<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_17_2310249</id>
	<title>Firefox Mobile Threatens Mobile App Stores, Says Mozilla</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1261048800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Barence writes <i>"Mozilla claims that its new <a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/354205/mozilla-firefox-mobile-will-kill-off-app-stores">Firefox Mobile browser could be the beginning of the end for the hugely popular app stores</a> created by Apple and its ilk. Mozilla claims Firefox Mobile will have the fastest Javascript engine of any mobile browser, and that will allow developers to write apps once for the web, instead of multiple versions for the different mobile platforms. 'As developers get more frustrated with quality assurance, the amount of handsets they have to buy, whether their security updates will get past the iPhone approval process ... I think they'll move to the web,' Mozilla's mobile VP, Jay Sullivan, told <em>PC Pro</em>. 'In the interim period, apps will be very successful. Over time, the web will win because it always does.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Barence writes " Mozilla claims that its new Firefox Mobile browser could be the beginning of the end for the hugely popular app stores created by Apple and its ilk .
Mozilla claims Firefox Mobile will have the fastest Javascript engine of any mobile browser , and that will allow developers to write apps once for the web , instead of multiple versions for the different mobile platforms .
'As developers get more frustrated with quality assurance , the amount of handsets they have to buy , whether their security updates will get past the iPhone approval process ... I think they 'll move to the web, ' Mozilla 's mobile VP , Jay Sullivan , told PC Pro .
'In the interim period , apps will be very successful .
Over time , the web will win because it always does .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barence writes "Mozilla claims that its new Firefox Mobile browser could be the beginning of the end for the hugely popular app stores created by Apple and its ilk.
Mozilla claims Firefox Mobile will have the fastest Javascript engine of any mobile browser, and that will allow developers to write apps once for the web, instead of multiple versions for the different mobile platforms.
'As developers get more frustrated with quality assurance, the amount of handsets they have to buy, whether their security updates will get past the iPhone approval process ... I think they'll move to the web,' Mozilla's mobile VP, Jay Sullivan, told PC Pro.
'In the interim period, apps will be very successful.
Over time, the web will win because it always does.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481022</id>
	<title>Boy this will be an interesting discussion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261052700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>iphone fans vs firefox fans<nobr> <wbr></nobr>........</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>iphone fans vs firefox fans ....... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>iphone fans vs firefox fans ........</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482268</id>
	<title>Re:Two things.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261059960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you are forgetting the fact that iPhone users pay *money* for *crap*.  On no other platform do people do that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you are forgetting the fact that iPhone users pay * money * for * crap * .
On no other platform do people do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you are forgetting the fact that iPhone users pay *money* for *crap*.
On no other platform do people do that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481096</id>
	<title>Misses the point pretty badly</title>
	<author>ZombieRoboNinja</author>
	<datestamp>1261053060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd say this comment misses the point of phone apps pretty terribly. At least the ones I use tend to rely almost entirely on the phone's hardware features. Not just accelerated graphics and GPS and camera, but tie-ins to the address book and calendar, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say this comment misses the point of phone apps pretty terribly .
At least the ones I use tend to rely almost entirely on the phone 's hardware features .
Not just accelerated graphics and GPS and camera , but tie-ins to the address book and calendar , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say this comment misses the point of phone apps pretty terribly.
At least the ones I use tend to rely almost entirely on the phone's hardware features.
Not just accelerated graphics and GPS and camera, but tie-ins to the address book and calendar, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482230</id>
	<title>Re:Boy this will be an interesting discussion</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1261059660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the article started off heavily biased against Apple already.  It plainly states: "app stores created by Apple and its ilk".  Seriously?!  Is someone at Mozilla so jealous that Apple has developed a profitable business model that they have to resort to ad hominem attacks?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the article started off heavily biased against Apple already .
It plainly states : " app stores created by Apple and its ilk " .
Seriously ? ! Is someone at Mozilla so jealous that Apple has developed a profitable business model that they have to resort to ad hominem attacks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the article started off heavily biased against Apple already.
It plainly states: "app stores created by Apple and its ilk".
Seriously?!  Is someone at Mozilla so jealous that Apple has developed a profitable business model that they have to resort to ad hominem attacks?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481836</id>
	<title>One possible outcome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261057260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just speculation, but lets say that all of the OTHER smart phone companies want to see the Apple App Store lose some business. Since there is no real rival to the App store, these companies have nothing to lose by supporting webapp capabilities through Firefox Mobile. They would gain a buzzword and compatibility with a potentially unlimited amount of software. So what this means is that iPhone users still use the App store, and everyone else uses some open repository of free and non-free webapps or buys directly from the developer. Seems logical to me and only takes the assumption that not everyone on the planet uses an iPhone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just speculation , but lets say that all of the OTHER smart phone companies want to see the Apple App Store lose some business .
Since there is no real rival to the App store , these companies have nothing to lose by supporting webapp capabilities through Firefox Mobile .
They would gain a buzzword and compatibility with a potentially unlimited amount of software .
So what this means is that iPhone users still use the App store , and everyone else uses some open repository of free and non-free webapps or buys directly from the developer .
Seems logical to me and only takes the assumption that not everyone on the planet uses an iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just speculation, but lets say that all of the OTHER smart phone companies want to see the Apple App Store lose some business.
Since there is no real rival to the App store, these companies have nothing to lose by supporting webapp capabilities through Firefox Mobile.
They would gain a buzzword and compatibility with a potentially unlimited amount of software.
So what this means is that iPhone users still use the App store, and everyone else uses some open repository of free and non-free webapps or buys directly from the developer.
Seems logical to me and only takes the assumption that not everyone on the planet uses an iPhone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481976</id>
	<title>uh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261058160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, I've got an idea, write a browser that's so mutantly written it's not native anywhere and isn't even ALLOWED in the Android OR iPhone OS app stores and see where it gets us!  Fantastic plan, Mozilla.  I didn't switch to Chrome because it was awesome.  I switched because Firefox has horrible gnome integration.  The entire browser gui literally IS a web page of sorts..  You just can't take that web stuff too far, and you have.  Me, I like fast.  Circular saw duct-taped to a scud missile fast.  I call it WebKit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , I 've got an idea , write a browser that 's so mutantly written it 's not native anywhere and is n't even ALLOWED in the Android OR iPhone OS app stores and see where it gets us !
Fantastic plan , Mozilla .
I did n't switch to Chrome because it was awesome .
I switched because Firefox has horrible gnome integration .
The entire browser gui literally IS a web page of sorts.. You just ca n't take that web stuff too far , and you have .
Me , I like fast .
Circular saw duct-taped to a scud missile fast .
I call it WebKit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, I've got an idea, write a browser that's so mutantly written it's not native anywhere and isn't even ALLOWED in the Android OR iPhone OS app stores and see where it gets us!
Fantastic plan, Mozilla.
I didn't switch to Chrome because it was awesome.
I switched because Firefox has horrible gnome integration.
The entire browser gui literally IS a web page of sorts..  You just can't take that web stuff too far, and you have.
Me, I like fast.
Circular saw duct-taped to a scud missile fast.
I call it WebKit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30569850</id>
	<title>Bizzaro World</title>
	<author>Wovel</author>
	<datestamp>1262006160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does this "story" exist.  It is a Mozilla press release I suppose, not clear what value or new information was conveyed in the summary or the FA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does this " story " exist .
It is a Mozilla press release I suppose , not clear what value or new information was conveyed in the summary or the FA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does this "story" exist.
It is a Mozilla press release I suppose, not clear what value or new information was conveyed in the summary or the FA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30483654</id>
	<title>Revenue?</title>
	<author>Polo</author>
	<datestamp>1261071780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So this generates a revenue stream for developers how?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So this generates a revenue stream for developers how ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this generates a revenue stream for developers how?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30484244</id>
	<title>Re:Beta is terrible</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1261079880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't bet on it much...how many times Mozilla promised "revolutionizing" mobile browsing? Remember MiniMo? How their conclusion from that project was "we'll wait until the hardware gets more powerful"...and again they ended up with bloated pig.</p><p>In the meantime, Webkit and Opera Mini are doing much good for mobile web for a few years already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't bet on it much...how many times Mozilla promised " revolutionizing " mobile browsing ?
Remember MiniMo ?
How their conclusion from that project was " we 'll wait until the hardware gets more powerful " ...and again they ended up with bloated pig.In the meantime , Webkit and Opera Mini are doing much good for mobile web for a few years already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't bet on it much...how many times Mozilla promised "revolutionizing" mobile browsing?
Remember MiniMo?
How their conclusion from that project was "we'll wait until the hardware gets more powerful"...and again they ended up with bloated pig.In the meantime, Webkit and Opera Mini are doing much good for mobile web for a few years already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482418</id>
	<title>Re:Deja Vu</title>
	<author>Apple Acolyte</author>
	<datestamp>1261061040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is absolutely true, tverbeek. SJ tried to make that argument and it was largely laughed off by developers who were awaiting local apps and APIs. If Apple had continued to make that argument and had never rolled out the App Store, the iPhone (and its software platform) would not be the success it is today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is absolutely true , tverbeek .
SJ tried to make that argument and it was largely laughed off by developers who were awaiting local apps and APIs .
If Apple had continued to make that argument and had never rolled out the App Store , the iPhone ( and its software platform ) would not be the success it is today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is absolutely true, tverbeek.
SJ tried to make that argument and it was largely laughed off by developers who were awaiting local apps and APIs.
If Apple had continued to make that argument and had never rolled out the App Store, the iPhone (and its software platform) would not be the success it is today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30480988</id>
	<title>web-app-web</title>
	<author>ghetto2ivy</author>
	<datestamp>1261052520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not without better connectivity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not without better connectivity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not without better connectivity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30490150</id>
	<title>Re:Um...how do you figure?</title>
	<author>StuartHankins</author>
	<datestamp>1261162860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Webapps are typically very limited. They just don't provide the power that thick apps do. Each browser implements a different set of capabilities, and some of those are implemented differently. Heck, IE still doesn't score well on Acid3! This weakness will mean we won't have truly rich web apps as a norm for some time, unless they're tied to a specific platform / browser -- which means you aren't gaining the browser independence that was the reason for implementing as a web app to begin with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Webapps are typically very limited .
They just do n't provide the power that thick apps do .
Each browser implements a different set of capabilities , and some of those are implemented differently .
Heck , IE still does n't score well on Acid3 !
This weakness will mean we wo n't have truly rich web apps as a norm for some time , unless they 're tied to a specific platform / browser -- which means you are n't gaining the browser independence that was the reason for implementing as a web app to begin with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Webapps are typically very limited.
They just don't provide the power that thick apps do.
Each browser implements a different set of capabilities, and some of those are implemented differently.
Heck, IE still doesn't score well on Acid3!
This weakness will mean we won't have truly rich web apps as a norm for some time, unless they're tied to a specific platform / browser -- which means you aren't gaining the browser independence that was the reason for implementing as a web app to begin with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482440</id>
	<title>Re:Two things.</title>
	<author>defjesta</author>
	<datestamp>1261061280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While you seem to have some industry experience, I think you perhaps write off the iPhone a little too easily. I can certainly see some parallels with Apple's Mac strategy in the 80's, but they have done a lot of things right (from a dev point of view), and are seeing success accordingly. 100k apps and rising speaks for itself really.</p><p>I agree that the iPhone has a small marketshare of <i>total</i> mobile phones, however the vast majority of mobile applications (where a web app won't do), are targeted towards smartphones. As you can see on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Smartphone\_2009.svg" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">this graph</a> [wikipedia.org], the iPhone is currently in third place with around 13\% marketshare. Not insignificant, and not bad at all for just over 2 years on the market.</p><p>As another poster mentioned, Apple has made it very easy to sell and buy Apps on this device, so most people that own an iPhone <i>will</i> spend money on Apps. Contrast this to Symbian where it takes a pretty dedicated and sometimes technical user to buy and install an application.</p><p>So, in the "real world" the iPhone is quite a dominant force already. It may yet prove to be a fad, and the mobile industry does move very fast, but I don't think so. I am personally seeing an increasing amount of consulting requests specifically iPhone related, and interest from corps is sky high.</p><p>With regards to your Java point; J2ME is nice (sometimes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-), and it certainly has the largest install base of any mobile language, but the sad reality is that it is nowhere near "write once, run anywhere". For a cross platform J2ME mobile project, you will usually spend at least <strong>50\%</strong> of your project time porting and getting things running on devices that all implement it a little differently and have their own quirks. So supporting the majority of smartphones (Symbian, Blackberry, Win Mo and iPhone) will require a lot of specialised code anyway (unless you use a <a href="http://rhomobile.com/" title="rhomobile.com" rel="nofollow">cross platform framework</a> [rhomobile.com], but that has it's own drawbacks).</p><p>All iPod Touches and iPhones are essentially the same (barring some hardware differences like processor speed, bluetooth, etc), and an App written for one will almost always run on any other (I have had some obscure issues that crop up between different models, but nothing of significance). This is heaven from a dev's point of view!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While you seem to have some industry experience , I think you perhaps write off the iPhone a little too easily .
I can certainly see some parallels with Apple 's Mac strategy in the 80 's , but they have done a lot of things right ( from a dev point of view ) , and are seeing success accordingly .
100k apps and rising speaks for itself really.I agree that the iPhone has a small marketshare of total mobile phones , however the vast majority of mobile applications ( where a web app wo n't do ) , are targeted towards smartphones .
As you can see on this graph [ wikipedia.org ] , the iPhone is currently in third place with around 13 \ % marketshare .
Not insignificant , and not bad at all for just over 2 years on the market.As another poster mentioned , Apple has made it very easy to sell and buy Apps on this device , so most people that own an iPhone will spend money on Apps .
Contrast this to Symbian where it takes a pretty dedicated and sometimes technical user to buy and install an application.So , in the " real world " the iPhone is quite a dominant force already .
It may yet prove to be a fad , and the mobile industry does move very fast , but I do n't think so .
I am personally seeing an increasing amount of consulting requests specifically iPhone related , and interest from corps is sky high.With regards to your Java point ; J2ME is nice ( sometimes ; - ) , and it certainly has the largest install base of any mobile language , but the sad reality is that it is nowhere near " write once , run anywhere " .
For a cross platform J2ME mobile project , you will usually spend at least 50 \ % of your project time porting and getting things running on devices that all implement it a little differently and have their own quirks .
So supporting the majority of smartphones ( Symbian , Blackberry , Win Mo and iPhone ) will require a lot of specialised code anyway ( unless you use a cross platform framework [ rhomobile.com ] , but that has it 's own drawbacks ) .All iPod Touches and iPhones are essentially the same ( barring some hardware differences like processor speed , bluetooth , etc ) , and an App written for one will almost always run on any other ( I have had some obscure issues that crop up between different models , but nothing of significance ) .
This is heaven from a dev 's point of view !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While you seem to have some industry experience, I think you perhaps write off the iPhone a little too easily.
I can certainly see some parallels with Apple's Mac strategy in the 80's, but they have done a lot of things right (from a dev point of view), and are seeing success accordingly.
100k apps and rising speaks for itself really.I agree that the iPhone has a small marketshare of total mobile phones, however the vast majority of mobile applications (where a web app won't do), are targeted towards smartphones.
As you can see on this graph [wikipedia.org], the iPhone is currently in third place with around 13\% marketshare.
Not insignificant, and not bad at all for just over 2 years on the market.As another poster mentioned, Apple has made it very easy to sell and buy Apps on this device, so most people that own an iPhone will spend money on Apps.
Contrast this to Symbian where it takes a pretty dedicated and sometimes technical user to buy and install an application.So, in the "real world" the iPhone is quite a dominant force already.
It may yet prove to be a fad, and the mobile industry does move very fast, but I don't think so.
I am personally seeing an increasing amount of consulting requests specifically iPhone related, and interest from corps is sky high.With regards to your Java point; J2ME is nice (sometimes ;-), and it certainly has the largest install base of any mobile language, but the sad reality is that it is nowhere near "write once, run anywhere".
For a cross platform J2ME mobile project, you will usually spend at least 50\% of your project time porting and getting things running on devices that all implement it a little differently and have their own quirks.
So supporting the majority of smartphones (Symbian, Blackberry, Win Mo and iPhone) will require a lot of specialised code anyway (unless you use a cross platform framework [rhomobile.com], but that has it's own drawbacks).All iPod Touches and iPhones are essentially the same (barring some hardware differences like processor speed, bluetooth, etc), and an App written for one will almost always run on any other (I have had some obscure issues that crop up between different models, but nothing of significance).
This is heaven from a dev's point of view!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30490982</id>
	<title>Here and now...</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1261165740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This was actually being discussed independently of Firefox. Specifically, toward unseating (or at least, knocking down by a notch or two) the Apple iTunes store.</p><p>In fact, that has nothing to do with Firefox. You'll never get Fenec/Firefox in the iTunes store. If you have a jailbroken iPhone, sure, but then, you're already not dependent on the iTunes store.</p><p>But this is already a potential with the current iPhone Safari browser. You have a fast JavaScript engine there already. With HTML5 features like local data and local app storage, and the hooks are pretty much in place. And there have been claims that app developers are already using this as a means to bypass the app store.</p><p>Certainly it's not for every application, but there are a ton of things done on smart phones that are really just information aggregators and other app classes that don't need anywhere near the realtime performance you might for a videogame.</p><p>Another datapoint... applications on Palm's new WebOS pretty much are, already, HTML5, Javascript, and CSS. And yet, it's faster than most iPhones. And at least when introduced, the Palm Pre ran Javascript about 1/3 the speed of the iPhone 3GS (I'm sure they have improved that performance since).</p><p>The odd thing about all of this is really how fast Javascript already is on the iPhone... it ran SunSpider about 30\% faster than I got on my DROID phone, again, about 3x the speed of the original WebOS browser. Apple has gone to fairly crazy lengths to otherwise prevent any sort of alternate applications distribution mechanism from hitting the iPhone. The won't support Flash, ever, because that would allow games and applications written in flash, not through the iTunes store. They don't allow Java for the same reason... both of these things cripple the iPhone, making it a second-class citizen of the web (well, in ways other than just having a 480x320 pixel screen, anyway), but that's considered ok, so long as the iTunes channel remains the only feeding tube. They even outlawed a Commodore 64 emulator... apparently, 8-bit 6502 and BASIC code of the early 80s also represents an dangerous alternate applications channel. And yet, here's this Javascript engine, fast, and essentially the same API available on most other smart phones, and the core API for WebOS. They seem to have screwed up here.</p><p>I think it needs to be stated, too, that just having these facilities does not a complete solution make. The OS itself must allow web applications to be launched from one's normal application launcher, or it starts to make these rather second class. There needs to be management of the applications cache... how do I uninstall the app I'm done with. And for users who are less savvy than the typical<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. reader, the lack of integration may get confusing... I have to go HERE to delete some apps, and THERE to delete these others?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This was actually being discussed independently of Firefox .
Specifically , toward unseating ( or at least , knocking down by a notch or two ) the Apple iTunes store.In fact , that has nothing to do with Firefox .
You 'll never get Fenec/Firefox in the iTunes store .
If you have a jailbroken iPhone , sure , but then , you 're already not dependent on the iTunes store.But this is already a potential with the current iPhone Safari browser .
You have a fast JavaScript engine there already .
With HTML5 features like local data and local app storage , and the hooks are pretty much in place .
And there have been claims that app developers are already using this as a means to bypass the app store.Certainly it 's not for every application , but there are a ton of things done on smart phones that are really just information aggregators and other app classes that do n't need anywhere near the realtime performance you might for a videogame.Another datapoint... applications on Palm 's new WebOS pretty much are , already , HTML5 , Javascript , and CSS .
And yet , it 's faster than most iPhones .
And at least when introduced , the Palm Pre ran Javascript about 1/3 the speed of the iPhone 3GS ( I 'm sure they have improved that performance since ) .The odd thing about all of this is really how fast Javascript already is on the iPhone... it ran SunSpider about 30 \ % faster than I got on my DROID phone , again , about 3x the speed of the original WebOS browser .
Apple has gone to fairly crazy lengths to otherwise prevent any sort of alternate applications distribution mechanism from hitting the iPhone .
The wo n't support Flash , ever , because that would allow games and applications written in flash , not through the iTunes store .
They do n't allow Java for the same reason... both of these things cripple the iPhone , making it a second-class citizen of the web ( well , in ways other than just having a 480x320 pixel screen , anyway ) , but that 's considered ok , so long as the iTunes channel remains the only feeding tube .
They even outlawed a Commodore 64 emulator... apparently , 8-bit 6502 and BASIC code of the early 80s also represents an dangerous alternate applications channel .
And yet , here 's this Javascript engine , fast , and essentially the same API available on most other smart phones , and the core API for WebOS .
They seem to have screwed up here.I think it needs to be stated , too , that just having these facilities does not a complete solution make .
The OS itself must allow web applications to be launched from one 's normal application launcher , or it starts to make these rather second class .
There needs to be management of the applications cache... how do I uninstall the app I 'm done with .
And for users who are less savvy than the typical / .
reader , the lack of integration may get confusing... I have to go HERE to delete some apps , and THERE to delete these others ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was actually being discussed independently of Firefox.
Specifically, toward unseating (or at least, knocking down by a notch or two) the Apple iTunes store.In fact, that has nothing to do with Firefox.
You'll never get Fenec/Firefox in the iTunes store.
If you have a jailbroken iPhone, sure, but then, you're already not dependent on the iTunes store.But this is already a potential with the current iPhone Safari browser.
You have a fast JavaScript engine there already.
With HTML5 features like local data and local app storage, and the hooks are pretty much in place.
And there have been claims that app developers are already using this as a means to bypass the app store.Certainly it's not for every application, but there are a ton of things done on smart phones that are really just information aggregators and other app classes that don't need anywhere near the realtime performance you might for a videogame.Another datapoint... applications on Palm's new WebOS pretty much are, already, HTML5, Javascript, and CSS.
And yet, it's faster than most iPhones.
And at least when introduced, the Palm Pre ran Javascript about 1/3 the speed of the iPhone 3GS (I'm sure they have improved that performance since).The odd thing about all of this is really how fast Javascript already is on the iPhone... it ran SunSpider about 30\% faster than I got on my DROID phone, again, about 3x the speed of the original WebOS browser.
Apple has gone to fairly crazy lengths to otherwise prevent any sort of alternate applications distribution mechanism from hitting the iPhone.
The won't support Flash, ever, because that would allow games and applications written in flash, not through the iTunes store.
They don't allow Java for the same reason... both of these things cripple the iPhone, making it a second-class citizen of the web (well, in ways other than just having a 480x320 pixel screen, anyway), but that's considered ok, so long as the iTunes channel remains the only feeding tube.
They even outlawed a Commodore 64 emulator... apparently, 8-bit 6502 and BASIC code of the early 80s also represents an dangerous alternate applications channel.
And yet, here's this Javascript engine, fast, and essentially the same API available on most other smart phones, and the core API for WebOS.
They seem to have screwed up here.I think it needs to be stated, too, that just having these facilities does not a complete solution make.
The OS itself must allow web applications to be launched from one's normal application launcher, or it starts to make these rather second class.
There needs to be management of the applications cache... how do I uninstall the app I'm done with.
And for users who are less savvy than the typical /.
reader, the lack of integration may get confusing... I have to go HERE to delete some apps, and THERE to delete these others?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481232</id>
	<title>Re:Boy this will be an interesting discussion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261053900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's at  times like this I ask myself -  Who would Don King back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's at times like this I ask myself - Who would Don King back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's at  times like this I ask myself -  Who would Don King back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30484192</id>
	<title>Re:Um...how do you figure?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261079160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Second: Myst could be easily done via streaming in resources, assuming you had a good connection.</p><p>Third: Ads work, they work for google. They work for facebook. They'll work for other things.</p><p>Fourth: You can't access them from web apps yet. So that is a problem. But multiple input features aren't going to be a problem as if an app makes use of it, it's often specialized and thus requires that hardware in the first palce.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Second : Myst could be easily done via streaming in resources , assuming you had a good connection.Third : Ads work , they work for google .
They work for facebook .
They 'll work for other things.Fourth : You ca n't access them from web apps yet .
So that is a problem .
But multiple input features are n't going to be a problem as if an app makes use of it , it 's often specialized and thus requires that hardware in the first palce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Second: Myst could be easily done via streaming in resources, assuming you had a good connection.Third: Ads work, they work for google.
They work for facebook.
They'll work for other things.Fourth: You can't access them from web apps yet.
So that is a problem.
But multiple input features aren't going to be a problem as if an app makes use of it, it's often specialized and thus requires that hardware in the first palce.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481418</id>
	<title>Two things.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261055100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two things, my friend:</p><p>1. Java is THE dominant platform if you want to program anything that works on pretty much all mobile phones on the planet. Apart from the iPhone, and some Windows Mobile phones, I don&rsquo;t think there is a phone that can&rsquo;t do Java.<br>2. In the real world, not many people care about the App Store or the iPhone. It has only 3-4\% percent of the global market share, and technologically already was surpassed when it came to the market in Japan, was a novelty for about a month in most of Europe, and only in the USA has gained more than 10\% for obvious reasons. Which means, others are still hugely dominant. So much in fact, that I don&rsquo;t even think it&rsquo;s worth targeting the iPhone platform. (I&rsquo;m sorry, but if you now think I&rsquo;m trolling, that&rsquo;s the reality distortion bubble, created by the hype. I&rsquo;m in no way hating the iPhone or anything. It has great raw power and a good UI. I&rsquo;m just stating the facts as I know them from actually being in the market, and keeping up to date, because I need that to make a living. Prejudice is just stupid, and am happy to be corrected.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>So I really see no point in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner\_platform\_effect" title="wikipedia.org">yet another layer of inner-platform failure</a> [wikipedia.org], to use JavaScript, when you already have fast Java with accelerated OpenGL, EAX-like audio support, and tons of functions. (Be aware that as much of it is accelerated, Java on mobile phones is vastly faster per raw CPU power, than on desktop VMs.)</p><p>If they can offer me all those hardware-accelerated APIs, an ability to check if the phone supports them, a fast JavaScript compiler, <em>and</em> 96\% of all phones of the world having it pre-installed, I might consider writing for their platform.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two things , my friend : 1 .
Java is THE dominant platform if you want to program anything that works on pretty much all mobile phones on the planet .
Apart from the iPhone , and some Windows Mobile phones , I don    t think there is a phone that can    t do Java.2 .
In the real world , not many people care about the App Store or the iPhone .
It has only 3-4 \ % percent of the global market share , and technologically already was surpassed when it came to the market in Japan , was a novelty for about a month in most of Europe , and only in the USA has gained more than 10 \ % for obvious reasons .
Which means , others are still hugely dominant .
So much in fact , that I don    t even think it    s worth targeting the iPhone platform .
( I    m sorry , but if you now think I    m trolling , that    s the reality distortion bubble , created by the hype .
I    m in no way hating the iPhone or anything .
It has great raw power and a good UI .
I    m just stating the facts as I know them from actually being in the market , and keeping up to date , because I need that to make a living .
Prejudice is just stupid , and am happy to be corrected .
: ) So I really see no point in yet another layer of inner-platform failure [ wikipedia.org ] , to use JavaScript , when you already have fast Java with accelerated OpenGL , EAX-like audio support , and tons of functions .
( Be aware that as much of it is accelerated , Java on mobile phones is vastly faster per raw CPU power , than on desktop VMs .
) If they can offer me all those hardware-accelerated APIs , an ability to check if the phone supports them , a fast JavaScript compiler , and 96 \ % of all phones of the world having it pre-installed , I might consider writing for their platform .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two things, my friend:1.
Java is THE dominant platform if you want to program anything that works on pretty much all mobile phones on the planet.
Apart from the iPhone, and some Windows Mobile phones, I don’t think there is a phone that can’t do Java.2.
In the real world, not many people care about the App Store or the iPhone.
It has only 3-4\% percent of the global market share, and technologically already was surpassed when it came to the market in Japan, was a novelty for about a month in most of Europe, and only in the USA has gained more than 10\% for obvious reasons.
Which means, others are still hugely dominant.
So much in fact, that I don’t even think it’s worth targeting the iPhone platform.
(I’m sorry, but if you now think I’m trolling, that’s the reality distortion bubble, created by the hype.
I’m in no way hating the iPhone or anything.
It has great raw power and a good UI.
I’m just stating the facts as I know them from actually being in the market, and keeping up to date, because I need that to make a living.
Prejudice is just stupid, and am happy to be corrected.
:)So I really see no point in yet another layer of inner-platform failure [wikipedia.org], to use JavaScript, when you already have fast Java with accelerated OpenGL, EAX-like audio support, and tons of functions.
(Be aware that as much of it is accelerated, Java on mobile phones is vastly faster per raw CPU power, than on desktop VMs.
)If they can offer me all those hardware-accelerated APIs, an ability to check if the phone supports them, a fast JavaScript compiler, and 96\% of all phones of the world having it pre-installed, I might consider writing for their platform.
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481020</id>
	<title>Nope.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261052700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not until mobile OSes allow for direct hardware access from the browser. Palm's Web OS does, but I can't imagine Apple allowing Fennec to access the accelerometer or camera, say. Particularly if it begins to cannibalize their App Store profits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not until mobile OSes allow for direct hardware access from the browser .
Palm 's Web OS does , but I ca n't imagine Apple allowing Fennec to access the accelerometer or camera , say .
Particularly if it begins to cannibalize their App Store profits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not until mobile OSes allow for direct hardware access from the browser.
Palm's Web OS does, but I can't imagine Apple allowing Fennec to access the accelerometer or camera, say.
Particularly if it begins to cannibalize their App Store profits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482162</id>
	<title>Re:Deja Vu</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261059240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the PHB-tard from Mozilla forgot was the initial way of developing apps for the iPhone <i>was</i> in Safari via HTML, CSS and Javascript. Since day one Safari on the iPhone supported sending multi-touch info to Javascript code and many, many other <i>Apple originated</i> extensions to Webkit and proposed HTML and CSS standards (which Mozilla will have to add to Firefox if they haven't already). The iPhone app market exploded when a native SDK became available. Comparing developing apps in Javascript to native SDKs, on any platform, is like comparing skateboards to cars - yeah, both are transportation, with one being a toy and the other the real thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the PHB-tard from Mozilla forgot was the initial way of developing apps for the iPhone was in Safari via HTML , CSS and Javascript .
Since day one Safari on the iPhone supported sending multi-touch info to Javascript code and many , many other Apple originated extensions to Webkit and proposed HTML and CSS standards ( which Mozilla will have to add to Firefox if they have n't already ) .
The iPhone app market exploded when a native SDK became available .
Comparing developing apps in Javascript to native SDKs , on any platform , is like comparing skateboards to cars - yeah , both are transportation , with one being a toy and the other the real thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the PHB-tard from Mozilla forgot was the initial way of developing apps for the iPhone was in Safari via HTML, CSS and Javascript.
Since day one Safari on the iPhone supported sending multi-touch info to Javascript code and many, many other Apple originated extensions to Webkit and proposed HTML and CSS standards (which Mozilla will have to add to Firefox if they haven't already).
The iPhone app market exploded when a native SDK became available.
Comparing developing apps in Javascript to native SDKs, on any platform, is like comparing skateboards to cars - yeah, both are transportation, with one being a toy and the other the real thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30490084</id>
	<title>Re:Um...how do you figure?</title>
	<author>StuartHankins</author>
	<datestamp>1261162680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's now an iPhone app, weighing in at over 500MB, if I recall correctly. Do you really think that's going to be a viable app to distribute as a web app?</p></div><p>Especially since when trying to download apps I sometimes run into the "file over 10MB" limit and they refuse to install over the phone network. You must enable wifi or download them from a computer to install.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's now an iPhone app , weighing in at over 500MB , if I recall correctly .
Do you really think that 's going to be a viable app to distribute as a web app ? Especially since when trying to download apps I sometimes run into the " file over 10MB " limit and they refuse to install over the phone network .
You must enable wifi or download them from a computer to install .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's now an iPhone app, weighing in at over 500MB, if I recall correctly.
Do you really think that's going to be a viable app to distribute as a web app?Especially since when trying to download apps I sometimes run into the "file over 10MB" limit and they refuse to install over the phone network.
You must enable wifi or download them from a computer to install.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30495476</id>
	<title>It did work for Java - on phones</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1261145220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, it did work on Java - 2 billion Java phones that are all compatible. Just because Slashdot decides to focus on a phone with just a few percent market share, that decided to drop Java support instead taking us back to the dark old days when every platform needed its own version, doesn't change the reality of what every other phone on the market can do. Who cares if Apple roll over or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it did work on Java - 2 billion Java phones that are all compatible .
Just because Slashdot decides to focus on a phone with just a few percent market share , that decided to drop Java support instead taking us back to the dark old days when every platform needed its own version , does n't change the reality of what every other phone on the market can do .
Who cares if Apple roll over or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it did work on Java - 2 billion Java phones that are all compatible.
Just because Slashdot decides to focus on a phone with just a few percent market share, that decided to drop Java support instead taking us back to the dark old days when every platform needed its own version, doesn't change the reality of what every other phone on the market can do.
Who cares if Apple roll over or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30480994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30493842</id>
	<title>Re:web-app-web</title>
	<author>Swift2001</author>
	<datestamp>1261134000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You want to trust your phone's security to javascript? Are you nuts, Firefox? How many security updates has Firefox released for the javascript component?</p><p>And that's just for starters.</p><p>I was angry at Apple for one thing: no Google Voice. I've since gotten Google Voice in my browser, and you know what? I don't care for it that much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You want to trust your phone 's security to javascript ?
Are you nuts , Firefox ?
How many security updates has Firefox released for the javascript component ? And that 's just for starters.I was angry at Apple for one thing : no Google Voice .
I 've since gotten Google Voice in my browser , and you know what ?
I do n't care for it that much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want to trust your phone's security to javascript?
Are you nuts, Firefox?
How many security updates has Firefox released for the javascript component?And that's just for starters.I was angry at Apple for one thing: no Google Voice.
I've since gotten Google Voice in my browser, and you know what?
I don't care for it that much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30480988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30486794</id>
	<title>Re:Always...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261149720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Re: #2....even if it were old, past performance is not indicative of future results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Re : # 2....even if it were old , past performance is not indicative of future results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Re: #2....even if it were old, past performance is not indicative of future results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481264</id>
	<title>Re:Nope.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261054080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can already write webpages that can access Apple hardware (at least the GPS) from javascript.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can already write webpages that can access Apple hardware ( at least the GPS ) from javascript .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can already write webpages that can access Apple hardware (at least the GPS) from javascript.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30496110</id>
	<title>ORLY?</title>
	<author>bahamat</author>
	<datestamp>1261151520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Strong words from somebody who makes a browser that can't pass Acid3.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Strong words from somebody who makes a browser that ca n't pass Acid3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Strong words from somebody who makes a browser that can't pass Acid3.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30484264</id>
	<title>Re:Um...how do you figure?</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1261166520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most importantly, it isn't the first time when mobile Gecko is supposed to forever change mobile browsing experience. Unfortunately Mozilla seems to think that hardware improvements will nullify their inability to fit Gecko into phones...meanwhile Webkit and Opera, among others, are doing it successfully for quite some time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most importantly , it is n't the first time when mobile Gecko is supposed to forever change mobile browsing experience .
Unfortunately Mozilla seems to think that hardware improvements will nullify their inability to fit Gecko into phones...meanwhile Webkit and Opera , among others , are doing it successfully for quite some time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most importantly, it isn't the first time when mobile Gecko is supposed to forever change mobile browsing experience.
Unfortunately Mozilla seems to think that hardware improvements will nullify their inability to fit Gecko into phones...meanwhile Webkit and Opera, among others, are doing it successfully for quite some time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30501776</id>
	<title>Been there, done that</title>
	<author>dn15</author>
	<datestamp>1261235700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are already plenty of web-based apps that will run fine on any mobile device that uses a WebKit-based browser &ndash;meaning iPhone, iPod touch, Android, Palm's WebOS, and more. Examples range from a Twitter client called Hahlo, to Google Reader. This is nothing new and nothing exciting.</p><p>I like Mozilla and their products, but web apps on mobile are the same old story as web apps on the desktop. Native apps will always be better, and any advantages that web apps may have had are easily compensated by making your native app able to sync its data to online services.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are already plenty of web-based apps that will run fine on any mobile device that uses a WebKit-based browser    meaning iPhone , iPod touch , Android , Palm 's WebOS , and more .
Examples range from a Twitter client called Hahlo , to Google Reader .
This is nothing new and nothing exciting.I like Mozilla and their products , but web apps on mobile are the same old story as web apps on the desktop .
Native apps will always be better , and any advantages that web apps may have had are easily compensated by making your native app able to sync its data to online services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are already plenty of web-based apps that will run fine on any mobile device that uses a WebKit-based browser –meaning iPhone, iPod touch, Android, Palm's WebOS, and more.
Examples range from a Twitter client called Hahlo, to Google Reader.
This is nothing new and nothing exciting.I like Mozilla and their products, but web apps on mobile are the same old story as web apps on the desktop.
Native apps will always be better, and any advantages that web apps may have had are easily compensated by making your native app able to sync its data to online services.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482634</id>
	<title>Re:Misses the point pretty badly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261062660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd say this comment misses the point of phone apps pretty terribly. At least the ones I use tend to rely almost entirely on the phone's hardware features. Not just accelerated graphics and GPS and camera, but tie-ins to the address book and calendar, etc.</p></div><p>Gee, is it that difficult to envision a locally installed javascript library that provides an API to the address book, calendar, etc?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say this comment misses the point of phone apps pretty terribly .
At least the ones I use tend to rely almost entirely on the phone 's hardware features .
Not just accelerated graphics and GPS and camera , but tie-ins to the address book and calendar , etc.Gee , is it that difficult to envision a locally installed javascript library that provides an API to the address book , calendar , etc ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say this comment misses the point of phone apps pretty terribly.
At least the ones I use tend to rely almost entirely on the phone's hardware features.
Not just accelerated graphics and GPS and camera, but tie-ins to the address book and calendar, etc.Gee, is it that difficult to envision a locally installed javascript library that provides an API to the address book, calendar, etc?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482148</id>
	<title>What a joke!</title>
	<author>tyrione</author>
	<datestamp>1261059120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, but having a structure that manages Movies, Videos, Audio, Apps seemlessly for Apple only Hardware will never be threatened by a non-Apple product that has no means to duplicate the AppStore via iTunes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but having a structure that manages Movies , Videos , Audio , Apps seemlessly for Apple only Hardware will never be threatened by a non-Apple product that has no means to duplicate the AppStore via iTunes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but having a structure that manages Movies, Videos, Audio, Apps seemlessly for Apple only Hardware will never be threatened by a non-Apple product that has no means to duplicate the AppStore via iTunes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30483114</id>
	<title>Delusional</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261066380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone seems to think what the phone needs is a good browser.  Inevitably the experience ends up worse than on the desktop, even if the code is shared with a desktop browser.  The devices are getting better, but it's not there.  I'm skeptical that it will ever be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone seems to think what the phone needs is a good browser .
Inevitably the experience ends up worse than on the desktop , even if the code is shared with a desktop browser .
The devices are getting better , but it 's not there .
I 'm skeptical that it will ever be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone seems to think what the phone needs is a good browser.
Inevitably the experience ends up worse than on the desktop, even if the code is shared with a desktop browser.
The devices are getting better, but it's not there.
I'm skeptical that it will ever be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30484890</id>
	<title>Re:Two things.</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1261132140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>2. In the real world, not many people care about the App Store or the iPhone.</p> </div><p>You couldn't be more mistaken.</p><p>When the iPhone came out, the likes of Nokia laughed about it. They're not laughing anymore. There's a reason every second smartphone that's launched with marketing hype is labeled "iPhone killer".</p><p>The iPhone is a success that has surprised even Apple. Try to find the last time that anyone came into the mobile phone market from nowhere and went to even half the market share, and still growing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 .
In the real world , not many people care about the App Store or the iPhone .
You could n't be more mistaken.When the iPhone came out , the likes of Nokia laughed about it .
They 're not laughing anymore .
There 's a reason every second smartphone that 's launched with marketing hype is labeled " iPhone killer " .The iPhone is a success that has surprised even Apple .
Try to find the last time that anyone came into the mobile phone market from nowhere and went to even half the market share , and still growing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2.
In the real world, not many people care about the App Store or the iPhone.
You couldn't be more mistaken.When the iPhone came out, the likes of Nokia laughed about it.
They're not laughing anymore.
There's a reason every second smartphone that's launched with marketing hype is labeled "iPhone killer".The iPhone is a success that has surprised even Apple.
Try to find the last time that anyone came into the mobile phone market from nowhere and went to even half the market share, and still growing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30486944</id>
	<title>From apple</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1261150440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"we didn't reject the new Firefox Mobile Browse app from running on iPhones and iPod touches... it's still 'under review'"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" we did n't reject the new Firefox Mobile Browse app from running on iPhones and iPod touches... it 's still 'under review ' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"we didn't reject the new Firefox Mobile Browse app from running on iPhones and iPod touches... it's still 'under review'"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30484102</id>
	<title>Re:Always...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261077780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet,<br>If this development results in just one less <i> <b> "there's an app for that"</b></i>  advert on TV, I will be most grateful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet,If this development results in just one less " there 's an app for that " advert on TV , I will be most grateful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet,If this development results in just one less   "there's an app for that"  advert on TV, I will be most grateful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30488542</id>
	<title>Re:Just like we never use desktop apps anymore...</title>
	<author>multipart/mixed</author>
	<datestamp>1261157220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And then there are people like me, who use almost nothing BUT web apps.</p><p>In fact, the only app I have run today, so far, that doesn't run in my browser is... my browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And then there are people like me , who use almost nothing BUT web apps.In fact , the only app I have run today , so far , that does n't run in my browser is... my browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then there are people like me, who use almost nothing BUT web apps.In fact, the only app I have run today, so far, that doesn't run in my browser is... my browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481668</id>
	<title>Re:Um...how do you figure?</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1261056480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Apple chooses to go that route, they're going to have to be extremely careful not to run afoul of the US' antitrust regulations dealing with this sort of vendor lockout. Especially if it harms the customers or damages competitors. Just because Apple was able to get away with this sort of crap under the previous DoJ doesn't make it a guarantee that there anti-competitive behaviors will be allowed into the future.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Apple chooses to go that route , they 're going to have to be extremely careful not to run afoul of the US ' antitrust regulations dealing with this sort of vendor lockout .
Especially if it harms the customers or damages competitors .
Just because Apple was able to get away with this sort of crap under the previous DoJ does n't make it a guarantee that there anti-competitive behaviors will be allowed into the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Apple chooses to go that route, they're going to have to be extremely careful not to run afoul of the US' antitrust regulations dealing with this sort of vendor lockout.
Especially if it harms the customers or damages competitors.
Just because Apple was able to get away with this sort of crap under the previous DoJ doesn't make it a guarantee that there anti-competitive behaviors will be allowed into the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482180</id>
	<title>Re:PLEASE not Javascript</title>
	<author>BenoitRen</author>
	<datestamp>1261059420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your post is yet more evidence of how misunderstood JavaScript as a language is. It's actually quite neat and versatile. No wonder the language's core (ECMAScript) has so many derivations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your post is yet more evidence of how misunderstood JavaScript as a language is .
It 's actually quite neat and versatile .
No wonder the language 's core ( ECMAScript ) has so many derivations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your post is yet more evidence of how misunderstood JavaScript as a language is.
It's actually quite neat and versatile.
No wonder the language's core (ECMAScript) has so many derivations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482434</id>
	<title>How about an actual browser?</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1261061220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Opera Mobile claimed to be the fastest browser of them all, but all the masses got was a fast browser that locked up almost ALL of the time and was bogged down by incredible resource usage. I've been hearing about Firefox Mobile for years now; I'll believe it when I see it.</p><p>Plus, Safari is one of Apple's core tools! Does anyone think Mozilla can finagle their browser into Apple's app store? That'd be awesome if they pulled it off, but I see it as being quite unlikely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera Mobile claimed to be the fastest browser of them all , but all the masses got was a fast browser that locked up almost ALL of the time and was bogged down by incredible resource usage .
I 've been hearing about Firefox Mobile for years now ; I 'll believe it when I see it.Plus , Safari is one of Apple 's core tools !
Does anyone think Mozilla can finagle their browser into Apple 's app store ?
That 'd be awesome if they pulled it off , but I see it as being quite unlikely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera Mobile claimed to be the fastest browser of them all, but all the masses got was a fast browser that locked up almost ALL of the time and was bogged down by incredible resource usage.
I've been hearing about Firefox Mobile for years now; I'll believe it when I see it.Plus, Safari is one of Apple's core tools!
Does anyone think Mozilla can finagle their browser into Apple's app store?
That'd be awesome if they pulled it off, but I see it as being quite unlikely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481472</id>
	<title>Fennec? Ahahhahaha</title>
	<author>dnaumov</author>
	<datestamp>1261055460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is joke of the year material. For those who don't know, the current versions of Fennec for the Nokia N900 basically crashes left and right on pretty much anything. Fennec isn't threating anything, anything soon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is joke of the year material .
For those who do n't know , the current versions of Fennec for the Nokia N900 basically crashes left and right on pretty much anything .
Fennec is n't threating anything , anything soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is joke of the year material.
For those who don't know, the current versions of Fennec for the Nokia N900 basically crashes left and right on pretty much anything.
Fennec isn't threating anything, anything soon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30483700</id>
	<title>Pardon me Mozilla I couldn't help but notice</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1261072260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that mobile devices don't always have Internet access. The user may run into a dead spot without 3G+ or WIFI connectivity. The Mozilla Firefox Mobile loads Javascript programs from "The Cloud" I would assume as to where the data is stored and the Firefox Mobile is the client.</p><p>In some places Internet access is forbidden, for example if I try to write a Docket Calendar application for Firefox Mobile and the lawyer takes it into a courtroom that blocks cellular signals and doesn't have Wifi, or he gets on a plane and has to have all electronic devices shut off or at least turn off networking so it wouldn't interfere with the equipment on the plane my Cloud based Docket Calendar app is useless to him as he couldn't connect and access my program and his data. If I wrote a native app with a native database he could download his Docket Calendar from his law firm servers and then go to court and access his data from the native database and while on the plane check his data with the networking feature switched off when he is told he can use electronic devices again. I've developed many web applications for lawyers and they work best on their Intranet, but on mobile devices and laptops it always has to have a native database on the hard drive or storage for when there is no Network access.</p><p>One more thing, you could have the Firefox developers develop a small Firefox Server app that runs on the Mobile device and serves up programs the user can download so that they work regardless of if they have a network signal or not and then caches the data when connected and syncs up with the main servers when it has network access again. It can mirror the main application site and download updates when connected and upload changes from when the mobile unit was offline. It would be cool if you did that as Netscape used to write web servers and the Mozilla Foundation should still have access to that code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that mobile devices do n't always have Internet access .
The user may run into a dead spot without 3G + or WIFI connectivity .
The Mozilla Firefox Mobile loads Javascript programs from " The Cloud " I would assume as to where the data is stored and the Firefox Mobile is the client.In some places Internet access is forbidden , for example if I try to write a Docket Calendar application for Firefox Mobile and the lawyer takes it into a courtroom that blocks cellular signals and does n't have Wifi , or he gets on a plane and has to have all electronic devices shut off or at least turn off networking so it would n't interfere with the equipment on the plane my Cloud based Docket Calendar app is useless to him as he could n't connect and access my program and his data .
If I wrote a native app with a native database he could download his Docket Calendar from his law firm servers and then go to court and access his data from the native database and while on the plane check his data with the networking feature switched off when he is told he can use electronic devices again .
I 've developed many web applications for lawyers and they work best on their Intranet , but on mobile devices and laptops it always has to have a native database on the hard drive or storage for when there is no Network access.One more thing , you could have the Firefox developers develop a small Firefox Server app that runs on the Mobile device and serves up programs the user can download so that they work regardless of if they have a network signal or not and then caches the data when connected and syncs up with the main servers when it has network access again .
It can mirror the main application site and download updates when connected and upload changes from when the mobile unit was offline .
It would be cool if you did that as Netscape used to write web servers and the Mozilla Foundation should still have access to that code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that mobile devices don't always have Internet access.
The user may run into a dead spot without 3G+ or WIFI connectivity.
The Mozilla Firefox Mobile loads Javascript programs from "The Cloud" I would assume as to where the data is stored and the Firefox Mobile is the client.In some places Internet access is forbidden, for example if I try to write a Docket Calendar application for Firefox Mobile and the lawyer takes it into a courtroom that blocks cellular signals and doesn't have Wifi, or he gets on a plane and has to have all electronic devices shut off or at least turn off networking so it wouldn't interfere with the equipment on the plane my Cloud based Docket Calendar app is useless to him as he couldn't connect and access my program and his data.
If I wrote a native app with a native database he could download his Docket Calendar from his law firm servers and then go to court and access his data from the native database and while on the plane check his data with the networking feature switched off when he is told he can use electronic devices again.
I've developed many web applications for lawyers and they work best on their Intranet, but on mobile devices and laptops it always has to have a native database on the hard drive or storage for when there is no Network access.One more thing, you could have the Firefox developers develop a small Firefox Server app that runs on the Mobile device and serves up programs the user can download so that they work regardless of if they have a network signal or not and then caches the data when connected and syncs up with the main servers when it has network access again.
It can mirror the main application site and download updates when connected and upload changes from when the mobile unit was offline.
It would be cool if you did that as Netscape used to write web servers and the Mozilla Foundation should still have access to that code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481028</id>
	<title>Hardware connectivity?</title>
	<author>aliquis</author>
	<datestamp>1261052760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhm, isn't the issue that your browser can't access your hardware? Guess sooner or later it will become 3D accelerated and maybe one can have the GPS submit coordinates to the page running the javascript or something. But shouldn't it still be somewhat limited?</p><p>How good does the iPhone work?</p><p>Don't "native non-webrelated apps" have any benefit longer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhm , is n't the issue that your browser ca n't access your hardware ?
Guess sooner or later it will become 3D accelerated and maybe one can have the GPS submit coordinates to the page running the javascript or something .
But should n't it still be somewhat limited ? How good does the iPhone work ? Do n't " native non-webrelated apps " have any benefit longer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhm, isn't the issue that your browser can't access your hardware?
Guess sooner or later it will become 3D accelerated and maybe one can have the GPS submit coordinates to the page running the javascript or something.
But shouldn't it still be somewhat limited?How good does the iPhone work?Don't "native non-webrelated apps" have any benefit longer?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482788</id>
	<title>Re:Seems Unlikely</title>
	<author>WiseWeasel</author>
	<datestamp>1261063680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Enter WebGL, recently released as a draft spec by Kronos Group, the people who maintain the OpenGL standard; that problem is close to being solved as well. The only remaining question is whether device vendors will provide web browsers running on their platforms access to OS and hardware APIs on par with the native SDKs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Enter WebGL , recently released as a draft spec by Kronos Group , the people who maintain the OpenGL standard ; that problem is close to being solved as well .
The only remaining question is whether device vendors will provide web browsers running on their platforms access to OS and hardware APIs on par with the native SDKs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enter WebGL, recently released as a draft spec by Kronos Group, the people who maintain the OpenGL standard; that problem is close to being solved as well.
The only remaining question is whether device vendors will provide web browsers running on their platforms access to OS and hardware APIs on par with the native SDKs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481878</id>
	<title>Yeah and</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261057440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if you own an iPhone you're just a faggot butt-pirate who likes getting reamed by the corporate scumbags at apple anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>if you own an iPhone you 're just a faggot butt-pirate who likes getting reamed by the corporate scumbags at apple anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you own an iPhone you're just a faggot butt-pirate who likes getting reamed by the corporate scumbags at apple anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481392</id>
	<title>Beta is terrible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261054980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The current beta is far worse than the native Maemo browser (itself based on Firefox):

- No inertial scrolling.
- One window per instance, no tabs. This is a deal killer. I don't necessarily need tabs, but opening a separate instance for each page I want to view simultaneously is unacceptable.
- Extremely slow to start and load pages.
- Package is not "optified" - it installs to the device root instead of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/opt, taking 20MB out of 256 available in the root.
- Currently there are only three add-ons not marked "experimental" and even in experimental there's no AdBlock Plus (at least, that I can find).

Hopefully, these problems will be fixed, but for now, I'm staying with the native Maemo browser.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The current beta is far worse than the native Maemo browser ( itself based on Firefox ) : - No inertial scrolling .
- One window per instance , no tabs .
This is a deal killer .
I do n't necessarily need tabs , but opening a separate instance for each page I want to view simultaneously is unacceptable .
- Extremely slow to start and load pages .
- Package is not " optified " - it installs to the device root instead of /opt , taking 20MB out of 256 available in the root .
- Currently there are only three add-ons not marked " experimental " and even in experimental there 's no AdBlock Plus ( at least , that I can find ) .
Hopefully , these problems will be fixed , but for now , I 'm staying with the native Maemo browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The current beta is far worse than the native Maemo browser (itself based on Firefox):

- No inertial scrolling.
- One window per instance, no tabs.
This is a deal killer.
I don't necessarily need tabs, but opening a separate instance for each page I want to view simultaneously is unacceptable.
- Extremely slow to start and load pages.
- Package is not "optified" - it installs to the device root instead of /opt, taking 20MB out of 256 available in the root.
- Currently there are only three add-ons not marked "experimental" and even in experimental there's no AdBlock Plus (at least, that I can find).
Hopefully, these problems will be fixed, but for now, I'm staying with the native Maemo browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481438</id>
	<title>Amazingly Accurate</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1261055280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I expect slapchop articles to be stupid, wrong, and shitty.  I expect to be able to bitch and moan about them.  It's why I come here.</p><p>But this article has that distinctive truthiness to it that flies in the face of what the masses love.</p><p>99\% of the applications on the various mass-market marketplaces (Apple's, Google's, and Microsoft's) are pointless crap that would be better served up via a standard web page.</p><p>Of course, the browsers on those phones are crap, and no one bothers to get Opera Mobile even though it blows the shit out of your phone's standard browser (especially if your phone supports the non java version).</p><p>The bottom line is that this is a good thing.<br>I see far too much time, money, and energy wasted on "apps" (both by developers and by users) when a competent mobile web page would be a much better choice for the consumer.</p><p>But of course, if you can mask your web page as an "app" and SELL it on a virtual store that advertises for you, well shit yes the developers are going to focus on "apps" and ignore their mobile sites.</p><p>I seriously hope Firefox runs well on all the major mobile platforms (Windows Mobile 6.5 and up, iPhone OS, Droid, and the other one that a I always forget the name of, no not Blackberry).  I'd love to have a competent browser SUCCEED in the mobile space.  We already have Opera, but as I stated before, no one uses it.  People will use Firefox.</p><p>(If you want to complain about my use of "truthiness", I'll just tell you it's as cromulent a word as "distinctive".)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I expect slapchop articles to be stupid , wrong , and shitty .
I expect to be able to bitch and moan about them .
It 's why I come here.But this article has that distinctive truthiness to it that flies in the face of what the masses love.99 \ % of the applications on the various mass-market marketplaces ( Apple 's , Google 's , and Microsoft 's ) are pointless crap that would be better served up via a standard web page.Of course , the browsers on those phones are crap , and no one bothers to get Opera Mobile even though it blows the shit out of your phone 's standard browser ( especially if your phone supports the non java version ) .The bottom line is that this is a good thing.I see far too much time , money , and energy wasted on " apps " ( both by developers and by users ) when a competent mobile web page would be a much better choice for the consumer.But of course , if you can mask your web page as an " app " and SELL it on a virtual store that advertises for you , well shit yes the developers are going to focus on " apps " and ignore their mobile sites.I seriously hope Firefox runs well on all the major mobile platforms ( Windows Mobile 6.5 and up , iPhone OS , Droid , and the other one that a I always forget the name of , no not Blackberry ) .
I 'd love to have a competent browser SUCCEED in the mobile space .
We already have Opera , but as I stated before , no one uses it .
People will use Firefox .
( If you want to complain about my use of " truthiness " , I 'll just tell you it 's as cromulent a word as " distinctive " .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I expect slapchop articles to be stupid, wrong, and shitty.
I expect to be able to bitch and moan about them.
It's why I come here.But this article has that distinctive truthiness to it that flies in the face of what the masses love.99\% of the applications on the various mass-market marketplaces (Apple's, Google's, and Microsoft's) are pointless crap that would be better served up via a standard web page.Of course, the browsers on those phones are crap, and no one bothers to get Opera Mobile even though it blows the shit out of your phone's standard browser (especially if your phone supports the non java version).The bottom line is that this is a good thing.I see far too much time, money, and energy wasted on "apps" (both by developers and by users) when a competent mobile web page would be a much better choice for the consumer.But of course, if you can mask your web page as an "app" and SELL it on a virtual store that advertises for you, well shit yes the developers are going to focus on "apps" and ignore their mobile sites.I seriously hope Firefox runs well on all the major mobile platforms (Windows Mobile 6.5 and up, iPhone OS, Droid, and the other one that a I always forget the name of, no not Blackberry).
I'd love to have a competent browser SUCCEED in the mobile space.
We already have Opera, but as I stated before, no one uses it.
People will use Firefox.
(If you want to complain about my use of "truthiness", I'll just tell you it's as cromulent a word as "distinctive".
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481054</id>
	<title>Um...how do you figure?</title>
	<author>danaris</author>
	<datestamp>1261052880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, you can be 100\% certain that unless Mozilla's made some kind of specific arrangement with Apple, this will not be allowed on the App Store.  It's plainly and obviously against the SDK terms.</p><p>Second...how many times have people complained that web apps are totally inadequate substitutes for native apps, for many types of application?  I mean, sure, you can make an RSS reader, or a Twitter client, but what about (for instance) Myst?  That's now an iPhone app, weighing in at over 500MB, if I recall correctly.  Do you really think that's going to be a viable app to distribute as a web app?</p><p>Third, unless you're going to have some sort of subscription thingy worked out, how are you going to make money on web apps without intrusive ads?  Again, consider Myst.  No one is going to accept ads suddenly popping up when they try to link from Myst Island to Channelwood.  And I doubt that people will want to pay a monthly fee to access a single-player game, either.</p><p>Fourth, if you're writing a plain web app, however fancily mobile-enhanced, how are you going to make use of the cool features of different phones?  The iPhone has a camera, accelerometers, GPS, and multitouch.  I admit I'm not terribly well-versed in the features of other smartphones, but a) do they all have these? b) can you access them from web apps? and c) can you access them all <b>in the same way</b> from web apps?</p><p>I'm betting the answers to these are all, to greater or lesser extent, "no."</p><p>Mozilla can dream about "killing the App Store."  But if it ever happens, it's not going to be Firefox Mobile that does it.</p><p>Dan Aris</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , you can be 100 \ % certain that unless Mozilla 's made some kind of specific arrangement with Apple , this will not be allowed on the App Store .
It 's plainly and obviously against the SDK terms.Second...how many times have people complained that web apps are totally inadequate substitutes for native apps , for many types of application ?
I mean , sure , you can make an RSS reader , or a Twitter client , but what about ( for instance ) Myst ?
That 's now an iPhone app , weighing in at over 500MB , if I recall correctly .
Do you really think that 's going to be a viable app to distribute as a web app ? Third , unless you 're going to have some sort of subscription thingy worked out , how are you going to make money on web apps without intrusive ads ?
Again , consider Myst .
No one is going to accept ads suddenly popping up when they try to link from Myst Island to Channelwood .
And I doubt that people will want to pay a monthly fee to access a single-player game , either.Fourth , if you 're writing a plain web app , however fancily mobile-enhanced , how are you going to make use of the cool features of different phones ?
The iPhone has a camera , accelerometers , GPS , and multitouch .
I admit I 'm not terribly well-versed in the features of other smartphones , but a ) do they all have these ?
b ) can you access them from web apps ?
and c ) can you access them all in the same way from web apps ? I 'm betting the answers to these are all , to greater or lesser extent , " no .
" Mozilla can dream about " killing the App Store .
" But if it ever happens , it 's not going to be Firefox Mobile that does it.Dan Aris</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, you can be 100\% certain that unless Mozilla's made some kind of specific arrangement with Apple, this will not be allowed on the App Store.
It's plainly and obviously against the SDK terms.Second...how many times have people complained that web apps are totally inadequate substitutes for native apps, for many types of application?
I mean, sure, you can make an RSS reader, or a Twitter client, but what about (for instance) Myst?
That's now an iPhone app, weighing in at over 500MB, if I recall correctly.
Do you really think that's going to be a viable app to distribute as a web app?Third, unless you're going to have some sort of subscription thingy worked out, how are you going to make money on web apps without intrusive ads?
Again, consider Myst.
No one is going to accept ads suddenly popping up when they try to link from Myst Island to Channelwood.
And I doubt that people will want to pay a monthly fee to access a single-player game, either.Fourth, if you're writing a plain web app, however fancily mobile-enhanced, how are you going to make use of the cool features of different phones?
The iPhone has a camera, accelerometers, GPS, and multitouch.
I admit I'm not terribly well-versed in the features of other smartphones, but a) do they all have these?
b) can you access them from web apps?
and c) can you access them all in the same way from web apps?I'm betting the answers to these are all, to greater or lesser extent, "no.
"Mozilla can dream about "killing the App Store.
"  But if it ever happens, it's not going to be Firefox Mobile that does it.Dan Aris</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30491846</id>
	<title>Re:Amazingly Accurate</title>
	<author>Cederic</author>
	<datestamp>1261169040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>no one bothers to get Opera Mobile even though it blows the shit out of your phone's standard browser</p></div><p>Wtf? I had Opera Mobile on my phone, bought an Android phone and the browser that came with that was significantly better.</p><p>I now have a Nokia n900 and all three of the browsers are better than Opera Mobile. FFS I'm running full scale web pages (with embedded flash and all that shite) and they're working fine and with no ads because I have adblock installed.</p><p>What I'm not sure is whether the Mozilla browser I'm using is Firefox Mobile or whether I need to download that too...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>no one bothers to get Opera Mobile even though it blows the shit out of your phone 's standard browserWtf ?
I had Opera Mobile on my phone , bought an Android phone and the browser that came with that was significantly better.I now have a Nokia n900 and all three of the browsers are better than Opera Mobile .
FFS I 'm running full scale web pages ( with embedded flash and all that shite ) and they 're working fine and with no ads because I have adblock installed.What I 'm not sure is whether the Mozilla browser I 'm using is Firefox Mobile or whether I need to download that too.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no one bothers to get Opera Mobile even though it blows the shit out of your phone's standard browserWtf?
I had Opera Mobile on my phone, bought an Android phone and the browser that came with that was significantly better.I now have a Nokia n900 and all three of the browsers are better than Opera Mobile.
FFS I'm running full scale web pages (with embedded flash and all that shite) and they're working fine and with no ads because I have adblock installed.What I'm not sure is whether the Mozilla browser I'm using is Firefox Mobile or whether I need to download that too...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481194</id>
	<title>Always...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261053600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a little shortsighted to use "always" to describe the web's winning streak for two reasons:</p><p>1) The web has not always won. Despite Google's Office suite, Microsoft continues to dominate the office space and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. So at least in one market, thick clients have continued to win out over thin clients.</p><p>2) The web is just not that old. Claiming that the web will win because it has always won is a weak appeal to tradition made especially weak by the fact that the web is realistically 13-15 years old.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a little shortsighted to use " always " to describe the web 's winning streak for two reasons : 1 ) The web has not always won .
Despite Google 's Office suite , Microsoft continues to dominate the office space and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future .
So at least in one market , thick clients have continued to win out over thin clients.2 ) The web is just not that old .
Claiming that the web will win because it has always won is a weak appeal to tradition made especially weak by the fact that the web is realistically 13-15 years old .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a little shortsighted to use "always" to describe the web's winning streak for two reasons:1) The web has not always won.
Despite Google's Office suite, Microsoft continues to dominate the office space and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
So at least in one market, thick clients have continued to win out over thin clients.2) The web is just not that old.
Claiming that the web will win because it has always won is a weak appeal to tradition made especially weak by the fact that the web is realistically 13-15 years old.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30487922</id>
	<title>Re:Seems Unlikely</title>
	<author>ivucica</author>
	<datestamp>1261154640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which is why O3D is being developed and proposed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is why O3D is being developed and proposed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is why O3D is being developed and proposed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481170</id>
	<title>Is it just me?</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1261053480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... who thinks FF is lacking quality control recently? I have 3.5.2, but it crashes way too often and feels slower. Javascript also stutters. It pauses now and again, as if it were trying to catch up to something. It could be blazing fast between pauses, but if its freezing, it ain't blazing.</p><p>You can tout your own horn all you want, but show me the evidence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... who thinks FF is lacking quality control recently ?
I have 3.5.2 , but it crashes way too often and feels slower .
Javascript also stutters .
It pauses now and again , as if it were trying to catch up to something .
It could be blazing fast between pauses , but if its freezing , it ai n't blazing.You can tout your own horn all you want , but show me the evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... who thinks FF is lacking quality control recently?
I have 3.5.2, but it crashes way too often and feels slower.
Javascript also stutters.
It pauses now and again, as if it were trying to catch up to something.
It could be blazing fast between pauses, but if its freezing, it ain't blazing.You can tout your own horn all you want, but show me the evidence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482898</id>
	<title>Re:Um...how do you figure?</title>
	<author>danaris</author>
	<datestamp>1261064520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1: You're missing the point. The point is that developers will move to browser independent webapps rather than writing an iPhone+blackberry app+htc touch app, etc.</p></div><p>You think they're going to do this now, just because Firefox Mobile has come out?  When people railed ceaselessly against Apple for even <b>suggesting</b> that this was a good way to do iPhone apps?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2: Web browsers are not appropriate for everything, but they're becoming increasingly faster, and increasingly more appropriate for more intense tasks.</p></div><p>And yet, there's still a marked lack of (say) FPSes and RTSes written for web browsers.  Why do you suppose that might be?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>3: There's already lots of subscription websites - Mozilla need not do anything to support this - people can do this on their own.</p></div><p>I wasn't suggesting that Mozilla would have to do anything: I was pointing out that it was something the developers would have to do.  And something the users would have to do.  And something that is very different from what people expect when going to play a single-player game.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>4: The browser already has access to <b>everything you listed</b>: camera, accelerometers, GPS, and multitouch. And yes, the hardware is abstracted away by the platform and made available through a standard API.</p></div><p>Well, that's good that they're available.  But are you really certain that <b>every single smartphone manufacturer</b> makes them available through the <b>same</b> standard API?</p><p>And even if so, it doesn't account for the phones that don't have one or more of them.</p><p>Dan Aris</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 : You 're missing the point .
The point is that developers will move to browser independent webapps rather than writing an iPhone + blackberry app + htc touch app , etc.You think they 're going to do this now , just because Firefox Mobile has come out ?
When people railed ceaselessly against Apple for even suggesting that this was a good way to do iPhone apps ? 2 : Web browsers are not appropriate for everything , but they 're becoming increasingly faster , and increasingly more appropriate for more intense tasks.And yet , there 's still a marked lack of ( say ) FPSes and RTSes written for web browsers .
Why do you suppose that might be ? 3 : There 's already lots of subscription websites - Mozilla need not do anything to support this - people can do this on their own.I was n't suggesting that Mozilla would have to do anything : I was pointing out that it was something the developers would have to do .
And something the users would have to do .
And something that is very different from what people expect when going to play a single-player game.4 : The browser already has access to everything you listed : camera , accelerometers , GPS , and multitouch .
And yes , the hardware is abstracted away by the platform and made available through a standard API.Well , that 's good that they 're available .
But are you really certain that every single smartphone manufacturer makes them available through the same standard API ? And even if so , it does n't account for the phones that do n't have one or more of them.Dan Aris</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1: You're missing the point.
The point is that developers will move to browser independent webapps rather than writing an iPhone+blackberry app+htc touch app, etc.You think they're going to do this now, just because Firefox Mobile has come out?
When people railed ceaselessly against Apple for even suggesting that this was a good way to do iPhone apps?2: Web browsers are not appropriate for everything, but they're becoming increasingly faster, and increasingly more appropriate for more intense tasks.And yet, there's still a marked lack of (say) FPSes and RTSes written for web browsers.
Why do you suppose that might be?3: There's already lots of subscription websites - Mozilla need not do anything to support this - people can do this on their own.I wasn't suggesting that Mozilla would have to do anything: I was pointing out that it was something the developers would have to do.
And something the users would have to do.
And something that is very different from what people expect when going to play a single-player game.4: The browser already has access to everything you listed: camera, accelerometers, GPS, and multitouch.
And yes, the hardware is abstracted away by the platform and made available through a standard API.Well, that's good that they're available.
But are you really certain that every single smartphone manufacturer makes them available through the same standard API?And even if so, it doesn't account for the phones that don't have one or more of them.Dan Aris
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481508</id>
	<title>Just like we never use desktop apps anymore...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261055700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, that's why the vast majority of apps we all use on a daily basis on our computers are web apps. Or not. In fact, for me, there's not a single web app I use on a daily basis...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , that 's why the vast majority of apps we all use on a daily basis on our computers are web apps .
Or not .
In fact , for me , there 's not a single web app I use on a daily basis.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, that's why the vast majority of apps we all use on a daily basis on our computers are web apps.
Or not.
In fact, for me, there's not a single web app I use on a daily basis...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30483018</id>
	<title>Phone Gap Allows some of these things</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261065540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://phonegap.com/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //phonegap.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://phonegap.com/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30483672</id>
	<title>Re:Always...</title>
	<author>gbutler69</author>
	<datestamp>1261071960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft Office is MUCH less important then most people tend to believe. In almost every company I've worked, although every single desktop had MS Office, only about 2 to 3\% of people actually used Office in any meaningful way that leveraged features unique to it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft Office is MUCH less important then most people tend to believe .
In almost every company I 've worked , although every single desktop had MS Office , only about 2 to 3 \ % of people actually used Office in any meaningful way that leveraged features unique to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft Office is MUCH less important then most people tend to believe.
In almost every company I've worked, although every single desktop had MS Office, only about 2 to 3\% of people actually used Office in any meaningful way that leveraged features unique to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482192</id>
	<title>Re:Hardware connectivity?</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1261059420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Guess sooner or later it will become 3D accelerated</p><p>Being actively worked on.</p><p>&gt; maybe one can have the GPS submit coordinates to the page running the javascript</p><p>Possible in Firefox 3.5 and later.</p><p>&gt; But shouldn't it still be somewhat limited?</p><p>Depends on your phone, obviously.  The browser will have to sandbox apps coming from the untrusted web, of course, but a lot of apps don't need much in the way of trust...</p><p>&gt; Don't "native non-webrelated apps" have any benefit longer?</p><p>I think they do, sure.  For one thing, you own the data.  This is a problem that still needs to be solved for web apps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Guess sooner or later it will become 3D acceleratedBeing actively worked on. &gt; maybe one can have the GPS submit coordinates to the page running the javascriptPossible in Firefox 3.5 and later. &gt; But should n't it still be somewhat limited ? Depends on your phone , obviously .
The browser will have to sandbox apps coming from the untrusted web , of course , but a lot of apps do n't need much in the way of trust... &gt; Do n't " native non-webrelated apps " have any benefit longer ? I think they do , sure .
For one thing , you own the data .
This is a problem that still needs to be solved for web apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Guess sooner or later it will become 3D acceleratedBeing actively worked on.&gt; maybe one can have the GPS submit coordinates to the page running the javascriptPossible in Firefox 3.5 and later.&gt; But shouldn't it still be somewhat limited?Depends on your phone, obviously.
The browser will have to sandbox apps coming from the untrusted web, of course, but a lot of apps don't need much in the way of trust...&gt; Don't "native non-webrelated apps" have any benefit longer?I think they do, sure.
For one thing, you own the data.
This is a problem that still needs to be solved for web apps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481224</id>
	<title>Javascript?</title>
	<author>wisnoskij</author>
	<datestamp>1261053840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>JavaScript is not a good substitute for an actual programming language.</htmltext>
<tokenext>JavaScript is not a good substitute for an actual programming language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>JavaScript is not a good substitute for an actual programming language.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481160</id>
	<title>no web browsers on iphone</title>
	<author>street struttin'</author>
	<datestamp>1261053360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i thought web browsers weren't allowed on the iphone, or opera would have done it. So no firefox on iphone, either...</htmltext>
<tokenext>i thought web browsers were n't allowed on the iphone , or opera would have done it .
So no firefox on iphone , either.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i thought web browsers weren't allowed on the iphone, or opera would have done it.
So no firefox on iphone, either...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30484366</id>
	<title>Mozilla lies!</title>
	<author>A12m0v</author>
	<datestamp>1261167900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox Mobile wont have the fastest Javascript engine, and when developing for web why would I want Firefox Mobile instead of Safari Mobile? WebKit implements more standards than Gecko, and is constantly faster in all benchmarks. Plus the iPhone already has <a href="http://www.apple.com/webapps/" title="apple.com" rel="nofollow">web apps.</a> [apple.com]<br>Firefox sucks, and Firefox Mobile wont be any better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox Mobile wont have the fastest Javascript engine , and when developing for web why would I want Firefox Mobile instead of Safari Mobile ?
WebKit implements more standards than Gecko , and is constantly faster in all benchmarks .
Plus the iPhone already has web apps .
[ apple.com ] Firefox sucks , and Firefox Mobile wont be any better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox Mobile wont have the fastest Javascript engine, and when developing for web why would I want Firefox Mobile instead of Safari Mobile?
WebKit implements more standards than Gecko, and is constantly faster in all benchmarks.
Plus the iPhone already has web apps.
[apple.com]Firefox sucks, and Firefox Mobile wont be any better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30480988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482850</id>
	<title>Re:Deja Vu</title>
	<author>Senor Wences</author>
	<datestamp>1261064160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly tverbeek:  I immediately thought of the iPhone webapps when I read about Mozilla's "threat."</p><p><a href="http://apple.com/webapps" title="apple.com" rel="nofollow">http://apple.com/webapps</a> [apple.com]</p><p>As Steve Jobs proposed with iPhone 1.0, developers were urged to push the capabilities of web technology to develop web applications for the iPhone. Today there are 4293 tuned web pages that take advantage of the technology the iPhone has to offer. For instance, the Most Recent under All Categories web app that loaded for me this evening was one that used the web browser and the GPS. Web apps can take advantage of the iPhone's hardware and software and not have to be run through the App Store.  I have always thought that the only failure of the iPhone was that nobody developed a richer Internet that took advantage of a mobile Internet device like the iPhone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly tverbeek : I immediately thought of the iPhone webapps when I read about Mozilla 's " threat .
" http : //apple.com/webapps [ apple.com ] As Steve Jobs proposed with iPhone 1.0 , developers were urged to push the capabilities of web technology to develop web applications for the iPhone .
Today there are 4293 tuned web pages that take advantage of the technology the iPhone has to offer .
For instance , the Most Recent under All Categories web app that loaded for me this evening was one that used the web browser and the GPS .
Web apps can take advantage of the iPhone 's hardware and software and not have to be run through the App Store .
I have always thought that the only failure of the iPhone was that nobody developed a richer Internet that took advantage of a mobile Internet device like the iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly tverbeek:  I immediately thought of the iPhone webapps when I read about Mozilla's "threat.
"http://apple.com/webapps [apple.com]As Steve Jobs proposed with iPhone 1.0, developers were urged to push the capabilities of web technology to develop web applications for the iPhone.
Today there are 4293 tuned web pages that take advantage of the technology the iPhone has to offer.
For instance, the Most Recent under All Categories web app that loaded for me this evening was one that used the web browser and the GPS.
Web apps can take advantage of the iPhone's hardware and software and not have to be run through the App Store.
I have always thought that the only failure of the iPhone was that nobody developed a richer Internet that took advantage of a mobile Internet device like the iPhone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481086</id>
	<title>Re:Boy this will be an interesting discussion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261053000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even better: watch the Firefox fans who spent 18 months whining about how Apple should allow "real apps" instead of just web apps now make a sharp about-face.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even better : watch the Firefox fans who spent 18 months whining about how Apple should allow " real apps " instead of just web apps now make a sharp about-face .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even better: watch the Firefox fans who spent 18 months whining about how Apple should allow "real apps" instead of just web apps now make a sharp about-face.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30484730</id>
	<title>Re:Seems Unlikely</title>
	<author>beelsebob</author>
	<datestamp>1261130340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean like WebGL?</p><p>Not that I think that games of that quality will be able to run in the browser *anyway*, but there is already a javascript standard for 3D canvasses, and using OpenGL ES.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like WebGL ? Not that I think that games of that quality will be able to run in the browser * anyway * , but there is already a javascript standard for 3D canvasses , and using OpenGL ES .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like WebGL?Not that I think that games of that quality will be able to run in the browser *anyway*, but there is already a javascript standard for 3D canvasses, and using OpenGL ES.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481026</id>
	<title>How I do get Firefox on my iPhone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261052700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does that run in Safari?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does that run in Safari ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does that run in Safari?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481008</id>
	<title>Or Apple just blocks firefox from the iphone...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261052640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or, Apple DELETES firefox from your iphone without your consent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , Apple DELETES firefox from your iphone without your consent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, Apple DELETES firefox from your iphone without your consent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482248</id>
	<title>Re:Um...how do you figure?</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1261059780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Third, unless you're going to have some sort of subscription thingy worked out, how are you going to make money on web apps without intrusive ads?</p></div><p>You solve this problem by having some sort of subscription thingy worked out. Or at least a one time payment. Piracy is impossible when you aren't distributing most of the program.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Third , unless you 're going to have some sort of subscription thingy worked out , how are you going to make money on web apps without intrusive ads ? You solve this problem by having some sort of subscription thingy worked out .
Or at least a one time payment .
Piracy is impossible when you are n't distributing most of the program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Third, unless you're going to have some sort of subscription thingy worked out, how are you going to make money on web apps without intrusive ads?You solve this problem by having some sort of subscription thingy worked out.
Or at least a one time payment.
Piracy is impossible when you aren't distributing most of the program.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30480996</id>
	<title>Javascript</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261052580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Javascript: Off</htmltext>
<tokenext>Javascript : Off</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Javascript: Off</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482202</id>
	<title>Bandwidth</title>
	<author>SparafucileMan</author>
	<datestamp>1261059480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And, if my app requires significant bandwidth would normally be used by the user, I now have to source it all myself for every user?</p><p>That sucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And , if my app requires significant bandwidth would normally be used by the user , I now have to source it all myself for every user ? That sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, if my app requires significant bandwidth would normally be used by the user, I now have to source it all myself for every user?That sucks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481076</id>
	<title>Deja Vu</title>
	<author>tverbeek</author>
	<datestamp>1261052940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds like Steve Jobs <i>before</i> he announced that the iPhone would be supporting native apps and not just web apps.  It already had a pretty fast, capable browser, and there were hardly any apps for it.  Within a week of shipping an SDK, there were hundreds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like Steve Jobs before he announced that the iPhone would be supporting native apps and not just web apps .
It already had a pretty fast , capable browser , and there were hardly any apps for it .
Within a week of shipping an SDK , there were hundreds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like Steve Jobs before he announced that the iPhone would be supporting native apps and not just web apps.
It already had a pretty fast, capable browser, and there were hardly any apps for it.
Within a week of shipping an SDK, there were hundreds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30483310</id>
	<title>Re:Seems Unlikely</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1261068240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, that's basically it. The bottleneck with gaming is really graphics, and if you've got optimized graphics routines, what's doing the higher-level processing is not as big of an issue as one might think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , that 's basically it .
The bottleneck with gaming is really graphics , and if you 've got optimized graphics routines , what 's doing the higher-level processing is not as big of an issue as one might think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, that's basically it.
The bottleneck with gaming is really graphics, and if you've got optimized graphics routines, what's doing the higher-level processing is not as big of an issue as one might think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30491458</id>
	<title>Re:Um...how do you figure?</title>
	<author>ichigo 2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1261167600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And even if so, it doesn't account for the phones that don't have one or more of them.</p></div></blockquote><p>This problem has always existed and isn't relevant. Either a software requires a piece of hardware or it doesn't, usually a user wouldn't even need a software that requires a certain kind of hardware unless they have the hardware in question.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And even if so , it does n't account for the phones that do n't have one or more of them.This problem has always existed and is n't relevant .
Either a software requires a piece of hardware or it does n't , usually a user would n't even need a software that requires a certain kind of hardware unless they have the hardware in question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And even if so, it doesn't account for the phones that don't have one or more of them.This problem has always existed and isn't relevant.
Either a software requires a piece of hardware or it doesn't, usually a user wouldn't even need a software that requires a certain kind of hardware unless they have the hardware in question.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481898</id>
	<title>PLEASE not Javascript</title>
	<author>dirkdodgers</author>
	<datestamp>1261057560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hear my plea, oh Mozilla developers. What must I do to appease your wrath?</p><p>Please don't build another application platform on Javascript. Just make Java a first class citizen in the damn browser and be done with it.</p><p>Heck, any proper language with a proper standard library will do. I'm not partial to Java. All I care is that it isn't Javascript. Javascript should have died in 1996.</p><p>Javascript helps no one. It is a shitty language with shitty tools that has spawned so much shitty code that it threatens to fold the universe in on itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hear my plea , oh Mozilla developers .
What must I do to appease your wrath ? Please do n't build another application platform on Javascript .
Just make Java a first class citizen in the damn browser and be done with it.Heck , any proper language with a proper standard library will do .
I 'm not partial to Java .
All I care is that it is n't Javascript .
Javascript should have died in 1996.Javascript helps no one .
It is a shitty language with shitty tools that has spawned so much shitty code that it threatens to fold the universe in on itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hear my plea, oh Mozilla developers.
What must I do to appease your wrath?Please don't build another application platform on Javascript.
Just make Java a first class citizen in the damn browser and be done with it.Heck, any proper language with a proper standard library will do.
I'm not partial to Java.
All I care is that it isn't Javascript.
Javascript should have died in 1996.Javascript helps no one.
It is a shitty language with shitty tools that has spawned so much shitty code that it threatens to fold the universe in on itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481052</id>
	<title>Seems Unlikely</title>
	<author>saisuman</author>
	<datestamp>1261052820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I saw my wife playing Assassin's Creed on the iPhone today. I can't imagine a game of that quality being remade in Javascript unless it comes with some funky O3D-like capabilities.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw my wife playing Assassin 's Creed on the iPhone today .
I ca n't imagine a game of that quality being remade in Javascript unless it comes with some funky O3D-like capabilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw my wife playing Assassin's Creed on the iPhone today.
I can't imagine a game of that quality being remade in Javascript unless it comes with some funky O3D-like capabilities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481466</id>
	<title>Re:Um...how do you figure?</title>
	<author>BHearsum</author>
	<datestamp>1261055400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1: You're missing the point. The point is that developers will move to browser independent webapps rather than writing an iPhone+blackberry app+htc touch app, etc.<br>2: Web browsers are not appropriate for everything, but they're becoming increasingly faster, and increasingly more appropriate for more intense tasks.<br>3: There's already lots of subscription websites - Mozilla need not do anything to support this - people can do this on their own.<br>4: The browser already has access to <b>everything you listed</b>: camera, accelerometers, GPS, and multitouch. And yes, the hardware is abstracted away by the platform and made available through a standard API.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 : You 're missing the point .
The point is that developers will move to browser independent webapps rather than writing an iPhone + blackberry app + htc touch app , etc.2 : Web browsers are not appropriate for everything , but they 're becoming increasingly faster , and increasingly more appropriate for more intense tasks.3 : There 's already lots of subscription websites - Mozilla need not do anything to support this - people can do this on their own.4 : The browser already has access to everything you listed : camera , accelerometers , GPS , and multitouch .
And yes , the hardware is abstracted away by the platform and made available through a standard API .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1: You're missing the point.
The point is that developers will move to browser independent webapps rather than writing an iPhone+blackberry app+htc touch app, etc.2: Web browsers are not appropriate for everything, but they're becoming increasingly faster, and increasingly more appropriate for more intense tasks.3: There's already lots of subscription websites - Mozilla need not do anything to support this - people can do this on their own.4: The browser already has access to everything you listed: camera, accelerometers, GPS, and multitouch.
And yes, the hardware is abstracted away by the platform and made available through a standard API.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481562</id>
	<title>I want Flash 10 support</title>
	<author>ksemlerK</author>
	<datestamp>1261055880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>integrated into Firefox Mobile.  It would allow for streaming media from sites such as Youtube, Hulu, and Tube8.</htmltext>
<tokenext>integrated into Firefox Mobile .
It would allow for streaming media from sites such as Youtube , Hulu , and Tube8 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>integrated into Firefox Mobile.
It would allow for streaming media from sites such as Youtube, Hulu, and Tube8.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30483746</id>
	<title>"More intense tasks"</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1261072860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
<i>Javascript
"increasingly more appropriate for more intense tasks."</i>
</p><p>
Yeah, right.  I'm getting really tired of web sites that use 100\% of the CPU while doing essentially nothing. It's bad enough on a desktop machine.  On a phone, that eats the battery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Javascript " increasingly more appropriate for more intense tasks .
" Yeah , right .
I 'm getting really tired of web sites that use 100 \ % of the CPU while doing essentially nothing .
It 's bad enough on a desktop machine .
On a phone , that eats the battery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Javascript
"increasingly more appropriate for more intense tasks.
"

Yeah, right.
I'm getting really tired of web sites that use 100\% of the CPU while doing essentially nothing.
It's bad enough on a desktop machine.
On a phone, that eats the battery.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30483296</id>
	<title>Re:Two things.</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1261068120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Java is THE dominant platform if you want to program anything that works on pretty much all mobile phones on the planet. Apart from the iPhone, and some Windows Mobile phones, I don&rsquo;t think there is a phone that can&rsquo;t do Java.</p></div><p>Come to think of it, what WinMo phones can't do J2ME? Yes, it's not in the base platform, but the platform is open, and the development is all native code, so writing (or porting) an efficient JVM shouldn't be a problem, and it could be installed on any WinMo phone.</p><p>In fact, a quick Google search finds a bunch of existing J2ME-on-WinMo implementations, some commercial and some free, including <a href="http://www-01.ibm.com/software/wireless/weme/" title="ibm.com">one</a> [ibm.com] made - of all companies - by IBM (?!).</p><p>So presumably any WinMo phone can run J2ME apps, once you install the runtime. Or am I missing something?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Java is THE dominant platform if you want to program anything that works on pretty much all mobile phones on the planet .
Apart from the iPhone , and some Windows Mobile phones , I don    t think there is a phone that can    t do Java.Come to think of it , what WinMo phones ca n't do J2ME ?
Yes , it 's not in the base platform , but the platform is open , and the development is all native code , so writing ( or porting ) an efficient JVM should n't be a problem , and it could be installed on any WinMo phone.In fact , a quick Google search finds a bunch of existing J2ME-on-WinMo implementations , some commercial and some free , including one [ ibm.com ] made - of all companies - by IBM ( ? !
) .So presumably any WinMo phone can run J2ME apps , once you install the runtime .
Or am I missing something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Java is THE dominant platform if you want to program anything that works on pretty much all mobile phones on the planet.
Apart from the iPhone, and some Windows Mobile phones, I don’t think there is a phone that can’t do Java.Come to think of it, what WinMo phones can't do J2ME?
Yes, it's not in the base platform, but the platform is open, and the development is all native code, so writing (or porting) an efficient JVM shouldn't be a problem, and it could be installed on any WinMo phone.In fact, a quick Google search finds a bunch of existing J2ME-on-WinMo implementations, some commercial and some free, including one [ibm.com] made - of all companies - by IBM (?!
).So presumably any WinMo phone can run J2ME apps, once you install the runtime.
Or am I missing something?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482082</id>
	<title>Re:Nope.</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1261058760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fennec on the n900 has access to the accelerometer and camera.</p><p>Fennec can't run on the iPhone at all (since it includes a JS engine), so the Apple case is pretty irrelevant to it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fennec on the n900 has access to the accelerometer and camera.Fennec ca n't run on the iPhone at all ( since it includes a JS engine ) , so the Apple case is pretty irrelevant to it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fennec on the n900 has access to the accelerometer and camera.Fennec can't run on the iPhone at all (since it includes a JS engine), so the Apple case is pretty irrelevant to it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481654</id>
	<title>Re:Always...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261056360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>1) The web has not always won.</i> </p><p>Suppose, for example, the SSD or its successor became almost unbelievably small, capacious, efficient, and cheap.</p><p>Local storage is no longer a problem for your mobile device even if what you need are high resolution marine charts or topographical maps for the whole of North America.</p><p>Databases that are updated infrequently - but when you need to access them, you need to access them <b>now.</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) The web has not always won .
Suppose , for example , the SSD or its successor became almost unbelievably small , capacious , efficient , and cheap.Local storage is no longer a problem for your mobile device even if what you need are high resolution marine charts or topographical maps for the whole of North America.Databases that are updated infrequently - but when you need to access them , you need to access them now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) The web has not always won.
Suppose, for example, the SSD or its successor became almost unbelievably small, capacious, efficient, and cheap.Local storage is no longer a problem for your mobile device even if what you need are high resolution marine charts or topographical maps for the whole of North America.Databases that are updated infrequently - but when you need to access them, you need to access them now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482654</id>
	<title>Re:Deja Vu</title>
	<author>R3d M3rcury</author>
	<datestamp>1261062840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One big difference was that, originally, there was also no way to get your "Web App" into the iPhone Springboard (that thing that launches Apps).  So you had to hope that your user would bookmark it.  Of course, launching your Web App consisted of launching Safari and going to your bookmarks to find the App and then waiting for it to load across AT&amp;T's 2.5G network.</p><p>The iPhone has improved enough to use Web Apps.  I use sigalert.com on my iPhone to view traffic--it sits in Springboard and, when I tap it, it launches Safari and loads the page.  I barely notice that it's not a native application because, even if it was, the slow part would be getting the data from the Internet anyway.</p><p>The problem is that Apple promotes native Apps more than Web Apps.  Apple has a whole infrastucture for selling Apps, allowing developers to make money selling Apps.  The only thing that Apple has for Web Apps is a <a href="http://www.apple.com/webapps/" title="apple.com">listing page</a> [apple.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One big difference was that , originally , there was also no way to get your " Web App " into the iPhone Springboard ( that thing that launches Apps ) .
So you had to hope that your user would bookmark it .
Of course , launching your Web App consisted of launching Safari and going to your bookmarks to find the App and then waiting for it to load across AT&amp;T 's 2.5G network.The iPhone has improved enough to use Web Apps .
I use sigalert.com on my iPhone to view traffic--it sits in Springboard and , when I tap it , it launches Safari and loads the page .
I barely notice that it 's not a native application because , even if it was , the slow part would be getting the data from the Internet anyway.The problem is that Apple promotes native Apps more than Web Apps .
Apple has a whole infrastucture for selling Apps , allowing developers to make money selling Apps .
The only thing that Apple has for Web Apps is a listing page [ apple.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One big difference was that, originally, there was also no way to get your "Web App" into the iPhone Springboard (that thing that launches Apps).
So you had to hope that your user would bookmark it.
Of course, launching your Web App consisted of launching Safari and going to your bookmarks to find the App and then waiting for it to load across AT&amp;T's 2.5G network.The iPhone has improved enough to use Web Apps.
I use sigalert.com on my iPhone to view traffic--it sits in Springboard and, when I tap it, it launches Safari and loads the page.
I barely notice that it's not a native application because, even if it was, the slow part would be getting the data from the Internet anyway.The problem is that Apple promotes native Apps more than Web Apps.
Apple has a whole infrastucture for selling Apps, allowing developers to make money selling Apps.
The only thing that Apple has for Web Apps is a listing page [apple.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481630</id>
	<title>Re:Ahem</title>
	<author>darjen</author>
	<datestamp>1261056240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I recall correctly, javascript/ajax did actually catch on way more than applets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I recall correctly , javascript/ajax did actually catch on way more than applets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I recall correctly, javascript/ajax did actually catch on way more than applets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30480994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30487382</id>
	<title>Mozilla promises, Opera delivers and gets ignored</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1261152540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Currently, Opera 10 is available on every handset which is open to 3rd party. Read it as iPhone excluded.</p><p>J2ME (via Opera Mini), Symbian (which has 40\% share and not even mentioned by Mozilla), Windows Mobile and Android supported. It is basically the same engine as Desktop one, bit by bit thanks to their ultra portable web renderer. Even "dead" (chap 11.) UIQ3 is supported somehow with a native client.</p><p>They are packing "Widgets" which are based on W3C standards for desktop right now, Opera 10.20 alpha does run same widget across 3 desktop platforms. Linux, OS X and Windows. It doesn't need to crack into their build system to predict they will go mobile with that idea.</p><p>What bothers me is, PC Pro, a UK based site doesn't even ask why on earth Symbian is not even mentioned or supported since Symbian is actually a british thing to begin with. Nor they fail to bother checking Opera which supports some handsets/operating systems which are abandoned by vendor themselves.</p><p>For web designers, widget developers, there is nothing to bother. They as a small company always supported standards, somehow failed to get market share because of it. So, there is no "Opera specific" quirk. It is all W3C.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Currently , Opera 10 is available on every handset which is open to 3rd party .
Read it as iPhone excluded.J2ME ( via Opera Mini ) , Symbian ( which has 40 \ % share and not even mentioned by Mozilla ) , Windows Mobile and Android supported .
It is basically the same engine as Desktop one , bit by bit thanks to their ultra portable web renderer .
Even " dead " ( chap 11 .
) UIQ3 is supported somehow with a native client.They are packing " Widgets " which are based on W3C standards for desktop right now , Opera 10.20 alpha does run same widget across 3 desktop platforms .
Linux , OS X and Windows .
It does n't need to crack into their build system to predict they will go mobile with that idea.What bothers me is , PC Pro , a UK based site does n't even ask why on earth Symbian is not even mentioned or supported since Symbian is actually a british thing to begin with .
Nor they fail to bother checking Opera which supports some handsets/operating systems which are abandoned by vendor themselves.For web designers , widget developers , there is nothing to bother .
They as a small company always supported standards , somehow failed to get market share because of it .
So , there is no " Opera specific " quirk .
It is all W3C .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Currently, Opera 10 is available on every handset which is open to 3rd party.
Read it as iPhone excluded.J2ME (via Opera Mini), Symbian (which has 40\% share and not even mentioned by Mozilla), Windows Mobile and Android supported.
It is basically the same engine as Desktop one, bit by bit thanks to their ultra portable web renderer.
Even "dead" (chap 11.
) UIQ3 is supported somehow with a native client.They are packing "Widgets" which are based on W3C standards for desktop right now, Opera 10.20 alpha does run same widget across 3 desktop platforms.
Linux, OS X and Windows.
It doesn't need to crack into their build system to predict they will go mobile with that idea.What bothers me is, PC Pro, a UK based site doesn't even ask why on earth Symbian is not even mentioned or supported since Symbian is actually a british thing to begin with.
Nor they fail to bother checking Opera which supports some handsets/operating systems which are abandoned by vendor themselves.For web designers, widget developers, there is nothing to bother.
They as a small company always supported standards, somehow failed to get market share because of it.
So, there is no "Opera specific" quirk.
It is all W3C.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30498590</id>
	<title>Consider the future</title>
	<author>eyeverve</author>
	<datestamp>1261239660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read through most of the comments and I think people are getting stuck on arguing this issue based on the present and past. You have to consider the future. Wireless connectivity will improve, browsers will become more capable, and slightly more open hardware (everything but the iphone) will be more popular.<br> <br>

Also, the general population is gravitating towards having their lives'/data exist in the cloud. Yeah it is mostly email right now, but in the near future everyone will use access their documents, pictures and music from the cloud only. There won't be too much of a need for local storage at that point.<br> <br>

Gaming will of course lag everything else getting into the cloud because it is more intensive, but give it time.<br> <br>

So I agree with the comment from Mozilla. The concept will most likely be true given enough time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read through most of the comments and I think people are getting stuck on arguing this issue based on the present and past .
You have to consider the future .
Wireless connectivity will improve , browsers will become more capable , and slightly more open hardware ( everything but the iphone ) will be more popular .
Also , the general population is gravitating towards having their lives'/data exist in the cloud .
Yeah it is mostly email right now , but in the near future everyone will use access their documents , pictures and music from the cloud only .
There wo n't be too much of a need for local storage at that point .
Gaming will of course lag everything else getting into the cloud because it is more intensive , but give it time .
So I agree with the comment from Mozilla .
The concept will most likely be true given enough time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read through most of the comments and I think people are getting stuck on arguing this issue based on the present and past.
You have to consider the future.
Wireless connectivity will improve, browsers will become more capable, and slightly more open hardware (everything but the iphone) will be more popular.
Also, the general population is gravitating towards having their lives'/data exist in the cloud.
Yeah it is mostly email right now, but in the near future everyone will use access their documents, pictures and music from the cloud only.
There won't be too much of a need for local storage at that point.
Gaming will of course lag everything else getting into the cloud because it is more intensive, but give it time.
So I agree with the comment from Mozilla.
The concept will most likely be true given enough time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30486104</id>
	<title>Re:Two things.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1261146420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There simply was no runtime available for a long time. But sibling commenter is right. Most modern WinMo devices do support Java. I just wrote &ldquo;some&rdquo;, because I knew that some didn&rsquo;t support it. I did not know that it&rsquo;s that well-supported nowadays. Thanks for the correction.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There simply was no runtime available for a long time .
But sibling commenter is right .
Most modern WinMo devices do support Java .
I just wrote    some    , because I knew that some didn    t support it .
I did not know that it    s that well-supported nowadays .
Thanks for the correction .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There simply was no runtime available for a long time.
But sibling commenter is right.
Most modern WinMo devices do support Java.
I just wrote “some”, because I knew that some didn’t support it.
I did not know that it’s that well-supported nowadays.
Thanks for the correction.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30483296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481226</id>
	<title>It's the flashy "store" people want</title>
	<author>nmoog</author>
	<datestamp>1261053840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Over time, the web will win because it always does."

Yeah, over time... "over time" linux will win too. It's true most of the  apps from the app store could have been made identically as web apps. But then they wouldn't have been on the app store - and no one would have ever seen them.

I'm continually shocked at the amount of money the non-nerds (bosses, project managers, those other people who I'm not sure what they do except go to corporate lunches) at my work spend on the app store. MONEY! that's crazy - I've never seen people voluntarily spend MONEY on apps before! But Apple made a great system for "the normals". They don't want to trawl the web for nifty web apps (like this <a href="http://www.mrspeaker.net/dev/iplat/" title="mrspeaker.net">JavaSript platform game</a> [mrspeaker.net] I may or may not be shamelessly plugging). The just want a happy little environment where they can buy stuff while pretending to be typing important emails during meetings.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Over time , the web will win because it always does .
" Yeah , over time... " over time " linux will win too .
It 's true most of the apps from the app store could have been made identically as web apps .
But then they would n't have been on the app store - and no one would have ever seen them .
I 'm continually shocked at the amount of money the non-nerds ( bosses , project managers , those other people who I 'm not sure what they do except go to corporate lunches ) at my work spend on the app store .
MONEY ! that 's crazy - I 've never seen people voluntarily spend MONEY on apps before !
But Apple made a great system for " the normals " .
They do n't want to trawl the web for nifty web apps ( like this JavaSript platform game [ mrspeaker.net ] I may or may not be shamelessly plugging ) .
The just want a happy little environment where they can buy stuff while pretending to be typing important emails during meetings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Over time, the web will win because it always does.
"

Yeah, over time... "over time" linux will win too.
It's true most of the  apps from the app store could have been made identically as web apps.
But then they wouldn't have been on the app store - and no one would have ever seen them.
I'm continually shocked at the amount of money the non-nerds (bosses, project managers, those other people who I'm not sure what they do except go to corporate lunches) at my work spend on the app store.
MONEY! that's crazy - I've never seen people voluntarily spend MONEY on apps before!
But Apple made a great system for "the normals".
They don't want to trawl the web for nifty web apps (like this JavaSript platform game [mrspeaker.net] I may or may not be shamelessly plugging).
The just want a happy little environment where they can buy stuff while pretending to be typing important emails during meetings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481902</id>
	<title>Re:Um...how do you figure?</title>
	<author>cream wobbly</author>
	<datestamp>1261057620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Myst? [...]  an iPhone app, weighing in at over 500MB, if I recall correctly. Do you really think that's going to be a viable app to distribute as a web app?</p></div><p>Yes of course. And thanks for the flashbacks of people asking me to download the Internet onto a floppy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Myst ?
[ ... ] an iPhone app , weighing in at over 500MB , if I recall correctly .
Do you really think that 's going to be a viable app to distribute as a web app ? Yes of course .
And thanks for the flashbacks of people asking me to download the Internet onto a floppy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Myst?
[...]  an iPhone app, weighing in at over 500MB, if I recall correctly.
Do you really think that's going to be a viable app to distribute as a web app?Yes of course.
And thanks for the flashbacks of people asking me to download the Internet onto a floppy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30483764</id>
	<title>Just Marketing (I hope)</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1261072920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess this is no more crazy than the marketing commercial ventures put out.  And there's some truth to the idea that the web always wins.  But doing everything using the web when it could be done as well or better using a public API + native apps implementing it strikes me as a bit backwards, like "It's javascript / AJAX based!" is becoming the new technology bubble.  AJAX is a very powerful hammer which makes a lot of other problems look like nails.  It's just worth remembering some of those problems might only *look like* nails!</p><p>I have no objection to there being an AJAX interface to pretty much anything, I just don't want it to be the only choice.  But I'm a bit bewildered when people talk as if local apps -&gt; web apps is an inevitable good -&gt; better transition.  In this case they *really are* different tools with different uses and some (increasingly substantial) overlap.</p><p>Also, does anyone see the irony here, given that when the first iPhone launched Apple claimed it didn't need native apps because you could just javascript, etc?  OK, so Firefox / Fennec has a faster JavaScript engine but still...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess this is no more crazy than the marketing commercial ventures put out .
And there 's some truth to the idea that the web always wins .
But doing everything using the web when it could be done as well or better using a public API + native apps implementing it strikes me as a bit backwards , like " It 's javascript / AJAX based !
" is becoming the new technology bubble .
AJAX is a very powerful hammer which makes a lot of other problems look like nails .
It 's just worth remembering some of those problems might only * look like * nails ! I have no objection to there being an AJAX interface to pretty much anything , I just do n't want it to be the only choice .
But I 'm a bit bewildered when people talk as if local apps - &gt; web apps is an inevitable good - &gt; better transition .
In this case they * really are * different tools with different uses and some ( increasingly substantial ) overlap.Also , does anyone see the irony here , given that when the first iPhone launched Apple claimed it did n't need native apps because you could just javascript , etc ?
OK , so Firefox / Fennec has a faster JavaScript engine but still.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess this is no more crazy than the marketing commercial ventures put out.
And there's some truth to the idea that the web always wins.
But doing everything using the web when it could be done as well or better using a public API + native apps implementing it strikes me as a bit backwards, like "It's javascript / AJAX based!
" is becoming the new technology bubble.
AJAX is a very powerful hammer which makes a lot of other problems look like nails.
It's just worth remembering some of those problems might only *look like* nails!I have no objection to there being an AJAX interface to pretty much anything, I just don't want it to be the only choice.
But I'm a bit bewildered when people talk as if local apps -&gt; web apps is an inevitable good -&gt; better transition.
In this case they *really are* different tools with different uses and some (increasingly substantial) overlap.Also, does anyone see the irony here, given that when the first iPhone launched Apple claimed it didn't need native apps because you could just javascript, etc?
OK, so Firefox / Fennec has a faster JavaScript engine but still...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481098</id>
	<title>Apple will just block it on the iPhone</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1261053120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Care to hack your phone over it?</p><p>This is exactly why proprietary systems that are built on anti-competitive practices and don't give you the ability to install applications without approval are a very bad idea in the long run, regardless of initial cool factor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Care to hack your phone over it ? This is exactly why proprietary systems that are built on anti-competitive practices and do n't give you the ability to install applications without approval are a very bad idea in the long run , regardless of initial cool factor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Care to hack your phone over it?This is exactly why proprietary systems that are built on anti-competitive practices and don't give you the ability to install applications without approval are a very bad idea in the long run, regardless of initial cool factor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30484108</id>
	<title>Re:Um...how do you figure?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261077900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are conflating the idea of loading applications off of a remote server and having the applications be written in HTML/CSS/Javascript. A web app is usually both, but there is no reason why the browser platform cannot be used for offline, downloaded apps, which would thereby be cross-platform to all phones supporting HTML5. This was what Palm wanted to do with the Pre. Apple ran their app store based on Objective-C instead purely for lock-in: they want iPhone apps to be hard to port.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are conflating the idea of loading applications off of a remote server and having the applications be written in HTML/CSS/Javascript .
A web app is usually both , but there is no reason why the browser platform can not be used for offline , downloaded apps , which would thereby be cross-platform to all phones supporting HTML5 .
This was what Palm wanted to do with the Pre .
Apple ran their app store based on Objective-C instead purely for lock-in : they want iPhone apps to be hard to port .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are conflating the idea of loading applications off of a remote server and having the applications be written in HTML/CSS/Javascript.
A web app is usually both, but there is no reason why the browser platform cannot be used for offline, downloaded apps, which would thereby be cross-platform to all phones supporting HTML5.
This was what Palm wanted to do with the Pre.
Apple ran their app store based on Objective-C instead purely for lock-in: they want iPhone apps to be hard to port.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30483332</id>
	<title>Mozilla's logic is not sound</title>
	<author>icepick72</author>
	<datestamp>1261068540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure the web always wins; however that doesn't mean Mozilla will win any more than Apple, because there are many other companies on the web too, using the web, developing features based on the web standards, creating new web standards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure the web always wins ; however that does n't mean Mozilla will win any more than Apple , because there are many other companies on the web too , using the web , developing features based on the web standards , creating new web standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure the web always wins; however that doesn't mean Mozilla will win any more than Apple, because there are many other companies on the web too, using the web, developing features based on the web standards, creating new web standards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30480994</id>
	<title>Ahem</title>
	<author>Captain Splendid</author>
	<datestamp>1261052580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, worked for java didn't it?  Not sure Apple's any likelier to just roll over any more than Microsoft or Adobe did.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , worked for java did n't it ?
Not sure Apple 's any likelier to just roll over any more than Microsoft or Adobe did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, worked for java didn't it?
Not sure Apple's any likelier to just roll over any more than Microsoft or Adobe did.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30483244</id>
	<title>Web apps again?</title>
	<author>Vermyndax</author>
	<datestamp>1261067640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whattaya know.  Just thought I'd point out - this strategy didn't work out so well for Apple when the iPhone first came out.  They were booed into submission.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whattaya know .
Just thought I 'd point out - this strategy did n't work out so well for Apple when the iPhone first came out .
They were booed into submission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whattaya know.
Just thought I'd point out - this strategy didn't work out so well for Apple when the iPhone first came out.
They were booed into submission.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481686</id>
	<title>PastryKit</title>
	<author>fandingo</author>
	<datestamp>1261056480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ars Technica had an article about a hidden framework that Apple was developing before Apps hit with 2.0. <a href="http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/12/pastrykit-best-iphone-web-app-library-you-never-heard-about.ars" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/12/pastrykit-best-iphone-web-app-library-you-never-heard-about.ars</a> [arstechnica.com]</p><p>Actually looks pretty cool and could allow more web-based apps.</p><p>I still think that local apps will be preferreable. The thing is that a lot of apps are only useful on the web, so the concerns about not being able to access them w/o a net connection are baseless. Not all apps, but there's lots of social networking apps and others that need networks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ars Technica had an article about a hidden framework that Apple was developing before Apps hit with 2.0. http : //arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/12/pastrykit-best-iphone-web-app-library-you-never-heard-about.ars [ arstechnica.com ] Actually looks pretty cool and could allow more web-based apps.I still think that local apps will be preferreable .
The thing is that a lot of apps are only useful on the web , so the concerns about not being able to access them w/o a net connection are baseless .
Not all apps , but there 's lots of social networking apps and others that need networks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ars Technica had an article about a hidden framework that Apple was developing before Apps hit with 2.0. http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/12/pastrykit-best-iphone-web-app-library-you-never-heard-about.ars [arstechnica.com]Actually looks pretty cool and could allow more web-based apps.I still think that local apps will be preferreable.
The thing is that a lot of apps are only useful on the web, so the concerns about not being able to access them w/o a net connection are baseless.
Not all apps, but there's lots of social networking apps and others that need networks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482890</id>
	<title>Re:Nope.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261064460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But, if they're writing the browser, wouldn't they have the same access any other app maker would?  JavaScript doesn't have APIs to cover direct access, though.  So, Firefox would have to release firefox-only API calls until they could form some sort of standard process.  In the meanwhile, firefox would be the only browser to support these APIs, so they'd be doomed to fail unless Apple, Rim, Palm and Google all came to the table.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But , if they 're writing the browser , would n't they have the same access any other app maker would ?
JavaScript does n't have APIs to cover direct access , though .
So , Firefox would have to release firefox-only API calls until they could form some sort of standard process .
In the meanwhile , firefox would be the only browser to support these APIs , so they 'd be doomed to fail unless Apple , Rim , Palm and Google all came to the table .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But, if they're writing the browser, wouldn't they have the same access any other app maker would?
JavaScript doesn't have APIs to cover direct access, though.
So, Firefox would have to release firefox-only API calls until they could form some sort of standard process.
In the meanwhile, firefox would be the only browser to support these APIs, so they'd be doomed to fail unless Apple, Rim, Palm and Google all came to the table.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481618</id>
	<title>Re:Um...how do you figure?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261056180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Fourth, if you're writing a plain web app, however fancily mobile-enhanced, how are you going to make use of the cool features of different phones? The iPhone has a camera, accelerometers, GPS, and multitouch. I admit I'm not terribly well-versed in the features of other smartphones, but a) do they all have these? b) can you access them from web apps? and c) can you access them all in the same way from web apps?</p></div><p>

<a href="http://www.phonegap.org/" title="phonegap.org">PhoneGap?</a> [phonegap.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fourth , if you 're writing a plain web app , however fancily mobile-enhanced , how are you going to make use of the cool features of different phones ?
The iPhone has a camera , accelerometers , GPS , and multitouch .
I admit I 'm not terribly well-versed in the features of other smartphones , but a ) do they all have these ?
b ) can you access them from web apps ?
and c ) can you access them all in the same way from web apps ?
PhoneGap ? [ phonegap.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fourth, if you're writing a plain web app, however fancily mobile-enhanced, how are you going to make use of the cool features of different phones?
The iPhone has a camera, accelerometers, GPS, and multitouch.
I admit I'm not terribly well-versed in the features of other smartphones, but a) do they all have these?
b) can you access them from web apps?
and c) can you access them all in the same way from web apps?
PhoneGap? [phonegap.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482132</id>
	<title>Re:Um...how do you figure?</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1261059060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  No one is going to accept ads suddenly popping up when they try to link from Myst Island to Channelwood.</p></div><p>Well, they could be subtle and work it into the game dialogue/gameplay...</p><p>"Bring me the BIG BLUE pages!"<br>"D'Ni" could become "Sun'i" and they could have everyone drinking Java there.<br>The "Linking Books" could be Nooks or Kindles.<br>The clock puzzle could have a brand on the face.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one is going to accept ads suddenly popping up when they try to link from Myst Island to Channelwood.Well , they could be subtle and work it into the game dialogue/gameplay... " Bring me the BIG BLUE pages !
" " D'Ni " could become " Sun'i " and they could have everyone drinking Java there.The " Linking Books " could be Nooks or Kindles.The clock puzzle could have a brand on the face .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  No one is going to accept ads suddenly popping up when they try to link from Myst Island to Channelwood.Well, they could be subtle and work it into the game dialogue/gameplay..."Bring me the BIG BLUE pages!
""D'Ni" could become "Sun'i" and they could have everyone drinking Java there.The "Linking Books" could be Nooks or Kindles.The clock puzzle could have a brand on the face.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482068</id>
	<title>Good idea but won't happen</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1261058760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like Apple will allow them on the iPhone and I doubt it will get me to switch from Google Android browser. I enjoy using the Opera browser for Android sometimes but even that doesn't feel as intuitive. I doubt Firefox will be better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like Apple will allow them on the iPhone and I doubt it will get me to switch from Google Android browser .
I enjoy using the Opera browser for Android sometimes but even that does n't feel as intuitive .
I doubt Firefox will be better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like Apple will allow them on the iPhone and I doubt it will get me to switch from Google Android browser.
I enjoy using the Opera browser for Android sometimes but even that doesn't feel as intuitive.
I doubt Firefox will be better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482452</id>
	<title>If it was surpassed in Japan, why so popular?</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1261061280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> It has only 3-4\% percent of the global market share, and technologically already was surpassed when it came to the market in Japan</i></p><p>True that it currently has 3-4\% of global market share of all phones - but here you are talking about Java, which does not run on all phones either.  So why not speak to the smartphone percentage, which is more like 20\%.</p><p>As for Japan, if it was surpassed years ago then why is it <a href="http://bcnranking.jp/category/subcategory\_0010.html" title="bcnranking.jp">so popular</a> [bcnranking.jp] there?  It's not number one (that's a list updated every week), but it's been in the top ten ever since it was pointed out that it reached <a href="http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/07/04/survey-the-iphone-is-no-1-in-japan/" title="cnn.com">number one</a> [cnn.com].</p><p><i>In the real world, not many people care about the App Store or the iPhone.</i></p><p>Except for thirty or forty million users worldwide.  By all means feel free to leave them to me.</p><p><i>I'm just stating the facts as I know them from actually being in the market, and keeping up to date, because I need that to make a living. </i></p><p>I think you need to do a better job keeping up.  I'm in the market as a full time mobile developer, so my living depends on this too...</p><p><i>when you already have fast Java with accelerated OpenGL, EAX-like audio support, and tons of functions. (Be aware that as much of it is accelerated, Java on mobile phones is vastly faster per raw CPU power, than on desktop VMs.)</i></p><p>You won't find a much bigger Java fan than myself.  But the reality is that even if you have some of that on every platform, you have almost no platforms that offer all of that - and the testing required across so many devices makes "reality" that you have to target a handful.  Real-world apps are moving in droves to the iPhone/Android, and only the simplest apps or some games are still going to J2ME platforms.</p><p>Now if you are including Android in there it's a different matter, but it's really different than J2ME.</p><p>All that said... I agree with your conclusion that the mobile browser app market is just not compelling compared to the iPhone or Android - or even J2ME.  They'd have to add a ton of stuff just to get close and the native platforms swill simply always be ahead of the game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has only 3-4 \ % percent of the global market share , and technologically already was surpassed when it came to the market in JapanTrue that it currently has 3-4 \ % of global market share of all phones - but here you are talking about Java , which does not run on all phones either .
So why not speak to the smartphone percentage , which is more like 20 \ % .As for Japan , if it was surpassed years ago then why is it so popular [ bcnranking.jp ] there ?
It 's not number one ( that 's a list updated every week ) , but it 's been in the top ten ever since it was pointed out that it reached number one [ cnn.com ] .In the real world , not many people care about the App Store or the iPhone.Except for thirty or forty million users worldwide .
By all means feel free to leave them to me.I 'm just stating the facts as I know them from actually being in the market , and keeping up to date , because I need that to make a living .
I think you need to do a better job keeping up .
I 'm in the market as a full time mobile developer , so my living depends on this too...when you already have fast Java with accelerated OpenGL , EAX-like audio support , and tons of functions .
( Be aware that as much of it is accelerated , Java on mobile phones is vastly faster per raw CPU power , than on desktop VMs .
) You wo n't find a much bigger Java fan than myself .
But the reality is that even if you have some of that on every platform , you have almost no platforms that offer all of that - and the testing required across so many devices makes " reality " that you have to target a handful .
Real-world apps are moving in droves to the iPhone/Android , and only the simplest apps or some games are still going to J2ME platforms.Now if you are including Android in there it 's a different matter , but it 's really different than J2ME.All that said... I agree with your conclusion that the mobile browser app market is just not compelling compared to the iPhone or Android - or even J2ME .
They 'd have to add a ton of stuff just to get close and the native platforms swill simply always be ahead of the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It has only 3-4\% percent of the global market share, and technologically already was surpassed when it came to the market in JapanTrue that it currently has 3-4\% of global market share of all phones - but here you are talking about Java, which does not run on all phones either.
So why not speak to the smartphone percentage, which is more like 20\%.As for Japan, if it was surpassed years ago then why is it so popular [bcnranking.jp] there?
It's not number one (that's a list updated every week), but it's been in the top ten ever since it was pointed out that it reached number one [cnn.com].In the real world, not many people care about the App Store or the iPhone.Except for thirty or forty million users worldwide.
By all means feel free to leave them to me.I'm just stating the facts as I know them from actually being in the market, and keeping up to date, because I need that to make a living.
I think you need to do a better job keeping up.
I'm in the market as a full time mobile developer, so my living depends on this too...when you already have fast Java with accelerated OpenGL, EAX-like audio support, and tons of functions.
(Be aware that as much of it is accelerated, Java on mobile phones is vastly faster per raw CPU power, than on desktop VMs.
)You won't find a much bigger Java fan than myself.
But the reality is that even if you have some of that on every platform, you have almost no platforms that offer all of that - and the testing required across so many devices makes "reality" that you have to target a handful.
Real-world apps are moving in droves to the iPhone/Android, and only the simplest apps or some games are still going to J2ME platforms.Now if you are including Android in there it's a different matter, but it's really different than J2ME.All that said... I agree with your conclusion that the mobile browser app market is just not compelling compared to the iPhone or Android - or even J2ME.
They'd have to add a ton of stuff just to get close and the native platforms swill simply always be ahead of the game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481528</id>
	<title>Sticking my snout in here.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261055760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Opera mobil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera mobil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera mobil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30484386</id>
	<title>Flash?</title>
	<author>arielsom</author>
	<datestamp>1261168140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Something else that is worth watching is Flash. They have an export to iphone app planned for CS5, even if I'm kind of sceptical about it. And even if Flash dev still sucks, it beats developping with DHTML.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Something else that is worth watching is Flash .
They have an export to iphone app planned for CS5 , even if I 'm kind of sceptical about it .
And even if Flash dev still sucks , it beats developping with DHTML .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something else that is worth watching is Flash.
They have an export to iphone app planned for CS5, even if I'm kind of sceptical about it.
And even if Flash dev still sucks, it beats developping with DHTML.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481846</id>
	<title>Re:Um...how do you figure?</title>
	<author>blackpaw</author>
	<datestamp>1261057320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Myst on the iPhone! awesome!</p><p>That tempts me to buy an iPhone, just so I could play Myst on the train.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Myst on the iPhone !
awesome ! That tempts me to buy an iPhone , just so I could play Myst on the train .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Myst on the iPhone!
awesome!That tempts me to buy an iPhone, just so I could play Myst on the train.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30499928</id>
	<title>Re:Amazingly Accurate</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1261252320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Wtf? I had Opera Mobile on my phone, bought an Android phone and the browser that came with that was significantly better.</p></div></blockquote><p>
You were probably using Opera Mobile 8. Opera Mobile 10 kicks the shit out of everything else. Yes, it handles full scale web pages and all that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wtf ?
I had Opera Mobile on my phone , bought an Android phone and the browser that came with that was significantly better .
You were probably using Opera Mobile 8 .
Opera Mobile 10 kicks the shit out of everything else .
Yes , it handles full scale web pages and all that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wtf?
I had Opera Mobile on my phone, bought an Android phone and the browser that came with that was significantly better.
You were probably using Opera Mobile 8.
Opera Mobile 10 kicks the shit out of everything else.
Yes, it handles full scale web pages and all that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30491846</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30484730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30484244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30495476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30480994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30486104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30483296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30484264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30487922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30484366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30480988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30490150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30486794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30483672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30484108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30483018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30484192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30493842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30480988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30490084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30488542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30491458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30480994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30484102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30499928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30491846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30483310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30484890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2310249_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2310249.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30480996
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2310249.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2310249.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482180
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2310249.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2310249.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2310249.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30484192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30490084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30484108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30484264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482898
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30491458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30490150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2310249.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30487382
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2310249.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30483296
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30486104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30484890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2310249.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30483018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2310249.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30484386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2310249.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2310249.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30483700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2310249.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30480988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30484366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30493842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2310249.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30483672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30486794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30484102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2310249.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2310249.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30498590
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2310249.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30483310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30487922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30484730
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2310249.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2310249.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30480994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30495476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481630
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2310249.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30491846
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30499928
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2310249.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30488542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2310249.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2310249.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30484244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2310249.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30482634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2310249.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2310249.30481472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
