COLLAPSE OF the MOBI & IDN MARKETS -- the aftermath

[investors]

If people are to guesstimate that browsers render .mobi useless, then if I have a name in a mobi that is a fully developed site while it's counterparts in .com, .net, .info, .org, .co.uk, .de are all parked, isn't that a waste of technology.

Point being, who wants to look at a parked page in every damn extension?

I applaud all those that believe parking is the domainer's friend and the only option they have.

And to those that feel the browser is the answer to every thing, I really can't argue that point too much because it will take a while for the, um...nearly 4.5 billion cell phones in use, to be traded in and upgraded.

Until everyone's crystal ball catches up to reality, nothing says mobile better (and mobetter) than mobi.

I actually saw that and almost regged it about a week ago.

I have luck at both name drive and sedo for espanol domains, perhaps better at sedo. I have been known to switch back and forth.

What matters most is the keyword to get the traffic looking to begin with. In your case, perhaps catholic or vatican will help bring in more traffic.

does this sentence make sense?

Browser technology is advancing faster than mobile development???

You mean in the time it takes for me to make a mobile site ALL browsers will be up to speed?

I guess I need step by step instructions on how to get domains on this "second tier" so I can take full advantage of Chinese traffic.

Yes, it will take more time and money to develop sites from site owners as compared to developing a browser for the .com. Therefore, the actual demand for .mobi is far less than the demand for a .com.

A more accurate statement would be that browser technology has improved mobile development.

But, a mobile browser company is in business to solve that problem and is solving that problem. “Use our browser and have all of the features just like the web on your mobile device.”

 

[Gerry]

Yes, it will take more time and money to develop sites from site owners as compared to developing a browser for the .com. Therefore, the actual demand for .mobi is far less than the demand for a .com.



But, a mobile browser company is in business to solve that problem and is solving that problem. “Use our browser and have all of the features just like the web on your mobile device.”

If, a big if, all the phones are "smartphones".

Me, I like my odds and my chances of creating a site that will render equally well on a PC and a mobile device by making it mobile to start out with.

And with .com, .net, .org, .info, .us in many of these words nothing more than a static parked page, my odds of ranking and getting traffic just went up simply by offering relevant content and updated information.

And, with many knowledgeable peeps out there talking more and more about location based apps, ads, and targeting, I like my odds as well.

What really tickles me is since the launch of .mobi in 2006 (even before that in 2004 right here on DNF) there has been all this talk about the ".mobi killer". Yet, the domain is still here, the usage of it is still growing, and the only thing that has changed over all these years are the story lines about what killed or will kill the .mobi.

 

[seanboy]

If, a big if, all the phones are "smartphones".

And those smartphones are where the mobile web traffic is actually coming from. No one is browsing the web on a RAZR.

Me, I like my odds and my chances of creating a site that will render equally well on a PC and a mobile device by making it mobile to start out with.

So do I, and the ability to do that has nothing to do with .mobi, .com, or any other domain you choose to build your site on.

And with .com, .net, .org, .info, .us in many of these words nothing more than a static parked page, my odds of ranking and getting traffic just went up simply by offering relevant content and updated information.

The majority of .mobi domains are parked too.

What really tickles me is since the launch of .mobi in 2006 (even before that in 2004 right here on DNF) there has been all this talk about the ".mobi killer". Yet, the domain is still here, the usage of it is still growing, and the only thing that has changed over all these years are the story lines about what killed or will kill the .mobi.

The term ".mobi killer" doesn't make much sense anyways, since .mobi isn't a technical standard (you do realize that, don't you?).

 

[Gerry]

Yup
yup, that is the point...a site is a site is a site
yup
yup

 

[DNWizardX9]

If webmasters were smart they would have it reformatted for a mobile phone upon detection... There is no need for .mobi

 

[DN BROKER]

page 17? this is still going on ... wake me up when you guys finish.

 

[snicksnack]

try lufthansa.com from a mobile phone. they have browser client detection and you get to a website designed for mobile use. nicely done

 

[afloat.com]

page 17? this is still going on ... wake me up when you guys finish.

I dunno it seems some people just like to argue for the sake of it.

 

[DN BROKER]

I dunno it seems some people just like to argue for the sake of it.

I wonder what they eat?

 

[investors]

If, a big if, all the phones are "smartphones".

Me, I like my odds and my chances of creating a site that will render equally well on a PC and a mobile device by making it mobile to start out with.

And with .com, .net, .org, .info, .us in many of these words nothing more than a static parked page, my odds of ranking and getting traffic just went up simply by offering relevant content and updated information.

And, with many knowledgeable peeps out there talking more and more about location based apps, ads, and targeting, I like my odds as well.

What really tickles me is since the launch of .mobi in 2006 (even before that in 2004 right here on DNF) there has been all this talk about the ".mobi killer". Yet, the domain is still here, the usage of it is still growing, and the only thing that has changed over all these years are the story lines about what killed or will kill the .mobi.

I am not saying that .mobi is going away. I am saying the demand for the extension is going to be far less than a .com due to other factors such as the enhancement of technology in the mobile browser. It can cost hundreds of thousands of Dollars to develop an application. For that fact alone, site developers can tell their visitors to use a certain browser as compared to increasing the expense.

 

[Gerry]

try lufthansa.com from a mobile phone. they have browser client detection and you get to a website designed for mobile use. nicely done

Try Luftansa.mobi. They have a mobi site that looks smashing on any mobile device...and PC!

If you are entering the URL from your PC, a non mobi URL will appear.

 

[snicksnack]

correct, they check the browser client. So if u use a mobile device you will see the mobile phone appilication, if you use a regular brwoser you will se the rewgular site

 

[Gerry]

correct, they check the browser client. So if u use a mobile device you will see the mobile phone appilication, if you use a regular brwoser you will se the rewgular site

Or, if you look at that mobile site you will see the option for a full HTML page.

you say mobile phone application...too painful to say the .mobi site?:smilewinkgrin:

 

[katherine]

What really tickles me is since the launch of .mobi in 2006 (even before that in 2004 right here on DNF) there has been all this talk about the ".mobi killer". Yet, the domain is still here, the usage of it is still growing, and the only thing that has changed over all these years are the story lines about what killed or will kill the .mobi.

OK, say that .mobi is as alive as .biz. Big deal huh ?

 

[Gerry]

OK, say that .mobi is as alive as .biz. Big deal huh ?

It must be a big deal. 3 years later, many of you are STILL talking about the next thing to kill .mobi.

What happened to all the previous deaths?

 

[katherine]

No need to kill .mobi. Let it fade away and rest in peace already

 

[mjnels]

If webmasters were smart they would have it reformatted for a mobile phone upon detection... There is no need for .mobi

congratulations on figuring that one out.

 

[DNWizardX9]

I knew it from the start

 

[labrocca]

I don't like it therefore no one else should like it.

And because you like it doesn't mean we have to like it.

again, you can not take your own poor judgements and decisions and use them as a benchmark for all domainers, let alone the success of the extension.

And you can't use your luck as a benchmark for the success of mobi either let alone the overall success of the extension.

What really tickles me is since the launch of .mobi in 2006 (even before that in 2004 right here on DNF) there has been all this talk about the ".mobi killer". Yet, the domain is still here, the usage of it is still growing, and the only thing that has changed over all these years are the story lines about what killed or will kill the .mobi.

I'd like to see some actual evidence of the growth of mobi especially in comparison to the overall growth of the internet. If the internet is growing at a 5% annual rate and mobi is growing at 2% well then it's actually doing poorly. Reality is that I don't think you'll find many metrics showing good numbers for mobi.

http://www.hosterstats.com/DomainNameCounts2009.php

COM 6.25%
NET 5.25%
ORG 8.3%
INFO 7.1%
MOBI 8.4%

Now in Novemeber there was a huge pop of 11% in numbers for Mobi registrations. Registrations would be a negative percentage actually if that pop didn't occur. Are these fudged numbers by mTLD or did someone go ape tasting mobi names?

It must be a big deal. 3 years later, many of you are STILL talking about the next thing to kill .mobi.

What happened to all the previous deaths?

Don't misperceive bored domainers posting about mobi as actually giving a crap. It's not a big deal. It's just something to discuss that's a little less boring than talkin about the success of com.

 

[Gerry]

Don't misperceive bored domainers posting about mobi as actually giving a crap. It's not a big deal.

Don't misconceive me ever once giving a shlt about your opinion regarding .mobi...or anything else for that matter.