<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_05_29_1343201</id>
	<title>18 Android Phones, In 3 Flavors, By Year's End</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1243604820000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"Andy Rubin, senior director for Mobile Platforms for Google, has announced that by the end of the year there will be <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/google-expect-18-android-phones-by-years-end/">18 to 20 phones using the Android OS made by 8 or 9 different manufacturers</a>. Google will offer three different versions of Android OS: a completely free and generic flavor with no pre-loaded Google applications; a slightly customized version that comes pre-loaded with Google apps like Gmail and Google Calendar; and a completely 'Google-fied' Android OS bearing all sorts of Google branding and integration with Google's services. Will Park reports that the expectation is that <a href="http://www.intomobile.com/2009/05/28/google-looking-forward-to-at-least-18-android-phones-this-year.html">12 to 14 of the upcoming Android phones will use the slightly-customized version</a> of Google's Android OS requiring the manufacturer to agree to a distribution deal with Google that would allow the handsets to come pre-installed with Google-ware. The remaining 5 or 6 Android phones will come to market completely decked out with 'The Google Experience' and a Google logo on the phone. This third option provides risk and reward opportunities because the openness of the store could be a hit with consumers, but could also lead to poorly constructed or offensive applications that could give Google a taint. When it comes to apps, Rubin says: 'We want to abide by the law, but not rule with an open fist.'"</i> Yes, it seems he really said "open fist," though he probably meant "iron fist."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " Andy Rubin , senior director for Mobile Platforms for Google , has announced that by the end of the year there will be 18 to 20 phones using the Android OS made by 8 or 9 different manufacturers .
Google will offer three different versions of Android OS : a completely free and generic flavor with no pre-loaded Google applications ; a slightly customized version that comes pre-loaded with Google apps like Gmail and Google Calendar ; and a completely 'Google-fied ' Android OS bearing all sorts of Google branding and integration with Google 's services .
Will Park reports that the expectation is that 12 to 14 of the upcoming Android phones will use the slightly-customized version of Google 's Android OS requiring the manufacturer to agree to a distribution deal with Google that would allow the handsets to come pre-installed with Google-ware .
The remaining 5 or 6 Android phones will come to market completely decked out with 'The Google Experience ' and a Google logo on the phone .
This third option provides risk and reward opportunities because the openness of the store could be a hit with consumers , but could also lead to poorly constructed or offensive applications that could give Google a taint .
When it comes to apps , Rubin says : 'We want to abide by the law , but not rule with an open fist .
' " Yes , it seems he really said " open fist , " though he probably meant " iron fist .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "Andy Rubin, senior director for Mobile Platforms for Google, has announced that by the end of the year there will be 18 to 20 phones using the Android OS made by 8 or 9 different manufacturers.
Google will offer three different versions of Android OS: a completely free and generic flavor with no pre-loaded Google applications; a slightly customized version that comes pre-loaded with Google apps like Gmail and Google Calendar; and a completely 'Google-fied' Android OS bearing all sorts of Google branding and integration with Google's services.
Will Park reports that the expectation is that 12 to 14 of the upcoming Android phones will use the slightly-customized version of Google's Android OS requiring the manufacturer to agree to a distribution deal with Google that would allow the handsets to come pre-installed with Google-ware.
The remaining 5 or 6 Android phones will come to market completely decked out with 'The Google Experience' and a Google logo on the phone.
This third option provides risk and reward opportunities because the openness of the store could be a hit with consumers, but could also lead to poorly constructed or offensive applications that could give Google a taint.
When it comes to apps, Rubin says: 'We want to abide by the law, but not rule with an open fist.
'" Yes, it seems he really said "open fist," though he probably meant "iron fist.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138503</id>
	<title>Re:Android should scare mainstream phone makers</title>
	<author>pancakegeels</author>
	<datestamp>1243610280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>And yet, Chinese phone companies insist on FAKING android:
<a href="http://www.cect.se/product\_info.php?products\_id=104" title="www.cect.se" rel="nofollow">http://www.cect.se/product\_info.php?products\_id=104</a> [www.cect.se] (non english site)
<a href="http://www.androiddevelopment.org/2009/04/16/dream-g2-phone-made-in-china-looks-like-android-but-isnt/" title="androiddevelopment.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.androiddevelopment.org/2009/04/16/dream-g2-phone-made-in-china-looks-like-android-but-isnt/</a> [androiddevelopment.org]
presumably because these phones are somehow cheaper to make or easier to tap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet , Chinese phone companies insist on FAKING android : http : //www.cect.se/product \ _info.php ? products \ _id = 104 [ www.cect.se ] ( non english site ) http : //www.androiddevelopment.org/2009/04/16/dream-g2-phone-made-in-china-looks-like-android-but-isnt/ [ androiddevelopment.org ] presumably because these phones are somehow cheaper to make or easier to tap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet, Chinese phone companies insist on FAKING android:
http://www.cect.se/product\_info.php?products\_id=104 [www.cect.se] (non english site)
http://www.androiddevelopment.org/2009/04/16/dream-g2-phone-made-in-china-looks-like-android-but-isnt/ [androiddevelopment.org]
presumably because these phones are somehow cheaper to make or easier to tap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28148437</id>
	<title>Re:A Suggestion</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1243685460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A non-smart Android phone seems a bit like an oxymoron. I think that for people who don't want a smartphone and just want to make phone calls, Android isn't the right solution. That said, for people like you who want Android but don't want a phone, the future looks fairly bright, with Android being ported to netbooks and probably all sorts of other devices (I'd expect an iPod-touch competitor at some point).</p></div></blockquote><p>

What Android is set to do is make smartphones cheaper by making them more common. Most people (esp. in Australia) don't have a real smartphone because of their prohibitive pricing. I paid A$900 for my HTC Dream. Samsung have been making cheap WinMo phones but they aren't very good. Android can run on more then just mobile phones, netbooks have been identified a hardware platform for Android as a few people have already proven (most notably Dell). When you think about it, running a high end phone OS on a netbook makes more sense then running a full blown X86 OS, not even Linux could provide the same functionality for the power savings that Andriod provides (I know that Android uses the Linux kernel but I referrer specifically to X86 Linux)<br> <br>

Android could do to the mobile phone/device market what Windows 3.1 did to the PC market. By providing a uniform operating environment across a wide range of hardware platforms developers and consumers don't have to worry about application compatibility (doubly so for corporate consumers).<br> <br>

As others have said, Google could epically win with Android, it could fail but unlike other phone companies or Apple they didn't bet the farm on their phone offering.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A non-smart Android phone seems a bit like an oxymoron .
I think that for people who do n't want a smartphone and just want to make phone calls , Android is n't the right solution .
That said , for people like you who want Android but do n't want a phone , the future looks fairly bright , with Android being ported to netbooks and probably all sorts of other devices ( I 'd expect an iPod-touch competitor at some point ) .
What Android is set to do is make smartphones cheaper by making them more common .
Most people ( esp .
in Australia ) do n't have a real smartphone because of their prohibitive pricing .
I paid A $ 900 for my HTC Dream .
Samsung have been making cheap WinMo phones but they are n't very good .
Android can run on more then just mobile phones , netbooks have been identified a hardware platform for Android as a few people have already proven ( most notably Dell ) .
When you think about it , running a high end phone OS on a netbook makes more sense then running a full blown X86 OS , not even Linux could provide the same functionality for the power savings that Andriod provides ( I know that Android uses the Linux kernel but I referrer specifically to X86 Linux ) Android could do to the mobile phone/device market what Windows 3.1 did to the PC market .
By providing a uniform operating environment across a wide range of hardware platforms developers and consumers do n't have to worry about application compatibility ( doubly so for corporate consumers ) .
As others have said , Google could epically win with Android , it could fail but unlike other phone companies or Apple they did n't bet the farm on their phone offering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A non-smart Android phone seems a bit like an oxymoron.
I think that for people who don't want a smartphone and just want to make phone calls, Android isn't the right solution.
That said, for people like you who want Android but don't want a phone, the future looks fairly bright, with Android being ported to netbooks and probably all sorts of other devices (I'd expect an iPod-touch competitor at some point).
What Android is set to do is make smartphones cheaper by making them more common.
Most people (esp.
in Australia) don't have a real smartphone because of their prohibitive pricing.
I paid A$900 for my HTC Dream.
Samsung have been making cheap WinMo phones but they aren't very good.
Android can run on more then just mobile phones, netbooks have been identified a hardware platform for Android as a few people have already proven (most notably Dell).
When you think about it, running a high end phone OS on a netbook makes more sense then running a full blown X86 OS, not even Linux could provide the same functionality for the power savings that Andriod provides (I know that Android uses the Linux kernel but I referrer specifically to X86 Linux) 

Android could do to the mobile phone/device market what Windows 3.1 did to the PC market.
By providing a uniform operating environment across a wide range of hardware platforms developers and consumers don't have to worry about application compatibility (doubly so for corporate consumers).
As others have said, Google could epically win with Android, it could fail but unlike other phone companies or Apple they didn't bet the farm on their phone offering.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28148505</id>
	<title>Re:A current G1 User would Love to Switch....</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1243686660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>While I've adapted to the phone's limitations,</p></div></blockquote><p>

Could you please elaborate on this?<br> <br>

I bought a HTC Dream outright and unlocked (A$900, yes we get shafted in AU) and most of my problems are with the HTC Dream platform. The only major issue with Android the OS is that memory management could be better, open two memory intensive app's (E.G. street view or PicSay) and it slows everything down but this is true for any multitasking OS. I have other minor issues with Android but it does exactly what I bought it for.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I 've adapted to the phone 's limitations , Could you please elaborate on this ?
I bought a HTC Dream outright and unlocked ( A $ 900 , yes we get shafted in AU ) and most of my problems are with the HTC Dream platform .
The only major issue with Android the OS is that memory management could be better , open two memory intensive app 's ( E.G .
street view or PicSay ) and it slows everything down but this is true for any multitasking OS .
I have other minor issues with Android but it does exactly what I bought it for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I've adapted to the phone's limitations,

Could you please elaborate on this?
I bought a HTC Dream outright and unlocked (A$900, yes we get shafted in AU) and most of my problems are with the HTC Dream platform.
The only major issue with Android the OS is that memory management could be better, open two memory intensive app's (E.G.
street view or PicSay) and it slows everything down but this is true for any multitasking OS.
I have other minor issues with Android but it does exactly what I bought it for.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138833</id>
	<title>Re:If updates are free, why buy new phones?</title>
	<author>lordandmaker</author>
	<datestamp>1243611840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had been wondering this when my dad started getting all excited about iPhone 3.0 (incidentally, it fixes a few of the reasons I settled on a G1).
<br> <br>
My guess is that they'll be relying on a mixture of improved hardware (802.11n for example, or from a cheaper non-GPS phone to one that does do GPS) and fashion.
<br> <br>
Though this is also something hitting PCs, especially with Win7 working on more basic hardware, where the continual round of buying a new PC every n months is moving towards every 2n or 3n months as the hardware lasts longer. Companies relying on this continual stream of new sales of hardware and licenses are just going to have to adapt to it and I think phone manufacturers will likely have to go the same way and produce fewer handsets each with a higher price and a longer life.
<br> <br>
That or they'll just design them to fall apart after 17 months and 3 weeks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had been wondering this when my dad started getting all excited about iPhone 3.0 ( incidentally , it fixes a few of the reasons I settled on a G1 ) .
My guess is that they 'll be relying on a mixture of improved hardware ( 802.11n for example , or from a cheaper non-GPS phone to one that does do GPS ) and fashion .
Though this is also something hitting PCs , especially with Win7 working on more basic hardware , where the continual round of buying a new PC every n months is moving towards every 2n or 3n months as the hardware lasts longer .
Companies relying on this continual stream of new sales of hardware and licenses are just going to have to adapt to it and I think phone manufacturers will likely have to go the same way and produce fewer handsets each with a higher price and a longer life .
That or they 'll just design them to fall apart after 17 months and 3 weeks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had been wondering this when my dad started getting all excited about iPhone 3.0 (incidentally, it fixes a few of the reasons I settled on a G1).
My guess is that they'll be relying on a mixture of improved hardware (802.11n for example, or from a cheaper non-GPS phone to one that does do GPS) and fashion.
Though this is also something hitting PCs, especially with Win7 working on more basic hardware, where the continual round of buying a new PC every n months is moving towards every 2n or 3n months as the hardware lasts longer.
Companies relying on this continual stream of new sales of hardware and licenses are just going to have to adapt to it and I think phone manufacturers will likely have to go the same way and produce fewer handsets each with a higher price and a longer life.
That or they'll just design them to fall apart after 17 months and 3 weeks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138813</id>
	<title>Re:Android should scare mainstream phone makers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243611780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I was looking at a Chinese iphone knockoff, thinking that the hardware seems decent, but I wouldn't trust the knockoff operating system. With Android, though, the cheap knockoff can legally have the very same operating system, since they don't have to pay license fees.</p></div><p>Indeed; a lot of the Chinese family-industry phones are technically fascinating (and quite cheap). Having a real OS would make them much more attractive.</p><p>Unfortunately, it's not quite that easy --- remember that Android is designed for a two-chip system, where one processor runs the user apps (and is the one running Android), and another processor running a quite different operating system handles the GSM stack. On the G1, for example, there's a massive 20MB-or-so operating system image for the radio processor. This usually runs some embedded OS like Nucleus, and is highly proprietary, signed to be tamper-proof, and is deeply regulated; in most countries, tinkering with the radio image will cause your local telecommunications regulator to slap you round the face with lawsuits before you can blink.</p><p>I don't know where the Chinese knockoffs get their GSM stack but it's probably ripped off from a commercial product --- copyright doesn't mean much there. Which means they're probably not properly licensed by the GSM people, which means that it's very unlikely you'll be able to legally operate them in other countries. They may <i>work</i>, but that doesn't guarantee anything --- and if the device has a bug in its GSM stack which causes a local outage, you'll be in a world of legal pain.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was looking at a Chinese iphone knockoff , thinking that the hardware seems decent , but I would n't trust the knockoff operating system .
With Android , though , the cheap knockoff can legally have the very same operating system , since they do n't have to pay license fees.Indeed ; a lot of the Chinese family-industry phones are technically fascinating ( and quite cheap ) .
Having a real OS would make them much more attractive.Unfortunately , it 's not quite that easy --- remember that Android is designed for a two-chip system , where one processor runs the user apps ( and is the one running Android ) , and another processor running a quite different operating system handles the GSM stack .
On the G1 , for example , there 's a massive 20MB-or-so operating system image for the radio processor .
This usually runs some embedded OS like Nucleus , and is highly proprietary , signed to be tamper-proof , and is deeply regulated ; in most countries , tinkering with the radio image will cause your local telecommunications regulator to slap you round the face with lawsuits before you can blink.I do n't know where the Chinese knockoffs get their GSM stack but it 's probably ripped off from a commercial product --- copyright does n't mean much there .
Which means they 're probably not properly licensed by the GSM people , which means that it 's very unlikely you 'll be able to legally operate them in other countries .
They may work , but that does n't guarantee anything --- and if the device has a bug in its GSM stack which causes a local outage , you 'll be in a world of legal pain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was looking at a Chinese iphone knockoff, thinking that the hardware seems decent, but I wouldn't trust the knockoff operating system.
With Android, though, the cheap knockoff can legally have the very same operating system, since they don't have to pay license fees.Indeed; a lot of the Chinese family-industry phones are technically fascinating (and quite cheap).
Having a real OS would make them much more attractive.Unfortunately, it's not quite that easy --- remember that Android is designed for a two-chip system, where one processor runs the user apps (and is the one running Android), and another processor running a quite different operating system handles the GSM stack.
On the G1, for example, there's a massive 20MB-or-so operating system image for the radio processor.
This usually runs some embedded OS like Nucleus, and is highly proprietary, signed to be tamper-proof, and is deeply regulated; in most countries, tinkering with the radio image will cause your local telecommunications regulator to slap you round the face with lawsuits before you can blink.I don't know where the Chinese knockoffs get their GSM stack but it's probably ripped off from a commercial product --- copyright doesn't mean much there.
Which means they're probably not properly licensed by the GSM people, which means that it's very unlikely you'll be able to legally operate them in other countries.
They may work, but that doesn't guarantee anything --- and if the device has a bug in its GSM stack which causes a local outage, you'll be in a world of legal pain.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138735</id>
	<title>Re:A Suggestion</title>
	<author>diegocgteleline.es</author>
	<datestamp>1243611360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All mobile phones are becoming smartphones. Google (and Apple, and everybody) don't care for "normal" mobiles, in a few years you will be able to buy androids/iphones for very low prices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All mobile phones are becoming smartphones .
Google ( and Apple , and everybody ) do n't care for " normal " mobiles , in a few years you will be able to buy androids/iphones for very low prices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All mobile phones are becoming smartphones.
Google (and Apple, and everybody) don't care for "normal" mobiles, in a few years you will be able to buy androids/iphones for very low prices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140541</id>
	<title>A current G1 User would Love to Switch....</title>
	<author>sampson7</author>
	<datestamp>1243620660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I made a poor decision not to return my G1 within the 2 week "trial period".  Now I'm stuck in a two-year T-Mobile contract with an Android-specific data plan.  I could cancel, but thus far, I'm not annoyed enough to shell out $400 for the privilege of changing to another phone with another carrier that will no doubt annoy me too.
<br> <br>
While I've adapted to the phone's limitations, my initial experience has really soured me on this particular piece of hardware, even though I think the Android OS is decent enough for my purposes.  So I wonder, will I be able to purchase one of these other Android-enabled phones and just switch the SIM card?  Would T-Mobile even know that I had done so?  Would they care?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I made a poor decision not to return my G1 within the 2 week " trial period " .
Now I 'm stuck in a two-year T-Mobile contract with an Android-specific data plan .
I could cancel , but thus far , I 'm not annoyed enough to shell out $ 400 for the privilege of changing to another phone with another carrier that will no doubt annoy me too .
While I 've adapted to the phone 's limitations , my initial experience has really soured me on this particular piece of hardware , even though I think the Android OS is decent enough for my purposes .
So I wonder , will I be able to purchase one of these other Android-enabled phones and just switch the SIM card ?
Would T-Mobile even know that I had done so ?
Would they care ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I made a poor decision not to return my G1 within the 2 week "trial period".
Now I'm stuck in a two-year T-Mobile contract with an Android-specific data plan.
I could cancel, but thus far, I'm not annoyed enough to shell out $400 for the privilege of changing to another phone with another carrier that will no doubt annoy me too.
While I've adapted to the phone's limitations, my initial experience has really soured me on this particular piece of hardware, even though I think the Android OS is decent enough for my purposes.
So I wonder, will I be able to purchase one of these other Android-enabled phones and just switch the SIM card?
Would T-Mobile even know that I had done so?
Would they care?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140097</id>
	<title>Native code on Android</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243618500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Android supports native code through the Java Native Interface. Thats how quake and doom <a href="http://code.google.com/p/doom-for-android/downloads/detail?name=Doom.for.Android.apk" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://code.google.com/p/doom-for-android/downloads/detail?name=Doom.for.Android.apk</a> [google.com] are running on the G1.</p><p><tt><br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://davanum.wordpress.com/2007/12/09/android-invoke-jni-based-methods-bridging-cc-and-java/" title="wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">http://davanum.wordpress.com/2007/12/09/android-invoke-jni-based-methods-bridging-cc-and-java/</a> [wordpress.com]<br></tt></p><p>DOOM for example is a standard Android ("Java") app which loads a native library, which in turn is nothing else than PRBOOM <a href="http://prboom.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net" rel="nofollow">http://prboom.sourceforge.net/</a> [sourceforge.net] compiled as a shared library.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Android supports native code through the Java Native Interface .
Thats how quake and doom http : //code.google.com/p/doom-for-android/downloads/detail ? name = Doom.for.Android.apk [ google.com ] are running on the G1 .
    http : //davanum.wordpress.com/2007/12/09/android-invoke-jni-based-methods-bridging-cc-and-java/ [ wordpress.com ] DOOM for example is a standard Android ( " Java " ) app which loads a native library , which in turn is nothing else than PRBOOM http : //prboom.sourceforge.net/ [ sourceforge.net ] compiled as a shared library .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Android supports native code through the Java Native Interface.
Thats how quake and doom http://code.google.com/p/doom-for-android/downloads/detail?name=Doom.for.Android.apk [google.com] are running on the G1.
    http://davanum.wordpress.com/2007/12/09/android-invoke-jni-based-methods-bridging-cc-and-java/ [wordpress.com]DOOM for example is a standard Android ("Java") app which loads a native library, which in turn is nothing else than PRBOOM http://prboom.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net] compiled as a shared library.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28139055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138875</id>
	<title>Re:The Open Fist?</title>
	<author>nschubach</author>
	<datestamp>1243612080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A fist is still curving your fingers around to match your palm.  If we open that up a little, you make a fist and open it slightly...  I hope that's not what he's talking about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A fist is still curving your fingers around to match your palm .
If we open that up a little , you make a fist and open it slightly... I hope that 's not what he 's talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A fist is still curving your fingers around to match your palm.
If we open that up a little, you make a fist and open it slightly...  I hope that's not what he's talking about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28152865</id>
	<title>Re:Android should scare mainstream phone makers</title>
	<author>Dr. Spork</author>
	<datestamp>1243681080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, thank you for that informative reply! I didn't realize the thing about the two chips with two different operating systems. So is there no open-source competitor for an OS like Nucleus? Since you say that it is deeply regulated, I assume not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , thank you for that informative reply !
I did n't realize the thing about the two chips with two different operating systems .
So is there no open-source competitor for an OS like Nucleus ?
Since you say that it is deeply regulated , I assume not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, thank you for that informative reply!
I didn't realize the thing about the two chips with two different operating systems.
So is there no open-source competitor for an OS like Nucleus?
Since you say that it is deeply regulated, I assume not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138573</id>
	<title>If updates are free, why buy new phones?</title>
	<author>ianmacfarlane</author>
	<datestamp>1243610640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given the fact that Android updates (well, the one update) thus far have been free (the G1 update to Cupcake), how are the carriers going to encourage people to buy new handsets every 18 months?

Obviously there can be things like improve cameras, sexier designs, bigger screens, faster processors etc, but I can see a lot of people sticking with what they've got for longer if the experience when using the phone is exactly the same.

Obviously the carriers could also try rather artificial things like tying new services with new contracts etc, but I don't see that being so successful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given the fact that Android updates ( well , the one update ) thus far have been free ( the G1 update to Cupcake ) , how are the carriers going to encourage people to buy new handsets every 18 months ?
Obviously there can be things like improve cameras , sexier designs , bigger screens , faster processors etc , but I can see a lot of people sticking with what they 've got for longer if the experience when using the phone is exactly the same .
Obviously the carriers could also try rather artificial things like tying new services with new contracts etc , but I do n't see that being so successful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given the fact that Android updates (well, the one update) thus far have been free (the G1 update to Cupcake), how are the carriers going to encourage people to buy new handsets every 18 months?
Obviously there can be things like improve cameras, sexier designs, bigger screens, faster processors etc, but I can see a lot of people sticking with what they've got for longer if the experience when using the phone is exactly the same.
Obviously the carriers could also try rather artificial things like tying new services with new contracts etc, but I don't see that being so successful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28145591</id>
	<title>Re:Android is terrible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243601460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I think the Android is a lot more usable than the iPhone.  I mean, for one thing, the Iphone doesn't even have a keyboard.  T-mobile plans aren't bad.  I have unlimited minutes, unlimited internet, and unlimited Text messages for a pretty reasonable price.  What does that cost with AT&amp;T?  Do they even offer it?</p><p>Also, the iPhone still thinks copy-and-paste is a "pretty neat idea".  I don't really get why you would think the iPhone is more usable than the G1.  The only thing I see that is great about the iPhone in terms of that is multi-touch.  I'll grant that the iphone is smaller and prettier.  But usability-wise, they are basically the same except that the G1 is easier to use for text messaging, instant messaging, and browsing the web.  But, I guess if you don't need to do any of those on your iPhone, then it is fine.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I think the Android is a lot more usable than the iPhone .
I mean , for one thing , the Iphone does n't even have a keyboard .
T-mobile plans are n't bad .
I have unlimited minutes , unlimited internet , and unlimited Text messages for a pretty reasonable price .
What does that cost with AT&amp;T ?
Do they even offer it ? Also , the iPhone still thinks copy-and-paste is a " pretty neat idea " .
I do n't really get why you would think the iPhone is more usable than the G1 .
The only thing I see that is great about the iPhone in terms of that is multi-touch .
I 'll grant that the iphone is smaller and prettier .
But usability-wise , they are basically the same except that the G1 is easier to use for text messaging , instant messaging , and browsing the web .
But , I guess if you do n't need to do any of those on your iPhone , then it is fine .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I think the Android is a lot more usable than the iPhone.
I mean, for one thing, the Iphone doesn't even have a keyboard.
T-mobile plans aren't bad.
I have unlimited minutes, unlimited internet, and unlimited Text messages for a pretty reasonable price.
What does that cost with AT&amp;T?
Do they even offer it?Also, the iPhone still thinks copy-and-paste is a "pretty neat idea".
I don't really get why you would think the iPhone is more usable than the G1.
The only thing I see that is great about the iPhone in terms of that is multi-touch.
I'll grant that the iphone is smaller and prettier.
But usability-wise, they are basically the same except that the G1 is easier to use for text messaging, instant messaging, and browsing the web.
But, I guess if you don't need to do any of those on your iPhone, then it is fine.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140133</id>
	<title>Features I'm Looking For in My Next Phone</title>
	<author>Greyfox</author>
	<datestamp>1243618680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><ul>
<li>Wifi (Must be able to connect to my home network at home)</li>
<li>SIP Client (Must be able to connect to my Asterisk server at home)</li>
<li>Bluetooth tethering for a MacBook Pro (For those rare times when I'm not near a wifi access point.)</li>
</ul><p>
A few years back I bought an unlocked Nokia E70 and that provided all this functionality, but T-Mobile kept breaking the data plan so I couldn't use the phone with my notebook. This rendered the data plan pretty much worthless, since doing anything on its postage-stamp-sized screen pretty much sucked. The battery life also wasn't that great, though you're never going to get awesome battery life doing what I was doing with it.
</p><p>
An unlocked Android phone would be capable of doing all that stuff but probably not on a 3G network. Nokia's E90 communicator also has all the features I want, a bigger screen than the E70 and a beefed up battery. I'd probably have to import one again, though. And I'd need to find a provider the phone is compatible with who allows tethering.
</p><p>
A good half of my cell phone woes are due to cell company suckage here in the states. The features I'm after have been widely available in Europe for ages now and we can't even manage them here even with the iPhone forcing things forward.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wifi ( Must be able to connect to my home network at home ) SIP Client ( Must be able to connect to my Asterisk server at home ) Bluetooth tethering for a MacBook Pro ( For those rare times when I 'm not near a wifi access point .
) A few years back I bought an unlocked Nokia E70 and that provided all this functionality , but T-Mobile kept breaking the data plan so I could n't use the phone with my notebook .
This rendered the data plan pretty much worthless , since doing anything on its postage-stamp-sized screen pretty much sucked .
The battery life also was n't that great , though you 're never going to get awesome battery life doing what I was doing with it .
An unlocked Android phone would be capable of doing all that stuff but probably not on a 3G network .
Nokia 's E90 communicator also has all the features I want , a bigger screen than the E70 and a beefed up battery .
I 'd probably have to import one again , though .
And I 'd need to find a provider the phone is compatible with who allows tethering .
A good half of my cell phone woes are due to cell company suckage here in the states .
The features I 'm after have been widely available in Europe for ages now and we ca n't even manage them here even with the iPhone forcing things forward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Wifi (Must be able to connect to my home network at home)
SIP Client (Must be able to connect to my Asterisk server at home)
Bluetooth tethering for a MacBook Pro (For those rare times when I'm not near a wifi access point.
)

A few years back I bought an unlocked Nokia E70 and that provided all this functionality, but T-Mobile kept breaking the data plan so I couldn't use the phone with my notebook.
This rendered the data plan pretty much worthless, since doing anything on its postage-stamp-sized screen pretty much sucked.
The battery life also wasn't that great, though you're never going to get awesome battery life doing what I was doing with it.
An unlocked Android phone would be capable of doing all that stuff but probably not on a 3G network.
Nokia's E90 communicator also has all the features I want, a bigger screen than the E70 and a beefed up battery.
I'd probably have to import one again, though.
And I'd need to find a provider the phone is compatible with who allows tethering.
A good half of my cell phone woes are due to cell company suckage here in the states.
The features I'm after have been widely available in Europe for ages now and we can't even manage them here even with the iPhone forcing things forward.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28139511</id>
	<title>18-20 phones</title>
	<author>mrv00t</author>
	<datestamp>1243615320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...announced that by the end of the year there will be 18 to 20 phones using the Android OS...</p></div><p>Doesn't sound like awfully lot to me. That's like about 2 phones sold per month.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...announced that by the end of the year there will be 18 to 20 phones using the Android OS...Does n't sound like awfully lot to me .
That 's like about 2 phones sold per month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...announced that by the end of the year there will be 18 to 20 phones using the Android OS...Doesn't sound like awfully lot to me.
That's like about 2 phones sold per month.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138135</id>
	<title>dreamphone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243608720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>of posting to slashdot?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>of posting to slashdot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of posting to slashdot?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28141247</id>
	<title>Android is a piece of shit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243623960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
It's no different from other companies Google bought and then let rot. As much as people dislike Symbian it completely pwns the Android POS.
</p><p>
--<br>
glass, fuck google in the ass
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's no different from other companies Google bought and then let rot .
As much as people dislike Symbian it completely pwns the Android POS .
-- glass , fuck google in the ass</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It's no different from other companies Google bought and then let rot.
As much as people dislike Symbian it completely pwns the Android POS.
--
glass, fuck google in the ass
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28139051</id>
	<title>Re:A Suggestion</title>
	<author>sdturf</author>
	<datestamp>1243612980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are not bound to get an internet/email plan just because you have a smartphone, are you? I have a WM phone and appreciate the apps like GPS, book and pdf readers, video players, and wifi capability (at home and free wifi spots,) and just pay for phone (and text) service.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are not bound to get an internet/email plan just because you have a smartphone , are you ?
I have a WM phone and appreciate the apps like GPS , book and pdf readers , video players , and wifi capability ( at home and free wifi spots , ) and just pay for phone ( and text ) service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are not bound to get an internet/email plan just because you have a smartphone, are you?
I have a WM phone and appreciate the apps like GPS, book and pdf readers, video players, and wifi capability (at home and free wifi spots,) and just pay for phone (and text) service.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138937</id>
	<title>Google = ms?</title>
	<author>ChrmnMa0</author>
	<datestamp>1243612500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It looks to me like google is quickly becoming the MS of the open source world....isn't it this type of thing that gets MS into anti trust lawsuits?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks to me like google is quickly becoming the MS of the open source world....is n't it this type of thing that gets MS into anti trust lawsuits ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks to me like google is quickly becoming the MS of the open source world....isn't it this type of thing that gets MS into anti trust lawsuits?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138545</id>
	<title>Re:The Open Fist?</title>
	<author>hampton</author>
	<datestamp>1243610460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or perhaps about the Android's ability to display porn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or perhaps about the Android 's ability to display porn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or perhaps about the Android's ability to display porn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28139641</id>
	<title>Re:Android should scare mainstream phone makers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243615920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this what was intended? I thought the entire plan of Google was to make sure Android is all over the place, including cheap Chinese phones, so that the OS floods the mobile market, encouraging developers to make programs only for it.. Basically what happened with Windows during the 90s. But in this case, because you don't have to pay for it, it's completely legal..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this what was intended ?
I thought the entire plan of Google was to make sure Android is all over the place , including cheap Chinese phones , so that the OS floods the mobile market , encouraging developers to make programs only for it.. Basically what happened with Windows during the 90s .
But in this case , because you do n't have to pay for it , it 's completely legal. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this what was intended?
I thought the entire plan of Google was to make sure Android is all over the place, including cheap Chinese phones, so that the OS floods the mobile market, encouraging developers to make programs only for it.. Basically what happened with Windows during the 90s.
But in this case, because you don't have to pay for it, it's completely legal..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28146589</id>
	<title>Re:Features I'm Looking For in My Next Phone</title>
	<author>riflemann</author>
	<datestamp>1243611840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><ul><li>Wifi (Must be able to connect to my home network at home)</li><li>SIP Client (Must be able to connect to my Asterisk server at home)</li><li>Bluetooth tethering for a MacBook Pro (For those rare times when I'm not near a wifi access point.)</li></ul></div><p>Already possible, alas you need an unlocked G1 for the tethering:</p><p>- Wifi, already there</p><p>- Sip: <a href="http://code.google.com/p/sipdroid/" title="google.com">http://code.google.com/p/sipdroid/</a> [google.com]</p><p>- Bluetooth tether: <a href="http://code.google.com/p/android-wifi-tether/" title="google.com">http://code.google.com/p/android-wifi-tether/</a> [google.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wifi ( Must be able to connect to my home network at home ) SIP Client ( Must be able to connect to my Asterisk server at home ) Bluetooth tethering for a MacBook Pro ( For those rare times when I 'm not near a wifi access point .
) Already possible , alas you need an unlocked G1 for the tethering : - Wifi , already there- Sip : http : //code.google.com/p/sipdroid/ [ google.com ] - Bluetooth tether : http : //code.google.com/p/android-wifi-tether/ [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wifi (Must be able to connect to my home network at home)SIP Client (Must be able to connect to my Asterisk server at home)Bluetooth tethering for a MacBook Pro (For those rare times when I'm not near a wifi access point.
)Already possible, alas you need an unlocked G1 for the tethering:- Wifi, already there- Sip: http://code.google.com/p/sipdroid/ [google.com]- Bluetooth tether: http://code.google.com/p/android-wifi-tether/ [google.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28139055</id>
	<title>How about</title>
	<author>codepunk</author>
	<datestamp>1243612980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a better idea, how about providing a native programming interface so we can squeeze some<br>performance out of the devices. I worked on porting some iPhone stuff to the G1 until I realized just<br>how bad the performance is using the java api.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a better idea , how about providing a native programming interface so we can squeeze someperformance out of the devices .
I worked on porting some iPhone stuff to the G1 until I realized justhow bad the performance is using the java api .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a better idea, how about providing a native programming interface so we can squeeze someperformance out of the devices.
I worked on porting some iPhone stuff to the G1 until I realized justhow bad the performance is using the java api.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28142819</id>
	<title>Re:expectationi</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1243630200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>kdawson, what does expectationi mean?</p></div><p>I wish I was so smart that one little typo was enough to prevent me from understanding what a word is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>kdawson , what does expectationi mean ? I wish I was so smart that one little typo was enough to prevent me from understanding what a word is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kdawson, what does expectationi mean?I wish I was so smart that one little typo was enough to prevent me from understanding what a word is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28149011</id>
	<title>still waiting for the Open requirement</title>
	<author>dfries</author>
	<datestamp>1243695000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can anyone find what the requirements actually say?  This is the best I've found.  <a href="http://www.androidcentral.com/whats-difference-between-android-and-google" title="androidcentral.com" rel="nofollow">What's the Difference Between Android and Google? And Why Does it Matter?</a> [androidcentral.com]
</p><blockquote><div><p>
Google is putting a stake in the ground for the first category, the open category, the one that resembles computers as we all know them. Apple and the carriers want to turn phones into consoles.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Until one of the categories requires that the end user has root access and the ability to reload all the software on the phone possibly modified by themselves, none of them are going to resemble the desktop computer.  Until then it would be like buying a Packard Bell computer that was locked down to only allow loading Packard Bell's bloated branded version of windows, checked by BIOS, and when they go out of business you will never be able to upgrade.  That's not open, that's lock down, I don't see the open category.
</p><p>Even if there was a open category that allowed the user to control their software, there's still no X windows.  Without X windows you can't run anything not designed for Android.  What's the point if in the future phone gets to be as powerful as today's desktop if it can't run today's software?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone find what the requirements actually say ?
This is the best I 've found .
What 's the Difference Between Android and Google ?
And Why Does it Matter ?
[ androidcentral.com ] Google is putting a stake in the ground for the first category , the open category , the one that resembles computers as we all know them .
Apple and the carriers want to turn phones into consoles .
Until one of the categories requires that the end user has root access and the ability to reload all the software on the phone possibly modified by themselves , none of them are going to resemble the desktop computer .
Until then it would be like buying a Packard Bell computer that was locked down to only allow loading Packard Bell 's bloated branded version of windows , checked by BIOS , and when they go out of business you will never be able to upgrade .
That 's not open , that 's lock down , I do n't see the open category .
Even if there was a open category that allowed the user to control their software , there 's still no X windows .
Without X windows you ca n't run anything not designed for Android .
What 's the point if in the future phone gets to be as powerful as today 's desktop if it ca n't run today 's software ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone find what the requirements actually say?
This is the best I've found.
What's the Difference Between Android and Google?
And Why Does it Matter?
[androidcentral.com]

Google is putting a stake in the ground for the first category, the open category, the one that resembles computers as we all know them.
Apple and the carriers want to turn phones into consoles.
Until one of the categories requires that the end user has root access and the ability to reload all the software on the phone possibly modified by themselves, none of them are going to resemble the desktop computer.
Until then it would be like buying a Packard Bell computer that was locked down to only allow loading Packard Bell's bloated branded version of windows, checked by BIOS, and when they go out of business you will never be able to upgrade.
That's not open, that's lock down, I don't see the open category.
Even if there was a open category that allowed the user to control their software, there's still no X windows.
Without X windows you can't run anything not designed for Android.
What's the point if in the future phone gets to be as powerful as today's desktop if it can't run today's software?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140959</id>
	<title>Android is terrible</title>
	<author>Coward Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243622820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've had an iPhone for nearly a year now and I've recently gotten my hands on an Android device.<br>Android has an amateurish summer project feel to it when compared to the polished iPhone OS. You can argue the technical merits of an open platform and hackability till you are blue in the face. It doesn't change the fact that Android is like the Linux desktop experience compared to the Windows or Mac desktop experience - it's an experience only a geek could love simply because he's willing to overlook the warts and horrendous usability because he can tinker.<br>Most people don't care about the underpinnings of the device. They want it to work well, be easy to use and be shiny. The Android OS offers none of that.<br>The big difference between Apple of today and the Apple that lost against Microsoft is price. Apple's handheld devices are very aggressively priced and it is Apple that is setting the price for the entire market.<br>Android does not have the merits and it does not have the price advantage to compete.<br>Unless google starts drastically improving it, Android is as good as dead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've had an iPhone for nearly a year now and I 've recently gotten my hands on an Android device.Android has an amateurish summer project feel to it when compared to the polished iPhone OS .
You can argue the technical merits of an open platform and hackability till you are blue in the face .
It does n't change the fact that Android is like the Linux desktop experience compared to the Windows or Mac desktop experience - it 's an experience only a geek could love simply because he 's willing to overlook the warts and horrendous usability because he can tinker.Most people do n't care about the underpinnings of the device .
They want it to work well , be easy to use and be shiny .
The Android OS offers none of that.The big difference between Apple of today and the Apple that lost against Microsoft is price .
Apple 's handheld devices are very aggressively priced and it is Apple that is setting the price for the entire market.Android does not have the merits and it does not have the price advantage to compete.Unless google starts drastically improving it , Android is as good as dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've had an iPhone for nearly a year now and I've recently gotten my hands on an Android device.Android has an amateurish summer project feel to it when compared to the polished iPhone OS.
You can argue the technical merits of an open platform and hackability till you are blue in the face.
It doesn't change the fact that Android is like the Linux desktop experience compared to the Windows or Mac desktop experience - it's an experience only a geek could love simply because he's willing to overlook the warts and horrendous usability because he can tinker.Most people don't care about the underpinnings of the device.
They want it to work well, be easy to use and be shiny.
The Android OS offers none of that.The big difference between Apple of today and the Apple that lost against Microsoft is price.
Apple's handheld devices are very aggressively priced and it is Apple that is setting the price for the entire market.Android does not have the merits and it does not have the price advantage to compete.Unless google starts drastically improving it, Android is as good as dead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28141289</id>
	<title>When exactly?</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1243624080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember the rumors last year that HTC had a prototype for the G2 with a high resolution screen that was supposed to launch in January of 2009.  When it didn't, HTC said the hardware was ready, but Google's software was holding it up, and we'd see a launch in April of 2009.  My cell contract is up, and I really need to switch, but I'm holding out for a decent Android phone.  When can I honestly expect to see one?</p><p>And given that HTC does make a phone with a high resolution screen, and all the rumors LAST YEAR were that both the new G-phone and iPhone would use higher resolution OLED screens, how come we're not seeing them?</p><p><a href="http://www.htc.com/www/product/touchhd/overview.html" title="htc.com">http://www.htc.com/www/product/touchhd/overview.html</a> [htc.com]</p><p>I've talked to reps from AT&amp;T, Verizon and Sprint and all have said they have zero idea when they might get Android phones.  If I have to wait another six months or more, I might suck it up and go with the Blackberry Storm because I need to replace my damned phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember the rumors last year that HTC had a prototype for the G2 with a high resolution screen that was supposed to launch in January of 2009 .
When it did n't , HTC said the hardware was ready , but Google 's software was holding it up , and we 'd see a launch in April of 2009 .
My cell contract is up , and I really need to switch , but I 'm holding out for a decent Android phone .
When can I honestly expect to see one ? And given that HTC does make a phone with a high resolution screen , and all the rumors LAST YEAR were that both the new G-phone and iPhone would use higher resolution OLED screens , how come we 're not seeing them ? http : //www.htc.com/www/product/touchhd/overview.html [ htc.com ] I 've talked to reps from AT&amp;T , Verizon and Sprint and all have said they have zero idea when they might get Android phones .
If I have to wait another six months or more , I might suck it up and go with the Blackberry Storm because I need to replace my damned phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember the rumors last year that HTC had a prototype for the G2 with a high resolution screen that was supposed to launch in January of 2009.
When it didn't, HTC said the hardware was ready, but Google's software was holding it up, and we'd see a launch in April of 2009.
My cell contract is up, and I really need to switch, but I'm holding out for a decent Android phone.
When can I honestly expect to see one?And given that HTC does make a phone with a high resolution screen, and all the rumors LAST YEAR were that both the new G-phone and iPhone would use higher resolution OLED screens, how come we're not seeing them?http://www.htc.com/www/product/touchhd/overview.html [htc.com]I've talked to reps from AT&amp;T, Verizon and Sprint and all have said they have zero idea when they might get Android phones.
If I have to wait another six months or more, I might suck it up and go with the Blackberry Storm because I need to replace my damned phone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138493</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243610220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It goes like this: there are three flavors of Android. Each is free.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : It goes like this : there are three flavors of Android .
Each is free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:It goes like this: there are three flavors of Android.
Each is free.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28139873</id>
	<title>Re:A Suggestion</title>
	<author>nospam007</author>
	<datestamp>1243617360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"A non-smart Android phone seems a bit like an oxymoron."</p><p>Dumb Androids dream of electric sheep.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" A non-smart Android phone seems a bit like an oxymoron .
" Dumb Androids dream of electric sheep .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A non-smart Android phone seems a bit like an oxymoron.
"Dumb Androids dream of electric sheep.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138237</id>
	<title>edition names?</title>
	<author>societyofrobots</author>
	<datestamp>1243609140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google Home Basic</p><p>Google Home Premium</p><p>Google Business</p><p>Google-fied Ultimate</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google Home BasicGoogle Home PremiumGoogle BusinessGoogle-fied Ultimate</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google Home BasicGoogle Home PremiumGoogle BusinessGoogle-fied Ultimate</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140229</id>
	<title>Re:If updates are free, why buy new phones?</title>
	<author>immcintosh</author>
	<datestamp>1243619160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>iPhone updates are also free.  Even so, Apple stores are hardly vacant when a new hardware revision comes out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>iPhone updates are also free .
Even so , Apple stores are hardly vacant when a new hardware revision comes out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>iPhone updates are also free.
Even so, Apple stores are hardly vacant when a new hardware revision comes out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138431</id>
	<title>Taint...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243609980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heh... they said 'taint.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh... they said 'taint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh... they said 'taint.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140205</id>
	<title>Avaliable Google phone</title>
	<author>just fiddling around</author>
	<datestamp>1243618980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In fact, there is at least one phone that is currently avaliable with Android:  OpenMoko's FreeRunner.
<p>
Pros: </p><ul> <li>
Runs Android, </li><li>
Open firmware, </li><li>
open case design, </li><li>
open hardware, </li><li>
OS can be changed between Linux, Android and a few other,</li><li>
Has 3-axis motion sensors, touchscreen, A-GPS, Bluetooth and Wifi</li><li>
Takes SIM cards so it can be tied to many GSM networks (one at a time)</li></ul><p>
Cons: </p><ul> <li>
GSM only, </li><li>
no 3G, </li><li>
probably can't be locked to Google (because of the openness of the platform) so no "Android Ultimate Edition"</li><li>
Not subsidised, so it costs 399$</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , there is at least one phone that is currently avaliable with Android : OpenMoko 's FreeRunner .
Pros : Runs Android , Open firmware , open case design , open hardware , OS can be changed between Linux , Android and a few other , Has 3-axis motion sensors , touchscreen , A-GPS , Bluetooth and Wifi Takes SIM cards so it can be tied to many GSM networks ( one at a time ) Cons : GSM only , no 3G , probably ca n't be locked to Google ( because of the openness of the platform ) so no " Android Ultimate Edition " Not subsidised , so it costs 399 $</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact, there is at least one phone that is currently avaliable with Android:  OpenMoko's FreeRunner.
Pros:  
Runs Android, 
Open firmware, 
open case design, 
open hardware, 
OS can be changed between Linux, Android and a few other,
Has 3-axis motion sensors, touchscreen, A-GPS, Bluetooth and Wifi
Takes SIM cards so it can be tied to many GSM networks (one at a time)
Cons:  
GSM only, 
no 3G, 
probably can't be locked to Google (because of the openness of the platform) so no "Android Ultimate Edition"
Not subsidised, so it costs 399$</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28141149</id>
	<title>Re:Android should scare mainstream phone makers</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1243623480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a consumer, a cheap but shoddy knockoff product with tons of patent violations and little DRM is EXACTLY what I want.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a consumer , a cheap but shoddy knockoff product with tons of patent violations and little DRM is EXACTLY what I want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a consumer, a cheap but shoddy knockoff product with tons of patent violations and little DRM is EXACTLY what I want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140329</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138511</id>
	<title>Re:Android should scare mainstream phone makers</title>
	<author>ianmacfarlane</author>
	<datestamp>1243610280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wonder how updates would be delivered to these phones - G1 owners got the 1.5 "Cupcake" update delivered "over the air" automatically, and I think both G1 and G2 (HTC Magic) owners are expected to get the 2.0 "Donut" update delivered in the same way.

Presumably, so long as you've got a data contract which does not discriminate against services, this could work fine. Hmm, yet another reason we need Net Neutrality!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wonder how updates would be delivered to these phones - G1 owners got the 1.5 " Cupcake " update delivered " over the air " automatically , and I think both G1 and G2 ( HTC Magic ) owners are expected to get the 2.0 " Donut " update delivered in the same way .
Presumably , so long as you 've got a data contract which does not discriminate against services , this could work fine .
Hmm , yet another reason we need Net Neutrality !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wonder how updates would be delivered to these phones - G1 owners got the 1.5 "Cupcake" update delivered "over the air" automatically, and I think both G1 and G2 (HTC Magic) owners are expected to get the 2.0 "Donut" update delivered in the same way.
Presumably, so long as you've got a data contract which does not discriminate against services, this could work fine.
Hmm, yet another reason we need Net Neutrality!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28141935</id>
	<title>Re:Open fist...</title>
	<author>XxtraLarGe</author>
	<datestamp>1243626780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sometimes a client app will perform better than the default web browser. I know I use the mint.com app for my iPod Touch instead of visiting the web site because the performance is much better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes a client app will perform better than the default web browser .
I know I use the mint.com app for my iPod Touch instead of visiting the web site because the performance is much better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes a client app will perform better than the default web browser.
I know I use the mint.com app for my iPod Touch instead of visiting the web site because the performance is much better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28139017</id>
	<title>Re:Sprint?</title>
	<author>aztektum</author>
	<datestamp>1243612860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same here. I'm tempted by the Pre, but this little voice in the back of my head says "Don't do it!"</p><p>I've been with Sprint since 2002 and have little to complain about, but they're takin' their sweet ass time with putting out an Android handset.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same here .
I 'm tempted by the Pre , but this little voice in the back of my head says " Do n't do it !
" I 've been with Sprint since 2002 and have little to complain about , but they 're takin ' their sweet ass time with putting out an Android handset .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same here.
I'm tempted by the Pre, but this little voice in the back of my head says "Don't do it!
"I've been with Sprint since 2002 and have little to complain about, but they're takin' their sweet ass time with putting out an Android handset.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138361</id>
	<title>Android should scare mainstream phone makers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243609680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was looking at a Chinese iphone knockoff, thinking that the hardware seems decent, but I wouldn't trust the knockoff operating system. With Android, though, the cheap knockoff can legally have the very same operating system, since they don't have to pay license fees. This means that if Samsung or whoever come up with a neato handset that makes them lots of money, three months later a Chinese factory will be making identical-looking knockoffs with the same Google-made software. This might even be legal! If I were a handset manufacturer, I'd be very scared of the openness of Android, but as a consumer, I would seriously take a second look at those Chinese knockoffs that will soon come our way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was looking at a Chinese iphone knockoff , thinking that the hardware seems decent , but I would n't trust the knockoff operating system .
With Android , though , the cheap knockoff can legally have the very same operating system , since they do n't have to pay license fees .
This means that if Samsung or whoever come up with a neato handset that makes them lots of money , three months later a Chinese factory will be making identical-looking knockoffs with the same Google-made software .
This might even be legal !
If I were a handset manufacturer , I 'd be very scared of the openness of Android , but as a consumer , I would seriously take a second look at those Chinese knockoffs that will soon come our way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was looking at a Chinese iphone knockoff, thinking that the hardware seems decent, but I wouldn't trust the knockoff operating system.
With Android, though, the cheap knockoff can legally have the very same operating system, since they don't have to pay license fees.
This means that if Samsung or whoever come up with a neato handset that makes them lots of money, three months later a Chinese factory will be making identical-looking knockoffs with the same Google-made software.
This might even be legal!
If I were a handset manufacturer, I'd be very scared of the openness of Android, but as a consumer, I would seriously take a second look at those Chinese knockoffs that will soon come our way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140317</id>
	<title>Re:Sprint?</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1243619520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.androidonhtc.com/" title="androidonhtc.com">whee</a> [androidonhtc.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>whee [ androidonhtc.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>whee [androidonhtc.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138089</id>
	<title>expectationi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243608540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't have much expectationi for this.

</p><p> kdawson, what does expectationi mean?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't have much expectationi for this .
kdawson , what does expectationi mean ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't have much expectationi for this.
kdawson, what does expectationi mean?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138763</id>
	<title>Sprint?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243611540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now if only Sprint would get off their butt and release their phone.  I really want an Android phone but not willing to switch over to T-Mobile just for the phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now if only Sprint would get off their butt and release their phone .
I really want an Android phone but not willing to switch over to T-Mobile just for the phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now if only Sprint would get off their butt and release their phone.
I really want an Android phone but not willing to switch over to T-Mobile just for the phone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28147357</id>
	<title>Re:A Suggestion</title>
	<author>Tubal-Cain</author>
	<datestamp>1243621980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My brother bought a used blackberry and got tried getting a basic, just-minutes-no-internet plan for it. He left the store with the understanding that that's what he got, but when the bill came in he found out he <em>couldn't</em> not have internet service.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My brother bought a used blackberry and got tried getting a basic , just-minutes-no-internet plan for it .
He left the store with the understanding that that 's what he got , but when the bill came in he found out he could n't not have internet service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My brother bought a used blackberry and got tried getting a basic, just-minutes-no-internet plan for it.
He left the store with the understanding that that's what he got, but when the bill came in he found out he couldn't not have internet service.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138235</id>
	<title>The Open Fist?</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1243609140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe he was just trying to coin a new term. He was talking about bitch-slapping.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe he was just trying to coin a new term .
He was talking about bitch-slapping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe he was just trying to coin a new term.
He was talking about bitch-slapping.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138957</id>
	<title>Open fist = Bitchslap?</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1243612560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whos your daddy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whos your daddy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whos your daddy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28143885</id>
	<title>Re:A Suggestion</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1243591680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly - one of the things I've disliked about phones is that they are mostly closed custom platforms. Meanwhile, one of the things that I love about netbooks is that they're ordinary computers - run the same software, open, not restricted by the manufacturer. Right now, I'm far more likely to get a netbook than a high end phone to act as a mobile computer, but it'll be good if Google can change this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly - one of the things I 've disliked about phones is that they are mostly closed custom platforms .
Meanwhile , one of the things that I love about netbooks is that they 're ordinary computers - run the same software , open , not restricted by the manufacturer .
Right now , I 'm far more likely to get a netbook than a high end phone to act as a mobile computer , but it 'll be good if Google can change this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly - one of the things I've disliked about phones is that they are mostly closed custom platforms.
Meanwhile, one of the things that I love about netbooks is that they're ordinary computers - run the same software, open, not restricted by the manufacturer.
Right now, I'm far more likely to get a netbook than a high end phone to act as a mobile computer, but it'll be good if Google can change this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28145519</id>
	<title>Re:Features I'm Looking For in My Next Phone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243601040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just buy the Developer version of the G1 and you can easily do all of that.  Though, I prefer tethering my computer via wifi.</p><p>You can do all of that on a 3G network.  You can use AT&amp;T or T-Mobile.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just buy the Developer version of the G1 and you can easily do all of that .
Though , I prefer tethering my computer via wifi.You can do all of that on a 3G network .
You can use AT&amp;T or T-Mobile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just buy the Developer version of the G1 and you can easily do all of that.
Though, I prefer tethering my computer via wifi.You can do all of that on a 3G network.
You can use AT&amp;T or T-Mobile.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138637</id>
	<title>Re:A Suggestion</title>
	<author>ianmacfarlane</author>
	<datestamp>1243610940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>A non-smart Android phone seems a bit like an oxymoron. I think that for people who don't want a smartphone and just want to make phone calls, Android isn't the right solution.

That said, for people like you who want Android but don't want a phone, the future looks fairly bright, with Android being ported to netbooks and probably all sorts of other devices (I'd expect an iPod-touch competitor at some point).</htmltext>
<tokenext>A non-smart Android phone seems a bit like an oxymoron .
I think that for people who do n't want a smartphone and just want to make phone calls , Android is n't the right solution .
That said , for people like you who want Android but do n't want a phone , the future looks fairly bright , with Android being ported to netbooks and probably all sorts of other devices ( I 'd expect an iPod-touch competitor at some point ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A non-smart Android phone seems a bit like an oxymoron.
I think that for people who don't want a smartphone and just want to make phone calls, Android isn't the right solution.
That said, for people like you who want Android but don't want a phone, the future looks fairly bright, with Android being ported to netbooks and probably all sorts of other devices (I'd expect an iPod-touch competitor at some point).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140363</id>
	<title>Re:A Suggestion: What is a smartphone...</title>
	<author>neurocutie</author>
	<datestamp>1243619880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its true that nearly all the carriers, with varying amounts of enforceability, require "smartphones" be on data plans that costs twice as much as even "featurephones", phones that also have touch screens, do email, web, calendar, etc. Typical (e.g. Verizon, Sprint) charge $30/mo for "smartphone" data versus $15/mo for featurephone data. It is of course a totally ridiculous "artificial market barrier", since a featurephone streaming music or video can easily use more data than a smartphone user that is disinterested in streaming media. Presumably the underlying notion then is that "people who buy expensive phones can afford to pay more for data"...</p><p>Anyways, the question here is: How can you construct an Android phone such that it would meet whatever flimsy rationale carriers use to declare a phone eligible for non-smartphone data plans, yet retain most of Android's functionality?</p><p>Maybe you'll have to give up the name Android, since another rule-of-thumb is that "if you're able to advertise/identify the phone's OS by name, then its a smartphone".<br>Maybe it can be done "virally": out of the box, the phone is pretty dumb, but a download or two transforms it into fully blown Android.</p><p>Someday, I think, the carriers will have to dissolve this stupid market barrier, but for now, it makes a different of $200/YEAR, which matters to many...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its true that nearly all the carriers , with varying amounts of enforceability , require " smartphones " be on data plans that costs twice as much as even " featurephones " , phones that also have touch screens , do email , web , calendar , etc .
Typical ( e.g .
Verizon , Sprint ) charge $ 30/mo for " smartphone " data versus $ 15/mo for featurephone data .
It is of course a totally ridiculous " artificial market barrier " , since a featurephone streaming music or video can easily use more data than a smartphone user that is disinterested in streaming media .
Presumably the underlying notion then is that " people who buy expensive phones can afford to pay more for data " ...Anyways , the question here is : How can you construct an Android phone such that it would meet whatever flimsy rationale carriers use to declare a phone eligible for non-smartphone data plans , yet retain most of Android 's functionality ? Maybe you 'll have to give up the name Android , since another rule-of-thumb is that " if you 're able to advertise/identify the phone 's OS by name , then its a smartphone " .Maybe it can be done " virally " : out of the box , the phone is pretty dumb , but a download or two transforms it into fully blown Android.Someday , I think , the carriers will have to dissolve this stupid market barrier , but for now , it makes a different of $ 200/YEAR , which matters to many.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its true that nearly all the carriers, with varying amounts of enforceability, require "smartphones" be on data plans that costs twice as much as even "featurephones", phones that also have touch screens, do email, web, calendar, etc.
Typical (e.g.
Verizon, Sprint) charge $30/mo for "smartphone" data versus $15/mo for featurephone data.
It is of course a totally ridiculous "artificial market barrier", since a featurephone streaming music or video can easily use more data than a smartphone user that is disinterested in streaming media.
Presumably the underlying notion then is that "people who buy expensive phones can afford to pay more for data"...Anyways, the question here is: How can you construct an Android phone such that it would meet whatever flimsy rationale carriers use to declare a phone eligible for non-smartphone data plans, yet retain most of Android's functionality?Maybe you'll have to give up the name Android, since another rule-of-thumb is that "if you're able to advertise/identify the phone's OS by name, then its a smartphone".Maybe it can be done "virally": out of the box, the phone is pretty dumb, but a download or two transforms it into fully blown Android.Someday, I think, the carriers will have to dissolve this stupid market barrier, but for now, it makes a different of $200/YEAR, which matters to many...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28141511</id>
	<title>G1 missing OBVIOUS feature</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243625040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I currently have a T-mobile phone from Nokia that can make calls via wifi.  It isn't a great phone, but it works as advertised.  Looking at the G1, I couldn't believe they didn't enable the same feature, since obviously it has wifi hardware.  WTF?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I currently have a T-mobile phone from Nokia that can make calls via wifi .
It is n't a great phone , but it works as advertised .
Looking at the G1 , I could n't believe they did n't enable the same feature , since obviously it has wifi hardware .
WTF ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I currently have a T-mobile phone from Nokia that can make calls via wifi.
It isn't a great phone, but it works as advertised.
Looking at the G1, I couldn't believe they didn't enable the same feature, since obviously it has wifi hardware.
WTF?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138627</id>
	<title>Re:A Suggestion</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1243610880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can have a smartphone without internet access. Arguably, every fucking phone is a smartphone these days; My stupid MOTO RAZR V3i has a datebook, voice records, text/video/image notes, and my contacts; finally, it can sync to Lookout. The additional features are still useful; especially if you have an alternate way to get software onto the phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can have a smartphone without internet access .
Arguably , every fucking phone is a smartphone these days ; My stupid MOTO RAZR V3i has a datebook , voice records , text/video/image notes , and my contacts ; finally , it can sync to Lookout .
The additional features are still useful ; especially if you have an alternate way to get software onto the phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can have a smartphone without internet access.
Arguably, every fucking phone is a smartphone these days; My stupid MOTO RAZR V3i has a datebook, voice records, text/video/image notes, and my contacts; finally, it can sync to Lookout.
The additional features are still useful; especially if you have an alternate way to get software onto the phone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140329</id>
	<title>Re:Android should scare mainstream phone makers</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1243619640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As somebody that has imported and sold Chinese manufactured devices, I can tell you that if you buy it directly from China factory you have at least a 1 in 10 chance that it is dead on arrival, a 1 in 5 chance that it be dead withing 1 year and a 1 in 2 chance that it has some slight imperfection.</p><p>The more complex the device the worse it is.</p><p>As an importer, the only way to live with this is to do our own QA checks and that's because we have the products branded with our logo. Many importers (that don't use their own brand) don't really care that much.</p><p>The problem is that the Chinese manufacturers seem to follow the process of: design a device, then remove parts until it stops working and add the last part removed and finally downgrade whatever parts are left as far as possible while istill keeping the device working.</p><p>The kind of faults I've seen usually boil down to cheap parts and designs that sacrifice quality/reliability and are optimized to be able change the suppliers of the parts used.</p><p>Also, their QA sucks.</p><p>As much as I bitch and moan (as a consumer) about the "brand"-tax (an iPod's price is 90\% brand), the truth is that, until the Chinese manufacturers changes their approach to production, non-Chinese-branded products just give you piece of mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As somebody that has imported and sold Chinese manufactured devices , I can tell you that if you buy it directly from China factory you have at least a 1 in 10 chance that it is dead on arrival , a 1 in 5 chance that it be dead withing 1 year and a 1 in 2 chance that it has some slight imperfection.The more complex the device the worse it is.As an importer , the only way to live with this is to do our own QA checks and that 's because we have the products branded with our logo .
Many importers ( that do n't use their own brand ) do n't really care that much.The problem is that the Chinese manufacturers seem to follow the process of : design a device , then remove parts until it stops working and add the last part removed and finally downgrade whatever parts are left as far as possible while istill keeping the device working.The kind of faults I 've seen usually boil down to cheap parts and designs that sacrifice quality/reliability and are optimized to be able change the suppliers of the parts used.Also , their QA sucks.As much as I bitch and moan ( as a consumer ) about the " brand " -tax ( an iPod 's price is 90 \ % brand ) , the truth is that , until the Chinese manufacturers changes their approach to production , non-Chinese-branded products just give you piece of mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As somebody that has imported and sold Chinese manufactured devices, I can tell you that if you buy it directly from China factory you have at least a 1 in 10 chance that it is dead on arrival, a 1 in 5 chance that it be dead withing 1 year and a 1 in 2 chance that it has some slight imperfection.The more complex the device the worse it is.As an importer, the only way to live with this is to do our own QA checks and that's because we have the products branded with our logo.
Many importers (that don't use their own brand) don't really care that much.The problem is that the Chinese manufacturers seem to follow the process of: design a device, then remove parts until it stops working and add the last part removed and finally downgrade whatever parts are left as far as possible while istill keeping the device working.The kind of faults I've seen usually boil down to cheap parts and designs that sacrifice quality/reliability and are optimized to be able change the suppliers of the parts used.Also, their QA sucks.As much as I bitch and moan (as a consumer) about the "brand"-tax (an iPod's price is 90\% brand), the truth is that, until the Chinese manufacturers changes their approach to production, non-Chinese-branded products just give you piece of mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138223</id>
	<title>A Suggestion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243609080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext> Personally I think google can either epically win or fail with this move. One thing I see as very important is making sure not all of the phones are smartphones. The article suggests that several service providers will be in on the deal (already a step above apple in my opinion), however, if every phone delivered is a smartphone, much of the market will be lost. Not everyone can afford the expenses of internet and email that come with a smartphone. I would get the phone simply because it was running Andriod even if it weren't a smartphone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I think google can either epically win or fail with this move .
One thing I see as very important is making sure not all of the phones are smartphones .
The article suggests that several service providers will be in on the deal ( already a step above apple in my opinion ) , however , if every phone delivered is a smartphone , much of the market will be lost .
Not everyone can afford the expenses of internet and email that come with a smartphone .
I would get the phone simply because it was running Andriod even if it were n't a smartphone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Personally I think google can either epically win or fail with this move.
One thing I see as very important is making sure not all of the phones are smartphones.
The article suggests that several service providers will be in on the deal (already a step above apple in my opinion), however, if every phone delivered is a smartphone, much of the market will be lost.
Not everyone can afford the expenses of internet and email that come with a smartphone.
I would get the phone simply because it was running Andriod even if it weren't a smartphone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28139821</id>
	<title>Re:The Open Fist?</title>
	<author>phanoflife</author>
	<datestamp>1243617000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Open-source; Iron-fist = Open Fist</htmltext>
<tokenext>Open-source ; Iron-fist = Open Fist</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open-source; Iron-fist = Open Fist</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138761</id>
	<title>The headline causes one's mind to wander...</title>
	<author>mark-t</author>
	<datestamp>1243611540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Okay, I do genuinely realize that flavor in this context is actually being used as a synonym for "version", but considering the general shape and size of cell phones these days, did anyone else think that the notion of cell phones having flavors might be just a little bit... ummm.... kinky?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , I do genuinely realize that flavor in this context is actually being used as a synonym for " version " , but considering the general shape and size of cell phones these days , did anyone else think that the notion of cell phones having flavors might be just a little bit... ummm.... kinky ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, I do genuinely realize that flavor in this context is actually being used as a synonym for "version", but considering the general shape and size of cell phones these days, did anyone else think that the notion of cell phones having flavors might be just a little bit... ummm.... kinky?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138685</id>
	<title>Re:A Suggestion: Smart?</title>
	<author>MancunianMaskMan</author>
	<datestamp>1243611120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>what's a "smartphone"? It's one that has some "freedom" in its software (freedom with very small f), i.e. you can decide what apps to put on it, as in S60 or WindMobile or the jesus phone. Or Android. They're more expensive simply because an OS like that needs more silicon to run on.  (err,that and the fact that people will pay more for it). So what's the point of an Android-powered dumb-phone? If it's underpowered and the UI gets slow, noone will want it as you'd be better of with your Nokia 3310.</htmltext>
<tokenext>what 's a " smartphone " ?
It 's one that has some " freedom " in its software ( freedom with very small f ) , i.e .
you can decide what apps to put on it , as in S60 or WindMobile or the jesus phone .
Or Android .
They 're more expensive simply because an OS like that needs more silicon to run on .
( err,that and the fact that people will pay more for it ) .
So what 's the point of an Android-powered dumb-phone ?
If it 's underpowered and the UI gets slow , noone will want it as you 'd be better of with your Nokia 3310 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what's a "smartphone"?
It's one that has some "freedom" in its software (freedom with very small f), i.e.
you can decide what apps to put on it, as in S60 or WindMobile or the jesus phone.
Or Android.
They're more expensive simply because an OS like that needs more silicon to run on.
(err,that and the fact that people will pay more for it).
So what's the point of an Android-powered dumb-phone?
If it's underpowered and the UI gets slow, noone will want it as you'd be better of with your Nokia 3310.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28152891</id>
	<title>Re:Android should scare mainstream phone makers</title>
	<author>Dr. Spork</author>
	<datestamp>1243681260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only strange thing about your argument is that your "brand-taxed" iPod was also made in China. They can do QA in China as well as anywhere, but it will cost you a premium.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only strange thing about your argument is that your " brand-taxed " iPod was also made in China .
They can do QA in China as well as anywhere , but it will cost you a premium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only strange thing about your argument is that your "brand-taxed" iPod was also made in China.
They can do QA in China as well as anywhere, but it will cost you a premium.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140329</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138951</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>TheNinjaroach</author>
	<datestamp>1243612560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  (Score:0, Flamebait)</p></div><p>Really?  I got a good laugh out of your post, and I agree with the point you've made.  Those with mod points must be having a bad week.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Score : 0 , Flamebait ) Really ?
I got a good laugh out of your post , and I agree with the point you 've made .
Those with mod points must be having a bad week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  (Score:0, Flamebait)Really?
I got a good laugh out of your post, and I agree with the point you've made.
Those with mod points must be having a bad week.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138505</id>
	<title>Re:Android should scare mainstream phone makers</title>
	<author>cabjf</author>
	<datestamp>1243610280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This might even be legal!</p></div><p>Maybe in China it could be.  There is still the issue of copying the hardware which no doubt has trademarks and patents covering various portions of it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This might even be legal ! Maybe in China it could be .
There is still the issue of copying the hardware which no doubt has trademarks and patents covering various portions of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This might even be legal!Maybe in China it could be.
There is still the issue of copying the hardware which no doubt has trademarks and patents covering various portions of it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138439</id>
	<title>Slap!</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1243610040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, it seems he really said "open fist,"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p> </div><p>What did the five fingers say to the face?  SLAP!  I'm Rick James, bitch!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it seems he really said " open fist , " ... " What did the five fingers say to the face ?
SLAP ! I 'm Rick James , bitch !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it seems he really said "open fist," ..." What did the five fingers say to the face?
SLAP!  I'm Rick James, bitch!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138751</id>
	<title>Re:A Suggestion</title>
	<author>0xdeadbeef</author>
	<datestamp>1243611480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>One thing I see as very important is making sure not all of the phones are smartphones.</i></p><p>Every phone is a smartphone. At this point, the distinction is as meaningless as the distinction between smartphone and PDA five years ago, when people were making noise about the supposed "death" of the PDA. It is all marketing gibberish. And in another five years, you'll have to go out of your way to <i>not</i> get a data plan.</p><p>What matters now is what platform the phone runs, and whether it allows the installation of applications from anywhere, or only from a centralized store and blessed by the manufacturer, or only from a centralized store and blessed by the carrier, or not at all. Google is putting a stake in the ground for the first category, the open category, the one that resembles computers as we all know them. Apple and the carriers want to turn phones into consoles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing I see as very important is making sure not all of the phones are smartphones.Every phone is a smartphone .
At this point , the distinction is as meaningless as the distinction between smartphone and PDA five years ago , when people were making noise about the supposed " death " of the PDA .
It is all marketing gibberish .
And in another five years , you 'll have to go out of your way to not get a data plan.What matters now is what platform the phone runs , and whether it allows the installation of applications from anywhere , or only from a centralized store and blessed by the manufacturer , or only from a centralized store and blessed by the carrier , or not at all .
Google is putting a stake in the ground for the first category , the open category , the one that resembles computers as we all know them .
Apple and the carriers want to turn phones into consoles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing I see as very important is making sure not all of the phones are smartphones.Every phone is a smartphone.
At this point, the distinction is as meaningless as the distinction between smartphone and PDA five years ago, when people were making noise about the supposed "death" of the PDA.
It is all marketing gibberish.
And in another five years, you'll have to go out of your way to not get a data plan.What matters now is what platform the phone runs, and whether it allows the installation of applications from anywhere, or only from a centralized store and blessed by the manufacturer, or only from a centralized store and blessed by the carrier, or not at all.
Google is putting a stake in the ground for the first category, the open category, the one that resembles computers as we all know them.
Apple and the carriers want to turn phones into consoles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140309</id>
	<title>Answer to the old android question</title>
	<author>Mathness</author>
	<datestamp>1243619520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great, maybe we can now get the answer to what an android experince when it goes into sleep mode.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great , maybe we can now get the answer to what an android experince when it goes into sleep mode .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great, maybe we can now get the answer to what an android experince when it goes into sleep mode.
:P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138257</id>
	<title>I for one...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243609200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>welcome our open fisted overlords.</p><p>please forgive me.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>welcome our open fisted overlords.please forgive me .
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>welcome our open fisted overlords.please forgive me.
:D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138489</id>
	<title>Be careful...</title>
	<author>Herr Brush</author>
	<datestamp>1243610220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>when using an open fist near the taint!</htmltext>
<tokenext>when using an open fist near the taint !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when using an open fist near the taint!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138247</id>
	<title>Open fist...</title>
	<author>xgr3gx</author>
	<datestamp>1243609140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So they can try to bitch slap the iPhone!  <br>

Also - how does one 'pre-install' web based apps?  I suppose you can have a special mobile client app, but all you need is a browser.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So they can try to bitch slap the iPhone !
Also - how does one 'pre-install ' web based apps ?
I suppose you can have a special mobile client app , but all you need is a browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they can try to bitch slap the iPhone!
Also - how does one 'pre-install' web based apps?
I suppose you can have a special mobile client app, but all you need is a browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28139267</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>EBMN</author>
	<datestamp>1243614120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google can not "charge" more for free OS.  They just want to offer more variety.  I for one would go for fully-branded Google OS with no problem (I would actually prefer one since I use just about every G service) but there are more then few people that have no use for Gmail or calendar and would rather have more space on their partition for pr0n browsing or for decent MS exchange application.  And, of course there are carrier restrictions, like recent AT&amp;T stunt of delaying an Android phone and requesting AT&amp;T look and feel instead of stock Android.  They should just stick to Iphone and leave Android alone IMHO.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google can not " charge " more for free OS .
They just want to offer more variety .
I for one would go for fully-branded Google OS with no problem ( I would actually prefer one since I use just about every G service ) but there are more then few people that have no use for Gmail or calendar and would rather have more space on their partition for pr0n browsing or for decent MS exchange application .
And , of course there are carrier restrictions , like recent AT&amp;T stunt of delaying an Android phone and requesting AT&amp;T look and feel instead of stock Android .
They should just stick to Iphone and leave Android alone IMHO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google can not "charge" more for free OS.
They just want to offer more variety.
I for one would go for fully-branded Google OS with no problem (I would actually prefer one since I use just about every G service) but there are more then few people that have no use for Gmail or calendar and would rather have more space on their partition for pr0n browsing or for decent MS exchange application.
And, of course there are carrier restrictions, like recent AT&amp;T stunt of delaying an Android phone and requesting AT&amp;T look and feel instead of stock Android.
They should just stick to Iphone and leave Android alone IMHO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140591</id>
	<title>Also forgot...</title>
	<author>tbi</author>
	<datestamp>1243620900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google starter -which would be exactly the same as all of the others except with most of the features locked down and the restriction that you can only do one thing at once.

So you could ring somebody else up and talk to them, but you wouldn't be able to hear anything back unless you hung up and let them call you back.

This edition would be marketed at 'third-world' countries as it is intended to be cheaper but instead serves as nothing but a pointless annoyance and inconvenience.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google starter -which would be exactly the same as all of the others except with most of the features locked down and the restriction that you can only do one thing at once .
So you could ring somebody else up and talk to them , but you would n't be able to hear anything back unless you hung up and let them call you back .
This edition would be marketed at 'third-world ' countries as it is intended to be cheaper but instead serves as nothing but a pointless annoyance and inconvenience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google starter -which would be exactly the same as all of the others except with most of the features locked down and the restriction that you can only do one thing at once.
So you could ring somebody else up and talk to them, but you wouldn't be able to hear anything back unless you hung up and let them call you back.
This edition would be marketed at 'third-world' countries as it is intended to be cheaper but instead serves as nothing but a pointless annoyance and inconvenience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138849</id>
	<title>Re:If updates are free, why buy new phones?</title>
	<author>webreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1243611900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's all about the hardware, not the software. iPhone firmware updates are free too, but people will still upgrade from 2G to 3G to the 3.0 hardware to be released later this year.

<p>For me, I upgraded when WinMo devices moved to having built-in GPS, and I will upgrade my HTC Magic when my contract runs out to get a faster, lighter device with a longer-lasting battery, better (OLED?) screen, 3D projector, built in zero-gravity travel device, etc etc etc.

</p><p>People upgrade because they want new shiny toys. A new OS gives that 'new coin' buzz but isn't half as exciting as videoing a box opening and playing with a sparkling new device.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all about the hardware , not the software .
iPhone firmware updates are free too , but people will still upgrade from 2G to 3G to the 3.0 hardware to be released later this year .
For me , I upgraded when WinMo devices moved to having built-in GPS , and I will upgrade my HTC Magic when my contract runs out to get a faster , lighter device with a longer-lasting battery , better ( OLED ?
) screen , 3D projector , built in zero-gravity travel device , etc etc etc .
People upgrade because they want new shiny toys .
A new OS gives that 'new coin ' buzz but is n't half as exciting as videoing a box opening and playing with a sparkling new device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all about the hardware, not the software.
iPhone firmware updates are free too, but people will still upgrade from 2G to 3G to the 3.0 hardware to be released later this year.
For me, I upgraded when WinMo devices moved to having built-in GPS, and I will upgrade my HTC Magic when my contract runs out to get a faster, lighter device with a longer-lasting battery, better (OLED?
) screen, 3D projector, built in zero-gravity travel device, etc etc etc.
People upgrade because they want new shiny toys.
A new OS gives that 'new coin' buzz but isn't half as exciting as videoing a box opening and playing with a sparkling new device.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140137</id>
	<title>Want to give Google a taint?</title>
	<author>CopaceticOpus</author>
	<datestamp>1243618740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's an app for that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's an app for that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's an app for that!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138839</id>
	<title>the goog abides</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243611840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>'We want to abide by the law, but not rule with an open fist.'</i> <br>
<br>
It's good to know that the Goog abides.</htmltext>
<tokenext>'We want to abide by the law , but not rule with an open fist .
' It 's good to know that the Goog abides .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'We want to abide by the law, but not rule with an open fist.
' 

It's good to know that the Goog abides.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138625</id>
	<title>Read closely...</title>
	<author>grayn0de</author>
	<datestamp>1243610880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Rubin says: 'We want to abide by the law, but <b>not</b> rule with an open fist.'</p></div><p>
I think he <b>does</b> mean to rule with an iron fist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rubin says : 'We want to abide by the law , but not rule with an open fist .
' I think he does mean to rule with an iron fist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rubin says: 'We want to abide by the law, but not rule with an open fist.
'
I think he does mean to rule with an iron fist.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138307</id>
	<title>Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243609440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I own a G1 and it already is "<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... pre-loaded with Google apps like Gmail and Google Calendar" so my first thought is are they going to try and sell what I already have for more money and sell one with less features for the price of mine? If so that won't go over well. I mean $300 is great for a open source phone that I can write my own apps for like I currently have. However, if they go changing the recipe too much then they might screw it up!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I own a G1 and it already is " ... pre-loaded with Google apps like Gmail and Google Calendar " so my first thought is are they going to try and sell what I already have for more money and sell one with less features for the price of mine ?
If so that wo n't go over well .
I mean $ 300 is great for a open source phone that I can write my own apps for like I currently have .
However , if they go changing the recipe too much then they might screw it up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I own a G1 and it already is " ... pre-loaded with Google apps like Gmail and Google Calendar" so my first thought is are they going to try and sell what I already have for more money and sell one with less features for the price of mine?
If so that won't go over well.
I mean $300 is great for a open source phone that I can write my own apps for like I currently have.
However, if they go changing the recipe too much then they might screw it up!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28139347</id>
	<title>Re:A Suggestion</title>
	<author>LabRat007</author>
	<datestamp>1243614540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> One thing I see as very important is making sure not all of the phones are smartphones....Not everyone can afford the expenses of internet and email that come with a smartphone.</p> </div><p>

Smartphones don't have to be "expensive".  Personally I'm looking for one that has WiFi so I can avoid data plans completely.  IMO android on a dumb phone sorta misses the point.  If you're after a dumb phone any proprietary OS should treat you right...or right enough.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing I see as very important is making sure not all of the phones are smartphones....Not everyone can afford the expenses of internet and email that come with a smartphone .
Smartphones do n't have to be " expensive " .
Personally I 'm looking for one that has WiFi so I can avoid data plans completely .
IMO android on a dumb phone sorta misses the point .
If you 're after a dumb phone any proprietary OS should treat you right...or right enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> One thing I see as very important is making sure not all of the phones are smartphones....Not everyone can afford the expenses of internet and email that come with a smartphone.
Smartphones don't have to be "expensive".
Personally I'm looking for one that has WiFi so I can avoid data plans completely.
IMO android on a dumb phone sorta misses the point.
If you're after a dumb phone any proprietary OS should treat you right...or right enough.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138343</id>
	<title>Competition brings Innovation</title>
	<author>Celeste R</author>
	<datestamp>1243609620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alternatives to Apple's store are looking better and better.  Sure, the company-branded software will be there, but being able to compete(!) gives Google a significant incentive to provide continually more functionality in its own software.</p><p>Comparing Apple(s) to (google) Oranges isn't always easy though...  mostly because the gphones haven't been made publicly available.  Time will tell, and it's my opinion that Google is going about this in a fairly well thought out manner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alternatives to Apple 's store are looking better and better .
Sure , the company-branded software will be there , but being able to compete ( !
) gives Google a significant incentive to provide continually more functionality in its own software.Comparing Apple ( s ) to ( google ) Oranges is n't always easy though... mostly because the gphones have n't been made publicly available .
Time will tell , and it 's my opinion that Google is going about this in a fairly well thought out manner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alternatives to Apple's store are looking better and better.
Sure, the company-branded software will be there, but being able to compete(!
) gives Google a significant incentive to provide continually more functionality in its own software.Comparing Apple(s) to (google) Oranges isn't always easy though...  mostly because the gphones haven't been made publicly available.
Time will tell, and it's my opinion that Google is going about this in a fairly well thought out manner.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28139191</id>
	<title>You don't want a Sprint Android phone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243613700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason Sprint's taking their sweet time releasing an Android phone is that Sprint's Android phone is going to be WiMAX-only.</p><p>Which currently limits you to Baltimore and Portland.</p><p>So if all you ever do is travel between Baltimore and Portland, then a Sprint Android phone may be for you!</p><p>If you live anywhere else, forget it.  And given that Sprint currently has no active plans to expand their network given that they're hemorrhaging cash - you probably shouldn't hold your breath for it to make it to your area.</p><p>Also note that this means that, yet again, if you decide to go with a Sprint Android phone you're locked in to Sprint, since WiMAX doesn't have a SIM-card analog.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason Sprint 's taking their sweet time releasing an Android phone is that Sprint 's Android phone is going to be WiMAX-only.Which currently limits you to Baltimore and Portland.So if all you ever do is travel between Baltimore and Portland , then a Sprint Android phone may be for you ! If you live anywhere else , forget it .
And given that Sprint currently has no active plans to expand their network given that they 're hemorrhaging cash - you probably should n't hold your breath for it to make it to your area.Also note that this means that , yet again , if you decide to go with a Sprint Android phone you 're locked in to Sprint , since WiMAX does n't have a SIM-card analog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason Sprint's taking their sweet time releasing an Android phone is that Sprint's Android phone is going to be WiMAX-only.Which currently limits you to Baltimore and Portland.So if all you ever do is travel between Baltimore and Portland, then a Sprint Android phone may be for you!If you live anywhere else, forget it.
And given that Sprint currently has no active plans to expand their network given that they're hemorrhaging cash - you probably shouldn't hold your breath for it to make it to your area.Also note that this means that, yet again, if you decide to go with a Sprint Android phone you're locked in to Sprint, since WiMAX doesn't have a SIM-card analog.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138357</id>
	<title>Baby shaker app in 3, 2, 1...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243609620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>could also lead to poorly constructed or offensive applications that could give Google a taint.</p></div></blockquote><p>No doubt "baby shaker apps" and their ilk are in bad taste but deeming black humour immoral is a step too far.  I thought it was funny and the reaction to it even more so.  For me, the removal of that app and the NiN one from Apple's app store tainted Apple more than allowing them would have done.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>could also lead to poorly constructed or offensive applications that could give Google a taint.No doubt " baby shaker apps " and their ilk are in bad taste but deeming black humour immoral is a step too far .
I thought it was funny and the reaction to it even more so .
For me , the removal of that app and the NiN one from Apple 's app store tainted Apple more than allowing them would have done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>could also lead to poorly constructed or offensive applications that could give Google a taint.No doubt "baby shaker apps" and their ilk are in bad taste but deeming black humour immoral is a step too far.
I thought it was funny and the reaction to it even more so.
For me, the removal of that app and the NiN one from Apple's app store tainted Apple more than allowing them would have done.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28148539</id>
	<title>Re:Android is terrible</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1243687440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I've had an iPhone for nearly a year now and I've recently gotten my hands on an Android device.
Android has an amateurish summer project feel to it when compared to the polished iPhone OS. You can argue the technical merits of an open platform and hackability till you are blue in the face. It doesn't change the fact that Android is like the Linux desktop experience compared to the Windows or Mac desktop experience - it's an experience only a geek could love simply because he's willing to overlook the warts and horrendous usability because he can tinker.
Most people don't care about the underpinnings of the device. They want it to work well, be easy to use and be shiny. The Android OS offers none of that.
The big difference between Apple of today and the Apple that lost against Microsoft is price. Apple's handheld devices are very aggressively priced and it is Apple that is setting the price for the entire market.
Android does not have the merits and it does not have the price advantage to compete.
Unless google starts drastically improving it, Android is as good as dead.</p></div></blockquote><p>

So, your big problem with Android is that it's not the Iphone?<br> <br> You've failed to specify any actual faults in Android. You could have gone for the lack of soft keyboard, poor battery life, less then stellar memory handling (its good but it needs to be better IMO, opening two memory intensive app's like Street Veiw will slow down the OS). All you could fault is that it isn't shiny. For the HTC Dream platform, most of the upper management at my work have called it their ideal phone due to its size, sharp vibrant screen and physical keyboard. The Android OS is rock solid, capable and easy to use, I am yet to find someone who cant figure out how to use my HTC dream in 2 minutes flat.<br> <br>

I'll also clue you in on the phone shopping habits of normal people, they will buy the phone that is sold to them on the plan they want. This is how people end up with crappy WinMo phones like the Samsung F480 (which is being advertised the hell out of here in Australia). Most people use Windows not because it looks good but because it does everything they need. Aesthetics do not matter as much as you think they do and vary greatly from person to person.<br> <br>

One more thing, to buy the Iphone and HTC Dream outright they will cost the same, A$900. The only difference being that the Iphone is locked to a carrier and the HTC Dream isn't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've had an iPhone for nearly a year now and I 've recently gotten my hands on an Android device .
Android has an amateurish summer project feel to it when compared to the polished iPhone OS .
You can argue the technical merits of an open platform and hackability till you are blue in the face .
It does n't change the fact that Android is like the Linux desktop experience compared to the Windows or Mac desktop experience - it 's an experience only a geek could love simply because he 's willing to overlook the warts and horrendous usability because he can tinker .
Most people do n't care about the underpinnings of the device .
They want it to work well , be easy to use and be shiny .
The Android OS offers none of that .
The big difference between Apple of today and the Apple that lost against Microsoft is price .
Apple 's handheld devices are very aggressively priced and it is Apple that is setting the price for the entire market .
Android does not have the merits and it does not have the price advantage to compete .
Unless google starts drastically improving it , Android is as good as dead .
So , your big problem with Android is that it 's not the Iphone ?
You 've failed to specify any actual faults in Android .
You could have gone for the lack of soft keyboard , poor battery life , less then stellar memory handling ( its good but it needs to be better IMO , opening two memory intensive app 's like Street Veiw will slow down the OS ) .
All you could fault is that it is n't shiny .
For the HTC Dream platform , most of the upper management at my work have called it their ideal phone due to its size , sharp vibrant screen and physical keyboard .
The Android OS is rock solid , capable and easy to use , I am yet to find someone who cant figure out how to use my HTC dream in 2 minutes flat .
I 'll also clue you in on the phone shopping habits of normal people , they will buy the phone that is sold to them on the plan they want .
This is how people end up with crappy WinMo phones like the Samsung F480 ( which is being advertised the hell out of here in Australia ) .
Most people use Windows not because it looks good but because it does everything they need .
Aesthetics do not matter as much as you think they do and vary greatly from person to person .
One more thing , to buy the Iphone and HTC Dream outright they will cost the same , A $ 900 .
The only difference being that the Iphone is locked to a carrier and the HTC Dream is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've had an iPhone for nearly a year now and I've recently gotten my hands on an Android device.
Android has an amateurish summer project feel to it when compared to the polished iPhone OS.
You can argue the technical merits of an open platform and hackability till you are blue in the face.
It doesn't change the fact that Android is like the Linux desktop experience compared to the Windows or Mac desktop experience - it's an experience only a geek could love simply because he's willing to overlook the warts and horrendous usability because he can tinker.
Most people don't care about the underpinnings of the device.
They want it to work well, be easy to use and be shiny.
The Android OS offers none of that.
The big difference between Apple of today and the Apple that lost against Microsoft is price.
Apple's handheld devices are very aggressively priced and it is Apple that is setting the price for the entire market.
Android does not have the merits and it does not have the price advantage to compete.
Unless google starts drastically improving it, Android is as good as dead.
So, your big problem with Android is that it's not the Iphone?
You've failed to specify any actual faults in Android.
You could have gone for the lack of soft keyboard, poor battery life, less then stellar memory handling (its good but it needs to be better IMO, opening two memory intensive app's like Street Veiw will slow down the OS).
All you could fault is that it isn't shiny.
For the HTC Dream platform, most of the upper management at my work have called it their ideal phone due to its size, sharp vibrant screen and physical keyboard.
The Android OS is rock solid, capable and easy to use, I am yet to find someone who cant figure out how to use my HTC dream in 2 minutes flat.
I'll also clue you in on the phone shopping habits of normal people, they will buy the phone that is sold to them on the plan they want.
This is how people end up with crappy WinMo phones like the Samsung F480 (which is being advertised the hell out of here in Australia).
Most people use Windows not because it looks good but because it does everything they need.
Aesthetics do not matter as much as you think they do and vary greatly from person to person.
One more thing, to buy the Iphone and HTC Dream outright they will cost the same, A$900.
The only difference being that the Iphone is locked to a carrier and the HTC Dream isn't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138805</id>
	<title>Re:Android should scare mainstream phone makers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243611720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must never have bought one of the Chinese iphone knockoffs.  They do not use the same hardware and have very limited functionality even if the interface tries to look like the iphone.  Try running Windows 7 or Vista on an old 386 PC and you will get an understanding of how frustrating this can be.  Basic phone works.  Multimedia and all the wiz bang features = not a chance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must never have bought one of the Chinese iphone knockoffs .
They do not use the same hardware and have very limited functionality even if the interface tries to look like the iphone .
Try running Windows 7 or Vista on an old 386 PC and you will get an understanding of how frustrating this can be .
Basic phone works .
Multimedia and all the wiz bang features = not a chance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must never have bought one of the Chinese iphone knockoffs.
They do not use the same hardware and have very limited functionality even if the interface tries to look like the iphone.
Try running Windows 7 or Vista on an old 386 PC and you will get an understanding of how frustrating this can be.
Basic phone works.
Multimedia and all the wiz bang features = not a chance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138361</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28148437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28139641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28141149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138343
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28148505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140541
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28152891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28139347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28143885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28145519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28139821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28139051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28142819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28147357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28149011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28139873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28146589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28148539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28141935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28152865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28139267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28139191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28139017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28139055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1343201_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28145591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1343201.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138257
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1343201.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28142819
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1343201.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138343
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140205
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1343201.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28141935
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1343201.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28145519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28146589
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1343201.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138813
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28152865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140329
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28141149
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28152891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28139641
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1343201.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138761
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1343201.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140541
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28148505
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1343201.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138235
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138875
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28139821
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1343201.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140591
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1343201.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138223
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28139051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138637
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28148437
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28139873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28139347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138627
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28147357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138751
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28143885
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28149011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138735
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1343201.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28148539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28145591
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1343201.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138849
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1343201.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28139017
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28139191
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1343201.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28138493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28139267
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1343201.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28139055
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1343201.28140097
</commentlist>
</conversation>
