.mobi Emerging browsers and auto detection THREAT

[folletx]

Hi everybody,
I would like this thread to talk about the THREAT: Emerging browsers and auto detection

I have read in many threads that one of the reasons of .mobi being not usefull is that mobile browsers and servers will be able to redirect mobile surfers detecting that they are using a mobile phone. Technology is able to do it easily, and even not very late will be able to develope portable devices that can emulate the classic browsing sitting in front of a table. Tech is amazing.

But I think that technology limitations are not the point. The point are us. The upcoming internet doesn't need a chair, doesn't need a table, doesn't need a place. Is a new internet, mobile-internet. And the future mobilesurfers are differnet from the "sitting in front of a table surfers". When we'll become a mobilesurfer we'll expect different thinks from internet, different functions, different applications, probably more simple and fast information... and ofcourse, manytimes just check a nonmobile site anywhere. I think that the real difference between internet anb mobile-internet won't be the devices that you use to access, will be what people are waiting for when they access. This is actually already happening, sites have their specific address ( "M Dots", /mobile, and mobile.domain.com's or whatever ) they are giving a message, they are saying that they have a special part of the site dedicated to mobilesurfers. I don't know if .mobi will be the way to give this message in the future, but I think that mobilesurfing is so different that will need an special place in the net.

What do you think?

 

[-REECE-]

Hi everybody,
I would like this thread to talk about the THREAT: Emerging browsers and auto detection

I have read in many threads that one of the reasons of .mobi being not usefull is that mobile browsers and servers will be able to redirect mobile surfers detecting that they are using a mobile phone. Technology is able to do it easily, and even not very late will be able to develope portable devices that can emulate the classic browsing sitting in front of a table. Tech is amazing.

But I think that technology limitations are not the point. The point are us. The upcoming internet doesn't need a chair, doesn't need a table, doesn't need a place. Is a new internet, mobile-internet. And the future mobilesurfers are differnet from the "sitting in front of a table surfers". When we'll become a mobilesurfer we'll expect different thinks from internet, different functions, different applications, probably more simple and fast information... and ofcourse, manytimes just check a nonmobile site anywhere. I think that the real difference between internet anb mobile-internet won't be the devices that you use to access, will be what people are waiting for when they access. This is actually already happening, sites have their specific address ( "M Dots", /mobile, and mobile.domain.com's or whatever ) they are giving a message, they are saying that they have a special part of the site dedicated to mobilesurfers. I don't know if .mobi will be the way to give this message in the future, but I think that mobilesurfing is so different that will need an special place in the net.

What do you think?

I think the strongest reason for .mobi at this point is the very fact that endusers/general public "just don't know" if they'll be greeted with a mobile site should they type in BOFA.com in example. With bandwidth charges still hovering at >$6/MB in some locations, that could be a very costly mistake.

 

[folletx]

It's a reason now. But I would like this thread not to justify dot.mobi but to analize if in the future, when technology has evolved, mobile-internet is not expensive there will be a need or not of an special place for mobile sites?

 

[Alan Glennon]

Successful sites will need to be flexible enough to handle mobile and non-mobile users and capabilities. However, such functionality is not binary, it is a continuum. Mobi is not absolutely necessary, but it is a useful and practical tld. I use mobi almost exclusively on my phone simply because I know the sites will work. For instance, though I do not like foxnews generally, they get more traffic from me "in the field" than cnn (even though cnn now has an automatic mobile browser redirect when accessing cnn.com). I know foxnews.mobi will work on my phone, while cnn.com only usually works. Of course, there will be special places for "mobiles only" sites -- though they will probably be somewhat niche in the short term. Right now, many of those mobile sites are evolving out of existing social-networking SMS services.

 

[garrett200]

If .mobi is marketed right and .mobi sites are branded and become popular, the autodetect threat isn't going to matter at all.

 

[Mobi Cheap]

It's a reason now. But I would like this thread not to justify dot.mobi but to analize if in the future, when technology has evolved, mobile-internet is not expensive there will be a need or not of an special place for mobile sites?

In defense of Reece's point though, people's time will always be valuable, more and more so...

In fact it can be argued that people's time is the only truly limited resource in the long term.

 

[scandiman]

One major dilemma with auto-detection is that an assumption is being made what site the mobile user actually wants.

Perfect example is weather.com vs weather.mobi. Grab an iPod Touch, go to weather.com and you can zoom and scroll to your hearts content on the full size PC site. Visit weather.mobi and you get a quick, much easier to use and navigate mobile friendly site.

Which version should the site code assume an iPod touch user wants? Both sites "work" on the iPod Touch but offer 2 completely different user experiences. By offering full sized PC sites on the .com and the mobile site on the .mobi, The Weather Channel is providing choice to their users that no auto-detecting script could ever do.

As always, this all comes back to branding: m dot, mobile dot, wap dot, /mobile, or dotMobi. Of all the possible permutations of subdomains or directories we can conceive, only one naming option exists that offers some code compliance guidelines that assures a quality mobile user experience: dotMobi.

 

[Pred]

One major dilemma with auto-detection is that an assumption is being made what site the mobile user actually wants.

Perfect example is weather.com vs weather.mobi. Grab an iPod Touch, go to weather.com and you can zoom and scroll to your hearts content on the full size PC site. Visit weather.mobi and you get a quick, much easier to use and navigate mobile friendly site.

Which version should the site code assume an iPod touch user wants? Both sites "work" on the iPod Touch but offer 2 completely different user experiences. By offering full sized PC sites on the .com and the mobile site on the .mobi, The Weather Channel is providing choice to their users that no auto-detecting script could ever do.

As always, this all comes back to branding: m dot, mobile dot, wap dot, /mobile, or dotMobi. Of all the possible permutations of subdomains or directories we can conceive, only one naming option exists that offers some code compliance guidelines that assures a quality mobile user experience: dotMobi.

 

[mbuna]

I think that someone needs to market .mobi to the mobile manufacturers and try to get them to direct web traffic to the .mobi TLD.

 

[garrett200]

I think that someone needs to market .mobi to the mobile manufacturers and try to get them to direct web traffic to the .mobi TLD.

There are a couple manufacturers who are supposed backers of .mobi, but nothing has seemed to emerge from them yet as far as incorporating .mobi into their products. Hopefully this will get accomplished in year 2.

 

[Mobi Cheap]

I think that someone needs to market .mobi to the mobile manufacturers and try to get them to direct web traffic to the .mobi TLD.

Wouldn't they be taken out and shot after a show trial by mass-media (for conflicts of interest, etc) if they did that?

 

[onspec]

It's still early, but the success of the mobile net is a foregone conclusion. The restricting factors are many, but in the end, Users will settle for nothing less than a "beyond expectations" mobile experience.

The dot mobi guidelines are well intentioned, but aside from a handful of people, who really knows (or cares) about a nebulous, 4-character TLD, and who will intuitively know to type in on their cell phone dialpad.

There are alternatives such as numeric-domains that can greatly reduce the number of clicks for Users to access mobile sites.

For example: 3776.com can stand for 144 unique alpha combinations.

Assume it gets assigned the letters 'ESPN' and is directed to their mobile site. Users have 2 options to type the URL into their small cell phone dial pads:

1) ESPN's way: mobileapp.espn.go ---> 32 inputs (.com is the same on all phones), or

2) My way: 3776 ---> 4 inputs

Numeric-domains are not a panacea, but they sure can make life easier for millions of cell phone users around the world. And if marketed and advertised properly, could significantly strengthen brands.

 

[scandiman]

It's still early, but the success of the mobile net is a foregone conclusion. The restricting factors are many, but in the end, Users will settle for nothing less than a "beyond expectations" mobile experience.

The dot mobi guidelines are well intentioned, but aside from a handful of people, who really knows (or cares) about a nebulous, 4-character TLD, and who will intuitively know to type in on their cell phone dialpad.

There are alternatives such as numeric-domains that can greatly reduce the number of clicks for Users to access mobile sites.

For example: 3776.com can stand for 144 unique alpha combinations.

Assume it gets assigned the letters 'ESPN' and is directed to their mobile site. Users have 2 options to type the URL into their small cell phone dial pads:

1) ESPN's way: mobileapp.espn.go ---> 32 inputs (.com is the same on all phones), or

2) My way: 3776 ---> 4 inputs

Numeric-domains are not a panacea, but they sure can make life easier for millions of cell phone users around the world. And if marketed and advertised properly, could significantly strengthen brands.

Why not just go to ESPN.mobi? :hehe:

 

[Pred]

:hehe:

 

[Mobi Cheap]

Why not just go to ESPN.mobi? :hehe:

Good question Scandiman, but I'm sure reasons can be found. For instance:

Some people may not like the predictable and efficient user experience that .mobi offers.

In this case, you type espn.mobi, you get all the info/fun you can get from them and then what?

Then you would have to think of something else to do, and that's just so difficult...

 

[skeitel]

"Some people may not like the predictable and efficient user experience that .mobi offers."
Ehm...that's true. It has been verified countless times that people will always choose to do whatever that requires the maximum effort and the most time in their part. All experts agree on it...

 

[Pred]

I think you'll find he was being sarcastic.mobi :hehe:

 

[eyedomainous]

mobile, not 'immobile', standards please

IMHO, the major prob with .mobi is the static design standard. If .mobi were to free itself of this and promote the extension as THE place for 'mobile' content... using the latest 'state of the art' display technology, then .mobi adoption rates, amongts users, endusers as well as deployed sites, would increase dramatically and continually.

All of the objections stated above are being addressed by state of the art display technology on, or entering, the market Right Now. If the .mobi powers that be would integrate Push-it.mobi technology into the .mobi ecosystem the 'issues' cost relating to loading, as well as viewing, full web pages on virtually any cellphone would no longer be an issue. Check out the vid:
PUSH-IT.mobi - http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1185153705/bclid1202130136/bctid1205096377

For State of the art website picture and page resizing also see:
Image resize http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIFCV2spKtg

Or see this recently launched Microsoft service... where the size of the site does not matter... what matters is the pixels on your screen.
Photosynth: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/129

A .mobi site should not be seen, or promoted, as a basic display 'utility', IMO, but should also offer users a rich display experience. I have some good .mobi domain names, and will buy more, but I will not dev any until the immobile design standard becomes 'mobile'... and changes with the times.

This should not be an 'either/or' extension (either you do it our way, OR ELSE!!). The new tools enable a spectrum of display options for mobile devices. If you want to put-up a basic data-as-a-utility styled site, cool! Do it! But if I wanna put-up a data eye-candy style site I should be able to do that as well.

Evolve or Die ... that is the nature of things in any 'ecosystem'.

 

[Steven]

IMHO, the major prob with .mobi is the static design standard. If .mobi were to free itself of this and promote the extension as THE place for 'mobile' content... using the latest 'state of the art' display technology, then .mobi adoption rates, amongts users, endusers as well as deployed sites, would increase dramatically and continually.

All of the objections stated above are being addressed by state of the art display technology on, or entering, the market Right Now. If the .mobi powers that be would integrate Push-it.mobi technology into the .mobi ecosystem the 'issues' cost relating to loading, as well as viewing, full web pages on virtually any cellphone would no longer be an issue. Check out the vid:
PUSH-IT.mobi - http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1185153705/bclid1202130136/bctid1205096377

For State of the art website picture and page resizing also see:
Image resize http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIFCV2spKtg

Or see this recently launched Microsoft service... where the size of the site does not matter... what matters is the pixels on your screen.
Photosynth: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/129

A .mobi site should not be seen, or promoted, as a basic display 'utility', IMO, but should also offer users a rich display experience. I have some good .mobi domain names, and will buy more, but I will not dev any until the immobile design standard becomes 'mobile'... and changes with the times.

This should not be an 'either/or' extension (either you do it our way, OR ELSE!!). The new tools enable a spectrum of display options for mobile devices. If you want to put-up a basic data-as-a-utility styled site, cool! Do it! But if I wanna put-up a data eye-candy style site I should be able to do that as well.

Evolve or Die ... that is the nature of things in any 'ecosystem'.

I went to the websites.

All these new technology developments are amazing

 

[satsdifference.com]

What's going on?

Is it better to be a little early to the party then "too late"?

(Hi, my name is Yelo, I am a Dot Mobi conspiracy theorist :>)

Definetely a visionary post, raising eyebrows..

Great links about great projects, I am not a techie expert but fathom that after/if dot mobi brands itself to the world then it can evolve & partake in further evolvements..

As of now, it appears things must shape up, with a few further developments, before we may see Dot Mobi begin its full force marketing "out of the closet"; this may be my eye-candy dream, but this needs to be a reality witnessed for the slam dunk hope to have a chance.. that Dot Mobi must brand itself to the world as "works on all phones".. this is my solution proof I have done with the math of all perceived perspectives towards Dot Mobi to date.. ..without regard of enforcement issues: Idealogically, it's like a slow trickle of sites that work on all phones, then if there is a leaky bucket threat, an all out final branding, marketing assault - everything they got, suddenly?

The signs are there, I believe, that things are working at a very high and coordinated level..

I just believe that, as we have had PC Internet experience for desktop, (the largest "One Internet" experience).. now we have, currently, have the smallest "One Internet" experience, .mobi = works on all phones

..which is the lowest common denominator

AND lowest common denominator wins (for the masses)

..because if a certain technology early is not viewable on a renown .mobi domain by some phone from a land far far away, then that would break the entire premise of .mobi currently as "works on all phones".. hence their simplicity creed and their slowed pace = their silence is state of the ark and planned..

I agree, once the cat is out of the bag, as a world brand, how will it survive? Can it evolve some today?

(I am raising these issues so we can all go faster in thought)


Kind Regards,

Yelo