You can still focus on what you do best, but you need to do it in the evolving medium otherwise you won't be doing it for long.

The mobile Web isn't a replacement for an existing medium; it's a new medium that serves a different purpose from that of the mainstream Web. It's no more a substitute for the mainstream Web than YouTube video clips are substitutes for movies.

If anyone's doomed by the mobile Web, it's the Webmaster who thinks an existing business model (slapping AdSense ads on static text pages) can be ported over seamlessly to cellular phones and Blackberries.

It's no more a substitute for the mainstream Web than YouTube video clips are substitutes for movies.

Considering I just watched a movie today over the web off Netflix, and a TV show off Hulu, I disagree that the web isn't for movies, just YouTube doesn't appear to be for movies so that's the wrong platform.

As a matter of fact, I know people that watch movies over their mobile phones while riding buses or sitting in doctors offices, so don't get any preconceived notions about movies and movie watchers these days.

Old school cell phones are quickly fading away to full browser phones such as the iPhone and others, but the format of your site still impacts how useful it is on the iPhone.

Which is why sites like Yelp have an iPhone app to make the site easier to use.

Other Yelp-like sites without an app would be less friendly to use and have a distinct disadvantage to the mobile user.

it's a new medium that serves a different purpose from that of the mainstream Web

Not at all, it serves the same purpose, to help people find the information that they need when they need it, just only on a smaller device.

Why wouldn't you expect people to plan and book a vacation over a mobile device over a leisurely lunch?

Why wouldn't you expect someone in school to read a Wiki page over a mobile device?

You couldn't do it with my cell phone, but you sure could with an iPhone or a Blackberry, so ignoring that opportunity is ignoring that customer.

Don't forget, mobile also includes the netbooks and even book readers such as the Kindle, a wide range of devices with a wide range of capabilities.

Some will read your site easily as-is, others will need an assist.

You're also doomed to become extinct

My kids, grand-kids and great-grand-kids think I'm already that anyway!

Don't forget, mobile also includes the netbooks and even book readers such as the Kindle, a wide range of devices with a wide range of capabilities.

Calling a netbook a "mobile Web" device is a stretch. A netbook has far more in common with a conventional laptop than it does with, say, an iPhone, a Blackberry, or a smartphone with an even smaller screen.

What's more, suggesting that the mobile Web is simply another way to deliver the same information or experience as the mainstream Web is like suggesting that the Times Square news sign is simply another way of delivering the same information or experience as THE NEW YORK TIMES or CNN. The experience is different, and--just as important--the user environment is different. This means user behavior in response to advertising and what kind of advertising is most effective on the mobile Web are also likely to be different from what they'd be in a living room or office.

There's potential for advertising on the mobile Web (and who knows--maybe even for CPC text ads), but the really successful advertising is likely to be advertising that's designed for the mobile Web environment and--just as important--designed to serve the immediate needs of the mobile Web audience.

I guess I don't understand why you're arguing so persistently here. Nobody's advocating going off half cocked, but if you look at your log files and see a growing amount of traffic coming from phones, you should probably at least be considering whether 1) you want to serve that customer base and 2) your current site is able to serve that customer base.

If you don't, or it's not an issue, no worries.

I guess I don't understand why you're arguing so persistently here.

Probably because we each have our own ideas of how we should use the mobile web. Both s_j and iBill are correct, they're just arguing different points of views.

Personally most of the mobile web leaves me cold, I don't use an iPod even though I have an enormous music collection of mp3s, I have absolutely no interest in an iPhone and after having seen how often my wife's Blackberry has to be returned for repair, I guess you know what I think of those!

Just like SMS texting, there's probably something already out there waiting for us to use and abuse it once it goes mainstream however what it is I have no idea...yet!

What's wrong with real ale? (sorry.. off topic a bit)

Absolutely nothing, I was the instigator of geting real ale back into some of our local pubs:-)

You might want to try what I did some months ago which was to borrow a friends handheld device (I don't know what it was other than some sort of cell phone with a larger screen than mine has) and pay your own site a visit with it. Every part of the site's home page displayed just fine as is in that small screen with the expected additional scrolling. Even the ad units and adlinks. As a result I decided that it was not worth my time to worry about it. The site's graphics are all tiny, no tables and is just html & css. It does get some mobile visitors but they are few.

Nobody's advocating going off half cocked

Really? I had the opposite impression. Certainly there's no shortage of site owners (including large companies, in some cases) that do jump on the latest bandwagon without considering ROI or how their efforts in the new media will be monetized.

but if you look at your log files and see a growing amount of traffic coming from phones, you should probably at least be considering whether 1) you want to serve that customer base and 2) your current site is able to serve that customer base.

Of course. But you need to take a coolly analytical approach. For example:

In October, 2007, Telecoms Market Research predicted that mobile will represent 7.5 percent of digital advertising by 2012. That's significantly more than the current market share, but it's still a small fraction of the total market. What's more, Telecoms is predicting that the overall digital advertising market will double by 2012, which means there will be more growth in non-mobile advertising than in mobile advertising (as measured in expenditures rather than in percentages).

For a Web publisher with limited resources, is it better to invest time and money in a new, largely unproven medium in the hope of getting a chunk of that 7.5 percent market share, or is it better to build on existing success in an established (and still growing) medium with a 92.5 percent market share? The answer depends on any number of things, such as the nature of the publisher's site and content ("How readily can I serve mobile users?"), the publisher's skills and interests ("Am I a programmer, an editor, or both?") where the publisher's existing revenue is coming from ("Am I making a killing with display ads?" "Are affiliate sales my main squeeze"?), and the nature of the publisher's audience ("Does my site appeal to users on the go?" "Would GPS-targeted ads be effective with my audience?").

For what it's worth, I think the mobile Web has huge potential for certain types of publishers, sites, users, and advertisers. But I also think that publishers who embrace new media, or variations on existing media, need to do some hardnosed analysis before committing their time and financial resources. Let's not forget that Google guaranteed $900 million to MySpace just three years ago, and that bet on advertising revenue from "social media" didn't pay off. :-)