Both NYT.mobi and NewYorkTimes.mobi are being held by cybersquatters.So is it an wonder that New York Times, USA Today and others rebuke the MOBI extension and influence consumer behavior AWAY from dotMOBI thinking, with their ad inferences?
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
.mobi has been a real mess. Right now the impression I've been getting is that of greed and unfair distribution. I've been watching .mobi from afar and can't help but marvel at the disaster unfolding before it. Now to be honest I can never make any predictions where that extension is headed. The NYT squatting adds more animosity towards the extension. I only hope that NYT will not have ill feelings towards domaining in general. We need all the favorable coverage we can get for the legit side of the business...
BTW - I've only bought one .mobi name for one of my businesses for defensive purposes, thats all lol. Dot Com is still where the most values are...
John Bomhardt
Unplain.com
NYT.mobi is a three letter acronym domain, so unless they have a site up that has New York Times info that could confuse someone, it's not necessarily a squatter domain.
New York Television
New York Telethon
New York Tribe
Not Your Time
New Year's Today
and so on ... could have lots of other uses.
Problem is that NYT.com is owned by The New York Times and the premise of dotMOBI is that you can find a companion mobile scaled version of the dotCOM site simply by substituting mobi for dotCOM.
Once again the squatters have ruined the entire domain market for all but a lucky few. It's the perception that has cost all domainers millions of dollars.
I understand you may be unhappy about NYT.mobi or NewYorkTimes.mobi because you would really like to use that site. It's also very sad that NewYorkTimes.mobi is being sat on. I also remember a time before the landrush where companies were able to show a trademark and they would get their .mobi. So, it's hard to feel to sorry for the New York Times in general because they were too lazy to go through this simple process than the majority of Fortune 500 companies and many of the media companies did. It wasn't a difficult thing to submit this information. McClatchey did it for all of their newspapers. I don't agree with squatting, but stop crying about it and taking the New York Times side when it's their own fault they don't have those 2 .mobis right now.
NYT.mobi can't be helped as it is an LLL.mobi that can be used for many things besides a newspaper. NewYorkTimes.mobi is another story, and if they file a UDRP I am sure they can get it back easily.
Post a Comment