Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Wow I'm so behind the times. There's .XXX now!

.xxx has been there for several years and has unfortunately not picked up any traction other then a couple hundred pornographic websites nobody has ever heard about.

Perhaps if they start loosening up the restrictions we can have some more tailored websites, such as "www.interracial.[insert depraved sexual act here*]"...

*Literally, if you must.
 
Domain Names

Forgive me for the ignorant question but I've always wondered why we can't get rid of urls altogether. Urls just point to a set of numbers that represent your web address anyway, is that right? If so, can't we just use search engines to find what you want and the name is irrelevant? I'm honestly asking because I don't know how all of this works but it just seems to me that the site name is not as important, I visit plenty of sites where I have no idea what the web address actually is I just google it.

Does that make sense?
 
Wouldn't you use this argument with everything? "If it's for the better, it'd be free"

To each their own opinion, it'll be one that's easy to see the effects of in a few years to come.

First, not always. Some things for the better should be more expensive. For example, cigarettes are bad for health and should be taxed higher.

Price is arguably the most powerful economic incentive or disincentive. In a very basic scheme, if you're trying to incentivize something, you do so by lowering the price. If you want to disincentivize something, you raise the price.

Here, GTLDs accomplish one thing very plainly: they raise the cost of setting up and maintaining a proper web presence. We don't need to wait to see this, it's already apparent. Higher cost = a disincentive to have a web presence. Right now, most web designed advise a company to purchase the company name in most logical TLDs (.com, .net, .cc, .us, etc.) and some logical misspelling as well. Further, purchase the major brands the company owns in the same way. So today, a responsible company would own dozens of domain names, depending on how many brands they market, all redirecting to their main site. This is costly. With GTLDs, that cost grows exponentially.

I'm all for opening up more available domains, making things easier for small businesses, and improving the web. However, this is plainly only a cash-grab by registration companies and nothing else. What happens when we run out of logical GTLDs? Will they add another layer and start charging for that? http://www.Widgets.camera.digital ? Not only does this resemble the old geocities structure, it also has no end.

----------

Forgive me for the ignorant question but I've always wondered why we can't get rid of urls altogether. Urls just point to a set of numbers that represent your web address anyway, is that right? If so, can't we just use search engines to find what you want and the name is irrelevant? I'm honestly asking because I don't know how all of this works but it just seems to me that the site name is not as important, I visit plenty of sites where I have no idea what the web address actually is I just google it.

Does that make sense?

This makes more sense than GTLDs. The only issue I can see if how would you communicate (orally, for example) to someone how to get to a site that doesn't want to be found using search engines? For example, a site that wants to be spread using word-of-mouth, but not be searchable?
 
They say over half of small businesses and the vast majority of people don't have websites. We're simply trying to change that.

The vast majority of people lost interest in "having a website" when websites like Facebook came out. Heck, my dad still refers to his DeviantArt page as his "website".

Not that I'm against having more TLDs or anything.
 
The vast majority of people lost interest in "having a website" when websites like Facebook came out. Heck, my dad still refers to his DeviantArt page as his "website".

Not that I'm against having more TLDs or anything.

I do agree with this. Though who knows what the next step is.

onemadrssn said:
I'm all for opening up more available domains, making things easier for small businesses, and improving the web. However, this is plainly only a cash-grab by registration companies and nothing else. What happens when we run out of logical GTLDs? Will they add another layer and start charging for that? http://www.Widgets.camera.digital ? Not only does this resemble the old geocities structure, it also has no end.

We've survived 23 years on 22 generic TLDs..I'd expect a catalog of 700+ to last us another 23+ years.

Some will be super helpful to their industries, others won't. I think increased competition will drive improvement in this industry. Never before have you had top level domains owned by small businesses.
 
This makes more sense than GTLDs. The only issue I can see if how would you communicate (orally, for example) to someone how to get to a site that doesn't want to be found using search engines? For example, a site that wants to be spread using word-of-mouth, but not be searchable?

Furthermore, it sounds like a great way to hijack a website without even hijacking a website.
 
Last edited:
Forgive me for the ignorant question but I've always wondered why we can't get rid of urls altogether. Urls just point to a set of numbers that represent your web address anyway, is that right? If so, can't we just use search engines to find what you want and the name is irrelevant? I'm honestly asking because I don't know how all of this works but it just seems to me that the site name is not as important, I visit plenty of sites where I have no idea what the web address actually is I just google it.

Does that make sense?

How would you post a link without a unique website name? You could just post the number, but that wouldn't be as nice.
Also if you want something obscure which won't come up on Google's first page, then it is nice to have a name to write into your browser.
 
They're probably doing a complete re-write of Aperture, like they did with Final Cut Pro and iWork.

In other words, get ready for impressive features... and frustrating missing features that will slowly be replaced.

Get ready? I've been ready for a couple of years. If I'd know Apple was going to be so slow in even achieving feature parity with Lightroom, I would have gone with Lightroom to begin with.

In other words, they'd better be working on a complete rewrite.
 
can we just keep .com, these are getting weird now.

Exactly. I remember when these generic TLDs were proposed a few years ago. I still don't understand them.

In this case... Apple owns apple.camera

Canon will probably buy canon.camera for themselves.

And I'm guessing Nikon will own nikon.camera too.

But why?
 
Forgive me for the ignorant question but I've always wondered why we can't get rid of urls altogether. Urls just point to a set of numbers that represent your web address anyway, is that right? If so, can't we just use search engines to find what you want and the name is irrelevant? I'm honestly asking because I don't know how all of this works but it just seems to me that the site name is not as important, I visit plenty of sites where I have no idea what the web address actually is I just google it.

Does that make sense?

A lot of servers that host multiple sites use name-based hosting. The server has one IP address and the httpd knows which content to serve because of the name. The alternative is to have each site have its own unique IP address and that may not be practical.
 
(Disclaimer: I'm part of the movement to introduce top level domains everyone can identify with, and reduce the regulation to the "right of the dot")

You'll wonder what the internet was like without self-identifying top level domains one day. The internet is still in it's infancy and as fast as it's growing - more top level domains.

They say over half of small businesses and the vast majority of people don't have websites. We're simply trying to change that.

That's because not every small business feels it would be economically viable for them to have one.

Why does every person need a website? They don't, it's just over inflated ego's that do.
 
Is Apple just picking these . domains up, just because they can ? or is their an actual purpose behind them.. ?

We say apple pick up "guru" domains, and now this happens..

Seems Apple hopping on the TLD band-wagon and snatching up as many as possible regardless of usage...

Thank goodness this wouldn't be actual public.. If they were, people would go nuts.

Keep it simple....

How many new ones would Apple employees see an ever expanding long list. How much is too much ?

Seems Apple's just wanting it all.
 
Again not surprising, this will continue on the other new TLDs as they get released. Apple is protecting their brand and products.
 
What about apple.xxx?

thats some kinky ****


however all current porn sites with .com should be .xxx only

----------

A lot of servers that host multiple sites use name-based hosting. The server has one IP address and the httpd knows which content to serve because of the name. The alternative is to have each site have its own unique IP address and that may not be practical.

We'd also be out of IP addresses a long, long time ago.. lol

----------

I can't Up-Vote you enough on this. My .com was sniped out from under my nose over ten years ago, and it's never been used. What a waste!

same here, although it was my fault for not having auto-renew.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.