[Someone1234]

None of Google Domain's features are novel. In fact the article spent most of its time talking about an up-sell. Which isn't to say Google Domain isn't a good product, just that we now should look at price because nothing else seems interesting...

~ Google Domains charges $12/year for .COM, .NET, .ORG.

~ NameCheap charges $10.69/year for .COM, $11.98/year for .NET, and $11.48/year for .ORG. Sometimes with an 18c/year fee tacked on.

~ GoDaddy charges $12.99-13.99 for a .COM but that might increase randomly because they're scumbags.

So my point is that this article claims that everyone is "rushing" to this new product, and while this product doesn't seem "bad" it also isn't exactly market changing. The prices are well within 10% of the market (sometimes higher, sometimes lower) and the features are pretty generic also.

Can someone explain why Google Domains is compelling and not a "me too!" product?

[nostromo]

One of the headaches of setting up a domain is getting the email sorted correctly. Instant integration to Gmail is a nice feature.

If you want privacy protection on your whois lookups, then Google would be cheaper than the other providers, as they sell it as an add-on.

I also trust Google to have speedy DNS servers, if you're leaving the defaults in place. GoDaddy's DNS can be quite slow.

Perhaps not a "mind-blowing" product, but one I'd consider using.

[crdoconnor]

>One of the headaches of setting up a domain is getting the email sorted correctly. Instant integration to Gmail is a nice feature.

name.com has had that for years. Click a button and it configures all the MX records for you and a few CNAMES on top (so you can do stuff like mail.yourdomain.com and calendar.yourdomain.com).

[curiously]

please stay the hell away from name.com, their webmail is an absolute joke!

[crdoconnor]

I only use them as a registrar and DNS.

[jvagner]

...which is why Google got into the game.

[adrianlmm]

>then Google would be cheaper than the other providers, as they sell it as an add-on

Godaddy also sells this as an addon, actually, every domain seller does, I don't know what is so special about Google's offert.

[kevinoconnor7]

It's included with Google. Thus if it's something you use (and most people do), then Google's pricing is very competitive for domains.

[scrapcode]

It has been free for the first year with Namecheap for as long as I can remember.

[sthrs]

It's free for Google indefinitely, not just for the first year.

[DomKM]

NameSilo includes whois privacy and is cheaper than any alternative (.com is $9/domain).

[reacweb]

When I want to know if a site is trustworthy, the first thing I check is whois information. If hidden, do not trust.

[reacweb]

This seems to be a controversial opinion: first +1 point, then -2.

I whish I could make a poll on this subject: Do you think you can trust a website if it is hidding its whois information ?

Would you trust a bank where all employees were wearing a mask ?

[jedc]

I've been a beta-tester of Google Domains for months, and it's just such a nicer experience than GoDaddy/Namecheap. Particularly with GoDaddy, I feel like there's always a chance I'm going to click on the wrong thing and then get subscribed to some ridiculous service. With Google, it's a clean, transparent, USABLE interface.

I'd encourage people to try it out with a domain and form your own views. As for me, I'm moving all of my domains over to Google (as they get close to renewal.)

[tamar]

Hey jedc - Tamar from Namecheap here. Can you provide insights into the Namecheap experience? I hear the GD side. Would like to know what you mean from ours.

As far as our dashboard, we're building a better user experience, so that's nothing to fret about. I bet you'd agree when it's live that the experience is far more stellar than anything you'd find anywhere else.

[yzzxy]

Here's some feedback: your 2FA experience is terrible. I appreciate that you use 2FA, but I have to hit the send button multiple times to get a text message every single time on my US mobile phone. After that the form fails 50% of the time.

I also find it frustrating that the domain dashboard has no clear path to my host record settings, which is 90% of the use case for me. I always have to click four or five times to find it.

Otherwise I love the product and pricing, and I will probably continue to use Namecheap in the future.

[tamar]

Well, that's all fair and all stuff we're addressing this year.

The dashboard is, frankly, out of date compared to the UI experience people would expect from us in 2015. We're building that right now.

And we plan to support TOTP 2FA, so you don't necessarily have to rely on SMS at all.

But noted. Just wait -- we've got some pretty cool things in store for you.

[kogepathic]

>The dashboard is, frankly, out of date compared to the UI experience people would expect from us in 2015. We're building that right now.

As a sysadmin who deals with your website a lot, I actually like the current management UI.

Yes, it could use a few tweaks here and there, but overall I quite like it. I hate websites that update their user interface and hurt my ability to get things done.

I use another registrar for some of my .de domains, and their web interface is horrible. I have ongoing issues with their interface not saving changes to my zone because the button says the zone was saved when it wasn't.

tl;dr - The current interface doesn't look nice but it works damn well and I can find everything. Please don't ruin usability in the new version. I care more about functionality than looks.

[mgkimsal]

Almost always, what is really called for are multiple interfaces:

1. a "power user" interface, stripped down, that allows for the fastest ways to do XYZ (key bindings, fast client-side validation, batch uploads, etc).

2. a "first timer" interface, with explanatory info, slower pace so people don't feel like they're getting overwhelmed or pushed in to something, etc.

I've yet to see any registrar do this. Many do offer APIs, which, for developer power users, might be sufficient. I'd suggest to this company that they perhaps keep the current version as a fallback to the existing power users that already know how to 'get things done' with it; maybe not forever, but for a while so they can learn the new interface on their own schedule at the very least.

[rafaelm]

I wouldn't hold my breath. Namecheap has been saying they will implement a decent 2FA solution for ages now. I got tired of waiting and have been slowly transferring my domains out.

[obituary_latte]

I'm a current namecheap customer as well. When I have to use your management interface for something, I feel like I've been transported back in time to a cpanel interface ca. 1999. I have 25 some odd domains but you can't show them all to me at once unless I expand preferences and select "all" which, by the way, I have to do every time I navigate back to the list.

It's a minor quip (and just one off the top of my head), granted, and otherwise I'm a happy customer, but am very tempted to migrate as well as my domains come up for renewal.

Any screenshots or other indications of where you might be going?

[tamar]

Nope, I haven't even seen it yet. I know that we have a dedicated team working on the domain dashboard exclusively though. And yeah, 1999... close. 2001. :)

[arfliw]

The main thing is just clutter. Google Domains has a very simple user interface. It only has the stuff you need. NameCheap and every other registrar has a million links everywhere and all this random crap you never use, making it hard to find the stuff you do need.

NameCheap is better than most, though. The only reason I don't keep a lot of domains with you is price. Your renewal fee's are significantly higher than budget registrars like Dynadot. And when you own a lot of domains, that extra 10% adds up fast.

[jedc]

Hey tamar; thanks for responding.

Like others have said, it's mainly that the interface looks and feels like something circa 2001. I inevitably click into the wrong menu/interface/page for something I want to do, and it just feels inefficient whenever I want to get something done.

[mtrpcic]

I think you just explained peoples problems in your own post. "we're building a better user experience, so that's nothing to fret about". People have the option of "good right now" or "good in the indefinite future", and the decision is pretty obvious. Not saying Namecheap is bad (I use them myself), but the crux of this argument is that GD has the right interface NOW, while Namecheap will have it EVENTUALLY.

[drinkyouroj]

Good point, but along the same lines: Namecheap existed as a registrar when I purchased my domains, and GD did not. The interface isn't enough to make me want to go through the hassle of switching.

[prawn]

I use Namecheap for SSL certificates (we have domains and hosting elsewhere).

The old interface within the redesign is jarring and, as you know, that old interface is pretty ugly! I love how it will show me the first 10 in a listing and then offer paging rather than showing 100 or all by default. Will be happy to have that fixed.

Other than that, I have at times found the split between the old (customer) and new (sales) interfaces confusing. I'll often be clicking through SSL info in the sales interface when I'm trying to remember where to get my client SSL lists.

Apart from that, I've been happy with the pricing and when I've needed support via live chat it's been really polite and quick. I recommend Namecheap despite that interface issue.

[SiVal]

I would be interested to know Google's plans for selling SSL certs, if any. They have been quite vocal that sites should switch from HTTP to HTTPS at the risk of having their Page Rank downgraded if they don't, but this requires paying for and deploying an SSL certificate.

So, if Google is so interested in seeing universal HTTPS, what sort of SSL cert carrot will they provide to their registered domains to go along with the Page Rank stick?

[chrissnell]

I've been a Namecheap customer for years and a GD user since the early beta. For my purposes, the only real advantage of GD is the free WHOIS privacy with every registration. I have many domains and this adds up significantly. I will probably move over at next renewal, simply to save money.

[rpedela]

Private registration usually costs extra, but not with Google domains. That is a compelling reason to me. I also like the clean interface, some of the other vendors have horrible interfaces.

[LeoPanthera]

Private registration has always been free at gandi.net. Also they do not suck.

https://www.gandi.net/domain/whois/

[marincounty]

Yea, but their domain registion prices are high. I have always appreciated the honesty/integrity/simplicity of gandi though.

[nly]

$15-17 for .com/net/org, but as well as whois protection you also get a 1 year SSL cert. Unlike StartSSL, this includes fee-free revocation. Probably not worth much given that 'Lets Encrypt' is just around the corner, but it's still a respectable gesture. They also have a really good management UI, responsive customer support, free (roundcube) webmail, and DNSSEC management (Namecheap lacks this). Also, they're French, if you're feeling a bit US-wary lately.

[martinml]

You might want to try NameSilo. Cheap, free privacy, 2FA, acceptable interface.

[tim333]

I second NameSilo. $8.99/domain and so far that's it - no jacking the price on renewal etc.

[iancarroll]

Uniregistry is great but they have limited TLD support, sadly.

[markdown]

A new provider? Us old timers stay away from those.

Do you remember RegisterFly?

[StavrosK]

Or NameTerrific.

[JoshTriplett]

They also include email with every domain, which works quite well.

[aptwebapps]

It's free on Dreamhost. I don't use them for hosting anymore, but still keep a few domains there. 10 bucks a year for .coms.

The interface is ... almost ok. It's cluttered because it's used for more than just domain registration (think it's cPanel, actually) but the registration part is ok.

[rndn]

What is private registration?

[ewzimm]

With standard registration, the site is registered to you with ICANN. With private registration, it is registered to your registrar and you are provided access. Whois will show their info.

Note that this means you are technically not the owner of the domain, and you may be limited in your ability to transfer it, sell it, or do other things with it. Permissions are limited to what the registrar allows instead of what ICANN allows, although in most cases they give you nearly full control. You'll just have to read their terms if you want to know what you can do with it.

[duskwuff]

> Note that this means you are technically not the owner of the domain, and you may be limited in your ability to transfer it, sell it, or do other things with it.

This is a myth. ICANN has published requirements on how private registrations must operate; ownership of the domain always goes to the paying owner, not the registrar.

[ewzimm]

That's interesting. Do you know where the requirements are published? I've read language recently from at least one registrar specifically stating that private registration prevents transfers to other registrars. Maybe this was before these new requirements were published.

[zippergz]

In my recent experience, private registration prevents transfers because you are unable to receive the email message that contains the code you need to complete the transfer. I am still able to transfer my domains, but I need to turn off private registration first, so the email is sent to my real email address. This seems like a silly problem, and one that the registrars cold solve if they wanted to, but obviously they don't.

[blfr]

Registration without revealing your private information in the whois database. Providers usually put their own details there and forward emails to the end user.

Depending on the registry, it's unavailable or at least against the rules for some tlds.

[nly]

> Depending on the registry, it's unavailable or at least against the rules for some tlds.

And yet other TLD registries are sensible enough to make privacy the default for private individuals. .EU isn't bad in this regard, and others like .SE even go so far as to hide your name (most only hide your postal, email, telephone)

Frankly I don't know why anyone who can avoid it would want to touch Verisign TLDs with a barge pole... they have the continued gall to keep putting their prices up despite more competition than ever, and fail to raise the bar on basics like whois protection. Even .UK domains can be had for $5/year with registry level whois protection for heavens sake.

[wnevets]

.us for example prohibits it.

[tim333]

If you don't have private registration a whois query on the domain shows the public your name and address. If you do it shows some nominee company instead.

For example https://who.is/whois/habinow.com is one of mine that is private

while https://who.is/whois/ycombinator.com is pubic and shows Nicholas Sivo as the admin and an address and phone number for y combinator

[MichaelApproved]

It's an add-on service that domain registrars offer which hides your personal information from the public.

When you register a domain, it's a requirements that you list contact information publicly. Companies usually don't mind doing this but many people don't want to list their home address and phone number for the world to see. Private registration lists a proxy company's information as the contact for the domain and they forward the information to you.

[chhantyal]

I ordered a domain recently on Namecheap, with free privation registration addon.

[Navarr]

Namecheap is generally free WhoisGuard for a year on new registrations

[Animats]

Private registration on a business domain is a scumbag flag. Use it only for blogs and such.

[SiVal]

I don't agree. I have a one-man online business, which means I can operate from home to save a lot of money, making it possible to charge less to my customers while still making a profit. I really would rather not have people who are angry at the business, for whatever reason, have easy access to my home address.

[sootzoo]

There's no requirement that you use your home address for registrars (or the IRS, for that matter). It's also not terribly expensive to get a PO Box/virtual office address, and if you're concerned about privacy then it sounds like it'd be worth it to you.

[Animats]

If you accept credit cards, and sell to people in California, you have committed a crime good for six months in prison. See http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&gr...

(d) A vendor conducting business through the Internet or any other electronic means of communication shall do all of the following when the transaction involves a buyer located in this state:

(1) Before accepting any payment or processing any debit or credit charge or funds transfer, the vendor shall disclose to the buyer in writing or by electronic means of communication, such as e-mail or an on-screen notice, the vendor's return and refund policy, the legal name under which the business is conducted and, except as provided in paragraph (3), the complete street address from which the business is actually conducted.

    (2) If the disclosure of the vendor's legal name and address information required by this subdivision is made by on-screen notice, all of the following shall apply:
    (A) The disclosure of the legal name and address information shall appear on any of the following:
    (i) the first screen displayed when the vendor's electronic site is accessed,
    (ii) on the screen on which goods or services are first offered,
    (iii) on the screen on which a buyer may place the order for goods or services,
    (iv) on the screen on which the buyer may enter payment information, such as a credit card account number, or
    (v) for nonbrowser-based technologies, in a manner that gives the user a reasonable opportunity to review that information. The communication of that disclosure shall not be structured to be smaller or less legible than the text of the offer of the goods or services.
    (B) The disclosure of the legal name and address information shall be accompanied by an adjacent statement describing how the buyer may receive the information at the buyer's e-mail address. The vendor shall provide the disclosure information to the buyer at the buyer's e-mail address within five days of receiving the buyer's request.
    (C) Until the vendor complies with subdivision (a) in connection with all buyers of the vendor's goods or services, the vendor shall make available to a buyer and any person or entity who may enforce this section pursuant to Section 17535 on-screen access to the information required to be disclosed under this subdivision.

(g) Any violation of the provisions of this section is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.

[foolfoolz]

they do include private whois, and X subdomains for your domain, X emails available... but game changing would include SSL for all, or free hosting from your google drive - even if it was just static content.

it's a classic google "me too" project. i always get the feeling a lot of google projects come up because someone somewhere is going to be in a high level meeting with execs, and one exec sees something interesting and asks "why aren't we doing this?" and then someone gets to chime in "we already are!" and then they check the box for DONE and never look back.

[zrm]

> game changing would include SSL for all

Let's Encrypt is going to be doing that later this year anyway.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/certificate-authority-...

https://letsencrypt.org/

[MichaelApproved]

I think this product is about filling a hole in their lineup of products, more than it is supposed to be innovative itself. The other products are innovative, this supplements those products.

They no longer have to send people across the street for this critical part of hosting and can also easily integrate it with their other services, such as gmail forwarding.

[ecesena]

I found the console way better than Gandi, that I was using before. A few other integrations are simpler and quicker, such as creating email forwards. It seems also really well integrated with Google Cloud, but that's only relatively useful :)

Edit: oh, and it's fast to update, especially if you use Google as DNS server as I do.

[Navarr]

Also automatically verifies ownership in Google Webmaster tools - which is really nice

[larrys]

"and not a "me too!" product?"

It doesn't have to be anything more than a "me to" product.

Noting that if you google "domains" they now come up as the 2nd organic link. Nice to be king, eh?

Edit: I own a registrar and we compete with them (if you want to call it that). Obviously I am just referring to the fact that they can instantly rank high with what amounts to a beta product hence the "king" comment. Of course they need to be more than "me to" but that ranking goes a long way in getting them business even if they do very little.

[icebraining]

Noting that if you google "domains" they now come up as the 2nd organic link.

They come up as the 2nd for you. Google Search results are personalized. It's 6th in mine, behind Hostgator.

[larrys]

Good point but checking kproxy proxy they are coming up 2nd ahead of godaddy for "domains". (Same with zend2.com proxy).

[poopsintub]

It's not compelling, it just fills the gap, as mentioned. It gives them more info to adjust their search algorithms and weed out bad apples imo. Now they know who has registered even private domains. Make an inadvertent "bad move" on one domain/site, and they will be killing traffic to everything you own.

[readme]

Namecheap includes WhoisGuard with all their domains for those prices, so they're even LOWER than they seem.

It seems to me that Google is just trying to throw their enormous weight into every space now and it sickens me. This is how we end up with mediocre goods and services... No thanks Google.

They are much, much more than a monopoly at this point.

Not to mention, with Namecheap, GoDaddy or really any other company, you can probably get ahold of tech support 24/7. Good luck getting that from Google... Not that I've tried yet, but my experience with them in the past has been that it's mission impossible to talk to a human being in charge of something there, unless you're trying to hangout with the devs on Google+ or something for smalltalk, which seems to always be available.

[waylandsmithers]

Something about Google feels more trustworthy to me than all the other registrars, so that's new.

[arfliw]

Trust in the brand is negated for me by the fact that if this doesn't go well, I know they'll just shut it down or neglect it in a year or two. You want to know your registrar will be there in 10 years.

[kolev]

I pay $8.19/.com with GoDaddy with the Domain Club - nobody can touch their prices, but GoDaddy doesn't have an API and according to their account executives I spoke to, they won't offer one anytime soon.

[Thaxll]

Also knowing that they are managing their nameserver the google way.

[6t6t6]

Because once they have the Credit Card number from a customer it is extremely easier to sell him other products.

That's quite the Google way, they are not looking for the one-time immediate profit, but for customers that will somehow generate income in the long term. It seems it's not working bad for them.

[jaimeyap]

I believe when you add whois guard to NameCheap, it actually comes out a little more than Google Domains, which I think offers free private registration.

[tamar]

Not if you use a coupon code. Try WGSPECIAL.

Oh, and if you renew for several years at a time, the cost per year goes down too.

Disclosure: Namecheap employee

[anigbrowl]

No offense to you or your firm, but fuck coupon codes. When I go to Trader Joe's for groceries, I work out what I want to eat and note the prices. When I make one of the occasional trips to Safeway I spend half my time trying to match up what I went there to buy with the particular coupon that's running this week or that my wife added to loyalty card, and more time attempting to decrypt my receipt after I get home to see if I succeeded.

Coupons are just a way of creating psychological anxiety about missing a good deal, an archetypal 'dark pattern'. That sort of thing actively drives people like me away from your business. I know I'm not a mainstream consumer, but IMHO neither is the average domain registrant.

[tamar]

You can say that to any firm then. Given our razor thin profit margins, the pricing is there for a reason. The coupon codes are also there simply to sweeten the deal.

Bear in mind the products we're mostly represent cost a low $10. If we had more wiggle room on pricing, we'd offer low pricing all the time. It's just not feasible for a business like ours to do 24/7.

[anigbrowl]

What I'm saying is that I am more quality- and convenience- sensitive than I am price-sensitive. Not because I'm rich, but because the mental overhead of coupon deals etc. carries a cost that typically exceeds the saving on the coupon. If you make the service sufficiently attractive, you can raise your prices. Admittedly this is a bit challenging when your firm is branded as 'namecheap' in order to attract the most price-conscious consumers, but companies can and do rebrand themselves.

I mean, Google is charging more than you, and it's not like they couldn't win a price war if they were so inclined - they could probably sell domains for $1/year without significant damage to their bottom line. Maybe it's time to get out of the 'cheap' box.

[drdaeman]

If only the stores would have machine-readable globally-unique identifiers for products, the overhead could be easily offloaded.

Sadly, there isn't anything like this.

[eunice]

the innovation is 'united states only'

[arfliw]

NameCheap and GoDaddy are two expensive options. There are many registrars where you can get .com's for under $10.

$12 is really expensive...

[blfr]

Security and convenience. It's tied to a Google Account which I already have and offers the same level of protection.

[rictic]

The primary reason I use it is to have two factor authentication defending my domains. [disclosure: Google employee]

[akadien]

Namecheap has 2FA.

[StavrosK]

It has a weird SMS-based TFA thing, not the far more widespread TOTP standard.

[corford]

No weirder than the one used by Dyn or Paypal. Click a button, receive an SMS with a code, enter the code and login. Voila.

[StavrosK]

> No weirder than the one used by Dyn or Paypal

That doesn't make it non-weird. Obligatory Godwin, "meh, Hitler was no more horrible than Stalin or Pol Pot."

[corford]

<shrugs> they don't feel weird to me, I like 2FA via SMS

Edit: enjoyed your godwin ref though ;)

[tdkl]

gandi.net has 2FA.

[rictic]

Gandi has 2FA? Huh, I have a name registered there and even looked for 2FA on their site. Guess I didn't look well enough. Thanks for the pointer!

[smcquaid]

godaddy has 2fa

[wye]

name.com has 2FA

[shurcooL]

For me, and I think many others, the main advantage is a simple, sane UI. It just works, no surprises.

[DonnyV]

2 words....Dynamic DNS

[billconan]

it looks to me that google has run out of ideas.