This is the type of feature / partnership you build in year 5, not pre-launch.
Wouldn't it be better to focus on features and scalability needed for opening up the network to more users to build the network beyond a beta phase or adding core features to the app?
Seems like identity management is at the core of what Bluesky is trying to change. Twitter managing verification of accounts makes it harder to not be seen as an endorsement of some degree. With this system, Bluesky doesn’t need to verify @iphone, when Apple can just create @iphone.apple.com. It’s pretty central to their identity management and verification. Having it in year 5 is like not having it at all.
What you say is true, but the Namecheap partnership is premature even taking that into account.
Why? The high sensitivity domains that are most likely to want to be verified via the (mildly confusing) domain-to-user mapping on Bluesky already exist. To take your example, Apple is not likely to try and register iphone.apple.com on Namecheap.
On the other hand, "normal" users who just want to chat with their friends are not going to care, and might actually be a little confused by this announcement. "Wait, I need to buy a domain to use Bluesky?"
Now, I could be wrong, and Bluesky might be trying to get a bunch of high-flying corporate accounts on board first. In that case, they are doing the right thing, and I look forward to when large media orgs start posting on Bluesky.
> Apple is not likely to try and register iphone.apple.com on Namecheap.
Definitely not because that’s not how it works. They already own apple.com and can verify any subdomain they want. Plus, I think some of those domains are so valuable the company creates their own registrar to manage them. Ex: RegistrarSafe is a subsidiary of Facebook. They’re definitely not using a consumer grade registrar like Namecheap.
I think domains are complicated for the average user, but if you sell them as premium, globally unique handles for only $10-20 (ish) per year, that’ll create a lot of demand.
Even if it’s only appealing to business users, domains as identities make a lot of sense because it allows a business to be definitively recognized across the internet. There’s no ambiguity or impersonation.
I agree this might confuse users initially, but we need to normalize owning and using domains. We also need to make it much easier and this is an important step.
It’s not different from those goals. The way that creators own their relationship with their audience is by owning an identity not owned by the platform.
If you don’t attach a domain to your Bluesky profile, you get assigned yourname.bsky.social, which is inherently controlled by the platform. I’m glad that they are encouraging portable identities.
Why? Why is that the goal of a Twitter alternative? Their goal should be to get users on there asap with core Twitter functionality. Everything else is a P2.
This is the type of feature / partnership you build in year 5, not pre-launch.
Wouldn't it be better to focus on features and scalability needed for opening up the network to more users to build the network beyond a beta phase or adding core features to the app?