it go away like the need for "www"?
 
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

Why do we still need to show "http://"? Can't it go away like the need for "www"?

It signifies to the server the type of transport protocol. No.
 
Maybe I'm just a grumpy old contrarian, but the point of a URL was to tell you something. It used to be that you'd know what file you were getting, which company in which country you were getting it from, and have some reasonable idea of where abuts the file existed within the site's organizational structure.

Now you're lucky if you even know what you're downloading.

I dunno why we even bother with DNS anymore. Replace the URL bar with a google box, and users can just type 'cool ****', or 'teh funnyz video' and be entertained by whatever comes back.

Grumble grumble...
Welcome to the new world.

Domain names and URLs are finally starting to fade away....

Kids these days do save URLs as bookmarks. Internet/Web Apps are finally starting to take over (and remember that iTunes is one of the best out there). I know so many people that use a Facebook or a Twitter app instead of going to the actual website.
 
It signifies to the server the type of transport protocol. No.

Have you used Chrome? It doesn't show it.

However, the "www." being removed isn't browser related--it is a choice of the web developers of that server. Some websites even require it due to misconfiguration,

Example, try going to:

transcendusa.com
www.transcendusa.com
 
Have you used Chrome? It doesn't show it.

Of course it does. Just not in text. If it's http:// it's a nice little globe. If it's https:// it's a padlock.

I do, however, agree that "www." should go away, at least for publicized addresses. If a site wants to direct mydomain.com to www.mydomain.com, or big.server.its.cool.mydomain.com or whatever, then that's their business, but they should certainly be catching just plain old mydomain.com. It's surprising how many are misconfigured and end up at a "no site configured here" page.
 
Last edited:
All these short URLs look like assembler mnemonics. Funny if you think about it.
 
sorry but with bit.ly, lovebyt.es, t.co, tinyurl.com, fb.me and many many more why do we need yet another url shortener...
 
sorry but with bit.ly, lovebyt.es, t.co, tinyurl.com, fb.me and many many more why do we need yet another url shortener...

This not an URL shortener you'll use, Apple will use it. Apple can't use bit.ly because Apple does not control bit.ly, Apple needs to use their own so they have control over the domain and thus how long the links will work. bit.ly could disappear tomorrow, that's not a risk Apple can take.
 
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

Why do we still need to show "http://"?

There's no need to show it, Chrome doesn't in the address bar nor is it obligatory to show it on the text displayed for the link. But for the actual link reference, it needs to be there, otherwise, how does the browser know to use http and not https, ftp, ftps, sftp, telnet, mailto or other protocols to threat the link info ?

Can't it go away like the need for "www"?

There was a need for www ? When was this ? www was never needed. It's just that convention everyone used out of habit. It's just a DNS entry that points to an IP address, it had no special function and still doesn't.

Kids these days do save URLs as bookmarks. Internet/Web Apps are finally starting to take over (and remember that iTunes is one of the best out there). I know so many people that use a Facebook or a Twitter app instead of going to the actual website.

You mean like back in the days when forums were read using an NNTP reader ? Back when chat was done using IRC software ? Back when remotely logging into a server was done over Telnet ?

You mean we're going back to the good old days of the Internet, back when the Web browser was used to browse the web and not to try to be a swiss army knife ?

Goodie.

Unfortunately, you're reading it wrong. Those apps all still use the "URLs" and all the domain name infrastructure. It's just hidden away. Also, all those apps are just very specialized web browsers in a sense, they just don't use hypertext but XML. If things continue to devolve the way they have, soon the entire Internet will exclusively use the HTTP protocol for everything. Heck, in the same vein as XML, we could just rename HTTP for XTP (eXtensible Transfer Protocol) and do away with any pretension of multi-protocol over a network of networks.
 
Last edited:
trying to find the point of doing this whole thing with twitter besides reinforcing the brand of Ping....hmmm
 
Maybe I'm just a grumpy old contrarian, but the point of a URL was to tell you something. It used to be that you'd know what file you were getting, which company in which country you were getting it from, and have some reasonable idea of where abuts the file existed within the site's organizational structure.

Now you're lucky if you even know what you're downloading.

I dunno why we even bother with DNS anymore. Replace the URL bar with a google box, and users can just type 'cool ****', or 'teh funnyz video' and be entertained by whatever comes back.

Grumble grumble...

Here's some good news for you, then: The world doesn't evolve around Apple. It doesn't evolve around itun.es, Facebook, Twitter or Ping either. There is zero reason for any living soul on this planet to use any of those doubtful "services". Just ignore them and everything's fine. Maybe then the industry will come up with something useful and trustworthy instead.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

I must be one of the very few who doesn't care about this at all. In my eyes all it does is make any link look fraudulent and I would never click on it for fear of being spammed or phished.

I agree with you. I stay away from twitter, and if I see a link shortener used somewhere else where there isn't a character limit I assume that the person is trying to hide something so I won't click on it.
 
Not sure if saving three characters over using itunes.com is really worth anything, since these URLs tend to be used primarily in clickable (versus printed) form.

Yeah, I realize the bulk of the shortening is in the string following the domain name, but the point still stands.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.