Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

.mobi Websites Now Available to Register

Posted by Zonk on Tue Sep 26, 2006 08:33 AM
from the looking-foward-to-.awesome dept.
The Internet
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
.mobi Websites Now Available to Register | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 149 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • Finally! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2006, @08:37AM (#16198333)
    A worthless TLD just for mobile phones! It's about time.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • The laziest way to make money (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2006, @08:38AM (#16198349)
    Need money? let's just create a new TLD!

  • Duuuhhhhh (Score:5, Interesting)

    by $RANDOMLUSER (804576) on Tuesday September 26 2006, @08:39AM (#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.

  • Too long (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mancontr (775899) on Tuesday September 26 2006, @08:39AM (#16198365)
    (http://mancontr.googlepages.com/about)
    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 by ElleyKitten (Score:2) Tuesday September 26 2006, @08:43AM
    • Re:Too long by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday September 26 2006, @08:50AM
    • Re:Too long by bWareiWare.co.uk (Score:2) Tuesday September 26 2006, @08:52AM
      • Re:Too long by Tim C (Score:2) Tuesday September 26 2006, @09:41AM
    • Re:Too long by war2k1 (Score:1) Tuesday September 26 2006, @08:56AM
    • Re:Too long by TheVelvetFlamebait (Score:1) Tuesday September 26 2006, @09:04AM
    • Re:Too long by Stormwatch (Score:2) Tuesday September 26 2006, @09:24AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • Oh well (Score:1, Funny)

    by cubicledrone (681598) on Tuesday September 26 2006, @08:41AM (#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.

    • Re:Oh well by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday September 26 2006, @08:44AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Oh well by oc255 (Score:1) Tuesday September 26 2006, @09:00AM
      • Re:Oh well by TheRaven64 (Score:3) Tuesday September 26 2006, @09:18AM
        • Re:Oh well by humble.fool (Score:1) Tuesday September 26 2006, @09:46AM
    • Re:Oh well by Windows Breaker G4 (Score:1) Tuesday September 26 2006, @09:14AM
      • Re:Oh well by Windows Breaker G4 (Score:1) Tuesday September 26 2006, @01:05PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.

  • I wonder... (Score:1)

    by aliendisaster (1001260) on Tuesday September 26 2006, @08:43AM (#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.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by REBloomfield (550182) <rebloomfield@gmail.com> on Tuesday September 26 2006, @08:44AM (#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....

  • This is just record-industry hype. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Peter Trepan (572016) on Tuesday September 26 2006, @08:47AM (#16198455)
    They're rolling out this top-level domain to generate publicity for Mobi's new album.

  • The web is broken (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MasterC (70492) <cmlburnett@nOspAm.gmail.com> on Tuesday September 26 2006, @08:52AM (#16198521)
    (http://www.candysporks.org/)
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jfengel (409917) on Tuesday September 26 2006, @08:59AM (#16198621)
      (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Monday November 03 2003, @03:59PM)
      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.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:The web is broken by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday September 26 2006, @09:14AM

      • Re:The web is broken (Score:4, Interesting)

        by MasterC (70492) <cmlburnett@nOspAm.gmail.com> on Tuesday September 26 2006, @09:15AM (#16198809)
        (http://www.candysporks.org/)
        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.
        [ Parent ]
      • Is changing the CSS sufficient? Maybe. by Peter Trepan (Score:2) Tuesday September 26 2006, @09:57AM
    • How many people use it? by DG (Score:3) Tuesday September 26 2006, @09:05AM
    • Subdomains by mutube (Score:1) Tuesday September 26 2006, @09:13AM
    • Re:The web is broken by suv4x4 (Score:2) Tuesday September 26 2006, @11:10AM
    • mobile biz != web biz by msimm (Score:2) Tuesday September 26 2006, @09:35PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • listed on any registrars (Score:1)

    by brunascle (994197) on Tuesday September 26 2006, @08:52AM (#16198523)
    anyone know of any registrars already seeting .mobi? i wouldnt mind picking one up, just for fun.

  • Sounds a bit lame... (Score:3, Funny)

    by grub (11606) <slashdot@grub.net> on Tuesday September 26 2006, @08:57AM (#16198587)
    (http://www.grub.net/blog/index.html | Last Journal: Wednesday June 27, @08:48AM)

    goatse.mobi just doesn't roll off the tongue.

  • Got mine (Score:1, Redundant)

    by tygerstripes (832644) on Tuesday September 26 2006, @08:58AM (#16198601)
    Bagsy "dick.mobi" /coat

  • Why not just ".mob"? (Score:1)

    by erykjj (213892) on Tuesday September 26 2006, @08:59AM (#16198617)
    .mobi sounds so, well, you know...
    • ".mbl" by Mr. Underbridge (Score:2) Tuesday September 26 2006, @10:16AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • long TLDs (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hey (83763) on Tuesday September 26 2006, @09:00AM (#16198633)
    (Last Journal: Thursday December 08 2005, @04:33PM)
    At least the useless TLD are four letters or more.
    Makes it easy for program to classify them.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • Already done! (Score:2, Informative)

    by Square Snow Man (985909) on Tuesday September 26 2006, @09:00AM (#16198641)
    Most companies already have a mobile friendly version of there website. For example: http://www.google.com/pda [google.com]

  • Longer URL (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rad_chad (611206) on Tuesday September 26 2006, @09:01AM (#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]

  • Is .mobi moby? (Score:1)

    by andphi (899406) <phillipsam@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Tuesday September 26 2006, @09:16AM (#16198829)
    (Last Journal: Thursday November 08, @11:55AM)
    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?

  • how long till we see (Score:1)

    by matt328 (916281) on Tuesday September 26 2006, @09:17AM (#16198839)
    *.hates.mobi

  • .mobi.le (Score:1)

    by nekokoneko (904809) on Tuesday September 26 2006, @09:17AM (#16198847)
    Does any country have a TLD .le?
    I mean, come on, isn't it obvious? .mobi.le?
    • Re:.mobi.le by Tim C (Score:2) Tuesday September 26 2006, @09:59AM

  • Who will enforce it? (Score:1)

    by Flamefly (816285) on Tuesday September 26 2006, @09:17AM (#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.

  • Separation of style and content (Score:3, Insightful)

    by zoeblade (600058) on Tuesday September 26 2006, @09:20AM (#16198875)
    (http://www.bytenoise.co.uk/)
    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 (Score:1)

    by verbnoun (920657) on Tuesday September 26 2006, @09:25AM (#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.

  • Very useful! (Score:2)

    by VincenzoRomano (881055) on Tuesday September 26 2006, @09:37AM (#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 (Score:1)

    by nanosmurf (609905) on Tuesday September 26 2006, @09:44AM (#16199217)
    (http://blog.8r4d.com/)
    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.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • It matters only because we're afraid it might (Score:2)

    by suv4x4 (956391) on Tuesday September 26 2006, @09:46AM (#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? (Score:1)

    by thomasdn (800430) on Tuesday September 26 2006, @09:56AM (#16199423)
    (http://thomasdamgaard.dk/ | Last Journal: Tuesday January 10 2006, @12:17PM)
    I think the heading is wrong. It says that .mobi websites are available to register. Shouldn't that have been .mobi domains?

  • Opera mini (Score:2, Interesting)

    by edxwelch (600979) on Tuesday September 26 2006, @09:58AM (#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 (Score:1)

    by 6031769 (829845) on Tuesday September 26 2006, @10:06AM (#16199603)
    (http://www.worldcup.org.uk/rugby/2007/ | Last Journal: Wednesday October 18 2006, @09:53AM)
    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.

  • Incorrect .mobi Link (Score:1)

    by noahterp (1005983) on Tuesday September 26 2006, @10:13AM (#16199689)
    The .mobi link Zonk provided is actually just a registar's cover page. The real (and much more web standards-based) .mobi web site is at http://pc.mtld.mobi/ [mtld.mobi].

  • .mob/deep (Score:1)

    by Eideteker (641508) on Tuesday September 26 2006, @10:23AM (#16199851)
    (http://likeicare.net/)
    I guess .mob was already in [lafamiglia.mob] use [cosanostra.mob].

  • "MOBI" stinks for phone number keypad entry (Score:2)

    by Pvt_Waldo (459439) on Tuesday September 26 2006, @10:48AM (#16200221)
    One of the biggest pains in using my cellphone (RAZR) for web surfing is the entry of URLs and addresses via the number keypad. To enter an "M", you press 6. To enter an "O", you press 6 3 times in a row. To enter an M and then an O, you press 6, you pause for a while, then press 666. If I was EVER going to pick a domain name for a phone based site, I would make sure it had no two letters in a row that lived on the same number key.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • which has been refused a long time ago [icann.org] but would still be very useful in today's context.

  • Yoda Music critic URL: (Score:2)

    by TrevorB (57780) on Tuesday September 26 2006, @11:00AM (#16200431)
    (http://www.internetgenealogy.com/)
    sucks.mobi/does/

  • Slashdotters missing the point (Score:1)

    by GoatSucker (781403) on Tuesday September 26 2006, @11:12AM (#16200603)
    Yet again, Slashdotters PC-centric world view blinkers them to why this is actually a good thing.
    Here's an outline as I see it:

    - You won't have to type .mobi on your phone - within a year it will be assumed unless you type a different .tld. So to find a listing of all the ho's in your area, you will be able to press the services button on your phone and type 'hoe', which will automatically go to hoe.mobi.

    - Because the content is XHTML-MP only, there won't be a confusion of competing markup standards. If you have ever tried to make a mobile-orientated site, you'll understand the pain of trying to support more than one phone manufacturer. If you think the answer to supporting mobile sites is to add a different .css file for mobile users, you've severely misunderstood things.

    - It's easy to dismiss mobile sites as pointless but that's because the man-on-the-street is only just starting to understand mobile internet technologies (yes, wap was a heap of shit, but things have moved on a lot since).

    If you want to cling to your 1990's PC-centric view, that's fine, but over here it's 2006.
  • auto.mobi/e

    and for the handicapped

    i.mobi/e

    and for the rest of the shit there's

    gimme.mobi/e

  • slashdot.mobi (Score:1)

    by zukakog (909670) on Tuesday September 26 2006, @02:35PM (#16203963)
    It would be nice to have a really lite slashdot.mobi

  • I like the music but... (Score:1)

    by honestmonkey (819408) on Tuesday September 26 2006, @02:50PM (#16204245)
    ... does he really need his own TLD? He's already got a tea shop and all. Seems like a bit much just for one musician.

  • A few years too late (Score:1)

    by 1310nm (687270) on Tuesday September 26 2006, @09:53PM (#16209933)
    By the time everyone's aware of .mobi domains and they're in mainstream use, people's cell phones will have full-function browsers, thus negating the need for WAP sites.

  • Mob friendly? (Score:2)

    by Ilgaz (86384) on Wednesday September 27 2006, @06:33AM (#16212553)
    (http://www.noooxml.org/petition)
    They allow a Russian guy to register wunderground.mobi , here comes the dotcom cybersquatting again.

    Check http://pc.mtld.mobi/whois/index.php [mtld.mobi] , put wunderground.mobi to search box and see the result yourself. While on it, check slashdot.mobi , it is taken too.

    Weather Underground is one of the oldest sites on web (they started with Telnet/Gopher!) and they have a dedicated mobile (WAP) version at

    http://m.wunderground.com/ [wunderground.com]

    So, a Russian guy can get that wunderground.mobi yes? What guarantees there won't be some "Enter your credit card details for plus access" on that page?

    Cybersquatting in 2006, great. The question is: They are that naive or is this on purpose?

  • Re:Oh good. (Score:2)

    by Ucklak (755284) on Tuesday September 26 2006, @09:53AM (#16199365)
    Just start banning *.mobi senders on your email server. I am.
    [ Parent ]
  • 12 replies beneath your current threshold.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 SourceForge, Inc.