What is this question asking? Which to use? Which to remember? Which to guess if seeking a brand’s unknown mobile web site?
(Are they even mutually exclusive? Surely no nascent mobile web comnpany can afford to exlude users on the basis they might try one of the ones the site owner deliverately excluded)
If there even needs to be a winner or defacto, it will be the one that the average user in the street can remember or guess - not the one that the readers of this web site (with respect) think is best for them. ie… will your *neighbour* guess what the letter “m” means?
Finally… might search make the question completely irrelevant anyway? If so, don’t forget that all the top level registries are obliged to publish their domain lists for submission to search crawlers. A .mobi or pure .com domain will be automatically be visited by a crawler. (Obviously not the same for third-level or directory-based URL schemes, which need to be guessed or deduced by them)
or GoMoNews.com to get a true feel of that is going on in the world.
The point here, is none of the options you present state clearly that a site is mobile or mobile compliant other than .mobi.
Plus, you will NEVER get all the mainstream and foo-foo web desigers and webmasters to agree on m., wap., tinyurl., etc. They are too wrapped up in themselves and their own egos to be the cutesy creative types. It is, like, all of a sudden it has become the “designer” web…
Wooo, we can create our own URL. Isn’t that just simply totally awesomely incredible?
m.domain.cc for mobile versions of existing web sites
domain.mobi for web sited developed dedicated for access by mobile devices
all domains: try to implement browser detection and delivery of a mobile optimised version, e.g. no huge tables, avoiding videos, avoiding navigation by flash only; just apply the best practise recommended by W3C and MMA.
Marius Mueller-Minde
I guess for the future that each mobile-savvy brand is going to
A) cover all mentioned/common options of the URL and
B) provide device/useragent recognition functionalities that re-directs the visitor to the according site (www or mobile web)
IMHO this would provide the best user-centric solution for this question.
For new, maybe mobile-only sites .mobi will be definitely the best choice.
[...] Bena Roberts has an interesting poll going on over at GoMoNews. She asks Poll: m., wap., .mobi or .com? [...]
deano
.com
the url/domain reflects a brand and mobile is part of Brand extension. It’s the job of the marketer (or his provider) to dynamicly diliver the site/content in correct format.
Jeff
It makes no sense in blurring the boundaries between the internet & the mobilenet which is evolving; the use of a dotmobi extension is targetted, easily memorized & very brandable; it gives the end-user business a 2nd bite at the marketing cherry…. offering a bespoke mobile experience which would be difficult to market if it was a redirect (i.e. dotcom) & dotmobi is so much cleaner / crisper & self explanatory than m.website etc..
I’m personally looking forward to seeing dotmobi and the mobilenet rolled out as I believe it will become a new medium in its own right.
.com is of course the most recognisable domain extension on the planet. I don’t think that will change. However i see the biggest gain for top cctlds AND .mobi
.mobi fulfills certain criteria. It saves time AND money, which are 2 of the most important things to everyone, particularly on the move. It also offers a unique branding ability and a chance to give a separate mobile site. Yes! a separate site. If you own a top site, why not grow and nurture another? Give your customers what they really want & more often than not they want different featurs and not a heavy slow loading site. Big sites can take ages to load on a powerful pc with broadband. Do you really think people on the move will have the ‘patience’ people don’t even have on a pc when things don’t load? Think again. Prepare for lift off. I would like to add i love .com AND .mobi .mobi has a very bright future imho
Ron
>> m.domain.cc for mobile versions of existing web sites
>> domain.mobi for web sited developed dedicated for access by mobile devices
Bernie nailed it above. .MOBI is not the standard by any means. It’s unrealistic to require existing sites to buy a new domain for their mobile site.
Paul Green
m.domain.suffix
The suffix is generally regarded as a regional attribute.
The domain name is usually the brand/company.
The prefix (www, ftp, m, mail etc) describes the service type.
This is the accepted way that the fully qualified domain name system works. If you use .mobi, you’re removing location specific information, which is valuable information for the consumer.
IMO, it seems like yet another blag to try to get us to buy yet more domain names. Just stick an m/mobile/mobi or whatever prefix you wish to your domain name and the consumer will have all the information they need!
I’m betting on .MOBI for mobile sites as a seperate entity from .Com but I think we are a few years away from mobile browsing becoming mainstream in the US.
Rich Gubby
.com
Website / mobile site owners should only ever have to promote one domain.
In my opinion it’s just lazy (and inefficient) to have 2 copies of your site - one for web and one for mobile.
Whats next, firefox3.domain.com and ie8.domain.com ??
Work out on the fly if your visitor (to your .com domain) is a mobile and base your content on this result.
What is this question asking? Which to use? Which to remember? Which to guess if seeking a brand’s unknown mobile web site?
(Are they even mutually exclusive? Surely no nascent mobile web comnpany can afford to exlude users on the basis they might try one of the ones the site owner deliverately excluded)
If there even needs to be a winner or defacto, it will be the one that the average user in the street can remember or guess - not the one that the readers of this web site (with respect) think is best for them. ie… will your *neighbour* guess what the letter “m” means?
Finally… might search make the question completely irrelevant anyway? If so, don’t forget that all the top level registries are obliged to publish their domain lists for submission to search crawlers. A .mobi or pure .com domain will be automatically be visited by a crawler. (Obviously not the same for third-level or directory-based URL schemes, which need to be guessed or deduced by them)
But yeah, of course, I’m biased
And the point of this is?
This is like asking do I prefer:
Fox.mobi
MSNBC.com
NPR.org
ESPN.mobi
BBC.com
or GoMoNews.com to get a true feel of that is going on in the world.
The point here, is none of the options you present state clearly that a site is mobile or mobile compliant other than .mobi.
Plus, you will NEVER get all the mainstream and foo-foo web desigers and webmasters to agree on m., wap., tinyurl., etc. They are too wrapped up in themselves and their own egos to be the cutesy creative types. It is, like, all of a sudden it has become the “designer” web…
Wooo, we can create our own URL. Isn’t that just simply totally awesomely incredible?
.mobi - because it’s the Standard.
.com - standard for PC sites; no guarantee that a mobile site was considered…
m.site.com - why not i. or e.? ambiguous at best
wap.site.com - what did you call me?
.mobi - oh, right dot mobile site…got it!
.com !!!
Customer want to use the same service and get
same experience at home and via mobile.
However, there might be special topics and
services, where a dedicated mobile site makes
sense. In that can .mobi could be the choice.
m.domain.cc for mobile versions of existing web sites
domain.mobi for web sited developed dedicated for access by mobile devices
all domains: try to implement browser detection and delivery of a mobile optimised version, e.g. no huge tables, avoiding videos, avoiding navigation by flash only; just apply the best practise recommended by W3C and MMA.
I guess for the future that each mobile-savvy brand is going to
A) cover all mentioned/common options of the URL and
B) provide device/useragent recognition functionalities that re-directs the visitor to the according site (www or mobile web)
IMHO this would provide the best user-centric solution for this question.
For new, maybe mobile-only sites .mobi will be definitely the best choice.
[...] Bena Roberts has an interesting poll going on over at GoMoNews. She asks Poll: m., wap., .mobi or .com? [...]
.com
the url/domain reflects a brand and mobile is part of Brand extension. It’s the job of the marketer (or his provider) to dynamicly diliver the site/content in correct format.
It makes no sense in blurring the boundaries between the internet & the mobilenet which is evolving; the use of a dotmobi extension is targetted, easily memorized & very brandable; it gives the end-user business a 2nd bite at the marketing cherry…. offering a bespoke mobile experience which would be difficult to market if it was a redirect (i.e. dotcom) & dotmobi is so much cleaner / crisper & self explanatory than m.website etc..
I’m personally looking forward to seeing dotmobi and the mobilenet rolled out as I believe it will become a new medium in its own right.
Does it really matter to a consumer?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big mdot fan, but to your everyday normob myfavouritesite.com should be the same/optimised for wherever I type it in…
Web/Phone/Fridge
.com is of course the most recognisable domain extension on the planet. I don’t think that will change. However i see the biggest gain for top cctlds AND .mobi
.mobi fulfills certain criteria. It saves time AND money, which are 2 of the most important things to everyone, particularly on the move. It also offers a unique branding ability and a chance to give a separate mobile site. Yes! a separate site. If you own a top site, why not grow and nurture another? Give your customers what they really want & more often than not they want different featurs and not a heavy slow loading site. Big sites can take ages to load on a powerful pc with broadband. Do you really think people on the move will have the ‘patience’ people don’t even have on a pc when things don’t load? Think again. Prepare for lift off. I would like to add i love .com AND .mobi .mobi has a very bright future imho
>> m.domain.cc for mobile versions of existing web sites
>> domain.mobi for web sited developed dedicated for access by mobile devices
Bernie nailed it above. .MOBI is not the standard by any means. It’s unrealistic to require existing sites to buy a new domain for their mobile site.
m.domain.suffix
The suffix is generally regarded as a regional attribute.
The domain name is usually the brand/company.
The prefix (www, ftp, m, mail etc) describes the service type.
This is the accepted way that the fully qualified domain name system works. If you use .mobi, you’re removing location specific information, which is valuable information for the consumer.
IMO, it seems like yet another blag to try to get us to buy yet more domain names. Just stick an m/mobile/mobi or whatever prefix you wish to your domain name and the consumer will have all the information they need!
I’m betting on .MOBI for mobile sites as a seperate entity from .Com but I think we are a few years away from mobile browsing becoming mainstream in the US.
.com
Website / mobile site owners should only ever have to promote one domain.
In my opinion it’s just lazy (and inefficient) to have 2 copies of your site - one for web and one for mobile.
Whats next, firefox3.domain.com and ie8.domain.com ??
Work out on the fly if your visitor (to your .com domain) is a mobile and base your content on this result.