.mobi .mobi Doing Much Better Than Expected

[jmcc]

I was looking at the stats for the .mobi zonefile this morning and the count was 867629. The landrush anniversary count was 959154. The difference in registration volume is 91525 domains. The volume of domains in the zone is only off by 9.54%. The Landrush anniversary was 26 September 2008 and as such the landrush in many of the newer TLDs tends to last approximately three months. During these three months the number of new registrations surges. After this initial period, the registration numbers begin to fall off.

I posted an article about this on my blog [1] but this post just summarises it. The number of domains that have dropped out of the zonefile since the landrush anniversary is 154006 but in the same time, 62481 new domains have been seen. This is lessening the effect of the Junk Dump phase when the stuff that could not be sold is dropped. Far from being a wipeout, there is still life left in .mobi.

Regards...jmcc
[1] http://blog.whoisireland.com/2008/12/31/mobi-registrations-doing-much-better-than-expected/

 

[pcaero]

Be cool. Be polite. Be professional.

 

[plaggypig]

There is only one internet, unfortunately the vast majority of developers completely ignore mobile users who access it.

My biggest problem with .mobi is that it (accidentally) splits the web in two. If .mobi were indeed used as widely as some people hoped then there'd be an almighty discussion now about how to reunify the two webs.

It never happened though, because nobody wants to use the .mobi web - they like the real one, and they don't mind trusting that the common .tld will just deliver them mobile optimised content/style anyway, wherever possible.

Aside from this overriding concern, I can't see how .mobi could gain enough traction to really go anywhere - if it was going to happen then we'd know by now.

Would love to see strong rebuttals to these concerns.

 

[scandiman]

My biggest problem with .mobi is that it (accidentally) splits the web in two. If .mobi were indeed used as widely as some people hoped then there'd be an almighty discussion now about how to reunify the two webs.

It never happened though, because nobody wants to use the .mobi web - they like the real one, and they don't mind trusting that the common .tld will just deliver them mobile optimised content/style anyway, wherever possible.

Aside from this overriding concern, I can't see how .mobi could gain enough traction to really go anywhere - if it was going to happen then we'd know by now.

Would love to see strong rebuttals to these concerns.

WAP 1.0 standards essentially were attempting to establish a "different" web, in that WAP 1.0 websites would not load in most web browsers. But the standards that mTLD has encouraged for .mobi since day 1 are completely compatible and accessible with standard web browsers so there is no attempt to create a divided web. The point behind .mobi is to provide users with a namespace that communicates the site is friendly to mobile devices. Some people use .mobi, some use one of the other mobile naming conventions such as m-dot, some use device detection/redirection from an existing PC website, most do absolutely nothing expecting improvements in mobile technology to be sufficient. The point being that there is no single mobile strategy that is best for everyone.

Companies active in mobile web are tailoring their content to mobile users. As mentioned above, there are multiple ways to achieve it, but clearly the pattern is that mobile users demand mobile friendly content rather than receiving just the same old PC website.

 

[plaggypig]

WAP 1.0 standards essentially were attempting to establish a "different" web, in that WAP 1.0 websites would not load in most web browsers. But the standards that mTLD has encouraged for .mobi since day 1 are completely compatible and accessible with standard web browsers so there is no attempt to create a divided web. The point behind .mobi is to provide users with a namespace that communicates the site is friendly to mobile devices. Some people use .mobi, some use one of the other mobile naming conventions such as m-dot, some use device detection/redirection from an existing PC website, most do absolutely nothing expecting improvements in mobile technology to be sufficient. The point being that there is no single mobile strategy that is best for everyone.

Companies active in mobile web are tailoring their content to mobile users. As mentioned above, there are multiple ways to achieve it, but clearly the pattern is that mobile users demand mobile friendly content rather than receiving just the same old PC website.

Thanks for responding.

I think the problem remains because you're essentially duplicating content. Simple use case: If I'm on a mobile and I want to share a URL with somebody on a desktop, how should they reconcile the .mobi URL with one that is appropriate for the device they're using? The question is, why should classes of user agents be namespaced at all (and not just at the TLD level)?

 

[scandiman]

Thanks for responding.

I think the problem remains because you're essentially duplicating content. Simple use case: If I'm on a mobile and I want to share a URL with somebody on a desktop, how should they reconcile the .mobi URL with one that is appropriate for the device they're using? The question is, why should classes of user agents be namespaced at all (and not just at the TLD level)?

IF all web developers did their jobs irrespective of the device or the screen size then there would never have been a need for .mobi, m-dot etc. But we all know that traditionally sites are mostly designed for PC browsers at fixed width settings, and truly device independent design can be pretty boring and the designers demand more.

The assumption that there is duplicate content between a .mobi site and another is not valid, please find for me the duplicate content for my Alcatraz.mobi, it's a unique site completely accessible to both mobile and PC users. This assumption that a .mobi site MUST be paired with and identical to a PC site is not valid, some PC sites use their .mobi site in a way that is unique from their PC content, some have similar content. Some .mobi users have no specific PC site at all. Not all approaches are identical.

 

[mjnels]

My biggest problem with .mobi is that it (accidentally) splits the web in two. If .mobi were indeed used as widely as some people hoped then there'd be an almighty discussion now about how to reunify the two webs.

It never happened though, because nobody wants to use the .mobi web - they like the real one, and they don't mind trusting that the common .tld will just deliver them mobile optimised content/style anyway, wherever possible.

Aside from this overriding concern, I can't see how .mobi could gain enough traction to really go anywhere - if it was going to happen then we'd know by now.

Would love to see strong rebuttals to these concerns.

this doesnt make any sense because i know you like .TEL which is also a new TLD... it always boggles my mind how people bash one TLD but suddenly some other new TLD is better and going to magically be accepted.

The question is, why should classes of user agents be namespaced at all (and not just at the TLD level)?

they dont have to be. it is one option out there.

 

[-REECE-]

I never understood the "2 webs" argument to be honest. Obviously many sites are found on .com with different sites on the .net, .org, or on a cctld -- in a perfect world, we'd all use the same extension, however VeriSign registration stats suggests that with time we are getting further and further away from that.

I think even the biggest of .mobi skeptics will admit that a .mobi developed with (to quote Jeff) unique and compelling content could be a popular and profitable website -- indeed, we have some case studies of Namepros members who have achieved that through their hard work.

IF all web developers did their jobs irrespective of the device or the screen size then there would never have been a need for .mobi, m-dot etc. But we all know that traditionally sites are mostly designed for PC browsers at fixed width settings, and truly device independent design can be pretty boring and the designers demand more.

The assumption that there is duplicate content between a .mobi site and another is not valid, please find for me the duplicate content for my Alcatraz.mobi, it's a unique site completely accessible to both mobile and PC users. This assumption that a .mobi site MUST be paired with and identical to a PC site is not valid, some PC sites use their .mobi site in a way that is unique from their PC content, some have similar content. Some .mobi users have no specific PC site at all. Not all approaches are identical.

 

[mjnels]

I never understood the "2 webs" argument to be honest. Obviously many sites are found on .com with different sites on the .net, .org, or on a cctld -- in a perfect world, we'd all use the same extension, however VeriSign registration stats suggests that with time we are getting further and further away from that. .

exactly... when people say it splits the internet, they are really arguing against the concept of websites designed specifically for mobile in general... which includes mDOT, /mobile, redirects, etc... saying a TLD breaks the internet into "2 webs" is just silly.

 

[Kate]

My biggest problem with .mobi is that it (accidentally) splits the web in two.

EXACTLY.
A separate TLD further isolates the mobile web.

IF all web developers did their jobs irrespective of the device or the screen size then there would never have been a need for .mobi, m-dot etc. But we all know that traditionally sites are mostly designed for PC browsers at fixed width settings, and truly device independent design can be pretty boring and the designers demand more.

It's not a technical issue really. but yes, it takes additional work, it takes more time. Time is money. Simply put, there is little incentive to develop for a restricted audience. So it is conveniently ignored.
I would view this is as an accessibility issue. How many websites are accessible to impaired users. Not many. Critical mass is lacking.

Now I realize this is a chicken & egg situation. The mobile web remains unattractive due to the lack of adapted websites.

this doesnt make any sense because i know you like .TEL which is also a new TLD... it always boggles my mind how people bash one TLD but suddenly some other new TLD is better and going to magically be accepted.

I hear you :tu:

 

[o7media]

i always see .mobi's on sedo that sell for at least $1,000 ...and they're usually random LLL or LLLL...

i bought a couple LLL.mobi's ..i hope they don't suck! lol

 

[headstart]

We all know technically a seperate TLD isn't necessary This has been discussed many times a long time ago.
But this goes for every TLD. You have to realize that all TLD's are the same
vehicles, a .COM has no more features than a .NET or .INFO or a CO.UK.
They are all the same vehicles.
Dot Com is king because of the acceptance it has at a broad audience,
it's a trustmark and it is branded by major companies.
Every new TLD stands or falls with the acceptance of the consumer and the
number of developed sites plays a big role in that, it takes years for every
new TLD to establish that and many will fail.
We can't ignore that we see more and more mobile friendly sites out there
and wich vehicle will be used most isn't clear yet. For branding and SEO
purposes I would prefer a .MOBI above other vehicles and I don't believe
in the long run some major companies will stay with there M. or /mobile
or whatever cause it's confusing for the consumer.
And yes, .MOBI is doing better than expected IMO.

 

[plaggypig]

IF all web developers did their jobs irrespective of the device or the screen size then there would never have been a need for .mobi, m-dot etc. But we all know that traditionally sites are mostly designed for PC browsers at fixed width settings, and truly device independent design can be pretty boring and the designers demand more.

Totally agree, but that's in no way an argument in favour of .mobi - why promote a cure that's more lethal than the disease?

The assumption that there is duplicate content between a .mobi site and another is not valid, please find for me the duplicate content for my Alcatraz.mobi, it's a unique site completely accessible to both mobile and PC users. This assumption that a .mobi site MUST be paired with and identical to a PC site is not valid, some PC sites use their .mobi site in a way that is unique from their PC content, some have similar content. Some .mobi users have no specific PC site at all. Not all approaches are identical.

Why have you designed a website that's only intended to be used for mobile devices? In the previous quote you scorned developers for not giving more consideration to mobile users, and now you've gone to the opposite end of the spectrum and created a website for another class of user agent. You've just validated my point that .mobi splits the web in two.

Would you like a .netbook TLD for netbook users? :red:

they dont have to be. it is one option out there.

Right - and I'm saying it's the least good option. What use cases would you use to argue that it is the most appropriate solution?

I never understood the "2 webs" argument to be honest.

scandiman illustrates this with his .mobi site, which is specifically for the mobile web, and offers no counterpart to other users. On the other hand, some .mobi sites would have duplicated content across two namespaces, and nobody has yet told me how these are supposed to be reconciled when URLs are shared?

exactly... when people say it splits the internet, they are really arguing against the concept of websites designed specifically for mobile in general... which includes mDOT, /mobile, redirects, etc... saying a TLD breaks the internet into "2 webs" is just silly.

Yeah, there is no need for any of that. Why is my argument silly?

EXACTLY.
A separate TLD further isolates the mobile web.

Exactly. The value of the web is in its connectedness.

And yes, .MOBI is doing better than expected IMO.

What were the initial expectations for .mobi and by what measure has it exceeded them?

 

[scandiman]

Totally agree, but that's in no way an argument in favour of .mobi - why promote a cure that's more lethal than the disease?

Why have you designed a website that's only intended to be used for mobile devices? In the previous quote you scorned developers for not giving more consideration to mobile users, and now you've gone to the opposite end of the spectrum and created a website for another class of user agent. You've just validated my point that .mobi splits the web in two.
.
.
scandiman illustrates this with his .mobi site, which is specifically for the mobile web, and offers no counterpart to other users.

Can my website be fully used by most PC users? Yes. Can my website be fully used by most mobile web users? Yes. How have I divided the web?

The same can not be said for most websites today.

For the record in the future I'll be using Device Atlas to provide a wider variety of screen widths tailored to multiple devices but still my content is accessible today, not muddied by Javascript or Flash that is unusable by most mobile devices.

 

[mjnels]

Yeah, there is no need for any of that. Why is my argument silly?

because its not reality. the trend has been to use separate addresses for mobile websites... whether it be mDOT, /mobile, .mobi or whatever else.

Right - and I'm saying it's the least good option. What use cases would you use to argue that it is the most appropriate solution?

nobody is forcing anybody to use .mobi... i wasn't arguing best vs. worse.. to each his own.

 

[Work In Progress]

As for all of the m.whatever redirects vs .mobi ....don't you think that companies who already had ( or were working on) a mobile site prior to or during the introduction of .mobi might just find it financially responsible to simply redirect their efforts to the much more "brandable" .mobi vs completely rebuilding another "stand alone" mobile site? Or is this simple explanation just too much to digest? :gl:

 

[Jeff]

As for all of the m.whatever redirects vs .mobi ....don't you think that companies who already had ( or were working on) a mobile site prior to or during the introduction of .mobi might just find it financially responsible to simply redirect their efforts to the much more "brandable" .mobi vs completely rebuilding another "stand alone" mobile site? Or is this simple explanation just too much to digest? :gl:

Stand-alone unique and compelling development (of course, along with indexing and key promotions) is the key ... I thought this problem of efficiencies and financial responsibility (especially given the current economic downturn!) was to be satisfied with the use of MobiSiteGalore / InstantMobilizer.com? :blink:

If these two .MOBI development offerings are affordable and effective, it further discredits the notion of having (or embracing) simple redirects of .MOBI's! :yell: :imho:
PS. The more easily brandable option, in my view ... are actually the "M Dots"!

Just my two sense.
-Jeff

 

[namerav]

Well, this is relatively new extension so we have to wait another 2-3 years to see full potential.

 

[FathomJH]

Well, this is relatively new extension so we have to wait another 2-3 years to see full potential.

I don't know if I can wait that long! Who knows what kind of technology will reach the market in 2-3 years. C'mon .mobi, hurry up and hit puberty! :D