<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_15_2327202</id>
	<title>Mobile Operators Fight App Store Fragmentation</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1266244500000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/" rel="nofollow">angry tapir</a> writes <i>"Twenty-four mobile network operators have formed the Wholesale Applications Community to <a href="http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/article/336324">avoid fragmenting the apps market</a> and to give developers one point of entry to all the members. The Wholesale Applications Community members include: AT&amp;T, China Mobile, Deutsche Telekom, NTT DoCoMo, Orange, Telef&#243;nica, Telenor Group, Sprint, Verizon Wireless, and Vodafone."</i> The vision seems to be eventually to create one unified app market in addition to Google's and Apple's. The article quotes an analyst noting that the mobile operators have "a poor track record with this type of industry consortium."</htmltext>
<tokenext>angry tapir writes " Twenty-four mobile network operators have formed the Wholesale Applications Community to avoid fragmenting the apps market and to give developers one point of entry to all the members .
The Wholesale Applications Community members include : AT&amp;T , China Mobile , Deutsche Telekom , NTT DoCoMo , Orange , Telef   nica , Telenor Group , Sprint , Verizon Wireless , and Vodafone .
" The vision seems to be eventually to create one unified app market in addition to Google 's and Apple 's .
The article quotes an analyst noting that the mobile operators have " a poor track record with this type of industry consortium .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>angry tapir writes "Twenty-four mobile network operators have formed the Wholesale Applications Community to avoid fragmenting the apps market and to give developers one point of entry to all the members.
The Wholesale Applications Community members include: AT&amp;T, China Mobile, Deutsche Telekom, NTT DoCoMo, Orange, Telefónica, Telenor Group, Sprint, Verizon Wireless, and Vodafone.
" The vision seems to be eventually to create one unified app market in addition to Google's and Apple's.
The article quotes an analyst noting that the mobile operators have "a poor track record with this type of industry consortium.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152786</id>
	<title>Re:Standards... anyone? Anyone?</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1266262680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't about development, but rather about revenue.</p><p>AT&amp;T, Verizon, etc. all used to make all the money by selling directly to the customers.</p><p>AT&amp;T decided to pay Apple for the right to hand their revenue stream over to Apple. It was an all-time brilliant move by AT&amp;T that screwed the industry.</p><p>Apple dictates to the music industry how they will operate now that they are an industry leader with iTunes. Apple is now going to be selling music, movies, books and software through iTunes. But ultimately the company that should be the most concerned is Amazon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't about development , but rather about revenue.AT&amp;T , Verizon , etc .
all used to make all the money by selling directly to the customers.AT&amp;T decided to pay Apple for the right to hand their revenue stream over to Apple .
It was an all-time brilliant move by AT&amp;T that screwed the industry.Apple dictates to the music industry how they will operate now that they are an industry leader with iTunes .
Apple is now going to be selling music , movies , books and software through iTunes .
But ultimately the company that should be the most concerned is Amazon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't about development, but rather about revenue.AT&amp;T, Verizon, etc.
all used to make all the money by selling directly to the customers.AT&amp;T decided to pay Apple for the right to hand their revenue stream over to Apple.
It was an all-time brilliant move by AT&amp;T that screwed the industry.Apple dictates to the music industry how they will operate now that they are an industry leader with iTunes.
Apple is now going to be selling music, movies, books and software through iTunes.
But ultimately the company that should be the most concerned is Amazon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152998</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266352260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Among these operator is Bharti Airtel, which is a leading mobile service provider in India. In last 15 years it couldn't update their software to provide its customers a unified bill. Such a company in that list means its all vapor ware and just trying to get 15 milliseconds of fame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Among these operator is Bharti Airtel , which is a leading mobile service provider in India .
In last 15 years it could n't update their software to provide its customers a unified bill .
Such a company in that list means its all vapor ware and just trying to get 15 milliseconds of fame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Among these operator is Bharti Airtel, which is a leading mobile service provider in India.
In last 15 years it couldn't update their software to provide its customers a unified bill.
Such a company in that list means its all vapor ware and just trying to get 15 milliseconds of fame.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31153660</id>
	<title>Embarrassing</title>
	<author>blitzen</author>
	<datestamp>1266319020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Organisations with a history of locking down their phones and leveraging that monopoly to forcefeed substandard applications down the throats of consumers who have little alternatives, now coming together to create a new monopoly. Oh, the ways in which this will never work:</p><p>- Handset fragmentation, without a common runtime, it's doomed. Even with a common runtime, Android is already having trouble.<br>- Bureaucratic nightmare or toxic dumping ground. There is a fine line between creating too process centric an environment (Apple) and too open an environment (possibly Google) in an app store. I'll place money that these guys will go for the former. I've read their specifications before.<br>- Hideously inoperable toolsets. Without decent SDKs any effort is doomed and none of these organisations have any credible history of producing a half decent toolchain<br>- Competing standards already with JIL and Bondi. Committee first design (tm) is always broken.<br>- J2ME is such a great example of how the mobile operators can take a good idea and turn it into something that you can just about write a suduko game with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Organisations with a history of locking down their phones and leveraging that monopoly to forcefeed substandard applications down the throats of consumers who have little alternatives , now coming together to create a new monopoly .
Oh , the ways in which this will never work : - Handset fragmentation , without a common runtime , it 's doomed .
Even with a common runtime , Android is already having trouble.- Bureaucratic nightmare or toxic dumping ground .
There is a fine line between creating too process centric an environment ( Apple ) and too open an environment ( possibly Google ) in an app store .
I 'll place money that these guys will go for the former .
I 've read their specifications before.- Hideously inoperable toolsets .
Without decent SDKs any effort is doomed and none of these organisations have any credible history of producing a half decent toolchain- Competing standards already with JIL and Bondi .
Committee first design ( tm ) is always broken.- J2ME is such a great example of how the mobile operators can take a good idea and turn it into something that you can just about write a suduko game with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Organisations with a history of locking down their phones and leveraging that monopoly to forcefeed substandard applications down the throats of consumers who have little alternatives, now coming together to create a new monopoly.
Oh, the ways in which this will never work:- Handset fragmentation, without a common runtime, it's doomed.
Even with a common runtime, Android is already having trouble.- Bureaucratic nightmare or toxic dumping ground.
There is a fine line between creating too process centric an environment (Apple) and too open an environment (possibly Google) in an app store.
I'll place money that these guys will go for the former.
I've read their specifications before.- Hideously inoperable toolsets.
Without decent SDKs any effort is doomed and none of these organisations have any credible history of producing a half decent toolchain- Competing standards already with JIL and Bondi.
Committee first design (tm) is always broken.- J2ME is such a great example of how the mobile operators can take a good idea and turn it into something that you can just about write a suduko game with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151766</id>
	<title>McDonalds, Burger King, and .... Wendy's?</title>
	<author>BlueBoxSW.com</author>
	<datestamp>1266250620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviouly the iTunes store is McDonalds.</p><p>Android is Burger King.</p><p>And these clowns are fighting to be Wendy's?</p><p>Or are they trying to be those hybrid KFC-Taco Bell-Pizza Hut stores?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviouly the iTunes store is McDonalds.Android is Burger King.And these clowns are fighting to be Wendy 's ? Or are they trying to be those hybrid KFC-Taco Bell-Pizza Hut stores ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviouly the iTunes store is McDonalds.Android is Burger King.And these clowns are fighting to be Wendy's?Or are they trying to be those hybrid KFC-Taco Bell-Pizza Hut stores?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151802</id>
	<title>Why do we need an app store at all?</title>
	<author>SashaMan</author>
	<datestamp>1266251040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, the PC market seemed to do just fine for decades without an official "app store". Why can't I just download an app from any vendor's site without having to go through some gatekeeper (who keeps 30\% of the revenue). I'm a huge IPhone fan, but has Apple brainwashed us so much that we need an official app store that we forgot that it's not really necessary in the first place?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , the PC market seemed to do just fine for decades without an official " app store " .
Why ca n't I just download an app from any vendor 's site without having to go through some gatekeeper ( who keeps 30 \ % of the revenue ) .
I 'm a huge IPhone fan , but has Apple brainwashed us so much that we need an official app store that we forgot that it 's not really necessary in the first place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, the PC market seemed to do just fine for decades without an official "app store".
Why can't I just download an app from any vendor's site without having to go through some gatekeeper (who keeps 30\% of the revenue).
I'm a huge IPhone fan, but has Apple brainwashed us so much that we need an official app store that we forgot that it's not really necessary in the first place?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31155082</id>
	<title>Re:Why do we need an app store at all?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266335640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well certainly the PC approach of downloading apps from web sites has helped the revenue streams of norton, sophos and mcaffee!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well certainly the PC approach of downloading apps from web sites has helped the revenue streams of norton , sophos and mcaffee !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well certainly the PC approach of downloading apps from web sites has helped the revenue streams of norton, sophos and mcaffee!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31153718</id>
	<title>Re:The pc also has free and open apps iphone does</title>
	<author>Richard\_at\_work</author>
	<datestamp>1266320160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is nothing stopping you developing a free and open app for the iPhone - there is no law against charging for distribution or the development tools, so Apple is not doing anything wrong in that regard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is nothing stopping you developing a free and open app for the iPhone - there is no law against charging for distribution or the development tools , so Apple is not doing anything wrong in that regard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is nothing stopping you developing a free and open app for the iPhone - there is no law against charging for distribution or the development tools, so Apple is not doing anything wrong in that regard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151960</id>
	<title>Re:Standards... anyone? Anyone?</title>
	<author>AuMatar</author>
	<datestamp>1266252900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, that's also why a lot of us don't have iphones as well.  I want a phone with a fold out keypad-  an on screen touchscreen keypad is epic fail-  I'd rather type on a 9 button pad than that.  By not having a hardware standard, Android lets me do that-  there's several models with fold out keyboards.  That'll change of course-  as Android rises in popularity and as revamped Symbian and WinMo come up Apple will need to put out more hardware configurations or it will get beat into the ground.</p><p>Apple's app store popularity had nothing to do with hardware standards anyway.  It had to do with the tremendous marketing of Apple, a good price point, and being the first easy way to get applications on a cell phone (no requirements for a computer, no buggy software).  It also has a lot to do with the large number of free and open source programs available-  without that you'd have maybe 5\% of the activity you see now, most people don't buy apps.</p><p>Instead what they'll end up needing to do is to allow an app to require certain hardware (ex requires GPS), or to support only certain configurations (such as resolution-  btw having written GUI apps, I'll give an auto scaler a 10\% chance of working well.  In fact I expect apple to be in for a world of pain as new configurations enter, because they and app devs didn't think about them as the platform was created.) and caveat emptor on the rest.  Or just not allow an app to appear in search if the configuration isn't supported.</p><p>The real problem here is that you have way too many players and they'll be working at cross purposes.  There's a good reason to have app stores that are separate from the platform makers (just look at Apple's convoluted and broken approval process), but a conglomeration of carriers isn't the place to do it.  Too many chiefs, not enough indians.  I wouldn't be surprised to see someone like Valve or Stardock get into it though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , that 's also why a lot of us do n't have iphones as well .
I want a phone with a fold out keypad- an on screen touchscreen keypad is epic fail- I 'd rather type on a 9 button pad than that .
By not having a hardware standard , Android lets me do that- there 's several models with fold out keyboards .
That 'll change of course- as Android rises in popularity and as revamped Symbian and WinMo come up Apple will need to put out more hardware configurations or it will get beat into the ground.Apple 's app store popularity had nothing to do with hardware standards anyway .
It had to do with the tremendous marketing of Apple , a good price point , and being the first easy way to get applications on a cell phone ( no requirements for a computer , no buggy software ) .
It also has a lot to do with the large number of free and open source programs available- without that you 'd have maybe 5 \ % of the activity you see now , most people do n't buy apps.Instead what they 'll end up needing to do is to allow an app to require certain hardware ( ex requires GPS ) , or to support only certain configurations ( such as resolution- btw having written GUI apps , I 'll give an auto scaler a 10 \ % chance of working well .
In fact I expect apple to be in for a world of pain as new configurations enter , because they and app devs did n't think about them as the platform was created .
) and caveat emptor on the rest .
Or just not allow an app to appear in search if the configuration is n't supported.The real problem here is that you have way too many players and they 'll be working at cross purposes .
There 's a good reason to have app stores that are separate from the platform makers ( just look at Apple 's convoluted and broken approval process ) , but a conglomeration of carriers is n't the place to do it .
Too many chiefs , not enough indians .
I would n't be surprised to see someone like Valve or Stardock get into it though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, that's also why a lot of us don't have iphones as well.
I want a phone with a fold out keypad-  an on screen touchscreen keypad is epic fail-  I'd rather type on a 9 button pad than that.
By not having a hardware standard, Android lets me do that-  there's several models with fold out keyboards.
That'll change of course-  as Android rises in popularity and as revamped Symbian and WinMo come up Apple will need to put out more hardware configurations or it will get beat into the ground.Apple's app store popularity had nothing to do with hardware standards anyway.
It had to do with the tremendous marketing of Apple, a good price point, and being the first easy way to get applications on a cell phone (no requirements for a computer, no buggy software).
It also has a lot to do with the large number of free and open source programs available-  without that you'd have maybe 5\% of the activity you see now, most people don't buy apps.Instead what they'll end up needing to do is to allow an app to require certain hardware (ex requires GPS), or to support only certain configurations (such as resolution-  btw having written GUI apps, I'll give an auto scaler a 10\% chance of working well.
In fact I expect apple to be in for a world of pain as new configurations enter, because they and app devs didn't think about them as the platform was created.
) and caveat emptor on the rest.
Or just not allow an app to appear in search if the configuration isn't supported.The real problem here is that you have way too many players and they'll be working at cross purposes.
There's a good reason to have app stores that are separate from the platform makers (just look at Apple's convoluted and broken approval process), but a conglomeration of carriers isn't the place to do it.
Too many chiefs, not enough indians.
I wouldn't be surprised to see someone like Valve or Stardock get into it though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151578</id>
	<title>they misspelled monopoly</title>
	<author>SuperBanana</author>
	<datestamp>1266248580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Twenty-four mobile network operators have formed the Wholesale Applications Community to avoid fragmenting the apps market and to give developers one point of entry to all the members.</i>

</p><p>You say "ah-void frag-muhn-tation of the mar-ket", I say "mohn-op-oh-lee."

</p><p>Anyone want to guess how they'll leverage this?  My guess is that if you piss off one mobile carrier with your app (or blame them for a problem), you'll be blocked from all of them.  Plus, of course, pushing the carrier's commissions as high as possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Twenty-four mobile network operators have formed the Wholesale Applications Community to avoid fragmenting the apps market and to give developers one point of entry to all the members .
You say " ah-void frag-muhn-tation of the mar-ket " , I say " mohn-op-oh-lee .
" Anyone want to guess how they 'll leverage this ?
My guess is that if you piss off one mobile carrier with your app ( or blame them for a problem ) , you 'll be blocked from all of them .
Plus , of course , pushing the carrier 's commissions as high as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Twenty-four mobile network operators have formed the Wholesale Applications Community to avoid fragmenting the apps market and to give developers one point of entry to all the members.
You say "ah-void frag-muhn-tation of the mar-ket", I say "mohn-op-oh-lee.
"

Anyone want to guess how they'll leverage this?
My guess is that if you piss off one mobile carrier with your app (or blame them for a problem), you'll be blocked from all of them.
Plus, of course, pushing the carrier's commissions as high as possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31153000</id>
	<title>Re:Why do we need an app store at all?</title>
	<author>sowth</author>
	<datestamp>1266352260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So cellphones are like computers were in the 1980s. You had the Commodore 64, Atari 8-bits, Apple 8-bit (IIe and friends), then the Mac, Amiga, Atari ST, IBM compatibles, and many more.

</p><p>Cross-platform development can be a pain, but if you are disciplined, it is possible. If they did it with the tools we had 30 years ago, you can do it today. Not everything will convert over, but if you modularize your program enough--especially separating components which need the OS and your internal processing--you will minimize the extra work you need.

</p><p>The key is learning how to create a universal design which plays well to any OS.

</p><p>As for different processors, do you really have to use assembly for everything? C was made to cross compile on just about any processor design. Yeah, when the processor is tens of MHz, you will probably have to optimize some functions (or many or none depending upon the program), but even so, how often will you beat out a modern compiler by doing it in assembly?

</p><p>I don't see what the big stink is about the different systems. The problem seems to be they lock down their systems and make them deliberately incompatible, so you can't just write a program and cross compile it. How many cross platform toolkits are going to be written in such an environment? Especially freely available ones?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So cellphones are like computers were in the 1980s .
You had the Commodore 64 , Atari 8-bits , Apple 8-bit ( IIe and friends ) , then the Mac , Amiga , Atari ST , IBM compatibles , and many more .
Cross-platform development can be a pain , but if you are disciplined , it is possible .
If they did it with the tools we had 30 years ago , you can do it today .
Not everything will convert over , but if you modularize your program enough--especially separating components which need the OS and your internal processing--you will minimize the extra work you need .
The key is learning how to create a universal design which plays well to any OS .
As for different processors , do you really have to use assembly for everything ?
C was made to cross compile on just about any processor design .
Yeah , when the processor is tens of MHz , you will probably have to optimize some functions ( or many or none depending upon the program ) , but even so , how often will you beat out a modern compiler by doing it in assembly ?
I do n't see what the big stink is about the different systems .
The problem seems to be they lock down their systems and make them deliberately incompatible , so you ca n't just write a program and cross compile it .
How many cross platform toolkits are going to be written in such an environment ?
Especially freely available ones ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So cellphones are like computers were in the 1980s.
You had the Commodore 64, Atari 8-bits, Apple 8-bit (IIe and friends), then the Mac, Amiga, Atari ST, IBM compatibles, and many more.
Cross-platform development can be a pain, but if you are disciplined, it is possible.
If they did it with the tools we had 30 years ago, you can do it today.
Not everything will convert over, but if you modularize your program enough--especially separating components which need the OS and your internal processing--you will minimize the extra work you need.
The key is learning how to create a universal design which plays well to any OS.
As for different processors, do you really have to use assembly for everything?
C was made to cross compile on just about any processor design.
Yeah, when the processor is tens of MHz, you will probably have to optimize some functions (or many or none depending upon the program), but even so, how often will you beat out a modern compiler by doing it in assembly?
I don't see what the big stink is about the different systems.
The problem seems to be they lock down their systems and make them deliberately incompatible, so you can't just write a program and cross compile it.
How many cross platform toolkits are going to be written in such an environment?
Especially freely available ones?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31155098</id>
	<title>Re:The pc also has free and open apps iphone does</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266335760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it too much to ask for you to use a few periods occasionally? And maybe a spell checker too, while you're at it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it too much to ask for you to use a few periods occasionally ?
And maybe a spell checker too , while you 're at it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it too much to ask for you to use a few periods occasionally?
And maybe a spell checker too, while you're at it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151950</id>
	<title>Re:McDonalds, Burger King, and .... Wendy's?</title>
	<author>GaryOlson</author>
	<datestamp>1266252840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds more like the Dunkin Donuts/Baskin Robbins stores. Multiple flavors in the morning, multiple flavors in the evening. All the flavors are expensive, all the products are unhealthy with consistent continued use. And 2 hours later you have that craving for more crap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds more like the Dunkin Donuts/Baskin Robbins stores .
Multiple flavors in the morning , multiple flavors in the evening .
All the flavors are expensive , all the products are unhealthy with consistent continued use .
And 2 hours later you have that craving for more crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds more like the Dunkin Donuts/Baskin Robbins stores.
Multiple flavors in the morning, multiple flavors in the evening.
All the flavors are expensive, all the products are unhealthy with consistent continued use.
And 2 hours later you have that craving for more crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151730</id>
	<title>Re:Standards... anyone? Anyone?</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1266250140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In different words, Apple is following the same trajectory as previous mobile platforms: start off with a single screen size and a whole bunch of simple assumptions, and then try to patch things up as additional demands become apparent.</p><p>That's a great way of getting into the market, but it's a bad long term strategy.  If you want to see where that kind of attitude leads, look at the last years of MacOS before it expired.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In different words , Apple is following the same trajectory as previous mobile platforms : start off with a single screen size and a whole bunch of simple assumptions , and then try to patch things up as additional demands become apparent.That 's a great way of getting into the market , but it 's a bad long term strategy .
If you want to see where that kind of attitude leads , look at the last years of MacOS before it expired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In different words, Apple is following the same trajectory as previous mobile platforms: start off with a single screen size and a whole bunch of simple assumptions, and then try to patch things up as additional demands become apparent.That's a great way of getting into the market, but it's a bad long term strategy.
If you want to see where that kind of attitude leads, look at the last years of MacOS before it expired.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31164608</id>
	<title>Re:Standards... anyone? Anyone?</title>
	<author>jc42</author>
	<datestamp>1266340080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>One thing that allows the Apple app store to be so popular is that the number of screen sizes it need to support is limited to one resolution, with a second larger screen announced but not out yet, and that'll come with a scaling tool so apps that are designed for the small screen will look okay on the bigger screen.</i></p><p>Actually, none of that would be needed if Apple hadn't screwed up the iPhone's browser's rendering so badly.  I've worked on "mobilizing" a bunch of web sites so they work on smart phones.  This is easy for most of them.  You just go through the HTML and remove all the junk that forces specific sizes, so the browser is free to format everything to fit whatever window size it has available.  This works for everything we've tested on - except the iPhone.  When handed HTML that's free of size constraints, it usually formats it for a window bigger than the screen, and then shrinks it to fit the screen, making the text illegible.</p><p>There's a theory going around that this was done intentionally, to force developers to abandon HTML and write specialized iPhone-only apps.   It seems to have worked, when you consider that most iPhone apps could be done with one or two pages of HTML (and usually without even any scripting<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-).</p><p>There are quite a lot of discussions online about the iPhone browser's rendering problems.  Nobody seems to have a good solution.  The most successful seems to be to use &lt;meta name="viewport" content="width=320"&gt;, but this poses a serious problem hinted at with the idea of a scaling tool:  It will fail with the iPad, whose screen in portrait layout is wider than 320 pixels.  So all web pages will need another test:  If it's an iPhone, force width=320; if it's an iPad, force width="768".  And, of course, with time, this list will get longer, until most of every web page is megabytes of tests for various iWhatever screen widths.</p><p>Of course, we could just do what others are doing, and abandon the Web approach.  Instead, we build a separate app for each of the thousands of gadgets on the market.  In many cases, the only difference between the thousands of versions of my app will be the different builtin screen width and height.  But this will suffice to ensure that a customer won't be able to buy my app just once and copy it to all their gadgets; they'll have to pay the app store a small amount for every place they want to install it.</p><p>I'm not sure this is an improvement over what we built during the previous two decades.  Crappy and limited as it is, the Web is so far the closest we've managed to come to a "write once, read anywhere" scheme.  And for "content" that can be delivered as a document, it works fine.  Except on the iPhone.</p><p>(So does anyone know a way other than the above meta-viewport kludge to persuade the iPhone browser to render a page sensibly on its screen, so that the user doesn't see a small window into a document formatted for a much bigger screen, and doesn't have to do 2-D scrolling to read it?  Inquiring developers' minds want to know<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing that allows the Apple app store to be so popular is that the number of screen sizes it need to support is limited to one resolution , with a second larger screen announced but not out yet , and that 'll come with a scaling tool so apps that are designed for the small screen will look okay on the bigger screen.Actually , none of that would be needed if Apple had n't screwed up the iPhone 's browser 's rendering so badly .
I 've worked on " mobilizing " a bunch of web sites so they work on smart phones .
This is easy for most of them .
You just go through the HTML and remove all the junk that forces specific sizes , so the browser is free to format everything to fit whatever window size it has available .
This works for everything we 've tested on - except the iPhone .
When handed HTML that 's free of size constraints , it usually formats it for a window bigger than the screen , and then shrinks it to fit the screen , making the text illegible.There 's a theory going around that this was done intentionally , to force developers to abandon HTML and write specialized iPhone-only apps .
It seems to have worked , when you consider that most iPhone apps could be done with one or two pages of HTML ( and usually without even any scripting ; - ) .There are quite a lot of discussions online about the iPhone browser 's rendering problems .
Nobody seems to have a good solution .
The most successful seems to be to use , but this poses a serious problem hinted at with the idea of a scaling tool : It will fail with the iPad , whose screen in portrait layout is wider than 320 pixels .
So all web pages will need another test : If it 's an iPhone , force width = 320 ; if it 's an iPad , force width = " 768 " .
And , of course , with time , this list will get longer , until most of every web page is megabytes of tests for various iWhatever screen widths.Of course , we could just do what others are doing , and abandon the Web approach .
Instead , we build a separate app for each of the thousands of gadgets on the market .
In many cases , the only difference between the thousands of versions of my app will be the different builtin screen width and height .
But this will suffice to ensure that a customer wo n't be able to buy my app just once and copy it to all their gadgets ; they 'll have to pay the app store a small amount for every place they want to install it.I 'm not sure this is an improvement over what we built during the previous two decades .
Crappy and limited as it is , the Web is so far the closest we 've managed to come to a " write once , read anywhere " scheme .
And for " content " that can be delivered as a document , it works fine .
Except on the iPhone .
( So does anyone know a way other than the above meta-viewport kludge to persuade the iPhone browser to render a page sensibly on its screen , so that the user does n't see a small window into a document formatted for a much bigger screen , and does n't have to do 2-D scrolling to read it ?
Inquiring developers ' minds want to know ... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing that allows the Apple app store to be so popular is that the number of screen sizes it need to support is limited to one resolution, with a second larger screen announced but not out yet, and that'll come with a scaling tool so apps that are designed for the small screen will look okay on the bigger screen.Actually, none of that would be needed if Apple hadn't screwed up the iPhone's browser's rendering so badly.
I've worked on "mobilizing" a bunch of web sites so they work on smart phones.
This is easy for most of them.
You just go through the HTML and remove all the junk that forces specific sizes, so the browser is free to format everything to fit whatever window size it has available.
This works for everything we've tested on - except the iPhone.
When handed HTML that's free of size constraints, it usually formats it for a window bigger than the screen, and then shrinks it to fit the screen, making the text illegible.There's a theory going around that this was done intentionally, to force developers to abandon HTML and write specialized iPhone-only apps.
It seems to have worked, when you consider that most iPhone apps could be done with one or two pages of HTML (and usually without even any scripting ;-).There are quite a lot of discussions online about the iPhone browser's rendering problems.
Nobody seems to have a good solution.
The most successful seems to be to use , but this poses a serious problem hinted at with the idea of a scaling tool:  It will fail with the iPad, whose screen in portrait layout is wider than 320 pixels.
So all web pages will need another test:  If it's an iPhone, force width=320; if it's an iPad, force width="768".
And, of course, with time, this list will get longer, until most of every web page is megabytes of tests for various iWhatever screen widths.Of course, we could just do what others are doing, and abandon the Web approach.
Instead, we build a separate app for each of the thousands of gadgets on the market.
In many cases, the only difference between the thousands of versions of my app will be the different builtin screen width and height.
But this will suffice to ensure that a customer won't be able to buy my app just once and copy it to all their gadgets; they'll have to pay the app store a small amount for every place they want to install it.I'm not sure this is an improvement over what we built during the previous two decades.
Crappy and limited as it is, the Web is so far the closest we've managed to come to a "write once, read anywhere" scheme.
And for "content" that can be delivered as a document, it works fine.
Except on the iPhone.
(So does anyone know a way other than the above meta-viewport kludge to persuade the iPhone browser to render a page sensibly on its screen, so that the user doesn't see a small window into a document formatted for a much bigger screen, and doesn't have to do 2-D scrolling to read it?
Inquiring developers' minds want to know ...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31155166</id>
	<title>Re:Apple...</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1266336060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you clarify - what new power do I as a consumer have, that I didn't have before?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you clarify - what new power do I as a consumer have , that I did n't have before ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you clarify - what new power do I as a consumer have, that I didn't have before?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151788</id>
	<title>Re:Standards... anyone? Anyone?</title>
	<author>Hamsterdan</author>
	<datestamp>1266250920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kinda like iTunes...<br><br>That proprietary music player will never catch on. Yet all the younger people I meet have a iPod Touch or a standard iPod. I myself used to have a 40GB iPod, and now own an iPhone.<br><br>iTunes might seem evil on some platforms (and on Windows it's a bloated &amp;*^\%$\%^&amp; piece of *&amp;^\%$, but on a MAC (or Hackintosh), it's really nice.<br><br>Now, what they need to do is two little things.<br><br>Make the freaking player look like a standard USB drive to the computer. if it's DRM'd, fine, go with iTunes, but for other stuff, let it act as a USB key (like other MP3 players)<br><br>And allow an iPod to sync with other media players, like Media Center...<br><br>Like it or not, MCE is really nice and gets the job done, not like Snapstream who promised integration 3 years ago and ditched all their customers. (i've got two licenses here, sitting on my mail server, BTV and Beyond Media bought on a promise that Snapstream would merge the product in 5.x, along with their Firefly remote).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kinda like iTunes...That proprietary music player will never catch on .
Yet all the younger people I meet have a iPod Touch or a standard iPod .
I myself used to have a 40GB iPod , and now own an iPhone.iTunes might seem evil on some platforms ( and on Windows it 's a bloated &amp; * ^ \ % $ \ % ^ &amp; piece of * &amp; ^ \ % $ , but on a MAC ( or Hackintosh ) , it 's really nice.Now , what they need to do is two little things.Make the freaking player look like a standard USB drive to the computer .
if it 's DRM 'd , fine , go with iTunes , but for other stuff , let it act as a USB key ( like other MP3 players ) And allow an iPod to sync with other media players , like Media Center...Like it or not , MCE is really nice and gets the job done , not like Snapstream who promised integration 3 years ago and ditched all their customers .
( i 've got two licenses here , sitting on my mail server , BTV and Beyond Media bought on a promise that Snapstream would merge the product in 5.x , along with their Firefly remote ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kinda like iTunes...That proprietary music player will never catch on.
Yet all the younger people I meet have a iPod Touch or a standard iPod.
I myself used to have a 40GB iPod, and now own an iPhone.iTunes might seem evil on some platforms (and on Windows it's a bloated &amp;*^\%$\%^&amp; piece of *&amp;^\%$, but on a MAC (or Hackintosh), it's really nice.Now, what they need to do is two little things.Make the freaking player look like a standard USB drive to the computer.
if it's DRM'd, fine, go with iTunes, but for other stuff, let it act as a USB key (like other MP3 players)And allow an iPod to sync with other media players, like Media Center...Like it or not, MCE is really nice and gets the job done, not like Snapstream who promised integration 3 years ago and ditched all their customers.
(i've got two licenses here, sitting on my mail server, BTV and Beyond Media bought on a promise that Snapstream would merge the product in 5.x, along with their Firefly remote).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31153188</id>
	<title>http://m.google.com</title>
	<author>duane534</author>
	<datestamp>1266311280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://m.google.com/" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://m.google.com/</a> [google.com]

Step 1.  Select the search field.
Step 2.  Type 'mobile app' and a word describing the functionality you need.
Step 3.  Search.
Step 4.  Install.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //m.google.com/ [ google.com ] Step 1 .
Select the search field .
Step 2 .
Type 'mobile app ' and a word describing the functionality you need .
Step 3 .
Search . Step 4 .
Install .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://m.google.com/ [google.com]

Step 1.
Select the search field.
Step 2.
Type 'mobile app' and a word describing the functionality you need.
Step 3.
Search.
Step 4.
Install.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151824</id>
	<title>Apple...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266251280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>changed the mobile industry singlehandedly.  While the transition of power is not ultimate, consumers in the mobile marketplace now have a new found power over the purveyors of the wireless service. AT&amp;T, Verizon, et al, are now in reactionary mode.  That is good for their customers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>changed the mobile industry singlehandedly .
While the transition of power is not ultimate , consumers in the mobile marketplace now have a new found power over the purveyors of the wireless service .
AT&amp;T , Verizon , et al , are now in reactionary mode .
That is good for their customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>changed the mobile industry singlehandedly.
While the transition of power is not ultimate, consumers in the mobile marketplace now have a new found power over the purveyors of the wireless service.
AT&amp;T, Verizon, et al, are now in reactionary mode.
That is good for their customers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151586</id>
	<title>Fight Fire With Fire</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1266248640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We plan to fight application store fragmentation, by fragmenting all of the application stores!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We plan to fight application store fragmentation , by fragmenting all of the application stores !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We plan to fight application store fragmentation, by fragmenting all of the application stores!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152468</id>
	<title>The pc also has free and open apps iphone does not</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1266258780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The pc also has free and open apps iphone does not devs need to pay a fee to have free apps and apple has to much lock down on there stuff same thing for other operators and now they want 1 store with even more lock down?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The pc also has free and open apps iphone does not devs need to pay a fee to have free apps and apple has to much lock down on there stuff same thing for other operators and now they want 1 store with even more lock down ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The pc also has free and open apps iphone does not devs need to pay a fee to have free apps and apple has to much lock down on there stuff same thing for other operators and now they want 1 store with even more lock down?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151922</id>
	<title>Re:we need a open app store not where you need fee</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266252480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>we need a open app store not where you need to pay a fee to MAKE FREE APPS. and one where you do not give 30\% of the sale for paid apps.</p></div><p>And do you think that the carriers will give developers (or the consumer) a better deal than Apple does today?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>we need a open app store not where you need to pay a fee to MAKE FREE APPS .
and one where you do not give 30 \ % of the sale for paid apps.And do you think that the carriers will give developers ( or the consumer ) a better deal than Apple does today ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we need a open app store not where you need to pay a fee to MAKE FREE APPS.
and one where you do not give 30\% of the sale for paid apps.And do you think that the carriers will give developers (or the consumer) a better deal than Apple does today?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152880</id>
	<title>They probably just want a shite BREW store</title>
	<author>danielsfca2</author>
	<datestamp>1266350940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> How does this proposed alliance claim to be able to get the same benefits?</p></div><p>They probably just expect to just do a shitty BREW app market (such as the Verizon Get It Now/VCAST store) and think that users won't laugh in their faces and go back to using native apps written by people who know what they're doing.</p><p>I welcome this initiative, but only because it will be a giant waste of money and effort for the cellcos, and anything that hurts them makes me smile spitefully.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How does this proposed alliance claim to be able to get the same benefits ? They probably just expect to just do a shitty BREW app market ( such as the Verizon Get It Now/VCAST store ) and think that users wo n't laugh in their faces and go back to using native apps written by people who know what they 're doing.I welcome this initiative , but only because it will be a giant waste of money and effort for the cellcos , and anything that hurts them makes me smile spitefully .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> How does this proposed alliance claim to be able to get the same benefits?They probably just expect to just do a shitty BREW app market (such as the Verizon Get It Now/VCAST store) and think that users won't laugh in their faces and go back to using native apps written by people who know what they're doing.I welcome this initiative, but only because it will be a giant waste of money and effort for the cellcos, and anything that hurts them makes me smile spitefully.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152644</id>
	<title>fixed that for ya</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266260640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A couple of computer companies came up with novel and interesting ways to sell software on phones</p></div></blockquote><p>They came up with a way to sell software which most people in their wildest dreams never would have guessed any significant fraction of consumers or developers would have tolerated.  Now everyone wants to jump on the cashwagon before people wake up and start using apt-get as their app store.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A couple of computer companies came up with novel and interesting ways to sell software on phonesThey came up with a way to sell software which most people in their wildest dreams never would have guessed any significant fraction of consumers or developers would have tolerated .
Now everyone wants to jump on the cashwagon before people wake up and start using apt-get as their app store .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A couple of computer companies came up with novel and interesting ways to sell software on phonesThey came up with a way to sell software which most people in their wildest dreams never would have guessed any significant fraction of consumers or developers would have tolerated.
Now everyone wants to jump on the cashwagon before people wake up and start using apt-get as their app store.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151694</id>
	<title>Re:Do they have a choice?</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1266249840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I doubt it matters all that much; the most popular apps will end up coming with phones, and people are only going to pay so much for chintzy games on a 3" screen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt it matters all that much ; the most popular apps will end up coming with phones , and people are only going to pay so much for chintzy games on a 3 " screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt it matters all that much; the most popular apps will end up coming with phones, and people are only going to pay so much for chintzy games on a 3" screen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152010</id>
	<title>App store concept needs to die</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266253500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And HTML 5 needs to hurry up and bring us all of the standardized, offline goodness it has promised for some time now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And HTML 5 needs to hurry up and bring us all of the standardized , offline goodness it has promised for some time now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And HTML 5 needs to hurry up and bring us all of the standardized, offline goodness it has promised for some time now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151856</id>
	<title>Re:they misspelled monopoly</title>
	<author>godrik</author>
	<datestamp>1266251580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somedays, I wish I could mod +4 insightful/funny. Today is one of those.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somedays , I wish I could mod + 4 insightful/funny .
Today is one of those .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somedays, I wish I could mod +4 insightful/funny.
Today is one of those.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152092</id>
	<title>Re:Standards... anyone? Anyone?</title>
	<author>toastar</author>
	<datestamp>1266254580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so the answer to app store fragmentation is another app store?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so the answer to app store fragmentation is another app store ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so the answer to app store fragmentation is another app store?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31155230</id>
	<title>Re:they misspelled monopoly</title>
	<author>wvmarle</author>
	<datestamp>1266336360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depends whether they go for one market place, or for one store. Big difference.
</p><p>Mobile phones work with any network: there are a few standards, a few radio frequencies, some odd ones of course but in general they just work. Pop in a sim and off you go. Single marketplace, multiple vendors. That's good. Mobile fees are low, choice of networks/plans and phones is huge.
</p><p>They could do the same with apps. Just that you will have to choose which phone you have as apps will not be cross-platform. Too many platforms, too many hardware options (processor speed and functions: GPS, camera, touchscreen, etc), there can not be a "one size fits all" for apps, impossible and impractical. Many apps will also be country specific, if only because of interface language.
</p><p>As long as there is a standard on which to authenticate, download, and possibly even manage payments that any store operator can connect to, then we have a single marketplace with many vendors.
</p><p>I haven't rtfa but somehow I'm afraid that they mean "one store", locking out competition. Otoh the consortium seems to be too large/divers to make that work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends whether they go for one market place , or for one store .
Big difference .
Mobile phones work with any network : there are a few standards , a few radio frequencies , some odd ones of course but in general they just work .
Pop in a sim and off you go .
Single marketplace , multiple vendors .
That 's good .
Mobile fees are low , choice of networks/plans and phones is huge .
They could do the same with apps .
Just that you will have to choose which phone you have as apps will not be cross-platform .
Too many platforms , too many hardware options ( processor speed and functions : GPS , camera , touchscreen , etc ) , there can not be a " one size fits all " for apps , impossible and impractical .
Many apps will also be country specific , if only because of interface language .
As long as there is a standard on which to authenticate , download , and possibly even manage payments that any store operator can connect to , then we have a single marketplace with many vendors .
I have n't rtfa but somehow I 'm afraid that they mean " one store " , locking out competition .
Otoh the consortium seems to be too large/divers to make that work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends whether they go for one market place, or for one store.
Big difference.
Mobile phones work with any network: there are a few standards, a few radio frequencies, some odd ones of course but in general they just work.
Pop in a sim and off you go.
Single marketplace, multiple vendors.
That's good.
Mobile fees are low, choice of networks/plans and phones is huge.
They could do the same with apps.
Just that you will have to choose which phone you have as apps will not be cross-platform.
Too many platforms, too many hardware options (processor speed and functions: GPS, camera, touchscreen, etc), there can not be a "one size fits all" for apps, impossible and impractical.
Many apps will also be country specific, if only because of interface language.
As long as there is a standard on which to authenticate, download, and possibly even manage payments that any store operator can connect to, then we have a single marketplace with many vendors.
I haven't rtfa but somehow I'm afraid that they mean "one store", locking out competition.
Otoh the consortium seems to be too large/divers to make that work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151562</id>
	<title>Buying goldfish food</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266248400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't think there was so much to raising goldfish until I went to the store to buy goldfish food. Did you know they have different food types for different varieties of goldfish? There is a separate food just for Lionheads that "enhance and grow" the bumps on the heads of these freaks. Then there is food that increases the vibrancy of certain varieties of goldfish. Not to mention that there are foods that float versus foods that sink. Flakes vs pellets. Live worms vs freeze-dried worms. Feeder fish vs 3-day time release blocks.</p><p>My goldfish had an air bladder infection and was constantly floating to the top. I ended up getting the sinking pellets because that discouraged it from eating from the surface.</p><p>My goldfish is better now, but I wonder how much more trouble it would have been if I had multiple varieties of goldfish in the same tank.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't think there was so much to raising goldfish until I went to the store to buy goldfish food .
Did you know they have different food types for different varieties of goldfish ?
There is a separate food just for Lionheads that " enhance and grow " the bumps on the heads of these freaks .
Then there is food that increases the vibrancy of certain varieties of goldfish .
Not to mention that there are foods that float versus foods that sink .
Flakes vs pellets .
Live worms vs freeze-dried worms .
Feeder fish vs 3-day time release blocks.My goldfish had an air bladder infection and was constantly floating to the top .
I ended up getting the sinking pellets because that discouraged it from eating from the surface.My goldfish is better now , but I wonder how much more trouble it would have been if I had multiple varieties of goldfish in the same tank .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't think there was so much to raising goldfish until I went to the store to buy goldfish food.
Did you know they have different food types for different varieties of goldfish?
There is a separate food just for Lionheads that "enhance and grow" the bumps on the heads of these freaks.
Then there is food that increases the vibrancy of certain varieties of goldfish.
Not to mention that there are foods that float versus foods that sink.
Flakes vs pellets.
Live worms vs freeze-dried worms.
Feeder fish vs 3-day time release blocks.My goldfish had an air bladder infection and was constantly floating to the top.
I ended up getting the sinking pellets because that discouraged it from eating from the surface.My goldfish is better now, but I wonder how much more trouble it would have been if I had multiple varieties of goldfish in the same tank.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151968</id>
	<title>Isn't this the purpose of J2ME?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266252960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like we need some sort of cross platform language (e.g. Java), that has a common platform for mobile devices (e.g. J2ME). That allows for applications to run on different handsets via some sort of profile (e.g. MIDP, CLDC).</p><p>What are we waiting for...oh yes mobile makers to get there fingers out of their asses and start helping the consumer (e.g. through no vendor lock in).</p><p>I'd love to feel safe and warm knowing that any apps I've bought for my iPhone could be used on the new Samsung, or latest HTC device. As it stands I'm not able to swap hardware as easily as my investment in those apps is then lost...and this is what Apple wants (so do the others). Mobile makers don't want to compete on hardware specs alone, as that takes more time/money to develop than the software (hence a bigger potential loss if a rival comes out with better hardware that everyone uses 2 days after their release).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like we need some sort of cross platform language ( e.g .
Java ) , that has a common platform for mobile devices ( e.g .
J2ME ) . That allows for applications to run on different handsets via some sort of profile ( e.g .
MIDP , CLDC ) .What are we waiting for...oh yes mobile makers to get there fingers out of their asses and start helping the consumer ( e.g .
through no vendor lock in ) .I 'd love to feel safe and warm knowing that any apps I 've bought for my iPhone could be used on the new Samsung , or latest HTC device .
As it stands I 'm not able to swap hardware as easily as my investment in those apps is then lost...and this is what Apple wants ( so do the others ) .
Mobile makers do n't want to compete on hardware specs alone , as that takes more time/money to develop than the software ( hence a bigger potential loss if a rival comes out with better hardware that everyone uses 2 days after their release ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like we need some sort of cross platform language (e.g.
Java), that has a common platform for mobile devices (e.g.
J2ME). That allows for applications to run on different handsets via some sort of profile (e.g.
MIDP, CLDC).What are we waiting for...oh yes mobile makers to get there fingers out of their asses and start helping the consumer (e.g.
through no vendor lock in).I'd love to feel safe and warm knowing that any apps I've bought for my iPhone could be used on the new Samsung, or latest HTC device.
As it stands I'm not able to swap hardware as easily as my investment in those apps is then lost...and this is what Apple wants (so do the others).
Mobile makers don't want to compete on hardware specs alone, as that takes more time/money to develop than the software (hence a bigger potential loss if a rival comes out with better hardware that everyone uses 2 days after their release).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151776</id>
	<title>Mod abuse</title>
	<author>Max Littlemore</author>
	<datestamp>1266250740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>C'mon, the guys name is BadAnalogyGuy and he makes a really bad yet on topic anaolgy. Geez.</htmltext>
<tokenext>C'mon , the guys name is BadAnalogyGuy and he makes a really bad yet on topic anaolgy .
Geez .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C'mon, the guys name is BadAnalogyGuy and he makes a really bad yet on topic anaolgy.
Geez.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151920</id>
	<title>Re:Why do we need an app store at all?</title>
	<author>iluvcapra</author>
	<datestamp>1266252480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Palm and Winmo supported downloadable apps forever, they just didn't <em>move</em>.  Vendors were fighting rampant piracy, end users often didn't know what was available except through rumor, and stuff that you could download frankly sucked half the time.</p><p>The store concept is the killer app that makes the whole third-party app concept worth the phone OS vendor's time. I remember having innumerable problems keeping my the various junk on my Treo 650 working and compatible, and migrating from one phone to another while keeping app vendors serial numbers entered.  I also remember downloading lots of different PRCs and them not working for my OS revision, or phone model, or carrier firmware. It was a mess, and the app store concept is a solution.  They just took the concept of a package manager and put a credit card slot on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Palm and Winmo supported downloadable apps forever , they just did n't move .
Vendors were fighting rampant piracy , end users often did n't know what was available except through rumor , and stuff that you could download frankly sucked half the time.The store concept is the killer app that makes the whole third-party app concept worth the phone OS vendor 's time .
I remember having innumerable problems keeping my the various junk on my Treo 650 working and compatible , and migrating from one phone to another while keeping app vendors serial numbers entered .
I also remember downloading lots of different PRCs and them not working for my OS revision , or phone model , or carrier firmware .
It was a mess , and the app store concept is a solution .
They just took the concept of a package manager and put a credit card slot on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Palm and Winmo supported downloadable apps forever, they just didn't move.
Vendors were fighting rampant piracy, end users often didn't know what was available except through rumor, and stuff that you could download frankly sucked half the time.The store concept is the killer app that makes the whole third-party app concept worth the phone OS vendor's time.
I remember having innumerable problems keeping my the various junk on my Treo 650 working and compatible, and migrating from one phone to another while keeping app vendors serial numbers entered.
I also remember downloading lots of different PRCs and them not working for my OS revision, or phone model, or carrier firmware.
It was a mess, and the app store concept is a solution.
They just took the concept of a package manager and put a credit card slot on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31153338</id>
	<title>Re:Standards... anyone? Anyone?</title>
	<author>macs4all</author>
	<datestamp>1266313140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>an on screen touchscreen keypad is epic fail- I'd rather type on a 9 button pad than that.</p></div><p>First, I am really getting sick and tired of the overuse of the term "Epic fail." It is not an "Epic fail(ure)"; you just don't happen to enjoy it. Big difference.<br> <br>
Second, I don't think more than one user in 100,000 would "rather type on a 9 button pad" than a qwerty keyboard, even an onscreen one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>an on screen touchscreen keypad is epic fail- I 'd rather type on a 9 button pad than that.First , I am really getting sick and tired of the overuse of the term " Epic fail .
" It is not an " Epic fail ( ure ) " ; you just do n't happen to enjoy it .
Big difference .
Second , I do n't think more than one user in 100,000 would " rather type on a 9 button pad " than a qwerty keyboard , even an onscreen one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>an on screen touchscreen keypad is epic fail- I'd rather type on a 9 button pad than that.First, I am really getting sick and tired of the overuse of the term "Epic fail.
" It is not an "Epic fail(ure)"; you just don't happen to enjoy it.
Big difference.
Second, I don't think more than one user in 100,000 would "rather type on a 9 button pad" than a qwerty keyboard, even an onscreen one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151700</id>
	<title>we need a open app store not where you need fee</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1266249840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we need a open app store not where you need to pay a fee to MAKE FREE APPS. and one where you do not give 30\% of the sale for paid apps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we need a open app store not where you need to pay a fee to MAKE FREE APPS .
and one where you do not give 30 \ % of the sale for paid apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we need a open app store not where you need to pay a fee to MAKE FREE APPS.
and one where you do not give 30\% of the sale for paid apps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31154068</id>
	<title>Re:Buying goldfish food</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1266326160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi,</p><p>For improved understanding, could you please reprase your story as a car analogy.</p><p>Thanks in advance!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi,For improved understanding , could you please reprase your story as a car analogy.Thanks in advance !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi,For improved understanding, could you please reprase your story as a car analogy.Thanks in advance!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151792</id>
	<title>The Year of Linux on Mobile Devices: Coming Soon?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266250980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this mean that AT&amp;T, China Mobile, Deutsche Telekom, NTT DoCoMo, Orange, Telef&#243;nica, Telenor Group, Sprint, Verizon Wireless, and Vodafone will all be agreeing to a Linux system the base of which will offer consistent compatibility for applications across phones? Kind of like having several brands of PC manufactures all using x86 and windows, running the same apps at different performance levels. I really can't see going with another operating system other than Linux. It's already well developed and proven across many mobile devices. Also, its easier to throw any interface on there as long as they all use the same libraries and versions of libraries as well as file system layout. Windows would not make sense to attempt this with for so many reasons I that will not bother - everyone here already knows the arguments anyway (long time lurker, been here since beta, many accounts come and gone).</p><p>Cheers!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean that AT&amp;T , China Mobile , Deutsche Telekom , NTT DoCoMo , Orange , Telef   nica , Telenor Group , Sprint , Verizon Wireless , and Vodafone will all be agreeing to a Linux system the base of which will offer consistent compatibility for applications across phones ?
Kind of like having several brands of PC manufactures all using x86 and windows , running the same apps at different performance levels .
I really ca n't see going with another operating system other than Linux .
It 's already well developed and proven across many mobile devices .
Also , its easier to throw any interface on there as long as they all use the same libraries and versions of libraries as well as file system layout .
Windows would not make sense to attempt this with for so many reasons I that will not bother - everyone here already knows the arguments anyway ( long time lurker , been here since beta , many accounts come and gone ) .Cheers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean that AT&amp;T, China Mobile, Deutsche Telekom, NTT DoCoMo, Orange, Telefónica, Telenor Group, Sprint, Verizon Wireless, and Vodafone will all be agreeing to a Linux system the base of which will offer consistent compatibility for applications across phones?
Kind of like having several brands of PC manufactures all using x86 and windows, running the same apps at different performance levels.
I really can't see going with another operating system other than Linux.
It's already well developed and proven across many mobile devices.
Also, its easier to throw any interface on there as long as they all use the same libraries and versions of libraries as well as file system layout.
Windows would not make sense to attempt this with for so many reasons I that will not bother - everyone here already knows the arguments anyway (long time lurker, been here since beta, many accounts come and gone).Cheers!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152236</id>
	<title>Re:Buying goldfish food</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266256260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>which car does your fish own?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>which car does your fish own ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>which car does your fish own?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31155172</id>
	<title>Re:Why do we need an app store at all?</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1266336060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Yeah, except iTunes and the App store <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/26/app\_store/" title="theregister.co.uk">don't actually make any money</a> [theregister.co.uk] whilst the PC software business was <a href="http://www.infoedge.com/product\_type.asp?product=DO-4959" title="infoedge.com">worth $303.8bn</a> [infoedge.com] by the start of last year, of which <a href="http://finance.econsultant.com/microsoft-2008-revenue-profit-2009-fortune-500-rank/" title="econsultant.com">only at absolute most $60bn was attributable to Microsoft during that period</a> [econsultant.com]. The sector has only grown since then, whilst Apple is still only just about breaking even with it's online stores.
</p><p>
So nice theory, but unfortunately it seems you're completely and utterly wrong. You might want to consider looking for facts to back up your assertions in future. The reality is you have absolutely no idea how many apps the average PC users buys and for how much compared to iPhone users. Most prominently though, you seem to have completely and utterly forgotten about business. The iPhone is primarily a consumer phone with no worthwhile showing in the business market, hence why RIM is so successful in business phones because that's what it does best. Businesses spend a fortune on software from vendors big and small, this is why the PC software market is not a failure, whilst in comparison the iPhone app store isn't exactly a massive money spinner, all it really does is act as a vehicle for increasing popularity of the hardware and phone contracts- where the real money is. If Apple were to make money from software, they would need to venture out into the world of business, but they have shown numerous times they are not interested in that.
</p><p>
If you're going to talk about software markets, please at least do a little bit of research to understand them first, rather than just simply making it all up as you go along.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , except iTunes and the App store do n't actually make any money [ theregister.co.uk ] whilst the PC software business was worth $ 303.8bn [ infoedge.com ] by the start of last year , of which only at absolute most $ 60bn was attributable to Microsoft during that period [ econsultant.com ] .
The sector has only grown since then , whilst Apple is still only just about breaking even with it 's online stores .
So nice theory , but unfortunately it seems you 're completely and utterly wrong .
You might want to consider looking for facts to back up your assertions in future .
The reality is you have absolutely no idea how many apps the average PC users buys and for how much compared to iPhone users .
Most prominently though , you seem to have completely and utterly forgotten about business .
The iPhone is primarily a consumer phone with no worthwhile showing in the business market , hence why RIM is so successful in business phones because that 's what it does best .
Businesses spend a fortune on software from vendors big and small , this is why the PC software market is not a failure , whilst in comparison the iPhone app store is n't exactly a massive money spinner , all it really does is act as a vehicle for increasing popularity of the hardware and phone contracts- where the real money is .
If Apple were to make money from software , they would need to venture out into the world of business , but they have shown numerous times they are not interested in that .
If you 're going to talk about software markets , please at least do a little bit of research to understand them first , rather than just simply making it all up as you go along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Yeah, except iTunes and the App store don't actually make any money [theregister.co.uk] whilst the PC software business was worth $303.8bn [infoedge.com] by the start of last year, of which only at absolute most $60bn was attributable to Microsoft during that period [econsultant.com].
The sector has only grown since then, whilst Apple is still only just about breaking even with it's online stores.
So nice theory, but unfortunately it seems you're completely and utterly wrong.
You might want to consider looking for facts to back up your assertions in future.
The reality is you have absolutely no idea how many apps the average PC users buys and for how much compared to iPhone users.
Most prominently though, you seem to have completely and utterly forgotten about business.
The iPhone is primarily a consumer phone with no worthwhile showing in the business market, hence why RIM is so successful in business phones because that's what it does best.
Businesses spend a fortune on software from vendors big and small, this is why the PC software market is not a failure, whilst in comparison the iPhone app store isn't exactly a massive money spinner, all it really does is act as a vehicle for increasing popularity of the hardware and phone contracts- where the real money is.
If Apple were to make money from software, they would need to venture out into the world of business, but they have shown numerous times they are not interested in that.
If you're going to talk about software markets, please at least do a little bit of research to understand them first, rather than just simply making it all up as you go along.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31153050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151636</id>
	<title>Do they have a choice?</title>
	<author>pspahn</author>
	<datestamp>1266249060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's clearly Apple vs. Google vs. Everyone else as it is. A couple of computer companies came up with novel and interesting ways to sell software on phones and now you have all the phone companies freaking out trying to figure out how to do the same thing and still compete. <br> <br>
Their business is telephones, not software. There really isn't any other choice the telecoms have. They know they'll be more effective working together and pooling talent, but will they deliver? I'm sure most people doubt their ability to come up with an answer, but you never know...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's clearly Apple vs. Google vs. Everyone else as it is .
A couple of computer companies came up with novel and interesting ways to sell software on phones and now you have all the phone companies freaking out trying to figure out how to do the same thing and still compete .
Their business is telephones , not software .
There really is n't any other choice the telecoms have .
They know they 'll be more effective working together and pooling talent , but will they deliver ?
I 'm sure most people doubt their ability to come up with an answer , but you never know.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's clearly Apple vs. Google vs. Everyone else as it is.
A couple of computer companies came up with novel and interesting ways to sell software on phones and now you have all the phone companies freaking out trying to figure out how to do the same thing and still compete.
Their business is telephones, not software.
There really isn't any other choice the telecoms have.
They know they'll be more effective working together and pooling talent, but will they deliver?
I'm sure most people doubt their ability to come up with an answer, but you never know...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31153262</id>
	<title>Re:Standards... anyone? Anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266312060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Even the seemingly minor Apple requirement that iPad apps adjust their layouts depending on whether the iPad is in landscape or portrait mode is, for my app's purposes, a complete waste of time that reduces the quality of the app for its proper landscape layout.</p></div><p>Is it so hard to create TWO screen layouts? Because that's ALL there are: Portrait and Landscape.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Supporting a laundry list of different screen formats, multi-touch capabilities, etcetera, is of absolute no interest to me.</p></div><p>Sounds like what you really have no interest in is developing an iPad app...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even the seemingly minor Apple requirement that iPad apps adjust their layouts depending on whether the iPad is in landscape or portrait mode is , for my app 's purposes , a complete waste of time that reduces the quality of the app for its proper landscape layout.Is it so hard to create TWO screen layouts ?
Because that 's ALL there are : Portrait and Landscape.Supporting a laundry list of different screen formats , multi-touch capabilities , etcetera , is of absolute no interest to me.Sounds like what you really have no interest in is developing an iPad app.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Even the seemingly minor Apple requirement that iPad apps adjust their layouts depending on whether the iPad is in landscape or portrait mode is, for my app's purposes, a complete waste of time that reduces the quality of the app for its proper landscape layout.Is it so hard to create TWO screen layouts?
Because that's ALL there are: Portrait and Landscape.Supporting a laundry list of different screen formats, multi-touch capabilities, etcetera, is of absolute no interest to me.Sounds like what you really have no interest in is developing an iPad app...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151748</id>
	<title>Re:Standards... anyone? Anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266250440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Parent is spot-on. The more resolutions and platforms you have to support with your app, the less time you have to spend on design, adding features, and ensuring quality. Even the seemingly minor Apple requirement that iPad apps adjust their layouts depending on whether the iPad is in landscape or portrait mode is, for my app's purposes, a complete waste of time that reduces the quality of the app for its proper landscape layout. Supporting a laundry list of different screen formats, multi-touch capabilities, etcetera, is of absolute no interest to me.</p><p>Of course, I have a skewed perspective because I actually use my app and therefore put quality and features as the top priorities, rather than what strategy will maximize profit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Parent is spot-on .
The more resolutions and platforms you have to support with your app , the less time you have to spend on design , adding features , and ensuring quality .
Even the seemingly minor Apple requirement that iPad apps adjust their layouts depending on whether the iPad is in landscape or portrait mode is , for my app 's purposes , a complete waste of time that reduces the quality of the app for its proper landscape layout .
Supporting a laundry list of different screen formats , multi-touch capabilities , etcetera , is of absolute no interest to me.Of course , I have a skewed perspective because I actually use my app and therefore put quality and features as the top priorities , rather than what strategy will maximize profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parent is spot-on.
The more resolutions and platforms you have to support with your app, the less time you have to spend on design, adding features, and ensuring quality.
Even the seemingly minor Apple requirement that iPad apps adjust their layouts depending on whether the iPad is in landscape or portrait mode is, for my app's purposes, a complete waste of time that reduces the quality of the app for its proper landscape layout.
Supporting a laundry list of different screen formats, multi-touch capabilities, etcetera, is of absolute no interest to me.Of course, I have a skewed perspective because I actually use my app and therefore put quality and features as the top priorities, rather than what strategy will maximize profit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151966</id>
	<title>Can you say "Least Common Denominator"?</title>
	<author>bdsesq</author>
	<datestamp>1266252960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Each carrier will want to approve the apps that are sold to its customers.<br>So each app will need 24 approvals. Some will get 24 thumbs up.  But I imagine most will be banned by one carrier or another for political reasons.</p><p>By the time this is done it will make Apple's approval process look attractive.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Each carrier will want to approve the apps that are sold to its customers.So each app will need 24 approvals .
Some will get 24 thumbs up .
But I imagine most will be banned by one carrier or another for political reasons.By the time this is done it will make Apple 's approval process look attractive .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Each carrier will want to approve the apps that are sold to its customers.So each app will need 24 approvals.
Some will get 24 thumbs up.
But I imagine most will be banned by one carrier or another for political reasons.By the time this is done it will make Apple's approval process look attractive.
   </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31154278</id>
	<title>Re:Do they have a choice?</title>
	<author>IANAAC</author>
	<datestamp>1266329460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>
Their business is telephones, not software. </i></p></div> </blockquote><p>
It shouldn't even include software, or hardware for that matter (ie, the handsets).  They should just worry about the infrastructure.
</p><p>
It would be nice to see these companies go through what old Ma Bell went through WRT their phones, no matter how reliable grandma says they were.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Their business is telephones , not software .
It should n't even include software , or hardware for that matter ( ie , the handsets ) .
They should just worry about the infrastructure .
It would be nice to see these companies go through what old Ma Bell went through WRT their phones , no matter how reliable grandma says they were .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 
Their business is telephones, not software.
It shouldn't even include software, or hardware for that matter (ie, the handsets).
They should just worry about the infrastructure.
It would be nice to see these companies go through what old Ma Bell went through WRT their phones, no matter how reliable grandma says they were.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152160</id>
	<title>Re:Standards... anyone? Anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266255480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh man where have you been JAVA lets you Write once, run anywhere</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh man where have you been JAVA lets you Write once , run anywhere</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh man where have you been JAVA lets you Write once, run anywhere</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31153490</id>
	<title>Re:they fight for control</title>
	<author>BESTouff</author>
	<datestamp>1266315720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You deserve more than 5 points for that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You deserve more than 5 points for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You deserve more than 5 points for that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152688</id>
	<title>Re:fighting the wrong fragmentation</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1266261120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"and won't allow UI skinning."<br>
AKA the only thing that stopped win mobile from being a completely failed disaster the last several years. My current phone is only made usable by the COMPLETE overhaul done by telus. I think many features would not be worth touching had they left regular windows there. And I still find it very lacking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" and wo n't allow UI skinning .
" AKA the only thing that stopped win mobile from being a completely failed disaster the last several years .
My current phone is only made usable by the COMPLETE overhaul done by telus .
I think many features would not be worth touching had they left regular windows there .
And I still find it very lacking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"and won't allow UI skinning.
"
AKA the only thing that stopped win mobile from being a completely failed disaster the last several years.
My current phone is only made usable by the COMPLETE overhaul done by telus.
I think many features would not be worth touching had they left regular windows there.
And I still find it very lacking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31154976</id>
	<title>Re:Do they have a choice?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266334980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's clearly Apple vs. Google vs. Everyone else as it is. </i></p><p>I don't know what mobile market you're looking at, but it's not one on planet Earth.</p><p>The actual share is more like Nokia and everyone else - everyone else being Motorola, Samsung, LG. Then RIM. Somewhere in the noise after that are companies like Apple and Google.</p><p>But let's not let something like facts get in the way of the Apple world view<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's clearly Apple vs. Google vs. Everyone else as it is .
I do n't know what mobile market you 're looking at , but it 's not one on planet Earth.The actual share is more like Nokia and everyone else - everyone else being Motorola , Samsung , LG .
Then RIM .
Somewhere in the noise after that are companies like Apple and Google.But let 's not let something like facts get in the way of the Apple world view : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's clearly Apple vs. Google vs. Everyone else as it is.
I don't know what mobile market you're looking at, but it's not one on planet Earth.The actual share is more like Nokia and everyone else - everyone else being Motorola, Samsung, LG.
Then RIM.
Somewhere in the noise after that are companies like Apple and Google.But let's not let something like facts get in the way of the Apple world view :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151910</id>
	<title>Re:McDonalds, Burger King, and .... Wendy's?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266252360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Obviouly the iTunes store is McDonalds.</p><p>Android is Burger King.</p><p>And these clowns are fighting to be Wendy's?</p><p>Or are they trying to be those hybrid KFC-Taco Bell-Pizza Hut stores?</p></div><p>So a Microsoft smart phone would be Jack in the Box?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviouly the iTunes store is McDonalds.Android is Burger King.And these clowns are fighting to be Wendy 's ? Or are they trying to be those hybrid KFC-Taco Bell-Pizza Hut stores ? So a Microsoft smart phone would be Jack in the Box ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviouly the iTunes store is McDonalds.Android is Burger King.And these clowns are fighting to be Wendy's?Or are they trying to be those hybrid KFC-Taco Bell-Pizza Hut stores?So a Microsoft smart phone would be Jack in the Box?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31153294</id>
	<title>Re:Apple...</title>
	<author>duane534</author>
	<datestamp>1266312540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple may be many things, but consumer advocates they are not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple may be many things , but consumer advocates they are not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple may be many things, but consumer advocates they are not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152920</id>
	<title>Re:Why do we need an app store at all?</title>
	<author>jo42</author>
	<datestamp>1266351420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why can't I just download an app from any vendor's site</p></div><p>Do you really want to be running anti-virus/anti-malware software on your mobile device? Do you really want a repeat of the junkware/crapware/malware idiocy on desktops, on mobile devices too?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>who keeps 30\% of the revenue</p></div><p>Go ahead. Set up your own vendor site that takes credit cards from over 50 countries in the world and drops the revenue right into your bank account, or go with an established provider of this kind of service, see how much of your take is left -- hint: not as much you think.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't I just download an app from any vendor 's siteDo you really want to be running anti-virus/anti-malware software on your mobile device ?
Do you really want a repeat of the junkware/crapware/malware idiocy on desktops , on mobile devices too ? who keeps 30 \ % of the revenueGo ahead .
Set up your own vendor site that takes credit cards from over 50 countries in the world and drops the revenue right into your bank account , or go with an established provider of this kind of service , see how much of your take is left -- hint : not as much you think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't I just download an app from any vendor's siteDo you really want to be running anti-virus/anti-malware software on your mobile device?
Do you really want a repeat of the junkware/crapware/malware idiocy on desktops, on mobile devices too?who keeps 30\% of the revenueGo ahead.
Set up your own vendor site that takes credit cards from over 50 countries in the world and drops the revenue right into your bank account, or go with an established provider of this kind of service, see how much of your take is left -- hint: not as much you think.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31168264</id>
	<title>Re:Why do we need an app store at all?</title>
	<author>koding</author>
	<datestamp>1265036160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What you seem to forget is that 'regular' people DON'T buy and download a lot of apps from their PC's.
3 billion people have mobile handsets. It is in the interest of everyone, both consumers and developers, to enable handset owners to find and eventually buy apps as easy as possible.

'Click Icon, browse, buy' - is SO much simpler than using the phone's browser to browse over to HandanGO's horrible website, fiddle with credit card, download, install, cross fingers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What you seem to forget is that 'regular ' people DO N'T buy and download a lot of apps from their PC 's .
3 billion people have mobile handsets .
It is in the interest of everyone , both consumers and developers , to enable handset owners to find and eventually buy apps as easy as possible .
'Click Icon , browse , buy ' - is SO much simpler than using the phone 's browser to browse over to HandanGO 's horrible website , fiddle with credit card , download , install , cross fingers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you seem to forget is that 'regular' people DON'T buy and download a lot of apps from their PC's.
3 billion people have mobile handsets.
It is in the interest of everyone, both consumers and developers, to enable handset owners to find and eventually buy apps as easy as possible.
'Click Icon, browse, buy' - is SO much simpler than using the phone's browser to browse over to HandanGO's horrible website, fiddle with credit card, download, install, cross fingers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31153740</id>
	<title>Re:Standards... anyone? Anyone?</title>
	<author>ConfusedVorlon</author>
	<datestamp>1266320460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>developers will work around screen issues.</p><p>the real problem is that the operators want to 'own the customer' - so they all put in their own stupid rules, controls, regulations.</p><p>e.g. I have a windows mobile app, but if I want to release it with orange, I have to<br>-Sign up to their system.<br>-Pay for orange signing and testing (and go through the time-consuming process of doing it)<br>-Probably make a bunch of orange-specific changes<br>-Give them ~65\% of the revenue<br>-Hope that individual country managers decide they would like to include my app on their country's store (this is in no way guaranteed)<br>-and probably go through the same pain every update<br>(exact details may have evolved, but you get the rough idea)</p><p>it is just too painful. There is no way I'll go through this process for a bunch of operators/portals in order to get access to each walled off niche of customers.</p><p>If the operators really are willing to back off and let a central catalog manage a single approval process, then they'll have a load more apps to offer users.</p><p>Of course to do this, they'll have to let go of the idea that they add value by controlling the application deck.  They'll have to move another step closer to being a utility provider of comoditised bandwidth. That terrifies them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>developers will work around screen issues.the real problem is that the operators want to 'own the customer ' - so they all put in their own stupid rules , controls , regulations.e.g .
I have a windows mobile app , but if I want to release it with orange , I have to-Sign up to their system.-Pay for orange signing and testing ( and go through the time-consuming process of doing it ) -Probably make a bunch of orange-specific changes-Give them ~ 65 \ % of the revenue-Hope that individual country managers decide they would like to include my app on their country 's store ( this is in no way guaranteed ) -and probably go through the same pain every update ( exact details may have evolved , but you get the rough idea ) it is just too painful .
There is no way I 'll go through this process for a bunch of operators/portals in order to get access to each walled off niche of customers.If the operators really are willing to back off and let a central catalog manage a single approval process , then they 'll have a load more apps to offer users.Of course to do this , they 'll have to let go of the idea that they add value by controlling the application deck .
They 'll have to move another step closer to being a utility provider of comoditised bandwidth .
That terrifies them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>developers will work around screen issues.the real problem is that the operators want to 'own the customer' - so they all put in their own stupid rules, controls, regulations.e.g.
I have a windows mobile app, but if I want to release it with orange, I have to-Sign up to their system.-Pay for orange signing and testing (and go through the time-consuming process of doing it)-Probably make a bunch of orange-specific changes-Give them ~65\% of the revenue-Hope that individual country managers decide they would like to include my app on their country's store (this is in no way guaranteed)-and probably go through the same pain every update(exact details may have evolved, but you get the rough idea)it is just too painful.
There is no way I'll go through this process for a bunch of operators/portals in order to get access to each walled off niche of customers.If the operators really are willing to back off and let a central catalog manage a single approval process, then they'll have a load more apps to offer users.Of course to do this, they'll have to let go of the idea that they add value by controlling the application deck.
They'll have to move another step closer to being a utility provider of comoditised bandwidth.
That terrifies them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152898</id>
	<title>Re:Apple...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266351120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is all a load of crap. Apple ONLY HAS A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE FUCKING MARKET!  They did not by any means revolution anything. The technology existed long before Apple and marketing was the only thing they did or even really do as a company. Almost everything the company has done or does is done by others including the iPod, the mac, etc- The MP3 player was invented way before the iPod. It may not have taken off without the marketing of Apple. We all know Apple's strength is marketing. GNU/Linux might not have had mass success- but it certainly doesn't mean it wasn't successful due to lack of merit either. GNU/Linux on the desktop hasn't been marketed to the general populous and yet everybody says it has failed. I'd disagree. It hasn't taken off because nobody has solid it to the general masses. Apple solid GNU/Linux to the general masses and has had success. Proof positive GNU/Linux was successful. It may have had a different kernel, it may have had had some changes to the appearance of what we think of as GNU/Linux, it may have had a different desktop manager, but under the hood it sure looks allot like GNU/Linux to me. khtml check (konueror, open source, etc), terminal check, unix roots check, etc. Apple is an awful company that I would NEVER recommend anybody doing business with. They are by all means as bad and even worse than Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is all a load of crap .
Apple ONLY HAS A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE FUCKING MARKET !
They did not by any means revolution anything .
The technology existed long before Apple and marketing was the only thing they did or even really do as a company .
Almost everything the company has done or does is done by others including the iPod , the mac , etc- The MP3 player was invented way before the iPod .
It may not have taken off without the marketing of Apple .
We all know Apple 's strength is marketing .
GNU/Linux might not have had mass success- but it certainly does n't mean it was n't successful due to lack of merit either .
GNU/Linux on the desktop has n't been marketed to the general populous and yet everybody says it has failed .
I 'd disagree .
It has n't taken off because nobody has solid it to the general masses .
Apple solid GNU/Linux to the general masses and has had success .
Proof positive GNU/Linux was successful .
It may have had a different kernel , it may have had had some changes to the appearance of what we think of as GNU/Linux , it may have had a different desktop manager , but under the hood it sure looks allot like GNU/Linux to me .
khtml check ( konueror , open source , etc ) , terminal check , unix roots check , etc .
Apple is an awful company that I would NEVER recommend anybody doing business with .
They are by all means as bad and even worse than Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is all a load of crap.
Apple ONLY HAS A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE FUCKING MARKET!
They did not by any means revolution anything.
The technology existed long before Apple and marketing was the only thing they did or even really do as a company.
Almost everything the company has done or does is done by others including the iPod, the mac, etc- The MP3 player was invented way before the iPod.
It may not have taken off without the marketing of Apple.
We all know Apple's strength is marketing.
GNU/Linux might not have had mass success- but it certainly doesn't mean it wasn't successful due to lack of merit either.
GNU/Linux on the desktop hasn't been marketed to the general populous and yet everybody says it has failed.
I'd disagree.
It hasn't taken off because nobody has solid it to the general masses.
Apple solid GNU/Linux to the general masses and has had success.
Proof positive GNU/Linux was successful.
It may have had a different kernel, it may have had had some changes to the appearance of what we think of as GNU/Linux, it may have had a different desktop manager, but under the hood it sure looks allot like GNU/Linux to me.
khtml check (konueror, open source, etc), terminal check, unix roots check, etc.
Apple is an awful company that I would NEVER recommend anybody doing business with.
They are by all means as bad and even worse than Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31153278</id>
	<title>Re:Buying goldfish food</title>
	<author>hvm2hvm</author>
	<datestamp>1266312300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, you treat this analogy making like a job or something don't you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , you treat this analogy making like a job or something do n't you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, you treat this analogy making like a job or something don't you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31160616</id>
	<title>I don't get it</title>
	<author>theolein</author>
	<datestamp>1266316680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The one thing that puzzles me is how on earth do they expect apps for the current number of mobile OSes out there to fit into one store. The mobile OSes I can think of off hand are Bada (Samsung only, Linux based C++ toolkit), Symbian (the majority of the world's current handies, but truly shitty to write apps for), MeeGo (Linux based, but who knows with what kind of UI), Android (rapidly becoming the next Symbian, apps in Java compiled down to native with a special compiler), Windows 7 phone, a.k.a. Windows Mobile 7 (.Net based, but too new to be able to say how it will go except that samsung and sony ericsson are rumoured to be basing new phones on it) and of course Apple's iPhone OS, which doesn't really fit in the near two hundred off topic comments above because this isn't even about Apple.</p><p>I just can't see this working at all. There is simply too much competition and differing platforms to get it work, even if it were only one company doing it, let alone a dozen. Personally, I think that the market will thin out eventually to be just Android, iPhone OS and Windows Mobile.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The one thing that puzzles me is how on earth do they expect apps for the current number of mobile OSes out there to fit into one store .
The mobile OSes I can think of off hand are Bada ( Samsung only , Linux based C + + toolkit ) , Symbian ( the majority of the world 's current handies , but truly shitty to write apps for ) , MeeGo ( Linux based , but who knows with what kind of UI ) , Android ( rapidly becoming the next Symbian , apps in Java compiled down to native with a special compiler ) , Windows 7 phone , a.k.a .
Windows Mobile 7 ( .Net based , but too new to be able to say how it will go except that samsung and sony ericsson are rumoured to be basing new phones on it ) and of course Apple 's iPhone OS , which does n't really fit in the near two hundred off topic comments above because this is n't even about Apple.I just ca n't see this working at all .
There is simply too much competition and differing platforms to get it work , even if it were only one company doing it , let alone a dozen .
Personally , I think that the market will thin out eventually to be just Android , iPhone OS and Windows Mobile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one thing that puzzles me is how on earth do they expect apps for the current number of mobile OSes out there to fit into one store.
The mobile OSes I can think of off hand are Bada (Samsung only, Linux based C++ toolkit), Symbian (the majority of the world's current handies, but truly shitty to write apps for), MeeGo (Linux based, but who knows with what kind of UI), Android (rapidly becoming the next Symbian, apps in Java compiled down to native with a special compiler), Windows 7 phone, a.k.a.
Windows Mobile 7 (.Net based, but too new to be able to say how it will go except that samsung and sony ericsson are rumoured to be basing new phones on it) and of course Apple's iPhone OS, which doesn't really fit in the near two hundred off topic comments above because this isn't even about Apple.I just can't see this working at all.
There is simply too much competition and differing platforms to get it work, even if it were only one company doing it, let alone a dozen.
Personally, I think that the market will thin out eventually to be just Android, iPhone OS and Windows Mobile.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31154116</id>
	<title>Commoditisation</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1266326940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not surprising:<br>- Mobile phone makers are afraid that hardware is becoming commoditised (read: low cost, low margins) and software will become the way to make profits, just like it happened with PCs<br>- Telecoms operators are afraid that they become providers of dumb-data-pipes (instead of the system that they have now of fragmenting data into services and charging more for some) just like it happened with ISPs.</p><p>So the phone makers want to get a share of any profits done on the software (just like Apple has) and the telecoms operators want to get a share of any profits done on new data services implemented on software (which do not relly on the headset's built-in functionality and thus cannot be controlled by the telecom operators via "subsidized headsets") especially since mobile phones capable of supporting innovative new functionality/services via downloadable software will outcompete the locked phones sold via the telecoms so the market will slowly moved away from the locked phones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not surprising : - Mobile phone makers are afraid that hardware is becoming commoditised ( read : low cost , low margins ) and software will become the way to make profits , just like it happened with PCs- Telecoms operators are afraid that they become providers of dumb-data-pipes ( instead of the system that they have now of fragmenting data into services and charging more for some ) just like it happened with ISPs.So the phone makers want to get a share of any profits done on the software ( just like Apple has ) and the telecoms operators want to get a share of any profits done on new data services implemented on software ( which do not relly on the headset 's built-in functionality and thus can not be controlled by the telecom operators via " subsidized headsets " ) especially since mobile phones capable of supporting innovative new functionality/services via downloadable software will outcompete the locked phones sold via the telecoms so the market will slowly moved away from the locked phones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not surprising:- Mobile phone makers are afraid that hardware is becoming commoditised (read: low cost, low margins) and software will become the way to make profits, just like it happened with PCs- Telecoms operators are afraid that they become providers of dumb-data-pipes (instead of the system that they have now of fragmenting data into services and charging more for some) just like it happened with ISPs.So the phone makers want to get a share of any profits done on the software (just like Apple has) and the telecoms operators want to get a share of any profits done on new data services implemented on software (which do not relly on the headset's built-in functionality and thus cannot be controlled by the telecom operators via "subsidized headsets") especially since mobile phones capable of supporting innovative new functionality/services via downloadable software will outcompete the locked phones sold via the telecoms so the market will slowly moved away from the locked phones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151978</id>
	<title>Market trailers = consortium</title>
	<author>jgerry</author>
	<datestamp>1266253140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you get when you take all the companies that are scrounging for the last 15\% of the mobile app market and put them together? A consortium.</p><p>Can you think of a single consortium of market trailing companies that every created anything worthwhile? Because I can't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you get when you take all the companies that are scrounging for the last 15 \ % of the mobile app market and put them together ?
A consortium.Can you think of a single consortium of market trailing companies that every created anything worthwhile ?
Because I ca n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you get when you take all the companies that are scrounging for the last 15\% of the mobile app market and put them together?
A consortium.Can you think of a single consortium of market trailing companies that every created anything worthwhile?
Because I can't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152102</id>
	<title>Re:we need a open app store not where you need fee</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266254820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You need a good smack upside the head with a fat nigger cock.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You need a good smack upside the head with a fat nigger cock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need a good smack upside the head with a fat nigger cock.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31154774</id>
	<title>Re:Standards... anyone? Anyone?</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1266333660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>One thing that allows the Apple app store to be so popular </i></p><p>It couldn't possibly be anything to do with the fact that Iphone users have to use it, as they can't download from anywhere else? It's true, 100\% of Iphone users download from Apple's app store.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing that allows the Apple app store to be so popular It could n't possibly be anything to do with the fact that Iphone users have to use it , as they ca n't download from anywhere else ?
It 's true , 100 \ % of Iphone users download from Apple 's app store .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing that allows the Apple app store to be so popular It couldn't possibly be anything to do with the fact that Iphone users have to use it, as they can't download from anywhere else?
It's true, 100\% of Iphone users download from Apple's app store.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151516</id>
	<title>Standards... anyone? Anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266248100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One thing that allows the Apple app store to be so popular is that the number of screen sizes it need to support is limited to one resolution, with a second larger screen announced but not out yet, and that'll come with a scaling tool so apps that are designed for the small screen will look okay on the bigger screen.</p><p>It seems that in order to have an app store that's cross platform, we'll need a cross platform hardware standard too. Apple's app store is a hit because it allows developers to score big with comparatively little effort, especially if the developer already knows how to program with XCode on the Mac. How does this proposed alliance claim to be able to get the same benefits?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing that allows the Apple app store to be so popular is that the number of screen sizes it need to support is limited to one resolution , with a second larger screen announced but not out yet , and that 'll come with a scaling tool so apps that are designed for the small screen will look okay on the bigger screen.It seems that in order to have an app store that 's cross platform , we 'll need a cross platform hardware standard too .
Apple 's app store is a hit because it allows developers to score big with comparatively little effort , especially if the developer already knows how to program with XCode on the Mac .
How does this proposed alliance claim to be able to get the same benefits ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing that allows the Apple app store to be so popular is that the number of screen sizes it need to support is limited to one resolution, with a second larger screen announced but not out yet, and that'll come with a scaling tool so apps that are designed for the small screen will look okay on the bigger screen.It seems that in order to have an app store that's cross platform, we'll need a cross platform hardware standard too.
Apple's app store is a hit because it allows developers to score big with comparatively little effort, especially if the developer already knows how to program with XCode on the Mac.
How does this proposed alliance claim to be able to get the same benefits?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151930</id>
	<title>And Microsoft</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1266252540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't think Microsoft would actually have the courage to totally overhaul Windows Mobile, but "Windows Phone 7 Series" I think now may be a contender for some serious contention of marketshare, in part because it's Microsoft leveraging partnerships to the hilt, and also in part because they have a very loyal development base.</p><p>Yes, even though it doesn't come out until the end of the year...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't think Microsoft would actually have the courage to totally overhaul Windows Mobile , but " Windows Phone 7 Series " I think now may be a contender for some serious contention of marketshare , in part because it 's Microsoft leveraging partnerships to the hilt , and also in part because they have a very loyal development base.Yes , even though it does n't come out until the end of the year.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't think Microsoft would actually have the courage to totally overhaul Windows Mobile, but "Windows Phone 7 Series" I think now may be a contender for some serious contention of marketshare, in part because it's Microsoft leveraging partnerships to the hilt, and also in part because they have a very loyal development base.Yes, even though it doesn't come out until the end of the year...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31153050</id>
	<title>Re:Why do we need an app store at all?</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1266352800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously, the PC market seemed to do just fine for decades without an official "app store".</p> </div><p>Actually, the PC market has been mostly shitty, unless you happen to be Microsoft or Adobe, or one of the big enterprise software writers. For the most part, users didn't buy many applications that didn't come with the computer. And the majority of people who did use third-party applications pirated them.</p><p>Compared to the iPhone app store, the third-party PC software market is a failure. If PC software sales were even close to the per-user sales on the iPhone, the market would be much larger than what it is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , the PC market seemed to do just fine for decades without an official " app store " .
Actually , the PC market has been mostly shitty , unless you happen to be Microsoft or Adobe , or one of the big enterprise software writers .
For the most part , users did n't buy many applications that did n't come with the computer .
And the majority of people who did use third-party applications pirated them.Compared to the iPhone app store , the third-party PC software market is a failure .
If PC software sales were even close to the per-user sales on the iPhone , the market would be much larger than what it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, the PC market seemed to do just fine for decades without an official "app store".
Actually, the PC market has been mostly shitty, unless you happen to be Microsoft or Adobe, or one of the big enterprise software writers.
For the most part, users didn't buy many applications that didn't come with the computer.
And the majority of people who did use third-party applications pirated them.Compared to the iPhone app store, the third-party PC software market is a failure.
If PC software sales were even close to the per-user sales on the iPhone, the market would be much larger than what it is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31155468</id>
	<title>Their business is telecommunication services</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1266337680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Their business is telephones, not software.</p></div><p>Let's look at AT&amp;T's revenue: <a href="http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/AT&amp;T\_(T)/Data/Revenue\_Breakdown" title="wikinvest.com">http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/AT&amp;T\_(T)/Data/Revenue\_Breakdown</a> [wikinvest.com]</p><p>You'll find a lot of telecommunication services, but nothing to do with selling telephones.</p><p>Aren't the telecommunication service providers in the business of (duh) providing a telecommunication service?  The phones are just a marketing gimmick they give you so you'll lock yourself into a highly overpriced subscription for two years (in the US, at least; in Denmark it's six months, and you can get really cheap subscriptions if you bring your own phone: 4 cents/sms, 13 cents/minute, 50 free sms and minutes per month).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Their business is telephones , not software.Let 's look at AT&amp;T 's revenue : http : //www.wikinvest.com/stock/AT&amp;T \ _ ( T ) /Data/Revenue \ _Breakdown [ wikinvest.com ] You 'll find a lot of telecommunication services , but nothing to do with selling telephones.Are n't the telecommunication service providers in the business of ( duh ) providing a telecommunication service ?
The phones are just a marketing gimmick they give you so you 'll lock yourself into a highly overpriced subscription for two years ( in the US , at least ; in Denmark it 's six months , and you can get really cheap subscriptions if you bring your own phone : 4 cents/sms , 13 cents/minute , 50 free sms and minutes per month ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their business is telephones, not software.Let's look at AT&amp;T's revenue: http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/AT&amp;T\_(T)/Data/Revenue\_Breakdown [wikinvest.com]You'll find a lot of telecommunication services, but nothing to do with selling telephones.Aren't the telecommunication service providers in the business of (duh) providing a telecommunication service?
The phones are just a marketing gimmick they give you so you'll lock yourself into a highly overpriced subscription for two years (in the US, at least; in Denmark it's six months, and you can get really cheap subscriptions if you bring your own phone: 4 cents/sms, 13 cents/minute, 50 free sms and minutes per month).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152872</id>
	<title>Re:Standards... anyone? Anyone?</title>
	<author>jo42</author>
	<datestamp>1266350820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>start off with a single screen size and a whole bunch of simple assumptions, and then try to patch things up as additional demands become apparent.</p></div><p>You are an epic idiot. Read through the iPhone OS SDK before making completely ignorant statements. Start with struts and springs in Interface Builder -- laying out UIs that scale as screen size or orientation changes is trivial. If that isn't enough, all the APIs are there to find out device orientation, size of the status bar and every single UI element -- and have been there for over a decade since iPhone OS and Mac OS X share over 80\% of their source code. Writing custom UI classes that adjust is also trivial. Please extract your head from your Apple bashing rectum.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>start off with a single screen size and a whole bunch of simple assumptions , and then try to patch things up as additional demands become apparent.You are an epic idiot .
Read through the iPhone OS SDK before making completely ignorant statements .
Start with struts and springs in Interface Builder -- laying out UIs that scale as screen size or orientation changes is trivial .
If that is n't enough , all the APIs are there to find out device orientation , size of the status bar and every single UI element -- and have been there for over a decade since iPhone OS and Mac OS X share over 80 \ % of their source code .
Writing custom UI classes that adjust is also trivial .
Please extract your head from your Apple bashing rectum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>start off with a single screen size and a whole bunch of simple assumptions, and then try to patch things up as additional demands become apparent.You are an epic idiot.
Read through the iPhone OS SDK before making completely ignorant statements.
Start with struts and springs in Interface Builder -- laying out UIs that scale as screen size or orientation changes is trivial.
If that isn't enough, all the APIs are there to find out device orientation, size of the status bar and every single UI element -- and have been there for over a decade since iPhone OS and Mac OS X share over 80\% of their source code.
Writing custom UI classes that adjust is also trivial.
Please extract your head from your Apple bashing rectum.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31154016</id>
	<title>But Apple is not making money</title>
	<author>Kanel</author>
	<datestamp>1266325380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An Apple representative have openly admitted that their App store is not a cashcow. According to him, they break even but not much more. (Compared to Apple's other incomes I guess) The app store is useful because it adds value to the IPhones, which Apple then sell more of. It's the sale of phone itself which is the main income.</p><p>With this business-strategy in mind, we need to ask why phone companies such as AT&amp;T and Telenor moves in. Why do they support a scheme which is most successfull as a way to sell more phones? Remember, these companies do not produce phones themselves. Is it because they'r uncomfortable with the power that Apple and Google now wield in the phone market and wish to support "nicer" businesspartners like Ericsson and Nokia?</p><p>Or are we seeing a hint that the network providers have come up with a new business plan, to compete against Apple and Google? What do they have up their sleeves?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An Apple representative have openly admitted that their App store is not a cashcow .
According to him , they break even but not much more .
( Compared to Apple 's other incomes I guess ) The app store is useful because it adds value to the IPhones , which Apple then sell more of .
It 's the sale of phone itself which is the main income.With this business-strategy in mind , we need to ask why phone companies such as AT&amp;T and Telenor moves in .
Why do they support a scheme which is most successfull as a way to sell more phones ?
Remember , these companies do not produce phones themselves .
Is it because they'r uncomfortable with the power that Apple and Google now wield in the phone market and wish to support " nicer " businesspartners like Ericsson and Nokia ? Or are we seeing a hint that the network providers have come up with a new business plan , to compete against Apple and Google ?
What do they have up their sleeves ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An Apple representative have openly admitted that their App store is not a cashcow.
According to him, they break even but not much more.
(Compared to Apple's other incomes I guess) The app store is useful because it adds value to the IPhones, which Apple then sell more of.
It's the sale of phone itself which is the main income.With this business-strategy in mind, we need to ask why phone companies such as AT&amp;T and Telenor moves in.
Why do they support a scheme which is most successfull as a way to sell more phones?
Remember, these companies do not produce phones themselves.
Is it because they'r uncomfortable with the power that Apple and Google now wield in the phone market and wish to support "nicer" businesspartners like Ericsson and Nokia?Or are we seeing a hint that the network providers have come up with a new business plan, to compete against Apple and Google?
What do they have up their sleeves?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31154882</id>
	<title>Re:Buying goldfish food</title>
	<author>coofercat</author>
	<datestamp>1266334440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a village near me, a bunch of small stores got together and bought specially shaped bags for their particular products. The baker had 'loaf' shaped bags, the milkman had 'bottle bags' and the dry cleaners got new plastic covers in different lengths depending on the garment it was intended for. The group of stores were nice enough to make sure they got recycled plastic for their bags, and since they were collectively buying in bigger bulk, got a better price and decided to put a village "goes green" logo on their bags.</p><p>At first, it was great - you could go to the bakers, and get a conveniently shaped bag, safely in the knowledge it was made of fully recycled materials. When you bought milk, the bag fit the bottles, so they didn't roll about, and it also turned out you could carry both in the same hand without squashing the bread.</p><p>Of course, after a while, people tried to reuse the bags they'd been collecting. The problem came about when you went out to buy bread and collect your dry cleaning, only to find the dry cleaners shut, whilst remembering you actually needed milk for your cup of tea tomorrow morning. You'd end up getting yet another milk bag, when you really didn't need one, and carrying home and empty clothes bag.</p><p>Happily for you though, you were able to go to the store, buy goldfish food and take those goods away in your own backpack. You didn't need to buy/use the store brand shopping bags. It remains to be seen if the model the village near me is using catches on elsewhere, but I suspect actually, the backpack will win-out in the end.</p><p>PS. Glad to hear your fish is better now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a village near me , a bunch of small stores got together and bought specially shaped bags for their particular products .
The baker had 'loaf ' shaped bags , the milkman had 'bottle bags ' and the dry cleaners got new plastic covers in different lengths depending on the garment it was intended for .
The group of stores were nice enough to make sure they got recycled plastic for their bags , and since they were collectively buying in bigger bulk , got a better price and decided to put a village " goes green " logo on their bags.At first , it was great - you could go to the bakers , and get a conveniently shaped bag , safely in the knowledge it was made of fully recycled materials .
When you bought milk , the bag fit the bottles , so they did n't roll about , and it also turned out you could carry both in the same hand without squashing the bread.Of course , after a while , people tried to reuse the bags they 'd been collecting .
The problem came about when you went out to buy bread and collect your dry cleaning , only to find the dry cleaners shut , whilst remembering you actually needed milk for your cup of tea tomorrow morning .
You 'd end up getting yet another milk bag , when you really did n't need one , and carrying home and empty clothes bag.Happily for you though , you were able to go to the store , buy goldfish food and take those goods away in your own backpack .
You did n't need to buy/use the store brand shopping bags .
It remains to be seen if the model the village near me is using catches on elsewhere , but I suspect actually , the backpack will win-out in the end.PS .
Glad to hear your fish is better now ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a village near me, a bunch of small stores got together and bought specially shaped bags for their particular products.
The baker had 'loaf' shaped bags, the milkman had 'bottle bags' and the dry cleaners got new plastic covers in different lengths depending on the garment it was intended for.
The group of stores were nice enough to make sure they got recycled plastic for their bags, and since they were collectively buying in bigger bulk, got a better price and decided to put a village "goes green" logo on their bags.At first, it was great - you could go to the bakers, and get a conveniently shaped bag, safely in the knowledge it was made of fully recycled materials.
When you bought milk, the bag fit the bottles, so they didn't roll about, and it also turned out you could carry both in the same hand without squashing the bread.Of course, after a while, people tried to reuse the bags they'd been collecting.
The problem came about when you went out to buy bread and collect your dry cleaning, only to find the dry cleaners shut, whilst remembering you actually needed milk for your cup of tea tomorrow morning.
You'd end up getting yet another milk bag, when you really didn't need one, and carrying home and empty clothes bag.Happily for you though, you were able to go to the store, buy goldfish food and take those goods away in your own backpack.
You didn't need to buy/use the store brand shopping bags.
It remains to be seen if the model the village near me is using catches on elsewhere, but I suspect actually, the backpack will win-out in the end.PS.
Glad to hear your fish is better now ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151698</id>
	<title>Wireless trying to get the ball back...</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1266249840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wireless companies are trying not to be dumb pipes.  And increasingly that's what they are becoming.  Before Droid, on Verizon if you wanted a feature you had to pay more per month.  The Wireless companies at first were happy about the smart phones because everyone had to buy a dataplan.  Great, more revenue per customer.  And that is the measure in the industry: how much can we suck from our customers.</p><p>Well Apple came along and launched their app store for the iPhone.  And how much does ATT see from the app store?   $0.</p><p>I've often wondered when the Carriers would hijack Android and do what they've done to other phones in the past and implement a "on our network, you use our Appstore."</p><p>The carriers see Apple earning hundreds of millions and now want their share of the pie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wireless companies are trying not to be dumb pipes .
And increasingly that 's what they are becoming .
Before Droid , on Verizon if you wanted a feature you had to pay more per month .
The Wireless companies at first were happy about the smart phones because everyone had to buy a dataplan .
Great , more revenue per customer .
And that is the measure in the industry : how much can we suck from our customers.Well Apple came along and launched their app store for the iPhone .
And how much does ATT see from the app store ?
$ 0.I 've often wondered when the Carriers would hijack Android and do what they 've done to other phones in the past and implement a " on our network , you use our Appstore .
" The carriers see Apple earning hundreds of millions and now want their share of the pie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wireless companies are trying not to be dumb pipes.
And increasingly that's what they are becoming.
Before Droid, on Verizon if you wanted a feature you had to pay more per month.
The Wireless companies at first were happy about the smart phones because everyone had to buy a dataplan.
Great, more revenue per customer.
And that is the measure in the industry: how much can we suck from our customers.Well Apple came along and launched their app store for the iPhone.
And how much does ATT see from the app store?
$0.I've often wondered when the Carriers would hijack Android and do what they've done to other phones in the past and implement a "on our network, you use our Appstore.
"The carriers see Apple earning hundreds of millions and now want their share of the pie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152228</id>
	<title>Re:Why do we need an app store at all?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266256200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The PC market at least had Windows and a standard aspect ration of monitors. It may be 800x600, it may be 1024x768, but it's still 4:3. It's still Windows. It's still IBM-compatible. And it's still multitasking. All had a keyboard and mouse.</p><p>My phone? Well, my last one was about 1:1 aspect ratio. My current one is 2:1. Mine is who-knows-what processor, at godawful-slow MHz. Some are tens of MHz, some are GHz. The CPUs vary. There's Android, Apple OS, RIM's OS, Verizon's OS, Sprint's OS, AT&amp;T's OS, LG's OS, etc. There's no standard hardware, no standard software, not even a standard interface. All of which we pretty much had on PCs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The PC market at least had Windows and a standard aspect ration of monitors .
It may be 800x600 , it may be 1024x768 , but it 's still 4 : 3 .
It 's still Windows .
It 's still IBM-compatible .
And it 's still multitasking .
All had a keyboard and mouse.My phone ?
Well , my last one was about 1 : 1 aspect ratio .
My current one is 2 : 1 .
Mine is who-knows-what processor , at godawful-slow MHz .
Some are tens of MHz , some are GHz .
The CPUs vary .
There 's Android , Apple OS , RIM 's OS , Verizon 's OS , Sprint 's OS , AT&amp;T 's OS , LG 's OS , etc .
There 's no standard hardware , no standard software , not even a standard interface .
All of which we pretty much had on PCs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The PC market at least had Windows and a standard aspect ration of monitors.
It may be 800x600, it may be 1024x768, but it's still 4:3.
It's still Windows.
It's still IBM-compatible.
And it's still multitasking.
All had a keyboard and mouse.My phone?
Well, my last one was about 1:1 aspect ratio.
My current one is 2:1.
Mine is who-knows-what processor, at godawful-slow MHz.
Some are tens of MHz, some are GHz.
The CPUs vary.
There's Android, Apple OS, RIM's OS, Verizon's OS, Sprint's OS, AT&amp;T's OS, LG's OS, etc.
There's no standard hardware, no standard software, not even a standard interface.
All of which we pretty much had on PCs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151688</id>
	<title>they fight for control</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1266249720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mobile operators don't fight "fragmentation", what they fight is their loss of control.  With Android and iPhone, the era of operator-controlled feature phones is coming to an end even in the US.  They don't want to become the dumb pipes and commodity service that by all rights they should become.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mobile operators do n't fight " fragmentation " , what they fight is their loss of control .
With Android and iPhone , the era of operator-controlled feature phones is coming to an end even in the US .
They do n't want to become the dumb pipes and commodity service that by all rights they should become .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mobile operators don't fight "fragmentation", what they fight is their loss of control.
With Android and iPhone, the era of operator-controlled feature phones is coming to an end even in the US.
They don't want to become the dumb pipes and commodity service that by all rights they should become.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31155748</id>
	<title>Fight fragmentation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266339180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you fucking kidding?<br>They're looking at the truckloads of money Apple is making and saying, "I want."  This has nothing to do with fragmentation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you fucking kidding ? They 're looking at the truckloads of money Apple is making and saying , " I want .
" This has nothing to do with fragmentation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you fucking kidding?They're looking at the truckloads of money Apple is making and saying, "I want.
"  This has nothing to do with fragmentation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151664</id>
	<title>fighting the wrong fragmentation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266249420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're fighting the wrong fragmentation.  The fragmentation is in the number of handset form factors, chipsets and OSes. Apple, Google, and now even Microsoft are fighting this fragmentation. Apple with total control over all form factors and OSes they use. Google with a standard OS, but less standardized form factors. And with Win Phone microsoft said they'll be vetting manufacturers more than in the past and won't allow UI skinning.</p><p>Write once, run everywhere doesn't work when the basic functionality of each device varies so much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're fighting the wrong fragmentation .
The fragmentation is in the number of handset form factors , chipsets and OSes .
Apple , Google , and now even Microsoft are fighting this fragmentation .
Apple with total control over all form factors and OSes they use .
Google with a standard OS , but less standardized form factors .
And with Win Phone microsoft said they 'll be vetting manufacturers more than in the past and wo n't allow UI skinning.Write once , run everywhere does n't work when the basic functionality of each device varies so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're fighting the wrong fragmentation.
The fragmentation is in the number of handset form factors, chipsets and OSes.
Apple, Google, and now even Microsoft are fighting this fragmentation.
Apple with total control over all form factors and OSes they use.
Google with a standard OS, but less standardized form factors.
And with Win Phone microsoft said they'll be vetting manufacturers more than in the past and won't allow UI skinning.Write once, run everywhere doesn't work when the basic functionality of each device varies so much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31155172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31153050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31155098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31155468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31155082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31153294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31155230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31153000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31160616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31153338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31154774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31153740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31164608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31153278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31154976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31154278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31153490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31155166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31154882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31153718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31154068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31153262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31168264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_2327202_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_2327202.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_2327202.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_2327202.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31155230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31160616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151856
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_2327202.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31153490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_2327202.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_2327202.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31154882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31154068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31153278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_2327202.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_2327202.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151960
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31153338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151748
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31153262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31164608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31153740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31154774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_2327202.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_2327202.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_2327202.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31155166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31153294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_2327202.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31153660
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_2327202.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31154278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31154976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31155468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_2327202.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31154116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_2327202.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151922
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_2327202.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31153050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31155172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31151920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152468
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31155098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31153718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31168264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31152228
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31153000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_2327202.31155082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
