Opera CEO says DotMobi is a 'total waste of time'

[cityforums.com]

Opera CEO calls .MOBI "a total waste of time"

http://blog.scifi.com/tech/archives/2006/11/09/opera_ceo_says.html

In a casual chat here at SCI FI Tech's mobile-Web-browsing labs, Opera CEO Jon S. von Tetzchner (pictured above) came out swinging against the DotMobi domain, calling it a "total waste of time" and "completely unnecessary." You may be wondering: who is this guy, what's the DotMobi domain, and why should I care about any of this when I've got tacos on the brain? Well, smart guy, if you've got a hankerin' for some Mexican while out and about, the first thing you're probably going to do is look for Tex-Mex places on your mobile phone or PDA. That means you'll fire up a mobile browser like Opera Mini to do your searching. Now, the folks at DotMobi (a.k.a. ".mobi") think that every website should have a streamlined version for mobile browsers (since they're typically limited by low bandwidth and small screens), so instead of surfing to ohmaniwouldlovemesometacos.com, you'd go to ohmaniwouldlovemesometacos.mobi.

Von Tetzchner thinks that's stupid. He told me that the site and the browser should work together to present Web content optimized for whatever device you're using. "There should be one Internet," he says. "What if you're using another device? Should we have .gameconsole? .car? .fridge? .plane? We don't need .mobi at all." Besides, he says, "There are capabilities for sites to query the browser to figure out exactly what you're using. That's a much more elegant solution than having the user choose which site to go to."

 

[iNod]

Kind of half to agree with the multi millionair who owns the company which makes 90% of all mobile phone browsers. But maybe not :/

- Steve

 

[dhscott]

There's no point in .mobi in my opinion, most mobiles in a couple of years will just have operating systems like pocket pc's, it's simply not been thought through enough. I can go to google.com on my mobile phone and it works, that's all I care about.

.mobi = the next .name IMHO, worthless

 

[GeoOwners]

they didnt really NEED .eu or .us either but there are a lot of domains I wish I had from them...

 

[GoDesign]

There's no point in .mobi in my opinion, most mobiles in a couple of years will just have operating systems like pocket pc's, it's simply not been thought through enough. I can go to google.com on my mobile phone and it works, that's all I care about.

.mobi = the next .name IMHO, worthless

You might be able to visit google, and it'll work properly on your phone, but the results of sites google gives you are not guaranteed to work with your phone, .mobi is supposted to be this missing link.

GD.

 

[dhscott]

You might be able to visit google, and it'll work properly on your phone, but the results of sites google gives you are not guaranteed to work with your phone, .mobi is supposted to be this missing link.

GD.

Google was just an example, I wrote a blog from my phone the other day, on a bus! This phone ain't that great either!

 

[newton]

I wonder who owns operamini.mobi

 

[iNod]

Google was just an example, I wrote a blog from my phone the other day, on a bus! This phone ain't that great either!

You visited a .com which you where probably redirected to a mobile version of that .com. Costing you and the host a little bit of money for bandwidth.

Why not save that $0.03 (over time that grows) and buy a .mobi which it can just be a simple redirection to a mobile area?

Would that not make sense?

- Steve

 

[GoDesign]

Ofcourse google will brand their .mobi, they're allready fighting for adspace right now, google won't miss a trick.
I think the mobile industry has been caught napping, which gives everyone a chance to evolve in an understanding way,which is what mobi promises.

 

[seanboy]

Of course he's against .mobi. It would make Opera Mini useless.

 

[MCDomains]

We know it's a gamble... we'll see how it pans out. LLL.mobi's are selling for $150 - 200, if .mobi doesn't work out, we'll all be wishing we sold them NOW. It all depends on the backers, we're already seeing .mobi in ads, so that's a great sign.

 

[Mike]

Seeing that i use a Treo 700WX, i don't have too many problems accessing any website. The future of mobile devices are clearly Treos, Blackberries, etc. In other words, handheld mini/mobile pc's with built in phone service.

For instance, my company (newspapers & interactive media) publishes most pages with a wap page published at the same time. We simple look at the browser that comes in and deliver the correct format back to requester. Granted, this does not always work with total reliability, however, we learn and work out the errors.
In other words, if the developers of websites are doing their homework and program with this in mind, most or all websites will be able to deliver wap content, which in turn, makes a designated .mobi almost useless. :imho:

I have to admit that i still look at good .mobis thinking about buying, but given the technological progress, i rather buy a different extension.

 

[nametrekker]

If you had a major stake in a "mobile platform", like Opera, perhaps you would cast disparaging remarks at a "standard" that could render you superfluous --

 

[hedgefund]

Seeing that i use a Treo 700WX, i don't have too many problems accessing any website. The future of mobile devices are clearly Treos, Blackberries, etc. In other words, handheld mini/mobile pc's with built in phone service.

For instance, my company (newspapers & interactive media) publishes most pages with a wap page published at the same time. We simple look at the browser that comes in and deliver the correct format back to requester. Granted, this does not always work with total reliability, however, we learn and work out the errors.
In other words, if the developers of websites are doing their homework and program with this in mind, most or all websites will be able to deliver wap content, which in turn, makes a designated .mobi almost useless. :imho:

I have to admit that i still look at good .mobis thinking about buying, but given the technological progress, i rather buy a different extension.

Don't tell my wife to carry a bulky PDA. The fact of matter is even in the future cell phone becomes as powerful as a P4 due core, 99% people still want to carry cell phone with a 2"x2" screen with them all the time.

The real reason that WAP did not take off is the user experience. Using WAP to filter a .com site simplily does not work for cellphone users. Cell phone users want direct answers not endless URL links.

WAP does not solve the user experience problem, WAP developer thinks cell phone users want the same contents, but they don't.

 

[Carlton]

If you had a major stake in a "mobile platform", like Opera, perhaps you would cast disparaging remarks at a "standard" that could render you superfluous --

Exactly.

 

[Domainate.com]

Von Tetzchner thinks that's stupid. He told me that the site and the browser should work together to present Web content optimized for whatever device you're using. "There should be one Internet," he says. "What if you're using another device? Should we have .gameconsole? .car? .fridge? .plane? We don't need .mobi at all." Besides, he says, "There are capabilities for sites to query the browser to figure out exactly what you're using. That's a much more elegant solution than having the user choose which site to go to."

I've been in 100% agreement with this and love how people are trying to treat this as purely political because .mobi is directly against Opera Mini. After all, don't forget about the other side of the coin...those highly invested in .mobi will of course project it to be the Second Coming. Politics aside, focus on the argument he makes, because it's a good one. It's only a matter of time before mobile devices (yes, cell phones eventually as well) can use the internet just like desktop and laptop computers can. Why? Because that's what people want. Giggly teenagers want to go to MySpace.com on their cell phone and have it work just like on their computer at home. I want to check my email on my phone and not have it take forever and bug the heck out. So...why not work to give the regular internet to people instead of attempting to make what gets by today the standard for the future?

Newsflash: technology advances and never stops advancing. Sure, for now sites can say "go -here- to access this site through a mobile device" and people are for the most part relegated to do it because there's no choice. What happens however when mobile devices don't need some red-headed stepchild version of websites to be made to suit it, when they can read the whole internet like computers can? What possible need is there for .mobi at that time? Then it just becomes another .name, another useless gTLD that 99% of people will ignore as they are going to their favorite .com, .net, etc. sites.

I think .mobi will be a cash cow for a couple of years, mainly for the registry and registrars as hundreds of thousands of .mobi names are registered, 99.9% by domain resellers hoping to make a quick buck. Then as mobile internet gradually becomes regular internet and .mobi is forgotten, Pinky and the gang will be relaxing on their yachts laughing at how people believed the hype. But hey, to each their own I say....mobi does present some opportunity for domain resellers at the moment, and why not take it while you can? Power to the resellers making money with .mobi and hope the success continues.

 

[accent]

If you had a major stake in a "mobile platform", like Opera, perhaps you would cast disparaging remarks at a "standard" that could render you superfluous --

Hmmmmm .....
"Google, Nokiea, Samsung, Microsoft, ..."
Microsoft .......

Doesn't Microsoft make Internet Explorer?
Ya think IE will compete with Opera?

Perhaps Opera CEO Tetzchner is p!$$ed he did not get invited to the party???

 

[Spade]

I couldnt agree more.

It is my believe that in 1-2 years .mobi will be the philip rivers of TLDs (come on, where my San Diego Charger fans?)

 

[izo-pod]

... We simple look at the browser that comes in and deliver the correct format back to requester. Granted, this does not always work with total reliability, however, we learn and work out the errors.

In other words, if the developers of websites are doing their homework and program with this in mind, most or all websites will be able to deliver wap content, which in turn, makes a designated .mobi almost useless. :imho:

If a web address renders a page correct 100% of the time in a mobile device window how could the address be considered "useless"?---This logic escapes me.

In reality, software is only as good as the "device" it's running on. Who is to say that in time because of the major "phishing" problems out there the mobile browser software only "surfs" up pages as "keystroked" in. In this case a user would almost be forced to "know" the mobile web address, i.e.. www.wap.name.com or is it www.name.com/mobile.htm???

So if you are following my logic, www.name.mobi isn't affected by changes to software (in the case of anti-phishing efforts), and it certainly is a lock for a person's ability to recall the address on the fly...

The anti-mobi crowd needs a new angle from what I can see...

 

[gou]

Post

PCs will advance and become more powerful just as mobile devices will. Consequently, the internet experience on PC may change. When this happens, there may still be a need for .mobi in the future. The extension .mobi may be completely disregarded when the difference in capabilities becomes marginal between mobile devices and PCs.
Just a thought.