.mobi Great .mobi names dropping...

[Embrand]

Hi, I haven't followed .mobi that closely, so maybe it is just me... But it seems that right now many great .mobi names are dropping.

First there was buddhism.mobi (auctioned yesterday at Pool), then betting.mobi and pizzas.mobi (now at SnapNames auction) and now concert.mobi and nightclub.mobi (still time to backorder) just to mention a few.

Is this a normal situation? In that case, I guess it is bad news for the extension. Or is it unusual and in that case a great opportunity for buyers? And are they worth paying high $xxx for?

Thanks

---------- Post added at 03:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:00 AM ----------

By the way, betting.mobi is already at $580 with more than two days left of the auction at SnapNames.

 

[pcaero]

Will the Mobile Web Kill Off the App Store?

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009...+wired/index+(Wired:+Index+3+(Top+Stories+2))

The debate over the longevity of native software continues. Mozilla, creator of Firefox, claims that its new browser for smartphones will contribute to the death of smartphone app stores.


Scheduled to begin appearing on devices at the end of this year, the Firefox mobile browser, code-named Fennec, will be packed with features to make it the closest thing yet to a real, desktop-class browser. (Wired.com’s Mike Calore has a detailed look at Fennec.) Mozilla claims it will have the fastest JavaScript engine of any mobile browser, allowing developers to produce HTML- and JavaScript-coded apps for Fennec rather than for multiple smartphone platforms, such as iPhone OS, Google Android or Windows Mobile.

“In the interim period, apps will be very successful,” said Jay Sullivan, vice president of Mozilla’s mobile division, in an interview with PC Pro. “Over time, the web will win because it always does.”

Web proponents such as Mozilla and Google dream that internet standards will enable any app to run on any device, just as Java proponents touted a “write once, run anywhere” vision in the 1990s. Similarly, Adobe’s Flash emerged as a cross-platform environment for creating animations, games and apps for the web. But many consumers and developers have complained that Java and Flash exhibit bugs, performance problems and security vulnerabilities, among other issues. And Java’s promises of universality didn’t quite work out, because different implementations of the Java virtual machine (not to mention wildly varying hardware capabilities) mean that, even today, Java coders need to rework their apps for each target device.

But web proponents maintain that the wide acceptance of next-generation internet standards, particularly HTML5, will win out where Java failed.

It’s a tempting vision. Currently, when deciding whether to buy a Mac or a PC, an Xbox 360 or a PlayStation 3, or an iPhone or a Droid, you need to consider which applications you’ll be able to run on each one. If programmers head in the direction of the web, then ideally you’ll be able to gain access to any application regardless of the computer or smartphone you own.

Google is attempting to lead the web movement. The search giant is pushing its web-only regime with Chrome OS, its browser-based operating system for netbooks that will run only web applications. Also, in July, Google’s engineering vice president and developer evangelist Vic Gundotra said in a conference that mobile app stores have no future.

“Many, many applications can be delivered through the browser and what that does for our costs is stunning,” Gundotra was quoted in a Financial Times report. “We believe the web has won and over the next several years, the browser, for economic reasons almost, will become the platform that matters and certainly that’s where Google is investing.”

But iPhone developers and analysts polled in July by Wired.com explained the problems with current web technologies, and some highlighted the merits of native-app architecture.

Interpet analyst Michael Gartenberg noted that many iPhone apps are a combination of native and web technologies, because many apps download or share data through the internet. He said it’s beneficial for the apps to be native, because they’re programmed to take full advantage of the iPhone’s hardware.

“It’s odd that Google feels the need to position as one versus the other,” Gartenberg said in July. “That’s last century thinking…. It’s not about web applications or desktop applications but integrating the cloud into these applications that are on both my phone and the PC. Ultimately, it’s about offering the best of both worlds to create the best experience for consumers — not forcing them to choose one or the other.”

With Firefox’s mobile browser rolling out soon, we have yet to see how consumers and developers react to Mozilla’s attempt to spark a web-only exodus. We’ll continue examining this topic in the months to come.

Meanwhile, what are your thoughts about the web-versus-native debate? Add your comments, or participate in the poll below.

 

[mo_dork]

Google Says Mobile App Stores Have No Future
Google Says Mobile App Stores Have No Future | Gadget Lab | Wired.com

 

[labrocca]

Gartenberg pointed out that many iPhone apps are native and web-based at the same time. That’s because a lot of the apps download or share data via the internet. And it’s beneficial for the apps to be native, because that way they’re programmed to specifically take advantage of the iPhone’s processor, graphic accelerator and other hardware features.

“It’s not about web applications or desktop applications but integrating the internet in the cloud into these applications that are on both my phone and the PC,” Gartenberg said. “Ultimately, it’s about offering the best of both worlds to create the best experience for consumers — not forcing them to choose one or the other.”

Gartenberg highlighted social networking service Twitter as an example. The Twitter service exists on the internet, and yet most users prefer reading their feeds and posting tweets with a native application rather than visiting Twitter.com in a browser, Gartenberg said.

I been pushing this sentiment all week around here.

Mozilla, creator of Firefox, claims that its new browser for smartphones will contribute to the death of smartphone app stores.

And this coming from a company who's best product is free. How much does Mozilla actually influence the web? Oh that's right...NONE. If it wasn't for Google paying for all those downloads ($1 each) Firefox would be at 5% just like Opera. Mozilla is not a company to trust imho for foresight.

The mozilla mobile browser is another imitation of the better Opera Mini which has been in the market for years now.

“In the interim period, apps will be very successful,” said Jay Sullivan, vice president of Mozilla’s mobile division, in an interview with PC Pro. “Over time, the web will win because it always does.”

That's a stupid statement. It's why Netscape Navigator tanked all those years ago. He admits apps will be "very successful". The issue is once users are set into using apps on their mobile they won't switch back to a browser. That's my view. It's going to be a hybrid as I quoted above where apps are going to intermingle with the internet for the content. I am glad someone gets it.

I like Google's move in the mobile arena. I am an Android fan but I think it's self-serving they want apps to be entirely web based. They run the #1 website in the world. It's like Microsoft wanting Office to run on Windows instead of the web. Of course Google is going to believe the future is cloud computing. It's completely in their best interests for that to happen. Personally I just don't see that trend occuring based on user habits that already exist.

 

[mo_dork]

And this coming from a company who's best product is free. How much does Mozilla actually influence the web? Oh that's right...NONE. If it wasn't for Google paying for all those downloads ($1 each) Firefox would be at 5% just like Opera. Mozilla is not a company to trust imho for foresight.

The mozilla mobile browser is another imitation of the better Opera Mini which has been in the market for years now.

Mozilla is a non-profit open-source project, hence free-
About Mozilla

You ask how much they influence the web:
Firefox 3.5 is in use on 439,917,174 pcs-
Firefox web browser | Real-Time Firefox Download Stats

Browser wars-
NetApplications also reported that, as of October 2009, Internet Explorer had a 65% market share, Firefox 24%, Safari 4%, Chrome 4%, Opera 2%
Browser wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The opera mini browser is getting better, but I wouldn't get too excited, its still pretty crap and was very crap pre the last upgrade. I doubt the mozilla global community of thousands of developers are shooting to simply imitate opera mini.

Of course Google is going to believe the future is cloud computing. It's completely in their best interests for that to happen. Personally I just don't see that trend occuring based on user habits that already exist.

Its in their best interests and in many other company's best interest, so therefor it probably will happen.

 

[labrocca]

I guess we'll dig this up in a couple years and see where the trend is. And don't think I won't either because it's one of my favorite things to do.

 

[mo_dork]

I guess we'll dig this up in a couple years and see where the trend is. And don't think I won't either because it's one of my favorite things to do.

Please do

 

[snoop]

Below is a quote in regards to the Morgan Stanely Report.

"In a nutshell, the mobile Internet is the future - and Morgan Stanley sees it surpassing the PC as the primary way of accessing online information within five years."

That isn't what you stated,

"PC in 5-10 years = obsolete for internet usage.
Mobiles 5-10 years = internet dominance!

BTW, it's not me saying this but rather players like Google and Morgan Stanely. "

If the PC has under 50% that doesn't make it "obsolete" for Internet usage.

 

[newton]

I guess we'll dig this up in a couple years and see where the trend is. And don't think I won't either because it's one of my favorite things to do.

I look forward to it :talk:

Would a couple of years be enough time to revisit my post too, or should I just accept that you are glossing over it, as the only thing I have heard from you thus far is what sounds like "Meow" :lol:

 

[labrocca]

Let's cut to the chase Jesse as I know you are a gambling man, and if you'd like to put your money where your mouth is, then I am certainly willing to wager.

You build your own purchasable app, since you are a developer (it must all be coded by you in its entirety). When you are ready to launch this, then I will use an existing mobi URL for my product.

As you say, you do not need seo or even marketing for your app, so let's see how it does.

The one who makes the most money and has the most mobile traffic (has to be both) purely from their product / url in a month wins $100 from the other.

We can work out the details

I didn't really read this fully before. Just seemed like a lot of huff and puff. $100 isn't a bet to me. $10,000 might get me excited.

When I do create and launch my app I'll let you know. And any first APP I make would probably be free.

btw..what does "it all has to be coded by you" have to really do with anything? Whether coded by me or someone else shouldn't matter for this argument.

My point is an Android App is going to enjoy more traffic imho than a mobi site.

Bah...whatever you peeps are crazy anyways. I got my Alexa 10k site to take care of. Peace.

 

[snoop]

I didn't really read this fully before. Just seemed like a lot of huff and puff. $100 isn't a bet to me. $10,000 might get me excited.

When I do create and launch my app I'll let you know. And any first APP I make would probably be free.

btw..what does "it all has to be coded by you" have to really do with anything? Whether coded by me or someone else shouldn't matter for this argument.

My point is an Android App is going to enjoy more traffic imho than a mobi site.

Bah...whatever you peeps are crazy anyways. I got my Alexa 10k site to take care of. Peace.

Next you'll be telling us about your BMW necklace.

 

[exsedo]

Anyway folks, if .mobi does die the death that some are predicting, you could always adopt another extension. How about :- .me

me = mobile extension
me = mobile equivelant

I can think of a few more, but would like to see your suggestions. :talk:

 

[newton]

I didn't really read this fully before. Just seemed like a lot of huff and puff. $100 isn't a bet to me. $10,000 might get me excited.

When I do create and launch my app I'll let you know. And any first APP I make would probably be free.

btw..what does "it all has to be coded by you" have to really do with anything? Whether coded by me or someone else shouldn't matter for this argument.

My point is an Android App is going to enjoy more traffic imho than a mobi site.

Bah...whatever you peeps are crazy anyways. I got my Alexa 10k site to take care of. Peace.

Now its getting interesting Let's say we donate the $100 to a charity of the others choice.

You said you were a programmer, so I am allowing you to push your ability to the limits and have the satisfaction in knowing you coded it all yourself. If you want someone else to take the kudos then I am guessing that you are extremely shy and modest about your abilities. Nothing wrong with that and its good to see someone humble about their skillsets.

I would seriously be interested in seeing the apps you develop in due course.

"An android app will enjoy more traffic than a mobi site" ... How do you arrive at this conclusion?

Keep up the good work on your Alexa 10k site

 

[mo_dork]

More on apps vs mobile web on mashable today.

Mobile Advertising, 5 Things You Need to Know to Succeed in 2010-
Mobile Advertising: 5 Things You Need to Know to Succeed in 2010

"By now, most folks are aware of the iPhone application approval process which can take anywhere from two weeks to six months. The BlackBerry App World also requires approval, but it is just a storefront policy, and all apps can be distributed through other markets and channels. Effective mobile marketing campaigns are synched with other channels like TV, web, and product launch events, and can’t afford the risk of an application sitting in queue. Both Android and the Palm Pre/Web OS markets have no approval process to slow down the campaign.

However, even without this friction, there are clear differences between building an app and providing a mobile web site. The WhitePage mobile iPhone application has been a Top 10 app for over a year, but we see just as many iPhone users on our mobile website. A recent WhitePages and MediaVest study on a Continental Airlines campaign demonstrated that advertising performance is just as strong on the mobile web as it is on an app. The downside of an app is that the consumer has to upgrade to get new versions, while a mobile web site can simply be updated. In the past, we had to build an app on the iPhone to integrate with the device’s GPS for location benefits. Today this important capability is possible from the iPhone’s Safari browser.

Browser-based rich media, most often provided by Flash on the wired web, help create ads with impact. Android’s open platform allowed HTC to implement Flash on its Hero device. The Palm-Pre/Web OS also supports Flash. Android’s growing presence will facilitate rich media even if Apple refuses to get on board.

As long as carriers can scale their 3G networks to meet demand, the future of wireless is going back to the mobile web."

 

[mjnels]

labrocca you're kinda funny.

 

[Keith]

That isn't what you stated,

"PC in 5-10 years = obsolete for internet usage.
Mobiles 5-10 years = internet dominance!

BTW, it's not me saying this but rather players like Google and Morgan Stanely. "

If the PC has under 50% that doesn't make it "obsolete" for Internet usage.

Ok I agree, "obsolete" was the wrong word to use. Maybe I should have
summed it up by saying that .com and the PC will have to settle for third best
in the coming years. Apps and mobile ready sites will be leaps ahead.

 

[dean.collins]

hmmm well the domains MobileAppStore.com Home Page are up for sale so we will see how obselete they are.

 

[mjnels]

Ok I agree, "obsolete" was the wrong word to use. Maybe I should have
summed it up by saying that .com and the PC will have to settle for third best
in the coming years. Apps and mobile ready sites will be leaps ahead.

why would .com have to settle for 3rd best or even 2nd best?

im not following the logic...

 

[scandiman]

Ok I agree, "obsolete" was the wrong word to use. Maybe I should have
summed it up by saying that .com and the PC will have to settle for third best
in the coming years. Apps and mobile ready sites will be leaps ahead.

But mobile ready sites can be .com's also so I too am not following the logic. Plenty of .com mobile ready examples in the world right now disprove the notion that .com will have to settle for anything. The world of mobile web won't be handed to .mobi on a platter.

 

[labrocca]

hmmm well the domains MobileAppStore.com Home Page are up for sale so we will see how obselete they are.

Spam much?

 

[Keith]

But mobile ready sites can be .com's also so I too am not following the logic. Plenty of .com mobile ready examples in the world right now disprove the notion that .com will have to settle for anything. The world of mobile web won't be handed to .mobi on a platter.

Here's what I'm saying. I have the facebook app on my phone. I will never ever go to facebook.com on my mobile browser. eBay, paypal, yahoo, etc same thing. When I use those apps, ".com" appears nowhere. As an app user, to me .com doesn't exist.

Then we have .com sites which do not use apps but instead opt for m.keyword.com or some kind of variation. We have seen loads of these types of sites. Companies have to now market and advertise their mobile ready .coms. Why? Because it is no longer simply a .com, it has been altered. Now lump in all other tlds that make their traditional pc sites mobile. Very few .coms are using auto detection in comparison to the amount of apps/m. sites that exist.

It's quite obvious that the world is quickly shifting to smartphones. The mobile web will without a doubt surpass the pc in every which way. Mark my words....com as we know it today will be all but gone sooner than later!

 

[scandiman]

Here's what I'm saying. I have the facebook app on my phone. I will never ever go to facebook.com on my mobile browser. eBay, paypal, yahoo, etc same thing. When I use those apps, ".com" appears nowhere. As an app user, to me .com doesn't exist.

Then we have .com sites which do not use apps but instead opt for m.keyword.com or some kind of variation. We have seen loads of these types of sites. Companies have to now market and advertise their mobile ready .coms. Why? Because it is no longer simply a .com, it has been altered. Now lump in all other tlds that make their traditional pc sites mobile. Very few .coms are using auto detection in comparison to the amount of apps/m. sites that exist.

It's quite obvious that the world is quickly shifting to smartphones. The mobile web will without a doubt surpass the pc in every which way. Mark my words....com as we know it today will be all but gone sooner than later!

When you say, ".com as we know it today..." I'm not really sure what you're referring to. .com websites today aren't what they were 10 years ago, but the TLD remains unchanged. Adding an mdot in front of the URL doesn't alter the TLD either. Same holds true for .net, .org, .gov, or .whatever was around in the beginning of the web. So yes what is today will be gone sooner than later, irrespective of mobile web, phones or whatever just because massive change is inevitable in the web.

It's true that many people are using apps in phones today but I question how sustainable that is. Where it breaks down is for advertising a service via mass market. The beauty of a web URL is the ease to advertise to the mass market of web users, rather than the small market of users on a single device platform. When you spend ad money in a mass market you want it to be usable to the mass market. eHarmony is a great example, they mass market their website because just about anyone who is interested has access and can use it. But if they mass marketed an iPhone app it is only usable to those viewers with an iPhone, alienating everyone else. So I expect to see mass marketing of mobile web URL's, the question is will it be more for redirect or mdot on a traditional PC URL like .com or simply Brand.mobi. It will be a mix of the two, which is the greater share remains to be seen but in the short term my bet would be to see more with .com since they already have more of the established brands and budgets to work with.

 

[labrocca]

Here's what I'm saying. I have the facebook app on my phone. I will never ever go to facebook.com on my mobile browser. eBay, paypal, yahoo, etc same thing. When I use those apps, ".com" appears nowhere. As an app user, to me .com doesn't exist.

I agree fully about mobile smart phone usage for this trend. But I don't see apps replacing deskptop usage. Nothing will beat a keyboard and a browser. Although Google Chrome OS might have some surprises for us but that's a real speculation on the future and imho doesn't follow along the timeline of current trends.

 

[mjnels]

Here's what I'm saying. I have the facebook app on my phone. I will never ever go to facebook.com on my mobile browser. eBay, paypal, yahoo, etc same thing. When I use those apps, ".com" appears nowhere. As an app user, to me .com doesn't exist.

Then we have .com sites which do not use apps but instead opt for m.keyword.com or some kind of variation. We have seen loads of these types of sites. Companies have to now market and advertise their mobile ready .coms. Why? Because it is no longer simply a .com, it has been altered. Now lump in all other tlds that make their traditional pc sites mobile. Very few .coms are using auto detection in comparison to the amount of apps/m. sites that exist.

It's quite obvious that the world is quickly shifting to smartphones. The mobile web will without a doubt surpass the pc in every which way. Mark my words....com as we know it today will be all but gone sooner than later!

still not following the logic. because sub-domains like m.domain.com are nothing new.. they've been using this type of thing for years... but the vast majority are on .com's which is the TLD.

and apps, while im sure they'll remain popular for the most used sites, really have nothing to do with TLD's at all. there is a bit of an app frenzy right now anyway.. there isnt going to be an app for everything, just doesnt make sense.

 

[Keith]

still not following the logic. because sub-domains like m.domain.com are nothing new.. they've been using this type of thing for years... but the vast majority are on .com's which is the TLD.

and apps, while im sure they'll remain popular for the most used sites, really have nothing to do with TLD's at all. there is a bit of an app frenzy right now anyway.. there isnt going to be an app for everything, just doesnt make sense.

The use of sub-domains is my point. As internet usage shifts more and more to mobile, say bye bye to straight forward .com websites. I see very few adverts saying "just go to keyword.com on your mobile to access our site". What I do see are adverts for .mobi, m.keyword, etc.

I agree that apps will be popular for more well known websites. You know I can't remember the last time I've used my pc to access sites like facebook, paypal, and many others. Think 5-10 years down the road when the flip phone does'nt exist and it's all smartphones. Apps will be used along with sub-domain .coms and who knows maybe .mobi I promise adverts saying just go to keyword.com will be dried up. Everything will be geared towards mobile usage leaving the days of the pc and traditional ".com" websites behind.

 

[mjnels]

The use of sub-domains is my point. As internet usage shifts more and more to mobile, say bye bye to straight forward .com websites. I see very few adverts saying "just go to keyword.com on your mobile to access our site". What I do see are adverts for .mobi, m.keyword, etc.

I agree that apps will be popular for more well known websites. You know I can't remember the last time I've used my pc to access sites like facebook, paypal, and many others. Think 5-10 years down the road when the flip phone does'nt exist and it's all smartphones. Apps will be used along with sub-domain .coms and who knows maybe .mobi I promise adverts saying just go to keyword.com will be dried up. Everything will be geared towards mobile usage leaving the days of the pc and traditional ".com" websites behind.

you cant remember the last time you used paypal or facebook on your computer? i'd say you're in the minority.

i still think you've got it wrong. especially because a good majority of websites will simply advertise their .com (or whatever TLD) site and use auto-detect. thats why google is still google.com, they just use autodetect and it works fine. while mobile usage will explode even more than it has now, people will still use their computer for things. its like saying because portable TV's exist that the popularity of big screen TV's will fall. we're dealing with expansion for the most part, not replacement.