Another Bad Sign For .mobi

-- interesting. I'll have to try the new function on my iPhone.

whitebark said:

There is no such thing as the 'mobile web' - this is a silly creation of domainers imo to justify .mobi.

Click to expand...

The "Mobile Web" is a term that was used used long before the existence of .mobi. I should know, since I've been developing mobile web sites and apps since the beginning of this decade.

You should do your research before making such an absurd statement.

http://www.w3.org/Mobile/

Furthermore, I would greatly appreciate - once and for all for the #1 Community™ - a clear, concise, logical, and mature (please, no more tantrums and off topic personal type posts from the enthusiasts crowd) explanation / clarification of the fuzzy math with regard to mTLD and the "dot Mobey"! :gl:

Thanks for the assist, I'll check in again soon after vacation to see if any REAL answers / substance to the volumes of questions and concerns have been adequately addressed, IMHO. :talk:

See you then.
-Jeff

There is a large chunk of people who own cell phones that don't even use the web through their mobile. Hell, I got a cheap phone that allows me to call and text people and that's all I do with it. Sure, I could pay extra money to access the web, but the truth is that I don't want to spend the money to look at crappy mobile sites. If I'm going to bother at all, I'll get a nice phone that lets me view normal sites.

And the fact is that technology is moving phones towards the direction of the iPhone. Sure, not everyone has one now, but in a few years I think it'll be fairly standard. mTLD and all of their backers have had 2 years to promote and implement .mobi in an environment where a majority of users don't have iPhones...(meaning, ripe for the picking), and they've done nothing. What makes you think that they're going to pull it off in the next few years? And what makes you think that even if they do, it won't be completely obsolete in a few years?

I don't dispute the fact that some people use it. But if you want to say that only tech-savvy people use iPhones.... I'd venture to say that there are more non-tech savvy people that use iPhones than there are non-tech savvy people that know what .mobi is. It doesn't take a lot of know-how to get an iPhone and surf the web.... But given the fact that mTLD has done nothing to promote the extension, I think someone would have to be fairly tech savvy to have even heard of .mobi, let alone have any idea why it exists. I'm not sure I even know why it exists and I can honestly say I've never personally seen any advertisements for .mobi sites, other than the few that people post in these threads as examples for .mobi's success.

People like Rick Schwartz can invest 200k in flowers.mobi and not even flinch, because he has millions to blow. It was a completely speculative investment and IF .mobi had taken off, he would have reaped many times the profit. Plus, by paying that much for the domain, he essentially pushed the hype through the roof and was probably able to recoup that money by selling other premium .mobi's on the hype and getting far more for them than he otherwise would have. I don't really know if he did that, but when you got that kind of money to throw around and all those options, it's a win-win if you play it right no matter how the extension fairs in the long term.

Ronald Regging said:

...
But given the fact that mTLD has done nothing to promote the extension, I think someone would have to be fairly tech savvy to have even heard of .mobi, let alone have any idea why it exists.

Click to expand...

Well I do believe they have done a lot. They have perfectly demonstrated that with good marketing you can sell anything
Moreover, they have an army of unpaid followers to keep the drums rolling

Ronald Regging said:

...
People like Rick Schwartz can invest 200k in flowers.mobi and not even flinch, because he has millions to blow. It was a completely speculative investment and IF .mobi had taken off, he would have reaped many times the profit. Plus, by paying that much for the domain, he essentially pushed the hype through the roof
...

Click to expand...

Same analysis here.

Ronald Regging said:

There is a large chunk of people who own cell phones that don't even use the web through their mobile. Hell, I got a cheap phone that allows me to call and text people and that's all I do with it. Sure, I could pay extra money to access the web, but the truth is that I don't want to spend the money to look at crappy mobile sites. If I'm going to bother at all, I'll get a nice phone that lets me view normal sites.

And the fact is that technology is moving phones towards the direction of the iPhone. Sure, not everyone has one now, but in a few years I think it'll be fairly standard. mTLD and all of their backers have had 2 years to promote and implement .mobi in an environment where a majority of users don't have iPhones...(meaning, ripe for the picking), and they've done nothing. What makes you think that they're going to pull it off in the next few years? And what makes you think that even if they do, it won't be completely obsolete in a few years?

I don't dispute the fact that some people use it. But if you want to say that only tech-savvy people use iPhones.... I'd venture to say that there are more non-tech savvy people that use iPhones than there are non-tech savvy people that know what .mobi is. It doesn't take a lot of know-how to get an iPhone and surf the web.... But given the fact that mTLD has done nothing to promote the extension, I think someone would have to be fairly tech savvy to have even heard of .mobi, let alone have any idea why it exists. I'm not sure I even know why it exists and I can honestly say I've never personally seen any advertisements for .mobi sites, other than the few that people post in these threads as examples for .mobi's success.

People like Rick Schwartz can invest 200k in flowers.mobi and not even flinch, because he has millions to blow. It was a completely speculative investment and IF .mobi had taken off, he would have reaped many times the profit. Plus, by paying that much for the domain, he essentially pushed the hype through the roof and was probably able to recoup that money by selling other premium .mobi's on the hype and getting far more for them than he otherwise would have. I don't really know if he did that, but when you got that kind of money to throw around and all those options, it's a win-win if you play it right no matter how the extension fairs in the long term.

Click to expand...

These look like pretty decent mobile sites (or apps) to me http://www.apple.com/iphone/appstore/

Sounds to me like people are enjoying the 'full web' and the 'mobile (or apps) web' on the iPhone IMHO. 2 different webs showing signs of strength anyone?

These APPS are exactly what .mobi was made for! Sites that are designed specifically for the mobile device / on the go users!

Apple are just calling them WEB APPS instead of mobile sites! LOL...I wonder why that is? :blink:

.mobi targets a much larger audience! Every single mobile device out there!!!
http://deviceatlas.com

Be it iPhone, Nokia, Samsung...

http://www.apple.com/iphone/webapps/

It will take time to build but build it and they will come.

everytime someone says they prefer the "full web" on mobile devices rather than a site designed for mobile from the ground up, i laugh a little inside.

this is truly a testament to how early it is in mobile device land.... why on earth would you want to zoom and scroll if there was some kind of better way.... whether it be an App, a mobile targeted site, etc...

and yes, for something to be a mobile internet device (like the iphone), IT NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE "FULL WEB" OR IT IS USELESS OR VERY LIMITED AS AN INTERNET DEVICE. Nobody is disputing this, and if they are.. theyre wrong.


again, a lot of you are missing the point... i.e. saying we dont need the .mobi extension because you can view full websites already. this argument is really saying we dont need mobile applications or ANY kind of specialized mobile website like m.domain, domain.com/mobile, etc, etc etc... if that was true then WHY do many MANY major brands redirect even iphones to a mobile version website.



Furthermore, we dont *NEED* the .TV domain for the same reasons we dont *NEED* a .MOBI domain. I can already view videos on my computer... you can just use a .COM, etc.... the fact is, after years and years the .TV extension has finally taken off.

it is NOT about what we *NEED*... its about innovation and PROGRESS... whether that be with a mDOT domain, a redirect, a .mobi domain, domain.com/mobile, etc, etc, etc, etc......

Unfortunately the general public does'nt see it your way. Companies do not either. If your statement were true then there would be no need for google to use m.google.com. They would just use google.com.

Click to expand...

This has to be the best argument you have ever made concerning mobi. Good one.

But I don't have a .com or any other traditional tlds Shredbook03. I realize the potential of the mobile web and would love to have a site. So how do I create a MOBILE ONLY site??

Click to expand...

So you missed out on the opportunities involving CNO and have opted instead to attempt to push a mobi agenda in the hopes of turning a big profit from mobi. I think that's what has clouded many of your posts. You were not a domainer before mobi and now you think you are one because of a large mobi portfolio. Personally...I wouldn't trade my entire .com portfolio for flowers.mobi. I still believe you have made a bad decision placing all your eggs in the mobi basket.

And the fact is that technology is moving phones towards the direction of the iPhone.

Click to expand...

This is the major problem with mobi imho. Technology will make their requirements useless. IMHO they would be better served to drop their own restrictions to allow open development. My old saying "people want the internet mobile not a mobile internet". When you begin to give them a dumbed down experience it's not attractive. Mobi doesn't offer that choice for development. You must have 2 sites and 2 domains. That's the plan of mobi? Seems ludicrous at face value.

This is the major problem with mobi imho. Technology will make their requirements useless. IMHO they would be better served to drop their own restrictions to allow open development. My old saying "people want the internet mobile not a mobile internet". When you begin to give them a dumbed down experience it's not attractive. Mobi doesn't offer that choice for development. You must have 2 sites and 2 domains. That's the plan of mobi? Seems ludicrous at face value.

Very well expressed and I would like to add that anything .mobi can do

.com can do better and this should prove to be more true as time progresses ...

wouldn't the biggest search company on earth not wish to find you in

the mobile internet by using m.google.com ? or the biggest auction company

with m.ebay.com ? or facebook with m.facebook.com ? or CNN with

m.cnn.com ? ... the problem here is that mobi was promoting itself

as THE technological solution when it lost the battle and refuses to admit

this ... it is nothing more than a brand that will dilute your .com brand at this

point.

cosmicray said:

My old saying "people want the internet mobile not a mobile internet". When you begin to give them a dumbed down experience it's not attractive.

Click to expand...

Wrong.

i own an iphone and when i visit a good MAJORITY of the major brands regular websites from my iphone.... they detect it as a mobile device and send me to the MOBILE VERSION of their website.

if your argument was true, they wouldnt redirect my iphone, which is perfectly capable of displaying "FULL WEBSITES"... but instead it gets redirected to a "dumbed down" MOBILE VERSION.


Why is that?

cosmicray said:

the mobile internet by using m.google.com ? or the biggest auction company

with m.ebay.com ? or facebook with m.facebook.com ? or CNN with

m.cnn.com ? ... the problem here is that mobi was promoting itself

as THE technological solution when it lost the battle and refuses to admit

this ... it is nothing more than a brand that will dilute your .com brand at this

point.

Click to expand...

so, cosmicray.. which one is it? you cant have it both ways...


you just gave examples of MOBILE TARGETED SITES... why would these even exist if your argument holds true.

Naysayers just jump on anything that isn't directly .mobi! They refuse to even except its existance because from day 1 they have been repeatedly saying the same 'stuff' over and over and over again. If it's not mdot then it's redirects, if not redirects then it's the "full web" experience.... The only thing they can't accept is if it's not mdot/redirects/full web, it's .mobi!!!

vJRB said:

Naysayers just jump on anything that isn't directly .mobi! They refuse to even except its existance because from day 1 they have been repeatedly saying the same 'stuff' over and over and over again. If it's not mdot then it's redirects, if not redirects then it's the "full web" experience.... The only thing they can't accept is if it's not mdot/redirects/full web, it's .mobi!!!

Click to expand...

Good point! Access is provided in various ways right now.
The door is wide open for mobi and the branding potential
is huge :tu:

mjnels said:

Wrong.

i own an iphone and when i visit a good MAJORITY of the major brands regular websites from my iphone.... they detect it as a mobile device and send me to the MOBILE VERSION of their website.

if your argument was true, they wouldnt redirect my iphone, which is perfectly capable of displaying "FULL WEBSITES"... but instead it gets redirected to a "dumbed down" MOBILE VERSION.


Why is that?




so, cosmicray.. which one is it? you cant have it both ways...


you just gave examples of MOBILE TARGETED SITES... why would these even exist if your argument holds true.

Click to expand...

My argument is mobile serving sites are great ... diluting your brand by

enriching Mr. Brand is not the solution ... do you think Google, Ebay,

Facebook, CNN and the thousands of other major corporations would

think twice about spending $10 bucks on their .mobi ? This $10 comes

with a hidden cost of up to MILLION$ of loss in marketing dilution value

and some of the major corporations to their credit did factor this in.

Let's look at another example ... what will Google which uses Google.FR

in France do to serve its mobile customers in France ? What will it do in

countries where mobi is not even recognized as a word ? By using mobi it gets

screwed out of value and this value gets transfered to Mr.Brand ... Do you

see this ? So Google calculated this and used http://m.google.fr/ for France.

cosmicray said:

My argument is mobile serving sites are great ... diluting your brand by

enriching Mr. Brand is not the solution ... do you think Google, Ebay,

Facebook, CNN and the thousands of other major corporations would

think twice about spending $10 bucks on their .mobi ? This $10 comes

with a hidden cost of up to MILLION$ of loss in marketing dilution value

and some of the major corporations to their credit did factor this in.

Let's look at another example ... what will Google which uses Google.FR

in France do to serve its mobile customers in France ? What will it do in

countries where mobi is not even recognized as a word ? By using mobi it gets

screwed out of value and this value gets transfered to Mr.Brand ... Do you

see this ? So Google calculated this and used http://m.google.fr/ for France.

Click to expand...

sorry, but this has absolutely nothing to do with what i was talking about.


you STILL cant have it both ways.... either people find mobile websites useful, or they dont. you have conflicting arguments.

mjnels said:

sorry, but this has absolutely nothing to do with what i was talking about.


you STILL cant have it both ways.... either people find mobile websites useful, or they dont. you have conflicting arguments.

Click to expand...

I don't program the redirection for the 5000+ mobile devices, the company

has to decide what to serve for each device either the full website or clean

and simple device specific mobile friendly.

I have seen the future... and it's mobile applications.

Since the July 11th iPhone update, I've gotten a good taste of the future of the mobile Internet. No scrolling, zooming, or squinting needed - just a seamless user experience.

I'm using Ebay, Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, and a ton of other sites as if they were built in features of my iPhone. There isn't even a domain name aspect to it since these applications are available for installation by browsing iTunes.

Within a couple years I have no doubt more handsets are going to be inspired by the iPhone's application model.

RJ

-RJ- said:

I have seen the future... and it's mobile applications.

Since the July 11th iPhone update, I've gotten a good taste of the future of the mobile Internet. No scrolling, zooming, or squinting needed - just a seamless user experience.

I'm using Ebay, Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, and a ton of other sites as if they were built in features of my iPhone. There isn't even a domain name aspect to it since these applications are available for installation by browsing iTunes.

Within a couple years I have no doubt more handsets are going to be inspired by the iPhone's application model.

RJ

Click to expand...

RJ ... there will always be exceptions ...

what do you think will happen to the value of .mobis overall ?

Like RJ I've enjoyed a wonderful user experience browsing the web through Safari and Apps on my iPhone. And guess what -- I've not once typed in ".mobi!" Go figure. :/

Peter

cosmicray said:

I don't program the redirection for the 5000+ mobile devices, the company

has to decide what to serve for each device either the full website or clean

and simple device specific mobile friendly.

Click to expand...

exactly.

peaches017 said:

Like RJ I've enjoyed a wonderful user experience browsing the web through Safari and Apps on my iPhone. And guess what -- I've not once typed in ".mobi!" Go figure. :/

Peter

Click to expand...

the argument isnt even about .mobi specifically now.... its about whether people would always prefer to surf FULL websites only. or whether they would prefer Apps/websites that you do not need to zoom or scroll for.

people like to say that mobile device users PREFER "full websites".... as an iphone user myself, this is simply not true. the option does need to be there to view full websites.... but it is definitely not preferred.

peaches017 said:

Like RJ I've enjoyed a wonderful user experience browsing the web through Safari and Apps on my iPhone. And guess what -- I've not once typed in ".mobi!" Go figure. :/

Peter

Click to expand...

So how do you see the future of mobile apps?

Will everyone be able to call themselves whatever they want?

Can I make a mobile app and call it "Poker"?

Can I make a mobile app and call it "Google"?

The way I see it is it is still very early days.

There will come a time when every single person is going to want their own mobile app. There could be billions of mobile apps in the future.

This is when .mobi is going to shine, IMO.

i think all of them are equally good...


mobile apps are great because you dont need to enter a web address everytime and they cater specifically to the device you're using.

mobile websites (whether on mDOT, domain.com/mobile, .mobi, etc) are great because you dont need software pre-installed to access it and navigate with ease.


everyone is always trying to get like 1 thing to "win".... it just isnt this way in the mobile world. progress and innovation are good... these are just a few ways they are happening in mobile-land. :tu:

keithmt said:

The door is wide open for mobi and the branding potential
is huge :tu:

Click to expand...

^ Oh my, as other than mTLD itself, the "branding potential" of the made-up, entirely unnatural, long, two-syllabled, awkward & clumsy "dot Mobey" is - seriously - it's second (or third) largest OBTSACLE, IMHO. :o

To put it in my own humble perspective, the iPhone (see above) is the coffin and both mTLD and its ... errrrr ... "branding potential" (as well as its supposed "trustmark") are each the coffin NAILS! This is without even getting into the obvious technology advances favoring the .COM's, the unmentioned matter of demographics, its being obsolete, and the myriad of other severe shortcomings - still not adequately addressed two years later! - of both mTLD and the lowly "dot Mobey" extension, IMHO.
Tick. Tock.

-Jeff

keithmt said:

The problem is, no SINGLE form to access the mobile web has been branded to the masses. Too many choices exist which leads to major confusion on the consumers end. Again, until one form of access is used or marketed for use by the general public, mobi has as good a chance as anything.

As far as ease and memorability, I'd say it has the best chance of sticking in the minds of the masses!

Click to expand...

Wishful thinking. People don't have to remember anything different - they go to the same website they always have and they are redirected to the content according to their browser.

Oh but I forgot redirects that 99% of people don't even notice are bad.

The whole idea of needing a certain "form" for people to view the internet with a mobile device is another misnomer created by the people behind mobi. To think so is to completely ignore the reality that is browser technology today.

dont ever think to sell your dot mobi....
they are all valuable one day...

seanboy said:

The "Mobile Web" is a term that was used used long before the existence of .mobi. I should know, since I've been developing mobile web sites and apps since the beginning of this decade.

You should do your research before making such an absurd statement.

http://www.w3.org/Mobile/

Click to expand...

"mobile web" as in you need a certain extension to use the internet with a mobile device - duh.

It's the exact same internet - that's what the mobi crowd refuses to acknowledge and attempt to cloud. You simply create content according to the browser - you serve a certain css file for IE browers, another for safari/FF or a different one for mobile devices. And if you don't want to do that you use a redirect - hence the same website riding on the back of the same internet as always. Anyone making websites should know that but hey just look to make silly arguments to boost a redundant extension.
:td: