.mobi Good news for mobile, nothing good for Mobi

[karamba]

CNN is set to re-launch its CNN mobile service this week, and has secured car company Lexus as its first advertiser on the platform.

CNN Mobile is re-launching as the news network's first direct-to-consumer WAP service, and will feature a searchable 14-day news archive with over 2,000 stories, as well as a news SMS alert service covering categories like business, weather, entertainment and lifestyle.

The service, which first launched in 1999, will be available in...

Article continues below


... Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America to all handsets by entering cnnmobile.com.

Lexus will have banner adverts on the mobile site for its Hybrid vehicle at launch and also have a pre and post roll advertising on the service's 'World News Now' two minute video update, which will be available to all 3G users of CNN Mobile. The advertising deal, which was developed by media agency Zed, will run for the first month of the new service.

I will also add that speech is about cnnmobile.com
Not cnn.mobi

 

[scandiman]

In the 70s there was emerging technology called "The Electric Car". Now the car was "new" technology yet it really did the same thing as old cars except it was restricted to so many miles on a charge and it ran on electricity. IMHO...similar to mobi where in reality it's NOT a new technology rather an old on with restrictions pretending to be something new. Now can you please tell me how well the electric car did in the long term? Did more car sales mean good news for the electric car? How about battery sales..did more battery sales mean good news for the electric car. It's a perfect example imho because more mobile device sales isn't good news for mobi...it's good news for mobile which is NOT the same. The more mobile websites that are NOT mobi is HURTFUL to mobi as an extension. It basically says to end-users...mobi is NOT our choice of extension for delivering mobile content.

From what I do know electric cars were very well liked by users but the car companies didn't want to produce them because they made less money from them. They were made to appease politicians and tree huggers and the manufacturers were not making a real effort to advance the technology. One common trick was to only lease the vehicles and then when the lease was up the companies wouldn't sell the car back to the consumer. Many have sued to keep their cars after the lease expired. So I'm not seeing how this relates to mobile web use or .mobi.

It's so damn clear and plain yet some of you insist that this is good news for mobi. It's not. How do you presume this? What's your logic?

I can use evidence to back my position. Our own NP member vcool has publicly shared his stats for dir.mobi. 25k-30k hits per day, 90% are from mobile users. To me, "It's so damn clear and plain" that dir.mobi will get more traffic as the mobile user base continues to expand. A 4 month old site in a brand new tld is reaching 30k traffic, earning over $300/month in ad revenue. What more do you want?

 

[namewaiter]

Some people are just more concerned with the "who has been a domainer longest" merit badge... and being able to say "HA! I told you so" when something happens.

well additionally, buydomains and rick s. are speculators of .mobi (plus others who have been silent supporters) ... who on this board is a bigger, mobi hating, domainer than them?

 

[scandiman]

.mobi like having an extension for different screen resolutions: cnn.1024x768, cnn.1600x1200, cnn.640x480. It's absolutely insane and silly. It just gives more opportunities for squatters, and it isn't needed because websites should detect browsers/adjust to the correct resolution.

Websites should detect, but most don't. That is the reality we live with today. mTLD provides a solution to that problem, connecting the branding opportunity of the .mobi tld with a set of coding standards that are friendly to small devices.

.mobi is reliant on phone/mobile technology to flat line; the better screens, browsers, and input sources get, the more and users will want to visit the real site while on the go, not an text/barebones version.

Actually, .mobi is a great solution to a serious problem today. My Nokia is worthless on anything other than a .mobi site and my wifes blackberry is not much better. When the billions of mobile users all have an iPhone in 10 years, I suspect the .mobi brand will have already made a place for itself and mTLD will likely adapt its specifications accordingly.

 

[iMODO Man]

Jeez, some of you guys are dumb...

Im willing to bet that everything Jesse and Roy have written in this thread will stand the test of time. Why not listen to objective argument instead of charging onwards like lemmings?

i am also a .mobi investor. Not major league, but a mid $$$ investor nonetheless. i recognise the benefits yet (and its a big YET) i also recognise that .mobi is a huge risk. Its completely unproven and I have to laugh at the confidence people here spout about how its "already a success".

No tangible sales thus far to use as the proverbial yard stick so ......

 

[mjnels]

Jeez, some of you guys are dumb...

Im willing to bet that everything Jesse and Roy have written in this thread will stand the test of time. Why not listen to objective argument instead of charging onwards like lemmings?

i am also a .mobi investor. Not major league, but a mid $$$ investor nonetheless. i recognise the benefits yet (and its a big YET) i also recognise that .mobi is a huge risk. Its completely unproven and I have to laugh at the confidence people here spout about how its "already a success".

No tangible sales thus far to use as the proverbial yard stick so ......

Thanks Dad. er, chuck

 

[Jeff]

It's all good, IMHO.

I have a feeling that you're all going nuts for .mobi to artificially pump up your investment.

Always always possible ... and it's regardless of extension IMHO. In fact, I've seen people, who later admitted to me that this was true, post Wanted threads for domain names that were very similar to ones they were concurrently trying to sell (hence, creating an illusionary demand), IMHO. Fact is, there will always be a lot of pumping and puffing ... as it's an inherently speculative business, in my judgement. I try to see through the fluff, though ... and stay cool & calm! :music: :p

PS. I do believe it's good - particularly for the newer domainers - that there's a healthy dose of professional opinion and balance in the threads, IMHO.
See you soon.
-Jeff

 

[mobidick]

Jeez, some of you guys are dumb...

Im willing to bet that everything Jesse and Roy have written in this thread will stand the test of time. Why not listen to objective argument instead of charging onwards like lemmings?

Please enlighten us dumb lemmings... why increasing mobile traffic will be bad for .mobi? It hasn't proven bad for dir.mobi, has it? Perhaps you have some counter examples to show us? Please save us before it's too late!

 

[iMODO Man]

Please enlighten us dumb lemmings... why increasing mobile traffic will be bad for .mobi?

Who said this exactly?

 

[scandiman]

Who said this exactly?

That would be ofclean, post #22 "More mobile users = bad for .mobi."

Later reinforced by Whitebark and labrocca.

 

[iMODO Man]

That would be ofclean, post #22 "More mobile users = bad for .mobi."

so whats that got to do with what i wrote?? how on earth can more mobile users be bad for .mobi...??

 

[scandiman]

...how on earth can more mobile users be bad for .mobi...??

I've been wondering the same thing. Confusing isn't it.

 

[mjnels]

so whats that got to do with what i wrote?? how on earth can more mobile users be bad for .mobi...??

Chuck, are you high?

 

[scandiman]

so whats that got to do with what i wrote??

Well, you said, "Im willing to bet that everything Jesse and Roy have written in this thread will stand the test of time." but these same posters were essentially debating in favor of ofclean's statement.

 

[iMODO Man]

Chuck, are you high?

sure, about 140ft.... Assuming were talking above sea level. Why d'you ask me this in a .mobi discussion thread?

 

[mobidick]

...how on earth can more mobile users be bad for .mobi...??

:lol:

we rest our case... next thread please!

 

[ofclean]

Please enlighten us dumb lemmings... why increasing mobile traffic will be bad for .mobi? It hasn't proven bad for dir.mobi, has it? Perhaps you have some counter examples to show us? Please save us before it's too late!

I already explained it in the original post.

 

[iMODO Man]

Well, you said, "Im willing to bet that everything Jesse and Roy have written in this thread will stand the test of time." but these same posters were essentially debating in favor of ofclean's statement.

Sorry Bro, Ive re-read all of Labroccas and Whitebark's posts and dont read that anywhere..

i see where Jesse says that the more mobile sites there are not using .mobi is bad for the extension, but i must have missed the part about him saying more mobile users is bad for the extension. I read that as two different lines of thought.

And i really dont have a clue where mjnels and mobidick are coming from.. Or infact from what planet theyre from. But just incase they arent the spambots i believe them to be, when i said "how on earth can more mobile users be bad for the extension?", this is infact a question, rhetoric that intimates I am in disbelief and am opposing anyone who believes this to be the case...

 

[whitebark]

Well, you said, "Im willing to bet that everything Jesse and Roy have written in this thread will stand the test of time." but these same posters were essentially debating in favor of ofclean's statement.

Wrong assumption - i made no such claim. My clear position was - cnn not using .mobi cannot be anything but BAD news for .mobi. There is nothing good in that announcement - nothing. My example was meant to show twisted logic - nothing more.

More people might access that website (cnn) with mobile devices but again - that has nothing to do with .mobi the extension - nothing, zip, nada, zero.

Outside of the hardcore .mobi domain investors - nobody cares. They really don't care one single iota about .mobi. They might care about accessing the web via a mobile device and having it work, but again, standards or not, they don't know about, and if even they did, won't care if .mobi succeeds or fails.

And if it does fail that is not the end of the mobile Internet - not by a long-shot. Existing technology is already surpassing the need for a specialized extension and set of coding standards. But we have been down this road and most prefer to ignore that reality. I would hope those would be the ones holding one of the few decent .mobi domains as they will succeed regardless.

Someone answer me this riddle - why are the majority of mobifanatics for lack of better term, those who don't develop websites themselves? Dare I say that lack of intimate knowledge of website creation and functionality helps cloud their judgement?

 

[scandiman]

Sorry Bro, Ive re-read all of Labroccas and Whitebark's posts and dont read that anywhere..

i see where Jesse says that the more mobile sites there are not using .mobi is bad for the extension, but i must have missed the part about him saying more mobile users is bad for the extension. I read that as two different lines of thought.

First off, you are correct that they didn't directly support ofclean's remarks. I see that my post suggests this and I am wrong. The electric vehicle analogy is where Labrocca comes close saying "It's a perfect example imho because more mobile device sales isn't good news for mobi...it's good news for mobile which is NOT the same." Since Whitebark started the auto industry comparison, I joined their comments inappropriately.

That being said, this is where I differ with Labrocca. More device sales is good news for mobi because it means there are more mobile users. More mobile users = good news for .mobi.

...when i said "how on earth can more mobile users be bad for the extension?", this is infact a question, rhetoric that intimates I am in disbelief and am opposing anyone who believes this to be the case...

Then would you agree with Labrocca as quoted above because that is what he is suggesting.

Wrong assumption - i made no such claim.

I agree and have admitted my error.

My clear position was - cnn not using .mobi cannot be anything but BAD news for .mobi. There is nothing good in that announcement - nothing. My example was meant to show twisted logic - nothing more.

So just to be clear, if/when cnn.mobi goes live will you feel it is good for .mobi?

Someone answer me this riddle - why are the majority of mobifanatics for lack of better term, those who don't develop websites themselves? Dare I say that lack of intimate knowledge of website creation and functionality helps cloud their judgement?

Well, you are not specifically referring to me but it sure feels like it. With about 10 serious sites in the works I assure you that my contribution to the .mobi content space is forthcoming. After that come dozens more. My apologies to all for being a slow coder. Apparently it is clouding my judgment.

 

[labrocca]

Scandiman...stop and take a breathe. No one here is talking about traffic of mobi AT ALL. This entire topic is about CNN not using the mobi extension for it's mobile website. That's it!

You are and have been trying to SPIN this into a mobi-hater debate and force those skeptical of mobi's future into an all out debate. You do this because you are trying to spin away from the real story in this thread. There is no way you can say that CNN using cnnmobile.com is GOOD the mobi extension. We may be able to argue the point about mobile devices sales being good for mobi but I won't even waste my breathe if you believe that CNN dismissing mobi entirely for it's mobile content is somehow GOOD news for mobi.

You and your ilk seem to think mobile internet means mobi. I beg to differ. Was the electric car good for the auto industry?

Be real in your discussions and realistic and maybe your points would be heard. If you just want to have a cultist mentality that mobi can do no wrong then you will just be ignored by the more moderate domainers that read this site. You simply don't sound reasonable in your argument.

uh, not really a good analogy labrocca, as the electric car, like alternative fuels and early hybrids, was decimated for failure by the 'incahoots' oil and car industries. It's only been of late as the consumer pressures or demands have forced it back to the forefront of interest. just an observation here.

Yes and it's the domainers "incahoots" that may decimate .mobi. That's my opinion. All this hype from within the domainer community isn't translating to the general public. Consumer demand for mobile internet may eventually happen but just as the hybrid cars have overcome electric cars...mobi may be overcome by something else in the future. Mobi imho is not well thought out. It's entire mission is flawed and will hamper it's growth and acceptability to end-users and corporations that are trying to decide it's viability.

Thank you.