Google Announces .new Domain Availability

So the stated use case is for &#x27;performing new actions online: any act that leads to creation can have a quick and memorable .new shortcut associated with it.&#x27;<p>So it&#x27;s expecting users to go to a different website to perform one specific action, and then return to the original website?<p>If I&#x27;m on github.com, click the new repo button, and get redirected to &#x27;repo.new&#x27; I&#x27;m assuming the website has been hacked.<p>If I want to create a new repo on github the last thing I&#x27;m going to think is &#x27;oh yeah, I&#x27;ll just type repo.new and that will be super easy&#x27; - I&#x27;ll go to github.com and click the new repo button.<p>I just have no idea why anyone would use a whole .new domain to achieve the stated purpose!

&gt; That means that all .new domains registrations must: ...<p>I don&#x27;t get why anyone would want this over a regular domain with which they can do whatever they want with no restrictions.<p>It&#x27;s just another way for Google to control and have a say over other people&#x27;s businesses. For sure we&#x27;ll see again posts about people having had their product destroyed because Google cut them off with no way to appeal.

The only super useful version of this idea is a privacy law that requires services that collect data to offer a “facebook.delete” link to temporarily and permanently remove personal data.

So Google are doing their best to &#x27;kill off&#x27; URLs in Chrome and Search, but are simultaneously launching a new gTLD with rules that dictate exactly what URLs under .new should use?<p>This seems like a case of &#x27;the left hand doesn&#x27;t know what the right hand is doing&#x27;.

I&#x27;m still of the opinion that tld&#x27;s are a complete scam. There should be a flat rate across all of them. Google and Donuts are a drain on the internet infrastructure.

I like the concept behind this but I think the implementation is flawed as it binds the actions to specific providers. For example - repo.new only creates repos on GitHub, playlist.new only creates playlists on Spotify and the music.new thing for OVO Sound is just odd, being specific to a custom cover art generator thing.<p>For me, the better implementation would be where for each &quot;action&quot; there are numerous providers and at a user level you could define which one you want to use. So user A goes to repo.new and gets redirected to GitHub, user B goes to GitLab, user C to Bitbucket and so on. The first time you go to the action you&#x27;re prompted to select which service you want to use by default and from then on you go straight through.

I use a .io domain and I get why .com isn&#x27;t sufficient, but I really fail to see the value that this, along with most of the other cute new tld&#x27;s, bring to the world.<p>More than anything, I fear that it will teach my parents that domains can look like anything, so that link in the email is probably fine.

There&#x27;s a requirements list, by the way:<p>&quot;That means that all .new domains registrations must:<p>- Be used for action generation or online content creation;<p>- Take the user directly into the action generation or content creation flow;<p>- Resolve to the action within 100 days of registration;* and<p>- Allow Google Registry to verify compliance at no cost.&quot;

Been using <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;docs.new" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;docs.new</a> for the past 2-3 months.<p>It&#x27;s absolutely game-changing as I&#x27;m writing a bunch of stories and need to iterate fast and recompile my thoughts just by typing in 8 characters.

It&#x27;s so unfortunate that an idea like this is completely spoiled by who gets what term going to the highest bidder instead of to the services you personally use.<p>docs.new doesn&#x27;t do me any good if I use a competing product to Google Docs. Similarly, I might want to use playlist.new without Spotify.<p>Sure, these are just domains, but it really sours this weird use of this tld as a &quot;way to do things&quot; that it&#x27;s set to specific companies&#x27; services.

The registration site had better be at Https:&#x2F;&#x2F;new.new

So Google wants to get into the &quot;AOL keywords&quot; business. Just like bell-bottoms, everything comes around again after 20ish years.

It&#x27;s like they&#x27;re trying to turn the address bar into a terminal. I really don&#x27;t get it.

This certainly rings bells of AOL keywords...<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;repo.new&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;repo.new&#x2F;</a> goes to github... sorry gitlab - you lose this round.

$452 per year on Gandi (I queried two-letter names up to a dozen; they were all the same price). I get there is some cost to enforcing the intent of the TLD, but that seems rather high to query a domain and check. It should take all but a few minutes.

Wouldn’t it be so much better if domains were specified the other way?<p>new.github.repo<p>It makes more sense and sounds better in most languages too<p>Although from the point of view of HTTP we already have verbs for that. It should really be<p>POST github&#x2F;repo<p>Or maybe in user friendly display:<p>new github&#x2F;repo<p>I guess maybe usa.github and in.github can be different domains because different organizations may have same name in diff countries<p>Treating a TLD as a verb is just silly. It comes at the end of the sentence...<p>Also it encourages stuff like repo.new to be owned by only one company - github - but what about atlassian butbucket etc?<p>Better to just have decreasing specificity. Like you have after the slash!

This seems rather... useless. I&#x27;ve bought a few tld&#x27;s mainly in just a land-grab&#x2F;cover-my-bases fashion but by and large they are all useless. Every bit of traffic is coming from HN&#x2F;Twitter&#x2F;FB&#x2F;Google. The direct traffic is low enough that it&#x27;s probably coming from either me. It doesn&#x27;t matter if I have an .co&#x2F;.io&#x2F;.com&#x2F;.dev they are all the same at the end of the day.<p>These new TLD&#x27;s strike me as just a money grab before some people realize a domain name matters FAR less than most people thing.<p>Maybe I&#x27;m just not the target audience but I don&#x27;t ever see myself typing &quot;gist.new&quot; into my address bar. Anyone who knows what a gist is is going to go to github and if you don&#x27;t know what a gist is then you aren&#x27;t going to know to type &quot;gist.new&quot; into the address bar.

Google is trying to be the central authority on what the central authority to do a thing is. Probably a good business move but it creeps me out.

Since when is an arbitrary cross-origin domain name a valid user interface choice?<p>From a security standpoint, using the _path_ of a trusted domain is still a thousand times more secure and convenient, rather than navigating to another arbitrary domain name with no validation of whether it is affiliated with the domain where you&#x27;ve come from.<p>If Google push this sort of mechanism, it&#x27;s opening up a whole load of fraud capabilities! If I&#x27;m on gmail and receive a phishing attack email, tricking me into navigating to &quot;gmail.new&quot; which asks for my google password, should I type it into the box? There is a green padlock in the URL so it must be fine.

On FF+uMatrix, a popup that won&#x27;t go away shows this &quot;exciting&quot; message:<p><pre><code> [[domainSearchCtrl.getMessage(&#x27;How exciting! {domain} is available.&#x27;)]] </code></pre> I think I&#x27;ll not whitelist anything.

As mentioned on the linked page, <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;docs.new" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;docs.new</a>, <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;sheets.new" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;sheets.new</a>, and <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;slides.new" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;slides.new</a> exist as shortcuts to get to a new google doc, but it doesn&#x27;t play well with Chrome&#x27;s address bar - using them makes getting to existing docs and sheets take an extra step. Not the worst, but still, kind of annoying.

I&#x27;m looking forward to .old

Why do we need this?

This is awful. Google Docs is <i>a</i> place where you can create a new document, not <i>the</i> place. Same for Spotify etc.<p>Giving the .new domain to the dominant company just makes it harder for everyone else to compete with them. Which is probably the point.

I&#x27;m a bit confused. Are these domains only usable as web redirects? Or is it just that the examples shown are used as such, but we can use the domain as any other one? I wonder how having multiple entries to the same page will affect page ranking.<p>Looking up gist.new, I wonder why there are 2 requests done:<p>307 Internal Redirect<p>301 Moved Permanently<p>Before getting the 200 request to <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gist.github.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gist.github.com&#x2F;</a>.

How can they own and control the registration and dictate its policy for this new domain (pun somehow intended)? Will it ever be available to other providers to sell this domain with perhaps different rules?

searchengine.new

I really hate how they want generic domains, like doc.new instead of googledoc.new :(<p>Also the price seems a bit high for a TLD :G

eBay gets “sell.new”? RunKit gets “api.new”?<p>This is awful.

Who decided that, for example, music.new goes to OVO and not itunes? Was there an auction?

Ok what&#x27;s the value in this?

I&#x27;m sure Amazon&#x27;s not happy they gave shop.new to eBay.

Am I the only one who looks at new TLDs and immediately starts thinking of puns you can use in the URL?<p>re.new k.new si.new<p>Not much there. I guess you can use phrases:<p>outwiththeoldinwiththe.new<p>There is just a lot more possibility with Google&#x27;s &quot;app&quot; TLD.

I typed word.new and I got a cert error. Use at your own risk.

tld.new

lets just go back to IP addresses at this point

This is unnecessary. .api would be more useful.