The great domain extension scam

[gerardo]

There's even no need to create subdomains. If the site is right done, it would be able to detect which kind of equipment is loading the website so it can deliver specific content for this equipment; no matter if its a PC, PDA, Palm, mobile phone, portable gaming console or any future device...

Of course it is ICANN's and business after .mobi scam. However if .mobi works in the future will do only because perhaps big telecoms companys after .mobi consortium will do something to give priority to .mobi domains in their devices. I mean Vodafone, Movistar, Google, Ericsson, Microsoft, T-Mobile or Nokia -just some of the companies after .mobi- will agree to give priority in their devices to .mobi when you enter a word in their browsers just like now happens with .com by defect in some browsers or toolbars.

 

[Laird Mobi]

Obviously someone hasn't tried browsing the mobile internet with a mobile device! The only way to make sure your being directed to a fully operational mobile compatible website is through a medium that ensures you get a result! So .mobi is the perfect choice! You know you'll end up on a website that has mobile browsing capabilities.

 

[katherine]

For those who don't understand why .mobi is bad I recommend reading this essay by Tim Berners-Lee:
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/TLD

(scroll to the bottom for .mobi section)

 

[DryHeat]

For those who don't understand why .mobi is bad I recommend reading this essay by Tim Berners-Lee:
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/TLD
(scroll to the bottom for .mobi section)

That was his opinion before the final decision to release .mobi was made...Now thats done and no longer a subject of debate Mr. Brenner Lee and his organization are working in sync with .mobi folks.

 

[007]

Regardless of how popular mobile internet is becoming, the question still remains, why not simply have a mobile version of your .com website? Code your site so that a different set of pages is sent to mobile requests than computer requests.

Problem solved. Extra extension not needed. That's even better than having a mobile.domain.com subdomain, let alone fighting to register a new extension.

 

[Dale Hubbard]

My thoughts:

1. It's too early to suggest that .mobi isn't going to work. Nobody actually knows.

2. There are a lot of high-profile proponents of the extension, e.g. Nokia.

3. Conversely, look how Nokia use it:

On clicking on their http://nokia.mobi site, the links are to ordinary subdoms.

4. The value of this extension will be if the ordinary (non-tech) user sees a .mobi URL, and then has confidence that that URL will contain content formatted for a mobile device. If all these .mobi sites that are being registered don't conform, it will be a flop.

5. Parking companies may decide to code .mobi pages accordingly. In that case, the current 99% of registrations may prove worthwhile. Coding a parking page for WAP/XML format isn't rocket science. It has been specced since 1999.

6. If you're in the game with a few select good ones, just regard it as a small investment and sit back.

7. The mobile world has changed a great deal since the Berners-Lee reference above. It seems to move in a six-month cycle, in other words, relatively quickly.

My 2c.

 

[007]

I should clarify my position on the .MOBI extension. I'm not necessarily saying it will or will not work. I'm simply stating that browser/device/user agent detection, the extension is unnecessary. That's all. I think it is a waste of hype and time because everything that it can do can be done with any other extension out there.

So people might get used to typing .mobi in on their phones. Big deal. If all the major companies provided WAP versions of their sites in the first place this would never have become an issue.

I'll prove it. Grab your phone and go to www.google.com. Now browse around a bit. Check the news, check your gmail. Etc. All from Google.com. No need for Google.mobi :-D

 

[mjnels]

I should clarify my position on the .MOBI extension. I'm not necessarily saying it will or will not work. I'm simply stating that browser/device/user agent detection, the extension is unnecessary. That's all. I think it is a waste of hype and time because everything that it can do can be done with any other extension out there.

So people might get used to typing .mobi in on their phones. Big deal. If all the major companies provided WAP versions of their sites in the first place this would never have become an issue.

I'll prove it. Grab your phone and go to www.google.com. Now browse around a bit. Check the news, check your gmail. Etc. All from Google.com. No need for Google.mobi :-D

lol.. hilarious... none of this stuff matters if there is a .mobi button on your phone or there is a million tv commercials advertising it..

do you think its a coincidense that all of us americans know what captain crunch is.. what about apple jacks.. why do we know this stuff? because its the best cereal in the world and we need to have it? no, think harder.................................................................................................................................yes advertising and marketing.. case closed.. we dont need captain crunch! we dont!


so start the campaign to remove captain crunch from everyones mind! i think its too late though.. already been ingrained with those damn delicious commercials over the years..


people have got to stop thinking inside their domainers logic and take on the role of a non-domainer to understand i suppose..

 

[Dale Hubbard]

007, I know all that. I know it because I am tech-savvy about mobile phones. The point I'm making is that the non-cogniscenti will not have to worry about browser agent/device detection. They won't have to worry about redirection and sub-domaining.

The hope is that when they see a whatever.mobi site, they can be reasonably assured that the content will display properly on their device. E.g. you don't actually know that Google has a detection system until you go there. The premise for .mobi is that you won't need to.

I'm not saying it's all going to be an easy ride. If people don't create .mobi sites under the 'Switch On!' guidelines, it'll all be useless.

 

[cooljeba]

Worse that .COOP?
Worse than .AERO?
Worse that .MUSEUM?

I can see a market for exactly ONE .COOP name:

Chicken.coop

Seriously, I used to think that .MOBI was going to be good, but the more I think about it, the happier I am that I did not spend money on landrush stuff.

-Bob

lol nice one Bob..

I agree with so many extensions not only the general people get confused and end up visiting some other extension.

I think the domain name extension should be limited.. they dropped .xxx extension which IMHO was much better than the .MOBI . It would have surely helped the internet to be a better place. Like it will be easier for educational institution to block sites with .xxx extension.

well.. with .MOBI as an extension i would say it is just another crap extension.
extensions like .org has been always here but they never got popular.. how do they expect such names to gain popularity..

..:: peace ::..
Jeba

 

[Mr. Deleted]

I should clarify my position on the .MOBI extension. I'm not necessarily saying it will or will not work. I'm simply stating that browser/device/user agent detection, the extension is unnecessary. That's all. I think it is a waste of hype and time because everything that it can do can be done with any other extension out there.

So people might get used to typing .mobi in on their phones. Big deal. If all the major companies provided WAP versions of their sites in the first place this would never have become an issue.

I'll prove it. Grab your phone and go to www.google.com. Now browse around a bit. Check the news, check your gmail. Etc. All from Google.com. No need for Google.mobi :-D

Google.mobi = http://www.google.com/mobile/

 

[mjnels]

lol nice one Bob..

I agree with so many extensions not only the general people get confused and end up visiting some other extension.

I think the domain name extension should be limited.. they dropped .xxx extension which IMHO was much better than the .MOBI . It would have surely helped the internet to be a better place. Like it will be easier for educational institution to block sites with .xxx extension.

well.. with .MOBI as an extension i would say it is just another crap extension.
extensions like .org has been always here but they never got popular.. how do they expect such names to gain popularity..

..:: peace ::..
Jeba

lol

i would expect theyd get there with advertising and putting it on the devices we already use.. heh.. this isnt that complicated guys.. big corporations big money.. you know them that thar commercials we see on that thar television.. i hear they even got em color television sets now mmmhmm..

 

[jberryhill]

IMHO, ICANN shouldn't be the TLD sphincter that it is, and the market should have an opportunity to decide.

In the normal world, people are free to release all sorts of goods and services. Some fail, some succeed. However the ICANN process is not well suited for "picking winners" relative to the market.

I logged more than 65,000 miles in air travel last year, and have been through more airports than I have ever wanted to see. Not ONCE have I seen a .aero domain advertised anywhere.

 

[katherine]

I logged more than 65,000 miles in air travel last year, and have been through more airports than I have ever wanted to see. Not ONCE have I seen a .aero domain advertised anywhere.

It's not only .aero. I have yet to find a .coop or .jobs. being used in advertising.

It looks like a few aircraft-related business are using the extension but obviously the big corporations like Boeing or Airbus are not advertising using their TLD. It comes as no surprise, why should they go through the hassle of rebranding themselves into something else that .com ?
The layman has no clue about .aero and even the tech-savvy are not familiar with it.
Still, the registry has a section named Moving to .aero :cheeky:

IMO it is very embarrassing and confusing for a business not to have one single point of entry into their online presence.
I would find it odd for any business to display two different URLs on your stationery like this:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Visit our website: www.company.com - [NB: please visit www.company.mobi instead if you have a mobile phone]

The dilemma with .mobi is: if you advertise it, you need to advertise it alongside the primary .com (or ccTLD) corporate domain. You are actually creating confusion with two different URLs for people to remember.
If you do not advertise actively then nobody will know you have a .mobi and you will get no visits. Your .mobi is useless and your are losing out.

One problem with .mobi is the danger of brand dilution: many businesses have branded around their domain, and for most of them a domain name is a strategic asset. Promoting an alternate TLD may be a source of problems in terms of corporate image.

 

[Dale Hubbard]

@sdsinc

There's no need for confusion or two URLs. Simply put:

1. PC user goes to .com = fine.
2. Mobile user goes to .com = mobile detected and browser is redirected to .mobi pages.
3. PC user goes to .mobi = PC detected and browser is redirected to .com pages.
4. Mobile user goes to .mobi and .mobi pages are served.
5. Importantly, mobile user expects to find content at .mobi pages and is not disappointed if site has implemented checks 1-3 above.

To summarise; it's transparent to the mobile user. IF .mobi catches on, .mobi pages will be served to mobile browser on entering the .mobi URL.

Having read that, it counds confusing, but that's the way I see it.

 

[Mr. Deleted]

I was just testing a moble messaging page set up by enom, even though I have no cell phone. I think it is interesting. I don't think .mobi is needed at all. It may be USEFUL at some points, but not NEEDED.

www.googly.us

 

[Dale Hubbard]

Joe, nor is .net "needed". I was just discussing the technicalities. The extension will only be of value if it's adopted as mainstream in the mobile market. IF that adoption happens, then it will be a good extension. If, as I suspect, it falls down because people expect to make money and traffic via pages that aren't optimised for mobiles, then it'll be as dead as chicken.coop mentioned by another poster above as I recall.

This is fundamentally a marketing issue.

 

[mjnels]

This is fundamentally a marketing issue.

bingo.



although i do agree that companies that have completly nothing to do with the mobile phone world or on-the-go activities (or anything else .mobi would be commonly used for) really dont have a reason to advertise .mobi or be associated with it..

 

[jaydub]

If .com is your thing have at it but I think that it would be very sad if the only view I could get for safe driving (example) would be safedriving.com because it was the only extension available.....

_________________________________

I agree names . MOBI will probably be more successfull if they are tied to a service that is "on the road/mobile" related. I also agree that any TLD can have both PC and mobile compatible on their sites....

I bought a couple of .mobi's.
GDAY.mobi...
which I hope to make an portal/link site for services in Australia that one might need when accessing from a phone.
Weather...
Tow truck/ roadside service...
Maps...
Medical info....
ETC...

Also.....KeysPlease.mobi (Looking non-profit on this one)....which I hope I can have access phone numbers for people anywhere to call to get a ride after a night of partying.

Peace...

Jim

 

[RatherGood]

I should clarify my position on the .MOBI extension. I'm not necessarily saying it will or will not work. I'm simply stating that browser/device/user agent detection, the extension is unnecessary. That's all. I think it is a waste of hype and time because everything that it can do can be done with any other extension out there.

.MOBI is coming out to be marketed to the average idiot.

The average idiot does not know the difference beetween www.yahoo.com and wap.yahoo.com nor do they care to. Most don't even know they can view websites on their mobile phone. Once marketed, all they need to know is anything.MOBI will work on a cell phone browser.

If the cell phone consortium behind .mobi decide to shove it down cell phone users throats by locking the next generation of mobile browsers to .MOBI than the average idiot won't even need to be able to remember the extention, they won't have a choice.

If a court decides that manufacturers can't force .MOBI on everyone than the mobile service providers can do it for them by restricting access.


Seems like the perfect storm to me.