discuss Why .app when we have app stores?

[FavourB]

Hi everyone,

This question is mainly thrown to the veterans and those who have long time history with domains, i believe from there experience they can render some explanation, not like the owe we the newbie any, but out of curiosity i just wish to know why the .app extension was created.

1&half years into the industry and it still makes no sense to me

So please why .app when we have various app stores?

 

[7363824]

Not a veteran by any means (only 1 year into domaining myself) but I could think of a few reasons.

1) Many apps are cross-platform meaning they exist in multipule app stores, I could see having a simple site explaining the app, linking to it on all the app stores it is in.

2) Hosting FAQ's, support tickets, or just plain email like support@ (appname).app

3) Mostly only android here as iOS blocks sideloading but some apps don't have a presence in the app store to get around their commissions, rules, ect. Fortnight is a common example here.

That said, I personally don't see any value in .app for investing purposes.

 

[Henry Y]

Progressive Web Apps (PWAs) are replacing native apps, and .app is the only extension that best matches PWAs.

 

[Jurgen Wolf]

Google failed with .mobi startup in the past...
So this is their 2nd attempt...

 

[MadAboutDomains]

Those that have been here for a while saw the hype over .mobi when it was launched. The thing is that it was a very different time, back when the extensions were limited to ccTlds and the original GTLDS and mobile websites resided on the 'm' subdomain and were static monstrosities without character. Every extension that was launched was a huge deal because of the limited number of them.

Back then 'app' wasn't common parlance and 'app stores' didn't exist like they do now and we didn't have the problems that apps cause today, like having to develop the app multiple times and the need to support many platforms. The front end web languages were also just developing or didn't support all of the nice stuff that they do today.

Front end Web development is an entirely different beast, too, it has received a LOT of love since then. We now have HTML5 and CSS3 supported widely and browsers support more things than ever (access to biometrics, camera etc). We have TypeScript for more robust JavaScript with type checking and compilation, we have kit like babel that allows you to write modern modular Javascript and will transpile it down to support old browsers and pollyfills the gaps automatically.

We're at a point now where the gaps between native and Web experiences are being filled in and Google and others are reimaginging how mobile Web experiences can have an app feel about them... and it looks like they're just getting started. The worlds of web and native apps are literally merging together and that's a good thing for innovation.

As for mobi/app now, .mobi registration volumes are half that of .app (300k vs 700k) which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of either extension. The .app extension is the 11th most registered gTLD according to ntldstats.com. When I look at .mobi now it seems strange because its not a common phrase unlike 'app'. I don't think I've seen a modern use of mobi in recent years and even the registry website has been left to rot.

 

[Nametree]

Have you guys looked at adoption? Of all ngTLDs I would venture to say .app is the most natural fit if not the most used.

It's tricky for domainers, Google is playing this one right, there are premiums on great keywords which keeps the names cycling, but the premiums aren't insane like some Donuts names, and they aren't holding "platinum" names back.

I've personally done quite well with .app names and remain a believer. As to why it makes sense when we already have app stores, well, it's ultimately about autonomy. Owning a domain name as opposed to owning a social media handle or a name in an appstore gives you a lot more control and ownership over your brand.

app was designed to replace .com as the number 1 extension on the web, but it fell short and the registry was seriously considering removing the .app extension all together.

How did you come up with this @Daniel Owens ?

 

[Paul]

So please why .app when we have various app stores?

Keep in mind that apps don't exist in a black box; most communicate with web services behind-the-scenes. For security and other technical reasons, it often makes sense to perform this communication on a separate domain name. Historically, there were various ways of going about this; for example, the app for example[.]com might communicate with exampleapp[.]com or example[.]io. app[.]example[.]com would've also been acceptable in many cases, but using a subdomain lacks some of the security benefits of using a separate SLD.

Now, the app for example[.]com might opt to use example[.]app. This has the added benefit of forcing HTTPS in modern clients, as app is in the HSTS preload list--a huge boon for security.

I wouldn't expect most .app domains to be visible to consumers, regardless of how Google markets them; at least for now, they're probably going to be used for convenience purposes within services, rather than as domains intended to be typed into a web browser.

 

[Paul]

It's not any use for enforcing security of back end systems, HSTS is a browser instruction. So there's no difference between .app and any other domain in this regard.

Yes there is: app is in the HSTS preload list with the includeSubDomains flag. That means that all websites on SLDs of app must use TLS--modern browsers will outright refuse to communicate with them over plaintext. Even if you try to enter http://example.app/ in your browser, and even if example.app were listening on port 80, your browser would never even attempt to connect over a plain connection.

That's pretty powerful. It's not the most important security feature, but it defeats certain kinds of attacks, and it mitigates the impact of common mistakes that a website operator might make.

It's no panacea; it's not going to magically defeat censorship under oppressive governments, nor is it going to secure clients that have otherwise defeated HSTS or TLS--such as cURL. However, choosing to host an API on an app SLD does mean that you've reduced the impact of human errors that might otherwise go unnoticed, especially on a website that will never be visible to the end-user (since it's just serving an API).

As explained by this quick bit of command line:

Yes, it's up to the client to enforce it. It's a safety net, not some magical security solution. Chances are if you're using the cURL command line utility, you're not a typical user. cURL is already difficult to use correctly (and securely)--as demonstrated by the mishandling of the text encoding in your screenshot.

Security in layers. HSTS is a powerful tool; were I making an API today, I'd definitely opt for a TLD that's in the preload list. Why not? Users are never going to see it, and it's a nice safety net.

 

[Bob Hawkes]

This week's NamePros Blog post deals with the .app extension and includes some information on real-use of the extension, the topic of this thread.

https://www.namepros.com/blog/two-years-plus-of-app-domain-name-sales.1207846/

Bob

 

[7363824]

.com is kind, and will probably always be.

However good .coms are becoming harder to find, and more expensive, making room for an alternate TLD IMO.

Personally I am quite bullish on .io and to a lesser extent on .co as good alternate extensions. They key with those IMO is to get the killer 1 word names, 3l's that make senese as an acronym (not something like ZWQ) and for .io tech and particular development related terms.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

Cheers Paul and mdrn. I agree that it's not a panacea and I also think it's great to have cause it's essentially ubiquitous in browsers now. It's a bug bear of mine when I see websites that aren't enforcing HTTPS, but what I'm trying to express (badly, it would seem) is that it's not going to protect back end systems out of the box because it requires client software to enforce it. Whereas we can and should protect our website and app backend APIs from the server side... HSTS is no excuse for not having that sown up.

Yes, it's up to the client to enforce it. It's a safety net, not some magical security solution. Chances are if you're using the cURL command line utility, you're not a typical user. cURL is already difficult to use correctly (and securely)--as demonstrated by the mishandling of the text encoding in your screenshot.

hehehe. Yes, I searched Google and the 3rd result down was open on port 80 and it happened to be non-English. I'm surprised that I found one that quickly.

 

[Bob Hawkes]

So what am trying to say is, I don't understand the .app value if...wait how do I put this

As I view it in most cases it is to have a site so that potential users can go to your app and learn about it, and then have the links for versions at all app sites. Also, it is a site for providing customer support, that by definition needs to in most cases be outside the app. I believe that the app stores (at least iOS does) has a rule that you must have a site to give for customer support.

Now some who use .app are not for that use. For example, if I was an app developer, wanting one for my career site, it makes sense to use my or my company name with .app.

Another use I would see is if some companies mainly have some website NAME.com, but they want to direct users for support for an app they also use they could say go to NAME.app (in same way many are using .news for the news site).

I think that ultimately .app has made medium progress. If it became so much the norm that when needing support for an app you would guess it would be at Name.app, in way people now in USA and to some degree in other parts guess the company site is at .com, then the demand for the .app would grow to some millions. Who knows if that will happen.

Not sure if you have gone to the links in the article with the examples Google are showcasing, or other examples I am giving.

I see .app as having a future as an extension. I am less clear about as a domain investment. I personally have none in my portfolio currently (had one in past).

Bob

Edit: Added note the website for an app does not have the same restrictions, on length, media etc, that the description in an app store does. As such it can be a more effective way to promote an app. This is not an argument for .app per se, since a .com or .tech or .io can do same, but is an argument re why we still need a website with an app.

 

[7363824]

yeah i believe in .co and .io is currently bullish for this duo, but am still scared on this two currently i have sold only 1.co for small XXX and i don't have any .io as i don't really know what works on that extension, but i believe in .us and i am investing into .us on a slow motion, weird right?

Ya personally short term I don't expect much from them but long term as really good .coms become more scarce and more expensive i expect they are good extensions to replace it with top tier name. Biggest problem is carrying costs. Personally I kinda feel like they are todays equivalent to .com in the 90s

 

[Cannuck]

I chose .app for an app (versus WP .com etc). Also, it came with free SSL for the domain.

 

[Henry Y]

All the PWAs I've seen are on the company's .com such as app.company.com would be interesting to see if that changes. I bet it will be another m.company.com vs company.mobi

Could you please show us some examples of using app.company.com for PWAs?

From my understanding, companies don't need subdomains (e.g. app.company.com) for PWAs because websites will be automatically switched to PWA mode when users visit the websites by mobile phones or tablets. They just simply need a domain name for PWAs. Although it is not a must for companies to have .app for PWAs, .app is the one that best matches PWAs among all domain extensions.

 

[FavourB]

.app was designed to replace .com as the number 1 extension on the web, but it fell short and the registry was seriously considering removing the .app extension all together. All we can do is hope .ecom will come out soon to replace .com as this is the e-commerce age and .com makes less sense then .ecom. .APP is unlikely to take off it is more likely in the near future that apps will replace domains.

.ecom? that's gonna end up being a failed project and a joke extension just like some extension, I think .info falls into that category, over 50 .info domains in my earlier days, I didn't even get an offer by mistake

 

[Nametree]

I'm happy you see the opportunity many of us don't do, so what would you advice to look out for before picking this extension, there are many great names left to be picked up, how do you siphone the valuable ones?

There are many good names that have been dropped in recent months, some of the early players who bought them by the dozen in early access probably couldn't afford the renewals.

Like with anything else except for .com, the only potentially worthwhile investment is in singular, common, one-word English names. Unfortunately, most that are still available hold $100-1000 yearly renewal price tags. So the economics don't make sense for domainers. The ones that don't have premiums... well, they've been picked over.

I don't have any advice and I wouldn't suggest anyone invest in .app unless you're wiling to hold for a few years. I personally have a few dozen I picked up at release that I'm still holding, and I've picked up some great ones this summer on the drop. I've sold enough to afford to reinvest in some names with higher renewals. So I'm biased, and it might not work out in the long run, but I think we're in a very different time than when mobi was launched and .app has the recognition and the usage no other new TLD has had.

 

[7363824]

I think .mobi has more value than .app, like i can understand .mobi can represent the mobile version of a software, like flashscore.mobi and all of that, but .app hell no

Google is gonna loose there second attempt, lets watch out for the 3rd.

I disagree about mobile, its about as useless as well you can imagine something pretty useless here.

Websites now all use responsive design, 1 site that adjusts to work equally as well on mobile as it does on desktop. Its use case has long since gone away.

Also Google already has their #3 .dev

 

[7363824]

Progressive Web Apps (PWAs) are replacing native apps, and .app is the only extension that best matches PWAs.

All the PWAs I've seen are on the company's .com such as app.company.com would be interesting to see if that changes. I bet it will be another m.company.com vs company.mobi

 

[branding]

app was designed to replace .com as the number 1 extension on the web, but it fell short and the registry was seriously considering removing the .app extension all together.

Never happened.

APP is unlikely to take off it is more likely in the near future that apps will replace domains.

It has already taken off.

 

[FavourB]

You can't compare .mobi to .app. different eras, different endgame for the registry. I'm not particularly fond of .app but you can't deny the successful launch of the TLD. Sales are there.

Google is doing quite well actually. They pick their open TLDs with usage in mind. Although not all as successful (.page) there are some with decent adoptation amongst endusers, like .dev.

To be Frank it was in the course of this thread I got to know about .dev

Seems Google is not tired of creating boring extensions

 

[branding]

yeah sure beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder.

What's your success rate with .dev?

Probably I can see something there to buy and hold off for.

.Dev is built for programmers and coders right?

Oh, I wouldn't advice anyone to invest in them. Not a lot of action being reported.

I got a dozen of them when it launched and have 2 or 3 left I think. Made some sales but nothing noteworthy. Nothing that cannot be accomplished with .com but I liked the keywords so couldn't let the opportunity pass

 

[branding]

Interesting, your investment actually paid off, but I guess you wont be picking them now again right.

Unless it's for personal use, probably not. But you know, if the right name comes along for the right price I just might.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

The thing with the word 'app' is that it is a common word that normal people use to refer to something, unlike dapp which is only known by a minority of geeks referring to the manifestation of the use of underlying blockchain technology.

Given that the average person doesn't generally call apps something different based on their underlying technology (sql vs nosql for example), I don't see why dapp apps would be any different cause the average person doesn't know about such things, they just tap away at the screen regardless of what technology it uses under the hood.

If blockchain tech becomes a mainstay of app development, it'll still be an app to the average person imho

Though there is no stand out reason to host your site on a .app other than if the developer decides that they want to do so, it's not a case of which phrase is most popular at a given time or whether one phrase will beat another or make it obsolete.

 

[Mr. Deleted]

Google failed with .mobi startup in the past...
So this is their 2nd attempt...