<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_15_221238</id>
	<title>Apple Update Means Palm Pre Can No Longer Sync With iTunes</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1247654040000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>endikos writes <i>"Apple updated iTunes to version 8.2.1. According to the changelog, it offers bug fixes and 'addresses an issue with verification of Apple devices.' In other words, <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2009/07/apple\_kills\_pal.html">'Buzz off, Palm Pre. You ain't no iPhone.</a>'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>endikos writes " Apple updated iTunes to version 8.2.1 .
According to the changelog , it offers bug fixes and 'addresses an issue with verification of Apple devices .
' In other words , 'Buzz off , Palm Pre .
You ai n't no iPhone .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>endikos writes "Apple updated iTunes to version 8.2.1.
According to the changelog, it offers bug fixes and 'addresses an issue with verification of Apple devices.
' In other words, 'Buzz off, Palm Pre.
You ain't no iPhone.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709585</id>
	<title>What does this get them?</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1247658180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really, what would be the benefit for doing this? For one, not many people really -like- iTunes, it just happens to be the easiest way of syncing your iPod, if you could do the same thing in VLC, WMP, etc most people would. This opens up Apple to a lot more anti-trust suits. Apple had nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing this, so in the end what does it get them?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , what would be the benefit for doing this ?
For one , not many people really -like- iTunes , it just happens to be the easiest way of syncing your iPod , if you could do the same thing in VLC , WMP , etc most people would .
This opens up Apple to a lot more anti-trust suits .
Apple had nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing this , so in the end what does it get them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, what would be the benefit for doing this?
For one, not many people really -like- iTunes, it just happens to be the easiest way of syncing your iPod, if you could do the same thing in VLC, WMP, etc most people would.
This opens up Apple to a lot more anti-trust suits.
Apple had nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing this, so in the end what does it get them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28738809</id>
	<title>Re:I couldn't care less</title>
	<author>jisatsusha</author>
	<datestamp>1247947260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>DRM laden music videos, movies and iPod/iPhone applications then, happy now?</htmltext>
<tokenext>DRM laden music videos , movies and iPod/iPhone applications then , happy now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DRM laden music videos, movies and iPod/iPhone applications then, happy now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710089</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247660700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cool.  I don't give a shit, so I won't.  And you obviously don't have a principled stand, either, because you clearly demonstrate the moronic belief that people only buy Apple products because they're shiny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cool .
I do n't give a shit , so I wo n't .
And you obviously do n't have a principled stand , either , because you clearly demonstrate the moronic belief that people only buy Apple products because they 're shiny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cool.
I don't give a shit, so I won't.
And you obviously don't have a principled stand, either, because you clearly demonstrate the moronic belief that people only buy Apple products because they're shiny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712337</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247677620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Revisionist history.  If you used Apple in '98-'99, No-one else was bringing a music store ecosystem to mac users.  It was going to be a Windows only world.  The iPod and the agreements made with the labels turned all of this around.  Why should all of this be handed over to a competitor?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Revisionist history .
If you used Apple in '98-'99 , No-one else was bringing a music store ecosystem to mac users .
It was going to be a Windows only world .
The iPod and the agreements made with the labels turned all of this around .
Why should all of this be handed over to a competitor ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Revisionist history.
If you used Apple in '98-'99, No-one else was bringing a music store ecosystem to mac users.
It was going to be a Windows only world.
The iPod and the agreements made with the labels turned all of this around.
Why should all of this be handed over to a competitor?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711637</id>
	<title>iSync</title>
	<author>mr100percent</author>
	<datestamp>1247671260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple has an established protocol for communicating with cell phones and PDAs. It's called iSync, and the app ships on every Mac. It syncs your contacts and calendars using bluetooth or USB, and Apple has worked with phone developers to open it to more devices.</p><p>How is it Apple's fault if Palm tries using the private APIs and fakes itself as an iPod, rather than Apple's developer standards for iSync?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple has an established protocol for communicating with cell phones and PDAs .
It 's called iSync , and the app ships on every Mac .
It syncs your contacts and calendars using bluetooth or USB , and Apple has worked with phone developers to open it to more devices.How is it Apple 's fault if Palm tries using the private APIs and fakes itself as an iPod , rather than Apple 's developer standards for iSync ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple has an established protocol for communicating with cell phones and PDAs.
It's called iSync, and the app ships on every Mac.
It syncs your contacts and calendars using bluetooth or USB, and Apple has worked with phone developers to open it to more devices.How is it Apple's fault if Palm tries using the private APIs and fakes itself as an iPod, rather than Apple's developer standards for iSync?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709901</id>
	<title>Criminal monopoly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247659680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All computer companies should be required to interoperate.  Every interface should be documented and never updated, only upgraded to new versions with the old interfaces staying in place.</p><p>It is criminal that Apple is able to block users from their music just because the consumer didn't buy Apples non functional overpriced players.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All computer companies should be required to interoperate .
Every interface should be documented and never updated , only upgraded to new versions with the old interfaces staying in place.It is criminal that Apple is able to block users from their music just because the consumer did n't buy Apples non functional overpriced players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All computer companies should be required to interoperate.
Every interface should be documented and never updated, only upgraded to new versions with the old interfaces staying in place.It is criminal that Apple is able to block users from their music just because the consumer didn't buy Apples non functional overpriced players.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714861</id>
	<title>Re:Not a nice move, but not illegal either</title>
	<author>Luthair</author>
	<datestamp>1247749140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><strong>Unlike MS Windows, the iPod or iPhone is not (*) a crucial business tool that most businesses require in order to run the software they need. People can't just go ahead and purchase a product from a competitor of Microsoft, since their costly business software probably depends on Windows. But people absolutely can (and do) purchase a competitor of the iPod or iPhone.</strong> <br> <br>

Explain how this is different than someone having purchased drm'd songs on iTunes and getting locked into ipod/iphones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unlike MS Windows , the iPod or iPhone is not ( * ) a crucial business tool that most businesses require in order to run the software they need .
People ca n't just go ahead and purchase a product from a competitor of Microsoft , since their costly business software probably depends on Windows .
But people absolutely can ( and do ) purchase a competitor of the iPod or iPhone .
Explain how this is different than someone having purchased drm 'd songs on iTunes and getting locked into ipod/iphones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unlike MS Windows, the iPod or iPhone is not (*) a crucial business tool that most businesses require in order to run the software they need.
People can't just go ahead and purchase a product from a competitor of Microsoft, since their costly business software probably depends on Windows.
But people absolutely can (and do) purchase a competitor of the iPod or iPhone.
Explain how this is different than someone having purchased drm'd songs on iTunes and getting locked into ipod/iphones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710401</id>
	<title>I'm an iPhone user, and he's right</title>
	<author>hellfire</author>
	<datestamp>1247662440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I think "Alter Relationship" has a little too much vitrol for the iPhone and the situation, he's right.  Apple is not doing anything illegal, because they don't have a monopoly in the phone market (not yet anyway).  In an ideal world, however, different devices work with different pieces of software, and ideally you can mix and match software and hardware in order to gain the best functionality for you.  The consumer benefits when they have a range of choices to make and plenty of flexibility.</p><p>No one said Apple had to support this configuration.  Actually I think with a little thought, perhaps Apple could spin this to their advantage, by sighting Pre owner's desire, and ability to work with their software, which is quite possibly better than Palm's offerings.  But then again this would probably cut into their hardware sales.</p><p>In the grand scheme of things, in a properly competitive market, I don't mind this so much because if Palm proves to be a better phone and becomes the iPhone killer, then Apple will eat crow and perhaps Pre syncing will become a supported feature.  Right now things in the phone market are pretty competitive.  While I think the parent is right, I also don't hold the same level of loathing because I like my iPhone solution and I have a bit of faith in competition.  If Palm wants to make this a real battle, they shouldn't just be coming up with an iPhone killer, they should come up with an iTunes killer as well.  That's what a properly company wants to be competitive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I think " Alter Relationship " has a little too much vitrol for the iPhone and the situation , he 's right .
Apple is not doing anything illegal , because they do n't have a monopoly in the phone market ( not yet anyway ) .
In an ideal world , however , different devices work with different pieces of software , and ideally you can mix and match software and hardware in order to gain the best functionality for you .
The consumer benefits when they have a range of choices to make and plenty of flexibility.No one said Apple had to support this configuration .
Actually I think with a little thought , perhaps Apple could spin this to their advantage , by sighting Pre owner 's desire , and ability to work with their software , which is quite possibly better than Palm 's offerings .
But then again this would probably cut into their hardware sales.In the grand scheme of things , in a properly competitive market , I do n't mind this so much because if Palm proves to be a better phone and becomes the iPhone killer , then Apple will eat crow and perhaps Pre syncing will become a supported feature .
Right now things in the phone market are pretty competitive .
While I think the parent is right , I also do n't hold the same level of loathing because I like my iPhone solution and I have a bit of faith in competition .
If Palm wants to make this a real battle , they should n't just be coming up with an iPhone killer , they should come up with an iTunes killer as well .
That 's what a properly company wants to be competitive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I think "Alter Relationship" has a little too much vitrol for the iPhone and the situation, he's right.
Apple is not doing anything illegal, because they don't have a monopoly in the phone market (not yet anyway).
In an ideal world, however, different devices work with different pieces of software, and ideally you can mix and match software and hardware in order to gain the best functionality for you.
The consumer benefits when they have a range of choices to make and plenty of flexibility.No one said Apple had to support this configuration.
Actually I think with a little thought, perhaps Apple could spin this to their advantage, by sighting Pre owner's desire, and ability to work with their software, which is quite possibly better than Palm's offerings.
But then again this would probably cut into their hardware sales.In the grand scheme of things, in a properly competitive market, I don't mind this so much because if Palm proves to be a better phone and becomes the iPhone killer, then Apple will eat crow and perhaps Pre syncing will become a supported feature.
Right now things in the phone market are pretty competitive.
While I think the parent is right, I also don't hold the same level of loathing because I like my iPhone solution and I have a bit of faith in competition.
If Palm wants to make this a real battle, they shouldn't just be coming up with an iPhone killer, they should come up with an iTunes killer as well.
That's what a properly company wants to be competitive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711657</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247671440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In any case it's really hard to argue that Apple shouldn't have its software identify hardware correctly or not at all.</p></div><p>Actually, that's really easy to argue.  Itunes shouldn't care what sort of hardware is hooked up to it - it should just try to sync the music, in its standard fashion.  Anything less is an argument for Apple to be broken up into hardware and software sides.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In any case it 's really hard to argue that Apple should n't have its software identify hardware correctly or not at all.Actually , that 's really easy to argue .
Itunes should n't care what sort of hardware is hooked up to it - it should just try to sync the music , in its standard fashion .
Anything less is an argument for Apple to be broken up into hardware and software sides .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In any case it's really hard to argue that Apple shouldn't have its software identify hardware correctly or not at all.Actually, that's really easy to argue.
Itunes shouldn't care what sort of hardware is hooked up to it - it should just try to sync the music, in its standard fashion.
Anything less is an argument for Apple to be broken up into hardware and software sides.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28734689</id>
	<title>Re:Who got a Pre thinking it'd always sync w/ iTun</title>
	<author>ksheff</author>
	<datestamp>1247823420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Apple doesn't want these people for iTunes Music Store customers, then Amazon will gladly take them.  Especially since the Amazon music purchase application is bundled with the Pre and it can be hacked to download music over Sprint's network in addition to WiFi.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Apple does n't want these people for iTunes Music Store customers , then Amazon will gladly take them .
Especially since the Amazon music purchase application is bundled with the Pre and it can be hacked to download music over Sprint 's network in addition to WiFi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Apple doesn't want these people for iTunes Music Store customers, then Amazon will gladly take them.
Especially since the Amazon music purchase application is bundled with the Pre and it can be hacked to download music over Sprint's network in addition to WiFi.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715741</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>MrHanky</author>
	<datestamp>1247754840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's <i>the</i> most bloated music player out there; it depends (depended?) on Quicktime, a piece of software no Windows user wants if it can be avoided; its support for non-Apple approved audio files is crap; it's difficult to support for non-Apple approved codec developers; it's not exceptionally good at anything, despite being huge and bloated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the most bloated music player out there ; it depends ( depended ?
) on Quicktime , a piece of software no Windows user wants if it can be avoided ; its support for non-Apple approved audio files is crap ; it 's difficult to support for non-Apple approved codec developers ; it 's not exceptionally good at anything , despite being huge and bloated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the most bloated music player out there; it depends (depended?
) on Quicktime, a piece of software no Windows user wants if it can be avoided; its support for non-Apple approved audio files is crap; it's difficult to support for non-Apple approved codec developers; it's not exceptionally good at anything, despite being huge and bloated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28717751</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247762940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't be ridiculous. Apple acting in the interests of its competitors in no way makes the customer experience better, and arguably leads to making it worse -- if Apple helps its competitors to its own detriment, it loses market share, its sales/revenues go down, which all make Apple less relevant and make it harder for them to deliver that great experience you want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be ridiculous .
Apple acting in the interests of its competitors in no way makes the customer experience better , and arguably leads to making it worse -- if Apple helps its competitors to its own detriment , it loses market share , its sales/revenues go down , which all make Apple less relevant and make it harder for them to deliver that great experience you want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be ridiculous.
Apple acting in the interests of its competitors in no way makes the customer experience better, and arguably leads to making it worse -- if Apple helps its competitors to its own detriment, it loses market share, its sales/revenues go down, which all make Apple less relevant and make it harder for them to deliver that great experience you want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715617</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1247754180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They sell a system, and are one of the very few companies left who still do.</i></p><p>Nonsense. Go to any mainstream computer company or store, and you will get sold "a system", no different to any Mac you buy. Same as if you buy a phone, mp3 player, stereo system, TV, car or whatever else from any other company.</p><p>Indeed, all just about all companies that sell to the end users will sell systems, so I'm not sure what you are basing your claim on? The only exception would be users who build their own PCs, which is an optional advantage you get with PCs, but it's probably the minority these days.</p><p>If you're going to quibble that PCs are sold with an OS made by Microsoft, that's about as relevant as saying that Macs come with chips made by Intel. The days when hardware companys made all their own custom hardware are long gone, and Apple certainly are not in that game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They sell a system , and are one of the very few companies left who still do.Nonsense .
Go to any mainstream computer company or store , and you will get sold " a system " , no different to any Mac you buy .
Same as if you buy a phone , mp3 player , stereo system , TV , car or whatever else from any other company.Indeed , all just about all companies that sell to the end users will sell systems , so I 'm not sure what you are basing your claim on ?
The only exception would be users who build their own PCs , which is an optional advantage you get with PCs , but it 's probably the minority these days.If you 're going to quibble that PCs are sold with an OS made by Microsoft , that 's about as relevant as saying that Macs come with chips made by Intel .
The days when hardware companys made all their own custom hardware are long gone , and Apple certainly are not in that game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They sell a system, and are one of the very few companies left who still do.Nonsense.
Go to any mainstream computer company or store, and you will get sold "a system", no different to any Mac you buy.
Same as if you buy a phone, mp3 player, stereo system, TV, car or whatever else from any other company.Indeed, all just about all companies that sell to the end users will sell systems, so I'm not sure what you are basing your claim on?
The only exception would be users who build their own PCs, which is an optional advantage you get with PCs, but it's probably the minority these days.If you're going to quibble that PCs are sold with an OS made by Microsoft, that's about as relevant as saying that Macs come with chips made by Intel.
The days when hardware companys made all their own custom hardware are long gone, and Apple certainly are not in that game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709603</id>
	<title>Why doesn't apple want Palm users' cash?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247658240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this is a lame move by apple.  If I had a Palm Pre and it stopped being able to access iTunes, I would probably ditch iTunes.  Oh well.</p><p>Ciao,<br>lex@techlex.org</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is a lame move by apple .
If I had a Palm Pre and it stopped being able to access iTunes , I would probably ditch iTunes .
Oh well.Ciao,lex @ techlex.org</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is a lame move by apple.
If I had a Palm Pre and it stopped being able to access iTunes, I would probably ditch iTunes.
Oh well.Ciao,lex@techlex.org</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710697</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values</title>
	<author>WiseWeasel</author>
	<datestamp>1247664180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a silly argument. Apple is not a music distributor. The ONLY reason they run the iTunes Music Store, which is a very low-margin business for them, is so they can sell more iPods and iPhones, where the real profits are made. iTunes is not a product in its own right, it's a part of the iTunes/iPod ecosystem of products, and as such, there will never be a wall erected between iPod and iTunes business units. The iPod sales are what make the iTunes Music Store worth running in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a silly argument .
Apple is not a music distributor .
The ONLY reason they run the iTunes Music Store , which is a very low-margin business for them , is so they can sell more iPods and iPhones , where the real profits are made .
iTunes is not a product in its own right , it 's a part of the iTunes/iPod ecosystem of products , and as such , there will never be a wall erected between iPod and iTunes business units .
The iPod sales are what make the iTunes Music Store worth running in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a silly argument.
Apple is not a music distributor.
The ONLY reason they run the iTunes Music Store, which is a very low-margin business for them, is so they can sell more iPods and iPhones, where the real profits are made.
iTunes is not a product in its own right, it's a part of the iTunes/iPod ecosystem of products, and as such, there will never be a wall erected between iPod and iTunes business units.
The iPod sales are what make the iTunes Music Store worth running in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711033</id>
	<title>not interested in open standards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247666820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>     Apple's NEVER been interested in open standards.  They actively restrict any negative information (bug reports and the like) as well, to help give the impression of flawless products.  They sue people that speculate on upcoming products.  They presently use open source software, but it was is a means to an end, they used it because they had to to modernize the Nextstep basis of OSX (although, they have managed to flout this from time to time, making a big thing about the kernel and base utilities being open source).  They are only using x86 now out of necessity (they could not get PowerPCs that ran in the speed and temperature range of the Core chip.)  It just KILLED Apple to give out any hardware info on the 68k or PowerPC macs -- the info to run Linux etc. on them  was basically all reverse-engineered (as was the Intel ones, but they are lots easier since they are just a PC with EFI).  I could go on and on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple 's NEVER been interested in open standards .
They actively restrict any negative information ( bug reports and the like ) as well , to help give the impression of flawless products .
They sue people that speculate on upcoming products .
They presently use open source software , but it was is a means to an end , they used it because they had to to modernize the Nextstep basis of OSX ( although , they have managed to flout this from time to time , making a big thing about the kernel and base utilities being open source ) .
They are only using x86 now out of necessity ( they could not get PowerPCs that ran in the speed and temperature range of the Core chip .
) It just KILLED Apple to give out any hardware info on the 68k or PowerPC macs -- the info to run Linux etc .
on them was basically all reverse-engineered ( as was the Intel ones , but they are lots easier since they are just a PC with EFI ) .
I could go on and on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>     Apple's NEVER been interested in open standards.
They actively restrict any negative information (bug reports and the like) as well, to help give the impression of flawless products.
They sue people that speculate on upcoming products.
They presently use open source software, but it was is a means to an end, they used it because they had to to modernize the Nextstep basis of OSX (although, they have managed to flout this from time to time, making a big thing about the kernel and base utilities being open source).
They are only using x86 now out of necessity (they could not get PowerPCs that ran in the speed and temperature range of the Core chip.
)  It just KILLED Apple to give out any hardware info on the 68k or PowerPC macs -- the info to run Linux etc.
on them  was basically all reverse-engineered (as was the Intel ones, but they are lots easier since they are just a PC with EFI).
I could go on and on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713501</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247775240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The iPod sales are what make the iTunes Music Store worth running in the first place.</p></div><p>Not the <a href="http://www.wired.com/listening\_post/2008/03/apple-apparentl/" title="wired.com" rel="nofollow">half-billion</a> [wired.com] in yearly profits?<br><i>iTunes turned a profit in 2007 with $1.9 billion in revenue and a 30 percent profit margin</i><br>Or just <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=itunes+profit" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">google it</a> [google.com] yourself.</p><p>That's not to say they don't make heaps of cash on the hardware sales; but their iTunes business is nowhere near hurting them and could "survive" adding Palm customers to their customer base.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The iPod sales are what make the iTunes Music Store worth running in the first place.Not the half-billion [ wired.com ] in yearly profits ? iTunes turned a profit in 2007 with $ 1.9 billion in revenue and a 30 percent profit marginOr just google it [ google.com ] yourself.That 's not to say they do n't make heaps of cash on the hardware sales ; but their iTunes business is nowhere near hurting them and could " survive " adding Palm customers to their customer base .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The iPod sales are what make the iTunes Music Store worth running in the first place.Not the half-billion [wired.com] in yearly profits?iTunes turned a profit in 2007 with $1.9 billion in revenue and a 30 percent profit marginOr just google it [google.com] yourself.That's not to say they don't make heaps of cash on the hardware sales; but their iTunes business is nowhere near hurting them and could "survive" adding Palm customers to their customer base.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715809</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>Deadguy2322</author>
	<datestamp>1247755200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is obnoxious to him because it is self-managing, so it hurts his control-freak geek idiot nature.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is obnoxious to him because it is self-managing , so it hurts his control-freak geek idiot nature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is obnoxious to him because it is self-managing, so it hurts his control-freak geek idiot nature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713689</id>
	<title>Re:Who got a Pre thinking it'd always sync w/ iTun</title>
	<author>lurch\_mojoff</author>
	<datestamp>1247777100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your comment is a mix of bullshit and speculation.
<br> <br>
First, it is not marketshare that creates a monopoly, it's leverage. And Apple has hardly any leverage over the mobile phone, or smartphone, or even portable music player markets. Hell, they don't even have leverage over the online music distribution market - their competitors got to sell DRM-free higher bitrate music for almost a year before all music labels agreed to let Apple do it, and only after Apple conceded flat pricing. So, yeah I'd love to see how would regulators argue that Apple constitutes a monopoly.
<br> <br>
As for the latter part of your comment, I've already demonstrated that, not only is your claim that content owners may not allow or hinder competitors to iTunes a completely baseless speculation, but in reality the situation is probably exactly the opposite - music labels are scared shitless by iTunes' huge popularity and are willing to give its competitors much more leeway in an attempt to get marketshare back from Apple.
<br> <br>
At the end of it all, Apple are in no way preventing anyone form creating an alternative to their iTMS/iTunes/iPod/iPhone package - either by creating their own music distribution service and their own jukebox/library software, OR by partnering with companies that have ALREADY created such services and software.
<br> <br>
Yeah, there is no quick, easy and free way for Palm to create the same great user experience as Apple, but Apple didn't get either to where they are quickly, easily or for free.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your comment is a mix of bullshit and speculation .
First , it is not marketshare that creates a monopoly , it 's leverage .
And Apple has hardly any leverage over the mobile phone , or smartphone , or even portable music player markets .
Hell , they do n't even have leverage over the online music distribution market - their competitors got to sell DRM-free higher bitrate music for almost a year before all music labels agreed to let Apple do it , and only after Apple conceded flat pricing .
So , yeah I 'd love to see how would regulators argue that Apple constitutes a monopoly .
As for the latter part of your comment , I 've already demonstrated that , not only is your claim that content owners may not allow or hinder competitors to iTunes a completely baseless speculation , but in reality the situation is probably exactly the opposite - music labels are scared shitless by iTunes ' huge popularity and are willing to give its competitors much more leeway in an attempt to get marketshare back from Apple .
At the end of it all , Apple are in no way preventing anyone form creating an alternative to their iTMS/iTunes/iPod/iPhone package - either by creating their own music distribution service and their own jukebox/library software , OR by partnering with companies that have ALREADY created such services and software .
Yeah , there is no quick , easy and free way for Palm to create the same great user experience as Apple , but Apple did n't get either to where they are quickly , easily or for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your comment is a mix of bullshit and speculation.
First, it is not marketshare that creates a monopoly, it's leverage.
And Apple has hardly any leverage over the mobile phone, or smartphone, or even portable music player markets.
Hell, they don't even have leverage over the online music distribution market - their competitors got to sell DRM-free higher bitrate music for almost a year before all music labels agreed to let Apple do it, and only after Apple conceded flat pricing.
So, yeah I'd love to see how would regulators argue that Apple constitutes a monopoly.
As for the latter part of your comment, I've already demonstrated that, not only is your claim that content owners may not allow or hinder competitors to iTunes a completely baseless speculation, but in reality the situation is probably exactly the opposite - music labels are scared shitless by iTunes' huge popularity and are willing to give its competitors much more leeway in an attempt to get marketshare back from Apple.
At the end of it all, Apple are in no way preventing anyone form creating an alternative to their iTMS/iTunes/iPod/iPhone package - either by creating their own music distribution service and their own jukebox/library software, OR by partnering with companies that have ALREADY created such services and software.
Yeah, there is no quick, easy and free way for Palm to create the same great user experience as Apple, but Apple didn't get either to where they are quickly, easily or for free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715865</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is just Microsoft wannabe.</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1247755440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But sadly, it is not as successful as Microsoft in grabbing market share or money from people.</p></div><p>In its own market, the iPod+iTMS combo is far more successful than anything Microsoft's ever tried.  For all intents and purposes, they <em>are</em> online music sales.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>OK, OK I will stand corrected. It is not a Microsoft wannabe, it is a failed Microsoft wannabe.</p></div><p>Every businessman hopes and prays to fail that spectacularly.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Mod me troll if you want.</p></div><p>I <em>wanted</em> to mod you "clueless", but had to settle for replying instead.</p><p>I'm not a huge Apple fan even if I do like some of their stuff.  Still, calling them a <em>failure</em>?  What color is the sky on your planet?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But sadly , it is not as successful as Microsoft in grabbing market share or money from people.In its own market , the iPod + iTMS combo is far more successful than anything Microsoft 's ever tried .
For all intents and purposes , they are online music sales.OK , OK I will stand corrected .
It is not a Microsoft wannabe , it is a failed Microsoft wannabe.Every businessman hopes and prays to fail that spectacularly.Mod me troll if you want.I wanted to mod you " clueless " , but had to settle for replying instead.I 'm not a huge Apple fan even if I do like some of their stuff .
Still , calling them a failure ?
What color is the sky on your planet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But sadly, it is not as successful as Microsoft in grabbing market share or money from people.In its own market, the iPod+iTMS combo is far more successful than anything Microsoft's ever tried.
For all intents and purposes, they are online music sales.OK, OK I will stand corrected.
It is not a Microsoft wannabe, it is a failed Microsoft wannabe.Every businessman hopes and prays to fail that spectacularly.Mod me troll if you want.I wanted to mod you "clueless", but had to settle for replying instead.I'm not a huge Apple fan even if I do like some of their stuff.
Still, calling them a failure?
What color is the sky on your planet?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711421</id>
	<title>Re:I couldn't care less</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1247669700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple do not sell DRM-laden music.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple do not sell DRM-laden music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple do not sell DRM-laden music.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711833</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>node 3</author>
	<datestamp>1247672700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Maybe because apple IS a hardware company.</p></div><p>Why do people try to pigeonhole Apple into a one-or-the-other-ware company? They <i>sell</i> both.</p><p>Apple's "secret ingredient" is not the software they put into their hardware, and it's not the hardware they put their software on, it's the quality of the combination of the two. They sell a system, and are one of the very few companies left who still do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe because apple IS a hardware company.Why do people try to pigeonhole Apple into a one-or-the-other-ware company ?
They sell both.Apple 's " secret ingredient " is not the software they put into their hardware , and it 's not the hardware they put their software on , it 's the quality of the combination of the two .
They sell a system , and are one of the very few companies left who still do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Maybe because apple IS a hardware company.Why do people try to pigeonhole Apple into a one-or-the-other-ware company?
They sell both.Apple's "secret ingredient" is not the software they put into their hardware, and it's not the hardware they put their software on, it's the quality of the combination of the two.
They sell a system, and are one of the very few companies left who still do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710183</id>
	<title>Updates</title>
	<author>keyboarderror</author>
	<datestamp>1247661360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, in the event the Palm Pre gets a software update that restores syncing, what would Apple's legal options be? Sue with the argument of violating the license agreement of iTunes by using unauthorized hardware? vs. a possible antitrust argument by Palm by blocking (up until then) compatible hardware?</p><p>Also, I actually had a problem with my iPod touch 2nd generation being recognized yesterday by iTunes 8.2, rebooting it (the iPod) solved it. Perhaps there is a genuine issue beyond just blocking the Pre.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , in the event the Palm Pre gets a software update that restores syncing , what would Apple 's legal options be ?
Sue with the argument of violating the license agreement of iTunes by using unauthorized hardware ?
vs. a possible antitrust argument by Palm by blocking ( up until then ) compatible hardware ? Also , I actually had a problem with my iPod touch 2nd generation being recognized yesterday by iTunes 8.2 , rebooting it ( the iPod ) solved it .
Perhaps there is a genuine issue beyond just blocking the Pre .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, in the event the Palm Pre gets a software update that restores syncing, what would Apple's legal options be?
Sue with the argument of violating the license agreement of iTunes by using unauthorized hardware?
vs. a possible antitrust argument by Palm by blocking (up until then) compatible hardware?Also, I actually had a problem with my iPod touch 2nd generation being recognized yesterday by iTunes 8.2, rebooting it (the iPod) solved it.
Perhaps there is a genuine issue beyond just blocking the Pre.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715951</id>
	<title>It makes wonder why some many flock to Apple</title>
	<author>sonicsteve</author>
	<datestamp>1247755740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While it's within their rights and power, it strikes home to me one more time why I will NEVER,
NEVER
NEVER
NEVER
NEVER
NEVER
NEVER Have I made my point?
NEVER buy anything apple or so proprietary that has similar programing.

MESSAGE TO APPLE...

I WANT CHOICES NOT DICTATORSHIP! IN CASE I WASN'T CLEAR ENOUGH

I WILL NEVER BUY YOUR GARBAGE, AND BY THE WAY I'M AN IT MANAGER, YOUR CRUD WILL NEVER DISGRACE MY HALLS!</htmltext>
<tokenext>While it 's within their rights and power , it strikes home to me one more time why I will NEVER , NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER Have I made my point ?
NEVER buy anything apple or so proprietary that has similar programing .
MESSAGE TO APPLE.. . I WANT CHOICES NOT DICTATORSHIP !
IN CASE I WAS N'T CLEAR ENOUGH I WILL NEVER BUY YOUR GARBAGE , AND BY THE WAY I 'M AN IT MANAGER , YOUR CRUD WILL NEVER DISGRACE MY HALLS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it's within their rights and power, it strikes home to me one more time why I will NEVER,
NEVER
NEVER
NEVER
NEVER
NEVER
NEVER Have I made my point?
NEVER buy anything apple or so proprietary that has similar programing.
MESSAGE TO APPLE...

I WANT CHOICES NOT DICTATORSHIP!
IN CASE I WASN'T CLEAR ENOUGH

I WILL NEVER BUY YOUR GARBAGE, AND BY THE WAY I'M AN IT MANAGER, YOUR CRUD WILL NEVER DISGRACE MY HALLS!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710525</id>
	<title>So Apple is the villain here?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247663160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So let me get this straight: Apple spends several years carefully building an ecosystem for it's hardware and software, and it is nice enought to give away aan excellent free program <i>specifically</i> to gain market share and to leverage hardware sales. It is a closed ecosystem, which is what you pay for being able to use a nice free state-of-the-art music management program.
<br>
Enter Pre, a <i>direct competitor</i> of Apple in one of the most strategic lines of Apple's business. How do you think Apple should react when Pre starts (ab)using iTunes, thus gaining more ground and cannibalizing iPhone/iPod in process? I'm surprised they were nice enough to let it stay for a while instead of forcing a mandatory update down everyone's throat and making an incompatible change to the iTunes Store protocol (which would be justified given the shamelessness of Pre strategy).
<br>
Maybe Palm should consider making it's own compelling software instead of weaseling it's way through and piggybacking the success of Apple. Or, as a more open (yet inferior) alternative, use Microsoft Media Player as it's music software</htmltext>
<tokenext>So let me get this straight : Apple spends several years carefully building an ecosystem for it 's hardware and software , and it is nice enought to give away aan excellent free program specifically to gain market share and to leverage hardware sales .
It is a closed ecosystem , which is what you pay for being able to use a nice free state-of-the-art music management program .
Enter Pre , a direct competitor of Apple in one of the most strategic lines of Apple 's business .
How do you think Apple should react when Pre starts ( ab ) using iTunes , thus gaining more ground and cannibalizing iPhone/iPod in process ?
I 'm surprised they were nice enough to let it stay for a while instead of forcing a mandatory update down everyone 's throat and making an incompatible change to the iTunes Store protocol ( which would be justified given the shamelessness of Pre strategy ) .
Maybe Palm should consider making it 's own compelling software instead of weaseling it 's way through and piggybacking the success of Apple .
Or , as a more open ( yet inferior ) alternative , use Microsoft Media Player as it 's music software</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So let me get this straight: Apple spends several years carefully building an ecosystem for it's hardware and software, and it is nice enought to give away aan excellent free program specifically to gain market share and to leverage hardware sales.
It is a closed ecosystem, which is what you pay for being able to use a nice free state-of-the-art music management program.
Enter Pre, a direct competitor of Apple in one of the most strategic lines of Apple's business.
How do you think Apple should react when Pre starts (ab)using iTunes, thus gaining more ground and cannibalizing iPhone/iPod in process?
I'm surprised they were nice enough to let it stay for a while instead of forcing a mandatory update down everyone's throat and making an incompatible change to the iTunes Store protocol (which would be justified given the shamelessness of Pre strategy).
Maybe Palm should consider making it's own compelling software instead of weaseling it's way through and piggybacking the success of Apple.
Or, as a more open (yet inferior) alternative, use Microsoft Media Player as it's music software</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711537</id>
	<title>Re:So Apple is the villain here?!</title>
	<author>Homburg</author>
	<datestamp>1247670600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem isn't Apple making money; the problem is Apple placing restrictions on what users of software can do with it. The GPL, on the other hand, is about preventing limits being placed on what users can do with their software. In other words, it's the exact opposite of what Apple are doing. And believing that A is good and the opposite of A is bad, is pretty much the exact opposite of hypocrisy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is n't Apple making money ; the problem is Apple placing restrictions on what users of software can do with it .
The GPL , on the other hand , is about preventing limits being placed on what users can do with their software .
In other words , it 's the exact opposite of what Apple are doing .
And believing that A is good and the opposite of A is bad , is pretty much the exact opposite of hypocrisy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem isn't Apple making money; the problem is Apple placing restrictions on what users of software can do with it.
The GPL, on the other hand, is about preventing limits being placed on what users can do with their software.
In other words, it's the exact opposite of what Apple are doing.
And believing that A is good and the opposite of A is bad, is pretty much the exact opposite of hypocrisy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710649</id>
	<title>Sour grapes</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1247663880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah I mean here's the skinny on this.  You spend years making a name for yourself and writing software that people use to handle their hardware.  You give it away for free to everyone because it has some general use.  But you put your store in it and then add a hardware sync function.  Now you've spent millions of dollars in developer time and advertising to make this work.  Along comes a direct competitor and shoves his nose into a crack in the fence and starts cannibalizing your customers with your own software.
and you fix the fence and everyone else screams?  Give me a break. The whiners here are pathetic and wrong.  If you don't like Apple don't use their products, go away and shut the f*** up.  Or alternatively offer correct and useful intelligent conversation not this whiny "how dare they" crap.  Like a bunch of foxes complaining about how sour those grapes probably are.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah I mean here 's the skinny on this .
You spend years making a name for yourself and writing software that people use to handle their hardware .
You give it away for free to everyone because it has some general use .
But you put your store in it and then add a hardware sync function .
Now you 've spent millions of dollars in developer time and advertising to make this work .
Along comes a direct competitor and shoves his nose into a crack in the fence and starts cannibalizing your customers with your own software .
and you fix the fence and everyone else screams ?
Give me a break .
The whiners here are pathetic and wrong .
If you do n't like Apple do n't use their products , go away and shut the f * * * up .
Or alternatively offer correct and useful intelligent conversation not this whiny " how dare they " crap .
Like a bunch of foxes complaining about how sour those grapes probably are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah I mean here's the skinny on this.
You spend years making a name for yourself and writing software that people use to handle their hardware.
You give it away for free to everyone because it has some general use.
But you put your store in it and then add a hardware sync function.
Now you've spent millions of dollars in developer time and advertising to make this work.
Along comes a direct competitor and shoves his nose into a crack in the fence and starts cannibalizing your customers with your own software.
and you fix the fence and everyone else screams?
Give me a break.
The whiners here are pathetic and wrong.
If you don't like Apple don't use their products, go away and shut the f*** up.
Or alternatively offer correct and useful intelligent conversation not this whiny "how dare they" crap.
Like a bunch of foxes complaining about how sour those grapes probably are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715293</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>Overzeetop</author>
	<datestamp>1247752080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, sort of. Apple seems to sell hardware and entertainment (iPhone apps,imho, are primaily for entertainment - though not exclusively - but Apple is really just a middle man there anyway).  They don't sell iTunes, they don't sell OSX (unless you already own their hardware), they don't sell the iPhone OS.  They sell hardware and entertainment you can access on that hardware. Apple-written, core software is either "free," "free with a hardware purchase," or "an upgrade to the software you received with your hardware purchase."</p><p>I won't disagree that they sell a system, but what they actually "sell" looks like hardware or entertainment. The software isn't separate - it's about as close to embedded as you can get. You might as well call Cisco a software company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , sort of .
Apple seems to sell hardware and entertainment ( iPhone apps,imho , are primaily for entertainment - though not exclusively - but Apple is really just a middle man there anyway ) .
They do n't sell iTunes , they do n't sell OSX ( unless you already own their hardware ) , they do n't sell the iPhone OS .
They sell hardware and entertainment you can access on that hardware .
Apple-written , core software is either " free , " " free with a hardware purchase , " or " an upgrade to the software you received with your hardware purchase .
" I wo n't disagree that they sell a system , but what they actually " sell " looks like hardware or entertainment .
The software is n't separate - it 's about as close to embedded as you can get .
You might as well call Cisco a software company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, sort of.
Apple seems to sell hardware and entertainment (iPhone apps,imho, are primaily for entertainment - though not exclusively - but Apple is really just a middle man there anyway).
They don't sell iTunes, they don't sell OSX (unless you already own their hardware), they don't sell the iPhone OS.
They sell hardware and entertainment you can access on that hardware.
Apple-written, core software is either "free," "free with a hardware purchase," or "an upgrade to the software you received with your hardware purchase.
"I won't disagree that they sell a system, but what they actually "sell" looks like hardware or entertainment.
The software isn't separate - it's about as close to embedded as you can get.
You might as well call Cisco a software company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711273</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1247668560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Things are not done simply because they're cool -- they have to serve a purpose.  So I find it ironic that, as a MacBook Pro user, Apple has explicitly done something to make my experience *worse*.</i></p><p>It's like this: by killing off iTunes sync, Apple will discourage sales of Pre to some margin and increase sales of iPhone by some margin.  Since iPhone is so much zOMG better than Pre, it will improve those users' experience.</p><p>When Apple pulled their development staff off Leopard to get iPhone out the door, slipped Leopard, and then released an unfinished (that's a nice way to say 'craptacular') version, it was clear where Apple's future lies.  It's not with Macintosh, it's iPod/iTunes.  The latter will subsume the former over time.</p><p>I just happen to be secure-erasing the HD on my MBP as I write this. It's taken me a long time to migrate my workflow to Linux (Fedora/KDE) and some things are rough, but my conscience is clear. All disagreers should go bid on my eBay auction.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Things are not done simply because they 're cool -- they have to serve a purpose .
So I find it ironic that , as a MacBook Pro user , Apple has explicitly done something to make my experience * worse * .It 's like this : by killing off iTunes sync , Apple will discourage sales of Pre to some margin and increase sales of iPhone by some margin .
Since iPhone is so much zOMG better than Pre , it will improve those users ' experience.When Apple pulled their development staff off Leopard to get iPhone out the door , slipped Leopard , and then released an unfinished ( that 's a nice way to say 'craptacular ' ) version , it was clear where Apple 's future lies .
It 's not with Macintosh , it 's iPod/iTunes .
The latter will subsume the former over time.I just happen to be secure-erasing the HD on my MBP as I write this .
It 's taken me a long time to migrate my workflow to Linux ( Fedora/KDE ) and some things are rough , but my conscience is clear .
All disagreers should go bid on my eBay auction .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Things are not done simply because they're cool -- they have to serve a purpose.
So I find it ironic that, as a MacBook Pro user, Apple has explicitly done something to make my experience *worse*.It's like this: by killing off iTunes sync, Apple will discourage sales of Pre to some margin and increase sales of iPhone by some margin.
Since iPhone is so much zOMG better than Pre, it will improve those users' experience.When Apple pulled their development staff off Leopard to get iPhone out the door, slipped Leopard, and then released an unfinished (that's a nice way to say 'craptacular') version, it was clear where Apple's future lies.
It's not with Macintosh, it's iPod/iTunes.
The latter will subsume the former over time.I just happen to be secure-erasing the HD on my MBP as I write this.
It's taken me a long time to migrate my workflow to Linux (Fedora/KDE) and some things are rough, but my conscience is clear.
All disagreers should go bid on my eBay auction.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28727593</id>
	<title>Re:What Palm is doing is skanky</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247831160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>- try to compete against iPhone without iTunes support which put them at a competitive disadvantage</p></div><p>How is Palm at a competitive disadvantage without iTunes syncing support?  Is Blackberry now at a competitive disadvantage?  Symbian?  You do realize that all songs you buy off iTunes are now currently DRM free, so you can, you know, copy them to the other devices that can play AAC's.  You can also buy your music from Amazon and  copy them to iPods, iPhones, Palms, Blackberrys, etc etc.  So I ask again - how are these guys at a disadvantage when all the songs from iTunes can be copied to all of those other devices?  Are these companies completely incapable of making their own good syncing program?  If that's the case, well I'd suggest they stop sucking at creating software.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>- try to compete against iPhone without iTunes support which put them at a competitive disadvantageHow is Palm at a competitive disadvantage without iTunes syncing support ?
Is Blackberry now at a competitive disadvantage ?
Symbian ? You do realize that all songs you buy off iTunes are now currently DRM free , so you can , you know , copy them to the other devices that can play AAC 's .
You can also buy your music from Amazon and copy them to iPods , iPhones , Palms , Blackberrys , etc etc .
So I ask again - how are these guys at a disadvantage when all the songs from iTunes can be copied to all of those other devices ?
Are these companies completely incapable of making their own good syncing program ?
If that 's the case , well I 'd suggest they stop sucking at creating software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- try to compete against iPhone without iTunes support which put them at a competitive disadvantageHow is Palm at a competitive disadvantage without iTunes syncing support?
Is Blackberry now at a competitive disadvantage?
Symbian?  You do realize that all songs you buy off iTunes are now currently DRM free, so you can, you know, copy them to the other devices that can play AAC's.
You can also buy your music from Amazon and  copy them to iPods, iPhones, Palms, Blackberrys, etc etc.
So I ask again - how are these guys at a disadvantage when all the songs from iTunes can be copied to all of those other devices?
Are these companies completely incapable of making their own good syncing program?
If that's the case, well I'd suggest they stop sucking at creating software.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713295</id>
	<title>You are funny, man</title>
	<author>Britz</author>
	<datestamp>1247686440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mind me, I am a capitalist libertarian, but that does not make me stupid. Corporations work that way. Always. They always try to make more money and extend their market share. Apple has learned a lot from Microsoft. Especially how to use a monopoly (or near monopoly) in one market to support their product in other markets.<br>That is why for any market to work you need strictly enforced rules (read: regulation). How do you think a game of basketball would look like without rules or referees to enforce them. Especially if the players are not guided by their morals and conscience, but each of them has a board that has to listen to stockholders that want performance.<br>I always think its funny when people "believe" in large corporations or their "moral" way of doing sth.</p><p>Their combination of ITunes and IPods is dominating the market for digital music. Both in listening devices and in online retail. The IPhone was developed, because Jobs was afraid, that people would stop using dedicated players to listen to their MP3s and just use their phones (I do that as well). When he was greatly disappointed with the IPod-Itunes-Phone from Motorola Apple started on the IPhone.<br>And now they are pushing the IPhone in part using their dominance in the online music retail business.</p><p>Big surprise here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mind me , I am a capitalist libertarian , but that does not make me stupid .
Corporations work that way .
Always. They always try to make more money and extend their market share .
Apple has learned a lot from Microsoft .
Especially how to use a monopoly ( or near monopoly ) in one market to support their product in other markets.That is why for any market to work you need strictly enforced rules ( read : regulation ) .
How do you think a game of basketball would look like without rules or referees to enforce them .
Especially if the players are not guided by their morals and conscience , but each of them has a board that has to listen to stockholders that want performance.I always think its funny when people " believe " in large corporations or their " moral " way of doing sth.Their combination of ITunes and IPods is dominating the market for digital music .
Both in listening devices and in online retail .
The IPhone was developed , because Jobs was afraid , that people would stop using dedicated players to listen to their MP3s and just use their phones ( I do that as well ) .
When he was greatly disappointed with the IPod-Itunes-Phone from Motorola Apple started on the IPhone.And now they are pushing the IPhone in part using their dominance in the online music retail business.Big surprise here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mind me, I am a capitalist libertarian, but that does not make me stupid.
Corporations work that way.
Always. They always try to make more money and extend their market share.
Apple has learned a lot from Microsoft.
Especially how to use a monopoly (or near monopoly) in one market to support their product in other markets.That is why for any market to work you need strictly enforced rules (read: regulation).
How do you think a game of basketball would look like without rules or referees to enforce them.
Especially if the players are not guided by their morals and conscience, but each of them has a board that has to listen to stockholders that want performance.I always think its funny when people "believe" in large corporations or their "moral" way of doing sth.Their combination of ITunes and IPods is dominating the market for digital music.
Both in listening devices and in online retail.
The IPhone was developed, because Jobs was afraid, that people would stop using dedicated players to listen to their MP3s and just use their phones (I do that as well).
When he was greatly disappointed with the IPod-Itunes-Phone from Motorola Apple started on the IPhone.And now they are pushing the IPhone in part using their dominance in the online music retail business.Big surprise here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659</id>
	<title>Yet another reason to avoid Apple products</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247658420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Companies that actively thwart interoperability and promote lock-in are incompatible with the best interests of their own customers.</p><p>I don't care how pretty Apple's products are. If you own an iPhone, a Mac, or use iTunes, you are supporting this kind of corporate behaviour. Either you care enough to modify your behaviour, or you don't.</p><p>Give your dollars to companies that are demonstrably "less bad" whenever possible. Accept that you'll have to go without some of the bling until the market catches up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Companies that actively thwart interoperability and promote lock-in are incompatible with the best interests of their own customers.I do n't care how pretty Apple 's products are .
If you own an iPhone , a Mac , or use iTunes , you are supporting this kind of corporate behaviour .
Either you care enough to modify your behaviour , or you do n't.Give your dollars to companies that are demonstrably " less bad " whenever possible .
Accept that you 'll have to go without some of the bling until the market catches up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Companies that actively thwart interoperability and promote lock-in are incompatible with the best interests of their own customers.I don't care how pretty Apple's products are.
If you own an iPhone, a Mac, or use iTunes, you are supporting this kind of corporate behaviour.
Either you care enough to modify your behaviour, or you don't.Give your dollars to companies that are demonstrably "less bad" whenever possible.
Accept that you'll have to go without some of the bling until the market catches up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710215</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247661540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Frankly, my dear, most people don't give a damn.  They want it to be easy and work, even if it comes at a premium over other brands.  Apple has done that.  I deal with enough technical problems at work all day.  Last thing I want to do is come home and monkey around with making X work with Y.  I used to like that when I was younger and not worrying about careers and other real world problems.  And now that I'm making a little money, I don't mind paying the Apple Premium to do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly , my dear , most people do n't give a damn .
They want it to be easy and work , even if it comes at a premium over other brands .
Apple has done that .
I deal with enough technical problems at work all day .
Last thing I want to do is come home and monkey around with making X work with Y. I used to like that when I was younger and not worrying about careers and other real world problems .
And now that I 'm making a little money , I do n't mind paying the Apple Premium to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly, my dear, most people don't give a damn.
They want it to be easy and work, even if it comes at a premium over other brands.
Apple has done that.
I deal with enough technical problems at work all day.
Last thing I want to do is come home and monkey around with making X work with Y.  I used to like that when I was younger and not worrying about careers and other real world problems.
And now that I'm making a little money, I don't mind paying the Apple Premium to do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28719161</id>
	<title>Re:Who got a Pre thinking it'd always sync w/ iTun</title>
	<author>drummerboybac</author>
	<datestamp>1247767980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since iTunes went DRM-free a few months back, all the music they sell now can be put on other players.  They are not obligated to provide software to sync other manufacturer's devices.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since iTunes went DRM-free a few months back , all the music they sell now can be put on other players .
They are not obligated to provide software to sync other manufacturer 's devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since iTunes went DRM-free a few months back, all the music they sell now can be put on other players.
They are not obligated to provide software to sync other manufacturer's devices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711719</id>
	<title>Re:Use doubleTwist instead.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247671740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can still listen to ITMS music on your pre. You can still listen to amazon mp3's on your ipod.</p><p>The only thing broken now is that iTunes won't recognize the pre as an ipod (oh, maybe because the pre isn't an ipod) meaning that itunes won't automatically sync calendars, contacts, new music, etc. You can still do those things manually just like with every other phone, every other phone that no one ever talks about because NO ONE writes software for their phone/device that explicitly supports their COMPETITOR's products.</p><p>I'm halfway through the comments in here and I think I'm done reading. It's like walking down the corridor of a mental asylum- paranoia, delusions of grandeur, dogmatism, and the guy bashing his head into the wall. Yeah, brother, you show apple who's boss by buying a Palm instead of an iPhone! Yeah! Ok now let's see how well iPhones work with Palm software...</p><p>-b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can still listen to ITMS music on your pre .
You can still listen to amazon mp3 's on your ipod.The only thing broken now is that iTunes wo n't recognize the pre as an ipod ( oh , maybe because the pre is n't an ipod ) meaning that itunes wo n't automatically sync calendars , contacts , new music , etc .
You can still do those things manually just like with every other phone , every other phone that no one ever talks about because NO ONE writes software for their phone/device that explicitly supports their COMPETITOR 's products.I 'm halfway through the comments in here and I think I 'm done reading .
It 's like walking down the corridor of a mental asylum- paranoia , delusions of grandeur , dogmatism , and the guy bashing his head into the wall .
Yeah , brother , you show apple who 's boss by buying a Palm instead of an iPhone !
Yeah ! Ok now let 's see how well iPhones work with Palm software...-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can still listen to ITMS music on your pre.
You can still listen to amazon mp3's on your ipod.The only thing broken now is that iTunes won't recognize the pre as an ipod (oh, maybe because the pre isn't an ipod) meaning that itunes won't automatically sync calendars, contacts, new music, etc.
You can still do those things manually just like with every other phone, every other phone that no one ever talks about because NO ONE writes software for their phone/device that explicitly supports their COMPETITOR's products.I'm halfway through the comments in here and I think I'm done reading.
It's like walking down the corridor of a mental asylum- paranoia, delusions of grandeur, dogmatism, and the guy bashing his head into the wall.
Yeah, brother, you show apple who's boss by buying a Palm instead of an iPhone!
Yeah! Ok now let's see how well iPhones work with Palm software...-b</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710225</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values</title>
	<author>amasiancrasian</author>
	<datestamp>1247661540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you in principle, but to play the devil's advocate, consider this: Apple doesn't want to support the Pre in iTunes because it sets a precedence that they have to support devices that Apple does not make or endorse (they do allow some non-Apple devices to sync with iTunes; I wonder what the disposition is of those devices with this update). They do a lot of dickish moves, such as charging their iPod Touch users $10 for updates, but, as in those updates, there may be a legitimate reason why they should try to thwart attempts to support it.</p><p>Again, I'm not saying that what they did is right, but there is definitely room for a legitimate claim for them removing Palm Pre syncing ability since it never claimed to support it in the beginning (as the Pre is masquerading as a traditional iPod). Furthermore, purchased iTunes music are now DRM-free and the argument is that Palm should develop its own syncing software to transport the music to the device instead of piggybacking on the iTunes facilities.</p><p>Of course, I feel that Apple would be better served by creating an iTunes SDK, but it's their software and there are lots of different software and services available, including Amazon. Palm might have been better served by forming an alliance with Amazon and developing a client jointly with them. Now it leaves them in a precarious situation with many users wondering why their syncing no longer works.</p><p>It also sets a scary precedent that non-Apple hardware will not be supported on different parts of the OS X operating system. Mind you, I'm a Mac user, but I feel truly uneasy about this precedence. There may be legitimacy to removing support, but it also sets the precedence that Apple can remove support for competing hardware products in various components of the Apple operating system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you in principle , but to play the devil 's advocate , consider this : Apple does n't want to support the Pre in iTunes because it sets a precedence that they have to support devices that Apple does not make or endorse ( they do allow some non-Apple devices to sync with iTunes ; I wonder what the disposition is of those devices with this update ) .
They do a lot of dickish moves , such as charging their iPod Touch users $ 10 for updates , but , as in those updates , there may be a legitimate reason why they should try to thwart attempts to support it.Again , I 'm not saying that what they did is right , but there is definitely room for a legitimate claim for them removing Palm Pre syncing ability since it never claimed to support it in the beginning ( as the Pre is masquerading as a traditional iPod ) .
Furthermore , purchased iTunes music are now DRM-free and the argument is that Palm should develop its own syncing software to transport the music to the device instead of piggybacking on the iTunes facilities.Of course , I feel that Apple would be better served by creating an iTunes SDK , but it 's their software and there are lots of different software and services available , including Amazon .
Palm might have been better served by forming an alliance with Amazon and developing a client jointly with them .
Now it leaves them in a precarious situation with many users wondering why their syncing no longer works.It also sets a scary precedent that non-Apple hardware will not be supported on different parts of the OS X operating system .
Mind you , I 'm a Mac user , but I feel truly uneasy about this precedence .
There may be legitimacy to removing support , but it also sets the precedence that Apple can remove support for competing hardware products in various components of the Apple operating system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you in principle, but to play the devil's advocate, consider this: Apple doesn't want to support the Pre in iTunes because it sets a precedence that they have to support devices that Apple does not make or endorse (they do allow some non-Apple devices to sync with iTunes; I wonder what the disposition is of those devices with this update).
They do a lot of dickish moves, such as charging their iPod Touch users $10 for updates, but, as in those updates, there may be a legitimate reason why they should try to thwart attempts to support it.Again, I'm not saying that what they did is right, but there is definitely room for a legitimate claim for them removing Palm Pre syncing ability since it never claimed to support it in the beginning (as the Pre is masquerading as a traditional iPod).
Furthermore, purchased iTunes music are now DRM-free and the argument is that Palm should develop its own syncing software to transport the music to the device instead of piggybacking on the iTunes facilities.Of course, I feel that Apple would be better served by creating an iTunes SDK, but it's their software and there are lots of different software and services available, including Amazon.
Palm might have been better served by forming an alliance with Amazon and developing a client jointly with them.
Now it leaves them in a precarious situation with many users wondering why their syncing no longer works.It also sets a scary precedent that non-Apple hardware will not be supported on different parts of the OS X operating system.
Mind you, I'm a Mac user, but I feel truly uneasy about this precedence.
There may be legitimacy to removing support, but it also sets the precedence that Apple can remove support for competing hardware products in various components of the Apple operating system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712427</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>Xochil</author>
	<datestamp>1247678580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Poor quality? The Power Computing clones were far better in features, quality, and price than anything Apple was putting out at the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Poor quality ?
The Power Computing clones were far better in features , quality , and price than anything Apple was putting out at the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Poor quality?
The Power Computing clones were far better in features, quality, and price than anything Apple was putting out at the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28718043</id>
	<title>Apple does support third-party players</title>
	<author>ThrowAwaySociety</author>
	<datestamp>1247764020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple has no problem with third-party devices that connect to iTunes Just not ones that identify themselves as "iPods" and depend on iPod sync routine.</p><p><a href="http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2172" title="apple.com">http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2172</a> [apple.com]</p><p><a href="http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/ipod\_itunes/sansadevicesyncwithitunes.html" title="apple.com">http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/ipod\_itunes/sansadevicesyncwithitunes.html</a> [apple.com]</p><p><a href="http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/productivity\_tools/themissingsyncforblackberry.html" title="apple.com">http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/productivity\_tools/themissingsyncforblackberry.html</a> [apple.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple has no problem with third-party devices that connect to iTunes Just not ones that identify themselves as " iPods " and depend on iPod sync routine.http : //support.apple.com/kb/HT2172 [ apple.com ] http : //www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/ipod \ _itunes/sansadevicesyncwithitunes.html [ apple.com ] http : //www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/productivity \ _tools/themissingsyncforblackberry.html [ apple.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple has no problem with third-party devices that connect to iTunes Just not ones that identify themselves as "iPods" and depend on iPod sync routine.http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2172 [apple.com]http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/ipod\_itunes/sansadevicesyncwithitunes.html [apple.com]http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/productivity\_tools/themissingsyncforblackberry.html [apple.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709769</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247659020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Either you care enough to modify your behaviour, or you don't.</p></div></blockquote><p>I care, but I know that what I do won't make a difference.  The only libertarians I respect are the ones that acknowledge that we need improved means for private-sector collective bargaining.  Bonus pragmatism points for espousing a (strictly temporary) government role in the formation of said means.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Either you care enough to modify your behaviour , or you do n't.I care , but I know that what I do wo n't make a difference .
The only libertarians I respect are the ones that acknowledge that we need improved means for private-sector collective bargaining .
Bonus pragmatism points for espousing a ( strictly temporary ) government role in the formation of said means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either you care enough to modify your behaviour, or you don't.I care, but I know that what I do won't make a difference.
The only libertarians I respect are the ones that acknowledge that we need improved means for private-sector collective bargaining.
Bonus pragmatism points for espousing a (strictly temporary) government role in the formation of said means.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28716655</id>
	<title>Well most likely</title>
	<author>yabos</author>
	<datestamp>1247758860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Palm figured out how much it'll cost them to build their own syncing software that rivals iTunes and then realized "hey we have a bunch of former Apple engineers who know how iTunes works, let's just fake being an iPod and we don't have to do anything!!!".  <br> <br>No doubt it'll be easy for Palm to make a small change to make it work with latest iTunes again but it's still not a good way to go about syncing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Palm figured out how much it 'll cost them to build their own syncing software that rivals iTunes and then realized " hey we have a bunch of former Apple engineers who know how iTunes works , let 's just fake being an iPod and we do n't have to do anything ! ! ! " .
No doubt it 'll be easy for Palm to make a small change to make it work with latest iTunes again but it 's still not a good way to go about syncing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Palm figured out how much it'll cost them to build their own syncing software that rivals iTunes and then realized "hey we have a bunch of former Apple engineers who know how iTunes works, let's just fake being an iPod and we don't have to do anything!!!".
No doubt it'll be easy for Palm to make a small change to make it work with latest iTunes again but it's still not a good way to go about syncing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28716641</id>
	<title>I don't understand all the hoopla here...</title>
	<author>jskline</author>
	<datestamp>1247758800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fact is that I like Itunes a lot and have an iPOD. HOWEVER!!!!....</p><p>When I purchase from iTunes, I download it, burn it immediately to a CDROM, label it, catalog it, and also use Winamp to re-rip the CD back in; fully titled and all, and store it as a MP3 usable on any device.</p><p>Simple solution.  Now if Apple takes that feature away, bye bye Apple!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fact is that I like Itunes a lot and have an iPOD .
HOWEVER ! ! ! ! ....When I purchase from iTunes , I download it , burn it immediately to a CDROM , label it , catalog it , and also use Winamp to re-rip the CD back in ; fully titled and all , and store it as a MP3 usable on any device.Simple solution .
Now if Apple takes that feature away , bye bye Apple ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fact is that I like Itunes a lot and have an iPOD.
HOWEVER!!!!....When I purchase from iTunes, I download it, burn it immediately to a CDROM, label it, catalog it, and also use Winamp to re-rip the CD back in; fully titled and all, and store it as a MP3 usable on any device.Simple solution.
Now if Apple takes that feature away, bye bye Apple!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714703</id>
	<title>Who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247747100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as you wanks keep buying their shit and complaining about this and that, nothing will ever change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as you wanks keep buying their shit and complaining about this and that , nothing will ever change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as you wanks keep buying their shit and complaining about this and that, nothing will ever change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709581</id>
	<title>Re:Just deserts.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247658120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Microsoft put the work in, why should anyone else be able to run software on windows?</p><p>2. Meh, I don't own anything apple or palm, and I do prefer jsut using files. I just dislike idiocy (your post).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Microsoft put the work in , why should anyone else be able to run software on windows ? 2 .
Meh , I do n't own anything apple or palm , and I do prefer jsut using files .
I just dislike idiocy ( your post ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Microsoft put the work in, why should anyone else be able to run software on windows?2.
Meh, I don't own anything apple or palm, and I do prefer jsut using files.
I just dislike idiocy (your post).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714197</id>
	<title>Oh my...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247740440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My first response when I saw this was like "KHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNN!!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My first response when I saw this was like " KHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNN ! !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first response when I saw this was like "KHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNN!!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714273</id>
	<title>Re:Use doubleTwist instead.</title>
	<author>indiechild</author>
	<datestamp>1247741460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well said. The depths of Apple bashing are reaching ridiculous heights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well said .
The depths of Apple bashing are reaching ridiculous heights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well said.
The depths of Apple bashing are reaching ridiculous heights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711643</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247671320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Apple had an established method (i.e. "here's an API, go call it"), then it would be Palm's fault.  An XML file that only ever gets updated when the app feels like it (mostly, on quit) isn't useful.</p><p>As it is, there is no API, so when Palm does weird crap, it's Apple's fault.</p><p>The same applies to Windows and MS APIs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Apple had an established method ( i.e .
" here 's an API , go call it " ) , then it would be Palm 's fault .
An XML file that only ever gets updated when the app feels like it ( mostly , on quit ) is n't useful.As it is , there is no API , so when Palm does weird crap , it 's Apple 's fault.The same applies to Windows and MS APIs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Apple had an established method (i.e.
"here's an API, go call it"), then it would be Palm's fault.
An XML file that only ever gets updated when the app feels like it (mostly, on quit) isn't useful.As it is, there is no API, so when Palm does weird crap, it's Apple's fault.The same applies to Windows and MS APIs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715275</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247752020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's more about the perceived quality. I never owned a mac but still managed to freeze OS 9 the first time I used it. I had several ipods<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:</p><p>-color 60 GB ipod with the infamous skip bug and no gapless playing because of software limitations (gapless and skipless with rockbox). Man, I would have paid for a software upgrade on this one... yeah, even if it was only about bugfixes.</p><p>-160 GB classic with the strange and quite random file transfer bug and still the "reset your now playing playlist when plugged to a computer".</p><p>Yeah, I know, the other mp3 players are even worse than ipods, even the glorified Archos or iRiver ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's more about the perceived quality .
I never owned a mac but still managed to freeze OS 9 the first time I used it .
I had several ipods : -color 60 GB ipod with the infamous skip bug and no gapless playing because of software limitations ( gapless and skipless with rockbox ) .
Man , I would have paid for a software upgrade on this one... yeah , even if it was only about bugfixes.-160 GB classic with the strange and quite random file transfer bug and still the " reset your now playing playlist when plugged to a computer " .Yeah , I know , the other mp3 players are even worse than ipods , even the glorified Archos or iRiver ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's more about the perceived quality.
I never owned a mac but still managed to freeze OS 9 the first time I used it.
I had several ipods :-color 60 GB ipod with the infamous skip bug and no gapless playing because of software limitations (gapless and skipless with rockbox).
Man, I would have paid for a software upgrade on this one... yeah, even if it was only about bugfixes.-160 GB classic with the strange and quite random file transfer bug and still the "reset your now playing playlist when plugged to a computer".Yeah, I know, the other mp3 players are even worse than ipods, even the glorified Archos or iRiver ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711311</id>
	<title>Apple double standard - they do it themselves!</title>
	<author>Loldemort</author>
	<datestamp>1247668920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple distributes Safari, which on my PC identifies itself as "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/530.19.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.2 Safari/530.19.1", and actually gives you the option of pretending to be one of 26 different browsers. Under the circumstances, I think they've got a damned cheek trying to stop the Pre from working with iTunes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple distributes Safari , which on my PC identifies itself as " Mozilla/5.0 ( Windows ; U ; Windows NT 5.1 ; en-US ) AppleWebKit/530.19.2 ( KHTML , like Gecko ) Version/4.0.2 Safari/530.19.1 " , and actually gives you the option of pretending to be one of 26 different browsers .
Under the circumstances , I think they 've got a damned cheek trying to stop the Pre from working with iTunes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple distributes Safari, which on my PC identifies itself as "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/530.19.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.2 Safari/530.19.1", and actually gives you the option of pretending to be one of 26 different browsers.
Under the circumstances, I think they've got a damned cheek trying to stop the Pre from working with iTunes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28719781</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>Miszou72</author>
	<datestamp>1247770140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quicktime is the exact reason that I have a dedicated VirtualBox VM just for iTunes.</p><p>Sure, it's a little larger than a standard iTunes installation, takes longer to start and the virtual USB driver doesn't always work, but it's infinitely less painful than having Quicktime on my system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quicktime is the exact reason that I have a dedicated VirtualBox VM just for iTunes.Sure , it 's a little larger than a standard iTunes installation , takes longer to start and the virtual USB driver does n't always work , but it 's infinitely less painful than having Quicktime on my system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quicktime is the exact reason that I have a dedicated VirtualBox VM just for iTunes.Sure, it's a little larger than a standard iTunes installation, takes longer to start and the virtual USB driver doesn't always work, but it's infinitely less painful than having Quicktime on my system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715741</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713321</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247686800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bundliing hard- and software like winxp to dell or IE to windows can be illegal.</p><p>Apple has to learn this the hard way, I guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bundliing hard- and software like winxp to dell or IE to windows can be illegal.Apple has to learn this the hard way , I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bundliing hard- and software like winxp to dell or IE to windows can be illegal.Apple has to learn this the hard way, I guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714297</id>
	<title>Re:Who got a Pre thinking it'd always sync w/ iTun</title>
	<author>indiechild</author>
	<datestamp>1247741640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your entire case rests on a patently wrong assumption. You can use music downloaded off iTunes on your Pre or any other music device, since the files don't have any DRM. You don't need an iPod to make use of the iTunes music store.</p><p>I don't know what crackheads modded you +5 insightful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your entire case rests on a patently wrong assumption .
You can use music downloaded off iTunes on your Pre or any other music device , since the files do n't have any DRM .
You do n't need an iPod to make use of the iTunes music store.I do n't know what crackheads modded you + 5 insightful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your entire case rests on a patently wrong assumption.
You can use music downloaded off iTunes on your Pre or any other music device, since the files don't have any DRM.
You don't need an iPod to make use of the iTunes music store.I don't know what crackheads modded you +5 insightful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710709</id>
	<title>Underhanded vs underhanded</title>
	<author>Midnight Thunder</author>
	<datestamp>1247664300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Companies that actively thwart interoperability and promote lock-in are incompatible with the best interests of their own customers.</i></p><p>True, but in this case Apple never designed iTunes to support third-party players, so it was likely to break at some point. The underhanded thing is making it break on purpose, on the other hand Palm was also underhanded in pretending their device was an iPod. Maybe they just want Palm to actually ask (pay) to be able to inter operate with iTunes? Does anyone know whether Palm actually requested Apple to be able to inter operate with iTunes?</p><p>What I would love to see is a decent iTunes alternative that support stores other than iTunes and devices other than the iPod, simply so we can give Apple a run for their money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Companies that actively thwart interoperability and promote lock-in are incompatible with the best interests of their own customers.True , but in this case Apple never designed iTunes to support third-party players , so it was likely to break at some point .
The underhanded thing is making it break on purpose , on the other hand Palm was also underhanded in pretending their device was an iPod .
Maybe they just want Palm to actually ask ( pay ) to be able to inter operate with iTunes ?
Does anyone know whether Palm actually requested Apple to be able to inter operate with iTunes ? What I would love to see is a decent iTunes alternative that support stores other than iTunes and devices other than the iPod , simply so we can give Apple a run for their money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Companies that actively thwart interoperability and promote lock-in are incompatible with the best interests of their own customers.True, but in this case Apple never designed iTunes to support third-party players, so it was likely to break at some point.
The underhanded thing is making it break on purpose, on the other hand Palm was also underhanded in pretending their device was an iPod.
Maybe they just want Palm to actually ask (pay) to be able to inter operate with iTunes?
Does anyone know whether Palm actually requested Apple to be able to inter operate with iTunes?What I would love to see is a decent iTunes alternative that support stores other than iTunes and devices other than the iPod, simply so we can give Apple a run for their money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28720119</id>
	<title>What a bunch of crybabies!</title>
	<author>Pointy\_Hair</author>
	<datestamp>1247771460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to punch all the ones and zeroes onto a paper tape, tear it off with my teeth, and manually type it in on the tiny Palm keyboard. Apple schmapple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to punch all the ones and zeroes onto a paper tape , tear it off with my teeth , and manually type it in on the tiny Palm keyboard .
Apple schmapple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to punch all the ones and zeroes onto a paper tape, tear it off with my teeth, and manually type it in on the tiny Palm keyboard.
Apple schmapple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28716041</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>bufordt13</author>
	<datestamp>1247756100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple had no other business at the time except PCs if they had quit selling PCs they would have gone out of business.

Even as recently as a few years ago IBM was doing lots of business selling laptops. The thinkpad division that they sold off to Lenovo was bringing in close to $12 billion a year. Remember that even before the Thinkpad sale (2004) Lenovo had higher PC sales than Apple did.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple had no other business at the time except PCs if they had quit selling PCs they would have gone out of business .
Even as recently as a few years ago IBM was doing lots of business selling laptops .
The thinkpad division that they sold off to Lenovo was bringing in close to $ 12 billion a year .
Remember that even before the Thinkpad sale ( 2004 ) Lenovo had higher PC sales than Apple did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple had no other business at the time except PCs if they had quit selling PCs they would have gone out of business.
Even as recently as a few years ago IBM was doing lots of business selling laptops.
The thinkpad division that they sold off to Lenovo was bringing in close to $12 billion a year.
Remember that even before the Thinkpad sale (2004) Lenovo had higher PC sales than Apple did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714725</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714813</id>
	<title>Apple ... the new Microsoft</title>
	<author>jbssm</author>
	<datestamp>1247748720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, doesn't this resemble in some way the IE problem with windows?<p>
In fact it looks even worst, Windows didn't forbid you to install a new browser, Apple is simply blocking the synchronization with the Palm based on what graounds exactly?</p><p>
And also today, on a side story, Apple lawyers told Microsoft to stop their Laptop hunters adds<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... err, hasn't Apple been doing that for the past 3 years or so? This is completly stupid.
I think in a pair of years it will be time for the EU to impose some sanctions on Apple like it did to Microsoft, it's time someone puts them in their place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , does n't this resemble in some way the IE problem with windows ?
In fact it looks even worst , Windows did n't forbid you to install a new browser , Apple is simply blocking the synchronization with the Palm based on what graounds exactly ?
And also today , on a side story , Apple lawyers told Microsoft to stop their Laptop hunters adds ... err , has n't Apple been doing that for the past 3 years or so ?
This is completly stupid .
I think in a pair of years it will be time for the EU to impose some sanctions on Apple like it did to Microsoft , it 's time someone puts them in their place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, doesn't this resemble in some way the IE problem with windows?
In fact it looks even worst, Windows didn't forbid you to install a new browser, Apple is simply blocking the synchronization with the Palm based on what graounds exactly?
And also today, on a side story, Apple lawyers told Microsoft to stop their Laptop hunters adds ... err, hasn't Apple been doing that for the past 3 years or so?
This is completly stupid.
I think in a pair of years it will be time for the EU to impose some sanctions on Apple like it did to Microsoft, it's time someone puts them in their place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712669</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products</title>
	<author>knightbg</author>
	<datestamp>1247680740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a load of shit.</p><p>If you happen to buy an mp3 player that isn't made by apple, not only does it not "just work" it doesn't work AT ALL and the reason is that Apple hath forbade it. People who want it to be easy and just work usually also don't want to have the technical knowledge to understand that; the fact that they mostly buy ipods and use itunes is a triumph of marketing and lockin, not successful interface design.</p><p>"Just works" is not incompatible with open standards; in fact, the 2 go hand in hand. Despite all of the complaints about web standards, the web and the internet in general are the single most successful example of "just works" device and software interoperability in the history of engineering, and it's all based on open standards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a load of shit.If you happen to buy an mp3 player that is n't made by apple , not only does it not " just work " it does n't work AT ALL and the reason is that Apple hath forbade it .
People who want it to be easy and just work usually also do n't want to have the technical knowledge to understand that ; the fact that they mostly buy ipods and use itunes is a triumph of marketing and lockin , not successful interface design .
" Just works " is not incompatible with open standards ; in fact , the 2 go hand in hand .
Despite all of the complaints about web standards , the web and the internet in general are the single most successful example of " just works " device and software interoperability in the history of engineering , and it 's all based on open standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a load of shit.If you happen to buy an mp3 player that isn't made by apple, not only does it not "just work" it doesn't work AT ALL and the reason is that Apple hath forbade it.
People who want it to be easy and just work usually also don't want to have the technical knowledge to understand that; the fact that they mostly buy ipods and use itunes is a triumph of marketing and lockin, not successful interface design.
"Just works" is not incompatible with open standards; in fact, the 2 go hand in hand.
Despite all of the complaints about web standards, the web and the internet in general are the single most successful example of "just works" device and software interoperability in the history of engineering, and it's all based on open standards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715967</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values</title>
	<author>Demonantis</author>
	<datestamp>1247755860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It kinda makes sense. Apple shouldn't have to support hardware they don't want to support. The testing and help support alone makes sense for them to block access for the Palm Pre. Not to mention they lose iphone sales.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It kinda makes sense .
Apple should n't have to support hardware they do n't want to support .
The testing and help support alone makes sense for them to block access for the Palm Pre .
Not to mention they lose iphone sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It kinda makes sense.
Apple shouldn't have to support hardware they don't want to support.
The testing and help support alone makes sense for them to block access for the Palm Pre.
Not to mention they lose iphone sales.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28716065</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247756220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They actually cannot make decent money being the #1 music site on the net. No one can. What Apple figured out is that you can use a break even business (iTunes) to protect a MASSIVELY profitable business in selling iPods.</p><p>The hardware sale is up front, massive profit. iTunes simply completes that offering. Letting someone else in is NOT what they want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They actually can not make decent money being the # 1 music site on the net .
No one can .
What Apple figured out is that you can use a break even business ( iTunes ) to protect a MASSIVELY profitable business in selling iPods.The hardware sale is up front , massive profit .
iTunes simply completes that offering .
Letting someone else in is NOT what they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They actually cannot make decent money being the #1 music site on the net.
No one can.
What Apple figured out is that you can use a break even business (iTunes) to protect a MASSIVELY profitable business in selling iPods.The hardware sale is up front, massive profit.
iTunes simply completes that offering.
Letting someone else in is NOT what they want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709543</id>
	<title>Just deserts.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247657940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And is anyone surprised ? Really ?
<br> <br>
It's Apple's tech, they put the work in, they deserve to reap the rewards. Coming along late-to-the-party and just trying to muscle your way in without an invite just shows a lack of class, at least IMHO.
<br> <br>
I can't see it really affecting anyone though. As any fule know, iTunes just sucks so badly at managing music that the alternative (what Pre owners are left with), the ability to "just drag files to it as a disk" ought to be a liberating breath of fresh air - at least going by<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. comments in the past. Wonder how that'll work out in practice ? Guess we'll see<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
<br> <br>
Simon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And is anyone surprised ?
Really ?
It 's Apple 's tech , they put the work in , they deserve to reap the rewards .
Coming along late-to-the-party and just trying to muscle your way in without an invite just shows a lack of class , at least IMHO .
I ca n't see it really affecting anyone though .
As any fule know , iTunes just sucks so badly at managing music that the alternative ( what Pre owners are left with ) , the ability to " just drag files to it as a disk " ought to be a liberating breath of fresh air - at least going by / .
comments in the past .
Wonder how that 'll work out in practice ?
Guess we 'll see : ) Simon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And is anyone surprised ?
Really ?
It's Apple's tech, they put the work in, they deserve to reap the rewards.
Coming along late-to-the-party and just trying to muscle your way in without an invite just shows a lack of class, at least IMHO.
I can't see it really affecting anyone though.
As any fule know, iTunes just sucks so badly at managing music that the alternative (what Pre owners are left with), the ability to "just drag files to it as a disk" ought to be a liberating breath of fresh air - at least going by /.
comments in the past.
Wonder how that'll work out in practice ?
Guess we'll see :)
 
Simon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715613</id>
	<title>Re:Songbird is the answer</title>
	<author>nametaken</author>
	<datestamp>1247754180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a fantastic idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a fantastic idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a fantastic idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709801</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28743845</id>
	<title>They didn't have to do this to sync with iTunes.</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1247915280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Palm had the best handheld sync software I've ever used. I've used Hotsync, Activesync, iSync, and Missing Sync, and Hotsync is the only one that:</p><p>* Never lost data.<br>* Never duplicated data.<br>* Allowed me to sync with as many computers as I wanted.</p><p>Palm needs to bring back Hotsync, and use the standard iTunes API to access playlists and tracks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Palm had the best handheld sync software I 've ever used .
I 've used Hotsync , Activesync , iSync , and Missing Sync , and Hotsync is the only one that : * Never lost data .
* Never duplicated data .
* Allowed me to sync with as many computers as I wanted.Palm needs to bring back Hotsync , and use the standard iTunes API to access playlists and tracks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Palm had the best handheld sync software I've ever used.
I've used Hotsync, Activesync, iSync, and Missing Sync, and Hotsync is the only one that:* Never lost data.
* Never duplicated data.
* Allowed me to sync with as many computers as I wanted.Palm needs to bring back Hotsync, and use the standard iTunes API to access playlists and tracks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711609</id>
	<title>Re:Who got a Pre thinking it'd always sync w/ iTun</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247671080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Then Apple came along and blew the whole mobile device market away with the iPhone</i></p><p>Really? So why is the blackberry curve outselling the iphone in North America?</p><p>The iphone, sad to say, is more of the same from the cell phone market. A shiny, limited functionality device, locked down, limited control by the user and maximum control by the vendor.</p><p>By comparison, Blackberry and some others are very, very open. Lots of documentation, APIs, and you don't need permission from Big Brother Apple to sell your applications. And if I want pr0n on my phone, nobody stops me.</p><p>Oh, incidentally, Blackberries <a href="http://na.blackberry.com/eng/services/media/mediasync.jsp" title="blackberry.com" rel="nofollow">can sync with itunes</a> [blackberry.com]. They've been doing this for a few years without a peep from Apple, so presumably it's licensed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then Apple came along and blew the whole mobile device market away with the iPhoneReally ?
So why is the blackberry curve outselling the iphone in North America ? The iphone , sad to say , is more of the same from the cell phone market .
A shiny , limited functionality device , locked down , limited control by the user and maximum control by the vendor.By comparison , Blackberry and some others are very , very open .
Lots of documentation , APIs , and you do n't need permission from Big Brother Apple to sell your applications .
And if I want pr0n on my phone , nobody stops me.Oh , incidentally , Blackberries can sync with itunes [ blackberry.com ] .
They 've been doing this for a few years without a peep from Apple , so presumably it 's licensed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then Apple came along and blew the whole mobile device market away with the iPhoneReally?
So why is the blackberry curve outselling the iphone in North America?The iphone, sad to say, is more of the same from the cell phone market.
A shiny, limited functionality device, locked down, limited control by the user and maximum control by the vendor.By comparison, Blackberry and some others are very, very open.
Lots of documentation, APIs, and you don't need permission from Big Brother Apple to sell your applications.
And if I want pr0n on my phone, nobody stops me.Oh, incidentally, Blackberries can sync with itunes [blackberry.com].
They've been doing this for a few years without a peep from Apple, so presumably it's licensed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207</id>
	<title>Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247661480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hardware company and not like a software company.  Clones aren't necessarily bad as long as they can build superior devices (or have the image for it) and where they would still make money on every sale.  They could make decent money being the #1 music site on the web.  So what the device isn't an iPod?</p><p>I wonder how many people care about iTunes connectivity when they buy an mp3 player?  Is it a requirement or afterthought?  If it becomes a requirement, that would promote more lock-in for Apple than sabotaging their software against other devices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hardware company and not like a software company .
Clones are n't necessarily bad as long as they can build superior devices ( or have the image for it ) and where they would still make money on every sale .
They could make decent money being the # 1 music site on the web .
So what the device is n't an iPod ? I wonder how many people care about iTunes connectivity when they buy an mp3 player ?
Is it a requirement or afterthought ?
If it becomes a requirement , that would promote more lock-in for Apple than sabotaging their software against other devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hardware company and not like a software company.
Clones aren't necessarily bad as long as they can build superior devices (or have the image for it) and where they would still make money on every sale.
They could make decent money being the #1 music site on the web.
So what the device isn't an iPod?I wonder how many people care about iTunes connectivity when they buy an mp3 player?
Is it a requirement or afterthought?
If it becomes a requirement, that would promote more lock-in for Apple than sabotaging their software against other devices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28719167</id>
	<title>Re:Who got a Pre thinking it'd always sync w/ iTun</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247768040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Palm, RIM, Nokia, Samsung, Sony--all the handset makers, not to mention the telecoms who still continue to nickel-and-dime consumers with exorbitant rates on SMS (for no other reason except that they can), are not, and never were, your friends just because now they're the underdogs."</p><p>RIM has &gt; 55\% of the smartphone market. It is by far the dominant player, with Apple owning less than 20\%. RIM is NOT an underdog.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Palm , RIM , Nokia , Samsung , Sony--all the handset makers , not to mention the telecoms who still continue to nickel-and-dime consumers with exorbitant rates on SMS ( for no other reason except that they can ) , are not , and never were , your friends just because now they 're the underdogs .
" RIM has &gt; 55 \ % of the smartphone market .
It is by far the dominant player , with Apple owning less than 20 \ % .
RIM is NOT an underdog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Palm, RIM, Nokia, Samsung, Sony--all the handset makers, not to mention the telecoms who still continue to nickel-and-dime consumers with exorbitant rates on SMS (for no other reason except that they can), are not, and never were, your friends just because now they're the underdogs.
"RIM has &gt; 55\% of the smartphone market.
It is by far the dominant player, with Apple owning less than 20\%.
RIM is NOT an underdog.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712193</id>
	<title>Damned if they do, damned if they don't</title>
	<author>hamburgler007</author>
	<datestamp>1247675820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is almost a no win situation for apple.  If they allow the pre to sync up with iTunes, every time Apple needs to release an update that might potentially break the compatibility with the Pre they have to worry about how much shit they are going to get over it.  Don't allow it, and this happens.
<br>
I really don't have a problem with this.  Apple may be the most popular and recognized, but they are far from being a monopoly.  There are still plenty of sites where you can purchase music, or download music for free (legally).  You can still convert your existing cd's into mp3s, or purchase the cd and convert it.  You can go to any number of websites or brick and mortar stores that sell music players and find a huge selection of mp3 players cheaper than the iPod, players that have larger capacities or more desirable features.  And you can still purchase any number of cell phones that can play mp3's just fine and offer downloadable applications.
<br>
With any company that enjoys such success there is a threat they can be headed towards being a monopoly.  However Apple is still in a highly competitive market for something that is a commodity.  And they got to where they are by being innovative and producing a quality product.  It's not fair to be so liberal with the monopoly label to a company that has earned their success, and it sends the message that if you are the best at what you do you may end up with legal problems for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is almost a no win situation for apple .
If they allow the pre to sync up with iTunes , every time Apple needs to release an update that might potentially break the compatibility with the Pre they have to worry about how much shit they are going to get over it .
Do n't allow it , and this happens .
I really do n't have a problem with this .
Apple may be the most popular and recognized , but they are far from being a monopoly .
There are still plenty of sites where you can purchase music , or download music for free ( legally ) .
You can still convert your existing cd 's into mp3s , or purchase the cd and convert it .
You can go to any number of websites or brick and mortar stores that sell music players and find a huge selection of mp3 players cheaper than the iPod , players that have larger capacities or more desirable features .
And you can still purchase any number of cell phones that can play mp3 's just fine and offer downloadable applications .
With any company that enjoys such success there is a threat they can be headed towards being a monopoly .
However Apple is still in a highly competitive market for something that is a commodity .
And they got to where they are by being innovative and producing a quality product .
It 's not fair to be so liberal with the monopoly label to a company that has earned their success , and it sends the message that if you are the best at what you do you may end up with legal problems for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is almost a no win situation for apple.
If they allow the pre to sync up with iTunes, every time Apple needs to release an update that might potentially break the compatibility with the Pre they have to worry about how much shit they are going to get over it.
Don't allow it, and this happens.
I really don't have a problem with this.
Apple may be the most popular and recognized, but they are far from being a monopoly.
There are still plenty of sites where you can purchase music, or download music for free (legally).
You can still convert your existing cd's into mp3s, or purchase the cd and convert it.
You can go to any number of websites or brick and mortar stores that sell music players and find a huge selection of mp3 players cheaper than the iPod, players that have larger capacities or more desirable features.
And you can still purchase any number of cell phones that can play mp3's just fine and offer downloadable applications.
With any company that enjoys such success there is a threat they can be headed towards being a monopoly.
However Apple is still in a highly competitive market for something that is a commodity.
And they got to where they are by being innovative and producing a quality product.
It's not fair to be so liberal with the monopoly label to a company that has earned their success, and it sends the message that if you are the best at what you do you may end up with legal problems for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710805</id>
	<title>Re:Songbird is the answer</title>
	<author>vanyel</author>
	<datestamp>1247664900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like who couldn't see this coming the minute the feature was announced, though it's just one more reason to ignore the iphone.  Unfortunately, the pre would be a downgrade from my Treo 650 as well, but going with an open standard when you're behind the curve is just good sense and the only way you can even think about coming out ahead...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like who could n't see this coming the minute the feature was announced , though it 's just one more reason to ignore the iphone .
Unfortunately , the pre would be a downgrade from my Treo 650 as well , but going with an open standard when you 're behind the curve is just good sense and the only way you can even think about coming out ahead.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like who couldn't see this coming the minute the feature was announced, though it's just one more reason to ignore the iphone.
Unfortunately, the pre would be a downgrade from my Treo 650 as well, but going with an open standard when you're behind the curve is just good sense and the only way you can even think about coming out ahead...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709801</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711445</id>
	<title>The Real Concern</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247669820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the Palm Pre can fake being an iPod, then so can some cheap Chinese pirate device with fake Apple branding.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the Palm Pre can fake being an iPod , then so can some cheap Chinese pirate device with fake Apple branding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the Palm Pre can fake being an iPod, then so can some cheap Chinese pirate device with fake Apple branding.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713353</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247687340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Do you think it would be in the interest of Apple's customers if Apple were instead to shu down the iTunes Music<br>&gt; Store, because the margins on that aren't high enough, a</p><p>This is nonsense. How can the margins go down if there are more customers using itunes store?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Do you think it would be in the interest of Apple 's customers if Apple were instead to shu down the iTunes Music &gt; Store , because the margins on that are n't high enough , aThis is nonsense .
How can the margins go down if there are more customers using itunes store ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Do you think it would be in the interest of Apple's customers if Apple were instead to shu down the iTunes Music&gt; Store, because the margins on that aren't high enough, aThis is nonsense.
How can the margins go down if there are more customers using itunes store?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710725</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711469</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values</title>
	<author>jbn-o</author>
	<datestamp>1247670060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Shame on you, Apple. Have you gotten so big that you've forgotten what it was like to be under Microsoft's thumb?</p></div></blockquote><p>Not at all.  But all proprietors see things this way.  That's why their stuff is proprietary in the first place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Shame on you , Apple .
Have you gotten so big that you 've forgotten what it was like to be under Microsoft 's thumb ? Not at all .
But all proprietors see things this way .
That 's why their stuff is proprietary in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shame on you, Apple.
Have you gotten so big that you've forgotten what it was like to be under Microsoft's thumb?Not at all.
But all proprietors see things this way.
That's why their stuff is proprietary in the first place.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712361</id>
	<title>Yeah...</title>
	<author>uvajed\_ekil</author>
	<datestamp>1247677860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...like we need more reasons NOT to use itunes and Apple's music store.

I almost bought a Pre last month, but the saleman couldn't answer any of my questions and kept babbling incoherently about multitasking and itunes, which I cared little about. So I gave up on Sprint and the Pre (still almost got a Treo Pro - would have if it didn't run WinMo), gave away my broken but beloved Treo 650, dumped AT&amp;T, and got a nice new G1 for under $100. T-Mobile seems fine around here (no 3G in the area), and the G1 does everything I want it to, including accept and play my music files on my terms. The Pre, as a new entry and without the benefit of the Apple hype/fanboy machine, needs to beat the iphone on price, and the Sprint sales weenies need to know what they are selling. Some of us know how good the Palm hardware and software can be, but I doubt they're winning over the average person who might buy an iphone because it acts as a music player.

Unrelated: did previous iphones really NOT have the ability to cut and paste?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...like we need more reasons NOT to use itunes and Apple 's music store .
I almost bought a Pre last month , but the saleman could n't answer any of my questions and kept babbling incoherently about multitasking and itunes , which I cared little about .
So I gave up on Sprint and the Pre ( still almost got a Treo Pro - would have if it did n't run WinMo ) , gave away my broken but beloved Treo 650 , dumped AT&amp;T , and got a nice new G1 for under $ 100 .
T-Mobile seems fine around here ( no 3G in the area ) , and the G1 does everything I want it to , including accept and play my music files on my terms .
The Pre , as a new entry and without the benefit of the Apple hype/fanboy machine , needs to beat the iphone on price , and the Sprint sales weenies need to know what they are selling .
Some of us know how good the Palm hardware and software can be , but I doubt they 're winning over the average person who might buy an iphone because it acts as a music player .
Unrelated : did previous iphones really NOT have the ability to cut and paste ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...like we need more reasons NOT to use itunes and Apple's music store.
I almost bought a Pre last month, but the saleman couldn't answer any of my questions and kept babbling incoherently about multitasking and itunes, which I cared little about.
So I gave up on Sprint and the Pre (still almost got a Treo Pro - would have if it didn't run WinMo), gave away my broken but beloved Treo 650, dumped AT&amp;T, and got a nice new G1 for under $100.
T-Mobile seems fine around here (no 3G in the area), and the G1 does everything I want it to, including accept and play my music files on my terms.
The Pre, as a new entry and without the benefit of the Apple hype/fanboy machine, needs to beat the iphone on price, and the Sprint sales weenies need to know what they are selling.
Some of us know how good the Palm hardware and software can be, but I doubt they're winning over the average person who might buy an iphone because it acts as a music player.
Unrelated: did previous iphones really NOT have the ability to cut and paste?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711197</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is just Microsoft wannabe.</title>
	<author>smash</author>
	<datestamp>1247667960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Which is why they contribute to webkit, have one of the only standards-compliant browsers, have an open-sourced core of their OS, promote use of open source development/admin tools and contribute to many other open source projects.  They even have plenty of documentation on cross-platform development, between OS/X, unix and windows...
</p><p>
This is likely more about their contractual obligations to copyright holders than anything else.  If they can't control the devices accessing their store, they have no hope of controlling where content is authorised to be played.  Which no doubt is one of the few reasons itunes has been a success with various record labels...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is why they contribute to webkit , have one of the only standards-compliant browsers , have an open-sourced core of their OS , promote use of open source development/admin tools and contribute to many other open source projects .
They even have plenty of documentation on cross-platform development , between OS/X , unix and windows.. . This is likely more about their contractual obligations to copyright holders than anything else .
If they ca n't control the devices accessing their store , they have no hope of controlling where content is authorised to be played .
Which no doubt is one of the few reasons itunes has been a success with various record labels.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Which is why they contribute to webkit, have one of the only standards-compliant browsers, have an open-sourced core of their OS, promote use of open source development/admin tools and contribute to many other open source projects.
They even have plenty of documentation on cross-platform development, between OS/X, unix and windows...

This is likely more about their contractual obligations to copyright holders than anything else.
If they can't control the devices accessing their store, they have no hope of controlling where content is authorised to be played.
Which no doubt is one of the few reasons itunes has been a success with various record labels...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709487</id>
	<title>How it went down:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247657760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Palm: "Oh no you didn't!"<br> <br>

Apple: "Oh yes iDid."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Palm : " Oh no you did n't !
" Apple : " Oh yes iDid .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Palm: "Oh no you didn't!
" 

Apple: "Oh yes iDid.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710055</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values</title>
	<author>samkass</author>
	<datestamp>1247660580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the Pre had used established methods (ie. writing software to parse the iTunes XML catalog and syncing with the files on the HD) you'd have a point.  However, the Pre was tricking iTunes into identifying it to the customer as an iPod.  Ignoring trademark violations, that seems like it could be harmful and confusing to Apple customers less technically inclined than yourself.  In any case it's really hard to argue that Apple shouldn't have its software identify hardware correctly or not at all.</p><p>I have little sympathy for Palm here, and by extension the customers they duped.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the Pre had used established methods ( ie .
writing software to parse the iTunes XML catalog and syncing with the files on the HD ) you 'd have a point .
However , the Pre was tricking iTunes into identifying it to the customer as an iPod .
Ignoring trademark violations , that seems like it could be harmful and confusing to Apple customers less technically inclined than yourself .
In any case it 's really hard to argue that Apple should n't have its software identify hardware correctly or not at all.I have little sympathy for Palm here , and by extension the customers they duped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the Pre had used established methods (ie.
writing software to parse the iTunes XML catalog and syncing with the files on the HD) you'd have a point.
However, the Pre was tricking iTunes into identifying it to the customer as an iPod.
Ignoring trademark violations, that seems like it could be harmful and confusing to Apple customers less technically inclined than yourself.
In any case it's really hard to argue that Apple shouldn't have its software identify hardware correctly or not at all.I have little sympathy for Palm here, and by extension the customers they duped.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712923</id>
	<title>apple pwns you</title>
	<author>virtualflesh</author>
	<datestamp>1247683020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>iPhone users now have a lifestyle dictated by a company. Shame on you for letting a company own you. suckers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>iPhone users now have a lifestyle dictated by a company .
Shame on you for letting a company own you .
suckers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>iPhone users now have a lifestyle dictated by a company.
Shame on you for letting a company own you.
suckers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715645</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>MoldySpore</author>
	<datestamp>1247754360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The "secret ingredient" you speak of is actually the White Gloss that goes on most of their products that makes Soccer Moms and Rich College Students go "Oooooooooooooooh! So Pretty!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " secret ingredient " you speak of is actually the White Gloss that goes on most of their products that makes Soccer Moms and Rich College Students go " Oooooooooooooooh !
So Pretty !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "secret ingredient" you speak of is actually the White Gloss that goes on most of their products that makes Soccer Moms and Rich College Students go "Oooooooooooooooh!
So Pretty!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28737505</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247842380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know, right? It's like all those lame-ass software vendors like WordPerfect and Lotus who couldn't see that at some point Microsoft would manipulate Windows to work seamlessly with Office after a Windows upgrade, but magically other apps wouldn't. I feel nothing for those losers. ON WITH THE JUGGERNAUTS!! Of course, by that same token, Apple can't cry foul when Windows 7 prevents horseshit like Safari from running. SUCK IT UP, Apple you dirty bitch!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know , right ?
It 's like all those lame-ass software vendors like WordPerfect and Lotus who could n't see that at some point Microsoft would manipulate Windows to work seamlessly with Office after a Windows upgrade , but magically other apps would n't .
I feel nothing for those losers .
ON WITH THE JUGGERNAUTS ! !
Of course , by that same token , Apple ca n't cry foul when Windows 7 prevents horseshit like Safari from running .
SUCK IT UP , Apple you dirty bitch ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know, right?
It's like all those lame-ass software vendors like WordPerfect and Lotus who couldn't see that at some point Microsoft would manipulate Windows to work seamlessly with Office after a Windows upgrade, but magically other apps wouldn't.
I feel nothing for those losers.
ON WITH THE JUGGERNAUTS!!
Of course, by that same token, Apple can't cry foul when Windows 7 prevents horseshit like Safari from running.
SUCK IT UP, Apple you dirty bitch!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711639</id>
	<title>Re:Who got a Pre thinking it'd always sync w/ iTun</title>
	<author>demachina</author>
	<datestamp>1247671260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Wikipedia is correct Apple had 88\% of the U.S. download market in 2006 and it passed Walmart as the #1 all around music sales leader in 2008.  iTunes is a defacto monopoly now and Apple better start treading more carefully.  Using tie ins to build new monopolies, which seems to be what they are doing here, is especially dangerous.  An antitrust regulator might be inclined to say Apple's defacto monopoly on online music sales is giving them an unfair advantage in other markets, in this case the smartphone market.  If a competitor can't bring a new smartphone to market because they can't access online music because of a monopoly Apple is begging for an antitrust complaint.</p><p>You can argue competitors just have to start their own competing MP3 service but that is a very tall order, especially since it requires inking deals with a relatively small number of recording companies that are something of cartel themselves.  They are already distributing their product through iTunes and may or may not give a competing MP3 services the same terms, or may not deal with them at all which would make the iTunes monopoly very pronounced and entrenched.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Wikipedia is correct Apple had 88 \ % of the U.S. download market in 2006 and it passed Walmart as the # 1 all around music sales leader in 2008. iTunes is a defacto monopoly now and Apple better start treading more carefully .
Using tie ins to build new monopolies , which seems to be what they are doing here , is especially dangerous .
An antitrust regulator might be inclined to say Apple 's defacto monopoly on online music sales is giving them an unfair advantage in other markets , in this case the smartphone market .
If a competitor ca n't bring a new smartphone to market because they ca n't access online music because of a monopoly Apple is begging for an antitrust complaint.You can argue competitors just have to start their own competing MP3 service but that is a very tall order , especially since it requires inking deals with a relatively small number of recording companies that are something of cartel themselves .
They are already distributing their product through iTunes and may or may not give a competing MP3 services the same terms , or may not deal with them at all which would make the iTunes monopoly very pronounced and entrenched .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Wikipedia is correct Apple had 88\% of the U.S. download market in 2006 and it passed Walmart as the #1 all around music sales leader in 2008.  iTunes is a defacto monopoly now and Apple better start treading more carefully.
Using tie ins to build new monopolies, which seems to be what they are doing here, is especially dangerous.
An antitrust regulator might be inclined to say Apple's defacto monopoly on online music sales is giving them an unfair advantage in other markets, in this case the smartphone market.
If a competitor can't bring a new smartphone to market because they can't access online music because of a monopoly Apple is begging for an antitrust complaint.You can argue competitors just have to start their own competing MP3 service but that is a very tall order, especially since it requires inking deals with a relatively small number of recording companies that are something of cartel themselves.
They are already distributing their product through iTunes and may or may not give a competing MP3 services the same terms, or may not deal with them at all which would make the iTunes monopoly very pronounced and entrenched.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28716457</id>
	<title>Songbird + Amazon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247758080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazon should put some development time in songbird, position it as the open alternative that syncs with most devices including Ipods and has an easy intuitive interface for purchasing music.  Run an ad campaign show people plugging non-Ipods into Itunes and being disappointed that it doesn't work, then show them happy buying music through Amazon and using songbird.</p><p>Profit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon should put some development time in songbird , position it as the open alternative that syncs with most devices including Ipods and has an easy intuitive interface for purchasing music .
Run an ad campaign show people plugging non-Ipods into Itunes and being disappointed that it does n't work , then show them happy buying music through Amazon and using songbird.Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon should put some development time in songbird, position it as the open alternative that syncs with most devices including Ipods and has an easy intuitive interface for purchasing music.
Run an ad campaign show people plugging non-Ipods into Itunes and being disappointed that it doesn't work, then show them happy buying music through Amazon and using songbird.Profit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711715</id>
	<title>Re:Antitrust?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247671740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah!!! Or maybe, Palm is trying to live of somebody else's expense, rather than desiginng an application/music store themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah ! ! !
Or maybe , Palm is trying to live of somebody else 's expense , rather than desiginng an application/music store themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah!!!
Or maybe, Palm is trying to live of somebody else's expense, rather than desiginng an application/music store themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713043</id>
	<title>Jon : Steve = 0 : 3</title>
	<author>Stan Vassilev</author>
	<datestamp>1247684160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not particularly surprised at what Apple's doing with Palm, but rather surprised that the top people at Palm believe they stand a chance. Integration is Apple's bread and butter, and Apple would rather burn in flames than let that advantage be lost (again).<br> <br>

Jon Rubinstein, COO of Palm, and former Apple iPod VC, has an axe to grind with Apple and Steve Jobs in particular. So what he thought he'd do is join Palm and begin series of unpolished and, frankly, strange attempts to copy Apple's act, including the way they design and market devices, the way they build their presentations, and also co-opting selectively parts of their ecosystem (iTunes sync) without any standing agreement between both companies.<br> <br>

It's a pity for the engineering and design talent behind Palm's Pre, that their top product is being reduced to an iPhone knock-off, because someone high up has scores to set straight. Hopefully, they'll realize that differentiating and creating your niche is the winning strategy, and not cheap attempts at copying and one-upping the market leader.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not particularly surprised at what Apple 's doing with Palm , but rather surprised that the top people at Palm believe they stand a chance .
Integration is Apple 's bread and butter , and Apple would rather burn in flames than let that advantage be lost ( again ) .
Jon Rubinstein , COO of Palm , and former Apple iPod VC , has an axe to grind with Apple and Steve Jobs in particular .
So what he thought he 'd do is join Palm and begin series of unpolished and , frankly , strange attempts to copy Apple 's act , including the way they design and market devices , the way they build their presentations , and also co-opting selectively parts of their ecosystem ( iTunes sync ) without any standing agreement between both companies .
It 's a pity for the engineering and design talent behind Palm 's Pre , that their top product is being reduced to an iPhone knock-off , because someone high up has scores to set straight .
Hopefully , they 'll realize that differentiating and creating your niche is the winning strategy , and not cheap attempts at copying and one-upping the market leader .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not particularly surprised at what Apple's doing with Palm, but rather surprised that the top people at Palm believe they stand a chance.
Integration is Apple's bread and butter, and Apple would rather burn in flames than let that advantage be lost (again).
Jon Rubinstein, COO of Palm, and former Apple iPod VC, has an axe to grind with Apple and Steve Jobs in particular.
So what he thought he'd do is join Palm and begin series of unpolished and, frankly, strange attempts to copy Apple's act, including the way they design and market devices, the way they build their presentations, and also co-opting selectively parts of their ecosystem (iTunes sync) without any standing agreement between both companies.
It's a pity for the engineering and design talent behind Palm's Pre, that their top product is being reduced to an iPhone knock-off, because someone high up has scores to set straight.
Hopefully, they'll realize that differentiating and creating your niche is the winning strategy, and not cheap attempts at copying and one-upping the market leader.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712179</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247675700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The Pre pretending to be an iPhone when connecting to iTunes is similar to Psystar making PCs think they're Macs.</i></p><p>Well, it may seem similar, but Pystar was clearly violating Apple's license that only allows Apple's operating system on Apple hardware.</p><p>I don't know of anywhere in the iTunes license that prohibits downloading songs to non-Apple hardware, like the Palm Pre. Perhaps Apple will change that in their next update to iTunes.</p><p>Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Pre pretending to be an iPhone when connecting to iTunes is similar to Psystar making PCs think they 're Macs.Well , it may seem similar , but Pystar was clearly violating Apple 's license that only allows Apple 's operating system on Apple hardware.I do n't know of anywhere in the iTunes license that prohibits downloading songs to non-Apple hardware , like the Palm Pre .
Perhaps Apple will change that in their next update to iTunes.Someone please correct me if I 'm wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Pre pretending to be an iPhone when connecting to iTunes is similar to Psystar making PCs think they're Macs.Well, it may seem similar, but Pystar was clearly violating Apple's license that only allows Apple's operating system on Apple hardware.I don't know of anywhere in the iTunes license that prohibits downloading songs to non-Apple hardware, like the Palm Pre.
Perhaps Apple will change that in their next update to iTunes.Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28716217</id>
	<title>What a crock</title>
	<author>yabos</author>
	<datestamp>1247756820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Palm was the one who hacked their way into using iTunes.  THEY are the ones who are making users lives harder.  Apple said right off the bat that they don't guarantee that the Pre would always work with iTunes.  If they want something like iTunes for the Pre then why don't they just write it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Palm was the one who hacked their way into using iTunes .
THEY are the ones who are making users lives harder .
Apple said right off the bat that they do n't guarantee that the Pre would always work with iTunes .
If they want something like iTunes for the Pre then why do n't they just write it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Palm was the one who hacked their way into using iTunes.
THEY are the ones who are making users lives harder.
Apple said right off the bat that they don't guarantee that the Pre would always work with iTunes.
If they want something like iTunes for the Pre then why don't they just write it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715095</id>
	<title>yes, I avoid it.... (iTunes that is)</title>
	<author>Brit\_in\_the\_USA</author>
	<datestamp>1247751060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wonder how many people care about iTunes connectivity when they buy an mp3 player? Is it a requirement or afterthought?I wonder how many people care about iTunes connectivity when they buy an mp3 player? Is it a requirement or afterthought?I wonder how many people care about iTunes connectivity when they buy an mp3 player? Is it a requirement or afterthought?</p></div><p>
It is a requirement for me that any mp3 player I buy for my own use does not mandate iTunes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how many people care about iTunes connectivity when they buy an mp3 player ?
Is it a requirement or afterthought ? I wonder how many people care about iTunes connectivity when they buy an mp3 player ?
Is it a requirement or afterthought ? I wonder how many people care about iTunes connectivity when they buy an mp3 player ?
Is it a requirement or afterthought ?
It is a requirement for me that any mp3 player I buy for my own use does not mandate iTunes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how many people care about iTunes connectivity when they buy an mp3 player?
Is it a requirement or afterthought?I wonder how many people care about iTunes connectivity when they buy an mp3 player?
Is it a requirement or afterthought?I wonder how many people care about iTunes connectivity when they buy an mp3 player?
Is it a requirement or afterthought?
It is a requirement for me that any mp3 player I buy for my own use does not mandate iTunes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28716973</id>
	<title>Meh.</title>
	<author>SCHecklerX</author>
	<datestamp>1247759880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what.  If I were to buy a pre, that wouldn't be a feature I cared about anyway.  Just like RIM's push towards the music in their advertising right now.  I really don't care about that, and it's not why I bought my curve.  Stupid feature war over things most people don't use anyway.  For my own example, I wish RIM would focus on their messaging and gps stuff, since it's very good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what .
If I were to buy a pre , that would n't be a feature I cared about anyway .
Just like RIM 's push towards the music in their advertising right now .
I really do n't care about that , and it 's not why I bought my curve .
Stupid feature war over things most people do n't use anyway .
For my own example , I wish RIM would focus on their messaging and gps stuff , since it 's very good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what.
If I were to buy a pre, that wouldn't be a feature I cared about anyway.
Just like RIM's push towards the music in their advertising right now.
I really don't care about that, and it's not why I bought my curve.
Stupid feature war over things most people don't use anyway.
For my own example, I wish RIM would focus on their messaging and gps stuff, since it's very good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709991</id>
	<title>Interoperability? Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247660280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're a heavy DRM'd iTunes buyer, I can see the interoperability concern. But who here buys DRM'd music? And if you remove DRM from the equation, this seems less about interoperability and more about Palm's desire to hop a ride on Apple's software development train. I mean, Palm could just spend their own resources to create a detailed sync system to allow transfer of non-DRM'd files via full sync or drag and drop -- you know, like Apple did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're a heavy DRM 'd iTunes buyer , I can see the interoperability concern .
But who here buys DRM 'd music ?
And if you remove DRM from the equation , this seems less about interoperability and more about Palm 's desire to hop a ride on Apple 's software development train .
I mean , Palm could just spend their own resources to create a detailed sync system to allow transfer of non-DRM 'd files via full sync or drag and drop -- you know , like Apple did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're a heavy DRM'd iTunes buyer, I can see the interoperability concern.
But who here buys DRM'd music?
And if you remove DRM from the equation, this seems less about interoperability and more about Palm's desire to hop a ride on Apple's software development train.
I mean, Palm could just spend their own resources to create a detailed sync system to allow transfer of non-DRM'd files via full sync or drag and drop -- you know, like Apple did.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709689</id>
	<title>Ahh the wonders of closed protocols...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247658600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm glad I've got my Ogg Vorbis player that uses UMS to communicate with the computer.... It works on any computer, be it BSD, Mac, Windows, or Linux with no trouble whatsoever.</p><p>Then again, I guess I'm neither trendy, nor cool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad I 've got my Ogg Vorbis player that uses UMS to communicate with the computer.... It works on any computer , be it BSD , Mac , Windows , or Linux with no trouble whatsoever.Then again , I guess I 'm neither trendy , nor cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad I've got my Ogg Vorbis player that uses UMS to communicate with the computer.... It works on any computer, be it BSD, Mac, Windows, or Linux with no trouble whatsoever.Then again, I guess I'm neither trendy, nor cool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712585</id>
	<title>going about it the wrong way</title>
	<author>grrrl</author>
	<datestamp>1247680260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems to me as though Palm simply went about this the wrong way. Instead of working WITH Apple (and no doubt paying them wads of cash) to get the Pre into the iTunes fold as a supported device they just messed around and made a hack, then were so obnoxious as to advertise it as a FEATURE.</p><p>Now, maybe you think there is no way in hell that Apple would ever let iTunes support the Pre officially, given the existence of the iPhone, but I doubt Palm even tried that route. I would have though getting Pre owners to use iTunes would be one more step to getting them to buy iPods (and then iPhones instead) which would be advantageous to Apple, as well as selling more Macbooks to owners of phones like Pre since they wouldn't have to use whatever (presumably windows only) syncing program came with the Pre instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me as though Palm simply went about this the wrong way .
Instead of working WITH Apple ( and no doubt paying them wads of cash ) to get the Pre into the iTunes fold as a supported device they just messed around and made a hack , then were so obnoxious as to advertise it as a FEATURE.Now , maybe you think there is no way in hell that Apple would ever let iTunes support the Pre officially , given the existence of the iPhone , but I doubt Palm even tried that route .
I would have though getting Pre owners to use iTunes would be one more step to getting them to buy iPods ( and then iPhones instead ) which would be advantageous to Apple , as well as selling more Macbooks to owners of phones like Pre since they would n't have to use whatever ( presumably windows only ) syncing program came with the Pre instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me as though Palm simply went about this the wrong way.
Instead of working WITH Apple (and no doubt paying them wads of cash) to get the Pre into the iTunes fold as a supported device they just messed around and made a hack, then were so obnoxious as to advertise it as a FEATURE.Now, maybe you think there is no way in hell that Apple would ever let iTunes support the Pre officially, given the existence of the iPhone, but I doubt Palm even tried that route.
I would have though getting Pre owners to use iTunes would be one more step to getting them to buy iPods (and then iPhones instead) which would be advantageous to Apple, as well as selling more Macbooks to owners of phones like Pre since they wouldn't have to use whatever (presumably windows only) syncing program came with the Pre instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712871</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1247682540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So I find it ironic that, as a MacBook Pro user, Apple has explicitly done something to make my experience *worse*. They went much further than simply failing to "provide support for, or test for compatibility with, non-Apple digital media players." They went out of their way to harm users.</p></div><p>But you're not a "customer" when you're using the Palm Pre rather than an iPhone. Also, a customer might blame Apple for a problem that is actually caused by Palm, if they allow syncing and it doesn't work properly. Safer not to allow it at all, than do Palm's user support for them, and get the bad image anyway.</p><p>Apple might not be doing the nicest thing in the world here, but it's really Palm that should take the blame. It was Palm that decided to build their system around a competing company's software product, without permission. Of course Palm knew that Apple was going to do this - they basically sold their customers a product based on a lie.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I find it ironic that , as a MacBook Pro user , Apple has explicitly done something to make my experience * worse * .
They went much further than simply failing to " provide support for , or test for compatibility with , non-Apple digital media players .
" They went out of their way to harm users.But you 're not a " customer " when you 're using the Palm Pre rather than an iPhone .
Also , a customer might blame Apple for a problem that is actually caused by Palm , if they allow syncing and it does n't work properly .
Safer not to allow it at all , than do Palm 's user support for them , and get the bad image anyway.Apple might not be doing the nicest thing in the world here , but it 's really Palm that should take the blame .
It was Palm that decided to build their system around a competing company 's software product , without permission .
Of course Palm knew that Apple was going to do this - they basically sold their customers a product based on a lie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I find it ironic that, as a MacBook Pro user, Apple has explicitly done something to make my experience *worse*.
They went much further than simply failing to "provide support for, or test for compatibility with, non-Apple digital media players.
" They went out of their way to harm users.But you're not a "customer" when you're using the Palm Pre rather than an iPhone.
Also, a customer might blame Apple for a problem that is actually caused by Palm, if they allow syncing and it doesn't work properly.
Safer not to allow it at all, than do Palm's user support for them, and get the bad image anyway.Apple might not be doing the nicest thing in the world here, but it's really Palm that should take the blame.
It was Palm that decided to build their system around a competing company's software product, without permission.
Of course Palm knew that Apple was going to do this - they basically sold their customers a product based on a lie.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711483</id>
	<title>Apple love is blind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247670180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is with you Apple users? Apple pulls the same kind of stunt that Microsoft's been doing for years, and Apple is in the right?</p><p>Or another theoretical scenario:</p><p>Microsoft cures cancer = bad!<br>Apple rapes baby seals = fantastic!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is with you Apple users ?
Apple pulls the same kind of stunt that Microsoft 's been doing for years , and Apple is in the right ? Or another theoretical scenario : Microsoft cures cancer = bad ! Apple rapes baby seals = fantastic !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is with you Apple users?
Apple pulls the same kind of stunt that Microsoft's been doing for years, and Apple is in the right?Or another theoretical scenario:Microsoft cures cancer = bad!Apple rapes baby seals = fantastic!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709789</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247659140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Companies that actively thwart interoperability and promote lock-in are incompatible with the best interests of their own customers.</p><p>I don't care how pretty Apple's products are. If you own an iPhone, a Mac, or use iTunes, you are supporting this kind of corporate behaviour. Either you care enough to modify your behaviour, or you don't.</p><p>Give your dollars to companies that are demonstrably "less bad" whenever possible. Accept that you'll have to go without some of the bling until the market catches up.</p></div><p>Yes, but Apple is a hardware company.  iTunes and OSX exist to promote the hardware so why should it work with anything else.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Companies that actively thwart interoperability and promote lock-in are incompatible with the best interests of their own customers.I do n't care how pretty Apple 's products are .
If you own an iPhone , a Mac , or use iTunes , you are supporting this kind of corporate behaviour .
Either you care enough to modify your behaviour , or you do n't.Give your dollars to companies that are demonstrably " less bad " whenever possible .
Accept that you 'll have to go without some of the bling until the market catches up.Yes , but Apple is a hardware company .
iTunes and OSX exist to promote the hardware so why should it work with anything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Companies that actively thwart interoperability and promote lock-in are incompatible with the best interests of their own customers.I don't care how pretty Apple's products are.
If you own an iPhone, a Mac, or use iTunes, you are supporting this kind of corporate behaviour.
Either you care enough to modify your behaviour, or you don't.Give your dollars to companies that are demonstrably "less bad" whenever possible.
Accept that you'll have to go without some of the bling until the market catches up.Yes, but Apple is a hardware company.
iTunes and OSX exist to promote the hardware so why should it work with anything else.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28738403</id>
	<title>As a Mac/iTunes user with a new Palm Pre...</title>
	<author>Tokerat</author>
	<datestamp>1247853660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...all I have to say is System Preferences-&gt;Software Update-&gt;Check Now, then File-&gt;Ignore Updates-&gt;iTunes. I'll stick with 8.2 until it works again. If it never works again then I sure hope there are no major vulnerabilities in iTunes 8.2.</p><p>Sad thing is, one of the reasons I went with the Pre over the iPhone 3GS is because I hate AT&amp;T (from some crap they pulled when they where still Cingular).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...all I have to say is System Preferences- &gt; Software Update- &gt; Check Now , then File- &gt; Ignore Updates- &gt; iTunes .
I 'll stick with 8.2 until it works again .
If it never works again then I sure hope there are no major vulnerabilities in iTunes 8.2.Sad thing is , one of the reasons I went with the Pre over the iPhone 3GS is because I hate AT&amp;T ( from some crap they pulled when they where still Cingular ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...all I have to say is System Preferences-&gt;Software Update-&gt;Check Now, then File-&gt;Ignore Updates-&gt;iTunes.
I'll stick with 8.2 until it works again.
If it never works again then I sure hope there are no major vulnerabilities in iTunes 8.2.Sad thing is, one of the reasons I went with the Pre over the iPhone 3GS is because I hate AT&amp;T (from some crap they pulled when they where still Cingular).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711493</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values</title>
	<author>R3d M3rcury</author>
	<datestamp>1247670240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>iTunes is not a product in its own right, it's a part of the iTunes/iPod ecosystem of products, and as such, there will never be a wall erected between iPod and iTunes business units.</p></div><p>Huh?</p><p>I can freely download iTunes on Windows and buy music from Apple and listen to it on my Windows PC.  No Apple hardware required.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>iTunes is not a product in its own right , it 's a part of the iTunes/iPod ecosystem of products , and as such , there will never be a wall erected between iPod and iTunes business units.Huh ? I can freely download iTunes on Windows and buy music from Apple and listen to it on my Windows PC .
No Apple hardware required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>iTunes is not a product in its own right, it's a part of the iTunes/iPod ecosystem of products, and as such, there will never be a wall erected between iPod and iTunes business units.Huh?I can freely download iTunes on Windows and buy music from Apple and listen to it on my Windows PC.
No Apple hardware required.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713743</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>JPeMu</author>
	<datestamp>1247777640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I care greatly about iTunes when considering an MP3 player - if iTunes is a pre-requisite, it's not the device for me!<br> <br>
I make no apology for not wanting a music player/downloader whose setup file alone is in excess of 70 MiB, nor do I make apology for not wanting to have to run rings around myself to purchase MP3 music without DRM encumberance at a fair price.<br> <br>
The straw that breaks the camel's back, however, is the issue of interconnectivity - Choose an Apple device because you want to sync to iTunes? Now you can't easily (yes, I know it can be done, it's just not as simple as it ought to be) transfer those tracks from the iPod back into a "conventional" player, not to mention the awful renaming, filing and other unhelpful ways the tracks are transmogrified by iTunes. Buy your tracks on iTunes? Now you can't easily sync them with A.N.Other-Device.<br> <br>
The arrogance of Apple here is staggering. Yes, you can buy your music from us.... but we'll tell you how to play it. Yes, you can buy our player.... but we'll decide what you can do with it. And regardless of whether you buy player or music.... you'll have to install our crapware on your computer, whether you like it or not! Totally unacceptable, and one of the driving reasons why I <b>won't</b> buy an iPod or iPhone (although for the iPhone, there's many far more pressing reasons why not!), and why I <b>won't</b> be herded/goaded into buying my music tracks from iTunes - I'll always choose a service that allows purchase of plain-old-MP3s at a fair price without the need for many megabytes of bloatware, and without feeling like I must buy a single brand of player on which to play <b>standard</b> files.<br> <br>If that music isn't available elsewhere, then I won't be buying it, plain and simple.<br> <br>DT.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I care greatly about iTunes when considering an MP3 player - if iTunes is a pre-requisite , it 's not the device for me !
I make no apology for not wanting a music player/downloader whose setup file alone is in excess of 70 MiB , nor do I make apology for not wanting to have to run rings around myself to purchase MP3 music without DRM encumberance at a fair price .
The straw that breaks the camel 's back , however , is the issue of interconnectivity - Choose an Apple device because you want to sync to iTunes ?
Now you ca n't easily ( yes , I know it can be done , it 's just not as simple as it ought to be ) transfer those tracks from the iPod back into a " conventional " player , not to mention the awful renaming , filing and other unhelpful ways the tracks are transmogrified by iTunes .
Buy your tracks on iTunes ?
Now you ca n't easily sync them with A.N.Other-Device .
The arrogance of Apple here is staggering .
Yes , you can buy your music from us.... but we 'll tell you how to play it .
Yes , you can buy our player.... but we 'll decide what you can do with it .
And regardless of whether you buy player or music.... you 'll have to install our crapware on your computer , whether you like it or not !
Totally unacceptable , and one of the driving reasons why I wo n't buy an iPod or iPhone ( although for the iPhone , there 's many far more pressing reasons why not !
) , and why I wo n't be herded/goaded into buying my music tracks from iTunes - I 'll always choose a service that allows purchase of plain-old-MP3s at a fair price without the need for many megabytes of bloatware , and without feeling like I must buy a single brand of player on which to play standard files .
If that music is n't available elsewhere , then I wo n't be buying it , plain and simple .
DT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I care greatly about iTunes when considering an MP3 player - if iTunes is a pre-requisite, it's not the device for me!
I make no apology for not wanting a music player/downloader whose setup file alone is in excess of 70 MiB, nor do I make apology for not wanting to have to run rings around myself to purchase MP3 music without DRM encumberance at a fair price.
The straw that breaks the camel's back, however, is the issue of interconnectivity - Choose an Apple device because you want to sync to iTunes?
Now you can't easily (yes, I know it can be done, it's just not as simple as it ought to be) transfer those tracks from the iPod back into a "conventional" player, not to mention the awful renaming, filing and other unhelpful ways the tracks are transmogrified by iTunes.
Buy your tracks on iTunes?
Now you can't easily sync them with A.N.Other-Device.
The arrogance of Apple here is staggering.
Yes, you can buy your music from us.... but we'll tell you how to play it.
Yes, you can buy our player.... but we'll decide what you can do with it.
And regardless of whether you buy player or music.... you'll have to install our crapware on your computer, whether you like it or not!
Totally unacceptable, and one of the driving reasons why I won't buy an iPod or iPhone (although for the iPhone, there's many far more pressing reasons why not!
), and why I won't be herded/goaded into buying my music tracks from iTunes - I'll always choose a service that allows purchase of plain-old-MP3s at a fair price without the need for many megabytes of bloatware, and without feeling like I must buy a single brand of player on which to play standard files.
If that music isn't available elsewhere, then I won't be buying it, plain and simple.
DT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710253</id>
	<title>Who got a Pre thinking it'd always sync w/ iTunes?</title>
	<author>wickerprints</author>
	<datestamp>1247661780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously think about this for a minute.  You've got a device manufacturer that creates a direct competitor to Apple's products, openly advertising that they are piggybacking onto Apple's software functionality without negotiating some kind of licensing agreement and without Apple's consent.  Then Apple closes the loophole that enables this unsupported functionality.  But nobody wants to blame poor underdog Palm for having done this in the first place.  Your average consumer, who either is too ignorant or too self-centered to think two steps ahead, buys into the advertised functionality and then blames Apple when they decide to break it?</p><p>That's not how the game is played, folks.  If Palm wants to compete, then let them create their own service and interface rather than leveraging another company's successful work.  You say that's unfair because Apple has created a heavily lopsided playing field, and now it's impossible to compete with the massive popularity of iTunes.  But you have to ask yourself, where were these same competitors five years ago?  What where they doing?  They were twiddling their thumbs and milking the consumer for all they were worth while making incremental improvements in their devices.  Then Apple came along and blew the whole mobile device market away with the iPhone and NOW they want to complain about the playing field not being level?  Fuck that bullshit.</p><p>Make no mistake, I don't particularly approve that Apple did what they did, but if you bought a Palm Pre and couldn't see this coming you are not only blind but you're an idiot.  Palm, RIM, Nokia, Samsung, Sony--all the handset makers, not to mention the telecoms who still continue to nickel-and-dime consumers with exorbitant rates on SMS (for no other reason except that they can), are not, and never were, your friends just because now they're the underdogs.  Same thing with the MP3 player market.  These companies want you to think that slapping on features like they were afterthoughts is "technological progress."  They never had the vision to rethink the whole device and the whole user experience from the bottom up.  And now people have the balls to complain that Apple is a monopoly because they gave you real competition?  Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously think about this for a minute .
You 've got a device manufacturer that creates a direct competitor to Apple 's products , openly advertising that they are piggybacking onto Apple 's software functionality without negotiating some kind of licensing agreement and without Apple 's consent .
Then Apple closes the loophole that enables this unsupported functionality .
But nobody wants to blame poor underdog Palm for having done this in the first place .
Your average consumer , who either is too ignorant or too self-centered to think two steps ahead , buys into the advertised functionality and then blames Apple when they decide to break it ? That 's not how the game is played , folks .
If Palm wants to compete , then let them create their own service and interface rather than leveraging another company 's successful work .
You say that 's unfair because Apple has created a heavily lopsided playing field , and now it 's impossible to compete with the massive popularity of iTunes .
But you have to ask yourself , where were these same competitors five years ago ?
What where they doing ?
They were twiddling their thumbs and milking the consumer for all they were worth while making incremental improvements in their devices .
Then Apple came along and blew the whole mobile device market away with the iPhone and NOW they want to complain about the playing field not being level ?
Fuck that bullshit.Make no mistake , I do n't particularly approve that Apple did what they did , but if you bought a Palm Pre and could n't see this coming you are not only blind but you 're an idiot .
Palm , RIM , Nokia , Samsung , Sony--all the handset makers , not to mention the telecoms who still continue to nickel-and-dime consumers with exorbitant rates on SMS ( for no other reason except that they can ) , are not , and never were , your friends just because now they 're the underdogs .
Same thing with the MP3 player market .
These companies want you to think that slapping on features like they were afterthoughts is " technological progress .
" They never had the vision to rethink the whole device and the whole user experience from the bottom up .
And now people have the balls to complain that Apple is a monopoly because they gave you real competition ?
Talk about biting the hand that feeds you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously think about this for a minute.
You've got a device manufacturer that creates a direct competitor to Apple's products, openly advertising that they are piggybacking onto Apple's software functionality without negotiating some kind of licensing agreement and without Apple's consent.
Then Apple closes the loophole that enables this unsupported functionality.
But nobody wants to blame poor underdog Palm for having done this in the first place.
Your average consumer, who either is too ignorant or too self-centered to think two steps ahead, buys into the advertised functionality and then blames Apple when they decide to break it?That's not how the game is played, folks.
If Palm wants to compete, then let them create their own service and interface rather than leveraging another company's successful work.
You say that's unfair because Apple has created a heavily lopsided playing field, and now it's impossible to compete with the massive popularity of iTunes.
But you have to ask yourself, where were these same competitors five years ago?
What where they doing?
They were twiddling their thumbs and milking the consumer for all they were worth while making incremental improvements in their devices.
Then Apple came along and blew the whole mobile device market away with the iPhone and NOW they want to complain about the playing field not being level?
Fuck that bullshit.Make no mistake, I don't particularly approve that Apple did what they did, but if you bought a Palm Pre and couldn't see this coming you are not only blind but you're an idiot.
Palm, RIM, Nokia, Samsung, Sony--all the handset makers, not to mention the telecoms who still continue to nickel-and-dime consumers with exorbitant rates on SMS (for no other reason except that they can), are not, and never were, your friends just because now they're the underdogs.
Same thing with the MP3 player market.
These companies want you to think that slapping on features like they were afterthoughts is "technological progress.
"  They never had the vision to rethink the whole device and the whole user experience from the bottom up.
And now people have the balls to complain that Apple is a monopoly because they gave you real competition?
Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28718073</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247764140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, they sell a closed system.  Thankfully there are very few companies left who still do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , they sell a closed system .
Thankfully there are very few companies left who still do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, they sell a closed system.
Thankfully there are very few companies left who still do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710185</id>
	<title>I doubt this will stop Palm for long.</title>
	<author>Dogun</author>
	<datestamp>1247661360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple is entering a losing battle with this change.  Next up, I imagine either:<br>a) firmware update on the Palm Pre that more thoroughly disguises the way the device advertises itself<br>b) app you can run from your Palm Pre that shims iTunes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is entering a losing battle with this change .
Next up , I imagine either : a ) firmware update on the Palm Pre that more thoroughly disguises the way the device advertises itselfb ) app you can run from your Palm Pre that shims iTunes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is entering a losing battle with this change.
Next up, I imagine either:a) firmware update on the Palm Pre that more thoroughly disguises the way the device advertises itselfb) app you can run from your Palm Pre that shims iTunes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714489</id>
	<title>Re:Is A Company *Required* To Support A Competitor</title>
	<author>tiggertaebo</author>
	<datestamp>1247744040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only if your company is Microsoft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only if your company is Microsoft : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only if your company is Microsoft :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711755</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>sglewis100</author>
	<datestamp>1247671980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>hardware company and not like a software company. Clones aren't necessarily bad as long as they can build superior devices (or have the image for it) and where they would still make money on every sale. They could make decent money being the #1 music site on the web. So what the device isn't an iPod?</p></div><p>Surprised? I mean, since Jobs came back and... umm... killed off the Mac clones, are you really surprised that they don't want clones? Besides, you can still use iTunes to buy music for your Pre phone, Windows Mobile phone and even your ass (well ok, not your ass, but the other two), you just can't use iTunes to sync.</p><p>

And no, they can't make decent money being the #1 music site on the web. The margins on their hardware dwarf that, and they use music to sell iPods, not iPods to sell music. </p><p>

And so what if the device isn't an iPod? Apple wants to sell iPods, iPhones, AppleTVs and oh yeah Macs too. That's the things they want market share in. The other stuff helps drive that. Yeah, they make a ton of money on the App Store, but the App Store exists to make you want an iPhone. Yeah, they probably turn a decent profit on music sales, but that exists to make you want an iPhone. Yeah, it's nice that they sell iLife every year for $100, but it really exists to help sell Macs, which is why the current version always comes free with any new Mac purchase.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>hardware company and not like a software company .
Clones are n't necessarily bad as long as they can build superior devices ( or have the image for it ) and where they would still make money on every sale .
They could make decent money being the # 1 music site on the web .
So what the device is n't an iPod ? Surprised ?
I mean , since Jobs came back and... umm... killed off the Mac clones , are you really surprised that they do n't want clones ?
Besides , you can still use iTunes to buy music for your Pre phone , Windows Mobile phone and even your ass ( well ok , not your ass , but the other two ) , you just ca n't use iTunes to sync .
And no , they ca n't make decent money being the # 1 music site on the web .
The margins on their hardware dwarf that , and they use music to sell iPods , not iPods to sell music .
And so what if the device is n't an iPod ?
Apple wants to sell iPods , iPhones , AppleTVs and oh yeah Macs too .
That 's the things they want market share in .
The other stuff helps drive that .
Yeah , they make a ton of money on the App Store , but the App Store exists to make you want an iPhone .
Yeah , they probably turn a decent profit on music sales , but that exists to make you want an iPhone .
Yeah , it 's nice that they sell iLife every year for $ 100 , but it really exists to help sell Macs , which is why the current version always comes free with any new Mac purchase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hardware company and not like a software company.
Clones aren't necessarily bad as long as they can build superior devices (or have the image for it) and where they would still make money on every sale.
They could make decent money being the #1 music site on the web.
So what the device isn't an iPod?Surprised?
I mean, since Jobs came back and... umm... killed off the Mac clones, are you really surprised that they don't want clones?
Besides, you can still use iTunes to buy music for your Pre phone, Windows Mobile phone and even your ass (well ok, not your ass, but the other two), you just can't use iTunes to sync.
And no, they can't make decent money being the #1 music site on the web.
The margins on their hardware dwarf that, and they use music to sell iPods, not iPods to sell music.
And so what if the device isn't an iPod?
Apple wants to sell iPods, iPhones, AppleTVs and oh yeah Macs too.
That's the things they want market share in.
The other stuff helps drive that.
Yeah, they make a ton of money on the App Store, but the App Store exists to make you want an iPhone.
Yeah, they probably turn a decent profit on music sales, but that exists to make you want an iPhone.
Yeah, it's nice that they sell iLife every year for $100, but it really exists to help sell Macs, which is why the current version always comes free with any new Mac purchase.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713867</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247736300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess everyone must have seen this coming.<br>
My two cents:  Apple, as a general principle, aren't going to be too happy with third-aparty devices that sync as seamlessly as an iPod/iPhone to itunes, as it erodes one of USPs of the iPod and means that you can get the same experience by buying a non-Apple music player.  This implies less hardware sales for Apple.<br>
From Palm's point of view, I think this is a shot-across-the-bows.  Both from an anticompetitive point of view - it'd be easy for Apple to be mired in some antitrust allegations, which they obviously don't want, and also Palm hold a shedload of patents that may or may not be able to similarly tie up Apple in legal knots for quite some time.  To be fair, Apple also own a lot of patents in this space, but the thing you realise if you talk to an IP lawyer is that getting into this sort of dick-swinging match is mutually assured destruction.<br>
I think Palm are banking that they could persuade Apple to quietly ignore this feature for fear of the backlash if they blocked it, and it's not paid off.  I also think that the fact they did it, regardless of the obvious risk that this might happen, probably doesn't hurt their image as a slightly cooler, more enthusiast-friendly platform.  We're talking about it and saying "Go Palm!", aren't we?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess everyone must have seen this coming .
My two cents : Apple , as a general principle , are n't going to be too happy with third-aparty devices that sync as seamlessly as an iPod/iPhone to itunes , as it erodes one of USPs of the iPod and means that you can get the same experience by buying a non-Apple music player .
This implies less hardware sales for Apple .
From Palm 's point of view , I think this is a shot-across-the-bows .
Both from an anticompetitive point of view - it 'd be easy for Apple to be mired in some antitrust allegations , which they obviously do n't want , and also Palm hold a shedload of patents that may or may not be able to similarly tie up Apple in legal knots for quite some time .
To be fair , Apple also own a lot of patents in this space , but the thing you realise if you talk to an IP lawyer is that getting into this sort of dick-swinging match is mutually assured destruction .
I think Palm are banking that they could persuade Apple to quietly ignore this feature for fear of the backlash if they blocked it , and it 's not paid off .
I also think that the fact they did it , regardless of the obvious risk that this might happen , probably does n't hurt their image as a slightly cooler , more enthusiast-friendly platform .
We 're talking about it and saying " Go Palm !
" , are n't we ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess everyone must have seen this coming.
My two cents:  Apple, as a general principle, aren't going to be too happy with third-aparty devices that sync as seamlessly as an iPod/iPhone to itunes, as it erodes one of USPs of the iPod and means that you can get the same experience by buying a non-Apple music player.
This implies less hardware sales for Apple.
From Palm's point of view, I think this is a shot-across-the-bows.
Both from an anticompetitive point of view - it'd be easy for Apple to be mired in some antitrust allegations, which they obviously don't want, and also Palm hold a shedload of patents that may or may not be able to similarly tie up Apple in legal knots for quite some time.
To be fair, Apple also own a lot of patents in this space, but the thing you realise if you talk to an IP lawyer is that getting into this sort of dick-swinging match is mutually assured destruction.
I think Palm are banking that they could persuade Apple to quietly ignore this feature for fear of the backlash if they blocked it, and it's not paid off.
I also think that the fact they did it, regardless of the obvious risk that this might happen, probably doesn't hurt their image as a slightly cooler, more enthusiast-friendly platform.
We're talking about it and saying "Go Palm!
", aren't we?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710715</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1247664300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Clones are what nearly bankrupted Apple back during the 90s. Admittedly the clones were of poor quality, but they just about did the company in. While Steve did do more than just kill off the agreement under which the clones were being made, it did put Apple a fair ways back towards prosperity.<br> <br>

So it's more than a little understandable that they'd be clone shy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clones are what nearly bankrupted Apple back during the 90s .
Admittedly the clones were of poor quality , but they just about did the company in .
While Steve did do more than just kill off the agreement under which the clones were being made , it did put Apple a fair ways back towards prosperity .
So it 's more than a little understandable that they 'd be clone shy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clones are what nearly bankrupted Apple back during the 90s.
Admittedly the clones were of poor quality, but they just about did the company in.
While Steve did do more than just kill off the agreement under which the clones were being made, it did put Apple a fair ways back towards prosperity.
So it's more than a little understandable that they'd be clone shy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710341</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1247662140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Apple has explicitly done something to make my experience *worse*. They went much further than simply failing to "provide support for, or test for compatibility with, non-Apple digital media players." They went out of their way to harm users.</p></div><p>I'm usually a fan of Apple, but I have to agree that this seems like a bad move.  What is really gained by purposefully breaking compatibility?  I can understand not supporting alternatives, but going out of their way just to break existing compatibility seems petty.  It's the sort of thing where I wonder if the increased lock-in is worth the associated bad PR.
</p><p>If they're concerned about customer experience, then fine, fix it so iTunes recognizes that it's not an iPod, and throw up a warning the first time it syncs saying, "Warning: this is not really an iPod.  We don't support this.  Proceed at your own risk."  Otherwise, provide an open spec and let other manufacturers use it.  If the iPhone is really the best smartphone, then why fear the Pre?
</p><p>On the other hand, I expected that sooner or later they'd change something and it would break interoperability with the Pre, even if inadvertently.  I can't imagine that Palm didn't see it coming.  Why didn't they just come up with a better solution from the start?  If they're in favor of openness, why not throw their weight behind <a href="http://getsongbird.com/" title="getsongbird.com">an open alternative to iTunes</a> [getsongbird.com]?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple has explicitly done something to make my experience * worse * .
They went much further than simply failing to " provide support for , or test for compatibility with , non-Apple digital media players .
" They went out of their way to harm users.I 'm usually a fan of Apple , but I have to agree that this seems like a bad move .
What is really gained by purposefully breaking compatibility ?
I can understand not supporting alternatives , but going out of their way just to break existing compatibility seems petty .
It 's the sort of thing where I wonder if the increased lock-in is worth the associated bad PR .
If they 're concerned about customer experience , then fine , fix it so iTunes recognizes that it 's not an iPod , and throw up a warning the first time it syncs saying , " Warning : this is not really an iPod .
We do n't support this .
Proceed at your own risk .
" Otherwise , provide an open spec and let other manufacturers use it .
If the iPhone is really the best smartphone , then why fear the Pre ?
On the other hand , I expected that sooner or later they 'd change something and it would break interoperability with the Pre , even if inadvertently .
I ca n't imagine that Palm did n't see it coming .
Why did n't they just come up with a better solution from the start ?
If they 're in favor of openness , why not throw their weight behind an open alternative to iTunes [ getsongbird.com ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Apple has explicitly done something to make my experience *worse*.
They went much further than simply failing to "provide support for, or test for compatibility with, non-Apple digital media players.
" They went out of their way to harm users.I'm usually a fan of Apple, but I have to agree that this seems like a bad move.
What is really gained by purposefully breaking compatibility?
I can understand not supporting alternatives, but going out of their way just to break existing compatibility seems petty.
It's the sort of thing where I wonder if the increased lock-in is worth the associated bad PR.
If they're concerned about customer experience, then fine, fix it so iTunes recognizes that it's not an iPod, and throw up a warning the first time it syncs saying, "Warning: this is not really an iPod.
We don't support this.
Proceed at your own risk.
"  Otherwise, provide an open spec and let other manufacturers use it.
If the iPhone is really the best smartphone, then why fear the Pre?
On the other hand, I expected that sooner or later they'd change something and it would break interoperability with the Pre, even if inadvertently.
I can't imagine that Palm didn't see it coming.
Why didn't they just come up with a better solution from the start?
If they're in favor of openness, why not throw their weight behind an open alternative to iTunes [getsongbird.com]?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713309</id>
	<title>Re:Use doubleTwist instead.</title>
	<author>k8to</author>
	<datestamp>1247686620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's paraphrase your worldview here.</p><p>"Interoperability doesn't matter when competition is involved."</p><p>If you really believe this, then you deserve the results of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's paraphrase your worldview here .
" Interoperability does n't matter when competition is involved .
" If you really believe this , then you deserve the results of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's paraphrase your worldview here.
"Interoperability doesn't matter when competition is involved.
"If you really believe this, then you deserve the results of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709963</id>
	<title>Might be a silly question, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247660160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't Palm supply software to sync the Pre with a Mac?  If not, it sounds like a failing with Palm, not with Apple.  The Pre is a direct competitor.  While it's true that Apple has always been about pleasing it's customers, Palm isn't paying them, and the Pre isn't an Apple product.  Mind you, these are people who intentionally picked the Pre over an iPhone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't Palm supply software to sync the Pre with a Mac ?
If not , it sounds like a failing with Palm , not with Apple .
The Pre is a direct competitor .
While it 's true that Apple has always been about pleasing it 's customers , Palm is n't paying them , and the Pre is n't an Apple product .
Mind you , these are people who intentionally picked the Pre over an iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't Palm supply software to sync the Pre with a Mac?
If not, it sounds like a failing with Palm, not with Apple.
The Pre is a direct competitor.
While it's true that Apple has always been about pleasing it's customers, Palm isn't paying them, and the Pre isn't an Apple product.
Mind you, these are people who intentionally picked the Pre over an iPhone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714313</id>
	<title>Re:What Palm is doing is skanky</title>
	<author>indiechild</author>
	<datestamp>1247741940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's nothing stopping you using the music you bought off iTunes music store with your Pre, or any other music player, since the files have no DRM.</p><p>Palm did this because their executives are juvenile asshats, and they clearly don't give a rat's arse about their own customers. If they really cared about their customers, they would've made their own kick-arse sync product which interfaced with iTunes the way everybody else does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's nothing stopping you using the music you bought off iTunes music store with your Pre , or any other music player , since the files have no DRM.Palm did this because their executives are juvenile asshats , and they clearly do n't give a rat 's arse about their own customers .
If they really cared about their customers , they would 've made their own kick-arse sync product which interfaced with iTunes the way everybody else does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's nothing stopping you using the music you bought off iTunes music store with your Pre, or any other music player, since the files have no DRM.Palm did this because their executives are juvenile asshats, and they clearly don't give a rat's arse about their own customers.
If they really cared about their customers, they would've made their own kick-arse sync product which interfaced with iTunes the way everybody else does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710547</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is just Microsoft wannabe.</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1247663280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Mod me troll if you want. But clearly this action proves that Apple is not interested in open standards, in interoperability or level playing fields.</i></p><p>I'm not defending Apple, but what companies truly are interested in open standards, interoperability, or level playing fields?  Some of them may give lip service to these things if they're small, some may seriously advocate these things for things which are not their core product (like software companies advocating net neutrality, even though they don't run networks like the telecoms do), but nearly all of them, I'd bet, would stop being interested in these things once they got big enough to benefit from working against them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod me troll if you want .
But clearly this action proves that Apple is not interested in open standards , in interoperability or level playing fields.I 'm not defending Apple , but what companies truly are interested in open standards , interoperability , or level playing fields ?
Some of them may give lip service to these things if they 're small , some may seriously advocate these things for things which are not their core product ( like software companies advocating net neutrality , even though they do n't run networks like the telecoms do ) , but nearly all of them , I 'd bet , would stop being interested in these things once they got big enough to benefit from working against them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod me troll if you want.
But clearly this action proves that Apple is not interested in open standards, in interoperability or level playing fields.I'm not defending Apple, but what companies truly are interested in open standards, interoperability, or level playing fields?
Some of them may give lip service to these things if they're small, some may seriously advocate these things for things which are not their core product (like software companies advocating net neutrality, even though they don't run networks like the telecoms do), but nearly all of them, I'd bet, would stop being interested in these things once they got big enough to benefit from working against them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714981</id>
	<title>Three Apple brand digital cameras</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1247750040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As it would happen, Apple doesn't make digital cameras.</p></div><p>Anyone who has used a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple\_QuickTake" title="wikipedia.org">QuickTake</a> [wikipedia.org], <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISight" title="wikipedia.org">iSight</a> [wikipedia.org], or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISight" title="wikipedia.org">iPhone</a> [wikipedia.org] would beg to differ. They're digital, and they're cameras.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As it would happen , Apple does n't make digital cameras.Anyone who has used a QuickTake [ wikipedia.org ] , iSight [ wikipedia.org ] , or iPhone [ wikipedia.org ] would beg to differ .
They 're digital , and they 're cameras .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As it would happen, Apple doesn't make digital cameras.Anyone who has used a QuickTake [wikipedia.org], iSight [wikipedia.org], or iPhone [wikipedia.org] would beg to differ.
They're digital, and they're cameras.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715463</id>
	<title>Deja Vu all over again</title>
	<author>sheph</author>
	<datestamp>1247753160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple really lacks the capacity to learn from it's mistakes apparently.  They clearly had a better system when the IBM-PC took off.  The only reason they got beat out by the PC is because IBM allowed interoperability with other vendors.  Now once again they try and close everyone out expecting different results.  Screw Apple, what a bunch of elitist punks.  I'd go without before I'd own an iAnything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple really lacks the capacity to learn from it 's mistakes apparently .
They clearly had a better system when the IBM-PC took off .
The only reason they got beat out by the PC is because IBM allowed interoperability with other vendors .
Now once again they try and close everyone out expecting different results .
Screw Apple , what a bunch of elitist punks .
I 'd go without before I 'd own an iAnything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple really lacks the capacity to learn from it's mistakes apparently.
They clearly had a better system when the IBM-PC took off.
The only reason they got beat out by the PC is because IBM allowed interoperability with other vendors.
Now once again they try and close everyone out expecting different results.
Screw Apple, what a bunch of elitist punks.
I'd go without before I'd own an iAnything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28716547</id>
	<title>Is that a knock at the door?</title>
	<author>JustJenFelice</author>
	<datestamp>1247758440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Hello?  Umm, yeah...just a second...</p><p>Hey Apple - there's somebody at the door for you.  He says he's with the Justice Department..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Hello ?
Umm , yeah...just a second...Hey Apple - there 's somebody at the door for you .
He says he 's with the Justice Department... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Hello?
Umm, yeah...just a second...Hey Apple - there's somebody at the door for you.
He says he's with the Justice Department..."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711299</id>
	<title>Re:Who got a Pre thinking it'd always sync w/ iTun</title>
	<author>keefus\_a</author>
	<datestamp>1247668740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If Palm wants to compete, then let them create their own service and interface rather than leveraging another company's successful work. You say that's unfair because Apple has created a heavily lopsided playing field, and now it's impossible to compete with the massive popularity of iTunes. But you have to ask yourself, where were these same competitors five years ago?</p></div></blockquote><p>Vendor lock-in is vendor lock-in.  How is Apple blocking {not-an-iPod} from syncing with iTunes any different than if Microsoft blocked {not-IE} from running under Windows?  I don't hate either of them.  I say let them do whatever they want.  But fundamentally it's the same thing.  And while you may not do it, there are plenty of others out there that will somehow argue that it's different.</p><blockquote><div><p>Make no mistake, I don't particularly approve that Apple did what they did, but if you bought a Palm Pre and couldn't see this coming you are not only blind but you're an idiot.</p></div></blockquote><p>Blind maybe, but not an idiot.  For "idiot" to be an option you would have to present a strong, valid reason why Apple is justified in blocking anybody else from using some other device with iTunes.  The same amount of effort went into blocking the Pre as it would have taken to pop-up a warning that says "This is not an approved device and may not function properly with iTunes.  Use at your own risk."  If they did that, what would Apple/iPod/iTunes users lose?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Palm wants to compete , then let them create their own service and interface rather than leveraging another company 's successful work .
You say that 's unfair because Apple has created a heavily lopsided playing field , and now it 's impossible to compete with the massive popularity of iTunes .
But you have to ask yourself , where were these same competitors five years ago ? Vendor lock-in is vendor lock-in .
How is Apple blocking { not-an-iPod } from syncing with iTunes any different than if Microsoft blocked { not-IE } from running under Windows ?
I do n't hate either of them .
I say let them do whatever they want .
But fundamentally it 's the same thing .
And while you may not do it , there are plenty of others out there that will somehow argue that it 's different.Make no mistake , I do n't particularly approve that Apple did what they did , but if you bought a Palm Pre and could n't see this coming you are not only blind but you 're an idiot.Blind maybe , but not an idiot .
For " idiot " to be an option you would have to present a strong , valid reason why Apple is justified in blocking anybody else from using some other device with iTunes .
The same amount of effort went into blocking the Pre as it would have taken to pop-up a warning that says " This is not an approved device and may not function properly with iTunes .
Use at your own risk .
" If they did that , what would Apple/iPod/iTunes users lose ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Palm wants to compete, then let them create their own service and interface rather than leveraging another company's successful work.
You say that's unfair because Apple has created a heavily lopsided playing field, and now it's impossible to compete with the massive popularity of iTunes.
But you have to ask yourself, where were these same competitors five years ago?Vendor lock-in is vendor lock-in.
How is Apple blocking {not-an-iPod} from syncing with iTunes any different than if Microsoft blocked {not-IE} from running under Windows?
I don't hate either of them.
I say let them do whatever they want.
But fundamentally it's the same thing.
And while you may not do it, there are plenty of others out there that will somehow argue that it's different.Make no mistake, I don't particularly approve that Apple did what they did, but if you bought a Palm Pre and couldn't see this coming you are not only blind but you're an idiot.Blind maybe, but not an idiot.
For "idiot" to be an option you would have to present a strong, valid reason why Apple is justified in blocking anybody else from using some other device with iTunes.
The same amount of effort went into blocking the Pre as it would have taken to pop-up a warning that says "This is not an approved device and may not function properly with iTunes.
Use at your own risk.
"  If they did that, what would Apple/iPod/iTunes users lose?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714869</id>
	<title>Trademark can't be used as an ersatz patent</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1247749200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, the Pre was tricking iTunes into identifying it to the customer as an iPod. Ignoring trademark violations, that seems like it could be harmful and confusing to Apple customers less technically inclined than yourself.</p></div><p>What trademark violations? Confusion on whose part? Courts in the United States have held that a trademark cannot be used as an ersatz copyright or patent. <i>Sega v. Accolade</i>, 977 F.2d 1510, 24 USPQ2d 1561; <i>Dastar v. Twentieth Century Fox</i>, 539 U.S. 23 (2003).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , the Pre was tricking iTunes into identifying it to the customer as an iPod .
Ignoring trademark violations , that seems like it could be harmful and confusing to Apple customers less technically inclined than yourself.What trademark violations ?
Confusion on whose part ?
Courts in the United States have held that a trademark can not be used as an ersatz copyright or patent .
Sega v. Accolade , 977 F.2d 1510 , 24 USPQ2d 1561 ; Dastar v. Twentieth Century Fox , 539 U.S. 23 ( 2003 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, the Pre was tricking iTunes into identifying it to the customer as an iPod.
Ignoring trademark violations, that seems like it could be harmful and confusing to Apple customers less technically inclined than yourself.What trademark violations?
Confusion on whose part?
Courts in the United States have held that a trademark cannot be used as an ersatz copyright or patent.
Sega v. Accolade, 977 F.2d 1510, 24 USPQ2d 1561; Dastar v. Twentieth Century Fox, 539 U.S. 23 (2003).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711789</id>
	<title>Re:What Palm is doing is skanky</title>
	<author>db32</author>
	<datestamp>1247672340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are obviously confused, this is an article to hate on Apple.  Notice the title, "Apple Update Means Palm Pre Can No Longer Sync With iTunes".  Why isn't the title "Apple Update Stops Palm Pre From Masquerading as iPod".  It doesn't matter how shitty Palm was by trying to piggyback on Apple's work and success.  It doesn't matter that they managed this stupid trick through shoddy device behavior.  If iThings were masquerading as Androids for the Google App store people would STILL be screaming about how Apple is evil.  Almost every Apple story on Slashdot is a way for Apple haters to mentally masturbate and show their "superiority" to anyone who uses Apple stuff.  Ironically enough, that is the very thing the claim Apple customers do...  Go figure...   The fact that people here scream bloody murder about iTunes stories like this and then say stupid shit like they refuse to use iTunes or no one likes iTunes is amazing.  If no one likes it and no one uses it then why is everyone bitching when it does something they don't like?  Do you all bitch when Yacht makers add/remove things you don't like from Yachts that you will never own or use?  Get over your self righteousness and quit crying if it doesn't affect you.  If it does affect you...well you were stupid for buying into Palm's marketing and stupid tricks and buying a Pre.  I don't feel sorry for you.</p><p>I also think this entire community would be served very well by actually taking some business classes.  The babbling about monopoly this and anti-competitive that is pathetic.  Monopolies are not illegal.  Companies are under NO NONE NADA ZIP ZERO ZILCH obligation to make their products work with third party stuff.  Companies are not even prevented from stopping third party stuff from working with their products UNLESS they are using their market dominance to do so.  The anti-trust laws are fairly specific about the situations they come into effect and "playing hard ball" is not one of them.  In fact, in many cases companies MUST behave this way in order to protect their own assets (patents/trademarks/etc).  Further, these companies can be sued by shareholders for not doing everything legally in their power to stop another competitor from eating their lunch.  If I held stock in Apple and they allowed Palm to eat iPhone sales by selling the Pre as an iTunes device then I would be furious  (Remember, they are a hardware company, not a music store company).  This is honestly why it doesn't surprise me that there isn't a stronger F/OSS business environment.  The business leaders of today largely don't get it, and the tech folks driving it seem to have a horrid understanding of business.  The most successful F/OSS are pretty much limited to younger upstarts that did get the business end, or business giants like IBM and friends that understand the tech.</p><p>So...kudos to you for calling Palm out on this shit rather than Apple.  Even if you hate Apple products and refuse to buy them, Apple is 100\% in the right here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are obviously confused , this is an article to hate on Apple .
Notice the title , " Apple Update Means Palm Pre Can No Longer Sync With iTunes " .
Why is n't the title " Apple Update Stops Palm Pre From Masquerading as iPod " .
It does n't matter how shitty Palm was by trying to piggyback on Apple 's work and success .
It does n't matter that they managed this stupid trick through shoddy device behavior .
If iThings were masquerading as Androids for the Google App store people would STILL be screaming about how Apple is evil .
Almost every Apple story on Slashdot is a way for Apple haters to mentally masturbate and show their " superiority " to anyone who uses Apple stuff .
Ironically enough , that is the very thing the claim Apple customers do... Go figure... The fact that people here scream bloody murder about iTunes stories like this and then say stupid shit like they refuse to use iTunes or no one likes iTunes is amazing .
If no one likes it and no one uses it then why is everyone bitching when it does something they do n't like ?
Do you all bitch when Yacht makers add/remove things you do n't like from Yachts that you will never own or use ?
Get over your self righteousness and quit crying if it does n't affect you .
If it does affect you...well you were stupid for buying into Palm 's marketing and stupid tricks and buying a Pre .
I do n't feel sorry for you.I also think this entire community would be served very well by actually taking some business classes .
The babbling about monopoly this and anti-competitive that is pathetic .
Monopolies are not illegal .
Companies are under NO NONE NADA ZIP ZERO ZILCH obligation to make their products work with third party stuff .
Companies are not even prevented from stopping third party stuff from working with their products UNLESS they are using their market dominance to do so .
The anti-trust laws are fairly specific about the situations they come into effect and " playing hard ball " is not one of them .
In fact , in many cases companies MUST behave this way in order to protect their own assets ( patents/trademarks/etc ) .
Further , these companies can be sued by shareholders for not doing everything legally in their power to stop another competitor from eating their lunch .
If I held stock in Apple and they allowed Palm to eat iPhone sales by selling the Pre as an iTunes device then I would be furious ( Remember , they are a hardware company , not a music store company ) .
This is honestly why it does n't surprise me that there is n't a stronger F/OSS business environment .
The business leaders of today largely do n't get it , and the tech folks driving it seem to have a horrid understanding of business .
The most successful F/OSS are pretty much limited to younger upstarts that did get the business end , or business giants like IBM and friends that understand the tech.So...kudos to you for calling Palm out on this shit rather than Apple .
Even if you hate Apple products and refuse to buy them , Apple is 100 \ % in the right here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are obviously confused, this is an article to hate on Apple.
Notice the title, "Apple Update Means Palm Pre Can No Longer Sync With iTunes".
Why isn't the title "Apple Update Stops Palm Pre From Masquerading as iPod".
It doesn't matter how shitty Palm was by trying to piggyback on Apple's work and success.
It doesn't matter that they managed this stupid trick through shoddy device behavior.
If iThings were masquerading as Androids for the Google App store people would STILL be screaming about how Apple is evil.
Almost every Apple story on Slashdot is a way for Apple haters to mentally masturbate and show their "superiority" to anyone who uses Apple stuff.
Ironically enough, that is the very thing the claim Apple customers do...  Go figure...   The fact that people here scream bloody murder about iTunes stories like this and then say stupid shit like they refuse to use iTunes or no one likes iTunes is amazing.
If no one likes it and no one uses it then why is everyone bitching when it does something they don't like?
Do you all bitch when Yacht makers add/remove things you don't like from Yachts that you will never own or use?
Get over your self righteousness and quit crying if it doesn't affect you.
If it does affect you...well you were stupid for buying into Palm's marketing and stupid tricks and buying a Pre.
I don't feel sorry for you.I also think this entire community would be served very well by actually taking some business classes.
The babbling about monopoly this and anti-competitive that is pathetic.
Monopolies are not illegal.
Companies are under NO NONE NADA ZIP ZERO ZILCH obligation to make their products work with third party stuff.
Companies are not even prevented from stopping third party stuff from working with their products UNLESS they are using their market dominance to do so.
The anti-trust laws are fairly specific about the situations they come into effect and "playing hard ball" is not one of them.
In fact, in many cases companies MUST behave this way in order to protect their own assets (patents/trademarks/etc).
Further, these companies can be sued by shareholders for not doing everything legally in their power to stop another competitor from eating their lunch.
If I held stock in Apple and they allowed Palm to eat iPhone sales by selling the Pre as an iTunes device then I would be furious  (Remember, they are a hardware company, not a music store company).
This is honestly why it doesn't surprise me that there isn't a stronger F/OSS business environment.
The business leaders of today largely don't get it, and the tech folks driving it seem to have a horrid understanding of business.
The most successful F/OSS are pretty much limited to younger upstarts that did get the business end, or business giants like IBM and friends that understand the tech.So...kudos to you for calling Palm out on this shit rather than Apple.
Even if you hate Apple products and refuse to buy them, Apple is 100\% in the right here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28718739</id>
	<title>Re:Not a nice move, but not illegal either</title>
	<author>IsaacD</author>
	<datestamp>1247766360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You may ask: but Microsoft has a 90\% market share on operating systems, why do they constitute a monopoly while Apple is not?

Unlike MS Windows, the iPod or iPhone is not (*) a crucial business tool that most businesses require in order to run the software they need. People can't just go ahead and purchase a product from a competitor of Microsoft, since their costly business software probably depends on Windows.</p></div><p>is this a joke? have a look through all of the linux/oss fanboi posts and tell us that there are no competitors in the os and office suite industry. last time i checked, ms office was even available for osx!

apple is pure evil. creative labs players are, and have always been, far superior to any apple media player. apple needs to die a violent and fiery death.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You may ask : but Microsoft has a 90 \ % market share on operating systems , why do they constitute a monopoly while Apple is not ?
Unlike MS Windows , the iPod or iPhone is not ( * ) a crucial business tool that most businesses require in order to run the software they need .
People ca n't just go ahead and purchase a product from a competitor of Microsoft , since their costly business software probably depends on Windows.is this a joke ?
have a look through all of the linux/oss fanboi posts and tell us that there are no competitors in the os and office suite industry .
last time i checked , ms office was even available for osx !
apple is pure evil .
creative labs players are , and have always been , far superior to any apple media player .
apple needs to die a violent and fiery death .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may ask: but Microsoft has a 90\% market share on operating systems, why do they constitute a monopoly while Apple is not?
Unlike MS Windows, the iPod or iPhone is not (*) a crucial business tool that most businesses require in order to run the software they need.
People can't just go ahead and purchase a product from a competitor of Microsoft, since their costly business software probably depends on Windows.is this a joke?
have a look through all of the linux/oss fanboi posts and tell us that there are no competitors in the os and office suite industry.
last time i checked, ms office was even available for osx!
apple is pure evil.
creative labs players are, and have always been, far superior to any apple media player.
apple needs to die a violent and fiery death.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709997</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values</title>
	<author>shutton</author>
	<datestamp>1247660340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You either are, or aren't a customer.  If I'm using an Apple product that wasn't stolen, I'm an Apple customer.  I received iTunes (along with iPhoto, and i-everything-else) when I purchased my MacBook Pro.  That software helped sell the computer.

iPhoto works fine with hundreds of different digital cameras.  As it would happen, Apple doesn't make digital cameras.  They don't even have to work very hard to support them thanks to standard file system layout.  It's clear that Apple has made an exception for iTunes to drive their "attachment rates" in other business units.  Sounds like the behavior of an up-and-coming monopoly, doesn't it?

And, I'll conclude by saying that there are *plenty* of alternatives to iTunes, but Apple has been telling us for so long that iTunes is the greatest thing since gravity boots that we just all simply use it because it's the default media manager.  Hm, that sounds familiar, too...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>You either are , or are n't a customer .
If I 'm using an Apple product that was n't stolen , I 'm an Apple customer .
I received iTunes ( along with iPhoto , and i-everything-else ) when I purchased my MacBook Pro .
That software helped sell the computer .
iPhoto works fine with hundreds of different digital cameras .
As it would happen , Apple does n't make digital cameras .
They do n't even have to work very hard to support them thanks to standard file system layout .
It 's clear that Apple has made an exception for iTunes to drive their " attachment rates " in other business units .
Sounds like the behavior of an up-and-coming monopoly , does n't it ?
And , I 'll conclude by saying that there are * plenty * of alternatives to iTunes , but Apple has been telling us for so long that iTunes is the greatest thing since gravity boots that we just all simply use it because it 's the default media manager .
Hm , that sounds familiar , too... : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You either are, or aren't a customer.
If I'm using an Apple product that wasn't stolen, I'm an Apple customer.
I received iTunes (along with iPhoto, and i-everything-else) when I purchased my MacBook Pro.
That software helped sell the computer.
iPhoto works fine with hundreds of different digital cameras.
As it would happen, Apple doesn't make digital cameras.
They don't even have to work very hard to support them thanks to standard file system layout.
It's clear that Apple has made an exception for iTunes to drive their "attachment rates" in other business units.
Sounds like the behavior of an up-and-coming monopoly, doesn't it?
And, I'll conclude by saying that there are *plenty* of alternatives to iTunes, but Apple has been telling us for so long that iTunes is the greatest thing since gravity boots that we just all simply use it because it's the default media manager.
Hm, that sounds familiar, too... :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709801</id>
	<title>Songbird is the answer</title>
	<author>Eugenia Loli</author>
	<datestamp>1247659200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Palm should go with Songbird. Songbird is not 100\% stable and bug free (I have been testing it lately), but if they offer a bit of assistance to the SF-based team, they could make it work for them just fine.</p><p>And in the process, maybe they would be able to open the doors for more smartphones/players who are in need of a capable mp3 organizer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Palm should go with Songbird .
Songbird is not 100 \ % stable and bug free ( I have been testing it lately ) , but if they offer a bit of assistance to the SF-based team , they could make it work for them just fine.And in the process , maybe they would be able to open the doors for more smartphones/players who are in need of a capable mp3 organizer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Palm should go with Songbird.
Songbird is not 100\% stable and bug free (I have been testing it lately), but if they offer a bit of assistance to the SF-based team, they could make it work for them just fine.And in the process, maybe they would be able to open the doors for more smartphones/players who are in need of a capable mp3 organizer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710451</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1247662680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Give your dollars to companies that are demonstrably "less bad" whenever possible.</p></div><p>It seems that Apple <i>is</i> on the short list for "less bad" in the minds of many Slashdotters.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Accept that you'll have to go without some of the bling until the market catches up.</p></div><p>Yeah, good luck with that one. We all know what happens to the masses when someone takes away their candy. Not many of us can live like RMS, enduring technical hardships (i.e. religiously using the free software, even if it is not as good) and being inconvenienced for the sake of our personal beliefs and philosophy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Give your dollars to companies that are demonstrably " less bad " whenever possible.It seems that Apple is on the short list for " less bad " in the minds of many Slashdotters.Accept that you 'll have to go without some of the bling until the market catches up.Yeah , good luck with that one .
We all know what happens to the masses when someone takes away their candy .
Not many of us can live like RMS , enduring technical hardships ( i.e .
religiously using the free software , even if it is not as good ) and being inconvenienced for the sake of our personal beliefs and philosophy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give your dollars to companies that are demonstrably "less bad" whenever possible.It seems that Apple is on the short list for "less bad" in the minds of many Slashdotters.Accept that you'll have to go without some of the bling until the market catches up.Yeah, good luck with that one.
We all know what happens to the masses when someone takes away their candy.
Not many of us can live like RMS, enduring technical hardships (i.e.
religiously using the free software, even if it is not as good) and being inconvenienced for the sake of our personal beliefs and philosophy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712853</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values</title>
	<author>guruevi</author>
	<datestamp>1247682360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there a decent alternative for iTunes then? iTunes (and Microsoft) got so big because of integration. It's a media manager that does just about anything you need to do (video, audio, podcasts, rentals, purchases, device syncs) and unlike Microsoft software it works great. The alternatives are WMP which looks like a Fisher-Price construction and is painfully slow, Songbird which looks pretty darn good but has some major bugs and annoyances that make it just not 'the Firefox of media players' although I have high hopes for the future, Amarok which used to be good until 1.4 but the latest incarnations began to look like WMP (I mean, what's with the control buttons) and the software has become overly complex like developers have been adding stuff without checking any UI plan, any others?</p><p>And you can sync other devices than iPod's as well - there are plugins to iTunes that sync certain other devices and if it's a mass storage device it should be pretty simple to implement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there a decent alternative for iTunes then ?
iTunes ( and Microsoft ) got so big because of integration .
It 's a media manager that does just about anything you need to do ( video , audio , podcasts , rentals , purchases , device syncs ) and unlike Microsoft software it works great .
The alternatives are WMP which looks like a Fisher-Price construction and is painfully slow , Songbird which looks pretty darn good but has some major bugs and annoyances that make it just not 'the Firefox of media players ' although I have high hopes for the future , Amarok which used to be good until 1.4 but the latest incarnations began to look like WMP ( I mean , what 's with the control buttons ) and the software has become overly complex like developers have been adding stuff without checking any UI plan , any others ? And you can sync other devices than iPod 's as well - there are plugins to iTunes that sync certain other devices and if it 's a mass storage device it should be pretty simple to implement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there a decent alternative for iTunes then?
iTunes (and Microsoft) got so big because of integration.
It's a media manager that does just about anything you need to do (video, audio, podcasts, rentals, purchases, device syncs) and unlike Microsoft software it works great.
The alternatives are WMP which looks like a Fisher-Price construction and is painfully slow, Songbird which looks pretty darn good but has some major bugs and annoyances that make it just not 'the Firefox of media players' although I have high hopes for the future, Amarok which used to be good until 1.4 but the latest incarnations began to look like WMP (I mean, what's with the control buttons) and the software has become overly complex like developers have been adding stuff without checking any UI plan, any others?And you can sync other devices than iPod's as well - there are plugins to iTunes that sync certain other devices and if it's a mass storage device it should be pretty simple to implement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709839</id>
	<title>Apple is just Microsoft wannabe.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247659440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mod me troll if you want. But clearly this action proves that Apple is not interested in open standards, in interoperability or level playing fields. It wants to promote the same walled-garden eco system that is actively promoted by Microsoft. But sadly, it is not as successful as Microsoft in grabbing market share or money from people. <p>

OK, OK I will stand corrected. It is not a Microsoft wannabe, it is a<b>failed</b> Microsoft wannabe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod me troll if you want .
But clearly this action proves that Apple is not interested in open standards , in interoperability or level playing fields .
It wants to promote the same walled-garden eco system that is actively promoted by Microsoft .
But sadly , it is not as successful as Microsoft in grabbing market share or money from people .
OK , OK I will stand corrected .
It is not a Microsoft wannabe , it is afailed Microsoft wannabe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod me troll if you want.
But clearly this action proves that Apple is not interested in open standards, in interoperability or level playing fields.
It wants to promote the same walled-garden eco system that is actively promoted by Microsoft.
But sadly, it is not as successful as Microsoft in grabbing market share or money from people.
OK, OK I will stand corrected.
It is not a Microsoft wannabe, it is afailed Microsoft wannabe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714189</id>
	<title>Capitals</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247740320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How hard is it to write " Apple update means Palm Pre can no longer sync with iTunes" instead of " Apple Update Means Palm Pre Can No Longer Sync With iTunes" ?</p><p>The first is correct, the second looks childish</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How hard is it to write " Apple update means Palm Pre can no longer sync with iTunes " instead of " Apple Update Means Palm Pre Can No Longer Sync With iTunes " ? The first is correct , the second looks childish</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How hard is it to write " Apple update means Palm Pre can no longer sync with iTunes" instead of " Apple Update Means Palm Pre Can No Longer Sync With iTunes" ?The first is correct, the second looks childish</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28716367</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>ichimunki</author>
	<datestamp>1247757600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No. The secret ingredient is marketing skillz. Their products are neither innovative nor particularly well executed. But they are fashionable -- partly because they are designed to look and act as fashion accessories, but also because of marketing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
The secret ingredient is marketing skillz .
Their products are neither innovative nor particularly well executed .
But they are fashionable -- partly because they are designed to look and act as fashion accessories , but also because of marketing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
The secret ingredient is marketing skillz.
Their products are neither innovative nor particularly well executed.
But they are fashionable -- partly because they are designed to look and act as fashion accessories, but also because of marketing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714705</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products</title>
	<author>Dhalka226</author>
	<datestamp>1247747100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that all of Apple's executives would be shot in the head by their shareholders for throwing away an estimated <a href="http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/04/23/itunes\_store\_a\_greater\_cash\_crop\_than\_apple\_implies.html" title="appleinsider.com">$120 million per year</a> [appleinsider.com] and $0.09-$0.14 per share profit for absolutely no reason other than spitefulness.  And rightly so.

</p><p>Granted, the costs are speculative, but even by Apple's own admissions they're not operating at a loss; they're turning a profit.  A profit, in this sense, that means that everybody is paid, all royalties paid, all hardware and bandwidth paid for.  In a business that other than a few support people and a few techs, essentially runs itself.  You don't throw that away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that all of Apple 's executives would be shot in the head by their shareholders for throwing away an estimated $ 120 million per year [ appleinsider.com ] and $ 0.09- $ 0.14 per share profit for absolutely no reason other than spitefulness .
And rightly so .
Granted , the costs are speculative , but even by Apple 's own admissions they 're not operating at a loss ; they 're turning a profit .
A profit , in this sense , that means that everybody is paid , all royalties paid , all hardware and bandwidth paid for .
In a business that other than a few support people and a few techs , essentially runs itself .
You do n't throw that away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that all of Apple's executives would be shot in the head by their shareholders for throwing away an estimated $120 million per year [appleinsider.com] and $0.09-$0.14 per share profit for absolutely no reason other than spitefulness.
And rightly so.
Granted, the costs are speculative, but even by Apple's own admissions they're not operating at a loss; they're turning a profit.
A profit, in this sense, that means that everybody is paid, all royalties paid, all hardware and bandwidth paid for.
In a business that other than a few support people and a few techs, essentially runs itself.
You don't throw that away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710725</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710461</id>
	<title>What Palm is doing is skanky</title>
	<author>SideshowBob</author>
	<datestamp>1247662680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A device masquerading as another device by using the same USB manufacturer/device ID is not the way to build interoperability. It's just inviting all sorts of unintended consequences and bugs. How did this ever pass muster at Palm?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A device masquerading as another device by using the same USB manufacturer/device ID is not the way to build interoperability .
It 's just inviting all sorts of unintended consequences and bugs .
How did this ever pass muster at Palm ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A device masquerading as another device by using the same USB manufacturer/device ID is not the way to build interoperability.
It's just inviting all sorts of unintended consequences and bugs.
How did this ever pass muster at Palm?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710499</id>
	<title>Re:Antitrust?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247662980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing with Apple is, compared to Microsoft, they're a big improvement.  MS is both completely evil, and their products are crap.  So not only are they bad from a philosophical standpoint, but a technical standpoint as well.</p><p>Apple isn't quite as evil as MS in practice.  Of course, this is probably partly because they can't afford to be: they're not a big monopoly (yet) controlling 95\% of all desktop and laptop computers.  But they have also done things which show them to be less evil than MS even when they had the chance: for instance, they used KDE's KHTML engine in Safari, improved it a lot, renamed it "Webkit", and released their changes back to the community.  When has MS ever done anything at all to help OSS?  Never, unless you think Mono isn't a patent trap.  Sure, Apple was obligated to release their improvements because of the GPL, but they probably could have been more difficult about it, forced a court case, etc.  Unlike some other companies that willfully violated the GPL, Apple is quite large and has a lot of money for lawyers.  So, while Apple's track record isn't exactly stellar, it's not a complete stinker like MS's either.</p><p>But the other place where Apple differs a lot from MS is in technical aspects.  MS's products pretty much suck, while Apple's stuff usually works quite well (even if it suffers from a lot of lock-in).  Geeks tend to like things that work well from a technical standpoint, so this appeals to them.</p><p>Lastly, there's the aesthetic difference.  While not everyone's cup of tea, it's hard to argue that Apple's stuff looks ugly or cheesy.  No one ever accused Mac OS X of having an interface "designed by Fisher-Price", for instance.  MS, OTOH, has never seemed to have many fans of its aesthetic design, except maybe for Vista (which everyone hated because it was so slow and so buggy).</p><p>As for "zero regard for the customer", I don't think that's quite fair.  Apple is notorious for going to great lengths to improve the "customer experience", from their packaging to their UI design.  They don't play too well with others, and certainly want to lock people into Apple-only solutions (iPod + iTunes + iTS), but if you're willing to buy all-Apple stuff, they seem quite interested in making sure you're happy with their products.</p><p>I'm not a huge fan of Apple either, being a bit of a Linux zealot, but let's be fair in our assessment of Apple.  They're not the most wonderful company in the world IMO, but they're nowhere near as bad as MS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing with Apple is , compared to Microsoft , they 're a big improvement .
MS is both completely evil , and their products are crap .
So not only are they bad from a philosophical standpoint , but a technical standpoint as well.Apple is n't quite as evil as MS in practice .
Of course , this is probably partly because they ca n't afford to be : they 're not a big monopoly ( yet ) controlling 95 \ % of all desktop and laptop computers .
But they have also done things which show them to be less evil than MS even when they had the chance : for instance , they used KDE 's KHTML engine in Safari , improved it a lot , renamed it " Webkit " , and released their changes back to the community .
When has MS ever done anything at all to help OSS ?
Never , unless you think Mono is n't a patent trap .
Sure , Apple was obligated to release their improvements because of the GPL , but they probably could have been more difficult about it , forced a court case , etc .
Unlike some other companies that willfully violated the GPL , Apple is quite large and has a lot of money for lawyers .
So , while Apple 's track record is n't exactly stellar , it 's not a complete stinker like MS 's either.But the other place where Apple differs a lot from MS is in technical aspects .
MS 's products pretty much suck , while Apple 's stuff usually works quite well ( even if it suffers from a lot of lock-in ) .
Geeks tend to like things that work well from a technical standpoint , so this appeals to them.Lastly , there 's the aesthetic difference .
While not everyone 's cup of tea , it 's hard to argue that Apple 's stuff looks ugly or cheesy .
No one ever accused Mac OS X of having an interface " designed by Fisher-Price " , for instance .
MS , OTOH , has never seemed to have many fans of its aesthetic design , except maybe for Vista ( which everyone hated because it was so slow and so buggy ) .As for " zero regard for the customer " , I do n't think that 's quite fair .
Apple is notorious for going to great lengths to improve the " customer experience " , from their packaging to their UI design .
They do n't play too well with others , and certainly want to lock people into Apple-only solutions ( iPod + iTunes + iTS ) , but if you 're willing to buy all-Apple stuff , they seem quite interested in making sure you 're happy with their products.I 'm not a huge fan of Apple either , being a bit of a Linux zealot , but let 's be fair in our assessment of Apple .
They 're not the most wonderful company in the world IMO , but they 're nowhere near as bad as MS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing with Apple is, compared to Microsoft, they're a big improvement.
MS is both completely evil, and their products are crap.
So not only are they bad from a philosophical standpoint, but a technical standpoint as well.Apple isn't quite as evil as MS in practice.
Of course, this is probably partly because they can't afford to be: they're not a big monopoly (yet) controlling 95\% of all desktop and laptop computers.
But they have also done things which show them to be less evil than MS even when they had the chance: for instance, they used KDE's KHTML engine in Safari, improved it a lot, renamed it "Webkit", and released their changes back to the community.
When has MS ever done anything at all to help OSS?
Never, unless you think Mono isn't a patent trap.
Sure, Apple was obligated to release their improvements because of the GPL, but they probably could have been more difficult about it, forced a court case, etc.
Unlike some other companies that willfully violated the GPL, Apple is quite large and has a lot of money for lawyers.
So, while Apple's track record isn't exactly stellar, it's not a complete stinker like MS's either.But the other place where Apple differs a lot from MS is in technical aspects.
MS's products pretty much suck, while Apple's stuff usually works quite well (even if it suffers from a lot of lock-in).
Geeks tend to like things that work well from a technical standpoint, so this appeals to them.Lastly, there's the aesthetic difference.
While not everyone's cup of tea, it's hard to argue that Apple's stuff looks ugly or cheesy.
No one ever accused Mac OS X of having an interface "designed by Fisher-Price", for instance.
MS, OTOH, has never seemed to have many fans of its aesthetic design, except maybe for Vista (which everyone hated because it was so slow and so buggy).As for "zero regard for the customer", I don't think that's quite fair.
Apple is notorious for going to great lengths to improve the "customer experience", from their packaging to their UI design.
They don't play too well with others, and certainly want to lock people into Apple-only solutions (iPod + iTunes + iTS), but if you're willing to buy all-Apple stuff, they seem quite interested in making sure you're happy with their products.I'm not a huge fan of Apple either, being a bit of a Linux zealot, but let's be fair in our assessment of Apple.
They're not the most wonderful company in the world IMO, but they're nowhere near as bad as MS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713313</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247686680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bought my first ipod because it had massive storage (big enough to find something for any mood or situation), and a brilliant navigation (quick enough to find something in that big pile of data).</p><p>Integration with itunes was and is irrelevant.  All my music is losslessly ripped from CDs.  I won't pay for DRM or anything more lossy than a CD.</p><p>I must admit to having bought about 20 songs over the years, as people give me itunes cards.  I strip the DRM right off those songs.  It does work out well for "modern groups" (i.e. those unable to put together enough talent to fill an album's worth of space with music worth listening to)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bought my first ipod because it had massive storage ( big enough to find something for any mood or situation ) , and a brilliant navigation ( quick enough to find something in that big pile of data ) .Integration with itunes was and is irrelevant .
All my music is losslessly ripped from CDs .
I wo n't pay for DRM or anything more lossy than a CD.I must admit to having bought about 20 songs over the years , as people give me itunes cards .
I strip the DRM right off those songs .
It does work out well for " modern groups " ( i.e .
those unable to put together enough talent to fill an album 's worth of space with music worth listening to )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bought my first ipod because it had massive storage (big enough to find something for any mood or situation), and a brilliant navigation (quick enough to find something in that big pile of data).Integration with itunes was and is irrelevant.
All my music is losslessly ripped from CDs.
I won't pay for DRM or anything more lossy than a CD.I must admit to having bought about 20 songs over the years, as people give me itunes cards.
I strip the DRM right off those songs.
It does work out well for "modern groups" (i.e.
those unable to put together enough talent to fill an album's worth of space with music worth listening to)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714275</id>
	<title>Not a nice move, but not illegal either</title>
	<author>GauteL</author>
	<datestamp>1247741460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First. <b>Apple does in no way have a monopoly on Music sales</b>.</p><p>This should be obvious. There are lots of music resellers, both electronic and old-fashioned. All the old-fashioned ones sell music which will work on iPods or other music players after ripping. There are also big electronic competitors, such as Amazon, which sell music which will work on iPods and other music players.</p><p>Second. <b>Apple does not have a monopoly on Portable Music Players</b>.</p><p>While Apple may well have a 90\% (?) market share on portable music players, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from buying a competitor, which are available in any electronics store.</p><p>You may ask: but Microsoft has a 90\% market share on operating systems, why do they constitute a monopoly while Apple is not?</p><p>Unlike MS Windows, the iPod or iPhone is not (*) a crucial business tool that most businesses require in order to run the software they need. People can't just go ahead and purchase a product from a competitor of Microsoft, since their costly business software probably depends on Windows. But people absolutely can (and do) purchase a competitor of the iPod or iPhone.</p><p>Third. <b>As long as Apple does not have a monopoly on either Music sales or Portable Music Players, there is legal boundaries stopping them from tying these together in an exclusive fashion. If you don't like the lock-in, don't buy Apple products</b>.</p><p>(*) Watch this space, the iPhone is also a platform. This means that it is unlikely as long as good competitors exist, Apple could conceivably in the future become a monopoly on smart phones if they are big enough that third party software developers only develop for the iPhone. In this case, they would need to start playing by different rules.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First .
Apple does in no way have a monopoly on Music sales.This should be obvious .
There are lots of music resellers , both electronic and old-fashioned .
All the old-fashioned ones sell music which will work on iPods or other music players after ripping .
There are also big electronic competitors , such as Amazon , which sell music which will work on iPods and other music players.Second .
Apple does not have a monopoly on Portable Music Players.While Apple may well have a 90 \ % ( ?
) market share on portable music players , there is absolutely nothing stopping you from buying a competitor , which are available in any electronics store.You may ask : but Microsoft has a 90 \ % market share on operating systems , why do they constitute a monopoly while Apple is not ? Unlike MS Windows , the iPod or iPhone is not ( * ) a crucial business tool that most businesses require in order to run the software they need .
People ca n't just go ahead and purchase a product from a competitor of Microsoft , since their costly business software probably depends on Windows .
But people absolutely can ( and do ) purchase a competitor of the iPod or iPhone.Third .
As long as Apple does not have a monopoly on either Music sales or Portable Music Players , there is legal boundaries stopping them from tying these together in an exclusive fashion .
If you do n't like the lock-in , do n't buy Apple products .
( * ) Watch this space , the iPhone is also a platform .
This means that it is unlikely as long as good competitors exist , Apple could conceivably in the future become a monopoly on smart phones if they are big enough that third party software developers only develop for the iPhone .
In this case , they would need to start playing by different rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First.
Apple does in no way have a monopoly on Music sales.This should be obvious.
There are lots of music resellers, both electronic and old-fashioned.
All the old-fashioned ones sell music which will work on iPods or other music players after ripping.
There are also big electronic competitors, such as Amazon, which sell music which will work on iPods and other music players.Second.
Apple does not have a monopoly on Portable Music Players.While Apple may well have a 90\% (?
) market share on portable music players, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from buying a competitor, which are available in any electronics store.You may ask: but Microsoft has a 90\% market share on operating systems, why do they constitute a monopoly while Apple is not?Unlike MS Windows, the iPod or iPhone is not (*) a crucial business tool that most businesses require in order to run the software they need.
People can't just go ahead and purchase a product from a competitor of Microsoft, since their costly business software probably depends on Windows.
But people absolutely can (and do) purchase a competitor of the iPod or iPhone.Third.
As long as Apple does not have a monopoly on either Music sales or Portable Music Players, there is legal boundaries stopping them from tying these together in an exclusive fashion.
If you don't like the lock-in, don't buy Apple products.
(*) Watch this space, the iPhone is also a platform.
This means that it is unlikely as long as good competitors exist, Apple could conceivably in the future become a monopoly on smart phones if they are big enough that third party software developers only develop for the iPhone.
In this case, they would need to start playing by different rules.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709925</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values</title>
	<author>basementman</author>
	<datestamp>1247659920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It bothers me that you have to put the "as a MacBook Pro user" to avoid getting modded down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It bothers me that you have to put the " as a MacBook Pro user " to avoid getting modded down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It bothers me that you have to put the "as a MacBook Pro user" to avoid getting modded down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709859</id>
	<title>Re:I couldn't care less</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247659560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What DRM laden music?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What DRM laden music ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What DRM laden music?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711645</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1247671320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Give your dollars to companies that are demonstrably "less bad" whenever possible.</i> </p><p>I do. Apple is less bad than Microsoft, for some definition of "bad" you never imagined.  Now go away and stop telling me what to think.</p></div><p>Apple is only "less bad" than Microsoft insofar as they do not have the dominant position to be as bad as Microsoft. I would say that Apple is not less bad than Microsoft, the only reason it appears to you to be is because it does not have the market position to do some of the things Microsoft does. If Apple was in a position to act as badly as Microsoft, they would.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Give your dollars to companies that are demonstrably " less bad " whenever possible .
I do .
Apple is less bad than Microsoft , for some definition of " bad " you never imagined .
Now go away and stop telling me what to think.Apple is only " less bad " than Microsoft insofar as they do not have the dominant position to be as bad as Microsoft .
I would say that Apple is not less bad than Microsoft , the only reason it appears to you to be is because it does not have the market position to do some of the things Microsoft does .
If Apple was in a position to act as badly as Microsoft , they would .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Give your dollars to companies that are demonstrably "less bad" whenever possible.
I do.
Apple is less bad than Microsoft, for some definition of "bad" you never imagined.
Now go away and stop telling me what to think.Apple is only "less bad" than Microsoft insofar as they do not have the dominant position to be as bad as Microsoft.
I would say that Apple is not less bad than Microsoft, the only reason it appears to you to be is because it does not have the market position to do some of the things Microsoft does.
If Apple was in a position to act as badly as Microsoft, they would.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28719797</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values</title>
	<author>Soubrause</author>
	<datestamp>1247770200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So wouldn't that corporate profit margin benefit from more people using itunes to download music?  People spend a lot more on music over their two year phone contract than they did on the phone itself and the music sales are giving apple a much higher margin than the iphone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So would n't that corporate profit margin benefit from more people using itunes to download music ?
People spend a lot more on music over their two year phone contract than they did on the phone itself and the music sales are giving apple a much higher margin than the iphone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So wouldn't that corporate profit margin benefit from more people using itunes to download music?
People spend a lot more on music over their two year phone contract than they did on the phone itself and the music sales are giving apple a much higher margin than the iphone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715689</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values</title>
	<author>rho</author>
	<datestamp>1247754600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Palm tries to sneak into the playground, gets caught, and it's somehow <i>Apple's fault</i>? Palm was foolish to think they could get away with pretending to be an iPod.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Palm tries to sneak into the playground , gets caught , and it 's somehow Apple 's fault ?
Palm was foolish to think they could get away with pretending to be an iPod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Palm tries to sneak into the playground, gets caught, and it's somehow Apple's fault?
Palm was foolish to think they could get away with pretending to be an iPod.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713839</id>
	<title>Re:Who got a Pre thinking it'd always sync w/ iTun</title>
	<author>conchubhair</author>
	<datestamp>1247735820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're forgetting that there is nothing stopping you taking the music you buy from the iTunes store and putting it on whatever device you like. There is no device lock-in with iTunes any more, the files don't have any DRM. If you want to sync the music you buy from the iTunes store with your Apple iPod device, then yes, you need to use their sync software (which happens to be the iTunes client). If you want to sync the music with another piece of hardware, you can do that using whatever software came with the hardware.
All Palm needed to do was provide some desktop application to allow you to sync MP3s with their device and this would be a complete non-issue. They didn't, and for some reason that baffles me decided to make the device pretend to be something else, thus leaving themselves completely at the mercy of any changes to the iTunes/iPod syncing protocol. Was it that hard to write an app that says "show me where your MP3s are" and then moving them to the device?
Enough analogies have already been used in this thread - it was just a silly move by Palm. They need to release their own audio syncing software and the whole issue goes away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're forgetting that there is nothing stopping you taking the music you buy from the iTunes store and putting it on whatever device you like .
There is no device lock-in with iTunes any more , the files do n't have any DRM .
If you want to sync the music you buy from the iTunes store with your Apple iPod device , then yes , you need to use their sync software ( which happens to be the iTunes client ) .
If you want to sync the music with another piece of hardware , you can do that using whatever software came with the hardware .
All Palm needed to do was provide some desktop application to allow you to sync MP3s with their device and this would be a complete non-issue .
They did n't , and for some reason that baffles me decided to make the device pretend to be something else , thus leaving themselves completely at the mercy of any changes to the iTunes/iPod syncing protocol .
Was it that hard to write an app that says " show me where your MP3s are " and then moving them to the device ?
Enough analogies have already been used in this thread - it was just a silly move by Palm .
They need to release their own audio syncing software and the whole issue goes away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're forgetting that there is nothing stopping you taking the music you buy from the iTunes store and putting it on whatever device you like.
There is no device lock-in with iTunes any more, the files don't have any DRM.
If you want to sync the music you buy from the iTunes store with your Apple iPod device, then yes, you need to use their sync software (which happens to be the iTunes client).
If you want to sync the music with another piece of hardware, you can do that using whatever software came with the hardware.
All Palm needed to do was provide some desktop application to allow you to sync MP3s with their device and this would be a complete non-issue.
They didn't, and for some reason that baffles me decided to make the device pretend to be something else, thus leaving themselves completely at the mercy of any changes to the iTunes/iPod syncing protocol.
Was it that hard to write an app that says "show me where your MP3s are" and then moving them to the device?
Enough analogies have already been used in this thread - it was just a silly move by Palm.
They need to release their own audio syncing software and the whole issue goes away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28716123</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>obijuanvaldez</author>
	<datestamp>1247756460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would think that a program that stores and plays music that prompts you to <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9070558/Apple\_pushes\_Windows\_Safari\_via\_iTunes\_updater" title="computerworld.com" rel="nofollow">install a new web browser</a> [computerworld.com] could well be considered obnoxious without that being holy war talk.  It presumptuously asks to do more than the user may want it to do, similar to Java prompting to install an office suite.  In neither case does it mean the software isn't good at what it is intended to do, but in thinking you would like it to do way more completely unrelated things sure could be called obnoxious.
<br>
<br>
Further, and even on topic, when its updates render a feature of hardware you own broken, I think that could fairly fall into the obnoxious category.  Regardless of whether or not Apple was completely in its rights to prevent the Palm from synching with iTunes, the software update places Palm Pre owners who used the feature squarely in the middle of Apple's quarrel with Palm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would think that a program that stores and plays music that prompts you to install a new web browser [ computerworld.com ] could well be considered obnoxious without that being holy war talk .
It presumptuously asks to do more than the user may want it to do , similar to Java prompting to install an office suite .
In neither case does it mean the software is n't good at what it is intended to do , but in thinking you would like it to do way more completely unrelated things sure could be called obnoxious .
Further , and even on topic , when its updates render a feature of hardware you own broken , I think that could fairly fall into the obnoxious category .
Regardless of whether or not Apple was completely in its rights to prevent the Palm from synching with iTunes , the software update places Palm Pre owners who used the feature squarely in the middle of Apple 's quarrel with Palm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would think that a program that stores and plays music that prompts you to install a new web browser [computerworld.com] could well be considered obnoxious without that being holy war talk.
It presumptuously asks to do more than the user may want it to do, similar to Java prompting to install an office suite.
In neither case does it mean the software isn't good at what it is intended to do, but in thinking you would like it to do way more completely unrelated things sure could be called obnoxious.
Further, and even on topic, when its updates render a feature of hardware you own broken, I think that could fairly fall into the obnoxious category.
Regardless of whether or not Apple was completely in its rights to prevent the Palm from synching with iTunes, the software update places Palm Pre owners who used the feature squarely in the middle of Apple's quarrel with Palm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710519</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247663100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe because apple IS a hardware company. They use software to drive hardware sales. OS X sells Macs; the iTunes Music Store sells iPods; the App Store sells iPhones. They can't very well sell their hardware if other hardware companies start circumventing the things that tie Apple's hardware to their software. The Pre pretending to be an iPhone when connecting to iTunes is similar to Psystar making PCs think they're Macs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe because apple IS a hardware company .
They use software to drive hardware sales .
OS X sells Macs ; the iTunes Music Store sells iPods ; the App Store sells iPhones .
They ca n't very well sell their hardware if other hardware companies start circumventing the things that tie Apple 's hardware to their software .
The Pre pretending to be an iPhone when connecting to iTunes is similar to Psystar making PCs think they 're Macs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe because apple IS a hardware company.
They use software to drive hardware sales.
OS X sells Macs; the iTunes Music Store sells iPods; the App Store sells iPhones.
They can't very well sell their hardware if other hardware companies start circumventing the things that tie Apple's hardware to their software.
The Pre pretending to be an iPhone when connecting to iTunes is similar to Psystar making PCs think they're Macs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709685</id>
	<title>And nothing of value was lost...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247658600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously; it works great as a USB drive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously ; it works great as a USB drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously; it works great as a USB drive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712735</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247681280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about less bad and don't suck? Yeah.. I can't think anyone either. Apple has a very cool and very usable ecosystem with their iMacs/Macbooks, AppleTV, iPhone, iPod, Airport Extreme.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about less bad and do n't suck ?
Yeah.. I ca n't think anyone either .
Apple has a very cool and very usable ecosystem with their iMacs/Macbooks , AppleTV , iPhone , iPod , Airport Extreme .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about less bad and don't suck?
Yeah.. I can't think anyone either.
Apple has a very cool and very usable ecosystem with their iMacs/Macbooks, AppleTV, iPhone, iPod, Airport Extreme.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601</id>
	<title>Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247658180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I interviewed at Apple a few years ago, and a consistent message from the developers was that *everything* they do is to make the customer experience better.  Things are not done simply because they're cool -- they have to serve a purpose.</p><p>So I find it ironic that, as a MacBook Pro user, Apple has explicitly done something to make my experience *worse*.  They went much further than simply failing to "provide support for, or test for compatibility with, non-Apple digital media players."  They went out of their way to harm users.</p><p>Shame on you, Apple.  Have you gotten so big that you've forgotten what it was like to be under Microsoft's thumb?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I interviewed at Apple a few years ago , and a consistent message from the developers was that * everything * they do is to make the customer experience better .
Things are not done simply because they 're cool -- they have to serve a purpose.So I find it ironic that , as a MacBook Pro user , Apple has explicitly done something to make my experience * worse * .
They went much further than simply failing to " provide support for , or test for compatibility with , non-Apple digital media players .
" They went out of their way to harm users.Shame on you , Apple .
Have you gotten so big that you 've forgotten what it was like to be under Microsoft 's thumb ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I interviewed at Apple a few years ago, and a consistent message from the developers was that *everything* they do is to make the customer experience better.
Things are not done simply because they're cool -- they have to serve a purpose.So I find it ironic that, as a MacBook Pro user, Apple has explicitly done something to make my experience *worse*.
They went much further than simply failing to "provide support for, or test for compatibility with, non-Apple digital media players.
"  They went out of their way to harm users.Shame on you, Apple.
Have you gotten so big that you've forgotten what it was like to be under Microsoft's thumb?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28718763</id>
	<title>Re:I don't understand all the hoopla here...</title>
	<author>pandrijeczko</author>
	<datestamp>1247766420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funnily enough, you can buy music CDs that have the music already *ON* them.</p><p>If you hunt around diligently, you can usually buy them for less than paying for separate tracks on iTunes and have a nice plastic case and sleeve notes to read while on the toilet.</p><p>And the *really nice* thing about CDs is that the music isn't in a lossy format in the first place, so you can rip them at whatever bit rate you want to whatever format you want, whilst still keeping the original disks anally alphabetically filed on a nice shelf somewhere.</p><p>Oh, and if your hard disk goes tits up and you couldn't afford to buy a backup device because you were buying blank CDs and paying too much for downloadable music from iTunes, you don't need to redownload all your music - you just *RIP THE CD* again!</p><p>It's amazing what technology they come up with these days - especially this *new* CD technology that surpasses iTunes *and* gives you better value for money!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funnily enough , you can buy music CDs that have the music already * ON * them.If you hunt around diligently , you can usually buy them for less than paying for separate tracks on iTunes and have a nice plastic case and sleeve notes to read while on the toilet.And the * really nice * thing about CDs is that the music is n't in a lossy format in the first place , so you can rip them at whatever bit rate you want to whatever format you want , whilst still keeping the original disks anally alphabetically filed on a nice shelf somewhere.Oh , and if your hard disk goes tits up and you could n't afford to buy a backup device because you were buying blank CDs and paying too much for downloadable music from iTunes , you do n't need to redownload all your music - you just * RIP THE CD * again ! It 's amazing what technology they come up with these days - especially this * new * CD technology that surpasses iTunes * and * gives you better value for money !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funnily enough, you can buy music CDs that have the music already *ON* them.If you hunt around diligently, you can usually buy them for less than paying for separate tracks on iTunes and have a nice plastic case and sleeve notes to read while on the toilet.And the *really nice* thing about CDs is that the music isn't in a lossy format in the first place, so you can rip them at whatever bit rate you want to whatever format you want, whilst still keeping the original disks anally alphabetically filed on a nice shelf somewhere.Oh, and if your hard disk goes tits up and you couldn't afford to buy a backup device because you were buying blank CDs and paying too much for downloadable music from iTunes, you don't need to redownload all your music - you just *RIP THE CD* again!It's amazing what technology they come up with these days - especially this *new* CD technology that surpasses iTunes *and* gives you better value for money!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28716641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712469</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values</title>
	<author>dfghjk</author>
	<datestamp>1247679060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whether you are a distributor or not isn't determined by your margins or your business plan.  The fact that you have a business plan at all means you probably are one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether you are a distributor or not is n't determined by your margins or your business plan .
The fact that you have a business plan at all means you probably are one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether you are a distributor or not isn't determined by your margins or your business plan.
The fact that you have a business plan at all means you probably are one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712443</id>
	<title>iTunes is free software probably funded by iPods.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247678760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>iTunes is free software and its development could be considered partly funded by ipods &amp; iphones.<br>
It is important to keep this in mind when deciding on whether it is a good / bad move by Apple to stop Palm Pre's synchronization.<br>
<br>
iTunes is a very good piece of software, and I think most agree on that (if not, they don't have to worry about synchronization anyway). It is also freely available on both Windows and Mac, so it is not like it is tied to a platform.
(I agree they should have it for linux).<br> So where does apple get money to develop and maintain this nice software ? I would say there are 2 possible sources.<br>
1. iTunes store : Apple could be supporting the software from the money they get from songs sold on iTunes store.<br>
2. iPod/iPhone sales : Apple could be supporting the software from ipod/iphone sales, since it is supposed to sync with them. The iPods would be useless without iTunes.<br>
<br>
I don't think one can come up with a clear definition here, but it would be safe to say that Apple develops and maintains iTunes as a software meant to buy music from its iTunes store, manage the music on a computer and sync the music to its own devices.<br>
<br>
I think it is also safe to say that the 'synchronizing' part of iTunes is funded by the iPod or iPhone sales. If you have this perspective in mind, it seems to me that Palm Pre was acting as a free loader. Trying to use the sync functionality of a software that it did not contribute anything to. It seems perfectly okay for Apple to plug this loop hole.<br>
<br>
Now, lets think about what would Apple have lost by keeping the loop hole open.<br>
Does it cost any extra money, resources or time for Apple if some freebies use its sync functionality ? I think it does, in long run and in an indirect way.<br>
<br>
Any type of software, be it free or paid, always has to deal with backward compatibility, which has some development cost involved. The cost is also related to number of things that you support to be backward compatible. if Apple continues to allow Palm Pre (or other ipod-clones) to sync, it is indirectly committing to these devices. In a long run, in future, there will be lot more ipod clones that depend on iTunes for their synchronization and every new version of iTunes would have to either take care that it doesn't break the synchronization with these foreign devices, or incur the wrath of a much larger user-base if it stops supporting them later.
<br>
By plugging the loop hole today, Apple has made a wise decision. Incur the wrath of a smaller user base today (whom apple doesn't have to answer anyways) than to incur the wrath of a larger user base which may include many more smart-phones and ipod-clones that may try to follow Palm's example.<br>
<br>
Finally, an analogy that would show the absurdity of all this : Lets say a Hotel 'Apple Suites' builds a beautiful lounge at an airport and opens it to the public. It also installs a monorail that can transfer its guests from airport to the hotel. Since there is no other establishment near Apple Suites, it doesn't bother to verify that all monorail riders are indeed Apple Suites' guests. Hotel 'Royal Palms', builds a new Hotel near Apple Suites and advertises that their guests could in fact use the Apple Suites airport lounge and Apple Suites' monorail to get to it as they have tested it and nobody bothered to verify their reservations. Apple Suites finds out about the monorail misuse and decides to stop it by doing a better verification. Royal Palms guests start to complain that Apple Suites free lounge is now restricting them to get to their Hotel !!! Some would say that they in fact booked in Royal Palms so that they can use Apple Suites monorail.
Although this may look absurd, it is possible that if Apple Suites allows the misuse to go on, more hotels would spring nearby relying on the monorail for their transport. If Apple suites decides to stop the practice later, a court may rule that Apple Suites has stopped a legitimate mode of transport that people have been using, and so should open the monorail to public.</htmltext>
<tokenext>iTunes is free software and its development could be considered partly funded by ipods &amp; iphones .
It is important to keep this in mind when deciding on whether it is a good / bad move by Apple to stop Palm Pre 's synchronization .
iTunes is a very good piece of software , and I think most agree on that ( if not , they do n't have to worry about synchronization anyway ) .
It is also freely available on both Windows and Mac , so it is not like it is tied to a platform .
( I agree they should have it for linux ) .
So where does apple get money to develop and maintain this nice software ?
I would say there are 2 possible sources .
1. iTunes store : Apple could be supporting the software from the money they get from songs sold on iTunes store .
2. iPod/iPhone sales : Apple could be supporting the software from ipod/iphone sales , since it is supposed to sync with them .
The iPods would be useless without iTunes .
I do n't think one can come up with a clear definition here , but it would be safe to say that Apple develops and maintains iTunes as a software meant to buy music from its iTunes store , manage the music on a computer and sync the music to its own devices .
I think it is also safe to say that the 'synchronizing ' part of iTunes is funded by the iPod or iPhone sales .
If you have this perspective in mind , it seems to me that Palm Pre was acting as a free loader .
Trying to use the sync functionality of a software that it did not contribute anything to .
It seems perfectly okay for Apple to plug this loop hole .
Now , lets think about what would Apple have lost by keeping the loop hole open .
Does it cost any extra money , resources or time for Apple if some freebies use its sync functionality ?
I think it does , in long run and in an indirect way .
Any type of software , be it free or paid , always has to deal with backward compatibility , which has some development cost involved .
The cost is also related to number of things that you support to be backward compatible .
if Apple continues to allow Palm Pre ( or other ipod-clones ) to sync , it is indirectly committing to these devices .
In a long run , in future , there will be lot more ipod clones that depend on iTunes for their synchronization and every new version of iTunes would have to either take care that it does n't break the synchronization with these foreign devices , or incur the wrath of a much larger user-base if it stops supporting them later .
By plugging the loop hole today , Apple has made a wise decision .
Incur the wrath of a smaller user base today ( whom apple does n't have to answer anyways ) than to incur the wrath of a larger user base which may include many more smart-phones and ipod-clones that may try to follow Palm 's example .
Finally , an analogy that would show the absurdity of all this : Lets say a Hotel 'Apple Suites ' builds a beautiful lounge at an airport and opens it to the public .
It also installs a monorail that can transfer its guests from airport to the hotel .
Since there is no other establishment near Apple Suites , it does n't bother to verify that all monorail riders are indeed Apple Suites ' guests .
Hotel 'Royal Palms ' , builds a new Hotel near Apple Suites and advertises that their guests could in fact use the Apple Suites airport lounge and Apple Suites ' monorail to get to it as they have tested it and nobody bothered to verify their reservations .
Apple Suites finds out about the monorail misuse and decides to stop it by doing a better verification .
Royal Palms guests start to complain that Apple Suites free lounge is now restricting them to get to their Hotel ! ! !
Some would say that they in fact booked in Royal Palms so that they can use Apple Suites monorail .
Although this may look absurd , it is possible that if Apple Suites allows the misuse to go on , more hotels would spring nearby relying on the monorail for their transport .
If Apple suites decides to stop the practice later , a court may rule that Apple Suites has stopped a legitimate mode of transport that people have been using , and so should open the monorail to public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>iTunes is free software and its development could be considered partly funded by ipods &amp; iphones.
It is important to keep this in mind when deciding on whether it is a good / bad move by Apple to stop Palm Pre's synchronization.
iTunes is a very good piece of software, and I think most agree on that (if not, they don't have to worry about synchronization anyway).
It is also freely available on both Windows and Mac, so it is not like it is tied to a platform.
(I agree they should have it for linux).
So where does apple get money to develop and maintain this nice software ?
I would say there are 2 possible sources.
1. iTunes store : Apple could be supporting the software from the money they get from songs sold on iTunes store.
2. iPod/iPhone sales : Apple could be supporting the software from ipod/iphone sales, since it is supposed to sync with them.
The iPods would be useless without iTunes.
I don't think one can come up with a clear definition here, but it would be safe to say that Apple develops and maintains iTunes as a software meant to buy music from its iTunes store, manage the music on a computer and sync the music to its own devices.
I think it is also safe to say that the 'synchronizing' part of iTunes is funded by the iPod or iPhone sales.
If you have this perspective in mind, it seems to me that Palm Pre was acting as a free loader.
Trying to use the sync functionality of a software that it did not contribute anything to.
It seems perfectly okay for Apple to plug this loop hole.
Now, lets think about what would Apple have lost by keeping the loop hole open.
Does it cost any extra money, resources or time for Apple if some freebies use its sync functionality ?
I think it does, in long run and in an indirect way.
Any type of software, be it free or paid, always has to deal with backward compatibility, which has some development cost involved.
The cost is also related to number of things that you support to be backward compatible.
if Apple continues to allow Palm Pre (or other ipod-clones) to sync, it is indirectly committing to these devices.
In a long run, in future, there will be lot more ipod clones that depend on iTunes for their synchronization and every new version of iTunes would have to either take care that it doesn't break the synchronization with these foreign devices, or incur the wrath of a much larger user-base if it stops supporting them later.
By plugging the loop hole today, Apple has made a wise decision.
Incur the wrath of a smaller user base today (whom apple doesn't have to answer anyways) than to incur the wrath of a larger user base which may include many more smart-phones and ipod-clones that may try to follow Palm's example.
Finally, an analogy that would show the absurdity of all this : Lets say a Hotel 'Apple Suites' builds a beautiful lounge at an airport and opens it to the public.
It also installs a monorail that can transfer its guests from airport to the hotel.
Since there is no other establishment near Apple Suites, it doesn't bother to verify that all monorail riders are indeed Apple Suites' guests.
Hotel 'Royal Palms', builds a new Hotel near Apple Suites and advertises that their guests could in fact use the Apple Suites airport lounge and Apple Suites' monorail to get to it as they have tested it and nobody bothered to verify their reservations.
Apple Suites finds out about the monorail misuse and decides to stop it by doing a better verification.
Royal Palms guests start to complain that Apple Suites free lounge is now restricting them to get to their Hotel !!!
Some would say that they in fact booked in Royal Palms so that they can use Apple Suites monorail.
Although this may look absurd, it is possible that if Apple Suites allows the misuse to go on, more hotels would spring nearby relying on the monorail for their transport.
If Apple suites decides to stop the practice later, a court may rule that Apple Suites has stopped a legitimate mode of transport that people have been using, and so should open the monorail to public.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711447</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products</title>
	<author>DaggertipX</author>
	<datestamp>1247669880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I care, and yet I'm not going to modify my behavior.  Why?  Because this is not a case of Apple doing something wrong.  Palm's "syncing" was a hack.  A hack even THEY said would probably break.  Yet they delivered it anyway...</p><p>Apple isn't perfect, but I have yet to find a compelling reason to go elsewhere.  Most of what they do is "less bad" than what the competition does.</p><p>I mean, what... should I go to linux? Going without the tools I need for my job goes further than "going without some bling".  (And no, there are not tools that will work on Linux, trust me, I was a linux user for years before going to Apple.  I left because my tool stack was woefully incomplete.)</p><p>Maybe go to Windows?  Really? Do you want to play the Apple is more evil than MS card? </p><p>Sorry for the rant, but your condescending tone paints Apple users as mindless drones, which pisses me off.  I am a developer.  I've been around the block, this is just where I chose to land.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I care , and yet I 'm not going to modify my behavior .
Why ? Because this is not a case of Apple doing something wrong .
Palm 's " syncing " was a hack .
A hack even THEY said would probably break .
Yet they delivered it anyway...Apple is n't perfect , but I have yet to find a compelling reason to go elsewhere .
Most of what they do is " less bad " than what the competition does.I mean , what... should I go to linux ?
Going without the tools I need for my job goes further than " going without some bling " .
( And no , there are not tools that will work on Linux , trust me , I was a linux user for years before going to Apple .
I left because my tool stack was woefully incomplete .
) Maybe go to Windows ?
Really ? Do you want to play the Apple is more evil than MS card ?
Sorry for the rant , but your condescending tone paints Apple users as mindless drones , which pisses me off .
I am a developer .
I 've been around the block , this is just where I chose to land .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I care, and yet I'm not going to modify my behavior.
Why?  Because this is not a case of Apple doing something wrong.
Palm's "syncing" was a hack.
A hack even THEY said would probably break.
Yet they delivered it anyway...Apple isn't perfect, but I have yet to find a compelling reason to go elsewhere.
Most of what they do is "less bad" than what the competition does.I mean, what... should I go to linux?
Going without the tools I need for my job goes further than "going without some bling".
(And no, there are not tools that will work on Linux, trust me, I was a linux user for years before going to Apple.
I left because my tool stack was woefully incomplete.
)Maybe go to Windows?
Really? Do you want to play the Apple is more evil than MS card?
Sorry for the rant, but your condescending tone paints Apple users as mindless drones, which pisses me off.
I am a developer.
I've been around the block, this is just where I chose to land.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28716027</id>
	<title>Re:Who got a Pre thinking it'd always sync w/ iTun</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247756100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty simplistic point you made. Apple's moves where against competition and against the wishes of some of their consumers, and you are giving this moves an OK stamp just because Apple was sooner than others in the market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty simplistic point you made .
Apple 's moves where against competition and against the wishes of some of their consumers , and you are giving this moves an OK stamp just because Apple was sooner than others in the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty simplistic point you made.
Apple's moves where against competition and against the wishes of some of their consumers, and you are giving this moves an OK stamp just because Apple was sooner than others in the market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709807</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247659260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, time to start buying from this other company,,, what's it called,,,,,,,, Microsoft, no wait that is the same shit.</p><p>So I would have to install fx. Ubuntu but I always end up having to spend time getting something to work.<br>I guess I don't really care enough to modify my behaviour so I have just Apple equipment at home (besides from my QNAP box) and I don't have to waste any of the little free time I have on getting different devices to work together.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , time to start buying from this other company,, , what 's it called,,,,,,, , Microsoft , no wait that is the same shit.So I would have to install fx .
Ubuntu but I always end up having to spend time getting something to work.I guess I do n't really care enough to modify my behaviour so I have just Apple equipment at home ( besides from my QNAP box ) and I do n't have to waste any of the little free time I have on getting different devices to work together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, time to start buying from this other company,,, what's it called,,,,,,,, Microsoft, no wait that is the same shit.So I would have to install fx.
Ubuntu but I always end up having to spend time getting something to work.I guess I don't really care enough to modify my behaviour so I have just Apple equipment at home (besides from my QNAP box) and I don't have to waste any of the little free time I have on getting different devices to work together.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711511</id>
	<title>Re:What Palm is doing is skanky</title>
	<author>demachina</author>
	<datestamp>1247670360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One thing that might have crossed Palm's mind is this is a pretty vivid way to illustrate to consumers and government antitrust regulators that Apple is building some pretty powerful mutually supporting monopolies between iTunes, iPod and iPhone and Apple is using one monopoly to build new monopolies.  As best I recall antitrust regulators frown on using tie ins with existing monopolies to create new ones.</p><p>Palm was faced with three options:</p><p>- try to compete against iPhone without iTunes support which put them at a competitive disadvantage<br>- hack their way in to iTunes, and hope that either Apple plays it cool and does nothing in which case they get the iTunes support they needed, or Apple hammers them and Apple suddenly become a substantially bigger antitrust target and they make Apple's customers feel a little more apprehensive about being locked in to the Apple ecosystem.<br>- it would be interesting to know if Palm tried to negotiate a license for iTunes access and Apple rebuffed them because of the competitive threat either denying it outright or making it prohibitively expensive.  If Palm tried and Apple rebuffed that could come back on Apple in the eyes of antitrust regulators.</p><p>What ever happens with Palm infringing on Apple's multitouch patents anyway?  I haven't been following and I thought this was a pretty serious problem for Pre with Apple too.  Everyone demands multitouch now and if Apple has it locked up in patents that will further cement a pretty potent monopoly on multitouch smart phones.</p><p>One thing about the iPhone is it would be quite as big an antitrust target if it wasn't locked in to ATT in the U.S.  ATT doesn't even provide service in big swaths of rural America so people in those areas, can't buy iPhones at all and it appears can't get iTunes on their phones either.  People in cities wont care but iPhone exclusivity was already starting to cause antitrust attention to be brought to bear on Apple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing that might have crossed Palm 's mind is this is a pretty vivid way to illustrate to consumers and government antitrust regulators that Apple is building some pretty powerful mutually supporting monopolies between iTunes , iPod and iPhone and Apple is using one monopoly to build new monopolies .
As best I recall antitrust regulators frown on using tie ins with existing monopolies to create new ones.Palm was faced with three options : - try to compete against iPhone without iTunes support which put them at a competitive disadvantage- hack their way in to iTunes , and hope that either Apple plays it cool and does nothing in which case they get the iTunes support they needed , or Apple hammers them and Apple suddenly become a substantially bigger antitrust target and they make Apple 's customers feel a little more apprehensive about being locked in to the Apple ecosystem.- it would be interesting to know if Palm tried to negotiate a license for iTunes access and Apple rebuffed them because of the competitive threat either denying it outright or making it prohibitively expensive .
If Palm tried and Apple rebuffed that could come back on Apple in the eyes of antitrust regulators.What ever happens with Palm infringing on Apple 's multitouch patents anyway ?
I have n't been following and I thought this was a pretty serious problem for Pre with Apple too .
Everyone demands multitouch now and if Apple has it locked up in patents that will further cement a pretty potent monopoly on multitouch smart phones.One thing about the iPhone is it would be quite as big an antitrust target if it was n't locked in to ATT in the U.S. ATT does n't even provide service in big swaths of rural America so people in those areas , ca n't buy iPhones at all and it appears ca n't get iTunes on their phones either .
People in cities wont care but iPhone exclusivity was already starting to cause antitrust attention to be brought to bear on Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing that might have crossed Palm's mind is this is a pretty vivid way to illustrate to consumers and government antitrust regulators that Apple is building some pretty powerful mutually supporting monopolies between iTunes, iPod and iPhone and Apple is using one monopoly to build new monopolies.
As best I recall antitrust regulators frown on using tie ins with existing monopolies to create new ones.Palm was faced with three options:- try to compete against iPhone without iTunes support which put them at a competitive disadvantage- hack their way in to iTunes, and hope that either Apple plays it cool and does nothing in which case they get the iTunes support they needed, or Apple hammers them and Apple suddenly become a substantially bigger antitrust target and they make Apple's customers feel a little more apprehensive about being locked in to the Apple ecosystem.- it would be interesting to know if Palm tried to negotiate a license for iTunes access and Apple rebuffed them because of the competitive threat either denying it outright or making it prohibitively expensive.
If Palm tried and Apple rebuffed that could come back on Apple in the eyes of antitrust regulators.What ever happens with Palm infringing on Apple's multitouch patents anyway?
I haven't been following and I thought this was a pretty serious problem for Pre with Apple too.
Everyone demands multitouch now and if Apple has it locked up in patents that will further cement a pretty potent monopoly on multitouch smart phones.One thing about the iPhone is it would be quite as big an antitrust target if it wasn't locked in to ATT in the U.S.  ATT doesn't even provide service in big swaths of rural America so people in those areas, can't buy iPhones at all and it appears can't get iTunes on their phones either.
People in cities wont care but iPhone exclusivity was already starting to cause antitrust attention to be brought to bear on Apple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711831</id>
	<title>Re:Who got a Pre thinking it'd always sync w/ iTun</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247672700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If Palm wants to compete, then let them create their own service and interface rather than leveraging another company's successful work.</p></div><p>Yeah!  And they'd better do their own shipping, build their own components from scratch, and create a brand-new telephone network so that they can offer call-centre support.  Because, y'know, interoperability between companies in different industries isn't what our present economy is based on, or anything.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Palm wants to compete , then let them create their own service and interface rather than leveraging another company 's successful work.Yeah !
And they 'd better do their own shipping , build their own components from scratch , and create a brand-new telephone network so that they can offer call-centre support .
Because , y'know , interoperability between companies in different industries is n't what our present economy is based on , or anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Palm wants to compete, then let them create their own service and interface rather than leveraging another company's successful work.Yeah!
And they'd better do their own shipping, build their own components from scratch, and create a brand-new telephone network so that they can offer call-centre support.
Because, y'know, interoperability between companies in different industries isn't what our present economy is based on, or anything.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709711</id>
	<title>Doubletwist?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247658780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You could always use DVD Jon's <a href="http://www.doubletwist.com/" title="doubletwist.com">DoubleTwist</a> [doubletwist.com] to sync the Palm Pre. <br> <br>

It reads iTunes libraries (including those irritatingly hidden away on iPods/Phones) and syncs to lots of devices quite nicely.<br> <br>

It's not exactly full-featured enough yet to use as your main media player, but it's really useful for moving stuff between devices.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could always use DVD Jon 's DoubleTwist [ doubletwist.com ] to sync the Palm Pre .
It reads iTunes libraries ( including those irritatingly hidden away on iPods/Phones ) and syncs to lots of devices quite nicely .
It 's not exactly full-featured enough yet to use as your main media player , but it 's really useful for moving stuff between devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could always use DVD Jon's DoubleTwist [doubletwist.com] to sync the Palm Pre.
It reads iTunes libraries (including those irritatingly hidden away on iPods/Phones) and syncs to lots of devices quite nicely.
It's not exactly full-featured enough yet to use as your main media player, but it's really useful for moving stuff between devices.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710149</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values</title>
	<author>Penguinshit</author>
	<datestamp>1247661240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who the hell said Apple has to support non-Apple products? This is about Apple deliberately shutting off access, not support.<br> <br>
What if apple decided to deny iTunes access because I was using a Dell and not a Mac? Is that a support issue?<br> <br>
This is clearly a case of Apple leveraging iTunes to squash real competition to the iPhone and the VP who signed off on this needs to be fired.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who the hell said Apple has to support non-Apple products ?
This is about Apple deliberately shutting off access , not support .
What if apple decided to deny iTunes access because I was using a Dell and not a Mac ?
Is that a support issue ?
This is clearly a case of Apple leveraging iTunes to squash real competition to the iPhone and the VP who signed off on this needs to be fired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who the hell said Apple has to support non-Apple products?
This is about Apple deliberately shutting off access, not support.
What if apple decided to deny iTunes access because I was using a Dell and not a Mac?
Is that a support issue?
This is clearly a case of Apple leveraging iTunes to squash real competition to the iPhone and the VP who signed off on this needs to be fired.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710057</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is just Microsoft wannabe.</title>
	<author>martas</author>
	<datestamp>1247660580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>small companies want open standards and interoperability. large companies want to hold their customers hostage, because they have a shot at absolute monopoly. apple has recently made a rare transition from the first to second category, and their incentives and policies have changed accordingly. that's all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>small companies want open standards and interoperability .
large companies want to hold their customers hostage , because they have a shot at absolute monopoly .
apple has recently made a rare transition from the first to second category , and their incentives and policies have changed accordingly .
that 's all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>small companies want open standards and interoperability.
large companies want to hold their customers hostage, because they have a shot at absolute monopoly.
apple has recently made a rare transition from the first to second category, and their incentives and policies have changed accordingly.
that's all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710467</id>
	<title>So what.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247662740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>iTunes is a piece of iShit anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>iTunes is a piece of iShit anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>iTunes is a piece of iShit anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710135</id>
	<title>AppleT&amp;T</title>
	<author>tengeta</author>
	<datestamp>1247661060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, so Apple is fine with iTunes on Windows, but not a Palm Pre... I'd like to see how they argue this isn't monopolistic behavior in court, because I would get a lot of good laughs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , so Apple is fine with iTunes on Windows , but not a Palm Pre... I 'd like to see how they argue this is n't monopolistic behavior in court , because I would get a lot of good laughs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, so Apple is fine with iTunes on Windows, but not a Palm Pre... I'd like to see how they argue this isn't monopolistic behavior in court, because I would get a lot of good laughs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711203</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1247668020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, as far as I followed, Palm really pushed it too much by mentioning "iTunes sync" in advertisement. Everyone syncs with iTunes, it is a great music catalogue application (just like iPhoto)  but when you actually use that feature as part of advertisement of a directly competing product, you are really pushing it.</p><p>I am afraid for my own devices which "silently" syncing, without advertising... They are clever to implement it and advertise it properly without pushing some buttons in Cupertino. Not Palm! Other companies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , as far as I followed , Palm really pushed it too much by mentioning " iTunes sync " in advertisement .
Everyone syncs with iTunes , it is a great music catalogue application ( just like iPhoto ) but when you actually use that feature as part of advertisement of a directly competing product , you are really pushing it.I am afraid for my own devices which " silently " syncing , without advertising... They are clever to implement it and advertise it properly without pushing some buttons in Cupertino .
Not Palm !
Other companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, as far as I followed, Palm really pushed it too much by mentioning "iTunes sync" in advertisement.
Everyone syncs with iTunes, it is a great music catalogue application (just like iPhoto)  but when you actually use that feature as part of advertisement of a directly competing product, you are really pushing it.I am afraid for my own devices which "silently" syncing, without advertising... They are clever to implement it and advertise it properly without pushing some buttons in Cupertino.
Not Palm!
Other companies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711865</id>
	<title>Question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247672880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aren't most iTunes users iPod owners? If a person uses a Creative Nomad exclusively, they are unlikely to even have iTunes on their system. Why would a Palm Pre owner expect iPod-only software to work with their Palm Pre? Wouldn't it make more sense to buy your music on a site such as Amazon MP3 and sync with Winamp or something similar?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't most iTunes users iPod owners ?
If a person uses a Creative Nomad exclusively , they are unlikely to even have iTunes on their system .
Why would a Palm Pre owner expect iPod-only software to work with their Palm Pre ?
Would n't it make more sense to buy your music on a site such as Amazon MP3 and sync with Winamp or something similar ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't most iTunes users iPod owners?
If a person uses a Creative Nomad exclusively, they are unlikely to even have iTunes on their system.
Why would a Palm Pre owner expect iPod-only software to work with their Palm Pre?
Wouldn't it make more sense to buy your music on a site such as Amazon MP3 and sync with Winamp or something similar?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28724209</id>
	<title>There are many alternatives to iTunes</title>
	<author>gig</author>
	<datestamp>1247745480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are many alternatives to iTunes on both Mac and PC. Palm should have licensed one of these alternatives the same as every other media player. Instead, they changed their device's USB ID to pretend to be a past Apple product. Lame.</p><p>Palm is $299 and iPhone is $99 and Apple is supposed to provide the media player software also? C'mon!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are many alternatives to iTunes on both Mac and PC .
Palm should have licensed one of these alternatives the same as every other media player .
Instead , they changed their device 's USB ID to pretend to be a past Apple product .
Lame.Palm is $ 299 and iPhone is $ 99 and Apple is supposed to provide the media player software also ?
C'mon !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are many alternatives to iTunes on both Mac and PC.
Palm should have licensed one of these alternatives the same as every other media player.
Instead, they changed their device's USB ID to pretend to be a past Apple product.
Lame.Palm is $299 and iPhone is $99 and Apple is supposed to provide the media player software also?
C'mon!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712249</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1247676540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Shame on you, Apple. Have you gotten so big that you've forgotten what it was like to be under <b>IBM</b>'s thumb?</p></div><p>Fixed that for you. And yes, they've forgotten already, in case you didn't notice this past decade.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Shame on you , Apple .
Have you gotten so big that you 've forgotten what it was like to be under IBM 's thumb ? Fixed that for you .
And yes , they 've forgotten already , in case you did n't notice this past decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shame on you, Apple.
Have you gotten so big that you've forgotten what it was like to be under IBM's thumb?Fixed that for you.
And yes, they've forgotten already, in case you didn't notice this past decade.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709917</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values</title>
	<author>Lysol</author>
	<datestamp>1247659860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All I have to say is this: Apple doesn't care in the slightest. They've forgotten about living under anyone's thumb because they're leaders now in a few key markets. They'll abuse it the say way anyone else does or is. At this point, people have to organize, complain, vote with their pocketbooks, hack. I do happen to like and own many Apple products, but they're no shining knight - never have been in my mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All I have to say is this : Apple does n't care in the slightest .
They 've forgotten about living under anyone 's thumb because they 're leaders now in a few key markets .
They 'll abuse it the say way anyone else does or is .
At this point , people have to organize , complain , vote with their pocketbooks , hack .
I do happen to like and own many Apple products , but they 're no shining knight - never have been in my mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I have to say is this: Apple doesn't care in the slightest.
They've forgotten about living under anyone's thumb because they're leaders now in a few key markets.
They'll abuse it the say way anyone else does or is.
At this point, people have to organize, complain, vote with their pocketbooks, hack.
I do happen to like and own many Apple products, but they're no shining knight - never have been in my mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28722831</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247739240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My household has three iPods, an iPhone and two Pre's.  Looks to me that Apple just engineered it's way out of a lot of future revenue.  And silly me, I thought they wanted to sell music too.  Hmmm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My household has three iPods , an iPhone and two Pre 's .
Looks to me that Apple just engineered it 's way out of a lot of future revenue .
And silly me , I thought they wanted to sell music too .
Hmmm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My household has three iPods, an iPhone and two Pre's.
Looks to me that Apple just engineered it's way out of a lot of future revenue.
And silly me, I thought they wanted to sell music too.
Hmmm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709657</id>
	<title>I couldn't care less</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247658420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>about iTunes. It's made to be a lock-in platform for Apple to sell more DRM-ladden music. There are other products (and free) out there that allows you to sync the Palm Pre:

<a href="http://www.doubletwist.com/dt/Home/Index.dt" title="doubletwist.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.doubletwist.com/dt/Home/Index.dt</a> [doubletwist.com]

DId I mention it's made by DVD Jon?</htmltext>
<tokenext>about iTunes .
It 's made to be a lock-in platform for Apple to sell more DRM-ladden music .
There are other products ( and free ) out there that allows you to sync the Palm Pre : http : //www.doubletwist.com/dt/Home/Index.dt [ doubletwist.com ] DId I mention it 's made by DVD Jon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>about iTunes.
It's made to be a lock-in platform for Apple to sell more DRM-ladden music.
There are other products (and free) out there that allows you to sync the Palm Pre:

http://www.doubletwist.com/dt/Home/Index.dt [doubletwist.com]

DId I mention it's made by DVD Jon?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709905</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247659740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm going to stick with companies that make products that are demonstrably "less bad".  Thanks for the sage advice, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to stick with companies that make products that are demonstrably " less bad " .
Thanks for the sage advice , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to stick with companies that make products that are demonstrably "less bad".
Thanks for the sage advice, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28716187</id>
	<title>my own 0.02...</title>
	<author>pjr.cc</author>
	<datestamp>1247756700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My personal opinion of apple has always been that it was a shame Microsoft were never quite able to land the final killing blow.</p><p>Microsoft are evil, but Apple hold the patent on it (for which MS pay licensing fee's).</p><p>Apple scare me more than MS ever has. Look at what apple has done to the iPhone for example - only software they approve? how is the DoJ not stepping in and saying "im sorry, thats a no-no?". The REALLY scarey thing is that if MS had of lost the look-and-feel debate of the 80's (or was it ealier?) we may very well have the same problem on the desktop (i.e. all running mac's with software only apple approve of).</p><p>Back on topic though, the pre cant sync via iTunes - its not the end of the world and i dont see it as apple being "evil" myself. Consider google aquiring licensing to sync with activesync for example, apple came with an idea they're not obliged to allow it to work with any other device. The reality is, if they were interested in interoperability they would have done it with syncml to begin with. But as we all know, both software and hardware vendors are interested in lock-in and open standards are the enemy.</p><p>Never forget that, OPEN STANDARDS ARE YOUR ENEMY IF YOU WORK IN THE HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE INDUSTRY. To think otherwise is a serious mis-calculation (with a few exceptions).</p><p>And that is why I almost exclusively use Linux - cause everyone who codes here at least partially aims to implement a standard (even if it can be quite painful sometimes). Granted, there are examples of that in reverse, but they are the exception rather then the norm. Even when linux does invent its own standards at least its all there in the source (and probably documentation) for you to implement. If you were ever after a reason for using linux, thats it.</p><p>i'll get off my soap-box now, i've got the flu and am on flu-drugs so i may be going off slightly half-cocked!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My personal opinion of apple has always been that it was a shame Microsoft were never quite able to land the final killing blow.Microsoft are evil , but Apple hold the patent on it ( for which MS pay licensing fee 's ) .Apple scare me more than MS ever has .
Look at what apple has done to the iPhone for example - only software they approve ?
how is the DoJ not stepping in and saying " im sorry , thats a no-no ? " .
The REALLY scarey thing is that if MS had of lost the look-and-feel debate of the 80 's ( or was it ealier ?
) we may very well have the same problem on the desktop ( i.e .
all running mac 's with software only apple approve of ) .Back on topic though , the pre cant sync via iTunes - its not the end of the world and i dont see it as apple being " evil " myself .
Consider google aquiring licensing to sync with activesync for example , apple came with an idea they 're not obliged to allow it to work with any other device .
The reality is , if they were interested in interoperability they would have done it with syncml to begin with .
But as we all know , both software and hardware vendors are interested in lock-in and open standards are the enemy.Never forget that , OPEN STANDARDS ARE YOUR ENEMY IF YOU WORK IN THE HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE INDUSTRY .
To think otherwise is a serious mis-calculation ( with a few exceptions ) .And that is why I almost exclusively use Linux - cause everyone who codes here at least partially aims to implement a standard ( even if it can be quite painful sometimes ) .
Granted , there are examples of that in reverse , but they are the exception rather then the norm .
Even when linux does invent its own standards at least its all there in the source ( and probably documentation ) for you to implement .
If you were ever after a reason for using linux , thats it.i 'll get off my soap-box now , i 've got the flu and am on flu-drugs so i may be going off slightly half-cocked !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My personal opinion of apple has always been that it was a shame Microsoft were never quite able to land the final killing blow.Microsoft are evil, but Apple hold the patent on it (for which MS pay licensing fee's).Apple scare me more than MS ever has.
Look at what apple has done to the iPhone for example - only software they approve?
how is the DoJ not stepping in and saying "im sorry, thats a no-no?".
The REALLY scarey thing is that if MS had of lost the look-and-feel debate of the 80's (or was it ealier?
) we may very well have the same problem on the desktop (i.e.
all running mac's with software only apple approve of).Back on topic though, the pre cant sync via iTunes - its not the end of the world and i dont see it as apple being "evil" myself.
Consider google aquiring licensing to sync with activesync for example, apple came with an idea they're not obliged to allow it to work with any other device.
The reality is, if they were interested in interoperability they would have done it with syncml to begin with.
But as we all know, both software and hardware vendors are interested in lock-in and open standards are the enemy.Never forget that, OPEN STANDARDS ARE YOUR ENEMY IF YOU WORK IN THE HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE INDUSTRY.
To think otherwise is a serious mis-calculation (with a few exceptions).And that is why I almost exclusively use Linux - cause everyone who codes here at least partially aims to implement a standard (even if it can be quite painful sometimes).
Granted, there are examples of that in reverse, but they are the exception rather then the norm.
Even when linux does invent its own standards at least its all there in the source (and probably documentation) for you to implement.
If you were ever after a reason for using linux, thats it.i'll get off my soap-box now, i've got the flu and am on flu-drugs so i may be going off slightly half-cocked!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710987</id>
	<title>It just works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247666400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple builds their products around "it just works." I know that seems like a big misnomer to people on slashdot, especially after what they just did, but think of it from another angle.</p><p>"It just works" because they know how itunes is talking to the ipod is connecting to. It knows how to check for firmware versions and knows the ipod is going to respond properly. Now, suddenly, you have itunes talking to something its an ipod, but it really isn't. What happens when itunes tries to firmware flash the palm? itunes caused it, but are they responsible?</p><p>Apple has no desire to let a direct competitor into their software and take the chance that its going to screw something up. During a sync, things are transferred from the "ipod" back to the computer. What if itunes updates an ipods firmware, expects it to respond a certain way, only the palm in disguise returns bad data back because its lying about what it is and what firmware it is running?</p><p>This is complete crap on the part of the people at Palm. I'd expect the people at Apple to disable this kind of nonsense. Palm can design their own software instead of lying to someone elses in order to make their device work.</p><p>P.S. I keep hearing the argument that Apple should allow this, it will drive more iTunes store sales. Apple doesn't care about iTunes store sales, the profit on them is negligible. Apple cares about selling ipods, and the itunes store only exists to drive the hardware sales. They have no desire at all to let palm screw with their apps and start taking away from their hardware sales.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple builds their products around " it just works .
" I know that seems like a big misnomer to people on slashdot , especially after what they just did , but think of it from another angle .
" It just works " because they know how itunes is talking to the ipod is connecting to .
It knows how to check for firmware versions and knows the ipod is going to respond properly .
Now , suddenly , you have itunes talking to something its an ipod , but it really is n't .
What happens when itunes tries to firmware flash the palm ?
itunes caused it , but are they responsible ? Apple has no desire to let a direct competitor into their software and take the chance that its going to screw something up .
During a sync , things are transferred from the " ipod " back to the computer .
What if itunes updates an ipods firmware , expects it to respond a certain way , only the palm in disguise returns bad data back because its lying about what it is and what firmware it is running ? This is complete crap on the part of the people at Palm .
I 'd expect the people at Apple to disable this kind of nonsense .
Palm can design their own software instead of lying to someone elses in order to make their device work.P.S .
I keep hearing the argument that Apple should allow this , it will drive more iTunes store sales .
Apple does n't care about iTunes store sales , the profit on them is negligible .
Apple cares about selling ipods , and the itunes store only exists to drive the hardware sales .
They have no desire at all to let palm screw with their apps and start taking away from their hardware sales .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple builds their products around "it just works.
" I know that seems like a big misnomer to people on slashdot, especially after what they just did, but think of it from another angle.
"It just works" because they know how itunes is talking to the ipod is connecting to.
It knows how to check for firmware versions and knows the ipod is going to respond properly.
Now, suddenly, you have itunes talking to something its an ipod, but it really isn't.
What happens when itunes tries to firmware flash the palm?
itunes caused it, but are they responsible?Apple has no desire to let a direct competitor into their software and take the chance that its going to screw something up.
During a sync, things are transferred from the "ipod" back to the computer.
What if itunes updates an ipods firmware, expects it to respond a certain way, only the palm in disguise returns bad data back because its lying about what it is and what firmware it is running?This is complete crap on the part of the people at Palm.
I'd expect the people at Apple to disable this kind of nonsense.
Palm can design their own software instead of lying to someone elses in order to make their device work.P.S.
I keep hearing the argument that Apple should allow this, it will drive more iTunes store sales.
Apple doesn't care about iTunes store sales, the profit on them is negligible.
Apple cares about selling ipods, and the itunes store only exists to drive the hardware sales.
They have no desire at all to let palm screw with their apps and start taking away from their hardware sales.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712601</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247680380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>promote lock-in</p></div><p>Actually in this case Apple isn't really trying to lock its own devices in, it's actively trying to lock other devices out. That sounds pretty anti-competitive to me and it seems to me that change log is all the proof that's needed (but IANAL).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>promote lock-inActually in this case Apple is n't really trying to lock its own devices in , it 's actively trying to lock other devices out .
That sounds pretty anti-competitive to me and it seems to me that change log is all the proof that 's needed ( but IANAL ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>promote lock-inActually in this case Apple isn't really trying to lock its own devices in, it's actively trying to lock other devices out.
That sounds pretty anti-competitive to me and it seems to me that change log is all the proof that's needed (but IANAL).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710361</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1247662260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Shame on you, Apple. Have you gotten so big that you've forgotten what it was like to be under Microsoft's thumb?</p></div><p>Companies don't have shame, they have profit margins and investors. Really, what do you expect would happen?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Shame on you , Apple .
Have you gotten so big that you 've forgotten what it was like to be under Microsoft 's thumb ? Companies do n't have shame , they have profit margins and investors .
Really , what do you expect would happen ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shame on you, Apple.
Have you gotten so big that you've forgotten what it was like to be under Microsoft's thumb?Companies don't have shame, they have profit margins and investors.
Really, what do you expect would happen?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713887</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247736600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, what you're saying is "I'm lazy. I don't care about freedom or other people or the furure for anyone else. Also, I'm rich."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what you 're saying is " I 'm lazy .
I do n't care about freedom or other people or the furure for anyone else .
Also , I 'm rich .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, what you're saying is "I'm lazy.
I don't care about freedom or other people or the furure for anyone else.
Also, I'm rich.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711295</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247668740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I'd like to know is why anyone would<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/want/ to sync with iTunes. Most (if not all) Mac users are going to have an iPod, leaving windows users as the ones doing this. Frankly, iTunes on windows sucks. It's improved as of late, but it's still very very annoying. And did I mention very locked down?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...there are plenty of better alternatives. Seriously now, people.</p><p>Also, from the article linked (I know, noone reads<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/that/):</p><p>"Where does this leave Palm Pre users? Well, the Pre still acts as a USB device, which means users can drag-and-drop music files onto the Pre's memory manually. It works, but is annoying as hell."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...excuse me? I would kill to be able to do that with my iPod. I hate having to sync it with iTunes. &gt;\_&gt;</p><p>So anyway, I'm not seeing the news story here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I 'd like to know is why anyone would /want/ to sync with iTunes .
Most ( if not all ) Mac users are going to have an iPod , leaving windows users as the ones doing this .
Frankly , iTunes on windows sucks .
It 's improved as of late , but it 's still very very annoying .
And did I mention very locked down ?
...there are plenty of better alternatives .
Seriously now , people.Also , from the article linked ( I know , noone reads /that/ ) : " Where does this leave Palm Pre users ?
Well , the Pre still acts as a USB device , which means users can drag-and-drop music files onto the Pre 's memory manually .
It works , but is annoying as hell .
" ...excuse me ?
I would kill to be able to do that with my iPod .
I hate having to sync it with iTunes .
&gt; \ _ &gt; So anyway , I 'm not seeing the news story here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I'd like to know is why anyone would /want/ to sync with iTunes.
Most (if not all) Mac users are going to have an iPod, leaving windows users as the ones doing this.
Frankly, iTunes on windows sucks.
It's improved as of late, but it's still very very annoying.
And did I mention very locked down?
...there are plenty of better alternatives.
Seriously now, people.Also, from the article linked (I know, noone reads /that/):"Where does this leave Palm Pre users?
Well, the Pre still acts as a USB device, which means users can drag-and-drop music files onto the Pre's memory manually.
It works, but is annoying as hell.
" ...excuse me?
I would kill to be able to do that with my iPod.
I hate having to sync it with iTunes.
&gt;\_&gt;So anyway, I'm not seeing the news story here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711693</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247671620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Apple crowd is doing more than telling us what to think- they are hindering competition by designing products to thwart competing products in other markets they operate in. For instance: they don't comply with standards in the audio player market to prevent competition in the computer systems market. You can't come out with a new grand operating system if it doesn't support Apple's audio line since they dominate.</p><p>Consumers don't blame the company at fault because they don't understand the problems they face. Despite that you are apparently too stupid to see that interoperability does hurt consumers and it probably hurts you too. A 5 year old PC is worth something. A 5 year old mac is worth zero. Partially because Apple phases out support for its products-but more so because Apple cuts you off on things like music. All that music you purchased goes by-by when Apple stops releasing and supporting iTunes on its older platforms. Similar has happened with Microsoft's technology from Yahoo! Music store and Zune. If you think interoperability doesn't hurt you-then you are almost certainly mistaken. It may not phase you- for whatever reason. Maybe you have a ton of money or just don't use those inhibiting features of their products. Chances are though you still are damaging yourself by preventing competition- it means better products won't come out at reasonable prices-or maybe at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Apple crowd is doing more than telling us what to think- they are hindering competition by designing products to thwart competing products in other markets they operate in .
For instance : they do n't comply with standards in the audio player market to prevent competition in the computer systems market .
You ca n't come out with a new grand operating system if it does n't support Apple 's audio line since they dominate.Consumers do n't blame the company at fault because they do n't understand the problems they face .
Despite that you are apparently too stupid to see that interoperability does hurt consumers and it probably hurts you too .
A 5 year old PC is worth something .
A 5 year old mac is worth zero .
Partially because Apple phases out support for its products-but more so because Apple cuts you off on things like music .
All that music you purchased goes by-by when Apple stops releasing and supporting iTunes on its older platforms .
Similar has happened with Microsoft 's technology from Yahoo !
Music store and Zune .
If you think interoperability does n't hurt you-then you are almost certainly mistaken .
It may not phase you- for whatever reason .
Maybe you have a ton of money or just do n't use those inhibiting features of their products .
Chances are though you still are damaging yourself by preventing competition- it means better products wo n't come out at reasonable prices-or maybe at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Apple crowd is doing more than telling us what to think- they are hindering competition by designing products to thwart competing products in other markets they operate in.
For instance: they don't comply with standards in the audio player market to prevent competition in the computer systems market.
You can't come out with a new grand operating system if it doesn't support Apple's audio line since they dominate.Consumers don't blame the company at fault because they don't understand the problems they face.
Despite that you are apparently too stupid to see that interoperability does hurt consumers and it probably hurts you too.
A 5 year old PC is worth something.
A 5 year old mac is worth zero.
Partially because Apple phases out support for its products-but more so because Apple cuts you off on things like music.
All that music you purchased goes by-by when Apple stops releasing and supporting iTunes on its older platforms.
Similar has happened with Microsoft's technology from Yahoo!
Music store and Zune.
If you think interoperability doesn't hurt you-then you are almost certainly mistaken.
It may not phase you- for whatever reason.
Maybe you have a ton of money or just don't use those inhibiting features of their products.
Chances are though you still are damaging yourself by preventing competition- it means better products won't come out at reasonable prices-or maybe at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710223</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is just Microsoft wannabe.</title>
	<author>ruiner13</author>
	<datestamp>1247661540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if the situation would be different if Palm had offered to license with Apple offering a deal, vs. "backdooring" their way into gaining iTunes support. I bet if the number was right and Palm hadn't started here, Apple would happily license it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if the situation would be different if Palm had offered to license with Apple offering a deal , vs. " backdooring " their way into gaining iTunes support .
I bet if the number was right and Palm had n't started here , Apple would happily license it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if the situation would be different if Palm had offered to license with Apple offering a deal, vs. "backdooring" their way into gaining iTunes support.
I bet if the number was right and Palm hadn't started here, Apple would happily license it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712625</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>goofballs</author>
	<datestamp>1247680560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Clones are what nearly bankrupted Apple back during the 90s. Admittedly the clones were of poor quality, but they just about did the company in. While Steve did do more than just kill off the agreement under which the clones were being made, it did put Apple a fair ways back towards prosperity.<br>
 <br>
So it's more than a little understandable that they'd be clone shy.</p></div><p>far from being of poor quality, apple could not compete with the quality, speed, and price of the clones.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clones are what nearly bankrupted Apple back during the 90s .
Admittedly the clones were of poor quality , but they just about did the company in .
While Steve did do more than just kill off the agreement under which the clones were being made , it did put Apple a fair ways back towards prosperity .
So it 's more than a little understandable that they 'd be clone shy.far from being of poor quality , apple could not compete with the quality , speed , and price of the clones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clones are what nearly bankrupted Apple back during the 90s.
Admittedly the clones were of poor quality, but they just about did the company in.
While Steve did do more than just kill off the agreement under which the clones were being made, it did put Apple a fair ways back towards prosperity.
So it's more than a little understandable that they'd be clone shy.far from being of poor quality, apple could not compete with the quality, speed, and price of the clones.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711385</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values</title>
	<author>PJ1216</author>
	<datestamp>1247669340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They didn't dupe anyone. Apple has duped its customers with their whole, "it just works" slogan. Apparently its only, "it just works... assuming you buy this other product as well... but if you buy a competitor's product, we'll break it on purpose."</htmltext>
<tokenext>They did n't dupe anyone .
Apple has duped its customers with their whole , " it just works " slogan .
Apparently its only , " it just works... assuming you buy this other product as well... but if you buy a competitor 's product , we 'll break it on purpose .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They didn't dupe anyone.
Apple has duped its customers with their whole, "it just works" slogan.
Apparently its only, "it just works... assuming you buy this other product as well... but if you buy a competitor's product, we'll break it on purpose.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709891</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247659680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I interviewed at Apple a few years ago, and a consistent message from the developers was that *everything* they do is to make the customer experience better.  Things are not done simply because they're cool -- they have to serve a purpose.</p><p>So I find it ironic that, as a MacBook Pro user, Apple has explicitly done something to make my experience *worse*.  They went much further than simply failing to "provide support for, or test for compatibility with, non-Apple digital media players."  They went out of their way to harm users.</p><p>Shame on you, Apple.  Have you gotten so big that you've forgotten what it was like to be under Microsoft's thumb?</p></div><p>The problem is of course that Palm users are NOT Apple's customers.  If Palm had some sort of licensing deal with Apple so that Apple got some of the profits from Palm sales then you'd be right.</p><p>Let me present this argument this way.. Palm faked Apple's VID/PID to shoehorn themselves into iTunes.  Thus Palm users are at best 1/2 an Apple customer if they use the iTunes store.  From a customer support point of view.. Apple now has to make their software fit whatever Palm hacks together to support these "sort of" customers?  What happens when all the other phone makers follow Palm's example?  Is Apple now suppose to support the Motorola POS3000 because they futzed around with the iTunes protocol without permission?</p><p>Clearly you don't understand what Apple means by "make the customer experience better".  What they mean is... control the hardware so you know exactly what you're running on... so you don't have to test against 3000 variants... so you don't miss that edge case with the chinese pos hardware/driver that blue screens the system.  It's always been their message.. look at the macs... they've decided to not let people hack around the hardware and push the compatibility problems onto the software.</p><p>Shame on you shutton for buying a hack and then complaining it doesn't work...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I interviewed at Apple a few years ago , and a consistent message from the developers was that * everything * they do is to make the customer experience better .
Things are not done simply because they 're cool -- they have to serve a purpose.So I find it ironic that , as a MacBook Pro user , Apple has explicitly done something to make my experience * worse * .
They went much further than simply failing to " provide support for , or test for compatibility with , non-Apple digital media players .
" They went out of their way to harm users.Shame on you , Apple .
Have you gotten so big that you 've forgotten what it was like to be under Microsoft 's thumb ? The problem is of course that Palm users are NOT Apple 's customers .
If Palm had some sort of licensing deal with Apple so that Apple got some of the profits from Palm sales then you 'd be right.Let me present this argument this way.. Palm faked Apple 's VID/PID to shoehorn themselves into iTunes .
Thus Palm users are at best 1/2 an Apple customer if they use the iTunes store .
From a customer support point of view.. Apple now has to make their software fit whatever Palm hacks together to support these " sort of " customers ?
What happens when all the other phone makers follow Palm 's example ?
Is Apple now suppose to support the Motorola POS3000 because they futzed around with the iTunes protocol without permission ? Clearly you do n't understand what Apple means by " make the customer experience better " .
What they mean is... control the hardware so you know exactly what you 're running on... so you do n't have to test against 3000 variants... so you do n't miss that edge case with the chinese pos hardware/driver that blue screens the system .
It 's always been their message.. look at the macs... they 've decided to not let people hack around the hardware and push the compatibility problems onto the software.Shame on you shutton for buying a hack and then complaining it does n't work.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I interviewed at Apple a few years ago, and a consistent message from the developers was that *everything* they do is to make the customer experience better.
Things are not done simply because they're cool -- they have to serve a purpose.So I find it ironic that, as a MacBook Pro user, Apple has explicitly done something to make my experience *worse*.
They went much further than simply failing to "provide support for, or test for compatibility with, non-Apple digital media players.
"  They went out of their way to harm users.Shame on you, Apple.
Have you gotten so big that you've forgotten what it was like to be under Microsoft's thumb?The problem is of course that Palm users are NOT Apple's customers.
If Palm had some sort of licensing deal with Apple so that Apple got some of the profits from Palm sales then you'd be right.Let me present this argument this way.. Palm faked Apple's VID/PID to shoehorn themselves into iTunes.
Thus Palm users are at best 1/2 an Apple customer if they use the iTunes store.
From a customer support point of view.. Apple now has to make their software fit whatever Palm hacks together to support these "sort of" customers?
What happens when all the other phone makers follow Palm's example?
Is Apple now suppose to support the Motorola POS3000 because they futzed around with the iTunes protocol without permission?Clearly you don't understand what Apple means by "make the customer experience better".
What they mean is... control the hardware so you know exactly what you're running on... so you don't have to test against 3000 variants... so you don't miss that edge case with the chinese pos hardware/driver that blue screens the system.
It's always been their message.. look at the macs... they've decided to not let people hack around the hardware and push the compatibility problems onto the software.Shame on you shutton for buying a hack and then complaining it doesn't work...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28814829</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>hersh08</author>
	<datestamp>1248441120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is so true. The real strength behind Apple is the combination of its software and hardware. Without both, its just another manufacturer. Palm should've implemented syncing functionality the right way, i.e. through the documented channel. Instead is intentionally chose to clone the iPod hardware ID which is just plain wrong<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... i mean come on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is so true .
The real strength behind Apple is the combination of its software and hardware .
Without both , its just another manufacturer .
Palm should 've implemented syncing functionality the right way , i.e .
through the documented channel .
Instead is intentionally chose to clone the iPod hardware ID which is just plain wrong ... i mean come on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is so true.
The real strength behind Apple is the combination of its software and hardware.
Without both, its just another manufacturer.
Palm should've implemented syncing functionality the right way, i.e.
through the documented channel.
Instead is intentionally chose to clone the iPod hardware ID which is just plain wrong ... i mean come on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711093</id>
	<title>Re:What Palm is doing is skanky</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247667180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder what the USB ID issuing body thinks about designing your device to use ids you don't own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder what the USB ID issuing body thinks about designing your device to use ids you do n't own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder what the USB ID issuing body thinks about designing your device to use ids you don't own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710339</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products</title>
	<author>kindbud</author>
	<datestamp>1247662140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Companies that actively thwart interoperability and promote lock-in are incompatible with the best interests of their own customers.</i></p><p>I like my iPod.  I like iTunes.  Why do I need interoperability?</p><p><i>I don't care how pretty Apple's products are.</i></p><p>I do.  Now what?</p><p><i>Either you care enough to modify your behaviour, or you don't.</i></p><p>Guess which one applies to me.</p><p><i>Give your dollars to companies that are demonstrably "less bad" whenever possible.</i></p><p>I do. Apple is less bad than Microsoft, for some definition of "bad" you never imagined.  Now go away and stop telling me what to think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Companies that actively thwart interoperability and promote lock-in are incompatible with the best interests of their own customers.I like my iPod .
I like iTunes .
Why do I need interoperability ? I do n't care how pretty Apple 's products are.I do .
Now what ? Either you care enough to modify your behaviour , or you do n't.Guess which one applies to me.Give your dollars to companies that are demonstrably " less bad " whenever possible.I do .
Apple is less bad than Microsoft , for some definition of " bad " you never imagined .
Now go away and stop telling me what to think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Companies that actively thwart interoperability and promote lock-in are incompatible with the best interests of their own customers.I like my iPod.
I like iTunes.
Why do I need interoperability?I don't care how pretty Apple's products are.I do.
Now what?Either you care enough to modify your behaviour, or you don't.Guess which one applies to me.Give your dollars to companies that are demonstrably "less bad" whenever possible.I do.
Apple is less bad than Microsoft, for some definition of "bad" you never imagined.
Now go away and stop telling me what to think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712573</id>
	<title>Virtual iPod device...?</title>
	<author>nicodoggie</author>
	<datestamp>1247680200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could it be possible to make software that emulates an iPod device signature that would stand in between iTunes and any real device that wants to sync with it?
<br> <br>
Maybe if Palm could bundle it with their phones it would free them from this problem. And if Apple finds a way to block it, it wouldn't be as hard to update that software as well...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could it be possible to make software that emulates an iPod device signature that would stand in between iTunes and any real device that wants to sync with it ?
Maybe if Palm could bundle it with their phones it would free them from this problem .
And if Apple finds a way to block it , it would n't be as hard to update that software as well.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could it be possible to make software that emulates an iPod device signature that would stand in between iTunes and any real device that wants to sync with it?
Maybe if Palm could bundle it with their phones it would free them from this problem.
And if Apple finds a way to block it, it wouldn't be as hard to update that software as well...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714979</id>
	<title>Re:Use doubleTwist instead.</title>
	<author>JimboG1</author>
	<datestamp>1247750040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed, Apple is perfectly entitled not allow non-iPod devices to ID themselves as iPods.  Why did Palm ever think they'd get away with this?<p>
And, more to the point, why do most of the posters in this thread think that Apple is the new MS?  Seriously, I'd like to hear the strongest arguments out there.  Nothing in this thread so far makes any kind of rational case.</p><p>
J</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed , Apple is perfectly entitled not allow non-iPod devices to ID themselves as iPods .
Why did Palm ever think they 'd get away with this ?
And , more to the point , why do most of the posters in this thread think that Apple is the new MS ?
Seriously , I 'd like to hear the strongest arguments out there .
Nothing in this thread so far makes any kind of rational case .
J</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed, Apple is perfectly entitled not allow non-iPod devices to ID themselves as iPods.
Why did Palm ever think they'd get away with this?
And, more to the point, why do most of the posters in this thread think that Apple is the new MS?
Seriously, I'd like to hear the strongest arguments out there.
Nothing in this thread so far makes any kind of rational case.
J</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710937</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1247665920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>Give your dollars to companies that are demonstrably "less bad" whenever possible.</p></div></blockquote><p>

I do. Apple is less bad than Microsoft, for some definition of "bad" you never imagined. Now go away and stop telling me what to think.</p></div></blockquote><p>

This is where you are wrong.<br> <br>

Apple is not less bad then Microsoft, they are just doing less bad then Microsoft due to their small size in comparison with Microsoft.<br> <br>

The critical difference is that Microsoft is evil as a side effect of being greedy, if producing FOSS and saving kittens paid well then Microsoft would be largest provider of open source feline recovery solutions in the world. Apple on the other hand is evil by design, Apple seeks to control all other priorities are secondary to "controlling the experience", this means controlling the user as well. Apple seeks to control not only how its devices are used by those who purchase it but also how their products are viewed and talked about, hence Apple hands out NDA's, DCMA and Takedown notices like they're going out of fashion whenever a target says something bad about Apple, Microsoft at the very least ignores their detractors and at the best they will engage (as in debate) with their more logical and coherent detractors.<br> <br>

Microsoft are evil, of this I have no doubt but Apple are 10 times more evil but only have 1/20th the capacity to be evil. MS doesn't care what I do with MS products as long as they get their money, Apple want my money and my blind obedience.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Give your dollars to companies that are demonstrably " less bad " whenever possible .
I do .
Apple is less bad than Microsoft , for some definition of " bad " you never imagined .
Now go away and stop telling me what to think .
This is where you are wrong .
Apple is not less bad then Microsoft , they are just doing less bad then Microsoft due to their small size in comparison with Microsoft .
The critical difference is that Microsoft is evil as a side effect of being greedy , if producing FOSS and saving kittens paid well then Microsoft would be largest provider of open source feline recovery solutions in the world .
Apple on the other hand is evil by design , Apple seeks to control all other priorities are secondary to " controlling the experience " , this means controlling the user as well .
Apple seeks to control not only how its devices are used by those who purchase it but also how their products are viewed and talked about , hence Apple hands out NDA 's , DCMA and Takedown notices like they 're going out of fashion whenever a target says something bad about Apple , Microsoft at the very least ignores their detractors and at the best they will engage ( as in debate ) with their more logical and coherent detractors .
Microsoft are evil , of this I have no doubt but Apple are 10 times more evil but only have 1/20th the capacity to be evil .
MS does n't care what I do with MS products as long as they get their money , Apple want my money and my blind obedience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give your dollars to companies that are demonstrably "less bad" whenever possible.
I do.
Apple is less bad than Microsoft, for some definition of "bad" you never imagined.
Now go away and stop telling me what to think.
This is where you are wrong.
Apple is not less bad then Microsoft, they are just doing less bad then Microsoft due to their small size in comparison with Microsoft.
The critical difference is that Microsoft is evil as a side effect of being greedy, if producing FOSS and saving kittens paid well then Microsoft would be largest provider of open source feline recovery solutions in the world.
Apple on the other hand is evil by design, Apple seeks to control all other priorities are secondary to "controlling the experience", this means controlling the user as well.
Apple seeks to control not only how its devices are used by those who purchase it but also how their products are viewed and talked about, hence Apple hands out NDA's, DCMA and Takedown notices like they're going out of fashion whenever a target says something bad about Apple, Microsoft at the very least ignores their detractors and at the best they will engage (as in debate) with their more logical and coherent detractors.
Microsoft are evil, of this I have no doubt but Apple are 10 times more evil but only have 1/20th the capacity to be evil.
MS doesn't care what I do with MS products as long as they get their money, Apple want my money and my blind obedience.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28722375</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>rjstanford</author>
	<datestamp>1247737080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pre would have been well within their rights to create a player that sync'd to your iTunes library - there are well defined touchpoints for doing so.  Apple wasn't too happy with a third-party device that, through pretense, passed itself off as an iPod to their iPod-syncing-software (within the iTunes UI at least), thus restricting their ability to change the interfaces that iTunes and the iPod family use to communicate with each other.  After all, its not like this change broke any legitimate devices.</p><p>Use a public API, and Apple should (and historically has) maintain compatibility.  Sneak through an open backdoor, and Apple historically has (and arguably should) slammed it in their faces.</p><p>Case in point - Palm did something sneaky, Apple made a legitimate change that didn't affect any of the documented behavior of their application, and now Apple is being handed shovels of crap for it in public.  Anyone else see the conflict here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pre would have been well within their rights to create a player that sync 'd to your iTunes library - there are well defined touchpoints for doing so .
Apple was n't too happy with a third-party device that , through pretense , passed itself off as an iPod to their iPod-syncing-software ( within the iTunes UI at least ) , thus restricting their ability to change the interfaces that iTunes and the iPod family use to communicate with each other .
After all , its not like this change broke any legitimate devices.Use a public API , and Apple should ( and historically has ) maintain compatibility .
Sneak through an open backdoor , and Apple historically has ( and arguably should ) slammed it in their faces.Case in point - Palm did something sneaky , Apple made a legitimate change that did n't affect any of the documented behavior of their application , and now Apple is being handed shovels of crap for it in public .
Anyone else see the conflict here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pre would have been well within their rights to create a player that sync'd to your iTunes library - there are well defined touchpoints for doing so.
Apple wasn't too happy with a third-party device that, through pretense, passed itself off as an iPod to their iPod-syncing-software (within the iTunes UI at least), thus restricting their ability to change the interfaces that iTunes and the iPod family use to communicate with each other.
After all, its not like this change broke any legitimate devices.Use a public API, and Apple should (and historically has) maintain compatibility.
Sneak through an open backdoor, and Apple historically has (and arguably should) slammed it in their faces.Case in point - Palm did something sneaky, Apple made a legitimate change that didn't affect any of the documented behavior of their application, and now Apple is being handed shovels of crap for it in public.
Anyone else see the conflict here?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713505</id>
	<title>Direct Competitors</title>
	<author>williamfrantz</author>
	<datestamp>1247775240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple allows lots of direct competitors for things like keyboards, mice, monitors, routers, external drives, printers, etc.  There are a raft of HW competitors out there that happily interoperate with Apple products even while they directly compete against Apple branded versions.  Why should a Palm phone vs an Apple phone be any different?

How would Apple like it if Microsoft kept changing their file sharing protocols such that you couldn't network a Mac to a PC?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple allows lots of direct competitors for things like keyboards , mice , monitors , routers , external drives , printers , etc .
There are a raft of HW competitors out there that happily interoperate with Apple products even while they directly compete against Apple branded versions .
Why should a Palm phone vs an Apple phone be any different ?
How would Apple like it if Microsoft kept changing their file sharing protocols such that you could n't network a Mac to a PC ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple allows lots of direct competitors for things like keyboards, mice, monitors, routers, external drives, printers, etc.
There are a raft of HW competitors out there that happily interoperate with Apple products even while they directly compete against Apple branded versions.
Why should a Palm phone vs an Apple phone be any different?
How would Apple like it if Microsoft kept changing their file sharing protocols such that you couldn't network a Mac to a PC?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715571</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1247753940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>OS X sells Macs; the iTunes Music Store sells iPods; the App Store sells iPhones.</i></p><p>Your evidence? This seems unlikely, if anything I would have thought the reverse is true. Most peope don't care about or even know what an OS is, they just see the ads and look at what the computer looks like. People buy Ipods because it's the only choice that most people get offered for playing music, which is what they want to do - where they get the music from is secondary to that. And there's nothing special about the Iphone's single application store, except that it's the only place you can get applications from for the Iphone.</p><p>If Microsoft or any other company engaged in such anti-competitive behaviour, there'd be no end of mocking them here on Slashdot. But Apple, that's okay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OS X sells Macs ; the iTunes Music Store sells iPods ; the App Store sells iPhones.Your evidence ?
This seems unlikely , if anything I would have thought the reverse is true .
Most peope do n't care about or even know what an OS is , they just see the ads and look at what the computer looks like .
People buy Ipods because it 's the only choice that most people get offered for playing music , which is what they want to do - where they get the music from is secondary to that .
And there 's nothing special about the Iphone 's single application store , except that it 's the only place you can get applications from for the Iphone.If Microsoft or any other company engaged in such anti-competitive behaviour , there 'd be no end of mocking them here on Slashdot .
But Apple , that 's okay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OS X sells Macs; the iTunes Music Store sells iPods; the App Store sells iPhones.Your evidence?
This seems unlikely, if anything I would have thought the reverse is true.
Most peope don't care about or even know what an OS is, they just see the ads and look at what the computer looks like.
People buy Ipods because it's the only choice that most people get offered for playing music, which is what they want to do - where they get the music from is secondary to that.
And there's nothing special about the Iphone's single application store, except that it's the only place you can get applications from for the Iphone.If Microsoft or any other company engaged in such anti-competitive behaviour, there'd be no end of mocking them here on Slashdot.
But Apple, that's okay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710015</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247660400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Either you care enough to modify your behaviour, or you don't.</p><p>Give your dollars to companies that are demonstrably "less bad" whenever possible. Accept that you'll have to go without some of the bling until the market catches up.</p></div><p>Of course it is possible to wait. But after a decade of waiting, I really wanted a good MP3 player. My iPod does everything I want and iTunes touched it only once. Since then, I've been using gtkpod. So, I don't feel locked-in.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Either you care enough to modify your behaviour , or you do n't.Give your dollars to companies that are demonstrably " less bad " whenever possible .
Accept that you 'll have to go without some of the bling until the market catches up.Of course it is possible to wait .
But after a decade of waiting , I really wanted a good MP3 player .
My iPod does everything I want and iTunes touched it only once .
Since then , I 've been using gtkpod .
So , I do n't feel locked-in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either you care enough to modify your behaviour, or you don't.Give your dollars to companies that are demonstrably "less bad" whenever possible.
Accept that you'll have to go without some of the bling until the market catches up.Of course it is possible to wait.
But after a decade of waiting, I really wanted a good MP3 player.
My iPod does everything I want and iTunes touched it only once.
Since then, I've been using gtkpod.
So, I don't feel locked-in.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715207</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1247751720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Companies that actively thwart interoperability and promote lock-in are incompatible with the best interests of their own customers.</p></div><p>Like having a device claim to be a completely different device, in violation of the widely-accepted USB standard? I agree, Palm should be smacked down hard for that. Perhaps even have the "USB" logo taken away from their products.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Companies that actively thwart interoperability and promote lock-in are incompatible with the best interests of their own customers.Like having a device claim to be a completely different device , in violation of the widely-accepted USB standard ?
I agree , Palm should be smacked down hard for that .
Perhaps even have the " USB " logo taken away from their products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Companies that actively thwart interoperability and promote lock-in are incompatible with the best interests of their own customers.Like having a device claim to be a completely different device, in violation of the widely-accepted USB standard?
I agree, Palm should be smacked down hard for that.
Perhaps even have the "USB" logo taken away from their products.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714725</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1247747400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simple Apple is still selling Personal Computers... IBM isn't.</p><p>Why? IBM let Microsoft sell DOS to other manufactures. So there was a huge clone market once labeled IBM Compatible, which in time became more common as the PC, and IBM was only a bit player.<br>Apple when it was at its lowest is when it tried to license it Mac OS to other companies.  What happened, well people stopped buying Macs and went with other companies with the OS for a Mac Compatible computer.</p><p>Palm was trying to be compatible with iTunes, but they really did it in an unethical way.<br>1. Hired Rogue Apple Employees who knew company secrets.<br>2. Except for working with Apple and get permission to do so.  They made a hack to the system to access the information.<br>3. Pushing the fact that it is compatible with iTunes without apple saying so.</p><p>I am sorry, Yes it is bad for competition and competition is good for the consumer.  However in business you need to respect your competitors space and their rights.  Otherwise you will get burned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple Apple is still selling Personal Computers... IBM is n't.Why ?
IBM let Microsoft sell DOS to other manufactures .
So there was a huge clone market once labeled IBM Compatible , which in time became more common as the PC , and IBM was only a bit player.Apple when it was at its lowest is when it tried to license it Mac OS to other companies .
What happened , well people stopped buying Macs and went with other companies with the OS for a Mac Compatible computer.Palm was trying to be compatible with iTunes , but they really did it in an unethical way.1 .
Hired Rogue Apple Employees who knew company secrets.2 .
Except for working with Apple and get permission to do so .
They made a hack to the system to access the information.3 .
Pushing the fact that it is compatible with iTunes without apple saying so.I am sorry , Yes it is bad for competition and competition is good for the consumer .
However in business you need to respect your competitors space and their rights .
Otherwise you will get burned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple Apple is still selling Personal Computers... IBM isn't.Why?
IBM let Microsoft sell DOS to other manufactures.
So there was a huge clone market once labeled IBM Compatible, which in time became more common as the PC, and IBM was only a bit player.Apple when it was at its lowest is when it tried to license it Mac OS to other companies.
What happened, well people stopped buying Macs and went with other companies with the OS for a Mac Compatible computer.Palm was trying to be compatible with iTunes, but they really did it in an unethical way.1.
Hired Rogue Apple Employees who knew company secrets.2.
Except for working with Apple and get permission to do so.
They made a hack to the system to access the information.3.
Pushing the fact that it is compatible with iTunes without apple saying so.I am sorry, Yes it is bad for competition and competition is good for the consumer.
However in business you need to respect your competitors space and their rights.
Otherwise you will get burned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712657</id>
	<title>Earth to moron slashbots.</title>
	<author>aristotle-dude</author>
	<datestamp>1247680680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Palm broke the rules and got burned. Apple will not stop Palm from writing a plug in for iTunes so that it is recognized as a Palm Pre and as a sync capable device. This is how RIM did it and it is how Palm should have done it if they had not been lazy and just used Jon's insider knowledge from his time at Apple.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Palm broke the rules and got burned .
Apple will not stop Palm from writing a plug in for iTunes so that it is recognized as a Palm Pre and as a sync capable device .
This is how RIM did it and it is how Palm should have done it if they had not been lazy and just used Jon 's insider knowledge from his time at Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Palm broke the rules and got burned.
Apple will not stop Palm from writing a plug in for iTunes so that it is recognized as a Palm Pre and as a sync capable device.
This is how RIM did it and it is how Palm should have done it if they had not been lazy and just used Jon's insider knowledge from his time at Apple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712207</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>Macrat</author>
	<datestamp>1247675940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You bring out logic in a holy war?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You bring out logic in a holy war ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You bring out logic in a holy war?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710449</id>
	<title>Can't they read the file system.</title>
	<author>wiglebot</author>
	<datestamp>1247662620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Help.  Can't Palm just read the file system for the mp3 meta data and generate their own playlist.
Also, has Apple made the "iTunes Music Library.xml" too cryptic to read?  That is where the data is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Help .
Ca n't Palm just read the file system for the mp3 meta data and generate their own playlist .
Also , has Apple made the " iTunes Music Library.xml " too cryptic to read ?
That is where the data is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Help.
Can't Palm just read the file system for the mp3 meta data and generate their own playlist.
Also, has Apple made the "iTunes Music Library.xml" too cryptic to read?
That is where the data is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28721561</id>
	<title>the end result</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247777280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is that people like me are sticking with their 1st gen smart phone and not wanting to buy a 2nd gen smartphone until they quit squabbling over the bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is that people like me are sticking with their 1st gen smart phone and not wanting to buy a 2nd gen smartphone until they quit squabbling over the bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is that people like me are sticking with their 1st gen smart phone and not wanting to buy a 2nd gen smartphone until they quit squabbling over the bullshit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711971</id>
	<title>The Pre is not USB compatible.</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1247673780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Technically.</p><p>Yes, I know it works just fine, however they're claiming a vendor and product ID that is not their own in order to get it to work with iTunes, thats against the rules for devices that are supposed to USB compatible.  Do they use the official USB compatible logo anywhere for the Pre?  I'd think the USB folks themselves would be pissed off about that much like Phillips and those bullshit CD discs that were 'copy protected' from a few years back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Technically.Yes , I know it works just fine , however they 're claiming a vendor and product ID that is not their own in order to get it to work with iTunes , thats against the rules for devices that are supposed to USB compatible .
Do they use the official USB compatible logo anywhere for the Pre ?
I 'd think the USB folks themselves would be pissed off about that much like Phillips and those bullshit CD discs that were 'copy protected ' from a few years back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technically.Yes, I know it works just fine, however they're claiming a vendor and product ID that is not their own in order to get it to work with iTunes, thats against the rules for devices that are supposed to USB compatible.
Do they use the official USB compatible logo anywhere for the Pre?
I'd think the USB folks themselves would be pissed off about that much like Phillips and those bullshit CD discs that were 'copy protected' from a few years back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712801</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>NJRoadfan</author>
	<datestamp>1247681880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny, back in the day iTunes used to actually support 3rd party MP3 players via plug-ins. Expect an arms race between Apple and Palm similar to the one AOL started with 3rd party IM clients and their OSCAR protocol.</p><p>Personally the only iPod like functionality I would like to see emulated on 3rd party devices is the dock connector and protocol used to talk with iPod interfaces used in car headunits. There are plenty of decent media players on the PC, but really no option for in vehicle integration other then the iPod/iPhone. Car and after market audio companies aren't rolling out Zune or PalmPre interfaces any time soon. The iPod is the only game in town.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , back in the day iTunes used to actually support 3rd party MP3 players via plug-ins .
Expect an arms race between Apple and Palm similar to the one AOL started with 3rd party IM clients and their OSCAR protocol.Personally the only iPod like functionality I would like to see emulated on 3rd party devices is the dock connector and protocol used to talk with iPod interfaces used in car headunits .
There are plenty of decent media players on the PC , but really no option for in vehicle integration other then the iPod/iPhone .
Car and after market audio companies are n't rolling out Zune or PalmPre interfaces any time soon .
The iPod is the only game in town .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, back in the day iTunes used to actually support 3rd party MP3 players via plug-ins.
Expect an arms race between Apple and Palm similar to the one AOL started with 3rd party IM clients and their OSCAR protocol.Personally the only iPod like functionality I would like to see emulated on 3rd party devices is the dock connector and protocol used to talk with iPod interfaces used in car headunits.
There are plenty of decent media players on the PC, but really no option for in vehicle integration other then the iPod/iPhone.
Car and after market audio companies aren't rolling out Zune or PalmPre interfaces any time soon.
The iPod is the only game in town.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715941</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>ivan256</author>
	<datestamp>1247755740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As sombody who writes device drivers for a living, I think I might be able to offer some of Apple's perspective on this.</p><p>A lot of hardware isn't very interesting without the driver. When a company develops a product, they sell the whole package, hardware+software. Apple is doing this with the iPod. It's a fairly generic device at this point. It's the whole package of the iPod and iTunes and the music store that makes it an interesting device.</p><p>What Apple is doing is the same as what, say, a Bluetooth dongle manufacturer, or a modem manufacturer, or to some extent a video card manufacturer does; and exactly what camera and scanner and printer companies used to do (and printer companies still do).</p><p>Apple's 'driver' for the iPod is their own software, and they are understandably unwilling to allow their competitor to sell their work as part of a competing solution.</p><p>Now, if what we want is a standard method of synchronizing music players, what we should do is exactly what happened with digital cameras, and come up with a standard method to synchronize, implement it everywhere, and wait a generation of products for consumers to begin to expect support of the standard. In other words, replace iTunes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As sombody who writes device drivers for a living , I think I might be able to offer some of Apple 's perspective on this.A lot of hardware is n't very interesting without the driver .
When a company develops a product , they sell the whole package , hardware + software .
Apple is doing this with the iPod .
It 's a fairly generic device at this point .
It 's the whole package of the iPod and iTunes and the music store that makes it an interesting device.What Apple is doing is the same as what , say , a Bluetooth dongle manufacturer , or a modem manufacturer , or to some extent a video card manufacturer does ; and exactly what camera and scanner and printer companies used to do ( and printer companies still do ) .Apple 's 'driver ' for the iPod is their own software , and they are understandably unwilling to allow their competitor to sell their work as part of a competing solution.Now , if what we want is a standard method of synchronizing music players , what we should do is exactly what happened with digital cameras , and come up with a standard method to synchronize , implement it everywhere , and wait a generation of products for consumers to begin to expect support of the standard .
In other words , replace iTunes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As sombody who writes device drivers for a living, I think I might be able to offer some of Apple's perspective on this.A lot of hardware isn't very interesting without the driver.
When a company develops a product, they sell the whole package, hardware+software.
Apple is doing this with the iPod.
It's a fairly generic device at this point.
It's the whole package of the iPod and iTunes and the music store that makes it an interesting device.What Apple is doing is the same as what, say, a Bluetooth dongle manufacturer, or a modem manufacturer, or to some extent a video card manufacturer does; and exactly what camera and scanner and printer companies used to do (and printer companies still do).Apple's 'driver' for the iPod is their own software, and they are understandably unwilling to allow their competitor to sell their work as part of a competing solution.Now, if what we want is a standard method of synchronizing music players, what we should do is exactly what happened with digital cameras, and come up with a standard method to synchronize, implement it everywhere, and wait a generation of products for consumers to begin to expect support of the standard.
In other words, replace iTunes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710773</id>
	<title>Re:So Apple is the villain here?!</title>
	<author>smash</author>
	<datestamp>1247664720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, agreed.  But apple are making money out of itunes and providing "locked" hardware, so they're evil; remember this is slashdot...
</p><p>
Its kinda of a reverse-zealot thinking of the GPL.  GPL zealots are always bitching about how the BSD license allows people to take your code and do whatever you like with it (eg, close-source it and improve it internally to your company - and selling it to make money), but when the shoe is on the other foot, and a company releases something free (as in, beer), but they don't want others making money off THEIR product, its all bad.
</p><p>
Hypocrisy, much?
</p><p>
Apple took the leap of faith, and put a shitload of time and effort into both the hardware, software, and recording industry licensing, etc to bring us itunes and the relevant hardware to go with it.  it is probably (haven't looked, but would not surprise me in the slightest) that many of the contracts they have with recording studios specify that they must control how and where various media is played.  Opening their store up to palm, or anyone else will remove their ability to control that.
</p><p>
But no, its apple and they're starting to make money, so they're EVIL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , agreed .
But apple are making money out of itunes and providing " locked " hardware , so they 're evil ; remember this is slashdot.. . Its kinda of a reverse-zealot thinking of the GPL .
GPL zealots are always bitching about how the BSD license allows people to take your code and do whatever you like with it ( eg , close-source it and improve it internally to your company - and selling it to make money ) , but when the shoe is on the other foot , and a company releases something free ( as in , beer ) , but they do n't want others making money off THEIR product , its all bad .
Hypocrisy , much ?
Apple took the leap of faith , and put a shitload of time and effort into both the hardware , software , and recording industry licensing , etc to bring us itunes and the relevant hardware to go with it .
it is probably ( have n't looked , but would not surprise me in the slightest ) that many of the contracts they have with recording studios specify that they must control how and where various media is played .
Opening their store up to palm , or anyone else will remove their ability to control that .
But no , its apple and they 're starting to make money , so they 're EVIL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, agreed.
But apple are making money out of itunes and providing "locked" hardware, so they're evil; remember this is slashdot...

Its kinda of a reverse-zealot thinking of the GPL.
GPL zealots are always bitching about how the BSD license allows people to take your code and do whatever you like with it (eg, close-source it and improve it internally to your company - and selling it to make money), but when the shoe is on the other foot, and a company releases something free (as in, beer), but they don't want others making money off THEIR product, its all bad.
Hypocrisy, much?
Apple took the leap of faith, and put a shitload of time and effort into both the hardware, software, and recording industry licensing, etc to bring us itunes and the relevant hardware to go with it.
it is probably (haven't looked, but would not surprise me in the slightest) that many of the contracts they have with recording studios specify that they must control how and where various media is played.
Opening their store up to palm, or anyone else will remove their ability to control that.
But no, its apple and they're starting to make money, so they're EVIL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714917</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>BasilBrush</author>
	<datestamp>1247749680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obnoxious?  Sounds like holy war talk. It's a program that stores and plays music.  What's "obnoxious" about it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obnoxious ?
Sounds like holy war talk .
It 's a program that stores and plays music .
What 's " obnoxious " about it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obnoxious?
Sounds like holy war talk.
It's a program that stores and plays music.
What's "obnoxious" about it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710511</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247663040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wonder how many people care about iTunes connectivity when they buy an mp3 player?</p></div><p>I actually sync my <i>iPod</i> exclusively with <i>Winamp</i>, by choice.  Less bloat, and more power over what you want to do with <i>your</i> music.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how many people care about iTunes connectivity when they buy an mp3 player ? I actually sync my iPod exclusively with Winamp , by choice .
Less bloat , and more power over what you want to do with your music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how many people care about iTunes connectivity when they buy an mp3 player?I actually sync my iPod exclusively with Winamp, by choice.
Less bloat, and more power over what you want to do with your music.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714397</id>
	<title>Apple called...</title>
	<author>willyd357</author>
	<datestamp>1247743080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and they said that they were making too much money and that they're tired of it. So from now on, only the iPhone/iPod can utilise their music services and everyone else can either pony up or sod off. Or at least until Palm can roll out a patch for their patch.</p><p>That having been said, my wife and I own an older(read hand-me-down) 60GB iPod, and we don't use iTunes or any service that has DRM of any kind attached. Once we pay for our music, it's ours. Period. We decide the when, where and how, not Apple or anyone else for that matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and they said that they were making too much money and that they 're tired of it .
So from now on , only the iPhone/iPod can utilise their music services and everyone else can either pony up or sod off .
Or at least until Palm can roll out a patch for their patch.That having been said , my wife and I own an older ( read hand-me-down ) 60GB iPod , and we do n't use iTunes or any service that has DRM of any kind attached .
Once we pay for our music , it 's ours .
Period. We decide the when , where and how , not Apple or anyone else for that matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and they said that they were making too much money and that they're tired of it.
So from now on, only the iPhone/iPod can utilise their music services and everyone else can either pony up or sod off.
Or at least until Palm can roll out a patch for their patch.That having been said, my wife and I own an older(read hand-me-down) 60GB iPod, and we don't use iTunes or any service that has DRM of any kind attached.
Once we pay for our music, it's ours.
Period. We decide the when, where and how, not Apple or anyone else for that matter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710873</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247665380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you will be surprised. I know so many people who will get iPods simply because it automatically syncs with iTunes. I tried a million times over to show them alternate easy to use and less bloated software (MediaMonkey) but its just not the same for them.</p><p>Its a little like the xp and netbooks fiasco</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you will be surprised .
I know so many people who will get iPods simply because it automatically syncs with iTunes .
I tried a million times over to show them alternate easy to use and less bloated software ( MediaMonkey ) but its just not the same for them.Its a little like the xp and netbooks fiasco</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you will be surprised.
I know so many people who will get iPods simply because it automatically syncs with iTunes.
I tried a million times over to show them alternate easy to use and less bloated software (MediaMonkey) but its just not the same for them.Its a little like the xp and netbooks fiasco</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715149</id>
	<title>Re:Antitrust?</title>
	<author>kannibal\_klown</author>
	<datestamp>1247751420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So Apple has a virtual monopoly on portable media players, and they're using their monopoly to harm their competitors. Sounds like a job for the DoJ to me.</p><p>Apple is evil, and I can't understand why geeks like them so much. They're notorious for protecting their interests above anybody else's with absolutely zero regard for the consumer.</p></div><p>I don't see how.</p><p>It would be one thing if Apple said "The Pre cannot sync with iTunes," but that's not what happened here.</p><p>They're saying "Aha! The Pre is <b>pretending</b> to be an iPod so we're going to stop that."  If you read even the early part of the article you'd see that Palm was trying to trick iTunes into giving it access.</p><p>There's nothing stopping Palm from using the established methods for it to access content via the XML data Apple provides.</p><p>If you resort to trickery, you shouldn't be surprised when a parent company cuts you off.  Especially when there are approved methods of doing something.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So Apple has a virtual monopoly on portable media players , and they 're using their monopoly to harm their competitors .
Sounds like a job for the DoJ to me.Apple is evil , and I ca n't understand why geeks like them so much .
They 're notorious for protecting their interests above anybody else 's with absolutely zero regard for the consumer.I do n't see how.It would be one thing if Apple said " The Pre can not sync with iTunes , " but that 's not what happened here.They 're saying " Aha !
The Pre is pretending to be an iPod so we 're going to stop that .
" If you read even the early part of the article you 'd see that Palm was trying to trick iTunes into giving it access.There 's nothing stopping Palm from using the established methods for it to access content via the XML data Apple provides.If you resort to trickery , you should n't be surprised when a parent company cuts you off .
Especially when there are approved methods of doing something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Apple has a virtual monopoly on portable media players, and they're using their monopoly to harm their competitors.
Sounds like a job for the DoJ to me.Apple is evil, and I can't understand why geeks like them so much.
They're notorious for protecting their interests above anybody else's with absolutely zero regard for the consumer.I don't see how.It would be one thing if Apple said "The Pre cannot sync with iTunes," but that's not what happened here.They're saying "Aha!
The Pre is pretending to be an iPod so we're going to stop that.
"  If you read even the early part of the article you'd see that Palm was trying to trick iTunes into giving it access.There's nothing stopping Palm from using the established methods for it to access content via the XML data Apple provides.If you resort to trickery, you shouldn't be surprised when a parent company cuts you off.
Especially when there are approved methods of doing something.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712545</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products</title>
	<author>aristotle-dude</author>
	<datestamp>1247679960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Companies that actively thwart interoperability and promote lock-in are incompatible with the best interests of their own customers.</p></div><p>Wow dude, learn to use google. Blackberry devices can and probably still continue to be able to sync non-DRM'ed music through iTunes using a plug-in which allows the device to be recognized by iTunes as a sync capable device without impersonation. What Palm did was impersonate an iPod in order to sync with iTunes. They cheated and used inside information from Jon Rubinstein who used to work at Apple on the iPod project. Apple probably could have sued Jon and Palm for what they did.
</p><p>
I don't see a problem with Apple releasing a patch to break a potentially illegal hack created by Palm. I'm surprised that they have not been called to the carpet for violating the license terms for USB as impersonating another device is against the license terms for any device with the USB mark.
</p><p>
If Palm has not been lazy and written their own plug in like RIM did to be able to sync with iTunes, we would not have a problem here and Apple would not have released this patch.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Companies that actively thwart interoperability and promote lock-in are incompatible with the best interests of their own customers.Wow dude , learn to use google .
Blackberry devices can and probably still continue to be able to sync non-DRM'ed music through iTunes using a plug-in which allows the device to be recognized by iTunes as a sync capable device without impersonation .
What Palm did was impersonate an iPod in order to sync with iTunes .
They cheated and used inside information from Jon Rubinstein who used to work at Apple on the iPod project .
Apple probably could have sued Jon and Palm for what they did .
I do n't see a problem with Apple releasing a patch to break a potentially illegal hack created by Palm .
I 'm surprised that they have not been called to the carpet for violating the license terms for USB as impersonating another device is against the license terms for any device with the USB mark .
If Palm has not been lazy and written their own plug in like RIM did to be able to sync with iTunes , we would not have a problem here and Apple would not have released this patch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Companies that actively thwart interoperability and promote lock-in are incompatible with the best interests of their own customers.Wow dude, learn to use google.
Blackberry devices can and probably still continue to be able to sync non-DRM'ed music through iTunes using a plug-in which allows the device to be recognized by iTunes as a sync capable device without impersonation.
What Palm did was impersonate an iPod in order to sync with iTunes.
They cheated and used inside information from Jon Rubinstein who used to work at Apple on the iPod project.
Apple probably could have sued Jon and Palm for what they did.
I don't see a problem with Apple releasing a patch to break a potentially illegal hack created by Palm.
I'm surprised that they have not been called to the carpet for violating the license terms for USB as impersonating another device is against the license terms for any device with the USB mark.
If Palm has not been lazy and written their own plug in like RIM did to be able to sync with iTunes, we would not have a problem here and Apple would not have released this patch.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710229</id>
	<title>Monopoly?  So what.</title>
	<author>BearRanger</author>
	<datestamp>1247661600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having a monopoly is not illegal.  Abusing a monopoly is.  And in this case Apple doesn't have anything like a monopoly.</p><p>As much as people love/hate iTunes there are clearly competitors to it.  Perhaps Palm should have chosen one of them to provide sync services for their new phone.  But that wouldn't have served their purposes--they wanted to ride Apple's market leading coat tails to commercial success.  Not by doing it in the accepted way (say, licensing iTunes or paying a fee to Apple to provide support) but by exploiting a bug in the software.  Is it any surprise that Apple decided to fix this bug and prevent a potential competitor from benefiting from their work? </p><p>It's true that Apple probably wouldn't license iTunes to anyone, but given that Palm is run by former Apple employees they probably had as good a shot as anyone of getting this done.  They didn't try--and worse, they advertised iTunes compatibility--so they very well can't complain now that they've been shot down.  The truly amazing thing to me is that people still blame Apple for doing this.  Why?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having a monopoly is not illegal .
Abusing a monopoly is .
And in this case Apple does n't have anything like a monopoly.As much as people love/hate iTunes there are clearly competitors to it .
Perhaps Palm should have chosen one of them to provide sync services for their new phone .
But that would n't have served their purposes--they wanted to ride Apple 's market leading coat tails to commercial success .
Not by doing it in the accepted way ( say , licensing iTunes or paying a fee to Apple to provide support ) but by exploiting a bug in the software .
Is it any surprise that Apple decided to fix this bug and prevent a potential competitor from benefiting from their work ?
It 's true that Apple probably would n't license iTunes to anyone , but given that Palm is run by former Apple employees they probably had as good a shot as anyone of getting this done .
They did n't try--and worse , they advertised iTunes compatibility--so they very well ca n't complain now that they 've been shot down .
The truly amazing thing to me is that people still blame Apple for doing this .
Why ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having a monopoly is not illegal.
Abusing a monopoly is.
And in this case Apple doesn't have anything like a monopoly.As much as people love/hate iTunes there are clearly competitors to it.
Perhaps Palm should have chosen one of them to provide sync services for their new phone.
But that wouldn't have served their purposes--they wanted to ride Apple's market leading coat tails to commercial success.
Not by doing it in the accepted way (say, licensing iTunes or paying a fee to Apple to provide support) but by exploiting a bug in the software.
Is it any surprise that Apple decided to fix this bug and prevent a potential competitor from benefiting from their work?
It's true that Apple probably wouldn't license iTunes to anyone, but given that Palm is run by former Apple employees they probably had as good a shot as anyone of getting this done.
They didn't try--and worse, they advertised iTunes compatibility--so they very well can't complain now that they've been shot down.
The truly amazing thing to me is that people still blame Apple for doing this.
Why?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709691</id>
	<title>Re:Just deserts.</title>
	<author>Space cowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1247658600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><ol> <li>
Let's consider the difference between an Operating System (something designed to run applications, and opened to third-parties as a way of making more money for the Operating System vendor), and a piece of consumer electronics, designed for the purpose of playing music, and specifically not licenced to third-parties. Perhaps these two completely different cases should be regarded as, you know, different.</li>
<li>You may prefer using files - I don't care. I'd be willing to bet you're in the minority though. I'd be willing to bet Palm would agree with me too, or they'd not have done it in the first place. I guess we'll see...</li>
<li>Merely stating that my post is "idiocy" doesn't make it so. If my opinion disagrees with your own, it doesn't make it idiotic either. I'd be interested in knowing which part of my post in particular you thought was idiotic, although I might be tempted to agree if you'd said it was snarky<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</li>
</ol><p>

Simon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's consider the difference between an Operating System ( something designed to run applications , and opened to third-parties as a way of making more money for the Operating System vendor ) , and a piece of consumer electronics , designed for the purpose of playing music , and specifically not licenced to third-parties .
Perhaps these two completely different cases should be regarded as , you know , different .
You may prefer using files - I do n't care .
I 'd be willing to bet you 're in the minority though .
I 'd be willing to bet Palm would agree with me too , or they 'd not have done it in the first place .
I guess we 'll see.. . Merely stating that my post is " idiocy " does n't make it so .
If my opinion disagrees with your own , it does n't make it idiotic either .
I 'd be interested in knowing which part of my post in particular you thought was idiotic , although I might be tempted to agree if you 'd said it was snarky : ) Simon</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 
Let's consider the difference between an Operating System (something designed to run applications, and opened to third-parties as a way of making more money for the Operating System vendor), and a piece of consumer electronics, designed for the purpose of playing music, and specifically not licenced to third-parties.
Perhaps these two completely different cases should be regarded as, you know, different.
You may prefer using files - I don't care.
I'd be willing to bet you're in the minority though.
I'd be willing to bet Palm would agree with me too, or they'd not have done it in the first place.
I guess we'll see...
Merely stating that my post is "idiocy" doesn't make it so.
If my opinion disagrees with your own, it doesn't make it idiotic either.
I'd be interested in knowing which part of my post in particular you thought was idiotic, although I might be tempted to agree if you'd said it was snarky :)


Simon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28720677</id>
	<title>Re:I don't understand all the hoopla here...</title>
	<author>jskline</author>
	<datestamp>1247773500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a sheepish grin kind of way; this is correct. However not all media that I want is available on CD or at least inexpensively. Many times I buy only the tracks I want and skip the rest. But; it is a valid point, and I do have one serious whopper of a music CD collection.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a sheepish grin kind of way ; this is correct .
However not all media that I want is available on CD or at least inexpensively .
Many times I buy only the tracks I want and skip the rest .
But ; it is a valid point , and I do have one serious whopper of a music CD collection .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a sheepish grin kind of way; this is correct.
However not all media that I want is available on CD or at least inexpensively.
Many times I buy only the tracks I want and skip the rest.
But; it is a valid point, and I do have one serious whopper of a music CD collection.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28718763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714471</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a...</title>
	<author>MrHanky</author>
	<datestamp>1247743920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The iPod was more than popular before the music store, so it's obviously the other way around in that case: buy an iPod, and you're pretty much locked to iTunes, with the iTMS built-in. The iPod is used to guide people to the music store. In fact, you wouldn't find your way to the music store without iTunes, and it's a pretty obnoxious piece of software you'd best avoid if you don't need it specifically to use an iPod or the iTMS.</p><p>So it's like this: The iPod sells itself by being fashionable and shiny, which leads people to use iTunes, which is used to sell music. No one in their right mind would say: I want to buy music online, and from the iTMS, so I'd better start using the pig monster called iTunes which only syncs properly with the iPod. They say: I want an mp3 player. I want that flashy iPhone.</p><p>The iTMS isn't even particularly cool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The iPod was more than popular before the music store , so it 's obviously the other way around in that case : buy an iPod , and you 're pretty much locked to iTunes , with the iTMS built-in .
The iPod is used to guide people to the music store .
In fact , you would n't find your way to the music store without iTunes , and it 's a pretty obnoxious piece of software you 'd best avoid if you do n't need it specifically to use an iPod or the iTMS.So it 's like this : The iPod sells itself by being fashionable and shiny , which leads people to use iTunes , which is used to sell music .
No one in their right mind would say : I want to buy music online , and from the iTMS , so I 'd better start using the pig monster called iTunes which only syncs properly with the iPod .
They say : I want an mp3 player .
I want that flashy iPhone.The iTMS is n't even particularly cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The iPod was more than popular before the music store, so it's obviously the other way around in that case: buy an iPod, and you're pretty much locked to iTunes, with the iTMS built-in.
The iPod is used to guide people to the music store.
In fact, you wouldn't find your way to the music store without iTunes, and it's a pretty obnoxious piece of software you'd best avoid if you don't need it specifically to use an iPod or the iTMS.So it's like this: The iPod sells itself by being fashionable and shiny, which leads people to use iTunes, which is used to sell music.
No one in their right mind would say: I want to buy music online, and from the iTMS, so I'd better start using the pig monster called iTunes which only syncs properly with the iPod.
They say: I want an mp3 player.
I want that flashy iPhone.The iTMS isn't even particularly cool.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712281</id>
	<title>Re:Who got a Pre thinking it'd always sync w/ iTun</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1247676900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somehow, as I was reading your post I misread "Apple" as "Microsoft", "iTunes" as "Internet Explorer" and "Pre" as "Netscape".</p><p>I wonder why.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somehow , as I was reading your post I misread " Apple " as " Microsoft " , " iTunes " as " Internet Explorer " and " Pre " as " Netscape " .I wonder why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somehow, as I was reading your post I misread "Apple" as "Microsoft", "iTunes" as "Internet Explorer" and "Pre" as "Netscape".I wonder why.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710725</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247664360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you think it would be in the interest of Apple's customers if Apple were instead to shut down the iTunes Music Store, because the margins on that aren't high enough, and they no longer have the iPod margins keeping it all afloat? You can't separate Apple's iPod business from their iTMS business, as one is necessary for the other to be worth it for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you think it would be in the interest of Apple 's customers if Apple were instead to shut down the iTunes Music Store , because the margins on that are n't high enough , and they no longer have the iPod margins keeping it all afloat ?
You ca n't separate Apple 's iPod business from their iTMS business , as one is necessary for the other to be worth it for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you think it would be in the interest of Apple's customers if Apple were instead to shut down the iTunes Music Store, because the margins on that aren't high enough, and they no longer have the iPod margins keeping it all afloat?
You can't separate Apple's iPod business from their iTMS business, as one is necessary for the other to be worth it for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28721797</id>
	<title>Re:Songbird is the answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247734800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Palm should go with Songbird. Songbird is not 100\% stable and bug free (I have been testing it lately),</p><p>You answered your own question about why Palm didn't use Songbird.  Real users don't tolerate crashes.  They say, "This sucks.  iTunes doesn't crash."</p><p>I never understood the point of Songbird.  I even heard a developer talk about it at SHDH one time.  When asked why make it, he said, "Well there really isn't a media player that runs on windows, mac, and linux.  This does."  Of course this leads to the question of "So what?"  Unless you can answer that question, you're not developing anything useful.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Palm should go with Songbird .
Songbird is not 100 \ % stable and bug free ( I have been testing it lately ) ,You answered your own question about why Palm did n't use Songbird .
Real users do n't tolerate crashes .
They say , " This sucks .
iTunes does n't crash .
" I never understood the point of Songbird .
I even heard a developer talk about it at SHDH one time .
When asked why make it , he said , " Well there really is n't a media player that runs on windows , mac , and linux .
This does .
" Of course this leads to the question of " So what ?
" Unless you can answer that question , you 're not developing anything useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Palm should go with Songbird.
Songbird is not 100\% stable and bug free (I have been testing it lately),You answered your own question about why Palm didn't use Songbird.
Real users don't tolerate crashes.
They say, "This sucks.
iTunes doesn't crash.
"I never understood the point of Songbird.
I even heard a developer talk about it at SHDH one time.
When asked why make it, he said, "Well there really isn't a media player that runs on windows, mac, and linux.
This does.
"  Of course this leads to the question of "So what?
"  Unless you can answer that question, you're not developing anything useful.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709801</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709721</id>
	<title>Antitrust?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247658840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So Apple has a virtual monopoly on portable media players, and they're using their monopoly to harm their competitors. Sounds like a job for the DoJ to me.</p><p>Apple is evil, and I can't understand why geeks like them so much. They're notorious for protecting their interests above anybody else's with absolutely zero regard for the consumer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So Apple has a virtual monopoly on portable media players , and they 're using their monopoly to harm their competitors .
Sounds like a job for the DoJ to me.Apple is evil , and I ca n't understand why geeks like them so much .
They 're notorious for protecting their interests above anybody else 's with absolutely zero regard for the consumer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Apple has a virtual monopoly on portable media players, and they're using their monopoly to harm their competitors.
Sounds like a job for the DoJ to me.Apple is evil, and I can't understand why geeks like them so much.
They're notorious for protecting their interests above anybody else's with absolutely zero regard for the consumer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711531</id>
	<title>Re:Antitrust?</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1247670540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are not forced to use iTunes to use your Pre, and iTunes is given away for free as a piece of software used to manage your music library and sync up your iPod and iPhone. It was not written, or ever advertised, as software for syncing Palm phones. There is nothing stopping you from using something else to sync your Palm on Mac or Windows.</p><p>Maybe a dick move, but totally so outside the realms of being illegal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are not forced to use iTunes to use your Pre , and iTunes is given away for free as a piece of software used to manage your music library and sync up your iPod and iPhone .
It was not written , or ever advertised , as software for syncing Palm phones .
There is nothing stopping you from using something else to sync your Palm on Mac or Windows.Maybe a dick move , but totally so outside the realms of being illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are not forced to use iTunes to use your Pre, and iTunes is given away for free as a piece of software used to manage your music library and sync up your iPod and iPhone.
It was not written, or ever advertised, as software for syncing Palm phones.
There is nothing stopping you from using something else to sync your Palm on Mac or Windows.Maybe a dick move, but totally so outside the realms of being illegal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710971</id>
	<title>Is A Company *Required* To Support A Competitor?</title>
	<author>GaryPatterson</author>
	<datestamp>1247666340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't quite get my head around this concept.</p><p>Palm used an unsupported method to link to iTunes, had no agreement with Apple for this and did it for a product that competes directly with Apple's iPhone.</p><p>Why on Earth should Apple support them? They can only lose by doing so, since maintaining the Palm's access to iTunes makes it a more attractive competitor to people weighing up between an iPhone and a Palm Pre.</p><p>I can see why people are talking up interoperability, but this was no open standard that Apple are abusing. The Palm Pre is spoofing the authentication details to appear as an iPhone. That's a behaviour that will almost always be broken, and is a very short-sighted move on Palm's part.</p><p>Surely we all knew this was going to happen? When I heard how Palm were doing this, I started counting the days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't quite get my head around this concept.Palm used an unsupported method to link to iTunes , had no agreement with Apple for this and did it for a product that competes directly with Apple 's iPhone.Why on Earth should Apple support them ?
They can only lose by doing so , since maintaining the Palm 's access to iTunes makes it a more attractive competitor to people weighing up between an iPhone and a Palm Pre.I can see why people are talking up interoperability , but this was no open standard that Apple are abusing .
The Palm Pre is spoofing the authentication details to appear as an iPhone .
That 's a behaviour that will almost always be broken , and is a very short-sighted move on Palm 's part.Surely we all knew this was going to happen ?
When I heard how Palm were doing this , I started counting the days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't quite get my head around this concept.Palm used an unsupported method to link to iTunes, had no agreement with Apple for this and did it for a product that competes directly with Apple's iPhone.Why on Earth should Apple support them?
They can only lose by doing so, since maintaining the Palm's access to iTunes makes it a more attractive competitor to people weighing up between an iPhone and a Palm Pre.I can see why people are talking up interoperability, but this was no open standard that Apple are abusing.
The Palm Pre is spoofing the authentication details to appear as an iPhone.
That's a behaviour that will almost always be broken, and is a very short-sighted move on Palm's part.Surely we all knew this was going to happen?
When I heard how Palm were doing this, I started counting the days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714627</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products</title>
	<author>vagabond\_gr</author>
	<datestamp>1247745960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok you don't mind paying a little extra to make your mp3 player work with your Mac, fine by me.</p><p>Now tell me, do you want your printer to work with your Mac or not? What about your camera, external hard disk or DSL modem? Do you visit any websites other than apple.com? Do you expect them to work with safari?</p><p>If you do want these stuff then you do give a huge damn about interoperability and standards, even if you are too short-sighted to realize it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok you do n't mind paying a little extra to make your mp3 player work with your Mac , fine by me.Now tell me , do you want your printer to work with your Mac or not ?
What about your camera , external hard disk or DSL modem ?
Do you visit any websites other than apple.com ?
Do you expect them to work with safari ? If you do want these stuff then you do give a huge damn about interoperability and standards , even if you are too short-sighted to realize it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok you don't mind paying a little extra to make your mp3 player work with your Mac, fine by me.Now tell me, do you want your printer to work with your Mac or not?
What about your camera, external hard disk or DSL modem?
Do you visit any websites other than apple.com?
Do you expect them to work with safari?If you do want these stuff then you do give a huge damn about interoperability and standards, even if you are too short-sighted to realize it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710131</id>
	<title>Use doubleTwist instead.</title>
	<author>zullnero</author>
	<datestamp>1247661000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like it far better, anyway.  It's simple and does what I want, and that's just to move media around.  Works flawlessly with the Palm Pre, heck, DVD Jon HAS a Pre.  <a href="http://www.precentral.net/doubletwist-manages-pre-media-freely-easily-transparently" title="precentral.net" rel="nofollow">DoubleTwist Manages Your Pre Media, Freely, Easily, and Transparently</a> [precentral.net]
<br> <br>
If you're hooked on iTunes, seriously, you need to get over that, there ARE fine replacements for it.  People were listening to digital music long before the iPod ever came out.  Unfortunately, Apple tricked a lot of people into thinking that they were paying for music and supporting the artists, but their intention obviously was to control the platform.  Any company that would charge for media, but then block you from using it on the device you want to use that media on are not worth your time and money, and if you've been doing business with them, sorry, they've ripped you off.  This is a fine example of how Apple is more dangerous than M$ ever was in regards to anti-competitive and anti-innovative behavior.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like it far better , anyway .
It 's simple and does what I want , and that 's just to move media around .
Works flawlessly with the Palm Pre , heck , DVD Jon HAS a Pre .
DoubleTwist Manages Your Pre Media , Freely , Easily , and Transparently [ precentral.net ] If you 're hooked on iTunes , seriously , you need to get over that , there ARE fine replacements for it .
People were listening to digital music long before the iPod ever came out .
Unfortunately , Apple tricked a lot of people into thinking that they were paying for music and supporting the artists , but their intention obviously was to control the platform .
Any company that would charge for media , but then block you from using it on the device you want to use that media on are not worth your time and money , and if you 've been doing business with them , sorry , they 've ripped you off .
This is a fine example of how Apple is more dangerous than M $ ever was in regards to anti-competitive and anti-innovative behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like it far better, anyway.
It's simple and does what I want, and that's just to move media around.
Works flawlessly with the Palm Pre, heck, DVD Jon HAS a Pre.
DoubleTwist Manages Your Pre Media, Freely, Easily, and Transparently [precentral.net]
 
If you're hooked on iTunes, seriously, you need to get over that, there ARE fine replacements for it.
People were listening to digital music long before the iPod ever came out.
Unfortunately, Apple tricked a lot of people into thinking that they were paying for music and supporting the artists, but their intention obviously was to control the platform.
Any company that would charge for media, but then block you from using it on the device you want to use that media on are not worth your time and money, and if you've been doing business with them, sorry, they've ripped you off.
This is a fine example of how Apple is more dangerous than M$ ever was in regards to anti-competitive and anti-innovative behavior.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709823</id>
	<title>Annoying as hell?</title>
	<author>atari2600</author>
	<datestamp>1247659380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the article: "It works, but is annoying as hell. Will Palm respond? Who knows. In the meantime, welcome to your new reality, Pre users." Uhh Eric Zeman, not being able to use your precious palm to sync with Itunes is inconvenient and mildly annoying. Not sure it's as annoying as hell. <br> <br>

I was trying to come up with examples..."Cell phone yelling on a bus", "Madonna" - annoying as they are, nowhere near as annoying as hell. I know, I know, figure of speech but fucking drag your files or buy an Apple device or even better..here it comes..STOP USING ITUNES.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : " It works , but is annoying as hell .
Will Palm respond ?
Who knows .
In the meantime , welcome to your new reality , Pre users .
" Uhh Eric Zeman , not being able to use your precious palm to sync with Itunes is inconvenient and mildly annoying .
Not sure it 's as annoying as hell .
I was trying to come up with examples... " Cell phone yelling on a bus " , " Madonna " - annoying as they are , nowhere near as annoying as hell .
I know , I know , figure of speech but fucking drag your files or buy an Apple device or even better..here it comes..STOP USING ITUNES .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article: "It works, but is annoying as hell.
Will Palm respond?
Who knows.
In the meantime, welcome to your new reality, Pre users.
" Uhh Eric Zeman, not being able to use your precious palm to sync with Itunes is inconvenient and mildly annoying.
Not sure it's as annoying as hell.
I was trying to come up with examples..."Cell phone yelling on a bus", "Madonna" - annoying as they are, nowhere near as annoying as hell.
I know, I know, figure of speech but fucking drag your files or buy an Apple device or even better..here it comes..STOP USING ITUNES.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28719797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709801
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28719781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28716041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28716367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28716027
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715941
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28716065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28727593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28734689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28722375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28718073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28737505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28716641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28718763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28720677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28716655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28716123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28719167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28718739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28718043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711385
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709801
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712853
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28717751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715571
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28716217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28814829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28738809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28722831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28719161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709801
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28721797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715617
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_221238_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_221238.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28719167
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711609
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711639
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713839
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714297
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28719161
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28716027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28734689
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_221238.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711445
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_221238.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710185
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_221238.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711719
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714273
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713309
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714979
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_221238.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28716641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28718763
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28720677
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_221238.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710773
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711537
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_221238.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709859
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28738809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711421
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_221238.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710339
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711645
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710937
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711693
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712601
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710215
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713887
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714627
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710401
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710725
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714705
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713353
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_221238.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712443
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_221238.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711531
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_221238.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710467
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_221238.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28718739
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714861
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_221238.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28716655
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711511
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28727593
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714313
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_221238.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709901
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_221238.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709711
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_221238.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709801
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28721797
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_221238.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714397
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_221238.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710135
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_221238.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710223
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711197
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_221238.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709601
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709891
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709997
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28718043
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712853
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712337
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714981
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28722831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710361
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28719797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710055
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711643
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714869
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28737505
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711385
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712871
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28716217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28717751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710697
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713501
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711493
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712469
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_221238.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709603
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_221238.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709543
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709581
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709691
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_221238.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709689
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_221238.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710207
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710511
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711755
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713743
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28716065
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710519
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714471
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714917
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28716123
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715741
------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28719781
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715809
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712207
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711833
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715645
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715293
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713867
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28722375
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713321
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715617
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715275
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28716367
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28718073
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712801
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28814829
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712179
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715571
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710873
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711203
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715941
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28713313
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710715
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712427
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28712625
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714725
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28716041
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28715095
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28711295
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_221238.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709585
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_221238.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28709991
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_221238.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28710971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_221238.28714489
</commentlist>
</conversation>
