Mobile Apps, .mobi, domain names

[limomobi]

With the trend of things going mobile, do you think mobile apps will replace the internet with the url's? Thereby jeopardizing .mobi and domain names (.com, etc) in general?

Do you think it is possible for Apple to have millions of mobile apps, get their customer used to searching for these apps through their search button, and hence replace the need for internet url and internet search companies?

I've read critics stating apps are a step going backwards b/c they do not link to each other. What are your thoughts on all of this?

[photoman]

No, I dont think apps will replace urls, I think the app might form part of the mobile future, but the mobile website url will, still be, the defacto standard IMO

[ChinaMobi]

After trying to install several apps from Android Market, I can say web is the way to go -- for its ease of use. The app installation requires several steps, which can be a challenge to the average users. Most people want simplicity.

[keithmt]

After trying to install several apps from Android Market, I can say web is the way to go -- for its ease of use. The app installation requires several steps, which can be a challenge to the average users. Most people want simplicity.

It's easy to install apps for iphone. I do not see apps replacing the traditional web on a whole but apps will claim their place. Of course it's impossible to have thousands of apps on any one mobile so websites are a necessity.

[ChinaMobi]

Hey Keith, "Firefox can't find the server at www.mixology.mobi."

I actually had problem installing one or two apps. One failed and with another one I was lost during the installation.

[ChinaMobi]

The guys at Qualcomm are making browser performance so good users cannot distinguish web apps from native apps. With dual processors, webkit optimization, etc. page load and refresh will be so fast that you cannot tell where data is coming from.

Watch the interview with Sy Choudhury of Qualcomm at Web 2.0 Summit

[keithmt]

Thanks chinamobi, mixology seems fine now.

[FilipinoFood.com]

`

[limomobi]

I was thinking, and it might not work, if the apps are there to be pulled up easily with Apple's search engine like who we pull up web pages with Google's search engine, do you think at that point Apple can monopolize the app and squeeze out internet url/Google search? Do you think this is a possibility at all?

[Snoopy]

No, I dont think apps will replace urls, I think the app might form part of the mobile future, but the mobile website url will, still be, the defacto standard IMO

Personally I think apps have taken a big chunk of the market already. If you've got an iphone or similar device why use a URL for site you use regularly like facebook? I think the two will live together with the the large sites that people use a lot being accessed mainly by apps from mobile devices.

As far as the "mobile website url" that concept is dying pretty quickly with auto detection and apps, there is no need for it.

[Scandiman]

As far as the "mobile website url" that concept is dying pretty quickly with auto detection and apps, there is no need for it.

You continue to believe this is in spite of being presented facts and reasons to the contrary.

[Scandiman]

Of course it's impossible to have thousands of apps on any one mobile so websites are a necessity.

Ever expanding memory will make the space possible but what a mess that would be to have a thousand apps. The killer app is the browser.

[Snoopy]

You continue to believe this is in spite of being presented facts and reasons to the contrary.

You haven't presents any facts to the contrary, only years old anecdotal examples which are nothing more than a handful of companies going again the trend (like BOFA).

It is obvious to me that this extension is going backwards but then again I have no money invested in it.

[Snoopy]

Ever expanding memory will make the space possible but what a mess that would be to have a thousand apps. The killer app is the browser.

Most people just need a few dozen apps representing the sites they visit most plus a browser for the sites they go to less regularly. (or those sites without an app).

[FilipinoFood.com]

`

[limomobi]

Interesting thoughts everyone. Thank you.

[GijsZePa]

I think that apps will be replaced by sites again. New techniques as html5 will become cross phonebrowser and if you look at frameworks like sencha touch and jquery mobile I think that the future looks bright for us .mobi owners

martin

[keithmt]

Bummer we don't have the "quote" feature on mobility...via mobile phone anyways.

I agree with snoop in regards to apps and auto detection being highly utilized on mobile. Mobi is NOT for taking existing sites mobile but it is a good option if you're a fresh start-up.

Scandi I use a handful of apps out of the 60 or so on my iPhone. Apps are watered down in most cases and a real waste of time. Even if it were possible to have unlimited apps I would still only use the same few I use now.

[Scandiman]

Scandi I use a handful of apps out of the 60 or so on my iPhone. Apps are watered down in most cases and a real waste of time. Even if it were possible to have unlimited apps I would still only use the same few I use now.

Keith, I agree, thats why I said the browser is the killer ap.

[freeflow]

The killer app is the browser.

Scandiman, your comment says it all!


Here is an interesting article:

So, no surprise that apps are showing up big time on handsets, and that folks just love them. But, from an IT perspective, are they a good idea? Well, I'd argue, no, they're not. In fact, apps can become the obvious trap that's nailed both IT organizations and users in the past.

Why, you ask? Because of the very nature of the apps themselves. Underlying vendor development tools are designed fundamentally to bind a given app to a particular operating system and, often, particular hardware as well. Apple leverages apps to sell iPhones – and makes a pretty penny as the sole distribution channel for these apps as well. Don't get me started on that now, but apps are a big win for Apple in more ways than one.

And that's what makes apps bad for IT -- apps are a lock-in. Once we adopt an app, whether proprietary or purchased, we're stuck with a particular handset and perhaps even a particular wireless carrier. Flexibility in both the platform and services domains is vital if we're to hold down costs, a core, essential objective in every IT shop today. Sure, some apps like games really do require local execution, but most IT managers don't cater to the entertainment needs of their user base. Rather, it's all about data (and apps!) in the cloud.

I'd encourage all enterprise IT departments to think in terms of those hallmarks of what made this industry great -- choice, flexibility, open systems, and productivity. I think any IT manager pursuing these goals will quickly move to make their operation as platform-independent as possible. And I'm sure you'll join me in urging suppliers to adopt standards at the browser level.

Read more...

[think]

Some apps are awesome. Others a complete waste of time. Some apps I use very infrequently. Others I use all the time.

I still surf more than I use apps on both my Droid and my ipad (Excluding the Pandora radio app on my Droid )

The Huffington Post ipad though is exceptional and I do use this app more than going to their normal website as it is so well formatted tot he ipad experience. The BCC's ipad app and some of the other news apps are well thought out as well.....

As far as domains and apps though I think both will continue to be used as well as barcodes and NFC , Near Field communications to access information and tools on the mobile internet. Still to FIND a site on ANY device a domain address is the best way to accomplish this task in my opinion.....

[Scandiman]

As far as the "mobile website url" that concept is dying pretty quickly with auto detection and apps, there is no need for it.

You haven't presents any facts to the contrary

google site:*.mobi and site:m.*.* and you'll discover plenty of sites that use a mobile website url. Whether they need it or not is irrelevant, they choose to use it, and there's reason to make that choice. We've already discussed those reasons in another thread, apparently you forgot or are trolling by rehashing old arguments again.

but then again I have no money invested in it.

Which begs the question why you waste time discussing something you have no care or interest in.

[ChinaMobi]

Read my other thread. Baidu, the upcoming force in search engine, is using .mobi.

[Snoopy]

google site:*.mobi and site:m.*.* and you'll discover plenty of sites that use a mobile website url. Whether they need it or not is irrelevant, they choose to use it, and there's reason to make that choice. We've already discussed those reasons in another thread, apparently you forgot or are trolling by rehashing old arguments again.

I didn't say nobody uses .mobi, I said the concept of a a mobile URL is dying.

Which begs the question why you waste time discussing something you have no care or interest in.

I do have an interest in it, I think it is a particularly bad investment and always have thought that way.

It would make no sense for someone to be negative on something and also be investing in it, In fact I bet if I had said instead I'd been buying up .mobi you'd call me a hypocrite.

Either way you won't like what I have to say and you'll question why I discuss it, simply because my views are not positive on this extension.

[Scandiman]

I didn't say nobody uses .mobi, I said the concept of a a mobile URL is dying.

And do you have any evidence to support the death of the mobile URL?

[Snoopy]

And do you have any evidence to support the death of the mobile URL?

I don't think anyone has bothered to compile any evidence on it. But you can continue to believe it is not happening if you want to.

[Scandiman]

I don't think anyone has bothered to compile any evidence on it. But you can continue to believe it is not happening if you want to.

The evidence points to a solid usage of mobile URLs by existing full sized websites, there are viable reasons for using them, and yet somehow I'm the one with the blind faith. There will be those who choose auto detection and those who go the route of a mobile URL, and increasingly those who'se only URL is mobile focused giving little regard to big screens. But we've discussed all this before in another thread yet you continue to ignore the full spectrum of what people are actually doing. Same M.O., different thread.

[gogo]

Read my other thread. Baidu, the upcoming force in search engine, is using .mobi.

Thanks.

Searching for .mobi only sites is possible at mobisearch.info, and you can narrow the field to major European languages if you want. Some topics like hotels seem more mobi active than others.

[Snoopy]

The evidence points to a solid usage of mobile URLs by existing full sized websites, there are viable reasons for using them, and yet somehow I'm the one with the blind faith.

That doesn't sound like evidence pertaining *growth*. I'm saying the usage of mobile URL's is dying, it was a trend a couple of years ago whilst today there is a switch to auto detection which is my view makes far more sense.

So what is the "evidence" you are arguing on the basis of? Or are we just going to get another list or some Google search results?

[gogo]

I used mobisearch.info to look for "trolls" in the mobi extension only.

I found this:

http://yomi.mobi/egate/Troll/

btw last I looked trolls.mobi and trolling.mobi were free


Now, back on topic...

Unless you need functionality you can only get from an app, why create it? Doing so is hugely inefficient, you now have creation and maintenance costs not for one site, but for apps for iphone, android, blackberry, windows phone, flavours of Nokia.