Hacker News Reader

Comment by Double_a_92 | Hacker News Reader

That still seems pretty reasonable. They want ".new" to be seen and used as an interaction element, not as a random TLD. E.g. if twitter would get one, twitter.new would bring you somewhere where you could directly start typing a new tweet.

View on HN

Well, good luck when your app gets flag by their bot, broken because the .new no longer works, and you can't get a hold of Google to remove you from their blacklist.

Just read all the horror stories about apps on Google Play.

Well that would be a different issue... But their requirements / vision for the .new domain are not unreasonable or ill-intentioned.

Well intention doesn't help you if the execution sucks.

What about "car.new", where you can buy cars? Would that be enough "action generation"?

tesla.new where you can order directly online, yeh probably. That's I reckon exactly the kind of distinction I think they're going for. ford.new would make me go to a dealer so I think they should be able to never get one.

But when you can book an appointment at a ford dealer next to you that would be kind of "action generation".

Or what is when Ford will never get ford.new, is it free to register by anyone?

> Or what is when Ford will never get ford.new, is it free to register by anyone?

Trademark law still exists, this is a solved problem.

Would only apply is the domain is being used with cars. Ford is a common last name.. could be dentist call to action.

As a user I don't think I'd ever go to .new directly. If you've got some other way to get users there from the main site, you might as well use a query string, path, subdomain or some combination of the three.

I'm not a web dev, but I've dabbled a bit over the years. So I guess I could be missing something. I'm sure the right marketing could make this work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com