Ich hab dazu gerade was in einem Blog geschrieben und kopier es mal hier rein. Mehr kann ich dazu nicht sagen, reicht aber glaube ich auch
I think the whole .mobi-topic would never have been able to gather that much attention if none of the arguments of the supporters would hold true.
In fact I think some of the assumptions made by dotmobi and the domain investors are important and correct. The idea to set up a standard, that enables mobile devices with a given specification to correctly display webpages that have been designed accordingly seems to be a good idea. Although this "given specification" basically means a very limited screen resolution of 320x240 pixels and the inability to process many common scripting methods, the standard should help to fully use the remaining capacity of these handsets without pushing it and ultimately producing errors resulting in frustrated users. So far, so good. But read on.
Starting from here the second step, i.e. labeling all these pages consistently as "adapted for mobile devices" by using a specific mobile-tld seems to be a logical as well as consequent conclusion, although I still think .mobi is not really a good name for a tld and .mob oder even .mobile would have been much better. But anyway, now we have a new standard and, based on that standard a new descriptive .tld (and probably some more than happy people sitting at the registry and selling heaps of domains at exorbitant prices). Then we have some manufacturers of handsets in the same boat, who may now hope for rising sales numbers for their already developed devices (you know, the handsets with the limited capabilities mentioned above...). And last but not least we have some domain speculators who have already been throwing big money on the table (and massively helped the registry promoting the new tld by doing so) and who are now hoping for even bigger money. Great, everybody should be happy. Or did I miss something?
Yes, unfortunately I did. The party is not complete yet. There a two more groups of players in the big game that nobody seems to care about. First and without any doubt most important: the average internet user. It is he (as well as you and me) who is and has always been fuelling the growth of the internet as a whole by forking out his time and hard earned money viewing and buying stuff online. It is not the adwords advertiser that runs google, it is the customer who buys the goods and ultimately pays both the advertiser and google (and of course he pays for your page too, if you use adsense...). Same for any other example of a commercial page. But has anybody ever asked the average user whether he (or she) is interested in mobile internet? Okay, point to you, probaby some of us have been asked. And I freely admit I would be interested in being able to conveniently browse the net more often and at more places when I'm out and about. But here comes a really tricky question: Why did some companies then assume that "mobile internet" should mean deciphering crippled pages made of restricted code on a tiny display?
I surely would buy and use a device which enables me to access the internet while waiting for the bus or sitting in the park, but only when and if it gives me the opportunity to browse exactly the parts of the net I want to see and I am used to see. There is probably only a handful of pages I really need for my daily life, but it would nevertheless be quite important for me not to be blocked from visiting them by some unfortunate design faults of my mobile phone or whatever device I might be using. It would be completely pointless for me to know that there are some pages I might visit if only I wanted to. By the way, I think there are some pages I could visit even using my rather vintage nokia handset. I never did though and I probably never will, because these pages are not important for me.
So we have to face it: promoting a standard that confines the almighty user to a very limited number of pages which he does not care about and simultaneously blocks him from visiting the internet space he is familiar with will definitely not work. To use the comparison proposed by Rick: it is absolutely pointless to offer black or brown or whatever shoes to a customer who is looking for a bicycle. Don't ask the phone manufacturers, don't ask the domain speculators, don't ask the registry (by the way: can you find any difference between the last two groups? I can't...).
Ask the user instead. But beware: "do you want a mobile internet?" is the wrong question. Please ask: "do you want to be able to browse the websites you like most whenever you like, no matter where you are - or do you rather want limited access to a small number of crippled pages?"
The answer is a no-brainer.
But that's not all. I mentioned a second group that has not shown up at the big party. I think this is the most important message I have.
We all - as domainers, web developers, or simply web users - should not help promoting a new development that might turn out to be quite bad for all parties in the long term. The time we all have is limited. This applies to our lifetime but can of course be broken down to every day, every hour and ultimately every minute we have to spend. So if one decides to spend even a small part of his precious time browsing the net this is good for us. If more people browse the internet or start spending more time doing so it is even better. So here one final time dotmobi proves to be right: if more people were enabled to make a better use of their time it would be a great thing. When one could browse the net instead of simply sitting and waiting for who- or whatever this would be great news for us all.
And here comes our part: it is our duty to make every precious minute spent in the internet a pleasure for our visitors. This is the only way to make them and their friends and families come back for more. We can do this by developing great websites (with great names of course) that deliver what our customers want. And with all our might and power we can steer the course the net is likely to take for the years to come. I assume there really is a strong demand for mobile internet access, and again: this is good for us. A huge potential of visitors to our pages is waiting. But this potential obviously cannot be utilized properly with the standards set by dotmobi and the phone manufacturers. The mistake of .mobi is that it has drawn some right conclusions, but it unfortunately started from a wrong premise. So the final result might lead to quite negative consequences and a loss of precious time for the further development of the internet. To make it quite clear: every user spending only a single minute on any artificially crippled .mobi-page represents a lost potential, because he is not likely to enjoy what he does, and this will significantly reduce the amount of time and effort he is going to spend in the internet as a whole afterwards. As I said before: to make a user come back the browsing experience must be enjoyable. In contrast: Would he spend more time on the pages he likes and is familiar with, when he could browse them with all the scripts working and in an acceptable resolution? I think he would.
The downside is: after a couple of bad experiences with the restricted mobile internet which is promoted by dotmobi a user is probably much less likely to invest again in new hardware and so less likely to go "mobile" again, but this time with the real internet.
So the number of users and the time spent online will not be increased by .mobi as much as possible, infact this standard will very likely be slowing down the growth of mobile internet usage. That's bad news.
So I ask you: why should we allow the huge potential of mobile users to be limited in terms of time spent online by a bad browsing experience and kept away from our existing pages, when we want to show our sites to the users and the users want to see them? Only because some handset manufacturers have decided that a small display which makes browsing feel like reading a newspaper through a keyhole is the best they are willing to offer? Or maybe because some people (although very clever people, that I must admit) want to sell domain names that need to bring an unfortunate standard full of restrictions and confinements with them to constitute their right to exist? No way.
We have to recall that the "mobile internet" the way dotmobi proposes is one option, but there are others. Have a look at mobile phones that are available right now. I will not mention any brands or models, but you will find them easily. If one want's to go online mobile - but with the experience of the real internet - there is enough hardware available. Right here, right now. Don't let dotmobi persuade you or - even more importantly - your visitors that there is a need for a new standard. There is no such thing. Don't build a .mobi-page, it could be used to deceive your visitors that there is a real supply of websites. It is not. And don't be afraid that you might lose visitors to .mobi-pages when you don't jump the bandwagon. Those few who try will be back soon.
And finally: If you want to "go mobile" yourself than be sure to buy a handset which is capable of showing you the real thing on a real display. It is good for you and it will show the manufacturers where the demand (and the money) is.
I'm absolutely sure .mobi will have disappeared from the headlines very soon, the alternatives are too good and the customers know exactly what they want.
But please take care that dotmobi doesn't cause to much damage on their way...
)
