<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_07_1659229</id>
	<title>Apple Buys Lala Music Streaming, But Why?</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1260210840000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Apple has <a href="http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/12/apple-buys-music-streamer-lala-but-whats-it-getting.ars">snapped up music streaming biz Lala</a> in what many initially thought to be a move to step beyond the strict download market of iTunes.  On closer inspection it seems that Lala was a somewhat less-than-ideal target and Apple may just be gunning for ready-made engineering talent.  <i>"On balance, the purchase appears to give Apple the chance to bring in engineers that will be useful now, and could be even more so if it chooses to enter streaming or subscription services. But, for the moment, there's nothing about the purchase that seems to provide the company with any key technologies it was missing in terms of diving into markets. Until another company demonstrates that there's money to be made (or iPods to be sold) through streaming, there's no reason to think that a move of this sort is imminent."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple has snapped up music streaming biz Lala in what many initially thought to be a move to step beyond the strict download market of iTunes .
On closer inspection it seems that Lala was a somewhat less-than-ideal target and Apple may just be gunning for ready-made engineering talent .
" On balance , the purchase appears to give Apple the chance to bring in engineers that will be useful now , and could be even more so if it chooses to enter streaming or subscription services .
But , for the moment , there 's nothing about the purchase that seems to provide the company with any key technologies it was missing in terms of diving into markets .
Until another company demonstrates that there 's money to be made ( or iPods to be sold ) through streaming , there 's no reason to think that a move of this sort is imminent .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple has snapped up music streaming biz Lala in what many initially thought to be a move to step beyond the strict download market of iTunes.
On closer inspection it seems that Lala was a somewhat less-than-ideal target and Apple may just be gunning for ready-made engineering talent.
"On balance, the purchase appears to give Apple the chance to bring in engineers that will be useful now, and could be even more so if it chooses to enter streaming or subscription services.
But, for the moment, there's nothing about the purchase that seems to provide the company with any key technologies it was missing in terms of diving into markets.
Until another company demonstrates that there's money to be made (or iPods to be sold) through streaming, there's no reason to think that a move of this sort is imminent.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356610</id>
	<title>Re:iPhone streaming?</title>
	<author>lwsimon</author>
	<datestamp>1260217740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your post makes AT&amp;T's network cry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your post makes AT&amp;T 's network cry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your post makes AT&amp;T's network cry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356684</id>
	<title>Re:Article summary appears to have it backwards</title>
	<author>SydShamino</author>
	<datestamp>1260218280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if Apple has tried to get better streaming licenses and was rebuffed, given how the industry distrusts their domination of the online distribution market.</p><p>Lala might have been a relatively cheap way to acquire long-term streaming licenses, since the Lala contracts likely don't include clauses to cancel the licenses if the company is sold (since the company knew it was likely to sell itself to someone anyway).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if Apple has tried to get better streaming licenses and was rebuffed , given how the industry distrusts their domination of the online distribution market.Lala might have been a relatively cheap way to acquire long-term streaming licenses , since the Lala contracts likely do n't include clauses to cancel the licenses if the company is sold ( since the company knew it was likely to sell itself to someone anyway ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if Apple has tried to get better streaming licenses and was rebuffed, given how the industry distrusts their domination of the online distribution market.Lala might have been a relatively cheap way to acquire long-term streaming licenses, since the Lala contracts likely don't include clauses to cancel the licenses if the company is sold (since the company knew it was likely to sell itself to someone anyway).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356660</id>
	<title>Buy the patents, compete with Spotify</title>
	<author>fluor2</author>
	<datestamp>1260218100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Buy the patents<br>2. Compete with Spotify</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Buy the patents2 .
Compete with Spotify</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Buy the patents2.
Compete with Spotify</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356404</id>
	<title>Because it's a faggot name</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260216720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Therefore Apple went right for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Therefore Apple went right for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Therefore Apple went right for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30355978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30355978</id>
	<title>Google</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1260214680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lala.com is the most frequent entry in the Google Audio search for searches I've done.  If Apple can control Lala, they can largely control or hamper Google's competition against iTunes.</p><p>Does there need to be a more complex explanation than simple competitive pressures?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lala.com is the most frequent entry in the Google Audio search for searches I 've done .
If Apple can control Lala , they can largely control or hamper Google 's competition against iTunes.Does there need to be a more complex explanation than simple competitive pressures ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lala.com is the most frequent entry in the Google Audio search for searches I've done.
If Apple can control Lala, they can largely control or hamper Google's competition against iTunes.Does there need to be a more complex explanation than simple competitive pressures?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356078</id>
	<title>Re:One Word</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260215160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the first time I ever hear about Lala.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the first time I ever hear about Lala .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the first time I ever hear about Lala.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356110</id>
	<title>Seems to be a lot of guesses from outside the deal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260215340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lots of assumptions without much meat from sources that didn't really have much insight into the deal. The engineering talent angle might have been a serendipitously correct guess, but I don't see Apple in much of a position to have to make bad deals for itself. They could have bought tech or licensing that might be useful to their future plans that they seem really good at hiding.</p><p>P.S. I think where the article uses "immanent"  the author was too busy spinning conjecture to see that he meant "imminent."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of assumptions without much meat from sources that did n't really have much insight into the deal .
The engineering talent angle might have been a serendipitously correct guess , but I do n't see Apple in much of a position to have to make bad deals for itself .
They could have bought tech or licensing that might be useful to their future plans that they seem really good at hiding.P.S .
I think where the article uses " immanent " the author was too busy spinning conjecture to see that he meant " imminent .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of assumptions without much meat from sources that didn't really have much insight into the deal.
The engineering talent angle might have been a serendipitously correct guess, but I don't see Apple in much of a position to have to make bad deals for itself.
They could have bought tech or licensing that might be useful to their future plans that they seem really good at hiding.P.S.
I think where the article uses "immanent"  the author was too busy spinning conjecture to see that he meant "imminent.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30359252</id>
	<title>Re:One Word</title>
	<author>drtsystems</author>
	<datestamp>1260188400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or maybe apple is paying for this... and will leave the site pretty much unchanged except change that "buy now" link to an itunes link.  Or possibly even convert the site to "itunes streaming edition" and allow you to buy songs and stream them and then download them to your ipod or regular itunes if you want?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or maybe apple is paying for this... and will leave the site pretty much unchanged except change that " buy now " link to an itunes link .
Or possibly even convert the site to " itunes streaming edition " and allow you to buy songs and stream them and then download them to your ipod or regular itunes if you want ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or maybe apple is paying for this... and will leave the site pretty much unchanged except change that "buy now" link to an itunes link.
Or possibly even convert the site to "itunes streaming edition" and allow you to buy songs and stream them and then download them to your ipod or regular itunes if you want?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30361116</id>
	<title>Re:obviously, you haven't been paying attention...</title>
	<author>murph</author>
	<datestamp>1260202260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this leaves a waxy buildup...on anything......</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this leaves a waxy buildup...on anything..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this leaves a waxy buildup...on anything......</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30357908</id>
	<title>Re:What happened to Apple...</title>
	<author>AnotherShep</author>
	<datestamp>1260181260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The one they settled, or another one?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The one they settled , or another one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one they settled, or another one?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30357068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356520</id>
	<title>Any key technologies</title>
	<author>LunarEffect</author>
	<datestamp>1260217380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That would make a pretty good name for a startup company.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That would make a pretty good name for a startup company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would make a pretty good name for a startup company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30358110</id>
	<title>Re:What happened to Apple...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260182520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They did.  It was settled years ago.</p><p>"the High Court of Justice handed down a judgement on 8 May 2006 in favour of Apple Computer. The companies announced a final settlement of the dispute on 5 February 2007."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple\_Corps\_v\_Apple\_Computer</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They did .
It was settled years ago .
" the High Court of Justice handed down a judgement on 8 May 2006 in favour of Apple Computer .
The companies announced a final settlement of the dispute on 5 February 2007 .
" http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple \ _Corps \ _v \ _Apple \ _Computer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They did.
It was settled years ago.
"the High Court of Justice handed down a judgement on 8 May 2006 in favour of Apple Computer.
The companies announced a final settlement of the dispute on 5 February 2007.
"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple\_Corps\_v\_Apple\_Computer</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30357068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356024</id>
	<title>iPhone streaming?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260214920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps for specific iPhone/iTunes streaming video?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps for specific iPhone/iTunes streaming video ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps for specific iPhone/iTunes streaming video?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356568</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>rm999</author>
	<datestamp>1260217560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't call them competitors, iTunes targets people who want to hear a song more than once.</p><p>Also, Google still has plenty of music and music videos on YouTube.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't call them competitors , iTunes targets people who want to hear a song more than once.Also , Google still has plenty of music and music videos on YouTube .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't call them competitors, iTunes targets people who want to hear a song more than once.Also, Google still has plenty of music and music videos on YouTube.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30355978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356600</id>
	<title>Re:Article summary appears to have it backwards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260217740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it is just talent-based and has little to do with iTunes as we know it now. Apple has the tablet coming out and they want us to buy it and pay for subscriptions to the various media outlets that will support it. Streaming music, maybe. Streaming video, eNews, video, eMagazines, etc I think is more what Apple is looking for. They may do this through iTunes and change the shape of what iTunes is today or they may launch some other application/service that is based more on the subscription/streaming model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it is just talent-based and has little to do with iTunes as we know it now .
Apple has the tablet coming out and they want us to buy it and pay for subscriptions to the various media outlets that will support it .
Streaming music , maybe .
Streaming video , eNews , video , eMagazines , etc I think is more what Apple is looking for .
They may do this through iTunes and change the shape of what iTunes is today or they may launch some other application/service that is based more on the subscription/streaming model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it is just talent-based and has little to do with iTunes as we know it now.
Apple has the tablet coming out and they want us to buy it and pay for subscriptions to the various media outlets that will support it.
Streaming music, maybe.
Streaming video, eNews, video, eMagazines, etc I think is more what Apple is looking for.
They may do this through iTunes and change the shape of what iTunes is today or they may launch some other application/service that is based more on the subscription/streaming model.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356000</id>
	<title>Review just in.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260214800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No 4G. Less space than limewire. Lame.</p><p><i>Graduate school,  vengeful ghosts, high explosives. If Fark were about chemistry, it would look like this:</i><br><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Novel-Efficient-Synthesis-Cadaverine/dp/1448627176" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">Cadaverine</a> [amazon.com] (new window)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No 4G .
Less space than limewire .
Lame.Graduate school , vengeful ghosts , high explosives .
If Fark were about chemistry , it would look like this : Cadaverine [ amazon.com ] ( new window )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No 4G.
Less space than limewire.
Lame.Graduate school,  vengeful ghosts, high explosives.
If Fark were about chemistry, it would look like this:Cadaverine [amazon.com] (new window)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30360538</id>
	<title>to shut it down.</title>
	<author>/dev/trash</author>
	<datestamp>1260197700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Duh.  When the reporter on NPR this morning was saying a whole album could be streamed for a $1.00, I laughed.  No. Apple will just discontinue the service and eliminate competition.  They couldn't CrunchPad these guys so they had to spend some money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Duh .
When the reporter on NPR this morning was saying a whole album could be streamed for a $ 1.00 , I laughed .
No. Apple will just discontinue the service and eliminate competition .
They could n't CrunchPad these guys so they had to spend some money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Duh.
When the reporter on NPR this morning was saying a whole album could be streamed for a $1.00, I laughed.
No. Apple will just discontinue the service and eliminate competition.
They couldn't CrunchPad these guys so they had to spend some money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356178</id>
	<title>Logic Pro anyone?  One less Windows product</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260215640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm wondering if Apple is doing this for two reasons:</p><p>Remove a (fairly) platform independent music streaming website which is competition to them.  Every stream is a potential lost download and 99 or more cents.<br>Make it only working with Apple's stuff by integrating it in iTunes.</p><p>It makes sense.  Knock off a rival, make a value-added feature for only Macs which might bring more people in the fold, similar to how Logic was bought out, and the Windows version was chucked.</p><p>Oh well, at least this wasn't Spotify or last.fm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm wondering if Apple is doing this for two reasons : Remove a ( fairly ) platform independent music streaming website which is competition to them .
Every stream is a potential lost download and 99 or more cents.Make it only working with Apple 's stuff by integrating it in iTunes.It makes sense .
Knock off a rival , make a value-added feature for only Macs which might bring more people in the fold , similar to how Logic was bought out , and the Windows version was chucked.Oh well , at least this was n't Spotify or last.fm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm wondering if Apple is doing this for two reasons:Remove a (fairly) platform independent music streaming website which is competition to them.
Every stream is a potential lost download and 99 or more cents.Make it only working with Apple's stuff by integrating it in iTunes.It makes sense.
Knock off a rival, make a value-added feature for only Macs which might bring more people in the fold, similar to how Logic was bought out, and the Windows version was chucked.Oh well, at least this wasn't Spotify or last.fm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356266</id>
	<title>Imma-what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260216000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Immanent...I don't think that word means what you think it means.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Immanent...I do n't think that word means what you think it means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Immanent...I don't think that word means what you think it means.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30358800</id>
	<title>Re:One Word</title>
	<author>thickdiick</author>
	<datestamp>1260186180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the one word is <tt>"immanent"</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the one word is " immanent "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the one word is "immanent"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30360046</id>
	<title>Pundits grasping at straws ... ?</title>
	<author>gordguide</author>
	<datestamp>1260193800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple never, and I repeat never, does anything without a reason. You can bet the farm that Lala has something Apple wants or needs. More interestingly, when industry watchers cannot quite put their finger on whatever that might be, it usually means that experts are thinking inside the box, and Apple is thinking outside said box.<br>If Lala has software or technology Apple wants, it's probably because buying it now will save time over developing it in-house. That's been a pattern in the past.<br>If Lala has contracts or agreements Apple wants, that points to a future business or an expansion of an existing business. Sometimes Apple goes into something obliquely, through a quiet channel that isn't under the magnifying glass like the mother ship inevitably is.<br>If Lala unknowingly has something that will fit with an existing or future Apple hardware project, well<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it would help to know what that hardware was. Apple won't tell you.<br>And it may be as mundane as some suggest; that Apple want personnel to fold into a project they are working on. It's happened before as well.<br>Because of Apple's longstanding policy of not commenting on anything speculative, it might be hard to figure out the angle, even in the future; sometimes with Apple the cards are never laid on the table, and whatever it was quietly dies.</p><p>I'm most intrigued in the possibility that they are up to something that isn't obvious and can't be inferred from Lala's previous business. We shall see, I guess.</p><p>But, you can be sure there is something going on. More grist for the rumor mill!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple never , and I repeat never , does anything without a reason .
You can bet the farm that Lala has something Apple wants or needs .
More interestingly , when industry watchers can not quite put their finger on whatever that might be , it usually means that experts are thinking inside the box , and Apple is thinking outside said box.If Lala has software or technology Apple wants , it 's probably because buying it now will save time over developing it in-house .
That 's been a pattern in the past.If Lala has contracts or agreements Apple wants , that points to a future business or an expansion of an existing business .
Sometimes Apple goes into something obliquely , through a quiet channel that is n't under the magnifying glass like the mother ship inevitably is.If Lala unknowingly has something that will fit with an existing or future Apple hardware project , well ... it would help to know what that hardware was .
Apple wo n't tell you.And it may be as mundane as some suggest ; that Apple want personnel to fold into a project they are working on .
It 's happened before as well.Because of Apple 's longstanding policy of not commenting on anything speculative , it might be hard to figure out the angle , even in the future ; sometimes with Apple the cards are never laid on the table , and whatever it was quietly dies.I 'm most intrigued in the possibility that they are up to something that is n't obvious and ca n't be inferred from Lala 's previous business .
We shall see , I guess.But , you can be sure there is something going on .
More grist for the rumor mill !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple never, and I repeat never, does anything without a reason.
You can bet the farm that Lala has something Apple wants or needs.
More interestingly, when industry watchers cannot quite put their finger on whatever that might be, it usually means that experts are thinking inside the box, and Apple is thinking outside said box.If Lala has software or technology Apple wants, it's probably because buying it now will save time over developing it in-house.
That's been a pattern in the past.If Lala has contracts or agreements Apple wants, that points to a future business or an expansion of an existing business.
Sometimes Apple goes into something obliquely, through a quiet channel that isn't under the magnifying glass like the mother ship inevitably is.If Lala unknowingly has something that will fit with an existing or future Apple hardware project, well ... it would help to know what that hardware was.
Apple won't tell you.And it may be as mundane as some suggest; that Apple want personnel to fold into a project they are working on.
It's happened before as well.Because of Apple's longstanding policy of not commenting on anything speculative, it might be hard to figure out the angle, even in the future; sometimes with Apple the cards are never laid on the table, and whatever it was quietly dies.I'm most intrigued in the possibility that they are up to something that isn't obvious and can't be inferred from Lala's previous business.
We shall see, I guess.But, you can be sure there is something going on.
More grist for the rumor mill!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356602</id>
	<title>it's all about buttressing itunes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260217740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think however you look at it, you have to see Apple trying to reinforce their dominant position as the largest music distribution outlet in the world. Engineering talent my ass.  It's about stronger control over the marketing and distribution of music.</p><p>PS: Do I get any extra points for saying both 'ass' and 'buttress' ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think however you look at it , you have to see Apple trying to reinforce their dominant position as the largest music distribution outlet in the world .
Engineering talent my ass .
It 's about stronger control over the marketing and distribution of music.PS : Do I get any extra points for saying both 'ass ' and 'buttress ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think however you look at it, you have to see Apple trying to reinforce their dominant position as the largest music distribution outlet in the world.
Engineering talent my ass.
It's about stronger control over the marketing and distribution of music.PS: Do I get any extra points for saying both 'ass' and 'buttress' ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30357644</id>
	<title>Apple TV: It just doesn't work</title>
	<author>cjonslashdot</author>
	<datestamp>1260179820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe Apple did indeed buy them to get engineering know-how. Apple certainly don't know how to build a reliable appliance for media serving. I have an Apple TV. It is the most troublesome product I have every had, in any category. It "just doesn't work". I have to restart the thing about once a day because it gets "stuck" if it temporarily loss a connection. It is so, so, so fragile. It is awful. It is so bad that I started keeping a log of all the times that it freezes. And it doesn't even have a power button so you have to yank the chord out and plug it back in! In contrast, I also have a Roku, and it never, ever has to be restarted and never gets "stuck". It just works. I shudder to think what Apple's new media slate will be like....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe Apple did indeed buy them to get engineering know-how .
Apple certainly do n't know how to build a reliable appliance for media serving .
I have an Apple TV .
It is the most troublesome product I have every had , in any category .
It " just does n't work " .
I have to restart the thing about once a day because it gets " stuck " if it temporarily loss a connection .
It is so , so , so fragile .
It is awful .
It is so bad that I started keeping a log of all the times that it freezes .
And it does n't even have a power button so you have to yank the chord out and plug it back in !
In contrast , I also have a Roku , and it never , ever has to be restarted and never gets " stuck " .
It just works .
I shudder to think what Apple 's new media slate will be like... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe Apple did indeed buy them to get engineering know-how.
Apple certainly don't know how to build a reliable appliance for media serving.
I have an Apple TV.
It is the most troublesome product I have every had, in any category.
It "just doesn't work".
I have to restart the thing about once a day because it gets "stuck" if it temporarily loss a connection.
It is so, so, so fragile.
It is awful.
It is so bad that I started keeping a log of all the times that it freezes.
And it doesn't even have a power button so you have to yank the chord out and plug it back in!
In contrast, I also have a Roku, and it never, ever has to be restarted and never gets "stuck".
It just works.
I shudder to think what Apple's new media slate will be like....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356630</id>
	<title>iTunes upload/sync</title>
	<author>mapdock</author>
	<datestamp>1260217860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lala offers a feature that lets you upload your iTunes library and keep it synced; I always described it as "like having access to your iTunes library from anywhere online," so I can see Apple being interested from that angle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lala offers a feature that lets you upload your iTunes library and keep it synced ; I always described it as " like having access to your iTunes library from anywhere online , " so I can see Apple being interested from that angle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lala offers a feature that lets you upload your iTunes library and keep it synced; I always described it as "like having access to your iTunes library from anywhere online," so I can see Apple being interested from that angle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30366704</id>
	<title>Re:iPhone streaming?</title>
	<author>MachineShedFred</author>
	<datestamp>1260293760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what I've seen, MMS messages makes AT&amp;T's network cry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I 've seen , MMS messages makes AT&amp;T 's network cry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I've seen, MMS messages makes AT&amp;T's network cry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356206</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>Killer Orca</author>
	<datestamp>1260215820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Lala.com is the most frequent entry in the Google Audio search for searches I've done.  If Apple can control Lala, they can largely control or hamper Google's competition against iTunes.</p></div><p>So Google owns a stake in Lala?  First I've heard of it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lala.com is the most frequent entry in the Google Audio search for searches I 've done .
If Apple can control Lala , they can largely control or hamper Google 's competition against iTunes.So Google owns a stake in Lala ?
First I 've heard of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lala.com is the most frequent entry in the Google Audio search for searches I've done.
If Apple can control Lala, they can largely control or hamper Google's competition against iTunes.So Google owns a stake in Lala?
First I've heard of it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30355978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356242</id>
	<title>Re:One Word</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1260215940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google Search for any song online via Google and Lala brought a stream right to you. First listen is free, after that you have to pay. Why would Apple buy them? Considering most sane people use Google and Lala doesn't require something like iTunes, Lala was in a better position to bring music people want directly to them.</p> </div><p>That is probably the biggest reason.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This is just eliminating the competition before they got too big. Can I get an Antitrust Amen?</p></div><p>Umm, you don't know much about Lala do you? They admitted that they did not foresee any time in the near future where they would be profitable and as a long term investment were actively seeking someone to buy them to keep the service going. I doubt this will raise antitrust flags since Lala did not have significant market share and what they did have was primarily streaming.</p><p>As for the other reasons Apple bought them, besides the Google deal... They have significant engineering talent, they have a solid subscription streaming solution which is missing from Apple's lineup and that solution scales into individual downloads which is Apple's main offering, and they have their service built as a Web service, where Apple has recently started expanding iTunes. In fact, one analyst (UBS ) has already been speculating this signals Apple being serious about making iTunes a Web service that will work with any device and a possible service to run out of Apple's giant new server farm. If so, that would be breaking the exclusive ties between the iTunes store and Apple's hardware offerings which would in fact get rid of Apple's biggest potential antitrust problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google Search for any song online via Google and Lala brought a stream right to you .
First listen is free , after that you have to pay .
Why would Apple buy them ?
Considering most sane people use Google and Lala does n't require something like iTunes , Lala was in a better position to bring music people want directly to them .
That is probably the biggest reason.This is just eliminating the competition before they got too big .
Can I get an Antitrust Amen ? Umm , you do n't know much about Lala do you ?
They admitted that they did not foresee any time in the near future where they would be profitable and as a long term investment were actively seeking someone to buy them to keep the service going .
I doubt this will raise antitrust flags since Lala did not have significant market share and what they did have was primarily streaming.As for the other reasons Apple bought them , besides the Google deal... They have significant engineering talent , they have a solid subscription streaming solution which is missing from Apple 's lineup and that solution scales into individual downloads which is Apple 's main offering , and they have their service built as a Web service , where Apple has recently started expanding iTunes .
In fact , one analyst ( UBS ) has already been speculating this signals Apple being serious about making iTunes a Web service that will work with any device and a possible service to run out of Apple 's giant new server farm .
If so , that would be breaking the exclusive ties between the iTunes store and Apple 's hardware offerings which would in fact get rid of Apple 's biggest potential antitrust problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google Search for any song online via Google and Lala brought a stream right to you.
First listen is free, after that you have to pay.
Why would Apple buy them?
Considering most sane people use Google and Lala doesn't require something like iTunes, Lala was in a better position to bring music people want directly to them.
That is probably the biggest reason.This is just eliminating the competition before they got too big.
Can I get an Antitrust Amen?Umm, you don't know much about Lala do you?
They admitted that they did not foresee any time in the near future where they would be profitable and as a long term investment were actively seeking someone to buy them to keep the service going.
I doubt this will raise antitrust flags since Lala did not have significant market share and what they did have was primarily streaming.As for the other reasons Apple bought them, besides the Google deal... They have significant engineering talent, they have a solid subscription streaming solution which is missing from Apple's lineup and that solution scales into individual downloads which is Apple's main offering, and they have their service built as a Web service, where Apple has recently started expanding iTunes.
In fact, one analyst (UBS ) has already been speculating this signals Apple being serious about making iTunes a Web service that will work with any device and a possible service to run out of Apple's giant new server farm.
If so, that would be breaking the exclusive ties between the iTunes store and Apple's hardware offerings which would in fact get rid of Apple's biggest potential antitrust problem.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356250</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>IANAAC</author>
	<datestamp>1260215940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is Google competition for iTunes?
<p>
I've honestly not ever heard that before.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Google competition for iTunes ?
I 've honestly not ever heard that before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Google competition for iTunes?
I've honestly not ever heard that before.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30355978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356798</id>
	<title>Re:Logic Pro anyone? One less Windows product</title>
	<author>UnknowingFool</author>
	<datestamp>1260218700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Remove a (fairly) platform independent music streaming website which is competition to them. Every stream is a potential lost download and 99 or more cents.</p></div></blockquote><p>Well that motive makes sense if Apple wanted to dominate music distribution.  The main reason Apple got into online distribution was to increase the sales of their products.  They have been able to dominate only because they offer a richer ecosystem than competitors.</p><p>According to Apple's 10-K, Apple had revenue of $36.5 billion for fiscal year 2009 (ended September 26, 2009) of which $4.0 billion was in the division regarding iTunes store, iPod services, and iPod accessories.  There was no breakdown into iTunes store itself but music represents definitely less than 11\% of revenue for Apple.   In terms of cost, music represents the lowest margin product for Apple.  Of the 99 cents they charge for each DRM'ed music file, Apple has to pay the labels 70 cents.  Apple only keeps 29 cents which goes to maintain iTunes store, payment systems, etc.  For non-DRM'ed music, I'm sure Apple doesn't get any more percentage wise.  So after all costs, it would appear Apple makes very little profit from music.</p><blockquote><div><p>It makes sense. Knock off a rival, make a value-added feature for only Macs which might bring more people in the fold, similar to how Logic was bought out, and the Windows version was chucked.</p></div></blockquote><p>The windows version of Logic was dropped because it didn't make a lot of sense to keep developing it.  Apple wanted to incorporate Logic into their suite of profesional products.  The windows version would not have had the same features as the Mac version because Apple didn't have a suite.  So either Apple develops two separate versions of Logic with different features or Apple would have to develop a new pro suite for Windows.  Or they could drop the windows version.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remove a ( fairly ) platform independent music streaming website which is competition to them .
Every stream is a potential lost download and 99 or more cents.Well that motive makes sense if Apple wanted to dominate music distribution .
The main reason Apple got into online distribution was to increase the sales of their products .
They have been able to dominate only because they offer a richer ecosystem than competitors.According to Apple 's 10-K , Apple had revenue of $ 36.5 billion for fiscal year 2009 ( ended September 26 , 2009 ) of which $ 4.0 billion was in the division regarding iTunes store , iPod services , and iPod accessories .
There was no breakdown into iTunes store itself but music represents definitely less than 11 \ % of revenue for Apple .
In terms of cost , music represents the lowest margin product for Apple .
Of the 99 cents they charge for each DRM'ed music file , Apple has to pay the labels 70 cents .
Apple only keeps 29 cents which goes to maintain iTunes store , payment systems , etc .
For non-DRM'ed music , I 'm sure Apple does n't get any more percentage wise .
So after all costs , it would appear Apple makes very little profit from music.It makes sense .
Knock off a rival , make a value-added feature for only Macs which might bring more people in the fold , similar to how Logic was bought out , and the Windows version was chucked.The windows version of Logic was dropped because it did n't make a lot of sense to keep developing it .
Apple wanted to incorporate Logic into their suite of profesional products .
The windows version would not have had the same features as the Mac version because Apple did n't have a suite .
So either Apple develops two separate versions of Logic with different features or Apple would have to develop a new pro suite for Windows .
Or they could drop the windows version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remove a (fairly) platform independent music streaming website which is competition to them.
Every stream is a potential lost download and 99 or more cents.Well that motive makes sense if Apple wanted to dominate music distribution.
The main reason Apple got into online distribution was to increase the sales of their products.
They have been able to dominate only because they offer a richer ecosystem than competitors.According to Apple's 10-K, Apple had revenue of $36.5 billion for fiscal year 2009 (ended September 26, 2009) of which $4.0 billion was in the division regarding iTunes store, iPod services, and iPod accessories.
There was no breakdown into iTunes store itself but music represents definitely less than 11\% of revenue for Apple.
In terms of cost, music represents the lowest margin product for Apple.
Of the 99 cents they charge for each DRM'ed music file, Apple has to pay the labels 70 cents.
Apple only keeps 29 cents which goes to maintain iTunes store, payment systems, etc.
For non-DRM'ed music, I'm sure Apple doesn't get any more percentage wise.
So after all costs, it would appear Apple makes very little profit from music.It makes sense.
Knock off a rival, make a value-added feature for only Macs which might bring more people in the fold, similar to how Logic was bought out, and the Windows version was chucked.The windows version of Logic was dropped because it didn't make a lot of sense to keep developing it.
Apple wanted to incorporate Logic into their suite of profesional products.
The windows version would not have had the same features as the Mac version because Apple didn't have a suite.
So either Apple develops two separate versions of Logic with different features or Apple would have to develop a new pro suite for Windows.
Or they could drop the windows version.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30355988</id>
	<title>"Immanent"?</title>
	<author>abigor</author>
	<datestamp>1260214740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah yes, the purchase of Lala will not, therefore, make Apple present throughout the universe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah yes , the purchase of Lala will not , therefore , make Apple present throughout the universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah yes, the purchase of Lala will not, therefore, make Apple present throughout the universe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30360350</id>
	<title>Lala has a killer app coming for iPhone</title>
	<author>moredrivel</author>
	<datestamp>1260196320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been beta testing a Lala iPhone/iTouch app that let's me stream my entire Lala-synced iTunes library, plus and web tracks/albums I've purchase from lala.com.  So I have my complete music library on my phone anywhere there's Wi-Fi or a data connection.  Plays nicely with Facebook, too.
<br>
<br>
It feels a lot like a killer app to me.  Maybe Apple thought it was too good to not bring it in-house.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been beta testing a Lala iPhone/iTouch app that let 's me stream my entire Lala-synced iTunes library , plus and web tracks/albums I 've purchase from lala.com .
So I have my complete music library on my phone anywhere there 's Wi-Fi or a data connection .
Plays nicely with Facebook , too .
It feels a lot like a killer app to me .
Maybe Apple thought it was too good to not bring it in-house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been beta testing a Lala iPhone/iTouch app that let's me stream my entire Lala-synced iTunes library, plus and web tracks/albums I've purchase from lala.com.
So I have my complete music library on my phone anywhere there's Wi-Fi or a data connection.
Plays nicely with Facebook, too.
It feels a lot like a killer app to me.
Maybe Apple thought it was too good to not bring it in-house.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30357226</id>
	<title>Think outside iTunes</title>
	<author>dUN82</author>
	<datestamp>1260177480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1) defensive buy, but i doubt it.
2) to sell music outside itunes, why not?</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) defensive buy , but i doubt it .
2 ) to sell music outside itunes , why not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) defensive buy, but i doubt it.
2) to sell music outside itunes, why not?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356394</id>
	<title>Re:One Word</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260216660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait, what was the one word?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , what was the one word ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, what was the one word?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30357544</id>
	<title>don/t judge apple too soon...</title>
	<author>- r</author>
	<datestamp>1260179280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i think most people are looking at this in far too short sight. apple may have something up their sleeves that we have no idea of yet (just as they will have something come out (i think fairly soon) of their newton tech, which they kept when others offered to buy). we may not know for a few *years*. but they are pretty savvy on what they are doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i think most people are looking at this in far too short sight .
apple may have something up their sleeves that we have no idea of yet ( just as they will have something come out ( i think fairly soon ) of their newton tech , which they kept when others offered to buy ) .
we may not know for a few * years * .
but they are pretty savvy on what they are doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i think most people are looking at this in far too short sight.
apple may have something up their sleeves that we have no idea of yet (just as they will have something come out (i think fairly soon) of their newton tech, which they kept when others offered to buy).
we may not know for a few *years*.
but they are pretty savvy on what they are doing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30357656</id>
	<title>Re:One Word</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260179880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone's afraid of MySpace</p><p>http://mashable.com/2009/10/28/google-music-search/</p><p>&ldquo;Now, when you enter a music-related query &mdash; like the name of a song, artist or album &mdash; your search results will include links to an audio preview of those songs provided by our music search partners MySpace (MySpace) (which just acquired iLike) or Lala. When you click the result you&rsquo;ll be able to listen to an audio preview of the song directly from one of those partners.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... MySpace and Lala also provide links to purchase the full song."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone 's afraid of MySpacehttp : //mashable.com/2009/10/28/google-music-search/    Now , when you enter a music-related query    like the name of a song , artist or album    your search results will include links to an audio preview of those songs provided by our music search partners MySpace ( MySpace ) ( which just acquired iLike ) or Lala .
When you click the result you    ll be able to listen to an audio preview of the song directly from one of those partners .
... MySpace and Lala also provide links to purchase the full song .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone's afraid of MySpacehttp://mashable.com/2009/10/28/google-music-search/“Now, when you enter a music-related query — like the name of a song, artist or album — your search results will include links to an audio preview of those songs provided by our music search partners MySpace (MySpace) (which just acquired iLike) or Lala.
When you click the result you’ll be able to listen to an audio preview of the song directly from one of those partners.
... MySpace and Lala also provide links to purchase the full song.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30357692</id>
	<title>Re:One Word</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260180000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google: noun.  "Corporation bent on data mining everything while professing to do no evil."<br>Googling: verb. "To search for something on the Internet, most often through Google (noun)."</p><p>Yes, it has become so prevalent as to be the Kleenex or Band-Aid of the Interwebs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google : noun .
" Corporation bent on data mining everything while professing to do no evil .
" Googling : verb .
" To search for something on the Internet , most often through Google ( noun ) .
" Yes , it has become so prevalent as to be the Kleenex or Band-Aid of the Interwebs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google: noun.
"Corporation bent on data mining everything while professing to do no evil.
"Googling: verb.
"To search for something on the Internet, most often through Google (noun).
"Yes, it has become so prevalent as to be the Kleenex or Band-Aid of the Interwebs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30358536</id>
	<title>It is obvious innit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260184800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>tinky-winky, po, and dipsy dot coms were not available at the right price.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>tinky-winky , po , and dipsy dot coms were not available at the right price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tinky-winky, po, and dipsy dot coms were not available at the right price.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356184</id>
	<title>Re:One Word</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260215640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google Search for any song online via Google</p></div><p>Question: how do I google search offline and/or not via google?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google Search for any song online via GoogleQuestion : how do I google search offline and/or not via google ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google Search for any song online via GoogleQuestion: how do I google search offline and/or not via google?
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30357954</id>
	<title>Re:obviously, you haven't been paying attention...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260181560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought tumbleweeds were a dessert topping?</p><p>ba dump chaaaaaaaa...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought tumbleweeds were a dessert topping ? ba dump chaaaaaaaa.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought tumbleweeds were a dessert topping?ba dump chaaaaaaaa...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356116</id>
	<title>Article summary appears to have it backwards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260215340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The initial NYT article about the acquisition said it was only talent related, while a <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091205/media\_nm/us\_apple" title="yahoo.com" rel="nofollow">more recent Reuters article</a> [yahoo.com] has the following quote:</p><blockquote><div><p>A source familiar with the matter said the iPod, iPhone and Mac maker is seeking new ways to expand iTunes to move it beyond being a predominantly download service for songs. The source asked not to be named.</p><p>"Apple recognizes that the model is going to evolve into a streaming one and this could probably propel iTunes to the next level," said the person.</p></div></blockquote><p>The truth is, nobody really knows what Apple is up to. Which is, of course, just how Apple likes it. I wouldn't put it past them to have deliberately leaked a couple of conflicting stories just to keep everyone guessing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The initial NYT article about the acquisition said it was only talent related , while a more recent Reuters article [ yahoo.com ] has the following quote : A source familiar with the matter said the iPod , iPhone and Mac maker is seeking new ways to expand iTunes to move it beyond being a predominantly download service for songs .
The source asked not to be named .
" Apple recognizes that the model is going to evolve into a streaming one and this could probably propel iTunes to the next level , " said the person.The truth is , nobody really knows what Apple is up to .
Which is , of course , just how Apple likes it .
I would n't put it past them to have deliberately leaked a couple of conflicting stories just to keep everyone guessing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The initial NYT article about the acquisition said it was only talent related, while a more recent Reuters article [yahoo.com] has the following quote:A source familiar with the matter said the iPod, iPhone and Mac maker is seeking new ways to expand iTunes to move it beyond being a predominantly download service for songs.
The source asked not to be named.
"Apple recognizes that the model is going to evolve into a streaming one and this could probably propel iTunes to the next level," said the person.The truth is, nobody really knows what Apple is up to.
Which is, of course, just how Apple likes it.
I wouldn't put it past them to have deliberately leaked a couple of conflicting stories just to keep everyone guessing.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30357094</id>
	<title>Me's failure explains LaLa's acquisition</title>
	<author>akouris</author>
	<datestamp>1260176820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that as arrogant as one might say that Apple is, they have realized that the world of internet/asp services is much different than something that you totally control, in a closed environment of an OS.

They learned that the hard way through the numerous shortcomings of Me, a service which was very ambitious, but today still remains very unrealiable and has numerous shortcomings in all categories (mail, calendar, contacts, photos, idisk) when you compare it with other free alternatives.

When Me was initially announced, for a brief moment Apple had the chance to turn the market upside down, and be a leader in the ASP/cloud services arena.

Today they are not even considered a strong player - Me remains a supplementary service for only a small part of the iPhone base of users.

Consider what could have happened with Me if Apple had purchased a number of successful services (Yousendit, Dropbox, Plaxo, etc.) and combined them under one umbrella - their offering would be unmatched, they would have a brilliant team of developers, and today they would probably be leaders in the market.

I believe that this is the basic thinking behind Lala's acquisition: they are buying time, which is the next best thing after money: they are buying time they have lost, against Lala.com, Last.fm. They are buying time that they would loose if today they began to develop their own streaming service. They are buying time that it would take them to learn the mistakes others did.

With the cash reserves that Apple has right now, if it follows a clever acquisition strategy it can pretty soon gain a significant presence in internet, one that in time would rival that of Yahoo, Microsoft and perhaps even Google.

If the rumors surrounding the recent sale of AdMob are true, it seems that Apple is implementing such a plan.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that as arrogant as one might say that Apple is , they have realized that the world of internet/asp services is much different than something that you totally control , in a closed environment of an OS .
They learned that the hard way through the numerous shortcomings of Me , a service which was very ambitious , but today still remains very unrealiable and has numerous shortcomings in all categories ( mail , calendar , contacts , photos , idisk ) when you compare it with other free alternatives .
When Me was initially announced , for a brief moment Apple had the chance to turn the market upside down , and be a leader in the ASP/cloud services arena .
Today they are not even considered a strong player - Me remains a supplementary service for only a small part of the iPhone base of users .
Consider what could have happened with Me if Apple had purchased a number of successful services ( Yousendit , Dropbox , Plaxo , etc .
) and combined them under one umbrella - their offering would be unmatched , they would have a brilliant team of developers , and today they would probably be leaders in the market .
I believe that this is the basic thinking behind Lala 's acquisition : they are buying time , which is the next best thing after money : they are buying time they have lost , against Lala.com , Last.fm .
They are buying time that they would loose if today they began to develop their own streaming service .
They are buying time that it would take them to learn the mistakes others did .
With the cash reserves that Apple has right now , if it follows a clever acquisition strategy it can pretty soon gain a significant presence in internet , one that in time would rival that of Yahoo , Microsoft and perhaps even Google .
If the rumors surrounding the recent sale of AdMob are true , it seems that Apple is implementing such a plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that as arrogant as one might say that Apple is, they have realized that the world of internet/asp services is much different than something that you totally control, in a closed environment of an OS.
They learned that the hard way through the numerous shortcomings of Me, a service which was very ambitious, but today still remains very unrealiable and has numerous shortcomings in all categories (mail, calendar, contacts, photos, idisk) when you compare it with other free alternatives.
When Me was initially announced, for a brief moment Apple had the chance to turn the market upside down, and be a leader in the ASP/cloud services arena.
Today they are not even considered a strong player - Me remains a supplementary service for only a small part of the iPhone base of users.
Consider what could have happened with Me if Apple had purchased a number of successful services (Yousendit, Dropbox, Plaxo, etc.
) and combined them under one umbrella - their offering would be unmatched, they would have a brilliant team of developers, and today they would probably be leaders in the market.
I believe that this is the basic thinking behind Lala's acquisition: they are buying time, which is the next best thing after money: they are buying time they have lost, against Lala.com, Last.fm.
They are buying time that they would loose if today they began to develop their own streaming service.
They are buying time that it would take them to learn the mistakes others did.
With the cash reserves that Apple has right now, if it follows a clever acquisition strategy it can pretty soon gain a significant presence in internet, one that in time would rival that of Yahoo, Microsoft and perhaps even Google.
If the rumors surrounding the recent sale of AdMob are true, it seems that Apple is implementing such a plan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356590</id>
	<title>fp TACO?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260217620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">IS DYING LIKE tHE FreeBSD showed</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>IS DYING LIKE tHE FreeBSD showed [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IS DYING LIKE tHE FreeBSD showed [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30358288</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>artemis67</author>
	<datestamp>1260183420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But Google controls their own results engine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But Google controls their own results engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Google controls their own results engine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30355978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356358</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260216540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Lala.com is the most frequent entry in the Google Audio search for searches I've done.  If Apple can control Lala, they can largely control or hamper Google's competition against iTunes.</p><p>Does there need to be a more complex explanation than simple competitive pressures?</p></div><p>IANAL, but shouldn't this transaction be looked into by antitrust officials for this very reason?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lala.com is the most frequent entry in the Google Audio search for searches I 've done .
If Apple can control Lala , they can largely control or hamper Google 's competition against iTunes.Does there need to be a more complex explanation than simple competitive pressures ? IANAL , but should n't this transaction be looked into by antitrust officials for this very reason ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lala.com is the most frequent entry in the Google Audio search for searches I've done.
If Apple can control Lala, they can largely control or hamper Google's competition against iTunes.Does there need to be a more complex explanation than simple competitive pressures?IANAL, but shouldn't this transaction be looked into by antitrust officials for this very reason?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30355978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356016</id>
	<title>One Word</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260214860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google

Search for any song online via Google and Lala brought a stream right to you. First listen is free, after that you have to pay. Why would Apple buy them? Considering most sane people use Google and Lala doesn't require something like iTunes, Lala was in a better position to bring music people want directly to them. This is just eliminating the competition before they got too big.

Can I get an Antitrust Amen?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google Search for any song online via Google and Lala brought a stream right to you .
First listen is free , after that you have to pay .
Why would Apple buy them ?
Considering most sane people use Google and Lala does n't require something like iTunes , Lala was in a better position to bring music people want directly to them .
This is just eliminating the competition before they got too big .
Can I get an Antitrust Amen ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google

Search for any song online via Google and Lala brought a stream right to you.
First listen is free, after that you have to pay.
Why would Apple buy them?
Considering most sane people use Google and Lala doesn't require something like iTunes, Lala was in a better position to bring music people want directly to them.
This is just eliminating the competition before they got too big.
Can I get an Antitrust Amen?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30357626</id>
	<title>Re:it's all about buttressing itunes</title>
	<author>gujo-odori</author>
	<datestamp>1260179700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's code. If we select certain words, we get::</p><p>"Buttressing their dominant position in my ass."</p><p>I've heard of people being Apple fans before, but isn't that taking it to kind of an extreme?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's code .
If we select certain words , we get : : " Buttressing their dominant position in my ass .
" I 've heard of people being Apple fans before , but is n't that taking it to kind of an extreme ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's code.
If we select certain words, we get::"Buttressing their dominant position in my ass.
"I've heard of people being Apple fans before, but isn't that taking it to kind of an extreme?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356482</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>netruner</author>
	<datestamp>1260217200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It looks more like "market shaping" to me - streaming is a contradictory market strategy to the "pay per download" model that Itunes uses.  If they can keep control of the market leader in that arena, driving out other startups until the business model goes belly up, they have not only eliminated a competitor, but any potential competitor of that type.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks more like " market shaping " to me - streaming is a contradictory market strategy to the " pay per download " model that Itunes uses .
If they can keep control of the market leader in that arena , driving out other startups until the business model goes belly up , they have not only eliminated a competitor , but any potential competitor of that type .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks more like "market shaping" to me - streaming is a contradictory market strategy to the "pay per download" model that Itunes uses.
If they can keep control of the market leader in that arena, driving out other startups until the business model goes belly up, they have not only eliminated a competitor, but any potential competitor of that type.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30355978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30360166</id>
	<title>Re:Imma-what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260194880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Immanent...I don't think that word means what you think it means.</p></div><p>LMAO (imminently)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Immanent...I do n't think that word means what you think it means.LMAO ( imminently )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Immanent...I don't think that word means what you think it means.LMAO (imminently)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356744</id>
	<title>But what about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260218460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tinky Winky, Dipsy and Po?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tinky Winky , Dipsy and Po ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tinky Winky, Dipsy and Po?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356168</id>
	<title>Re:One Word</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1260215580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if they want to just use Lala as a gateway for directing people to buy music off iTunes?</p><p>People search for music. They get the Lala sample, and then iTunes swoops in for the sale.</p><p>Seems very logical to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if they want to just use Lala as a gateway for directing people to buy music off iTunes ? People search for music .
They get the Lala sample , and then iTunes swoops in for the sale.Seems very logical to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if they want to just use Lala as a gateway for directing people to buy music off iTunes?People search for music.
They get the Lala sample, and then iTunes swoops in for the sale.Seems very logical to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30372086</id>
	<title>Re:Hopeful for some personal gain</title>
	<author>soliptic</author>
	<datestamp>1260275760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>LaLa<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... watches my iTunes directory and automatically unlocks the streams in LaLa of the tracks of whatever CD I just imported on iTunes.</p></div><p>Interesting... isn't this almost exactly what mp3.com got sued for?  "Knowing" you've bought a CD and giving you access to online audio of the same tracks?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>LaLa ... watches my iTunes directory and automatically unlocks the streams in LaLa of the tracks of whatever CD I just imported on iTunes.Interesting... is n't this almost exactly what mp3.com got sued for ?
" Knowing " you 've bought a CD and giving you access to online audio of the same tracks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LaLa ... watches my iTunes directory and automatically unlocks the streams in LaLa of the tracks of whatever CD I just imported on iTunes.Interesting... isn't this almost exactly what mp3.com got sued for?
"Knowing" you've bought a CD and giving you access to online audio of the same tracks?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356958</id>
	<title>I wonder...</title>
	<author>WarpCode</author>
	<datestamp>1260219360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How long will it be before the only way to access Lala will be to buy one of Apples overpriced mp3 players.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How long will it be before the only way to access Lala will be to buy one of Apples overpriced mp3 players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long will it be before the only way to access Lala will be to buy one of Apples overpriced mp3 players.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30357068</id>
	<title>What happened to Apple...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260176700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...supposedly agreeing to not enter the music business? I hope Apple Records sues their ass off for violating this agreement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...supposedly agreeing to not enter the music business ?
I hope Apple Records sues their ass off for violating this agreement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...supposedly agreeing to not enter the music business?
I hope Apple Records sues their ass off for violating this agreement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356792</id>
	<title>Better samples?</title>
	<author>Sirusjr</author>
	<datestamp>1260218700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hopefully this means we will have better samples before buying online.  I am tired of searching for an album on Amazon, being curious, and finding the 30 second samples don't really help me, especially when the samples are TERRIBLE bitrate and overcompressed.  More and more bands are offering the entire album for streaming online so that prospective purchasers like myself can get a real taste of the album before buying it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully this means we will have better samples before buying online .
I am tired of searching for an album on Amazon , being curious , and finding the 30 second samples do n't really help me , especially when the samples are TERRIBLE bitrate and overcompressed .
More and more bands are offering the entire album for streaming online so that prospective purchasers like myself can get a real taste of the album before buying it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully this means we will have better samples before buying online.
I am tired of searching for an album on Amazon, being curious, and finding the 30 second samples don't really help me, especially when the samples are TERRIBLE bitrate and overcompressed.
More and more bands are offering the entire album for streaming online so that prospective purchasers like myself can get a real taste of the album before buying it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356700</id>
	<title>Re:One Word</title>
	<author>uniquename72</author>
	<datestamp>1260218340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Lala was in a better position to bring music people want directly to them.</p></div><p>This is precisely why Apple should purchase Pirate Bay.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lala was in a better position to bring music people want directly to them.This is precisely why Apple should purchase Pirate Bay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lala was in a better position to bring music people want directly to them.This is precisely why Apple should purchase Pirate Bay.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356386</id>
	<title>Hopeful for some personal gain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260216600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a Mac owner and iPod/iTunes user AND a [the only?] paying LaLa customer, I'd be absolutely thrilled if this led to tighter integration between the two products.
<p>
Right now, I have iTunes that I use to update my iPod and LaLa which I primarily use to listen to music when I'm on ANY web connected computer.  I use LaLa over iTunes at home because I have streams for some songs that I have a paid license to listen to on LaLa that I didn't pay the extra 79 cents to download, so they aren't available in my iTunes.
</p><p>
With LaLa, if I have an internet connection, I can listen to my songs and streams from anywhere, which means I don't need copies of all of my MP3s (or whatever) on my laptop, my work machine, my home machine, etc.  It's amazing, and stream licenses are only 10 cents per song.
</p><p>
LaLa also provides a music mover app, which watches my iTunes directory and automatically unlocks the streams in LaLa of the tracks of whatever CD I just imported on iTunes.
</p><p>
Suffice it to say, I love it, and if they integrated the two products, I'd love it even more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a Mac owner and iPod/iTunes user AND a [ the only ?
] paying LaLa customer , I 'd be absolutely thrilled if this led to tighter integration between the two products .
Right now , I have iTunes that I use to update my iPod and LaLa which I primarily use to listen to music when I 'm on ANY web connected computer .
I use LaLa over iTunes at home because I have streams for some songs that I have a paid license to listen to on LaLa that I did n't pay the extra 79 cents to download , so they are n't available in my iTunes .
With LaLa , if I have an internet connection , I can listen to my songs and streams from anywhere , which means I do n't need copies of all of my MP3s ( or whatever ) on my laptop , my work machine , my home machine , etc .
It 's amazing , and stream licenses are only 10 cents per song .
LaLa also provides a music mover app , which watches my iTunes directory and automatically unlocks the streams in LaLa of the tracks of whatever CD I just imported on iTunes .
Suffice it to say , I love it , and if they integrated the two products , I 'd love it even more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a Mac owner and iPod/iTunes user AND a [the only?
] paying LaLa customer, I'd be absolutely thrilled if this led to tighter integration between the two products.
Right now, I have iTunes that I use to update my iPod and LaLa which I primarily use to listen to music when I'm on ANY web connected computer.
I use LaLa over iTunes at home because I have streams for some songs that I have a paid license to listen to on LaLa that I didn't pay the extra 79 cents to download, so they aren't available in my iTunes.
With LaLa, if I have an internet connection, I can listen to my songs and streams from anywhere, which means I don't need copies of all of my MP3s (or whatever) on my laptop, my work machine, my home machine, etc.
It's amazing, and stream licenses are only 10 cents per song.
LaLa also provides a music mover app, which watches my iTunes directory and automatically unlocks the streams in LaLa of the tracks of whatever CD I just imported on iTunes.
Suffice it to say, I love it, and if they integrated the two products, I'd love it even more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30365374</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>jimharris</author>
	<datestamp>1260288360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lala is near perfect in my book.  And it's extremely easy to add $20 worth of credit to buy another 200 songs.  Surprisingly it takes a good while to spend down the $20 if you only buy songs you want to play over and over again.  I also have a Rhapsody subscription, but I most use Lala because it's more convenient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lala is near perfect in my book .
And it 's extremely easy to add $ 20 worth of credit to buy another 200 songs .
Surprisingly it takes a good while to spend down the $ 20 if you only buy songs you want to play over and over again .
I also have a Rhapsody subscription , but I most use Lala because it 's more convenient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lala is near perfect in my book.
And it's extremely easy to add $20 worth of credit to buy another 200 songs.
Surprisingly it takes a good while to spend down the $20 if you only buy songs you want to play over and over again.
I also have a Rhapsody subscription, but I most use Lala because it's more convenient.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30357020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30357020</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>HermMunster</author>
	<datestamp>1260176460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, Lala.com isn't a very good service and overall it sucks.  You can't do with it what you think.  You can only have so many credits to repeat play songs.  Otherwise you can listen to any song once and then you can buy the song if you so choose, which I believe is through Amazon (though I'm not positive).  Hardly something worthy of shaping.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , Lala.com is n't a very good service and overall it sucks .
You ca n't do with it what you think .
You can only have so many credits to repeat play songs .
Otherwise you can listen to any song once and then you can buy the song if you so choose , which I believe is through Amazon ( though I 'm not positive ) .
Hardly something worthy of shaping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, Lala.com isn't a very good service and overall it sucks.
You can't do with it what you think.
You can only have so many credits to repeat play songs.
Otherwise you can listen to any song once and then you can buy the song if you so choose, which I believe is through Amazon (though I'm not positive).
Hardly something worthy of shaping.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30374556</id>
	<title>Buying Lala?</title>
	<author>holeinone</author>
	<datestamp>1260299700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought she was happy right where she <a href="http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=73330667" title="apple.com" rel="nofollow">was</a> [apple.com]. At least, I was always happy. Quick, Dr. Tiki, you'd better write a prescription!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought she was happy right where she was [ apple.com ] .
At least , I was always happy .
Quick , Dr. Tiki , you 'd better write a prescription !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought she was happy right where she was [apple.com].
At least, I was always happy.
Quick, Dr. Tiki, you'd better write a prescription!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356452</id>
	<title>obviously, you haven't been paying attention...</title>
	<author>Thud457</author>
	<datestamp>1260217020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is Google competition for iTunes?
</p><p>
I've honestly not ever heard that before.</p></div><p>Google is competition for <i>everything</i>, it's just a matter of <i>how soon</i>. <br> <br>It's a dessert topping and a floor polish.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Google competition for iTunes ?
I 've honestly not ever heard that before.Google is competition for everything , it 's just a matter of how soon .
It 's a dessert topping and a floor polish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Google competition for iTunes?
I've honestly not ever heard that before.Google is competition for everything, it's just a matter of how soon.
It's a dessert topping and a floor polish.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30357720</id>
	<title>Streaming Music is a Logical Extension of iTunes</title>
	<author>PerfectionLost</author>
	<datestamp>1260180180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You buy your music from iTunes.  It's locked to that computer.  Then you go to your friend's house and want to listen to your music.  This is the point where a streaming DRM service would be idea.</p><p>Alternately, the iPhone already has a number of streaming services, why not stream directly to your device from the cloud.  Services like last.fm and pandora have streaming apps for the iPhone.  This would put Apple in that market too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You buy your music from iTunes .
It 's locked to that computer .
Then you go to your friend 's house and want to listen to your music .
This is the point where a streaming DRM service would be idea.Alternately , the iPhone already has a number of streaming services , why not stream directly to your device from the cloud .
Services like last.fm and pandora have streaming apps for the iPhone .
This would put Apple in that market too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You buy your music from iTunes.
It's locked to that computer.
Then you go to your friend's house and want to listen to your music.
This is the point where a streaming DRM service would be idea.Alternately, the iPhone already has a number of streaming services, why not stream directly to your device from the cloud.
Services like last.fm and pandora have streaming apps for the iPhone.
This would put Apple in that market too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30358400</id>
	<title>WOXY</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260184020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LaLa owns WOXY.com. Maybe Apple just wanted to own the best radio station on the planet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LaLa owns WOXY.com .
Maybe Apple just wanted to own the best radio station on the planet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LaLa owns WOXY.com.
Maybe Apple just wanted to own the best radio station on the planet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1659229_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30357692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1659229_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30358288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30355978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1659229_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1659229_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30358110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30357068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1659229_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30372086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1659229_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1659229_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30355978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1659229_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30355978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1659229_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30355978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1659229_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30355978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1659229_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1659229_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30357954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30355978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1659229_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30357626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1659229_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1659229_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1659229_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30358800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1659229_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30365374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30357020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30355978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1659229_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1659229_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30357908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30357068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1659229_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30361116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30355978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1659229_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1659229_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30357656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1659229_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30360166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1659229_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30359252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1659229_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30366704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_1659229.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30360046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_1659229.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356660
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_1659229.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30358800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356242
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30357656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356184
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30357692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30359252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_1659229.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30357626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_1659229.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_1659229.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30372086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_1659229.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30366704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_1659229.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30360166
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_1659229.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_1659229.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_1659229.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30357720
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_1659229.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30355978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356482
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30357020
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30365374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30358288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356250
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356452
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30361116
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30357954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_1659229.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30357068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30357908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30358110
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_1659229.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_1659229.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1659229.30356600
</commentlist>
</conversation>
