What's the appeal for .mobi?

[dmyre]

Can't most mobile devices already search websites?
Although my cellphone is internet capable, I've never used it...

[whitebark]

You've nailed the two biggest points straight out. There is no need for .mobi. There never was, and most websites can be mobile ready as they are. And like you said -most of us have internet ready phones but don't use them for various reasons like - too costly, no real need and that's what a laptop is for etc.

[mmxMedia]

mmm, it seems to me that the resellers are trying to inflate the prices of .mobi for their own gain, which of course is only natural.
Only time will tell once the reseller market settles, if these prices are sustainable.

[DomainEngineer]

.mobi is your opportunity to acquire one word dictionay domains.

it will be better as people use more mobile devices to navigate the web, ofcourse mobile web speed and prices will have to come down to increase the usage.....it is happening fast.

[NameMatters]

http://www.techdigest.tv/2006/10/friday_intervie.html

Friday interview: dotMobi's Neil Edwards slams the critics of the .mobi domains
The world of domain names has seen its fair share of controversy, and one of the hottest recent debates concerns the new .mobi domain, which covers mobile internet sites. It's run by mobile Top Level Domain Ltd (mTLD, or dotMobi informally), whose investors include the likes of Ericsson, Google, Microsoft, Nokia, Samsung, T-Mobile and Vodafone. dotMobi opened up registrations to companies in June, before allowing everyone else to sign up last week.

Controversy? There's been plenty, including claims that .mobi is unnecessary, risks splitting the internet in two, and even accusations that it is purely for squeezing more cash out of companies frightened that someone else may register 'their' domain. Many of these criticisms have been made online, and dotMobi CEO Neil Edwards doesn't mince his words when responding to them.

"It's the most juvenile argument," he says. "We have companies like Microsoft, Business Week and BMW who all spend a lot of money doing proper development of their systems, so it's insulting that guys who write free blogs are passing judgement on how the best minds in the world should do their development."

But let's rewind to some of the facts. Since June, over 13,000 companies have registered .mobi domains, while since the first day of last week's 'landrush', Edwards says that over 111,000 domains have been registered. Around 65% of these came from North America, 20% from Europe and 15% from Asia, with more than 100 countries included. Interestingly, China was the third largest country in terms of .mobi registrations.

The key question, however, is how many of those companies are actually planning to launch .mobi sites, versus those who have simply bought the domain name to stop anyone else buying it. Last week, for example, US telco Verizon's associate general counsel told the FT that they'd only registered verizon.mobi for the latter reason. So are many .mobi sites actually launching?

"We didn't expect to see a lot of these brands go live until sometime in 2007," says Edwards. "The hosting tools have got to catch up with the sale of names. But we've seen Business Week launch a commercial ad-supported mobile magazine behind businessweek.mobi, there's kicker.mobi, the leading football magazine in Germany, and then Microsoft have made a conscious decision to put their mobile services behind live.mobi."

So how about that Verizon comment then? Unsurprisingly, Edwards is bullish, pointing out that Verizon's 'closed' mobile internet portal doesn't fit with .mobi's philosophy of encouraging better mobile internet sites outside the operators.

"They quoted the junior assistant general counsel of Verizon saying that .mobi's not a good idea. What do you expect?" says Edwards. "That's the company that runs a closed portal! That's their business model. And anyway, she's not the person who's actually making the business decisions."

Moving on, the big challenge for dotMobi now is less about selling more domains - that will be down to resellers - and more about its other aim, of encouraging better mobile internet sites. It's part of what companies sign up to when buying a .mobi domain, and Edwards says that dotMobi will be monitoring all the .mobi sites, and providing diagnostic tools to let people know if their site is up to scratch.

But with over 120,000 registrants, there needs to be more information and assistance out there on how to develop effective mobile sites. Edwards says that dotMobi is working with ten web hosting companies, who are developing hosting and design packages to help people get up and running with their .mobi site.

"A year ago when we built the dotMobi mobile site, we spent $25,000 on it, as there were only three to five companies in Europe who could build a mobile site properly. Now, that same site would cost around $30 or $40. The bottom line is that mobile hosting is now affordable for the average guy on the street. We're also about to launch a big developer program and a user guide on how to do mobile development."

There is one more lot of selling to be done, though. dotMobi has held 5,000 generic .mobi domain names back, including the likes of money.mobi, travel.mobi and cars.mobi (and intruigingly, according to ipwalk, also cocaine.mobi and heroin.mobi). Some of these will be sold through an assessment process, which Edwards says will ensure the sites are reputable and useful for mobile users, while others will be auctioned off to the highest bidder.

"Something like travel.mobi we wouldn't auction off, because we want to make sure it goes to a travel site that provides things like online hotel reservations, and real information," he says. "We'll be asking people about their business capabilities, their technical capabilities, their commitment to the market and making sure they build a good mobile experience based on our standards. But something like travelasia.mobi? We'll put that into an auction."

There's plenty of mileage in the dotMobi debate, but whatever you think of the subject, it can't be denied that companies are buying the .mobi domains, whatever their reasons. It's unsurprising, then, that Edwards comes back to the critics.

"They're not happy because .mobi has proven overnight that we went from having no customers to having 120,000 customers embracing the open standards," he says. "You also can't argue with the fact that 13 mobile companies [dotMobi's investors] who are adamant competitors, came together to solve a problem, rather than developing their own standards. That's how we should be judged."

Came straight to this page? Visit www.TechDigest.tv for all the latest news.

[GoPC]

Naw... we don't need none of them Motor Carriages... Horses work just fine.

We don't need none of that fancy dancy moving images stuff... radio is juuuust fine.

We don't need that color crap... tv's just fine in black and white.

We don't need cellular phones... who we got to talk to that can't wait 'tll later?

We don't need a internet that caters to mobile devices, the regular interent works just fine on them.

There will always be those that don't see the vision. And that's fine.

On the other hand, there are those that believe that mobi will be more than just a website standard... we believe that mobi will be shaped into a preferred if not exclusive portable internet medium backed and pushed by some of the largest corporations on the PLANET.

Mobi is the Borg... you will be assimilated. Some will fight it, some will lay down and let it happen. Others will profit by it.

What will YOU do?

GoPC

[dmyre]

No one is saying mobile access is bad, just that it can currently be done without .mobi.

[izopod]

No one is saying mobile access is bad, just that it can currently be done without .mobi.

Yes it can but what's Yahoo's mobile address?
Cnn?
How about Fox News?

It could be mobile.name.com or m.cnn.com? Who knows.

I think what they are trying to do with .mobi is to get people used to the idea they no matter what they'd "know" what a sites mobile address was by simply typing in www.name.mobi

If you think software/browswer fixes are the way to go, again...what's that sites mobile address?

[dreambig]

technically, did we ever really need web addresses at all, couldn't we have used ip addresses? I guess we didn't need .com either

[Temp Banned by Infractions: mjnels]

No one is saying mobile access is bad, just that it can currently be done without .mobi.

still doesnt change the amount of money that microsoft, google, samsung, t-mobile, and nokia has to spend on convicing the public that .mobi is the new thing or is required or just exists.. not everyone in the general public is a domainer and that opinion/impression is swayed much easier.

[Creature]

technically, did we ever really need web addresses at all, couldn't we have used ip addresses? I guess we didn't need .com either

That's a great idea for the typo guys. Probably no so easy brand very long numbers though.

[GoPC]

still doesnt change the amount of money that microsoft, google, samsung, t-mobile, and nokia has to spend on convicing the public that .mobi is the new thing or is required or just exists.. not everyone in the general public is a domainer and that opinion/impression is swayed much easier.

Very true but also consdier this...

In order to have the internet on these phones you absoultely HAVE to have a few things in place...

1 - your platform: mobi
2 - The support of a manufacturer (in this case many)
3 - The support of a Provider (also many)
4 - Content Support (Google, MS, etc)

Since mobi HAS all of these things, what makes you think even for a second that they even HAVE to connect to the Internet we already have, know and love?

Verizon has been long pointed as the voice of reason by stayig away from mobi, siting they only bought their name to exclude others from squatting on it... That is a cop-out.

Verizon is ALREADY guilty of the 4 points I outlined above... The have their OWN Internet. Sure, you can brake through and find the real interent if you are determined but if you (like I) have a verizon phone with Internet Access, what do you see?

You see every page, every site, every option, every search result PRE-PROGRAMED to a Verizon partner. In order to find the "real" internet, you have to manually go through the search feature and SEARCH and INTERNET ADDRESS to get a page... and then, if that page doesn't have flash or java or some other very common script, you might be able to see it.

So you see... mobi is ALREADY being done. By Verizon.

Mobi is nothing more than a declaration that your site will work on a mobile. Right?

Think beyond that... Mobi will ultimately mean that your site is INCLUDED on their Internet. Just like Verizon, sites will be predisposed to access through the mobi ext. Pull up a list of sites (hmmm... their all mobi) and just press "1" or "2" or whatever the pre-programmed menu item is for that site and away you go.

It won't matter WHAT the domain is, how long the words are, what crazy letters there are in there or even if they have dashes... All you have to do is press the cooresponding menu number to access the site.

UNLESS you are a Dot Common. THEN they have to type. THEN they have to find how to get to your site.

Remember, these guys PROVIDE the devices, the access AND the interface. It is not the Internet that YOU Control as you do on yoru desktop... this is different.

They will win over the customer base not because mobi is cool. Not because of a slick ad campaign. Not because companies buy into the idea...

But because mobi IS.

And if you're NOT... you run the risk of not being seen.

Mobile devices outnumber Internet devices 4 to 1. That's alot of market to risk.

GoPC

[Creature]

No one is saying mobile access is bad, just that it can currently be done without .mobi.

Just a thought....you may not believe in the future of .mobi but perhaps a buyer for your .com will believe mobi has a future. Therefore I would at least buy the matching mobi names of your best .coms.

[david4]

Naw... we don't need none of them Motor Carriages... Horses work just fine.

We don't need none of that fancy dancy moving images stuff... radio is juuuust fine.

We don't need that color crap... tv's just fine in black and white.

We don't need cellular phones... who we got to talk to that can't wait 'tll later?

We don't need a internet that caters to mobile devices, the regular interent works just fine on them.

There will always be those that don't see the vision. And that's fine.

On the other hand, there are those that believe that mobi will be more than just a website standard... we believe that mobi will be shaped into a preferred if not exclusive portable internet medium backed and pushed by some of the largest corporations on the PLANET.

Mobi is the Borg... you will be assimilated. Some will fight it, some will lay down and let it happen. Others will profit by it.

What will YOU do?

GoPC

Fantastic!!!
I like the metaphor!!!

[sdsinc]

Yes it can but what's Yahoo's mobile address?
Cnn?
How about Fox News?

It could be mobile.name.com or m.cnn.com? Who knows.
...

Actually you don't need to know ! Just type in cnn.com for example and you should be redirected to the right version of the site. That's the way it should be and that's the way it's done by sites who only host under .com, if they want to maintain a site for mobiles too.
All it takes is a simple browser detection routine. Many sites are actually doing just that, serving different style sheets to cater to different browers. Mobile browsers are just that, browsers with their peculiarities.

Actually .mobi is a really bad thing for many reasons, one is that it will actually create confusion, Internet users will be wondering "should I type in cnn.com or cnn.mobi ?", they shouldn't worry about that and so far it's not been a concern. It would be naive to assume that every single mainstream site is going to go .mobi rather than keep everything under the same root (.com).

All sites should actually have one single point of entry. I own no .mobi but if I decide at some point to cater specifically to mobile devices with adapted subsites I am confident I can still do it later just using my .com domains so I am not missing out.
The only competitive advantage you would get with .mobi is: 1. holding premium/generic keywords & 2. .mobi TLD set as default ext on mobile devices (which you should not take for granted).

If I am buying the propaganda behind .mobi then we should maybe have another TLD for webTV users and another TLD for text browsers like Lynx and what else ? It's a bit ridiculous but you get the point.
Let's get back to these .mobi threads in one year and we will have fun. Well not everybody will be having fun.

BTW what mobile Internet needs to succeed now is not a TLD of its own but:
- fair airtime pricing, it's still to expensive to browse the Internet on a mobile phone
- contents, contents, contents ! Nothing new here, WAP has failed largely for lack of contents

[izopod]

Actually you don't need to know ! Just type in cnn.com for example and you should be redirected to the right version of the site. That's the way it should be and that's the way it's done by sites who only host under .com, if they want to maintain a site for mobiles too.
All it takes is a simple browser detection routine. Many sites are actually doing just that, serving different style sheets to cater to different browers. Mobile browsers are just that, browsers with their peculiarities.

Actually .mobi is a really bad thing for many reasons, one is that it will actually create confusion, Internet users will be wondering "should I type in cnn.com or cnn.mobi ?", they shouldn't worry about that and so far it's not been a concern. It would be naive to assume that every single mainstream site is going to go .mobi rather than keep everything under the same root (.com).

All sites should actually have one single point of entry. I own no .mobi but if I decide at some point to cater specifically to mobile devices with adapted subsites I am confident I can still do it later just using my .com domains so I am not missing out.
The only competitive advantage you would get with .mobi is: 1. holding premium/generic keywords & 2. .mobi TLD set as default ext on mobile devices (which you should not take for granted).

If I am buying the propaganda behind .mobi then we should maybe have another TLD for webTV users and another TLD for text browsers like Lynx and what else ? It's a bit ridiculous but you get the point.
Let's get back to these .mobi threads in one year and we will have fun. Well not everybody will be having fun.

BTW what mobile Internet needs to succeed now is not a TLD of its own but:
- fair airtime pricing, it's still to expensive to browse the Internet on a mobile phone
- contents, contents, contents ! Nothing new here, WAP has failed largely for lack of contents

In the real world not everybody uses redirection (or will). Anything less than 75% use of such technology will continue to render the mobile world, "content-less". Here's to hoping that people will have the same software and handheld in which to operate.... Is there any suprise why there isn't more mobile content out there.

Sometimes the best solution is the simplest, which is to have one platform with which to work form. Your argument about whether or not to create an extension for WebTV is a silly one, because the handheld market is infinitely larger than the WebTV crowd... It's an economics issue.

Also to answer your question, from now on they just have to type in cnn.mobi, hence the very reason for the TLD...

Actually .mobi is a really bad thing for many reasons, one is that it will actually create confusion, Internet users will be wondering "should I type in cnn.com or cnn.mobi ?",

Next...

[DryHeat]

The key elements of success for this tld, IMO, would be simplicity, predictability, standardization, universality, and the industry support and marketing leading to a generalized widespread perception that .mobi is THE way to mobile web. The next 6-12 months would be critical to see what specific steps .mobi investors/supporters take to achieve this objective.

My impression is that in general .mobi sites would be so focused, and in time, so simple and easy to create that people would even have their "business card" sites so to speak....just a brief description of their services and contact info/link. And, this is the most exciting thing about all this: so new, so simple and potentially so huge.

[sdsinc]

...
Your argument about whether or not to create an extension for WebTV is a silly one, because the handheld market is infinitely larger than the WebTV crowd... It's an economics issue.
...

Of course it is silly. Just because 'there is a large market' does it mean a TLD should be set up to accommodate that particular market ?
For instance do we need a TLD for realtors ?
After all a very large percentage of websites are real estate type websites. Industry-specific TLDs like .travel or .aero are nothing new either.
I find it hard to see added value here.
The fact that .mobi is backed by large corporations and a whole industry is not a guarantee of success. Previous technical standards have failed in the past even though they had industry backing.
I think that .mobi is doomed from the beginning for a number of reasons, as you all know most of the newest TLDs have not been convincing and I don't think that .mobi is really different from other TLDs. It can fail as well. Of course we can elaborate on the meaning of 'failure'
For example 100000 landrush registrations may seem impressive to some, but I would call that a flop.

[DryHeat]

Of course it is silly. Just because 'there is a large market' does it mean a TLD should be set up to accommodate that particular market ?
For instance do we need a TLD for realtors ?
After all a very large percentage of websites are real estate type websites. Industry-specific TLDs like .travel or .aero are nothing new either.
I find it hard to see added value here.
The fact that .mobi is backed by large corporations and a whole industry is not a guarantee of success. Previous technical standards have failed in the past even though they had industry backing.
I think that .mobi is doomed from the beginning for a number of reasons, as you all know most of the newest TLDs have not been convincing and I don't think that .mobi is really different from other TLDs. It can fail as well. Of course we can elaborate on the meaning of 'failure'
For example 100000 landrush registrations may seem impressive to some, but I would call that a flop.

To me the argument above boils down to this: Despite purporting to meet a very specific need of a huge upcoming market and having an unprecedented industry backing, there is still a chance that .Mobi will fail....right? Yes, there's always that possibility in any venture, especially one based on technology and Internet....but, if we as domainers are not up for that, then may be we should be investing in government backed securities....

[DomainEngineer]

All the mega backers of .mobi have an economic interest in its success whether it be selling more ads or more cellphones, etc. So the chances are better than 50% that .mobi will eventually 'click' as it opens untapped market for the backers. Just my 2 cents.