My post was aimed at the .mobi crowd but if you'd like to believe it was aimed at you, that's cool with me. So I suppose I’ll go in and answer your responses, scandiman. But I want you to know firsthand that I do respect your opinions:
Rhetorically speaking this is a false dilemma. Neither represents my full view. I certainly don't consider it dead, nor do I feel it is only useful as a redirect, though if people decide to use it as such that is their prerogative, and often is rooted in pragmatism rather than distrust.
What I said was simply acknowledging that there are 2 schools of thought: those who believe .mobi is dead and others, alive. There is no false dilemma; this is how .mobi is viewed by most ppl. There isn’t much gray -- ppl otherwise believe it’s dead or they don’t.
I'm glad to see some common sense being displayed regarding the usability of full sized PC sites on small screens, even when the device is "capable" it is far from convenient.
My usage of ‘cannot’ wasn’t a reflection of impossibility but I can see how it was taken that way. Look it up on m-w.com if you’re bored.
So you agree that .mobi is both easier to remember and effectively communicates that it's site content is mobile friendly.
I agree it’s easier than a subdomain. Please do not get your hopes up that I’m praising .mobi.
And yet more and more .mobi sites are indeed being developed so this argument doesn't hold up.
.mobi is dead in my view. Period. And whether you like it or not, hundreds of others do (it’s such am unknown extension that I couldn’t say millions or even thousands). BUT that is not to say it can’t be revived. It needs development to go anywhere. IF there are many new .mobi sites popping up, then the claim of death is no longer relevant. For now, .mobi is a vanity thing that ppl use for forwarding. That can be shown with fact but I’ll leave it to you to find them, as I’m pretty sure you’ll look.
Using the Disney and ESPN examples, their decision to redirect is about pragmatism, it's how their web IT is structured. Their brand URLs (be it .com or .mobi) redirect to their go.com platform. Their branding intent is clear, and if you want to dispute their experience in branding be my guest. If you think they would publicly brand mobile sites with .mobi while they also actually distrust it somehow then I've got some oceanfront property to sell you in Nevada.
Or take Bank of America promoting BofA.mobi for their mobile banking (which redirects to their pre-existing bankofamerica.com web IT platform). It's an industry that demands the utmost in consumer trust so it defies logic to say they would distrust .mobi while directing their customers to use it.
There are shill ppl who use 360 domains. Neophilia can last a long time, you know.
These overreaching statements clearly demonstrate the lack of balance in your perspective. For you to be correct there would not be one single developed/hosted .mobi website. Here's some more info on Disney found on a .mobi site if you'd like to read it:
http://www.reuters.mobi/article/arti...6AA5HY20101112
It was hyperbole. An exaggeration. Do you SERIOUSLY believe I was saying that no one on Go’s green earth would ever use them? Had that been the case, well, be creative.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, I (and the facts) respectfully disagree.
I think you have a bigger reason to be defensive than most others do. You own debt.mobi. One could not realistically say that debt.mobi is worthless. And yes, had I owned it, I wouldn’t just drop it or sell it cheap. Why? Because .mobi STLILL has a chance. It just takes more public awareness of the extension. And when ppl use it primarily as a forward, it doesn’t help.
You disagree with my points and I disagree with yours. You believe your facts are golden and so do I with my own. Let’s just accept the fact that you and I don’t see eye to eye with this and respect one another’s indifferent views. Because really, we could be discussing this for years on end and what would that accomplish? Neither’s opinion would sway. So on that, I (and the facts) respectfully disagree, as well. But I’ll leave the readers of this thread with a thought:
The big dogs use .mobi. Does that help the .mobi cause? To an extent, yes, but apparently not enough. You’ll need REAL users to make an extension work and yeah, .mobi has some BIG players. I and no one could contest that fact. The big dogs use .mobi. But how many ‘little dogs’ do? There really isn’t many to name -- at least NOT IN PROPORTION to the amount of .mobi domains registered. The common person might develop a .net or .org but the common person doesn’t develop .mobi much as all. (There are more .mobi sites out there now, compared to when thi thread was started, which is good and promising) We’ll need a lot of attention given to .mobi to bring awareness to it... that or ppl need to see more .mobi sites out there. The big dogs do their part. Just above, there was an example of Disney showing off their .mobi. But with all the promoting the big dogs had done to their domains, the extension still has yet to do much of anything. That says a lot about the extension. The power of the big dogs doesn’t factor in much with .mobi, I take it. We, the ppl, need to do the rest.
And that ‘rest’ is better utilizing them. .mobi just needs a push and we aren’t pushing it hard enough. Some say it’s dead and others don’t. I suppose that depends on your definition of ‘dead’ and I and a few members who’ve posted here recently have conflicting views. Dead or not, it’s dormant enough yet it still could rise again, like it had after sunrise. In the real world, death is final. But resurrection is perfectly possible in the realm of the internet.
I’m unsubscribing from this thread. I won’t read any further replies.