Comparison of .tel with traditional websites

Please compare the homepages (in each case from the same domain owners):
http://watermakers.tel/ and http://sunshinemaritime.co.uk/
http://jamesmorgan.tel/ and http://www.jmsolicitors.co.uk/
http://professorpopcorn.tel/ and http://profpopcorn.co.uk/
http://exmoorhouse.tel/ and http://www.exmoorhotel.co.uk/
http://kbal.tel/ and http://www.kbal.co.uk/

And now my questions:

1. What design looks better?
   
2. What website is optimized for cell phones and for desktops at once?
   
3. Where the contact data are easy to access?
   
4. What homepage is easier to administrate?
   
5. What technology is based on the innovative use of the DNS?
   
6. What domain extension is cheaper?
   
7. Why do you want to register another domain than .tel?
   
8. Can you beat .tel with a .co.uk?

Another comparison would be between the templates from Telnames and Telnic. The difference is even bigger. None of the Telnic templates look good (including the 3 new from this year). We can forget the 250,000 registered .tels from Telnic, because with the current design you can't build a good looking business card or website.
How many years Telnic customers will have to wait until they get a template like Telnames? Does Telnic really think the registrars will do the work for them and program their own templates? Perhaps they will, but only after Telnic sold 5 million .tels!

Rambo wrote:How many years Telnic customers will have to wait until they get a template like Telnames? Does Telnic really think the registrars will do the work for them and program their own templates? Perhaps they will, but only after Telnic sold 5 million .tels!

No, the strategy is different:
Telnames (not Telnic) will sell 5 million .tel, because they have a great and useful design.
And then registrars will wake up too.

Rambo wrote:How many years Telnic customers will have to wait until they get a template like Telnames? Does Telnic really think the registrars will do the work for them and program their own templates?

I completely agree with that statement.

For me it looks very strange, when Telnic uses its resourses and personel for developing product of another company (remember that Telnic says that Telnic and Telnames are two different companies). And at the same time Telnic wants that with developing his own product would be busy another companies (domain name registrars like Dynadot, name.com, etc.)

Would it be more logical, when Telnic would be busy in developing its own products, and another companies would be busy in developing their products?

maxi wrote:remember that Telnic says that Telnic and Telnames are two different companies

Where have you read that?
The management board, the address and the complete staff are the same. So the only difference is the legal matter, but otherwise it's the same company.

Telminator wrote:

maxi wrote:remember, that Telnic says that Telnic and Telnames are two different companies

Where have you read that?
The management board, the address and the complete staff are the same. So
the only difference is the legal matter, but otherwise it's the same
company.

I read that at Telnic's forum in this spring. I tried to find that now and failed. Perhaps, it was deleted by error among other posts:

(from here: http://telnic.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2839)
Comments regarding communication
There were a number of comments regarding communication on another
thread which as requested I attempted to move to a new thread.
Unfortunately I seem to have deleted them in error. Apologies to all for
that.

Thanks, Aled

maxi wrote:I read that at Telnic's forum in this spring. I tried to find that now and failed.

Do you mean this?

http://www.teltalk.org/t71-tel-promises#223

TelTalk wrote:

maxi wrote:I read that at Telnic's forum in this spring. I tried to find that now and failed.

Do you mean this?
http://www.teltalk.org/t71-tel-promises#223

I already do not remember the exact words, in which that statement was made by Telnic's representatives. But it looks something like that. Or, may be, the fisrt version was amended later.

maxi wrote:Or, may be, the fisrt version was amended later.

It was the only (and unaltered) statement by Telnic referring this topic ever.

Telminator wrote:

maxi wrote:remember that Telnic says that Telnic and Telnames are two different companies

Where have you read that?
The management board, the address and the complete staff are the same. So the only difference is the legal matter, but otherwise it's the same company.

That certainly appears to be the case (although "complete" may not be 100% accurate, but the gist of it is true).

AFAIK the reason Telnames Ltd. was created appears to be because of restrictions on what an ICANN-accredited registry can do.

Of course it also makes it easier to sell off the Telnic .tel registry (there are buyers around for gTLDs) yet still retain a revenue-earning entity in the form of Telnames Ltd.

I don't think this would be such a bad idea - it would give some relief to Telnic shareholders and would also free the management from the constant demands for enhancement to the old Telnic subdomain .tels.

Of course the buyers of the Telnic .tel registry would still face demands - but at least Kash and his staff would be free to concentrate on the worldwide marketing of the Telnames http://YourBusiness.tel template without unnecessary distractions.

More Money, Less Hassle, that's my sort of solution !

http://MikeSeaton.tel

mikeseaton wrote:AFAIK the reason Telnames Ltd. was created appears to be because of restrictions on what an ICANN-accredited registry can do.

Interesting thought!
I also agree with your other conclusions in this post.