Microsoft & Nokia Partner Together for Mobile Top-Level Domain

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://news.com.com/2100-1039-5172060.html' target='_blank'>http://news.com.com/2100-1039-5172060.html</a><br /><br /></div>"Microsoft and Nokia, along with a group of key computer companies and cell phone service providers, have formed a joint venture to distribute domains names for mobile devices. The venture aims to create a widely recognized mobile Web site naming system to simplify Internet access by cell phone customers. For instance, the system would give people a better idea of what Web address to enter in their cell phones, executives of the venture said Wednesday. <br /><br />Approval of the venture hinges on ICANN's (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) acceptance of an additional domain to the Web's navigation system. The Internet address administrator approves so-called top-level domains such as .com, .org and .net. The group believes it can help fuel interest in cell phone Internet services, which carriers are relying on to find new revenue sources, by making the mobile Web easier to navigate."<br /><br />Hmm. Thoughts?

[JoshB]

Some ideas:

.mob - Nah, too gangster-y

.mobile - nice, but long, and more to type on a Smartphone

.pda - excludes smartphones, other mobile devices

.m - ???

Are we sure this is needed? I guess it would be nice if everyond adheres to it, and registers the new TLD for their site, and implements it. Otherwise, I predict we'll see the same confusion and inconsistency that we see today. Some will use www.site.com/mobile (popular, and my prefered method), some will use the new TLD, some will use www.site.com/pda.html, etc.

My proposed solution is to make all mobile devices have a screen of sufficient resolution that special versions of a site aren't necessary. :D

[Jimmy Dodd]

So if you had a mobile version of your site and a standard version of your site you'd have to register two different domains?

No thanks. Why not just auto-detect the device and present the info appropriately? Or am I missing something here? :?

[Lynn]

I suppose there are those who would object to a simple.ppc ?

[Andy Sjostrom]

In substance, no thanks. However, the FAQ says "Internet standards" and as long no carrier lock-in schemas are being devised, then ... ok.

The HUGE news is that Microsoft, Sun and Nokia could agree on this. What more can come out of this, other than a TLD? That is the big question!

[huangzhinong]

.ppc is better than .POS(dot P O S).

[brntcrsp]

how about .mbl? I want credit if it's accepted dangnabbit! :wink:

[dean_shan]

Why not .go ? Short, simple and to the point.

[Covert]

Oh, .go! I like it. :)

[Ed Hansberry]

Why not .go ? Short, simple and to the point.
Why not www.whatever.com and let it sniff out the browser and take you to an alternate link that is in mobile format?

We have enough trouble just getting people to make mobile content. Now asking them to have an entirely separate domain for it... :| Maybe I am missing something.

[Kati Compton]

Why not .go ? Short, simple and to the point.
Why not www.whatever.com and let it sniff out the browser and take you to an alternate link that is in mobile format?

We have enough trouble just getting people to make mobile content. Now asking them to have an entirely separate domain for it... :| Maybe I am missing something.
Plus, there are several domains that are the same name except the ending part. So if you go to the .mobile site, how would you know if it's the mobile site for a .com, .org, .edu, or whaterver?

[dMores]

www.mydomain.mobilephoneorpda

:)

i'd say it would be nice to have, but i doubt i would use it for any of my projects. automatic detection and redirection seems smoother.

then again, some of my clients want me to register ALL available tlds for their domain name. com,at,cc with hyphens and without. with today's prices this often seems cheap, but i think in the long run it'll be darned expensive.

[Kacey Green]

My proposed solution is to make all mobile devices have a screen of sufficient resolution that special versions of a site aren't necessary. :D

The obvious solution, but common sense isn't all that common.