<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_19_2230246</id>
	<title>Making Sense of the Cellphone Landscape</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1261248720000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Charlie Stross has a blog post up that tries to make sense of the mobile phone market and where it's going: where <a href="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/12/21st\_century\_phone.html">Apple, Google, and the cellcos</a> fit in, and what the point of Google's <a href="//mobile.slashdot.org/story/09/12/14/1410202/Nexus-One-Is-Googles-Android-Phone">Nexus One</a> may be. <i>"Becoming a pure bandwidth provider is every cellco's nightmare: it levels the playing field and puts them in direct competition with their peers, a competition that can only be won by throwing huge amounts of capital infrastructure at their backbone network. So for the past five years or more, they've been doing their best not to get dragged into a game of beggar-my-neighbor, by expedients such as exclusive handset deals... [Google intends] to turn 3G data service (and subsequently, LTE) into a commodity, like Wi-Fi hotspot service only more widespread and cheaper to get at. They want to get consumers to buy unlocked SIM-free handsets and pick cheap data SIMs. They'd love to move everyone to cheap data SIMs rather than the hideously convoluted legacy voice stacks maintained by the telcos; then they could piggyback Google Voice on it, and ultimately do the Google thing to all your voice messages as well as your email and web access. (This is, needless to say, going to bring them into conflict with Apple. ... Apple are an implicit threat to Google because Google can't slap their ads all over [the App  and iTunes stores]. So it's going to end in handbags at dawn... eventually.)"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Charlie Stross has a blog post up that tries to make sense of the mobile phone market and where it 's going : where Apple , Google , and the cellcos fit in , and what the point of Google 's Nexus One may be .
" Becoming a pure bandwidth provider is every cellco 's nightmare : it levels the playing field and puts them in direct competition with their peers , a competition that can only be won by throwing huge amounts of capital infrastructure at their backbone network .
So for the past five years or more , they 've been doing their best not to get dragged into a game of beggar-my-neighbor , by expedients such as exclusive handset deals... [ Google intends ] to turn 3G data service ( and subsequently , LTE ) into a commodity , like Wi-Fi hotspot service only more widespread and cheaper to get at .
They want to get consumers to buy unlocked SIM-free handsets and pick cheap data SIMs .
They 'd love to move everyone to cheap data SIMs rather than the hideously convoluted legacy voice stacks maintained by the telcos ; then they could piggyback Google Voice on it , and ultimately do the Google thing to all your voice messages as well as your email and web access .
( This is , needless to say , going to bring them into conflict with Apple .
... Apple are an implicit threat to Google because Google ca n't slap their ads all over [ the App and iTunes stores ] .
So it 's going to end in handbags at dawn.. .
eventually. ) "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Charlie Stross has a blog post up that tries to make sense of the mobile phone market and where it's going: where Apple, Google, and the cellcos fit in, and what the point of Google's Nexus One may be.
"Becoming a pure bandwidth provider is every cellco's nightmare: it levels the playing field and puts them in direct competition with their peers, a competition that can only be won by throwing huge amounts of capital infrastructure at their backbone network.
So for the past five years or more, they've been doing their best not to get dragged into a game of beggar-my-neighbor, by expedients such as exclusive handset deals... [Google intends] to turn 3G data service (and subsequently, LTE) into a commodity, like Wi-Fi hotspot service only more widespread and cheaper to get at.
They want to get consumers to buy unlocked SIM-free handsets and pick cheap data SIMs.
They'd love to move everyone to cheap data SIMs rather than the hideously convoluted legacy voice stacks maintained by the telcos; then they could piggyback Google Voice on it, and ultimately do the Google thing to all your voice messages as well as your email and web access.
(This is, needless to say, going to bring them into conflict with Apple.
... Apple are an implicit threat to Google because Google can't slap their ads all over [the App  and iTunes stores].
So it's going to end in handbags at dawn...
eventually.)"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30522354</id>
	<title>Google Will Fail</title>
	<author>mduffy-austin</author>
	<datestamp>1261486320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of the posts here and on Charlie's blog (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/12/21st\_century\_phone.html) seem to support the original assertion made by Charlie.</p><p>"They [Google] intend to turn 3G data service (and subsequently, LTE) into a commodity, like wifi hotspot service only more widespread and cheaper to get at. They want to get consumers to buy unlocked SIM-free handsets and pick cheap data SIMs. They'd love to move everyone to cheap data SIMs rather than the hideously convoluted legacy voice stacks maintained by the telcos; then they could piggyback Google Voice on it, and ultimately do the Google thing to all your voice messages as well as your email and web access."</p><p>Tom in comment 37 (Charlie's Blog) makes an economic case to support Charlie's assertion:</p><p>"Information is different as a commodity. Sending 1 bit basically has no direct cost associated to it. Nearly everything stems back to the infrastructure costs. Operating costs are pretty minor in comparison. As such, whenever you have a situation where your pricing is primarily based upon fixed costs and amortization of infrastructure capital costs, with no real per unit marginal cost, the price invariably ends up plummeting as performance per price of technology increases, service offerings become standardized, and it results into a race to the bottom."</p><p>I do not believe Google will succeed in turning the mobile network operators (MNOs) into cheap data providers by driving the MNOs to commoditization.  The service provide by the MNOs is not bits through the air "with no real per unit marginal cost."  The core service provided by the MNOs is access to the mobile spectrum.  This core service will become more valuable over time and combined with additional  services (voice, Internet, video on demand, mobile banking, financial transactions, identity transactions, new advertising models, etc.) will insure the long term success of the MNOs.</p><p>Either directly through partnerships or indirectly through data charges, the MNOs will participate in all revenues that flow through their networks.</p><p>There is a key insight missed by Charlie and others who have posted on this topic:  Unlike cable and fiber which in theory could be laid in infinite amounts, spectrum bandwidth is a finite resource and the dominant MNOs have already been awarded incredibly valuable allocations.</p><p>An idea of the complexities of frequency allocation can be gained by viewing frequency allocation charts:</p><p>U.S. Frequency Allocations<br><a href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.PDF" title="doc.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.PDF</a> [doc.gov]</p><p>U.K Frequency Alocations<br><a href="http://www.onlineconversion.com/downloads/uk\_frequency\_allocations\_chart.pdf" title="onlineconversion.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.onlineconversion.com/downloads/uk\_frequency\_allocations\_chart.pdf</a> [onlineconversion.com]</p><p>Additionally, several of the posts here and on Charlie's blog make the mistake of equating higher throughput with greater bandwidth.  While each generation of mobile technology has increased throughput, bandwidth (the usable spectrum range) remains a finite and very valuable resource which is leased primarily by the dominant MNOs.</p><p>In the United States, bandwidth is usually allocated through a government (FCC) auction process.  As more bandwidth is dedicated ("unleashed") for mobile use, the dominant MNOs are in the best position to win the auctions.  This is exactly what happened in the 700 MHz auctions held in 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_2008\_wireless\_spectrum\_auction)</p><p>Even with improvements in throughput, consumer demands for new services on intelligent mobile devices will eventually push the limits of allocated bandwidth.  What this means is the dominant MNOs have a resource (spectrum allocation) that will become even more valuable over time.  What this also means is that consumers will be charged based on their data usage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the posts here and on Charlie 's blog ( http : //www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/12/21st \ _century \ _phone.html ) seem to support the original assertion made by Charlie .
" They [ Google ] intend to turn 3G data service ( and subsequently , LTE ) into a commodity , like wifi hotspot service only more widespread and cheaper to get at .
They want to get consumers to buy unlocked SIM-free handsets and pick cheap data SIMs .
They 'd love to move everyone to cheap data SIMs rather than the hideously convoluted legacy voice stacks maintained by the telcos ; then they could piggyback Google Voice on it , and ultimately do the Google thing to all your voice messages as well as your email and web access .
" Tom in comment 37 ( Charlie 's Blog ) makes an economic case to support Charlie 's assertion : " Information is different as a commodity .
Sending 1 bit basically has no direct cost associated to it .
Nearly everything stems back to the infrastructure costs .
Operating costs are pretty minor in comparison .
As such , whenever you have a situation where your pricing is primarily based upon fixed costs and amortization of infrastructure capital costs , with no real per unit marginal cost , the price invariably ends up plummeting as performance per price of technology increases , service offerings become standardized , and it results into a race to the bottom .
" I do not believe Google will succeed in turning the mobile network operators ( MNOs ) into cheap data providers by driving the MNOs to commoditization .
The service provide by the MNOs is not bits through the air " with no real per unit marginal cost .
" The core service provided by the MNOs is access to the mobile spectrum .
This core service will become more valuable over time and combined with additional services ( voice , Internet , video on demand , mobile banking , financial transactions , identity transactions , new advertising models , etc .
) will insure the long term success of the MNOs.Either directly through partnerships or indirectly through data charges , the MNOs will participate in all revenues that flow through their networks.There is a key insight missed by Charlie and others who have posted on this topic : Unlike cable and fiber which in theory could be laid in infinite amounts , spectrum bandwidth is a finite resource and the dominant MNOs have already been awarded incredibly valuable allocations.An idea of the complexities of frequency allocation can be gained by viewing frequency allocation charts : U.S. Frequency Allocationshttp : //www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.PDF [ doc.gov ] U.K Frequency Alocationshttp : //www.onlineconversion.com/downloads/uk \ _frequency \ _allocations \ _chart.pdf [ onlineconversion.com ] Additionally , several of the posts here and on Charlie 's blog make the mistake of equating higher throughput with greater bandwidth .
While each generation of mobile technology has increased throughput , bandwidth ( the usable spectrum range ) remains a finite and very valuable resource which is leased primarily by the dominant MNOs.In the United States , bandwidth is usually allocated through a government ( FCC ) auction process .
As more bandwidth is dedicated ( " unleashed " ) for mobile use , the dominant MNOs are in the best position to win the auctions .
This is exactly what happened in the 700 MHz auctions held in 2008 ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United \ _States \ _2008 \ _wireless \ _spectrum \ _auction ) Even with improvements in throughput , consumer demands for new services on intelligent mobile devices will eventually push the limits of allocated bandwidth .
What this means is the dominant MNOs have a resource ( spectrum allocation ) that will become even more valuable over time .
What this also means is that consumers will be charged based on their data usage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the posts here and on Charlie's blog (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/12/21st\_century\_phone.html) seem to support the original assertion made by Charlie.
"They [Google] intend to turn 3G data service (and subsequently, LTE) into a commodity, like wifi hotspot service only more widespread and cheaper to get at.
They want to get consumers to buy unlocked SIM-free handsets and pick cheap data SIMs.
They'd love to move everyone to cheap data SIMs rather than the hideously convoluted legacy voice stacks maintained by the telcos; then they could piggyback Google Voice on it, and ultimately do the Google thing to all your voice messages as well as your email and web access.
"Tom in comment 37 (Charlie's Blog) makes an economic case to support Charlie's assertion:"Information is different as a commodity.
Sending 1 bit basically has no direct cost associated to it.
Nearly everything stems back to the infrastructure costs.
Operating costs are pretty minor in comparison.
As such, whenever you have a situation where your pricing is primarily based upon fixed costs and amortization of infrastructure capital costs, with no real per unit marginal cost, the price invariably ends up plummeting as performance per price of technology increases, service offerings become standardized, and it results into a race to the bottom.
"I do not believe Google will succeed in turning the mobile network operators (MNOs) into cheap data providers by driving the MNOs to commoditization.
The service provide by the MNOs is not bits through the air "with no real per unit marginal cost.
"  The core service provided by the MNOs is access to the mobile spectrum.
This core service will become more valuable over time and combined with additional  services (voice, Internet, video on demand, mobile banking, financial transactions, identity transactions, new advertising models, etc.
) will insure the long term success of the MNOs.Either directly through partnerships or indirectly through data charges, the MNOs will participate in all revenues that flow through their networks.There is a key insight missed by Charlie and others who have posted on this topic:  Unlike cable and fiber which in theory could be laid in infinite amounts, spectrum bandwidth is a finite resource and the dominant MNOs have already been awarded incredibly valuable allocations.An idea of the complexities of frequency allocation can be gained by viewing frequency allocation charts:U.S. Frequency Allocationshttp://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.PDF [doc.gov]U.K Frequency Alocationshttp://www.onlineconversion.com/downloads/uk\_frequency\_allocations\_chart.pdf [onlineconversion.com]Additionally, several of the posts here and on Charlie's blog make the mistake of equating higher throughput with greater bandwidth.
While each generation of mobile technology has increased throughput, bandwidth (the usable spectrum range) remains a finite and very valuable resource which is leased primarily by the dominant MNOs.In the United States, bandwidth is usually allocated through a government (FCC) auction process.
As more bandwidth is dedicated ("unleashed") for mobile use, the dominant MNOs are in the best position to win the auctions.
This is exactly what happened in the 700 MHz auctions held in 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_2008\_wireless\_spectrum\_auction)Even with improvements in throughput, consumer demands for new services on intelligent mobile devices will eventually push the limits of allocated bandwidth.
What this means is the dominant MNOs have a resource (spectrum allocation) that will become even more valuable over time.
What this also means is that consumers will be charged based on their data usage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30509638</id>
	<title>Chaotic US Cellphone Networks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261338780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From where I sit in Australia the US cell phone networks need a bloody good shakeup.</p><p>The whole sorry saga of exclusive handset deals and Apple's relationship with the greedy music industry are examples of corruption on a massive scale.</p><p>It seems the US has learned nothing about ethics and probity from the global financial crisis it caused.</p><p>I hope Barack Obama can save you from yourselves.</p><p>Ken of Oz</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From where I sit in Australia the US cell phone networks need a bloody good shakeup.The whole sorry saga of exclusive handset deals and Apple 's relationship with the greedy music industry are examples of corruption on a massive scale.It seems the US has learned nothing about ethics and probity from the global financial crisis it caused.I hope Barack Obama can save you from yourselves.Ken of Oz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From where I sit in Australia the US cell phone networks need a bloody good shakeup.The whole sorry saga of exclusive handset deals and Apple's relationship with the greedy music industry are examples of corruption on a massive scale.It seems the US has learned nothing about ethics and probity from the global financial crisis it caused.I hope Barack Obama can save you from yourselves.Ken of Oz</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502840</id>
	<title>Apple's patents pre-emptive?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261302600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, if I were the paranoid type, I might be prone to think there were some high level shenanigans going on.<br>
<br>
Remember the <a href="http://apple.slashdot.org/story/09/11/16/1431201/Apple-Patents-Enforceable-Ad-Viewing-On-Devices" title="slashdot.org">Apple patent enforcing ad viewing</a> [slashdot.org] or the <a href="http://apple.slashdot.org/story/09/10/23/1456221/Apple-Seeks-Patent-On-Operating-System-Advertising" title="slashdot.org">Apple patent on OS advertising</a> [slashdot.org]?<br>
<br>
Google is known for its advertising business, and has been putting ads everywhere. Eric Schmidt was on Apple's board from 2006 to 2009, when he resigned (or was forced out?) due to Google's entering "more of Apple's core business" with Chrome and Android. The new, unlocked, Google phone has plenty of speculation surrounding it, but one of the more interesting bits was that it could show up in two forms: (1) expensive, not subsidized, and (2) cheap, with advertising subsidizing it somehow, perhaps forced ad viewing or something?<br>
<br>
Given Schmidt's time on the board, I wonder if he deliberately or inadvertently revealed any of these plans, or if Apple found itself aware of these plans through some other means. Regardless, if Apple has a patent on OS-level ad displays and/or forced ad viewing on a device, it would seem that they would be in a position to try and extract money from Google if they go forward with an ad-subsidized phone.<br>
<br>
So now this begs the questions: Was Apple's patents on these concepts the result of information about Google's upcoming plans (either acquired legitimately or otherwise), or were they plans they had for a device of their own? Tough to say.<br>
<br>
Personally I'm all for the carriers to be reduced to a conduit provider only. It's about time too. If they all had to compete as nearly identical providers of bandwidth instead of a myriad of services, then perhaps we'd see some improvements in the network quality. In fact, they'd have a lot more network capacity if they'd deliver one type of service instead of fragmenting it between different technologies. A friend and I often lament the poor audio quality people have come to expect from wrieless phones now that we are 100\% digital. Sure there's no more "static" - but audio quality has suffered to get there. <br>
<br>
I'm hopeful LTE will improve things - though I'm not holding my breath for it. It's going to be an expensive network upgrade that won't happen overnight. Sprint is banking on wimax and outsourcing their network, Verizon is claiming latter half 2010 for LTE. And along the way comes Google's Android and the exclusivity of the iPhone on AT&amp;T nearing expiration (was it renewed? last I read it was all talk but I didn't see anything come from it), perhaps we'll finally have some heavy hitters that can break the carrier strangleholds. Should be interesting if they can.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , if I were the paranoid type , I might be prone to think there were some high level shenanigans going on .
Remember the Apple patent enforcing ad viewing [ slashdot.org ] or the Apple patent on OS advertising [ slashdot.org ] ?
Google is known for its advertising business , and has been putting ads everywhere .
Eric Schmidt was on Apple 's board from 2006 to 2009 , when he resigned ( or was forced out ?
) due to Google 's entering " more of Apple 's core business " with Chrome and Android .
The new , unlocked , Google phone has plenty of speculation surrounding it , but one of the more interesting bits was that it could show up in two forms : ( 1 ) expensive , not subsidized , and ( 2 ) cheap , with advertising subsidizing it somehow , perhaps forced ad viewing or something ?
Given Schmidt 's time on the board , I wonder if he deliberately or inadvertently revealed any of these plans , or if Apple found itself aware of these plans through some other means .
Regardless , if Apple has a patent on OS-level ad displays and/or forced ad viewing on a device , it would seem that they would be in a position to try and extract money from Google if they go forward with an ad-subsidized phone .
So now this begs the questions : Was Apple 's patents on these concepts the result of information about Google 's upcoming plans ( either acquired legitimately or otherwise ) , or were they plans they had for a device of their own ?
Tough to say .
Personally I 'm all for the carriers to be reduced to a conduit provider only .
It 's about time too .
If they all had to compete as nearly identical providers of bandwidth instead of a myriad of services , then perhaps we 'd see some improvements in the network quality .
In fact , they 'd have a lot more network capacity if they 'd deliver one type of service instead of fragmenting it between different technologies .
A friend and I often lament the poor audio quality people have come to expect from wrieless phones now that we are 100 \ % digital .
Sure there 's no more " static " - but audio quality has suffered to get there .
I 'm hopeful LTE will improve things - though I 'm not holding my breath for it .
It 's going to be an expensive network upgrade that wo n't happen overnight .
Sprint is banking on wimax and outsourcing their network , Verizon is claiming latter half 2010 for LTE .
And along the way comes Google 's Android and the exclusivity of the iPhone on AT&amp;T nearing expiration ( was it renewed ?
last I read it was all talk but I did n't see anything come from it ) , perhaps we 'll finally have some heavy hitters that can break the carrier strangleholds .
Should be interesting if they can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, if I were the paranoid type, I might be prone to think there were some high level shenanigans going on.
Remember the Apple patent enforcing ad viewing [slashdot.org] or the Apple patent on OS advertising [slashdot.org]?
Google is known for its advertising business, and has been putting ads everywhere.
Eric Schmidt was on Apple's board from 2006 to 2009, when he resigned (or was forced out?
) due to Google's entering "more of Apple's core business" with Chrome and Android.
The new, unlocked, Google phone has plenty of speculation surrounding it, but one of the more interesting bits was that it could show up in two forms: (1) expensive, not subsidized, and (2) cheap, with advertising subsidizing it somehow, perhaps forced ad viewing or something?
Given Schmidt's time on the board, I wonder if he deliberately or inadvertently revealed any of these plans, or if Apple found itself aware of these plans through some other means.
Regardless, if Apple has a patent on OS-level ad displays and/or forced ad viewing on a device, it would seem that they would be in a position to try and extract money from Google if they go forward with an ad-subsidized phone.
So now this begs the questions: Was Apple's patents on these concepts the result of information about Google's upcoming plans (either acquired legitimately or otherwise), or were they plans they had for a device of their own?
Tough to say.
Personally I'm all for the carriers to be reduced to a conduit provider only.
It's about time too.
If they all had to compete as nearly identical providers of bandwidth instead of a myriad of services, then perhaps we'd see some improvements in the network quality.
In fact, they'd have a lot more network capacity if they'd deliver one type of service instead of fragmenting it between different technologies.
A friend and I often lament the poor audio quality people have come to expect from wrieless phones now that we are 100\% digital.
Sure there's no more "static" - but audio quality has suffered to get there.
I'm hopeful LTE will improve things - though I'm not holding my breath for it.
It's going to be an expensive network upgrade that won't happen overnight.
Sprint is banking on wimax and outsourcing their network, Verizon is claiming latter half 2010 for LTE.
And along the way comes Google's Android and the exclusivity of the iPhone on AT&amp;T nearing expiration (was it renewed?
last I read it was all talk but I didn't see anything come from it), perhaps we'll finally have some heavy hitters that can break the carrier strangleholds.
Should be interesting if they can.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30520636</id>
	<title>Safari just rides roughshod on Firefox's bareback</title>
	<author>font9a</author>
	<datestamp>1261419300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously? I worked on Alltel's CellTop 2 years before the iPhone came out and CellTop looked and behaved UX-wise lightyears before anything before it.

Where has it gotten us? No where: because it's built on layers and layers and layers of "channel partners" (read: toll gates) and layers and layers of code that has to ride on top of the native OS.

How Firefox can outcompete Safari at it's own game is a mystery to me. Just because you (FF) might win a few upcoming benchmarking contests isn't going to make FF a winner. If it was, Apple could simply ride Safari mobile roughshod bareback over a bloated "platform independent" FF Mobile.

Seriously.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously ?
I worked on Alltel 's CellTop 2 years before the iPhone came out and CellTop looked and behaved UX-wise lightyears before anything before it .
Where has it gotten us ?
No where : because it 's built on layers and layers and layers of " channel partners " ( read : toll gates ) and layers and layers of code that has to ride on top of the native OS .
How Firefox can outcompete Safari at it 's own game is a mystery to me .
Just because you ( FF ) might win a few upcoming benchmarking contests is n't going to make FF a winner .
If it was , Apple could simply ride Safari mobile roughshod bareback over a bloated " platform independent " FF Mobile .
Seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously?
I worked on Alltel's CellTop 2 years before the iPhone came out and CellTop looked and behaved UX-wise lightyears before anything before it.
Where has it gotten us?
No where: because it's built on layers and layers and layers of "channel partners" (read: toll gates) and layers and layers of code that has to ride on top of the native OS.
How Firefox can outcompete Safari at it's own game is a mystery to me.
Just because you (FF) might win a few upcoming benchmarking contests isn't going to make FF a winner.
If it was, Apple could simply ride Safari mobile roughshod bareback over a bloated "platform independent" FF Mobile.
Seriously.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30503844</id>
	<title>Re:What's the value of an unlocked US cellphone?</title>
	<author>Dravik</author>
	<datestamp>1261323900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Verizon is CDMA, but sprint is a GSM/iDEN hybrid.  The phones don't cross because they are different formats.  As for T-moblie/ATT, they are both GSM.  If your phone is capable of the full GSM spectrum then you shouldn't have any trouble moving back and forth.  The cheap pay-as-you-go phones are intentionally designed to only be capable of the spectrum owned by the carrier selling them.  That's why they are so cheap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Verizon is CDMA , but sprint is a GSM/iDEN hybrid .
The phones do n't cross because they are different formats .
As for T-moblie/ATT , they are both GSM .
If your phone is capable of the full GSM spectrum then you should n't have any trouble moving back and forth .
The cheap pay-as-you-go phones are intentionally designed to only be capable of the spectrum owned by the carrier selling them .
That 's why they are so cheap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Verizon is CDMA, but sprint is a GSM/iDEN hybrid.
The phones don't cross because they are different formats.
As for T-moblie/ATT, they are both GSM.
If your phone is capable of the full GSM spectrum then you shouldn't have any trouble moving back and forth.
The cheap pay-as-you-go phones are intentionally designed to only be capable of the spectrum owned by the carrier selling them.
That's why they are so cheap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30506360</id>
	<title>Won't Google need telco cooperation?</title>
	<author>IronChef</author>
	<datestamp>1261301580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"[Google intends] to turn 3G data service (and subsequently, LTE) into a commodity, like Wi-Fi hotspot service only more widespread and cheaper to get at."</p><p>So let's say I get this proposed affordable, unlocked Google phone with advanced data features...</p><p>What network is it on?</p><p>When I go in to the ATT store to actually get that phone on the network, isn't it going to be the same old story? 2 year contract, expensive limited 'unlimited' data plans, SMS messages for a quarter, and all that other nonsense?</p><p>I have seen the Google phone hailed as putting the internet in everyone's pocket, but in the current business climate I don't see how that is possible, unless Google builds or buys a network of cell towers. The network question has been avoided in all the material I have read so far, but maybe I have not found the right news.</p><p>If I am wrong, and Google is going to be my new, affordable phone company, someone please post and strike me down--because that would be great news. Even if Skynet listens to my voice mail to better sell me stuff.</p><p>(Hah: I originally had a typo above: adfordable. I'm going to keep that word.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" [ Google intends ] to turn 3G data service ( and subsequently , LTE ) into a commodity , like Wi-Fi hotspot service only more widespread and cheaper to get at .
" So let 's say I get this proposed affordable , unlocked Google phone with advanced data features...What network is it on ? When I go in to the ATT store to actually get that phone on the network , is n't it going to be the same old story ?
2 year contract , expensive limited 'unlimited ' data plans , SMS messages for a quarter , and all that other nonsense ? I have seen the Google phone hailed as putting the internet in everyone 's pocket , but in the current business climate I do n't see how that is possible , unless Google builds or buys a network of cell towers .
The network question has been avoided in all the material I have read so far , but maybe I have not found the right news.If I am wrong , and Google is going to be my new , affordable phone company , someone please post and strike me down--because that would be great news .
Even if Skynet listens to my voice mail to better sell me stuff .
( Hah : I originally had a typo above : adfordable .
I 'm going to keep that word .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"[Google intends] to turn 3G data service (and subsequently, LTE) into a commodity, like Wi-Fi hotspot service only more widespread and cheaper to get at.
"So let's say I get this proposed affordable, unlocked Google phone with advanced data features...What network is it on?When I go in to the ATT store to actually get that phone on the network, isn't it going to be the same old story?
2 year contract, expensive limited 'unlimited' data plans, SMS messages for a quarter, and all that other nonsense?I have seen the Google phone hailed as putting the internet in everyone's pocket, but in the current business climate I don't see how that is possible, unless Google builds or buys a network of cell towers.
The network question has been avoided in all the material I have read so far, but maybe I have not found the right news.If I am wrong, and Google is going to be my new, affordable phone company, someone please post and strike me down--because that would be great news.
Even if Skynet listens to my voice mail to better sell me stuff.
(Hah: I originally had a typo above: adfordable.
I'm going to keep that word.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502538</id>
	<title>fp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261252560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fp</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fp</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fp</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30503588</id>
	<title>Re:I Just Did...</title>
	<author>WaywardGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1261320540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Probably hate T-Mobile in a month.</p></div></blockquote><p>Verizon pissed me off by never letting me use my own camera for free.  They had good coverage, though.  With the Motorola Droid, I'd consider going back to them.  AT&amp;T pissed me off by screwing up account details with Apple, which eventually led to my iPhone being borked by Apple.  T-Mobile has been good to me, with voice coverage at least as good as AT&amp;T, and reasonable G3, and excellent EDGE coverage.  When I wanted to go to Europe and use my G1 with another SIM card, T-Mobile send me the unlock code for free, with no fuss.  My plan (voice + unlimited data) is only $60/month, a full $10 less than AT&amp;T or Verizon.  I hate my G1 (the hardware sucks big-time), but I'm super-excited about both the Nexus One and Sony Ericson Experia X10.  Well... I'm a LOT more excited about the Nexus One.  Give me one of those, and I'll probably be a long-term T-Mobile user.</p><p>So, I predict that T-Mobile will not piss you off in a month.  It will probably take three.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably hate T-Mobile in a month.Verizon pissed me off by never letting me use my own camera for free .
They had good coverage , though .
With the Motorola Droid , I 'd consider going back to them .
AT&amp;T pissed me off by screwing up account details with Apple , which eventually led to my iPhone being borked by Apple .
T-Mobile has been good to me , with voice coverage at least as good as AT&amp;T , and reasonable G3 , and excellent EDGE coverage .
When I wanted to go to Europe and use my G1 with another SIM card , T-Mobile send me the unlock code for free , with no fuss .
My plan ( voice + unlimited data ) is only $ 60/month , a full $ 10 less than AT&amp;T or Verizon .
I hate my G1 ( the hardware sucks big-time ) , but I 'm super-excited about both the Nexus One and Sony Ericson Experia X10 .
Well... I 'm a LOT more excited about the Nexus One .
Give me one of those , and I 'll probably be a long-term T-Mobile user.So , I predict that T-Mobile will not piss you off in a month .
It will probably take three .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably hate T-Mobile in a month.Verizon pissed me off by never letting me use my own camera for free.
They had good coverage, though.
With the Motorola Droid, I'd consider going back to them.
AT&amp;T pissed me off by screwing up account details with Apple, which eventually led to my iPhone being borked by Apple.
T-Mobile has been good to me, with voice coverage at least as good as AT&amp;T, and reasonable G3, and excellent EDGE coverage.
When I wanted to go to Europe and use my G1 with another SIM card, T-Mobile send me the unlock code for free, with no fuss.
My plan (voice + unlimited data) is only $60/month, a full $10 less than AT&amp;T or Verizon.
I hate my G1 (the hardware sucks big-time), but I'm super-excited about both the Nexus One and Sony Ericson Experia X10.
Well... I'm a LOT more excited about the Nexus One.
Give me one of those, and I'll probably be a long-term T-Mobile user.So, I predict that T-Mobile will not piss you off in a month.
It will probably take three.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30506382</id>
	<title>Pool capital resources</title>
	<author>Swift2001</author>
	<datestamp>1261301700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the only way to optimize the cellular networks. Everyone adopts a standard, with a standard stack, so that everyone uses each other's towers. Really, who cares if AT&amp;T or Verizon has the better network? Let them all adopt the same 5G, and if they still can't fully develop the cell network, then the government goes into the business of rural cellphonication. You pay for your own cellphone/computer.</p><p>If we had developed railroads at different gauges, with no sharing of right of way, we'd be living in the Confederate States. If we allowed the power grid or the telephone networks or the radio and TV infrastructure with so little demand for standards, what would we have by now? A society and economy even more feudal, segmented into segregated economic units -- in other words, backwards. What is the power of these stupid companies? I can see the reason for the competition at the beginning, but really, we've got some idea now how we want this to develop now.</p><p>Break up the exclusivity and the insularity of our networks. It should be much more like the Internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the only way to optimize the cellular networks .
Everyone adopts a standard , with a standard stack , so that everyone uses each other 's towers .
Really , who cares if AT&amp;T or Verizon has the better network ?
Let them all adopt the same 5G , and if they still ca n't fully develop the cell network , then the government goes into the business of rural cellphonication .
You pay for your own cellphone/computer.If we had developed railroads at different gauges , with no sharing of right of way , we 'd be living in the Confederate States .
If we allowed the power grid or the telephone networks or the radio and TV infrastructure with so little demand for standards , what would we have by now ?
A society and economy even more feudal , segmented into segregated economic units -- in other words , backwards .
What is the power of these stupid companies ?
I can see the reason for the competition at the beginning , but really , we 've got some idea now how we want this to develop now.Break up the exclusivity and the insularity of our networks .
It should be much more like the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the only way to optimize the cellular networks.
Everyone adopts a standard, with a standard stack, so that everyone uses each other's towers.
Really, who cares if AT&amp;T or Verizon has the better network?
Let them all adopt the same 5G, and if they still can't fully develop the cell network, then the government goes into the business of rural cellphonication.
You pay for your own cellphone/computer.If we had developed railroads at different gauges, with no sharing of right of way, we'd be living in the Confederate States.
If we allowed the power grid or the telephone networks or the radio and TV infrastructure with so little demand for standards, what would we have by now?
A society and economy even more feudal, segmented into segregated economic units -- in other words, backwards.
What is the power of these stupid companies?
I can see the reason for the competition at the beginning, but really, we've got some idea now how we want this to develop now.Break up the exclusivity and the insularity of our networks.
It should be much more like the Internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30506508</id>
	<title>Re:I know what</title>
	<author>YourExperiment</author>
	<datestamp>1261302720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that the main thing the iPhone has going for it is the software. The hardware is no longer anything special.</p><p>480 x 320 screen? The HTC Touch HD2 has 800 x 480. 256MB of RAM and a 600MHz CPU? Many of the latest smartphones come with 512MB of RAM and a 1GHz Snapdragon processor. 3 megapixel camera? There are phones out with 8 megapixel and even 12 megapixel cameras. Of course, the lens and sensor are what really matters - and there are much better ones around than the iPhone's. It doesn't even have the lead in looks any more. There are far more attractive smartphones around.</p><p>But it does have damn good software. So to pick out the iPhone as the body seems odd to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that the main thing the iPhone has going for it is the software .
The hardware is no longer anything special.480 x 320 screen ?
The HTC Touch HD2 has 800 x 480 .
256MB of RAM and a 600MHz CPU ?
Many of the latest smartphones come with 512MB of RAM and a 1GHz Snapdragon processor .
3 megapixel camera ?
There are phones out with 8 megapixel and even 12 megapixel cameras .
Of course , the lens and sensor are what really matters - and there are much better ones around than the iPhone 's .
It does n't even have the lead in looks any more .
There are far more attractive smartphones around.But it does have damn good software .
So to pick out the iPhone as the body seems odd to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that the main thing the iPhone has going for it is the software.
The hardware is no longer anything special.480 x 320 screen?
The HTC Touch HD2 has 800 x 480.
256MB of RAM and a 600MHz CPU?
Many of the latest smartphones come with 512MB of RAM and a 1GHz Snapdragon processor.
3 megapixel camera?
There are phones out with 8 megapixel and even 12 megapixel cameras.
Of course, the lens and sensor are what really matters - and there are much better ones around than the iPhone's.
It doesn't even have the lead in looks any more.
There are far more attractive smartphones around.But it does have damn good software.
So to pick out the iPhone as the body seems odd to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30503578</id>
	<title>Google Phone Feature Request</title>
	<author>keneng</author>
	<datestamp>1261320420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While the GOOGLE PHONE is USB wired to the computer, not only could the phone get recharged, but it could:<br>-use the computer's ISP network to make wired VOIP voice calls without using the expensive 3G network.<br>-act as an adjustable WEB CAMERA.  This would eliminate the need for a microphone/webcam accessories because they are built into the phone already.<br>-act a secondary adjustable hands-free conference speaker.  This would eliminate the need to use the stereo speakers because there's a LOUD RINGTONE speaker built into the phone already.<br>-stand on its own.  No stand required.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While the GOOGLE PHONE is USB wired to the computer , not only could the phone get recharged , but it could : -use the computer 's ISP network to make wired VOIP voice calls without using the expensive 3G network.-act as an adjustable WEB CAMERA .
This would eliminate the need for a microphone/webcam accessories because they are built into the phone already.-act a secondary adjustable hands-free conference speaker .
This would eliminate the need to use the stereo speakers because there 's a LOUD RINGTONE speaker built into the phone already.-stand on its own .
No stand required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the GOOGLE PHONE is USB wired to the computer, not only could the phone get recharged, but it could:-use the computer's ISP network to make wired VOIP voice calls without using the expensive 3G network.-act as an adjustable WEB CAMERA.
This would eliminate the need for a microphone/webcam accessories because they are built into the phone already.-act a secondary adjustable hands-free conference speaker.
This would eliminate the need to use the stereo speakers because there's a LOUD RINGTONE speaker built into the phone already.-stand on its own.
No stand required.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30507814</id>
	<title>Re:Awesome....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261315560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm with Telstra due to my <i>remote location</i>, and I pay <i>exorbitant prices</i> for voice and data.</p></div><p>Isn't that how utility distribution works? If you live by yourself 400 miles from the nearest town, why shouldn't you pay exorbitant prices for a company to run 400 miles of line/pipe/whatever to serve only you? I don't know anything about your situation or whats going on with Australian telcos, this is just an honest question.</p></div><p>You're forgetting that everyone else in that country paid (several times over) for Telestra to build it in the first place.</p><p>i.e.<br>1950: Gov't to Telestra: here's the $1 billion you said you needed to build the network. Enjoy, no need to pay it back.<br>1960: Telestra to Consumers: We spent $1 billion to build this network, that's why you pay $4/minute for long distance.<br>1970: Telestra to Consumers: We spent $1 billion to build this network, that's why you pay $4/minute for long distance.<br>1980: Telestra to Consumers: We spent $1 billion to build this network, that's why you pay $4/minute for long distance.<br>1990: Telestra to Consumers: We spent $1 billion to build this network, that's why you pay $4/minute for long distance.<br>2000: Telestra to Consumers: We spent $1 billion to build this network, that's why you pay $2/minute for long distance.<br>2010: Telestra to Consumers: We spent $1 billion to build this network, that's why you pay $100/GB for data.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm with Telstra due to my remote location , and I pay exorbitant prices for voice and data.Is n't that how utility distribution works ?
If you live by yourself 400 miles from the nearest town , why should n't you pay exorbitant prices for a company to run 400 miles of line/pipe/whatever to serve only you ?
I do n't know anything about your situation or whats going on with Australian telcos , this is just an honest question.You 're forgetting that everyone else in that country paid ( several times over ) for Telestra to build it in the first place.i.e.1950 : Gov't to Telestra : here 's the $ 1 billion you said you needed to build the network .
Enjoy , no need to pay it back.1960 : Telestra to Consumers : We spent $ 1 billion to build this network , that 's why you pay $ 4/minute for long distance.1970 : Telestra to Consumers : We spent $ 1 billion to build this network , that 's why you pay $ 4/minute for long distance.1980 : Telestra to Consumers : We spent $ 1 billion to build this network , that 's why you pay $ 4/minute for long distance.1990 : Telestra to Consumers : We spent $ 1 billion to build this network , that 's why you pay $ 4/minute for long distance.2000 : Telestra to Consumers : We spent $ 1 billion to build this network , that 's why you pay $ 2/minute for long distance.2010 : Telestra to Consumers : We spent $ 1 billion to build this network , that 's why you pay $ 100/GB for data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm with Telstra due to my remote location, and I pay exorbitant prices for voice and data.Isn't that how utility distribution works?
If you live by yourself 400 miles from the nearest town, why shouldn't you pay exorbitant prices for a company to run 400 miles of line/pipe/whatever to serve only you?
I don't know anything about your situation or whats going on with Australian telcos, this is just an honest question.You're forgetting that everyone else in that country paid (several times over) for Telestra to build it in the first place.i.e.1950: Gov't to Telestra: here's the $1 billion you said you needed to build the network.
Enjoy, no need to pay it back.1960: Telestra to Consumers: We spent $1 billion to build this network, that's why you pay $4/minute for long distance.1970: Telestra to Consumers: We spent $1 billion to build this network, that's why you pay $4/minute for long distance.1980: Telestra to Consumers: We spent $1 billion to build this network, that's why you pay $4/minute for long distance.1990: Telestra to Consumers: We spent $1 billion to build this network, that's why you pay $4/minute for long distance.2000: Telestra to Consumers: We spent $1 billion to build this network, that's why you pay $2/minute for long distance.2010: Telestra to Consumers: We spent $1 billion to build this network, that's why you pay $100/GB for data.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30505052</id>
	<title>Re:All in the data</title>
	<author>rwyoder</author>
	<datestamp>1261334160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Pretty soon, we'll be buying phones with data plans and the voice plan will be optional (if needed at all).</p></div></blockquote><p>

I wasn't aware it was possible to get a data plan w/o a voice plan, until I learned that a guy on a forum I use, has it.<br>
He is deaf, so he has no use for the voice, but uses texting extensively with his wife.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty soon , we 'll be buying phones with data plans and the voice plan will be optional ( if needed at all ) .
I was n't aware it was possible to get a data plan w/o a voice plan , until I learned that a guy on a forum I use , has it .
He is deaf , so he has no use for the voice , but uses texting extensively with his wife .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty soon, we'll be buying phones with data plans and the voice plan will be optional (if needed at all).
I wasn't aware it was possible to get a data plan w/o a voice plan, until I learned that a guy on a forum I use, has it.
He is deaf, so he has no use for the voice, but uses texting extensively with his wife.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502634</id>
	<title>Re:I Just Did...</title>
	<author>kenshin33</author>
	<datestamp>1261341000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>till this day N900 remains by fare the best acquisition  (app wise to pick up apple's line)!
a truly open platform.</htmltext>
<tokenext>till this day N900 remains by fare the best acquisition ( app wise to pick up apple 's line ) !
a truly open platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>till this day N900 remains by fare the best acquisition  (app wise to pick up apple's line)!
a truly open platform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502802</id>
	<title>Re:I Just Did...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261301760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How's Sprint? I'm considering a Palm Pixi.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How 's Sprint ?
I 'm considering a Palm Pixi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How's Sprint?
I'm considering a Palm Pixi.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30504014</id>
	<title>Not just Nokia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261325880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hear hear. I was thinking - an article written as if Apple and Google are the only phone companies? And believes the myth that the Iphone is a "runaway hit"? (Actual market share figures disagree.)</p><p>TFA only mentions Symbian briefly, dismissing them as you say, on the grounds that they are losing share. Well yes - at 40\% market share, I'd expect over time that to lower as other companies enter. That doesn't mean Apple are remotely near overtaking them. And anyhow, even if they want to focus on the newcomers - where on earth are RIM/Blackberry, who are also ahead of Apple?</p><p>It talks about "Version 1" of 3G - but my old 3G feature phone from 2005 had full unrestricted access to the Internet (including tethering). I do agree that ultimately, phone companies need to transform themselves into mobile Internet providors, but it's clear that we're heading in that direction anyway, and I don't see why Apple are so special in this. Indeed, I hope Apple don't play a strong part of this - if they become dominant, then our 2019 mobile Internet, even if it's an open Internet, will only be available on a locked down platform where all software needs Apple approval to run. How is that an improvement?</p><p>I agree it doesn't make sense to always restricting the market to only smartphones. It's not just that they're a minority of the market, but it's also so ill-defined. Anyone: why was my old 3G phone that could do Internet and run any applications a non-smartphone, yet Apple's original Iphone, which didn't have 3G, can only run Apple-approved applications, and didn't even support basic features like copy/paste, considered a smartphone? More generally, give me a definition that includes the Iphone, but doesn't include most "feature" phones?</p><p>It's not just Nokia - Samsung, LG, Motorola are all companies that have bigger market share, yet you hardly ever hear about them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hear hear .
I was thinking - an article written as if Apple and Google are the only phone companies ?
And believes the myth that the Iphone is a " runaway hit " ?
( Actual market share figures disagree .
) TFA only mentions Symbian briefly , dismissing them as you say , on the grounds that they are losing share .
Well yes - at 40 \ % market share , I 'd expect over time that to lower as other companies enter .
That does n't mean Apple are remotely near overtaking them .
And anyhow , even if they want to focus on the newcomers - where on earth are RIM/Blackberry , who are also ahead of Apple ? It talks about " Version 1 " of 3G - but my old 3G feature phone from 2005 had full unrestricted access to the Internet ( including tethering ) .
I do agree that ultimately , phone companies need to transform themselves into mobile Internet providors , but it 's clear that we 're heading in that direction anyway , and I do n't see why Apple are so special in this .
Indeed , I hope Apple do n't play a strong part of this - if they become dominant , then our 2019 mobile Internet , even if it 's an open Internet , will only be available on a locked down platform where all software needs Apple approval to run .
How is that an improvement ? I agree it does n't make sense to always restricting the market to only smartphones .
It 's not just that they 're a minority of the market , but it 's also so ill-defined .
Anyone : why was my old 3G phone that could do Internet and run any applications a non-smartphone , yet Apple 's original Iphone , which did n't have 3G , can only run Apple-approved applications , and did n't even support basic features like copy/paste , considered a smartphone ?
More generally , give me a definition that includes the Iphone , but does n't include most " feature " phones ? It 's not just Nokia - Samsung , LG , Motorola are all companies that have bigger market share , yet you hardly ever hear about them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hear hear.
I was thinking - an article written as if Apple and Google are the only phone companies?
And believes the myth that the Iphone is a "runaway hit"?
(Actual market share figures disagree.
)TFA only mentions Symbian briefly, dismissing them as you say, on the grounds that they are losing share.
Well yes - at 40\% market share, I'd expect over time that to lower as other companies enter.
That doesn't mean Apple are remotely near overtaking them.
And anyhow, even if they want to focus on the newcomers - where on earth are RIM/Blackberry, who are also ahead of Apple?It talks about "Version 1" of 3G - but my old 3G feature phone from 2005 had full unrestricted access to the Internet (including tethering).
I do agree that ultimately, phone companies need to transform themselves into mobile Internet providors, but it's clear that we're heading in that direction anyway, and I don't see why Apple are so special in this.
Indeed, I hope Apple don't play a strong part of this - if they become dominant, then our 2019 mobile Internet, even if it's an open Internet, will only be available on a locked down platform where all software needs Apple approval to run.
How is that an improvement?I agree it doesn't make sense to always restricting the market to only smartphones.
It's not just that they're a minority of the market, but it's also so ill-defined.
Anyone: why was my old 3G phone that could do Internet and run any applications a non-smartphone, yet Apple's original Iphone, which didn't have 3G, can only run Apple-approved applications, and didn't even support basic features like copy/paste, considered a smartphone?
More generally, give me a definition that includes the Iphone, but doesn't include most "feature" phones?It's not just Nokia - Samsung, LG, Motorola are all companies that have bigger market share, yet you hardly ever hear about them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502554</id>
	<title>I know what</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261339260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I want an Android's brain in an iPhone's body.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want an Android 's brain in an iPhone 's body .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want an Android's brain in an iPhone's body.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30510938</id>
	<title>Nick Rao</title>
	<author>nickrao</author>
	<datestamp>1261401840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I went to Charlie's blog and read the entire atricle, including the comments.  I found the entire discussion very insightful.  In particlar, the discussion concerning the bandwidth decisions made by the cellcos and the push that Google and Apple are havaing on the market.  I don't like the Google scenario.  I am adverse to the depth and breadth of all the places that their tentacles are occupying.  On the political front, the US government wants to extend high bandwidth to all the masses.  This has the potential to fund the new technology that will support bandwidth needs of the mobile devices, but I doubt ti.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I went to Charlie 's blog and read the entire atricle , including the comments .
I found the entire discussion very insightful .
In particlar , the discussion concerning the bandwidth decisions made by the cellcos and the push that Google and Apple are havaing on the market .
I do n't like the Google scenario .
I am adverse to the depth and breadth of all the places that their tentacles are occupying .
On the political front , the US government wants to extend high bandwidth to all the masses .
This has the potential to fund the new technology that will support bandwidth needs of the mobile devices , but I doubt ti .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I went to Charlie's blog and read the entire atricle, including the comments.
I found the entire discussion very insightful.
In particlar, the discussion concerning the bandwidth decisions made by the cellcos and the push that Google and Apple are havaing on the market.
I don't like the Google scenario.
I am adverse to the depth and breadth of all the places that their tentacles are occupying.
On the political front, the US government wants to extend high bandwidth to all the masses.
This has the potential to fund the new technology that will support bandwidth needs of the mobile devices, but I doubt ti.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30505200</id>
	<title>Re:I know what</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1261335180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://maemo.nokia.com/n900/" title="nokia.com">There you have it.</a> [nokia.com]</p><p>Tip: Even with a a bit smaller screen, the resolution still is vastly bigger. Also you got root access right out of the box.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There you have it .
[ nokia.com ] Tip : Even with a a bit smaller screen , the resolution still is vastly bigger .
Also you got root access right out of the box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There you have it.
[nokia.com]Tip: Even with a a bit smaller screen, the resolution still is vastly bigger.
Also you got root access right out of the box.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502606</id>
	<title>What Makes Sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261340520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So for the past five years or more, they've been doing their best not to get dragged into a game of beggar-my-neighbor</p></div><p>

Because the game of "bugger-my-customer" is so much more fun...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So for the past five years or more , they 've been doing their best not to get dragged into a game of beggar-my-neighbor Because the game of " bugger-my-customer " is so much more fun.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So for the past five years or more, they've been doing their best not to get dragged into a game of beggar-my-neighbor

Because the game of "bugger-my-customer" is so much more fun...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502642</id>
	<title>f**k the telcos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261341120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>As soon as I can buy an unlocked Google Android phone for $199 I'm in. Worse: I have $250 fidobucks (my carrier basically gives me $4-6 a month towards a new phone, and it's been a few years) so I could get an iPhone for almost free at this point, but I'd rather have an unlocked Android (I suspect I may get the iPhone to sell to someone to recoup the cost of my Android) that does WiFi then some crap data plan from fido (currently 600 megabytes a month on the *ahem* "unlimited" plan).</htmltext>
<tokenext>As soon as I can buy an unlocked Google Android phone for $ 199 I 'm in .
Worse : I have $ 250 fidobucks ( my carrier basically gives me $ 4-6 a month towards a new phone , and it 's been a few years ) so I could get an iPhone for almost free at this point , but I 'd rather have an unlocked Android ( I suspect I may get the iPhone to sell to someone to recoup the cost of my Android ) that does WiFi then some crap data plan from fido ( currently 600 megabytes a month on the * ahem * " unlimited " plan ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As soon as I can buy an unlocked Google Android phone for $199 I'm in.
Worse: I have $250 fidobucks (my carrier basically gives me $4-6 a month towards a new phone, and it's been a few years) so I could get an iPhone for almost free at this point, but I'd rather have an unlocked Android (I suspect I may get the iPhone to sell to someone to recoup the cost of my Android) that does WiFi then some crap data plan from fido (currently 600 megabytes a month on the *ahem* "unlimited" plan).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502970</id>
	<title>Blackberry anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261306380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>My blackberry already did this.<br>
I can download whatever I want ever, written by whomever, whenever I want.<br>
All I have to do is pay for bandwidth and the basic voice package..</htmltext>
<tokenext>My blackberry already did this .
I can download whatever I want ever , written by whomever , whenever I want .
All I have to do is pay for bandwidth and the basic voice package. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My blackberry already did this.
I can download whatever I want ever, written by whomever, whenever I want.
All I have to do is pay for bandwidth and the basic voice package..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502542</id>
	<title>Awesome....</title>
	<author>desmogod</author>
	<datestamp>1261252620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't wait for someone to deregulate the Australian telco business.
I'm with Telstra due to my remote location, and I pay exorbitant prices for voice and data.
It's disgusting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't wait for someone to deregulate the Australian telco business .
I 'm with Telstra due to my remote location , and I pay exorbitant prices for voice and data .
It 's disgusting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't wait for someone to deregulate the Australian telco business.
I'm with Telstra due to my remote location, and I pay exorbitant prices for voice and data.
It's disgusting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30506734</id>
	<title>Re:Awesome....</title>
	<author>mister\_playboy</author>
	<datestamp>1261305000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Telstra received taxpayer money and a government mandate to provide service to such areas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Telstra received taxpayer money and a government mandate to provide service to such areas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Telstra received taxpayer money and a government mandate to provide service to such areas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30506502</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T.</title>
	<author>ThePadrinoDotCom</author>
	<datestamp>1261302660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>AT&amp;T Is the best I had to file a claim with the FCC to get a refund of over charges.

JiffyOilChange.com For Sale <a href="http://www.jiffyoilchange.com/" title="jiffyoilchange.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.jiffyoilchange.com/</a> [jiffyoilchange.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T Is the best I had to file a claim with the FCC to get a refund of over charges .
JiffyOilChange.com For Sale http : //www.jiffyoilchange.com/ [ jiffyoilchange.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T Is the best I had to file a claim with the FCC to get a refund of over charges.
JiffyOilChange.com For Sale http://www.jiffyoilchange.com/ [jiffyoilchange.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30505476</id>
	<title>Re:All in the data</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261337520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We know that the US isn't the whole world - but you seem to forget that Slashdot is a US site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We know that the US is n't the whole world - but you seem to forget that Slashdot is a US site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We know that the US isn't the whole world - but you seem to forget that Slashdot is a US site.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30503140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30507146</id>
	<title>Re:What's the value of an unlocked US cellphone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261308300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firstly, unlocked phones running on AT&amp;T at EDGE is better that nothing. It's one of the reasons I favor GSM; even though there's only a few carriers/MVNOs, there's at least some alternatives. R-UIM theoretically could do the same thing, but I gather US CDMA carriers don't want it. No matter how you look at it though, there's a slightly broader market for used unlocked phones.</p><p>Secondly, the take a look at T-Mobile's Even More+ and Even More plans. One is month-to-month, the other comes with a phone and a 2 year contract. Here's the important part: put an unlocked phone on the month-to-month plan and it's ten dollars cheaper per month. Generally the equation works out to a 200 dollar discount in exchange for that bump in pricing. So basically over two years, you pay 40 dollars beyond the discount. If you take that as a 'finance charge', then if I did my math right, it works out to about an interest rate of 18 percent. If you have a better rate, say on your credit card, grab an unlocked phone. Plus, there's more retail competition for unlocked phones, which can make the locked phone an even worse deal.</p><p>Finally, without a contracted plan, you're free to choose what's most cost effective for you; I use a prepaid plan that costs me perhaps 10 dollars a month, and NO data. Wifi gets me far enough currently. Just having the flexibility to change the contract without penalty can help consumers save money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firstly , unlocked phones running on AT&amp;T at EDGE is better that nothing .
It 's one of the reasons I favor GSM ; even though there 's only a few carriers/MVNOs , there 's at least some alternatives .
R-UIM theoretically could do the same thing , but I gather US CDMA carriers do n't want it .
No matter how you look at it though , there 's a slightly broader market for used unlocked phones.Secondly , the take a look at T-Mobile 's Even More + and Even More plans .
One is month-to-month , the other comes with a phone and a 2 year contract .
Here 's the important part : put an unlocked phone on the month-to-month plan and it 's ten dollars cheaper per month .
Generally the equation works out to a 200 dollar discount in exchange for that bump in pricing .
So basically over two years , you pay 40 dollars beyond the discount .
If you take that as a 'finance charge ' , then if I did my math right , it works out to about an interest rate of 18 percent .
If you have a better rate , say on your credit card , grab an unlocked phone .
Plus , there 's more retail competition for unlocked phones , which can make the locked phone an even worse deal.Finally , without a contracted plan , you 're free to choose what 's most cost effective for you ; I use a prepaid plan that costs me perhaps 10 dollars a month , and NO data .
Wifi gets me far enough currently .
Just having the flexibility to change the contract without penalty can help consumers save money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firstly, unlocked phones running on AT&amp;T at EDGE is better that nothing.
It's one of the reasons I favor GSM; even though there's only a few carriers/MVNOs, there's at least some alternatives.
R-UIM theoretically could do the same thing, but I gather US CDMA carriers don't want it.
No matter how you look at it though, there's a slightly broader market for used unlocked phones.Secondly, the take a look at T-Mobile's Even More+ and Even More plans.
One is month-to-month, the other comes with a phone and a 2 year contract.
Here's the important part: put an unlocked phone on the month-to-month plan and it's ten dollars cheaper per month.
Generally the equation works out to a 200 dollar discount in exchange for that bump in pricing.
So basically over two years, you pay 40 dollars beyond the discount.
If you take that as a 'finance charge', then if I did my math right, it works out to about an interest rate of 18 percent.
If you have a better rate, say on your credit card, grab an unlocked phone.
Plus, there's more retail competition for unlocked phones, which can make the locked phone an even worse deal.Finally, without a contracted plan, you're free to choose what's most cost effective for you; I use a prepaid plan that costs me perhaps 10 dollars a month, and NO data.
Wifi gets me far enough currently.
Just having the flexibility to change the contract without penalty can help consumers save money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30504940</id>
	<title>Re:We need a Debian Atp-Get model for phones</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261333200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's on the Droid, it's called "Market", you can configure it to install beta crap, i.e. just like debian testing or unstable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's on the Droid , it 's called " Market " , you can configure it to install beta crap , i.e .
just like debian testing or unstable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's on the Droid, it's called "Market", you can configure it to install beta crap, i.e.
just like debian testing or unstable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502926</id>
	<title>We need a Debian Atp-Get model for phones</title>
	<author>pecosdave</author>
	<datestamp>1261305300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google really needs to rip off Apt and Synaptics and make a version for their phones.  All the way.  Not only do they need to make multiple version specific repositories (and tested, don't let Debian and its ability to break stable regularly set to much of an example).  The ability of users to add custom repositories for our apps that Google wont stamp with approval would be nice as well.  We really need the carriers and their inability to do anything but lump surcharges on top of crap out of the way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google really needs to rip off Apt and Synaptics and make a version for their phones .
All the way .
Not only do they need to make multiple version specific repositories ( and tested , do n't let Debian and its ability to break stable regularly set to much of an example ) .
The ability of users to add custom repositories for our apps that Google wont stamp with approval would be nice as well .
We really need the carriers and their inability to do anything but lump surcharges on top of crap out of the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google really needs to rip off Apt and Synaptics and make a version for their phones.
All the way.
Not only do they need to make multiple version specific repositories (and tested, don't let Debian and its ability to break stable regularly set to much of an example).
The ability of users to add custom repositories for our apps that Google wont stamp with approval would be nice as well.
We really need the carriers and their inability to do anything but lump surcharges on top of crap out of the way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30506668</id>
	<title>Google needs a network</title>
	<author>ISurfTooMuch</author>
	<datestamp>1261304340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Google wants to reduce the wireless carriers to dumb pipes, then it needs a network of its own.  Otherwise, the carriers will simply block VoIP over their networks or, simpler yet, refuse to sell data service without a voice plan.  However, if there's a competitor to the existing carriers, then customers will presumably flock to it, forcing the established players to change the way they sell service.</p><p>I realize that building a nationwide network will cost a small fortune and take time, but that's what it's going to take.  Either that, or Google could buy one or more existing networks.  Sprint, perhaps?  Or what about snapping up Cricket and MetroPCS?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Google wants to reduce the wireless carriers to dumb pipes , then it needs a network of its own .
Otherwise , the carriers will simply block VoIP over their networks or , simpler yet , refuse to sell data service without a voice plan .
However , if there 's a competitor to the existing carriers , then customers will presumably flock to it , forcing the established players to change the way they sell service.I realize that building a nationwide network will cost a small fortune and take time , but that 's what it 's going to take .
Either that , or Google could buy one or more existing networks .
Sprint , perhaps ?
Or what about snapping up Cricket and MetroPCS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Google wants to reduce the wireless carriers to dumb pipes, then it needs a network of its own.
Otherwise, the carriers will simply block VoIP over their networks or, simpler yet, refuse to sell data service without a voice plan.
However, if there's a competitor to the existing carriers, then customers will presumably flock to it, forcing the established players to change the way they sell service.I realize that building a nationwide network will cost a small fortune and take time, but that's what it's going to take.
Either that, or Google could buy one or more existing networks.
Sprint, perhaps?
Or what about snapping up Cricket and MetroPCS?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502596</id>
	<title>Not a fun conclusion...</title>
	<author>R3d M3rcury</author>
	<datestamp>1261340280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's one reason for the Nexus One that I haven't seen yet.</p><p>Google wants it's employees to use Android and test new versions and be inspired to come up with interesting applications.  The best way to do this is to give all your employees phones.  If you're doing that, you might as well come up with a cool phone.  It's not like Google doesn't have the money to do this.</p><p>So, no, there's no ulterior motive about breaking the cellphone companies' grip on the market.  There's no plan to sell it through T-Mobile, AT&amp;T, Verizon, or even <a href="http://www.mosaictelecom.com/" title="mosaictelecom.com">Mosaic telecom</a> [mosaictelecom.com].  All there is a phone that Google can give to their employees for testing and being creative with.  That's it.</p><p>I know, I know.  It's far more fun to believe that these corporations are doing all of these things as a battle that we can sit back and enjoy.  But the reality is usually far more mundane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's one reason for the Nexus One that I have n't seen yet.Google wants it 's employees to use Android and test new versions and be inspired to come up with interesting applications .
The best way to do this is to give all your employees phones .
If you 're doing that , you might as well come up with a cool phone .
It 's not like Google does n't have the money to do this.So , no , there 's no ulterior motive about breaking the cellphone companies ' grip on the market .
There 's no plan to sell it through T-Mobile , AT&amp;T , Verizon , or even Mosaic telecom [ mosaictelecom.com ] .
All there is a phone that Google can give to their employees for testing and being creative with .
That 's it.I know , I know .
It 's far more fun to believe that these corporations are doing all of these things as a battle that we can sit back and enjoy .
But the reality is usually far more mundane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's one reason for the Nexus One that I haven't seen yet.Google wants it's employees to use Android and test new versions and be inspired to come up with interesting applications.
The best way to do this is to give all your employees phones.
If you're doing that, you might as well come up with a cool phone.
It's not like Google doesn't have the money to do this.So, no, there's no ulterior motive about breaking the cellphone companies' grip on the market.
There's no plan to sell it through T-Mobile, AT&amp;T, Verizon, or even Mosaic telecom [mosaictelecom.com].
All there is a phone that Google can give to their employees for testing and being creative with.
That's it.I know, I know.
It's far more fun to believe that these corporations are doing all of these things as a battle that we can sit back and enjoy.
But the reality is usually far more mundane.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502750</id>
	<title>"Apple are..."?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261300620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, WTF is wrong with people's grammar these days?  Collective nouns such as company names are almost ALWAYS considered to be singular.  Yet I have seen a rash of idiotic grammatical errors due to someone trying to be cute and different with subject-verb agreement.</p><p>Look it up.</p><p><a href="http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/plurals.htm" title="commnet.edu" rel="nofollow">http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/plurals.htm</a> [commnet.edu]<br>(under "Collective Nouns, Company Names, Family Names, Sports Teams")</p><p>So just in case you could not figure out the proper subject-verb agreement, it is "Apple is..." in your last sentence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , WTF is wrong with people 's grammar these days ?
Collective nouns such as company names are almost ALWAYS considered to be singular .
Yet I have seen a rash of idiotic grammatical errors due to someone trying to be cute and different with subject-verb agreement.Look it up.http : //grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/plurals.htm [ commnet.edu ] ( under " Collective Nouns , Company Names , Family Names , Sports Teams " ) So just in case you could not figure out the proper subject-verb agreement , it is " Apple is... " in your last sentence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, WTF is wrong with people's grammar these days?
Collective nouns such as company names are almost ALWAYS considered to be singular.
Yet I have seen a rash of idiotic grammatical errors due to someone trying to be cute and different with subject-verb agreement.Look it up.http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/plurals.htm [commnet.edu](under "Collective Nouns, Company Names, Family Names, Sports Teams")So just in case you could not figure out the proper subject-verb agreement, it is "Apple is..." in your last sentence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30503140</id>
	<title>Re:All in the data</title>
	<author>jfanning</author>
	<datestamp>1261311060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, in Finland now I can get a 10EUR<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/month data plan (1 Mbit/s 3G) and the voice plan is optional. If I make voice calls I just pay per minute, same for text messages and MMS.</p><p>In Finland the data plans are typically uncapped, but limited by speed. So they range from 1MBit/s up to 5 or so.</p><p>Remember US != World.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , in Finland now I can get a 10EUR /month data plan ( 1 Mbit/s 3G ) and the voice plan is optional .
If I make voice calls I just pay per minute , same for text messages and MMS.In Finland the data plans are typically uncapped , but limited by speed .
So they range from 1MBit/s up to 5 or so.Remember US ! = World .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, in Finland now I can get a 10EUR /month data plan (1 Mbit/s 3G) and the voice plan is optional.
If I make voice calls I just pay per minute, same for text messages and MMS.In Finland the data plans are typically uncapped, but limited by speed.
So they range from 1MBit/s up to 5 or so.Remember US != World.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30506658</id>
	<title>Re: Inexpensive Service</title>
	<author>m1xram</author>
	<datestamp>1261304220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't do much calling so I use Virgin Mobil pay as you go. My bills are under $100 for the year. It's $0.18/minute to call anyone in the U.S. and they cover large metro areas. I've used it all along the Frontrange in Colorado and anywhere in NJ. It makes a good low usage inexpensive phone if you live in a <a href="http://www.virginmobileusa.com/check-cell-phone-coverage" title="virginmobileusa.com" rel="nofollow">coverage area</a> [virginmobileusa.com](map).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't do much calling so I use Virgin Mobil pay as you go .
My bills are under $ 100 for the year .
It 's $ 0.18/minute to call anyone in the U.S. and they cover large metro areas .
I 've used it all along the Frontrange in Colorado and anywhere in NJ .
It makes a good low usage inexpensive phone if you live in a coverage area [ virginmobileusa.com ] ( map ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't do much calling so I use Virgin Mobil pay as you go.
My bills are under $100 for the year.
It's $0.18/minute to call anyone in the U.S. and they cover large metro areas.
I've used it all along the Frontrange in Colorado and anywhere in NJ.
It makes a good low usage inexpensive phone if you live in a coverage area [virginmobileusa.com](map).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30509238</id>
	<title>If you want freedom, pressure Verizon and Sprint</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261332660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is no exclusivity for the iPhone. Verizon and Sprint could have the iPhone right now but they are not interested in getting devices like the iPhone because that would just turn them into a dumb pipe. Verizon is all about the V-cast and other services along with disabling WiFi and locking down ringtone downloading. That is how CDMA carriers operate.
<p>
There was nothing stopping Verizon and Sprint from launching 21 Mbps HSPA+ networks in the US like their CDMA counterparts in Canada did this November. Verizon is going to drag out the LTE deployment as long as they can because nobody is pressuring them to change their game plan and they can milk the marketplace for every cent possible using CDMA. Most Americans seems to think that CDMA is "good enough" but it is slower than HSPA 7.2 let alone 21 Mbps HSPA+. Heck, even Sprint's "4G" Wimax is twice as slow as HSPA+.
</p><p>
If you want real cellular competition, go to the source of the problem and pressure the CDMA carriers to beat AT&amp;T at their own HSPA game. Canadians put on the pressure and the carriers did something about it. Are you really going to let us Canadians make your wireless industry look like a joke?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no exclusivity for the iPhone .
Verizon and Sprint could have the iPhone right now but they are not interested in getting devices like the iPhone because that would just turn them into a dumb pipe .
Verizon is all about the V-cast and other services along with disabling WiFi and locking down ringtone downloading .
That is how CDMA carriers operate .
There was nothing stopping Verizon and Sprint from launching 21 Mbps HSPA + networks in the US like their CDMA counterparts in Canada did this November .
Verizon is going to drag out the LTE deployment as long as they can because nobody is pressuring them to change their game plan and they can milk the marketplace for every cent possible using CDMA .
Most Americans seems to think that CDMA is " good enough " but it is slower than HSPA 7.2 let alone 21 Mbps HSPA + .
Heck , even Sprint 's " 4G " Wimax is twice as slow as HSPA + .
If you want real cellular competition , go to the source of the problem and pressure the CDMA carriers to beat AT&amp;T at their own HSPA game .
Canadians put on the pressure and the carriers did something about it .
Are you really going to let us Canadians make your wireless industry look like a joke ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no exclusivity for the iPhone.
Verizon and Sprint could have the iPhone right now but they are not interested in getting devices like the iPhone because that would just turn them into a dumb pipe.
Verizon is all about the V-cast and other services along with disabling WiFi and locking down ringtone downloading.
That is how CDMA carriers operate.
There was nothing stopping Verizon and Sprint from launching 21 Mbps HSPA+ networks in the US like their CDMA counterparts in Canada did this November.
Verizon is going to drag out the LTE deployment as long as they can because nobody is pressuring them to change their game plan and they can milk the marketplace for every cent possible using CDMA.
Most Americans seems to think that CDMA is "good enough" but it is slower than HSPA 7.2 let alone 21 Mbps HSPA+.
Heck, even Sprint's "4G" Wimax is twice as slow as HSPA+.
If you want real cellular competition, go to the source of the problem and pressure the CDMA carriers to beat AT&amp;T at their own HSPA game.
Canadians put on the pressure and the carriers did something about it.
Are you really going to let us Canadians make your wireless industry look like a joke?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502662</id>
	<title>3G will be the next standard feature</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261341540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As WiFi migrates from Laptops to Desktops 3G chipsets will start to be standard items in Netbooks, then Laptops. This will help push data only plans down in price. And then 3G will migrate everywhere. Your car, your GPS (handheld, bike, car), cameras, etc etc.</p><p>Five years from now your 3G provider bill will have a list of your many 3G enabled devices. Perhaps one or two might have traditional voice plans. All will have data plans.</p><p>Carriers that allow you to aggregate devices and total transfer at reasonable prices will survive.</p><p>Carriers that stick to the current voice plus optional (expensive) data will not.</p><p>The only question is how long it takes to get there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As WiFi migrates from Laptops to Desktops 3G chipsets will start to be standard items in Netbooks , then Laptops .
This will help push data only plans down in price .
And then 3G will migrate everywhere .
Your car , your GPS ( handheld , bike , car ) , cameras , etc etc.Five years from now your 3G provider bill will have a list of your many 3G enabled devices .
Perhaps one or two might have traditional voice plans .
All will have data plans.Carriers that allow you to aggregate devices and total transfer at reasonable prices will survive.Carriers that stick to the current voice plus optional ( expensive ) data will not.The only question is how long it takes to get there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As WiFi migrates from Laptops to Desktops 3G chipsets will start to be standard items in Netbooks, then Laptops.
This will help push data only plans down in price.
And then 3G will migrate everywhere.
Your car, your GPS (handheld, bike, car), cameras, etc etc.Five years from now your 3G provider bill will have a list of your many 3G enabled devices.
Perhaps one or two might have traditional voice plans.
All will have data plans.Carriers that allow you to aggregate devices and total transfer at reasonable prices will survive.Carriers that stick to the current voice plus optional (expensive) data will not.The only question is how long it takes to get there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502540</id>
	<title>I Just Did...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261252620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Picked up an N900.  T-Mobile unlimited for 10 bucks a month.  Could probably get away without it anyway, since there's so many open hotspots around in NY.  I hate AT&amp;T.  Hate Verizon.  Probably hate T-Mobile in a month.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)  There's no way I want to pay 80-120 bucks a month though.  Ridiculous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Picked up an N900 .
T-Mobile unlimited for 10 bucks a month .
Could probably get away without it anyway , since there 's so many open hotspots around in NY .
I hate AT&amp;T .
Hate Verizon .
Probably hate T-Mobile in a month .
: - ) There 's no way I want to pay 80-120 bucks a month though .
Ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Picked up an N900.
T-Mobile unlimited for 10 bucks a month.
Could probably get away without it anyway, since there's so many open hotspots around in NY.
I hate AT&amp;T.
Hate Verizon.
Probably hate T-Mobile in a month.
:-)  There's no way I want to pay 80-120 bucks a month though.
Ridiculous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30503244</id>
	<title>Which phones are actually any good?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261314000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The really annoying part is trying to get a phone that actually is any good.  Because of spotty coverage, different phones on each carrier, etc. it is remarkably difficult to figure out which phone actually works the best just for "making calls" by any absolute measurement, which gives makers a lot more leeway on quality (since they don't really have to compete against any standard).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The really annoying part is trying to get a phone that actually is any good .
Because of spotty coverage , different phones on each carrier , etc .
it is remarkably difficult to figure out which phone actually works the best just for " making calls " by any absolute measurement , which gives makers a lot more leeway on quality ( since they do n't really have to compete against any standard ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The really annoying part is trying to get a phone that actually is any good.
Because of spotty coverage, different phones on each carrier, etc.
it is remarkably difficult to figure out which phone actually works the best just for "making calls" by any absolute measurement, which gives makers a lot more leeway on quality (since they don't really have to compete against any standard).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30506948</id>
	<title>Customers prefer free-as-in-beer to walled gardens</title>
	<author>D4C5CE</author>
	<datestamp>1261306860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So who's a threat to whom if they have got a choice of paying Apple or reading Google's ads?<blockquote><div><p>Apple want to maintain the high quality Apple-centric user experience and sell stuff to their users through the walled garden of the App Store and the iTunes music/video store. Apple are an implicit threat to Google because Google can't slap their ads all over those media.</p></div></blockquote><p>
For this to be a threat to Google, Apple would have to have exclusive content way superior to anything Google could ever get its hands on.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So who 's a threat to whom if they have got a choice of paying Apple or reading Google 's ads ? Apple want to maintain the high quality Apple-centric user experience and sell stuff to their users through the walled garden of the App Store and the iTunes music/video store .
Apple are an implicit threat to Google because Google ca n't slap their ads all over those media .
For this to be a threat to Google , Apple would have to have exclusive content way superior to anything Google could ever get its hands on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So who's a threat to whom if they have got a choice of paying Apple or reading Google's ads?Apple want to maintain the high quality Apple-centric user experience and sell stuff to their users through the walled garden of the App Store and the iTunes music/video store.
Apple are an implicit threat to Google because Google can't slap their ads all over those media.
For this to be a threat to Google, Apple would have to have exclusive content way superior to anything Google could ever get its hands on.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30503892</id>
	<title>Re:Not a fun conclusion...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261324380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reminds me of the first few weeks when the Generation 1 iPhone was released. Apple gave one phone with some corporate plan to many employees (&gt;2000) that literally brought the telco's middleware to its knees. Things complicated further when a certain API would take a long time on a call to the corporate account because it has to fetch details of all the accounts underneath. It was really humiliating to ask Apple (to ask their employees) not to activate their phones en-mass.
Oh those memories - justfying and interpreting tealeaf logs to directors - literally once in a life time opportunity - glad I was part of that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of the first few weeks when the Generation 1 iPhone was released .
Apple gave one phone with some corporate plan to many employees ( &gt; 2000 ) that literally brought the telco 's middleware to its knees .
Things complicated further when a certain API would take a long time on a call to the corporate account because it has to fetch details of all the accounts underneath .
It was really humiliating to ask Apple ( to ask their employees ) not to activate their phones en-mass .
Oh those memories - justfying and interpreting tealeaf logs to directors - literally once in a life time opportunity - glad I was part of that : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of the first few weeks when the Generation 1 iPhone was released.
Apple gave one phone with some corporate plan to many employees (&gt;2000) that literally brought the telco's middleware to its knees.
Things complicated further when a certain API would take a long time on a call to the corporate account because it has to fetch details of all the accounts underneath.
It was really humiliating to ask Apple (to ask their employees) not to activate their phones en-mass.
Oh those memories - justfying and interpreting tealeaf logs to directors - literally once in a life time opportunity - glad I was part of that :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502588</id>
	<title>Buzzwords! Buzzwords! Buzzosphere!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261340160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I fail to see how this puts Google into direct competition with Apple. When did Apple become a telco?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I fail to see how this puts Google into direct competition with Apple .
When did Apple become a telco ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fail to see how this puts Google into direct competition with Apple.
When did Apple become a telco?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502714</id>
	<title>What's the value of an unlocked US cellphone?</title>
	<author>jerryasher</author>
	<datestamp>1261299720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there something I don't understand?  I don't think unlocking a US cellphone has any additional value than an unlocked US cellphone.  The phone's most value is on its original network and it's almost worthless on any other network.</p><p>All GSM is not equal.  Unlock a T-Mobile cellphone and move it to AT&amp;T and you get a degraded EDGE speed.  And I assume that's true in reverse.  An unlocked AT&amp;T cellphone presumably has poor speed on T-Mobiles network.</p><p>All CDMA is not equal.  A Verizon phone cannot necessarily be switched to Sprint -- my experience is that Sprint has to support that phone explicitly in its own network, including a possible new firmware load.  And presumably vice versa.</p><p>And of course a GSM phone cannot be activated on a CDMA network or vice-versa.</p><p>So even if you can unlock your phone, there doesn't seem to be ANY interoperability with respect to carriers.  Your unlocked phone has the most value on the network it came from, and almost no value on any other network.</p><p>So what's the point of unlocking it?</p><p>Please feel free to correct me and point out all the things I don't understand about cellphones.  Cause I don't get it, and I assume it's due to my ignorance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there something I do n't understand ?
I do n't think unlocking a US cellphone has any additional value than an unlocked US cellphone .
The phone 's most value is on its original network and it 's almost worthless on any other network.All GSM is not equal .
Unlock a T-Mobile cellphone and move it to AT&amp;T and you get a degraded EDGE speed .
And I assume that 's true in reverse .
An unlocked AT&amp;T cellphone presumably has poor speed on T-Mobiles network.All CDMA is not equal .
A Verizon phone can not necessarily be switched to Sprint -- my experience is that Sprint has to support that phone explicitly in its own network , including a possible new firmware load .
And presumably vice versa.And of course a GSM phone can not be activated on a CDMA network or vice-versa.So even if you can unlock your phone , there does n't seem to be ANY interoperability with respect to carriers .
Your unlocked phone has the most value on the network it came from , and almost no value on any other network.So what 's the point of unlocking it ? Please feel free to correct me and point out all the things I do n't understand about cellphones .
Cause I do n't get it , and I assume it 's due to my ignorance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there something I don't understand?
I don't think unlocking a US cellphone has any additional value than an unlocked US cellphone.
The phone's most value is on its original network and it's almost worthless on any other network.All GSM is not equal.
Unlock a T-Mobile cellphone and move it to AT&amp;T and you get a degraded EDGE speed.
And I assume that's true in reverse.
An unlocked AT&amp;T cellphone presumably has poor speed on T-Mobiles network.All CDMA is not equal.
A Verizon phone cannot necessarily be switched to Sprint -- my experience is that Sprint has to support that phone explicitly in its own network, including a possible new firmware load.
And presumably vice versa.And of course a GSM phone cannot be activated on a CDMA network or vice-versa.So even if you can unlock your phone, there doesn't seem to be ANY interoperability with respect to carriers.
Your unlocked phone has the most value on the network it came from, and almost no value on any other network.So what's the point of unlocking it?Please feel free to correct me and point out all the things I don't understand about cellphones.
Cause I don't get it, and I assume it's due to my ignorance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30503414</id>
	<title>Re:I know what</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261318320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I want an Adroid's brain in an iPhone's body.</p> </div><p>...with multitouch capability and GSM (European flavor) in addition to being CDMA for those of us who travel frequently.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want an Adroid 's brain in an iPhone 's body .
...with multitouch capability and GSM ( European flavor ) in addition to being CDMA for those of us who travel frequently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I want an Adroid's brain in an iPhone's body.
...with multitouch capability and GSM (European flavor) in addition to being CDMA for those of us who travel frequently.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502568</id>
	<title>All in the data</title>
	<author>MrDoh!</author>
	<datestamp>1261339680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty soon, we'll be buying phones with data plans and the voice plan will be optional (if needed at all).<br>All we need is Google to get their phones coming with a VOIP client as standard.   Big unique selling point that no matter what network, or if you're not even on a network but just have wireless at home/work/in car/train/plane, you can make/receive calls.</p><p>Using phone numbers and keeping a local phonebook of addresses makes as much sense as using IP numbers in a browser to get to a website.  Google providing their DNS to allow new services to be added like this was another one of the steps needed to be done.  Google Voice is a stopgap, their newly acquisitioned VOIP stuff is the next step.</p><p>Shortly, it'll be standard to call someone using an email address and the data-networks will route as needed to their phone/home/business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty soon , we 'll be buying phones with data plans and the voice plan will be optional ( if needed at all ) .All we need is Google to get their phones coming with a VOIP client as standard .
Big unique selling point that no matter what network , or if you 're not even on a network but just have wireless at home/work/in car/train/plane , you can make/receive calls.Using phone numbers and keeping a local phonebook of addresses makes as much sense as using IP numbers in a browser to get to a website .
Google providing their DNS to allow new services to be added like this was another one of the steps needed to be done .
Google Voice is a stopgap , their newly acquisitioned VOIP stuff is the next step.Shortly , it 'll be standard to call someone using an email address and the data-networks will route as needed to their phone/home/business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty soon, we'll be buying phones with data plans and the voice plan will be optional (if needed at all).All we need is Google to get their phones coming with a VOIP client as standard.
Big unique selling point that no matter what network, or if you're not even on a network but just have wireless at home/work/in car/train/plane, you can make/receive calls.Using phone numbers and keeping a local phonebook of addresses makes as much sense as using IP numbers in a browser to get to a website.
Google providing their DNS to allow new services to be added like this was another one of the steps needed to be done.
Google Voice is a stopgap, their newly acquisitioned VOIP stuff is the next step.Shortly, it'll be standard to call someone using an email address and the data-networks will route as needed to their phone/home/business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30507082</id>
	<title>If Google really wanted to promote their own phone</title>
	<author>MyBrotherSteve</author>
	<datestamp>1261307760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Google really wanted to promote their own phone and force carriers to move toward a more web centric connectivity model, they could make a deal with a carrier that would completely pay for the phone and the data service, like the following:
Most data services from the carriers run from $30 to $50 per month. Many unlocked smart phones run about $600 to $650, which over a two year period, works out to be about $25 to $30 per month. If a carrier would be willing to provide an 'unlimited' data plan for around $39.99, then for about $69.99 per month, on a two-year contract, the phone could be sold for $100 up front, or even given away free, and over the course of the two years, the phone and data would be completely paid for, with Google sweeping up the profits from the ad revenue from the users' web browsing. If they wanted, Google could even sweeten the to compensate for the carrier not making any 'traditional' cell phone plan income, by giving that carrier a small cut of the ad revenue. The real trick would be for Google to convince a carrier that they would bring in enough new users to make it worthwhile to support a program like that - could Google accomplish that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Google really wanted to promote their own phone and force carriers to move toward a more web centric connectivity model , they could make a deal with a carrier that would completely pay for the phone and the data service , like the following : Most data services from the carriers run from $ 30 to $ 50 per month .
Many unlocked smart phones run about $ 600 to $ 650 , which over a two year period , works out to be about $ 25 to $ 30 per month .
If a carrier would be willing to provide an 'unlimited ' data plan for around $ 39.99 , then for about $ 69.99 per month , on a two-year contract , the phone could be sold for $ 100 up front , or even given away free , and over the course of the two years , the phone and data would be completely paid for , with Google sweeping up the profits from the ad revenue from the users ' web browsing .
If they wanted , Google could even sweeten the to compensate for the carrier not making any 'traditional ' cell phone plan income , by giving that carrier a small cut of the ad revenue .
The real trick would be for Google to convince a carrier that they would bring in enough new users to make it worthwhile to support a program like that - could Google accomplish that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Google really wanted to promote their own phone and force carriers to move toward a more web centric connectivity model, they could make a deal with a carrier that would completely pay for the phone and the data service, like the following:
Most data services from the carriers run from $30 to $50 per month.
Many unlocked smart phones run about $600 to $650, which over a two year period, works out to be about $25 to $30 per month.
If a carrier would be willing to provide an 'unlimited' data plan for around $39.99, then for about $69.99 per month, on a two-year contract, the phone could be sold for $100 up front, or even given away free, and over the course of the two years, the phone and data would be completely paid for, with Google sweeping up the profits from the ad revenue from the users' web browsing.
If they wanted, Google could even sweeten the to compensate for the carrier not making any 'traditional' cell phone plan income, by giving that carrier a small cut of the ad revenue.
The real trick would be for Google to convince a carrier that they would bring in enough new users to make it worthwhile to support a program like that - could Google accomplish that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30505048</id>
	<title>Re:All in the data</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261334100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And this all gets us where? Closer to giant corporation google to knowing even more about everything we do.</p><p>Targeted ads today for merchandise, targeted ads tomorrow for votes.</p><p>At what point does the "good" google "appears" to be doing turn into a classic sci-fi plotline?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And this all gets us where ?
Closer to giant corporation google to knowing even more about everything we do.Targeted ads today for merchandise , targeted ads tomorrow for votes.At what point does the " good " google " appears " to be doing turn into a classic sci-fi plotline ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this all gets us where?
Closer to giant corporation google to knowing even more about everything we do.Targeted ads today for merchandise, targeted ads tomorrow for votes.At what point does the "good" google "appears" to be doing turn into a classic sci-fi plotline?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502896</id>
	<title>Re:Awesome....</title>
	<author>Garble Snarky</author>
	<datestamp>1261304340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm with Telstra due to my <i>remote location</i>, and I pay <i>exorbitant prices</i> for voice and data.</p></div><p>

Isn't that how utility distribution works? If you live by yourself 400 miles from the nearest town, why shouldn't you pay exorbitant prices for a company to run 400 miles of line/pipe/whatever to serve only you? I don't know anything about your situation or whats going on with Australian telcos, this is just an honest question.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm with Telstra due to my remote location , and I pay exorbitant prices for voice and data .
Is n't that how utility distribution works ?
If you live by yourself 400 miles from the nearest town , why should n't you pay exorbitant prices for a company to run 400 miles of line/pipe/whatever to serve only you ?
I do n't know anything about your situation or whats going on with Australian telcos , this is just an honest question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm with Telstra due to my remote location, and I pay exorbitant prices for voice and data.
Isn't that how utility distribution works?
If you live by yourself 400 miles from the nearest town, why shouldn't you pay exorbitant prices for a company to run 400 miles of line/pipe/whatever to serve only you?
I don't know anything about your situation or whats going on with Australian telcos, this is just an honest question.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502808</id>
	<title>Re:I Just Did...</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1261301880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, and no mention of Nokia in the summary (and quite dismissive in TFA).</p><p>It's not only about Maemo, it's about a phone manufacturer that has 40\% of total market (of which smartphones are what, 15 - 20\% now? Why do you talk only about them?). Over 50\% of smartphone market. The only phone manufacturer that keeps itself comfortable financially (others are either struggling or mobile phones aren't their main product; except RIM perhaps, but they sell corporate service rather than phones). Only <i>one</i> their product (1100) is the most popular consumer electronic device in history, it vastly outsold <i>families</i> (like "iPod") from other manufacturers. A year ago there were 3 billion phones in the world, now there are around 4.6, and it's largely thanks to Nokia. Phones, companies which enable this kind of uptake is what's defining 21st century landscape.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and no mention of Nokia in the summary ( and quite dismissive in TFA ) .It 's not only about Maemo , it 's about a phone manufacturer that has 40 \ % of total market ( of which smartphones are what , 15 - 20 \ % now ?
Why do you talk only about them ? ) .
Over 50 \ % of smartphone market .
The only phone manufacturer that keeps itself comfortable financially ( others are either struggling or mobile phones are n't their main product ; except RIM perhaps , but they sell corporate service rather than phones ) .
Only one their product ( 1100 ) is the most popular consumer electronic device in history , it vastly outsold families ( like " iPod " ) from other manufacturers .
A year ago there were 3 billion phones in the world , now there are around 4.6 , and it 's largely thanks to Nokia .
Phones , companies which enable this kind of uptake is what 's defining 21st century landscape .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and no mention of Nokia in the summary (and quite dismissive in TFA).It's not only about Maemo, it's about a phone manufacturer that has 40\% of total market (of which smartphones are what, 15 - 20\% now?
Why do you talk only about them?).
Over 50\% of smartphone market.
The only phone manufacturer that keeps itself comfortable financially (others are either struggling or mobile phones aren't their main product; except RIM perhaps, but they sell corporate service rather than phones).
Only one their product (1100) is the most popular consumer electronic device in history, it vastly outsold families (like "iPod") from other manufacturers.
A year ago there were 3 billion phones in the world, now there are around 4.6, and it's largely thanks to Nokia.
Phones, companies which enable this kind of uptake is what's defining 21st century landscape.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30509354</id>
	<title>Re:Google needs a network</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261334220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is big, but I don't think even they have the clout to go head to head against all four US cell providers, and the myrid of the ones worldwide.  If they did, as an act of revenge, providers could lock out IMEI numbers of Android phones with some pithy excuse of "they are not secure enough".  Cellular carriers who are also ISPs could subtly mess with Google by throttling traffic to and from their servers, and as things stand now, there is not one thing Google could do about it in courts of law as of now, because net neutrality is off the table.</p><p>So, I'm sure Google is probably going to go with just the carrot for now until they can find a way of being able to shuttle packets independently of their competition.  As of now, the competition can cut Google's arms and legs off with relative ease by just putting a DENY acl to Google's address space in their routers, and there is absolutely zero that Google can do about that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is big , but I do n't think even they have the clout to go head to head against all four US cell providers , and the myrid of the ones worldwide .
If they did , as an act of revenge , providers could lock out IMEI numbers of Android phones with some pithy excuse of " they are not secure enough " .
Cellular carriers who are also ISPs could subtly mess with Google by throttling traffic to and from their servers , and as things stand now , there is not one thing Google could do about it in courts of law as of now , because net neutrality is off the table.So , I 'm sure Google is probably going to go with just the carrot for now until they can find a way of being able to shuttle packets independently of their competition .
As of now , the competition can cut Google 's arms and legs off with relative ease by just putting a DENY acl to Google 's address space in their routers , and there is absolutely zero that Google can do about that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is big, but I don't think even they have the clout to go head to head against all four US cell providers, and the myrid of the ones worldwide.
If they did, as an act of revenge, providers could lock out IMEI numbers of Android phones with some pithy excuse of "they are not secure enough".
Cellular carriers who are also ISPs could subtly mess with Google by throttling traffic to and from their servers, and as things stand now, there is not one thing Google could do about it in courts of law as of now, because net neutrality is off the table.So, I'm sure Google is probably going to go with just the carrot for now until they can find a way of being able to shuttle packets independently of their competition.
As of now, the competition can cut Google's arms and legs off with relative ease by just putting a DENY acl to Google's address space in their routers, and there is absolutely zero that Google can do about that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30506668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30506022</id>
	<title>Re:I Just Did...</title>
	<author>dachshund</author>
	<datestamp>1261341840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's not only about Maemo, it's about a phone manufacturer that has 40\% of total market (of which smartphones are what, 15 - 20\% now? Why do you talk only about them?).</i> </p><p>Because the expectation is that smartphones to become 90\% of the market within a few years, given the rapid drop in hardware prices and the availability of fast 3G networks.  The typical cellphone's lifespan is only a couple of years, and the expectation is that more and more consumers will replace with a $50-$99 smartphone rather than buying another dumb phone that doesn't even have a working keyboard.  The technology industry moves very quickly.</p><p>All of this maneuvering you see now is based on the correct observation that Nokia's current-gen phones are popular, but they haven't competed will in the smartphone market.  They could still turn it around, but they're going to have to actually <i>turn things around</i> from where they are now (where iPhone is eating a big chunk of the market and Google is positioning Android to eat up a bunch of the rest.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not only about Maemo , it 's about a phone manufacturer that has 40 \ % of total market ( of which smartphones are what , 15 - 20 \ % now ?
Why do you talk only about them ? ) .
Because the expectation is that smartphones to become 90 \ % of the market within a few years , given the rapid drop in hardware prices and the availability of fast 3G networks .
The typical cellphone 's lifespan is only a couple of years , and the expectation is that more and more consumers will replace with a $ 50- $ 99 smartphone rather than buying another dumb phone that does n't even have a working keyboard .
The technology industry moves very quickly.All of this maneuvering you see now is based on the correct observation that Nokia 's current-gen phones are popular , but they have n't competed will in the smartphone market .
They could still turn it around , but they 're going to have to actually turn things around from where they are now ( where iPhone is eating a big chunk of the market and Google is positioning Android to eat up a bunch of the rest .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not only about Maemo, it's about a phone manufacturer that has 40\% of total market (of which smartphones are what, 15 - 20\% now?
Why do you talk only about them?).
Because the expectation is that smartphones to become 90\% of the market within a few years, given the rapid drop in hardware prices and the availability of fast 3G networks.
The typical cellphone's lifespan is only a couple of years, and the expectation is that more and more consumers will replace with a $50-$99 smartphone rather than buying another dumb phone that doesn't even have a working keyboard.
The technology industry moves very quickly.All of this maneuvering you see now is based on the correct observation that Nokia's current-gen phones are popular, but they haven't competed will in the smartphone market.
They could still turn it around, but they're going to have to actually turn things around from where they are now (where iPhone is eating a big chunk of the market and Google is positioning Android to eat up a bunch of the rest.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30503436</id>
	<title>Re:We need a Debian Atp-Get model for phones</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261318560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Android doesn't have a gnu userland so it's not possible.  It boots a linux kernel but other than that, there is little resemblence to your typical distribution.  I doesn't even have a compatible c library.  Nokia's maemo is derived from Debian, uses an xserver and so forth, so it's natural that it uses apt for software management.  And I don't get your beef with Debian Stable, it's about as stable as linux gets...maybe a close second to RHE.  Or for that matter which version?  Etch?  Lenny?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Android does n't have a gnu userland so it 's not possible .
It boots a linux kernel but other than that , there is little resemblence to your typical distribution .
I does n't even have a compatible c library .
Nokia 's maemo is derived from Debian , uses an xserver and so forth , so it 's natural that it uses apt for software management .
And I do n't get your beef with Debian Stable , it 's about as stable as linux gets...maybe a close second to RHE .
Or for that matter which version ?
Etch ? Lenny ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Android doesn't have a gnu userland so it's not possible.
It boots a linux kernel but other than that, there is little resemblence to your typical distribution.
I doesn't even have a compatible c library.
Nokia's maemo is derived from Debian, uses an xserver and so forth, so it's natural that it uses apt for software management.
And I don't get your beef with Debian Stable, it's about as stable as linux gets...maybe a close second to RHE.
Or for that matter which version?
Etch?  Lenny?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30506802</id>
	<title>Re:3G will be the next standard feature</title>
	<author>mister\_playboy</author>
	<datestamp>1261305660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Perhaps one or two might have traditional voice plans. All will have data plans.</p></div><p>With ubiquitous 3G, why would we need the farce of separate plans?  It's all bits going over a network... data.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps one or two might have traditional voice plans .
All will have data plans.With ubiquitous 3G , why would we need the farce of separate plans ?
It 's all bits going over a network... data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps one or two might have traditional voice plans.
All will have data plans.With ubiquitous 3G, why would we need the farce of separate plans?
It's all bits going over a network... data.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502630</id>
	<title>what if ?</title>
	<author>kenshin33</author>
	<datestamp>1261340940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Scary or neat?? that is the question.

here's a thought, what if they (cel/tel cos) are already packet switching and making people pay for circuit switching?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Scary or neat ? ?
that is the question .
here 's a thought , what if they ( cel/tel cos ) are already packet switching and making people pay for circuit switching ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scary or neat??
that is the question.
here's a thought, what if they (cel/tel cos) are already packet switching and making people pay for circuit switching?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502648</id>
	<title>Re:All in the data</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1261341240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;Pretty soon, we'll be buying phones with data plans and the voice plan will be optional (if needed at all).</p><p>Yes, because data plans are so cheap from Verizon and their "competitors" in the market.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p</p><p>I think last time I checked, Verizon made about a third of its money from overcharging for data access.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Pretty soon , we 'll be buying phones with data plans and the voice plan will be optional ( if needed at all ) .Yes , because data plans are so cheap from Verizon and their " competitors " in the market .
: pI think last time I checked , Verizon made about a third of its money from overcharging for data access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;Pretty soon, we'll be buying phones with data plans and the voice plan will be optional (if needed at all).Yes, because data plans are so cheap from Verizon and their "competitors" in the market.
:pI think last time I checked, Verizon made about a third of its money from overcharging for data access.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30504842</id>
	<title>This would make Apple very happy</title>
	<author>blamanj</author>
	<datestamp>1261332480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think the competition between Google and Apple is the issue here, but the point about telcos as commodities seems spot on.  Apple could sell unlocked phones just as easily as Google, there have been rumors about a Verizon iPhone for months.  Also, having the telcos as commodities doesn't hurt Apple's ability to be an "experience company." Apple's machines plug into the same internet, the same power grid, the same USB connectors, etc. as all the rest.  The way Apple controls the experience is buy selling both the hardware and the software together.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think the competition between Google and Apple is the issue here , but the point about telcos as commodities seems spot on .
Apple could sell unlocked phones just as easily as Google , there have been rumors about a Verizon iPhone for months .
Also , having the telcos as commodities does n't hurt Apple 's ability to be an " experience company .
" Apple 's machines plug into the same internet , the same power grid , the same USB connectors , etc .
as all the rest .
The way Apple controls the experience is buy selling both the hardware and the software together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think the competition between Google and Apple is the issue here, but the point about telcos as commodities seems spot on.
Apple could sell unlocked phones just as easily as Google, there have been rumors about a Verizon iPhone for months.
Also, having the telcos as commodities doesn't hurt Apple's ability to be an "experience company.
" Apple's machines plug into the same internet, the same power grid, the same USB connectors, etc.
as all the rest.
The way Apple controls the experience is buy selling both the hardware and the software together.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502806</id>
	<title>Re:Not a fun conclusion...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261301880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your theory does not jibe with Google's involvement with the FCC spectrum bidding a year or two ago.<br>Remember how they lobbied to get extra conditions imposed as a contingency for licensing?<br>They only got a watered down version of what they wanted, but it was still enough that the spectrum licensee had to accept 3rd party devices on their network.  Devices just like an unlocked phone from some company other than the telco.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your theory does not jibe with Google 's involvement with the FCC spectrum bidding a year or two ago.Remember how they lobbied to get extra conditions imposed as a contingency for licensing ? They only got a watered down version of what they wanted , but it was still enough that the spectrum licensee had to accept 3rd party devices on their network .
Devices just like an unlocked phone from some company other than the telco .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your theory does not jibe with Google's involvement with the FCC spectrum bidding a year or two ago.Remember how they lobbied to get extra conditions imposed as a contingency for licensing?They only got a watered down version of what they wanted, but it was still enough that the spectrum licensee had to accept 3rd party devices on their network.
Devices just like an unlocked phone from some company other than the telco.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502736</id>
	<title>Re:All in the data</title>
	<author>thatskinnyguy</author>
	<datestamp>1261300320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good luck building an infrastructure that would support that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good luck building an infrastructure that would support that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good luck building an infrastructure that would support that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30506830</id>
	<title>Re:What's the value of an unlocked US cellphone?</title>
	<author>mister\_playboy</author>
	<datestamp>1261306020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're not really missing anything.  The situation in the US screws over customers in multiple ways, and an unlocked one phone only solves one of those problems.  For example, I only have a choice of one network to use, so I'm locked to it even with an unlocked phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're not really missing anything .
The situation in the US screws over customers in multiple ways , and an unlocked one phone only solves one of those problems .
For example , I only have a choice of one network to use , so I 'm locked to it even with an unlocked phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're not really missing anything.
The situation in the US screws over customers in multiple ways, and an unlocked one phone only solves one of those problems.
For example, I only have a choice of one network to use, so I'm locked to it even with an unlocked phone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502968</id>
	<title>Tired of Highlander biz analysis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261306380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm so tired of the PC-style ignorant logic that there cam be only one of anything. HBO and ad-supported TV co-exist quite nicely, and so do Apple and Google. Even with the Windows PC and Microsoft's deliberate monopolization and lemming tech industry, the Mac has done very well. In phones, there is even less chance of us ending up with only one system because the uses are more diverse and the user base is many times larger.</p><p>It is also tiresome to keep hysterically talking about how Google is going to kill everyone in phones. It's 5 years since they bought Android and they have less than 2\% of the US market, less than 2008-2009 Palm.</p><p>Having said that, I agree that Google wants data only. Why wouldn't Apple want that also? iChat is about 8 years old. In 4G we will probably see the entire market move to data only because voice calls will require only 1\% of the 4G pipe and video calls will be more popular.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm so tired of the PC-style ignorant logic that there cam be only one of anything .
HBO and ad-supported TV co-exist quite nicely , and so do Apple and Google .
Even with the Windows PC and Microsoft 's deliberate monopolization and lemming tech industry , the Mac has done very well .
In phones , there is even less chance of us ending up with only one system because the uses are more diverse and the user base is many times larger.It is also tiresome to keep hysterically talking about how Google is going to kill everyone in phones .
It 's 5 years since they bought Android and they have less than 2 \ % of the US market , less than 2008-2009 Palm.Having said that , I agree that Google wants data only .
Why would n't Apple want that also ?
iChat is about 8 years old .
In 4G we will probably see the entire market move to data only because voice calls will require only 1 \ % of the 4G pipe and video calls will be more popular .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm so tired of the PC-style ignorant logic that there cam be only one of anything.
HBO and ad-supported TV co-exist quite nicely, and so do Apple and Google.
Even with the Windows PC and Microsoft's deliberate monopolization and lemming tech industry, the Mac has done very well.
In phones, there is even less chance of us ending up with only one system because the uses are more diverse and the user base is many times larger.It is also tiresome to keep hysterically talking about how Google is going to kill everyone in phones.
It's 5 years since they bought Android and they have less than 2\% of the US market, less than 2008-2009 Palm.Having said that, I agree that Google wants data only.
Why wouldn't Apple want that also?
iChat is about 8 years old.
In 4G we will probably see the entire market move to data only because voice calls will require only 1\% of the 4G pipe and video calls will be more popular.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502930</id>
	<title>Re:What's the value of an unlocked US cellphone?</title>
	<author>JWSmythe</author>
	<datestamp>1261305360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Unlocking works if your phone is capable of working on other networks.  That's why the manufacturers advertise how many networks they work on.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I had Nextel back in the day, before Sprint bought them and started raping their customers with extra fees. (I was getting $300 for various things, even though there was no service at my house, and the phone sat on my desk with a dead battery).  A friend of mine bought two unlocked Boost Mobile phones, because she thought they looked nicer.  She gave me one, and I used it on the Nextel network without problems (like, since they were the same network anyways).</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Even a nice world wide "standard" like GSM, has 14 different frequency bands, so your phone may or may not work in a particular location.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; A long time ago, I bought a GSM phone in Europe.  It only worked on that provider, in that country.  After I got back to the states, I gave it to a friend who was traveling to another country in Europe.  Even though that provider had service in that country, it wouldn't work.  It was the cheapest prepaid phone I could get my hands on that day, so I didn't really expect much of it.  It suited it's purpose (having a cell for the week I was there).</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Some phones are more cooperative, because they work with multiple frequencies, or they happen to use the same frequency.  I knew someone who lived in Europe, who would come to the states, and his phone became a US phone as soon as he got off the plane.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  They were completely unrelated providers, but it worked, so he was happy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    Unlocking works if your phone is capable of working on other networks .
That 's why the manufacturers advertise how many networks they work on .
    I had Nextel back in the day , before Sprint bought them and started raping their customers with extra fees .
( I was getting $ 300 for various things , even though there was no service at my house , and the phone sat on my desk with a dead battery ) .
A friend of mine bought two unlocked Boost Mobile phones , because she thought they looked nicer .
She gave me one , and I used it on the Nextel network without problems ( like , since they were the same network anyways ) .
    Even a nice world wide " standard " like GSM , has 14 different frequency bands , so your phone may or may not work in a particular location .
    A long time ago , I bought a GSM phone in Europe .
It only worked on that provider , in that country .
After I got back to the states , I gave it to a friend who was traveling to another country in Europe .
Even though that provider had service in that country , it would n't work .
It was the cheapest prepaid phone I could get my hands on that day , so I did n't really expect much of it .
It suited it 's purpose ( having a cell for the week I was there ) .
    Some phones are more cooperative , because they work with multiple frequencies , or they happen to use the same frequency .
I knew someone who lived in Europe , who would come to the states , and his phone became a US phone as soon as he got off the plane .
: ) They were completely unrelated providers , but it worked , so he was happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    Unlocking works if your phone is capable of working on other networks.
That's why the manufacturers advertise how many networks they work on.
    I had Nextel back in the day, before Sprint bought them and started raping their customers with extra fees.
(I was getting $300 for various things, even though there was no service at my house, and the phone sat on my desk with a dead battery).
A friend of mine bought two unlocked Boost Mobile phones, because she thought they looked nicer.
She gave me one, and I used it on the Nextel network without problems (like, since they were the same network anyways).
    Even a nice world wide "standard" like GSM, has 14 different frequency bands, so your phone may or may not work in a particular location.
    A long time ago, I bought a GSM phone in Europe.
It only worked on that provider, in that country.
After I got back to the states, I gave it to a friend who was traveling to another country in Europe.
Even though that provider had service in that country, it wouldn't work.
It was the cheapest prepaid phone I could get my hands on that day, so I didn't really expect much of it.
It suited it's purpose (having a cell for the week I was there).
    Some phones are more cooperative, because they work with multiple frequencies, or they happen to use the same frequency.
I knew someone who lived in Europe, who would come to the states, and his phone became a US phone as soon as he got off the plane.
:)  They were completely unrelated providers, but it worked, so he was happy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30506034</id>
	<title>Re:"Apple are..."?</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1261341960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Seriously, WTF is wrong with people's grammar these days? "</p><p>Mine passed away, and I miss her, you insensitive clod!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Seriously , WTF is wrong with people 's grammar these days ?
" Mine passed away , and I miss her , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Seriously, WTF is wrong with people's grammar these days?
"Mine passed away, and I miss her, you insensitive clod!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502688</id>
	<title>And my lame prediction...</title>
	<author>macslut</author>
	<datestamp>1261342140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>AT&amp;T and Verizon become the main bandwidth providers.  T-Mobile and Sprint will cease exist on their own.  Google provides services as Google does  Anything Google can monetize via ads is something Google goes after.  This doesn't make Google a direct competitor to Apple or any other handset maker as long as the handset maker adopts Android or at least Google services.  The iPhone has Google Maps, YouTube and Google Search by default.  Google can provide other apps on this platform and with Admob, provide advertising services to 3rd party apps.  The X million iPhones that have been sold to date have added to Google's bottom line just as much as each Android that has been sold.

Google's desire to develop Android was solely to get a platform out to manufacturers that would fully adopt Google services.  From Google's perspective, they're saying, "the iPhone is great, RIM is ok, but what happens if WinMo gets most of the other handset manufactures?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T and Verizon become the main bandwidth providers .
T-Mobile and Sprint will cease exist on their own .
Google provides services as Google does Anything Google can monetize via ads is something Google goes after .
This does n't make Google a direct competitor to Apple or any other handset maker as long as the handset maker adopts Android or at least Google services .
The iPhone has Google Maps , YouTube and Google Search by default .
Google can provide other apps on this platform and with Admob , provide advertising services to 3rd party apps .
The X million iPhones that have been sold to date have added to Google 's bottom line just as much as each Android that has been sold .
Google 's desire to develop Android was solely to get a platform out to manufacturers that would fully adopt Google services .
From Google 's perspective , they 're saying , " the iPhone is great , RIM is ok , but what happens if WinMo gets most of the other handset manufactures ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T and Verizon become the main bandwidth providers.
T-Mobile and Sprint will cease exist on their own.
Google provides services as Google does  Anything Google can monetize via ads is something Google goes after.
This doesn't make Google a direct competitor to Apple or any other handset maker as long as the handset maker adopts Android or at least Google services.
The iPhone has Google Maps, YouTube and Google Search by default.
Google can provide other apps on this platform and with Admob, provide advertising services to 3rd party apps.
The X million iPhones that have been sold to date have added to Google's bottom line just as much as each Android that has been sold.
Google's desire to develop Android was solely to get a platform out to manufacturers that would fully adopt Google services.
From Google's perspective, they're saying, "the iPhone is great, RIM is ok, but what happens if WinMo gets most of the other handset manufactures?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30504948</id>
	<title>Re:I know what</title>
	<author>riffzifnab</author>
	<datestamp>1261333260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://phandroid.com/2009/12/14/2-new-nexus-one-pictures/" title="phandroid.com">http://phandroid.com/2009/12/14/2-new-nexus-one-pictures/</a> [phandroid.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //phandroid.com/2009/12/14/2-new-nexus-one-pictures/ [ phandroid.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://phandroid.com/2009/12/14/2-new-nexus-one-pictures/ [phandroid.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502554</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2230246_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2230246_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30505052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2230246_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2230246_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2230246_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30507814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2230246_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30505476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30503140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2230246_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30506802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2230246_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30504940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2230246_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30505200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2230246_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30503844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2230246_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2230246_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30506034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2230246_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30506830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2230246_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30504014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2230246_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30504948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2230246_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30503414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2230246_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30506658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2230246_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2230246_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30506022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2230246_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2230246_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30509354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30506668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2230246_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30506734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2230246_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30503892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2230246_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30503436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2230246_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30503588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2230246_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30507146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2230246_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30505048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2230246_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30506508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_2230246.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30504940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30503436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_2230246.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30503140
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30505476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30505048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30505052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_2230246.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502840
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_2230246.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_2230246.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30506034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_2230246.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30505200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30506508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30504948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30503414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_2230246.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30506802
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_2230246.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30503844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30507146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30506830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_2230246.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502630
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_2230246.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30509238
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_2230246.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30506734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30507814
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_2230246.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30506668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30509354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_2230246.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_2230246.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30503892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502806
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_2230246.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_2230246.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30503244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_2230246.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_2230246.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30506022
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30504014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30506658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30503588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2230246.30502802
</commentlist>
</conversation>
