×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

.mobi Websites Now Available to Register

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the looking-foward-to-.awesome dept.

149

Jaruzel writes to mention a BBC article about the availability of .mobi addresses for registration. The new TLD is intended to give a home to websites specifically formatted for mobile devices. From the article: "MTLD is promising that websites with a registered dotmobi address will be optimized for mobile phones, guaranteeing users a consistent experience. It costs about $25 (£14) to register a dotmobi site for a minimum two-year period. Oliver said that while he agreed with the need to improve the mobile web experience, promises of a 'consistent experience' did not always equate with reality."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

149 comments

Finally! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16198333)

A worthless TLD just for mobile phones! It's about time.

Oh good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16198341)

Another useless TLD that no one will bother with, except for the spammers and the phishers.

So, who's going to be the first to register dick.mobi, or would that be against terms of service as "vulgar and/or profane"

The laziest way to make money (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16198349)

Need money? let's just create a new TLD!

Re:The laziest way to make money (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16198679)

This [myspace.com] is likely the biggest fag you'll ever meet on myspace.

Note:

(a) the fly music
(b) the tough guy, punch girls in the face post
(c) his moronic style
(d) his pre-occupation with cars (how old is he?)
(e) the gay smile
(f) the faux-attempt at political posturing
(g) the racism, posing as intellectual conversation

Wow, what a total and complete homo. Keep it up Aamir!

Duuuhhhhh (4, Interesting)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198363)

Why not just use "mobi.ibm.com", for example - why do we need a TLD for this? It's not like there's going to be millions of .mobi sites.

Re:Duuuhhhhh (4, Insightful)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198449)

So they can make a metric pantload of money selling everyone's trademarked and otherwise in-demand names back to them again.

Re:Duuuhhhhh (1, Insightful)

ElleyKitten (715519) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198451)

Why not just use "mobi.ibm.com", for example - why do we need a TLD for this? It's not like there's going to be millions of .mobi sites.
Because ibm.mobi is shorter to type than mobi.ibm.com (mobiles don't have the best keyboards), and so that mobiles can default or have a shortcut key for .mobi so that people can get to sites that their phone can handle with even less typing.

Re:Duuuhhhhh (2, Insightful)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198559)

Personally, I love my site readers, but I really don't feel the need to enrich registrars more than I already am just so they can push four fewer buttons to get to me. I'd like to think my content is interesting enough to be worth pushing those four buttons. (Disclaimer: it isn't.)

Besides, wasn't it supposed to be a part of the whole XHTML/CSS revolution that a weak handheld could easily extract and adapt bog-standard site content?

Re:Duuuhhhhh (3, Insightful)

ameoba (173803) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198571)

If they're concerned about making things easy for mobile devices, which usually have somewhat limited input facilities, then wouldn't they pick a 2 or 3 letter TLD instead of 4? If they were concerned about ease of typing this in, they wouldn't have put M & O next to eachother (look at your cellphone).

Re:Duuuhhhhh (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16198747)

+1 Insightful... (I lack mod points)

Re:Duuuhhhhh (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 7 years ago | (#16199147)

That's a vaild point. However, it would also be trivial to mobile browsers default to adding ".mobi" to the end of any "naked" domain name a user types in - so eg you type in "ibm" and it automatically assumes that you mean "ibm.mobi".

Apart from that, yeah, having "m" and "o" together isn't the best of ideas, and is "mob" really that harder to understand than "mobi" that it's worth the extra character? Couldn't they have used ".wap"? (Yes, it would make it appear that it's tied to a particular tech, but it's easier to type, shorter, and associated with mobiles already...)

Re:Duuuhhhhh (2, Insightful)

MoOsEb0y (2177) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198773)

If they were truly optimizing for mobiles, they would have done two things: 1. they would have composed the domain name entirely of letters that come up first on the keypad when you push a button (i.e. a,d,g,j,m,p,t,w). 2. It wouldn't be 4 letters long

Re:Duuuhhhhh (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198807)

How about IBM just adds mobile web stuff to IBM.com which automatically detects the mobile connection and serves the proper content?

ibm.com is shorter to type than ibm.mobi ;)

I have a script that converts letters to numbers (dollar word) at http://lazylightning.org/dollar [lazylightning.org] -- it works for regular browsers and mobile ones (WAP) so people can use it from the field when they are geocaching [geocaching.com] .

It's fairly easy to do with a couple of simple lines in your HTML and your http.conf.

Re:Duuuhhhhh (1)

pbrammer (526214) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198993)

But since I'm on a mobile device, wouldn't it make more sense to have the tld be "m," or something like that? I mean why four characters? ibm.m is even shorter yet.

Re:Duuuhhhhh (1)

bano (410) | more than 7 years ago | (#16199649)

No they are saving that so they can sell us .a-.z in the next few years. So making it .m will be counter to that at the moment.

And if there's a shortcut key (1)

blueZ3 (744446) | more than 7 years ago | (#16199965)

are we forced to append ".mobi" rather than prepending "mobi."? Leave aside the asinine idea of forming a TLD "for mobiles" that uses "m" and "o" right next to each other. If you could get site publishers to agree to a standard (by some other means than creating a new TLD) it would be trivial for everyone to create a sub-domain for mobile devices. There's no "mobile usability magic" in the ibm.mobi domain that couldn't more easily (and cheaply) be dealt with by a common sub-domain (mobi.ibm.com) for mobile devices.

The whole ".mobi will make it easier on mobile users" is a crock. This is a straight-up money play.

Re:Duuuhhhhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16198461)

Because typing those extra characters on a little keypad sucks. This way you could just type ibm and hit ok and it'd guess at .mobi first.

On a side note, weather.mobi kicks weather.com's ass.

Re:Duuuhhhhh (1)

jginspace (678908) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198593)

Why not just use "mobi.ibm.com", for example - why do we need a TLD for this?



Exactly. www.dotmobi.org tells us at the bottom that "the official site is available at MTLD.MOBI" ... and when you go to mtld.mobi it takes you to ... pc.mtld.mobi ... I presume if you changed your user agent to something suitable it would take you to the subdomain for a pocketpc or palmos or whatever. Just like it should be done.

Re:Duuuhhhhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16198645)

Why not just use "mobi.ibm.com", for example - why do we need a TLD for this? It's not like there's going to be millions of .mobi sites.
*** Your neck has been snapped by an unknown assailant.
Thou art dead.
>

Re:Duuuhhhhh (2, Interesting)

cmorriss (471077) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198775)

Yes, we do need this. Web sites have had years to create an obvious standard for the mobile version of web sites. Guess what? It never happened. This creates one. Now, it will be very easy for someone on a mobile phone to find the mobile version of there favorite site.

If you've ever tried surfing the web on a mobile, you would understand the hope this finally brings to that current mess.

Re:Duuuhhhhh (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#16199477)

As long as 'we' consists of people desperate to surf the internet on their mobile phone. I get that checking email and the like is a nice convenience, but pretty much everything can wait.

A week without access isn't a big deal, and it seems that most companies have embraced this attitude, and don't bother with the 17 people that are frustrated by the lack of a mobile version of their websites. Apparently, Opera does a pretty good job of rendering down real content, and there are also proxies that do much the same thing.

Re:Duuuhhhhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16199779)

It's not like there's going to be millions of .mobi sites.

Hello, 2016? 2006 wants its myopia back.

It's not like there's going to be millions of bytes of RAM in a computer...

Too long (5, Insightful)

mancontr (775899) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198365)

If they're for mobile phones, wich usually don't have complete keyboard, doesn't it make sense to use a shorter TLD? A 4-letter one will be a pain to type for each site...

Re:Too long (1)

ElleyKitten (715519) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198403)

If they're for mobile phones, wich usually don't have complete keyboard, doesn't it make sense to use a shorter TLD? A 4-letter one will be a pain to type for each site...
I imagine if .mobi gets popular, mobiles will default to .mobi or have a shortcut key for it.

The solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16198429)

Is obviously a special "Mobi" brand key licensed at a special low rate to phone makers.

Re:Too long (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16198505)

Yep, complete failure. M and O are both on the 6 key, so you need to pause before the O if you don't use T9. Com isn't better in that regard, but at least it's shorter, so even though it wasn't created for mobile applications, unlike mobi, it's actually the better choice.

Re:Too long (1)

bWareiWare.co.uk (660144) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198527)

Not to mention on most phones you have to pause after 'm', to type an 'o' (which is itself three presses). For a total of 9 key-preses and a pause. WAP was three keys, no pause!

If WAP was more thought through then this, it tells you something about how likely it is to be a success.

Re:Too long (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 7 years ago | (#16199173)

On every phone I've used in the last few years, you've been able to press the right arrow (or equivalent) to avoid the pause. Of course, then you're swapping the pause for another key press...

Re:Too long (1)

war2k1 (15869) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198579)

or hell, i'd just be happy with a domain that doesn't require someone to enter two adjacent letters that share a key when using multitap (e.g. mo in mobi or om in com)

how about net? or org? all those letters on different keys, so nice.

or, even better, how about .dam? lets us enter just the first char on multitap....

sure, a mobile domain is great, but how about making is usable on a mobile phone...

Oh well (1, Funny)

cubicledrone (681598) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198381)

Everything sux. Cue 500 comments about how TLDs suck, computers suck and websites suck. Throw in a smartass comment about Flash just for spite. Season with bitching about spam and blogs to taste. Stir lightly. Serve with vegetable side.

Things that suck (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16198401)

  1. You.

Re:Oh well (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16198421)

Also cue the huffy holier-than-thou comment bitching about all the other comments... oh, wait.

Re:Oh well (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16198471)

Also cue snarky anonymous comments (bitches)

Re:Oh well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16198917)

Queue misuse of homophone, then loose mind over wrong use of loose.

Re:Oh well (1)

oc255 (218044) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198637)

Despite the obvious sarcasm, the first thing I thought was ".mobi is evidence DNS is broken". No one's .com blog is commercial, the xxx stuff won't work for the common good and .mobi is 4/6th of mobile. s/sux/broken/ although it's a "broken" system that's working.

Re:Oh well (2, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198857)

I believe part of the reasoning behind .mobi is that domain owners can have their domain name revoked if they use it to host content that is not HTML/CSS compliant and won't degrade properly on small-screen devices.

Some top-level domains are properly policed. Try getting a .edu for your blog, for example (or a .ac.uk if you are rightpondian). I agree .com is in a sorry state though; it's become the web equivalent of USENET's alt.*, but with a less meaningful name.

Re:Oh well (1)

humble.fool (961528) | more than 7 years ago | (#16199255)

but .com is simply "commercial", and you can't deny that that's what most sites on the .com TDL are.

Looks like it worked to me.

Re:Oh well (1)

Windows Breaker G4 (939734) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198803)

BUT I WANT CHIPS AS MY SIDE DAMN IT! In all seriousness you deserve a metal for best post of the year i think.

Re:Oh well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16199839)

BUT I WANT CHIPS AS MY SIDE DAMN IT! In all seriousness you deserve a metal for best post of the year i think.
You deserve a medal for using metal instead of medal. (Although it is true most medals are made of metal.

I wonder... (1)

aliendisaster (1001260) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198407)

I wonder if all those crazy people that wanted to try and put all internet porn on .xxx tld's are pissed that thier worthless tld didnt go through but an even more worthless tld (.mobi) did?

The .mobi site could do with updating.... (3, Interesting)

REBloomfield (550182) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198425)

"It is not yet possible to register .mobi domains. Dot Mobi domains will be registered through ICANN accredited registrars. Please check back to this page for updates on when and where to register .mobi domains" - right underneath the big register button....

Re:The .mobi site could do with updating.... (3, Informative)

Afecks (899057) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198711)

If you read on you will see that they are having a period of registration for trademark holders to secure their .mobi domains. General registration for everyone else will be open October 11th, 2006.

This is just record-industry hype. (3, Funny)

Peter Trepan (572016) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198455)

They're rolling out this top-level domain to generate publicity for Mobi's new album.

dick.mobi.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16198479)

is already taken.

Missing the point (1)

djuuss (854954) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198497)

There area already websites optimised for viewing with mobile phone. That this new TLD comes with a package of standards your website should live up to for mobile phone viewability is a Good Thing, but the main problem that going on the internet with your mobile has, is cost and bandwith, just like TFA says. Still, because this will get media coverage and be advertised by phone providers it could mean an increased number of people from the 'general public' will get interested and start using the technology, which could drive down the prices and encourage providers to try and increase the bandwith.

I thought Eminem would be pissed (0, Offtopic)

MrMonty (366322) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198513)

At first I thought, "Eminem will be pissed", until I found out Myanmar's TLD is .mm

Monty

The web is broken (4, Insightful)

MasterC (70492) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198521)

When a new TLD is created because of a style issue: the web is broken. This approach of splitting mobile content from "normal" content is the wrong way to do this. CSS has media types [w3.org] and a media type of "handheld" FOR EXACTLY THIS PURPOSE!

The only benefit to .mobi is to be cash cow for the registrar. That's it. A properly design site should take advantage of the already existing method for handling this very situation. The website should change to me, not the other way around.

Re:The web is broken (4, Insightful)

jfengel (409917) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198621)

Is changing the CSS sufficient? I'd imagine that for handheld devices, you want to change more than just the formatting. You'd want to deliver fewer bits overall (because of limited bandwidth), and possibly less content per page (because of small screen sizes).

That's not just a formatting change; that's a radical restructuring of the way you'd want to design the web site. I don't think you can accomplish all that with CSS.

Re:The web is broken (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16198801)

Yep. You shouldn't be using all those div tags anyway. And definitely not all those layout tables.
If your site absolutely has to look a particular way that you can't just render with a minimal set of tags... maybe you should rethink trying to make your site look that way.

Re:The web is broken (3, Interesting)

MasterC (70492) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198809)

That's not just a formatting change; that's a radical restructuring of the way you'd want to design the web site. I don't think you can accomplish all that with CSS.


Touche. It won't reduce the bandwidth but you can easily hide your content. Some sites look *radically* different with and without style. For example, if you have the web developer extension for Firefox (or something equivalent) then hit up mozilla.org [mozilla.org] and then disable the styles (if not then copy the HTML into a blank page and strip off the link tags). There's two approaches here: minimal HTML design and dress it up with CSS (which is what mozilla.org does) or layout your entire site in HTML (as is usually done) and fine-tune with CSS. As of this writing, mozilla.org is 2796 bytes (excluding style sheets but including the links to them) but you might be deceived of that number by looking at the page.

If I can't claim brokenness on improper use of style then I do so on the user agent not being wholly reliable. If it was then you could switch your output *at render time* instead of at the virtual host level of your web server.

My point was that there are definitely ways to solve this issue without resorting to a new TLD with $25/year fees. Otherwise we better start .print for printing pages and .jsfree for javascript-free pages. It's wholly the wrong approach and the fact that it's being done indicates it's broken.

Re:The web is broken (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 7 years ago | (#16199059)

Agreed there. The idea that foo.mobi should be owned by anybody except the owner of foo.com is ludicrous and clearly a money-grab. I strongly advise against buying anything except .com domains in the US.

The other reason I've seen for .mobi is that a handheld device could automatically add it, saving keystrokes, which are more difficult on a tiny device. Well, web browsers regularly route "example" to www.example.com, and could just as easily turn "example" into "mobi.example.com" (and fall back to www.example.com if that fails)

Domain registrars piss me off; just today I had to route through three pages of upselling to renew my damn domain. Not quite as much as domain squatters, but they're up there.

Is changing the CSS sufficient? Maybe. (1)

Peter Trepan (572016) | more than 7 years ago | (#16199431)

I've just redesigned a corporate site to use CSS-only positioning, and was able to make it render properly on every browser in reasonably current use. It uses lots of Javascripts, but they all degrade elegantly. In theory, the entire structure could be changed arbitrarily using only a different stylesheet.

If I were creating a stylesheet for mobile devices, I'd tell certain classes of images (the ones I knew would be large) not to render, (perhaps you could instruct it to use the ALT text instead,) use smaller, higher-contrast background graphics for each element, stack the side-by-side columns on top of each other, and perhaps unhide an name-anchor navigation system that's hidden on the regular stylesheet.

If you really wanted to spend a lot of time, you could make each and every image a background image, then switch to smaller versions using the mobile stylesheet.

How many people use it? (2, Insightful)

DG (989) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198713)

My wife got me a Palm LifeDrive for our 10th wedding anniversary. Comes with 4Gb of native storage, and built-in Bluetooth and Wi-Fi.

With a wireless access point in the house, this had actually proven to be pretty useful - the web in the palm of your hand!

But the number of sites that provide any sort of mobile-device support is minescule. Slashdot itself renders in Blazer (the Palm browser) as a single 1 character wide column of text.

If Slashdot can't do it, do you expect the rest of the world to get it right?

At least with a .mobi domain, you know the page will render correctly.

How many people actually develop sites for the .mobi domain is an other kettle of fish entirely.

DG

Re:How many people use it? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198915)

If Slashdot can't do it, do you expect the rest of the world to get it right?

Yes. Slashcode is a horrible mess of Perl that never created standards-compliant HTML. After a lot of refactoring, it now generates valid HTML 4.01 Strict [w3.org] , but this took a lot of work by the developers. Getting it to work nicely on other devices is probably the next step.

Re:How many people use it? (1)

zerocool^ (112121) | more than 7 years ago | (#16199795)


1.) http://slashdot.org/palm [slashdot.org]

2.) My phone renders slashdot-minus-CSS just fine. It's a T-Mobile Sidekick II. Without the CSS, the page is perfectly readable.

(to get an idea of what it looks like, in firefox, "View" - "Page Style" - No Style)

~X

Re:How many people use it? (1)

coreyb (125522) | more than 7 years ago | (#16199893)

I use blazer on a TX - try http://slashdot.org/palm/ [slashdot.org] (didn't see a link to it anywhere, but when a site looks horrible in blazer, I usually give that type of url a shot - works ocassionaly), wide page mode, or fast mode (CSS off).
Netfront is also good, but caused stability problems for me.

Subdomains (1)

mutube (981006) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198797)

There is a possible benefit in seperating main from mobile content, mostly for reasons of size/bandwidth which cannot be achieved with CSS.

Having said that, I would say a standard subdomain would be a more sensible way - and lower cost - way to achieve this. Multiple TLDs just confuse users: "Is it ubuntu.org or ubuntu.com..." hence the reason most companies just buy them all up.

listed on any registrars (1)

brunascle (994197) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198523)

anyone know of any registrars already seeting .mobi? i wouldnt mind picking one up, just for fun.

Re:listed on any registrars (1)

aliendisaster (1001260) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198591)

Re:listed on any registrars (2, Informative)

brunascle (994197) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198725)

thanks.

ironically, pc.mtld.mobi looks like a very mobile-unfriendly site. let's hope it has a different display for a different user agent.

and according to Go Daddy: General Registrations begins on October 11, 2006 (7AM PT).

get your censorship here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16198573)

DotMobi CEO Neil Edwards (previously in charge of .com domains) told us that the company was going to be firm with anyone that didn't follow the guidelines drawn up and would suspend any site that didn't comply

all for that low low price , buy now !

long TLDs (2, Interesting)

hey (83763) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198633)

At least the useless TLD are four letters or more.
Makes it easy for program to classify them.

Proprietry intarweb alert (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16198635)

My web sites (XHTML1 strict, CSS), have displayed fine on mobile devices for years. Why do we need a TLD for mobile devices and why do the cell phone companies need to be involved with the W3C? These fuckheads are trying to build a parrellel proprietry web are they?

Longer URL (2, Insightful)

rad_chad (611206) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198671)

So, in order to use this TLD, which is designed for mobile devices with generally akward methods of input...you have to type a longer URL than normal. If this is supposed to be useful why not: "website.m". Google has it right with http://m.gmail.com/ [gmail.com]

Who will be first to register... (0, Redundant)

Zwets (645911) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198765)

...dick.mobi?

From Hell's heart, I stab at thee, for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee.

(Yes, the other obvious use of dick.mobi also crossed my mind. Unfortunately.)

Is .mobi moby? (1)

andphi (899406) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198829)

So, they've called something that's intended to be small and is presently of dubious usefulness ".mobi"? Wouldn't that make ".mobi" and moby antonyms?

Who will enforce it? (1)

Flamefly (816285) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198851)

Is anyone going to force adherence to the standards? If company X registers a domain and serves content that cannot be displayed, will the domain be withdrawn? No. So what's the point of a dedicated domain?

Lets just be sensible and stick to subdomains as mentioned by an earlier poster, mobi.bbc.co.uk makes far more sense then bbc.mobi, but then of course, no-one makes tens of millions in the land-grab.

Re:Who will enforce it? (1)

thorkyl (739500) | more than 7 years ago | (#16199939)

Is anyone going to force adherence to the standards? If company X registers a domain and serves content that cannot be displayed, will the domain be withdrawn? No. So what's the point of a dedicated domain?

Money...

Lets just be sensible and stick to subdomains as mentioned by an earlier poster, mobi.bbc.co.uk makes far more sense then bbc.mobi, but then of course, no-one makes tens of millions in the land-grab.

Self answered

Separation of style and content (2, Insightful)

zoeblade (600058) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198875)

This goes against the whole point of separating style and content - the exact same web page, using a handful of CSS files that are each tailored to suit a particular medium, should look equally good on a computer monitor, a TV set, a projector or a mobile phone. Hopefully as people use percentages and ems more and pixels less, we should see a trend towards this ideal.

Saying "this site is for mobile phones, that one is for desktop computers," completely ignores all of this, telling people to go to a site designed for just their medium.

Compatibility with web browsers (1)

verbnoun (920657) | more than 7 years ago | (#16198951)

I just tried http://nic.mobi/ [nic.mobi] on a regular browser and it loaded. Now if I try something like http://google.com/ [google.com] on my mobile I get a WML page.

So, is it going to be the norm for every site to give a different page depending on the type of device used to access it. If so, this TLD clearly brings nothing new.

I would much rather type a well known URL I use at home and hope it gives me page that works with my mobile instead. Not change the TLD to mobi and just *hope* it is owned by the same company.

obiwan-ke.mobi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16199087)

or something.

Very useful! (1)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 7 years ago | (#16199137)

A whole entire TLD just for "services" aimed to "mobile" users.
Next step will be the ".car" for 4 wheels enthusiast services and ".c" for C language programmers.
In the end we'll have almost all dictionary ( .dict? ) words as TLDs!

bow down to the telcos (1)

nanosmurf (609905) | more than 7 years ago | (#16199217)

At what point is this just catering to companies who are running an otherwise closed network? It goes against what I understand to be the fundamental rule of the Internet: networks should at least attempt to play nice with each other. I understand there is a business perspective here, but I can't say I'm too interested in developing (free) content for mobile devices that will just end up enhancing the value of those closed cellular networks -- especially on my own dime. Maybe the cellular providers should be getting together to provide .mobi domains to already registered matching .com, .org, .net, etc as incentives for providing that content. My naive utopian thought for the day.

It matters only because we're afraid it might (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#16199263)

Because of squatters, .mobi is gonna be a self fulfilling prophecy: everyone buys their .mobi in fear someone else might do so and blackmail them.

I've plenty of com/net domains I use for my sites, and since I'm not quite that rich, I refuse to waste thousands of dollars on a nonsense preemptive strike.

Mobi will fail anyway.

The heading is wrong? (1)

thomasdn (800430) | more than 7 years ago | (#16199423)

I think the heading is wrong. It says that .mobi websites are available to register. Shouldn't that have been .mobi domains?

Opera mini (2, Interesting)

edxwelch (600979) | more than 7 years ago | (#16199455)

In my experience so-called "special" web sites made for mobile phones work much worse than the normal ones and besides that Opera mini can display just about any site perfectly (the only difference from viewing on a PC is that you will have to do a lot more paging)

.biz again (1)

6031769 (829845) | more than 7 years ago | (#16199603)

Well let's just hope that this proves to be just as huge a success as .biz has been. Now, if you'll excuse me I'll just go and investigate the smoke coming out of my sarcasm detector.

m0od 0p (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16199997)

to predict *BSD's
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...