Mobile Browsing and Domain Names

WSJ piece about mobile browsing ...  It speaks about .mobi quite a bit then accurately points out:  "Sites that end in dot-com or dot-net can also be designed so they show mobile-specific content when consumers access them through a mobile device."

How does that happen?  The site reads the "user agent" as a mobile browser and then serves user-agent sized content. I wanted to show you this picture of address bar in a mobile browser.  It looks to me like there is room for about 14 characters plus a 3 character .com/.net extension (18 characters without www. in front). So you should take this cue and keep your names under 18 characters.

There is also some talk in the piece about sub-sites such as rufkins.wap.com where you register a third level domain at wap.com. I don't not think smart companies will go for that.

Initially a handful of folks will build .mobi sites and play around with that ext.  Watch what happens as the flood of the existing World starts making mobile friendly websites.. They will absolutely make it so their .com resolves in these little browsers.  Why? So that they don't loose visitors to the mobile company's error search ...  you can bet the farm on that.

Comments

The cost of branding and promoting an existing web address is so high that it makes no sense for a successful and established business to retool their site and use a dot mobi. If they choose to retool the site to work better on a mobile device, of course they would simply use browser identification and the domain they currently spend money to market. Changing a site and marketing a new address would be foolish. Also, if phone companies prepackage zoom browsers and other technology solutions on phones they sell, mobi is further doomed.

[Basicity]

So with .com sites being able to read the "user agent" as a mobile browser and then serve user-agent sized content, what does this mean for the value of .mobi domains?

So Flowers.com can resolve to serve mobile content when it recognizes that the browser is a mobile browser. What does this mean for Flowers.mobi? Didn't Rick Schwartz paid a load of money for Flowers.mobi?

[Rob Sequin]

You said

"They will absolutely make it so their .com resolves in these little browsers."

I'm not sure I agree with you on that. Making .com show and work well on a phone will give the user a different experience.

Using a website with a mouse and keyboard is MUCH different than using a website with a touchscreen, arrow buttons and/or alphanumeric keypad.

Sure you can make any site resolve on a small screen but think about the different user experience for Ebay.com and Ebay.mobi.

HUGE difference. Why would ebay want to stuff their entire .com site into a mobile browser?

The .mobi sites will be built with the following in mind:

- small screen
- touch screen, arrow keys and/or keypad navigation
- GPS and/or location related content
- quick loading
- light on graphics

Kind of the opposite of .com so just cramming a .com into a phone will not be a long term solution.

[owen frager]

Small point to keep in mind: When you hear all the hype about the promise of mobile- when they argue that XX have access to pcs but xxxx have access to mobile devices, they are NOT referring to the corporate issue devices pictured above and used carefully as big boss is always watching and must sign off on the bill.

They are talking about consumers and CELL phones. The ones that already can access the web but only 5% of the people that have them ever do, not only for the useability and cost, but for the same reason you prefer to use a real digital camera versus your cell camera when possible.

Sure these phones will be improved, and the mobile scali ng will help, but with 3-4 phones per household on contracts, and all services not alike (for example iphone requires Cingular, I think) it's going to be a long haul.

Try calling up flowers.mobi on your cell phone broswer and tell me what you think.

ps. The industry seems to now use the word mobile and stop saying cell phone because text messages are extra revenue when other sources are flat or declining. But it's hard to forget, unlike the PC, these are still PHONES and people can still talk. As they say: Talk is cheap.

***FS*** Very well said as usual Owne.. I agree with you.

[owen frager]

pps: Understand the financial state of the telco industry and you'll see the hidden agendas behind all the hype. Start here:
http://www.forbes.com/technology/wireless/2004/04/27/cz_sw_0427verizon.html

btw, This is a subject on which I have an inside track. I spent most of my career developing intellectual property for Alcatel, going back to the thwarted US launch of the Minitel and during the time they acquired the 900 patents that will be driving the future, regardless who who you buy it from. Few even know who this company is but Google "Alcatel and Microsoft" or "Alactel and Google" or Alcatel and any other big Internet play and you'll begin to see a different reality.