<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_18_0051243</id>
	<title>Less Than Free</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1258551300000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>VC Bill Gurley has up an insightful piece on the strategy behind Google's releasing turn-by-turn mapping for free. He calls it the "<a href="http://abovethecrowd.com/2009/10/29/google-redefines-disruption-the-&ldquo;less-than-free&rdquo;-business-model/">Less Than Free</a>" business model, and it is beyond disruptive. On the day that Google announced its new service, the stock in the two companies that had controlled the market for map data, Garmin and TomTom, dropped by 16\% and 21\%, respectively. (Those companies had bought Google's erstwhile map-data suppliers, Tele Atlas and NavTeq, in 2007.) <i>"When I asked a mobile industry veteran why carriers were so willing to dance with Google, a company they once feared, he suggested that Google was the 'lesser of two evils.' With Blackberry and iPhone grabbing more and more subs, the carriers were losing control of the customer UI... With Android, carriers could re-claim their customer 'deck.' Additionally, because Google has created an open source version of Android, carriers believe they have an 'out' if they part ways with Google in the future. I then asked my friend, 'So why would they ever use the Google (non open source) license version?'  ... Here was the big punch line &mdash; because Google will give you ad splits on search if you use that version! That's right; Google will pay you to use their mobile OS. I like to call this the 'less than free' business model. This is a remarkable card to play. Because of its dominance in search, Google has ad rates that blow away the competition. To compete at an equally 'less than free' price point, Symbian or Windows Mobile would need to subsidize."</i> Gurley speculates that the company may broaden "less than free"  to include the Google Chrome OS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>VC Bill Gurley has up an insightful piece on the strategy behind Google 's releasing turn-by-turn mapping for free .
He calls it the " Less Than Free " business model , and it is beyond disruptive .
On the day that Google announced its new service , the stock in the two companies that had controlled the market for map data , Garmin and TomTom , dropped by 16 \ % and 21 \ % , respectively .
( Those companies had bought Google 's erstwhile map-data suppliers , Tele Atlas and NavTeq , in 2007 .
) " When I asked a mobile industry veteran why carriers were so willing to dance with Google , a company they once feared , he suggested that Google was the 'lesser of two evils .
' With Blackberry and iPhone grabbing more and more subs , the carriers were losing control of the customer UI... With Android , carriers could re-claim their customer 'deck .
' Additionally , because Google has created an open source version of Android , carriers believe they have an 'out ' if they part ways with Google in the future .
I then asked my friend , 'So why would they ever use the Google ( non open source ) license version ?
' ... Here was the big punch line    because Google will give you ad splits on search if you use that version !
That 's right ; Google will pay you to use their mobile OS .
I like to call this the 'less than free ' business model .
This is a remarkable card to play .
Because of its dominance in search , Google has ad rates that blow away the competition .
To compete at an equally 'less than free ' price point , Symbian or Windows Mobile would need to subsidize .
" Gurley speculates that the company may broaden " less than free " to include the Google Chrome OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VC Bill Gurley has up an insightful piece on the strategy behind Google's releasing turn-by-turn mapping for free.
He calls it the "Less Than Free" business model, and it is beyond disruptive.
On the day that Google announced its new service, the stock in the two companies that had controlled the market for map data, Garmin and TomTom, dropped by 16\% and 21\%, respectively.
(Those companies had bought Google's erstwhile map-data suppliers, Tele Atlas and NavTeq, in 2007.
) "When I asked a mobile industry veteran why carriers were so willing to dance with Google, a company they once feared, he suggested that Google was the 'lesser of two evils.
' With Blackberry and iPhone grabbing more and more subs, the carriers were losing control of the customer UI... With Android, carriers could re-claim their customer 'deck.
' Additionally, because Google has created an open source version of Android, carriers believe they have an 'out' if they part ways with Google in the future.
I then asked my friend, 'So why would they ever use the Google (non open source) license version?
'  ... Here was the big punch line — because Google will give you ad splits on search if you use that version!
That's right; Google will pay you to use their mobile OS.
I like to call this the 'less than free' business model.
This is a remarkable card to play.
Because of its dominance in search, Google has ad rates that blow away the competition.
To compete at an equally 'less than free' price point, Symbian or Windows Mobile would need to subsidize.
" Gurley speculates that the company may broaden "less than free"  to include the Google Chrome OS.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30145214</id>
	<title>Re:Gee, it's almost like they have a monopoly or s</title>
	<author>snadrus</author>
	<datestamp>1257097560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, the "MS Bing @ 10\% market and rising fast" article next to this one somewhat makes their monopolistic moves ignorable (they don't have a monopoly).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , the " MS Bing @ 10 \ % market and rising fast " article next to this one somewhat makes their monopolistic moves ignorable ( they do n't have a monopoly ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, the "MS Bing @ 10\% market and rising fast" article next to this one somewhat makes their monopolistic moves ignorable (they don't have a monopoly).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30147798</id>
	<title>Ah google...</title>
	<author>recharged95</author>
	<datestamp>1257108960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google has some smart tech guys. But not the smartest.On the flip side they probably have the smartest business folks.
<br>
<br>
To keep the business rolling--it's the business guys. The tech guys are there to justify spending that invested cash.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has some smart tech guys .
But not the smartest.On the flip side they probably have the smartest business folks .
To keep the business rolling--it 's the business guys .
The tech guys are there to justify spending that invested cash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has some smart tech guys.
But not the smartest.On the flip side they probably have the smartest business folks.
To keep the business rolling--it's the business guys.
The tech guys are there to justify spending that invested cash.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139786</id>
	<title>Re:Android WILL take over.</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1258480080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Yep, well, you just defeated your own argument.</p></div></blockquote><p>

tsk, tsk, fanboy.<br> <br>

Whilst I disagree with the GP's part about Apple's UI being better (personally I think it was in there to appease the fanboys with mod points) better does not imply that the competition is poor, to elaborate the GP implied that Androids UI is good but Apple's is better, this does not automatically imply that Androids UI is bad in any way.<br> <br>

Now Apple's UI is akin to that of my older Nokia's, an entirely menu driven system except you use a touchscreen instead of a directional pad for navigation, the organisation options for the menus is as limited as that of Symbian. Now Androids UI is more like that of a desktop computer, you have a workspace where you can store icon's, widgets and other items (lets call this a desktop) and a bar that displays relevant information such as network connectivity, notifications and alerts (Windows users may know this as the task bar). I know there are angry Apple fanboys with mod points itching to censor this but I don't see the innovation in Apple's UI, shiny yes, innovative no. Even Androids UI is not that innovative, they've taken concepts that have been around on the desktop PC for years and put them into a phone OS. I think the biggest reason that Apple's UI looks so good is that WinMo's and WinCE's is so terrible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , well , you just defeated your own argument .
tsk , tsk , fanboy .
Whilst I disagree with the GP 's part about Apple 's UI being better ( personally I think it was in there to appease the fanboys with mod points ) better does not imply that the competition is poor , to elaborate the GP implied that Androids UI is good but Apple 's is better , this does not automatically imply that Androids UI is bad in any way .
Now Apple 's UI is akin to that of my older Nokia 's , an entirely menu driven system except you use a touchscreen instead of a directional pad for navigation , the organisation options for the menus is as limited as that of Symbian .
Now Androids UI is more like that of a desktop computer , you have a workspace where you can store icon 's , widgets and other items ( lets call this a desktop ) and a bar that displays relevant information such as network connectivity , notifications and alerts ( Windows users may know this as the task bar ) .
I know there are angry Apple fanboys with mod points itching to censor this but I do n't see the innovation in Apple 's UI , shiny yes , innovative no .
Even Androids UI is not that innovative , they 've taken concepts that have been around on the desktop PC for years and put them into a phone OS .
I think the biggest reason that Apple 's UI looks so good is that WinMo 's and WinCE 's is so terrible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, well, you just defeated your own argument.
tsk, tsk, fanboy.
Whilst I disagree with the GP's part about Apple's UI being better (personally I think it was in there to appease the fanboys with mod points) better does not imply that the competition is poor, to elaborate the GP implied that Androids UI is good but Apple's is better, this does not automatically imply that Androids UI is bad in any way.
Now Apple's UI is akin to that of my older Nokia's, an entirely menu driven system except you use a touchscreen instead of a directional pad for navigation, the organisation options for the menus is as limited as that of Symbian.
Now Androids UI is more like that of a desktop computer, you have a workspace where you can store icon's, widgets and other items (lets call this a desktop) and a bar that displays relevant information such as network connectivity, notifications and alerts (Windows users may know this as the task bar).
I know there are angry Apple fanboys with mod points itching to censor this but I don't see the innovation in Apple's UI, shiny yes, innovative no.
Even Androids UI is not that innovative, they've taken concepts that have been around on the desktop PC for years and put them into a phone OS.
I think the biggest reason that Apple's UI looks so good is that WinMo's and WinCE's is so terrible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138646</id>
	<title>Re:Why does anyone want internet GPS anyway?</title>
	<author>oldmankdude</author>
	<datestamp>1258471080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've actually run into a few cases where my portable GPS unit didn't know a few roads existed, so those yearly updates are worth something!

A more compelling reason, however, is stuff like construction, traffic, etc. That kind of stuff can change on a weekly or even daily basis (more for traffic).  Google might not have even implemented this, but it saving half an hour by avoiding a construction zone would be a pretty compelling reason to have an internet connection in addition to GPS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've actually run into a few cases where my portable GPS unit did n't know a few roads existed , so those yearly updates are worth something !
A more compelling reason , however , is stuff like construction , traffic , etc .
That kind of stuff can change on a weekly or even daily basis ( more for traffic ) .
Google might not have even implemented this , but it saving half an hour by avoiding a construction zone would be a pretty compelling reason to have an internet connection in addition to GPS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've actually run into a few cases where my portable GPS unit didn't know a few roads existed, so those yearly updates are worth something!
A more compelling reason, however, is stuff like construction, traffic, etc.
That kind of stuff can change on a weekly or even daily basis (more for traffic).
Google might not have even implemented this, but it saving half an hour by avoiding a construction zone would be a pretty compelling reason to have an internet connection in addition to GPS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139436</id>
	<title>Re:Android WILL take over.</title>
	<author>ironwill96</author>
	<datestamp>1258477200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Arguably, Apple has had great success by having a completely closed system which is why the argument that Android will succeed because it is open is such a fallacy in my opinion.</p><p>Android may be great, but its implementation is different on every Android phone.  Different hardware, different features, different amounts of android functionality.  You don't really have a consistent user experience any more than you do with Windows Mobile.  Also, I bet that apps will not run the same across the hardware since so many different phones running Android have a wide variety of specs.  I can see it turning into the nightmare that game/application developers have when making an application for the PC - you have a few hundred million permutations of possible hardware combinations in your potential user-base - good luck getting it to work properly and consistently on all of them!</p><p>Even to this day nearly every app made for the iPhone/iPod Touch will work very consistently across every version.   Granted, the newer versions of the iPhone and iPod touch run and load the applications faster than their predecessors but the overall hardware that the developer has to deal with is very nicely uniform.  This is also one of the core reasons why I think that the 360 and PS3 and Wii have such success compared to the PC for gaming.  When you buy a game for those platforms you expect that you can take it home and it will just work.</p><p>I'm excited to see Android provide some real competition to Apple but realistically, even if Verizon does get the iPhone because Apple is facing strong competition from Google's mobile OS, do I really want to go back to Verizon?  They have a great network sure, but they also had crappy customer service, dicked with their phones by disabling features and then trying to sell them back to me, doubled their smartphone cancellation fee and employ all kinds of scumbag tactics including selling unlimited data plans that aren't unlimited.  Why is everyone so keen on being their customer again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Arguably , Apple has had great success by having a completely closed system which is why the argument that Android will succeed because it is open is such a fallacy in my opinion.Android may be great , but its implementation is different on every Android phone .
Different hardware , different features , different amounts of android functionality .
You do n't really have a consistent user experience any more than you do with Windows Mobile .
Also , I bet that apps will not run the same across the hardware since so many different phones running Android have a wide variety of specs .
I can see it turning into the nightmare that game/application developers have when making an application for the PC - you have a few hundred million permutations of possible hardware combinations in your potential user-base - good luck getting it to work properly and consistently on all of them ! Even to this day nearly every app made for the iPhone/iPod Touch will work very consistently across every version .
Granted , the newer versions of the iPhone and iPod touch run and load the applications faster than their predecessors but the overall hardware that the developer has to deal with is very nicely uniform .
This is also one of the core reasons why I think that the 360 and PS3 and Wii have such success compared to the PC for gaming .
When you buy a game for those platforms you expect that you can take it home and it will just work.I 'm excited to see Android provide some real competition to Apple but realistically , even if Verizon does get the iPhone because Apple is facing strong competition from Google 's mobile OS , do I really want to go back to Verizon ?
They have a great network sure , but they also had crappy customer service , dicked with their phones by disabling features and then trying to sell them back to me , doubled their smartphone cancellation fee and employ all kinds of scumbag tactics including selling unlimited data plans that are n't unlimited .
Why is everyone so keen on being their customer again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Arguably, Apple has had great success by having a completely closed system which is why the argument that Android will succeed because it is open is such a fallacy in my opinion.Android may be great, but its implementation is different on every Android phone.
Different hardware, different features, different amounts of android functionality.
You don't really have a consistent user experience any more than you do with Windows Mobile.
Also, I bet that apps will not run the same across the hardware since so many different phones running Android have a wide variety of specs.
I can see it turning into the nightmare that game/application developers have when making an application for the PC - you have a few hundred million permutations of possible hardware combinations in your potential user-base - good luck getting it to work properly and consistently on all of them!Even to this day nearly every app made for the iPhone/iPod Touch will work very consistently across every version.
Granted, the newer versions of the iPhone and iPod touch run and load the applications faster than their predecessors but the overall hardware that the developer has to deal with is very nicely uniform.
This is also one of the core reasons why I think that the 360 and PS3 and Wii have such success compared to the PC for gaming.
When you buy a game for those platforms you expect that you can take it home and it will just work.I'm excited to see Android provide some real competition to Apple but realistically, even if Verizon does get the iPhone because Apple is facing strong competition from Google's mobile OS, do I really want to go back to Verizon?
They have a great network sure, but they also had crappy customer service, dicked with their phones by disabling features and then trying to sell them back to me, doubled their smartphone cancellation fee and employ all kinds of scumbag tactics including selling unlimited data plans that aren't unlimited.
Why is everyone so keen on being their customer again?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139962</id>
	<title>Re:Android WILL take over.</title>
	<author>WillDraven</author>
	<datestamp>1258481580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except you don't have millions of hardware platforms, Right now <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Android\_devices" title="wikipedia.org">there are 20</a> [wikipedia.org] with 14 more in the pipeline. Granted that's not as simple as just one platform, and many 3rd party apps may end up broken on some of those, but I think a company of Google's size can manage to stay on top of maintaining ports for it's core apps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except you do n't have millions of hardware platforms , Right now there are 20 [ wikipedia.org ] with 14 more in the pipeline .
Granted that 's not as simple as just one platform , and many 3rd party apps may end up broken on some of those , but I think a company of Google 's size can manage to stay on top of maintaining ports for it 's core apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except you don't have millions of hardware platforms, Right now there are 20 [wikipedia.org] with 14 more in the pipeline.
Granted that's not as simple as just one platform, and many 3rd party apps may end up broken on some of those, but I think a company of Google's size can manage to stay on top of maintaining ports for it's core apps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30146956</id>
	<title>Just shows investors are clueless</title>
	<author>mschuyler</author>
	<datestamp>1257104700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone already pointed out below that the stock loss also happened on the day both companies reported quarterly losses and THAT may have had a lot to do with the drop. If some of the loss was due to Google's announcement, it just shows investors are clueless--not that Google is not trying to help them along in their cluelessness. Having used a (rental) cell phone GPS and owning both a portable Garmin and a built-in GPS I can tell you there is a world of difference. Google wants you to take an iPhone and mount it on the dash and pretends it will be just like a Garmin.</p><p>Nonsense. Screen size is a very big deal here. GPS systems are distracting and dangerous enough without having to put your head forward to squint at the screen. I think they are about a third of the size of a built-in like on an Acura TSX and less than half of a portable Garmin like the 770 (which both N. American and European maps). Maybe some of you with super X-ray vision can see these tiny things well, but wearing bi-focals I surely cannot and I maintain many people are in the same situation. What people need is a stress-free GPS, not one they have to fight, especially in a strange locale, which is the only time you really need one. You already know how to get home, right?</p><p>The problem with the iPhone type devices is that they are a compromise for everything. Do you really enjoy that tiny screen? Do you like browsing the web on your iPhone? Do you enjoy texting with keys that small? Hey, but you can do it anywhere, so you put up with it. It's cool.</p><p>And, of course, there is competition and feeping creaturitis. Next up (and this will be a hardware issue): Heads-up displays on the windshield. I would dump my Garmin and buy a new one in half a second if I could get a heads-up display. Let's see you download THAT from Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone already pointed out below that the stock loss also happened on the day both companies reported quarterly losses and THAT may have had a lot to do with the drop .
If some of the loss was due to Google 's announcement , it just shows investors are clueless--not that Google is not trying to help them along in their cluelessness .
Having used a ( rental ) cell phone GPS and owning both a portable Garmin and a built-in GPS I can tell you there is a world of difference .
Google wants you to take an iPhone and mount it on the dash and pretends it will be just like a Garmin.Nonsense .
Screen size is a very big deal here .
GPS systems are distracting and dangerous enough without having to put your head forward to squint at the screen .
I think they are about a third of the size of a built-in like on an Acura TSX and less than half of a portable Garmin like the 770 ( which both N. American and European maps ) .
Maybe some of you with super X-ray vision can see these tiny things well , but wearing bi-focals I surely can not and I maintain many people are in the same situation .
What people need is a stress-free GPS , not one they have to fight , especially in a strange locale , which is the only time you really need one .
You already know how to get home , right ? The problem with the iPhone type devices is that they are a compromise for everything .
Do you really enjoy that tiny screen ?
Do you like browsing the web on your iPhone ?
Do you enjoy texting with keys that small ?
Hey , but you can do it anywhere , so you put up with it .
It 's cool.And , of course , there is competition and feeping creaturitis .
Next up ( and this will be a hardware issue ) : Heads-up displays on the windshield .
I would dump my Garmin and buy a new one in half a second if I could get a heads-up display .
Let 's see you download THAT from Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone already pointed out below that the stock loss also happened on the day both companies reported quarterly losses and THAT may have had a lot to do with the drop.
If some of the loss was due to Google's announcement, it just shows investors are clueless--not that Google is not trying to help them along in their cluelessness.
Having used a (rental) cell phone GPS and owning both a portable Garmin and a built-in GPS I can tell you there is a world of difference.
Google wants you to take an iPhone and mount it on the dash and pretends it will be just like a Garmin.Nonsense.
Screen size is a very big deal here.
GPS systems are distracting and dangerous enough without having to put your head forward to squint at the screen.
I think they are about a third of the size of a built-in like on an Acura TSX and less than half of a portable Garmin like the 770 (which both N. American and European maps).
Maybe some of you with super X-ray vision can see these tiny things well, but wearing bi-focals I surely cannot and I maintain many people are in the same situation.
What people need is a stress-free GPS, not one they have to fight, especially in a strange locale, which is the only time you really need one.
You already know how to get home, right?The problem with the iPhone type devices is that they are a compromise for everything.
Do you really enjoy that tiny screen?
Do you like browsing the web on your iPhone?
Do you enjoy texting with keys that small?
Hey, but you can do it anywhere, so you put up with it.
It's cool.And, of course, there is competition and feeping creaturitis.
Next up (and this will be a hardware issue): Heads-up displays on the windshield.
I would dump my Garmin and buy a new one in half a second if I could get a heads-up display.
Let's see you download THAT from Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139602</id>
	<title>Subsidize</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1258478520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>To compete at an equally 'less than free' price point, Symbian or Windows Mobile would need to subsidize</p></div></blockquote><p>Microsoft is used to that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To compete at an equally 'less than free ' price point , Symbian or Windows Mobile would need to subsidizeMicrosoft is used to that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To compete at an equally 'less than free' price point, Symbian or Windows Mobile would need to subsidizeMicrosoft is used to that.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30142066</id>
	<title>Re:Why does anyone want internet GPS anyway?</title>
	<author>jaminJay</author>
	<datestamp>1257081780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
<a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/09/28/0252203" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Useless in New Zealand, though...</a> [slashdot.org]
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Useless in New Zealand , though... [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Useless in New Zealand, though... [slashdot.org]
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140408</id>
	<title>This is the reason I use...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258485720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....scroogle.</p><p>www.scroogle.org</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....scroogle.www.scroogle.org</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....scroogle.www.scroogle.org</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138340</id>
	<title>old news is so exciting!</title>
	<author>timster</author>
	<datestamp>1258468680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's nice to know that Mr Gurley has learned how the industry works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's nice to know that Mr Gurley has learned how the industry works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's nice to know that Mr Gurley has learned how the industry works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138650</id>
	<title>Re:Google is the Foundation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258471080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wonder if they employ psychologists?</p></div><p>Without a doubt</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if they employ psychologists ? Without a doubt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if they employ psychologists?Without a doubt
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140640</id>
	<title>Re:Gee, it's almost like they have a monopoly or s</title>
	<author>ajs</author>
	<datestamp>1257105900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>or something...</p><p>Let's see, using dominance in one market to establish dominance in another market.  Check!</p></div><p>There's a world of difference between what you're describing and what Google's doing.</p><p>They're not trying to compete with Garmin. They simply don't consider what Garmin provides to be beyond the category of commodity. It's the open source mindset: things that only involve data are commodities. The valuable work is on the services side either in maintaining it (e.g. Google's Android licensing) or in supporting end-use (e.g. Data Service Plans which the network providers charge).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>or something...Let 's see , using dominance in one market to establish dominance in another market .
Check ! There 's a world of difference between what you 're describing and what Google 's doing.They 're not trying to compete with Garmin .
They simply do n't consider what Garmin provides to be beyond the category of commodity .
It 's the open source mindset : things that only involve data are commodities .
The valuable work is on the services side either in maintaining it ( e.g .
Google 's Android licensing ) or in supporting end-use ( e.g .
Data Service Plans which the network providers charge ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or something...Let's see, using dominance in one market to establish dominance in another market.
Check!There's a world of difference between what you're describing and what Google's doing.They're not trying to compete with Garmin.
They simply don't consider what Garmin provides to be beyond the category of commodity.
It's the open source mindset: things that only involve data are commodities.
The valuable work is on the services side either in maintaining it (e.g.
Google's Android licensing) or in supporting end-use (e.g.
Data Service Plans which the network providers charge).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30143292</id>
	<title>MS too</title>
	<author>JerryQ</author>
	<datestamp>1257090180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>

I worked for a Data Warehousing company in the late nineties. We had a slew of deals near to close. We took space at a DW exhibition, and invited all those near to close prospects.<br>

Microsoft took a stand, put an MS banner across the backdrop. They didn't send staff, they put no material on the stand.<br>

All our deals went into 'suspend' as a result of that action.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked for a Data Warehousing company in the late nineties .
We had a slew of deals near to close .
We took space at a DW exhibition , and invited all those near to close prospects .
Microsoft took a stand , put an MS banner across the backdrop .
They did n't send staff , they put no material on the stand .
All our deals went into 'suspend ' as a result of that action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

I worked for a Data Warehousing company in the late nineties.
We had a slew of deals near to close.
We took space at a DW exhibition, and invited all those near to close prospects.
Microsoft took a stand, put an MS banner across the backdrop.
They didn't send staff, they put no material on the stand.
All our deals went into 'suspend' as a result of that action.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30141948</id>
	<title>Re:Its the Intel Lawsuit - Google Style</title>
	<author>PybusJ</author>
	<datestamp>1257080280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty confident that HP and Dell were actually paying Intel for chips.  Intel was then giving them some proportion back as marketing contributions (nothing per se wrong there).  The problem came when getting a good discount didn't depend on how much Intel product you bought, but how little AMD.  Using this as a weapon against AMD was the anti-competitive element, not paying HP/Dell towards marketing.</p><p>In the same way, if Google were to only offer advertising payments to manufacturers who dropped Win Mobile than that might be anti-competitive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty confident that HP and Dell were actually paying Intel for chips .
Intel was then giving them some proportion back as marketing contributions ( nothing per se wrong there ) .
The problem came when getting a good discount did n't depend on how much Intel product you bought , but how little AMD .
Using this as a weapon against AMD was the anti-competitive element , not paying HP/Dell towards marketing.In the same way , if Google were to only offer advertising payments to manufacturers who dropped Win Mobile than that might be anti-competitive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty confident that HP and Dell were actually paying Intel for chips.
Intel was then giving them some proportion back as marketing contributions (nothing per se wrong there).
The problem came when getting a good discount didn't depend on how much Intel product you bought, but how little AMD.
Using this as a weapon against AMD was the anti-competitive element, not paying HP/Dell towards marketing.In the same way, if Google were to only offer advertising payments to manufacturers who dropped Win Mobile than that might be anti-competitive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30143536</id>
	<title>Re:Horseshit.</title>
	<author>roadsider</author>
	<datestamp>1257091020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One thing in which Bing surpasses Google is with their aerial views. Bing's image quality is vastly superior and the birdseye view is in many ways much more useful than Google's Streetview. More amazing is that I see almost nothing written on Bing's birdseye view, and if you use it for just a little while, it'll blow you way. I'd hardly call Bing "a joke." I'm no Microsloth fan, but Bing has its merits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing in which Bing surpasses Google is with their aerial views .
Bing 's image quality is vastly superior and the birdseye view is in many ways much more useful than Google 's Streetview .
More amazing is that I see almost nothing written on Bing 's birdseye view , and if you use it for just a little while , it 'll blow you way .
I 'd hardly call Bing " a joke .
" I 'm no Microsloth fan , but Bing has its merits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing in which Bing surpasses Google is with their aerial views.
Bing's image quality is vastly superior and the birdseye view is in many ways much more useful than Google's Streetview.
More amazing is that I see almost nothing written on Bing's birdseye view, and if you use it for just a little while, it'll blow you way.
I'd hardly call Bing "a joke.
" I'm no Microsloth fan, but Bing has its merits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138568</id>
	<title>Re:Monopoly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258470600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you explain what monopoly they have?  It's a rhetorical question, they have none of course.</p><p>With all you "true capitalists" running around babbling about how \_you\_ are the real capitalist because you want the government to "protect" the market, I'm sure that pretty much everybody will have a "monopoly" over something eventually.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you explain what monopoly they have ?
It 's a rhetorical question , they have none of course.With all you " true capitalists " running around babbling about how \ _you \ _ are the real capitalist because you want the government to " protect " the market , I 'm sure that pretty much everybody will have a " monopoly " over something eventually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you explain what monopoly they have?
It's a rhetorical question, they have none of course.With all you "true capitalists" running around babbling about how \_you\_ are the real capitalist because you want the government to "protect" the market, I'm sure that pretty much everybody will have a "monopoly" over something eventually.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139630</id>
	<title>Re:Android WILL take over.</title>
	<author>PPalmgren</author>
	<datestamp>1258478820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows did not dominate the OS market by superior design, but by superior approach.  MS built a platform and let any hardware manufacturer use it.  Google apparently read their tech history and is taking the same approach MS did a few decades ago, with the open factor as icing on the cake.  I expect the rewards to be huge.</p><p>Shiny and marketing only go so far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows did not dominate the OS market by superior design , but by superior approach .
MS built a platform and let any hardware manufacturer use it .
Google apparently read their tech history and is taking the same approach MS did a few decades ago , with the open factor as icing on the cake .
I expect the rewards to be huge.Shiny and marketing only go so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows did not dominate the OS market by superior design, but by superior approach.
MS built a platform and let any hardware manufacturer use it.
Google apparently read their tech history and is taking the same approach MS did a few decades ago, with the open factor as icing on the cake.
I expect the rewards to be huge.Shiny and marketing only go so far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30141890</id>
	<title>Re:most users aren't aware of how much google know</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1257079560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The good news is that Google is a giant, soulless corporation, not a slightly greasy, overweight man who is out to get you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The good news is that Google is a giant , soulless corporation , not a slightly greasy , overweight man who is out to get you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The good news is that Google is a giant, soulless corporation, not a slightly greasy, overweight man who is out to get you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140682</id>
	<title>Re:So let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257106440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The virtue of Android, from the carrier's perspective, is that it allows them to create terrible branded user experiences.</p></div></blockquote><p>
But why do carriers insist on creating terrible branded user experiences in the first place?  Because they're trying to monetize the customer.  $1.99 for every mistaken "Get It Now" keypress, blocking MP3 uploads and then charging $0.99 per ringtone, etc...
</p><p>
The problem is, all that crap still has to be coded.  The phone companies spend $millions developing that crap, because it returns a measurable $millions+ROI\% margin.  The only way to make that return on investment number work is to cut the $millions spent on development to the bare bone - your usual flotilla of conslutants and Indian hack jobs.  Net result is that the crap that has to be coded... is, well, <em>crap</em>.
</p><p>
The virtue of Android, from the carrier's perspective, is that when Google kicks back some ad revenue, the carrier doesn't <em>have to spend money on consultants in India</em> to create terrible branded user experiences.   So why create <em>any</em> branded user experience?  Fire the lot of them!  Fire the consultants.  Fire the Indian sweatshop coders.  Fire the support techs that have to deal with whiny customers asking "Why doesn't the GPS work on my XYZ phone?", or "Why did you charge me $5 twice, just because I used the GPS from 11:59pm to 12:01am the next day?"...
</p><p>
Fire the lot of 'em, skip the "branded" user experience, and let the developer community create <em>useful</em> apps that people actually <em>want</em>.
</p><p>
Which is what we saw with the iPhone.
</p><p>
What I'm hoping to see out of Android, is to take it one step further.  I think Verizon's testing the hypothesis that the terribleness of their "branded" user experience was <em>so</em> terrible that it was driving away a whole market segment: people who actually <em>know</em> what their phones are capable of, and won't settle for anything less.
</p><p>
Six months ago, I had no use for a cell phone with a data plan.  Why bother, AT&amp;T's network sucks, and Verizon'll nickel and time you to death to re-enable the things that the phone manufacturer built in, but that Verizon paid some sweatshop a fortune to disable and replace with branded crap.  I'll stick with my Verizon "It's just a phone" phone, that I used for maybe 20 minutes a month on the bare minimum plan.
</p><p>
Tonight, I followed the tutorial for "Hello, World", built an<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.apk, and put it on my one-week-old Droid.   From start to finish, the process took me about an hour, including SDK installation time -- and I started with a system that didn't even have Eclipse on it.
</p><p>
Now that smartphones can be purchased without the fear that carriers will lock out all the things that make them "smart", Verizon (or some other carrier) will be getting $30/month out of me for a data plan for the rest of my life.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The virtue of Android , from the carrier 's perspective , is that it allows them to create terrible branded user experiences .
But why do carriers insist on creating terrible branded user experiences in the first place ?
Because they 're trying to monetize the customer .
$ 1.99 for every mistaken " Get It Now " keypress , blocking MP3 uploads and then charging $ 0.99 per ringtone , etc.. . The problem is , all that crap still has to be coded .
The phone companies spend $ millions developing that crap , because it returns a measurable $ millions + ROI \ % margin .
The only way to make that return on investment number work is to cut the $ millions spent on development to the bare bone - your usual flotilla of conslutants and Indian hack jobs .
Net result is that the crap that has to be coded... is , well , crap .
The virtue of Android , from the carrier 's perspective , is that when Google kicks back some ad revenue , the carrier does n't have to spend money on consultants in India to create terrible branded user experiences .
So why create any branded user experience ?
Fire the lot of them !
Fire the consultants .
Fire the Indian sweatshop coders .
Fire the support techs that have to deal with whiny customers asking " Why does n't the GPS work on my XYZ phone ?
" , or " Why did you charge me $ 5 twice , just because I used the GPS from 11 : 59pm to 12 : 01am the next day ? " .. .
Fire the lot of 'em , skip the " branded " user experience , and let the developer community create useful apps that people actually want .
Which is what we saw with the iPhone .
What I 'm hoping to see out of Android , is to take it one step further .
I think Verizon 's testing the hypothesis that the terribleness of their " branded " user experience was so terrible that it was driving away a whole market segment : people who actually know what their phones are capable of , and wo n't settle for anything less .
Six months ago , I had no use for a cell phone with a data plan .
Why bother , AT&amp;T 's network sucks , and Verizon 'll nickel and time you to death to re-enable the things that the phone manufacturer built in , but that Verizon paid some sweatshop a fortune to disable and replace with branded crap .
I 'll stick with my Verizon " It 's just a phone " phone , that I used for maybe 20 minutes a month on the bare minimum plan .
Tonight , I followed the tutorial for " Hello , World " , built an .apk , and put it on my one-week-old Droid .
From start to finish , the process took me about an hour , including SDK installation time -- and I started with a system that did n't even have Eclipse on it .
Now that smartphones can be purchased without the fear that carriers will lock out all the things that make them " smart " , Verizon ( or some other carrier ) will be getting $ 30/month out of me for a data plan for the rest of my life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The virtue of Android, from the carrier's perspective, is that it allows them to create terrible branded user experiences.
But why do carriers insist on creating terrible branded user experiences in the first place?
Because they're trying to monetize the customer.
$1.99 for every mistaken "Get It Now" keypress, blocking MP3 uploads and then charging $0.99 per ringtone, etc...

The problem is, all that crap still has to be coded.
The phone companies spend $millions developing that crap, because it returns a measurable $millions+ROI\% margin.
The only way to make that return on investment number work is to cut the $millions spent on development to the bare bone - your usual flotilla of conslutants and Indian hack jobs.
Net result is that the crap that has to be coded... is, well, crap.
The virtue of Android, from the carrier's perspective, is that when Google kicks back some ad revenue, the carrier doesn't have to spend money on consultants in India to create terrible branded user experiences.
So why create any branded user experience?
Fire the lot of them!
Fire the consultants.
Fire the Indian sweatshop coders.
Fire the support techs that have to deal with whiny customers asking "Why doesn't the GPS work on my XYZ phone?
", or "Why did you charge me $5 twice, just because I used the GPS from 11:59pm to 12:01am the next day?"...
Fire the lot of 'em, skip the "branded" user experience, and let the developer community create useful apps that people actually want.
Which is what we saw with the iPhone.
What I'm hoping to see out of Android, is to take it one step further.
I think Verizon's testing the hypothesis that the terribleness of their "branded" user experience was so terrible that it was driving away a whole market segment: people who actually know what their phones are capable of, and won't settle for anything less.
Six months ago, I had no use for a cell phone with a data plan.
Why bother, AT&amp;T's network sucks, and Verizon'll nickel and time you to death to re-enable the things that the phone manufacturer built in, but that Verizon paid some sweatshop a fortune to disable and replace with branded crap.
I'll stick with my Verizon "It's just a phone" phone, that I used for maybe 20 minutes a month on the bare minimum plan.
Tonight, I followed the tutorial for "Hello, World", built an .apk, and put it on my one-week-old Droid.
From start to finish, the process took me about an hour, including SDK installation time -- and I started with a system that didn't even have Eclipse on it.
Now that smartphones can be purchased without the fear that carriers will lock out all the things that make them "smart", Verizon (or some other carrier) will be getting $30/month out of me for a data plan for the rest of my life.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138838</id>
	<title>Stock Prices Falling.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258472760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please note, kdawson,</p><p>The day Google announced the free turn by turn navigation coincided with the day both companies announced corporate losses.</p><p>Who's to say how much either news contributed to the stock drops.  I can't, and ignoring said fact skews the story.  Bad editor, bad, bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please note , kdawson,The day Google announced the free turn by turn navigation coincided with the day both companies announced corporate losses.Who 's to say how much either news contributed to the stock drops .
I ca n't , and ignoring said fact skews the story .
Bad editor , bad , bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please note, kdawson,The day Google announced the free turn by turn navigation coincided with the day both companies announced corporate losses.Who's to say how much either news contributed to the stock drops.
I can't, and ignoring said fact skews the story.
Bad editor, bad, bad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30141230</id>
	<title>Re:So let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257070980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that right now, jailbreaking is possible and easy.  Apple is reportedly hiring a person to put a stop to that and have their OS a lot more robust against future jailbreaking.  I wouldn't be surprised if a hardware boot process similar to a TPM appeared in the next generation of iPhone with the core chips embedded in epoxy and tamper resistance added.</p><p>So, for someone like me who likes running custom apps like ssh clients, various wireless tools, and even taking stabs at writing a game or two, if the iPhone was the only game in town, I'd deal with it.  But it isn't, and in just one full version, Android went from an interesting curiousity like the OpenMoko, to something that has the potential to punt the iPhone and Apple's uncalled for hostility towards its paying customers to the curb.</p><p>One last bonus:  Got Linux, Mac, or Windows on your development machine?  Hit www.android.com and grab the SDK.  This beats the heck out of having to purchase a Mac for the critical iPhone development tools.  (Don't even mention a Hackintosh for business work...  to the BSA's eyes, it is the same thing as being caught with unlicensed computers.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that right now , jailbreaking is possible and easy .
Apple is reportedly hiring a person to put a stop to that and have their OS a lot more robust against future jailbreaking .
I would n't be surprised if a hardware boot process similar to a TPM appeared in the next generation of iPhone with the core chips embedded in epoxy and tamper resistance added.So , for someone like me who likes running custom apps like ssh clients , various wireless tools , and even taking stabs at writing a game or two , if the iPhone was the only game in town , I 'd deal with it .
But it is n't , and in just one full version , Android went from an interesting curiousity like the OpenMoko , to something that has the potential to punt the iPhone and Apple 's uncalled for hostility towards its paying customers to the curb.One last bonus : Got Linux , Mac , or Windows on your development machine ?
Hit www.android.com and grab the SDK .
This beats the heck out of having to purchase a Mac for the critical iPhone development tools .
( Do n't even mention a Hackintosh for business work... to the BSA 's eyes , it is the same thing as being caught with unlicensed computers .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that right now, jailbreaking is possible and easy.
Apple is reportedly hiring a person to put a stop to that and have their OS a lot more robust against future jailbreaking.
I wouldn't be surprised if a hardware boot process similar to a TPM appeared in the next generation of iPhone with the core chips embedded in epoxy and tamper resistance added.So, for someone like me who likes running custom apps like ssh clients, various wireless tools, and even taking stabs at writing a game or two, if the iPhone was the only game in town, I'd deal with it.
But it isn't, and in just one full version, Android went from an interesting curiousity like the OpenMoko, to something that has the potential to punt the iPhone and Apple's uncalled for hostility towards its paying customers to the curb.One last bonus:  Got Linux, Mac, or Windows on your development machine?
Hit www.android.com and grab the SDK.
This beats the heck out of having to purchase a Mac for the critical iPhone development tools.
(Don't even mention a Hackintosh for business work...  to the BSA's eyes, it is the same thing as being caught with unlicensed computers.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30141268</id>
	<title>Who, coincidentally, give Ovi Maps away for free</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1257071460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With all of their phones.</p><p><a href="http://europe.nokia.com/explore-services/maps" title="nokia.com">http://europe.nokia.com/explore-services/maps</a> [nokia.com]<br><a href="http://betalabs.nokia.com/ovi-maps" title="nokia.com">http://betalabs.nokia.com/ovi-maps</a> [nokia.com]</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With all of their phones.http : //europe.nokia.com/explore-services/maps [ nokia.com ] http : //betalabs.nokia.com/ovi-maps [ nokia.com ]  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>With all of their phones.http://europe.nokia.com/explore-services/maps [nokia.com]http://betalabs.nokia.com/ovi-maps [nokia.com]
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139614</id>
	<title>so the basis of this argument</title>
	<author>nimbius</author>
	<datestamp>1258478700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is essentially "a friend told me...."</p><p>pardon me while i call bullshit against your un-cited source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is essentially " a friend told me.... " pardon me while i call bullshit against your un-cited source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is essentially "a friend told me...."pardon me while i call bullshit against your un-cited source.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139246</id>
	<title>Re:Horseshit.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258475820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bing is not a joke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing is not a joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing is not a joke.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138828</id>
	<title>Re:Gee, it's almost like they have a monopoly or s</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1258472760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nope. What market dominance did they need for this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope .
What market dominance did they need for this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope.
What market dominance did they need for this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138672</id>
	<title>Call me crazy, but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258471260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't really think these products compete with each other. The free google service requires you to have an up and running internet connection, while the garmin and Tom Tom products have built in maps to use and require no internet connection.</p><p>I imagine that if you were to use the google free service in your car for a month everywhere you drove, it would cost a tremendous amount unless you have some kind of truly unlimited data plan. Not only that, but you can't use it unless you can get an internet connection.</p><p>This might make the non free devices look cheap in the long run. So to me it seems they really don't compete with each other. The google service<br>sounds great for occasional use, but I'm not sure how practical it will be for constant use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really think these products compete with each other .
The free google service requires you to have an up and running internet connection , while the garmin and Tom Tom products have built in maps to use and require no internet connection.I imagine that if you were to use the google free service in your car for a month everywhere you drove , it would cost a tremendous amount unless you have some kind of truly unlimited data plan .
Not only that , but you ca n't use it unless you can get an internet connection.This might make the non free devices look cheap in the long run .
So to me it seems they really do n't compete with each other .
The google servicesounds great for occasional use , but I 'm not sure how practical it will be for constant use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really think these products compete with each other.
The free google service requires you to have an up and running internet connection, while the garmin and Tom Tom products have built in maps to use and require no internet connection.I imagine that if you were to use the google free service in your car for a month everywhere you drove, it would cost a tremendous amount unless you have some kind of truly unlimited data plan.
Not only that, but you can't use it unless you can get an internet connection.This might make the non free devices look cheap in the long run.
So to me it seems they really don't compete with each other.
The google servicesounds great for occasional use, but I'm not sure how practical it will be for constant use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140348</id>
	<title>Re:Google is the Foundation</title>
	<author>EdIII</author>
	<datestamp>1258485000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Eventually they will collect all human knowledge and make the encyclopedia that encompasses all human knowledge...</p></div></blockquote><p>And... once they reach that point will they then destroy all of humanity to finally reach sweet oblivion or just keep updating it forever?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Eventually they will collect all human knowledge and make the encyclopedia that encompasses all human knowledge...And... once they reach that point will they then destroy all of humanity to finally reach sweet oblivion or just keep updating it forever ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eventually they will collect all human knowledge and make the encyclopedia that encompasses all human knowledge...And... once they reach that point will they then destroy all of humanity to finally reach sweet oblivion or just keep updating it forever?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139080</id>
	<title>Re:Google is the Foundation</title>
	<author>Spikeles</author>
	<datestamp>1258474800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Psychologists? No.. their next employment offer will be for a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychohistory\_(fictional)" title="wikipedia.org">Psychohistorian</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Psychologists ?
No.. their next employment offer will be for a Psychohistorian [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Psychologists?
No.. their next employment offer will be for a Psychohistorian [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140802</id>
	<title>Re:So let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>Ash-Fox</author>
	<datestamp>1257108000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I just got a G1 from my brother to use for development. I thought it was very cool I could wipe the firmware from T-Mobile and put a custom mod on there that allowed me to move apps to the SD card, use WiFi tethering, etc. Show me another phone/OS environment you see that happen on.</p></div></blockquote><p>Maemo 5.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just got a G1 from my brother to use for development .
I thought it was very cool I could wipe the firmware from T-Mobile and put a custom mod on there that allowed me to move apps to the SD card , use WiFi tethering , etc .
Show me another phone/OS environment you see that happen on.Maemo 5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just got a G1 from my brother to use for development.
I thought it was very cool I could wipe the firmware from T-Mobile and put a custom mod on there that allowed me to move apps to the SD card, use WiFi tethering, etc.
Show me another phone/OS environment you see that happen on.Maemo 5.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30146920</id>
	<title>Re:Android WILL take over.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257104520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's going to be funny to watch you defend this when the next version of their phone will have a higher res screen and more features and further fragment their market.  "Well, it's not that much fragmentation, and people who are using the original iPhone should be upgrading by now"</p><p>The fact is Apple keeps it simple by having very planned obsolescence and very limited options.  I very much dislike both of those things.  I'd rather deal with the hassles of variety and openness.  In the long run, it will be better off, and I'll be less frustrated over all.</p><p>Former iPhone 3G, now Droid user.  I don't miss the iPhone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's going to be funny to watch you defend this when the next version of their phone will have a higher res screen and more features and further fragment their market .
" Well , it 's not that much fragmentation , and people who are using the original iPhone should be upgrading by now " The fact is Apple keeps it simple by having very planned obsolescence and very limited options .
I very much dislike both of those things .
I 'd rather deal with the hassles of variety and openness .
In the long run , it will be better off , and I 'll be less frustrated over all.Former iPhone 3G , now Droid user .
I do n't miss the iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's going to be funny to watch you defend this when the next version of their phone will have a higher res screen and more features and further fragment their market.
"Well, it's not that much fragmentation, and people who are using the original iPhone should be upgrading by now"The fact is Apple keeps it simple by having very planned obsolescence and very limited options.
I very much dislike both of those things.
I'd rather deal with the hassles of variety and openness.
In the long run, it will be better off, and I'll be less frustrated over all.Former iPhone 3G, now Droid user.
I don't miss the iPhone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138572</id>
	<title>Re:So let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>Abreu</author>
	<datestamp>1258470600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The virtue of Android, from the carrier's perspective, is that it allows them to create terrible branded user experiences.</p></div><p>And thus create a small industry out of people reinstalling the non-terrible, open source version of the same phone's software</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The virtue of Android , from the carrier 's perspective , is that it allows them to create terrible branded user experiences.And thus create a small industry out of people reinstalling the non-terrible , open source version of the same phone 's software</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The virtue of Android, from the carrier's perspective, is that it allows them to create terrible branded user experiences.And thus create a small industry out of people reinstalling the non-terrible, open source version of the same phone's software
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138686</id>
	<title>Re:Gee, it's almost like they have a monopoly or s</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258471380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>No it's not. Having dominance in one market is a monopoly.

Using dominance in one market to establish dominance in another market is an illegal monopolistic activity, in some countries anyway.

Using a strategy that gave you a monopoly in one market, in another market is perfectly acceptable though which I think is what Google is really doing here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No it 's not .
Having dominance in one market is a monopoly .
Using dominance in one market to establish dominance in another market is an illegal monopolistic activity , in some countries anyway .
Using a strategy that gave you a monopoly in one market , in another market is perfectly acceptable though which I think is what Google is really doing here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it's not.
Having dominance in one market is a monopoly.
Using dominance in one market to establish dominance in another market is an illegal monopolistic activity, in some countries anyway.
Using a strategy that gave you a monopoly in one market, in another market is perfectly acceptable though which I think is what Google is really doing here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30152946</id>
	<title>Re:Gee, it's almost like they have a monopoly or s</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1257096120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And while Entrepreneurs are <i>creating jobs</i> in the society, Corporations are <i>destroying jobs</i> through automation, acquisitions &amp; anti-competition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And while Entrepreneurs are creating jobs in the society , Corporations are destroying jobs through automation , acquisitions &amp; anti-competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And while Entrepreneurs are creating jobs in the society, Corporations are destroying jobs through automation, acquisitions &amp; anti-competition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30144302</id>
	<title>Re:Call me crazy, but</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1257093900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I imagine that if you were to use the google free service in your car for a month everywhere you drove, it would cost a tremendous amount unless you have some kind of truly unlimited data plan.</p></div><p>And who the hell doesn't?</p><p>Maps on my iPhone also has to fetch data constantly to show me where I am. This only gets expensive when I'm out of the country, which is why I installed offMaps (which relies on OpenStreetmap) when I went to France. Unfortunately offMaps sucks. So good offline map data is definitely valuable for those who travel abroad or don't have an unlimited data plan, but most of the time, online map data would be good enough for me.</p><p>What I really want is map data that updates when I want, and downloads in the detail that I need it in, but doesn't suck.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I imagine that if you were to use the google free service in your car for a month everywhere you drove , it would cost a tremendous amount unless you have some kind of truly unlimited data plan.And who the hell does n't ? Maps on my iPhone also has to fetch data constantly to show me where I am .
This only gets expensive when I 'm out of the country , which is why I installed offMaps ( which relies on OpenStreetmap ) when I went to France .
Unfortunately offMaps sucks .
So good offline map data is definitely valuable for those who travel abroad or do n't have an unlimited data plan , but most of the time , online map data would be good enough for me.What I really want is map data that updates when I want , and downloads in the detail that I need it in , but does n't suck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I imagine that if you were to use the google free service in your car for a month everywhere you drove, it would cost a tremendous amount unless you have some kind of truly unlimited data plan.And who the hell doesn't?Maps on my iPhone also has to fetch data constantly to show me where I am.
This only gets expensive when I'm out of the country, which is why I installed offMaps (which relies on OpenStreetmap) when I went to France.
Unfortunately offMaps sucks.
So good offline map data is definitely valuable for those who travel abroad or don't have an unlimited data plan, but most of the time, online map data would be good enough for me.What I really want is map data that updates when I want, and downloads in the detail that I need it in, but doesn't suck.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30144598</id>
	<title>Re:most users aren't aware of how much google know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257094920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChoicePoint" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">ChoicePoint</a> [wikipedia.org] already knows all of those things about you and more, and then they sell that data to anyone who can pay.  Way more evil than Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ChoicePoint [ wikipedia.org ] already knows all of those things about you and more , and then they sell that data to anyone who can pay .
Way more evil than Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ChoicePoint [wikipedia.org] already knows all of those things about you and more, and then they sell that data to anyone who can pay.
Way more evil than Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138492</id>
	<title>Horseshit.</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1258469940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The operative word being "dominant". Google isn't the only big-time company that obviously throws money at people to use their shit (remember MLB and Obama's inaguration streaming with respect to Silverlight?), but they might be one of the few to actually succeed at it. <br> <br>

Bing is a joke, Yahoo is for 12 year-olds. If the other giants actually innovated instead of rehashing and hyping to death the same tired shit, maybe we'd have some <i>real</i> competition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The operative word being " dominant " .
Google is n't the only big-time company that obviously throws money at people to use their shit ( remember MLB and Obama 's inaguration streaming with respect to Silverlight ?
) , but they might be one of the few to actually succeed at it .
Bing is a joke , Yahoo is for 12 year-olds .
If the other giants actually innovated instead of rehashing and hyping to death the same tired shit , maybe we 'd have some real competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The operative word being "dominant".
Google isn't the only big-time company that obviously throws money at people to use their shit (remember MLB and Obama's inaguration streaming with respect to Silverlight?
), but they might be one of the few to actually succeed at it.
Bing is a joke, Yahoo is for 12 year-olds.
If the other giants actually innovated instead of rehashing and hyping to death the same tired shit, maybe we'd have some real competition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30147132</id>
	<title>Re:So let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1257105540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your experience is yours.  The post I replied to listed several things he needed to root his Android phone for.  His experience seems very much like it would be on an iPhone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your experience is yours .
The post I replied to listed several things he needed to root his Android phone for .
His experience seems very much like it would be on an iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your experience is yours.
The post I replied to listed several things he needed to root his Android phone for.
His experience seems very much like it would be on an iPhone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140718</id>
	<title>Re:Its the Intel Lawsuit - Google Style</title>
	<author>oatworm</author>
	<datestamp>1257106860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Close - Intel was paying HP and Dell <em>not to use AMD's chips</em>.  Big difference.  In this case, Google isn't threatening to rescind payment if somebody decides they also want to use map data from TomTom or some other provider.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Close - Intel was paying HP and Dell not to use AMD 's chips .
Big difference .
In this case , Google is n't threatening to rescind payment if somebody decides they also want to use map data from TomTom or some other provider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Close - Intel was paying HP and Dell not to use AMD's chips.
Big difference.
In this case, Google isn't threatening to rescind payment if somebody decides they also want to use map data from TomTom or some other provider.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30142366</id>
	<title>Re:So let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>stiggle</author>
	<datestamp>1257084900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the user can update their phone and remove the terrible branded user experience and replace it with one they like.</p><p>At least with Android the phone and OS is open enough for the user to do this if they want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the user can update their phone and remove the terrible branded user experience and replace it with one they like.At least with Android the phone and OS is open enough for the user to do this if they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the user can update their phone and remove the terrible branded user experience and replace it with one they like.At least with Android the phone and OS is open enough for the user to do this if they want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138482</id>
	<title>Re:Gee, it's almost like they have a monopoly or s</title>
	<author>cvd6262</author>
	<datestamp>1258469880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I first read this I thought about IBM back in the day. They could put a small company out of business simply by announcing, "Yeah, we're working on that too." And they had to fight off some well-founded lawsuits. Eventually, IBM became known for quiet and consistent R&amp;D (Giant MR comes to mind) because they had to watch what they said.</p><p>Will that day come for Google? I think not (or it's a long way off). IBM's issues with the courts came around the same time Ma Bell was dismantled, which couldn't happen now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I first read this I thought about IBM back in the day .
They could put a small company out of business simply by announcing , " Yeah , we 're working on that too .
" And they had to fight off some well-founded lawsuits .
Eventually , IBM became known for quiet and consistent R&amp;D ( Giant MR comes to mind ) because they had to watch what they said.Will that day come for Google ?
I think not ( or it 's a long way off ) .
IBM 's issues with the courts came around the same time Ma Bell was dismantled , which could n't happen now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I first read this I thought about IBM back in the day.
They could put a small company out of business simply by announcing, "Yeah, we're working on that too.
" And they had to fight off some well-founded lawsuits.
Eventually, IBM became known for quiet and consistent R&amp;D (Giant MR comes to mind) because they had to watch what they said.Will that day come for Google?
I think not (or it's a long way off).
IBM's issues with the courts came around the same time Ma Bell was dismantled, which couldn't happen now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30163870</id>
	<title>Where's don't be evil convicted monopolist?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258626660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Company X having monopoly in market Y can afford to destroy business model of market Z by bundling free alternative.</p><p>X = Microsoft, Y = operating systems, Z = browsers Illegal and convicted.<br>X = Google, Y = search advertising, Z = mobile navigators Hurray!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Company X having monopoly in market Y can afford to destroy business model of market Z by bundling free alternative.X = Microsoft , Y = operating systems , Z = browsers Illegal and convicted.X = Google , Y = search advertising , Z = mobile navigators Hurray !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Company X having monopoly in market Y can afford to destroy business model of market Z by bundling free alternative.X = Microsoft, Y = operating systems, Z = browsers Illegal and convicted.X = Google, Y = search advertising, Z = mobile navigators Hurray!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138336</id>
	<title>eat my shorts slashdot !!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258468680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eat my shorts slashdot !!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eat my shorts slashdot !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eat my shorts slashdot !
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139196</id>
	<title>Borgle.</title>
	<author>Snufu</author>
	<datestamp>1258475580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Embrace. Extend. Beta.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Embrace .
Extend. Beta .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Embrace.
Extend. Beta.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30142642</id>
	<title>Re:Android WILL take over.</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1257087000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>- Being open source, carriers and smartphone makers can customize it as little or as much as they want</p></div><p>This is the reason I wouldn't put money on your bet. There was an article about verizon's business practices a few days ago that included much discussion of how they purposely made the "OK" button (in some contexts) the "go online and charge me for data whether or not I have a data plan" button in other contexts. Or having the "OK" button that pops up actually try to upload your data instead of saving (saving the photo went under another button).</p><p>There are many, many examples of carriers disabling features that interfere with there revenue stream. How many phones out there are carrier-locked to prevent you from loading your own (free) ringtones? Or one that I really hate, disabling the mini-usb port so you have to use the carrier software to transfer files to and from your computer?</p><p>I'm not taking sides as far as carriers go, simply because there isn't one without some BS lockdown on at least some of their phones (speaking from the U.S.).</p><p>So for me, looking at the past behavior of carriers makes me less than optimistic about the success of any phone OS, let alone one that isn't designed from the outset to monetize basic functionality.</p><p>It would nice if you turned out to be right, though.</p><p>-b</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>- Being open source , carriers and smartphone makers can customize it as little or as much as they wantThis is the reason I would n't put money on your bet .
There was an article about verizon 's business practices a few days ago that included much discussion of how they purposely made the " OK " button ( in some contexts ) the " go online and charge me for data whether or not I have a data plan " button in other contexts .
Or having the " OK " button that pops up actually try to upload your data instead of saving ( saving the photo went under another button ) .There are many , many examples of carriers disabling features that interfere with there revenue stream .
How many phones out there are carrier-locked to prevent you from loading your own ( free ) ringtones ?
Or one that I really hate , disabling the mini-usb port so you have to use the carrier software to transfer files to and from your computer ? I 'm not taking sides as far as carriers go , simply because there is n't one without some BS lockdown on at least some of their phones ( speaking from the U.S. ) .So for me , looking at the past behavior of carriers makes me less than optimistic about the success of any phone OS , let alone one that is n't designed from the outset to monetize basic functionality.It would nice if you turned out to be right , though.-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- Being open source, carriers and smartphone makers can customize it as little or as much as they wantThis is the reason I wouldn't put money on your bet.
There was an article about verizon's business practices a few days ago that included much discussion of how they purposely made the "OK" button (in some contexts) the "go online and charge me for data whether or not I have a data plan" button in other contexts.
Or having the "OK" button that pops up actually try to upload your data instead of saving (saving the photo went under another button).There are many, many examples of carriers disabling features that interfere with there revenue stream.
How many phones out there are carrier-locked to prevent you from loading your own (free) ringtones?
Or one that I really hate, disabling the mini-usb port so you have to use the carrier software to transfer files to and from your computer?I'm not taking sides as far as carriers go, simply because there isn't one without some BS lockdown on at least some of their phones (speaking from the U.S.).So for me, looking at the past behavior of carriers makes me less than optimistic about the success of any phone OS, let alone one that isn't designed from the outset to monetize basic functionality.It would nice if you turned out to be right, though.-b
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138836</id>
	<title>Re:Android WILL take over.</title>
	<author>MrMista\_B</author>
	<datestamp>1258472760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"- Apples UI design is definitely better."</p><p>Yep, well, you just defeated your own argument.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" - Apples UI design is definitely better .
" Yep , well , you just defeated your own argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"- Apples UI design is definitely better.
"Yep, well, you just defeated your own argument.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138682</id>
	<title>Android WILL take over.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258471380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's only a matter of time before Android takes over top market share for smartphones, the only real question is how long it takes. Now before you start screaming fan boy, bear with me here.</p><p>- Android is free<br>- Android can run on almost any piece of modern hardware, on any carrier (you listening Apple? probably not.)<br>- Every major carrier and every major smartphone maker either already has an Android phone, or has one in the works<br>- Being open source, carriers and smartphone makers can customize it as little or as much as they want<br>- Once smart phone makers are hooked on free, the only reason to dump Android is if there's a better mobile phone operating system out there that's worth the cost. Tough to do considering Android will be constantly approved upon given it's open source. Seriously, why dump Android to pay a per unit license fee when Android can do everything most smartphone users want their phone to do (and more in some cases)?</p><p>Some disclaimers apply here:<br>- No I don't have an Android phone, but yes I've used it enough to be familiar with it (including 2.0).<br>- I don't think its 100\% there yet, but it's not far.<br>- Apples UI design is definitely better.</p><p>I'm sure some will disagree with me, and that's fine. Obviously this is my opinion and a guess. If you're looking for some ammo though, I use a Pre, switched from an iPhone and am pretty darn happy with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's only a matter of time before Android takes over top market share for smartphones , the only real question is how long it takes .
Now before you start screaming fan boy , bear with me here.- Android is free- Android can run on almost any piece of modern hardware , on any carrier ( you listening Apple ?
probably not .
) - Every major carrier and every major smartphone maker either already has an Android phone , or has one in the works- Being open source , carriers and smartphone makers can customize it as little or as much as they want- Once smart phone makers are hooked on free , the only reason to dump Android is if there 's a better mobile phone operating system out there that 's worth the cost .
Tough to do considering Android will be constantly approved upon given it 's open source .
Seriously , why dump Android to pay a per unit license fee when Android can do everything most smartphone users want their phone to do ( and more in some cases ) ? Some disclaimers apply here : - No I do n't have an Android phone , but yes I 've used it enough to be familiar with it ( including 2.0 ) .- I do n't think its 100 \ % there yet , but it 's not far.- Apples UI design is definitely better.I 'm sure some will disagree with me , and that 's fine .
Obviously this is my opinion and a guess .
If you 're looking for some ammo though , I use a Pre , switched from an iPhone and am pretty darn happy with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's only a matter of time before Android takes over top market share for smartphones, the only real question is how long it takes.
Now before you start screaming fan boy, bear with me here.- Android is free- Android can run on almost any piece of modern hardware, on any carrier (you listening Apple?
probably not.
)- Every major carrier and every major smartphone maker either already has an Android phone, or has one in the works- Being open source, carriers and smartphone makers can customize it as little or as much as they want- Once smart phone makers are hooked on free, the only reason to dump Android is if there's a better mobile phone operating system out there that's worth the cost.
Tough to do considering Android will be constantly approved upon given it's open source.
Seriously, why dump Android to pay a per unit license fee when Android can do everything most smartphone users want their phone to do (and more in some cases)?Some disclaimers apply here:- No I don't have an Android phone, but yes I've used it enough to be familiar with it (including 2.0).- I don't think its 100\% there yet, but it's not far.- Apples UI design is definitely better.I'm sure some will disagree with me, and that's fine.
Obviously this is my opinion and a guess.
If you're looking for some ammo though, I use a Pre, switched from an iPhone and am pretty darn happy with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30144836</id>
	<title>Re:Why does anyone want internet GPS anyway?</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1257095940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes and no. Go out of cell coverage and you might be wanting the non-internet kind.</p><p>That said the modern iphone is 16GB/32GB as are the competitors, plenty of room to store a static copy. That would be cool, internet gps that automatically updates a static copy on your phone, and seamlessly switches over to the static copy when out of cell coverage. I'd buy that for a dollar!</p><p>Internet GPS is great for urban areas, which is fine for most people, however go off the beaten path into most rural areas, and you might be a bit surprised and unprepared if you think you will have GPS guiding you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes and no .
Go out of cell coverage and you might be wanting the non-internet kind.That said the modern iphone is 16GB/32GB as are the competitors , plenty of room to store a static copy .
That would be cool , internet gps that automatically updates a static copy on your phone , and seamlessly switches over to the static copy when out of cell coverage .
I 'd buy that for a dollar ! Internet GPS is great for urban areas , which is fine for most people , however go off the beaten path into most rural areas , and you might be a bit surprised and unprepared if you think you will have GPS guiding you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes and no.
Go out of cell coverage and you might be wanting the non-internet kind.That said the modern iphone is 16GB/32GB as are the competitors, plenty of room to store a static copy.
That would be cool, internet gps that automatically updates a static copy on your phone, and seamlessly switches over to the static copy when out of cell coverage.
I'd buy that for a dollar!Internet GPS is great for urban areas, which is fine for most people, however go off the beaten path into most rural areas, and you might be a bit surprised and unprepared if you think you will have GPS guiding you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30141170</id>
	<title>Re:FYI Navteq was not aquired by Garmin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257069840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kdawson has made a clear factual error. The grown-up thing to do is post a correction. Maybe he could also apologise for writing about stuff he clearly knows very little about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kdawson has made a clear factual error .
The grown-up thing to do is post a correction .
Maybe he could also apologise for writing about stuff he clearly knows very little about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kdawson has made a clear factual error.
The grown-up thing to do is post a correction.
Maybe he could also apologise for writing about stuff he clearly knows very little about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138580</id>
	<title>Re:Gee, it's almost like they have a monopoly or s</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258470600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would make sense if you could demonstrate how they are leveraging their current "monopoly" (search) to dominate in another area (mobile phone OS, Sat Nav).  This is VERY different from having a dominant (and convicted) monopoly in one type of operating system (desktop) and then using that to shift into other operating system areas (Mobile, Gaming, etc).</p><p>Its the difference between GE and Standard Oil.  Being GOOD at different things is fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would make sense if you could demonstrate how they are leveraging their current " monopoly " ( search ) to dominate in another area ( mobile phone OS , Sat Nav ) .
This is VERY different from having a dominant ( and convicted ) monopoly in one type of operating system ( desktop ) and then using that to shift into other operating system areas ( Mobile , Gaming , etc ) .Its the difference between GE and Standard Oil .
Being GOOD at different things is fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would make sense if you could demonstrate how they are leveraging their current "monopoly" (search) to dominate in another area (mobile phone OS, Sat Nav).
This is VERY different from having a dominant (and convicted) monopoly in one type of operating system (desktop) and then using that to shift into other operating system areas (Mobile, Gaming, etc).Its the difference between GE and Standard Oil.
Being GOOD at different things is fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140098</id>
	<title>Re:Android WILL take over.</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1258482720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Android may be great, but its implementation is different on every Android phone. Different hardware, different features, different amounts of android functionality</p></div></blockquote><p>

Windows may be great, but its implementation is different on every Windows Computer. Different hardware, different features, different amounts of Windows functionality.<br> <br>

Sorry but your argument doesn't work. Android is a multi platform OS much like Windows, which can have different hardware, features and amounts of functionality but still provide a consistent framework for applications.<br> <br>

Vertical integrators have not been viable in the personal computer industry for almost 20 years now, the hardware, software and service stack has been separated. There is no reason the same cannot happen in the mobile phone industry, in fact this needs to happen as you inadvertently pointed out as Telco's have too much control.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Android may be great , but its implementation is different on every Android phone .
Different hardware , different features , different amounts of android functionality Windows may be great , but its implementation is different on every Windows Computer .
Different hardware , different features , different amounts of Windows functionality .
Sorry but your argument does n't work .
Android is a multi platform OS much like Windows , which can have different hardware , features and amounts of functionality but still provide a consistent framework for applications .
Vertical integrators have not been viable in the personal computer industry for almost 20 years now , the hardware , software and service stack has been separated .
There is no reason the same can not happen in the mobile phone industry , in fact this needs to happen as you inadvertently pointed out as Telco 's have too much control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Android may be great, but its implementation is different on every Android phone.
Different hardware, different features, different amounts of android functionality

Windows may be great, but its implementation is different on every Windows Computer.
Different hardware, different features, different amounts of Windows functionality.
Sorry but your argument doesn't work.
Android is a multi platform OS much like Windows, which can have different hardware, features and amounts of functionality but still provide a consistent framework for applications.
Vertical integrators have not been viable in the personal computer industry for almost 20 years now, the hardware, software and service stack has been separated.
There is no reason the same cannot happen in the mobile phone industry, in fact this needs to happen as you inadvertently pointed out as Telco's have too much control.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138812</id>
	<title>Re:Why does anyone want internet GPS anyway?</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1258472640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the links to Google and their vast database of search.<br>For example, if you are out and about and want food you can easily use your Android handset to Google for the nearest Subway or KFC or McDonald's and have Google Navigation give you turn by turn directions to take you there. Or if you are trying to find someones house, you can grab an address from your phones address book (or from a SMS message or email that someone has sent you) and have Google Navigation give you directions.</p><p>As others have said, having a GPS that can download data in real time also means you can get up-to-the-minute reports on traffic and construction and accidents and other delays or hazards. This means that the route it gives you is the fastest/best/shortest/whatever route at the time you are driving it (not the fastest route given ideal road conditions)</p><p>And with it being Google, customization will no doubt be a feature.</p><p>Now all I need is for Google to buy (or create) some Australian map data and offer Google Navigation for free on an Android set in the land down under.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the links to Google and their vast database of search.For example , if you are out and about and want food you can easily use your Android handset to Google for the nearest Subway or KFC or McDonald 's and have Google Navigation give you turn by turn directions to take you there .
Or if you are trying to find someones house , you can grab an address from your phones address book ( or from a SMS message or email that someone has sent you ) and have Google Navigation give you directions.As others have said , having a GPS that can download data in real time also means you can get up-to-the-minute reports on traffic and construction and accidents and other delays or hazards .
This means that the route it gives you is the fastest/best/shortest/whatever route at the time you are driving it ( not the fastest route given ideal road conditions ) And with it being Google , customization will no doubt be a feature.Now all I need is for Google to buy ( or create ) some Australian map data and offer Google Navigation for free on an Android set in the land down under .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the links to Google and their vast database of search.For example, if you are out and about and want food you can easily use your Android handset to Google for the nearest Subway or KFC or McDonald's and have Google Navigation give you turn by turn directions to take you there.
Or if you are trying to find someones house, you can grab an address from your phones address book (or from a SMS message or email that someone has sent you) and have Google Navigation give you directions.As others have said, having a GPS that can download data in real time also means you can get up-to-the-minute reports on traffic and construction and accidents and other delays or hazards.
This means that the route it gives you is the fastest/best/shortest/whatever route at the time you are driving it (not the fastest route given ideal road conditions)And with it being Google, customization will no doubt be a feature.Now all I need is for Google to buy (or create) some Australian map data and offer Google Navigation for free on an Android set in the land down under.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30141504</id>
	<title>Re:So let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>jimicus</author>
	<datestamp>1257074760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing new there.  You ever tried writing a standard document that instructs Windows XP users how to configure wireless?</p><p>Hint:  Most OEMs replace Windows' own UI (which is admittedly terrible) with their own (which is invariably just as terrible but comes with the added bonus that some functionality may be impossible to configure).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing new there .
You ever tried writing a standard document that instructs Windows XP users how to configure wireless ? Hint : Most OEMs replace Windows ' own UI ( which is admittedly terrible ) with their own ( which is invariably just as terrible but comes with the added bonus that some functionality may be impossible to configure ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing new there.
You ever tried writing a standard document that instructs Windows XP users how to configure wireless?Hint:  Most OEMs replace Windows' own UI (which is admittedly terrible) with their own (which is invariably just as terrible but comes with the added bonus that some functionality may be impossible to configure).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140870</id>
	<title>Re: histronic personality disorder?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257108780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Tough to do considering Android will be constantly <b>approved</b> upon</p></div></blockquote><p>Are you saying that Droid has <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histrionic\_personality\_disorder" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">histronic personality disorder</a> [wikipedia.org]? I guess that explains the "does" advertising campaign.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tough to do considering Android will be constantly approved uponAre you saying that Droid has histronic personality disorder [ wikipedia.org ] ?
I guess that explains the " does " advertising campaign .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tough to do considering Android will be constantly approved uponAre you saying that Droid has histronic personality disorder [wikipedia.org]?
I guess that explains the "does" advertising campaign.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138516</id>
	<title>Its the Intel Lawsuit - Google Style</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258470120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didnt Intel just get taken to court by AMD over something very similar?  Intel was paying HP and Dell to use there chips (the less than free approach).</p><p>I wonder how long before Tom Tom/ Garmin/ Microsoft/ Apple / Palm/ Nokia take them to court before damage is done.</p><p>Its very anti-competitive.  Brilliant...but anti-competitive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Didnt Intel just get taken to court by AMD over something very similar ?
Intel was paying HP and Dell to use there chips ( the less than free approach ) .I wonder how long before Tom Tom/ Garmin/ Microsoft/ Apple / Palm/ Nokia take them to court before damage is done.Its very anti-competitive .
Brilliant...but anti-competitive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didnt Intel just get taken to court by AMD over something very similar?
Intel was paying HP and Dell to use there chips (the less than free approach).I wonder how long before Tom Tom/ Garmin/ Microsoft/ Apple / Palm/ Nokia take them to court before damage is done.Its very anti-competitive.
Brilliant...but anti-competitive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30142062</id>
	<title>Re:So let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>geminidomino</author>
	<datestamp>1257081720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The virtue of Android, from the carrier's perspective, is that it allows them to create terrible branded user experiences.</p></div><p>Oh great. So it's just like every other mobile phone OS out there...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The virtue of Android , from the carrier 's perspective , is that it allows them to create terrible branded user experiences.Oh great .
So it 's just like every other mobile phone OS out there.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The virtue of Android, from the carrier's perspective, is that it allows them to create terrible branded user experiences.Oh great.
So it's just like every other mobile phone OS out there...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138770</id>
	<title>Re:Call me crazy, but</title>
	<author>Narcocide</author>
	<datestamp>1258472220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clearly you don't live in iPhone land.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly you do n't live in iPhone land .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly you don't live in iPhone land.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138638</id>
	<title>Re:Google is the Foundation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258471020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What will they call it though?</p><p>Some sort of... guide to the galaxy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What will they call it though ? Some sort of... guide to the galaxy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What will they call it though?Some sort of... guide to the galaxy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138788</id>
	<title>Re:Gee, it's almost like they have a monopoly or s</title>
	<author>nephridium</author>
	<datestamp>1258472520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're not thinking BIG enough. Their stated goal is to monopolise any and all information available and put it in easily indexed electronic form. This includes, obviously, YOUR data, i.e. where you live/work (through IP tracking, gEarth), what you're interested in (Search, Youtube), what you consume (Marketplace, affiliates), aka your net worth, and any means you use to communicate and access data, be it through your PC (gDesktop, Chrome OS), mobile (Android+apps) or any other conceivable device/network.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're not thinking BIG enough .
Their stated goal is to monopolise any and all information available and put it in easily indexed electronic form .
This includes , obviously , YOUR data , i.e .
where you live/work ( through IP tracking , gEarth ) , what you 're interested in ( Search , Youtube ) , what you consume ( Marketplace , affiliates ) , aka your net worth , and any means you use to communicate and access data , be it through your PC ( gDesktop , Chrome OS ) , mobile ( Android + apps ) or any other conceivable device/network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're not thinking BIG enough.
Their stated goal is to monopolise any and all information available and put it in easily indexed electronic form.
This includes, obviously, YOUR data, i.e.
where you live/work (through IP tracking, gEarth), what you're interested in (Search, Youtube), what you consume (Marketplace, affiliates), aka your net worth, and any means you use to communicate and access data, be it through your PC (gDesktop, Chrome OS), mobile (Android+apps) or any other conceivable device/network.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30143242</id>
	<title>Re:Gee, it's almost like they have a monopoly or s</title>
	<author>deathguppie</author>
	<datestamp>1257090000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, and I see no problem with that.. I'm already signing a contract to upload my first born child to them (if I have one) and in return, they will make sure that he lives.. forever...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and I see no problem with that.. I 'm already signing a contract to upload my first born child to them ( if I have one ) and in return , they will make sure that he lives.. forever.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and I see no problem with that.. I'm already signing a contract to upload my first born child to them (if I have one) and in return, they will make sure that he lives.. forever...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139818</id>
	<title>The story is 19 days old. Come on Slashdot.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258480380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Find some current news at least. I mean a day or two fine but 19 days old.</p><p>Oh this is a brillant move by Google. BTW.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Find some current news at least .
I mean a day or two fine but 19 days old.Oh this is a brillant move by Google .
BTW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Find some current news at least.
I mean a day or two fine but 19 days old.Oh this is a brillant move by Google.
BTW.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139100</id>
	<title>Re:Horseshit.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258474980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If the other giants actually innovated instead of rehashing and hyping to death the same tired shit, maybe we'd have some real competition."</p><p>Isn't that a quote from Microsoft from a few years back?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" If the other giants actually innovated instead of rehashing and hyping to death the same tired shit , maybe we 'd have some real competition .
" Is n't that a quote from Microsoft from a few years back ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If the other giants actually innovated instead of rehashing and hyping to death the same tired shit, maybe we'd have some real competition.
"Isn't that a quote from Microsoft from a few years back?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139758</id>
	<title>Re:Call me crazy, but</title>
	<author>Lord Kano</author>
	<datestamp>1258479840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The free google service requires you to have an up and running internet connection, while the garmin and Tom Tom products have built in maps to use and require no internet connection.</i></p><p>Everyone who has a recently made cell phone can have internet access.</p><p>LK</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The free google service requires you to have an up and running internet connection , while the garmin and Tom Tom products have built in maps to use and require no internet connection.Everyone who has a recently made cell phone can have internet access.LK</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The free google service requires you to have an up and running internet connection, while the garmin and Tom Tom products have built in maps to use and require no internet connection.Everyone who has a recently made cell phone can have internet access.LK</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138520</id>
	<title>Google is the Foundation</title>
	<author>improfane</author>
	<datestamp>1258470120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The one thing about Google you have to understand is that they employ lots of very smart people: they employ scientists, research graduates, economists, technicians and business people. They have calculated with sheer intelligence all business moves: they know what they need to do to get the best business and business position.</p><p>In short, they are the foundation. Eventually they will collect all human knowledge and make the encyclopedia that encompasses all human knowledge... this is just a rouse for the real purpose of Google...</p><p>I wonder if they employ psychologists?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The one thing about Google you have to understand is that they employ lots of very smart people : they employ scientists , research graduates , economists , technicians and business people .
They have calculated with sheer intelligence all business moves : they know what they need to do to get the best business and business position.In short , they are the foundation .
Eventually they will collect all human knowledge and make the encyclopedia that encompasses all human knowledge... this is just a rouse for the real purpose of Google...I wonder if they employ psychologists ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one thing about Google you have to understand is that they employ lots of very smart people: they employ scientists, research graduates, economists, technicians and business people.
They have calculated with sheer intelligence all business moves: they know what they need to do to get the best business and business position.In short, they are the foundation.
Eventually they will collect all human knowledge and make the encyclopedia that encompasses all human knowledge... this is just a rouse for the real purpose of Google...I wonder if they employ psychologists?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139038</id>
	<title>Re:Google is the Foundation</title>
	<author>zionian117</author>
	<datestamp>1258474560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That gets modded interesting? You clearly need to develop some real intellect.. maybe read some books and not just slashdot comments...</htmltext>
<tokenext>That gets modded interesting ?
You clearly need to develop some real intellect.. maybe read some books and not just slashdot comments.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That gets modded interesting?
You clearly need to develop some real intellect.. maybe read some books and not just slashdot comments...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30146638</id>
	<title>free as in taking a dump</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257103380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this isn't a new business model<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it's been around for ever: it's called dumping</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is n't a new business model ... it 's been around for ever : it 's called dumping</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this isn't a new business model ... it's been around for ever: it's called dumping</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138538</id>
	<title>Why does anyone want internet GPS anyway?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258470300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please clue me in.  Roads don't get built or moved THAT often.  I have an automotive GPS with a gigabyte of maps in ROM and it works fine with no internet.  Annual updates are available, but even those aren't really necessary.  Before I got the GPS, I used a book of printed maps that was about a decade old, and even in my busy exurban area, the age of the map was almost never a problem.  It's not like a weather report.  The idea that I need up-to-the-minute online data about where the roads and towns are is just weird.  What am I missing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please clue me in .
Roads do n't get built or moved THAT often .
I have an automotive GPS with a gigabyte of maps in ROM and it works fine with no internet .
Annual updates are available , but even those are n't really necessary .
Before I got the GPS , I used a book of printed maps that was about a decade old , and even in my busy exurban area , the age of the map was almost never a problem .
It 's not like a weather report .
The idea that I need up-to-the-minute online data about where the roads and towns are is just weird .
What am I missing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please clue me in.
Roads don't get built or moved THAT often.
I have an automotive GPS with a gigabyte of maps in ROM and it works fine with no internet.
Annual updates are available, but even those aren't really necessary.
Before I got the GPS, I used a book of printed maps that was about a decade old, and even in my busy exurban area, the age of the map was almost never a problem.
It's not like a weather report.
The idea that I need up-to-the-minute online data about where the roads and towns are is just weird.
What am I missing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30142260</id>
	<title>Re:Why does anyone want internet GPS anyway?</title>
	<author>Fahrvergnuugen</author>
	<datestamp>1257083940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not to mention - the best map is the one you have with you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention - the best map is the one you have with you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention - the best map is the one you have with you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138928</id>
	<title>Maybe I'm blind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258473480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I fail to see the harm.  In order for this sort of thing to be illegal, some user somewhere has to come to actual harm somewhere.  Instead of paying through the nose for navigation information (much of which is already public knowledge), people get it provided by advertising sponsors like they get their free TV.  There's room for free TV and cable also.  As long as the other providers provide a premium experience and content, they'll be fine.
</p><p>Should they fail to provide a premium experience and content, they'll lose customers.  Isn't that what's supposed to happen?
</p><p>In the article he points out that Google wanted to do some things with the data that they didn't want to let Google do.  They told Google no.  In the old world, where the buyer of that data had no choice that would have been the end of the story.  But now, apparently Google has the resources to build their own data and publish it however they like - they're not held hostage by the vendor of their information.
</p><p>It seems fair to me that if Google takes the trouble to drive a car through and photograph every major intersection in the country, index it against their map, address and aerial photographs, they ought to be able to publish that data any way they like.
</p><p>In a world where we have monopoly after monopoly leveraging their power to prevent progress, here we have a powerful company leveraging its tremendous market power to cause progress to occur.  I think that's fabulous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I fail to see the harm .
In order for this sort of thing to be illegal , some user somewhere has to come to actual harm somewhere .
Instead of paying through the nose for navigation information ( much of which is already public knowledge ) , people get it provided by advertising sponsors like they get their free TV .
There 's room for free TV and cable also .
As long as the other providers provide a premium experience and content , they 'll be fine .
Should they fail to provide a premium experience and content , they 'll lose customers .
Is n't that what 's supposed to happen ?
In the article he points out that Google wanted to do some things with the data that they did n't want to let Google do .
They told Google no .
In the old world , where the buyer of that data had no choice that would have been the end of the story .
But now , apparently Google has the resources to build their own data and publish it however they like - they 're not held hostage by the vendor of their information .
It seems fair to me that if Google takes the trouble to drive a car through and photograph every major intersection in the country , index it against their map , address and aerial photographs , they ought to be able to publish that data any way they like .
In a world where we have monopoly after monopoly leveraging their power to prevent progress , here we have a powerful company leveraging its tremendous market power to cause progress to occur .
I think that 's fabulous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fail to see the harm.
In order for this sort of thing to be illegal, some user somewhere has to come to actual harm somewhere.
Instead of paying through the nose for navigation information (much of which is already public knowledge), people get it provided by advertising sponsors like they get their free TV.
There's room for free TV and cable also.
As long as the other providers provide a premium experience and content, they'll be fine.
Should they fail to provide a premium experience and content, they'll lose customers.
Isn't that what's supposed to happen?
In the article he points out that Google wanted to do some things with the data that they didn't want to let Google do.
They told Google no.
In the old world, where the buyer of that data had no choice that would have been the end of the story.
But now, apparently Google has the resources to build their own data and publish it however they like - they're not held hostage by the vendor of their information.
It seems fair to me that if Google takes the trouble to drive a car through and photograph every major intersection in the country, index it against their map, address and aerial photographs, they ought to be able to publish that data any way they like.
In a world where we have monopoly after monopoly leveraging their power to prevent progress, here we have a powerful company leveraging its tremendous market power to cause progress to occur.
I think that's fabulous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30150686</id>
	<title>Re:FYI Navteq was not aquired by Garmin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257079260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MCFLY !</p><p>Add a CORRECTION to the post FFS !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MCFLY ! Add a CORRECTION to the post FFS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MCFLY !Add a CORRECTION to the post FFS !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30141656</id>
	<title>Re:Android WILL take over.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257076620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Google was really dedicated to open source, they would open source their search engine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Google was really dedicated to open source , they would open source their search engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Google was really dedicated to open source, they would open source their search engine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139426</id>
	<title>Re:So let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1258477140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds very much like the experience on an iPhone, actually.</p><p>Stock from the carrier some stuff is restricted.  Jailbreak it and it's the wild west.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds very much like the experience on an iPhone , actually.Stock from the carrier some stuff is restricted .
Jailbreak it and it 's the wild west .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds very much like the experience on an iPhone, actually.Stock from the carrier some stuff is restricted.
Jailbreak it and it's the wild west.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30142340</id>
	<title>Re:Call me crazy, but</title>
	<author>Wonko the Sane</author>
	<datestamp>1257084600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>it would cost a tremendous amount unless you have some kind of truly unlimited data plan.</p></div> </blockquote><p>It seems that you are unaware about the recent price war going on between <a href="http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/plans/Cell-Phone-Plans.aspx?catgroup=EvenMorePlus&amp;WT.z\_shop\_plansLP=EvenMorePlus" title="t-mobile.com">mobile data providers</a> [t-mobile.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it would cost a tremendous amount unless you have some kind of truly unlimited data plan .
It seems that you are unaware about the recent price war going on between mobile data providers [ t-mobile.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it would cost a tremendous amount unless you have some kind of truly unlimited data plan.
It seems that you are unaware about the recent price war going on between mobile data providers [t-mobile.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138602</id>
	<title>Re:Why does anyone want internet GPS anyway?</title>
	<author>Tynin</author>
	<datestamp>1258470780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Up-to-the-minute online data about where any police checkpoints and speed traps are would be nice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Up-to-the-minute online data about where any police checkpoints and speed traps are would be nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Up-to-the-minute online data about where any police checkpoints and speed traps are would be nice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138556</id>
	<title>Re:Gee, it's almost like they have a monopoly or s</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258470480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cue the Johnny Trustbusters.  What exactly do they have a monopoly on?  Searching?  Right, I only have about a dozen alternatives.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cue the Johnny Trustbusters .
What exactly do they have a monopoly on ?
Searching ? Right , I only have about a dozen alternatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cue the Johnny Trustbusters.
What exactly do they have a monopoly on?
Searching?  Right, I only have about a dozen alternatives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138356</id>
	<title>So let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>iluvcapra</author>
	<datestamp>1258468740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The virtue of Android, from the carrier's perspective, is that it allows them to create terrible branded user experiences.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The virtue of Android , from the carrier 's perspective , is that it allows them to create terrible branded user experiences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The virtue of Android, from the carrier's perspective, is that it allows them to create terrible branded user experiences.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30149134</id>
	<title>Re:Just shows investors are clueless</title>
	<author>PeanutButterBreath</author>
	<datestamp>1257072360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem with the iPhone type devices is that they are a compromise for everything. Do you really enjoy that tiny screen? Do you like browsing the web on your iPhone? Do you enjoy texting with keys that small? Hey, but you can do it anywhere, so you put up with it. It's cool.</p></div><p>Exactly.  It's cool because you can do it anywhere.  Where is this "problem" you speak of?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Next up (and this will be a hardware issue): Heads-up displays on the windshield. I would dump my Garmin and buy a new one in half a second if I could get a heads-up display. Let's see you download THAT from Google.</p></div><p>You just kicked the legs out from beneath your own argument.  With HUD, screen size becomes irrelevant.  All that matters is what devices can be used to drive the display.  Would you rather buy a separate GPS device, or just use the phone you already have and can use outside the car as well?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with the iPhone type devices is that they are a compromise for everything .
Do you really enjoy that tiny screen ?
Do you like browsing the web on your iPhone ?
Do you enjoy texting with keys that small ?
Hey , but you can do it anywhere , so you put up with it .
It 's cool.Exactly .
It 's cool because you can do it anywhere .
Where is this " problem " you speak of ? Next up ( and this will be a hardware issue ) : Heads-up displays on the windshield .
I would dump my Garmin and buy a new one in half a second if I could get a heads-up display .
Let 's see you download THAT from Google.You just kicked the legs out from beneath your own argument .
With HUD , screen size becomes irrelevant .
All that matters is what devices can be used to drive the display .
Would you rather buy a separate GPS device , or just use the phone you already have and can use outside the car as well ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with the iPhone type devices is that they are a compromise for everything.
Do you really enjoy that tiny screen?
Do you like browsing the web on your iPhone?
Do you enjoy texting with keys that small?
Hey, but you can do it anywhere, so you put up with it.
It's cool.Exactly.
It's cool because you can do it anywhere.
Where is this "problem" you speak of?Next up (and this will be a hardware issue): Heads-up displays on the windshield.
I would dump my Garmin and buy a new one in half a second if I could get a heads-up display.
Let's see you download THAT from Google.You just kicked the legs out from beneath your own argument.
With HUD, screen size becomes irrelevant.
All that matters is what devices can be used to drive the display.
Would you rather buy a separate GPS device, or just use the phone you already have and can use outside the car as well?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30146956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138982</id>
	<title>Re:Android WILL take over.</title>
	<author>Mr Thinly Sliced</author>
	<datestamp>1258474140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you 100\%.</p><p>I think Apple are getting themselves into the same Spot that SGI held for a while building luxury products for high spenders. And we all know how the SGI story unfolded. As soon as the products become "commoditised" (3D workstations for SGI, smartphones / PDA for Apple), the luxury producers time is up.</p><p>I think Apple have made some nice products, but their lock-in and high prices plus exclusivity are the screws in the lid of the coffin. Apple just hasn't fallen into it yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you 100 \ % .I think Apple are getting themselves into the same Spot that SGI held for a while building luxury products for high spenders .
And we all know how the SGI story unfolded .
As soon as the products become " commoditised " ( 3D workstations for SGI , smartphones / PDA for Apple ) , the luxury producers time is up.I think Apple have made some nice products , but their lock-in and high prices plus exclusivity are the screws in the lid of the coffin .
Apple just has n't fallen into it yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you 100\%.I think Apple are getting themselves into the same Spot that SGI held for a while building luxury products for high spenders.
And we all know how the SGI story unfolded.
As soon as the products become "commoditised" (3D workstations for SGI, smartphones / PDA for Apple), the luxury producers time is up.I think Apple have made some nice products, but their lock-in and high prices plus exclusivity are the screws in the lid of the coffin.
Apple just hasn't fallen into it yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140012</id>
	<title>Re:Google is the Foundation</title>
	<author>levicivita</author>
	<datestamp>1258482060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...just like the prophecy was foretold by Saltzman in accounting!</htmltext>
<tokenext>...just like the prophecy was foretold by Saltzman in accounting !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...just like the prophecy was foretold by Saltzman in accounting!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30141674</id>
	<title>Re:Why does anyone want internet GPS anyway?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257076800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are missing this</p><p><a href="http://www.gpsdaily.co.uk/off-road/bmw-driver-follows-gps-off-cliff/" title="gpsdaily.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.gpsdaily.co.uk/off-road/bmw-driver-follows-gps-off-cliff/</a> [gpsdaily.co.uk]</p><p>and</p><p><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/27/faith-in-gps-sends-mercedes-downstream/" title="engadget.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/27/faith-in-gps-sends-mercedes-downstream/</a> [engadget.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are missing thishttp : //www.gpsdaily.co.uk/off-road/bmw-driver-follows-gps-off-cliff/ [ gpsdaily.co.uk ] andhttp : //www.engadget.com/2007/03/27/faith-in-gps-sends-mercedes-downstream/ [ engadget.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are missing thishttp://www.gpsdaily.co.uk/off-road/bmw-driver-follows-gps-off-cliff/ [gpsdaily.co.uk]andhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/27/faith-in-gps-sends-mercedes-downstream/ [engadget.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30145730</id>
	<title>Re:Gee, it's almost like they have a monopoly or s</title>
	<author>mounthood</author>
	<datestamp>1257099660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When I first read this I thought about IBM back in the day. They could put a small company out of business simply by announcing, "Yeah, we're working on that too." And they had to fight off some well-founded lawsuits. Eventually, IBM became known for quiet and consistent R&amp;D (Giant MR comes to mind) because they had to watch what they said.</p><p>Will that day come for Google? I think not (or it's a long way off). IBM's issues with the courts came around the same time Ma Bell was dismantled, which couldn't happen now.</p></div><p>Google will announce early, but it'll be beta so nobody can tell if it will die or go big.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I first read this I thought about IBM back in the day .
They could put a small company out of business simply by announcing , " Yeah , we 're working on that too .
" And they had to fight off some well-founded lawsuits .
Eventually , IBM became known for quiet and consistent R&amp;D ( Giant MR comes to mind ) because they had to watch what they said.Will that day come for Google ?
I think not ( or it 's a long way off ) .
IBM 's issues with the courts came around the same time Ma Bell was dismantled , which could n't happen now.Google will announce early , but it 'll be beta so nobody can tell if it will die or go big .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I first read this I thought about IBM back in the day.
They could put a small company out of business simply by announcing, "Yeah, we're working on that too.
" And they had to fight off some well-founded lawsuits.
Eventually, IBM became known for quiet and consistent R&amp;D (Giant MR comes to mind) because they had to watch what they said.Will that day come for Google?
I think not (or it's a long way off).
IBM's issues with the courts came around the same time Ma Bell was dismantled, which couldn't happen now.Google will announce early, but it'll be beta so nobody can tell if it will die or go big.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139182</id>
	<title>i love my droid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258475460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(fingers in ears) la la la la I can't here you la la la la</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( fingers in ears ) la la la la I ca n't here you la la la la</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(fingers in ears) la la la la I can't here you la la la la</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138590</id>
	<title>FYI Navteq was not aquired by Garmin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258470660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Navteq was aquired by Nokia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Navteq was aquired by Nokia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Navteq was aquired by Nokia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138512</id>
	<title>Re:So let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1258470120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No more so than Windows mobile, and at least you can get the source code for Android.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No more so than Windows mobile , and at least you can get the source code for Android .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No more so than Windows mobile, and at least you can get the source code for Android.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30143516</id>
	<title>Re:Its the Intel Lawsuit - Google Style</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1257090960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Didnt Intel just get taken to court by AMD over something very similar?  Intel was paying HP and Dell to use there chips (the less than free approach).</p></div><p>If Intel was paying them to use their chips, then how did Intel make any money?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Didnt Intel just get taken to court by AMD over something very similar ?
Intel was paying HP and Dell to use there chips ( the less than free approach ) .If Intel was paying them to use their chips , then how did Intel make any money ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didnt Intel just get taken to court by AMD over something very similar?
Intel was paying HP and Dell to use there chips (the less than free approach).If Intel was paying them to use their chips, then how did Intel make any money?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30148664</id>
	<title>Re:Android WILL take over.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257069900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are assuming that Google wants to own the cellphone OS market and doesn't get greedy. There also seems to be an implicit assumption that Apple is competing with Google for this market.</p><p>1. Google *can* shoot themselves in the foot. They look strong now, but that doesn't mean that in the future they might not have to start monetising more aggressively. For example, once they gain a stranglehold start charging a per-unit fee.</p><p>2. Judging by their behavior and history, Apple doesn't really care if their OS is used by every carrier and by every cellphone. They are content to position themselves as the premium solution.</p><p>3. You admit that the iPhone OS is ahead of Android, but seem to think that just because it is open source it will jump ahead. Ah, such naivety. If you compare with perhaps the largest, most significant open source desktop operating system you find that those (Gnome and KDE) are constantly chasing Apple and Microsoft. KDE used to be so good. Now we have KDE 4 with its Win7 wannabe look. Lame, to chase Microsoft who is chasing Apple, but there you have it.</p><p>4. I know, Apple wins the hype, but in the meantime no one seems to remember that the number one smartphone OS (by count) is Microsoft. Sure it sucks, but Microsoft also sucks on the desktop and they still own that. Android isn't competing with the iPhone, its competing with Blackberry and Microsoft.</p><p>I'm not saying Android *won't* dominate the cellphone OS market, but I don't think its anywhere near a foregone conclusion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are assuming that Google wants to own the cellphone OS market and does n't get greedy .
There also seems to be an implicit assumption that Apple is competing with Google for this market.1 .
Google * can * shoot themselves in the foot .
They look strong now , but that does n't mean that in the future they might not have to start monetising more aggressively .
For example , once they gain a stranglehold start charging a per-unit fee.2 .
Judging by their behavior and history , Apple does n't really care if their OS is used by every carrier and by every cellphone .
They are content to position themselves as the premium solution.3 .
You admit that the iPhone OS is ahead of Android , but seem to think that just because it is open source it will jump ahead .
Ah , such naivety .
If you compare with perhaps the largest , most significant open source desktop operating system you find that those ( Gnome and KDE ) are constantly chasing Apple and Microsoft .
KDE used to be so good .
Now we have KDE 4 with its Win7 wannabe look .
Lame , to chase Microsoft who is chasing Apple , but there you have it.4 .
I know , Apple wins the hype , but in the meantime no one seems to remember that the number one smartphone OS ( by count ) is Microsoft .
Sure it sucks , but Microsoft also sucks on the desktop and they still own that .
Android is n't competing with the iPhone , its competing with Blackberry and Microsoft.I 'm not saying Android * wo n't * dominate the cellphone OS market , but I do n't think its anywhere near a foregone conclusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are assuming that Google wants to own the cellphone OS market and doesn't get greedy.
There also seems to be an implicit assumption that Apple is competing with Google for this market.1.
Google *can* shoot themselves in the foot.
They look strong now, but that doesn't mean that in the future they might not have to start monetising more aggressively.
For example, once they gain a stranglehold start charging a per-unit fee.2.
Judging by their behavior and history, Apple doesn't really care if their OS is used by every carrier and by every cellphone.
They are content to position themselves as the premium solution.3.
You admit that the iPhone OS is ahead of Android, but seem to think that just because it is open source it will jump ahead.
Ah, such naivety.
If you compare with perhaps the largest, most significant open source desktop operating system you find that those (Gnome and KDE) are constantly chasing Apple and Microsoft.
KDE used to be so good.
Now we have KDE 4 with its Win7 wannabe look.
Lame, to chase Microsoft who is chasing Apple, but there you have it.4.
I know, Apple wins the hype, but in the meantime no one seems to remember that the number one smartphone OS (by count) is Microsoft.
Sure it sucks, but Microsoft also sucks on the desktop and they still own that.
Android isn't competing with the iPhone, its competing with Blackberry and Microsoft.I'm not saying Android *won't* dominate the cellphone OS market, but I don't think its anywhere near a foregone conclusion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139066</id>
	<title>Re:Google is the Foundation</title>
	<author>Rufty</author>
	<datestamp>1258474680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whoosh!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoosh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoosh!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140610</id>
	<title>Re:Google is the Foundation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258487940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only one psychologist, but he never really taught them all that much...</p><p>Now the Second Google...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only one psychologist , but he never really taught them all that much...Now the Second Google.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only one psychologist, but he never really taught them all that much...Now the Second Google...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138392</id>
	<title>Monopoly</title>
	<author>Nerdfest</author>
	<datestamp>1258469040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's certainly a hard deal to pass up for carriers. Is leveraging like this considered to be approaching an abuse of monopoly for Google?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's certainly a hard deal to pass up for carriers .
Is leveraging like this considered to be approaching an abuse of monopoly for Google ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's certainly a hard deal to pass up for carriers.
Is leveraging like this considered to be approaching an abuse of monopoly for Google?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138598</id>
	<title>Re:So let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>TooMuchToDo</author>
	<datestamp>1258470720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just got a G1 from my brother to use for development. I thought it was very cool I could wipe the firmware from T-Mobile and put a custom mod on there that allowed me to move apps to the SD card, use WiFi tethering, etc. Show me another phone/OS environment you see that happen on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just got a G1 from my brother to use for development .
I thought it was very cool I could wipe the firmware from T-Mobile and put a custom mod on there that allowed me to move apps to the SD card , use WiFi tethering , etc .
Show me another phone/OS environment you see that happen on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just got a G1 from my brother to use for development.
I thought it was very cool I could wipe the firmware from T-Mobile and put a custom mod on there that allowed me to move apps to the SD card, use WiFi tethering, etc.
Show me another phone/OS environment you see that happen on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138364</id>
	<title>Gee, it's almost like they have a monopoly or some</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258468800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or something...</p><p>Let's see, using dominance in one market to establish dominance in another market.  Check!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or something...Let 's see , using dominance in one market to establish dominance in another market .
Check !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or something...Let's see, using dominance in one market to establish dominance in another market.
Check!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138624</id>
	<title>Re:Why does anyone want internet GPS anyway?</title>
	<author>Kral\_Blbec</author>
	<datestamp>1258470900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Traffic. Online maps in many of the urban centers also report congestion and estimated delays.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Traffic .
Online maps in many of the urban centers also report congestion and estimated delays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Traffic.
Online maps in many of the urban centers also report congestion and estimated delays.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139978</id>
	<title>how is Google navigation more free than Garmin?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258481760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see why Garmin stock dropped so much due to this.  A Garmin GPS doesn't charge you when you ask it for directions either.  There's the initial cost of the GPS, but there's also an initial cost to buy a phone to use Google's navigation.  There's the issue of getting updated maps for free from Google vs. paying Garmin, but how many people even bother or need to update the maps on their GPS anyway?  (and Garmin could just change their policy and make map updates free)  There's the advantage of having internet access combined with GPS in one device, but that advantage existed before Google's navigation feature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see why Garmin stock dropped so much due to this .
A Garmin GPS does n't charge you when you ask it for directions either .
There 's the initial cost of the GPS , but there 's also an initial cost to buy a phone to use Google 's navigation .
There 's the issue of getting updated maps for free from Google vs. paying Garmin , but how many people even bother or need to update the maps on their GPS anyway ?
( and Garmin could just change their policy and make map updates free ) There 's the advantage of having internet access combined with GPS in one device , but that advantage existed before Google 's navigation feature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see why Garmin stock dropped so much due to this.
A Garmin GPS doesn't charge you when you ask it for directions either.
There's the initial cost of the GPS, but there's also an initial cost to buy a phone to use Google's navigation.
There's the issue of getting updated maps for free from Google vs. paying Garmin, but how many people even bother or need to update the maps on their GPS anyway?
(and Garmin could just change their policy and make map updates free)  There's the advantage of having internet access combined with GPS in one device, but that advantage existed before Google's navigation feature.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30141542</id>
	<title>Re:Google is the Foundation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257075360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder who the mule will be.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder who the mule will be .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder who the mule will be.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140512</id>
	<title>Re:Android WILL take over.</title>
	<author>Ash-Fox</author>
	<datestamp>1258486800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Windows did not dominate the OS market by superior design, but by superior approach.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Well, that and Apple also helped them a lot by suing the majority of OS developers that had anything resembling a GUI, thus eliminating the majority of their competition. It was only a little later Microsoft employed various "anti-competitive" tactics against the remaining systems out there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows did not dominate the OS market by superior design , but by superior approach .
Well , that and Apple also helped them a lot by suing the majority of OS developers that had anything resembling a GUI , thus eliminating the majority of their competition .
It was only a little later Microsoft employed various " anti-competitive " tactics against the remaining systems out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows did not dominate the OS market by superior design, but by superior approach.
Well, that and Apple also helped them a lot by suing the majority of OS developers that had anything resembling a GUI, thus eliminating the majority of their competition.
It was only a little later Microsoft employed various "anti-competitive" tactics against the remaining systems out there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139954</id>
	<title>Re:Horseshit.</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1258481580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Bing is a joke, Yahoo is for 12 year-olds.</p></div></blockquote><p>You do know there is more to Yahoo! than just search?  And in a lot of areas they are well ahead of Google.<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>If the other giants actually innovated instead of rehashing and hyping to death the same tired shit, maybe we'd have some real competition.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'll agree with you on that when it comes to Bing - but Google is busily innovating because other than in search and ads, they're #2 or #3 in a lot of places.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing is a joke , Yahoo is for 12 year-olds.You do know there is more to Yahoo !
than just search ?
And in a lot of areas they are well ahead of Google .
  If the other giants actually innovated instead of rehashing and hyping to death the same tired shit , maybe we 'd have some real competition.I 'll agree with you on that when it comes to Bing - but Google is busily innovating because other than in search and ads , they 're # 2 or # 3 in a lot of places .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing is a joke, Yahoo is for 12 year-olds.You do know there is more to Yahoo!
than just search?
And in a lot of areas they are well ahead of Google.
  If the other giants actually innovated instead of rehashing and hyping to death the same tired shit, maybe we'd have some real competition.I'll agree with you on that when it comes to Bing - but Google is busily innovating because other than in search and ads, they're #2 or #3 in a lot of places.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30146504</id>
	<title>In Corporate America...</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1257102720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...Marketers Google You!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...Marketers Google You !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Marketers Google You!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140580</id>
	<title>Re:So let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>ajs</author>
	<datestamp>1258487640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sounds very much like the experience on an iPhone, actually.</p><p>Stock from the carrier some stuff is restricted.  Jailbreak it and it's the wild west.</p></div><p>I've had both an iPhone and an Android. I jailbroke my iPhone. I haven't bothered with my Android. Open development means that, for the most part, I don't have to. If I decide I want something that the firmware doesn't allow by default, I'll root it, but that wasn't where I stood with the iPhone.</p><p>Google Voice, file transfer software, alternate music players, backgrounding, and many other basic features available to Android users MUST be gained by jailbreaking on the iPhone. That's why it's called "jailbreaking."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds very much like the experience on an iPhone , actually.Stock from the carrier some stuff is restricted .
Jailbreak it and it 's the wild west.I 've had both an iPhone and an Android .
I jailbroke my iPhone .
I have n't bothered with my Android .
Open development means that , for the most part , I do n't have to .
If I decide I want something that the firmware does n't allow by default , I 'll root it , but that was n't where I stood with the iPhone.Google Voice , file transfer software , alternate music players , backgrounding , and many other basic features available to Android users MUST be gained by jailbreaking on the iPhone .
That 's why it 's called " jailbreaking .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds very much like the experience on an iPhone, actually.Stock from the carrier some stuff is restricted.
Jailbreak it and it's the wild west.I've had both an iPhone and an Android.
I jailbroke my iPhone.
I haven't bothered with my Android.
Open development means that, for the most part, I don't have to.
If I decide I want something that the firmware doesn't allow by default, I'll root it, but that wasn't where I stood with the iPhone.Google Voice, file transfer software, alternate music players, backgrounding, and many other basic features available to Android users MUST be gained by jailbreaking on the iPhone.
That's why it's called "jailbreaking.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138676</id>
	<title>Re:Google is the Foundation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258471320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wonder if they employ psychologists?</p></div><p>They employ multiple psychologists, each specializing in different areas of operation. This can be a huge help when attempting to understand why customers, partners, and employees behave the way they do. Add in the fact that by employing a large number of highly intelligent people, their employee population undoubtedly has a higher than average number of people with certain personality imbalances. It comes with the territory.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if they employ psychologists ? They employ multiple psychologists , each specializing in different areas of operation .
This can be a huge help when attempting to understand why customers , partners , and employees behave the way they do .
Add in the fact that by employing a large number of highly intelligent people , their employee population undoubtedly has a higher than average number of people with certain personality imbalances .
It comes with the territory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if they employ psychologists?They employ multiple psychologists, each specializing in different areas of operation.
This can be a huge help when attempting to understand why customers, partners, and employees behave the way they do.
Add in the fact that by employing a large number of highly intelligent people, their employee population undoubtedly has a higher than average number of people with certain personality imbalances.
It comes with the territory.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30144704</id>
	<title>Sad.</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1257095400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember when using GPS took specialized training and equipment and you were thought of as only slightly less powerful than god.</p><p>It saddens me a bit that in the last several years it has gone from that, to any consumer with the will, to the any 12 year old can get a free app that does that on their phone.</p><p>Oh well, at least I can still explain how it works in detail, not that anyone cares. Ho hum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember when using GPS took specialized training and equipment and you were thought of as only slightly less powerful than god.It saddens me a bit that in the last several years it has gone from that , to any consumer with the will , to the any 12 year old can get a free app that does that on their phone.Oh well , at least I can still explain how it works in detail , not that anyone cares .
Ho hum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember when using GPS took specialized training and equipment and you were thought of as only slightly less powerful than god.It saddens me a bit that in the last several years it has gone from that, to any consumer with the will, to the any 12 year old can get a free app that does that on their phone.Oh well, at least I can still explain how it works in detail, not that anyone cares.
Ho hum.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30143318</id>
	<title>This is dumping</title>
	<author>markov23</author>
	<datestamp>1257090240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This behavior is called dumping and is what monopolys get in trouble for.  Selling something for less than your cost of production for the purpose of gathering market share and shutting out competition.   If their name was Microsoft - they would be in court now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This behavior is called dumping and is what monopolys get in trouble for .
Selling something for less than your cost of production for the purpose of gathering market share and shutting out competition .
If their name was Microsoft - they would be in court now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This behavior is called dumping and is what monopolys get in trouble for.
Selling something for less than your cost of production for the purpose of gathering market share and shutting out competition.
If their name was Microsoft - they would be in court now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139544</id>
	<title>Re:Android WILL take over.</title>
	<author>pete-classic</author>
	<datestamp>1258478160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These are the same sort of arguments proving that everyone will be running Linux on their desktop by . . . five years ago.</p><p>Maybe things will be different on cell phones.</p><p>-Peter</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These are the same sort of arguments proving that everyone will be running Linux on their desktop by .
. .
five years ago.Maybe things will be different on cell phones.-Peter</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These are the same sort of arguments proving that everyone will be running Linux on their desktop by .
. .
five years ago.Maybe things will be different on cell phones.-Peter</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30143154</id>
	<title>Re:Gee, it's almost like they have a monopoly or s</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1257089760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The amazing thing about Google is that it's really hard to find any truly anti-competitive behavior. Offering better service and better price points than your competition is perfectly legal. As long as they avoid exclusive licensing contracts (easy to do when so much of their software is open-source) what can they be accused of doing wrong? Price fixing? They offer everything for free. Arguably, bundling turn-by-turn navigation software in Android is similar bundling IE in Windows (enter the MS anti-trust suits) but it's a tough argument to make when the whole lot is open-source.</p><p>Another interesting aspect of Google is that the "less-than-free" business model almost requires a monopoly to work. If they didn't have dominant market share in search-based ad income, the business model wouldn't generate enough revenue to support the "free" ventures and they would rapidly fall back to look more like Yahoo. I can't decide if Google's position is rock solid or remarkably fragile. They're approach to dominating the mobile platform and GPS navigation markets require domination in search ad revenue or they don't make any money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The amazing thing about Google is that it 's really hard to find any truly anti-competitive behavior .
Offering better service and better price points than your competition is perfectly legal .
As long as they avoid exclusive licensing contracts ( easy to do when so much of their software is open-source ) what can they be accused of doing wrong ?
Price fixing ?
They offer everything for free .
Arguably , bundling turn-by-turn navigation software in Android is similar bundling IE in Windows ( enter the MS anti-trust suits ) but it 's a tough argument to make when the whole lot is open-source.Another interesting aspect of Google is that the " less-than-free " business model almost requires a monopoly to work .
If they did n't have dominant market share in search-based ad income , the business model would n't generate enough revenue to support the " free " ventures and they would rapidly fall back to look more like Yahoo .
I ca n't decide if Google 's position is rock solid or remarkably fragile .
They 're approach to dominating the mobile platform and GPS navigation markets require domination in search ad revenue or they do n't make any money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The amazing thing about Google is that it's really hard to find any truly anti-competitive behavior.
Offering better service and better price points than your competition is perfectly legal.
As long as they avoid exclusive licensing contracts (easy to do when so much of their software is open-source) what can they be accused of doing wrong?
Price fixing?
They offer everything for free.
Arguably, bundling turn-by-turn navigation software in Android is similar bundling IE in Windows (enter the MS anti-trust suits) but it's a tough argument to make when the whole lot is open-source.Another interesting aspect of Google is that the "less-than-free" business model almost requires a monopoly to work.
If they didn't have dominant market share in search-based ad income, the business model wouldn't generate enough revenue to support the "free" ventures and they would rapidly fall back to look more like Yahoo.
I can't decide if Google's position is rock solid or remarkably fragile.
They're approach to dominating the mobile platform and GPS navigation markets require domination in search ad revenue or they don't make any money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30141072</id>
	<title>Re:Android WILL take over.</title>
	<author>teg</author>
	<datestamp>1257068340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i> Every major carrier and every major smartphone maker either already has an Android phone, or has one in the works</i> </p><p>RIM, Apple and Nokia don't, so this claim is false. That said, I do believe  Android will become number one in smart phones.  Apple will continue with their successful formula in the general computer market - a premium product at a premium price. Android seems to try the Windows way - present on everything from netbooks to products comparable to Apple's, and everything inbetween.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every major carrier and every major smartphone maker either already has an Android phone , or has one in the works RIM , Apple and Nokia do n't , so this claim is false .
That said , I do believe Android will become number one in smart phones .
Apple will continue with their successful formula in the general computer market - a premium product at a premium price .
Android seems to try the Windows way - present on everything from netbooks to products comparable to Apple 's , and everything inbetween .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Every major carrier and every major smartphone maker either already has an Android phone, or has one in the works RIM, Apple and Nokia don't, so this claim is false.
That said, I do believe  Android will become number one in smart phones.
Apple will continue with their successful formula in the general computer market - a premium product at a premium price.
Android seems to try the Windows way - present on everything from netbooks to products comparable to Apple's, and everything inbetween.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138994</id>
	<title>Re:Google is the Foundation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258474260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In short, they are the foundation. Eventually they will collect all human knowledge and make the encyclopedia that encompasses all human knowledge... this is just a rouse for the real purpose of Google...</p><p>I wonder if they employ psychologists?</p></div><p>Sounds like they're employing some <b>psychohistorians</b>, actually.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In short , they are the foundation .
Eventually they will collect all human knowledge and make the encyclopedia that encompasses all human knowledge... this is just a rouse for the real purpose of Google...I wonder if they employ psychologists ? Sounds like they 're employing some psychohistorians , actually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In short, they are the foundation.
Eventually they will collect all human knowledge and make the encyclopedia that encompasses all human knowledge... this is just a rouse for the real purpose of Google...I wonder if they employ psychologists?Sounds like they're employing some psychohistorians, actually.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138730</id>
	<title>most users aren't aware of how much google knows..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258471800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...It's bad enough that they crawl though emails to find advertising targets, but the OS is one of their biggest plays yet to analyse every piece of seemingly benign and anonymous user data and assemble a specific user profile. Think about that: one company; the single biggest commercial data-miner knowing many of your details and habits and inferring others. Would they try to extract every possible profit out of that? Personally the last data-mining straw from google was them wanting my mobile number to create an email account. For verification? Yeah right... Wouldn't they just love to add <b>that</b> to the profile.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...It 's bad enough that they crawl though emails to find advertising targets , but the OS is one of their biggest plays yet to analyse every piece of seemingly benign and anonymous user data and assemble a specific user profile .
Think about that : one company ; the single biggest commercial data-miner knowing many of your details and habits and inferring others .
Would they try to extract every possible profit out of that ?
Personally the last data-mining straw from google was them wanting my mobile number to create an email account .
For verification ?
Yeah right... Would n't they just love to add that to the profile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...It's bad enough that they crawl though emails to find advertising targets, but the OS is one of their biggest plays yet to analyse every piece of seemingly benign and anonymous user data and assemble a specific user profile.
Think about that: one company; the single biggest commercial data-miner knowing many of your details and habits and inferring others.
Would they try to extract every possible profit out of that?
Personally the last data-mining straw from google was them wanting my mobile number to create an email account.
For verification?
Yeah right... Wouldn't they just love to add that to the profile.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138666</id>
	<title>Re:Why does anyone want internet GPS anyway?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258471260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>What am I missing?</i> <br> <br>Your paper maps only make a difference if you know where you're at when you use them. Aside from that your maps also don't have information about stores, street addresses and the routes that are easiest to use to get you there.<br> <br>Internet based GPS information is great on a phone since it's taking up no memory/storage and can be updated by the moment for things like traffic flow and road construction.<br> <br>There is more to GPS than just road maps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What am I missing ?
Your paper maps only make a difference if you know where you 're at when you use them .
Aside from that your maps also do n't have information about stores , street addresses and the routes that are easiest to use to get you there .
Internet based GPS information is great on a phone since it 's taking up no memory/storage and can be updated by the moment for things like traffic flow and road construction .
There is more to GPS than just road maps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What am I missing?
Your paper maps only make a difference if you know where you're at when you use them.
Aside from that your maps also don't have information about stores, street addresses and the routes that are easiest to use to get you there.
Internet based GPS information is great on a phone since it's taking up no memory/storage and can be updated by the moment for things like traffic flow and road construction.
There is more to GPS than just road maps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30141336</id>
	<title>Re:Stock Prices Falling.</title>
	<author>atilla filiz</author>
	<datestamp>1257072480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mandatory xkcd link<br><a href="http://xkcd.com/552/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">http://xkcd.com/552/</a> [xkcd.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mandatory xkcd linkhttp : //xkcd.com/552/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mandatory xkcd linkhttp://xkcd.com/552/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140490</id>
	<title>Re:Android WILL take over.</title>
	<author>Ash-Fox</author>
	<datestamp>1258486560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Android may be great, but its implementation is different on every Android phone. Different hardware, different features, different amounts of android functionality.</p></div></blockquote><p>I believe many people like the flexibility in phone UIs, as they have new innovative ways to do things on a miniature platform.</p><p>Additionally, architecture doesn't matter much since the userland supports running Android applications that are written in a form of crossplatform Java. Thus, writing universal applications shouldn't be too much of an issue, even feature wise, it's not like it's hard to check if something supports X, otherwise do Y etc. The use of being able to be used on different architectures also allows for the possibility of use with different hardware that maybe better at using less power with increased hardware support for various features.</p><blockquote><div><p>I can see it turning into the nightmare</p></div></blockquote><p>It might take a bit of extra code to do some checking, but that slight inconvinience is offset by what may become, a vast set of handsets, which means a wider market for your software.</p><p>I think what you labeled as weaknesses are in-fact, strengths.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Android may be great , but its implementation is different on every Android phone .
Different hardware , different features , different amounts of android functionality.I believe many people like the flexibility in phone UIs , as they have new innovative ways to do things on a miniature platform.Additionally , architecture does n't matter much since the userland supports running Android applications that are written in a form of crossplatform Java .
Thus , writing universal applications should n't be too much of an issue , even feature wise , it 's not like it 's hard to check if something supports X , otherwise do Y etc .
The use of being able to be used on different architectures also allows for the possibility of use with different hardware that maybe better at using less power with increased hardware support for various features.I can see it turning into the nightmareIt might take a bit of extra code to do some checking , but that slight inconvinience is offset by what may become , a vast set of handsets , which means a wider market for your software.I think what you labeled as weaknesses are in-fact , strengths .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Android may be great, but its implementation is different on every Android phone.
Different hardware, different features, different amounts of android functionality.I believe many people like the flexibility in phone UIs, as they have new innovative ways to do things on a miniature platform.Additionally, architecture doesn't matter much since the userland supports running Android applications that are written in a form of crossplatform Java.
Thus, writing universal applications shouldn't be too much of an issue, even feature wise, it's not like it's hard to check if something supports X, otherwise do Y etc.
The use of being able to be used on different architectures also allows for the possibility of use with different hardware that maybe better at using less power with increased hardware support for various features.I can see it turning into the nightmareIt might take a bit of extra code to do some checking, but that slight inconvinience is offset by what may become, a vast set of handsets, which means a wider market for your software.I think what you labeled as weaknesses are in-fact, strengths.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30152976</id>
	<title>Re:Google is the Foundation</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1257096600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I wonder if they employ psychologists?</p></div></blockquote><p>

<b>Yes.</b> Google sponsored H1B visa for <a href="http://www.myvisajobs.com/H1B-Visa-045-2009-SO.htm" title="myvisajobs.com" rel="nofollow">13 Psychologists</a> [myvisajobs.com] since 2001.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if they employ psychologists ?
Yes. Google sponsored H1B visa for 13 Psychologists [ myvisajobs.com ] since 2001 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if they employ psychologists?
Yes. Google sponsored H1B visa for 13 Psychologists [myvisajobs.com] since 2001.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138520</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30152946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30144836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30142642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30145730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30148664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30143516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30142062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30145214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30142066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30146956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30149134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30141656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30146920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30141674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30141072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30152976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30143536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30142366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30147132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30141542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30143292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30144302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30143154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30146504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30142340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30141948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30142260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30141230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30141268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30141170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30141504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30150686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30143242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30141336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30144598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30141890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0051243_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0051243.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30152976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30141542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0051243.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30146956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30149134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0051243.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139786
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139630
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30148664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30141072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30146920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30141656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30142642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0051243.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138666
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30142260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30144836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30142066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30141674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138624
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0051243.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30141948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30143516
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0051243.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30143318
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0051243.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30143154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138492
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139100
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139954
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139246
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30143536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30145214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30146504
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30143242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138482
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30145730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30152946
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30143292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0051243.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0051243.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0051243.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30144598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30141890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0051243.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30141268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30150686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30141170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0051243.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30141336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0051243.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30144302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30142340
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0051243.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30142062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30141504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30138598
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30139426
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30141230
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30140580
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30147132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0051243.30142366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
