<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_15_1731240</id>
	<title>Ads To Offset Cost of Unlocked Google Phone?</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1260901080000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CWmike writes <i>"Google isn't talking publicly about <a href="http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/09/12/14/1410202/Nexus-One-Is-Googles-Android-Phone">reported plans to sell a powerful Android-based smartphone called the Nexus One</a> directly to consumers next year, but the idea is already raising eyebrows with analysts. The chief concern is that selling an unlocked phone directly to consumers, probably online, could be twice as expensive as buying one through a carrier. The unlocked approach has largely failed in the US, with the world's biggest phone manufacturer, Nokia, doing poorly with the concept. Nokia recently announced that its two direct-sales stores in Chicago and New York will close early next year, while online sales of unlocked devices will continue. Conceivably, Google could offer its phone at a price comparable to a subsidized phone from a carrier &mdash; <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9142245/Google\_s\_Nexus\_One\_smartphone\_Will\_mobile\_ads\_offset\_cost\_">as long as customers agree to receive mobile ads on the devices</a>. Since advertising is central to Google's revenue model, that approach might make some sense, analysts said. 'Google doesn't want to be in the phone business or the mobile carrier business, so this must be about something else, and that's the advertising business, since Google is in the business of selling ads,' said Kevin Burden, an analyst at ABI Research. In one mobile advertising model being tested in Germany, users <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9134904/Alcatel\_Lucent\_to\_serve\_mobile\_ads\_to\_wireless\_customers\_in\_Germany\_who\_opt\_in">agree to receive a certain number of ads on their phones</a> to reduce their monthly cellular and texting rates, although reducing the up-front cost of the actual device is relatively novel. Reinforcing the idea of using mobile advertising with direct sales of unlocked phones, Google <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9140564/Update\_Google\_to\_buy\_mobile\_ad\_company\_AdMob">bought AdMob in November</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " Google is n't talking publicly about reported plans to sell a powerful Android-based smartphone called the Nexus One directly to consumers next year , but the idea is already raising eyebrows with analysts .
The chief concern is that selling an unlocked phone directly to consumers , probably online , could be twice as expensive as buying one through a carrier .
The unlocked approach has largely failed in the US , with the world 's biggest phone manufacturer , Nokia , doing poorly with the concept .
Nokia recently announced that its two direct-sales stores in Chicago and New York will close early next year , while online sales of unlocked devices will continue .
Conceivably , Google could offer its phone at a price comparable to a subsidized phone from a carrier    as long as customers agree to receive mobile ads on the devices .
Since advertising is central to Google 's revenue model , that approach might make some sense , analysts said .
'Google does n't want to be in the phone business or the mobile carrier business , so this must be about something else , and that 's the advertising business , since Google is in the business of selling ads, ' said Kevin Burden , an analyst at ABI Research .
In one mobile advertising model being tested in Germany , users agree to receive a certain number of ads on their phones to reduce their monthly cellular and texting rates , although reducing the up-front cost of the actual device is relatively novel .
Reinforcing the idea of using mobile advertising with direct sales of unlocked phones , Google bought AdMob in November .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "Google isn't talking publicly about reported plans to sell a powerful Android-based smartphone called the Nexus One directly to consumers next year, but the idea is already raising eyebrows with analysts.
The chief concern is that selling an unlocked phone directly to consumers, probably online, could be twice as expensive as buying one through a carrier.
The unlocked approach has largely failed in the US, with the world's biggest phone manufacturer, Nokia, doing poorly with the concept.
Nokia recently announced that its two direct-sales stores in Chicago and New York will close early next year, while online sales of unlocked devices will continue.
Conceivably, Google could offer its phone at a price comparable to a subsidized phone from a carrier — as long as customers agree to receive mobile ads on the devices.
Since advertising is central to Google's revenue model, that approach might make some sense, analysts said.
'Google doesn't want to be in the phone business or the mobile carrier business, so this must be about something else, and that's the advertising business, since Google is in the business of selling ads,' said Kevin Burden, an analyst at ABI Research.
In one mobile advertising model being tested in Germany, users agree to receive a certain number of ads on their phones to reduce their monthly cellular and texting rates, although reducing the up-front cost of the actual device is relatively novel.
Reinforcing the idea of using mobile advertising with direct sales of unlocked phones, Google bought AdMob in November.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448008</id>
	<title>We've trained it for them</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1260906660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of us using GOOG-411 and Google Voice have done a splendid job training their voice recognition system. Within a year, I predict that you'll be seeing ads relevant to the conversation you're having while you're still having it. "It's been ages since I've had good sushi!" -&gt; ad for nearby expensive sushi restaurants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of us using GOOG-411 and Google Voice have done a splendid job training their voice recognition system .
Within a year , I predict that you 'll be seeing ads relevant to the conversation you 're having while you 're still having it .
" It 's been ages since I 've had good sushi !
" - &gt; ad for nearby expensive sushi restaurants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of us using GOOG-411 and Google Voice have done a splendid job training their voice recognition system.
Within a year, I predict that you'll be seeing ads relevant to the conversation you're having while you're still having it.
"It's been ages since I've had good sushi!
" -&gt; ad for nearby expensive sushi restaurants.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448876</id>
	<title>Will Goolge pay the data bill for the adds as with</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1260910560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will Goolge pay the data bill for the adds as with out a plan the cost is very high even more so if you go out side of the usa. Canada is about $71 for 35meg.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will Goolge pay the data bill for the adds as with out a plan the cost is very high even more so if you go out side of the usa .
Canada is about $ 71 for 35meg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will Goolge pay the data bill for the adds as with out a plan the cost is very high even more so if you go out side of the usa.
Canada is about $71 for 35meg.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447602</id>
	<title>I have a better idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260904920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll just continue to buy locked phones, and then drop 10 or 20 whole dollars to get them unlocked at the local electronics mall.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll just continue to buy locked phones , and then drop 10 or 20 whole dollars to get them unlocked at the local electronics mall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll just continue to buy locked phones, and then drop 10 or 20 whole dollars to get them unlocked at the local electronics mall.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30452932</id>
	<title>Re:Is there a niche for this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260887520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It won't be a separate model. It will be the standard model, just like Google and Gmail. The ads will be unobtrusive to the majority of consumers, but still valuable to advertisers. Google will no more offer this without personal data collection and advertising than they do Google and Gmail. Sure, they'll give you some privacy options, but they won't give you options that have a meaningful negative impact on the value of their services to advertisers.</p><p>If you run AdBlock, you are a minority. This isn't the phone for you. Since Google will control the hardware and the software, you'd have a heck of a time running AdBlock even if you wanted to. That's the point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It wo n't be a separate model .
It will be the standard model , just like Google and Gmail .
The ads will be unobtrusive to the majority of consumers , but still valuable to advertisers .
Google will no more offer this without personal data collection and advertising than they do Google and Gmail .
Sure , they 'll give you some privacy options , but they wo n't give you options that have a meaningful negative impact on the value of their services to advertisers.If you run AdBlock , you are a minority .
This is n't the phone for you .
Since Google will control the hardware and the software , you 'd have a heck of a time running AdBlock even if you wanted to .
That 's the point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It won't be a separate model.
It will be the standard model, just like Google and Gmail.
The ads will be unobtrusive to the majority of consumers, but still valuable to advertisers.
Google will no more offer this without personal data collection and advertising than they do Google and Gmail.
Sure, they'll give you some privacy options, but they won't give you options that have a meaningful negative impact on the value of their services to advertisers.If you run AdBlock, you are a minority.
This isn't the phone for you.
Since Google will control the hardware and the software, you'd have a heck of a time running AdBlock even if you wanted to.
That's the point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448350</id>
	<title>This reminds me of an idea I had</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1260907920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>about 20 years ago.</p><p>I was discussing the problems of getting phone service to people with little or no income, and the political difficulties of cutting peoples phone service.</p><p>I suggested they give people the option of getting advertising in exchange for free or discounted service.</p><p>Like after being on the phone for 30 seconds you would hear a one time ad like "Drink Coca-cola" or some such.</p><p>I wish I could remember the CEOs exact quote. It was something like "small ads in a lot of place will never generate income".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>about 20 years ago.I was discussing the problems of getting phone service to people with little or no income , and the political difficulties of cutting peoples phone service.I suggested they give people the option of getting advertising in exchange for free or discounted service.Like after being on the phone for 30 seconds you would hear a one time ad like " Drink Coca-cola " or some such.I wish I could remember the CEOs exact quote .
It was something like " small ads in a lot of place will never generate income " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>about 20 years ago.I was discussing the problems of getting phone service to people with little or no income, and the political difficulties of cutting peoples phone service.I suggested they give people the option of getting advertising in exchange for free or discounted service.Like after being on the phone for 30 seconds you would hear a one time ad like "Drink Coca-cola" or some such.I wish I could remember the CEOs exact quote.
It was something like "small ads in a lot of place will never generate income".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448842</id>
	<title>Sugestion: try mexico!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260910380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>maybe they won't sell millions of phones (or maybe they will) here in mexico buying the phones as stand alones (pre paids) its more popular, and selling the phones not attached to a specific carrier would make wonders in theyr selling numbers.</p><p>thats my 2 cents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>maybe they wo n't sell millions of phones ( or maybe they will ) here in mexico buying the phones as stand alones ( pre paids ) its more popular , and selling the phones not attached to a specific carrier would make wonders in theyr selling numbers.thats my 2 cents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maybe they won't sell millions of phones (or maybe they will) here in mexico buying the phones as stand alones (pre paids) its more popular, and selling the phones not attached to a specific carrier would make wonders in theyr selling numbers.thats my 2 cents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30450600</id>
	<title>Unsibsidized in the rest of the world</title>
	<author>DrYak</author>
	<datestamp>1260874680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I dunno about the rest of you, but I'd rather pay the full whack for an unlocked Maemo phone.</p></div><p>That's the way it works in most of the rest of the world :<br>- You can either buy any phone for it's listing price in any electronics shop.</p><p>If you sign a contract, or extend a previous, the service provider simply gives you the equivalent of a virtual "cheque" that you can use to buy any phone of your choosing in the same electronics shop where you signed for said contract. The phone is not locked and it's entirely up to you, the end user, to decide whether to use this contract SIM in this phone, or give the phone away. As long as you pay your monthly fee, the provider doesn't give a damn what you do with the phone or the SIM card.</p><p>Nokia's "failed in the USA" business model works 100\% well in lots of European countries. And could work too for Google.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno about the rest of you , but I 'd rather pay the full whack for an unlocked Maemo phone.That 's the way it works in most of the rest of the world : - You can either buy any phone for it 's listing price in any electronics shop.If you sign a contract , or extend a previous , the service provider simply gives you the equivalent of a virtual " cheque " that you can use to buy any phone of your choosing in the same electronics shop where you signed for said contract .
The phone is not locked and it 's entirely up to you , the end user , to decide whether to use this contract SIM in this phone , or give the phone away .
As long as you pay your monthly fee , the provider does n't give a damn what you do with the phone or the SIM card.Nokia 's " failed in the USA " business model works 100 \ % well in lots of European countries .
And could work too for Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno about the rest of you, but I'd rather pay the full whack for an unlocked Maemo phone.That's the way it works in most of the rest of the world :- You can either buy any phone for it's listing price in any electronics shop.If you sign a contract, or extend a previous, the service provider simply gives you the equivalent of a virtual "cheque" that you can use to buy any phone of your choosing in the same electronics shop where you signed for said contract.
The phone is not locked and it's entirely up to you, the end user, to decide whether to use this contract SIM in this phone, or give the phone away.
As long as you pay your monthly fee, the provider doesn't give a damn what you do with the phone or the SIM card.Nokia's "failed in the USA" business model works 100\% well in lots of European countries.
And could work too for Google.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447678</id>
	<title>Unlikely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260905220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it unlikely that Google would use on-device ads to help phone costs: their traditional strategy has been to use ads to monetize core offerings, not ancillary ones. Ancillary offerings bring you back to the core offerings, where ads are effectively placed.</p><p>There's so much speculation right now on the market, but I think that it's clear that Google could do something really interesting without the use of on-device monetization right now, e.g. the $199 unlocked super-phone that's being discussed in the more rumor-mill-ish blogs right now. If they could be cash-neutral doing that, and simultaneously disintermediate wireless carriers (a side-goal they've had for some time now), AND double Android's market share in the US, the mobile device group will be getting large bonuses, mark my words.</p><p>A totally new business model which likely reduces the amount of uptake from consumers: not so likely right now; Google has lots of cash and wants lots of market share. It's not a time to futz around with stuff like this: consumers would generally LOVE an iphone-a-like which costs $30 a month for unlimited calling and only costs $199. If Google can get that out the door, they'll have done plenty already in the last eighteen months.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it unlikely that Google would use on-device ads to help phone costs : their traditional strategy has been to use ads to monetize core offerings , not ancillary ones .
Ancillary offerings bring you back to the core offerings , where ads are effectively placed.There 's so much speculation right now on the market , but I think that it 's clear that Google could do something really interesting without the use of on-device monetization right now , e.g .
the $ 199 unlocked super-phone that 's being discussed in the more rumor-mill-ish blogs right now .
If they could be cash-neutral doing that , and simultaneously disintermediate wireless carriers ( a side-goal they 've had for some time now ) , AND double Android 's market share in the US , the mobile device group will be getting large bonuses , mark my words.A totally new business model which likely reduces the amount of uptake from consumers : not so likely right now ; Google has lots of cash and wants lots of market share .
It 's not a time to futz around with stuff like this : consumers would generally LOVE an iphone-a-like which costs $ 30 a month for unlimited calling and only costs $ 199 .
If Google can get that out the door , they 'll have done plenty already in the last eighteen months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it unlikely that Google would use on-device ads to help phone costs: their traditional strategy has been to use ads to monetize core offerings, not ancillary ones.
Ancillary offerings bring you back to the core offerings, where ads are effectively placed.There's so much speculation right now on the market, but I think that it's clear that Google could do something really interesting without the use of on-device monetization right now, e.g.
the $199 unlocked super-phone that's being discussed in the more rumor-mill-ish blogs right now.
If they could be cash-neutral doing that, and simultaneously disintermediate wireless carriers (a side-goal they've had for some time now), AND double Android's market share in the US, the mobile device group will be getting large bonuses, mark my words.A totally new business model which likely reduces the amount of uptake from consumers: not so likely right now; Google has lots of cash and wants lots of market share.
It's not a time to futz around with stuff like this: consumers would generally LOVE an iphone-a-like which costs $30 a month for unlimited calling and only costs $199.
If Google can get that out the door, they'll have done plenty already in the last eighteen months.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30449886</id>
	<title>Re:Only If There's A Choice</title>
	<author>Urza9814</author>
	<datestamp>1260871980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Avoiding ads isn't the primary reason for subscribing to slashdot - I don't and never have but I can still kill the ads if I want to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Avoiding ads is n't the primary reason for subscribing to slashdot - I do n't and never have but I can still kill the ads if I want to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Avoiding ads isn't the primary reason for subscribing to slashdot - I don't and never have but I can still kill the ads if I want to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30449378</id>
	<title>There's a simpler way...</title>
	<author>Daetrin</author>
	<datestamp>1260869880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>for anyone who's willing to do some basic math (which may or may not describe the "average" American.) Verizon has a low-talk-minutes, unlimited text and "unlimited" data plan for $100 a month. T-Mobile has the "Even More Plus" plan with low-talk-minutes, unlimited text and "unlimited" data for $60 a month. Over the course of a year you'll have saved $480 with a T-Mobile phone (like the Nexus One, supposedly) vs a Verizon Phone (like the Droid.) I expect that's more than the discount you'd be getting from Verizon in exchange for a \_two\_ year contract. No ads required.</htmltext>
<tokenext>for anyone who 's willing to do some basic math ( which may or may not describe the " average " American .
) Verizon has a low-talk-minutes , unlimited text and " unlimited " data plan for $ 100 a month .
T-Mobile has the " Even More Plus " plan with low-talk-minutes , unlimited text and " unlimited " data for $ 60 a month .
Over the course of a year you 'll have saved $ 480 with a T-Mobile phone ( like the Nexus One , supposedly ) vs a Verizon Phone ( like the Droid .
) I expect that 's more than the discount you 'd be getting from Verizon in exchange for a \ _two \ _ year contract .
No ads required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for anyone who's willing to do some basic math (which may or may not describe the "average" American.
) Verizon has a low-talk-minutes, unlimited text and "unlimited" data plan for $100 a month.
T-Mobile has the "Even More Plus" plan with low-talk-minutes, unlimited text and "unlimited" data for $60 a month.
Over the course of a year you'll have saved $480 with a T-Mobile phone (like the Nexus One, supposedly) vs a Verizon Phone (like the Droid.
) I expect that's more than the discount you'd be getting from Verizon in exchange for a \_two\_ year contract.
No ads required.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447668</id>
	<title>Ads?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260905220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? Don't they realize it will annoy people? I think it would hurt the N.O.'s sales.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
Do n't they realize it will annoy people ?
I think it would hurt the N.O .
's sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
Don't they realize it will annoy people?
I think it would hurt the N.O.
's sales.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447634</id>
	<title>Re:No No No No!!!!</title>
	<author>sakdoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1260905100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're in a minority group, mostly consisting of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers<br>The market has spoken, and it wants maximum fr33 st00f pl0x, subsidised by wasting time viewing ads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're in a minority group , mostly consisting of /.ersThe market has spoken , and it wants maximum fr33 st00f pl0x , subsidised by wasting time viewing ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're in a minority group, mostly consisting of /.ersThe market has spoken, and it wants maximum fr33 st00f pl0x, subsidised by wasting time viewing ads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448150</id>
	<title>Re:It's cheaper to buy straight from manufacturer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260907200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that if you bring your own phone to a US carrier, you don't get a discounted rate.  Effectively, any wireless plan you buy will include a 2-year lock-in and the extra cost for a phone subsidy, wether you use the subsidy or not.  There are a few small carriers that don't have long term contracts with built in subsidies, but there is no cost benefit to bringing your own phone to any of the national carriers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that if you bring your own phone to a US carrier , you do n't get a discounted rate .
Effectively , any wireless plan you buy will include a 2-year lock-in and the extra cost for a phone subsidy , wether you use the subsidy or not .
There are a few small carriers that do n't have long term contracts with built in subsidies , but there is no cost benefit to bringing your own phone to any of the national carriers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that if you bring your own phone to a US carrier, you don't get a discounted rate.
Effectively, any wireless plan you buy will include a 2-year lock-in and the extra cost for a phone subsidy, wether you use the subsidy or not.
There are a few small carriers that don't have long term contracts with built in subsidies, but there is no cost benefit to bringing your own phone to any of the national carriers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30450050</id>
	<title>Re:twice as much?</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1260872700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The difference being when I had a phone with a 450mhz processor, the phone wasn't much bigger than the 450 mhz processor in my previously owned desktop machine. It costs money to shrink that stuff down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference being when I had a phone with a 450mhz processor , the phone was n't much bigger than the 450 mhz processor in my previously owned desktop machine .
It costs money to shrink that stuff down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference being when I had a phone with a 450mhz processor, the phone wasn't much bigger than the 450 mhz processor in my previously owned desktop machine.
It costs money to shrink that stuff down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30456378</id>
	<title>It'll never work - not enough volume</title>
	<author>webreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1259675640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ads work by hundreds of thousands of people seeing them, and a small percentage clicking. The cost of delivery is almost nil.

With a phone like the HTC Passion (which is what the Nexus is) the manufacturing/retail costs will be in the hundreds of dollars (&pound;500+). Even if Google showed me ads for 2 hours a day, every day, and I clicked on every one and purchased through one of them every week, there would never be enough revenue to subsidise the cost of the handset to anything like what I'd want to pay (i.e., Free, like my current HTC Magic, on a &pound;35/month tariff... with effectively unlimited minutes, data and SMS).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ads work by hundreds of thousands of people seeing them , and a small percentage clicking .
The cost of delivery is almost nil .
With a phone like the HTC Passion ( which is what the Nexus is ) the manufacturing/retail costs will be in the hundreds of dollars (   500 + ) .
Even if Google showed me ads for 2 hours a day , every day , and I clicked on every one and purchased through one of them every week , there would never be enough revenue to subsidise the cost of the handset to anything like what I 'd want to pay ( i.e. , Free , like my current HTC Magic , on a   35/month tariff... with effectively unlimited minutes , data and SMS ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ads work by hundreds of thousands of people seeing them, and a small percentage clicking.
The cost of delivery is almost nil.
With a phone like the HTC Passion (which is what the Nexus is) the manufacturing/retail costs will be in the hundreds of dollars (£500+).
Even if Google showed me ads for 2 hours a day, every day, and I clicked on every one and purchased through one of them every week, there would never be enough revenue to subsidise the cost of the handset to anything like what I'd want to pay (i.e., Free, like my current HTC Magic, on a £35/month tariff... with effectively unlimited minutes, data and SMS).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30451942</id>
	<title>Re:It's cheaper to buy straight from manufacturer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260881040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>T-Mobile gives a $10 per month discount if you bring your own
phone.  On a 2 year contract, that saves $240.  So if I buy a
$400 unlocked phone that would have been $200 had I gotten it
subsidized from T-Mobile, I'm actually saving $40 over the 2
years.  Of course, that 200 dollars invested at an extremely
optimistic rate of \%10 return would have brought me something
like 40 dollars over the 2 years but then I'd have to deal with
taxes and finding an investment with a good chance of clearing
10 percent.  Yeah right.</p><p>

So, the bottom line is you are actually wrong.  There are
situations where it pays to bring your own phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>T-Mobile gives a $ 10 per month discount if you bring your own phone .
On a 2 year contract , that saves $ 240 .
So if I buy a $ 400 unlocked phone that would have been $ 200 had I gotten it subsidized from T-Mobile , I 'm actually saving $ 40 over the 2 years .
Of course , that 200 dollars invested at an extremely optimistic rate of \ % 10 return would have brought me something like 40 dollars over the 2 years but then I 'd have to deal with taxes and finding an investment with a good chance of clearing 10 percent .
Yeah right .
So , the bottom line is you are actually wrong .
There are situations where it pays to bring your own phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>T-Mobile gives a $10 per month discount if you bring your own
phone.
On a 2 year contract, that saves $240.
So if I buy a
$400 unlocked phone that would have been $200 had I gotten it
subsidized from T-Mobile, I'm actually saving $40 over the 2
years.
Of course, that 200 dollars invested at an extremely
optimistic rate of \%10 return would have brought me something
like 40 dollars over the 2 years but then I'd have to deal with
taxes and finding an investment with a good chance of clearing
10 percent.
Yeah right.
So, the bottom line is you are actually wrong.
There are
situations where it pays to bring your own phone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447938</id>
	<title>Wait...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260906360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aren't unlocked phones more expensive?  Shouldn't our monthly rate be cheaper if we pay full cost for the phone, since the cost of the phone is not hidden in the service fees?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't unlocked phones more expensive ?
Should n't our monthly rate be cheaper if we pay full cost for the phone , since the cost of the phone is not hidden in the service fees ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't unlocked phones more expensive?
Shouldn't our monthly rate be cheaper if we pay full cost for the phone, since the cost of the phone is not hidden in the service fees?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448724</id>
	<title>Re:Something Else</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260909720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about a disruptive technology like peer to peer calling over distributed networks or micro nets.</p><p>If call where free. i.e. its just your wifi bandwidth to the next persons phone then it could catch on and cut out the telcos completely (if it could be made to work). Does google voice have to p2p elements?</p><p>This would mean that the Telcos could not control the channel or ask for a share of revenue</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about a disruptive technology like peer to peer calling over distributed networks or micro nets.If call where free .
i.e. its just your wifi bandwidth to the next persons phone then it could catch on and cut out the telcos completely ( if it could be made to work ) .
Does google voice have to p2p elements ? This would mean that the Telcos could not control the channel or ask for a share of revenue</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about a disruptive technology like peer to peer calling over distributed networks or micro nets.If call where free.
i.e. its just your wifi bandwidth to the next persons phone then it could catch on and cut out the telcos completely (if it could be made to work).
Does google voice have to p2p elements?This would mean that the Telcos could not control the channel or ask for a share of revenue</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448118</id>
	<title>How would it work?</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1260907080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this was truly an "unlocked" phone, especially if it's meant to be a developer-friendly phone, I don't see how they could add on-device ads that I couldn't remove.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this was truly an " unlocked " phone , especially if it 's meant to be a developer-friendly phone , I do n't see how they could add on-device ads that I could n't remove .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this was truly an "unlocked" phone, especially if it's meant to be a developer-friendly phone, I don't see how they could add on-device ads that I couldn't remove.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30449072</id>
	<title>Carrier free?</title>
	<author>Mister Whirly</author>
	<datestamp>1260868260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What I am most interested about regarding this phone was the article I read that said you could use the phone carrier-free over existing WiFi networks. Combined with a Google Voice phone #, you could use this phone without having a carrier at all. Of course you would need WiFi to use it this way, so you may not always have coverage, but for city dwellers, this is an interesting option. Add to the fact that you could primarily use the phone this way, and carry a pre-paid SIM with you for the times you need to use the phone but there is no WiFi available, and you could put together a very low cost phone solution. Even if the phone was several hundred dollars more initially to buy without a contract, you could recover any extra money spent very quickly by not having a monthly fee.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I am most interested about regarding this phone was the article I read that said you could use the phone carrier-free over existing WiFi networks .
Combined with a Google Voice phone # , you could use this phone without having a carrier at all .
Of course you would need WiFi to use it this way , so you may not always have coverage , but for city dwellers , this is an interesting option .
Add to the fact that you could primarily use the phone this way , and carry a pre-paid SIM with you for the times you need to use the phone but there is no WiFi available , and you could put together a very low cost phone solution .
Even if the phone was several hundred dollars more initially to buy without a contract , you could recover any extra money spent very quickly by not having a monthly fee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I am most interested about regarding this phone was the article I read that said you could use the phone carrier-free over existing WiFi networks.
Combined with a Google Voice phone #, you could use this phone without having a carrier at all.
Of course you would need WiFi to use it this way, so you may not always have coverage, but for city dwellers, this is an interesting option.
Add to the fact that you could primarily use the phone this way, and carry a pre-paid SIM with you for the times you need to use the phone but there is no WiFi available, and you could put together a very low cost phone solution.
Even if the phone was several hundred dollars more initially to buy without a contract, you could recover any extra money spent very quickly by not having a monthly fee.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448302</id>
	<title>Re:No No No No!!!!</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1260907740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Brawndo, proud sponsor of the new E! reality series "Ow, My Balls!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Brawndo , proud sponsor of the new E !
reality series " Ow , My Balls !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brawndo, proud sponsor of the new E!
reality series "Ow, My Balls!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448392</id>
	<title>Re:We've trained it for them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260908100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only that, they'll be able to use the ad revenue to engage in some truly rapacious robber barony.</p><p>The U.S. telcos are in pathetic shape as it is. They're flabby, collusive, and generally non-competitive. An ad-supported 'free' phone service will pull the rug out from the few small communications providers we have left and seriously challenge the big players, who will be very slow to react. We could be looking at a future of cheap smart-phones with 'free' plans, and collapsing revenues for companies like Verizon unless they adopt the Google model. (Which Google is already best at.) With nobody equipped to compete with them, the Google monolith will swallow up the North American telco industry as well. I give it seven years or less. It'd be too easy to pull off, they have the technology, the infrastructure, and the money to do it, and now they have their first phone.</p><p>It's actually the best chance we have of reviving anti-trust legislation for the big phone and cable providers. Google is going to be stepping on a lot of toes soon, and the only way to bring them under control to protect the big boys from complete domination would be a regulatory Pyrrhic victory for them. I say go for it. I don't want Microsoft 2.0 owning that infrastructure any more than I want the current owners to hold onto it.</p><p>It's like I've said before, Google wants a world without privacy or competition, because information is their commodity and they want it all. They haven't been building up steam for the past decade just to fritter it away on philanthropy and vaporware research projects. They're primed to begin an all-out assault on the telcos, which if successful will create a nearly perfect advertising machine for Google. Every medium except paper will gather data from you and deliver ads tailored to you. This is the opening shot right here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that , they 'll be able to use the ad revenue to engage in some truly rapacious robber barony.The U.S. telcos are in pathetic shape as it is .
They 're flabby , collusive , and generally non-competitive .
An ad-supported 'free ' phone service will pull the rug out from the few small communications providers we have left and seriously challenge the big players , who will be very slow to react .
We could be looking at a future of cheap smart-phones with 'free ' plans , and collapsing revenues for companies like Verizon unless they adopt the Google model .
( Which Google is already best at .
) With nobody equipped to compete with them , the Google monolith will swallow up the North American telco industry as well .
I give it seven years or less .
It 'd be too easy to pull off , they have the technology , the infrastructure , and the money to do it , and now they have their first phone.It 's actually the best chance we have of reviving anti-trust legislation for the big phone and cable providers .
Google is going to be stepping on a lot of toes soon , and the only way to bring them under control to protect the big boys from complete domination would be a regulatory Pyrrhic victory for them .
I say go for it .
I do n't want Microsoft 2.0 owning that infrastructure any more than I want the current owners to hold onto it.It 's like I 've said before , Google wants a world without privacy or competition , because information is their commodity and they want it all .
They have n't been building up steam for the past decade just to fritter it away on philanthropy and vaporware research projects .
They 're primed to begin an all-out assault on the telcos , which if successful will create a nearly perfect advertising machine for Google .
Every medium except paper will gather data from you and deliver ads tailored to you .
This is the opening shot right here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that, they'll be able to use the ad revenue to engage in some truly rapacious robber barony.The U.S. telcos are in pathetic shape as it is.
They're flabby, collusive, and generally non-competitive.
An ad-supported 'free' phone service will pull the rug out from the few small communications providers we have left and seriously challenge the big players, who will be very slow to react.
We could be looking at a future of cheap smart-phones with 'free' plans, and collapsing revenues for companies like Verizon unless they adopt the Google model.
(Which Google is already best at.
) With nobody equipped to compete with them, the Google monolith will swallow up the North American telco industry as well.
I give it seven years or less.
It'd be too easy to pull off, they have the technology, the infrastructure, and the money to do it, and now they have their first phone.It's actually the best chance we have of reviving anti-trust legislation for the big phone and cable providers.
Google is going to be stepping on a lot of toes soon, and the only way to bring them under control to protect the big boys from complete domination would be a regulatory Pyrrhic victory for them.
I say go for it.
I don't want Microsoft 2.0 owning that infrastructure any more than I want the current owners to hold onto it.It's like I've said before, Google wants a world without privacy or competition, because information is their commodity and they want it all.
They haven't been building up steam for the past decade just to fritter it away on philanthropy and vaporware research projects.
They're primed to begin an all-out assault on the telcos, which if successful will create a nearly perfect advertising machine for Google.
Every medium except paper will gather data from you and deliver ads tailored to you.
This is the opening shot right here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30449510</id>
	<title>Re:We've trained it for them</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1260870480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>All of us using GOOG-411 and Google Voice have done a splendid job training their voice recognition system. Within a year, I predict that you'll be seeing ads relevant to the conversation you're having while you're still having it. "It's been ages since I've had good sushi!" -&gt; ad for nearby expensive sushi restaurants.</i></p><p>It's kind of hard to see the screen when it's next to your ear, but yes, when you hang up, that's reasonable.  I rather expect good ads for YouTube is easier to handle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of us using GOOG-411 and Google Voice have done a splendid job training their voice recognition system .
Within a year , I predict that you 'll be seeing ads relevant to the conversation you 're having while you 're still having it .
" It 's been ages since I 've had good sushi !
" - &gt; ad for nearby expensive sushi restaurants.It 's kind of hard to see the screen when it 's next to your ear , but yes , when you hang up , that 's reasonable .
I rather expect good ads for YouTube is easier to handle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of us using GOOG-411 and Google Voice have done a splendid job training their voice recognition system.
Within a year, I predict that you'll be seeing ads relevant to the conversation you're having while you're still having it.
"It's been ages since I've had good sushi!
" -&gt; ad for nearby expensive sushi restaurants.It's kind of hard to see the screen when it's next to your ear, but yes, when you hang up, that's reasonable.
I rather expect good ads for YouTube is easier to handle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448106</id>
	<title>Android-AdBlock</title>
	<author>C\_Kode</author>
	<datestamp>1260907020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's unlocked.  How soon to Ad-Block for Android comes out?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's unlocked .
How soon to Ad-Block for Android comes out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's unlocked.
How soon to Ad-Block for Android comes out?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30451536</id>
	<title>Re:Something Else</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260879060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know it's hard to believe, but EVERYTHING google does it about advertising, revenue, and generating returns for shareholders. Everything, with no exceptions.</p><p>Knowing who you call, where you are located physically, the content of text messages, are all part of data mining, which is all google cares about.</p><p>Suggesting google cares about a "more open cell phone market" is just silly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know it 's hard to believe , but EVERYTHING google does it about advertising , revenue , and generating returns for shareholders .
Everything , with no exceptions.Knowing who you call , where you are located physically , the content of text messages , are all part of data mining , which is all google cares about.Suggesting google cares about a " more open cell phone market " is just silly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know it's hard to believe, but EVERYTHING google does it about advertising, revenue, and generating returns for shareholders.
Everything, with no exceptions.Knowing who you call, where you are located physically, the content of text messages, are all part of data mining, which is all google cares about.Suggesting google cares about a "more open cell phone market" is just silly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447932</id>
	<title>Reminds me of MicroSoft and Xbox...</title>
	<author>MindPrison</author>
	<datestamp>1260906360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No newcomer on any marked really understand (without experience) the price tag for playing as a part of the game. Google is a giant, but not in every area, Nokia is a giant too, but as google..not in every area, they're both players in their own area of expertise - and the price for entering into each others pissing fields - could be very expensive, such as . eg. Microsoft experienced when they ventured into the area of console gaming.</p><p>(read between the lines, before you reply!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No newcomer on any marked really understand ( without experience ) the price tag for playing as a part of the game .
Google is a giant , but not in every area , Nokia is a giant too , but as google..not in every area , they 're both players in their own area of expertise - and the price for entering into each others pissing fields - could be very expensive , such as .
eg. Microsoft experienced when they ventured into the area of console gaming .
( read between the lines , before you reply !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No newcomer on any marked really understand (without experience) the price tag for playing as a part of the game.
Google is a giant, but not in every area, Nokia is a giant too, but as google..not in every area, they're both players in their own area of expertise - and the price for entering into each others pissing fields - could be very expensive, such as .
eg. Microsoft experienced when they ventured into the area of console gaming.
(read between the lines, before you reply!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448578</id>
	<title>Re:Is there a niche for this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260909000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll say only this: Paying Google Voice services. That's where my money is!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll say only this : Paying Google Voice services .
That 's where my money is !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll say only this: Paying Google Voice services.
That's where my money is!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30463380</id>
	<title>Unlocked phones selling well outside the US</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259660100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just wanted to note that the model of selling unlocked phones works fine in other parts of the world such as Europe and that most people here buy unlocked phones rather than getting one through their carrier. I would argue that even while doing so most people spend less in total cost as the rates that carriers charge are pretty low here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just wanted to note that the model of selling unlocked phones works fine in other parts of the world such as Europe and that most people here buy unlocked phones rather than getting one through their carrier .
I would argue that even while doing so most people spend less in total cost as the rates that carriers charge are pretty low here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just wanted to note that the model of selling unlocked phones works fine in other parts of the world such as Europe and that most people here buy unlocked phones rather than getting one through their carrier.
I would argue that even while doing so most people spend less in total cost as the rates that carriers charge are pretty low here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30451458</id>
	<title>Re:Android-AdBlock</title>
	<author>Krneki</author>
	<datestamp>1260878520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This will be something funny to see how it ends.<br><br>You buy something discounted by agreeing they can send you ads. Then you reinstall a hacked OS and filter the ads out.<br><br>I wonder if they can successfully sue you. Maybe in the US they can, but in the EU they don't have a fucking chance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This will be something funny to see how it ends.You buy something discounted by agreeing they can send you ads .
Then you reinstall a hacked OS and filter the ads out.I wonder if they can successfully sue you .
Maybe in the US they can , but in the EU they do n't have a fucking chance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will be something funny to see how it ends.You buy something discounted by agreeing they can send you ads.
Then you reinstall a hacked OS and filter the ads out.I wonder if they can successfully sue you.
Maybe in the US they can, but in the EU they don't have a fucking chance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30450062</id>
	<title>Re:Where will the ads be?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260872760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure that this is going to be "taken care" of soon, to make rooting a phone as difficult as the PS3:</p><p>1:  ACTA is getting close to being inflicted on nations worldwide, and in most countries (like the US) treaties supersede even the Constitution, so it will fly over the lawmakers' heads so it becomes the law of the land without any review or scrutiny, much less judicial process.  Just like WIPO and the DMCA got passed with -ZERO- review.</p><p>2:  The mechanism is in place to OTA flash phones in Android, removing any rooting.</p><p>3:  Finally, I'm sure that it won't be long before rooted devices will be kicked off networks just like Xbox 360s.</p><p>Enjoy it while you can.  In less than 3-5 years, people will dream about rooting a phone just as they do about speedhaxxing in WoW, or getting all full channels on satellite with a hacked card.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure that this is going to be " taken care " of soon , to make rooting a phone as difficult as the PS3 : 1 : ACTA is getting close to being inflicted on nations worldwide , and in most countries ( like the US ) treaties supersede even the Constitution , so it will fly over the lawmakers ' heads so it becomes the law of the land without any review or scrutiny , much less judicial process .
Just like WIPO and the DMCA got passed with -ZERO- review.2 : The mechanism is in place to OTA flash phones in Android , removing any rooting.3 : Finally , I 'm sure that it wo n't be long before rooted devices will be kicked off networks just like Xbox 360s.Enjoy it while you can .
In less than 3-5 years , people will dream about rooting a phone just as they do about speedhaxxing in WoW , or getting all full channels on satellite with a hacked card .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure that this is going to be "taken care" of soon, to make rooting a phone as difficult as the PS3:1:  ACTA is getting close to being inflicted on nations worldwide, and in most countries (like the US) treaties supersede even the Constitution, so it will fly over the lawmakers' heads so it becomes the law of the land without any review or scrutiny, much less judicial process.
Just like WIPO and the DMCA got passed with -ZERO- review.2:  The mechanism is in place to OTA flash phones in Android, removing any rooting.3:  Finally, I'm sure that it won't be long before rooted devices will be kicked off networks just like Xbox 360s.Enjoy it while you can.
In less than 3-5 years, people will dream about rooting a phone just as they do about speedhaxxing in WoW, or getting all full channels on satellite with a hacked card.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448310</id>
	<title>Any credible sources?</title>
	<author>the ReviveR</author>
	<datestamp>1260907800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is there any bit more official or trusted source that is actually confirming that google is bringing out its own phone?<br> <br>

Eldar Murtazin which I would consider a moderately trustworthy source regarding mobiles <a href="http://phandroid.com/2009/12/15/eldar-murtazin-google-phone-is-fake-apple-started-rumors/" title="phandroid.com">says that he has talked about it with a google employee and it's a fake.</a> [phandroid.com] <br> <br>

So many news and comments that seem to think this is real that I can't really form an opinion myself. If google does do this, it is a bit of a slap on the face for it's Android allies. Google is suddenly a competitor with a clear advantage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there any bit more official or trusted source that is actually confirming that google is bringing out its own phone ?
Eldar Murtazin which I would consider a moderately trustworthy source regarding mobiles says that he has talked about it with a google employee and it 's a fake .
[ phandroid.com ] So many news and comments that seem to think this is real that I ca n't really form an opinion myself .
If google does do this , it is a bit of a slap on the face for it 's Android allies .
Google is suddenly a competitor with a clear advantage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there any bit more official or trusted source that is actually confirming that google is bringing out its own phone?
Eldar Murtazin which I would consider a moderately trustworthy source regarding mobiles says that he has talked about it with a google employee and it's a fake.
[phandroid.com]  

So many news and comments that seem to think this is real that I can't really form an opinion myself.
If google does do this, it is a bit of a slap on the face for it's Android allies.
Google is suddenly a competitor with a clear advantage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30449060</id>
	<title>Google wants your data</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1260868260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there is a company selling data only/VOIP cell phones through AT&amp;T and there was a rumor that Google was going to sell a data only cell phone for $20 a month through AT&amp;T. abovethecrowd.com had a nice post about Google's business model and how they share add revenues.</p><p>I bet this phone will be data only and use Google Voice for everything. AT&amp;T doesn't care since they want to be a dumb pipe. Google will make money because everything you do on the internet will be logged in their servers and they will sell the data to everyone</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there is a company selling data only/VOIP cell phones through AT&amp;T and there was a rumor that Google was going to sell a data only cell phone for $ 20 a month through AT&amp;T .
abovethecrowd.com had a nice post about Google 's business model and how they share add revenues.I bet this phone will be data only and use Google Voice for everything .
AT&amp;T does n't care since they want to be a dumb pipe .
Google will make money because everything you do on the internet will be logged in their servers and they will sell the data to everyone</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there is a company selling data only/VOIP cell phones through AT&amp;T and there was a rumor that Google was going to sell a data only cell phone for $20 a month through AT&amp;T.
abovethecrowd.com had a nice post about Google's business model and how they share add revenues.I bet this phone will be data only and use Google Voice for everything.
AT&amp;T doesn't care since they want to be a dumb pipe.
Google will make money because everything you do on the internet will be logged in their servers and they will sell the data to everyone</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30452878</id>
	<title>I agree to accept the ads...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260887100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/hosts file that disagrees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's my /etc/hosts file that disagrees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's my /etc/hosts file that disagrees.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448464</id>
	<title>Apple patent pending</title>
	<author>MouseR</author>
	<datestamp>1260908460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is precisely why Apple filed for a patent on this recently.</p><p>It's a way for them to block potential ad revenues from Android, protecting the high price of their iPhone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is precisely why Apple filed for a patent on this recently.It 's a way for them to block potential ad revenues from Android , protecting the high price of their iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is precisely why Apple filed for a patent on this recently.It's a way for them to block potential ad revenues from Android, protecting the high price of their iPhone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448964</id>
	<title>I misread the headline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260867720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As "Aids To Offset Cost of Unlocked Google Phone?".</p><p>More the sort of thing certain people would endure to get an iPhone cheaply, I suppose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As " Aids To Offset Cost of Unlocked Google Phone ?
" .More the sort of thing certain people would endure to get an iPhone cheaply , I suppose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As "Aids To Offset Cost of Unlocked Google Phone?
".More the sort of thing certain people would endure to get an iPhone cheaply, I suppose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30452868</id>
	<title>Re:Only If There's A Choice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260887100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The bigger problem is not that people are willing to pay to avoid ads in principle, or that they are perhaps offended by the privacy implications of the gps equipped mobile phone being linked to all the rest of the data that an adplatform has accumulated on them (via whatever means they are gathering it in... in Google's case their myriad services, others have other ways)</p><p>I am NOT theoretically opposed to having a notification when i walk into a local BestBuy about Newegg running a "we will beat the price and ship it free promotion" reminder showing up on my phone.. nor am I opposed to the concept of something I am doing extensive research on the web.. say a large TV or a New laptop being announced when I am in the store etc...</p><p>But we all know that ads go MUCH further.. I enter the random generic bar with appitizers chain near the mall, and the Phone's GPS realizes we are near the mall so it shits out Flash fullscreen ads with sound (or worse on the case of the LG expo with projector attached)  interupts my presentation with a Victorias Secret ad (or worse a COMPETITOR online offering significantly LESS mainstream "angels"..</p><p>We dont block ads with adblock because of adsense.. we block them because websites insist on running 14 flash adblocks along the left right top and bottom, fullscreen popover ads, popunders with full screen video, and fake hyperlink hover ads when we try to find actual links. In short the worst advertising offenders == the reason for the entire industry being villified.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The bigger problem is not that people are willing to pay to avoid ads in principle , or that they are perhaps offended by the privacy implications of the gps equipped mobile phone being linked to all the rest of the data that an adplatform has accumulated on them ( via whatever means they are gathering it in... in Google 's case their myriad services , others have other ways ) I am NOT theoretically opposed to having a notification when i walk into a local BestBuy about Newegg running a " we will beat the price and ship it free promotion " reminder showing up on my phone.. nor am I opposed to the concept of something I am doing extensive research on the web.. say a large TV or a New laptop being announced when I am in the store etc...But we all know that ads go MUCH further.. I enter the random generic bar with appitizers chain near the mall , and the Phone 's GPS realizes we are near the mall so it shits out Flash fullscreen ads with sound ( or worse on the case of the LG expo with projector attached ) interupts my presentation with a Victorias Secret ad ( or worse a COMPETITOR online offering significantly LESS mainstream " angels " ..We dont block ads with adblock because of adsense.. we block them because websites insist on running 14 flash adblocks along the left right top and bottom , fullscreen popover ads , popunders with full screen video , and fake hyperlink hover ads when we try to find actual links .
In short the worst advertising offenders = = the reason for the entire industry being villified .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bigger problem is not that people are willing to pay to avoid ads in principle, or that they are perhaps offended by the privacy implications of the gps equipped mobile phone being linked to all the rest of the data that an adplatform has accumulated on them (via whatever means they are gathering it in... in Google's case their myriad services, others have other ways)I am NOT theoretically opposed to having a notification when i walk into a local BestBuy about Newegg running a "we will beat the price and ship it free promotion" reminder showing up on my phone.. nor am I opposed to the concept of something I am doing extensive research on the web.. say a large TV or a New laptop being announced when I am in the store etc...But we all know that ads go MUCH further.. I enter the random generic bar with appitizers chain near the mall, and the Phone's GPS realizes we are near the mall so it shits out Flash fullscreen ads with sound (or worse on the case of the LG expo with projector attached)  interupts my presentation with a Victorias Secret ad (or worse a COMPETITOR online offering significantly LESS mainstream "angels"..We dont block ads with adblock because of adsense.. we block them because websites insist on running 14 flash adblocks along the left right top and bottom, fullscreen popover ads, popunders with full screen video, and fake hyperlink hover ads when we try to find actual links.
In short the worst advertising offenders == the reason for the entire industry being villified.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30450578</id>
	<title>Re:Android-AdBlock</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260874620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean like this? http://www.androlib.com/android.application.com-bigtincan-android-adfree-zxC.aspx</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like this ?
http : //www.androlib.com/android.application.com-bigtincan-android-adfree-zxC.aspx</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like this?
http://www.androlib.com/android.application.com-bigtincan-android-adfree-zxC.aspx</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30451444</id>
	<title>could be twice as expensive?</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1260878520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just bought a unlocked blackberry clone for 100. Id say that was cheaper for me then getting one subsided thru a carrier, and be locked into them forever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just bought a unlocked blackberry clone for 100 .
Id say that was cheaper for me then getting one subsided thru a carrier , and be locked into them forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just bought a unlocked blackberry clone for 100.
Id say that was cheaper for me then getting one subsided thru a carrier, and be locked into them forever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448380</id>
	<title>Re:It's cheaper to buy straight from manufacturer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260908040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not true -- with Sprint, you are required to add special features to your contract (SprintTV, navigation, and such) in order to get a "subsidized" smartphone. If you buy the phone elsewhere and activate it onto your account, you're allowed to use it with a cheaper non-premium data  plan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not true -- with Sprint , you are required to add special features to your contract ( SprintTV , navigation , and such ) in order to get a " subsidized " smartphone .
If you buy the phone elsewhere and activate it onto your account , you 're allowed to use it with a cheaper non-premium data plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not true -- with Sprint, you are required to add special features to your contract (SprintTV, navigation, and such) in order to get a "subsidized" smartphone.
If you buy the phone elsewhere and activate it onto your account, you're allowed to use it with a cheaper non-premium data  plan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30449716</id>
	<title>Re:Android-AdBlock</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260871320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was wondering the same thing.  I could buy the ad-subsidized phone then install a custom firmware that doesn't have all the ad crap (it <em>is</em> just Linux and Java after all).</p><p>Normal consumers wouldn't want to put up with the trouble of doing something like that but for those of us willing to accept some pain to get a cheap nice phone then it sounds good to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was wondering the same thing .
I could buy the ad-subsidized phone then install a custom firmware that does n't have all the ad crap ( it is just Linux and Java after all ) .Normal consumers would n't want to put up with the trouble of doing something like that but for those of us willing to accept some pain to get a cheap nice phone then it sounds good to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was wondering the same thing.
I could buy the ad-subsidized phone then install a custom firmware that doesn't have all the ad crap (it is just Linux and Java after all).Normal consumers wouldn't want to put up with the trouble of doing something like that but for those of us willing to accept some pain to get a cheap nice phone then it sounds good to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448430</id>
	<title>I need to call  911</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260908280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try these emergency medicine doctors in your area today...</p><p>or</p><p>Going to be in the hospital for months?... Subscribe to these magazine NOW<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>or</p><p>Got pain?  Try these prescription pharmaceuticals from your local drug-pushing A.M.A.-endorsed "DOCTOR"...</p><p>What's so special about the world's biggest ad agency known as Google?  Would someone please take away their business.</p><p>Yours In Riga,<br>K.T.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try these emergency medicine doctors in your area today...orGoing to be in the hospital for months ? .. .
Subscribe to these magazine NOW ....orGot pain ?
Try these prescription pharmaceuticals from your local drug-pushing A.M.A.-endorsed " DOCTOR " ...What 's so special about the world 's biggest ad agency known as Google ?
Would someone please take away their business.Yours In Riga,K.T .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try these emergency medicine doctors in your area today...orGoing to be in the hospital for months?...
Subscribe to these magazine NOW ....orGot pain?
Try these prescription pharmaceuticals from your local drug-pushing A.M.A.-endorsed "DOCTOR"...What's so special about the world's biggest ad agency known as Google?
Would someone please take away their business.Yours In Riga,K.T.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447630</id>
	<title>Only If There's A Choice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260905100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can only see this approach working if Google gives buyers a choice. Pay full retail for the phone, or pay the reduced price in exchange for having ads sent to it. However, even that will only work if the ads are unobtrusive, and in no way interfere with normal operation of the device. That means NO having to click through a banner ad to make a call or send a text, NO interstitial ads between pages while browsing, NO watermarking of pictures sent via MMS, etc. A banner along the top I could deal with and ignore easily enough.
<br> <br>
That being said, I would still choose to pay full retail for the phone so I don't have to see the ads at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can only see this approach working if Google gives buyers a choice .
Pay full retail for the phone , or pay the reduced price in exchange for having ads sent to it .
However , even that will only work if the ads are unobtrusive , and in no way interfere with normal operation of the device .
That means NO having to click through a banner ad to make a call or send a text , NO interstitial ads between pages while browsing , NO watermarking of pictures sent via MMS , etc .
A banner along the top I could deal with and ignore easily enough .
That being said , I would still choose to pay full retail for the phone so I do n't have to see the ads at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can only see this approach working if Google gives buyers a choice.
Pay full retail for the phone, or pay the reduced price in exchange for having ads sent to it.
However, even that will only work if the ads are unobtrusive, and in no way interfere with normal operation of the device.
That means NO having to click through a banner ad to make a call or send a text, NO interstitial ads between pages while browsing, NO watermarking of pictures sent via MMS, etc.
A banner along the top I could deal with and ignore easily enough.
That being said, I would still choose to pay full retail for the phone so I don't have to see the ads at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448576</id>
	<title>Re:Is there a niche for this?</title>
	<author>mlts</author>
	<datestamp>1260909000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If one travels abroad, GSM capability does mean a lot.  One can either use a GSM provider such as T-Mobile that has towers in the destination country, or if the phone is unlocked, swap the SIM card out for a local provider and go that route.  A number of countries tend to go with pay-as-you-go SIM cards where one buys the SIM at a store with x amount of time on it and uses that until it is depleted.</p><p>Even in the US, there isn't a real alternative.  Until both the CDMA providers here support R-UIM cards (unlikely, but it might happen when they get rolling to 4G), you have to get authorization to have a phone's ESN put onto a CDMA provider's network (and from what various forums state, getting authorization for a phone may not be easy).  Even if one is able to bypass the lock (generally more difficult than the average SIM card unlocking), moving a phone across the American CDMA providers is nowhere as easy as GSM technology.</p><p>If in the US, I'd probably say none of this matters, because not many people (relatively) buy unlocked phones and then shop for a provider.  Unless someone has an existing contract, Americans tend to buy a phone and deal with the provider secondary, as opposed to other parts of the world where one shops for a phone, then shops for a provider.  This isn't to say people don't do that in the US, but it is more difficult to find a phone and match it to a provider (US GSM is wonky with its oddball frequency ranges used) than it is to either find a provider you like and shop from their phone collection, or find a phone you like and deal with the carrier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If one travels abroad , GSM capability does mean a lot .
One can either use a GSM provider such as T-Mobile that has towers in the destination country , or if the phone is unlocked , swap the SIM card out for a local provider and go that route .
A number of countries tend to go with pay-as-you-go SIM cards where one buys the SIM at a store with x amount of time on it and uses that until it is depleted.Even in the US , there is n't a real alternative .
Until both the CDMA providers here support R-UIM cards ( unlikely , but it might happen when they get rolling to 4G ) , you have to get authorization to have a phone 's ESN put onto a CDMA provider 's network ( and from what various forums state , getting authorization for a phone may not be easy ) .
Even if one is able to bypass the lock ( generally more difficult than the average SIM card unlocking ) , moving a phone across the American CDMA providers is nowhere as easy as GSM technology.If in the US , I 'd probably say none of this matters , because not many people ( relatively ) buy unlocked phones and then shop for a provider .
Unless someone has an existing contract , Americans tend to buy a phone and deal with the provider secondary , as opposed to other parts of the world where one shops for a phone , then shops for a provider .
This is n't to say people do n't do that in the US , but it is more difficult to find a phone and match it to a provider ( US GSM is wonky with its oddball frequency ranges used ) than it is to either find a provider you like and shop from their phone collection , or find a phone you like and deal with the carrier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If one travels abroad, GSM capability does mean a lot.
One can either use a GSM provider such as T-Mobile that has towers in the destination country, or if the phone is unlocked, swap the SIM card out for a local provider and go that route.
A number of countries tend to go with pay-as-you-go SIM cards where one buys the SIM at a store with x amount of time on it and uses that until it is depleted.Even in the US, there isn't a real alternative.
Until both the CDMA providers here support R-UIM cards (unlikely, but it might happen when they get rolling to 4G), you have to get authorization to have a phone's ESN put onto a CDMA provider's network (and from what various forums state, getting authorization for a phone may not be easy).
Even if one is able to bypass the lock (generally more difficult than the average SIM card unlocking), moving a phone across the American CDMA providers is nowhere as easy as GSM technology.If in the US, I'd probably say none of this matters, because not many people (relatively) buy unlocked phones and then shop for a provider.
Unless someone has an existing contract, Americans tend to buy a phone and deal with the provider secondary, as opposed to other parts of the world where one shops for a phone, then shops for a provider.
This isn't to say people don't do that in the US, but it is more difficult to find a phone and match it to a provider (US GSM is wonky with its oddball frequency ranges used) than it is to either find a provider you like and shop from their phone collection, or find a phone you like and deal with the carrier.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30456198</id>
	<title>Re:It's cheaper to buy straight from manufacturer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259673900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are missing something; at least in my experience the carriers charge more if you are out-of-contract.  Thus its cheaper monthly to be in contract, and if your signing a contract you might as well get a "free" phone (free in that it doesn't change what you pay).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are missing something ; at least in my experience the carriers charge more if you are out-of-contract .
Thus its cheaper monthly to be in contract , and if your signing a contract you might as well get a " free " phone ( free in that it does n't change what you pay ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are missing something; at least in my experience the carriers charge more if you are out-of-contract.
Thus its cheaper monthly to be in contract, and if your signing a contract you might as well get a "free" phone (free in that it doesn't change what you pay).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447566</id>
	<title>No No No No!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260904740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>
I am sick of everything trying to sell me things all the fucking time. STOP!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am sick of everything trying to sell me things all the fucking time .
STOP !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I am sick of everything trying to sell me things all the fucking time.
STOP!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30456128</id>
	<title>Re:No No No No!!!!</title>
	<author>theaceoffire</author>
	<datestamp>1259673420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This could be a *great* thing, if Google does this right.<br> <br>

Imagine having an option in the menu called "Local Deals". <br> <br>

Opening this shows coupons and sales for the nearest stores to your location... things you may *actually want*. <br> <br>

^\_^ If they did this, I know many people who would buy the phone *JUST FOR THE ADS*. <br> <br>

Advertisers would get people coming into the stores, users would get discounts and coupons, and Google would get statistics on what kind of price drops bring people into the store off the street. Everyone wins.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This could be a * great * thing , if Google does this right .
Imagine having an option in the menu called " Local Deals " .
Opening this shows coupons and sales for the nearest stores to your location... things you may * actually want * .
^ \ _ ^ If they did this , I know many people who would buy the phone * JUST FOR THE ADS * .
Advertisers would get people coming into the stores , users would get discounts and coupons , and Google would get statistics on what kind of price drops bring people into the store off the street .
Everyone wins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This could be a *great* thing, if Google does this right.
Imagine having an option in the menu called "Local Deals".
Opening this shows coupons and sales for the nearest stores to your location... things you may *actually want*.
^\_^ If they did this, I know many people who would buy the phone *JUST FOR THE ADS*.
Advertisers would get people coming into the stores, users would get discounts and coupons, and Google would get statistics on what kind of price drops bring people into the store off the street.
Everyone wins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30454358</id>
	<title>Direct</title>
	<author>sunfly</author>
	<datestamp>1260902820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about sell me the phone for a fair price, I buy cell service at a fair price? Why is this so hard?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about sell me the phone for a fair price , I buy cell service at a fair price ?
Why is this so hard ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about sell me the phone for a fair price, I buy cell service at a fair price?
Why is this so hard?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448160</id>
	<title>Wish I could get a prepaid smart phone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260907200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right now I dual-wield. I have a Tracfone &amp; iPod Touch. I don't talk or text a lot. I spend $6 per month for 60 minutes. I got an <a href="http://www.tracfone.com/phone\_details.jsp?lang=en&amp;model=PCTFLG600GP\_EN" title="tracfone.com">LG600G</a> [tracfone.com], which is pretty plain-vanilla. I'd be willing to pay a few hundred for an iPhone or Android Phone that just let me pre-pay for talk time &amp; texting &amp; web access. There's plenty of prepaid feature phones available, but their rates are ridiculous compared to Tracfone's. I can't imagine buying the phone, pay for a contract with somebody AND having to view ads (even if they're only text).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now I dual-wield .
I have a Tracfone &amp; iPod Touch .
I do n't talk or text a lot .
I spend $ 6 per month for 60 minutes .
I got an LG600G [ tracfone.com ] , which is pretty plain-vanilla .
I 'd be willing to pay a few hundred for an iPhone or Android Phone that just let me pre-pay for talk time &amp; texting &amp; web access .
There 's plenty of prepaid feature phones available , but their rates are ridiculous compared to Tracfone 's .
I ca n't imagine buying the phone , pay for a contract with somebody AND having to view ads ( even if they 're only text ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now I dual-wield.
I have a Tracfone &amp; iPod Touch.
I don't talk or text a lot.
I spend $6 per month for 60 minutes.
I got an LG600G [tracfone.com], which is pretty plain-vanilla.
I'd be willing to pay a few hundred for an iPhone or Android Phone that just let me pre-pay for talk time &amp; texting &amp; web access.
There's plenty of prepaid feature phones available, but their rates are ridiculous compared to Tracfone's.
I can't imagine buying the phone, pay for a contract with somebody AND having to view ads (even if they're only text).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30453178</id>
	<title>Re:Only If There's A Choice</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1260889680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there's only 2 reasons I take advantage of the disable ads option.</p><p>1.  I have no disposable income to spend anyway.<br>2.  The ads slow the site down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there 's only 2 reasons I take advantage of the disable ads option.1 .
I have no disposable income to spend anyway.2 .
The ads slow the site down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there's only 2 reasons I take advantage of the disable ads option.1.
I have no disposable income to spend anyway.2.
The ads slow the site down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30450614</id>
	<title>Re:Is there a niche for this?</title>
	<author>publiclurker</author>
	<datestamp>1260874740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Funny, I don't fit into any of those categories and I pay about $6.00 a month for my phone.  It's just that some of us have more important things to do with out money than pay a fortune for something like a phone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , I do n't fit into any of those categories and I pay about $ 6.00 a month for my phone .
It 's just that some of us have more important things to do with out money than pay a fortune for something like a phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, I don't fit into any of those categories and I pay about $6.00 a month for my phone.
It's just that some of us have more important things to do with out money than pay a fortune for something like a phone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447910</id>
	<title>Unsubsidized? Less crippled than an iPhone? Lame.</title>
	<author>0xdeadbeef</author>
	<datestamp>1260906300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are analysts always so effin' dense? Google is in the "no one gets between us and our ad-clicking users" business. They're one of the largest collections of smart people on the planet. They wanted in the mobile phone business, so they got in the mobile phone business. They own an ass-ton of fiber and manipulated the wireless auctions in their favor. They're not just an advertising company, they're the "we're the god damn Internet" company.</p><p>No one bought unlocked Nokia smartphones because nobody in America wants Nokia smartphones, subsidized or otherwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are analysts always so effin ' dense ?
Google is in the " no one gets between us and our ad-clicking users " business .
They 're one of the largest collections of smart people on the planet .
They wanted in the mobile phone business , so they got in the mobile phone business .
They own an ass-ton of fiber and manipulated the wireless auctions in their favor .
They 're not just an advertising company , they 're the " we 're the god damn Internet " company.No one bought unlocked Nokia smartphones because nobody in America wants Nokia smartphones , subsidized or otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are analysts always so effin' dense?
Google is in the "no one gets between us and our ad-clicking users" business.
They're one of the largest collections of smart people on the planet.
They wanted in the mobile phone business, so they got in the mobile phone business.
They own an ass-ton of fiber and manipulated the wireless auctions in their favor.
They're not just an advertising company, they're the "we're the god damn Internet" company.No one bought unlocked Nokia smartphones because nobody in America wants Nokia smartphones, subsidized or otherwise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448682</id>
	<title>Re:It's cheaper to buy straight from manufacturer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260909420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're missing the key point that the contract price includes cellular service.  If you buy the phone outright, you don't get service.  The service costs much more (and has greater profit margins) than the phone, which is why carriers are willing to subsidize phones like this.<br> <br>I personally don't understand why anyone (in the US at least) would want to buy a phone out of contract.  You're almost always guaranteed to pay more for the phone compared to taking the contract, even if you decide to bail and pay the ETF.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're missing the key point that the contract price includes cellular service .
If you buy the phone outright , you do n't get service .
The service costs much more ( and has greater profit margins ) than the phone , which is why carriers are willing to subsidize phones like this .
I personally do n't understand why anyone ( in the US at least ) would want to buy a phone out of contract .
You 're almost always guaranteed to pay more for the phone compared to taking the contract , even if you decide to bail and pay the ETF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're missing the key point that the contract price includes cellular service.
If you buy the phone outright, you don't get service.
The service costs much more (and has greater profit margins) than the phone, which is why carriers are willing to subsidize phones like this.
I personally don't understand why anyone (in the US at least) would want to buy a phone out of contract.
You're almost always guaranteed to pay more for the phone compared to taking the contract, even if you decide to bail and pay the ETF.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30449944</id>
	<title>Re:It's cheaper to buy straight from manufacturer</title>
	<author>mlts</author>
	<datestamp>1260872220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree here.  About five months ago, a friend of mine bought an unlocked GSM phone, went to AT&amp;T and he got a month to month plan at their standard rates, with no contracts.  The only thing he had to pay for was the $20 for the SIM card.  I'm sure AT&amp;T wasn't happy not selling a phone, but better a constant revenue stream from a paying customer on their network than no customer at all.</p><p>T-Mobile is another example.  When I needed a second line for a family member, I generously relieved a generic GSM phone of its SIM lock, and obtained a non contract plan for multiple devices from T-Mobile.  They threw in the SIM card gratis.</p><p>CDMA carriers might be a different story.  I was browsing random Web forums and people were stating that certain CDMA carriers have a blanket policy of not letting any device on their network that do not have their logo on it.  This may not be the case today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree here .
About five months ago , a friend of mine bought an unlocked GSM phone , went to AT&amp;T and he got a month to month plan at their standard rates , with no contracts .
The only thing he had to pay for was the $ 20 for the SIM card .
I 'm sure AT&amp;T was n't happy not selling a phone , but better a constant revenue stream from a paying customer on their network than no customer at all.T-Mobile is another example .
When I needed a second line for a family member , I generously relieved a generic GSM phone of its SIM lock , and obtained a non contract plan for multiple devices from T-Mobile .
They threw in the SIM card gratis.CDMA carriers might be a different story .
I was browsing random Web forums and people were stating that certain CDMA carriers have a blanket policy of not letting any device on their network that do not have their logo on it .
This may not be the case today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree here.
About five months ago, a friend of mine bought an unlocked GSM phone, went to AT&amp;T and he got a month to month plan at their standard rates, with no contracts.
The only thing he had to pay for was the $20 for the SIM card.
I'm sure AT&amp;T wasn't happy not selling a phone, but better a constant revenue stream from a paying customer on their network than no customer at all.T-Mobile is another example.
When I needed a second line for a family member, I generously relieved a generic GSM phone of its SIM lock, and obtained a non contract plan for multiple devices from T-Mobile.
They threw in the SIM card gratis.CDMA carriers might be a different story.
I was browsing random Web forums and people were stating that certain CDMA carriers have a blanket policy of not letting any device on their network that do not have their logo on it.
This may not be the case today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447984</id>
	<title>Phone cost subsidies</title>
	<author>gehrehmee</author>
	<datestamp>1260906600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I look at telecom subsidation of phone costs as a small loan. Can't/won't buy the phone with your own cash up-front? We'll loan you that money, and you pay it back a little bit every month on your bill. This breaks down because if you buy a plan without getting subsidized, you pay a higher price per month for your phone service (ie, the same monthly payment, but with none of it going to a loan repayment).</p><p>The workaround for this: If I sign up for a 3-year contract, you can either give me a cheaper monthly rate, OR give me a phone-up front, OR give me a cash bonus upfront, approximately the same amount the subsidy would cost. That way I can take that cash and buy whatever I want with it (if it happens to be a smart phone, awesome).</p><p>THIS breaks down because the telecom wants to have absolute control over what I can and can't do on their network, and won't budge to give up any leeway there. I don't have a workaround for that one yet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I look at telecom subsidation of phone costs as a small loan .
Ca n't/wo n't buy the phone with your own cash up-front ?
We 'll loan you that money , and you pay it back a little bit every month on your bill .
This breaks down because if you buy a plan without getting subsidized , you pay a higher price per month for your phone service ( ie , the same monthly payment , but with none of it going to a loan repayment ) .The workaround for this : If I sign up for a 3-year contract , you can either give me a cheaper monthly rate , OR give me a phone-up front , OR give me a cash bonus upfront , approximately the same amount the subsidy would cost .
That way I can take that cash and buy whatever I want with it ( if it happens to be a smart phone , awesome ) .THIS breaks down because the telecom wants to have absolute control over what I can and ca n't do on their network , and wo n't budge to give up any leeway there .
I do n't have a workaround for that one yet : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I look at telecom subsidation of phone costs as a small loan.
Can't/won't buy the phone with your own cash up-front?
We'll loan you that money, and you pay it back a little bit every month on your bill.
This breaks down because if you buy a plan without getting subsidized, you pay a higher price per month for your phone service (ie, the same monthly payment, but with none of it going to a loan repayment).The workaround for this: If I sign up for a 3-year contract, you can either give me a cheaper monthly rate, OR give me a phone-up front, OR give me a cash bonus upfront, approximately the same amount the subsidy would cost.
That way I can take that cash and buy whatever I want with it (if it happens to be a smart phone, awesome).THIS breaks down because the telecom wants to have absolute control over what I can and can't do on their network, and won't budge to give up any leeway there.
I don't have a workaround for that one yet :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448102</id>
	<title>Re:Is there a niche for this?</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1260907020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Maybe this market is what Google might be aiming for, where people would tolerate ads in return for a smartphone that costs $20.</i> </p><p>The $20 cell phone appeals to the poor, elderly and disabled. Not the most promising market for the advertiser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe this market is what Google might be aiming for , where people would tolerate ads in return for a smartphone that costs $ 20 .
The $ 20 cell phone appeals to the poor , elderly and disabled .
Not the most promising market for the advertiser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe this market is what Google might be aiming for, where people would tolerate ads in return for a smartphone that costs $20.
The $20 cell phone appeals to the poor, elderly and disabled.
Not the most promising market for the advertiser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447616</id>
	<title>Re:No No No No!!!!</title>
	<author>oldspewey</author>
	<datestamp>1260905040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ads got you down? Need some refreshment? Try Brawndo! The Thirst Mutilator!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ads got you down ?
Need some refreshment ?
Try Brawndo !
The Thirst Mutilator !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ads got you down?
Need some refreshment?
Try Brawndo!
The Thirst Mutilator!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30449252</id>
	<title>augmented reality, brought to you by Google</title>
	<author>Michael Restivo</author>
	<datestamp>1260869220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not sure if this is so obvious it's not worth mentioning, but given the geo-aware capabilities of smart phone, Google looks poised to bring advertisements to your phone, where you are.  'Sponsored Links' for your augmented reality browser.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure if this is so obvious it 's not worth mentioning , but given the geo-aware capabilities of smart phone , Google looks poised to bring advertisements to your phone , where you are .
'Sponsored Links ' for your augmented reality browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure if this is so obvious it's not worth mentioning, but given the geo-aware capabilities of smart phone, Google looks poised to bring advertisements to your phone, where you are.
'Sponsored Links' for your augmented reality browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447788</id>
	<title>Re:Only If There's A Choice</title>
	<author>h4rm0ny</author>
	<datestamp>1260905820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>
I see a problem here. Not for you, but for the advertisers. You're willing to pay not to see the ads. That's almost a good thing for those positioning themselves in the middle, such as Google, as they can essentially extort money from you: "pay up or be blasted by ads." But it's really bad for the actual people selling products because the people with disposable income and the willingness to use it are the ones who've just spent a few quid to avoid all the ads. They're even, as demonstrated by their willingness to pay, the ones who notice ads or are concerned they may be affected by them.
<br> <br>
It's one of those stupid situations. Like Slashdot that I have actually previously been a subscriber to (stopped because they only accept PayPal now), which has their inducement to subscribe be eliminating the ads - on one of the few sites where I'm actually occasionally interested by the ads.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see a problem here .
Not for you , but for the advertisers .
You 're willing to pay not to see the ads .
That 's almost a good thing for those positioning themselves in the middle , such as Google , as they can essentially extort money from you : " pay up or be blasted by ads .
" But it 's really bad for the actual people selling products because the people with disposable income and the willingness to use it are the ones who 've just spent a few quid to avoid all the ads .
They 're even , as demonstrated by their willingness to pay , the ones who notice ads or are concerned they may be affected by them .
It 's one of those stupid situations .
Like Slashdot that I have actually previously been a subscriber to ( stopped because they only accept PayPal now ) , which has their inducement to subscribe be eliminating the ads - on one of the few sites where I 'm actually occasionally interested by the ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I see a problem here.
Not for you, but for the advertisers.
You're willing to pay not to see the ads.
That's almost a good thing for those positioning themselves in the middle, such as Google, as they can essentially extort money from you: "pay up or be blasted by ads.
" But it's really bad for the actual people selling products because the people with disposable income and the willingness to use it are the ones who've just spent a few quid to avoid all the ads.
They're even, as demonstrated by their willingness to pay, the ones who notice ads or are concerned they may be affected by them.
It's one of those stupid situations.
Like Slashdot that I have actually previously been a subscriber to (stopped because they only accept PayPal now), which has their inducement to subscribe be eliminating the ads - on one of the few sites where I'm actually occasionally interested by the ads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448706</id>
	<title>Or maybe they know what they're doing...</title>
	<author>EriktheGreen</author>
	<datestamp>1260909540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
It's amusing and sad to see "industry pundits" guess at what Google might be planning.  After all, this is a company which has grown huge and leads in many areas of technology and business by virtue of its ethics, good governance, foresight, and research.<p>
If the pundits could predict what Google was doing, they'd be rich corporate heads, not writers trying to guess what's going on.
</p><p>
I personally think that just maybe Google is going to offer a "free" phone.. not free as in beer, free as in speech.. where it costs more than a "subscriber sponsored" phone, maybe more than the iPhone, but which users will buy if it's not insanely expensive simply to get a "free" device... one not locked to a carrier with features turned off because the carrier wants to protect its business model.
</p><p>
One with a standard design and API that permits software to be developed with more than generic features, like the iPhone.  But one that's not locked to Apple's corporate policies and whims, like the iPhone.
</p><p>
One that will set a standard for a new type of wireless phone system that is "the way it ought to be" with users owning their full featured phones and having the freedom to buy minutes from whichever carrier they like on a day to day basis, or to buy none  at all but to use the ubiquitous wireless hotspots and networks to make calls.
</p><p>
Google may be using its corporate muscle to break the wireless carriers' hold on the market, a hold which has ensured them profits but which has stymied development of truly next generation wireless connectivity, which itself would drive a major change in society.  Remember what internet access was like before wireless?  Imagine that kind of change if the wireless carriers loosen their government ensured grip on the market.
</p><p>
Data and voice for everyone, "the way it ought to be".  And it may start with a free phone.
</p><p>
Erik</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's amusing and sad to see " industry pundits " guess at what Google might be planning .
After all , this is a company which has grown huge and leads in many areas of technology and business by virtue of its ethics , good governance , foresight , and research .
If the pundits could predict what Google was doing , they 'd be rich corporate heads , not writers trying to guess what 's going on .
I personally think that just maybe Google is going to offer a " free " phone.. not free as in beer , free as in speech.. where it costs more than a " subscriber sponsored " phone , maybe more than the iPhone , but which users will buy if it 's not insanely expensive simply to get a " free " device... one not locked to a carrier with features turned off because the carrier wants to protect its business model .
One with a standard design and API that permits software to be developed with more than generic features , like the iPhone .
But one that 's not locked to Apple 's corporate policies and whims , like the iPhone .
One that will set a standard for a new type of wireless phone system that is " the way it ought to be " with users owning their full featured phones and having the freedom to buy minutes from whichever carrier they like on a day to day basis , or to buy none at all but to use the ubiquitous wireless hotspots and networks to make calls .
Google may be using its corporate muscle to break the wireless carriers ' hold on the market , a hold which has ensured them profits but which has stymied development of truly next generation wireless connectivity , which itself would drive a major change in society .
Remember what internet access was like before wireless ?
Imagine that kind of change if the wireless carriers loosen their government ensured grip on the market .
Data and voice for everyone , " the way it ought to be " .
And it may start with a free phone .
Erik</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It's amusing and sad to see "industry pundits" guess at what Google might be planning.
After all, this is a company which has grown huge and leads in many areas of technology and business by virtue of its ethics, good governance, foresight, and research.
If the pundits could predict what Google was doing, they'd be rich corporate heads, not writers trying to guess what's going on.
I personally think that just maybe Google is going to offer a "free" phone.. not free as in beer, free as in speech.. where it costs more than a "subscriber sponsored" phone, maybe more than the iPhone, but which users will buy if it's not insanely expensive simply to get a "free" device... one not locked to a carrier with features turned off because the carrier wants to protect its business model.
One with a standard design and API that permits software to be developed with more than generic features, like the iPhone.
But one that's not locked to Apple's corporate policies and whims, like the iPhone.
One that will set a standard for a new type of wireless phone system that is "the way it ought to be" with users owning their full featured phones and having the freedom to buy minutes from whichever carrier they like on a day to day basis, or to buy none  at all but to use the ubiquitous wireless hotspots and networks to make calls.
Google may be using its corporate muscle to break the wireless carriers' hold on the market, a hold which has ensured them profits but which has stymied development of truly next generation wireless connectivity, which itself would drive a major change in society.
Remember what internet access was like before wireless?
Imagine that kind of change if the wireless carriers loosen their government ensured grip on the market.
Data and voice for everyone, "the way it ought to be".
And it may start with a free phone.
Erik</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30450500</id>
	<title>Why are mobile phones always crap in the US?</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1260874380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure if this is still the case but last time I lived in the US you had to pay to receive a call which is a scam in itself. But seems in most cases you're tied to a 2 year contract, you still often have to pay something for the phone and then at least sometimes the cost of data, calling and texting is separated. That would be fine if it could work out cheaper but it certainly doesn't seem that way.
<br> <br>
Take the very popular iPhone.
<br> <br>
For 2 years, I could get a 16gig iPhone 3Gs with 1200 minutes, 500 texts and unlimited data. The phone is free and per month I'm paying &pound;44.05.
<br> <br>
AT&amp;T offer an 8gig iphone for $99.00. You have to take the $30 per month unlimited data plan. For 900 minutes per month (closest offer without going over) is $60.00 with apparently a one-time set-up fee of $36.00 and then add $5.00 on top for 200 texts per month.
<br> <br>
That's $104.94 (calculated with PA 6\% sales tax) for the phone and $94.99. That's &pound;58.37 per month which makes it more expensive than the UK despite our higher tax rates.
<br> <br>
Then compare that to what T-mobile gave me - a free G1 for 24 months, unlimited texts, unlimited data and 800 free minutes for &pound;25. I'll be able to get my phone unlocked for free and take it to any other network at the end for a sim-only package that will be cheaper.
<br> <br>
The only reason I can think of it being this way is because Americans think it's acceptable to get shafted by mobile phone providers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure if this is still the case but last time I lived in the US you had to pay to receive a call which is a scam in itself .
But seems in most cases you 're tied to a 2 year contract , you still often have to pay something for the phone and then at least sometimes the cost of data , calling and texting is separated .
That would be fine if it could work out cheaper but it certainly does n't seem that way .
Take the very popular iPhone .
For 2 years , I could get a 16gig iPhone 3Gs with 1200 minutes , 500 texts and unlimited data .
The phone is free and per month I 'm paying   44.05 .
AT&amp;T offer an 8gig iphone for $ 99.00 .
You have to take the $ 30 per month unlimited data plan .
For 900 minutes per month ( closest offer without going over ) is $ 60.00 with apparently a one-time set-up fee of $ 36.00 and then add $ 5.00 on top for 200 texts per month .
That 's $ 104.94 ( calculated with PA 6 \ % sales tax ) for the phone and $ 94.99 .
That 's   58.37 per month which makes it more expensive than the UK despite our higher tax rates .
Then compare that to what T-mobile gave me - a free G1 for 24 months , unlimited texts , unlimited data and 800 free minutes for   25 .
I 'll be able to get my phone unlocked for free and take it to any other network at the end for a sim-only package that will be cheaper .
The only reason I can think of it being this way is because Americans think it 's acceptable to get shafted by mobile phone providers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure if this is still the case but last time I lived in the US you had to pay to receive a call which is a scam in itself.
But seems in most cases you're tied to a 2 year contract, you still often have to pay something for the phone and then at least sometimes the cost of data, calling and texting is separated.
That would be fine if it could work out cheaper but it certainly doesn't seem that way.
Take the very popular iPhone.
For 2 years, I could get a 16gig iPhone 3Gs with 1200 minutes, 500 texts and unlimited data.
The phone is free and per month I'm paying £44.05.
AT&amp;T offer an 8gig iphone for $99.00.
You have to take the $30 per month unlimited data plan.
For 900 minutes per month (closest offer without going over) is $60.00 with apparently a one-time set-up fee of $36.00 and then add $5.00 on top for 200 texts per month.
That's $104.94 (calculated with PA 6\% sales tax) for the phone and $94.99.
That's £58.37 per month which makes it more expensive than the UK despite our higher tax rates.
Then compare that to what T-mobile gave me - a free G1 for 24 months, unlimited texts, unlimited data and 800 free minutes for £25.
I'll be able to get my phone unlocked for free and take it to any other network at the end for a sim-only package that will be cheaper.
The only reason I can think of it being this way is because Americans think it's acceptable to get shafted by mobile phone providers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30453340</id>
	<title>Google Phone is a dumb name.  How about:</title>
	<author>captainboogerhead</author>
	<datestamp>1260891060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I recommend everyone start calling this thing the GooPh.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I recommend everyone start calling this thing the GooPh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recommend everyone start calling this thing the GooPh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30451454</id>
	<title>The nexus one is probably the ADP3</title>
	<author>secondsun</author>
	<datestamp>1260878520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Nexus one is most likely the ADP 3.  IE the third generation developer phone.  IE Purchasable on Google's developer site.  IE Not marketed to fucking consumers.</p><p>What makes me think this is that Google has given out the ADP1 at their Christmas party last year, the ADP2 at IO, and the Nexus-One (presumed ADP3) at their Christmas party this year.<br>There is no more or less magic to this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Nexus one is most likely the ADP 3 .
IE the third generation developer phone .
IE Purchasable on Google 's developer site .
IE Not marketed to fucking consumers.What makes me think this is that Google has given out the ADP1 at their Christmas party last year , the ADP2 at IO , and the Nexus-One ( presumed ADP3 ) at their Christmas party this year.There is no more or less magic to this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Nexus one is most likely the ADP 3.
IE the third generation developer phone.
IE Purchasable on Google's developer site.
IE Not marketed to fucking consumers.What makes me think this is that Google has given out the ADP1 at their Christmas party last year, the ADP2 at IO, and the Nexus-One (presumed ADP3) at their Christmas party this year.There is no more or less magic to this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447754</id>
	<title>Do not want!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260905640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I dunno about the rest of you, but I'd rather pay the full whack for an unlocked Maemo phone. I know we are in a recession and all, but an ad-supported phone seems going a bit far. <br> <br>

If after a year I want a new phone I will sell the unlocked phone for significantly more than an identical phone that is locked, but given that the 'average Joe' would rather pay 50 a month for 2 years than 500 upfront I will be one of the few, which is unfortunately making it harder for me to source my unlocked phones

<br> <br>
The whole point of having a phone that runs Linux is the freedom of being able to customise and 'hack' it, not have it make sure I'm looking at the required number of ads. Far too often these days a Linux-based device only runs Linux because it saves the manufacturer the trouble of licensing a kernel or writing their own.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno about the rest of you , but I 'd rather pay the full whack for an unlocked Maemo phone .
I know we are in a recession and all , but an ad-supported phone seems going a bit far .
If after a year I want a new phone I will sell the unlocked phone for significantly more than an identical phone that is locked , but given that the 'average Joe ' would rather pay 50 a month for 2 years than 500 upfront I will be one of the few , which is unfortunately making it harder for me to source my unlocked phones The whole point of having a phone that runs Linux is the freedom of being able to customise and 'hack ' it , not have it make sure I 'm looking at the required number of ads .
Far too often these days a Linux-based device only runs Linux because it saves the manufacturer the trouble of licensing a kernel or writing their own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno about the rest of you, but I'd rather pay the full whack for an unlocked Maemo phone.
I know we are in a recession and all, but an ad-supported phone seems going a bit far.
If after a year I want a new phone I will sell the unlocked phone for significantly more than an identical phone that is locked, but given that the 'average Joe' would rather pay 50 a month for 2 years than 500 upfront I will be one of the few, which is unfortunately making it harder for me to source my unlocked phones

 
The whole point of having a phone that runs Linux is the freedom of being able to customise and 'hack' it, not have it make sure I'm looking at the required number of ads.
Far too often these days a Linux-based device only runs Linux because it saves the manufacturer the trouble of licensing a kernel or writing their own.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448308</id>
	<title>cheap PDA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260907800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I could see this being useful, depending on how the ads get activated.  Personally, I'd like to find a cheap (and I mean in the price range of the old Zire 71) replacement for my PalmOS devices.  Smartphones are *WAY* too expensive, regardless of whether you look at the price full up-front, or if it instead gets screwed out of you on a monthly basis for 2 years.  So here you might be able to get a GooglePhone on the cheap, and then never activate it with a wireless carrier, using it only locally, perhaps with your WiFi router at home at most.  If you never activated it with a carrier, how would they send ads to you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could see this being useful , depending on how the ads get activated .
Personally , I 'd like to find a cheap ( and I mean in the price range of the old Zire 71 ) replacement for my PalmOS devices .
Smartphones are * WAY * too expensive , regardless of whether you look at the price full up-front , or if it instead gets screwed out of you on a monthly basis for 2 years .
So here you might be able to get a GooglePhone on the cheap , and then never activate it with a wireless carrier , using it only locally , perhaps with your WiFi router at home at most .
If you never activated it with a carrier , how would they send ads to you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could see this being useful, depending on how the ads get activated.
Personally, I'd like to find a cheap (and I mean in the price range of the old Zire 71) replacement for my PalmOS devices.
Smartphones are *WAY* too expensive, regardless of whether you look at the price full up-front, or if it instead gets screwed out of you on a monthly basis for 2 years.
So here you might be able to get a GooglePhone on the cheap, and then never activate it with a wireless carrier, using it only locally, perhaps with your WiFi router at home at most.
If you never activated it with a carrier, how would they send ads to you?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30452448</id>
	<title>WiMAX anyone?</title>
	<author>justdrew</author>
	<datestamp>1260884100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they have WiMax, I would get one and not even sign up with a cellular carrier, I'd get Clear's WiMAX and keep my old phone for if I'm going out in the boondocks or traveling away from WiMAX coverage. OR maybe I'd get a pre-paid SIM chip for occasional use "just in case"</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they have WiMax , I would get one and not even sign up with a cellular carrier , I 'd get Clear 's WiMAX and keep my old phone for if I 'm going out in the boondocks or traveling away from WiMAX coverage .
OR maybe I 'd get a pre-paid SIM chip for occasional use " just in case "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they have WiMax, I would get one and not even sign up with a cellular carrier, I'd get Clear's WiMAX and keep my old phone for if I'm going out in the boondocks or traveling away from WiMAX coverage.
OR maybe I'd get a pre-paid SIM chip for occasional use "just in case"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448126</id>
	<title>Re:Is there a niche for this?</title>
	<author>kannibal\_klown</author>
	<datestamp>1260907140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>... The second is the provider sponsored phone where one pays the cost of the phone via a contract.  The price ceiling in the US is effectively set for this by Apple at around $200.</p></div><p>I believe I saw some subsidized smart phones that were at-or-around 200 USD before the iPhone came out.  I know definitely before the 3Gs came out, but only vaguely remember some from before the regular iPhone so I might be mistaken.  It was probably AT&amp;T or Verizon since T-Mobile likes to act on the cheap.</p><p>Perhaps some BlackBerries or some of the Motorola ones.</p><p>Given the choice I'd rather buy a full priced unlocked and unrestricted phone directly from the manufacturer, which is why I used to like buying them from Sony-Ericcson's online store.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... The second is the provider sponsored phone where one pays the cost of the phone via a contract .
The price ceiling in the US is effectively set for this by Apple at around $ 200.I believe I saw some subsidized smart phones that were at-or-around 200 USD before the iPhone came out .
I know definitely before the 3Gs came out , but only vaguely remember some from before the regular iPhone so I might be mistaken .
It was probably AT&amp;T or Verizon since T-Mobile likes to act on the cheap.Perhaps some BlackBerries or some of the Motorola ones.Given the choice I 'd rather buy a full priced unlocked and unrestricted phone directly from the manufacturer , which is why I used to like buying them from Sony-Ericcson 's online store .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... The second is the provider sponsored phone where one pays the cost of the phone via a contract.
The price ceiling in the US is effectively set for this by Apple at around $200.I believe I saw some subsidized smart phones that were at-or-around 200 USD before the iPhone came out.
I know definitely before the 3Gs came out, but only vaguely remember some from before the regular iPhone so I might be mistaken.
It was probably AT&amp;T or Verizon since T-Mobile likes to act on the cheap.Perhaps some BlackBerries or some of the Motorola ones.Given the choice I'd rather buy a full priced unlocked and unrestricted phone directly from the manufacturer, which is why I used to like buying them from Sony-Ericcson's online store.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447858</id>
	<title>android already drives ad revenue</title>
	<author>farble1670</author>
	<datestamp>1260906120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. most android devices are tightly coupled with google services. if you get someone using google mail, calendar, etc on the phone, of course they will use the web interface at some point and be subjected to ads.</p><p>2. many android apps already make use of admob for the &quot;free&quot; version. </p><p>i doubt google would make adds an inherent part of the phone experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1. most android devices are tightly coupled with google services .
if you get someone using google mail , calendar , etc on the phone , of course they will use the web interface at some point and be subjected to ads.2 .
many android apps already make use of admob for the " free " version .
i doubt google would make adds an inherent part of the phone experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1. most android devices are tightly coupled with google services.
if you get someone using google mail, calendar, etc on the phone, of course they will use the web interface at some point and be subjected to ads.2.
many android apps already make use of admob for the "free" version.
i doubt google would make adds an inherent part of the phone experience.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448836</id>
	<title>Google's strategy may be more sound than it seems</title>
	<author>Xamusk</author>
	<datestamp>1260910320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think a deep further, with a LOT of imagination, one could envision another scenario:
</p><p>
It's possible Google is preparing for a non <b>net-neutrality</b> world, in which it would have to pay for the vast amount of bandwidth that it's clients use. Actually, Google is one of the first targets of those who wish to double-charge for bandwith (charge for users and providers at the same time).
</p><p>
In this world, a sensible way out of that cash-hole is for Google to be an ISP on its own. For that purpose, it could acquire <b>dark fiber</b> and try to acquire wireless spectrum (or lobby the FCC to make some <b>unlicensed spectrum bands</b>). With those at hand, it could make devices which are capable of forming <b>mesh networks</b> (if <b>Android</b> support that in the future, which is not unlikely). Those networks would then be connected by fiber over long distances. As such, how to get enough coverage to have a reliable mesh network? One answer it to make available a <b>Google Phone</b> which would have a great appeal if it could make free calls through <b>Google Voice</b>. That would ensure quite good acceptance from users.
</p><p>
That's it. A simple scenario. Seems quite possible to me, though I'm not an expert on the economics required to make it a reality (though if there's one company with enough resources to make it happen, that company is Google).
</p><p>
Note: the words marked with <b>bold</b> indicate topics which were discussed at a number of times right here on Slashdot.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think a deep further , with a LOT of imagination , one could envision another scenario : It 's possible Google is preparing for a non net-neutrality world , in which it would have to pay for the vast amount of bandwidth that it 's clients use .
Actually , Google is one of the first targets of those who wish to double-charge for bandwith ( charge for users and providers at the same time ) .
In this world , a sensible way out of that cash-hole is for Google to be an ISP on its own .
For that purpose , it could acquire dark fiber and try to acquire wireless spectrum ( or lobby the FCC to make some unlicensed spectrum bands ) .
With those at hand , it could make devices which are capable of forming mesh networks ( if Android support that in the future , which is not unlikely ) .
Those networks would then be connected by fiber over long distances .
As such , how to get enough coverage to have a reliable mesh network ?
One answer it to make available a Google Phone which would have a great appeal if it could make free calls through Google Voice .
That would ensure quite good acceptance from users .
That 's it .
A simple scenario .
Seems quite possible to me , though I 'm not an expert on the economics required to make it a reality ( though if there 's one company with enough resources to make it happen , that company is Google ) .
Note : the words marked with bold indicate topics which were discussed at a number of times right here on Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think a deep further, with a LOT of imagination, one could envision another scenario:

It's possible Google is preparing for a non net-neutrality world, in which it would have to pay for the vast amount of bandwidth that it's clients use.
Actually, Google is one of the first targets of those who wish to double-charge for bandwith (charge for users and providers at the same time).
In this world, a sensible way out of that cash-hole is for Google to be an ISP on its own.
For that purpose, it could acquire dark fiber and try to acquire wireless spectrum (or lobby the FCC to make some unlicensed spectrum bands).
With those at hand, it could make devices which are capable of forming mesh networks (if Android support that in the future, which is not unlikely).
Those networks would then be connected by fiber over long distances.
As such, how to get enough coverage to have a reliable mesh network?
One answer it to make available a Google Phone which would have a great appeal if it could make free calls through Google Voice.
That would ensure quite good acceptance from users.
That's it.
A simple scenario.
Seems quite possible to me, though I'm not an expert on the economics required to make it a reality (though if there's one company with enough resources to make it happen, that company is Google).
Note: the words marked with bold indicate topics which were discussed at a number of times right here on Slashdot.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30449120</id>
	<title>Re:I have a better idea</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1260868560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lately that is not good enough.   AT&amp;T puts their own screwed up firmware in the Nokias.  so you need to not only unlock it but find someone that is good with Cellphones to replace the screwed up carrier version of the OS with the Unlocked unbranded OS that actually has all the features.</p><p>I gave up and simply buy unlocked phones.  my Nokia 5800 kicks the iphones ass when PyS60 is installed on it so I can whip up apps in a few minutes and do things the guys with iPhones only wish they could. and that's only because apple is deathly afraid of allowing something like Python on the phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lately that is not good enough .
AT&amp;T puts their own screwed up firmware in the Nokias .
so you need to not only unlock it but find someone that is good with Cellphones to replace the screwed up carrier version of the OS with the Unlocked unbranded OS that actually has all the features.I gave up and simply buy unlocked phones .
my Nokia 5800 kicks the iphones ass when PyS60 is installed on it so I can whip up apps in a few minutes and do things the guys with iPhones only wish they could .
and that 's only because apple is deathly afraid of allowing something like Python on the phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lately that is not good enough.
AT&amp;T puts their own screwed up firmware in the Nokias.
so you need to not only unlock it but find someone that is good with Cellphones to replace the screwed up carrier version of the OS with the Unlocked unbranded OS that actually has all the features.I gave up and simply buy unlocked phones.
my Nokia 5800 kicks the iphones ass when PyS60 is installed on it so I can whip up apps in a few minutes and do things the guys with iPhones only wish they could.
and that's only because apple is deathly afraid of allowing something like Python on the phone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30451774</id>
	<title>Re:I have a better idea</title>
	<author>shird</author>
	<datestamp>1260880080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What good is that when the only way to buy a locked phone is with a 24 month contract? Surely they don't sell subsidised phones to people unless they enter a contract, otherwise why would they subsidise it? Perhaps they do that in America, but in Australia you must typically enter a 2 year contract.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What good is that when the only way to buy a locked phone is with a 24 month contract ?
Surely they do n't sell subsidised phones to people unless they enter a contract , otherwise why would they subsidise it ?
Perhaps they do that in America , but in Australia you must typically enter a 2 year contract .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What good is that when the only way to buy a locked phone is with a 24 month contract?
Surely they don't sell subsidised phones to people unless they enter a contract, otherwise why would they subsidise it?
Perhaps they do that in America, but in Australia you must typically enter a 2 year contract.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30452874</id>
	<title>It's a personal data collection platform</title>
	<author>dirkdodgers</author>
	<datestamp>1260887100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When Google isn't making money by brining more people to ads, they're making money by increasing the value to advertisers of the people they do bring to ads.</p><p>This platform will allow Google to directly collect data about where you live, travel, work, eat, and shop.</p><p>It will allow Google to sell time and location sensitive ads, e.g. it will allow Google to sell ads for the deli on 34th street when you're within a quarter mile of 34th street.</p><p>And if Google decides to do it, it won't be an option. When Google advertises, they advertise in a way that is unobtrusive to most consumers. Advertising is a value add. If you buy a Google phone, you're buying the Google philosophy, and the data indicates that most consumers have no problem with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When Google is n't making money by brining more people to ads , they 're making money by increasing the value to advertisers of the people they do bring to ads.This platform will allow Google to directly collect data about where you live , travel , work , eat , and shop.It will allow Google to sell time and location sensitive ads , e.g .
it will allow Google to sell ads for the deli on 34th street when you 're within a quarter mile of 34th street.And if Google decides to do it , it wo n't be an option .
When Google advertises , they advertise in a way that is unobtrusive to most consumers .
Advertising is a value add .
If you buy a Google phone , you 're buying the Google philosophy , and the data indicates that most consumers have no problem with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Google isn't making money by brining more people to ads, they're making money by increasing the value to advertisers of the people they do bring to ads.This platform will allow Google to directly collect data about where you live, travel, work, eat, and shop.It will allow Google to sell time and location sensitive ads, e.g.
it will allow Google to sell ads for the deli on 34th street when you're within a quarter mile of 34th street.And if Google decides to do it, it won't be an option.
When Google advertises, they advertise in a way that is unobtrusive to most consumers.
Advertising is a value add.
If you buy a Google phone, you're buying the Google philosophy, and the data indicates that most consumers have no problem with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447670</id>
	<title>Something Else</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1260905220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google doesn't want to be in the phone business or the mobile carrier business, so this must be about something else, and that's the advertising business, since Google is in the business of selling ads.</p></div><p>This is just my guess, and I'm not highly paid analyst, but isn't it possible that Google understands that it is in their best interests to have a more open cell phone market.  I thought from the start that it was obvious that that was the purpose; originally they were going to do it by strong arming the bandwidth auctions but that fell through and they weren't prepared to actually bid and implement the system themselves.  Now they've moved on to working within the system, opening what is arguably one of the best mobile OS's to any manufacturer that wants it, provided they play by certain rules including a minumum level of openness.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google does n't want to be in the phone business or the mobile carrier business , so this must be about something else , and that 's the advertising business , since Google is in the business of selling ads.This is just my guess , and I 'm not highly paid analyst , but is n't it possible that Google understands that it is in their best interests to have a more open cell phone market .
I thought from the start that it was obvious that that was the purpose ; originally they were going to do it by strong arming the bandwidth auctions but that fell through and they were n't prepared to actually bid and implement the system themselves .
Now they 've moved on to working within the system , opening what is arguably one of the best mobile OS 's to any manufacturer that wants it , provided they play by certain rules including a minumum level of openness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google doesn't want to be in the phone business or the mobile carrier business, so this must be about something else, and that's the advertising business, since Google is in the business of selling ads.This is just my guess, and I'm not highly paid analyst, but isn't it possible that Google understands that it is in their best interests to have a more open cell phone market.
I thought from the start that it was obvious that that was the purpose; originally they were going to do it by strong arming the bandwidth auctions but that fell through and they weren't prepared to actually bid and implement the system themselves.
Now they've moved on to working within the system, opening what is arguably one of the best mobile OS's to any manufacturer that wants it, provided they play by certain rules including a minumum level of openness.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30449142</id>
	<title>Re:Only If There's A Choice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260868680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see a problem for the non tech savvy.</p><p>I guarantee that a crack+adblocker will show up minutes after the phone is available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see a problem for the non tech savvy.I guarantee that a crack + adblocker will show up minutes after the phone is available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see a problem for the non tech savvy.I guarantee that a crack+adblocker will show up minutes after the phone is available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447960</id>
	<title>Where will the ads be?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260906480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My question is where Google will put the ads so that they are actually seen. If they build it into software, it's only a matter of time before the phone is rooted/jailbroken/HardSPL'd and ad-free firmware ends up on Rapidshare. Then it's just a matter of simplifying the process down to making it feasible for anyone sick enough of the ads to make the gamble of performing a warranty-voiding process on their phone, and unless ads live unobtrusively in the browser, Google will end up right next to the iPhone, silently fighting the gPhone Dev Team.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My question is where Google will put the ads so that they are actually seen .
If they build it into software , it 's only a matter of time before the phone is rooted/jailbroken/HardSPL 'd and ad-free firmware ends up on Rapidshare .
Then it 's just a matter of simplifying the process down to making it feasible for anyone sick enough of the ads to make the gamble of performing a warranty-voiding process on their phone , and unless ads live unobtrusively in the browser , Google will end up right next to the iPhone , silently fighting the gPhone Dev Team .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My question is where Google will put the ads so that they are actually seen.
If they build it into software, it's only a matter of time before the phone is rooted/jailbroken/HardSPL'd and ad-free firmware ends up on Rapidshare.
Then it's just a matter of simplifying the process down to making it feasible for anyone sick enough of the ads to make the gamble of performing a warranty-voiding process on their phone, and unless ads live unobtrusively in the browser, Google will end up right next to the iPhone, silently fighting the gPhone Dev Team.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448066</id>
	<title>Even better Idea</title>
	<author>goombah99</author>
	<datestamp>1260906840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Presumably Google will implement something like Apple originally planned, wherein they simply buy time in an auction from carriers.  Apple had elaborateplans for a real time auction system, even letting consumers do it automaticallys (i.e. by apple) or choose a carrier to prefer.</p><p>If they do that competitivley presumably their rateplans will be less because they are not subsidizing the phone.  If they can reduce the cost further with ads then their rate plan is going to beat everyone elses.</p><p>Guess what happens then?  Well if my contract with XYZ-mobile is up, and I can move my existing phone over to the google network, then googles rates are going to be much more attractive than staying with XYZ mobile since there is no subsidy.</p><p>I note that recently T-mobile has new plans out for the Bring-your-own-phone crowd.  They are slightly cheaper and offer more minutes that the "free-phone" plans.</p><p>On top of that, for people who do buy a google phone, then since they shelled out the cash already, they are going to stick with the unsubsidized google phone rate plan rather than sign up with a company offering "free" phones and pay a hidden subsidy they will never use?  Thus this builds loyalty to google like airline miles do.</p><p>Finally there will be corporate fleets.  If the google phone lets these corporations buy phones in bulk then it's going to be cheaper in the long ruin for these companies to go with unsubisdized google rates.  on top of that if google lets in third party service providers (blackberry like enterprises) then these will be attractive to corprorate fleets who want to be in charge of their own network.</p><p>That all assumes google is buying at competitive rates on the open market from carriers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Presumably Google will implement something like Apple originally planned , wherein they simply buy time in an auction from carriers .
Apple had elaborateplans for a real time auction system , even letting consumers do it automaticallys ( i.e .
by apple ) or choose a carrier to prefer.If they do that competitivley presumably their rateplans will be less because they are not subsidizing the phone .
If they can reduce the cost further with ads then their rate plan is going to beat everyone elses.Guess what happens then ?
Well if my contract with XYZ-mobile is up , and I can move my existing phone over to the google network , then googles rates are going to be much more attractive than staying with XYZ mobile since there is no subsidy.I note that recently T-mobile has new plans out for the Bring-your-own-phone crowd .
They are slightly cheaper and offer more minutes that the " free-phone " plans.On top of that , for people who do buy a google phone , then since they shelled out the cash already , they are going to stick with the unsubsidized google phone rate plan rather than sign up with a company offering " free " phones and pay a hidden subsidy they will never use ?
Thus this builds loyalty to google like airline miles do.Finally there will be corporate fleets .
If the google phone lets these corporations buy phones in bulk then it 's going to be cheaper in the long ruin for these companies to go with unsubisdized google rates .
on top of that if google lets in third party service providers ( blackberry like enterprises ) then these will be attractive to corprorate fleets who want to be in charge of their own network.That all assumes google is buying at competitive rates on the open market from carriers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Presumably Google will implement something like Apple originally planned, wherein they simply buy time in an auction from carriers.
Apple had elaborateplans for a real time auction system, even letting consumers do it automaticallys (i.e.
by apple) or choose a carrier to prefer.If they do that competitivley presumably their rateplans will be less because they are not subsidizing the phone.
If they can reduce the cost further with ads then their rate plan is going to beat everyone elses.Guess what happens then?
Well if my contract with XYZ-mobile is up, and I can move my existing phone over to the google network, then googles rates are going to be much more attractive than staying with XYZ mobile since there is no subsidy.I note that recently T-mobile has new plans out for the Bring-your-own-phone crowd.
They are slightly cheaper and offer more minutes that the "free-phone" plans.On top of that, for people who do buy a google phone, then since they shelled out the cash already, they are going to stick with the unsubsidized google phone rate plan rather than sign up with a company offering "free" phones and pay a hidden subsidy they will never use?
Thus this builds loyalty to google like airline miles do.Finally there will be corporate fleets.
If the google phone lets these corporations buy phones in bulk then it's going to be cheaper in the long ruin for these companies to go with unsubisdized google rates.
on top of that if google lets in third party service providers (blackberry like enterprises) then these will be attractive to corprorate fleets who want to be in charge of their own network.That all assumes google is buying at competitive rates on the open market from carriers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448228</id>
	<title>Re:Is there a niche for this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260907440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>More importantly, what good does it do me in the U.S. to have an unlocked phone if it's GSM only? That effectively means that, instead of being locked into one carrier, I get to choose from *2* carriers (one of which is AT&amp;T, which no one in their right mind would choose anyway). Whoopty do!</htmltext>
<tokenext>More importantly , what good does it do me in the U.S. to have an unlocked phone if it 's GSM only ?
That effectively means that , instead of being locked into one carrier , I get to choose from * 2 * carriers ( one of which is AT&amp;T , which no one in their right mind would choose anyway ) .
Whoopty do !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More importantly, what good does it do me in the U.S. to have an unlocked phone if it's GSM only?
That effectively means that, instead of being locked into one carrier, I get to choose from *2* carriers (one of which is AT&amp;T, which no one in their right mind would choose anyway).
Whoopty do!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448256</id>
	<title>Re:No No No No!!!!</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1260907560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>then don't buy it.<br>Pretty simple, eh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>then do n't buy it.Pretty simple , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>then don't buy it.Pretty simple, eh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448914</id>
	<title>No keyboard</title>
	<author>leighklotz</author>
	<datestamp>1260910680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't have a keyboard.  No thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't have a keyboard .
No thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't have a keyboard.
No thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447796</id>
	<title>It's cheaper to buy straight from manufacturer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260905820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>AFAIK (in the UK at least), with a contract, you're paying x per month, and you're tied in for a contract of usually about 18 months.  That 18x comes out to more than the cost of the phone.  For example, look at the <a href="http://shop.vodafone.co.uk/shop/deals/htc-magic-deal-24-30" title="vodafone.co.uk">HTC Magic from Vodafone</a> [vodafone.co.uk]  Total: 720 GBP which is obviously more than the cost of the phone. Or am I missing something that's US-specific?</htmltext>
<tokenext>AFAIK ( in the UK at least ) , with a contract , you 're paying x per month , and you 're tied in for a contract of usually about 18 months .
That 18x comes out to more than the cost of the phone .
For example , look at the HTC Magic from Vodafone [ vodafone.co.uk ] Total : 720 GBP which is obviously more than the cost of the phone .
Or am I missing something that 's US-specific ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AFAIK (in the UK at least), with a contract, you're paying x per month, and you're tied in for a contract of usually about 18 months.
That 18x comes out to more than the cost of the phone.
For example, look at the HTC Magic from Vodafone [vodafone.co.uk]  Total: 720 GBP which is obviously more than the cost of the phone.
Or am I missing something that's US-specific?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30452958</id>
	<title>Re:Unlikely</title>
	<author>dirkdodgers</author>
	<datestamp>1260887760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which means that if they aren't delivering ads directly on the device, they are almost certainly using it to collect data about everything you do and everywhere you go in order to increase your value to advertisers through search and mail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which means that if they are n't delivering ads directly on the device , they are almost certainly using it to collect data about everything you do and everywhere you go in order to increase your value to advertisers through search and mail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which means that if they aren't delivering ads directly on the device, they are almost certainly using it to collect data about everything you do and everywhere you go in order to increase your value to advertisers through search and mail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30450658</id>
	<title>Looking outside the box</title>
	<author>KenDiPietro</author>
	<datestamp>1260874860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Instead of thinking advertising, how about this?

Revenue is generated by capturing call termination fees (on both ends with Google voice) - but that's nothing compared to the big payoff, mobile payments through Google Checkout.

So, Google gets to pillage and plunder both the telephone companies and the credit card companies, making them the hero of this generation and the next.

And then there is the possibility of selling the mobile media data (a la Nielsen/Arbitron) for extra cash, if they feel they need it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of thinking advertising , how about this ?
Revenue is generated by capturing call termination fees ( on both ends with Google voice ) - but that 's nothing compared to the big payoff , mobile payments through Google Checkout .
So , Google gets to pillage and plunder both the telephone companies and the credit card companies , making them the hero of this generation and the next .
And then there is the possibility of selling the mobile media data ( a la Nielsen/Arbitron ) for extra cash , if they feel they need it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of thinking advertising, how about this?
Revenue is generated by capturing call termination fees (on both ends with Google voice) - but that's nothing compared to the big payoff, mobile payments through Google Checkout.
So, Google gets to pillage and plunder both the telephone companies and the credit card companies, making them the hero of this generation and the next.
And then there is the possibility of selling the mobile media data (a la Nielsen/Arbitron) for extra cash, if they feel they need it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30449560</id>
	<title>Sold at cost?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260870660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I remember correct, isn't the iPhone BOM somewhere around $180-200. I would bet Google probably can build the Nexus for a similar price. Assuming the decide to sell it at cost of build they could be in a great position to "kill 2 birds with 1 stone". They would have both a iPhone competitor and a phone that sent a lot more eyes to their ad based services (which makes them the magical PROFIT).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I remember correct , is n't the iPhone BOM somewhere around $ 180-200 .
I would bet Google probably can build the Nexus for a similar price .
Assuming the decide to sell it at cost of build they could be in a great position to " kill 2 birds with 1 stone " .
They would have both a iPhone competitor and a phone that sent a lot more eyes to their ad based services ( which makes them the magical PROFIT ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I remember correct, isn't the iPhone BOM somewhere around $180-200.
I would bet Google probably can build the Nexus for a similar price.
Assuming the decide to sell it at cost of build they could be in a great position to "kill 2 birds with 1 stone".
They would have both a iPhone competitor and a phone that sent a lot more eyes to their ad based services (which makes them the magical PROFIT).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30454172</id>
	<title>Re:twice as much?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260900720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being unlocked is a feature that a small number of people are willing to pay for. The price of that feature is set at whatever the market will bear. Perhaps the phone is $300, and you are paying another $300 premium for the privilege of having control over your own hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being unlocked is a feature that a small number of people are willing to pay for .
The price of that feature is set at whatever the market will bear .
Perhaps the phone is $ 300 , and you are paying another $ 300 premium for the privilege of having control over your own hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being unlocked is a feature that a small number of people are willing to pay for.
The price of that feature is set at whatever the market will bear.
Perhaps the phone is $300, and you are paying another $300 premium for the privilege of having control over your own hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30450034</id>
	<title>Critical Thinking Fail</title>
	<author>drijen</author>
	<datestamp>1260872640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now, I didn't read TFA (who does) but based on the summary, the authors are idiots (water is also wet).
<br> 
Few buy unlocked phones because the unwashed masses, for the most part, don't know any better.
<br> 
I have long been of the opinion that it should be unlawful for a cellular company to bundle phones with plans, and tie them to their network.
<br> 
If people were forced to buy their own cell phone, and have companies forced to service it (I said service, not support) it would solve a lot of problems including:<ul>
  <li> Less cell phone waste. Because a good phone costs &gt; $400, people will take care of them better. Less crap in our landfills, causing cancer etc.</li><li> Prices on cell phone plans would drop like a rock. No more double dipping on text messages, stupid data rate plans, etc</li><li> No more stupid kids with a high priced gadget they don't need (you know the ones I'm referring to) </li><li> Better cell phones, and faster market presence, as manufacturers will suddenly not be beholden to crap telecom companies, that restrict what the phones can actually do, rather than what the telecom wants to allow </li><li> Because cell phone manufacturers no longer have to deal with stupid restrictions, they can concentrate on innovating new features and better software/hardware</li></ul><p> 
In other words, this article is based on an idea that amounts to ignorant nonsense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , I did n't read TFA ( who does ) but based on the summary , the authors are idiots ( water is also wet ) .
Few buy unlocked phones because the unwashed masses , for the most part , do n't know any better .
I have long been of the opinion that it should be unlawful for a cellular company to bundle phones with plans , and tie them to their network .
If people were forced to buy their own cell phone , and have companies forced to service it ( I said service , not support ) it would solve a lot of problems including : Less cell phone waste .
Because a good phone costs &gt; $ 400 , people will take care of them better .
Less crap in our landfills , causing cancer etc .
Prices on cell phone plans would drop like a rock .
No more double dipping on text messages , stupid data rate plans , etc No more stupid kids with a high priced gadget they do n't need ( you know the ones I 'm referring to ) Better cell phones , and faster market presence , as manufacturers will suddenly not be beholden to crap telecom companies , that restrict what the phones can actually do , rather than what the telecom wants to allow Because cell phone manufacturers no longer have to deal with stupid restrictions , they can concentrate on innovating new features and better software/hardware In other words , this article is based on an idea that amounts to ignorant nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, I didn't read TFA (who does) but based on the summary, the authors are idiots (water is also wet).
Few buy unlocked phones because the unwashed masses, for the most part, don't know any better.
I have long been of the opinion that it should be unlawful for a cellular company to bundle phones with plans, and tie them to their network.
If people were forced to buy their own cell phone, and have companies forced to service it (I said service, not support) it would solve a lot of problems including:
   Less cell phone waste.
Because a good phone costs &gt; $400, people will take care of them better.
Less crap in our landfills, causing cancer etc.
Prices on cell phone plans would drop like a rock.
No more double dipping on text messages, stupid data rate plans, etc No more stupid kids with a high priced gadget they don't need (you know the ones I'm referring to)  Better cell phones, and faster market presence, as manufacturers will suddenly not be beholden to crap telecom companies, that restrict what the phones can actually do, rather than what the telecom wants to allow  Because cell phone manufacturers no longer have to deal with stupid restrictions, they can concentrate on innovating new features and better software/hardware 
In other words, this article is based on an idea that amounts to ignorant nonsense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448708</id>
	<title>Re:Is there a niche for this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260909600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the hell are you talking about? The idea is the phone's price with be subsidized based on the fact that you receive ads. So you have an unlocked phone, for contract prices (without the contract, just ads).</p><p>Would you rather a $200 phone with 2 (3 years in Canada) contract that is locked to your carrier?</p><p>Or</p><p>Would you rather a $200 phone, no contract, unlocked to any carrier, that receives an Ad via text message/email/etc. once every couple days (or hell, I'll take one every day if you want. It's not hard to delete a received message, I do it all the time with people I don't want to talk to at the time.)</p><p>Why exactly are people so afraid of ads? You simply ignore or delete them. It's not like they're going to intrude on any actual user experience (otherwise people stop using, and ads become worthless. I don't think Google is going to do this (or ever have)).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell are you talking about ?
The idea is the phone 's price with be subsidized based on the fact that you receive ads .
So you have an unlocked phone , for contract prices ( without the contract , just ads ) .Would you rather a $ 200 phone with 2 ( 3 years in Canada ) contract that is locked to your carrier ? OrWould you rather a $ 200 phone , no contract , unlocked to any carrier , that receives an Ad via text message/email/etc .
once every couple days ( or hell , I 'll take one every day if you want .
It 's not hard to delete a received message , I do it all the time with people I do n't want to talk to at the time .
) Why exactly are people so afraid of ads ?
You simply ignore or delete them .
It 's not like they 're going to intrude on any actual user experience ( otherwise people stop using , and ads become worthless .
I do n't think Google is going to do this ( or ever have ) ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell are you talking about?
The idea is the phone's price with be subsidized based on the fact that you receive ads.
So you have an unlocked phone, for contract prices (without the contract, just ads).Would you rather a $200 phone with 2 (3 years in Canada) contract that is locked to your carrier?OrWould you rather a $200 phone, no contract, unlocked to any carrier, that receives an Ad via text message/email/etc.
once every couple days (or hell, I'll take one every day if you want.
It's not hard to delete a received message, I do it all the time with people I don't want to talk to at the time.
)Why exactly are people so afraid of ads?
You simply ignore or delete them.
It's not like they're going to intrude on any actual user experience (otherwise people stop using, and ads become worthless.
I don't think Google is going to do this (or ever have)).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30449500</id>
	<title>Re:It's cheaper to buy straight from manufacturer</title>
	<author>s0litaire</author>
	<datestamp>1260870420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Nope! you're not missing a thing!<br><br>It's just the Americans are not used to forcing their Mobile Telcos to provide them with good "value for service".<br><br>If a lot of people go "Sim Free" then the Telcos' will have to adapt, since more of their users are not handcuffed to their service and can move at any time...<br><br>Which is a GOOD thing, as it promotes competition. In the end, you are getting a better service...</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope !
you 're not missing a thing ! It 's just the Americans are not used to forcing their Mobile Telcos to provide them with good " value for service " .If a lot of people go " Sim Free " then the Telcos ' will have to adapt , since more of their users are not handcuffed to their service and can move at any time...Which is a GOOD thing , as it promotes competition .
In the end , you are getting a better service.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope!
you're not missing a thing!It's just the Americans are not used to forcing their Mobile Telcos to provide them with good "value for service".If a lot of people go "Sim Free" then the Telcos' will have to adapt, since more of their users are not handcuffed to their service and can move at any time...Which is a GOOD thing, as it promotes competition.
In the end, you are getting a better service...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448298</id>
	<title>Re:It's cheaper to buy straight from manufacturer</title>
	<author>kannibal\_klown</author>
	<datestamp>1260907740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>AFAIK (in the UK at least), with a contract, you're paying x per month, and you're tied in for a contract of usually about 18 months.  That 18x comes out to more than the cost of the phone.  For example, look at the <a href="http://shop.vodafone.co.uk/shop/deals/htc-magic-deal-24-30" title="vodafone.co.uk">HTC Magic from Vodafone</a> [vodafone.co.uk]  Total: 720 GBP which is obviously more than the cost of the phone. Or am I missing something that's US-specific?</p></div><p>Pretty much, you're right.</p><p>I read some past threads on either Slashdot or elsewhere that had people reporting that they were able to successfully renegotiate their contract with customer service when the contract was up for this specific reason, but I'd never met anyone in person that's done that.</p><p>In the US you get tied to a contract, but you're typically paying the same price whether-or-not you subsidize the phone.  So you're paying the same monthly fee whether you're using a new subsidized phone or an old phone or an unlocked phone you picked up from eBay.</p><p>On the other hand, if you get yourself a nice handset (perhaps a smart phone) for a good deal on a manufacturer's site and you force yourself to use it for a couple of years (such as 2 contract lengths) then you might win out since the subsidies don't cover the full cost of the nicer phones and I recall seeing sales/deals on SonyEriccson.com</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>AFAIK ( in the UK at least ) , with a contract , you 're paying x per month , and you 're tied in for a contract of usually about 18 months .
That 18x comes out to more than the cost of the phone .
For example , look at the HTC Magic from Vodafone [ vodafone.co.uk ] Total : 720 GBP which is obviously more than the cost of the phone .
Or am I missing something that 's US-specific ? Pretty much , you 're right.I read some past threads on either Slashdot or elsewhere that had people reporting that they were able to successfully renegotiate their contract with customer service when the contract was up for this specific reason , but I 'd never met anyone in person that 's done that.In the US you get tied to a contract , but you 're typically paying the same price whether-or-not you subsidize the phone .
So you 're paying the same monthly fee whether you 're using a new subsidized phone or an old phone or an unlocked phone you picked up from eBay.On the other hand , if you get yourself a nice handset ( perhaps a smart phone ) for a good deal on a manufacturer 's site and you force yourself to use it for a couple of years ( such as 2 contract lengths ) then you might win out since the subsidies do n't cover the full cost of the nicer phones and I recall seeing sales/deals on SonyEriccson.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AFAIK (in the UK at least), with a contract, you're paying x per month, and you're tied in for a contract of usually about 18 months.
That 18x comes out to more than the cost of the phone.
For example, look at the HTC Magic from Vodafone [vodafone.co.uk]  Total: 720 GBP which is obviously more than the cost of the phone.
Or am I missing something that's US-specific?Pretty much, you're right.I read some past threads on either Slashdot or elsewhere that had people reporting that they were able to successfully renegotiate their contract with customer service when the contract was up for this specific reason, but I'd never met anyone in person that's done that.In the US you get tied to a contract, but you're typically paying the same price whether-or-not you subsidize the phone.
So you're paying the same monthly fee whether you're using a new subsidized phone or an old phone or an unlocked phone you picked up from eBay.On the other hand, if you get yourself a nice handset (perhaps a smart phone) for a good deal on a manufacturer's site and you force yourself to use it for a couple of years (such as 2 contract lengths) then you might win out since the subsidies don't cover the full cost of the nicer phones and I recall seeing sales/deals on SonyEriccson.com
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30449042</id>
	<title>Re:I have a better idea</title>
	<author>CohibaVancouver</author>
	<datestamp>1260868200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'll just continue to buy locked phones, and then drop 10 or 20 whole dollars to get them unlocked at the local electronics mall.</i> </p><p>I think you'll see this model start to fail over the next little while, for two reasons -<br> <br>

1) As we move more and more to 'smart phones' like the iPhone that get 'updated' regularly by PCs, you'll see mechanisms whereby the locking gets 'put back' each time you attach the phone to your PC. <br> <br>

2) Networks will move to a model whereby they won't allow 'unlocked' phones on their network. <br> <br>

Personally, I think it's all rubbish.  The cable company doesn't subsidize the cost of my TV in their cable package, my ISP doesn't subsidize the cost of my PC in their broadband package (yeah, yeah I know there's a smattering of this, but still...), why don't they just sell the me the phone and the package separately, and be done with it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll just continue to buy locked phones , and then drop 10 or 20 whole dollars to get them unlocked at the local electronics mall .
I think you 'll see this model start to fail over the next little while , for two reasons - 1 ) As we move more and more to 'smart phones ' like the iPhone that get 'updated ' regularly by PCs , you 'll see mechanisms whereby the locking gets 'put back ' each time you attach the phone to your PC .
2 ) Networks will move to a model whereby they wo n't allow 'unlocked ' phones on their network .
Personally , I think it 's all rubbish .
The cable company does n't subsidize the cost of my TV in their cable package , my ISP does n't subsidize the cost of my PC in their broadband package ( yeah , yeah I know there 's a smattering of this , but still... ) , why do n't they just sell the me the phone and the package separately , and be done with it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll just continue to buy locked phones, and then drop 10 or 20 whole dollars to get them unlocked at the local electronics mall.
I think you'll see this model start to fail over the next little while, for two reasons - 

1) As we move more and more to 'smart phones' like the iPhone that get 'updated' regularly by PCs, you'll see mechanisms whereby the locking gets 'put back' each time you attach the phone to your PC.
2) Networks will move to a model whereby they won't allow 'unlocked' phones on their network.
Personally, I think it's all rubbish.
The cable company doesn't subsidize the cost of my TV in their cable package, my ISP doesn't subsidize the cost of my PC in their broadband package (yeah, yeah I know there's a smattering of this, but still...), why don't they just sell the me the phone and the package separately, and be done with it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447706</id>
	<title>Is there a niche for this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260905400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As it stands in the US, there are two well entrenched market niches for smartphones.  The first of which are the unlocked phones (or the phones one pays full retail price for from a provider.)  This is about $400-$600.  The second is the provider sponsored phone where one pays the cost of the phone via a contract.  The price ceiling in the US is effectively set for this by Apple at around $200.</p><p>The ads wouldn't be welcomed in the unlocked phone arena.  If I pay the premium price tag for an unlocked phone, I won't be buying one that slings ads at me.  If the contract changes while I have the phone, I'll be rooting the device and yanking that "functionality" out, or not accepting the changes in my contract and will toss the phone in the garbage.  Then I will go with a provider who wouldn't pull that on me.</p><p>If I were paying for a phone subsidized over 2 years, ads are not welcome here either.  If my phone gets an OTA update to become an ad vomiter, that is a change in my contract that I do not have to accept, and I will trash the phone and change providers.</p><p>So, where would the ad-supported device model come to play?  I see only one place, and that is the low end market, such as the prepaid phones one sees for sale for $15-$30, or the "free" phones that come with a 1-2 year contract.  Maybe this market is what Google might be aiming for, where people would tolerate ads in return for a smartphone that costs $20.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As it stands in the US , there are two well entrenched market niches for smartphones .
The first of which are the unlocked phones ( or the phones one pays full retail price for from a provider .
) This is about $ 400- $ 600 .
The second is the provider sponsored phone where one pays the cost of the phone via a contract .
The price ceiling in the US is effectively set for this by Apple at around $ 200.The ads would n't be welcomed in the unlocked phone arena .
If I pay the premium price tag for an unlocked phone , I wo n't be buying one that slings ads at me .
If the contract changes while I have the phone , I 'll be rooting the device and yanking that " functionality " out , or not accepting the changes in my contract and will toss the phone in the garbage .
Then I will go with a provider who would n't pull that on me.If I were paying for a phone subsidized over 2 years , ads are not welcome here either .
If my phone gets an OTA update to become an ad vomiter , that is a change in my contract that I do not have to accept , and I will trash the phone and change providers.So , where would the ad-supported device model come to play ?
I see only one place , and that is the low end market , such as the prepaid phones one sees for sale for $ 15- $ 30 , or the " free " phones that come with a 1-2 year contract .
Maybe this market is what Google might be aiming for , where people would tolerate ads in return for a smartphone that costs $ 20 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As it stands in the US, there are two well entrenched market niches for smartphones.
The first of which are the unlocked phones (or the phones one pays full retail price for from a provider.
)  This is about $400-$600.
The second is the provider sponsored phone where one pays the cost of the phone via a contract.
The price ceiling in the US is effectively set for this by Apple at around $200.The ads wouldn't be welcomed in the unlocked phone arena.
If I pay the premium price tag for an unlocked phone, I won't be buying one that slings ads at me.
If the contract changes while I have the phone, I'll be rooting the device and yanking that "functionality" out, or not accepting the changes in my contract and will toss the phone in the garbage.
Then I will go with a provider who wouldn't pull that on me.If I were paying for a phone subsidized over 2 years, ads are not welcome here either.
If my phone gets an OTA update to become an ad vomiter, that is a change in my contract that I do not have to accept, and I will trash the phone and change providers.So, where would the ad-supported device model come to play?
I see only one place, and that is the low end market, such as the prepaid phones one sees for sale for $15-$30, or the "free" phones that come with a 1-2 year contract.
Maybe this market is what Google might be aiming for, where people would tolerate ads in return for a smartphone that costs $20.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448670</id>
	<title>Unlocked is still locked to the radio right?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260909360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't a major problem with unlocked in the U.S. the fact that you're tied to the phones radio type? I'm not educated on the matter so maybe I'm mistaken. I wouldn't mind buying a n900 but it doesn't work with my carrier and I've had pretty decent service from them despite their poor reputation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't a major problem with unlocked in the U.S. the fact that you 're tied to the phones radio type ?
I 'm not educated on the matter so maybe I 'm mistaken .
I would n't mind buying a n900 but it does n't work with my carrier and I 've had pretty decent service from them despite their poor reputation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't a major problem with unlocked in the U.S. the fact that you're tied to the phones radio type?
I'm not educated on the matter so maybe I'm mistaken.
I wouldn't mind buying a n900 but it doesn't work with my carrier and I've had pretty decent service from them despite their poor reputation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448250</id>
	<title>Re:Something Else</title>
	<author>AaronMK</author>
	<datestamp>1260907560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"originally they were going to do it by strong arming the bandwidth auctions but that fell through and they weren't prepared to actually bid and implement the system themselves."</p><p>I thought that the winner of that auction was required to open up the network on that spectrum, no matter who it was.  Google should be creating an open phone, and using their large legal muscle and position in the public spotlight to force Verizon to fulfill that obligation of openness that came with the spectrum.  Even if they can't open the cell market in general, they should at least be able to open up Verizon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" originally they were going to do it by strong arming the bandwidth auctions but that fell through and they were n't prepared to actually bid and implement the system themselves .
" I thought that the winner of that auction was required to open up the network on that spectrum , no matter who it was .
Google should be creating an open phone , and using their large legal muscle and position in the public spotlight to force Verizon to fulfill that obligation of openness that came with the spectrum .
Even if they ca n't open the cell market in general , they should at least be able to open up Verizon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"originally they were going to do it by strong arming the bandwidth auctions but that fell through and they weren't prepared to actually bid and implement the system themselves.
"I thought that the winner of that auction was required to open up the network on that spectrum, no matter who it was.
Google should be creating an open phone, and using their large legal muscle and position in the public spotlight to force Verizon to fulfill that obligation of openness that came with the spectrum.
Even if they can't open the cell market in general, they should at least be able to open up Verizon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30449940</id>
	<title>You know who buys these things?</title>
	<author>zullnero</author>
	<datestamp>1260872220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just like the people who used to buy those ultra-cheap/free PCs from those shady startups that inundated them with ads, then complained that they were getting spammed.
<br> <br>
First data mining...now constant ads.  You have to also take into account that various apps are also ad supported as well.  That's ads on top of ads...and that's part of the reason those shady startups didn't go on to profit like they thought they would.
<br> <br>
Sure, wait for the phone to come out and THEN review the security policy.  I get the feeling it'll be a little disappointing, though...this is Google, after all.  The motto "do no evil" has long since been superseded by "do not speak about our evil".  Wonder how Motorola and HTC are feeling about their decision to sink so much marketing dough into Droid and the Hero, only to have the OS vendor basically stick them right in their backs like this.  If Microsoft had released a "free" WinMob phone a few years back, the carriers and hardware vendors would have sued the heck out of them.  But because it's Google, they get a free pass for screwing their vendors because "after all, they do no evil, and Android is kinda/sorta an open technology".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like the people who used to buy those ultra-cheap/free PCs from those shady startups that inundated them with ads , then complained that they were getting spammed .
First data mining...now constant ads .
You have to also take into account that various apps are also ad supported as well .
That 's ads on top of ads...and that 's part of the reason those shady startups did n't go on to profit like they thought they would .
Sure , wait for the phone to come out and THEN review the security policy .
I get the feeling it 'll be a little disappointing , though...this is Google , after all .
The motto " do no evil " has long since been superseded by " do not speak about our evil " .
Wonder how Motorola and HTC are feeling about their decision to sink so much marketing dough into Droid and the Hero , only to have the OS vendor basically stick them right in their backs like this .
If Microsoft had released a " free " WinMob phone a few years back , the carriers and hardware vendors would have sued the heck out of them .
But because it 's Google , they get a free pass for screwing their vendors because " after all , they do no evil , and Android is kinda/sorta an open technology " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like the people who used to buy those ultra-cheap/free PCs from those shady startups that inundated them with ads, then complained that they were getting spammed.
First data mining...now constant ads.
You have to also take into account that various apps are also ad supported as well.
That's ads on top of ads...and that's part of the reason those shady startups didn't go on to profit like they thought they would.
Sure, wait for the phone to come out and THEN review the security policy.
I get the feeling it'll be a little disappointing, though...this is Google, after all.
The motto "do no evil" has long since been superseded by "do not speak about our evil".
Wonder how Motorola and HTC are feeling about their decision to sink so much marketing dough into Droid and the Hero, only to have the OS vendor basically stick them right in their backs like this.
If Microsoft had released a "free" WinMob phone a few years back, the carriers and hardware vendors would have sued the heck out of them.
But because it's Google, they get a free pass for screwing their vendors because "after all, they do no evil, and Android is kinda/sorta an open technology".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30465552</id>
	<title>Guys... Google Phone will not have advertising</title>
	<author>DomainDominator</author>
	<datestamp>1259667360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just because selling the phones will be a new profit engine all by itself, they won't want to outrage users by bombarding them with Google Ads. Stop the nonsense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because selling the phones will be a new profit engine all by itself , they wo n't want to outrage users by bombarding them with Google Ads .
Stop the nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because selling the phones will be a new profit engine all by itself, they won't want to outrage users by bombarding them with Google Ads.
Stop the nonsense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448176</id>
	<title>Re:It's cheaper to buy straight from manufacturer</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1260907200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>For example, look at the HTC Magic from Vodafone Total: 720 GBP which is obviously more than the cost of the phone</i> </p><p>But aren't you also paying for your baseline cell phone <b>service?</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , look at the HTC Magic from Vodafone Total : 720 GBP which is obviously more than the cost of the phone But are n't you also paying for your baseline cell phone service ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, look at the HTC Magic from Vodafone Total: 720 GBP which is obviously more than the cost of the phone But aren't you also paying for your baseline cell phone service?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30450876</id>
	<title>Unlocked is the way to go in some cases</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260875700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just got a Rogers HTC Magic unlocked to run on AT&amp;T in the US for about $450 US. I rooted it and now I get google navigation, 3G, etc, etc. This is a deal when you consider I do not need a PDA plan ($20/mo medianet unlimited) or renew to a 2 year contract. An unlocked iphone that was comparable was $600-$800 range.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just got a Rogers HTC Magic unlocked to run on AT&amp;T in the US for about $ 450 US .
I rooted it and now I get google navigation , 3G , etc , etc .
This is a deal when you consider I do not need a PDA plan ( $ 20/mo medianet unlimited ) or renew to a 2 year contract .
An unlocked iphone that was comparable was $ 600- $ 800 range .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just got a Rogers HTC Magic unlocked to run on AT&amp;T in the US for about $450 US.
I rooted it and now I get google navigation, 3G, etc, etc.
This is a deal when you consider I do not need a PDA plan ($20/mo medianet unlimited) or renew to a 2 year contract.
An unlocked iphone that was comparable was $600-$800 range.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448086</id>
	<title>twice as much?</title>
	<author>farble1670</author>
	<datestamp>1260906900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the price of an unlocked phone always seemed wrong to me. these are cheap, mass produced, underpowered devices using yesterday's technology for the most part.  why do they cost $600?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the price of an unlocked phone always seemed wrong to me .
these are cheap , mass produced , underpowered devices using yesterday 's technology for the most part .
why do they cost $ 600 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the price of an unlocked phone always seemed wrong to me.
these are cheap, mass produced, underpowered devices using yesterday's technology for the most part.
why do they cost $600?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448512</id>
	<title>unlocked "approach" largely failed?</title>
	<author>TopSpin</author>
	<datestamp>1260908760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So Nokia's little Apple-wannabe store(s) somewhere near er... Chicago, or something, falls flat and that means no one wants unlocked phones?  Whatever.</p><p>If you would like to participate in the failing unlocked phone market don't lament the poor performance of Nokia's fail brick-and-mortar outlets.  Just head over <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&amp;N=2105570227&amp;bop=And&amp;ActiveSearchResult=True&amp;Pagesize=100" title="newegg.com">here</a> [newegg.com] and buy a perfectly good unlocked Nokia 5530 GSM or any one of 105 other unlocked phones of all levels of capability.  Need a cheap unlocked phone that works well with no monthly bill?  Buy a RAZR V3 for $80, get some minutes from T-Mobile and forget about it.  It works fine.</p><p>Bundling is a racket.  Don't support it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So Nokia 's little Apple-wannabe store ( s ) somewhere near er... Chicago , or something , falls flat and that means no one wants unlocked phones ?
Whatever.If you would like to participate in the failing unlocked phone market do n't lament the poor performance of Nokia 's fail brick-and-mortar outlets .
Just head over here [ newegg.com ] and buy a perfectly good unlocked Nokia 5530 GSM or any one of 105 other unlocked phones of all levels of capability .
Need a cheap unlocked phone that works well with no monthly bill ?
Buy a RAZR V3 for $ 80 , get some minutes from T-Mobile and forget about it .
It works fine.Bundling is a racket .
Do n't support it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Nokia's little Apple-wannabe store(s) somewhere near er... Chicago, or something, falls flat and that means no one wants unlocked phones?
Whatever.If you would like to participate in the failing unlocked phone market don't lament the poor performance of Nokia's fail brick-and-mortar outlets.
Just head over here [newegg.com] and buy a perfectly good unlocked Nokia 5530 GSM or any one of 105 other unlocked phones of all levels of capability.
Need a cheap unlocked phone that works well with no monthly bill?
Buy a RAZR V3 for $80, get some minutes from T-Mobile and forget about it.
It works fine.Bundling is a racket.
Don't support it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30452868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30452958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30450600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30454172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30451774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30450614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30456128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30449886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30451536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30450062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30449500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30449042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30450578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30450050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30449510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30451942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30449120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30451458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30452932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30456198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30449716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30449142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30453178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1731240_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30449944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1731240.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448914
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1731240.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1731240.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30449510
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1731240.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1731240.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30452958
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1731240.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447616
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30456128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1731240.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30450578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30451458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30449716
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1731240.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30450062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1731240.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30449500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448150
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448380
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30449944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30456198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448682
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30451942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448176
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1731240.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1731240.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30450600
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1731240.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30449120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30451774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30449042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1731240.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30454172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30450050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1731240.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448118
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1731240.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30451536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1731240.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30451454
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1731240.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447938
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1731240.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448102
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30450614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448228
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30452932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448578
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1731240.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1731240.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448670
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1731240.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30447788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30452868
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30449886
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30453178
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30449142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1731240.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1731240.30448876
</commentlist>
</conversation>
