Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Amazon's Quest For Web Names Draws Foes

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the making-enemies dept.

Your Rights Online 114

quantr writes in with a story about backlash to Amazon's request for ownership of new top-level domain names. "Large and small companies are vying for control of an array of new Internet domain names, but Amazon.com Inc.'s plans are coming under particular scrutiny. Two publishing industry groups, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, are objecting to the online retailer's request for ownership of new top-level domain names that are part of a long-awaited expansion of the Web's addressing scheme. They argue that giving Amazon control over such addresses—which include '.book,' '.author' and '.read'—would be a threat to competition and shouldn't be allowed. 'Placing such generic domains in private hands is plainly anti-competitive,' wrote Scott Turow, Authors Guild president, to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, the nonprofit that oversees the world's Internet domain names. 'The potential for abuse seems limitless.'"

cancel ×

114 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

"But they gave us a LOT of money" replies ICANN (5, Insightful)

Looker_Device (2857489) | about a year and a half ago | (#43139249)

I mean a SHITLOAD of money! Did YOU give us a shitload of money?

Re:"But they gave us a LOT of money" replies ICANN (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43139577)

Here we learn that there should have been ~180 top level domains, one for each country.

Re:"But they gave us a LOT of money" replies ICANN (4, Insightful)

toejam13 (958243) | about a year and a half ago | (#43139589)

Did YOU give us a shitload of money?

That's clearly what this boils down to. This massive free-form expansion of TLDs is little more than a revenue generation scheme by ICANN. So the same sort of wild-west name grabs we saw with .com domain names will simply be repeated here, just on a larger scale.

I'm sure that all of the new issues of domain squatting and trademark conflicts with/within these new TLDs will be addressed by ICANN, that is if you can get them to stop rolling around in their piles of money for a minute.

This langrab is by and for corporations (3, Insightful)

boorack (1345877) | about a year and a half ago | (#43140041)

Price for TLD registration has been set high enough to eliminate many (if not most) small businesses. This move pushes Internet into corporate hands even more.

Re:This langrab is by and for corporations (1)

cheater512 (783349) | about a year and a half ago | (#43142171)

Mind you it would have been a blood bath if a TLD cost $10.
Can you imagine how awful it would be?

Re:"But they gave us a LOT of money" replies ICANN (1)

Beorytis (1014777) | about a year and a half ago | (#43141289)

So the same sort of wild-west name grabs we saw with .com domain names will simply be repeated here, just on a larger scale.

Amazon is hoping that it is perceived as simply a "larger scale", and that people miss the distinction between a domain and a top-level domain.

Re:"But they gave us a LOT of money" replies ICANN (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#43142781)

Which is why it never should have been allowed, its gonna create nothing but a headache for everybody else, be a squatters paradise, the ONLY ones that end up ahead are ICANN who can pull this trick any time they want more $$$.

Re:"But they gave us a LOT of money" replies ICANN (1)

Solandri (704621) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143103)

Here's a list of the TLDs added last time ICANN did this:

.aero
.asia
.biz
.cat
.coop
.info
.int
.jobs
.mobi
.museum
.name
.post
.pro
.tel
.travel
.xxx

Given how infrequently they're used (.mobi is probably the most successful, and it isn't really necessary as most sites simply redirect you from site.mobi to mobile.site.com), it's pretty clear we don't need new TLDs. And this is just a money grab by ICANN.

Re:"But they gave us a LOT of money" replies ICANN (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143735)

No, .int is an old TLD, for international intergovernmental organizations. The UN uses un.int, for example. It's not quite as old as the original five, but it's pretty close iirc.

Re:"But they gave us a LOT of money" replies ICANN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43144841)

No, .int is an old TLD, for international intergovernmental organizations. The UN uses un.int, for example. It's not quite as old as the original five, but it's pretty close iirc [wikipedia.org] .

FTFY ;)

Citation Needed (1)

mlow82 (889294) | about a year and a half ago | (#43139685)

Nice edgy comment, but what evidence do you have that ICANN was paid off?

Re:Citation Needed (1)

drkstr1 (2072368) | about a year and a half ago | (#43139943)

Nice edgy comment, but what evidence do you have that ICANN was paid off?

Can you still call it "getting paid off" when the bribery is part of a contract?

The Best Internet Addresses Will Cost a Cool .Million [nytimes.com]

Re:Citation Needed (1)

krotkruton (967718) | about a year and a half ago | (#43139977)

Yeah, and since the summary is actually longer than the teaser from the paywalled article, there isn't a lot of info to talk about here. Are the "foes" in question even angry with Amazon or are they really fighting back against ICANN? I mean, I don't think there's anything wrong with Amazon TRYING to get the domain names; the problem would be if ICANN actually gave them to Amazon.

Re:Citation Needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43140741)

I don't think there's anything wrong with Amazon TRYING to get the domain names; the problem would be if ICANN actually gave them to Amazon.

How can you possibly say that?! Every human being, every corporation, has the duty to act in a responsible manner. And the bigger the corporation the more important this duty. TRYING to take sole ownership of a TLD with a generic name like .book is simply irresponsible, absolutely nothing good can come out of it.

Frankly I'm sadly amazed that Amazon would even think of the idea, and doubly amazed that people like you exist that think it's not wrong in every way. With all the profit Amazon has gotten out of the internet, an infrastructure that was created largely from public funding and the donated time of countless humans, the only RIGHT thing Amazon can do is to fork up the money for the TLD and donate it to the public domain.

Re:Citation Needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43139993)

Do you even know what they're talking about? ICANN set the fee to use a new TLD. A TLD is a Top Level Domain like .com or .org. The new ones could be almost anything and would be owned by the purchaser. This time around they (ICANN) made the price high enough that only (already well off) indeviduals or corporations could squat on the good names. Hence, they get to take a money bath while they pretend to listen to complaints that Amazon is squatting domains.

Re:Citation Needed (2)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year and a half ago | (#43140035)

ICANN's application fee for a new TLD $185,000. Amazon appplied for 76 of them. That's $14 million. This is all public information and has been discussed on slashdot previously,

Re:Citation Needed (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year and a half ago | (#43140097)

I don't think you understand the comment.

Re:"But they gave us a LOT of money" replies ICANN (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about a year and a half ago | (#43140223)

I mean a SHITLOAD of money! Did YOU give us a shitload of money?

Hmm. I wonder if .shitload is available...

BRB

Re:"But they gave us a LOT of money" replies ICANN (1)

rvw (755107) | about a year and a half ago | (#43140663)

I mean a SHITLOAD of money! Did YOU give us a shitload of money?

Hmm. I wonder if .shitload is available...

BRB

If not, .onehundredeightyfivethousanddollars is for grabs!

Re:"But they gave us a LOT of money" replies ICANN (1)

Looker_Device (2857489) | about a year and a half ago | (#43140707)

Only if you have $185,000.

Re:"But they gave us a LOT of money" replies ICANN (1)

fatphil (181876) | about a year and a half ago | (#43141791)

I'll grab .load, and can do you a twofer on .butt.load and .shit.load?

Re:"But they gave us a LOT of money" replies ICANN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43140413)

Given a choice between Authors Guild or Amazon, I'd go with Amazon. Suck it * Guilds!

Re:"But they gave us a LOT of money" replies ICANN (1)

trylak (935041) | about a year and a half ago | (#43140727)

Why? And would you go with Microsoft over a Dev Guild?

How about Amazon ... (4, Interesting)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#43139311)

... gets the top level domain: Amazon

And then do what they want with the subdomains book. author.

Re:How about Amazon ... (2)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year and a half ago | (#43139437)

Aren't they also in a fight with Brazil over the top level domain ".amazon"? It would make sense that Brazil would want it and have a better claim to it than Amazon since they have the Amazon River and Amazon rainforest.

Re:How about Amazon ... (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year and a half ago | (#43139475)

And existed, for a few millenia, prior to Amazon, Inc.

Re:How about Amazon ... (1)

msauve (701917) | about a year and a half ago | (#43139511)

No, that makes no sense at all. The name Amazon long pre-dates the river, being the name of a mythological tribe of warrier women who removed a breast so they could better shoot a bow. "Amazon" comes from the Greek a-mazos, "without a breast." The countries in the Amazon River basin have a no more legitimate claim to the domain than does the company. Let them use .amazonriver and/or .amazonrainforest, if they wish.

Re:How about Amazon ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43139615)

"Let them use .amazonriver and/or .amazonrainforest, if they wish."

Great idea! Seriously. Then the store can use .amazonshopping, or .amazonstore. ".amazon" should be reserved for women who are warriors and have had one breast removed.

Re:How about Amazon ... (3, Informative)

msauve (701917) | about a year and a half ago | (#43140747)

Or, simply follow the long established rules of the gTLD process. Brazil and Peru didn't file an application for "amazon," Amazon the company is the only entity which did. Now those countries are trying to get out of playing by the rules. Their objection simply doesn't fall into one of the categories [icann.org] allowed.

Re:How about Amazon ... (5, Funny)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#43141823)

Great idea! Seriously. Then the store can use .amazonshopping, or .amazonstore

Or amazoncompany. And they can then shorten it to amazon.com!

Re:How about Amazon ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43143177)

My kingdom for a modpoint!

Re:How about Amazon ... (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year and a half ago | (#43139769)

No, that makes no sense at all. The name Amazon long pre-dates the river, being the name of a mythological tribe of warrier women who removed a breast so they could better shoot a bow.

But the name Amazon, as the name of the river, long pre-dates the website. So it does make sense.

Re:How about Amazon ... (1)

msauve (701917) | about a year and a half ago | (#43140493)

By that logic, the Greeks have an even better claim, since they originated the word.

Re:How about Amazon ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43139529)

No offence, but nobody gives a fuck for what Brazil wants.

Re:How about Amazon ... (0)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year and a half ago | (#43140111)

You should; Brazil is where hairless honeypot comes from. If they start a trade war and cut off our supply of shaved snatch, prepare yourself for 70s-era big bush porn.

Re:How about Amazon ... (2)

Ant2 (252143) | about a year and a half ago | (#43140061)

Serve's Brazil right for naming a forest and river after an online retailer.

Re:How about Amazon ... (2)

js_sebastian (946118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43140121)

Aren't they also in a fight with Brazil over the top level domain ".amazon"? It would make sense that Brazil would want it and have a better claim to it than Amazon since they have the Amazon River and Amazon rainforest.

https://xkcd.com/1165/ [xkcd.com]

Advantage: Amazon.

Re:How about Amazon ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43140271)

I don't forsee anyone ever typing in anything other than .net .org . or .com. 98% percent of people don't know about .gov or .mil as when downloading tax forms they will jst go straight to the top google result rather than seeking the trustworthy .gov.

I remember there was supposed to be a huge social media innovation centered on the opening of the .me domain availability. Suprisingly, it never took off. [fuck.me]

The only possible reason I can see for wanting the .amazon domain is to sell to spammers.

Re:How about Amazon ... (1)

Prosthetic_Lips (971097) | about a year and a half ago | (#43145147)

Unfortunately, most people just bring up Google/Bing and type in (or, worse, just type into the address bar) what they are looking for. Even Google-ing for "amazon.com" -- I cringe every time.

Re:How about Amazon ... (4, Insightful)

gman003 (1693318) | about a year and a half ago | (#43140641)

So obviously what we need is some way to distinguish commercial use of the name "Amazon" from the Brazilian or organizational use of the name.

It is truly a shame that there is absolutely nothing like this.

Re:How about Amazon ... (2)

Antipater (2053064) | about a year and a half ago | (#43139473)

More controversial than you'd think, given that the governments of Brazil and Peru have basically said "over our dead bodies".

Re:How about Amazon ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43139559)

More controversial than you'd think, given that the governments of Brazil and Peru have basically said "over our dead bodies".

Couldn't the US just nuke them and so help grant their wishes?

Re:How about Amazon ... (2)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43139639)

Your sig is particularly ironic, given that the topic is currently the Amazon (incl. rainforest).

Re:How about Amazon ... (1)

thomasw_lrd (1203850) | about a year and a half ago | (#43139657)

I'm sure Amazon, Inc will just make a deal with the Brazilian Cartels to make a black market amazon.com for them to sell their wares on. And then the govt. or Brazil will quietly let this drop.

Re:How about Amazon ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43143217)

The river would be Amazon.Peru or Amazon.Brazil.

Handing the TLD domain Amazon over to one or the other would trigger a war that neither would survive. So we'd be doing them a favor in a way.

Re:How about Amazon ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43140089)

... gets the top level domain: Amazon

And then do what they want with the subdomains book. author.

I've often wondered why we don't do away with top-level suffixes completely and let entities order up whatever name they want as their own top-level domain. Yes, we'd have a whole lot of domains but do end users really need to remember that they need to add a .com or was it .org or was it .net or whatever. Yes, their would be another names mini gold rush but they could give preference to existing domain holders. Those who thought they were being treated unfairly could still argue their case before WIPO. Let delegation from the roots occur alphabetically instead of by suffix.

Re:How about Amazon ... (1)

asylumx (881307) | about a year and a half ago | (#43140103)

Instead of that, since they are classified as a company, let's give them amazon.company. We could shorten for amazon.com for the sake of brevity.

Re:How about Amazon ... (1)

fatphil (181876) | about a year and a half ago | (#43141835)

But there are synonyms that need to be covered. They're a commercial entity, so would want both amazon.commercial and amazon.commerce - I have no problem with that. Again, we could shorten both of those too.

Re:How about Amazon ... (1)

houghi (78078) | about a year and a half ago | (#43140129)

Amazon TLD? I do not think the Brazilians are happy about that.

Just get rid of all the TLDs except the country ones and let each country decide. "But what if I work in multiple countries?". Well, tough shit. You just get Amazon.de and Amazon.co.uk next to amazon.us.
"But what about debian.org?" Again, tough shit. At this moment they an address is the USofA, so debian.us would be the best option.
And if you want to have domains in more countries, just see that you have the right to get that domain.

Just because it is harder does not mean it isn't the most logical option.

Re:How about Amazon ... (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a year and a half ago | (#43141323)

... gets the top level domain: Amazon

And then they force all their authors to use an email address in that domain, and then all their authors get rejected from all the modern web services that use the broken email validation scripts running rampant.

Not only are ignorant web programmers making up their own limits on local-parts of an email address (e.g., "+ invalid"), they've created a 2-4 character limit on the TLD. People in .museum and .travel are already hosed, as well as anyone using an internationalized TLD that has at least one example that is 22 characters long. It would be wonderful for Amazon to be the next victim.

Stop whining (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43139339)

Stop whining and create your own DNS root servers, then get people to use them.

Then you get to control .com, .ca, and .whateverelseyouwant.

Simple solution, no?

Having a capitalist corporation that pays its employees/managers handsomely is inevitable.

a .com costs hundreds of times more to register than it actually costs to maintain the DNS services that allow users to reach it.

NOT allowing a private corporation hasn't helped us any.... could it really hurt?

DOT TEE KAY!!! DOT TEE KAY!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43139367)

Who says Amazon won't make things more accessible and fair? .coms certainly aren't that cheap to acquire. .tks were.

What's the worry about .book?

That amazon will pick which "Programming in C" book gets www.ProgrammingInC.book?

Ohh no! What a travesty! That's so much more dangerous than first come-first serve.

I agree... (4, Funny)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#43139413)

the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers... argue that giving Amazon control over such addresses—which include '.book,' '.author' and '.read'—would be a threat to competition and shouldn't be allowed.

You know? I agree with them... of would be like /.-ers raising a kickstarter to take the .grits TLD without giving a damn on the what Natalie would think.

Re:I agree... (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year and a half ago | (#43139507)

Or Wilford Brimley.

Re:I agree... (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43139819)

I can't even look at that dude without seeing the "diabeetus cat" meme pop into my head.

Nothing makes you feel like a bad person like laughing at jokes about terminal illness.

Re:I agree... (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year and a half ago | (#43140499)

Meh, living is terminal.

Laugh before it gets you.

Re:I agree... (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | about a year and a half ago | (#43142745)

She'd probably make a bad ass rap video about it.

"web names" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43139495)

Next you'll be gushing about "new extensions". What is this, computerworld? Sheesh.

Surprise! (4, Informative)

ReallyEvilCanine (991886) | about a year and a half ago | (#43139519)

Anyone who spent more than five pre-1999 minutes on the Internetties knew that the idea of a free-for-all of generic TLDs was more useless than the pope's nutsack. We watched the bubble burst before October, 2000 and saw what happened with otherwise-untrademark-able generic words was getting us into, and that was still with dotcom, dotorg, and doznet.

Re:Surprise! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43139673)

But! But! Think of the Domain Squatter Industry?

Re:Surprise! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43140337)

But! But! Think of the Domain Squatter Industry?

In the industry we prefer to refer to call ourselves "domain brokers", as calling us squatters equates us with human filth who literally contribute nothing to society.

tr=oolkore (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43139599)

unles5 you can work bought the Rfarm.... and executes a

Wasn't there a lot of complaining (1)

SteelKidney (1964470) | about a year and a half ago | (#43139661)

About ICANN's control of TLD's some years ago? Yeah... about that. What the hell did people think was going to happen?

What's the difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43139775)

How is this any more controversial than if Amazon bought book.com, author.com, read.com? book.com is owned by B&N. Is anyone jumping in their ass because "The potential for abuse seems limitless?"

Re:What's the difference? (3, Informative)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43139851)

How is this any more controversial than if Amazon bought book.com, author.com, read.com? book.com is owned by B&N. Is anyone jumping in their ass because "The potential for abuse seems limitless?"

Because B&N doesn't own *.com, jackass.

Really, dude, if you're going to comment, at least have half a fucking clue how whatever it is you're commenting on [wikipedia.org] works.

Sheesh.

Re:What's the difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43140037)

What's the difference between B&N owning *.book.com and *.book, besides stripping off the now meaningless .com?

Re:What's the difference? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43140057)

I know what the fuck TLDs are, cocksucker. So tell me how 50ShadesOfCanHasDIYsStretchedOutAsshole.book.com is less fucking controversial than 50ShadesOfCanHasDIYsStretchedOutAsshole.book.

Sheesh.

Re:What's the difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43143091)

Where can I order this?

Re:What's the difference? (1)

drkstr1 (2072368) | about a year and a half ago | (#43140069)

Yeah... but .com is only valuable because only a few of those top level domains exist. It's essentially the same thing, and GP's point is perfectly valid. Don't go throwing stones in glass houses... or something like that.

Re:What's the difference? (4, Insightful)

1u3hr (530656) | about a year and a half ago | (#43140417)

Yeah... but .com is only valuable because only a few of those top level domains exist. It's essentially the same thing, and GP's point is perfectly valid.

No, it's not. ".com" is a company. The idea of the more descriptive TLDs, like eg ".museum". is that it implies that what you find at that site is a legitimate member of that group. So Smithsonian.museum will take you to the actual Smithsonian Institute. If Amazon owned ".book" they would work to make it imply that "Book_title.book" was the legitimate site for any book to have. Every other publisher and/or author would end up having to either pay Amazon to get this, or have Amazon links all over it. Or more likely, both. Amazon would effectively have a tax on every book published.

Re:What's the difference? (1)

drkstr1 (2072368) | about a year and a half ago | (#43140577)

Was that the intention then? People would drop upwards a million dollars on these things, through some altruistic motive to be more descriptive of the contents?

I just assumed it would work the same way it always has. Companies would by up the same kind of names they did before, simply making the .com redundant. I'm pretty sure that's what ICANN indented as well, as the entire scheme appears to be designed for this purpose.

Re:What's the difference? (1)

1u3hr (530656) | about a year and a half ago | (#43141355)

Was that the intention then? People would drop upwards a million dollars on these things, through some altruistic motive to be more descriptive of the contents?

Altruism has nothing to do with this. Nothing I said implied that.

Re:What's the difference? (1)

drkstr1 (2072368) | about a year and a half ago | (#43142707)

What was your point then?

Mine was that these new gTLD will be treated exactly like an expensive bracket of .com domains, and the .com domain will simply be made redundant. I am not saying that is how it SHOULD be, simply stating that is how ICANN designed the scam to work. Essentially they are cutting out the market for domain squatting, and taking all that money for themselves.

Re:What's the difference? (1)

able1234au (995975) | about a year and a half ago | (#43146229)

Managing a tld is not the same as managing a domain name. It is more than just dropping the .com

Re:What's the difference? (1)

Molochi (555357) | about a year and a half ago | (#43140197)

I think the issue is that the price is high enough to be a barrier to poor domain squatters but not rich ones.

New TLDs are a bad idea to begin with (3, Insightful)

Improv (2467) | about a year and a half ago | (#43139781)

Why are we considering new TLDs to begin with? We're taking a good, loose system of categorisation and throwing it away because... why exactly?

Re:New TLDs are a bad idea to begin with (4, Informative)

flimflammer (956759) | about a year and a half ago | (#43139897)

Because ICANN wants a few extra dollars, regardless of the disastrous effects it presents.

Re:New TLDs are a bad idea to begin with (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43140725)

When you have a moment, please outline these "disastrous effects". Thank you.

Re:New TLDs are a bad idea to begin with (2)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about a year and a half ago | (#43139951)

Money.

Re:New TLDs are a bad idea to begin with (2)

asylumx (881307) | about a year and a half ago | (#43140127)

If I were them, I'd do it just because ICANN!

Re:New TLDs are a bad idea to begin with (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | about a year and a half ago | (#43142137)

Why are we considering new TLDs to begin with? We're taking a good, loose system of categorisation and throwing it away because... why exactly?

Because it didn't work. How many websites do you know of that have the .org or .net domains that actually belong there?

Re:New TLDs are a bad idea to begin with (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year and a half ago | (#43142401)

Why are we considering new TLDs to begin with?

Money.

We're taking a good, loose system of categorisation and throwing it away because... why exactly?

Again, money.

People are just fickle and amazon is big. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43140073)

Everyone loves companies when they are the under dog, when they pop up and offer better services and prices than bigger companies and so on. But once a company like that gets big for making customers happy they eventually start being hated and overly scrutinized just because they are now a big company, even if they still do the same things for customers that made them be praised to begin with.

Like walmart for instance. When walmart started everyone loved them for offering so many products for low prices in bulk quantities and offering a lot of services in one place. Now walmart is a huge corporation and they do the EXACT SAME things as they did starting out people hate walmart for no real reason. Sure they have reasons but its still the same company it was when it was smaller and starting out.

Now people are starting to dislike amazon despite the fact amazon has only gotten better over time and offers more to customers for the same low prices while their selection and selection gets better all the time. But people are fickle, they hate big corporations over time for no reason at all. People love to hate what they once praised. So people are having to nitpick the slightest and smallest things they can about amazon to attack it, even stupid ones like this. Over the next few years the dislike for amazon will grow and grow because once something is attacked by the public they refuse to ever let it go. But guess what? People will still shop with amazon. Its the call of duty effect where in people will hate something outright and constantly bitch about it but will still shovel their money out for it just like people do with call of duty. Like each year everyone on the internet complains about the new call of duty and hates on it and then when it comes out it sells like 750 million copies in the first week.

Oh, come on. (2)

Thrill Science (2845693) | about a year and a half ago | (#43140075)

It doesn't matter who owns "book" or "read". The war is over and .com won.

Re:Oh, come on. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43140249)

It doesn't matter who owns "book" or "read".

The war is over and .com won.

Therefore, the only way to win is to start a new war. That's the logic shareholder-driven marketing teams follow, at least.

How about we replace the WWW with something else? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43140277)

When this crap actually goes ahead, the usefulness of DNS is gone since there will end up being as numerous useless TLDs as there is ccTLDs.

The entire thing should be replaced as well as the protocols behind it.
HTML is not XML, stop trying to force that crap. Replace HTML with something not terrible and not based on XML bloat.
Things like boolean flags that can be applied to a tag straight up, such as <html 0x21>, none of this value=value crap. (those actually exist, which is awful. shortcircuited attributes should have been supported from day0!)
Actually allow DTDs to be flexible. Screw versions, let people define the rules straight up if they want to. If they want a menu tag to work in an exact way, let them.
Create protocols very specifically for simple webpages (such as twitter feeds, or news feeds) that could easily be embedded in iframes (the new improved sandboxed iframes, not the crap W3C gave us previously that had 0 functionality behind them, they still need further improvements though)
I mean something like a hybrid between gopher + XHRs for dynamic content. Very basic styling support, HTML templating system that dynamic content would be filled in to. It would be like RSS, but not terrible.

The DNS for one needs to be replaced entirely with a hierarchical system similar to usenet.
protocol://ccTLD.domain.sub-domains/directories/file.ext
Not only does this solve a lot of problems with DNS right now, it also makes websites LOOK right. (google.mail, amazon.mechanicalTurk, facebook.stalking, etc.)
There could even be a typeTLD between ccTLD and domain that contains the market the website is in. (email, search, education, porn, media, art, banking, whatever)
This would enable a certain level of trust if it were actually enforced. Then any websites that don't want to go the whole Trusted Website route, they can easily grab a domain in the "raw" tTLD. Better name than that though, could poke fun at the old web by making it www, in fact that could also be a route to backwards compatibility. Wait, no, bad idea, screw the old web, they have HTTP, we will have BTP, BETTER Text Protocol, yeah!)
Note that trusted tTLDs are not SSL Everywhere websites. They are just trusted enough to be in that market, SSL will still be a thing.

Also, anyone involved in W3C should be banned from any input ever. The monolithic update age is too slow for something so dynamic, and they are the definition of monolithic updates.
WHATWG was the best thing to happen to the web in recent years and more has been done in the relatively small time they have been around than the entire age of the web. The fact that even Microsoft Jumped In and took up many of the ideas from the new specs very quickly is amazing itself.
Feature-detection is here to stay. And there isn't any overhead unless you are a terrible developer. It is trivial to load different scripts based on features and have them all work together. If you think otherwise, your coding methods are horrible at best, and probably your team skills too.
Hell, your main script should never know anything inside those libraries, they should be black-boxes. Functions can easily ignore parameters that aren't needed too. Main should only ever deal with results (including error resolution), not with internals. Main is your client, functions are workers, they never need to know the working process.

And so many more things that I have no time to type now. There'd be a lot of work that needs to be done behind the scenes to specialize certain things and improve the terrible mess that HTML and partly JS has become, but it is doable.
Would never work though. Web Is Too Big To Fall. If only it would fall off a cliff and die. The web as it is now is horrible and failing. ICANN should equally be banned from having anything to do with newWeb outside of America. They can wreck their "usa." TLD if they want.

Re:How about we replace the WWW with something els (1)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year and a half ago | (#43140805)

I haven't typed WWW since the mid 00's. Get with the times.

HTML ain't XML (1, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year and a half ago | (#43142441)

HTML is not XML, stop trying to force that crap. Replace HTML with something not terrible and not based on XML bloat.

Okay, how about HTML, then which isn't based on XML bloat (HTML is based on SGML, and predates XML, although an XML serialization of the same content -- XHTML -- was introduced later, sold as a "better" successor to plain-old HTML, but with HTML5 pretty much got relegated to an parallel alternative serialization format rather than an replacement.)

ICANN needs to roll this back (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | about a year and a half ago | (#43140369)

ICANN simply needs to rollback this new TLD system and refund the money. It doesn't work.

Re:ICANN needs to roll this back (2)

Lithdren (605362) | about a year and a half ago | (#43140531)

What do you mean it doesn't work? Clearly it works, they're getting paid! Its working exactly as it was expected to.

Oh, you mean it doesn't work for everyone else? Why does ICANN care? They got paid.

Re:ICANN needs to roll this back (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43140855)

It is time we the internet community put a stop to this, say by patching BIND to hardcode the list of TLDs and fail any lookup for any others.

Don't worry it will fail (0)

Spy Handler (822350) | about a year and a half ago | (#43140587)

people are already used to just googling for stuff. Only noobs and idiots type the name of the item they're looking for into the URL textbox.

When you're looking for East of Eden by Steinbeck, do you type "eastofeden.com" in the URL? No, right?

Re:Don't worry it will fail (1)

mjr167 (2477430) | about a year and a half ago | (#43140735)

Didn't they combine the search box with the address bar several updates ago?

obvious (2)

Tom (822) | about a year and a half ago | (#43140599)

They are right and this is so obvious that anyone who disagrees should be shot as an act of mercy.

Then again, the DNS was basically fucked when they handed it to ICANN. Some things should not be run according to market dynamics.

Re:obvious (2)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year and a half ago | (#43141535)

ICANN has nothing to do with market dynamics and everything to do with the destructive effects of a monopoly.

Re:obvious (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43144439)

In the same spirit, The Weather Channel is trying to grab .weather...

http://www.101domain.com/applications/1-1977-49078.htm

Organisations are expected to send letters if they are opposed to the TLD claim. This has the look of a big mess in the making.

All Natural Monopolies should be Co-Ops (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43143481)

It's really that simple.

Utilities should be owned by the people that use them, not private equity firms in exploiters using foreign tax havens.

Each top level domain should be a non-profit co-op owned by the people that use it and nobody else.

The same goes for scams like sports stadiums that are built with tax payer money and then handed over to private owners by corrupt government moles.

Amazon's hardly the only one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43143499)

Symantec wants to own the .security domain. They also want it registered as private, therefore they would control who gets their own URL in the .security domain, having the ability to set their own price and to reject any competitor without reason given.

This has their competitors up in arms, not to mention the response from the entire security industry that doesn't revolve around computer malware and intrusion.

privatize IPs (1)

alai582 (2858851) | about a year and a half ago | (#43145041)

I agree. This is amazons way to try and privatize IP addressing for their benefit.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>