So how about I expand my example to consider domains like a .travel or a .biz or a .aero or .coop or .museum? My point is the same as yours … the domain sets an expectation as to the content.

>

Do most business cards have one phone number? I usually see a main office number, a personal office number, a fax number and a mobile number. Each one sets a different expectation as to how reach someone.

But I’m more interested in your .mobi.fr .comment … does this lead into a way to tying mobiles to network recognition for handling to location-based services so country codes become irrelevant for the mobile?

So how about I expand my example to consider domains like a .travel or a .biz or a .aero or .coop or .museum? My point is the same as yours … the domain sets an expectation as to the content.

>

Do most business cards have one phone number? I usually see a main office number, a personal office number, a fax number and a mobile number. Each one sets a different expectation as to how reach someone.

But I’m more interested in your .mobi.fr .comment … does this lead into a way to tying mobiles to network recognition for handling to location-based services so country codes become irrelevant for the mobile?

Vance – to my mind country based domains give an indication of language that is critical to every user. Adding a further distinction of .mobi starts to make the picture very complicated. If I am directing a user to a site do I need to give him two addresses so he knows where to go if he is on mobile or on desktop? And then what if he is in France – will there be a .mobi.fr??

Vance – to my mind country based domains give an indication of language that is critical to every user. Adding a further distinction of .mobi starts to make the picture very complicated. If I am directing a user to a site do I need to give him two addresses so he knows where to go if he is on mobile or on desktop? And then what if he is in France – will there be a .mobi.fr??

In that regard, then, I’m surprised that you see supporting .mobi as supporting a second web. I don’t see people having issues with, say, amazon.com versus amazon.co.uk versus amazon.fr versus amazon.co.jp, etc.

I believe people understand that different domains exist to serve different purposes and meet different expectations. I don’t see why .mobi is any different.

When I’m on a mobile / low bandwidth device, I’m looking for something specific and actionable. I’m not approaching that search with the same expectations as I would on my larger-screen, higher-bandwidth PC.

You say you see desktop versus mobile as two webs. I’d agree with you if the only other domain were .com. But it’s not … it’s one of dozens designed to meet specific user expectations. I don’t see why .mobi shouldn’t be embraced in the same way — a tool to help users reach content they know will work (in this case, on their phones).

And despite whatever studies people may have been quoting at MoMo London, I’ve seen enough other studies to convince me that people are not using their mobiles to find a replicated version of PC-based site. Instead, I believe they’re looking for actionable, context-based information — a door into the wide-open world for mobile that you’re suggesting in your last paragraphs above.

In that regard, then, I’m surprised that you see supporting .mobi as supporting a second web. I don’t see people having issues with, say, amazon.com versus amazon.co.uk versus amazon.fr versus amazon.co.jp, etc.

I believe people understand that different domains exist to serve different purposes and meet different expectations. I don’t see why .mobi is any different.

When I’m on a mobile / low bandwidth device, I’m looking for something specific and actionable. I’m not approaching that search with the same expectations as I would on my larger-screen, higher-bandwidth PC.

You say you see desktop versus mobile as two webs. I’d agree with you if the only other domain were .com. But it’s not … it’s one of dozens designed to meet specific user expectations. I don’t see why .mobi shouldn’t be embraced in the same way — a tool to help users reach content they know will work (in this case, on their phones).

And despite whatever studies people may have been quoting at MoMo London, I’ve seen enough other studies to convince me that people are not using their mobiles to find a replicated version of PC-based site. Instead, I believe they’re looking for actionable, context-based information — a door into the wide-open world for mobile that you’re suggesting in your last paragraphs above.

I agree that extending specific services into mobile is probably a better idea then trying to replicate all the functionality. I just hope they build it in a way I can use it to make mashups. jamescoops i’d bet your right, why would you need a desktop for music if you could buy and download music via some 4g data service right from your ipod.

Location based services are poised to take off but I don’t think it’s going to hit critical mass until the mobile browsers allow a user to send location info to websites. Right now to take advantage of location based services you have to download a java app per service, that is if your phone is popular enough to warrant the cost of developing a version for your phone. i think the mobile web 2.0 guys should focus on mobile web browser 2.0.

I also think phyisical hyperlinks are cool. My favorite is near field communication, it take the best of 2d barcodes and bluetooth squeelers with out most of the negative usability issues.

I agree that extending specific services into mobile is probably a better idea then trying to replicate all the functionality. I just hope they build it in a way I can use it to make mashups. jamescoops i’d bet your right, why would you need a desktop for music if you could buy and download music via some 4g data service right from your ipod.

Location based services are poised to take off but I don’t think it’s going to hit critical mass until the mobile browsers allow a user to send location info to websites. Right now to take advantage of location based services you have to download a java app per service, that is if your phone is popular enough to warrant the cost of developing a version for your phone. i think the mobile web 2.0 guys should focus on mobile web browser 2.0.

I also think phyisical hyperlinks are cool. My favorite is near field communication, it take the best of 2d barcodes and bluetooth squeelers with out most of the negative usability issues.

The unexpected development may be that mobile becomes the CORE platform for some applications e.g. music, email and starts to extend from there onto the online world. In South Africa a mobile-focused IM client (Mixit) is apparently more popular than online equivalents.

The unexpected development may be that mobile becomes the CORE platform for some applications e.g. music, email and starts to extend from there onto the online world. In South Africa a mobile-focused IM client (Mixit) is apparently more popular than online equivalents.