Tread for .mobi haters

[alex_d]

I don't think that .mobi necessarily has to be "stuck" with the lable of being for mobile phones only. Who knows what other devices will be made available in the coming years that are mobile. Though I guess for now, most will see them as intended solely for mobile phone use.

If you are looking for an extension to lable as for "mobile phones" then take a look at ... http://www.nic.mp (mp=Mobile Phone)

As for keystrokes, yes, it will take a lot longer to search for a name using a phone keypad then it would using a conventional keyboard. However, if you are doing a search on Google mobile for example, wouldn't you need to use the same number of keystrokes to search for your "search term" ?

 

[Theo]

In the future, as in the past and present, COM is king.

We don't need separate namespace for mobile devices. If indeed all cellphones in the future come with keyboards, I will be typing mobi.yahoo.com and not yahoo.mobi to access mobile-enabled pages.

 

[alex_d]

I agree completely with .com being King. I can't see that ever changing.

However, its strange that you would prefer to type the longer of the two URLs you mention. Wouldn't that be more keystrokes ( or hits on characters ) than the shorter version ?

I have personally only regged 5 .mobis - most with the view of having them developed to compliment already existing sites. However, as most people would have noticed, regular sites dont work all that well on mobile devices. Having a "lite" version of a site seems to make more sense. I agree that there is really no difference at the moment between google.mobi and google.com/mobi in terms of practicality as they should both provide the exact same site. However, with all the backing that the .mobi has, it seems that the future of .mobi could be a lot healthier than any of us are aware of at the moment.

 

[GoPC]

In the future, as in the past and present, COM is king.

We don't need separate namespace for mobile devices. If indeed all cellphones in the future come with keyboards, I will be typing mobi.yahoo.com and not yahoo.mobi to access mobile-enabled pages.

And how does this jive with the argument that people wont type .mobi because it is TOO LONG... mobi.yahoo.com versus yahoo.mobi?

Seriously, your last two posts are argumentative but offer no real substance.

For all the cellphones that DON'T have QWERTY keyboards on them, TEXTING is still the highest, most lucrative revenue stream amongst the next generation mobile user demographics.

These kids can type faster on a NON-QWERTY phone than most of us can on a standard keyboard. It ISN'T GOING TO MATTER to them

What DOES matter is the content and it's presentation/usability.

CDW.com is using an "adoptive" script to make their page work on a cell phone... take a look at it ON A PHONE... you can hardly make it out, and it's completely jumbled and it maxes out my cell's memory and I have probably one of the best internet phones on the market!

Why can't you people just be happy NOT liking .mobi?

You're not going to conver us with arguments like "people wont type it but they will type mobi.yahoo.com" and "there's no QWERTY so noone will use it".

Obviously, we don't see it that way.

Mobi isn't hurting you... or IS it? :wink:

GoPC

 

[seanboy]

We should start ignoring them, because these threads are useless. Those who support the name will continue with regging names and developing their sites, while those who hate them will continue with their dumb "$0" appraisals and "I hate .mobi, but love trolling" threads.

 

[Duckinla]

I certainly have no great expectations for .mobi and I've detailed my criticisms of the extension before. But I think it's just dumb to criticize someone for registering some decent ones. At the price of registration, that's a low-risk and high-potential opportunity. Isn't that what any smart investor should look for?

When someone starts trying to say it's the second coming of dotcom, I'll argue that. But for all those of you who registered some decent dotmobi domains for $10, nice job.

And how does this jive with the argument that people wont type .mobi because it is TOO LONG... mobi.yahoo.com versus yahoo.mobi?

I think in the future we will just type yahoo.com and then click on the "mobile optimized" icon which will take you to mobi.yahoo.com.

 

[domain newbie]

Mobi isn't hurting you... or IS it? :wink:

GoPC

mobi is hurting us, as mobi is annoying, why do we need separate horrible extension for mobilephone use, if its just would be easier/more convenient to optimize mobile phones for web-surfing

it's like taking web back in 30 yrs time by implementing that hassle of separated extension for mobile use(making new clonesites), rather then going forwards the technology and optimizing mobile phones for internet use

stupido!

 

[Theo]

I have nothing whatsoever against mobile/cellphone enabled content.

What you fail to see is that .mobi as a TLD is nothing but an excuse for a Registry to collect fees for an unnecessary namespace.

Web sites nowdays are capable to redirect browsers to appropriate content, based on the characteristics of the device accessing them.

 

[GoPC]

And neither of you is paying them... so again, what is hurting you?

hint - Be careful how you answer.

What good are redirects when the market it being told to go to .mobi on a cell in the first place. WAP is an admitted failure in the marketplace and .com website are laregely not visible on cells and the the developement of websites, flash, java, etc is going 180 degrees in the wrong direction of what cell phones are capable of.

The MARKET is divided already and the chasm is getting wider.

Given the choice, I agree with the idea that mobile users will go to a site they KNOW is mobile compatible, as opposed to simply shooting dot commons at random hoping to find one they can actually see and interact with.

To listen to you, the alternative would be bringing the dot common home pages DOWN to the text only, mobile compatible standard in order to accomodate the potential traffic.

What's more likely? Having everyone revert to a few text lines on their dot commons or buy a .mobi ext that points to mobile content on their current website?

I guess that depends on what the public is LOOKING for... and dot common are unable to deliver it. So there must be something else... hmmm... what could that be? Oh, In know... .mobi

YOU don't like it. Fine. You are not the market. But I can guarantee you this, when it comes down to it, all extensions included, when you want and need the content on the page, you don't care WHAT the extension is. MOST of the time, you don't TYPE IN the domain anyway, you either have it bookmarked or link to it or click off a search page. Tell me this as well... how often do you TYPE IN a phone number on your cell phone? EVERYTHING is bookmarked, phone numbers, web pages... what isn't bookmarked is searched and linked... .mobi default ext, parnter/advertisers and shortcut keys.

You have GOT to come up with some original thought and stop barfing up the nonsense you are hearing elsewhere.

You keep talking but all we see is :lalala:

GoPC

 

[Theo]

I won't stop you from jumping down a cliff either, GoPC.

 

[namewaiter]

I have nothing whatsoever against mobile/cellphone enabled content.

What you fail to see is that .mobi as a TLD is nothing but an excuse for a Registry to collect fees for an unnecessary namespace.

Web sites nowdays are capable to redirect browsers to appropriate content, based on the characteristics of the device accessing them.

hmmm, on my pc your site offers a ton of beautiful graphics and info, but when i tried acroplex.com on my phone, nothing loaded?

 

[Theo]

And I care because...?

You people are acting as if everyone that wants to conduct business will do so by accessing a web site on their cell, then actual fill out forms etc.

That's a gadget lover's dream but it's not reality.

 

[GoPC]

And I care because...?

You people are acting as if everyone that wants to conduct business will do so by accessing a web site on their cell, then actual fill out forms etc.

That's a gadget lover's dream but it's not reality.

Much the same was said about the Internet... and about cell phones in general... and about Color TV... and about horseless carriages.

Cells outnumber PCs by 400% or more... figure it out man. I don't have to get 100% of the market to get 400% MORE TRAFFIC from a .mobi

GoPC

 

[namewaiter]

And I care because...?

you care because in your last post you stated...

"Web sites nowdays are capable to redirect browsers to appropriate content, based on the characteristics of the device accessing them."

I'm just pointing out that it is a bigger undertaking than most believe and only the biggest of the biggest will offer such (however many are using .mobi as opposed to this technology you speak of), certainly not the millions of sites inbetween.

 

[Theo]

Much the same was said about the Internet... and about cell phones in general... and about Color TV... and about horseless carriages.

Cells outnumber PCs by 400% or more... figure it out man. I don't have to get 100% of the market to get 400% MORE TRAFFIC from a .mobi

GoPC

You're taking successful examples and using them as the basis for your theorem. That's a crafty logic but unfortunately does not work.

you care because in your last post you stated...

"Web sites nowdays are capable to redirect browsers to appropriate content, based on the characteristics of the device accessing them."

I'm just pointing out that it is a bigger undertaking than most believe and only the biggest of the biggest will offer such (however many are using .mobi as opposed to this technology you speak of), certainly not the millions of sites inbetween.

You're contradicting yourself. If indeed the future is in mobiles, then the mobiles of the future will have the much stronger capabilities of computers of today. Therefore, in the future, with your futuristic cellphone of 32-bit graphics, Pentium duo CPU and 1 Gb RAM you will be simply logging on to CNN.com's regular pages - no specialized content will be necessary, geared towards mobile phones.

That makes a separate, segragated namespace like .mobi even more obsolete.

 

[nrmillions]

You're taking successful examples and using them as the basis for your theorem. That's a crafty logic but unfortunately does not work.



You're contradicting yourself. If indeed the future is in mobiles, then the mobiles of the future will have the much stronger capabilities of computers of today. Therefore, in the future, with your futuristic cellphone of 32-bit graphics, Pentium duo CPU and 1 Gb RAM you will be simply logging on to CNN.com's regular pages - no specialized content will be necessary, geared towards mobile phones.

That makes a separate, segragated namespace like .mobi even more obsolete.

and by the time cellphones are that powerful then computers could be 100x more powerful than they are right now so cnn.com might still require the power of a new computer then. .mobi can always improve their pages to adapt to the new powerful cellphones as cellphones can start to handle new things.

 

[domain newbie]

and by the time cellphones are that powerful then computers could be 100x more powerful than they are right now so cnn.com might still require the power of a new computer then. .

... and then we will need a .supermobi !

 

[akaning3]

You .mobi haters are living in your own world. .mobi is becoming a real hit here in Japan. And there are more people in Tokyo alone than where you live, so....you are wrong. .mobi is a hit. That is the fact. how many people live in your country!? Well, where ever that may be, .mobi is so far successful 2:1.
You dont agree, well, 125,000,000 agree with .mobi against your population "1". Very obvious. Dont make yourself look.... You know....

 

[Theo]

I didn't know we had 125 million sheep in Japan. Jonathan, you'll always be a gaijin. All this fluff about .mobi being a hit.

 

[domain newbie]

.

I signed up and paid for the subscription fee mainly for .mobi conversation to discuss how to promote .mobi sites for users and to make friends. I feel that your choice for closing .mobi forum is not fair. If you close the .mobi forum, i would like a refund.

japan has the big sheep population indeed, they need .mobis same as vuitton bags and hellokitty keyrings

p.s. the mister akaning3.mobi actually not very genuine with his statement about the *big hit in japan*, as per his own post in other thread he says he signed here only to promote .mobi, so why would big hit need info on promotion, ..maybe he wants to sell mobi in japan shops for the commissions :flock: