.mobi Serving Mobile Content .com Vs .mobi

[akcampbell]

One of the arguments used to market .mobi's is that it's simpler for users to remember and type facebook.mobi than mobile.facebook.com, wap.facebook.com, m.facebook.com etc.

There are many different ways to serve mobile content straight from a .com without confusing subdomains or alternative extensions. Opera currently suggests 4 options for developers;

1) Browser sniffing (detect browser, serve mobile or desktop content).

2) Create 2 separate sites (note the comment "2 versions of a site means 2 copies of the same content to maintain, which can be a nightmare, and forcing the user to remember 2 URLs can be painful").

3) Media Types (CSS).

4) Media Queries (CSS with if...else type rules).

Here's the full article;

http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/how-to-serve-the-right-content-to-mobile/

The counterargument to this is to say .mobi can still be used to brand context, ie that sites will be geared to people on the move. Brian Fling wrote an excellent article about context and mobile device specific code.

http://blueflavor.com/blog/2007/oct/11/the-demise-of-mobile/

I'm still not convinced by this context argument though. What do people want to do on the Internet when they connect via their mobile phone that they don't want to do on their desktop. Find a toilet? Download a song? Find their nearest restaurant? Book a last minute ticket? People would probably still do most of those before leaving home. I can see that there are things you might want to do but in the context of all the services provided on the Internet and where the money is, there isn't much for the mobile web to claim as its own.

I can understand the need for mobile device specific code for presentation and layout purposes and agree with Brian that it will be years before technologies like Opera's small screen rendering remove the need for it but I think mobile content willl be served on .coms and not .mobi sites in the long run.

 

[hedgefund]

Thanks for the post, The topics you mentioned has been discussed numerous times before.

 

[binaryman]

Now there are (iphone.sites) as well and they are starting to market them as iphone friendly sites here in Holland and elsewhere in Europe.

 

[accent]

}}}}}}}I'm scared now{{{{{{{

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OK. To recap the last 20 months of this nonsense.

All of mobi-land knows that you can see a .com website on a mobile phone. We know you can find .com websites that have mobile-friendly device detection or m.site.com sections.

What all those things do not have is the "branding" of mobi - the sign that they were - from the start - built for mobile use.

You can run a motorcycle with auto tires (Br = tyres) but you would not be happy with the result. You can jam an ordinary website onto a mobile, but it was not made for it and things will not work very well.

Only .mobi says mobile to the user.

Plus all the good names are taken in .com.

The mobile web will spawn a vast number of new, different uses for the internet. Those uses will want to be branded as mobile-specific sites. .Mobi will do that.

 

[akcampbell]

What all those things do not have is the "branding" of mobi - the sign that they were - from the start - built for mobile use.

I agree to a point but don't you think by opting for .mobi over .com a developer is picking a weaker brand?

Plus all the good names are taken in .com.

What good names are available to reg in .mobi? There are 6,500 .Pro's registered, I can't find any good words left to reg. .Mobi would have 100 fold plus more than that so I'm not convinced by this argument. It's a generic argument that could be applied to any alternative extension.

The mobile web will spawn a vast number of new, different uses for the internet. Those uses will want to be branded as mobile-specific sites. .Mobi will do that.

I'm not convinced. Did MP3 players result in new genres of music? Did portable DVD players lead to new categories of film? I think people will use the Internet on their mobile in a similar but cut down way to how they consume other types of mobile media.

I can accept there will be new types of site related to your physical whereabouts (eg. nearest restaurant, toilet, directions etc) but I don't see where the vast number of new mobile uses of the Internet will come from. I think there will be a massive increase in desktop Internet usage but I can't think of that many things people will want to do on their mobile that they can't do on their desktop.

 

[izo-pod]

Only .mobi says mobile to the user.

Plus all the good names are taken in .com.

The mobile web will spawn a vast number of new, different uses for the internet. Those uses will want to be branded as mobile-specific sites. .Mobi will do that.

Well said accentnepal....

History Lesson:


Amazon.com - Circa 1995

They went with .com in their official name to alert consumers they were internet "pure plays"... Meaning they could only be found on the web. That was a big deal back then because most companies who wanted any shred of crediblity "shunned" using .com in their official brand name.

Fastforward to 2008. If you are trying to market a mobile product or service you CERTAINLY could use a .com address. I've proven that. However in using a .com, you do have to make it clear it's a mobile product or service you are selling. Whereas if you use a .mobi. You don't have to educate the consumer very much. If I see, Gotcha.mobi vs Gotcha.com in a magazine (I've never heard of the company before) I know instantly with Gotcha.mobi I can punch it up on my mobile...which I probably will do.

I have no idea with Gotcha.com what product or service they are selling until I do so further reading. The owners of Gotcha.com are really going to have to educate the consumer they are a mobile "pure play". Even if it were a PC website, I still don't know what Gotcha.com is since the brand of .com is so broad. They are going to have to market by radio, TV, and the internet to raise awareness of their brand.

Yeah, it's not pretty that four letter extension, but it's going to get the job done... which is to educate the consumer with the least amount of time and energy (time+enegry=money)

 

[cobo]

As others have said before:
COM = Computer
MOBI = Mobile
Simple, yet very effective branding.

 

[Work In Progress]

I agree to a point but don't you think by opting for .mobi over .com a developer is picking a weaker brand?

Well, I like to think branding your mobile site as a dotMobi is stronger. You're taking out the guess work. Approx 95% of current websites are NOT mobile friendly. You want to start blindly surfing and keeping your fingers crossed that the site you're hoping to view is in the 5% or do you want a sure thing every time? You tell me which is weaker.

What good names are available to reg in .mobi? There are 6,500 .Pro's registered, I can't find any good words left to reg. .Mobi would have 100 fold plus more than that so I'm not convinced by this argument. It's a generic argument that could be applied to any alternative extension.

True. The real value is in the price you'll have to pay vs a dotCom.

I'm not convinced. Did MP3 players result in new genres of music? Did portable DVD players lead to new categories of film? I think people will use the Internet on their mobile in a similar but cut down way to how they consume other types of mobile media.

I can accept there will be new types of site related to your physical whereabouts (eg. nearest restaurant, toilet, directions etc) but I don't see where the vast number of new mobile uses of the Internet will come from. I think there will be a massive increase in desktop Internet usage but I can't think of that many things people will want to do on their mobile that they can't do on their desktop.

It all comes down to simple convenience. With mobile sites, you don't have to wait until you're at home to get information on any subject that might come up. From simple trivia to real meaty subjects, it's right there, anytime, anywhere.

We've all been down this road so many times. Typical domainer mentality will just not see it a "need" for it because it will not benefit them.

I'd suggest visiting
Why.mobi? for more in-depth answers.