Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 220.127.116.11
On the same topic has anyone experienced some business improvement by making his/her site mobile friendly?
My guesstimate is that .mobi only gets legs by virtue of development. Development likely only follows demand. Are kids with cellphones at all interested in or concerned about .mobi? I have my doubts. I'm sure they're all looking forward to the day when advertising and marketing manages to make even deeper penetration into their personal space, like the day when cellphones are a free service - if you can manage an outbound call or connection for all the inbound ad noise.
.mobi? Sure, right up there with .travel. All the advantages of the appearance of being "the (subject matter) URL" and then . . . there's the matter of substance.
Last .mobi thought of the moment: Wimax might play some role in .mobi's push for identity and acceptance.
If you're a purist like me, then you'd go with the W3C when they say that a site should be device independent. You should have one document, with one url, and it doesn't matter what they are using to access it. We don't have a .win and a .mac domain, do we? Maybe you could use wap.sky.com or mobile.sky.com to designate a subsection of your site (as Yahoo and others already do), but that's as far as I would go.
Another problem this creates is that somebody can't find a site on their computer, and then send the location to somebody, because they don't know if their friend will be using their phone or whatever.
Apart from all, that, I find it ironic that .mobi is actually longer to type than .com!
I was imagining a time when cellphones are "free" in return for agreeing to receive ads.
I was imagining an age of Wimax, where you have broadband wireless access for miles and miles and miles.
.mobi in the midst of this future seems a bit, what? Inconsequential?
Wait for the day when we are all assigned IP numbers that can be used to track our every movement, every store we enter, every . . .
Me? I'm planning on leaving the cellphone home, along with the PDA, the e-notepad, etc. . . all on the table . . . in the cave . . next to my assortment of foil hats ('cause we know they're working on that next . .
[edited by: Webwork at 5:06 pm (utc) on Oct. 16, 2006]
I'm biased: I have a running .mobi site.
I like the idea that there is a corner of the Web where standards - for the benefit of end-users with mobile devices - will be enforced. If your site is not mobile-friendly then your domain registration gets suspended...
Frankly, in the normal Web I'm appalled by the "Use Flash or &*$£& Off" (or similar heavy-weight non-accessible etc etc) attitude of some Web designers. Indeed, the one who uttered the previous objectionable opinion worked for me - briefly.
At least with .mobi as an end user you stand a chance of getting to see working pages quickly and cheaply.
I was imagining the other day a time when a cell phone is a conduit to an endless stream of sales pitches ~ the spamming of the airwaves.
I just keep thinking that, anytime now, there is going to be a backlash against omnipresent advertising.
Sticking your logo everywhere was once viewed as cheesy. Now, you have backdrops at events with logos plastered in a repeating pattern so that you can't miss it. Even presidential speeches frequently have backdrops with slogans or logos for projects, bills, etc.
I receive free subscriptions to magazines I never read. They send them out free, presumably, to boost circulation rates so they can boost their ad rates. But, I don't look at the ads, because I don't look at the magazines.
Popup ads? I close without looking at them. Admittedly, I have seen some, and resolved never to use the services of companies by whom I have been frequently annoyed by their ads. Same goes for those stupid ads that float over what you're reading. It's hard to take seriously a content site that allows ads to obscure the content.
Fax ads are the worst. What makes these dirtbags think they have the right to use my paper and my toner/ink/ribbon to send me their junk?
The plethora of advertising and advertising venues makes it that much harder for your own message to get through. If you were fighting amidst a crowd of legitimate companies, that's bad enough. But with all the junk and scams and all that that pops up these days, you're swimming upstream against a tsunami.
Back to .mobi, though, I don't see the longevity to it. Enforced standards may be good at first, but what happens when you start getting new mobile devices with new capabilities? Sooner or later, users of older mobile devices will no longer be supported by the standards. Or, mobile device manufacturers will release proprietary features, and then you're back to the old Netscape vs. IE wars. At that point, .mobi could become irrelevant as .mobi sites may not support features offered by certain devices, so users of those devices may revert back to .com domains that support those features. Or, perhaps .mobi will allow a choice of standards when you first log in, but that would be self-defeating as the same could be done with .com (or any other) domains too, no?
Not to mention what happens when domain holders get fed up with their registration being frozen because they didn't properly adhere to standards--standards which at some point may not work well with some devices or standards which may fall behind the times as whatever committee decides them struggles with what should or should not be a standard, while the marketplace moves ahead of them, possibly with .com domains if their .mobi domains have been frozen due to the committee's inability to decide on new standards and continue to enforce old standards that don't support the features new mobile users are paying for and want--now!
The main reason being lack of benefits for the domain owner. Do they get a better listing in the search engines or at the network operators? Nope. Can they expect more traffic due to having such a domain name? Nope. After all, consumers are interested in the content, not in the domain ending.
Type example - Widget (a glossy print magazine with a brand name about, er, widgets). Let's say they have some nice content. They make it available for mobile, and the marketing department realizes that they should do some marketing. Does it matter to consumers whether they advertise mobile.widgets.com or www.widgets.com/mobile or www.widgets.com (with auto detect of mobile client) or www.widgets.mobi? See, it does not matter. They have to advertise anyway. Why go for .mobi?
The basic standards are:
* 20kByte max page weight.
* Valid XHTML (mobile profile, ~HTML 4.01).
* Default screen width assumed 120px.
* If www.example.mobi exists then example.mobi must too.
* Works on small viewports.
* Simple to remember for end users.
The only possible issue is if they freeze somehow on the second point as you suggest, but nothing stops you varying your output based on the UA or Accept-*! (etc) headers so far as I can see. Simply that your default behaviour must be good/portable/compliant.
For example, although the basic mobile XHTML does not guarantee support for PNG, I *do* show PNG thumbnails if the browser's accepted MIME types include image/png, which is totally legit I think.
[edited by: DamonHD at 5:11 pm (utc) on Oct. 17, 2006]
With four mobile phones purchased for every one personal computer, there’s a world of people whose main access point to the Internet is a mobile device.
dotMobi is the only – top level domain dedicated to delivering the Internet to mobile devices. dotMobi will revolutionise the use of the Internet on mobile devices. dotMobi is designed to guide mobile users to made-for-mobile Internet content and services that can be accessed with confidence.
How can we be certain that the revolution will happen?
Because dotMobi is backed by the most prominent mobile and Internet players in the world – the very same companies who have delivered the promise of today's information society.
Not flukes either. Some of the Industries permier buyers stepping up to the plate.
.mobi seems to have wings.
Before the last dotBoom became a dotBust, lots of people/companies paid ridiculously high prices for things that never panned out.
Since the talk is that we're entering another dotBoom, this may only be an indication that some people are falling prey to the hype and paying outrageous prices for things that may not necessarily pan out.
And some may be defensively buying .mobi to prevent brand dilution, which is not an indication of .mobi success but merely an indication that they want certain domains if .mobi develops legs or wings.
Until there is compelling content actually bringing users to .mobi, I would say the jury is still out.
The Flowers.mobi sale made sense due to the volume of flowers that are ordered by phone, the fact that flowers are often ordered "away from homebase" (phone, not PC), the fact that flowers can often be purchased "sight unseen" as they were for years ("How much do you want to spend? Send roses?), the fact that a flower bouquet is likely something easily viewed in the small LCD of a mobile device, the lack of commoditization/price comparison issues that are more easily addressed on larger screens at home, and the PPC costs associated with flowers.
Fun.mobi and Games.mobi make sense in light of the number of people that play games on PDAs and other handheld devices.
I wouldn't call the 2 sales a harbinger of a great future. If Flowers.com - as a domain alone - was up for grabs today it likely would have sold in the $3-5+ million range. The sale of Flowers.mobi for $200,000 shows a lack of confidence, not a gushing endorsement, for the .mobi TLD. The Flowers.m and Fun.m buys were very selective speculative buys in particularly well suited markets. The buys were made by players that can risk funds. These salew were targeted to initiate the market, to create buzz: The highest and best uses were targeted early on. More auctions to come.
There's a lot that could tank .mobi as a default destination, including the emergence of WiMax: Public wireless broadband access across great distances, a standard being supported by a number of big players. Websites can and are already designed to display in mobile devices without "the benefit" of the .mobi TLD. A unique TLD, like .mobi - where other TLDs will work just as well - is no guarantee of anything, just like Pets.com was no guarantee of success despite a $2 million SuperBowl ad.
It's a bit of a mature market, domain speculation, one where there are now old bulls and where - with each new TLD release - there will be young bulls chomping at the bit, snorting and proclaiming their superiority and dominance - by hording domains, by hawking them for sale, by pumping their own holdings by reference to other sales. Newness - new TLDS and new bulls - keeps it interesting. With every new TLD release someone has to prop up the market whilst the TLD is in search of validation by application.
Welcome to the world young domain bull. Don't break the china and be certain to clean up after yourself. ;-P
Seems like it's easy enough for websites to identify they have mobile content and a search engine could glean this information and provide it first to mobile searchers opposed to a whole new gTLD.
Mew gTLDs are just more money for the grubby registrars and more room for scraping / spamming / cyber & typo squatting bottom feeders to clutter up the web and we have enough of that already.
Guess you can't tell which side of this issue I'm on ;)
[edited by: incrediBILL at 5:43 pm (utc) on Oct. 28, 2006]
The whole concept is flawed. Should have been '.m'
Why do I need a new TLD just to know what resolution and bandwidth my user has? My mobile device gets 1 MB/s download speeds, and resolutions are all over the place.
Lets have a TLD for every resolution!
.386 is for 640×480
.486 is for 800x600
[edited by: chronic at 5:47 pm (utc) on Oct. 28, 2006]
These guys control the manfacturing, the delivery, the software, the Internet Portal, the content provision, the content itself and the advertising platform.
Mobi isn't about the extension and I think eventually, you will see that the extension isn't even part of the surfing you will do.
Someone asked: "Why do I need a new TLD just to know what resolution and bandwidth my user has? My mobile device gets 1 MB/s download speeds, and resolutions are all over the place."
But do you know if the site you are going to fits within those specs? You said "prtable", not cell phone. You're not comapring apples to apples. It's not about resolution, it's about capability. Cell phones, which again... out number pcs and compatible devices over 4 to 1, do NOT have the same capability and the point of .mobi is to ensure the surfer that by going to a .mobi, it WILL be compatible. Read the .mobi agreement.... domain owners are in danger of loosing the domain if it's NOT compatible.
Unlike the standard internet, the mobile internet, represented by mobi, is a closed patform with the content and hardware providers CONTROLLING the interface.
.mobi COULD BE (probably will be) the default extension for the whole lot and the mobile internet will not be a text input address bar but rather a series of catagorical search menus (think automated phone operator) that will lead you to none other than the paid advertising partners of the .mobi cartel. Of course you will alwasy have a softkey to enter the domain you wish to go to, which will default to the .mobi ext.
Essentially, it WILL be a one handed internet interface. One hand on the 'net, the other hand on the stick. (Interpret that how you will) ;
Before you jump all over the typing aspect of these things... think about 3 things...
1 - More and more phones are coming out wtih QWERTY keboards. Mine has one.
2 - Visit your local grand or high school and challenge ANY child to a type-off. You will find that these kids can type on a cell numberpad FASTER than you can on a full size QWERTY keyboard!
3 - How often do you actually type in a phone number on your cell phone? How often do you use your "contact list"? Isn't a contact list just another phrase for "Book Marks"?
I don't like the sound of "mobi" any more than the next guy. <Snip>
But then again, I might be bias. MIGHT be. ;)
[edited by: Webwork at 7:07 pm (utc) on Oct. 28, 2006]
[edit reason] Promotional inserts are routinely removed magazines and WebmasterWorld posts. :) [/edit]
Development is already underway on paper-thin screens that can roll-up. Put that on the side of your mobile, and you can pull it out when you want to surf the net or watch a video, and slide it back in when you're done. Space-saving and a larger screen--who wouldn't want that?
When that technology is available in the not-too-distant future, what will be the use of .mobi then?
Hey, sooner or later we're all going to be irrelevant. SkyNet will figure that one out.
[edited by: Webwork at 7:35 pm (utc) on Oct. 28, 2006]
...I bought my .mobi analog and am making plans now. Should be fun to be one of the first to have a .mobi presence in '07. It'll be like 1996 and the Internet as a whole. :)
Actually, I'm waiting for mobiles to offer some version of projector like functionality.
I have long wanted to be the presenter at some conference for a new computer display. It'd be on stage, covered by a box, and, when the moment arrived, I would lift up the box and reveal the display.
The crowd would feel let down. Under the box would just be an ordinary computer monitor. I'd point out that it supported millions of colors. And a 800x600 resolution. People would boo or laugh or walk out.
Then I'd wave my hand through the monitor, revealing it to be a hologram. Then, I would change it to a larger monitor, maybe a plasma screen. Then, move on to other 3D images.
But, I think once it is revealed that the color monitor was itself a hologram--that would sell people right there. ;-)
Actually, though, it won't be projectors or holograms we'll have. No, we'll probably just have ocular implants that allow us to see a huge, high-resolution screen right in our own eyes.
Which makes it hard to demonstrate. "Okay, folks, go into this room here, and our installation technician will poke a needle in your eye, and, afterwards, you'll be amazed at what you can see! Now, this is just a demo, so it will quit working after an hour, but your vision will be back to normal in a few weeks, after the implant fully dissolves."