.mobi Recent change to us - m.google.com and Google is a "backer"?

[satsdifference.com]

Recent change to us - m.google.com and Google is a "backer"?

-dotMobi is backed by leading mobile operators, network and device manufacturers, and Internet content providers, including Ericsson, Google, GSM Association, Hutchison 3, Microsoft, Nokia, Orascom Telecom, Samsung Electronics, Syniverse, T-Mobile, Telefonica Moviles, TIM, Vodafone (and now Visa). dotMobi is also a sponsor of W3C's Mobile Web Initiative.

..all this "above the table"

Recent change to us - m.google.com and Google is a "backer"?

Is there an anti anti-trust movement?

(For important security reasons, I will preface this thread for responders with my business security movement network seal / CIA notary https://www.cia.gov/cgi-bin/comment_form.cgi - new site design :zzz: )


Kind Regards,

Yelo

 

[scandiman]

Yelo, can you explain for me why you often mention the CIA?

 

[-REECE-]

Recent change to us - m.google.com and Google is a "backer"?

Is there an anti anti-trust movement?

(For important security reasons, I will preface this thread for responders with my business security network seal / CIA notary https://www.cia.gov/cgi-bin/comment_form.cgi - new site design :zzz: )


Kind Regards,

Yelo

IMO, mtld mislead us on the nature of some of these "backers". To quote the wiki entry: "Google is pleased to support mTLD in setting the standards that will define the future of mobile content, and most importantly, improve the experience of our users. Creating one mobile domain encourages content that is designed and optimized specifically to help users navigate the unique environment of the mobile world."

Google is interested in mobile standards, mobile content, and an enjoyable user experience. Google does not give a $@%& which extension/subdomain succeeds, merely that it can dominate the mobile web.

 

[satsdifference.com]

..on the CIA notary

Hi :great: !

Yes and No..

I can't say too much, to survive better..

But basically,

Dot Mobi, all those bigtime corporations, and the world are like a gang..

So it can be dangerous, frankly, for any one of us, to raise questions like "is Google making anti anti-trust fronts"..

Having worked in homeless shelters in Camden and Newark New Jersey, I know how much the people need someone to challenge those who dictate the resources.. plus, once I had to flee the country ONE Way because of a dirty "business" bounty put on my head.. thanks to "Franklin" for taking it off when I came back, still alive.. so, yes, there is a personal benefit involved here.. I also want to show concerns that I am clean.. I try to play "above the level of the CIA"; and, the link I stamp here, gets logged in the CIA backlink records and more.. so for all of us.. I'd like to take the leadership for security :hearts:

big business warrants big security.. and the CIA backing vessel (feel free to mention me to them, if there are any concerns) is also a life change agent..

..through Dot Mobi Gang



Kind Regards,

Yelo

 

[hawkeye]

"..if you want me,
you can find me,
left of center
wondering about you." :music:

 

[cobo]

Yelo, unfortunately for you, all you are doing is attracting the wrong type of attention and perhaps putting others around you in potential jeopardy. As far as you taking responsibility for security, I personally do not need your security help and I would advise others not to seek it also. Don't get me wrong here about you. I like most of your posts and love your pro-mobi enthusiasm but I have been biting my tongue when you start ranting about this line of conspiracy theory thinking. You, sir, are a rookie in such field. Believe me, I do know this!!! My suggestion is to cool it down, stop being a James Bond wannabe, do not be so paranoid and do not post such rants in a mobi forum. If you tweak the beast, you can become expendable in a hurry and be dealt with in several non-appealing ways. Remember, paranoia will destroy and if does not, then it will severely curtail your credibility. As one who espouses spiritual principals, you would be better served if you dropped the whole CIA/NSA stuff. They really do not comfortably coexist. If you would like specific advice, then PM me. I'm only here to help.

 

[mobidick]

Don't get me wrong here about you. I like most of your posts and love your pro-mobi enthusiasm but I have been biting my tongue when you start ranting about this line of conspiracy theory thinking.

Beautiful Mind 2.0 :?

 

[labrocca]

IMO, mtld mislead us on the nature of some of these "backers". To quote the wiki entry: "Google is pleased to support mTLD in setting the standards that will define the future of mobile content, and most importantly, improve the experience of our users. Creating one mobile domain encourages content that is designed and optimized specifically to help users navigate the unique environment of the mobile world."

I been saying this since day one...WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE BACKERS? There has only been assumptions. I have always maintained these deals were crappy handshakes and a couple checks to some old marketing friends that started mTLD. The backers notoriety are the main reason that so many domainers have flocked to mobi. The comments such as "with those backers mobi will be a sure success" have done nothing but irritate the situation.

If the relationship was a strong solid one then mobi would certainly have used that information to it's advantage and made it public. Whenever you do not get information from a company (or anyone selling you something) it's because it's a negative. mTLD has withheld information regarding the relationships which you MUST consider a bad sign. Too many enthusiasts have trusted mTLD and for no good reason. They have placed a blind-eye to any negatives that might be part of their golden egg. If you look close...it's gold-plated...crack it and it's worthless.

I feel bad for those having spent many thousands on registrations of crap domains that appears more or more are in a crap extenstion.

 

[-REECE-]

I been saying this since day one...WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE BACKERS? There has only been assumptions. I have always maintained these deals were crappy handshakes and a couple checks to some old marketing friends that started mTLD. The backers notoriety are the main reason that so many domainers have flocked to mobi. The comments such as "with those backers mobi will be a sure success" have done nothing but irritate the situation.

If the relationship was a strong solid one then mobi would certainly have used that information to it's advantage and made it public. Whenever you do not get information from a company (or anyone selling you something) it's because it's a negative. mTLD has withheld information regarding the relationships which you MUST consider a bad sign. Too many enthusiasts have trusted mTLD and for no good reason. They have placed a blind-eye to any negatives that might be part of their golden egg. If you look close...it's gold-plated...crack it and it's worthless.

I feel bad for those having spent many thousands on registrations of crap domains that appears more or more are in a crap extenstion.

Yep. I haven't trusted them since day 1. All their BS with the RFP has only aggravated me more. The only reason I made an XXXX investment in their extension was because I liked the idea of a mobile extension. All their "backer" this, "reserved premiums for your good" that really had nothing to do with my decision, but as you say, certainly tricked many into registering names. I'm a firm believer in quality developments + marketing overcoming the extension, and I fully plan on doing that with my antioxidants.mobi site once I get around to finishing it. My firm belief still remains that we need a .mobi default or corporate backers which are actually backers if this thing is gonna fly.

 

[hawkeye]

Hmmm, is Reece succumbing to Darth's 'half empty' side?? It's dark over there Reece.

 

[-REECE-]

Hmmm, is Reece succumbing to Darth's 'half empty' side?? It's dark over there Reece.

Hehe -- I like .mobi, just not mtld

 

[scandiman]

I been saying this since day one...WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE BACKERS? There has only been assumptions. I have always maintained these deals were crappy handshakes and a couple checks to some old marketing friends that started mTLD. The backers notoriety are the main reason that so many domainers have flocked to mobi. The comments such as "with those backers mobi will be a sure success" have done nothing but irritate the situation.

If the relationship was a strong solid one then mobi would certainly have used that information to it's advantage and made it public. Whenever you do not get information from a company (or anyone selling you something) it's because it's a negative. mTLD has withheld information regarding the relationships which you MUST consider a bad sign. Too many enthusiasts have trusted mTLD and for no good reason. They have placed a blind-eye to any negatives that might be part of their golden egg. If you look close...it's gold-plated...crack it and it's worthless.

I feel bad for those having spent many thousands on registrations of crap domains that appears more or more are in a crap extenstion.

It is true that exact specific details regarding the business relationship between mTLD and it sponsors/backers have not been made public. I do not have to view it as a bad sign. It simply means it is PRIVATE! I can't tell you how many times have I read in the paper that Company A bought Company B for an undisclosed sum. Does it make the deal shady? No. It means the terms of the deal are confidential. Just because I want to know doesn't give me the right to know.

 

[-REECE-]

It is true that exact specific details regarding the business relationship between mTLD and it sponsors/backers have not been made public. I do not have to view it as a bad sign. It simply means it is PRIVATE! I can't tell you how many times have I read in the paper that Company A bought Company B for an undisclosed sum. Does it make the deal shady? No. It means the terms of the deal are confidential. Just because I want to know doesn't give me the right to know.

The fundamental difference here -- Company A does not go around using the fact that they bought Company B as their only marketing scheme (I believe scheme is the proper word to discribe this sin).

Mtld does nothing but flaunt their "backers", yet shies away from elaborating on the nature of their investment. IMO, that's not a confidentiality issue -- that's either sheer stupidity on their part or that the nature of the investments made by the backers, are as Labrocca says, a little check to a former colleague, or perhaps a way to hedge against the possibility of dotmobi's success without taking up a major stake in it.

 

[robertjr]

Hmmm, is Reece succumbing to Darth's 'half empty' side?? It's dark over there Reece.

At this point it's the only side that is seeing through the light, many others are being blinded by it.:imho:
Certainly, the tunnel does have something at the end of it, but it really would me nice if mtld placed a few signs along the way.


Edit:

Reece- Thanks for posting that, you saved me a rant.

 

[hawkeye]

Just because I want to know doesn't give me the right to know.

Scandi, that says it all!!! We do not, and are not entitled to some companies strategy, or them being accountable to us on it, in any way!! That is plain and simple, and employed by many firms. It is futile for Darth to even argue that point any longer, because he knows it to be true, and wouldn't do so with his company!

 

[-REECE-]

At this point it's the only side that is seeing through the light, many others are being blinded by it.:imho:
Certainly, the tunnel does have something at the end of it, but it really would me nice if mtld placed a few signs along the way.

:bingo:

 

[scandiman]

The fundamental difference here -- Company A does not go around using the fact that they bought Company B as their only marketing scheme (I believe scheme is the proper word to discribe this sin).

Mtld does nothing but flaunt their "backers", yet shies away from elaborating on the nature of their investment. IMO, that's not a confidentiality issue -- that's either sheer stupidity on their part or that the nature of the investments made by the backers, are as Labrocca says, a little check to a former colleague, or perhaps a way to hedge against the possibility of dotmobi's success without taking up a major stake in it.

You are free to characterize good marketing however you wish. If the backers were uncomfortable with it they would have sued but instead VISA has joined the effort since the launch of .mobi. I can assure you that they sent in a team of lawyers to examine everything in due diligence before they put their name and reputation on the line.

 

[robertjr]

For VISA this is an "just in case" investment. As a calculated risk, it's a good move for them. If it succeeds then your in the right place, if not it's a write off.

 

[scandiman]

For VISA this is an "just in case" investment. As a calculated risk, it's a good move for them. If it succeeds then your in the right place, if not it's a write off.

I agree that VISA is spreading itself wide in their effort to be a major player in mobile transactions and has made moves outside of their involvement with .mobi. But that does not negate the due diligence the must have performed prior to writing a check and lending their brand to the .mobi effort.

 

[-REECE-]

I agree that VISA is spreading itself wide in their effort to be a major player in mobile transactions and has made moves outside of their involvement with .mobi. But that does not negate the due diligence the must have performed prior to writing a check and lending their brand to the .mobi effort.

There is no due diligence involved... If Google gives me an Xmas present for getting them alot of money through Adwords, would I characterize that as an investment in me, my brand, my company? Of course not! That seems to be what mtld is pulling here. As has been said in the past -- 1 or 2 million from Visa is a drop in the bucket. The same can be said for most of their backers. I'm 100% sure that Bill Gates donated more to fund AIDS research in Manitoba than he, or all of Microsoft, have to .mobi. Point being -- where the hell is Manitoba? Well, he threw 20m+ my province's way about 2 years ago.