I keep thinking about the fact that first, ICANN was freed of it's tie to the US government, and since then, it's been business deal after business deal to corrupt the domain system.
Including "{firstname}.dev"
Nonsense.
If Google's worried about domain squatters, it controls the TLD rules and can come up with a less moneygrab strategy. Perhaps require a Github account and limit to one domain per customer?
FCFS is fairer than extortion.
You do know that there are devs that prefer other code hosting platforms, right? GitHub is a proprietary service that's generally terrible for developers.
In what way? I find it incredibly awesome.
https://support.google.com/domains/answer/6010092#registry
I just checked my Google Domains account, and my .dev domain renews for "$180 plus tax".
The pricing is entirely opaque and you can't find it listed anywhere, but I did find a comment from HN last year that listed several examples:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19201073
Some names cost even more than the $200 I initially cited!
That requirement would exclude most developers, including myself.
> The web ad giant is keeping these domains "completely closed for the sole use of Google," as its paperwork filed[0] for .dev reads.
> Why not also share the wealth of .dev with developers? Well, in a word: branding. Google's successful application for .dev reads: "The proposed gTLD will provide Google with direct association to the term 'dev', which is an abbreviation of the word 'development'. The mission of this gTLD, .dev, is to provide a dedicated domain space in which Google can enact second-level domains specific to its projects in development."
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/13/google_developer_gt...
0 - https://gtldresult.icann.org/applicationstatus/applicationde...
Well, I occasionally read CNET, which has the domain "news.com".
But, the fact that domain points to CNET rather than something more well-known (and general-interest) is itself great evidence of the unimportance of general domains.
Also, CBS Interactive bought CNET more than a decade ago, and the news.com domain with it. CBS has kept the domain pointed to CNET rather than, say, having it point to cbsnews.com.
facebook.com maybe as well although it has given the word a new meaning.
I don't, because those names are almost always used by major corporations and the like, and I almost never am interested those websites.
Probably because those extended TLDs are shunned by many users. I know that I tend to avoid sites that use them, because such sites tend to be ones that I prefer to avoid.
There are a few such sites that I'm comfortable with, of course, but those TLDs are a bit of a red flag and sight unseen, I assume they're not for me.