.mobi How much is your evaluation news.mobi ?

[dfmzhh]

Request for Proposals (RFP) Process

The Request for Proposals (RFP) process commences on 6 November 2006. The .mobi domain names to be offered through the initial RFP process are:

news.mobi
ringtones.mobi
sports.mobi
weather.mobi

To apply, please download our application. Applications are due by 16 February 2007.

All process questions are to be received by February 2 2007.

dotMobi will review the submitted proposals per the evaluation criteria included in the application and will announce winning proposals March 2007.

The RFP process was approved by ICANN and was developed in collaboration with our Policy Advisory Board. It provides an opportunity to develop critical mobile user content in order to promote the adoption and use of the .mobi domain.

 

[slugraduate]

I've said before that this domain will require a minimum of $500,000. I have believed from the outset that News, Music and Sports are going to be the big players in this domain, as these are the most currently sought items in mobile computing.

I wouldn't be suprised to be anything over a million. I would be shocked to see it far less. When flowers.mobi sells for 200k, even if it was just an attention ploy, you can bet your _ _ _ that news will be the largest sale of the bunch.

As the owner of newscast, I am waiting anxiously to see where news.mobi goes.

 

[whitebark]

As the owner of a newscast I would do the same as the BBC - use your existing website. There is no need to spend inflated dollars for another domain.

ringtones is the one that will make its owner the most money.

 

[slugraduate]

Im not sure I follow your comment. Just to clarify, I own newscast.mobi, not .com. I am hoping for a huge sale on the news.mobi name and that will carry over to nice sales for quality generic news names. I do not see many second tier news names worth much, other than worldnews, localnews, etc. It is my hope that newscast will fall in that second tier list.

I assume that you mean that the BBC is not going to bid on news.mobi? I wasn't aware of that fact. If that is the business decision they have made, then I am sure that they have thought it not in thier best interest. However, if the .mobi does become the default mobile browser domain, either by design or habit, then they have made a big mistake in my opinion. If they have failed to obtain bbc.mobi via trademark app and the same holds true, you can bet they will make haste in filing a WIPO dispute.

As the owner of a newscast I would do the same as the BBC - use your existing website. There is no need to spend inflated dollars for another domain.

ringtones is the one that will make its owner the most money.

 

[fautebol]

If they have failed to obtain bbc.mobi via trademark app

Not that I disagree with you, but just to clarify, they did get bbc.mobi via trademark app.

 

[slugraduate]

Thanks. I didn't know if they had or had not regged the name.

Not that I disagree with you, but just to clarify, they did get bbc.mobi via trademark app.

 

[namewaiter]

I may be missing something, but are these names actually being 'auctioned' off?

I don't see it mentioned, I mean will each application include a dollar amount they are offering to acquire the domain or are they just taking applications based on TM or industry positioning, development capabilities etc.? Will the registry's profit be in the number of $500 applications they recieve?

Are you expecting them to come out and make public any amount they are offered for each domain? I don;t see them saying news.mobi was bought for ... ringtones.mobi was bought for ... etc. I don't think this will happen.

 

[slugraduate]

All approved applicatants for each name will be allowed to make a bid in the auction process. I am not sure if it will be an ebay type bidding system, or a sealed bid situation. Seems to me that allowing the bidders to duke it out would be best.

I thought that on their website, MTLD stated that once the auction ends, the winner and winning bid will be made available to the public. I cannot find that statement now. I would be dissapointed if they did not release that info. It would make sense for MTLD to require that info to be out there to boost future premium auctions.

 

[whitebark]

BBC has used their existing website to serve mobile content. Check for yourselves - just go to their homepage with your mobile device and you will be automatically directed to mobile friendly code. They will not be using their .mobi domain - and the vast majority of large commercial websites are or will be doing the same thing.

.mobi will never be the default for mobile devices. Not when the vast majority of websites already serving mobile content are all on other extensions - and couple that with any website can already be viewed with a mobile device. It defies all logic to think that it will become the default.

As for - newscast.mobi - nothing wrong with that one at all. Actually one of the better .mobi domains out there.

 

[fautebol]

They will not be using their .mobi domain

How do you know?

 

[Traveler]

BBC has used their existing website to serve mobile content. Check for yourselves - just go to their homepage with your mobile device and you will be automatically directed to mobile friendly code. They will not be using their .mobi domain - and the vast majority of large commercial websites are or will be doing the same thing.

.mobi will never be the default for mobile devices. Not when the vast majority of websites already serving mobile content are all on other extensions - and couple that with any website can already be viewed with a mobile device. It defies all logic to think that it will become the default.

As for - newscast.mobi - nothing wrong with that one at all. Actually one of the better .mobi domains out there.

Not a personal attack but from your posts it seems you are very much against .mobi. What I can't understand is why you continue to lurk around in the .mobi forum. We get it, you don't think .mobi is necessary.

 

[thinking1]

I think it's funny how some people go out of there way to attack people for something they like. This is a Mobi Forum. If you like the extension then stay here and post. Otherwise there is absolutely no reason to post about why it will fail or why we don't need it. That's incredibly chidlish.

 

[slugraduate]

I don't mind at all if someone likes to posts their views of .mobi, pro or con. As long as it is factual and or reasoned. After all, if I wanted to only hear what I wanted to about the ext, I would talk to myself more than I already do. Just kidding. I respect whitebark's views. However, I think it is short sighted to say that:

".mobi will never be the default for mobile devices. Not when the vast majority of websites already serving mobile content are all on other extensions - and couple that with any website can already be viewed with a mobile device. It defies all logic to think that it will become the default."

History is littered with statements that so and so won't work. How many people told the Wright brothers that man can't fly or that Columbus would fall off of the edge of the Earth? You state that .mobi will never be the default. How do you know for sure? Why does it defy all logic? Just because we are thinking in todays terms of net usage? You also state that "They will not be using their .mobi domain." I ask how can you possibly know what they will or will not do? They may believe that they won't, but that does not make it so if business customs change enough to dictate it. Why else invest in it, if there is no chance of it happeneing? I will tell you why. It is because there is always a chance they will.

Like I said, I welcome the opposite opinions, I just want to know reasons behind them.

 

[snoop]

This is a Mobi Forum. If you like the extension then stay here and post. Otherwise there is absolutely no reason to post about why it will fail or why we don't need it. That's incredibly chidlish.

Where does it say this forum is only for positive comments about .mobi?, and whay would it be childish to make negative comments? People should value both sides of the debate.

 

[thinking1]

Posts such as

".mobi will never be the default for mobile devices. Not when the vast majority of websites already serving mobile content are all on other extensions - and couple that with any website can already be viewed with a mobile device. It defies all logic to think that it will become the default."


How can someone say that without factual statements to back them up? If he said something like. "mtld decided that mobi was a failure so they are deleting the extension." Then that would be plausible, but if you are so strongly against something simple facts to support yourself are good.

I also value hearing the negative side because I like seeing the whole picture. But when you hear that this extension is going to fail, over, and over, and over again with no facts or simple support. It makes you wonder why someone bothers even posting except to simply gain more posts.

 

[snoop]

How can someone say that without factual statements to back them up? If he said something like. "mtld decided that mobi was a failure so they are deleting the extension." Then that would be plausible, but if you are so strongly against something simple facts to support yourself are good.

Isn't this obvious that is a statement of opinion? If someone came onto this forum and stated that at some point .mobi will become the default extension on mobile devices would you question them in a similar way? Likewise if someone constantly said the extension will succeed would this also be seen by you as a way to build post count?

 

[slugraduate]

Hey, I would be bitter too if I lived in Canada this time of year. :hehe:

 

[whitebark]

I think it's funny how some people go out of there way to attack people for something they like. This is a Mobi Forum. If you like the extension then stay here and post. Otherwise there is absolutely no reason to post about why it will fail or why we don't need it. That's incredibly chidlish.

What's childish is not being able to face a differing viewpoint. Why post anything if all you want to hear is what you expect to hear? You might as well go and face the mirror and talk to yourself.

Not one of the mobi fans attacking me for daring to say the truth ever counters the obvious - like the BBC example. How do I know they won't be using the .mobi domain? Well because they already have mobile content on their existing website for crying out loud! Why would they duplicate what already exists? To waste money?

Come back to reality some of you. .mobi doesn't create mobile content. Demand via the market does, and it's already been proven that you don't need .mobi to meet that market demand. Why does it bother some of you to hear the obvious?

Geez - if you can't take criticism you should just lock yourselves away. The world of commerce is not a giant love-in where everybody agrees with your viewpoint or idea of what is what.

As for neobodhi's wrong assertion - I own three mobi domains. I've even posted a thread looking for more. I take exception to people saying wild fanciful things - like "However, if the .mobi does become the default mobile browser domain," - when there is zero evidence to support that assertion. I know that yet I will still buy/hold and develop a few .mobi domains.

.mobi has become an over-hyped product that will in my estimation make the few that flip early lots of money, and those that don't wish they did. The fact is technology is moving faster than people developing .mobi domains. Mobiles by this time next year will be reading standard html output as the author intended it making special coding unnecessary. That doesn't mean mobi becomes obsolete, it just lumps it in with every other tld more than it is now. Those with good keywords and in demand products/services will do fine - all these non-mobile related domains will not.

In two years we can look back and see who is right and who was wrong. Until then, not everyone is here to jump up and down at the mere mention of .mobi.

Where does it say this forum is only for positive comments about .mobi?, and whay would it be childish to make negative comments? People should value both sides of the debate.

I'm guessing by your reasoned response that you are an adult...

 

[thinking1]

What's childish is not being able to face a differing viewpoint. Why post anything if all you want to hear is what you expect to hear? You might as well go and face the mirror and talk to yourself.

Not one of the mobi fans attacking me for daring to say the truth ever counters the obvious - like the BBC example. How do I know they won't be using the .mobi domain? Well because they already have mobile content on their existing website for crying out loud! Why would they duplicate what already exists? To waste money?

Come back to reality some of you. .mobi doesn't create mobile content. Demand via the market does, and it's already been proven that you don't need .mobi to meet that market demand. Why does it bother some of you to hear the obvious?

Geez - if you can't take criticism you should just lock yourselves away. The world of commerce is not a giant love-in where everybody agrees with your viewpoint or idea of what is what.

As for neobodhi's wrong assertion - I own three mobi domains. I've even posted a thread looking for more. I take exception to people saying wild fanciful things - like "However, if the .mobi does become the default mobile browser domain," - when there is zero evidence to support that assertion. I know that yet I will still buy/hold and develop a few .mobi domains.

.mobi has become an over-hyped product that will in my estimation make the few that flip early lots of money, and those that don't wish they did. The fact is technology is moving faster than people developing .mobi domains. Mobiles by this time next year will be reading standard html output as the author intended it making special coding unnecessary. That doesn't mean mobi becomes obsolete, it just lumps it in with every other tld more than it is now. Those with good keywords and in demand products/services will do fine - all these non-mobile related domains will not.

In two years we can look back and see who is right and who was wrong. Until then, not everyone is here to jump up and down at the mere mention of .mobi.

Why would you say, "In two years we can look back and see who is right and who is wrong?" No one is right or wrong here. It's just an extension. Jeez, if it fails it fails. If it suceeds then it suceeds. Just because people supporting it think it will be a success doesn't mean they were wrong for believeing that. I'm sure people are having fun just riding on the wave of optimism, or skepticism. This isn't a war.


Also, if you've read my posts I've said on many different occasions that Mobi could very well possibly fail. You are right, there is no need for another extension. Every .com can simply detect a mobile user and redirect them to a mobile version of the site.

I see that, many believers see that aswell. Most Mobi believers try not to worry themselves about why the extension is going to fail. I don't know very many Mobi backers that are making posts on this form that say "why my mobi names are stupid and this extension is worthless." That isn't being very optimistic.

Let's all just have some fun here. If Mobi fails then it fails. As long as you didn't risk money you needed on it then be happy.

It's like gambling, it's fun even if you know you are losing money. Except with mobi the odds are in favor of you gaining that money back

Anyway, whitebark. I'm glad to see that you are interested in Mobi at least a little bit.

 

[snoop]

Why would you say, "In two years we can look back and see who is right and who is wrong?" No one is right or wrong here. It's just an extension. Jeez, if it fails it fails. If it suceeds then it suceeds. Just because people supporting it think it will be a success doesn't mean they were wrong for believeing that. I'm sure people are having fun just riding on the wave of optimism, or skepticism. This isn't a war.

Obviously some will be right and others wrong about this extension.

 

[thinking1]

In two years if Mobi fails there will be no reason to say something like "i told you guys, mobi was gonna fail, you lost your money and common sense, I was right."

It doesn't matter, people had their fun. Maybe I'm just too laid back about it. I will be excited if it takes off and won't lose any sleep over it if it fails.

 

[slugraduate]

whitebark - "Not one of the mobi fans attacking me for daring to say the truth ever counters the obvious."

This is where people are offended by your comments. You claim to speak the truth. The truth is unknown and you come off as arrogant here. The truth in your mind doesnt make it so, just as someone elses truth doesnt make it so either. Time will be the truth teller.


whitebark - "like the BBC example. How do I know they won't be using the .mobi domain? Well because they already have mobile content on their existing website for crying out loud! Why would they duplicate what already exists? To waste money?"

Umm you ignore the obvious that has been stated. You don't know that they will not use just because they dont today. If the .mobi becomes synonmous with mobil surfing BBC will use .mobi.

whitebark - "Come back to reality some of you. .mobi doesn't create mobile content. Demand via the market does, and it's already been proven that you don't need .mobi to meet that market demand. Why does it bother some of you to hear the obvious?"

Right, the market demands it. Who creates the market? Companies who market the product. Look at the corporate sponsors and that's all that needs to be said, to know it could happen.

whitebark - "I take exception to people saying wild fanciful things - like "However, if the .mobi does become the default mobile browser domain," - when there is zero evidence to support that assertion."

There is zero evidence to suggest they wont either, so I guess you just stuck your foot in your mouth there.

Please don't contradict yourself after I stick up for your views, only asking for facts and/or logic to back up your statement. Imperical analysis would work much better than, well it just wont work because we have an existing viable product in .com. Please elaborate on why .com is so invincible down the road.

It is undeniable that every innovation is eventually surpassed by something else. Should Nintendo have never struck out to create a gaming console when Atari already had a viable system that already played games and was used around the world?

 

[whitebark]

"Look at the corporate sponsors and that's all that needs to be said, to know it could happen."

Business 101 - for those with business degree like myself should know - you NEVER depend on others for your own financial success. You like many of the mobi crowd think that because a few companies are on side now that it means success. It means nothing at this point. Business is cut-throat and when .mobi brings no returns on investment, shareholders will demand they move on. That's how the real world works. Fanciful thinking is just that.

"There is zero evidence to suggest they wont either" - there is ample evidence. Why would they default their products to an extension nobody knows, nobody uses and doesn't need to serve mobile content? People will be hacking their devices so they can default to where the vast majority of content is - .com. Again, this is simple market analysis. When mobile devices are fully able to read html as web authors publish it there will be even less reason to default to .mobi.

"This is where people are offended by your comments." If you are offended by comments - once again I say lock yourselves away and shield yourself from life if you can't take the heat. I'll lose not one iota of sleep wondering if people can't stand hearing a differing opinion.

.mobi is just another extension - it doesn't have a monopoly on mobile content - that is the main contention. Not even those with the large$t vested interest in the extension can prove otherwise.

 

[slugraduate]

"Business 101 - for those with business degree like myself should know - you NEVER depend on others for your own financial success. You like many of the mobi crowd think that because a few companies are on side now that it means success. It means nothing at this point. Business is cutthroat and when .mobi brings no returns on investment, shareholders will demand they move on. That's how the real world works. Fanciful thinking is just that."

Your business degree does not, in itself, make you a Warren Buffet. So please don't claim to be an expert. You appear so closed minded that you failed to give thought to my statements. I never implied that I depended on anyone to garner me success. I merely said that the situation exists to bring the potential for success. Again you make unfounded statements. You cannot state with certainty that "when .mobi brings no returns on investment, shareholders will demand they move on." If, would have been more appropriate to this discussion further drawing light to your closed minded thought on the subject.

"There is zero evidence to suggest they wont either" - there is ample evidence. Why would they default their products to an extension nobody knows, nobody uses and doesn't need to serve mobile content? People will be hacking their devices so they can default to where the vast majority of content is - .com. Again this is simple market analysis. When mobile devices are fully able to read html as web authors publish it there will be even less reason to default to .mobi.

Once again, you make a statement and provide no quantitative analysis to back it up. Instead you pose a question in place of an answer. "Why would they default to .mobi?" I didn't say they would. I said that if mobi became the standard. I.e., if people started using it and it became the default standard by mere usage. I am sure that you didn't mean to gloss over my comments and misunderstand them.

Also, according to your statement, I guess everyone is an expert at hacking now? Interesting assessment. A possible reason why providers might default to .mobi is that .mobi, unlike any other extension, claims to be willing to enforce a standard for content. Will they do so? I don't know. Shareholders like stability in the market do they not? Standards create confidence in a product. If .com doesn't enforce this standard and the vast majority of sites do not make mobile surfing practical, then why not .mobi if they do enforce standards?

"This is where people are offended by your comments." If you are offended by comments - once again I say lock yourselves away and shield yourself from life if you can't take the heat. I'll lose not one iota of sleep wondering if people can't stand hearing a differing opinion.

Take the heat? Are you kidding me? What is this grade school and you are so right that all others should run in fear of the heat you bring? I think I made it pretty clear that I welcomed opposing opinions.

.mobi is just another extension - it doesn't have a monopoly on mobile content - that is the main contention. Not even those with the largest vested interest in the extension can prove otherwise.

Finally, you have stated something factual and thought out that I can agree with. I never said that .mobi is the future or had a monopoly. You simply decided to enter this discussion by arguing against a fact that was never disputed. I merely stated that it was intellectually dishonest and arrogant to claim that it would never be.

That said, do I want to make decent returns? Yes. Do I care if .mobi is the next .com? No, not really. This is fascination, speculation and the thrill of the unknown for me, and not a retirement plan. I wish you luck with whatever domains you own .mobi, or otherwise.

I hope that you will consider this post longer than it takes to hit reply, so I am finished with this discussion with you. My appologies to the OP as we have hijacked this post long enough and will I go back to my original assessment. news.mobi = $500k

G'night.

 

[snoop]

whitebark - "I take exception to people saying wild fanciful things - like "However, if the .mobi does become the default mobile browser domain," - when there is zero evidence to support that assertion."

There is zero evidence to suggest they wont either, so I guess you just stuck your foot in your mouth there.

No manufacturers are doing this now, for the people who think manufacturers will do this when do you expect this to have started by? Pinky Brand said himself there were no plans by backers to do this.

"Pinky-Brand: Yes one of the most common questions that I get is about defaulting to .MOBI so you don't have to type .MOBI on the phone.
Pinky-Brand: The answer is we are working with our investors, the browser folks and the operating system folks towards that goal."

If the did default to .mobi who would that help aside from speculators? Where is the benefit to web surfer or manufacturers in defaulting to .mobi?

Really none of the backers are doing anything for this extension, typified by google recently promoting their mobile services using a .com domain. I tend to think being involved in the development of an extension and actually promoting the use of it are two very different things.