.mobi Some Interesting Research...

[sashas]

I've been looking at premium .com names (I mean the true premiums - Download, Shop, Books, etc,) and their equivalent .mobis..

Now many major corporations own premium .com names. But I couldn't find any premium .mobi names owned by big corporations, only domainers. None of the companies that own premium .coms own the same .mobis

Here's some examples:

Books.com and Book.com - owned by Barnes and Noble
Books.mobi and Book.mobi - owned by Domainers

news.com - CNET
news.mobi - domainer

mortgage.com - CITI
Mortgage.mobi - mTLD

VideoGames.com - GameSpot
VideoGames.mobi - mTLD

Play.com - Play Limited
Play.mobi - mTLD

Gifts.com - Giftco, Inc.

Call.com - Communicate Inc
Call.mobi - some domainer

Start.com - Microsoft
Start.mobi - mTLD

Download.com - CNET
Download.mobi - mTLD

Poker.com - Casper Enterprises
Poker.mobi - some domainer

Motorcycles.com - Honda
Motorcycles.mobi - Domainer

Rent.com - eBay
Rent.mobi - domainer

Shop.com - Shop Inc.
Shop.mobi -mTLD

Games.com and Music.com - owned by AOL
Games.mobi and Music.mobi - owned by Alvaro

Movies.com - owned by Disney
Movies.mobi - owned by Alvaro

Film.com - Real Network
Film.mobi - mTLD

Game.com - Hasbro
Game.mobi - mTLD

Buy.com - owned by Buy.com
Buy.mobi - some domainer

Mobile.com - ATT
Mobile.mobi - mTLD

Online.com - CNET
Online.mobi - mTLD

Loans.com - Bank of America
Loans.mobi - Domainer


It seems to me that all the major corporations haven't picked up any .mobis

Consider Loans.com, for instance. Bank of America owns Loans.com. But Loans.mobi was sold just a few days ago (for 30k, I believe). Bank of America did not buy it, some domainer did. Bank of America could've easily paid more and bought the name, if it wanted it.

Same goes for Games.mobi and Music.mobi. Alvaro belives that these two names can be flipped for a profit. But AOL stayed out of both these auctions. They could've easily out bid Alvaro. But they didn't..


Consider all the big names sold at the auction three days ago. All the top names were bought by domainers for astronomical prices. Sony, Universal, Nokia, Motorola, EA - major corporations that could've benefited a lot from acquiring premium names - stayed out of the auctions. The big names were all bought by one domainer. The end users that really matter, the ones with the big money, all stayed out...

Any ideas why it is so? Why big corporations are not buying their equivalent .mobi names?

 

[Mobi Cheap]

To You???
we'll that is your opinion and like a?? holes we all have one.

Of course .com will have more traffic then ANY ext. daa

You keep trying your hardest comparing something that is already we'll branded in EVERYBODYS mind to an ext that is still brand new.

Just how do you know the ones with the Big Money (as you say) don't think much of it. That is a very arrogant statement thinking you KNOW what EVERYBODY else thinks or does.

It's a brand new market and just like .com. it will take some time to mature.
So chill out and at least give it some time before making statements that can't possibly be proven this early in the game.

Guys, I do understand why some of us feel irritated by some of Sasha's categorical statements, but I need to say from past experience I can guarantee (for what it's worth) that Sashas is not a troll, and he doesn't appear to be a dead-end mobi hater.

His logic is obviously faulty, but this is a great opportunity to point out the holes in the logic behind the entire anti-mobi case.

IMHO Sashas is currently an asset to the .mobi cause, and I'd like to think that - iw we are all patient enough - he will remain one in one form or another.
:imho:

 

[sashas]

Guys, I do understand why some of us feel irritated by some of Sasha's categorical statements, but I need to say from past experience I can guarantee (for what it's worth) that Sashas is not a troll, and he doesn't appear to be a dead-end mobi hater.

His logic is obviously faulty, but this is a great opportunity to point out the holes in the logic behind the entire anti-mobi case.

IMHO Sashas is currently an asset to the .mobi cause, and I'd like to think that - iw we are all patient enough - he will remain one in one form or another.
:imho:

Mobi Cheap, as I had mentioned before, I was a skeptic. I really was on the fence about .mobi. I had never really cared for it much. I was happy with my investments in the other gTLDs (.com, .net, .org). But this 600k Music.mobi really set things off and I decided to do some research.
Things were fine until I saw that all the sales were virtually between domainers. Now as a domain investor, I believe that names become valuable when end users start acquiring a significant portion (hence the xx,xxx resale value of LLL.coms - end users own a large chunk).

I don't know whats the highest .mobi sale to an end user is (I've been asking folks at DNF but no one is giving me an answer to that), but I'm sure its pretty lower than the 600k for Music.mobi. As an investor, this didn't make sense to me - domainers paying MORE than end users.

I'm not a troll. I don't make one line wisecracks ending with "mobi sucks" or something like that. I've asked questions and I've asked for a debate. I don't believe anything is wrong with that.

There are many here who know exactly what they're doing - they've hedged their funds. They've speculated with .mobi because they can afford to, and have kept a significant portion of their portfolio in "safe" extensions (namely, .com). XF bought Jokes.mobi. He's got some nice plans for a name I personally think is just about perfect for the extension. And even if it doesn't work out, he can absorb the loss...

But at the same time, there are also newbies here who have no clue and reg awful names (true, they reg awful names in .com too. That's why I'm so critical of the appraisals section). These folks need to hear both sides of the issue, don't they?


Anyways. I'm off the .mobi topic for now. I feel I've stirred up enough bad blood by starting a debate. I still hope that everyone gets good returns on their investments, whether its .com, .mobi, .tv, or .in, or .us.


Cheers!

 

[Napkin.com]

Fair enough.



As you stated, many of us are NOT "shooting from the hip" and just
buying something just to have it.

We DO have a good plan, and like you said, if mobi is a flop, I'll
eat the loss and move onto something else.


Believe it or not, BOTH sides have made good arguments,
and it's HEALTHY to get all ideas and opinions out in the open.

You've mentioned points that I hadn't considered,
and the other side of the debate has made great points as well.

I just hope that all MOBI investors/speculators are like me,
and NOT socking your life savings into it.

NOTHING is a sure thing, ...

I think SASHAS has a problem with people putting EVERYTHING
they have into something thats NOT a 100% proven success.

I understand your thinking and definitely respect it!

 

[bucks]

That was a good post Sashas and we'll woth reading.

rep added

 

[meegwell]

Mobi Cheap, as I had mentioned before, I was a skeptic. I really was on the fence about .mobi. I had never really cared for it much. I was happy with my investments in the other gTLDs (.com, .net, .org). But this 600k Music.mobi really set things off and I decided to do some research.
Things were fine until I saw that all the sales were virtually between domainers. Now as a domain investor, I believe that names become valuable when end users start acquiring a significant portion (hence the xx,xxx resale value of LLL.coms - end users own a large chunk).

I don't know whats the highest .mobi sale to an end user is (I've been asking folks at DNF but no one is giving me an answer to that), but I'm sure its pretty lower than the 600k for Music.mobi. As an investor, this didn't make sense to me - domainers paying MORE than end users.

I'm not a troll. I don't make one line wisecracks ending with "mobi sucks" or something like that. I've asked questions and I've asked for a debate. I don't believe anything is wrong with that.

There are many here who know exactly what they're doing - they've hedged their funds. They've speculated with .mobi because they can afford to, and have kept a significant portion of their portfolio in "safe" extensions (namely, .com). XF bought Jokes.mobi. He's got some nice plans for a name I personally think is just about perfect for the extension. And even if it doesn't work out, he can absorb the loss...

But at the same time, there are also newbies here who have no clue and reg awful names (true, they reg awful names in .com too. That's why I'm so critical of the appraisals section). These folks need to hear both sides of the issue, don't they?


Anyways. I'm off the .mobi topic for now. I feel I've stirred up enough bad blood by starting a debate. I still hope that everyone gets good returns on their investments, whether its .com, .mobi, .tv, or .in, or .us.


Cheers!

sashas or anyone else - lets consider that a mobile-specific tld most likely won't be getting it's value from type-in traffic like a .com (or not nearly as much).

the ".mobi" part is simply a marketing message. The message is "made for mobile". IF the genral public cathces on to that message, and they use and search out .mobi sites when surfing mobile - and tools are available to create, test, and find mobile sites - and some .mobi's take off with mainstream popularity - then .mobi investments will be valuable.

I compare it to the .xxx tld. It had a specific content-oriented purpose. Put your T&A on .xxx only, make it illegal to put it on other tld, and those that want it know where to get it and those that don't can easily avoid it.

No technical innovation, just a "filing system" of sorts - a marketing message to say "this is where this stuff is" Sure, technically porn could still be on a .com (um, duh) but the point was to clear things up for the end user.

Forget all the legal and polital outcome of that effort - I dont care one way or the other -

But the message is similar w/ .mobi - "this is for a specific type of content - if you are looking/surfing for that content, look here"


Now, combine that with mobile-specific end-user needs and mobile specific functions, and suddenly the "brandability" of .mobi looks very applealing.

The need for certain data on the go, combined with GPS & calling function. Yes, these things can take place on .coms....but .com is littered with a gazillion non mobile sites. Again, it's just a marketing message to help clarify things for the end user.

So all that said, adn throw in the fact that is is a year or whatever old, and why would you even bother making an investment decsion based on generics purchased by companys that have the .com generics?

If you seriously consider the above, it really doesn't make sense for that to be a major decision criteria? Maybe for .net, .org, or other "standard" tlds (cc or whatever). But .mobi has a different goal...type in traffic may or may not develop...but very unique web-based applications will - and very many brandable terms around such functional application have a good chance of increasing in value once this all becomes commonplace.

Great input though sashas - I got your point the first time - but I just question the relevance.