.mobi Question for the .mobi crew

[Zona]

I am sure this topic has been covered before I do not see any recent threads on it.

So a few questions for the .MOBI crew and they are meant in no disrespect.

1. Why will end-users (cell phone users) use the .MOBI extension, instead of using .COM and expecting the .COM sites to be mobile ready?

For example when you type in CNN.COM on a mobile phone it takes you to their mobile site (not .mobi). Why would CNN ever brand a .MOBI site when they have a mobile ready .COM?

Another generic example. Why would I go to maps.mobi instead of going to maps.com and expect it to be mobile ready.

2. Do you think that over the next few years more owners of .com's will make them mobile ready and thus negate the need for .MOBI?

It will almost be the next evolution for .COM's to become mobile ready. I would expect that most .COM owners will simply consider it part of doing business to have their sites mobile ready; instead of allowing .MOBI to take that part of their business.

3. Do you think that during time it take for .MOBI to be branded and for end-users to begin using it that most .COM sites will be mobile ready?

Again I am not bashing (I have a handful of LLL.mobi's) I am just looking for your thoughts.

 

[satsdifference.com]

Hi! Welcome!

I am sure this topic has been covered before I do not see any recent threads on it.

So a few questions for the .MOBI crew and they are meant in no disrespect.

1. Why will end-users (cell phone users) use the .MOBI extension, instead of using .COM and expecting the .COM sites to be mobile ready?

For example when you type in CNN.COM on a mobile phone it takes you to their mobile site (not .mobi). Why would CNN ever brand a .MOBI site when they have a mobile ready .COM?

Another generic example. Why would I go to maps.mobi instead of going to maps.com and expect it to be mobile ready.

2. Do you think that over the next few years more owners of .com's will make them mobile ready and thus negate the need for .MOBI?

It will almost be the next evolution for .COM's to become mobile ready. I would expect that most .COM owners will simply consider it part of doing business to have their sites mobile ready; instead of allowing .MOBI to take that part of their business.

3. Do you think that during time it take for .MOBI to be branded and for end-users to begin using it that most .COM sites will be mobile ready?

Again I am not bashing (I have a handful of LLL.mobi's) I am just looking for your thoughts.

The branding of .mobi (small screen internet for now) is running at a pace much faster than the adoption and popularization of .com mobile site relative growth (given the plethora of .com sites out there, ask why are mobile sites' growth on .com seemingly a stifled movement? ask why do I not see many "go to mobile .com site" TV ads? ..there must be many mixed reasons why this is not working for .com already in this world today)

I will start with one reason than open it up to others ..

Question #1 - What phone are you talking about? Can one expect all .com domains across the board to code for every phone that exists and comes out BECAUSE what if I don't want to be forced redirected to a smaller site and I need access the full pc .com site on my high end phone on the go?

.com is split via default between rendering the full pc version site or a smaller mobile site per particular phone

-------

In the world of co-existance between .com and .mobi:

Right now, .mobi offers the user, simply, seeing to have a choice - a .mobi extension enforced/branded is a site they know works on their phone, rather than a .com guessing game; and, .mobi is an emerging popular standard for all mobile phone sites..

--------

But, it is really about the LOW END PHONES:

Lowest Common Denominator wins?

* .mobi for works on ALL phones

------

What a big baby!

------

If all else fails, one Google.mobi or ESPN.mobi marketed alone can domino the new craze!

------

Sorry for the rushed response, kinda in a writing mode tonight , hope this hasty writing helps a little

Thanks for asking, let's all not put a lid on our talks for more and more visitors are coming here for .mobi each day


Kind Regards,

Yelo

 

[Mobi Cheap]

I am sure this topic has been covered before I do not see any recent threads on it.

So a few questions for the .MOBI crew and they are meant in no disrespect.

1. Why will end-users (cell phone users) use the .MOBI extension, instead of using .COM and expecting the .COM sites to be mobile ready?

For example when you type in CNN.COM on a mobile phone it takes you to their mobile site (not .mobi). Why would CNN ever brand a .MOBI site when they have a mobile ready .COM?

Another generic example. Why would I go to maps.mobi instead of going to maps.com and expect it to be mobile ready.

2. Do you think that over the next few years more owners of .com's will make them mobile ready and thus negate the need for .MOBI?

It will almost be the next evolution for .COM's to become mobile ready. I would expect that most .COM owners will simply consider it part of doing business to have their sites mobile ready; instead of allowing .MOBI to take that part of their business.

3. Do you think that during time it take for .MOBI to be branded and for end-users to begin using it that most .COM sites will be mobile ready?

Again I am not bashing (I have a handful of LLL.mobi's) I am just looking for your thoughts.

You're right Zona, most aspects of these questions have been discussed many times, some to an excruciating degree of repetitiveness.

Just a quick couple of points that are in no way meant to be comprehensive answers.

1. Sensible businesses realize they have to prioritize their resources and focus on what gets most bang for the buck. And they can't have too many projects on at any one time, otherwise they lose focus.

The masses that go to CNN are not ready. The average person in North America is still probably pretty skeptical about the whole mobile internet thing.

Try CNNmoney.mobi - that's where CNN seems to have decided it already has to invest to catch the early adopters. It's in my sig.

2. Yes. They don't have a real choice, they'll have to make their sites mobile ready. It will tke different people different amounts of time to realize it but soon enough most everyone will.

The question is do they use .mobi and decide themselves what's most important to prioritize for people on the go, or would they allow an automated browser to decide that for them.

3. No (assuming that by "most .COM sites will be mobile ready" you mean they would offer a rewarding user experience when browsed by the average cellphone user).

Six months is the contractual maximum allowed for several hundred of the best .mobi generic keywords to be properly developed and launched.

Counting from October/November, when the majority of the premium auctions occured, we are talking about one or two prime .mobi launches hitting the media every day for several months before Easter.

That's not even considering all the independent developers who did not wait for the premium auctions to start developing their .mobi domains.

Once that happens, the branding of .mobi will have become a certainty, and end user acceptance cannot lag that much behind (unless everyone uses really bad publicity consultants.

To put the timing in perspective, the first Android hardware will ship some time in the second half of 2008. Android phones will not be in mainstream usage until some time in 2009/2010.

That's plenty of time for .mobi to become associated with the mobile internet, even in the mind of the average consumer who currently has no idea at all what a .mobi is (just thought I should include something we can all agree on.
:imho:
P.S. Just noticed Yelo has already provided a response, will read it and amend mine if there is any repetition.

 

[binaryman]

Maybe here's why

The Mobile Web is NOT helping the Developing World... and what we can do about it. .MOBI???

http://mobileactive.org/mobile-web-...-we-can-do-about-it-guest-writer-nathan-eagle

 

[Mobi Cheap]

The Mobile Web is NOT helping the Developing World... and what we can do about it. .MOBI???

http://mobileactive.org/mobile-web-...-we-can-do-about-it-guest-writer-nathan-eagle

A real eye opener, thank you Binary!

"...The most popular selling phone in my village is an old Ericsson that stopped being made back in 2001. ..."

Puts it all into perspective, doesn't it...

 

[sags]

"Why is mobi necessary if dot com websites can be rendered?"

This question is asked over and over by those who question the necessity of mobi.

There are several technical answers.

First, let's agee that a full content, dot com type of website is something everyone would want and use.

Let's also assume the myriad of technical requirements for every cellphone and service network were met. Not an easy task, according to Google, cellphone companies and service providers themselves.

Lastly, let's assume the problem of small cellphone screens are overcome and everybody owns an Iphone type of smartphone.

That still leaves the biggest impairment to full content dot com types of wireless browsing.

Infrastructure that won't handle the demand.

During any natural disaster or regional problem, the present cellphone infrastructure is already easily overwhelmed. Hurricane Katrina, 911, the Colombine tragedy are all examples of a system already at full capacity.

Service providers already require more bandwith for their own purposes.

If customers had access to low cost data plans, or flat rate data plans, millions of people would be surfing the internet simultaneously.

The service providers then face major problems.

Their bandspace is limited and finite. They would have a choice of "fewer" customers using "more" bandspace each and charging the customer for the difference or adding "more" customers by using simple, text based websites (mobi). With flat rate data systems, I doubt they will opt for fewer customers.

The wireless infrastructure could be upgraded, but someone has to pay for it and it is very expensive and time consuming, (if I recall correctly it would cost 4-6 billion dollars to set up a national network) to dot the landscape with more towers gain right of ways, relay stations, etc etc. Some networks are already piggybacking on others to achieve some savings from their biggest overhead expenditure......bandspace.

Remember back to the old days of the dial up internet. When there were more customers than the local service could handle, people suffered "dropped" connections. If there was no activity for a length of time, people were taken off the network.

This is not a concern that I have conjured up on my own. Google, the major cellphone manufacturers, and biggest service providers are already discussing the situation at mobile conferences, but there have been few press releases about it until they reach some sort of consensus.

Google is set to bid on their own bandspace. They understand the need for their own bandspace to promote their own agenda. From their business point of view, the more websites they can carry on their network, the better. The more "customers" they have, the better. Will they be interested in "fewer" customers using more data space while enjoying the full internet or "more" customers using less data time surfing "mobi" types of sites. That is a problem they are wrestling with and is perhaps the reason they developed "Android" software and offer it free to web designers. If the simple answer was to simply "redirect" to a .com site, why does Google think anyone needs Android software?

Then there is the issue of people "logging on" to a network and never getting off. If they have a flat rate plan, something most of the carriers are offering or soon will be, what is the incentive to sign out? Again, fewer customers tying up more bandspace.

Imagine millions of people, especially young people, chatting on their favorite messenger website all day and night. Data usage will go through the stratosphere.

Again, someone has to pay for it all. Are customers willing to forgo cheap data plans or flat rate plans and pay enormous monthly bills to access full .com websites? I doubt it.

Simple, text based, low data usage "mobi" was developed specifically to address this problem.

Today, with few people surfing wireless, companies can redirect their websites to anything they want. Once millions of customers start surfing, full dot com websites will become too expensive for service providers to allow.

Sure we would all love to surf the full internet for next to nothing but that may not be realistic in a world where customers want cellphone use "affordable".

Regards,

Sags

 

[accent]

Some good answers above. I would like to add something that I have only just recently realized, due to the Sedo auction mix-up that seems to have finally dropped out of the first places on this board.

Mobi offers opportuntities for new, innovative businesses to gain primary positions in the mobile market.

The case in point is Music.Mobi and Costas (Musicdotmobi). Costas has spent three years developing an innovative approach to the music business. The .Com namespace is filled out, but prime "real estate" is available in .Mobi. Fresh ideas can thrive in a new atmosphere.

Think of the new shopping center in the suburbs. Downtown real estate is almost unavailable and extremely expensive, but the opportuntity exists to purchase prime locations in the shopping center. Sure, people can still go downtown, but the shopping center is more convienient.

 

[hawkeye]

Sags, Word up! :tu: Great POV and probably one with a lot more bite to it, than the obvious ones that have been worked to death. I so can see and agree to the feasibility of this layout. Curious where you picked up on this, as it hasn't been pointed out previously that I've seen.

Rep to ya.

 

[DomainTalker]

Outstanding summary, sags...

Rep added (well...it won't let me!!)

.

 

[binaryman]

Great explanation Sags

 

[gemulder]

Imaging you have a great new idea for the mobile music market and you don't own music.com... than the best thing you can get it's the .mobi because it's a brand!

 

[sags]

To be truthful, I hadn't even considered "infrastructure" as a problem until I ran across an article that covered a recent mobile conference which Google and a host of big companies attended. (forgot to bookmark it and haven't been able to find it since).

Infrastructure, or the lack of it, was among the primary topics of discussion.

I thought that if they are discussing it at length, they must have some concerns, especially since one of the questions pondered was "does the consumer really want full, content dot com type websites and do they really NEED it".

It was the inclusion of the word NEED that drew my attention.

It does turn one anti-mobi argument on it's head. The question is usually framed, " Do we need mobi to access the full web?". For Google and the others, the big question was " Do consumers really need a full web experience?"

Of course, we all want it. We just don't want to pay for it. We want the service providers to magically bear the cost.

It will be interesting to see how it all gets sorted out.

Perhaps mobi, perhaps something better...but it is a problem that needs fixing.

Thanks for the reps, much appreciated,

Regards,

Sags

 

[Pred]

Sags, rep added if it will let me, i always enjoy reading your posts, well thought out and intelligent.
Why do i like Canadians so much? Top dudes! :sold:

 

[mobidick]

Great questions Zona. Some very thoughtful replies above as well. Probably no black and white answers, and lots depends, but here's where I, as a .mobi investor/developer see .mobi fitting in...

1. Why will end-users (cell phone users) use the .MOBI extension, instead of using .COM and expecting the .COM sites to be mobile ready?

People will use .mobi if there are useable .mobi sites and they know about them. Content and marketing. At this point none of the cell phone vendors I talk to have even heard about .mobi, but when I've finished developing a critical mass of my own .mobis I will make sure they not only know about .mobi, but that they will have a reason to tell their customers about my sites. And I will market to kids, students, commuters, etc. And so will the other thousands of .mobi developers. Because .mobi is something new coming out at the dawn of the new mobile revolution it will stand out in the minds of people just starting to use this new mobile web thing.

Why would CNN ever brand a .MOBI site when they have a mobile ready .COM?

There's no one size fits all. It depends to what extent a company has already branded its .com and to what extent it wants to stand out in terms of mobility, and to what extent mobility plays in its branding strategy. As stated before a games.mobi makes a very powerful statement. With the advent of this new wave, the sixth screen, which virtually every adult on the planet will be carrying with them in the next decade, companies may see the benefit of rebranding their mobile wares.

And even if CNN doesn't particularly care or need to brand their mobile content as such, it won't hurt them to use their .mobi site, which they've already got rather than let it sit idle.

Why would I go to maps.mobi instead of going to maps.com and expect it to be mobile ready.

You wouldn't at this point, however, in time, those generic .mobi auction winners will put up their contractually obligated developed sites, as well as defensive reg .mobi sites will start pointing to mobile versions of .com sites - and more and more fortune 500 companies will advertise their .mobi sites. It's already begun just 1 year in with the likes of NBA, ESPN, BOFA, Weather, etc. Give it about a year from now for most big company marketing depts to discover they have a .mobi site sitting there idle in the hands of their legal dept. Then the snowball effect will kick in.

2. Do you think that over the next few years more owners of .com's will make them mobile ready and thus negate the need for .MOBI?

You better believe it, as they see the mobile browser stats rising in their logs, and getting requests from their user base to make their content mobile friendly. Many .com owners will mobilize their content. Those who missed the boat in terms of getting their .mobi, have no choice, but to brand their mobile content via their .com, .net, .ca. Will this negate the need for .mobi? Only for that .com owner and his users.

Let's face it - .mobi isn't technically needed, in the same way that .com .net .org .info .ca .us .tv aren't specifically needed, and yet they are all getting used to varying degrees.

What is needed is the perception and the reality that there is useful content out there for the current mobile context of small screens, costly slow connectivity, and a very mobile-unfriendly internet web in general. If anything .mobi is serving as a catalyst to both speed the development and awareness of mobile content.

3. Do you think that during time it take for .MOBI to be branded and for end-users to begin using it that most .COM sites will be mobile ready?

This will vary from country to country depending on the state of their mobile use, dataplan costs, mobile network openness, and mobile culture. .mobi came too late for Japan and Korea, but it is just in time for most of the rest of the world.

 

[Pred]

another great post and exactly how i see it
rep added
wish i could add some more, as it always tickles me to see your avatar, surely the best on the forum :sold:

Great questions Zona. Some very thoughtful replies above as well. Probably no black and white answers, and lots depends, but here's where I, as a .mobi investor/developer see .mobi fitting in...
People will use .mobi if there are useable .mobi sites and they know about them. Content and marketing. At this point none of the cell phone vendors I talk to have even heard about .mobi, but when I've finished developing a critical mass of my own .mobis I will make sure they not only know about .mobi, but that they will have a reason to tell their customers about my sites. And I will market to kids, students, commuters, etc. And so will the other thousands of .mobi developers. Because .mobi is something new coming out at the dawn of the new mobile revolution it will stand out in the minds of people just starting to use this new mobile web thing.

There's no one size fits all. It depends to what extent a company has already branded its .com and to what extent it wants to stand out in terms of mobility, and to what extent mobility plays in its branding strategy. As stated before a games.mobi makes a very powerful statement. With the advent of this new wave, the sixth screen, which virtually every adult on the planet will be carrying with them in the next decade, companies may see the benefit of rebranding their mobile wares.

And even if CNN doesn't particularly care or need to brand their mobile content as such, it won't hurt them to use their .mobi site, which they've already got rather than let it sit idle.

You wouldn't at this point, however, in time, those generic .mobi auction winners will put up their contractually obligated developed sites, as well as defensive reg .mobi sites will start pointing to mobile versions of .com sites - and more and more fortune 500 companies will advertise their .mobi sites. It's already begun just 1 year in with the likes of NBA, ESPN, BOFA, Weather, etc. Give it about a year from now for most big company marketing depts to discover they have a .mobi site sitting there idle in the hands of their legal dept. Then the snowball effect will kick in.

You better believe it, as they see the mobile browser stats rising in their logs, and getting requests from their user base to make their content mobile friendly. Many .com owners will mobilize their content. Those who missed the boat in terms of getting their .mobi, have no choice, but to brand their mobile content via their .com, .net, .ca. Will this negate the need for .mobi? Only for that .com owner and his users.

Let's face it - .mobi isn't technically needed, in the same way that .com .net .org .info .ca .us .tv aren't specifically needed, and yet they are all getting used to varying degrees.

What is needed is the perception and the reality that there is useful content out there for the current mobile context of small screens, costly slow connectivity, and a very mobile-unfriendly internet web in general. If anything .mobi is serving as a catalyst to both speed the development and awareness of mobile content.

This will vary from country to country depending on the state of their mobile use, dataplan costs, mobile network openness, and mobile culture. .mobi came too late for Japan and Korea, but it is just in time for most of the rest of the world.

 

[PolarBear]

most aspects of these questions have been discussed many times, some to an excruciating degree of repetitiveness

This question is asked over and over by those who question the necessity of mobi.

Could there be a need for a .mobi FAQ and make it sticky at the top of the forum? Just a thought...

 

[Pred]

Could there be a need for a .mobi FAQ and make it sticky at the top of the forum? Just a thought...

:sold:

be perfect just to point a passing naysayer there :sold:

 

[jido]

I am sure this topic has been covered before I do not see any recent threads on it.

So a few questions for the .MOBI crew and they are meant in no disrespect.

1. Why will end-users (cell phone users) use the .MOBI extension, instead of using .COM and expecting the .COM sites to be mobile ready?

For example when you type in CNN.COM on a mobile phone it takes you to their mobile site (not .mobi). Why would CNN ever brand a .MOBI site when they have a mobile ready .COM?

Another generic example. Why would I go to maps.mobi instead of going to maps.com and expect it to be mobile ready.

Branding. The branding of .mobi implies that .mobi sites are mobile-ready, while .com are not required to. That means the mobile user expects a better experience overall when hitting cnn.mobi than cnn.com. If they are one and the same does not matter; what matters is which you one chose to load.

Note that on the iPhone or Nokia N95 you will probably see the full site instead of the mobile-ready site, so loading the .mobi version is a deliberate choice to access a simpler site meant for mobiles.

 

[Steven]

I'm going to submit my opinion on this whole .mobi thing.

Here's an opinion from a person who has missed the .mobi landrush and only has a few okay .mobi names (not heavily invested).

.TV, .NET, .ORG, .INFO aren't all needed, but sometimes the extension helps brand the name. If I had a charity organization to support the cure for heart disease, I would go with Heart.org or Heart Related .org. If I wanted to create a nice video website about school and .com was taken, I wouldn't mind .TV to help brand the name (for example School.TV). As for the country extensions, if I had a business in Canada and wanted to let people know about it on the web, I would try to get .com, but .ca alone would be sufficient (or both if .com and .ca are available.)
If I wanted to make a cell phone ringtone download website, and ringtone.com was taken, I would try to get ringtone (or ringtone related).mobi (.mobi for branding purpose).

However, we are talking about .mobi as something that is/ may be needed (for convenience) to surf the web on a mobile phone. This is true up to some extent. I find mobile ready .mobi sites convenient to browse on my phone (it's not one of those fancy IPAQ/HTC PDA phone or Iphone)
But from the mobile phone user's perspective, if we can, we want to visit an established websites (despite the extension) that we can view on PC right?
I found about OperaMini just recently through DNF in the .mobi crashes sedo thread. Here is my thread below:
http://www.namepros.com/dot-mobi/404731-browse-full-websites-using-operamini-anyone.html

The current browser on many older phones are not capable of showing full websites (many of the established ones that we visit through PC).
Some companies will create .mobi sites or m.company.com to allow users to view their websites through their mobile phone.
Unfortunately, not all websites that we may want or need to visit through the phone will be made for mobile (personal websites, etc).
How do we compensate for that?

That's why there are mobile browsers that are being made (where you can install through your mobile phone) like OperaMini, DeepFish, Nokia Mobile Browser, and more. They allow you to visit any established websites on your phone and shows the full website (very tiny, but you can zoom in and out, scroll side to side).

I have to admit though that it seems to be very annoying to do all that, and mobile made .mobi sites area easy to browse.
One thing we can't ignore is the technological advances.
We don't know for sure which one will be widely adapted for mobile web users in the near future (mobile made browsers vs .mobi vs m.company.com) .

I hear that there are billions of cell phone users (many with older phones), but how many actually browse the web and how frequently with older phones?
Yes, I know that mobile browsing is popular in Asia, but the new phones that are coming out there are just amazing (they will constantly upgrade).

Anyone can feel free to disagree with me. It's just a thought. I haven't looked at many facts aside from .mobi sales.

 

[coast]

Here's another reason: according to a recent article I read, the UK telco Vodaphone has disabled wurfl on mobile phones. Wurfl is the technology that allows the server to determine what kind of browser will read the files, and serve it a full scale computer site or a lighter, faster mobile site. Here's the article originally posted in another forum: http://wurfl.sourceforge.net/vodafonerant/

Basically, .com is for the computer and .mobi is for the mobile internet. It is guaranteed to load, or the mTLD can pull the name. It's a trustmark.