[HN Gopher] No, Google did not hike the price of a .dev domain f...
___________________________________________________________________
No, Google did not hike the price of a .dev domain from $12 to $850
Author : arkadiyt
Score : 134 points
Date : 2022-12-13 21:27 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.agwa.name)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.agwa.name)
| pfoof wrote:
| So the best way is to buy the domain for 10 years upfront as long
| as the year prices are equal and not like first year for $5 and
| each subsequent for $150.
| notpushkin wrote:
| Unless the prices go down! You never know.
|
| But if you see some promotional pricing on renewals or
| transfers, remember that you can add a few years anytime and
| not just on your registration anniversary. And when you
| transfer a domain, most of the cases it extends by a year too
| (although for some very rare ccTLDs that might not be the case
| I think).
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| Has the renewal price of any popular TLD _ever_ gone down? I
| guess you could argue that it has effectively gone down when
| staying the same due to inflation.
| yakak wrote:
| The original price of .com, .org, .net, etc was $50/year,
| then $35, then network solutions lost its monopoly and
| today you still pay less..
|
| Of course the other issue is the future popularity is
| unknown. I think a lot of the first wave of new TLDs are
| not so hot today, but maybe they aren't lowering their
| prices if their last cash is from domain renewals of those
| reluctant to move on.
| abruzzi wrote:
| my personal domain is a ccTLD domain and has gone down over
| time. I know it's a bit iffy, but I like my ultra short
| domain, and if they take it from me...oh well.
| skybrian wrote:
| This is especially true if you're paying with a currency that's
| experiencing high inflation and the price hasn't been adjusted
| yet. You can get a very good deal, so might as well buy all you
| can.
| mromanuk wrote:
| > It's true that most .dev domains are just $12/year. But this
| person never paid $12 for forum.dev. According to his own
| screenshots, he paid 4,360 Turkish Lira for the initial
| registration on December 6, 2021, which was $317 at the time. So
| yes, the price did go up, but not nearly as much as the above
| comment implied.
|
| Alright, so it went from $317 to $850.
| tourist2d wrote:
| You might want to learn about currency exchange rates.
| shkkmo wrote:
| While the point you are making is correct, your comment comes
| across as unnecessarily condescending and snarky in a way
| that doesn't embody the guidelines for commenting on HN:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| walrus01 wrote:
| now google "turkish lira to USD exchange chart"
|
| This is actually an astonishingly good time to buy products
| which are manufactured in Turkey for export, if you're a
| foreign customer.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| According to TFA, $317 was a limited time deal created by
| Turkish Lira inflation and Google being slow to update prices
| in Lira.
| orangepurple wrote:
| I move all new registrations to the least criminal registrar I
| could find: porkbun
| agwa wrote:
| I tried out the test domains mentioned in my blog post and
| Porkbun does a pretty good job disclosing the renewal price,
| except for the aftermarket domain where the renewal price is
| not listed. But at least in this case the renewal price is much
| lower than the initial price. So yeah, Porkbun looks a lot
| better than some of the other registrars out there.
| EGreg wrote:
| Why that one
| plesiv wrote:
| Domain squatting should not be a thing. Domain name prices should
| be such that squatting is unprofitable.
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| I'd say for $10 per domain that it actually surpasses the price
| of Twitter Blue which Musk claims will prevent bots.
| lolinder wrote:
| Doing so would price most individuals out of owning a domain,
| unless you tried to have separate pricing for individuals
| (which is messy).
| teddyh wrote:
| If you did that, you would effectively ban domain name
| ownership from everybody who does not make a lot of money from
| their domain. Is commercial activity the only thing which
| should have domain names?
| dang wrote:
| Recent and related:
|
| _Premium .dev domain with Google costs $850_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33928399 - Dec 2022 (436
| comments)
| jeffbee wrote:
| Are there any practical ideas for ways HN can prevent itself
| from whipping up giant outrage threads based on something
| false?
| dang wrote:
| > _giant outrage threads based on something false_
|
| I think preventing those is impossible, because (a) human
| nature loves outrage, and (b) we don't have a truth machine.
| But it would be good to find ways to mitigate it. For
| example, it's useful to be able to put "[fixed]" or
| "[resolved]" in titles while the original thread is still
| active. "[refuted]" would be too provocative though.
|
| Building software to let the community make the call might be
| a good idea. Currently the moderators have to do it and
| that's risky enough that we end up being pretty conservative.
| saagarjha wrote:
| Would that help in cases like these? It's been several days
| since it was first posted.
| t-writescode wrote:
| People with industry knowledge in that thread, certainly
| like the writer of this new, much more verbose post, were
| very aware of how FUDy the original outrage article was
| akiselev wrote:
| Replace all the humans with ChatGPT bots?
| smegger001 wrote:
| you assume that the rest of the internet aren't just chat
| bot instances talking mindlessly to each other?
| akira2501 wrote:
| I wonder if the ratio of misplaced outrage threads to useful
| ones makes the idea itself something to be done away with
| entirely. There's seemingly little space between curiosity
| and full blown outrage, an no natural mechanism for the
| community to more deeply and openly investigate and report on
| these issues before taking an over sized and possibly wildly
| unjustified stance on it.
| PascLeRasc wrote:
| A Firefox extension that replaces the word Google with
| Microsoft would get everyone to calmly explain Hanlon's razor
| to each other and say that whatever's wrong is acceptable
| because they were worse in the past.
| ryanobjc wrote:
| This is the purpose of HN imo lol
| kodah wrote:
| $850 for a domain is quite outrageous. Directing that outrage
| to the right places is a challenge in discipline. Working on
| frameworks to help people dissect something logically when
| they discover something outrageous would probably be the most
| helpful.
| cxr wrote:
| Community self-policing. Be skeptical of submissions making
| bombastic claims, flag the ones that are untrue, and punish
| commenters that take untrue claims at face value and are
| whipping up other people, especially when something's
| already been debunked.
|
| HN used to be better at the punishment part. It seems like
| nowadays there are a lot more sympathy upvotes--you can say
| whatever untrue thing you want, and as long as you seem
| polite about it or it's in support of the right side of
| some pet issue then you won't be discouraged, even if
| you're being reckless.
| shkkmo wrote:
| There were a number of skeptical commenters that raised
| various issues at the time. I definitely came away from
| reading that comment thread skeptical that the issue had
| happened exactly as described. We eventually had
| https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=CydeWeys come in a
| confirm that the domain had always been premium.
|
| I'd say that HN did a pretty good job of pushing back on the
| outrage machine and correcting the misinformation. We even
| get a follow up article clarifying things.
|
| What we can do better is to continue to downvote and
| constructively respond to comments that jump the gun and use
| the current topic to push outrage over broader unrelated
| issues. As we train and remind each other to read more
| carefully and critically, the quality of HN comments will
| match that effort.
|
| Edit: If I had a personal hot take, it would be that twitter
| threads in general seem to prompt this type of outrage
| bandwagon behavior more than other mediums and perhaps should
| face ranking penalties for appearing on the front page. (But
| I'm biased here because I simply hate reading them.)
| fncivivue7 wrote:
| Hn isn't the problem, Google has repeatedly rug pulled the
| community. Outrage by default is the outcome of that.
|
| Said it here before and I'll say it again, if you have your
| online life tied to google in anyway you're setting yourself
| up for a shit time.
| novateg wrote:
| The domain names are rented. I remember $12 .com renewals on
| GoDaddy, now it's $18, Cloudflare charges about $8 for renewals.
| The registrars always use dependent customers and play with
| pricing.
|
| I have got a domain hack hal.al last year from host.al, the
| payment for the registration was done, and I got a confirmation
| for the domain ownership. After 2-3 days I got an email saying
| that it is a premium domain and I need to pay $2k to get the
| ownership. So it's always tricky to purchase a domain, you never
| own it
| behringer wrote:
| https://www.gandi.net/en-US/no-bullshit
| pie_flavor wrote:
| As the article mentions:
|
| > It's important to note that registries for country-code TLDs
| (which is every 2-letter TLD) do not have enforceable registry
| agreements with ICANN. Instead, they are governed by their
| respective countries (or similar political entities), which can
| do as they please. They can sucker you in with a low price and
| then hold your domain hostage when it gets popular.
| staunch wrote:
| It's worth considering the fact that this being a "premium
| domain" is the only reason it was even available register in the
| first place. If it had been a $12/year domain, some annoying
| domainer would have snatched it up on the first day it was
| available.
|
| Premium domains really do seem to be a win-win for registries and
| regular buyers.
| verst wrote:
| My five letter first name for some reason was not a premium
| domain (probably because it's not an English name and someone
| didn't do their homework) and I pay $12 / year. Of course the
| name would be snatched up quickly so I did buy it during the
| early access period when I had to pay $250 or so as an early
| registration fee.
| t-writescode wrote:
| I'm glad someone made this post. There was so much misinformation
| and uninformed discussion and misuse of terms in that thread that
| I was astounded.
|
| This person seems to have done a great job of breaking everything
| down.
| alar44 wrote:
| I've come to the conclusion that hackernews is mostly
| programmers and not sysadmins. This crowd is just not that
| savvy with these types of things. I could be wrong, but that's
| the vibe I get. There's always a ton of bad information when
| infosec comes up.
| behringer wrote:
| The issue is that Google's charging for any domain at $850
| dollars. It's absurd.
| mrunkel wrote:
| Why is that an issue?
| pie_flavor wrote:
| On other popular registries it would cost you thousands of
| dollars, or for .com tens of thousands of dollars, as a
| squatter would have picked it up instantly. By charging a high
| price for rental, Google ensures that it's unprofitable to
| squat on it, and legitimate owners get it for much less.
| Gigachad wrote:
| Is it? Premium domain names have genuine scarcity and $850 is
| nothing to a company making productive use of it. Better than
| having them all squatted and resold for tens of thousands.
| silisili wrote:
| Ooo glad to see this follow up. I remember reading the original
| and knowing that probably wasn't right. I worked for a registry
| for many years and premium domain names were never part of GA for
| the normal price. We also never moved a GA name to premium later,
| but I can't speak for other registries.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-13 23:00 UTC)