<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_02_1614226</id>
	<title>Why Apple Denied the Google Latitude App</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1262452680000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>awyeah writes <i>"A recently revealed Apple patent looks <a href="http://www.9to5mac.com/apple-google-latitude-functionality-maps-2546345">remarkably similar to the functionality of Google Latitude</a>, which Apple <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/26/1519201/Google-Latitude-Arrives-For-the-iPhone-mdash-As-a-Web-App">relegated to WebApp status</a> earlier this year.  Obviously if Apple is working on their own version of Google Latitude (or owns the IP rights to this functionality), they'd be hesitant to put an app with the same functionality on their devices from another company."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>awyeah writes " A recently revealed Apple patent looks remarkably similar to the functionality of Google Latitude , which Apple relegated to WebApp status earlier this year .
Obviously if Apple is working on their own version of Google Latitude ( or owns the IP rights to this functionality ) , they 'd be hesitant to put an app with the same functionality on their devices from another company .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>awyeah writes "A recently revealed Apple patent looks remarkably similar to the functionality of Google Latitude, which Apple relegated to WebApp status earlier this year.
Obviously if Apple is working on their own version of Google Latitude (or owns the IP rights to this functionality), they'd be hesitant to put an app with the same functionality on their devices from another company.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30626570</id>
	<title>Re:The evil of a closed platform</title>
	<author>Swift2001</author>
	<datestamp>1262429880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But they immediately, on the return of Jobs, began opening the platform. They adopted USB, which was Intel's, and Wi-Fi, and they phased out proprietary protocols like Appletalk and so on. The "i-Mac" was the "Internet Mac," so hooking up with other computers became a priority. I worked an Intel Mac on an all-Windows network, and it worked, straight out of the box, and did all the basic communications. The Exchange interoperability on the iPhone is serious, though still limited to MS's licensing. The root layer of the OS is Darwin, which is an open source variant of Berkeley UNIX. They regularly release the newest versions of that, and the CUPS printing project, and WebKit, etc. Their OS has no serial numbers, and you can practically install it a million times, and though they ask you to pay a premium for multiple installations, there's no tattling to the Apple servers.</p><p>And yet, those who are dead set on seeing Apple is "closed" can always settle on one detail or other.</p><p>Look, the formerly close partnership between Apple and Google is getting a little sharp, no? It's inevitable, because Google was deciding not only to compete with Windows with an OS and Google Gears and so on, but with Apple in phones. Great, more competition makes for better phones.</p><p>Can I install my Mac software on that Google phone? No? Hey, it's not open! Google is a tyrant! I've already paid for my seven screens of iApps! Why does Google want to FORCE me to buy their software...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But they immediately , on the return of Jobs , began opening the platform .
They adopted USB , which was Intel 's , and Wi-Fi , and they phased out proprietary protocols like Appletalk and so on .
The " i-Mac " was the " Internet Mac , " so hooking up with other computers became a priority .
I worked an Intel Mac on an all-Windows network , and it worked , straight out of the box , and did all the basic communications .
The Exchange interoperability on the iPhone is serious , though still limited to MS 's licensing .
The root layer of the OS is Darwin , which is an open source variant of Berkeley UNIX .
They regularly release the newest versions of that , and the CUPS printing project , and WebKit , etc .
Their OS has no serial numbers , and you can practically install it a million times , and though they ask you to pay a premium for multiple installations , there 's no tattling to the Apple servers.And yet , those who are dead set on seeing Apple is " closed " can always settle on one detail or other.Look , the formerly close partnership between Apple and Google is getting a little sharp , no ?
It 's inevitable , because Google was deciding not only to compete with Windows with an OS and Google Gears and so on , but with Apple in phones .
Great , more competition makes for better phones.Can I install my Mac software on that Google phone ?
No ? Hey , it 's not open !
Google is a tyrant !
I 've already paid for my seven screens of iApps !
Why does Google want to FORCE me to buy their software.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But they immediately, on the return of Jobs, began opening the platform.
They adopted USB, which was Intel's, and Wi-Fi, and they phased out proprietary protocols like Appletalk and so on.
The "i-Mac" was the "Internet Mac," so hooking up with other computers became a priority.
I worked an Intel Mac on an all-Windows network, and it worked, straight out of the box, and did all the basic communications.
The Exchange interoperability on the iPhone is serious, though still limited to MS's licensing.
The root layer of the OS is Darwin, which is an open source variant of Berkeley UNIX.
They regularly release the newest versions of that, and the CUPS printing project, and WebKit, etc.
Their OS has no serial numbers, and you can practically install it a million times, and though they ask you to pay a premium for multiple installations, there's no tattling to the Apple servers.And yet, those who are dead set on seeing Apple is "closed" can always settle on one detail or other.Look, the formerly close partnership between Apple and Google is getting a little sharp, no?
It's inevitable, because Google was deciding not only to compete with Windows with an OS and Google Gears and so on, but with Apple in phones.
Great, more competition makes for better phones.Can I install my Mac software on that Google phone?
No? Hey, it's not open!
Google is a tyrant!
I've already paid for my seven screens of iApps!
Why does Google want to FORCE me to buy their software...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30629812</id>
	<title>Catchif already did that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262460480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An iphone app called Catchif has accomplished the location sharing in real-time through push notification messages. check this out: www.catchif.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An iphone app called Catchif has accomplished the location sharing in real-time through push notification messages .
check this out : www.catchif.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An iphone app called Catchif has accomplished the location sharing in real-time through push notification messages.
check this out: www.catchif.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30625456</id>
	<title>Re:I Smell Patent War</title>
	<author>trytoguess</author>
	<datestamp>1262423040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Begs the question makes the unitiated English speaker (or those who didn't pay much attention in English 101) think something is so off in some way that one feel a powerful urge to comment. An emotionally stronger version of raising the question so to speak. To say that begs the question can only be a logical fallacy is about as well... logical as claiming a straw man is only a fallacy, and can't be a humanoid shaped object made of straw.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Begs the question makes the unitiated English speaker ( or those who did n't pay much attention in English 101 ) think something is so off in some way that one feel a powerful urge to comment .
An emotionally stronger version of raising the question so to speak .
To say that begs the question can only be a logical fallacy is about as well... logical as claiming a straw man is only a fallacy , and ca n't be a humanoid shaped object made of straw .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Begs the question makes the unitiated English speaker (or those who didn't pay much attention in English 101) think something is so off in some way that one feel a powerful urge to comment.
An emotionally stronger version of raising the question so to speak.
To say that begs the question can only be a logical fallacy is about as well... logical as claiming a straw man is only a fallacy, and can't be a humanoid shaped object made of straw.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624748</id>
	<title>Re:Fundamental principle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262462160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No manufacturer has the right to prohibit person A from installing on a device he owns software written by person B: any legal or technological measures to this end are immoral, and ought to be barred by consumer protection laws.</p></div><p>No-one is preventing you doing anything. You can do exactly what you like with it. You just void your warranty.

That is exactly the same as if you modify your car (put, say, an induction kit on a new car then try to get it fixed under warranty).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No manufacturer has the right to prohibit person A from installing on a device he owns software written by person B : any legal or technological measures to this end are immoral , and ought to be barred by consumer protection laws.No-one is preventing you doing anything .
You can do exactly what you like with it .
You just void your warranty .
That is exactly the same as if you modify your car ( put , say , an induction kit on a new car then try to get it fixed under warranty ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No manufacturer has the right to prohibit person A from installing on a device he owns software written by person B: any legal or technological measures to this end are immoral, and ought to be barred by consumer protection laws.No-one is preventing you doing anything.
You can do exactly what you like with it.
You just void your warranty.
That is exactly the same as if you modify your car (put, say, an induction kit on a new car then try to get it fixed under warranty).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624260</id>
	<title>Re:The evil of a closed platform</title>
	<author>Suffering Bastard</author>
	<datestamp>1262459160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you're overreaching here. While I agree that having a closed App Store is another manifestation of Apple's control freakiness, and that this does some disservice to its customers and developers, I don't see this as anywhere near the bumbling that got them to death's door in the 80s and early 90s. Steve has mellowed out a bit (just a bit), enough to be flexible when it counts. I'll very likely join you in the chorus of anti-Apple's-anti-user policies, but it's quite clear that Apple has the ingenuity to create great computing products while being a benevolent dictator of their platform, very much unlike MS, which has been a raging bully from day 0.
<br> <br>
It's been pointed out before that Apple doesn't crackdown on jailbreakers, which would not be the case if they were the self-imploding Big Brother some accuse them of being. I also greatly appreciate the way they allow me to control my OS X Macs, whether it's working with plist files, easy containment of apps and app resources, using Automator/folder actions for basic customized behaviors, or using the ever-lovin' command line to access a plethora of open source apps all eager and ready for my input. This is all very different from the early days of the Mac OS, when we had to use ResEdit and a bunch of cheesy shareware apps to get anything to work outside the Apple-defined paradigm.
<br> <br>
So long as Apple continues to produce truly elegant technology for the masses, and continues to support it well (this point may be debatable), they will thrive despite any user-unfriendly policies, due precisely to their stated reason of controlling the user experience for the better. Look at Windows to see what a mess can happen when you allow mob rule to infest your platform. While I don't agree on principle with many of Apple's policy choices, I think they are doing exactly what they should do to remain a vibrant and successful technology company.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're overreaching here .
While I agree that having a closed App Store is another manifestation of Apple 's control freakiness , and that this does some disservice to its customers and developers , I do n't see this as anywhere near the bumbling that got them to death 's door in the 80s and early 90s .
Steve has mellowed out a bit ( just a bit ) , enough to be flexible when it counts .
I 'll very likely join you in the chorus of anti-Apple 's-anti-user policies , but it 's quite clear that Apple has the ingenuity to create great computing products while being a benevolent dictator of their platform , very much unlike MS , which has been a raging bully from day 0 .
It 's been pointed out before that Apple does n't crackdown on jailbreakers , which would not be the case if they were the self-imploding Big Brother some accuse them of being .
I also greatly appreciate the way they allow me to control my OS X Macs , whether it 's working with plist files , easy containment of apps and app resources , using Automator/folder actions for basic customized behaviors , or using the ever-lovin ' command line to access a plethora of open source apps all eager and ready for my input .
This is all very different from the early days of the Mac OS , when we had to use ResEdit and a bunch of cheesy shareware apps to get anything to work outside the Apple-defined paradigm .
So long as Apple continues to produce truly elegant technology for the masses , and continues to support it well ( this point may be debatable ) , they will thrive despite any user-unfriendly policies , due precisely to their stated reason of controlling the user experience for the better .
Look at Windows to see what a mess can happen when you allow mob rule to infest your platform .
While I do n't agree on principle with many of Apple 's policy choices , I think they are doing exactly what they should do to remain a vibrant and successful technology company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're overreaching here.
While I agree that having a closed App Store is another manifestation of Apple's control freakiness, and that this does some disservice to its customers and developers, I don't see this as anywhere near the bumbling that got them to death's door in the 80s and early 90s.
Steve has mellowed out a bit (just a bit), enough to be flexible when it counts.
I'll very likely join you in the chorus of anti-Apple's-anti-user policies, but it's quite clear that Apple has the ingenuity to create great computing products while being a benevolent dictator of their platform, very much unlike MS, which has been a raging bully from day 0.
It's been pointed out before that Apple doesn't crackdown on jailbreakers, which would not be the case if they were the self-imploding Big Brother some accuse them of being.
I also greatly appreciate the way they allow me to control my OS X Macs, whether it's working with plist files, easy containment of apps and app resources, using Automator/folder actions for basic customized behaviors, or using the ever-lovin' command line to access a plethora of open source apps all eager and ready for my input.
This is all very different from the early days of the Mac OS, when we had to use ResEdit and a bunch of cheesy shareware apps to get anything to work outside the Apple-defined paradigm.
So long as Apple continues to produce truly elegant technology for the masses, and continues to support it well (this point may be debatable), they will thrive despite any user-unfriendly policies, due precisely to their stated reason of controlling the user experience for the better.
Look at Windows to see what a mess can happen when you allow mob rule to infest your platform.
While I don't agree on principle with many of Apple's policy choices, I think they are doing exactly what they should do to remain a vibrant and successful technology company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624028</id>
	<title>Re:I Smell Patent War</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262458020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean raises the question. Begging the question is a form of logical fallacy which basically means that you are assuming something is true/false in order to prove that it's true/false.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean raises the question .
Begging the question is a form of logical fallacy which basically means that you are assuming something is true/false in order to prove that it 's true/false .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean raises the question.
Begging the question is a form of logical fallacy which basically means that you are assuming something is true/false in order to prove that it's true/false.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30629078</id>
	<title>Which ones?</title>
	<author>weston</author>
	<datestamp>1262451180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>with little purpose other than to brick jailbroken phones, you mean.</i></p><p>To be a bit pedantic, there simply never has been an update that bricked a phone.</p><p>But even allowing a little latitude for the word "brick" -- which updates didn't do anything other than interfere with the functioning of jailbroken phones?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>with little purpose other than to brick jailbroken phones , you mean.To be a bit pedantic , there simply never has been an update that bricked a phone.But even allowing a little latitude for the word " brick " -- which updates did n't do anything other than interfere with the functioning of jailbroken phones ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>with little purpose other than to brick jailbroken phones, you mean.To be a bit pedantic, there simply never has been an update that bricked a phone.But even allowing a little latitude for the word "brick" -- which updates didn't do anything other than interfere with the functioning of jailbroken phones?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624250</id>
	<title>Re:The evil of a closed platform</title>
	<author>Strange Attractor</author>
	<datestamp>1262459040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right!  The last Apple product that i bought was an early Mac.  Writing code for it was unnecessarily difficult because Apple was protecting the secrets of the "OS".  I used SUN products for a while after that, but since really open systems became available I've used them exclusively.  I will do the same thing with phones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right !
The last Apple product that i bought was an early Mac .
Writing code for it was unnecessarily difficult because Apple was protecting the secrets of the " OS " .
I used SUN products for a while after that , but since really open systems became available I 've used them exclusively .
I will do the same thing with phones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right!
The last Apple product that i bought was an early Mac.
Writing code for it was unnecessarily difficult because Apple was protecting the secrets of the "OS".
I used SUN products for a while after that, but since really open systems became available I've used them exclusively.
I will do the same thing with phones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624004</id>
	<title>Fundamental principle</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1262457840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No manufacturer has the right to prohibit person A from installing on a device he owns software written by person B: any legal or technological measures to this end are immoral, and ought to be barred by consumer protection laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No manufacturer has the right to prohibit person A from installing on a device he owns software written by person B : any legal or technological measures to this end are immoral , and ought to be barred by consumer protection laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No manufacturer has the right to prohibit person A from installing on a device he owns software written by person B: any legal or technological measures to this end are immoral, and ought to be barred by consumer protection laws.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624404</id>
	<title>Get off your high horses.</title>
	<author>Spazed</author>
	<datestamp>1262460060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple doesn't have to provide a way for you to put apps onto any of their products. They have a product with some restrictions to help protect their image/brand. They have never said that they would allow any application written to be put in the app store. They also don't have to worry about antitrust because there are other devices that you can buy with its own set of restrictions and apps. I would go as far as to say that Apple is being pretty kind about people circumventing their software restrictions, jailbreaking is against the TOS you sign when you buy the phone and they haven't bothered any Hackintosh builders unless they were selling them.
<br> <br>
Apple isn't being deceptive, stop acting like this is the biggest human rights violation since slavery.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple does n't have to provide a way for you to put apps onto any of their products .
They have a product with some restrictions to help protect their image/brand .
They have never said that they would allow any application written to be put in the app store .
They also do n't have to worry about antitrust because there are other devices that you can buy with its own set of restrictions and apps .
I would go as far as to say that Apple is being pretty kind about people circumventing their software restrictions , jailbreaking is against the TOS you sign when you buy the phone and they have n't bothered any Hackintosh builders unless they were selling them .
Apple is n't being deceptive , stop acting like this is the biggest human rights violation since slavery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple doesn't have to provide a way for you to put apps onto any of their products.
They have a product with some restrictions to help protect their image/brand.
They have never said that they would allow any application written to be put in the app store.
They also don't have to worry about antitrust because there are other devices that you can buy with its own set of restrictions and apps.
I would go as far as to say that Apple is being pretty kind about people circumventing their software restrictions, jailbreaking is against the TOS you sign when you buy the phone and they haven't bothered any Hackintosh builders unless they were selling them.
Apple isn't being deceptive, stop acting like this is the biggest human rights violation since slavery.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623882</id>
	<title>The evil of a closed platform</title>
	<author>KingSkippus</author>
	<datestamp>1262457360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have an iPhone, and it's a wonderful device, but as soon as my contract runs out (maybe sooner), I'll be moving to a different platform, and this is exactly why.</p><p>As long as the iPhone is a closed platform with the <i>only</i> way to get apps through the app store, you will be dealing with this.  Apple isn't going to allow competing applications on the device because they simply don't have to.  They give a good song and dance about how closed the device is being about the "user experience," but the simple truth is that they don't want competition from other sources.  That's their business model, it's how they work.</p><p>It's a crying shame, because Apple really <i>is</i> a good company when it comes to style and design, and especially in figuring out exactly what scratches consumers' itches.  But this is almost historically identical to what happened with the Macintosh a couple of decades ago.  They kept it so closely-held and closed that when the PC came along, which allowed users to shrug off proprietary and use it how <i>they</i> wanted to instead of how some company told them to, Apple damn near went out of business.</p><p>I really do hate to see them rebuild their reputation (and market value) again, just to throw it all away like they did last time, but damned if it doesn't look like that's exactly what they're trying to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have an iPhone , and it 's a wonderful device , but as soon as my contract runs out ( maybe sooner ) , I 'll be moving to a different platform , and this is exactly why.As long as the iPhone is a closed platform with the only way to get apps through the app store , you will be dealing with this .
Apple is n't going to allow competing applications on the device because they simply do n't have to .
They give a good song and dance about how closed the device is being about the " user experience , " but the simple truth is that they do n't want competition from other sources .
That 's their business model , it 's how they work.It 's a crying shame , because Apple really is a good company when it comes to style and design , and especially in figuring out exactly what scratches consumers ' itches .
But this is almost historically identical to what happened with the Macintosh a couple of decades ago .
They kept it so closely-held and closed that when the PC came along , which allowed users to shrug off proprietary and use it how they wanted to instead of how some company told them to , Apple damn near went out of business.I really do hate to see them rebuild their reputation ( and market value ) again , just to throw it all away like they did last time , but damned if it does n't look like that 's exactly what they 're trying to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have an iPhone, and it's a wonderful device, but as soon as my contract runs out (maybe sooner), I'll be moving to a different platform, and this is exactly why.As long as the iPhone is a closed platform with the only way to get apps through the app store, you will be dealing with this.
Apple isn't going to allow competing applications on the device because they simply don't have to.
They give a good song and dance about how closed the device is being about the "user experience," but the simple truth is that they don't want competition from other sources.
That's their business model, it's how they work.It's a crying shame, because Apple really is a good company when it comes to style and design, and especially in figuring out exactly what scratches consumers' itches.
But this is almost historically identical to what happened with the Macintosh a couple of decades ago.
They kept it so closely-held and closed that when the PC came along, which allowed users to shrug off proprietary and use it how they wanted to instead of how some company told them to, Apple damn near went out of business.I really do hate to see them rebuild their reputation (and market value) again, just to throw it all away like they did last time, but damned if it doesn't look like that's exactly what they're trying to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624368</id>
	<title>Google Maps?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262459760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It probably conflicts with the built-in functionality of "Google Maps".  That is actually a violation of Apple's rules.  Google should know this.</p><p>That said: They should probably just approve it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It probably conflicts with the built-in functionality of " Google Maps " .
That is actually a violation of Apple 's rules .
Google should know this.That said : They should probably just approve it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It probably conflicts with the built-in functionality of "Google Maps".
That is actually a violation of Apple's rules.
Google should know this.That said: They should probably just approve it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624908</id>
	<title>Re:The evil of a closed platform</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1262463240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;I have an iPhone, and it's a wonderful device, but as soon as my contract runs out (maybe sooner), I'll be moving to a different platform, and this is exactly why.</p><p>Same here.  Im leaning towards an android phone bought without subsidy and getting on T-mobile's non-subsidized plan for 59.99 unlimited text/data and 500 minutes.  Thats about 30 dollars less a month than the equivalent plan on ATT and Im only going to pay an extra 200 dollars down, which pays for itself in less than one year.</p><p>&gt;They give a good song and dance about how closed the device is being about the "user experience," but the simple truth is that they don't want competition from other sources.</p><p>Turns out history was right: There's no such thing as a benevolent dictator. Turns out centralization from an unaccountable group leads to abuse. Apple is just a thug in the market and with its controlled devices, its helping no one but its bottom line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I have an iPhone , and it 's a wonderful device , but as soon as my contract runs out ( maybe sooner ) , I 'll be moving to a different platform , and this is exactly why.Same here .
Im leaning towards an android phone bought without subsidy and getting on T-mobile 's non-subsidized plan for 59.99 unlimited text/data and 500 minutes .
Thats about 30 dollars less a month than the equivalent plan on ATT and Im only going to pay an extra 200 dollars down , which pays for itself in less than one year. &gt; They give a good song and dance about how closed the device is being about the " user experience , " but the simple truth is that they do n't want competition from other sources.Turns out history was right : There 's no such thing as a benevolent dictator .
Turns out centralization from an unaccountable group leads to abuse .
Apple is just a thug in the market and with its controlled devices , its helping no one but its bottom line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;I have an iPhone, and it's a wonderful device, but as soon as my contract runs out (maybe sooner), I'll be moving to a different platform, and this is exactly why.Same here.
Im leaning towards an android phone bought without subsidy and getting on T-mobile's non-subsidized plan for 59.99 unlimited text/data and 500 minutes.
Thats about 30 dollars less a month than the equivalent plan on ATT and Im only going to pay an extra 200 dollars down, which pays for itself in less than one year.&gt;They give a good song and dance about how closed the device is being about the "user experience," but the simple truth is that they don't want competition from other sources.Turns out history was right: There's no such thing as a benevolent dictator.
Turns out centralization from an unaccountable group leads to abuse.
Apple is just a thug in the market and with its controlled devices, its helping no one but its bottom line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623952</id>
	<title>All these apps and no water</title>
	<author>For a Free Internet</author>
	<datestamp>1262457660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But what if I am thirsty and there is a latitoad on my phone that makes me thirsty and it spats at me with electric shocks???? Then what will G$$GLE do???? FUCK!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But what if I am thirsty and there is a latitoad on my phone that makes me thirsty and it spats at me with electric shocks ? ? ? ?
Then what will G $ $ GLE do ? ? ? ?
FUCK !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what if I am thirsty and there is a latitoad on my phone that makes me thirsty and it spats at me with electric shocks????
Then what will G$$GLE do????
FUCK!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30656294</id>
	<title>What the...?</title>
	<author>RichiH</author>
	<datestamp>1262712900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously if Apple is working on their own version of Google Latitude (or owns the IP rights to this functionality), they'd be hesitant to put an app with the same functionality on their devices from another company.</p><p>I don't you about you, but for me, this is far from obvious. It might be a common practice amongst companies like Apple, but it's thankfully/hopefully not the logical thing to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously if Apple is working on their own version of Google Latitude ( or owns the IP rights to this functionality ) , they 'd be hesitant to put an app with the same functionality on their devices from another company.I do n't you about you , but for me , this is far from obvious .
It might be a common practice amongst companies like Apple , but it 's thankfully/hopefully not the logical thing to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously if Apple is working on their own version of Google Latitude (or owns the IP rights to this functionality), they'd be hesitant to put an app with the same functionality on their devices from another company.I don't you about you, but for me, this is far from obvious.
It might be a common practice amongst companies like Apple, but it's thankfully/hopefully not the logical thing to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30629160</id>
	<title>Re:I Smell Patent War</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262452140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You mean raises the question. Begging the question is a form of logical fallacy which basically means that you are assuming something is true/false in order to prove that it's true/false.</p></div><p>Here's an idea: maybe he means "begging the question" as in "raises the question" and he's not wrong. The phrase is overloaded with multiple meanings. It is the name of a logical fallacy, but from context you perfectly deduced it's not the case, or you wouldn't be making the remark.</p><p>You know what "beg" means. You know what "question" means. "Begging the question" is a valid phrase in English which is to be interpreted as such unless you have reasons not to. Oh, and stop being a douche.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean raises the question .
Begging the question is a form of logical fallacy which basically means that you are assuming something is true/false in order to prove that it 's true/false.Here 's an idea : maybe he means " begging the question " as in " raises the question " and he 's not wrong .
The phrase is overloaded with multiple meanings .
It is the name of a logical fallacy , but from context you perfectly deduced it 's not the case , or you would n't be making the remark.You know what " beg " means .
You know what " question " means .
" Begging the question " is a valid phrase in English which is to be interpreted as such unless you have reasons not to .
Oh , and stop being a douche .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean raises the question.
Begging the question is a form of logical fallacy which basically means that you are assuming something is true/false in order to prove that it's true/false.Here's an idea: maybe he means "begging the question" as in "raises the question" and he's not wrong.
The phrase is overloaded with multiple meanings.
It is the name of a logical fallacy, but from context you perfectly deduced it's not the case, or you wouldn't be making the remark.You know what "beg" means.
You know what "question" means.
"Begging the question" is a valid phrase in English which is to be interpreted as such unless you have reasons not to.
Oh, and stop being a douche.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30625390</id>
	<title>Re:My device</title>
	<author>Ecuador</author>
	<datestamp>1262465940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except you already made the choice, when you bought the iPhone... Too late now!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except you already made the choice , when you bought the iPhone... Too late now !
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except you already made the choice, when you bought the iPhone... Too late now!
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30625072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30629674</id>
	<title>Re:Anticompetitive behavior</title>
	<author>jeff4747</author>
	<datestamp>1262458800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If this were Microsoft, we'd be talking about how evilly they were using their monopoly power, to quash a competitor.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's 'cause Microsoft is a monopoly.  Apple isn't.</p><p>Don't like Apple's policies?  Buy an Android phone.  Or a Nokia.  Or a Windows Mobile.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this were Microsoft , we 'd be talking about how evilly they were using their monopoly power , to quash a competitor.That 's 'cause Microsoft is a monopoly .
Apple is n't.Do n't like Apple 's policies ?
Buy an Android phone .
Or a Nokia .
Or a Windows Mobile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this were Microsoft, we'd be talking about how evilly they were using their monopoly power, to quash a competitor.That's 'cause Microsoft is a monopoly.
Apple isn't.Don't like Apple's policies?
Buy an Android phone.
Or a Nokia.
Or a Windows Mobile.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30626898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624226</id>
	<title>Re:The evil of a closed platform</title>
	<author>onefriedrice</author>
	<datestamp>1262458980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I really do hate to see them rebuild their reputation (and market value) again, just to throw it all away like they did last time, but damned if it doesn't look like that's exactly what they're trying to do.</p></div><p>Actually, you've got it exactly backwards.  Apple nearly went out of business because they went <i>more</i> open and allowed Mac clones.  Now that they are (arguably) more closed in that respect, they are extremely successful.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do hate to see them rebuild their reputation ( and market value ) again , just to throw it all away like they did last time , but damned if it does n't look like that 's exactly what they 're trying to do.Actually , you 've got it exactly backwards .
Apple nearly went out of business because they went more open and allowed Mac clones .
Now that they are ( arguably ) more closed in that respect , they are extremely successful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really do hate to see them rebuild their reputation (and market value) again, just to throw it all away like they did last time, but damned if it doesn't look like that's exactly what they're trying to do.Actually, you've got it exactly backwards.
Apple nearly went out of business because they went more open and allowed Mac clones.
Now that they are (arguably) more closed in that respect, they are extremely successful.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624472</id>
	<title>Nokia Friend View</title>
	<author>dwater</author>
	<datestamp>1262460480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DidnMt Nokia have such a product long before Google?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DidnMt Nokia have such a product long before Google ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DidnMt Nokia have such a product long before Google?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30626624</id>
	<title>Re:My device</title>
	<author>bhunter736</author>
	<datestamp>1262430240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your wanting to have choices is exactly the point.  Buy Apple and you are afforded all the choices THEY offer/filter/censor.  Buy another product and be limited to all of the choices available that are compatible, not filtered or censored.  Currently, you have more choices with the Apple product, however they may not have quality functionality for most of them - Flashlight, Finger Hold Game, etc...  <p> These are choices but I prefer to use products that warn me of potential difficulty and allow me to make mistakes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your wanting to have choices is exactly the point .
Buy Apple and you are afforded all the choices THEY offer/filter/censor .
Buy another product and be limited to all of the choices available that are compatible , not filtered or censored .
Currently , you have more choices with the Apple product , however they may not have quality functionality for most of them - Flashlight , Finger Hold Game , etc... These are choices but I prefer to use products that warn me of potential difficulty and allow me to make mistakes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your wanting to have choices is exactly the point.
Buy Apple and you are afforded all the choices THEY offer/filter/censor.
Buy another product and be limited to all of the choices available that are compatible, not filtered or censored.
Currently, you have more choices with the Apple product, however they may not have quality functionality for most of them - Flashlight, Finger Hold Game, etc...   These are choices but I prefer to use products that warn me of potential difficulty and allow me to make mistakes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30625072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624426</id>
	<title>Re:I Smell Patent War</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262460120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This begs the question</p></div><p>It <i>raises</i> the question. Begging the question is something else.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This begs the questionIt raises the question .
Begging the question is something else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This begs the questionIt raises the question.
Begging the question is something else.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624580</id>
	<title>Re:Fundamental principle</title>
	<author>Ectospheno</author>
	<datestamp>1262461200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure what exactly is "Insightful" about your post. It is a nice dream and perhaps the world would be a better place if things worked that way.</p><p>But it doesn't, never has, and never will. It is an ideological dream that won't exist in our current reality no matter how much you wish for it or try to legislate it. Sad but true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure what exactly is " Insightful " about your post .
It is a nice dream and perhaps the world would be a better place if things worked that way.But it does n't , never has , and never will .
It is an ideological dream that wo n't exist in our current reality no matter how much you wish for it or try to legislate it .
Sad but true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure what exactly is "Insightful" about your post.
It is a nice dream and perhaps the world would be a better place if things worked that way.But it doesn't, never has, and never will.
It is an ideological dream that won't exist in our current reality no matter how much you wish for it or try to legislate it.
Sad but true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30628686</id>
	<title>Do tell.</title>
	<author>garote</author>
	<datestamp>1262447400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They give a good song and dance about how closed the device is being about the "user experience," but the simple truth is that they don't want competition from other sources.</p></div><p>Apple embeds an email client into the device.  It's not some extra you have to pay for.  It's included.<br>They would lose no money by allowing a company to sell a replacement email client via the store.<br>They would in fact MAKE MONEY by allowing a company to sell a replacement email client via the store, in the form of transaction overhead.</p><p>Same with the web browser.  Same with the iPod app.  Same with the phone "app".  And the SMS "app".  And the "app store" app.<br>Yet they will not allow these to be replaced.</p><p>On the other hand, Apple has turned a blind eye to third-party recreations of the clock app, the camera app, the voice recorder app (retroactively), the notes app, the calendar app, and the calculator app.  Re-creations of those abound, because they do not constitute "core" highly-cross-integrated functionality.</p><p>Clearly their regard for user experience is more than just a "song and dance".  Take your "simple truth" back to the pound, because that dog won't hunt.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They give a good song and dance about how closed the device is being about the " user experience , " but the simple truth is that they do n't want competition from other sources.Apple embeds an email client into the device .
It 's not some extra you have to pay for .
It 's included.They would lose no money by allowing a company to sell a replacement email client via the store.They would in fact MAKE MONEY by allowing a company to sell a replacement email client via the store , in the form of transaction overhead.Same with the web browser .
Same with the iPod app .
Same with the phone " app " .
And the SMS " app " .
And the " app store " app.Yet they will not allow these to be replaced.On the other hand , Apple has turned a blind eye to third-party recreations of the clock app , the camera app , the voice recorder app ( retroactively ) , the notes app , the calendar app , and the calculator app .
Re-creations of those abound , because they do not constitute " core " highly-cross-integrated functionality.Clearly their regard for user experience is more than just a " song and dance " .
Take your " simple truth " back to the pound , because that dog wo n't hunt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They give a good song and dance about how closed the device is being about the "user experience," but the simple truth is that they don't want competition from other sources.Apple embeds an email client into the device.
It's not some extra you have to pay for.
It's included.They would lose no money by allowing a company to sell a replacement email client via the store.They would in fact MAKE MONEY by allowing a company to sell a replacement email client via the store, in the form of transaction overhead.Same with the web browser.
Same with the iPod app.
Same with the phone "app".
And the SMS "app".
And the "app store" app.Yet they will not allow these to be replaced.On the other hand, Apple has turned a blind eye to third-party recreations of the clock app, the camera app, the voice recorder app (retroactively), the notes app, the calendar app, and the calculator app.
Re-creations of those abound, because they do not constitute "core" highly-cross-integrated functionality.Clearly their regard for user experience is more than just a "song and dance".
Take your "simple truth" back to the pound, because that dog won't hunt.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30627542</id>
	<title>Re:My device</title>
	<author>ShinmaWa</author>
	<datestamp>1262436300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But.. you see.. it's their store.  They paid for it.  They can choose what they want to sell.</p><p>If the device is tightly bound to the store and you knew that ahead of time (as well you should have), then it's rather your fault for purchasing the device, isn't it.   Caveat emptor, and all that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But.. you see.. it 's their store .
They paid for it .
They can choose what they want to sell.If the device is tightly bound to the store and you knew that ahead of time ( as well you should have ) , then it 's rather your fault for purchasing the device , is n't it .
Caveat emptor , and all that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But.. you see.. it's their store.
They paid for it.
They can choose what they want to sell.If the device is tightly bound to the store and you knew that ahead of time (as well you should have), then it's rather your fault for purchasing the device, isn't it.
Caveat emptor, and all that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30625072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30626808</id>
	<title>Re:Fundamental principle</title>
	<author>ralphrmartin</author>
	<datestamp>1262431500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I made, say, radiation therapy machines, or aircraft, I'd certainly demand a right not to let 3rd party software operate them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I made , say , radiation therapy machines , or aircraft , I 'd certainly demand a right not to let 3rd party software operate them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I made, say, radiation therapy machines, or aircraft, I'd certainly demand a right not to let 3rd party software operate them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30625476</id>
	<title>wrong diagnosis</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1262423160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Actually, you've got it exactly backwards. Apple nearly went out of business because they went more open and allowed Mac clones. Now that they are (arguably) more closed in that respect, they are extremely successful.</i></p><p>Apple's woes had nothing to do with allowing clones; Apple nearly went out of business because MacOS was a bad, proprietary platform and because Apple was bleeding money at an enormous rate.</p><p>Apple is successful now because they have been piggy-backing on open source technologies (Mach, gcc, tons of libraries) and therefore been saving development costs and delivering a better product, and because they are tightly controlling expenses (including R&amp;D expenses).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , you 've got it exactly backwards .
Apple nearly went out of business because they went more open and allowed Mac clones .
Now that they are ( arguably ) more closed in that respect , they are extremely successful.Apple 's woes had nothing to do with allowing clones ; Apple nearly went out of business because MacOS was a bad , proprietary platform and because Apple was bleeding money at an enormous rate.Apple is successful now because they have been piggy-backing on open source technologies ( Mach , gcc , tons of libraries ) and therefore been saving development costs and delivering a better product , and because they are tightly controlling expenses ( including R&amp;D expenses ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, you've got it exactly backwards.
Apple nearly went out of business because they went more open and allowed Mac clones.
Now that they are (arguably) more closed in that respect, they are extremely successful.Apple's woes had nothing to do with allowing clones; Apple nearly went out of business because MacOS was a bad, proprietary platform and because Apple was bleeding money at an enormous rate.Apple is successful now because they have been piggy-backing on open source technologies (Mach, gcc, tons of libraries) and therefore been saving development costs and delivering a better product, and because they are tightly controlling expenses (including R&amp;D expenses).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30630516</id>
	<title>Re:I Smell Patent War</title>
	<author>LordVader717</author>
	<datestamp>1262514120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am by no means a big fan of Apple or Apple products in general, but for those screaming "anti-trust" Apple is entirely within their right to do this (although whether its the "right" thing to do is questionable) considering A) Apple has nothing near a monopoly over the smartphone market B) A monopoly over one's own product is hardly a monopoly and C) Even if Apple were able to completely supplant Google Latitude among iPhone users, they're not going to be selling their software on the other 90\% of smartphones out there anytime soon.</p></div><p>Antitrust law is a huge area, and covers a wide range of practices and strategies. Saying that they are completely clean because they have no monopoly (which is a fuzzy and relative term anyway) is wrong. If they are found to be anti-competitive they deserve to burn.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am by no means a big fan of Apple or Apple products in general , but for those screaming " anti-trust " Apple is entirely within their right to do this ( although whether its the " right " thing to do is questionable ) considering A ) Apple has nothing near a monopoly over the smartphone market B ) A monopoly over one 's own product is hardly a monopoly and C ) Even if Apple were able to completely supplant Google Latitude among iPhone users , they 're not going to be selling their software on the other 90 \ % of smartphones out there anytime soon.Antitrust law is a huge area , and covers a wide range of practices and strategies .
Saying that they are completely clean because they have no monopoly ( which is a fuzzy and relative term anyway ) is wrong .
If they are found to be anti-competitive they deserve to burn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am by no means a big fan of Apple or Apple products in general, but for those screaming "anti-trust" Apple is entirely within their right to do this (although whether its the "right" thing to do is questionable) considering A) Apple has nothing near a monopoly over the smartphone market B) A monopoly over one's own product is hardly a monopoly and C) Even if Apple were able to completely supplant Google Latitude among iPhone users, they're not going to be selling their software on the other 90\% of smartphones out there anytime soon.Antitrust law is a huge area, and covers a wide range of practices and strategies.
Saying that they are completely clean because they have no monopoly (which is a fuzzy and relative term anyway) is wrong.
If they are found to be anti-competitive they deserve to burn.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30629500</id>
	<title>Re:The evil of a closed platform</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262456580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"As long as the iPhone is a closed platform"- Do you read/speak/comprehend the English language, or is it that your "IhAtOreZ teh aPplEz's" mentality simply makes you stupid?<br>YO!- "CLOSED PLATFORM" implies that NO ONE ELSE CAN DEVELOP FOR IT, not that there's a single outlet for Apps.</p><p>You can spin your statement any way you like, but your argument falls flat on it's face because there are THOUSANDS of developers out there writing hundreds of thousands of Apps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" As long as the iPhone is a closed platform " - Do you read/speak/comprehend the English language , or is it that your " IhAtOreZ teh aPplEz 's " mentality simply makes you stupid ? YO ! - " CLOSED PLATFORM " implies that NO ONE ELSE CAN DEVELOP FOR IT , not that there 's a single outlet for Apps.You can spin your statement any way you like , but your argument falls flat on it 's face because there are THOUSANDS of developers out there writing hundreds of thousands of Apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"As long as the iPhone is a closed platform"- Do you read/speak/comprehend the English language, or is it that your "IhAtOreZ teh aPplEz's" mentality simply makes you stupid?YO!- "CLOSED PLATFORM" implies that NO ONE ELSE CAN DEVELOP FOR IT, not that there's a single outlet for Apps.You can spin your statement any way you like, but your argument falls flat on it's face because there are THOUSANDS of developers out there writing hundreds of thousands of Apps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624322</id>
	<title>Re:I Smell Patent War</title>
	<author>drgruney</author>
	<datestamp>1262459520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if I had mod points I would give them all to you

testify!</htmltext>
<tokenext>if I had mod points I would give them all to you testify !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if I had mod points I would give them all to you

testify!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623876</id>
	<title>Obviously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262457300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Obviously if Apple is working on their own version of Google Latitude (or owns the IP rights to this functionality), they'd be hesitant to put an app with the same functionality on their devices from another company."</p><p>That's not obvious at all to me.  It harms the vibrancy of their marketplace, it harms the goodwill of the developer community, and ultimately, it would appear to harm the competitiveness of the device by hindering competition for improved functionality.  The only reason they can get away with this BS is because they're Apple, the 900 lb gorilla of the new generation smartphone market at the moment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Obviously if Apple is working on their own version of Google Latitude ( or owns the IP rights to this functionality ) , they 'd be hesitant to put an app with the same functionality on their devices from another company .
" That 's not obvious at all to me .
It harms the vibrancy of their marketplace , it harms the goodwill of the developer community , and ultimately , it would appear to harm the competitiveness of the device by hindering competition for improved functionality .
The only reason they can get away with this BS is because they 're Apple , the 900 lb gorilla of the new generation smartphone market at the moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Obviously if Apple is working on their own version of Google Latitude (or owns the IP rights to this functionality), they'd be hesitant to put an app with the same functionality on their devices from another company.
"That's not obvious at all to me.
It harms the vibrancy of their marketplace, it harms the goodwill of the developer community, and ultimately, it would appear to harm the competitiveness of the device by hindering competition for improved functionality.
The only reason they can get away with this BS is because they're Apple, the 900 lb gorilla of the new generation smartphone market at the moment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624434</id>
	<title>Re:Fundamental principle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262460180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is so easy to say this, and easy for some to believe it, however, this isn't true legally, and morality is not a constant thing around the world.<br>
<br>
Also, installing *any* software on a device is extreme. *Any* software could potentially allow the "user" to reverse engineer some of Apple's multi-touch programming etc. I'm sure you'd love it if someone managed to do this, and there was an actual iPhone clone out there that could be had for $50 without a 2 year commitment, but that's still IP theft.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is so easy to say this , and easy for some to believe it , however , this is n't true legally , and morality is not a constant thing around the world .
Also , installing * any * software on a device is extreme .
* Any * software could potentially allow the " user " to reverse engineer some of Apple 's multi-touch programming etc .
I 'm sure you 'd love it if someone managed to do this , and there was an actual iPhone clone out there that could be had for $ 50 without a 2 year commitment , but that 's still IP theft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is so easy to say this, and easy for some to believe it, however, this isn't true legally, and morality is not a constant thing around the world.
Also, installing *any* software on a device is extreme.
*Any* software could potentially allow the "user" to reverse engineer some of Apple's multi-touch programming etc.
I'm sure you'd love it if someone managed to do this, and there was an actual iPhone clone out there that could be had for $50 without a 2 year commitment, but that's still IP theft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30625072</id>
	<title>My device</title>
	<author>Andy Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1262464080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<i>they'd be hesitant to put an app with the same functionality on their devices</i>"</p><p>But, you see, it's my device. I bought it. I'd like to be able to choose between the Google product and the Apple product and use the best one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" they 'd be hesitant to put an app with the same functionality on their devices " But , you see , it 's my device .
I bought it .
I 'd like to be able to choose between the Google product and the Apple product and use the best one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"they'd be hesitant to put an app with the same functionality on their devices"But, you see, it's my device.
I bought it.
I'd like to be able to choose between the Google product and the Apple product and use the best one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624622</id>
	<title>Re:Fundamental principle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262461440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No manufacturer has the right to prohibit person A from installing on a device he owns software written by person B: any legal or technological measures to this end are immoral,</p></div><p>Hmmm, so it's immoral that Windows software can't natively run on Linux? Should the developers of Linux be forced to make Windows<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.EXE applications compatible, and vice versa?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No manufacturer has the right to prohibit person A from installing on a device he owns software written by person B : any legal or technological measures to this end are immoral,Hmmm , so it 's immoral that Windows software ca n't natively run on Linux ?
Should the developers of Linux be forced to make Windows .EXE applications compatible , and vice versa ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No manufacturer has the right to prohibit person A from installing on a device he owns software written by person B: any legal or technological measures to this end are immoral,Hmmm, so it's immoral that Windows software can't natively run on Linux?
Should the developers of Linux be forced to make Windows .EXE applications compatible, and vice versa?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30627180</id>
	<title>Re:I Smell Patent War</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262434020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You, sir, are an illiterate fuckwit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You , sir , are an illiterate fuckwit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You, sir, are an illiterate fuckwit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30625086</id>
	<title>Re:Fundamental principle</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1262464200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't like it, don't buy it, nobody's forcing you - Apple doesn't have anything close to a monopoly.</p><p>That's my fundamental principle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't like it , do n't buy it , nobody 's forcing you - Apple does n't have anything close to a monopoly.That 's my fundamental principle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't like it, don't buy it, nobody's forcing you - Apple doesn't have anything close to a monopoly.That's my fundamental principle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624546</id>
	<title>Apple denied Google Voice app, not Latitude</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262461020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow someone's memory is utter shit; it was the Google Voice app that got rejected, not Latitude.</p><p>Sensationalism FAIL!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow someone 's memory is utter shit ; it was the Google Voice app that got rejected , not Latitude.Sensationalism FAIL ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow someone's memory is utter shit; it was the Google Voice app that got rejected, not Latitude.Sensationalism FAIL!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30625384</id>
	<title>disgusting</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1262465940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple has really outdone themselves in terms of disgusting patent applications.  Patenting sending my location to someone else??  That has many years of prior art.</p><p>We really need a patent system in which companies like Apple can be sued for stiff punitive damages when filing bad patents like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple has really outdone themselves in terms of disgusting patent applications .
Patenting sending my location to someone else ? ?
That has many years of prior art.We really need a patent system in which companies like Apple can be sued for stiff punitive damages when filing bad patents like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple has really outdone themselves in terms of disgusting patent applications.
Patenting sending my location to someone else??
That has many years of prior art.We really need a patent system in which companies like Apple can be sued for stiff punitive damages when filing bad patents like this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30629792</id>
	<title>I am a linguistics professor. Give up, please.</title>
	<author>kklein</author>
	<datestamp>1262460180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi there. I'm a language/linguistics professor at a major university.

</p><p>Language is not really bound by external rules; the "rules" are really just patterns that we have noticed and have used to describe the features of language after the fact.

</p><p>The simple fact of the matter is this: "Begging the question" has been used to mean "raising the question" for so long and by so many people that it is pointless to even suggest that they are not equal. They are. This belongs in the same bin as "don't end a sentence with a preposition." It's a rule that no one follows and which makes no real sense.

</p><p>As a bit of "action research," I quizzed some of my colleagues on this. <i>No one</i>--and this is a group of people with advanced degrees in linguistics--knew that using "begging the question" to mean "raising the question" was, in fact, incorrect.

</p><p>In fact, I just did a search of the <a href="http://www.americancorpus.org/" title="americancorpus.org">Corpus of Contemporary English</a> [americancorpus.org]. Do you know how many instances of the so-called "correct" usage of this phrase I found? --In this 400+-million-word linguistic resource? Wanna guess?

</p><p>Zero.

</p><p>Hang it up. You have lost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi there .
I 'm a language/linguistics professor at a major university .
Language is not really bound by external rules ; the " rules " are really just patterns that we have noticed and have used to describe the features of language after the fact .
The simple fact of the matter is this : " Begging the question " has been used to mean " raising the question " for so long and by so many people that it is pointless to even suggest that they are not equal .
They are .
This belongs in the same bin as " do n't end a sentence with a preposition .
" It 's a rule that no one follows and which makes no real sense .
As a bit of " action research , " I quizzed some of my colleagues on this .
No one--and this is a group of people with advanced degrees in linguistics--knew that using " begging the question " to mean " raising the question " was , in fact , incorrect .
In fact , I just did a search of the Corpus of Contemporary English [ americancorpus.org ] .
Do you know how many instances of the so-called " correct " usage of this phrase I found ?
--In this 400 + -million-word linguistic resource ?
Wan na guess ?
Zero . Hang it up .
You have lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi there.
I'm a language/linguistics professor at a major university.
Language is not really bound by external rules; the "rules" are really just patterns that we have noticed and have used to describe the features of language after the fact.
The simple fact of the matter is this: "Begging the question" has been used to mean "raising the question" for so long and by so many people that it is pointless to even suggest that they are not equal.
They are.
This belongs in the same bin as "don't end a sentence with a preposition.
" It's a rule that no one follows and which makes no real sense.
As a bit of "action research," I quizzed some of my colleagues on this.
No one--and this is a group of people with advanced degrees in linguistics--knew that using "begging the question" to mean "raising the question" was, in fact, incorrect.
In fact, I just did a search of the Corpus of Contemporary English [americancorpus.org].
Do you know how many instances of the so-called "correct" usage of this phrase I found?
--In this 400+-million-word linguistic resource?
Wanna guess?
Zero.

Hang it up.
You have lost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30625188</id>
	<title>Re:I Smell Patent War</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262464800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surely you mean that you "could care less".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely you mean that you " could care less " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely you mean that you "could care less".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624466</id>
	<title>Re:The evil of a closed platform</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1262460420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's been pointed out before that Apple doesn't crackdown on jailbreakers</p></div><p>Other than occasionally pushing out updates with little purpose other than to brick jailbroken phones, you mean.</p><p>Besides that, you're right...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been pointed out before that Apple does n't crackdown on jailbreakersOther than occasionally pushing out updates with little purpose other than to brick jailbroken phones , you mean.Besides that , you 're right.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been pointed out before that Apple doesn't crackdown on jailbreakersOther than occasionally pushing out updates with little purpose other than to brick jailbroken phones, you mean.Besides that, you're right...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30626898</id>
	<title>Anticompetitive behavior</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1262432100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>Obviously if Apple is working on their own version of Google Latitude (or owns the IP rights to this functionality), they'd be hesitant to put an app with the same functionality on their devices from another company."</em> </p><p>
If this were Microsoft, we'd be talking about how evilly they were using their monopoly power, to quash a competitor.
</p><p>
How interesting that we say <b>Obviously</b>  Apple would do this...
</p><p>
In other words, we have already taken for granted that Apple is an even more evil monopolist than MS.
</p><p>
Microsoft tilted the playing field by giving their software an advantage (such as private APIs), but they never (that we know of) "blocked"  competing application programs altogether from their platform,  for the purpose of ensuring they were the first to market...
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously if Apple is working on their own version of Google Latitude ( or owns the IP rights to this functionality ) , they 'd be hesitant to put an app with the same functionality on their devices from another company .
" If this were Microsoft , we 'd be talking about how evilly they were using their monopoly power , to quash a competitor .
How interesting that we say Obviously Apple would do this.. . In other words , we have already taken for granted that Apple is an even more evil monopolist than MS . Microsoft tilted the playing field by giving their software an advantage ( such as private APIs ) , but they never ( that we know of ) " blocked " competing application programs altogether from their platform , for the purpose of ensuring they were the first to market.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Obviously if Apple is working on their own version of Google Latitude (or owns the IP rights to this functionality), they'd be hesitant to put an app with the same functionality on their devices from another company.
" 
If this were Microsoft, we'd be talking about how evilly they were using their monopoly power, to quash a competitor.
How interesting that we say Obviously  Apple would do this...

In other words, we have already taken for granted that Apple is an even more evil monopolist than MS.

Microsoft tilted the playing field by giving their software an advantage (such as private APIs), but they never (that we know of) "blocked"  competing application programs altogether from their platform,  for the purpose of ensuring they were the first to market...
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624718</id>
	<title>Re:Obviously?</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1262461920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe in the US but they are not really the 900lb Gorilla not even remotely worldwide, the Gorilla still is Nokia... They just have the most press coverage with Android currently being close second!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe in the US but they are not really the 900lb Gorilla not even remotely worldwide , the Gorilla still is Nokia... They just have the most press coverage with Android currently being close second !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe in the US but they are not really the 900lb Gorilla not even remotely worldwide, the Gorilla still is Nokia... They just have the most press coverage with Android currently being close second!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30644546</id>
	<title>Re:Obviously?</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1262636400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple has absolutely no problem with harming the functionality of the device if they believe that serves their needs.</p><p>Same reason the iPhone will always be a second class citizen on the net... they are never going to support Java, they are never going to support Flash, etc. The reasons are the same... those are alternate means of adding "applications", even if they're just web apps, to the phone... without Apple's permission.</p><p>In fact, it's kind of surprising they've gone so far as to offer fast JavaScript... after all, most Palm WebOS apps are written in JavaScript (along with HTML and CSS, of course). Pretty dangerous stuff.</p><p>This is also the same reason they did not allow the Commodore 64 emulator on the iPhone. After all, 8-bit applications from the early 80s, and your ability to program in Commodore BASIC 2.0 is a clear affront to Apple's ability to sell applications though the iTunes store.</p><p>So, don't place any bets on "Apple won't do this, it will hurt the iPhone"... they will, if they believe it serves their interests, and you won't have much you can do about it, if you're an iPhone user.</p><p>Like multitasking... the presence of perfectly functional multitasking smart phones has put the kebash on Apple's claim that they only allow one external app to run at a time (of course, any number of Apple apps can run at the same time) out of security or power concerns. They just don't want application providers to have the same level of control over the phone as they do, plain and simple.</p><p>Fortunately, this is not the case on Android.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple has absolutely no problem with harming the functionality of the device if they believe that serves their needs.Same reason the iPhone will always be a second class citizen on the net... they are never going to support Java , they are never going to support Flash , etc .
The reasons are the same... those are alternate means of adding " applications " , even if they 're just web apps , to the phone... without Apple 's permission.In fact , it 's kind of surprising they 've gone so far as to offer fast JavaScript... after all , most Palm WebOS apps are written in JavaScript ( along with HTML and CSS , of course ) .
Pretty dangerous stuff.This is also the same reason they did not allow the Commodore 64 emulator on the iPhone .
After all , 8-bit applications from the early 80s , and your ability to program in Commodore BASIC 2.0 is a clear affront to Apple 's ability to sell applications though the iTunes store.So , do n't place any bets on " Apple wo n't do this , it will hurt the iPhone " ... they will , if they believe it serves their interests , and you wo n't have much you can do about it , if you 're an iPhone user.Like multitasking... the presence of perfectly functional multitasking smart phones has put the kebash on Apple 's claim that they only allow one external app to run at a time ( of course , any number of Apple apps can run at the same time ) out of security or power concerns .
They just do n't want application providers to have the same level of control over the phone as they do , plain and simple.Fortunately , this is not the case on Android .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple has absolutely no problem with harming the functionality of the device if they believe that serves their needs.Same reason the iPhone will always be a second class citizen on the net... they are never going to support Java, they are never going to support Flash, etc.
The reasons are the same... those are alternate means of adding "applications", even if they're just web apps, to the phone... without Apple's permission.In fact, it's kind of surprising they've gone so far as to offer fast JavaScript... after all, most Palm WebOS apps are written in JavaScript (along with HTML and CSS, of course).
Pretty dangerous stuff.This is also the same reason they did not allow the Commodore 64 emulator on the iPhone.
After all, 8-bit applications from the early 80s, and your ability to program in Commodore BASIC 2.0 is a clear affront to Apple's ability to sell applications though the iTunes store.So, don't place any bets on "Apple won't do this, it will hurt the iPhone"... they will, if they believe it serves their interests, and you won't have much you can do about it, if you're an iPhone user.Like multitasking... the presence of perfectly functional multitasking smart phones has put the kebash on Apple's claim that they only allow one external app to run at a time (of course, any number of Apple apps can run at the same time) out of security or power concerns.
They just don't want application providers to have the same level of control over the phone as they do, plain and simple.Fortunately, this is not the case on Android.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30627526</id>
	<title>A more likely reason?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262436240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google's app was probably full of Googlish "we will scrape all info we can find on your device and send to or servers just in case" features that Google fans seem to find a shedload of excuses for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google 's app was probably full of Googlish " we will scrape all info we can find on your device and send to or servers just in case " features that Google fans seem to find a shedload of excuses for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google's app was probably full of Googlish "we will scrape all info we can find on your device and send to or servers just in case" features that Google fans seem to find a shedload of excuses for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624802</id>
	<title>Apple Stinks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262462580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a perfect example of why I won't buy Apple products and why I won't own an iPhone.</p><p>Long live Android.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a perfect example of why I wo n't buy Apple products and why I wo n't own an iPhone.Long live Android .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a perfect example of why I won't buy Apple products and why I won't own an iPhone.Long live Android.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623718</id>
	<title>I Smell Patent War</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262456400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This begs the question, if Google already had an app out, who did it first?</p><p>Obviously the patent process takes years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This begs the question , if Google already had an app out , who did it first ? Obviously the patent process takes years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This begs the question, if Google already had an app out, who did it first?Obviously the patent process takes years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30625374</id>
	<title>Creepy &amp; patriot act</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262465880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't anyone find this creepy where you allow some company to find your location and see how you associate with anyone at any given time.  Of course throw in the Patriot Act.</p><p><b>FBI Audit Exposes Widespread Abuse Of Patriot Act Powers</b><br><a href="http://www.aclu.org/national-security/fbi-audit-exposes-widespread-abuse-patriot-act-powers" title="aclu.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.aclu.org/national-security/fbi-audit-exposes-widespread-abuse-patriot-act-powers</a> [aclu.org]</p><p><b>FOIA: National Security Letters (NSLs)</b><br><a href="http://www.eff.org/issues/foia/07656JDB" title="eff.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.eff.org/issues/foia/07656JDB</a> [eff.org]</p><p><b>FBI Employees Face Criminal Probe Over Patriot Act Abuse</b><br><a href="http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/07/exigentinvestigation" title="wired.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/07/exigentinvestigation</a> [wired.com]</p><p><b>FBI Admits More Privacy Violations</b><br><a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/06/2310206" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/06/2310206</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't anyone find this creepy where you allow some company to find your location and see how you associate with anyone at any given time .
Of course throw in the Patriot Act.FBI Audit Exposes Widespread Abuse Of Patriot Act Powershttp : //www.aclu.org/national-security/fbi-audit-exposes-widespread-abuse-patriot-act-powers [ aclu.org ] FOIA : National Security Letters ( NSLs ) http : //www.eff.org/issues/foia/07656JDB [ eff.org ] FBI Employees Face Criminal Probe Over Patriot Act Abusehttp : //www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/07/exigentinvestigation [ wired.com ] FBI Admits More Privacy Violationshttp : //yro.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 08/03/06/2310206 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't anyone find this creepy where you allow some company to find your location and see how you associate with anyone at any given time.
Of course throw in the Patriot Act.FBI Audit Exposes Widespread Abuse Of Patriot Act Powershttp://www.aclu.org/national-security/fbi-audit-exposes-widespread-abuse-patriot-act-powers [aclu.org]FOIA: National Security Letters (NSLs)http://www.eff.org/issues/foia/07656JDB [eff.org]FBI Employees Face Criminal Probe Over Patriot Act Abusehttp://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/07/exigentinvestigation [wired.com]FBI Admits More Privacy Violationshttp://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/06/2310206 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30626886</id>
	<title>Re:The evil of a closed platform</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1262432040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As long as the iPhone is a closed platform with the <i>only</i> way to get apps through the app store</p></div><p>Minor detail in the grand scheme of things, but it is not the \_only\_ way.  It is just the only non-contract-violating way.</p><p>Running one app on your computer while the phone is connected is all that is required to jail break these days.<br>Then you have access to both other apt repositories of software, and other app stores.<br>I even run my own apt repository of software that can even be restored through a full phone wipe and restore!</p><p>Not that I am excusing apples overall behavior.  I too wish the phone came stock this way (Hell, I wish Microsoft would hurry up and steal apt, it would make using Windows so much less painful!)</p><p>But thinking that there is one and only one way to use your iPhone just because Apple said so is not being honest, even if they would love for everyone to believe that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as the iPhone is a closed platform with the only way to get apps through the app storeMinor detail in the grand scheme of things , but it is not the \ _only \ _ way .
It is just the only non-contract-violating way.Running one app on your computer while the phone is connected is all that is required to jail break these days.Then you have access to both other apt repositories of software , and other app stores.I even run my own apt repository of software that can even be restored through a full phone wipe and restore ! Not that I am excusing apples overall behavior .
I too wish the phone came stock this way ( Hell , I wish Microsoft would hurry up and steal apt , it would make using Windows so much less painful !
) But thinking that there is one and only one way to use your iPhone just because Apple said so is not being honest , even if they would love for everyone to believe that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as the iPhone is a closed platform with the only way to get apps through the app storeMinor detail in the grand scheme of things, but it is not the \_only\_ way.
It is just the only non-contract-violating way.Running one app on your computer while the phone is connected is all that is required to jail break these days.Then you have access to both other apt repositories of software, and other app stores.I even run my own apt repository of software that can even be restored through a full phone wipe and restore!Not that I am excusing apples overall behavior.
I too wish the phone came stock this way (Hell, I wish Microsoft would hurry up and steal apt, it would make using Windows so much less painful!
)But thinking that there is one and only one way to use your iPhone just because Apple said so is not being honest, even if they would love for everyone to believe that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30628994</id>
	<title>Re:The evil of a closed platform</title>
	<author>garaged</author>
	<datestamp>1262450220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the sad thing is that if there were a way for apple to completle stop jailbreaking by sotfware or even legal means, they would have rolled it by now.</p><p>I have an iphone and a macbook (none of them actually mine, work) and I pretty much love the jailbreaked iphone, the laptop is kind of nice after you manage to make it behave like a real *nix box, but I dont think I will be spending any money on other apple products any time soon (I own an itouch) and apple need to make something really good next year or its market share will shrink again as it did 20 years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the sad thing is that if there were a way for apple to completle stop jailbreaking by sotfware or even legal means , they would have rolled it by now.I have an iphone and a macbook ( none of them actually mine , work ) and I pretty much love the jailbreaked iphone , the laptop is kind of nice after you manage to make it behave like a real * nix box , but I dont think I will be spending any money on other apple products any time soon ( I own an itouch ) and apple need to make something really good next year or its market share will shrink again as it did 20 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the sad thing is that if there were a way for apple to completle stop jailbreaking by sotfware or even legal means, they would have rolled it by now.I have an iphone and a macbook (none of them actually mine, work) and I pretty much love the jailbreaked iphone, the laptop is kind of nice after you manage to make it behave like a real *nix box, but I dont think I will be spending any money on other apple products any time soon (I own an itouch) and apple need to make something really good next year or its market share will shrink again as it did 20 years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30626586</id>
	<title>This is actually a good thing.</title>
	<author>nilbog</author>
	<datestamp>1262430000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just like that time when Microsoft said I had to use Internet Explorer.  Everyone made a big deal about it back then, but it turns out that IE ended up being the best, most cutting edge browser in the end anyway!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like that time when Microsoft said I had to use Internet Explorer .
Everyone made a big deal about it back then , but it turns out that IE ended up being the best , most cutting edge browser in the end anyway !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like that time when Microsoft said I had to use Internet Explorer.
Everyone made a big deal about it back then, but it turns out that IE ended up being the best, most cutting edge browser in the end anyway!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624440</id>
	<title>Re:I Smell Patent War</title>
	<author>toppavak</author>
	<datestamp>1262460180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The <a href="http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=6&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=\%22Apple+Inc\%22&amp;OS=\%22Apple+Inc\%22&amp;RS=\%22Apple+Inc\%22" title="uspto.gov">patent application</a> [uspto.gov] was filed on June 30th 2008. Google released Latitude February 4th, 2009. This would seem to indicate Apple was first, but there's a key difference between the products. The Apple patent specifically deals with sharing location information by <b>text message</b> and only by text message, Google Latitude makes use of mobile internet connections. There's no patent dispute here, merely Apple acting like Apple and rejecting apps which may compete with current or planned functionality that Apple wants to deliver over their platform. <br> <br>I am by no means a big fan of Apple or Apple products in general, but for those screaming "anti-trust" Apple is entirely within their right to do this (although whether its the "right" thing to do is questionable) considering A) Apple has nothing near a monopoly over the smartphone market B) A monopoly over one's own product is hardly a monopoly and C) Even if Apple were able to completely supplant Google Latitude among iPhone users, they're not going to be selling their software on the other 90\% of smartphones out there anytime soon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The patent application [ uspto.gov ] was filed on June 30th 2008 .
Google released Latitude February 4th , 2009 .
This would seem to indicate Apple was first , but there 's a key difference between the products .
The Apple patent specifically deals with sharing location information by text message and only by text message , Google Latitude makes use of mobile internet connections .
There 's no patent dispute here , merely Apple acting like Apple and rejecting apps which may compete with current or planned functionality that Apple wants to deliver over their platform .
I am by no means a big fan of Apple or Apple products in general , but for those screaming " anti-trust " Apple is entirely within their right to do this ( although whether its the " right " thing to do is questionable ) considering A ) Apple has nothing near a monopoly over the smartphone market B ) A monopoly over one 's own product is hardly a monopoly and C ) Even if Apple were able to completely supplant Google Latitude among iPhone users , they 're not going to be selling their software on the other 90 \ % of smartphones out there anytime soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The patent application [uspto.gov] was filed on June 30th 2008.
Google released Latitude February 4th, 2009.
This would seem to indicate Apple was first, but there's a key difference between the products.
The Apple patent specifically deals with sharing location information by text message and only by text message, Google Latitude makes use of mobile internet connections.
There's no patent dispute here, merely Apple acting like Apple and rejecting apps which may compete with current or planned functionality that Apple wants to deliver over their platform.
I am by no means a big fan of Apple or Apple products in general, but for those screaming "anti-trust" Apple is entirely within their right to do this (although whether its the "right" thing to do is questionable) considering A) Apple has nothing near a monopoly over the smartphone market B) A monopoly over one's own product is hardly a monopoly and C) Even if Apple were able to completely supplant Google Latitude among iPhone users, they're not going to be selling their software on the other 90\% of smartphones out there anytime soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624642</id>
	<title>Re:The problem with this particular conspiracy the</title>
	<author>mliu</author>
	<datestamp>1262461560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think it necessarily has to be the way you're describing.</p><p>Seems to me the easiest way to implement such a policy at Apple would be to draw up a set of rules for reviewers to follow, something like this:<br>1. If an app is a dialer, deny it because it duplicates dialer functionality<br>2. If the app contains Apple logos, deny it because it infringes our trademarks<br>etc.<br>with an entry for<br>X. If the app contains a way to place the user's friends on a map, deny it because it duplicates functionality.</p><p>No need for reviewers to know about about patents, no need for lawyers to look at each submission.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think it necessarily has to be the way you 're describing.Seems to me the easiest way to implement such a policy at Apple would be to draw up a set of rules for reviewers to follow , something like this : 1 .
If an app is a dialer , deny it because it duplicates dialer functionality2 .
If the app contains Apple logos , deny it because it infringes our trademarksetc.with an entry forX .
If the app contains a way to place the user 's friends on a map , deny it because it duplicates functionality.No need for reviewers to know about about patents , no need for lawyers to look at each submission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think it necessarily has to be the way you're describing.Seems to me the easiest way to implement such a policy at Apple would be to draw up a set of rules for reviewers to follow, something like this:1.
If an app is a dialer, deny it because it duplicates dialer functionality2.
If the app contains Apple logos, deny it because it infringes our trademarksetc.with an entry forX.
If the app contains a way to place the user's friends on a map, deny it because it duplicates functionality.No need for reviewers to know about about patents, no need for lawyers to look at each submission.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624034</id>
	<title>The problem with this particular conspiracy theory</title>
	<author>kithrup</author>
	<datestamp>1262458080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is that it requires that the app approvers know what patents Apple has in the process.</p><p>This is of course a possibility; it's also a possibility that there's an IP lawyer looking over every submitted (or even ever just-about-to-be-approved) app, for just that kind of thing.  But that doesn't really fit with the workflow descriptions that have come out into the open, so I don't think it's very likely.</p><p>(It's also possible that he reviewers are given general directions occasionally, such as, "All Google-submitted apps must be sent to such-and-such for review" or "Any app that uses location services in a social network context must be approved by upper management."  Obviously, I made those up<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is that it requires that the app approvers know what patents Apple has in the process.This is of course a possibility ; it 's also a possibility that there 's an IP lawyer looking over every submitted ( or even ever just-about-to-be-approved ) app , for just that kind of thing .
But that does n't really fit with the workflow descriptions that have come out into the open , so I do n't think it 's very likely .
( It 's also possible that he reviewers are given general directions occasionally , such as , " All Google-submitted apps must be sent to such-and-such for review " or " Any app that uses location services in a social network context must be approved by upper management .
" Obviously , I made those up : ) .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is that it requires that the app approvers know what patents Apple has in the process.This is of course a possibility; it's also a possibility that there's an IP lawyer looking over every submitted (or even ever just-about-to-be-approved) app, for just that kind of thing.
But that doesn't really fit with the workflow descriptions that have come out into the open, so I don't think it's very likely.
(It's also possible that he reviewers are given general directions occasionally, such as, "All Google-submitted apps must be sent to such-and-such for review" or "Any app that uses location services in a social network context must be approved by upper management.
"  Obviously, I made those up :).
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30626648</id>
	<title>Re:I Smell Patent War</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262430360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That isn't what "begs the question" means.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is n't what " begs the question " means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That isn't what "begs the question" means.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30628970</id>
	<title>Re:I Smell Patent War</title>
	<author>MojoStan</author>
	<datestamp>1262450100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The patent application was filed on June 30th 2008. Google released Latitude February 4th, 2009. This would seem to indicate Apple was first,</p></div><p>To be more clear, on that date Google <a href="http://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2009/02/locate-your-friends-in-real-time-with.html" title="blogspot.com">released Latitude</a> [blogspot.com] for 4 mobile platforms (Android, Blackberry, Symbian, and Windows Mobile) in 27 countries and 42 languages. Apple hasn't released a product yet.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>but there's a key difference between the products. The Apple patent specifically deals with sharing location information by text message and only by text message, Google Latitude makes use of mobile internet connections.</p></div><p>That sounds very similar to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodgeball\_(service)" title="wikipedia.org">Dodgeball</a> [wikipedia.org], which was aquired by Google in 2005. From the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodgeball\_(service)" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia page</a> [wikipedia.org]:
</p><ul>
<li>Dodgeball was a location-based social networking software provider for mobile devices. Users text their location to the service, which then notifies them of crushes, friends, friends' friends and interesting venues nearby.[1] Dodgeball was shut down by Google in March 2009 and replaced with Google Latitude.</li>
</ul></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The patent application was filed on June 30th 2008 .
Google released Latitude February 4th , 2009 .
This would seem to indicate Apple was first,To be more clear , on that date Google released Latitude [ blogspot.com ] for 4 mobile platforms ( Android , Blackberry , Symbian , and Windows Mobile ) in 27 countries and 42 languages .
Apple has n't released a product yet.but there 's a key difference between the products .
The Apple patent specifically deals with sharing location information by text message and only by text message , Google Latitude makes use of mobile internet connections.That sounds very similar to Dodgeball [ wikipedia.org ] , which was aquired by Google in 2005 .
From the Wikipedia page [ wikipedia.org ] : Dodgeball was a location-based social networking software provider for mobile devices .
Users text their location to the service , which then notifies them of crushes , friends , friends ' friends and interesting venues nearby .
[ 1 ] Dodgeball was shut down by Google in March 2009 and replaced with Google Latitude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The patent application was filed on June 30th 2008.
Google released Latitude February 4th, 2009.
This would seem to indicate Apple was first,To be more clear, on that date Google released Latitude [blogspot.com] for 4 mobile platforms (Android, Blackberry, Symbian, and Windows Mobile) in 27 countries and 42 languages.
Apple hasn't released a product yet.but there's a key difference between the products.
The Apple patent specifically deals with sharing location information by text message and only by text message, Google Latitude makes use of mobile internet connections.That sounds very similar to Dodgeball [wikipedia.org], which was aquired by Google in 2005.
From the Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org]:

Dodgeball was a location-based social networking software provider for mobile devices.
Users text their location to the service, which then notifies them of crushes, friends, friends' friends and interesting venues nearby.
[1] Dodgeball was shut down by Google in March 2009 and replaced with Google Latitude.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624594</id>
	<title>Re:I Smell Patent War</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262461320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This just begs the question "Who the hell cares?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This just begs the question " Who the hell cares ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This just begs the question "Who the hell cares?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30629700</id>
	<title>Re:Fundamental principle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262458980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, you think that people should not be allowed to engineer devices as they see fit? If you have the right to install whatever software you want on your device, then why does the manufacturer of that device not have the right to make that as difficult as possible for you? The answer is not legislation, the answer is to take your money elsewhere if you don't like it. Screw your fanatical ideology, I want freedom in the market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you think that people should not be allowed to engineer devices as they see fit ?
If you have the right to install whatever software you want on your device , then why does the manufacturer of that device not have the right to make that as difficult as possible for you ?
The answer is not legislation , the answer is to take your money elsewhere if you do n't like it .
Screw your fanatical ideology , I want freedom in the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you think that people should not be allowed to engineer devices as they see fit?
If you have the right to install whatever software you want on your device, then why does the manufacturer of that device not have the right to make that as difficult as possible for you?
The answer is not legislation, the answer is to take your money elsewhere if you don't like it.
Screw your fanatical ideology, I want freedom in the market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624104</id>
	<title>Re:I Smell Patent War</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262458380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yep, it's been about five minutes.  Time for another Apple story!  Yay!
<br> <br>
Oh, and I'm not surprised some pompous fool has corrected your use of "begging the question."  Saying the words "begs the question" begs some pedantic jackass to tell you that you didn't use it correctly.  It's like a meta-beg.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , it 's been about five minutes .
Time for another Apple story !
Yay ! Oh , and I 'm not surprised some pompous fool has corrected your use of " begging the question .
" Saying the words " begs the question " begs some pedantic jackass to tell you that you did n't use it correctly .
It 's like a meta-beg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, it's been about five minutes.
Time for another Apple story!
Yay!
 
Oh, and I'm not surprised some pompous fool has corrected your use of "begging the question.
"  Saying the words "begs the question" begs some pedantic jackass to tell you that you didn't use it correctly.
It's like a meta-beg.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624968</id>
	<title>Re:I Smell Patent War</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262463600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+1 funny</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 funny</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 funny</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624276</id>
	<title>Re:I Smell Patent War</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1262459220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, my mistake.  It's so often misused sometimes it's hard not to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , my mistake .
It 's so often misused sometimes it 's hard not to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, my mistake.
It's so often misused sometimes it's hard not to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30626778</id>
	<title>Re:Fundamental principle</title>
	<author>Swift2001</author>
	<datestamp>1262431200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You realize that legally, that puts a virus on a legal footing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You realize that legally , that puts a virus on a legal footing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You realize that legally, that puts a virus on a legal footing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30625174</id>
	<title>Re:The evil of a closed platform</title>
	<author>Qwavel</author>
	<datestamp>1262464740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I think it was the success of the iPod that revived them more then the switch back to a closed hardware platform.</p><p>But either way, I would argue against the implication that Apple MUST maintain such a closed platform in order to be profitable.  I think we all accept that Apple is very good at marketing and execution and that they have the most valuable/cool brand in technology.  Yes, the ways that they keep their platform closed and under tight control produce a little extra gravy for the bottom line, but I think they could still be very profitable without out all of the negative stuff.</p><p>Otherwise, it seems to imply that all of the companies that implement the open and fair business and technology practices that we espouse here will fail.  That they have to be nasty to win.  I hope not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I think it was the success of the iPod that revived them more then the switch back to a closed hardware platform.But either way , I would argue against the implication that Apple MUST maintain such a closed platform in order to be profitable .
I think we all accept that Apple is very good at marketing and execution and that they have the most valuable/cool brand in technology .
Yes , the ways that they keep their platform closed and under tight control produce a little extra gravy for the bottom line , but I think they could still be very profitable without out all of the negative stuff.Otherwise , it seems to imply that all of the companies that implement the open and fair business and technology practices that we espouse here will fail .
That they have to be nasty to win .
I hope not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I think it was the success of the iPod that revived them more then the switch back to a closed hardware platform.But either way, I would argue against the implication that Apple MUST maintain such a closed platform in order to be profitable.
I think we all accept that Apple is very good at marketing and execution and that they have the most valuable/cool brand in technology.
Yes, the ways that they keep their platform closed and under tight control produce a little extra gravy for the bottom line, but I think they could still be very profitable without out all of the negative stuff.Otherwise, it seems to imply that all of the companies that implement the open and fair business and technology practices that we espouse here will fail.
That they have to be nasty to win.
I hope not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624604</id>
	<title>Looks Like APRS</title>
	<author>DrTime</author>
	<datestamp>1262461320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This looks like an application specific front end (with compass) like APRS works for ham radio.
</p><p>See aprs.fi and enter the call sign of a ham radio equipped with a GPS (like the Yaesu VX-8R).
</p><p>It just opens the door to anyone and maybe adds a friends list.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This looks like an application specific front end ( with compass ) like APRS works for ham radio .
See aprs.fi and enter the call sign of a ham radio equipped with a GPS ( like the Yaesu VX-8R ) .
It just opens the door to anyone and maybe adds a friends list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This looks like an application specific front end (with compass) like APRS works for ham radio.
See aprs.fi and enter the call sign of a ham radio equipped with a GPS (like the Yaesu VX-8R).
It just opens the door to anyone and maybe adds a friends list.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30626408</id>
	<title>Re:The evil of a closed platform</title>
	<author>Swift2001</author>
	<datestamp>1262428920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're not closed. Anybody can submit apps to the store. I'd say you have a better chance getting noticed BECAUSE of the fact that every iPhone owner plugs in his phone to the App store for charging every night. They carry the advertising, the bandwidth, etc. All they've got is a flavor of Unix, and their software development tools are pretty great. If you know your stuff, you can make an app very quickly.</p><p>And the iPhone, well, it connects to the 3G network, to Wi-Fi, to Bluetooth, and keeps on expanding its ways of connecting with other things. But you focus on one thing, the App Store, and of that, the highly-publicized cases, a tiny minority, where their judgment is open to question.</p><p>Is Microsoft open? No. They have a larger share of the market, so sometimes it SEEMS open. To other Windows users.</p><p>Is Linux open? Even though it's free, its market share is miniscule. Yes, it's open, but the open-source nature of it seems to need some work done on it until it becomes "open" to the great unwashed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're not closed .
Anybody can submit apps to the store .
I 'd say you have a better chance getting noticed BECAUSE of the fact that every iPhone owner plugs in his phone to the App store for charging every night .
They carry the advertising , the bandwidth , etc .
All they 've got is a flavor of Unix , and their software development tools are pretty great .
If you know your stuff , you can make an app very quickly.And the iPhone , well , it connects to the 3G network , to Wi-Fi , to Bluetooth , and keeps on expanding its ways of connecting with other things .
But you focus on one thing , the App Store , and of that , the highly-publicized cases , a tiny minority , where their judgment is open to question.Is Microsoft open ?
No. They have a larger share of the market , so sometimes it SEEMS open .
To other Windows users.Is Linux open ?
Even though it 's free , its market share is miniscule .
Yes , it 's open , but the open-source nature of it seems to need some work done on it until it becomes " open " to the great unwashed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're not closed.
Anybody can submit apps to the store.
I'd say you have a better chance getting noticed BECAUSE of the fact that every iPhone owner plugs in his phone to the App store for charging every night.
They carry the advertising, the bandwidth, etc.
All they've got is a flavor of Unix, and their software development tools are pretty great.
If you know your stuff, you can make an app very quickly.And the iPhone, well, it connects to the 3G network, to Wi-Fi, to Bluetooth, and keeps on expanding its ways of connecting with other things.
But you focus on one thing, the App Store, and of that, the highly-publicized cases, a tiny minority, where their judgment is open to question.Is Microsoft open?
No. They have a larger share of the market, so sometimes it SEEMS open.
To other Windows users.Is Linux open?
Even though it's free, its market share is miniscule.
Yes, it's open, but the open-source nature of it seems to need some work done on it until it becomes "open" to the great unwashed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30626364</id>
	<title>Equivalency</title>
	<author>Powys</author>
	<datestamp>1262428620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if Microsoft were to ban the installation of OpenOffice,  LotusNotes, Word Perfect, etc. because they compete with their Office?  I bet this would be a whole different conversation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if Microsoft were to ban the installation of OpenOffice , LotusNotes , Word Perfect , etc .
because they compete with their Office ?
I bet this would be a whole different conversation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if Microsoft were to ban the installation of OpenOffice,  LotusNotes, Word Perfect, etc.
because they compete with their Office?
I bet this would be a whole different conversation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30626886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30644546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30626778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30628994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30625390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30625072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30627180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30626648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30629674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30626898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30626808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30629500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30625456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30629700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30629160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30629078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30626624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30625072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30628686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30628970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30626570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30629792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30625188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30625174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30630516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30625476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30627542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30625072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30625086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1614226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30626408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1614226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624466
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30628994
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30629078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30626886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30628686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624226
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30626570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30625476
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30625174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30629500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30626408
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1614226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30626364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1614226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30629812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1614226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30627526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1614226.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624440
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30630516
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30628970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624028
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624594
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624968
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30627180
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30626648
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30625188
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30629160
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30625456
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624276
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30629792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624104
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1614226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1614226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30626778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30625086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30626808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30629700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1614226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30626898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30629674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1614226.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30623876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30644546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30624718
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1614226.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30625072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30625390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30626624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30627542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1614226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1614226.30625384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
