<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_01_145204</id>
	<title>Jim Zemlin Pitches Linux App Stores For Telcos</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1246459920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/" rel="nofollow">angry tapir</a> writes <i>"Mobile carriers may start giving away netbooks for free, and <a href="http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/article/309408/group\_pitches\_linux\_free\_netbooks\_from\_mobile\_carriers">Linux-based application stores could help them profit</a> by doing so, the Linux Foundation's Jim Zemlin argued at a recent forum in Beijing. 'Selling discounted netbooks to users who buy a mobile data subscription would extend a sales strategy widely used for mobile phones. Carriers often sell phones for below retail price and let a user's subscription fees make up for the loss. AT&amp;T already sells subsidized 3G netbooks in the US, and China Mobile has announced similar plans. Carriers worldwide are likely considering the option, which lets them charge for added services like downloads of music, videos and software, said [analyst Jack Gold]. Those downloads could come from platforms like the iPhone App Store that target mainly mobile phones today. Competition could push netbook prices down as more carriers subsidize them, which would make putting Linux on the laptops an attractive way to cut costs, said Zemlin.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>angry tapir writes " Mobile carriers may start giving away netbooks for free , and Linux-based application stores could help them profit by doing so , the Linux Foundation 's Jim Zemlin argued at a recent forum in Beijing .
'Selling discounted netbooks to users who buy a mobile data subscription would extend a sales strategy widely used for mobile phones .
Carriers often sell phones for below retail price and let a user 's subscription fees make up for the loss .
AT&amp;T already sells subsidized 3G netbooks in the US , and China Mobile has announced similar plans .
Carriers worldwide are likely considering the option , which lets them charge for added services like downloads of music , videos and software , said [ analyst Jack Gold ] .
Those downloads could come from platforms like the iPhone App Store that target mainly mobile phones today .
Competition could push netbook prices down as more carriers subsidize them , which would make putting Linux on the laptops an attractive way to cut costs , said Zemlin .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>angry tapir writes "Mobile carriers may start giving away netbooks for free, and Linux-based application stores could help them profit by doing so, the Linux Foundation's Jim Zemlin argued at a recent forum in Beijing.
'Selling discounted netbooks to users who buy a mobile data subscription would extend a sales strategy widely used for mobile phones.
Carriers often sell phones for below retail price and let a user's subscription fees make up for the loss.
AT&amp;T already sells subsidized 3G netbooks in the US, and China Mobile has announced similar plans.
Carriers worldwide are likely considering the option, which lets them charge for added services like downloads of music, videos and software, said [analyst Jack Gold].
Those downloads could come from platforms like the iPhone App Store that target mainly mobile phones today.
Competition could push netbook prices down as more carriers subsidize them, which would make putting Linux on the laptops an attractive way to cut costs, said Zemlin.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542667</id>
	<title>eventually-your-toaster-will-have-an-app-store</title>
	<author>ByOhTek</author>
	<datestamp>1246464600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The mods do realize the article is about LINUX not NetBSD, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The mods do realize the article is about LINUX not NetBSD , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The mods do realize the article is about LINUX not NetBSD, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28550739</id>
	<title>How about usable apps?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246446720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's an idea - how about Linux developers just write some useable apps that people actually want, and then nobody will have to worry about how to get people to buy these things. Since most Linux software is complete crap, normal users have no interest in it. No app store or free netbook is going to change that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's an idea - how about Linux developers just write some useable apps that people actually want , and then nobody will have to worry about how to get people to buy these things .
Since most Linux software is complete crap , normal users have no interest in it .
No app store or free netbook is going to change that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's an idea - how about Linux developers just write some useable apps that people actually want, and then nobody will have to worry about how to get people to buy these things.
Since most Linux software is complete crap, normal users have no interest in it.
No app store or free netbook is going to change that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542733</id>
	<title>Yum/Apt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246464900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Better yet, do as Flash and Skype do and host your own repository. Invest a little money and you could probably do it over HTTPS assigning a unique key to each user, bill on that subscription, update the key yearly, anyone deliberately releasing their key or anyone who doesn't store it securely gets held libel for the subsequent piracy. Not difficult to check up on... "Hmm same key, two different IPs?" Even a laptop could be "homed" to only work from your own home broadband IP if the retailers wanted to be anal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Better yet , do as Flash and Skype do and host your own repository .
Invest a little money and you could probably do it over HTTPS assigning a unique key to each user , bill on that subscription , update the key yearly , anyone deliberately releasing their key or anyone who does n't store it securely gets held libel for the subsequent piracy .
Not difficult to check up on... " Hmm same key , two different IPs ?
" Even a laptop could be " homed " to only work from your own home broadband IP if the retailers wanted to be anal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better yet, do as Flash and Skype do and host your own repository.
Invest a little money and you could probably do it over HTTPS assigning a unique key to each user, bill on that subscription, update the key yearly, anyone deliberately releasing their key or anyone who doesn't store it securely gets held libel for the subsequent piracy.
Not difficult to check up on... "Hmm same key, two different IPs?
" Even a laptop could be "homed" to only work from your own home broadband IP if the retailers wanted to be anal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28543151</id>
	<title>CNR</title>
	<author>IANAAC</author>
	<datestamp>1246466460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I dunno...
<p>
I would think that all any would have to do is take a look at how CNR has done and conclude that it's a waste of time.
</p><p>
As others have pointed out, most distributions have their own repositories that handle the job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno.. . I would think that all any would have to do is take a look at how CNR has done and conclude that it 's a waste of time .
As others have pointed out , most distributions have their own repositories that handle the job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno...

I would think that all any would have to do is take a look at how CNR has done and conclude that it's a waste of time.
As others have pointed out, most distributions have their own repositories that handle the job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28543127</id>
	<title>Great Idea, As Long As</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1246466400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great idea, as long as:</p><p>There aren't 20 forks of it.<br>There aren't updates to the apps (and app store) every 5 minutes.<br>No one ever says "try the nightly build, here's the latest tarball".<br>You don't need to touch a command line to deal with it, ever.<br>There's a person providing support for the store and for each app.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great idea , as long as : There are n't 20 forks of it.There are n't updates to the apps ( and app store ) every 5 minutes.No one ever says " try the nightly build , here 's the latest tarball " .You do n't need to touch a command line to deal with it , ever.There 's a person providing support for the store and for each app .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great idea, as long as:There aren't 20 forks of it.There aren't updates to the apps (and app store) every 5 minutes.No one ever says "try the nightly build, here's the latest tarball".You don't need to touch a command line to deal with it, ever.There's a person providing support for the store and for each app.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28544563</id>
	<title>Re:A bad trend</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1246470480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I also agree with the first part, but I have to disagree with you on the second.  It's too much of an advantage for a company to be able to "give" you the hardware, vs. one that has to charge you $500 up front for it.  In the long run, of course, you end up paying for that hardware over, and over, and over, which is another advantage for the current model.</p><p>I bought my last phone outright from a third party, unlocked.  When I went to the cell company I found out that they actively discourage this, even though it means you're not taking their subsidized hardware.  Your choice of plans is severely restricted, with all the better plans off limits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I also agree with the first part , but I have to disagree with you on the second .
It 's too much of an advantage for a company to be able to " give " you the hardware , vs. one that has to charge you $ 500 up front for it .
In the long run , of course , you end up paying for that hardware over , and over , and over , which is another advantage for the current model.I bought my last phone outright from a third party , unlocked .
When I went to the cell company I found out that they actively discourage this , even though it means you 're not taking their subsidized hardware .
Your choice of plans is severely restricted , with all the better plans off limits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also agree with the first part, but I have to disagree with you on the second.
It's too much of an advantage for a company to be able to "give" you the hardware, vs. one that has to charge you $500 up front for it.
In the long run, of course, you end up paying for that hardware over, and over, and over, which is another advantage for the current model.I bought my last phone outright from a third party, unlocked.
When I went to the cell company I found out that they actively discourage this, even though it means you're not taking their subsidized hardware.
Your choice of plans is severely restricted, with all the better plans off limits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28543717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542899</id>
	<title>Put Money Where Mouth Is</title>
	<author>Ukab the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1246465500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the Linux foundation is so concerned about the non-technical masses adopting Linux, perhaps they should being paying Bruce Tognazzini's salary instead of Linus Torvalds'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the Linux foundation is so concerned about the non-technical masses adopting Linux , perhaps they should being paying Bruce Tognazzini 's salary instead of Linus Torvalds' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the Linux foundation is so concerned about the non-technical masses adopting Linux, perhaps they should being paying Bruce Tognazzini's salary instead of Linus Torvalds'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28550339</id>
	<title>Re:Great idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246445160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You say:<br>"That would be a huge leap for Linux on the desktop and would encourage commercial software development."</p><p>I say it would be a great leap backward since the telcos would not be offering an open system. They would try their best to lock it up just like their phones. They would only support apps from their store. Sure "unlocking" methods would come along shortly but how many unlock their phones now even if they can do so without penalties?</p><p>Linux has prospered because it is open. If it were closed there would be no good reason to use it over Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You say : " That would be a huge leap for Linux on the desktop and would encourage commercial software development .
" I say it would be a great leap backward since the telcos would not be offering an open system .
They would try their best to lock it up just like their phones .
They would only support apps from their store .
Sure " unlocking " methods would come along shortly but how many unlock their phones now even if they can do so without penalties ? Linux has prospered because it is open .
If it were closed there would be no good reason to use it over Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You say:"That would be a huge leap for Linux on the desktop and would encourage commercial software development.
"I say it would be a great leap backward since the telcos would not be offering an open system.
They would try their best to lock it up just like their phones.
They would only support apps from their store.
Sure "unlocking" methods would come along shortly but how many unlock their phones now even if they can do so without penalties?Linux has prospered because it is open.
If it were closed there would be no good reason to use it over Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542823</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542753</id>
	<title>A bad trend</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246464960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is exactly the opposite of what would be good for consumers. Mobile providers should get out of the hardware business entirely. They should be selling a service, and providing something like a SIM card which consumers could put into whatever phone or netbook they like.</p><p>The benefits for consumers are clear. They could use any hardware they like with any provider. They could reuse their hardware devices for new contracts. There would be a good market to buy/sell used cell phones. And best of all, mobile providers would be forced to compete on service and price rather than competing on who has the shiniest phone.</p><p>This will only happen with legislation, but unfortunately our legislators are more likely to be working for the phone companies rather than working for the people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly the opposite of what would be good for consumers .
Mobile providers should get out of the hardware business entirely .
They should be selling a service , and providing something like a SIM card which consumers could put into whatever phone or netbook they like.The benefits for consumers are clear .
They could use any hardware they like with any provider .
They could reuse their hardware devices for new contracts .
There would be a good market to buy/sell used cell phones .
And best of all , mobile providers would be forced to compete on service and price rather than competing on who has the shiniest phone.This will only happen with legislation , but unfortunately our legislators are more likely to be working for the phone companies rather than working for the people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly the opposite of what would be good for consumers.
Mobile providers should get out of the hardware business entirely.
They should be selling a service, and providing something like a SIM card which consumers could put into whatever phone or netbook they like.The benefits for consumers are clear.
They could use any hardware they like with any provider.
They could reuse their hardware devices for new contracts.
There would be a good market to buy/sell used cell phones.
And best of all, mobile providers would be forced to compete on service and price rather than competing on who has the shiniest phone.This will only happen with legislation, but unfortunately our legislators are more likely to be working for the phone companies rather than working for the people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28544067</id>
	<title>Ill effect on Free software</title>
	<author>PhrkOnLsh</author>
	<datestamp>1246469100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The question I'm most worried about is not whether there will be enough apps, that there will be enough competation between telcos, I'm worried about how this will affect Free software<br>

The telcos hate free software. It cuts into their profit margins<br>

Apple doesn't even all Free software in their app store for iPhone. What if this were to happen to GNU/Linux netbooks? <br>

And if this is the general direction GNU/Linux is going (towards netbooks and smaller, embedded devices, controlled by telcos and hardware vendors) I think that we need to start protecting ourselves. We may just end up with another Windows.<br>

Sure, the kernel must stay Free, but what good does that do us if it has a proprietary GUI with a proprietary App store selling proprietary apps encumbered by proprietary DRM? Are we really any more free?<br>

The worst part is that this IS what the telcos WILL try to do. They are cunning and ruthless and refuse to give users any glimpse of freedoms that they may have. The main problem with cellphone companies today is that they still believe they are Ma Bell (charging outrageous prices for SMS <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/29/0244208" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">1</a> [slashdot.org] 2, probable prcie fixing between companies, exclusive carrier deals, cdma vs. gsm, etc) and, like Ma Bell, are doing everything they can to control users.<br>

Sure, GNU/Linux will always be 'free,' but if the people who have their hand in bringing Linux to $telco\_subscriber decide that they want to control their users they WILL. even if they have to develop their own libraries for UI, networking, etc. If these telcos start to limit Free software for the benefits of their shitty little app store profits, there will be little we can do as $telco\_subscriber will see this as a nice little benefit.<br>

There will be no way telcos would be happy with the user having the ability to install tarballs of the same applications they may SELL in their appstores. And that sucks. If it comes between peddling 'barely free' linux, just to get it into the hands of regular users, we really have to question "what is important: The distributions,' manufacturers' and telcos' profit margins, or the freedoms of the user. Is getting Linux into the hands of users more important than getting Free software into the hands of users?"<br>

Plus, with more people running GNU/Linux saying "Hey, I run Linux" will become far less cool<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</htmltext>
<tokenext>The question I 'm most worried about is not whether there will be enough apps , that there will be enough competation between telcos , I 'm worried about how this will affect Free software The telcos hate free software .
It cuts into their profit margins Apple does n't even all Free software in their app store for iPhone .
What if this were to happen to GNU/Linux netbooks ?
And if this is the general direction GNU/Linux is going ( towards netbooks and smaller , embedded devices , controlled by telcos and hardware vendors ) I think that we need to start protecting ourselves .
We may just end up with another Windows .
Sure , the kernel must stay Free , but what good does that do us if it has a proprietary GUI with a proprietary App store selling proprietary apps encumbered by proprietary DRM ?
Are we really any more free ?
The worst part is that this IS what the telcos WILL try to do .
They are cunning and ruthless and refuse to give users any glimpse of freedoms that they may have .
The main problem with cellphone companies today is that they still believe they are Ma Bell ( charging outrageous prices for SMS 1 [ slashdot.org ] 2 , probable prcie fixing between companies , exclusive carrier deals , cdma vs. gsm , etc ) and , like Ma Bell , are doing everything they can to control users .
Sure , GNU/Linux will always be 'free, ' but if the people who have their hand in bringing Linux to $ telco \ _subscriber decide that they want to control their users they WILL .
even if they have to develop their own libraries for UI , networking , etc .
If these telcos start to limit Free software for the benefits of their shitty little app store profits , there will be little we can do as $ telco \ _subscriber will see this as a nice little benefit .
There will be no way telcos would be happy with the user having the ability to install tarballs of the same applications they may SELL in their appstores .
And that sucks .
If it comes between peddling 'barely free ' linux , just to get it into the hands of regular users , we really have to question " what is important : The distributions, ' manufacturers ' and telcos ' profit margins , or the freedoms of the user .
Is getting Linux into the hands of users more important than getting Free software into the hands of users ?
" Plus , with more people running GNU/Linux saying " Hey , I run Linux " will become far less cool : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question I'm most worried about is not whether there will be enough apps, that there will be enough competation between telcos, I'm worried about how this will affect Free software

The telcos hate free software.
It cuts into their profit margins

Apple doesn't even all Free software in their app store for iPhone.
What if this were to happen to GNU/Linux netbooks?
And if this is the general direction GNU/Linux is going (towards netbooks and smaller, embedded devices, controlled by telcos and hardware vendors) I think that we need to start protecting ourselves.
We may just end up with another Windows.
Sure, the kernel must stay Free, but what good does that do us if it has a proprietary GUI with a proprietary App store selling proprietary apps encumbered by proprietary DRM?
Are we really any more free?
The worst part is that this IS what the telcos WILL try to do.
They are cunning and ruthless and refuse to give users any glimpse of freedoms that they may have.
The main problem with cellphone companies today is that they still believe they are Ma Bell (charging outrageous prices for SMS 1 [slashdot.org] 2, probable prcie fixing between companies, exclusive carrier deals, cdma vs. gsm, etc) and, like Ma Bell, are doing everything they can to control users.
Sure, GNU/Linux will always be 'free,' but if the people who have their hand in bringing Linux to $telco\_subscriber decide that they want to control their users they WILL.
even if they have to develop their own libraries for UI, networking, etc.
If these telcos start to limit Free software for the benefits of their shitty little app store profits, there will be little we can do as $telco\_subscriber will see this as a nice little benefit.
There will be no way telcos would be happy with the user having the ability to install tarballs of the same applications they may SELL in their appstores.
And that sucks.
If it comes between peddling 'barely free' linux, just to get it into the hands of regular users, we really have to question "what is important: The distributions,' manufacturers' and telcos' profit margins, or the freedoms of the user.
Is getting Linux into the hands of users more important than getting Free software into the hands of users?
"

Plus, with more people running GNU/Linux saying "Hey, I run Linux" will become far less cool :(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28543125</id>
	<title>Already in the UK</title>
	<author>jeffthejiff</author>
	<datestamp>1246466400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Mobile carriers may start giving away netbooks for free"
<br> <br>
Eh? This <a href="http://www.carphonewarehouse.com/broadband/mobile-broadband" title="carphonewarehouse.com" rel="nofollow">has</a> [carphonewarehouse.com] <a href="http://www.t-mobile.co.uk/shop/pay-monthly/deals/4/" title="t-mobile.co.uk" rel="nofollow">already</a> [t-mobile.co.uk] <a href="http://shop.vodafone.co.uk/shop/mobile-broadband-devices/netbook" title="vodafone.co.uk" rel="nofollow">happened</a> [vodafone.co.uk] in the UK, without any carrier-specific crapware installed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Mobile carriers may start giving away netbooks for free " Eh ?
This has [ carphonewarehouse.com ] already [ t-mobile.co.uk ] happened [ vodafone.co.uk ] in the UK , without any carrier-specific crapware installed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Mobile carriers may start giving away netbooks for free"
 
Eh?
This has [carphonewarehouse.com] already [t-mobile.co.uk] happened [vodafone.co.uk] in the UK, without any carrier-specific crapware installed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542697</id>
	<title>Shiny package managment system?</title>
	<author>ruin20</author>
	<datestamp>1246464660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't an "app store" just a shiny package management system for small programs? 99\% of linux distros have this already. What, we need to skin it prettier and put it on the web? That should be easy enough. I don't know why we need to copy something from apple when the idea creating a repository for programs and working out interdependence started in the *nix environments.

Getting useful usable programs onto the computer is the main barrier for adoption. Cost has nothing to do with it, they'll put out the cheapest item that will sell. If linux won't sell netbooks, then they won't use it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't an " app store " just a shiny package management system for small programs ?
99 \ % of linux distros have this already .
What , we need to skin it prettier and put it on the web ?
That should be easy enough .
I do n't know why we need to copy something from apple when the idea creating a repository for programs and working out interdependence started in the * nix environments .
Getting useful usable programs onto the computer is the main barrier for adoption .
Cost has nothing to do with it , they 'll put out the cheapest item that will sell .
If linux wo n't sell netbooks , then they wo n't use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't an "app store" just a shiny package management system for small programs?
99\% of linux distros have this already.
What, we need to skin it prettier and put it on the web?
That should be easy enough.
I don't know why we need to copy something from apple when the idea creating a repository for programs and working out interdependence started in the *nix environments.
Getting useful usable programs onto the computer is the main barrier for adoption.
Cost has nothing to do with it, they'll put out the cheapest item that will sell.
If linux won't sell netbooks, then they won't use it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542751</id>
	<title>WTF</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246464960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Netbooks have been sold for &#195;1 where I live since the eeePC 701. What is he talking about? Additional revenues from app stores? Like getting apps from vodafone instead of the official free as in beer and as in speech repos? Almost all linux distros have had free app stores for years. I don't really get what this man is talking about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Netbooks have been sold for   1 where I live since the eeePC 701 .
What is he talking about ?
Additional revenues from app stores ?
Like getting apps from vodafone instead of the official free as in beer and as in speech repos ?
Almost all linux distros have had free app stores for years .
I do n't really get what this man is talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Netbooks have been sold for Ã1 where I live since the eeePC 701.
What is he talking about?
Additional revenues from app stores?
Like getting apps from vodafone instead of the official free as in beer and as in speech repos?
Almost all linux distros have had free app stores for years.
I don't really get what this man is talking about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542823</id>
	<title>Great idea</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1246465260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly I would say that limiting to the Telcos is dumb. It is a good way for Distros to make money as well as developers. The price for the software could be split between the developer, the store, and the Distro/Telco with the developer getting the majority of the price,<br>And just to put a stop to the "It's called a repository" statements.<br>An app store would allow the developer to set a price and handle charging the customer and would just send a check to the developer.<br>It would have reviews and ratings<br>And would allow the developer to decide what version is available and not the distro.<br>It should take care of dependencies just like a repository as well.<br>That would be a huge leap for Linux on the desktop and would encourage commercial software development.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly I would say that limiting to the Telcos is dumb .
It is a good way for Distros to make money as well as developers .
The price for the software could be split between the developer , the store , and the Distro/Telco with the developer getting the majority of the price,And just to put a stop to the " It 's called a repository " statements.An app store would allow the developer to set a price and handle charging the customer and would just send a check to the developer.It would have reviews and ratingsAnd would allow the developer to decide what version is available and not the distro.It should take care of dependencies just like a repository as well.That would be a huge leap for Linux on the desktop and would encourage commercial software development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly I would say that limiting to the Telcos is dumb.
It is a good way for Distros to make money as well as developers.
The price for the software could be split between the developer, the store, and the Distro/Telco with the developer getting the majority of the price,And just to put a stop to the "It's called a repository" statements.An app store would allow the developer to set a price and handle charging the customer and would just send a check to the developer.It would have reviews and ratingsAnd would allow the developer to decide what version is available and not the distro.It should take care of dependencies just like a repository as well.That would be a huge leap for Linux on the desktop and would encourage commercial software development.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28546589</id>
	<title>Re:Lack of programs will make this hard.</title>
	<author>JumpDrive</author>
	<datestamp>1246476420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not necessarily.  I would be out in a heart beat to buy one of these for my Mom, who currently only needs email, web browser and an office suite.  I'm currently looking for a phone which will easily connect into a computer and give her internet access.  And when I say easy, I mean absolute minimal problems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not necessarily .
I would be out in a heart beat to buy one of these for my Mom , who currently only needs email , web browser and an office suite .
I 'm currently looking for a phone which will easily connect into a computer and give her internet access .
And when I say easy , I mean absolute minimal problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not necessarily.
I would be out in a heart beat to buy one of these for my Mom, who currently only needs email, web browser and an office suite.
I'm currently looking for a phone which will easily connect into a computer and give her internet access.
And when I say easy, I mean absolute minimal problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542449</id>
	<title>Frosty Piss</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246463640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>go on, waste a mod point on me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>go on , waste a mod point on me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>go on, waste a mod point on me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28544285</id>
	<title>Probably not the "right" target market</title>
	<author>Xanthvar</author>
	<datestamp>1246469700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this would be interesting if they could get it to work on the scale needed to be profitable, but I don't see it happening.<br>I am guessing (and maybe incorrectly) that there are 2 kinds of Linux based web book users:</p><p>1) the proto typical techie who likes the freedom of configuration choices that it gives you or<br>2) the person who got it because it was cheaper or didn't know the difference and doesn't care, as long as they can get email and surf the web (and use their web based apps).</p><p>The evil capitalist in me thinks this would be a great thing for the revenue stream, if you could lock them into using our store and only our store (contrary to the open source concept), but I don't see that happening.</p><p>I realize this is slightly off topic, but I find it ironic that the mobile phone platform that seems to be the most open to allowing you to write and install what ever program you want is windows mobile (yes, that is what I currently use).  Everyone is talking about "The" apps store, but WM phones don't have 1... they have an untold number of sites to get apps from, several dedicated to free (of cost anyway) sites, but this fact seems to be left out of the Iphone/Pre/Android discussions by various tech sites.</p><p>back on the original topic, I wish them all the luck, as it is nice to get compensated for your work, but I don't know if there is enough commonality to get enough return on investment for the vendor on setting up an app store.  If this can be achieved, then it would pave the way for the developers to benefit as well.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this would be interesting if they could get it to work on the scale needed to be profitable , but I do n't see it happening.I am guessing ( and maybe incorrectly ) that there are 2 kinds of Linux based web book users : 1 ) the proto typical techie who likes the freedom of configuration choices that it gives you or2 ) the person who got it because it was cheaper or did n't know the difference and does n't care , as long as they can get email and surf the web ( and use their web based apps ) .The evil capitalist in me thinks this would be a great thing for the revenue stream , if you could lock them into using our store and only our store ( contrary to the open source concept ) , but I do n't see that happening.I realize this is slightly off topic , but I find it ironic that the mobile phone platform that seems to be the most open to allowing you to write and install what ever program you want is windows mobile ( yes , that is what I currently use ) .
Everyone is talking about " The " apps store , but WM phones do n't have 1... they have an untold number of sites to get apps from , several dedicated to free ( of cost anyway ) sites , but this fact seems to be left out of the Iphone/Pre/Android discussions by various tech sites.back on the original topic , I wish them all the luck , as it is nice to get compensated for your work , but I do n't know if there is enough commonality to get enough return on investment for the vendor on setting up an app store .
If this can be achieved , then it would pave the way for the developers to benefit as well .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this would be interesting if they could get it to work on the scale needed to be profitable, but I don't see it happening.I am guessing (and maybe incorrectly) that there are 2 kinds of Linux based web book users:1) the proto typical techie who likes the freedom of configuration choices that it gives you or2) the person who got it because it was cheaper or didn't know the difference and doesn't care, as long as they can get email and surf the web (and use their web based apps).The evil capitalist in me thinks this would be a great thing for the revenue stream, if you could lock them into using our store and only our store (contrary to the open source concept), but I don't see that happening.I realize this is slightly off topic, but I find it ironic that the mobile phone platform that seems to be the most open to allowing you to write and install what ever program you want is windows mobile (yes, that is what I currently use).
Everyone is talking about "The" apps store, but WM phones don't have 1... they have an untold number of sites to get apps from, several dedicated to free (of cost anyway) sites, but this fact seems to be left out of the Iphone/Pre/Android discussions by various tech sites.back on the original topic, I wish them all the luck, as it is nice to get compensated for your work, but I don't know if there is enough commonality to get enough return on investment for the vendor on setting up an app store.
If this can be achieved, then it would pave the way for the developers to benefit as well.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28543717</id>
	<title>Re:A bad trend</title>
	<author>cesutherland</author>
	<datestamp>1246468020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that this is not what is good for consumers.  I do not agree that we need legislation to achieve this.</p><p>If we are correct, and a SIM based plug-n-go model really is better for the consumer, then it will be a competitive edge for a company which comes along and does this in the United States where CDMA is the largest standard for mobile telecom (Verizon).</p><p>The rest of the world already does use GSM (AT&amp;T in the US), the other big standard for cellular communication, which is SIM based.  In general, you take your unlocked phone up to a new provider, fill out the contract, receive a SIM, and plug it into the hardware you already have.  Also, I don't know if this is the case in western markets, but in developing economies there generally is a thriving market for second hand equipment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that this is not what is good for consumers .
I do not agree that we need legislation to achieve this.If we are correct , and a SIM based plug-n-go model really is better for the consumer , then it will be a competitive edge for a company which comes along and does this in the United States where CDMA is the largest standard for mobile telecom ( Verizon ) .The rest of the world already does use GSM ( AT&amp;T in the US ) , the other big standard for cellular communication , which is SIM based .
In general , you take your unlocked phone up to a new provider , fill out the contract , receive a SIM , and plug it into the hardware you already have .
Also , I do n't know if this is the case in western markets , but in developing economies there generally is a thriving market for second hand equipment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that this is not what is good for consumers.
I do not agree that we need legislation to achieve this.If we are correct, and a SIM based plug-n-go model really is better for the consumer, then it will be a competitive edge for a company which comes along and does this in the United States where CDMA is the largest standard for mobile telecom (Verizon).The rest of the world already does use GSM (AT&amp;T in the US), the other big standard for cellular communication, which is SIM based.
In general, you take your unlocked phone up to a new provider, fill out the contract, receive a SIM, and plug it into the hardware you already have.
Also, I don't know if this is the case in western markets, but in developing economies there generally is a thriving market for second hand equipment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542949</id>
	<title>Linux on the netbook? Does that mean...</title>
	<author>iCodemonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1246465740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So is this one step closer to linux on the desk top?
Or are we over this meme and i missed the memo?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So is this one step closer to linux on the desk top ?
Or are we over this meme and i missed the memo ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So is this one step closer to linux on the desk top?
Or are we over this meme and i missed the memo?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28545067</id>
	<title>Re:A bad trend</title>
	<author>mounthood</author>
	<datestamp>1246471980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is exactly the opposite of what would be good for consumers. Mobile providers should get out of the hardware business entirely. They should be selling a service, and providing something like a SIM card which consumers could put into whatever phone or netbook they like.</p></div><p>Would the cell phone market have taken off like it did if we didn't have companies that subsidized hardware and were responsible for making both their network and your phone work reasonably? It's easy to say now, with a thriving market in hardware and network service, that it should be open for people to buy phones separately. </p><p>But he's advocating that  a *new* Netbook market can be grown in the same way the cell phone market was. The SIM card you ask for will only appear after companies have tried things out; and they'll only do that if they can make a something more then just a chance at profit. Tying the hardware to service is only bad when the standards are not established, but the market hasn't decided what the standards will be for a "SIM card which consumers could put into whatever phone or netbook they like."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly the opposite of what would be good for consumers .
Mobile providers should get out of the hardware business entirely .
They should be selling a service , and providing something like a SIM card which consumers could put into whatever phone or netbook they like.Would the cell phone market have taken off like it did if we did n't have companies that subsidized hardware and were responsible for making both their network and your phone work reasonably ?
It 's easy to say now , with a thriving market in hardware and network service , that it should be open for people to buy phones separately .
But he 's advocating that a * new * Netbook market can be grown in the same way the cell phone market was .
The SIM card you ask for will only appear after companies have tried things out ; and they 'll only do that if they can make a something more then just a chance at profit .
Tying the hardware to service is only bad when the standards are not established , but the market has n't decided what the standards will be for a " SIM card which consumers could put into whatever phone or netbook they like .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly the opposite of what would be good for consumers.
Mobile providers should get out of the hardware business entirely.
They should be selling a service, and providing something like a SIM card which consumers could put into whatever phone or netbook they like.Would the cell phone market have taken off like it did if we didn't have companies that subsidized hardware and were responsible for making both their network and your phone work reasonably?
It's easy to say now, with a thriving market in hardware and network service, that it should be open for people to buy phones separately.
But he's advocating that  a *new* Netbook market can be grown in the same way the cell phone market was.
The SIM card you ask for will only appear after companies have tried things out; and they'll only do that if they can make a something more then just a chance at profit.
Tying the hardware to service is only bad when the standards are not established, but the market hasn't decided what the standards will be for a "SIM card which consumers could put into whatever phone or netbook they like.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28543111</id>
	<title>Redundant and market-less</title>
	<author>Zigurd</author>
	<datestamp>1246466340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are several things wrong with this idea: Nobody has ever supported subsidies for a mobile device with app store sales and it is unlikley to start working in the current pricing environment in app stores. Even the most profitable carrier portals for mobile downloads are a drop in the revenue bucket for carriers. Most of the content in traditional carrier portals is "passive" - ring-tones and wallpaper. App stores for platforms like Android, Pre, and iPhone, and the corresponding developer programs, are meant to benefit the platform, not the network operator. Apple's app store has a unique position alongside the largest music retailer in North America - unless you have a plan to succeed without that advantage in place, success isn't likely. Android is in the process of replacing a lot of "Linux + proprietary UI" in mobile devices - e.g., at Motorola, they have EOL'ed their proprietary Linux-based "high feature" platforms in favor of Android, and Android has an app store. Applications in app stores have very low prices compared to retail games on handheld consoles, and the vast majority of applications - and downloads - are free.  Many low-cost mobile games are shovelware copies of Web-based casual games. The packaged software industry died more than 10 years ago, except for holdouts like Adobe and AutoDesk in specialized, high-value markets, and mobile app shops are not going to revive it. So, put a shiny skin on Synaptic and call it a day. Or call it an app store.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are several things wrong with this idea : Nobody has ever supported subsidies for a mobile device with app store sales and it is unlikley to start working in the current pricing environment in app stores .
Even the most profitable carrier portals for mobile downloads are a drop in the revenue bucket for carriers .
Most of the content in traditional carrier portals is " passive " - ring-tones and wallpaper .
App stores for platforms like Android , Pre , and iPhone , and the corresponding developer programs , are meant to benefit the platform , not the network operator .
Apple 's app store has a unique position alongside the largest music retailer in North America - unless you have a plan to succeed without that advantage in place , success is n't likely .
Android is in the process of replacing a lot of " Linux + proprietary UI " in mobile devices - e.g. , at Motorola , they have EOL'ed their proprietary Linux-based " high feature " platforms in favor of Android , and Android has an app store .
Applications in app stores have very low prices compared to retail games on handheld consoles , and the vast majority of applications - and downloads - are free .
Many low-cost mobile games are shovelware copies of Web-based casual games .
The packaged software industry died more than 10 years ago , except for holdouts like Adobe and AutoDesk in specialized , high-value markets , and mobile app shops are not going to revive it .
So , put a shiny skin on Synaptic and call it a day .
Or call it an app store .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are several things wrong with this idea: Nobody has ever supported subsidies for a mobile device with app store sales and it is unlikley to start working in the current pricing environment in app stores.
Even the most profitable carrier portals for mobile downloads are a drop in the revenue bucket for carriers.
Most of the content in traditional carrier portals is "passive" - ring-tones and wallpaper.
App stores for platforms like Android, Pre, and iPhone, and the corresponding developer programs, are meant to benefit the platform, not the network operator.
Apple's app store has a unique position alongside the largest music retailer in North America - unless you have a plan to succeed without that advantage in place, success isn't likely.
Android is in the process of replacing a lot of "Linux + proprietary UI" in mobile devices - e.g., at Motorola, they have EOL'ed their proprietary Linux-based "high feature" platforms in favor of Android, and Android has an app store.
Applications in app stores have very low prices compared to retail games on handheld consoles, and the vast majority of applications - and downloads - are free.
Many low-cost mobile games are shovelware copies of Web-based casual games.
The packaged software industry died more than 10 years ago, except for holdouts like Adobe and AutoDesk in specialized, high-value markets, and mobile app shops are not going to revive it.
So, put a shiny skin on Synaptic and call it a day.
Or call it an app store.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28551971</id>
	<title>Re:Shiny package managment system?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246453020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple took Nintendo's idea and put it on a mobile device, it was not original at all, except the whole mobile thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple took Nintendo 's idea and put it on a mobile device , it was not original at all , except the whole mobile thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple took Nintendo's idea and put it on a mobile device, it was not original at all, except the whole mobile thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28544951</id>
	<title>Re:A bad trend</title>
	<author>Nursie</author>
	<datestamp>1246471680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"If we are correct, and a SIM based plug-n-go model really is better for the consumer, then it will be a competitive edge for a company which comes along and does this in the United States where CDMA is the largest standard for mobile telecom (Verizon)."</i></p><p>If enlightened self interest actually existed, this would be true.</p><p>As it is, people are fooled by "free handsets!" and all the other crap and will continually end up with a worse product as a result.</p><p>The free market requires perfect consumers. Most consumers are dolts, and even of the ones that aren't, many are confused by "free" when combined with small print.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If we are correct , and a SIM based plug-n-go model really is better for the consumer , then it will be a competitive edge for a company which comes along and does this in the United States where CDMA is the largest standard for mobile telecom ( Verizon ) .
" If enlightened self interest actually existed , this would be true.As it is , people are fooled by " free handsets !
" and all the other crap and will continually end up with a worse product as a result.The free market requires perfect consumers .
Most consumers are dolts , and even of the ones that are n't , many are confused by " free " when combined with small print .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If we are correct, and a SIM based plug-n-go model really is better for the consumer, then it will be a competitive edge for a company which comes along and does this in the United States where CDMA is the largest standard for mobile telecom (Verizon).
"If enlightened self interest actually existed, this would be true.As it is, people are fooled by "free handsets!
" and all the other crap and will continually end up with a worse product as a result.The free market requires perfect consumers.
Most consumers are dolts, and even of the ones that aren't, many are confused by "free" when combined with small print.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28543717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28544787</id>
	<title>Re:A bad trend</title>
	<author>CopaceticOpus</author>
	<datestamp>1246471140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The cell phone industry has such a huge barrier to entry that it's cost prohibitive for any new company to "come along" and shake things up. The existing companies have no desire to make this change because they're making huge profits under the status quo.</p><p>Even if a company did come along and adopt this model, it wouldn't be a big benefit to consumers unless other companies also adopted it. What good is having hardware that is theoretically able to use multiple providers if only one provider actually supports it?</p><p>This is a case where market forces aren't going to direct us to the way things should be, and so we need legislation to make it happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The cell phone industry has such a huge barrier to entry that it 's cost prohibitive for any new company to " come along " and shake things up .
The existing companies have no desire to make this change because they 're making huge profits under the status quo.Even if a company did come along and adopt this model , it would n't be a big benefit to consumers unless other companies also adopted it .
What good is having hardware that is theoretically able to use multiple providers if only one provider actually supports it ? This is a case where market forces are n't going to direct us to the way things should be , and so we need legislation to make it happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cell phone industry has such a huge barrier to entry that it's cost prohibitive for any new company to "come along" and shake things up.
The existing companies have no desire to make this change because they're making huge profits under the status quo.Even if a company did come along and adopt this model, it wouldn't be a big benefit to consumers unless other companies also adopted it.
What good is having hardware that is theoretically able to use multiple providers if only one provider actually supports it?This is a case where market forces aren't going to direct us to the way things should be, and so we need legislation to make it happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28543717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28576347</id>
	<title>Re:Shiny package managment system?</title>
	<author>trashbird1240</author>
	<datestamp>1246626420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with your main point: Apple didn't invent this idea.  However, have you not noticed the useful programs?  I guess Emacs, The Gimp, Firefox and all that other stuff isn't that usable.  !!!Sarcasm!!!  Get real, dude.  What is this usable people are always talking about?  How is it that my three year old can use this supposedly "unusable" operating system?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with your main point : Apple did n't invent this idea .
However , have you not noticed the useful programs ?
I guess Emacs , The Gimp , Firefox and all that other stuff is n't that usable .
! ! ! Sarcasm ! ! ! Get real , dude .
What is this usable people are always talking about ?
How is it that my three year old can use this supposedly " unusable " operating system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with your main point: Apple didn't invent this idea.
However, have you not noticed the useful programs?
I guess Emacs, The Gimp, Firefox and all that other stuff isn't that usable.
!!!Sarcasm!!!  Get real, dude.
What is this usable people are always talking about?
How is it that my three year old can use this supposedly "unusable" operating system?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28548123</id>
	<title>What are they smoking?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246481340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would you need an app store specifically for Linux on netbook?</p><p>Apple does this because it wants to control over anything that goes on iphone, including charges.   Does the Linux foundation want to do an oversight on what apps can be developed on Linux?   or is the "free" Linux foundation proposing the telco to "control" and charge the apps distribution?!</p><p>What Jim is proposing can be done today with an website, paypal and commentary/rating functions.   No oversight needed.   In fact, I think this exist already...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you need an app store specifically for Linux on netbook ? Apple does this because it wants to control over anything that goes on iphone , including charges .
Does the Linux foundation want to do an oversight on what apps can be developed on Linux ?
or is the " free " Linux foundation proposing the telco to " control " and charge the apps distribution ?
! What Jim is proposing can be done today with an website , paypal and commentary/rating functions .
No oversight needed .
In fact , I think this exist already.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you need an app store specifically for Linux on netbook?Apple does this because it wants to control over anything that goes on iphone, including charges.
Does the Linux foundation want to do an oversight on what apps can be developed on Linux?
or is the "free" Linux foundation proposing the telco to "control" and charge the apps distribution?
!What Jim is proposing can be done today with an website, paypal and commentary/rating functions.
No oversight needed.
In fact, I think this exist already...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28544085</id>
	<title>We already have that!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246469100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called a "package manager". (Woooh! What a newfangled term! back in the days, we didn't have that! And we still wore an onion on our belt, as it was the style at the time.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called a " package manager " .
( Woooh ! What a newfangled term !
back in the days , we did n't have that !
And we still wore an onion on our belt , as it was the style at the time .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called a "package manager".
(Woooh! What a newfangled term!
back in the days, we didn't have that!
And we still wore an onion on our belt, as it was the style at the time.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28546783</id>
	<title>Great news!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246477140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I LOVE Led Zeppelin!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I LOVE Led Zeppelin !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I LOVE Led Zeppelin!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542539</id>
	<title>Lack of programs will make this hard.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246464060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope this means more developers will start creating commercial programs for Linux. Part of this strategy revolves around selling customers the data plan which could be used to download iTunes media anywhere you have cell phone connectivity, too bad that automatically rules out Linux on the netbook. If they really want Linux to work on the netbook they first need to convince Apple to release a Linux version of the iTunes store, that would take care of a large chunk of the market for netbook use on Linux.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope this means more developers will start creating commercial programs for Linux .
Part of this strategy revolves around selling customers the data plan which could be used to download iTunes media anywhere you have cell phone connectivity , too bad that automatically rules out Linux on the netbook .
If they really want Linux to work on the netbook they first need to convince Apple to release a Linux version of the iTunes store , that would take care of a large chunk of the market for netbook use on Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope this means more developers will start creating commercial programs for Linux.
Part of this strategy revolves around selling customers the data plan which could be used to download iTunes media anywhere you have cell phone connectivity, too bad that automatically rules out Linux on the netbook.
If they really want Linux to work on the netbook they first need to convince Apple to release a Linux version of the iTunes store, that would take care of a large chunk of the market for netbook use on Linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28549063</id>
	<title>Re:Frosty Piss</title>
	<author>Tubal-Cain</author>
	<datestamp>1246440960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The editors get unlimited mod points. And they use them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The editors get unlimited mod points .
And they use them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The editors get unlimited mod points.
And they use them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28553809</id>
	<title>Re:A bad trend</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1246468140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not both?</p><p>In Australia, you can subscribe to a mobile phone service with a "free" phone included, OR you can buy an unlocked phone from some third party shop (or get your existing phone unlocked) and just buy a SIM card. The choice is yours.</p><p>I have no objection to companies offering cheap phones<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... provided I can get an account without a phone if that happens to be cheaper in my case.</p><p>Getting an account and phone in one is actually a good deal if you use the phone a lot (like most people seem to). It is like buying the phone at a wholesale price rather than at a retail price.</p><p>Why not?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not both ? In Australia , you can subscribe to a mobile phone service with a " free " phone included , OR you can buy an unlocked phone from some third party shop ( or get your existing phone unlocked ) and just buy a SIM card .
The choice is yours.I have no objection to companies offering cheap phones ... provided I can get an account without a phone if that happens to be cheaper in my case.Getting an account and phone in one is actually a good deal if you use the phone a lot ( like most people seem to ) .
It is like buying the phone at a wholesale price rather than at a retail price.Why not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not both?In Australia, you can subscribe to a mobile phone service with a "free" phone included, OR you can buy an unlocked phone from some third party shop (or get your existing phone unlocked) and just buy a SIM card.
The choice is yours.I have no objection to companies offering cheap phones ... provided I can get an account without a phone if that happens to be cheaper in my case.Getting an account and phone in one is actually a good deal if you use the phone a lot (like most people seem to).
It is like buying the phone at a wholesale price rather than at a retail price.Why not?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542495</id>
	<title>Great....</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1246463820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...a netbook with Verizon vCast OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...a netbook with Verizon vCast OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...a netbook with Verizon vCast OS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542671</id>
	<title>apt-get..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246464600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>apt-get purchase foobar-app?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>apt-get purchase foobar-app ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>apt-get purchase foobar-app?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_145204_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28544563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28543717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_145204_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28544951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28543717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_145204_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28576347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_145204_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28546589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_145204_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28544787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28543717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_145204_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28545067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_145204_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28549063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_145204_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28551971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_145204_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28553809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_145204_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28550339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_145204.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28546589
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_145204.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542899
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_145204.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28550739
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_145204.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28544085
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_145204.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28548123
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_145204.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542823
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28550339
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_145204.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28544067
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_145204.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542495
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_145204.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28553809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28545067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28543717
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28544563
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28544951
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28544787
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_145204.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28543127
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_145204.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28543151
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_145204.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542671
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_145204.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28549063
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_145204.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542733
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_145204.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28542697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28551971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_145204.28576347
</commentlist>
</conversation>
