<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: More dotMobi domains up for grabs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mobileindustryreview.com/2007/10/more_dotmobi_domains_up_for_grabs.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mobileindustryreview.com/2007/10/more_dotmobi_domains_up_for_grabs.html</link>
	<description>Daily news and opinion for 250,000 industry executives and mobile fanatics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:35:00 +0100</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Campbell</title>
		<link>http://www.mobileindustryreview.com/2007/10/more_dotmobi_domains_up_for_grabs.html/comment-page-1#comment-147208</link>
		<dc:creator>John Campbell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:07:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.smstextnews.com/2007/10/more_dotmobi_domains_up_for_grabs.html#comment-147208</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve never thought this was really the right solution to the problem. The problem is not the TLD, it&#039;s that you have to type the URL on a numeric keypad.

In Japan (by far the most successful market for mobile internet) most adverts now feature a 2-d bar code (&quot;QR-Code&quot;). This encodes the URL, so all you have to do is take a photo of it with your camera phone and you&#039;re on the website. The URL can be fairly long, and the TLD used doesn&#039;t matter. As for enforced standards, you&#039;d hope any service that cares about their mobile presence would do some serious compatibility testing anyway.

I was quite pleased to see my N95 came with an application for reading these codes, but it&#039;s not much use until it becomes a standard feature on other phones. I&#039;m surprised nobody is really pushing QR-Codes here - they make casual mobile internet use much less hassle.

John</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve never thought this was really the right solution to the problem. The problem is not the TLD, it&#8217;s that you have to type the URL on a numeric keypad.</p>
<p>In Japan (by far the most successful market for mobile internet) most adverts now feature a 2-d bar code (&#8220;QR-Code&#8221;). This encodes the URL, so all you have to do is take a photo of it with your camera phone and you&#8217;re on the website. The URL can be fairly long, and the TLD used doesn&#8217;t matter. As for enforced standards, you&#8217;d hope any service that cares about their mobile presence would do some serious compatibility testing anyway.</p>
<p>I was quite pleased to see my N95 came with an application for reading these codes, but it&#8217;s not much use until it becomes a standard feature on other phones. I&#8217;m surprised nobody is really pushing QR-Codes here &#8211; they make casual mobile internet use much less hassle.</p>
<p>John</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://www.mobileindustryreview.com/2007/10/more_dotmobi_domains_up_for_grabs.html/comment-page-1#comment-147095</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2007 11:08:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.smstextnews.com/2007/10/more_dotmobi_domains_up_for_grabs.html#comment-147095</guid>
		<description>Vance,

Going on what you are saying... &quot; In short, .mobi is designed to indicate a trustworthy mobile experience. (Not the only experience, of course, but a trustworthy one.)&quot;

What has a .mobi extension got to do with being trustworthy? I think thatâ€™s not a valid argument for added expense to the developer (by that I mean company).

I just donâ€™t see the point in having yet another layer of complication for the user to remember. Everyone remembers .Com but people struggle with .Net and .Org.
I think that the mobile web should be inclusive and not put barriers in front of people just for the sake of it.

With processes like WURFL itâ€™s really unnecessary for a .mobi extension at all.

I honestly believe that this is a money making exercise for those who run it and not a lot else and what frustrates me is that in the end the man on the street knows nothing about .mobi

Regards

Mark</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Vance,</p>
<p>Going on what you are saying&#8230; &#8221; In short, .mobi is designed to indicate a trustworthy mobile experience. (Not the only experience, of course, but a trustworthy one.)&#8221;</p>
<p>What has a .mobi extension got to do with being trustworthy? I think thatâ€™s not a valid argument for added expense to the developer (by that I mean company).</p>
<p>I just donâ€™t see the point in having yet another layer of complication for the user to remember. Everyone remembers .Com but people struggle with .Net and .Org.<br />
I think that the mobile web should be inclusive and not put barriers in front of people just for the sake of it.</p>
<p>With processes like WURFL itâ€™s really unnecessary for a .mobi extension at all.</p>
<p>I honestly believe that this is a money making exercise for those who run it and not a lot else and what frustrates me is that in the end the man on the street knows nothing about .mobi</p>
<p>Regards</p>
<p>Mark</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carlo Longino</title>
		<link>http://www.mobileindustryreview.com/2007/10/more_dotmobi_domains_up_for_grabs.html/comment-page-1#comment-146614</link>
		<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2007 23:46:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.smstextnews.com/2007/10/more_dotmobi_domains_up_for_grabs.html#comment-146614</guid>
		<description>&quot;And by the way, it turns out that itâ€™s the same number of keypresses to enter m.domain.com as it is to enter domain.mobi.&quot;

Then why should people bother to shell out for a .mobi domain?

Because &quot;Unlike m.site.com or site.com/m, etc., enforceable standards ensure a .mobi site works on a mobile and represents a brand as it wants to be seen.&quot;?

Enforceable standards... like those enforced on flowers.mobi?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;And by the way, it turns out that itâ€™s the same number of keypresses to enter m.domain.com as it is to enter domain.mobi.&#8221;</p>
<p>Then why should people bother to shell out for a .mobi domain?</p>
<p>Because &#8220;Unlike m.site.com or site.com/m, etc., enforceable standards ensure a .mobi site works on a mobile and represents a brand as it wants to be seen.&#8221;?</p>
<p>Enforceable standards&#8230; like those enforced on flowers.mobi?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vance Hedderel, Director of PR and Communications, dotMobi</title>
		<link>http://www.mobileindustryreview.com/2007/10/more_dotmobi_domains_up_for_grabs.html/comment-page-1#comment-146455</link>
		<dc:creator>Vance Hedderel, Director of PR and Communications, dotMobi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2007 20:20:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.smstextnews.com/2007/10/more_dotmobi_domains_up_for_grabs.html#comment-146455</guid>
		<description>There are more than 80,000,000 .com / .net / .org sites but only 0.03% are mobile friendly. Since a complete lack of URL convention has hurt mobile web discovery, we need a convention ... but not all conventions are created equal. Unlike m.site.com or site.com/m, etc., enforceable standards ensure a .mobi site works on a mobile and represents a brand as it wants to be seen. In short, .mobi is designed to indicate a trustworthy mobile experience. (Not the only experience, of course, but a trustworthy one.)
 
And by the way, it turns out that it&#039;s the same number of keypresses to enter m.domain.com as it is to enter domain.mobi.

As for &quot;$850,000 raised, well done to them for not a lot of work done ...&quot; I think the users of http://ready.mobi, http://site.mobi and http://dev.mobi would disagree. These resources are made free to the mobile developer community ... and we&#039;ve been able to do so by using auction proceeds like these.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are more than 80,000,000 .com / .net / .org sites but only 0.03% are mobile friendly. Since a complete lack of URL convention has hurt mobile web discovery, we need a convention &#8230; but not all conventions are created equal. Unlike m.site.com or site.com/m, etc., enforceable standards ensure a .mobi site works on a mobile and represents a brand as it wants to be seen. In short, .mobi is designed to indicate a trustworthy mobile experience. (Not the only experience, of course, but a trustworthy one.)</p>
<p>And by the way, it turns out that it&#8217;s the same number of keypresses to enter m.domain.com as it is to enter domain.mobi.</p>
<p>As for &#8220;$850,000 raised, well done to them for not a lot of work done &#8230;&#8221; I think the users of <a href="http://ready.mobi" rel="nofollow">http://ready.mobi</a>, <a href="http://site.mobi" rel="nofollow">http://site.mobi</a> and <a href="http://dev.mobi" rel="nofollow">http://dev.mobi</a> would disagree. These resources are made free to the mobile developer community &#8230; and we&#8217;ve been able to do so by using auction proceeds like these.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://www.mobileindustryreview.com/2007/10/more_dotmobi_domains_up_for_grabs.html/comment-page-1#comment-143764</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:08:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.smstextnews.com/2007/10/more_dotmobi_domains_up_for_grabs.html#comment-143764</guid>
		<description>I still think this is all just a money making exercise thats totally pointless. Just another thing thats forced down peoples necks to remember and developers pay for.

$850,000 raised, well done to them for not a lot of work done....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I still think this is all just a money making exercise thats totally pointless. Just another thing thats forced down peoples necks to remember and developers pay for.</p>
<p>$850,000 raised, well done to them for not a lot of work done&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Whatley</title>
		<link>http://www.mobileindustryreview.com/2007/10/more_dotmobi_domains_up_for_grabs.html/comment-page-1#comment-143755</link>
		<dc:creator>James Whatley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:53:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.smstextnews.com/2007/10/more_dotmobi_domains_up_for_grabs.html#comment-143755</guid>
		<description>What about?

&quot;I&#039;d-rather-use-m.mobi&quot;

See: m.jaiku, m.youtube, m.facebook

*sigh*</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What about?</p>
<p>&#8220;I&#8217;d-rather-use-m.mobi&#8221;</p>
<p>See: m.jaiku, m.youtube, m.facebook</p>
<p>*sigh*</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

