[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)