IT.COM

.mobi Yet Another Opinion on .MOBI

NameSilo
Watch
Impact
0
.MOBI will become the next .COM
(if certain conditions occur :))

Here are some of my observations and thoughts which led me to this conclusion:

Technical Aspects
- The technical requirements for .MOBI hosted sites (see here), do not in any way prevent non-mobile device browsers from accessing them. It only requires that if the site detects a limited capability browser (as expected on a mobile device), it must present the content in a strict subset of the HTML markup (XHTML-MP), and other minor things like not use frames. If the site detects a more capable browser (like Internet Explorer on the PC), the site can return markup which utilizes the full capabilities of it.
- There are no restrictions on the content of .MOBI sites, as long as you meet the technical requirements. This means that even if a particular type of content may not be useful to mobile device users (e.g. home loans?), it can be useful in general and be accessible from PCs through the .MOBI domain name.
- All of the technical requirements are not difficult to meet. In fact I expect all decent web development tools to eventually make this part dead easy and automatic.
- The technical requirements are actually good for site owners, as it helps ensure that their content has the largest reach possible, on both mobile devices and PCs.

Branding Aspects (mostly IMO, I could just be blowin' smoke)
- Although .COM is still by far the best known TLD, it has some inherent weaknesses when it comes to branding. In many people's minds, the term ".COM" is commonly associated the Internet hype and crash of the late 90's early 00's. In fact, if .MOBI becomes successful, then .COM names may end up looking antiquated from a branding perspective.
- The TLD extension is part of the brand, so even a generic word like "cars" or "homes" can become quite valuable combined with the TLD (with proper marketing of course)... guess what, the generic .COM's are gone, but .MOBI is still open.
- The success of .MOBI will happen only if people develop and market sites with the .MOBI name, getting it burned into the mind of the public. I think the success of .COM was largely due to the marketing provided by .COM based names by the early successful players (yahoo, amazon, etc).
- I agree in theory with another NP'er's concern that the failure of .MOBI's can be brought about if the growing number of domain name investors snatch up all the good names, keeping them away from those who may have otherwise created real value out of them. But its hard to put a finger on what the actual impact of the "domainer effect" will be, and whether it will be significant. Also, remember that as domain investors holding on to these potentially valuable names, there's nothing stopping any one of us from developing the next hugely successful .MOBI which provides value to the world (while increasing the value of .MOBI for investors). With that in mind, I hope that everyone here is always keeping an eye out for that gem of a name to develop into the next killer app:)
 
0
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
Big fan of .mobi here.

If Google.mobi comes only serves up .mobi websites then .mobi will take off. So, .mobi could be the .com of the wireless internet, that is possible.
 
0
•••
Some good points there but .com is still king no matter the bust earlier. Also, not all .mobi sites can be viewed in IE (I am trying to figure this one out.)

If you are developing your names, tell your friends!

We need to get the word out to the mobile world.

Put links in your sig on other sites.

Put notes, information and links on your other developed sites.

Put them on all the email jokes you forward to your friends.

Make up flyers and drop them off at schools and colleges (a fellow NPer had this great suggestion.)
 
0
•••
Maybe I didn't convey my point very well.

It seems a lot of folks are focused on using .MOBIs for mobile device specific content (e.g. checking stock price, ordering ringtones, ordering towing service, etc, etc). My main point was that there is no real restriction on using .MOBIs to serve any content, to mobile devices as well as PCs. Also consider the fact that the line between mobile devices and PCs are blurring... its pretty clear to me that .MOBI is just as generic as .COM, despite the marketing emphasis on "mobile devices".

Given that the .COM namespace is almost completely saturated, the next generation of internet apps will migrate to .MOBI. This in fact will erode the value of .COM, when people start building the .MOBI TLD into their brand (e.g. "cars" is too generic and is not brandable, but "cars.mobi" is... and if you brand that, then you really don't care about the .COM form of the name).
 
0
•••
You make some good points:)
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Kerrijo said:
Some good points there but .com is still king no matter the bust earlier. Also, not all .mobi sites can be viewed in IE (I am trying to figure this one out.)

If you are developing your names, tell your friends!

We need to get the word out to the mobile world.

Put links in your sig on other sites.

Put notes, information and links on your other developed sites.

Put them on all the email jokes you forward to your friends.

Make up flyers and drop them off at schools and colleges (a fellow NPer had this great suggestion.)



It is true that .COM is King ... however .TV has a chance

at taking this crown one day and no other domain can

claim this.

:)
 
0
•••
cosmicray said:
It is true that .COM is King ... however .TV has a chance

at taking this crown one day and no other domain can

claim this.

hmm.. .tv surpassing .com? I completely disagree
 
0
•••
cosmicray said:
It is true that .COM is King ... however .TV has a chance

at taking this crown one day and no other domain can

claim this.

:)


I would like to know why you think this....
 
0
•••
Study how the real estate market works and you will come

to the EXACT same conclusion.
 
0
•••
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back