<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_20_1523240</id>
	<title>Amazon Battles Apple By Arm-Twisting Publishers</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1269103680000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>bizwriter writes <i>"Apple has upset the e-book pricing cart by agreeing to a so-called agency model, where the publisher sets the price and the seller takes a cut. This goes <a href="http://industry.bnet.com/technology/10006213/amazon-battles-apple-by-arm-twisting-book-publishers/">contrary to the degree of control Amazon likes</a>, so although it apparently <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/02/02/1351229/Amazon-Surrenders-To-Macmillan-On-eBook-Pricing">gave in to Macmillan</a> back in February, it turns out that Amazon continues twisting arms. The problem publishers face is that Apple has a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most\_favoured\_nation">most-favored-nation</a> clause, so it gets the best deal that the publishers offer. If the publishers give in to Amazon, then they also have to provide the same terms to Apple."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>bizwriter writes " Apple has upset the e-book pricing cart by agreeing to a so-called agency model , where the publisher sets the price and the seller takes a cut .
This goes contrary to the degree of control Amazon likes , so although it apparently gave in to Macmillan back in February , it turns out that Amazon continues twisting arms .
The problem publishers face is that Apple has a most-favored-nation clause , so it gets the best deal that the publishers offer .
If the publishers give in to Amazon , then they also have to provide the same terms to Apple .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bizwriter writes "Apple has upset the e-book pricing cart by agreeing to a so-called agency model, where the publisher sets the price and the seller takes a cut.
This goes contrary to the degree of control Amazon likes, so although it apparently gave in to Macmillan back in February, it turns out that Amazon continues twisting arms.
The problem publishers face is that Apple has a most-favored-nation clause, so it gets the best deal that the publishers offer.
If the publishers give in to Amazon, then they also have to provide the same terms to Apple.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550940</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269113700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because so far the Amazon device is winning the market while everyone else is a "we've got one too" product.  They are the most popular and setting the market.  Apple is now coming in a possibly disrupting that emerging dominance.  First because their device is more broadly capable than Amazon's though arguably not as good at the single task of e-reading and second because whatever market they enter into they bring a ready made custom base of the apple cult (of which I am a moderately active member).  This coupled with the fact that Apple is accepting a model Amazon is fighting leads to the battle currently being Amazon vs Apple...it could of course change in the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because so far the Amazon device is winning the market while everyone else is a " we 've got one too " product .
They are the most popular and setting the market .
Apple is now coming in a possibly disrupting that emerging dominance .
First because their device is more broadly capable than Amazon 's though arguably not as good at the single task of e-reading and second because whatever market they enter into they bring a ready made custom base of the apple cult ( of which I am a moderately active member ) .
This coupled with the fact that Apple is accepting a model Amazon is fighting leads to the battle currently being Amazon vs Apple...it could of course change in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because so far the Amazon device is winning the market while everyone else is a "we've got one too" product.
They are the most popular and setting the market.
Apple is now coming in a possibly disrupting that emerging dominance.
First because their device is more broadly capable than Amazon's though arguably not as good at the single task of e-reading and second because whatever market they enter into they bring a ready made custom base of the apple cult (of which I am a moderately active member).
This coupled with the fact that Apple is accepting a model Amazon is fighting leads to the battle currently being Amazon vs Apple...it could of course change in the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550786</id>
	<title>iphone runs both the B&amp;N ereader and the Kindl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269112500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doesn't this mean that if you have an ipad, which runs iphone apps, that you will be able to buy from apple, or Amazon or B&amp;N? What am I missing here?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't this mean that if you have an ipad , which runs iphone apps , that you will be able to buy from apple , or Amazon or B&amp;N ?
What am I missing here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't this mean that if you have an ipad, which runs iphone apps, that you will be able to buy from apple, or Amazon or B&amp;N?
What am I missing here?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550684</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile</title>
	<author>Tharsman</author>
	<datestamp>1269111780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Barnes &amp; Noble's device is fairly decent, although its missing Wikipedia and some of the features could be better done.  Why is this is being set up as an Apple vs. Amazon fight when, of the several companies putting out eReaders, Apple is the only one who doesn't actually have a device available for sale right now?</p></div><p>For one because without being out the iPad had such a high level of pre-orders it's likely to be even more successful than the iPhone.
<a href="http://www.newsfactor.com/news/Strong-Demand-Reported-for-iPad/story.xhtml?story\_id=10300BOVCI9L&amp;full\_skip=1" title="newsfactor.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.newsfactor.com/news/Strong-Demand-Reported-for-iPad/story.xhtml?story\_id=10300BOVCI9L&amp;full\_skip=1</a> [newsfactor.com]

</p><p>But it's not really an Apple Vs Amazon, it's a Publishers Vs Amazon, Amazon is loosing it's enjoyed monopoly on eBooks the day the iPad hits the streets and now publishers get options. Apparently, the Kindle will become a side market with the iPad being the main point of interest for publishers.

</p><p>Thing is, anything other than this would be illegal. If Apple went in and agreed with Amazon on a price, it would become price fixing and both companies would be in trouble.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Barnes &amp; Noble 's device is fairly decent , although its missing Wikipedia and some of the features could be better done .
Why is this is being set up as an Apple vs. Amazon fight when , of the several companies putting out eReaders , Apple is the only one who does n't actually have a device available for sale right now ? For one because without being out the iPad had such a high level of pre-orders it 's likely to be even more successful than the iPhone .
http : //www.newsfactor.com/news/Strong-Demand-Reported-for-iPad/story.xhtml ? story \ _id = 10300BOVCI9L&amp;full \ _skip = 1 [ newsfactor.com ] But it 's not really an Apple Vs Amazon , it 's a Publishers Vs Amazon , Amazon is loosing it 's enjoyed monopoly on eBooks the day the iPad hits the streets and now publishers get options .
Apparently , the Kindle will become a side market with the iPad being the main point of interest for publishers .
Thing is , anything other than this would be illegal .
If Apple went in and agreed with Amazon on a price , it would become price fixing and both companies would be in trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barnes &amp; Noble's device is fairly decent, although its missing Wikipedia and some of the features could be better done.
Why is this is being set up as an Apple vs. Amazon fight when, of the several companies putting out eReaders, Apple is the only one who doesn't actually have a device available for sale right now?For one because without being out the iPad had such a high level of pre-orders it's likely to be even more successful than the iPhone.
http://www.newsfactor.com/news/Strong-Demand-Reported-for-iPad/story.xhtml?story\_id=10300BOVCI9L&amp;full\_skip=1 [newsfactor.com]

But it's not really an Apple Vs Amazon, it's a Publishers Vs Amazon, Amazon is loosing it's enjoyed monopoly on eBooks the day the iPad hits the streets and now publishers get options.
Apparently, the Kindle will become a side market with the iPad being the main point of interest for publishers.
Thing is, anything other than this would be illegal.
If Apple went in and agreed with Amazon on a price, it would become price fixing and both companies would be in trouble.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550498</id>
	<title>twisting is good, though</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1269110340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The headline makes it sound like Amazon is doing something bad.  But Amazon is twisting publishers' arms to sell their books for <i>less</i> than they would otherwise.  Publishers have wanted to charge excessively high prices for their books.  And Apple has been trying to lure them by letting them get away with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The headline makes it sound like Amazon is doing something bad .
But Amazon is twisting publishers ' arms to sell their books for less than they would otherwise .
Publishers have wanted to charge excessively high prices for their books .
And Apple has been trying to lure them by letting them get away with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The headline makes it sound like Amazon is doing something bad.
But Amazon is twisting publishers' arms to sell their books for less than they would otherwise.
Publishers have wanted to charge excessively high prices for their books.
And Apple has been trying to lure them by letting them get away with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550506</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1269110520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly, there's Sony, B&amp;N and others. I think par tof Amazon's success is that the press talks about no one else. Now we have Apple who has, imo, a very half-assed device and they're unfortunately getting more attention then superior competition which means they'll probably get more sales than they deserve.
<br> <br>
The press needs to do a proper job rather than trying to build up some drama to report on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly , there 's Sony , B&amp;N and others .
I think par tof Amazon 's success is that the press talks about no one else .
Now we have Apple who has , imo , a very half-assed device and they 're unfortunately getting more attention then superior competition which means they 'll probably get more sales than they deserve .
The press needs to do a proper job rather than trying to build up some drama to report on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly, there's Sony, B&amp;N and others.
I think par tof Amazon's success is that the press talks about no one else.
Now we have Apple who has, imo, a very half-assed device and they're unfortunately getting more attention then superior competition which means they'll probably get more sales than they deserve.
The press needs to do a proper job rather than trying to build up some drama to report on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551338</id>
	<title>Re:Apple changing tactics?</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1269116460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple doesn't care if you buy from the store really - they don't make much money at all on that front, the bulk of the meat for them is in the hardware. The original 99c one-price model was to prevent the music industry from setting the one hit on an album to $1.50 and setting all the other filler to 79c and then advertising "songs from 79c!". They wanted to prevent all the popular stuff being much more than the bulk of the catalog. The traded that away in exchange for the removal of DRM.</p><p>I don't see how they are "forcing" anyone to do anything - no one is forced to buy from the iTunes Store (even if they have an iPod) - as you mentioned, they were never the cheapest online music store anyway. I don't see how it will be any different for ebooks. If they are dearer on the iTunes Store, people will buy them on Amazon's store. If Amazon wants to keep driving prices down, it has to realise that this will benefit competing retailers as well (not just Apple). There's nothing nefarious about this.</p><p>They will also not be Apple's prices - they will be the publisher's prices. If they are too high, nothing will sell and the prices will come down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple does n't care if you buy from the store really - they do n't make much money at all on that front , the bulk of the meat for them is in the hardware .
The original 99c one-price model was to prevent the music industry from setting the one hit on an album to $ 1.50 and setting all the other filler to 79c and then advertising " songs from 79c ! " .
They wanted to prevent all the popular stuff being much more than the bulk of the catalog .
The traded that away in exchange for the removal of DRM.I do n't see how they are " forcing " anyone to do anything - no one is forced to buy from the iTunes Store ( even if they have an iPod ) - as you mentioned , they were never the cheapest online music store anyway .
I do n't see how it will be any different for ebooks .
If they are dearer on the iTunes Store , people will buy them on Amazon 's store .
If Amazon wants to keep driving prices down , it has to realise that this will benefit competing retailers as well ( not just Apple ) .
There 's nothing nefarious about this.They will also not be Apple 's prices - they will be the publisher 's prices .
If they are too high , nothing will sell and the prices will come down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple doesn't care if you buy from the store really - they don't make much money at all on that front, the bulk of the meat for them is in the hardware.
The original 99c one-price model was to prevent the music industry from setting the one hit on an album to $1.50 and setting all the other filler to 79c and then advertising "songs from 79c!".
They wanted to prevent all the popular stuff being much more than the bulk of the catalog.
The traded that away in exchange for the removal of DRM.I don't see how they are "forcing" anyone to do anything - no one is forced to buy from the iTunes Store (even if they have an iPod) - as you mentioned, they were never the cheapest online music store anyway.
I don't see how it will be any different for ebooks.
If they are dearer on the iTunes Store, people will buy them on Amazon's store.
If Amazon wants to keep driving prices down, it has to realise that this will benefit competing retailers as well (not just Apple).
There's nothing nefarious about this.They will also not be Apple's prices - they will be the publisher's prices.
If they are too high, nothing will sell and the prices will come down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551914</id>
	<title>Apple Is Smart (But Evil), Publishers Are Stupid</title>
	<author>CritterNYC</author>
	<datestamp>1269078180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just another demonstration of the fact that Apple is smart (but evil) and publishers (in any medium) are stupid.  If publishers had a *clue* about how to properly participate in this whole electronic and online thing, we wouldn't be seeing any of these big battles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just another demonstration of the fact that Apple is smart ( but evil ) and publishers ( in any medium ) are stupid .
If publishers had a * clue * about how to properly participate in this whole electronic and online thing , we would n't be seeing any of these big battles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just another demonstration of the fact that Apple is smart (but evil) and publishers (in any medium) are stupid.
If publishers had a *clue* about how to properly participate in this whole electronic and online thing, we wouldn't be seeing any of these big battles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31554452</id>
	<title>Re:This is unexpected, how?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269098280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just wish I could trade in all my physical books for electronic books.  I'd free up a lot of room in my house.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just wish I could trade in all my physical books for electronic books .
I 'd free up a lot of room in my house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just wish I could trade in all my physical books for electronic books.
I'd free up a lot of room in my house.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550262</id>
	<title>Meanwhile</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1269108480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Barnes &amp; Noble's device is fairly decent, although its missing Wikipedia and some of the features could be better done.  Why is this is being set up as an Apple vs. Amazon fight when, of the several companies putting out eReaders, Apple is the only one who doesn't actually have a device available for sale right now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Barnes &amp; Noble 's device is fairly decent , although its missing Wikipedia and some of the features could be better done .
Why is this is being set up as an Apple vs. Amazon fight when , of the several companies putting out eReaders , Apple is the only one who does n't actually have a device available for sale right now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barnes &amp; Noble's device is fairly decent, although its missing Wikipedia and some of the features could be better done.
Why is this is being set up as an Apple vs. Amazon fight when, of the several companies putting out eReaders, Apple is the only one who doesn't actually have a device available for sale right now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550276</id>
	<title>Amazon is fighting for their life here, remember</title>
	<author>kithrup</author>
	<datestamp>1269108540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> This goes contrary to the degree of control Amazon likes</p></div></blockquote><p>Forcing an "agency model" on <em>any</em> retailer is going contrary to both history and market standards.  The general model for booksellers is to buy wholesale, at somewhere around 40\%-50\% of MSRP, and then sell at some price between that and MSRP.  Amazon has discounts of MSRP all the way from 55\%, to only a few percentage points.  Barnes &amp; Nobles has similar prices (if you become a "B&amp;N Member," for US$25/year, the prices are pretty much the same as Amazon's.  A bit lower sometimes, a bit higher sometimes.)</p><p>What's really going on here is power:  the publishers have decided they don't want retailers undercutting each other -- that leads to a single player having market dominance, which allows them to try to force concessions (lower prices, content changes, etc.) from the publishers.  As examples of this, see Amazon and Wal-Mart.</p><p>When Apple joined the ebook market, however, they were able to take the same "we don't care about making a profit on content" attitude they have for music, and offer it to the publishers.  And the market share Apple can offer with the iPad is probably at least as large as Amazon's current market share with is Kindle.  (And unlike Amazon, Apple won't be paying the end-user bandwidth costs.)  This gives publishers who are willing to sign up with Apple enormous negotiation power with Amazon -- over ebooks.  Amazon's only negotiation power that can counter that is the physical book market.</p><p>Personally, I would certainly be offended if someone said, "You will sell this product at a price we dictate, and only take 15\%.  You cannot charge more to make more money; you cannot try to maximize profits through selling more by offering it for less.  And if 15\% of an arbitrary price we set isn't enough for you to make profit -- or even enough for you to run your business, tough."  And I'd fight it as best I could.</p><p>Of course, that's also pretty much Amazon's attitude towards the publishers.  So a pox on all of them, really.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This goes contrary to the degree of control Amazon likesForcing an " agency model " on any retailer is going contrary to both history and market standards .
The general model for booksellers is to buy wholesale , at somewhere around 40 \ % -50 \ % of MSRP , and then sell at some price between that and MSRP .
Amazon has discounts of MSRP all the way from 55 \ % , to only a few percentage points .
Barnes &amp; Nobles has similar prices ( if you become a " B&amp;N Member , " for US $ 25/year , the prices are pretty much the same as Amazon 's .
A bit lower sometimes , a bit higher sometimes .
) What 's really going on here is power : the publishers have decided they do n't want retailers undercutting each other -- that leads to a single player having market dominance , which allows them to try to force concessions ( lower prices , content changes , etc .
) from the publishers .
As examples of this , see Amazon and Wal-Mart.When Apple joined the ebook market , however , they were able to take the same " we do n't care about making a profit on content " attitude they have for music , and offer it to the publishers .
And the market share Apple can offer with the iPad is probably at least as large as Amazon 's current market share with is Kindle .
( And unlike Amazon , Apple wo n't be paying the end-user bandwidth costs .
) This gives publishers who are willing to sign up with Apple enormous negotiation power with Amazon -- over ebooks .
Amazon 's only negotiation power that can counter that is the physical book market.Personally , I would certainly be offended if someone said , " You will sell this product at a price we dictate , and only take 15 \ % .
You can not charge more to make more money ; you can not try to maximize profits through selling more by offering it for less .
And if 15 \ % of an arbitrary price we set is n't enough for you to make profit -- or even enough for you to run your business , tough .
" And I 'd fight it as best I could.Of course , that 's also pretty much Amazon 's attitude towards the publishers .
So a pox on all of them , really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> This goes contrary to the degree of control Amazon likesForcing an "agency model" on any retailer is going contrary to both history and market standards.
The general model for booksellers is to buy wholesale, at somewhere around 40\%-50\% of MSRP, and then sell at some price between that and MSRP.
Amazon has discounts of MSRP all the way from 55\%, to only a few percentage points.
Barnes &amp; Nobles has similar prices (if you become a "B&amp;N Member," for US$25/year, the prices are pretty much the same as Amazon's.
A bit lower sometimes, a bit higher sometimes.
)What's really going on here is power:  the publishers have decided they don't want retailers undercutting each other -- that leads to a single player having market dominance, which allows them to try to force concessions (lower prices, content changes, etc.
) from the publishers.
As examples of this, see Amazon and Wal-Mart.When Apple joined the ebook market, however, they were able to take the same "we don't care about making a profit on content" attitude they have for music, and offer it to the publishers.
And the market share Apple can offer with the iPad is probably at least as large as Amazon's current market share with is Kindle.
(And unlike Amazon, Apple won't be paying the end-user bandwidth costs.
)  This gives publishers who are willing to sign up with Apple enormous negotiation power with Amazon -- over ebooks.
Amazon's only negotiation power that can counter that is the physical book market.Personally, I would certainly be offended if someone said, "You will sell this product at a price we dictate, and only take 15\%.
You cannot charge more to make more money; you cannot try to maximize profits through selling more by offering it for less.
And if 15\% of an arbitrary price we set isn't enough for you to make profit -- or even enough for you to run your business, tough.
"  And I'd fight it as best I could.Of course, that's also pretty much Amazon's attitude towards the publishers.
So a pox on all of them, really.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550636</id>
	<title>Re:What's best for consumers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269111420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"[. .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.] music publishers are making less money."<br>Wrong.  Music companies are making less money per sale.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" [ .
. .
] music publishers are making less money. " Wrong .
Music companies are making less money per sale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"[.
. .
] music publishers are making less money."Wrong.
Music companies are making less money per sale.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551894</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile ACTUALLY, APPLE DOES HAVE...</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1269077940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Apple is the only one who doesn't actually have a device available for sale right now?</p></div></blockquote><p>
Actually Apple has had a device for portable eBook reading available for sale for the last year. The Kindle reader for iPhone/iPod Touch has been a free app for months now, and other eBook readers have existed for these platforms as well. What Apple <b>hasn't</b> had is their own eBook store to profit from.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is the only one who does n't actually have a device available for sale right now ?
Actually Apple has had a device for portable eBook reading available for sale for the last year .
The Kindle reader for iPhone/iPod Touch has been a free app for months now , and other eBook readers have existed for these platforms as well .
What Apple has n't had is their own eBook store to profit from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is the only one who doesn't actually have a device available for sale right now?
Actually Apple has had a device for portable eBook reading available for sale for the last year.
The Kindle reader for iPhone/iPod Touch has been a free app for months now, and other eBook readers have existed for these platforms as well.
What Apple hasn't had is their own eBook store to profit from.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551142</id>
	<title>Re:Lesser of the two...</title>
	<author>CharlyFoxtrot</author>
	<datestamp>1269115260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One control-freak company wants to sell cheaper books, while another control-freak company wants to sell more expensive books?<br>I know which weevil/weasel I will go with.</p><p>and while this is just one side of the argument, but anyone who thinks Apple's deal with the publishers will work out better for the authors should read this:<br><a href="http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/07/its-nsfw-because-the-word-fuck-is-in-the-url/" title="techcrunch.com">http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/07/its-nsfw-because-the-word-fuck-is-in-the-url/</a> [techcrunch.com] </p></div><p>I'm waiting for Apple to take things to their logical conclusion and allow authors direct access to the market. They've already done this for programmers with the app-store and there are a few  (too few) <a href="http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/pomplamoose-videosongs/id308508985" title="apple.com">self published artists</a> [apple.com] on the iTunes store. Now they need to do the same for video and books. The tools have become so powerful and cheap that talent can self-finance or crowd-fund through sites like <a href="http://www.kickstarter.com/" title="kickstarter.com">Kickstarter</a> [kickstarter.com] and the bottleneck left now is in the publisher/distributer cartels.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One control-freak company wants to sell cheaper books , while another control-freak company wants to sell more expensive books ? I know which weevil/weasel I will go with.and while this is just one side of the argument , but anyone who thinks Apple 's deal with the publishers will work out better for the authors should read this : http : //techcrunch.com/2010/02/07/its-nsfw-because-the-word-fuck-is-in-the-url/ [ techcrunch.com ] I 'm waiting for Apple to take things to their logical conclusion and allow authors direct access to the market .
They 've already done this for programmers with the app-store and there are a few ( too few ) self published artists [ apple.com ] on the iTunes store .
Now they need to do the same for video and books .
The tools have become so powerful and cheap that talent can self-finance or crowd-fund through sites like Kickstarter [ kickstarter.com ] and the bottleneck left now is in the publisher/distributer cartels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One control-freak company wants to sell cheaper books, while another control-freak company wants to sell more expensive books?I know which weevil/weasel I will go with.and while this is just one side of the argument, but anyone who thinks Apple's deal with the publishers will work out better for the authors should read this:http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/07/its-nsfw-because-the-word-fuck-is-in-the-url/ [techcrunch.com] I'm waiting for Apple to take things to their logical conclusion and allow authors direct access to the market.
They've already done this for programmers with the app-store and there are a few  (too few) self published artists [apple.com] on the iTunes store.
Now they need to do the same for video and books.
The tools have become so powerful and cheap that talent can self-finance or crowd-fund through sites like Kickstarter [kickstarter.com] and the bottleneck left now is in the publisher/distributer cartels.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550322</id>
	<title>Re:This is unexpected, how?</title>
	<author>kithrup</author>
	<datestamp>1269108840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you mean by "buy"?</p><p>Since there is no physical medium, I don't think a "buy" model will ever happen.  So that probably means no re-selling to, say, used book stores, or donating to libraries (which typically then sell the books you donate).</p><p>If you mean, "without any DRM," then there's <a href="http://www.webscription.net/" title="webscription.net" rel="nofollow">Baen's Webscription</a> [webscription.net], which offers a variety of formats, all without DRM.  And the Apple deal with publishers allegedly allows the publishers to decided whether or not they want the content DRM'd.  (Gee, I wonder what the vast majority of them will choose...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you mean by " buy " ? Since there is no physical medium , I do n't think a " buy " model will ever happen .
So that probably means no re-selling to , say , used book stores , or donating to libraries ( which typically then sell the books you donate ) .If you mean , " without any DRM , " then there 's Baen 's Webscription [ webscription.net ] , which offers a variety of formats , all without DRM .
And the Apple deal with publishers allegedly allows the publishers to decided whether or not they want the content DRM 'd .
( Gee , I wonder what the vast majority of them will choose... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you mean by "buy"?Since there is no physical medium, I don't think a "buy" model will ever happen.
So that probably means no re-selling to, say, used book stores, or donating to libraries (which typically then sell the books you donate).If you mean, "without any DRM," then there's Baen's Webscription [webscription.net], which offers a variety of formats, all without DRM.
And the Apple deal with publishers allegedly allows the publishers to decided whether or not they want the content DRM'd.
(Gee, I wonder what the vast majority of them will choose...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550496</id>
	<title>Re:Ambiguous title</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269110340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate how arm-twisting those publishers are, don't you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate how arm-twisting those publishers are , do n't you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate how arm-twisting those publishers are, don't you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550608</id>
	<title>Re:What's best for consumers</title>
	<author>mschuyler</author>
	<datestamp>1269111180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is correct to a point, but the manufacturing costs are really not that great a percentage and distribution is an add-on that bookstores have to pay: "Plus shipping." One of the things a publisher will do is seek a price point where printing of the book is reduced. For example, if they figure a given title will sell 10,000 copies, but the break point of the hard copy price falls from $3.50 apiece to $3.25 apiece at 12,000 copies, then they will go ahead and print 12,000 copies, sell the 10,000 (assuming their projections are correct), then sell the extra 2,000 as 'remainders' for $5.00 apiece. That way, they make more money by reducing the cost of the print run and still recover the cost of the over-printing decision. The point is that the physical cost to print a book is a relatively small percentage of the total cost of the book.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is correct to a point , but the manufacturing costs are really not that great a percentage and distribution is an add-on that bookstores have to pay : " Plus shipping .
" One of the things a publisher will do is seek a price point where printing of the book is reduced .
For example , if they figure a given title will sell 10,000 copies , but the break point of the hard copy price falls from $ 3.50 apiece to $ 3.25 apiece at 12,000 copies , then they will go ahead and print 12,000 copies , sell the 10,000 ( assuming their projections are correct ) , then sell the extra 2,000 as 'remainders ' for $ 5.00 apiece .
That way , they make more money by reducing the cost of the print run and still recover the cost of the over-printing decision .
The point is that the physical cost to print a book is a relatively small percentage of the total cost of the book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is correct to a point, but the manufacturing costs are really not that great a percentage and distribution is an add-on that bookstores have to pay: "Plus shipping.
" One of the things a publisher will do is seek a price point where printing of the book is reduced.
For example, if they figure a given title will sell 10,000 copies, but the break point of the hard copy price falls from $3.50 apiece to $3.25 apiece at 12,000 copies, then they will go ahead and print 12,000 copies, sell the 10,000 (assuming their projections are correct), then sell the extra 2,000 as 'remainders' for $5.00 apiece.
That way, they make more money by reducing the cost of the print run and still recover the cost of the over-printing decision.
The point is that the physical cost to print a book is a relatively small percentage of the total cost of the book.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551016</id>
	<title>Re:First they ignore you....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269114300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WRT: "Then they loose", I think you need to read<br><a href="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/02/common-misconceptions-about-pu.html" title="antipope.org">http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/02/common-misconceptions-about-pu.html</a> [antipope.org]<br>by Charles Stross.</p><p>(Actually, that's just the first of around 4 blog posts, but you can find them by following the links from that page.  The others are called things like CMAP#2.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WRT : " Then they loose " , I think you need to readhttp : //www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/02/common-misconceptions-about-pu.html [ antipope.org ] by Charles Stross .
( Actually , that 's just the first of around 4 blog posts , but you can find them by following the links from that page .
The others are called things like CMAP # 2 .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WRT: "Then they loose", I think you need to readhttp://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/02/common-misconceptions-about-pu.html [antipope.org]by Charles Stross.
(Actually, that's just the first of around 4 blog posts, but you can find them by following the links from that page.
The others are called things like CMAP#2.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551556</id>
	<title>Re:First they ignore you....</title>
	<author>mr\_matticus</author>
	<datestamp>1269118260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Then they loose: "Double crap - all our best selling authors are now publishing their own book directly on the Kindle and taking 85\% of the revenue rather than the 10\% we used to give them. Ingrates!"</p></div><p>The only "they" who stands to <em>lose</em> is the author.  Self-publishing on Amazon gives authors 35\% of net proceeds.</p><p>If Apple adopts the iTunes music and app model for eBooks, authors will keep 70\% of net revenue--double what Amazon currently gives them.</p><p>Though 35\% is more than the typical author's share from Amazon sales when you have a publisher, a publisher also does a lot more in terms of editing, marketing, handling all the transactional details, paying advances, arranging for distribution, securing cost discounts, and the like.  An author has to compare the advance+royalties from a publisher with the prospect of earning 35\% royalties and having to do essentially all the promotional work.</p><p>Amazon for its 65\% cut handles the actual transactions and distribution and delivers the eyeballs.  If a publisher offers 10\% royalties and does all that other work, it might be a better deal, especially since only about 1/5 of titles ever even earn back their advance.  You've got free money and zero costs until that point, which means that if you're offered a $5000 advance and 10\% royalties on a $10 eBook from a publisher, and you don't have a pretty strong belief that you can sell at least 5000 copies while spending less than $2.50 per unit on all the things the publisher would provide for free, you'd be dumb not to take that deal.</p><p>If self-publishing meant that you could keep anywhere near 90\% of the net revenue, it might be more of a threat, but at 35\%, not so much.  It's basically a "it's better than trying to sell this from my own website where no one will ever find it" setup--but even there, in order for Amazon to make any sense, you'd have to believe that the mere presence in Amazon's market would almost triple your sales in order to make the Amazon self-publishing a viable deal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then they loose : " Double crap - all our best selling authors are now publishing their own book directly on the Kindle and taking 85 \ % of the revenue rather than the 10 \ % we used to give them .
Ingrates ! " The only " they " who stands to lose is the author .
Self-publishing on Amazon gives authors 35 \ % of net proceeds.If Apple adopts the iTunes music and app model for eBooks , authors will keep 70 \ % of net revenue--double what Amazon currently gives them.Though 35 \ % is more than the typical author 's share from Amazon sales when you have a publisher , a publisher also does a lot more in terms of editing , marketing , handling all the transactional details , paying advances , arranging for distribution , securing cost discounts , and the like .
An author has to compare the advance + royalties from a publisher with the prospect of earning 35 \ % royalties and having to do essentially all the promotional work.Amazon for its 65 \ % cut handles the actual transactions and distribution and delivers the eyeballs .
If a publisher offers 10 \ % royalties and does all that other work , it might be a better deal , especially since only about 1/5 of titles ever even earn back their advance .
You 've got free money and zero costs until that point , which means that if you 're offered a $ 5000 advance and 10 \ % royalties on a $ 10 eBook from a publisher , and you do n't have a pretty strong belief that you can sell at least 5000 copies while spending less than $ 2.50 per unit on all the things the publisher would provide for free , you 'd be dumb not to take that deal.If self-publishing meant that you could keep anywhere near 90 \ % of the net revenue , it might be more of a threat , but at 35 \ % , not so much .
It 's basically a " it 's better than trying to sell this from my own website where no one will ever find it " setup--but even there , in order for Amazon to make any sense , you 'd have to believe that the mere presence in Amazon 's market would almost triple your sales in order to make the Amazon self-publishing a viable deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then they loose: "Double crap - all our best selling authors are now publishing their own book directly on the Kindle and taking 85\% of the revenue rather than the 10\% we used to give them.
Ingrates!"The only "they" who stands to lose is the author.
Self-publishing on Amazon gives authors 35\% of net proceeds.If Apple adopts the iTunes music and app model for eBooks, authors will keep 70\% of net revenue--double what Amazon currently gives them.Though 35\% is more than the typical author's share from Amazon sales when you have a publisher, a publisher also does a lot more in terms of editing, marketing, handling all the transactional details, paying advances, arranging for distribution, securing cost discounts, and the like.
An author has to compare the advance+royalties from a publisher with the prospect of earning 35\% royalties and having to do essentially all the promotional work.Amazon for its 65\% cut handles the actual transactions and distribution and delivers the eyeballs.
If a publisher offers 10\% royalties and does all that other work, it might be a better deal, especially since only about 1/5 of titles ever even earn back their advance.
You've got free money and zero costs until that point, which means that if you're offered a $5000 advance and 10\% royalties on a $10 eBook from a publisher, and you don't have a pretty strong belief that you can sell at least 5000 copies while spending less than $2.50 per unit on all the things the publisher would provide for free, you'd be dumb not to take that deal.If self-publishing meant that you could keep anywhere near 90\% of the net revenue, it might be more of a threat, but at 35\%, not so much.
It's basically a "it's better than trying to sell this from my own website where no one will ever find it" setup--but even there, in order for Amazon to make any sense, you'd have to believe that the mere presence in Amazon's market would almost triple your sales in order to make the Amazon self-publishing a viable deal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550634</id>
	<title>Re:Alternate Headline</title>
	<author>eggnoglatte</author>
	<datestamp>1269111420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh? So Apple basically says "we follow whatever retail model you want, but if you give somebody else a discount, you have to give it to us as well".</p><p>How the hell is that strongarming? Of course anybody would always fight for getting a deal that at least matches what competitors get. Those have got to be the weakest demands any company with some market power has ever negotiated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ?
So Apple basically says " we follow whatever retail model you want , but if you give somebody else a discount , you have to give it to us as well " .How the hell is that strongarming ?
Of course anybody would always fight for getting a deal that at least matches what competitors get .
Those have got to be the weakest demands any company with some market power has ever negotiated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?
So Apple basically says "we follow whatever retail model you want, but if you give somebody else a discount, you have to give it to us as well".How the hell is that strongarming?
Of course anybody would always fight for getting a deal that at least matches what competitors get.
Those have got to be the weakest demands any company with some market power has ever negotiated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550792</id>
	<title>Re:What's best for consumers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269112560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While it doesn't always happen, the company that provides the best prices and best selection to the consumers should be the winner.  In music Apple unbundled the album and created a reasonable price point.  More music is being sold, but music publishers are making less money.  Consumer wins.  In publishing the total cost of a book should be authors cut + cost of manufacturing + cost of distribution + marketing costs + profit for publisher + profit to distributer = total cost of book.  E-books should dramatically reduce the cost of manufacturing and distribution and if things follow the music model, more books will be sold allowing for a reduction in profit margin due to volume.  The consumer wins, if Apple and Amazon can strong arm the publishers not to add savings from manufacturing and distribution to their profit margins.</p></div><p>This particular case is Apple giving the publishers a way to strong-arm Amazon and increase prices for ebooks by 50\%.  If you want to look at it from the perspective of a consumer, then Apple's entrance to the market isn't very good.  The funny thing is that Amazon did the same thing to Apple a few years ago by introducing the agency system to mp3 sales.  The difference is that Amazon provided a superior product for the same or a lower price that forced Apple to then improve its own product by removing DRM.  This time Apple is forcing Amazon to raise prices, so it's not quite as fun for those of us buying books.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While it does n't always happen , the company that provides the best prices and best selection to the consumers should be the winner .
In music Apple unbundled the album and created a reasonable price point .
More music is being sold , but music publishers are making less money .
Consumer wins .
In publishing the total cost of a book should be authors cut + cost of manufacturing + cost of distribution + marketing costs + profit for publisher + profit to distributer = total cost of book .
E-books should dramatically reduce the cost of manufacturing and distribution and if things follow the music model , more books will be sold allowing for a reduction in profit margin due to volume .
The consumer wins , if Apple and Amazon can strong arm the publishers not to add savings from manufacturing and distribution to their profit margins.This particular case is Apple giving the publishers a way to strong-arm Amazon and increase prices for ebooks by 50 \ % .
If you want to look at it from the perspective of a consumer , then Apple 's entrance to the market is n't very good .
The funny thing is that Amazon did the same thing to Apple a few years ago by introducing the agency system to mp3 sales .
The difference is that Amazon provided a superior product for the same or a lower price that forced Apple to then improve its own product by removing DRM .
This time Apple is forcing Amazon to raise prices , so it 's not quite as fun for those of us buying books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it doesn't always happen, the company that provides the best prices and best selection to the consumers should be the winner.
In music Apple unbundled the album and created a reasonable price point.
More music is being sold, but music publishers are making less money.
Consumer wins.
In publishing the total cost of a book should be authors cut + cost of manufacturing + cost of distribution + marketing costs + profit for publisher + profit to distributer = total cost of book.
E-books should dramatically reduce the cost of manufacturing and distribution and if things follow the music model, more books will be sold allowing for a reduction in profit margin due to volume.
The consumer wins, if Apple and Amazon can strong arm the publishers not to add savings from manufacturing and distribution to their profit margins.This particular case is Apple giving the publishers a way to strong-arm Amazon and increase prices for ebooks by 50\%.
If you want to look at it from the perspective of a consumer, then Apple's entrance to the market isn't very good.
The funny thing is that Amazon did the same thing to Apple a few years ago by introducing the agency system to mp3 sales.
The difference is that Amazon provided a superior product for the same or a lower price that forced Apple to then improve its own product by removing DRM.
This time Apple is forcing Amazon to raise prices, so it's not quite as fun for those of us buying books.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31556714</id>
	<title>eBook readers are doomed</title>
	<author>rcharbon</author>
	<datestamp>1269177060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please quit confusing the future of ebook readers and ebook publishing.  Readers are unimportant.  Single-function readers are doomed, once multi-function devices incorporate their functionality.  Does anyone still own a dedicated wordprocessor?</p><p>Once ebooks actually have enough market share to matter, there will be convergence around a format that everyone will use on their devices.  That side, the publishing side, is what's interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please quit confusing the future of ebook readers and ebook publishing .
Readers are unimportant .
Single-function readers are doomed , once multi-function devices incorporate their functionality .
Does anyone still own a dedicated wordprocessor ? Once ebooks actually have enough market share to matter , there will be convergence around a format that everyone will use on their devices .
That side , the publishing side , is what 's interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please quit confusing the future of ebook readers and ebook publishing.
Readers are unimportant.
Single-function readers are doomed, once multi-function devices incorporate their functionality.
Does anyone still own a dedicated wordprocessor?Once ebooks actually have enough market share to matter, there will be convergence around a format that everyone will use on their devices.
That side, the publishing side, is what's interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31553502</id>
	<title>Re:why worry?</title>
	<author>runslothrun</author>
	<datestamp>1269089520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>mod needs to have their ability to mod revoked.  you are not funny, unique, cool, or anything other than a prick on a fucking power trip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>mod needs to have their ability to mod revoked .
you are not funny , unique , cool , or anything other than a prick on a fucking power trip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mod needs to have their ability to mod revoked.
you are not funny, unique, cool, or anything other than a prick on a fucking power trip.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550176</id>
	<title>Ambiguous title</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269107760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So this has nothing to do with Arm processors? Oh well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So this has nothing to do with Arm processors ?
Oh well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this has nothing to do with Arm processors?
Oh well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31557486</id>
	<title>wow i am shocked</title>
	<author>jordgehansson</author>
	<datestamp>1269186000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>WELCOME
----- www.nikes-jordan.com  ~<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,,''~~<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,''~
 


www.nikes-jordan.comwww.nikes-jordan.com , instant online Paypal payment! TT
Assuring good quality, Coupons and feebies! Don't miss out!
JordanAF1Nike , RunningShoes, Sneakers, Dunks $40
Brand Jeans: $ 38
Brand handbags: $38
Brand sunglasses, $18
Brand Caps/Hats: $ 18
Brand Belts: $ 28
UGG boots$ 55
US,UK,Aus, Free Shipping,      Retail and wholesale!
Payment options: Paypal, TT, Westunion
www.nikes-jordan.com</htmltext>
<tokenext>WELCOME ----- www.nikes-jordan.com ~ ,,' ' ~ ~ ,' ' ~ www.nikes-jordan.comwww.nikes-jordan.com , instant online Paypal payment !
TT Assuring good quality , Coupons and feebies !
Do n't miss out !
JordanAF1Nike , RunningShoes , Sneakers , Dunks $ 40 Brand Jeans : $ 38 Brand handbags : $ 38 Brand sunglasses , $ 18 Brand Caps/Hats : $ 18 Brand Belts : $ 28 UGG boots $ 55 US,UK,Aus , Free Shipping , Retail and wholesale !
Payment options : Paypal , TT , Westunion www.nikes-jordan.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WELCOME
----- www.nikes-jordan.com  ~ ,,''~~ ,''~
 


www.nikes-jordan.comwww.nikes-jordan.com , instant online Paypal payment!
TT
Assuring good quality, Coupons and feebies!
Don't miss out!
JordanAF1Nike , RunningShoes, Sneakers, Dunks $40
Brand Jeans: $ 38
Brand handbags: $38
Brand sunglasses, $18
Brand Caps/Hats: $ 18
Brand Belts: $ 28
UGG boots$ 55
US,UK,Aus, Free Shipping,      Retail and wholesale!
Payment options: Paypal, TT, Westunion
www.nikes-jordan.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551626</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile</title>
	<author>node 3</author>
	<datestamp>1269075900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Exactly, there's Sony, B&amp;N and others. I think par tof Amazon's success is that the press talks about no one else. Now we have Apple who has, imo, a very half-assed device and they're unfortunately getting more attention then superior competition which means they'll probably get more sales than they deserve.</p></div><p>What "superior competition" would that be?</p><p>You mention that the press talks about Amazon more than Sony, and that that has played a role in Amazon's success. You're overstating things here. Sony's ebook reader and ebook services are inferior to Amazon's. B&amp;N was the first real Amazon contender, and they got *plenty* of press out of it.</p><p>Now the iPad, which blows away all existing ebook readers, is getting the press.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The press needs to do a proper job rather than trying to build up some drama to report on.</p></div><p>What are you talking about? The press isn't building up any drama here. The drama is taking place. Amazon is playing hardball with the book publishers <i>as a direct result</i> of the deals the publishers are making with Apple. The drama is real, not imagined or exaggerated.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly , there 's Sony , B&amp;N and others .
I think par tof Amazon 's success is that the press talks about no one else .
Now we have Apple who has , imo , a very half-assed device and they 're unfortunately getting more attention then superior competition which means they 'll probably get more sales than they deserve.What " superior competition " would that be ? You mention that the press talks about Amazon more than Sony , and that that has played a role in Amazon 's success .
You 're overstating things here .
Sony 's ebook reader and ebook services are inferior to Amazon 's .
B&amp;N was the first real Amazon contender , and they got * plenty * of press out of it.Now the iPad , which blows away all existing ebook readers , is getting the press.The press needs to do a proper job rather than trying to build up some drama to report on.What are you talking about ?
The press is n't building up any drama here .
The drama is taking place .
Amazon is playing hardball with the book publishers as a direct result of the deals the publishers are making with Apple .
The drama is real , not imagined or exaggerated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly, there's Sony, B&amp;N and others.
I think par tof Amazon's success is that the press talks about no one else.
Now we have Apple who has, imo, a very half-assed device and they're unfortunately getting more attention then superior competition which means they'll probably get more sales than they deserve.What "superior competition" would that be?You mention that the press talks about Amazon more than Sony, and that that has played a role in Amazon's success.
You're overstating things here.
Sony's ebook reader and ebook services are inferior to Amazon's.
B&amp;N was the first real Amazon contender, and they got *plenty* of press out of it.Now the iPad, which blows away all existing ebook readers, is getting the press.The press needs to do a proper job rather than trying to build up some drama to report on.What are you talking about?
The press isn't building up any drama here.
The drama is taking place.
Amazon is playing hardball with the book publishers as a direct result of the deals the publishers are making with Apple.
The drama is real, not imagined or exaggerated.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550690</id>
	<title>Apple changing tactics?</title>
	<author>Qwavel</author>
	<datestamp>1269111780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the music business Apple was happy to have companies sell at different prices, they had a lock on the market via the iPod so people would pay $0.99 for 128Kb songs while others (e.g. Yahoo) were charging $0.79 for the same song encoded at 178Kb (in WMA format).</p><p>Books will be different: they won't be able to force consumers to pay their inflated prices because they can't stop people from buying from their competitors.  The solution - prevent competition by working with the publishers to force everyone to sell at the same, higher, price.</p><p>Either way, prevent competition - previously via lock-in, now via forcing every to adopt their high prices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the music business Apple was happy to have companies sell at different prices , they had a lock on the market via the iPod so people would pay $ 0.99 for 128Kb songs while others ( e.g .
Yahoo ) were charging $ 0.79 for the same song encoded at 178Kb ( in WMA format ) .Books will be different : they wo n't be able to force consumers to pay their inflated prices because they ca n't stop people from buying from their competitors .
The solution - prevent competition by working with the publishers to force everyone to sell at the same , higher , price.Either way , prevent competition - previously via lock-in , now via forcing every to adopt their high prices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the music business Apple was happy to have companies sell at different prices, they had a lock on the market via the iPod so people would pay $0.99 for 128Kb songs while others (e.g.
Yahoo) were charging $0.79 for the same song encoded at 178Kb (in WMA format).Books will be different: they won't be able to force consumers to pay their inflated prices because they can't stop people from buying from their competitors.
The solution - prevent competition by working with the publishers to force everyone to sell at the same, higher, price.Either way, prevent competition - previously via lock-in, now via forcing every to adopt their high prices.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550502</id>
	<title>Re:This is unexpected, how?</title>
	<author>digitig</author>
	<datestamp>1269110400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Competition from a new contender that is known to be a strong player causes the strongest early market entrant to throw a hissy fit, news at a 11.</p><p>Until I can actually BUY an e-book, not rent them for life, the entire market will remain irrelevant to me.</p></div><p>There are plenty of DRM-free epub titles out there. Just none that I want.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Competition from a new contender that is known to be a strong player causes the strongest early market entrant to throw a hissy fit , news at a 11.Until I can actually BUY an e-book , not rent them for life , the entire market will remain irrelevant to me.There are plenty of DRM-free epub titles out there .
Just none that I want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Competition from a new contender that is known to be a strong player causes the strongest early market entrant to throw a hissy fit, news at a 11.Until I can actually BUY an e-book, not rent them for life, the entire market will remain irrelevant to me.There are plenty of DRM-free epub titles out there.
Just none that I want.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550372</id>
	<title>Lesser of the two...</title>
	<author>semiotec</author>
	<datestamp>1269109260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One control-freak company wants to sell cheaper books, while another control-freak company wants to sell more expensive books?<br>I know which weevil/weasel I will go with.</p><p>and while this is just one side of the argument, but anyone who thinks Apple's deal with the publishers will work out better for the authors should read this:<br><a href="http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/07/its-nsfw-because-the-word-fuck-is-in-the-url/" title="techcrunch.com">http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/07/its-nsfw-because-the-word-fuck-is-in-the-url/</a> [techcrunch.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One control-freak company wants to sell cheaper books , while another control-freak company wants to sell more expensive books ? I know which weevil/weasel I will go with.and while this is just one side of the argument , but anyone who thinks Apple 's deal with the publishers will work out better for the authors should read this : http : //techcrunch.com/2010/02/07/its-nsfw-because-the-word-fuck-is-in-the-url/ [ techcrunch.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One control-freak company wants to sell cheaper books, while another control-freak company wants to sell more expensive books?I know which weevil/weasel I will go with.and while this is just one side of the argument, but anyone who thinks Apple's deal with the publishers will work out better for the authors should read this:http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/07/its-nsfw-because-the-word-fuck-is-in-the-url/ [techcrunch.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550586</id>
	<title>Re:This is unexpected, how?</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1269111120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Buy? Market? Who said <a href="http://books.google.ca/books" title="google.ca">anything</a> [google.ca] about a <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main\_Page" title="gutenberg.org">market?</a> [gutenberg.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Buy ?
Market ? Who said anything [ google.ca ] about a market ?
[ gutenberg.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buy?
Market? Who said anything [google.ca] about a market?
[gutenberg.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551352</id>
	<title>Re:twisting is good, though</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269116580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the standpoint of authors, that <i>is</i> bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the standpoint of authors , that is bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the standpoint of authors, that is bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31566922</id>
	<title>Re:Lesser of the two...</title>
	<author>sh00z</author>
	<datestamp>1269268980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>One control-freak company wants to sell cheaper books, while another control-freak company wants to sell more expensive books?
I know which weevil/weasel I will go with.</p></div></blockquote><p>

You <i>have</i> noticed that the company that wants to sell the cheaper books is doing so at a loss, haven't you? Just how long to you believe that business model to be sustainable? Clearly, Amazon is betting that they can keep this up just long enough to drive all of the competition out, at which point, they will be free to set prices at whatever profit level they wish. <b>NOW</b> which weasel do you want to support?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One control-freak company wants to sell cheaper books , while another control-freak company wants to sell more expensive books ?
I know which weevil/weasel I will go with .
You have noticed that the company that wants to sell the cheaper books is doing so at a loss , have n't you ?
Just how long to you believe that business model to be sustainable ?
Clearly , Amazon is betting that they can keep this up just long enough to drive all of the competition out , at which point , they will be free to set prices at whatever profit level they wish .
NOW which weasel do you want to support ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One control-freak company wants to sell cheaper books, while another control-freak company wants to sell more expensive books?
I know which weevil/weasel I will go with.
You have noticed that the company that wants to sell the cheaper books is doing so at a loss, haven't you?
Just how long to you believe that business model to be sustainable?
Clearly, Amazon is betting that they can keep this up just long enough to drive all of the competition out, at which point, they will be free to set prices at whatever profit level they wish.
NOW which weasel do you want to support?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31553904</id>
	<title>Re:What's best for consumers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269093060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazon forced Apple to lose it's DRM?  Are you always this clueless?  Apple has wanted DRMless music since day 1.  Amazon hasn't forced Apple to do anything, they are just being used as a competitive lifeline by the dying music cartels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon forced Apple to lose it 's DRM ?
Are you always this clueless ?
Apple has wanted DRMless music since day 1 .
Amazon has n't forced Apple to do anything , they are just being used as a competitive lifeline by the dying music cartels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon forced Apple to lose it's DRM?
Are you always this clueless?
Apple has wanted DRMless music since day 1.
Amazon hasn't forced Apple to do anything, they are just being used as a competitive lifeline by the dying music cartels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550864</id>
	<title>why worry?</title>
	<author>runslothrun</author>
	<datestamp>1269113100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>publishers will push whatever they want to push and apple may even come out on top.</p><p>it won't matter, though, and amazon will still rule the day.</p><p>why?  because, by and large, apple consumers are wanna-be, douche bag, hipsters who wouldn't ACTUALLY read a book if their life depended on it.</p><p>sure, a lot of them will buy oprah's book of the month or some lamer bit of poetry...but it won't be because they're trying to learn something or because they enjoy literature.</p><p>it'll be so they can capture the attention of the other vapid apple tosser they spot at whatever coffeshop they happen to be lurking in while trying desperately to appear relevant.</p><p>there.  i said.  i predict that by and large most of the apple wanna-be's will buy MAYBE one book for their ipad.</p><p>and that's a big, big maybe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>publishers will push whatever they want to push and apple may even come out on top.it wo n't matter , though , and amazon will still rule the day.why ?
because , by and large , apple consumers are wan na-be , douche bag , hipsters who would n't ACTUALLY read a book if their life depended on it.sure , a lot of them will buy oprah 's book of the month or some lamer bit of poetry...but it wo n't be because they 're trying to learn something or because they enjoy literature.it 'll be so they can capture the attention of the other vapid apple tosser they spot at whatever coffeshop they happen to be lurking in while trying desperately to appear relevant.there .
i said .
i predict that by and large most of the apple wan na-be 's will buy MAYBE one book for their ipad.and that 's a big , big maybe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>publishers will push whatever they want to push and apple may even come out on top.it won't matter, though, and amazon will still rule the day.why?
because, by and large, apple consumers are wanna-be, douche bag, hipsters who wouldn't ACTUALLY read a book if their life depended on it.sure, a lot of them will buy oprah's book of the month or some lamer bit of poetry...but it won't be because they're trying to learn something or because they enjoy literature.it'll be so they can capture the attention of the other vapid apple tosser they spot at whatever coffeshop they happen to be lurking in while trying desperately to appear relevant.there.
i said.
i predict that by and large most of the apple wanna-be's will buy MAYBE one book for their ipad.and that's a big, big maybe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31555438</id>
	<title>Re:What's best for consumers</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1269111180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The difference is that Amazon provided a superior product for the same or a lower price that forced Apple to then improve its own product by removing DRM.</p></div><p>This is entirely backwards. Firstly, Apple sold tracks without DRM before the Amazon music store even opened. Secondly, the only reason the Amazon store was opened was because Apple wanted to remove DRM, and the labels wanted a bludgeon to use against Apple on pricing. That Amazon was able to sell DRM-free tracks in the first place was because of the music industry's reaction to Apple's (downward) influence on pricing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is that Amazon provided a superior product for the same or a lower price that forced Apple to then improve its own product by removing DRM.This is entirely backwards .
Firstly , Apple sold tracks without DRM before the Amazon music store even opened .
Secondly , the only reason the Amazon store was opened was because Apple wanted to remove DRM , and the labels wanted a bludgeon to use against Apple on pricing .
That Amazon was able to sell DRM-free tracks in the first place was because of the music industry 's reaction to Apple 's ( downward ) influence on pricing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is that Amazon provided a superior product for the same or a lower price that forced Apple to then improve its own product by removing DRM.This is entirely backwards.
Firstly, Apple sold tracks without DRM before the Amazon music store even opened.
Secondly, the only reason the Amazon store was opened was because Apple wanted to remove DRM, and the labels wanted a bludgeon to use against Apple on pricing.
That Amazon was able to sell DRM-free tracks in the first place was because of the music industry's reaction to Apple's (downward) influence on pricing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550436</id>
	<title>What's best for consumers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269109980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>While it doesn't always happen, the company that provides the best prices and best selection to the consumers should be the winner.  In music Apple unbundled the album and created a reasonable price point.  More music is being sold, but music publishers are making less money.  Consumer wins.  In publishing the total cost of a book should be authors cut + cost of manufacturing + cost of distribution + marketing costs + profit for publisher + profit to distributer = total cost of book.  E-books should dramatically reduce the cost of manufacturing and distribution and if things follow the music model, more books will be sold allowing for a reduction in profit margin due to volume.  The consumer wins, if Apple and Amazon can strong arm the publishers not to add savings from manufacturing and distribution to their profit margins.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While it does n't always happen , the company that provides the best prices and best selection to the consumers should be the winner .
In music Apple unbundled the album and created a reasonable price point .
More music is being sold , but music publishers are making less money .
Consumer wins .
In publishing the total cost of a book should be authors cut + cost of manufacturing + cost of distribution + marketing costs + profit for publisher + profit to distributer = total cost of book .
E-books should dramatically reduce the cost of manufacturing and distribution and if things follow the music model , more books will be sold allowing for a reduction in profit margin due to volume .
The consumer wins , if Apple and Amazon can strong arm the publishers not to add savings from manufacturing and distribution to their profit margins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it doesn't always happen, the company that provides the best prices and best selection to the consumers should be the winner.
In music Apple unbundled the album and created a reasonable price point.
More music is being sold, but music publishers are making less money.
Consumer wins.
In publishing the total cost of a book should be authors cut + cost of manufacturing + cost of distribution + marketing costs + profit for publisher + profit to distributer = total cost of book.
E-books should dramatically reduce the cost of manufacturing and distribution and if things follow the music model, more books will be sold allowing for a reduction in profit margin due to volume.
The consumer wins, if Apple and Amazon can strong arm the publishers not to add savings from manufacturing and distribution to their profit margins.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31554072</id>
	<title>Re:Amazon is fighting for their life here, remembe</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1269094740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>When Apple joined the ebook market, however, they were able to take the same "we don't care about making a profit on content" attitude they have for music, and offer it to the publishers.</i>
<p>
I don't know where Amazon makes a profit, but I doubt it is on 9.99 eBooks.  What Amazon has done with books is what Walmart has done with so many other products.  Sell some items at a loss, or demand other products be sold wholesale at a price that causes the manufacturer takes a loss, or only cover fixed costs.  Even if it is Walmart or Amazon that is taking a loss, eventually consumer expect that product to be sold at the unsustainable low price and the model of the manufacturer is disrupted.  This is not a bad thing, but we can't expect a manufacturer to go gladly to their demise.
</p><p>
The problem with Amazon, and Apple, is that they are both trying to tie publishers to exclusive contracts that meet their needs.  Amazon wants to be a book seller so they can use books as, I suppose, a loss leader.  Get people used to buying at Amazon, and join Amazon Prime.  Apple want to be an agent so it can just take a cut of sales without having to worry about owning anything.  I believe this is sort of what blockbuster did in the late 90's to drive out competition.
</p><p>
I don't know what a eBook should cost to keep everyone happy.  I suspect it is around $15.  At Apple that is what you will pay, but Amazon wants to discount, which means that Apple as an agent will sell very few books, as Apple products already have a Kindle reader. Unless the publishers add value to the book.  The problem is ebook readers is that they are just books.  People might pay more for added content.  $15 or $25 for a book that is professionally read with images won't be so out of line.
</p><p>
The problem is that Apple and Amazon are not giving publishers a choice.  Both want exclusivity with a model that benefits them.  I don't think either are dictated wholesale price.  It is the publishers that want to dictate retail price, and that has been, and should continue to be, illegal, at least in the US.  I know Apple does dictate price for electronics in a sneaky way, but it is not like they are colluding with Dell to keep price high.  They add value so that some people perceive the equipment is worth the cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When Apple joined the ebook market , however , they were able to take the same " we do n't care about making a profit on content " attitude they have for music , and offer it to the publishers .
I do n't know where Amazon makes a profit , but I doubt it is on 9.99 eBooks .
What Amazon has done with books is what Walmart has done with so many other products .
Sell some items at a loss , or demand other products be sold wholesale at a price that causes the manufacturer takes a loss , or only cover fixed costs .
Even if it is Walmart or Amazon that is taking a loss , eventually consumer expect that product to be sold at the unsustainable low price and the model of the manufacturer is disrupted .
This is not a bad thing , but we ca n't expect a manufacturer to go gladly to their demise .
The problem with Amazon , and Apple , is that they are both trying to tie publishers to exclusive contracts that meet their needs .
Amazon wants to be a book seller so they can use books as , I suppose , a loss leader .
Get people used to buying at Amazon , and join Amazon Prime .
Apple want to be an agent so it can just take a cut of sales without having to worry about owning anything .
I believe this is sort of what blockbuster did in the late 90 's to drive out competition .
I do n't know what a eBook should cost to keep everyone happy .
I suspect it is around $ 15 .
At Apple that is what you will pay , but Amazon wants to discount , which means that Apple as an agent will sell very few books , as Apple products already have a Kindle reader .
Unless the publishers add value to the book .
The problem is ebook readers is that they are just books .
People might pay more for added content .
$ 15 or $ 25 for a book that is professionally read with images wo n't be so out of line .
The problem is that Apple and Amazon are not giving publishers a choice .
Both want exclusivity with a model that benefits them .
I do n't think either are dictated wholesale price .
It is the publishers that want to dictate retail price , and that has been , and should continue to be , illegal , at least in the US .
I know Apple does dictate price for electronics in a sneaky way , but it is not like they are colluding with Dell to keep price high .
They add value so that some people perceive the equipment is worth the cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Apple joined the ebook market, however, they were able to take the same "we don't care about making a profit on content" attitude they have for music, and offer it to the publishers.
I don't know where Amazon makes a profit, but I doubt it is on 9.99 eBooks.
What Amazon has done with books is what Walmart has done with so many other products.
Sell some items at a loss, or demand other products be sold wholesale at a price that causes the manufacturer takes a loss, or only cover fixed costs.
Even if it is Walmart or Amazon that is taking a loss, eventually consumer expect that product to be sold at the unsustainable low price and the model of the manufacturer is disrupted.
This is not a bad thing, but we can't expect a manufacturer to go gladly to their demise.
The problem with Amazon, and Apple, is that they are both trying to tie publishers to exclusive contracts that meet their needs.
Amazon wants to be a book seller so they can use books as, I suppose, a loss leader.
Get people used to buying at Amazon, and join Amazon Prime.
Apple want to be an agent so it can just take a cut of sales without having to worry about owning anything.
I believe this is sort of what blockbuster did in the late 90's to drive out competition.
I don't know what a eBook should cost to keep everyone happy.
I suspect it is around $15.
At Apple that is what you will pay, but Amazon wants to discount, which means that Apple as an agent will sell very few books, as Apple products already have a Kindle reader.
Unless the publishers add value to the book.
The problem is ebook readers is that they are just books.
People might pay more for added content.
$15 or $25 for a book that is professionally read with images won't be so out of line.
The problem is that Apple and Amazon are not giving publishers a choice.
Both want exclusivity with a model that benefits them.
I don't think either are dictated wholesale price.
It is the publishers that want to dictate retail price, and that has been, and should continue to be, illegal, at least in the US.
I know Apple does dictate price for electronics in a sneaky way, but it is not like they are colluding with Dell to keep price high.
They add value so that some people perceive the equipment is worth the cost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31552082</id>
	<title>Re:What's best for consumers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269079380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You couldn't be more wrong about Apple/iTunes/DRM if you had tried!<br>Apple NEVER wanted DRM, DRM was shoved down their throats in an attempt by corporate weasels to force the consumer to buy elsewhere/anywhere but the iTMS.<br>Unfortunately, it was people most like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.'rs with their "i hAtoRzs teh aPPleZEs" attitude that kept the lie alive as long as it did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could n't be more wrong about Apple/iTunes/DRM if you had tried ! Apple NEVER wanted DRM , DRM was shoved down their throats in an attempt by corporate weasels to force the consumer to buy elsewhere/anywhere but the iTMS.Unfortunately , it was people most like / .
'rs with their " i hAtoRzs teh aPPleZEs " attitude that kept the lie alive as long as it did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You couldn't be more wrong about Apple/iTunes/DRM if you had tried!Apple NEVER wanted DRM, DRM was shoved down their throats in an attempt by corporate weasels to force the consumer to buy elsewhere/anywhere but the iTMS.Unfortunately, it was people most like /.
'rs with their "i hAtoRzs teh aPPleZEs" attitude that kept the lie alive as long as it did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550196</id>
	<title>Amazon, and other corporations manipulate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269107940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>rather than serve a market. This is, in a word, wrong. All the while, the authorities do nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>rather than serve a market .
This is , in a word , wrong .
All the while , the authorities do nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rather than serve a market.
This is, in a word, wrong.
All the while, the authorities do nothing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551874</id>
	<title>I Support Amazon</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1269077760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I support Amazon's position here, and I have titles for sale on their site. Unless Amazon intends to become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Big Publishing, they've got to stand up for this now.  If they are the World's Biggest Bookstore, then they have leverage and they should use it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I support Amazon 's position here , and I have titles for sale on their site .
Unless Amazon intends to become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Big Publishing , they 've got to stand up for this now .
If they are the World 's Biggest Bookstore , then they have leverage and they should use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I support Amazon's position here, and I have titles for sale on their site.
Unless Amazon intends to become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Big Publishing, they've got to stand up for this now.
If they are the World's Biggest Bookstore, then they have leverage and they should use it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551928</id>
	<title>Re:why worry?</title>
	<author>runslothrun</author>
	<datestamp>1269078240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to the mod who has now twice rated this -1 flamebait; i ask again: how is acknowledging that apple's marketing strategy caters to non-intellectuals flamebait?  how?</p><p>the vast majority of apple's istore consumers are not buying anything other than BS gizmo apps and top 40 trash.</p><p>what makes you think that just because they can buy a book for their ipad that they'll suddenly buy in enough volume to allow apple to become some sort of heavyweight in the ebook industry?</p><p>why?  what?</p><p>their consumer base does not support it.</p><p>so either stop rating me -1 flamebait and acknowledge that or stop rating me -1 flamebait and accept that you simply disagree.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to the mod who has now twice rated this -1 flamebait ; i ask again : how is acknowledging that apple 's marketing strategy caters to non-intellectuals flamebait ?
how ? the vast majority of apple 's istore consumers are not buying anything other than BS gizmo apps and top 40 trash.what makes you think that just because they can buy a book for their ipad that they 'll suddenly buy in enough volume to allow apple to become some sort of heavyweight in the ebook industry ? why ?
what ? their consumer base does not support it.so either stop rating me -1 flamebait and acknowledge that or stop rating me -1 flamebait and accept that you simply disagree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to the mod who has now twice rated this -1 flamebait; i ask again: how is acknowledging that apple's marketing strategy caters to non-intellectuals flamebait?
how?the vast majority of apple's istore consumers are not buying anything other than BS gizmo apps and top 40 trash.what makes you think that just because they can buy a book for their ipad that they'll suddenly buy in enough volume to allow apple to become some sort of heavyweight in the ebook industry?why?
what?their consumer base does not support it.so either stop rating me -1 flamebait and acknowledge that or stop rating me -1 flamebait and accept that you simply disagree.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551206</id>
	<title>Re:twisting is good, though</title>
	<author>ucblockhead</author>
	<datestamp>1269115680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazon is trying a very old business model:</p><p>1) Undercut everyone on price.<br>2) Drive all competitors out of business.<br>3) Profit!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...not new at all.  What is particularly dangerous is that retailers with enough market share can do more than just manipulate price.  Witness Walmart's insistence on "explicit" music being edited without any packaging notice.  That's the sort of thing that happens when a single retailer wins.</p><p>The battle has sadly mostly been lost for music, to Apple.  (Ironically enough.)  I would hate to see the same damn thing happen to ebooks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon is trying a very old business model : 1 ) Undercut everyone on price.2 ) Drive all competitors out of business.3 ) Profit !
...not new at all .
What is particularly dangerous is that retailers with enough market share can do more than just manipulate price .
Witness Walmart 's insistence on " explicit " music being edited without any packaging notice .
That 's the sort of thing that happens when a single retailer wins.The battle has sadly mostly been lost for music , to Apple .
( Ironically enough .
) I would hate to see the same damn thing happen to ebooks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon is trying a very old business model:1) Undercut everyone on price.2) Drive all competitors out of business.3) Profit!
...not new at all.
What is particularly dangerous is that retailers with enough market share can do more than just manipulate price.
Witness Walmart's insistence on "explicit" music being edited without any packaging notice.
That's the sort of thing that happens when a single retailer wins.The battle has sadly mostly been lost for music, to Apple.
(Ironically enough.
)  I would hate to see the same damn thing happen to ebooks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550244</id>
	<title>Re:Ambiguous title</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269108360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You really are an idiot.  stop posting here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You really are an idiot .
stop posting here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You really are an idiot.
stop posting here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550854</id>
	<title>A&amp;A are committed to monopolizing @ ANY cost.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269112980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>at ANY cost, and won't ever be prosecuted for it ( taking established evidence as projecting validly into the future ).</p><p>Barnes &amp; Noble isn't a monopoly, so therefore it doesn't deserve the headline treatment.</p><p>As for Nook, it won't allow access to ANY Xiph codec.</p><p>"nice"...</p><p>When unlicensed access to a codec becomes a felony ( ACTA? or the one after? ), enforcement against FLOSS users can begin...</p><p>"control" they call it...</p><p>( does ANYone make a big screen reader with Xiph codec support? )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>at ANY cost , and wo n't ever be prosecuted for it ( taking established evidence as projecting validly into the future ) .Barnes &amp; Noble is n't a monopoly , so therefore it does n't deserve the headline treatment.As for Nook , it wo n't allow access to ANY Xiph codec .
" nice " ...When unlicensed access to a codec becomes a felony ( ACTA ?
or the one after ?
) , enforcement against FLOSS users can begin... " control " they call it... ( does ANYone make a big screen reader with Xiph codec support ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>at ANY cost, and won't ever be prosecuted for it ( taking established evidence as projecting validly into the future ).Barnes &amp; Noble isn't a monopoly, so therefore it doesn't deserve the headline treatment.As for Nook, it won't allow access to ANY Xiph codec.
"nice"...When unlicensed access to a codec becomes a felony ( ACTA?
or the one after?
), enforcement against FLOSS users can begin..."control" they call it...( does ANYone make a big screen reader with Xiph codec support?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550716</id>
	<title>Re:Amazon is fighting for their life here, remembe</title>
	<author>armareum</author>
	<datestamp>1269111960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Personally, I would certainly be offended if someone said, "You will sell this product at a price we dictate, and only take 15\%. You cannot charge more to make more money; you cannot try to maximize profits through selling more by offering it for less. And if 15\% of an arbitrary price we set isn't enough for you to make profit -- or even enough for you to run your business, tough." And I'd fight it as best I could.</p></div><p>What the hell are you referring to? The publisher *is* allowed to set the price - and so clearly they *are* able to vary their profit per unit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I would certainly be offended if someone said , " You will sell this product at a price we dictate , and only take 15 \ % .
You can not charge more to make more money ; you can not try to maximize profits through selling more by offering it for less .
And if 15 \ % of an arbitrary price we set is n't enough for you to make profit -- or even enough for you to run your business , tough .
" And I 'd fight it as best I could.What the hell are you referring to ?
The publisher * is * allowed to set the price - and so clearly they * are * able to vary their profit per unit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I would certainly be offended if someone said, "You will sell this product at a price we dictate, and only take 15\%.
You cannot charge more to make more money; you cannot try to maximize profits through selling more by offering it for less.
And if 15\% of an arbitrary price we set isn't enough for you to make profit -- or even enough for you to run your business, tough.
" And I'd fight it as best I could.What the hell are you referring to?
The publisher *is* allowed to set the price - and so clearly they *are* able to vary their profit per unit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31553690</id>
	<title>Because it's really Amazon vs. the publishers</title>
	<author>Adam Heine</author>
	<datestamp>1269091380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Because when B&amp;N's Nook came out, nobody talked about changing e-book prices. They sold at $9.99 everywhere, mostly because that's what Amazon said e-books should sell at. Publishers got the same cut they always do with this pricing, and Amazon took a bigger loss than on print books. But Amazon liked this pricing because it's a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss\_leader" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">loss leader</a> [wikipedia.org] for them to sell Kindles.
</p><p>
Macmillan (along with other publishers) was concerned that $9.99 was unsustainable in the long run, yet would become the "normal" price for e-books if unchecked. They wanted a deal where publishers chose e-book prices (usually in a range from $5.99-$14.99), and the sellers (Amazon, Apple, etc.) got a larger cut. Apple said, "Sure." Amazon said, "No way," and just to show Macmillan who was boss, Amazon pulled the Buy buttons off of all Macmillan products, digital and print. That was 1.5 months ago.
</p><p>
Amazon eventually caved and said they would put the Buy buttons back (which they did, but very slowly; I'm not even sure they've put them all back yet). But now a bunch of other major publishers are saying they want the same deal, and Amazon is threatening to pull the Buy buttons on them.
</p><p>
Really, this is a struggle between Amazon and publishers. Apple is just a battlefield, chosen because the iPad is the only e-reader that can strongly compete with the Kindle. If publishers tried to do this fight with the Nook, Amazon would've just laughed at them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because when B&amp;N 's Nook came out , nobody talked about changing e-book prices .
They sold at $ 9.99 everywhere , mostly because that 's what Amazon said e-books should sell at .
Publishers got the same cut they always do with this pricing , and Amazon took a bigger loss than on print books .
But Amazon liked this pricing because it 's a loss leader [ wikipedia.org ] for them to sell Kindles .
Macmillan ( along with other publishers ) was concerned that $ 9.99 was unsustainable in the long run , yet would become the " normal " price for e-books if unchecked .
They wanted a deal where publishers chose e-book prices ( usually in a range from $ 5.99- $ 14.99 ) , and the sellers ( Amazon , Apple , etc .
) got a larger cut .
Apple said , " Sure .
" Amazon said , " No way , " and just to show Macmillan who was boss , Amazon pulled the Buy buttons off of all Macmillan products , digital and print .
That was 1.5 months ago .
Amazon eventually caved and said they would put the Buy buttons back ( which they did , but very slowly ; I 'm not even sure they 've put them all back yet ) .
But now a bunch of other major publishers are saying they want the same deal , and Amazon is threatening to pull the Buy buttons on them .
Really , this is a struggle between Amazon and publishers .
Apple is just a battlefield , chosen because the iPad is the only e-reader that can strongly compete with the Kindle .
If publishers tried to do this fight with the Nook , Amazon would 've just laughed at them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Because when B&amp;N's Nook came out, nobody talked about changing e-book prices.
They sold at $9.99 everywhere, mostly because that's what Amazon said e-books should sell at.
Publishers got the same cut they always do with this pricing, and Amazon took a bigger loss than on print books.
But Amazon liked this pricing because it's a loss leader [wikipedia.org] for them to sell Kindles.
Macmillan (along with other publishers) was concerned that $9.99 was unsustainable in the long run, yet would become the "normal" price for e-books if unchecked.
They wanted a deal where publishers chose e-book prices (usually in a range from $5.99-$14.99), and the sellers (Amazon, Apple, etc.
) got a larger cut.
Apple said, "Sure.
" Amazon said, "No way," and just to show Macmillan who was boss, Amazon pulled the Buy buttons off of all Macmillan products, digital and print.
That was 1.5 months ago.
Amazon eventually caved and said they would put the Buy buttons back (which they did, but very slowly; I'm not even sure they've put them all back yet).
But now a bunch of other major publishers are saying they want the same deal, and Amazon is threatening to pull the Buy buttons on them.
Really, this is a struggle between Amazon and publishers.
Apple is just a battlefield, chosen because the iPad is the only e-reader that can strongly compete with the Kindle.
If publishers tried to do this fight with the Nook, Amazon would've just laughed at them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31553330</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1269088380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You completely miss the point. The whole problem with Amazon/BN vs Apple, is that Amazon/BN make their money from books, whereas Apple will make their money from the hardware. Apple is not looking for much of a profit on books, just like it doesn't make much of a profit from Music or Apps. They are in the hardware game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You completely miss the point .
The whole problem with Amazon/BN vs Apple , is that Amazon/BN make their money from books , whereas Apple will make their money from the hardware .
Apple is not looking for much of a profit on books , just like it does n't make much of a profit from Music or Apps .
They are in the hardware game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You completely miss the point.
The whole problem with Amazon/BN vs Apple, is that Amazon/BN make their money from books, whereas Apple will make their money from the hardware.
Apple is not looking for much of a profit on books, just like it doesn't make much of a profit from Music or Apps.
They are in the hardware game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550390</id>
	<title>First they ignore you....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269109500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>First they ignore you: ""<br>
Then they ridicule you: "Ho ho - tiny little screen; who'd buy one of these toys?"<br>
Then they fight you: "Crap - we better make our own ebook reader and screw around with pricing to protect ourselves. But we're kinda late and our pricing strategies are reactive and ill thought out"<br>
Then they loose: "Double crap - all our best selling authors are now publishing their own book directly on the Kindle and taking 85\% of the revenue rather than the 10\% we used to give them. Ingrates!"<br>
<br>
Feel free to bookmark this post and come back to it in 5 years time to see how it all came true.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>First they ignore you : " " Then they ridicule you : " Ho ho - tiny little screen ; who 'd buy one of these toys ?
" Then they fight you : " Crap - we better make our own ebook reader and screw around with pricing to protect ourselves .
But we 're kinda late and our pricing strategies are reactive and ill thought out " Then they loose : " Double crap - all our best selling authors are now publishing their own book directly on the Kindle and taking 85 \ % of the revenue rather than the 10 \ % we used to give them .
Ingrates ! " Feel free to bookmark this post and come back to it in 5 years time to see how it all came true.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First they ignore you: ""
Then they ridicule you: "Ho ho - tiny little screen; who'd buy one of these toys?
"
Then they fight you: "Crap - we better make our own ebook reader and screw around with pricing to protect ourselves.
But we're kinda late and our pricing strategies are reactive and ill thought out"
Then they loose: "Double crap - all our best selling authors are now publishing their own book directly on the Kindle and taking 85\% of the revenue rather than the 10\% we used to give them.
Ingrates!"

Feel free to bookmark this post and come back to it in 5 years time to see how it all came true.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550518</id>
	<title>Re:Lesser of the two...</title>
	<author>digitig</author>
	<datestamp>1269110580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>And you end up with a cluster of devices, because it ends up with the books you want not all being available on the same device. Another triumph for market forces.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And you end up with a cluster of devices , because it ends up with the books you want not all being available on the same device .
Another triumph for market forces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you end up with a cluster of devices, because it ends up with the books you want not all being available on the same device.
Another triumph for market forces.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551372</id>
	<title>Re:This is unexpected, how?</title>
	<author>droopycom</author>
	<datestamp>1269116700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The RIAA, MPAA and other bad guys seems to often get bad press for trying to deal with "digital" or "IP" products in the same way we deal with physical products.</p><p>On the other hand, what we have here is a buyer doing the same thing, applying terms such as "buying" or "renting" to digital products and trying to relate them to the same terms as applied to physical products.</p><p>Both consumer and publisher should understand that old rules do not apply, and new rules needs  to be made when dealing with digital product.</p><p>You cannot BUY an e-book in the same sense that you can buy an apple. Deal with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA , MPAA and other bad guys seems to often get bad press for trying to deal with " digital " or " IP " products in the same way we deal with physical products.On the other hand , what we have here is a buyer doing the same thing , applying terms such as " buying " or " renting " to digital products and trying to relate them to the same terms as applied to physical products.Both consumer and publisher should understand that old rules do not apply , and new rules needs to be made when dealing with digital product.You can not BUY an e-book in the same sense that you can buy an apple .
Deal with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA, MPAA and other bad guys seems to often get bad press for trying to deal with "digital" or "IP" products in the same way we deal with physical products.On the other hand, what we have here is a buyer doing the same thing, applying terms such as "buying" or "renting" to digital products and trying to relate them to the same terms as applied to physical products.Both consumer and publisher should understand that old rules do not apply, and new rules needs  to be made when dealing with digital product.You cannot BUY an e-book in the same sense that you can buy an apple.
Deal with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551588</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269118740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Barnes &amp; Noble's device is fairly decent, although its missing Wikipedia and some of the features could be better done.  Why is this is being set up as an Apple vs. Amazon fight when, of the several companies putting out eReaders,</p></div><p>A few reasons:</p><p>1. When the Nook was announced, the buzz was Amazon vs. B&amp;N. Now the iPad is the new product, and *that's* the one getting the buzz.<br>2. The iPad is leaps and bounds ahead of any of the current readers.<br>3. Apple's dominance with the iTunes store makes them a serious contender. No matter what media market they enter, it will be a tectonic shift when they do.</p><p>And in this particular case, the primary reason:</p><p>4. Amazon's current bout of "arm twisting" is <i>in direct response</i> to Apple's deals with the publishers.</p><p>The Nook didn't cause this, the iPad did.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple is the only one who doesn't actually have a device available for sale right now?</p></div><p>Yet somehow they've already sold hundreds of thousands of them.</p><p>But "for sale right now" isn't even a rational metric. The iPad had a lot of buzz going for it <i>before it was even announced</i>, and had already significantly affected the markets it's entering (and creating) long before the orders started being taken. The ebook market really isn't <i>that</i> much different with the Nook than it would have been without it. But that very same market has already been significantly altered by the iPad before the iPad was even available for purchase.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Barnes &amp; Noble 's device is fairly decent , although its missing Wikipedia and some of the features could be better done .
Why is this is being set up as an Apple vs. Amazon fight when , of the several companies putting out eReaders,A few reasons : 1 .
When the Nook was announced , the buzz was Amazon vs. B&amp;N. Now the iPad is the new product , and * that 's * the one getting the buzz.2 .
The iPad is leaps and bounds ahead of any of the current readers.3 .
Apple 's dominance with the iTunes store makes them a serious contender .
No matter what media market they enter , it will be a tectonic shift when they do.And in this particular case , the primary reason : 4 .
Amazon 's current bout of " arm twisting " is in direct response to Apple 's deals with the publishers.The Nook did n't cause this , the iPad did.Apple is the only one who does n't actually have a device available for sale right now ? Yet somehow they 've already sold hundreds of thousands of them.But " for sale right now " is n't even a rational metric .
The iPad had a lot of buzz going for it before it was even announced , and had already significantly affected the markets it 's entering ( and creating ) long before the orders started being taken .
The ebook market really is n't that much different with the Nook than it would have been without it .
But that very same market has already been significantly altered by the iPad before the iPad was even available for purchase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barnes &amp; Noble's device is fairly decent, although its missing Wikipedia and some of the features could be better done.
Why is this is being set up as an Apple vs. Amazon fight when, of the several companies putting out eReaders,A few reasons:1.
When the Nook was announced, the buzz was Amazon vs. B&amp;N. Now the iPad is the new product, and *that's* the one getting the buzz.2.
The iPad is leaps and bounds ahead of any of the current readers.3.
Apple's dominance with the iTunes store makes them a serious contender.
No matter what media market they enter, it will be a tectonic shift when they do.And in this particular case, the primary reason:4.
Amazon's current bout of "arm twisting" is in direct response to Apple's deals with the publishers.The Nook didn't cause this, the iPad did.Apple is the only one who doesn't actually have a device available for sale right now?Yet somehow they've already sold hundreds of thousands of them.But "for sale right now" isn't even a rational metric.
The iPad had a lot of buzz going for it before it was even announced, and had already significantly affected the markets it's entering (and creating) long before the orders started being taken.
The ebook market really isn't that much different with the Nook than it would have been without it.
But that very same market has already been significantly altered by the iPad before the iPad was even available for purchase.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551420</id>
	<title>Re:Amazon is fighting for their life here, remembe</title>
	<author>droopycom</author>
	<datestamp>1269117060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p> This goes contrary to the degree of control Amazon likes</p></div></blockquote><p>Forcing an "agency model" on <em>any</em> retailer is going contrary to both history and market standards.  The general model for booksellers is to buy wholesale, at somewhere around 40\%-50\% of MSRP, and then sell at some price between that and MSRP.</p> </div><p>This is another example of people clinging to an historical model. The same way MPAA/RIAA get blamed for trying to apply their old models to digital media.</p><p>There is no history or market standard for ebooks.  The general model for booksellers does not apply to e-booksellers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This goes contrary to the degree of control Amazon likesForcing an " agency model " on any retailer is going contrary to both history and market standards .
The general model for booksellers is to buy wholesale , at somewhere around 40 \ % -50 \ % of MSRP , and then sell at some price between that and MSRP .
This is another example of people clinging to an historical model .
The same way MPAA/RIAA get blamed for trying to apply their old models to digital media.There is no history or market standard for ebooks .
The general model for booksellers does not apply to e-booksellers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> This goes contrary to the degree of control Amazon likesForcing an "agency model" on any retailer is going contrary to both history and market standards.
The general model for booksellers is to buy wholesale, at somewhere around 40\%-50\% of MSRP, and then sell at some price between that and MSRP.
This is another example of people clinging to an historical model.
The same way MPAA/RIAA get blamed for trying to apply their old models to digital media.There is no history or market standard for ebooks.
The general model for booksellers does not apply to e-booksellers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550184</id>
	<title>Most-favored-nation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269107880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, this should put to rest any doubts that Cupertino is a country of its own. I always knew the fanbois wanted to secede.</p><p>(Also, frist post.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , this should put to rest any doubts that Cupertino is a country of its own .
I always knew the fanbois wanted to secede .
( Also , frist post .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, this should put to rest any doubts that Cupertino is a country of its own.
I always knew the fanbois wanted to secede.
(Also, frist post.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550476</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile</title>
	<author>Low Ranked Craig</author>
	<datestamp>1269110280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>it's for sale, just not shipping until April 3rd.  <a href="http://www.apple.com/ipad/pre-order/?aid=AIC-WWW-NAUS-K2-PREORDER-IPAD-INDEX&amp;cp=PREORDER-IPAD-INDEX" title="apple.com">http://www.apple.com/ipad/pre-order/?aid=AIC-WWW-NAUS-K2-PREORDER-IPAD-INDEX&amp;cp=PREORDER-IPAD-INDEX</a> [apple.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's for sale , just not shipping until April 3rd .
http : //www.apple.com/ipad/pre-order/ ? aid = AIC-WWW-NAUS-K2-PREORDER-IPAD-INDEX&amp;cp = PREORDER-IPAD-INDEX [ apple.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's for sale, just not shipping until April 3rd.
http://www.apple.com/ipad/pre-order/?aid=AIC-WWW-NAUS-K2-PREORDER-IPAD-INDEX&amp;cp=PREORDER-IPAD-INDEX [apple.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550288</id>
	<title>Alternate Headline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269108600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple Strongarms Publishers: They are not allowed to sell it cheaper anywhere else!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple Strongarms Publishers : They are not allowed to sell it cheaper anywhere else !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple Strongarms Publishers: They are not allowed to sell it cheaper anywhere else!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550466</id>
	<title>For sale, not shipping</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1269110160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why is this is being set up as an Apple vs. Amazon fight when, of the several companies putting out eReaders, Apple is the only one who doesn't actually have a device available for sale right now?</i></p><p>Because B&amp;N device is still just getting started - meanwhile iPads are already selling at a good clip, and it's pretty obvious they are going to be a major player from the outset.   I don't think the B&amp;N reader is going to hold out very well long term, although I'd list them as a possible dark horse... but they have to do something drastic.</p><p>They don't even have an SDK out, the Kindle and the iPad both do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this is being set up as an Apple vs. Amazon fight when , of the several companies putting out eReaders , Apple is the only one who does n't actually have a device available for sale right now ? Because B&amp;N device is still just getting started - meanwhile iPads are already selling at a good clip , and it 's pretty obvious they are going to be a major player from the outset .
I do n't think the B&amp;N reader is going to hold out very well long term , although I 'd list them as a possible dark horse... but they have to do something drastic.They do n't even have an SDK out , the Kindle and the iPad both do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this is being set up as an Apple vs. Amazon fight when, of the several companies putting out eReaders, Apple is the only one who doesn't actually have a device available for sale right now?Because B&amp;N device is still just getting started - meanwhile iPads are already selling at a good clip, and it's pretty obvious they are going to be a major player from the outset.
I don't think the B&amp;N reader is going to hold out very well long term, although I'd list them as a possible dark horse... but they have to do something drastic.They don't even have an SDK out, the Kindle and the iPad both do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550264</id>
	<title>This is unexpected, how?</title>
	<author>Auckerman</author>
	<datestamp>1269108480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Competition from a new contender that is known to be a strong player causes the strongest early market entrant to throw a hissy fit, news at a 11.</p><p>Until I can actually BUY an e-book, not rent them for life, the entire market will remain irrelevant to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Competition from a new contender that is known to be a strong player causes the strongest early market entrant to throw a hissy fit , news at a 11.Until I can actually BUY an e-book , not rent them for life , the entire market will remain irrelevant to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Competition from a new contender that is known to be a strong player causes the strongest early market entrant to throw a hissy fit, news at a 11.Until I can actually BUY an e-book, not rent them for life, the entire market will remain irrelevant to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550232</id>
	<title>Re:Ambiguous title</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269108180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nor has it anything to do with fruit or one-breasted women riding horses and shooting arrows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nor has it anything to do with fruit or one-breasted women riding horses and shooting arrows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nor has it anything to do with fruit or one-breasted women riding horses and shooting arrows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550330</id>
	<title>Because APPLE RULEZ! you PEONS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269108840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>YOu are surfs in the true sense of the word, PEONS!</p><p>Long Live Kind Steve!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>YOu are surfs in the true sense of the word , PEONS ! Long Live Kind Steve !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YOu are surfs in the true sense of the word, PEONS!Long Live Kind Steve!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550254</id>
	<title>Re:Ambiguous title</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1269108420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So this has nothing to do with Arm processors? Oh well.</p></div>

</blockquote><p>A clearer title would be "Amazon Battles Apple by Strong-Arming Publishers"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So this has nothing to do with Arm processors ?
Oh well .
A clearer title would be " Amazon Battles Apple by Strong-Arming Publishers "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this has nothing to do with Arm processors?
Oh well.
A clearer title would be "Amazon Battles Apple by Strong-Arming Publishers"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550176</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31553690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31553502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31566922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31553330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31552082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31553904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31555438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31554452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31554072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1523240_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1523240.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551338
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1523240.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550792
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31552082
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31553904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31555438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1523240.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1523240.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31553690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551588
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31553330
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1523240.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1523240.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1523240.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31566922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550518
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1523240.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31553502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1523240.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550196
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1523240.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31554072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550716
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1523240.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31551372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31554452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550586
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1523240.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1523240.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1523240.31550634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
