<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_17_1639221</id>
	<title>Google Phone Could Drive Apple Into Allegiance With Microsoft</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1263748800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>rsmiller510 writes <i>"A BusinessWeek report suggests that the Nexus One release marks the latest volley in <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/10\_04/b4164028483414.htm">an escalating war between Google and Apple</a>, one that could force Apple into <a href="http://www.daniweb.com/news/story253389.html">working more closely with Microsoft</a>. 'When companies start to imitate one another, it's usually either an extreme case of flattery&mdash;or war. In the case of Google and Apple, it's both. Separated by a mere 10 miles in Silicon Valley, the two have been on famously good terms for almost a decade. ... Now the companies have entered a new, more adversarial phase. With Nexus One, Google, which had been content to power multiple phonemakers' devices with Android, enters the hardware game, becoming a direct threat to the iPhone. With its Quattro purchase, Apple aims to create completely new kinds of mobile ads, say three sources familiar with Apple's thinking. The goal isn't so much to compete with Google in search as to make search on mobile phones obsolete. ... Some analysts believe the Apple-Google battle is likely to get much rougher in the months ahead. Ovum's Yarmis thinks Apple may soon decide to dump Google as the default search engine on its devices, primarily to cut Google off from mobile data that could be used to improve its advertising and Android technology. Jobs might cut a deal with&mdash;gasp!&mdash;Microsoft to make Bing Apple's engine of choice, or even launch its own search engine, Yarmis says."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>rsmiller510 writes " A BusinessWeek report suggests that the Nexus One release marks the latest volley in an escalating war between Google and Apple , one that could force Apple into working more closely with Microsoft .
'When companies start to imitate one another , it 's usually either an extreme case of flattery    or war .
In the case of Google and Apple , it 's both .
Separated by a mere 10 miles in Silicon Valley , the two have been on famously good terms for almost a decade .
... Now the companies have entered a new , more adversarial phase .
With Nexus One , Google , which had been content to power multiple phonemakers ' devices with Android , enters the hardware game , becoming a direct threat to the iPhone .
With its Quattro purchase , Apple aims to create completely new kinds of mobile ads , say three sources familiar with Apple 's thinking .
The goal is n't so much to compete with Google in search as to make search on mobile phones obsolete .
... Some analysts believe the Apple-Google battle is likely to get much rougher in the months ahead .
Ovum 's Yarmis thinks Apple may soon decide to dump Google as the default search engine on its devices , primarily to cut Google off from mobile data that could be used to improve its advertising and Android technology .
Jobs might cut a deal with    gasp !    Microsoft to make Bing Apple 's engine of choice , or even launch its own search engine , Yarmis says .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rsmiller510 writes "A BusinessWeek report suggests that the Nexus One release marks the latest volley in an escalating war between Google and Apple, one that could force Apple into working more closely with Microsoft.
'When companies start to imitate one another, it's usually either an extreme case of flattery—or war.
In the case of Google and Apple, it's both.
Separated by a mere 10 miles in Silicon Valley, the two have been on famously good terms for almost a decade.
... Now the companies have entered a new, more adversarial phase.
With Nexus One, Google, which had been content to power multiple phonemakers' devices with Android, enters the hardware game, becoming a direct threat to the iPhone.
With its Quattro purchase, Apple aims to create completely new kinds of mobile ads, say three sources familiar with Apple's thinking.
The goal isn't so much to compete with Google in search as to make search on mobile phones obsolete.
... Some analysts believe the Apple-Google battle is likely to get much rougher in the months ahead.
Ovum's Yarmis thinks Apple may soon decide to dump Google as the default search engine on its devices, primarily to cut Google off from mobile data that could be used to improve its advertising and Android technology.
Jobs might cut a deal with—gasp!—Microsoft to make Bing Apple's engine of choice, or even launch its own search engine, Yarmis says.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800358</id>
	<title>quick question here...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263760320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>im surprised to see that Jobs has bought up a company that provides info on mobile-phone users based on their behavior; if someone has bought his phone they you can be pretty sure on that basis that they're gullible, aspirational, technologically stunted and shallow. what more do you need to know?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>im surprised to see that Jobs has bought up a company that provides info on mobile-phone users based on their behavior ; if someone has bought his phone they you can be pretty sure on that basis that they 're gullible , aspirational , technologically stunted and shallow .
what more do you need to know ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>im surprised to see that Jobs has bought up a company that provides info on mobile-phone users based on their behavior; if someone has bought his phone they you can be pretty sure on that basis that they're gullible, aspirational, technologically stunted and shallow.
what more do you need to know?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800424</id>
	<title>Allegiance or Alliance</title>
	<author>QuietLagoon</author>
	<datestamp>1263761100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allegiance" title="merriam-webster.com">Allegiance</a> [merriam-webster.com].   <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alliance" title="merriam-webster.com">Alliance</a> [merriam-webster.com].    On second thought, maybe allegiance is correct, given Microsoft's past behavior.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Allegiance [ merriam-webster.com ] .
Alliance [ merriam-webster.com ] .
On second thought , maybe allegiance is correct , given Microsoft 's past behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Allegiance [merriam-webster.com].
Alliance [merriam-webster.com].
On second thought, maybe allegiance is correct, given Microsoft's past behavior.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799770</id>
	<title>Re:Apple and Microsoft</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1263755820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think MS is being hamstrung by the 90's mentality, when one company did the OS, another hardware, and yet another software. And nobody really did content. End result: shitty user experience, flexible but complicated uses, compatibility issues, difficulties getting content...</p><p>Apple does OS, Hardware, Software, and content distribution (as a step to doing content ?) and reaps huge benefits from that, from easier development to better user experience to network effects. The issue is getting people to accept lock-in. Apple does this via a better user experience and nice designs, but not everyone can pull that off, and not every customer will accept it.</p><p>As Google's rapid release of Android proves, OSes are not that hard to build quickly anymore, just customize Linux, as with Moblin, Maemo... Hardware isn't a problem either, plenty of ODMs have ready-made designs you can tweak, or OEMs will build to your specs. Apple's stuff does not have innovative hardware specs, just nice design. Software isn't that hard either, 10 apps will cover 99.9\% of the users's needs (office, mail, IM, media player, web, social sites...).</p><p>I think the issue is, if MS builds a phone, they'll... build a phone. With so-so user experience (my mobile runs Winmob, I want to thrash it twice a day; I'm holding off on an upgrade until I see an HD2-like with Android or AppleOS); with passable design, no sexy content or content marketplace...</p><p>And the issue is not "building a phone", it's creating an ecosystem where people feel at ease (no constantly looking over your shoulder for viruses, no complicated ergonomics, no driver issues...) and are enticed to keep forking over money (easy software + content purchases) and using your stuff (video, music...).</p><p>Google has the advantages of 1) not having MS's baggage, and 2) being able to do much for free thank to the advertising revenue they can milk off pretty much anything. I'm not sure they can pull off an Apple though, since they relinquished control fo the platform, and don't have much to offer in termes of content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think MS is being hamstrung by the 90 's mentality , when one company did the OS , another hardware , and yet another software .
And nobody really did content .
End result : shitty user experience , flexible but complicated uses , compatibility issues , difficulties getting content...Apple does OS , Hardware , Software , and content distribution ( as a step to doing content ?
) and reaps huge benefits from that , from easier development to better user experience to network effects .
The issue is getting people to accept lock-in .
Apple does this via a better user experience and nice designs , but not everyone can pull that off , and not every customer will accept it.As Google 's rapid release of Android proves , OSes are not that hard to build quickly anymore , just customize Linux , as with Moblin , Maemo... Hardware is n't a problem either , plenty of ODMs have ready-made designs you can tweak , or OEMs will build to your specs .
Apple 's stuff does not have innovative hardware specs , just nice design .
Software is n't that hard either , 10 apps will cover 99.9 \ % of the users 's needs ( office , mail , IM , media player , web , social sites... ) .I think the issue is , if MS builds a phone , they 'll... build a phone .
With so-so user experience ( my mobile runs Winmob , I want to thrash it twice a day ; I 'm holding off on an upgrade until I see an HD2-like with Android or AppleOS ) ; with passable design , no sexy content or content marketplace...And the issue is not " building a phone " , it 's creating an ecosystem where people feel at ease ( no constantly looking over your shoulder for viruses , no complicated ergonomics , no driver issues... ) and are enticed to keep forking over money ( easy software + content purchases ) and using your stuff ( video , music... ) .Google has the advantages of 1 ) not having MS 's baggage , and 2 ) being able to do much for free thank to the advertising revenue they can milk off pretty much anything .
I 'm not sure they can pull off an Apple though , since they relinquished control fo the platform , and do n't have much to offer in termes of content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think MS is being hamstrung by the 90's mentality, when one company did the OS, another hardware, and yet another software.
And nobody really did content.
End result: shitty user experience, flexible but complicated uses, compatibility issues, difficulties getting content...Apple does OS, Hardware, Software, and content distribution (as a step to doing content ?
) and reaps huge benefits from that, from easier development to better user experience to network effects.
The issue is getting people to accept lock-in.
Apple does this via a better user experience and nice designs, but not everyone can pull that off, and not every customer will accept it.As Google's rapid release of Android proves, OSes are not that hard to build quickly anymore, just customize Linux, as with Moblin, Maemo... Hardware isn't a problem either, plenty of ODMs have ready-made designs you can tweak, or OEMs will build to your specs.
Apple's stuff does not have innovative hardware specs, just nice design.
Software isn't that hard either, 10 apps will cover 99.9\% of the users's needs (office, mail, IM, media player, web, social sites...).I think the issue is, if MS builds a phone, they'll... build a phone.
With so-so user experience (my mobile runs Winmob, I want to thrash it twice a day; I'm holding off on an upgrade until I see an HD2-like with Android or AppleOS); with passable design, no sexy content or content marketplace...And the issue is not "building a phone", it's creating an ecosystem where people feel at ease (no constantly looking over your shoulder for viruses, no complicated ergonomics, no driver issues...) and are enticed to keep forking over money (easy software + content purchases) and using your stuff (video, music...).Google has the advantages of 1) not having MS's baggage, and 2) being able to do much for free thank to the advertising revenue they can milk off pretty much anything.
I'm not sure they can pull off an Apple though, since they relinquished control fo the platform, and don't have much to offer in termes of content.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30929808</id>
	<title>Hey</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264615620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LoudMusic, I had no idea how to send you a personal message, so I thought I'd comment here.. the following is a comment you wrote 9 years ago and has to be the funniest thing ever..</p><p>by LoudMusic (199347) on Tuesday October 23 2001, @01:52PM (#2467504)<br>Raise your hand if you have iTunes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Raise your hand if you have a FireWire port<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Raise your hand if you have both<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Raise your hand if you have $400 to spend on a cute Apple device<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>There is Apple's market. Pretty slim, eh? I don't see many sales in the future of iPod.</p><p>~LoudMusic</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LoudMusic , I had no idea how to send you a personal message , so I thought I 'd comment here.. the following is a comment you wrote 9 years ago and has to be the funniest thing ever..by LoudMusic ( 199347 ) on Tuesday October 23 2001 , @ 01 : 52PM ( # 2467504 ) Raise your hand if you have iTunes ...Raise your hand if you have a FireWire port ...Raise your hand if you have both ...Raise your hand if you have $ 400 to spend on a cute Apple device ...There is Apple 's market .
Pretty slim , eh ?
I do n't see many sales in the future of iPod. ~ LoudMusic</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LoudMusic, I had no idea how to send you a personal message, so I thought I'd comment here.. the following is a comment you wrote 9 years ago and has to be the funniest thing ever..by LoudMusic (199347) on Tuesday October 23 2001, @01:52PM (#2467504)Raise your hand if you have iTunes ...Raise your hand if you have a FireWire port ...Raise your hand if you have both ...Raise your hand if you have $400 to spend on a cute Apple device ...There is Apple's market.
Pretty slim, eh?
I don't see many sales in the future of iPod.~LoudMusic</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30803122</id>
	<title>What about RIM?</title>
	<author>esarjeant</author>
	<datestamp>1263736920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see Apple doing this, while I think MS might make a step in this direction the culture at Apple is typically to avoid these kinds of partnerships. The few times they have tried this, the results have been less than satisfactory.</p><p>It's more likely Microsoft will buy someone outright like RIM -- the Windows Mobile platform isn't going anywhere, so the best play is to acquire the industry leader and integrate that with the Windows operating system. There are a few technical barriers for a roadmap like this (eg: BlackBerry is a Java platform), but it will give MS the mindshare it needs to dominate the mobile space.</p><p>It remains to be seen what kind of role Google can play in the mobile device market. While Android has some compelling features, it's not nearly as polished as the Apple iPhone nor does it have the maturity of something like the BlackBerry. More importantly, Google is not yet an innovator in the mobile device market - they have copied may of the ideas that are already there and may in fact still be technologically outpaced by the next generation of Apple's iPhone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see Apple doing this , while I think MS might make a step in this direction the culture at Apple is typically to avoid these kinds of partnerships .
The few times they have tried this , the results have been less than satisfactory.It 's more likely Microsoft will buy someone outright like RIM -- the Windows Mobile platform is n't going anywhere , so the best play is to acquire the industry leader and integrate that with the Windows operating system .
There are a few technical barriers for a roadmap like this ( eg : BlackBerry is a Java platform ) , but it will give MS the mindshare it needs to dominate the mobile space.It remains to be seen what kind of role Google can play in the mobile device market .
While Android has some compelling features , it 's not nearly as polished as the Apple iPhone nor does it have the maturity of something like the BlackBerry .
More importantly , Google is not yet an innovator in the mobile device market - they have copied may of the ideas that are already there and may in fact still be technologically outpaced by the next generation of Apple 's iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see Apple doing this, while I think MS might make a step in this direction the culture at Apple is typically to avoid these kinds of partnerships.
The few times they have tried this, the results have been less than satisfactory.It's more likely Microsoft will buy someone outright like RIM -- the Windows Mobile platform isn't going anywhere, so the best play is to acquire the industry leader and integrate that with the Windows operating system.
There are a few technical barriers for a roadmap like this (eg: BlackBerry is a Java platform), but it will give MS the mindshare it needs to dominate the mobile space.It remains to be seen what kind of role Google can play in the mobile device market.
While Android has some compelling features, it's not nearly as polished as the Apple iPhone nor does it have the maturity of something like the BlackBerry.
More importantly, Google is not yet an innovator in the mobile device market - they have copied may of the ideas that are already there and may in fact still be technologically outpaced by the next generation of Apple's iPhone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30802480</id>
	<title>Re:This makes perfect sense</title>
	<author>kaffiene</author>
	<datestamp>1263731520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Geez, someone's been drinking the koolaide.</p><p>So... all that server hardware and custom infrastructure can be thrown together with a click of the fingers eh?  Apple are good at making bubblegum coloured computers.  Their meta-enterprise level engineering accomplishments are... nothing at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Geez , someone 's been drinking the koolaide.So... all that server hardware and custom infrastructure can be thrown together with a click of the fingers eh ?
Apple are good at making bubblegum coloured computers .
Their meta-enterprise level engineering accomplishments are... nothing at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Geez, someone's been drinking the koolaide.So... all that server hardware and custom infrastructure can be thrown together with a click of the fingers eh?
Apple are good at making bubblegum coloured computers.
Their meta-enterprise level engineering accomplishments are... nothing at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799906</id>
	<title>Apple and MS have worked together for years!</title>
	<author>MostAwesomeDude</author>
	<datestamp>1263756660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, not overtly, but consider Apple's market position: They make shiny white boxes that are overpriced and pander to a small segment of the market. They have a fifth of the computer market and are not trying to expand, mostly because their vertically integrated business model makes it difficult to increase manufacturing. The Mac Mini proved that they had a cap on their production, and they cannot sell their OS alone without suffering greatly in their business model.</p><p>And Microsoft's position: They hold 80\% of the market and cannot change. This isn't a problem because many large segments of customers are businesses that strongly desire an unchanging OS. MS has demonstrated a near-unbelievable commitment to binary compatibility and enterprise support, cementing its position. It hasn't been able to keep a strong grasp on the netbook and desktop market in recent years, though.</p><p>Now, where's the cooperation? Simple. Microsoft uses its deep pockets and inertia to continue to push itself as the dominant, common, utilitarian operating system, while Apple continually compares its products favorably to Microsoft's and portrays its systems as being hip, cool, modern, and fun. We've all seen the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" commercials, and they're representative of the mentality Apple tries to inspire in its commercials, being the small underdog fighting against the big man. Remember "Think Different?"</p><p>One Slashdotter has a mangled Voltaire quote in his sig about Apple and MS, but in my opinion it's backward. "If there were no Microsoft, it would be necessary for Apple to create one." However, this will never happen, because Microsoft's power to endure is ridiculous. Just like IBM wasn't destroyed in the decades prior, Microsoft can't be brought down by hordes of Apple fans, or waves of Linux supporters.</p><p>Of course, I'm really just re-analysing the premises of World Domination 201 here, but it's not like anybody here has read it, right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , not overtly , but consider Apple 's market position : They make shiny white boxes that are overpriced and pander to a small segment of the market .
They have a fifth of the computer market and are not trying to expand , mostly because their vertically integrated business model makes it difficult to increase manufacturing .
The Mac Mini proved that they had a cap on their production , and they can not sell their OS alone without suffering greatly in their business model.And Microsoft 's position : They hold 80 \ % of the market and can not change .
This is n't a problem because many large segments of customers are businesses that strongly desire an unchanging OS .
MS has demonstrated a near-unbelievable commitment to binary compatibility and enterprise support , cementing its position .
It has n't been able to keep a strong grasp on the netbook and desktop market in recent years , though.Now , where 's the cooperation ?
Simple. Microsoft uses its deep pockets and inertia to continue to push itself as the dominant , common , utilitarian operating system , while Apple continually compares its products favorably to Microsoft 's and portrays its systems as being hip , cool , modern , and fun .
We 've all seen the " I 'm a Mac , I 'm a PC " commercials , and they 're representative of the mentality Apple tries to inspire in its commercials , being the small underdog fighting against the big man .
Remember " Think Different ?
" One Slashdotter has a mangled Voltaire quote in his sig about Apple and MS , but in my opinion it 's backward .
" If there were no Microsoft , it would be necessary for Apple to create one .
" However , this will never happen , because Microsoft 's power to endure is ridiculous .
Just like IBM was n't destroyed in the decades prior , Microsoft ca n't be brought down by hordes of Apple fans , or waves of Linux supporters.Of course , I 'm really just re-analysing the premises of World Domination 201 here , but it 's not like anybody here has read it , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, not overtly, but consider Apple's market position: They make shiny white boxes that are overpriced and pander to a small segment of the market.
They have a fifth of the computer market and are not trying to expand, mostly because their vertically integrated business model makes it difficult to increase manufacturing.
The Mac Mini proved that they had a cap on their production, and they cannot sell their OS alone without suffering greatly in their business model.And Microsoft's position: They hold 80\% of the market and cannot change.
This isn't a problem because many large segments of customers are businesses that strongly desire an unchanging OS.
MS has demonstrated a near-unbelievable commitment to binary compatibility and enterprise support, cementing its position.
It hasn't been able to keep a strong grasp on the netbook and desktop market in recent years, though.Now, where's the cooperation?
Simple. Microsoft uses its deep pockets and inertia to continue to push itself as the dominant, common, utilitarian operating system, while Apple continually compares its products favorably to Microsoft's and portrays its systems as being hip, cool, modern, and fun.
We've all seen the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" commercials, and they're representative of the mentality Apple tries to inspire in its commercials, being the small underdog fighting against the big man.
Remember "Think Different?
"One Slashdotter has a mangled Voltaire quote in his sig about Apple and MS, but in my opinion it's backward.
"If there were no Microsoft, it would be necessary for Apple to create one.
" However, this will never happen, because Microsoft's power to endure is ridiculous.
Just like IBM wasn't destroyed in the decades prior, Microsoft can't be brought down by hordes of Apple fans, or waves of Linux supporters.Of course, I'm really just re-analysing the premises of World Domination 201 here, but it's not like anybody here has read it, right?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799942</id>
	<title>Apple customers are sick+tired of an M$ experience</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263756960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>...usually one of the factors that made them buy Macs, iPods and iPhones in the first place. For this reason alone it seems quite unlikely that:<blockquote><div><p>Jobs might cut a deal with&mdash;gasp!&mdash;Microsoft to make Bing Apple's engine of choice</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...usually one of the factors that made them buy Macs , iPods and iPhones in the first place .
For this reason alone it seems quite unlikely that : Jobs might cut a deal with    gasp !    Microsoft to make Bing Apple 's engine of choice</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...usually one of the factors that made them buy Macs, iPods and iPhones in the first place.
For this reason alone it seems quite unlikely that:Jobs might cut a deal with—gasp!—Microsoft to make Bing Apple's engine of choice
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30807782</id>
	<title>Re:This makes perfect sense</title>
	<author>oh\_my\_080980980</author>
	<datestamp>1263829380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>RTFA.
<br> <br>
It's about data.  When an iPhone user uses Google for a search, Google has data on that user.  If Apple switches to a different search provider, Google does not have data on that search.
<br> <br>
That's the holy grail of advertising, search data. Knowing what the user is searching for allows you to provide direct marketing, i.e. better ads that are relevant to the user.</htmltext>
<tokenext>RTFA .
It 's about data .
When an iPhone user uses Google for a search , Google has data on that user .
If Apple switches to a different search provider , Google does not have data on that search .
That 's the holy grail of advertising , search data .
Knowing what the user is searching for allows you to provide direct marketing , i.e .
better ads that are relevant to the user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RTFA.
It's about data.
When an iPhone user uses Google for a search, Google has data on that user.
If Apple switches to a different search provider, Google does not have data on that search.
That's the holy grail of advertising, search data.
Knowing what the user is searching for allows you to provide direct marketing, i.e.
better ads that are relevant to the user.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30805128</id>
	<title>Re:Google versus Everyone?</title>
	<author>JBaustian</author>
	<datestamp>1263756420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google is bigger than Apple and bigger than Microsoft. I suppose there are people who don't use Google, but not many. If there's no dedicated dialogue box on the browser window, or you can't just right-click on a word or phrase in text to do a Google search, then folks will go directly to www.google.com . They are NOT going to switch to BING or some other search engine. They might quit using Safari and switch to Firefox, however.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is bigger than Apple and bigger than Microsoft .
I suppose there are people who do n't use Google , but not many .
If there 's no dedicated dialogue box on the browser window , or you ca n't just right-click on a word or phrase in text to do a Google search , then folks will go directly to www.google.com .
They are NOT going to switch to BING or some other search engine .
They might quit using Safari and switch to Firefox , however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is bigger than Apple and bigger than Microsoft.
I suppose there are people who don't use Google, but not many.
If there's no dedicated dialogue box on the browser window, or you can't just right-click on a word or phrase in text to do a Google search, then folks will go directly to www.google.com .
They are NOT going to switch to BING or some other search engine.
They might quit using Safari and switch to Firefox, however.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30805660</id>
	<title>Re:This makes perfect sense</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1263807960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A search engine is nothing more than algorithms and marketing to get folks to use it and get the subsequent advertising revenue - the hardware and programming involved and its costs are not a factor</p></div></blockquote><p>Yeah, it's a <a href="http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/S/SMOP.html" title="catb.org" rel="nofollow">piece of cake</a> [catb.org].  I wrote one in basic on a zx81 - using my <i>feet</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A search engine is nothing more than algorithms and marketing to get folks to use it and get the subsequent advertising revenue - the hardware and programming involved and its costs are not a factorYeah , it 's a piece of cake [ catb.org ] .
I wrote one in basic on a zx81 - using my feet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A search engine is nothing more than algorithms and marketing to get folks to use it and get the subsequent advertising revenue - the hardware and programming involved and its costs are not a factorYeah, it's a piece of cake [catb.org].
I wrote one in basic on a zx81 - using my feet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30801010</id>
	<title>Apple collateral damage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263721740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://backofthebook.ca/2010/01/03/end-times-for-the-iphone/" title="backofthebook.ca">The real battle is between Google and Microsoft</a> [backofthebook.ca].  Google's OS/hardware initiatives may incidentally have negative effects for Apple iPhone and Linux on netbooks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real battle is between Google and Microsoft [ backofthebook.ca ] .
Google 's OS/hardware initiatives may incidentally have negative effects for Apple iPhone and Linux on netbooks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real battle is between Google and Microsoft [backofthebook.ca].
Google's OS/hardware initiatives may incidentally have negative effects for Apple iPhone and Linux on netbooks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799630</id>
	<title>Re:This makes perfect sense</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1263754620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think it makes sense, and I say this for a variety of types of reasons.  First, Jobs seems like the sort of guy who holds a grudge, and he seems to not like Microsoft.  That's just my read on the situation, but I wouldn't guess that he'd be eager to jump into bed with Microsoft without a strong reason.
</p><p>Second, it doesn't make sense to jump to Bing just because Google releases a phone.  It only makes sense if Bing is better than Google.  If you think about it, as long as the iPhone and Google phones are using the same maps, searches, etc., then it can't be counted as an advantage for Google.  People can't say, "Well I want to buy an Android phone because they use Google for their search engine.  The iPhone uses [whatever], and I don't like it as much."  So if Apple were to switch to something else, it really needs to be better.  Not just arguably better or "some people think it's a little better," but decisively better in a way that Apple can count it as an advantage.  I know Microsoft is offering payoffs for anyone who switches to Bing (not criticizing here, Google also pays for placement), but Apple tends to focus on customer experience as the most important thing, and I can't see Jobs opting for a substandard solution even if it came with a big cash bonus.  Apple doesn't need the cash.  And so far, I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe that Bing is decisively superior to Google.
</p><p>Third, Apple makes a lot of hay from making Microsoft the butt of jokes.  Whenever Microsoft screws up or fails at anything, it helps reinforce their image as bumbling idiots, which in turn helps reinforce Apple's image as slick/cool geniuses.  Every partnership they have with Microsoft serves to undercut that, and announcing that Apple is actively switching to a Microsoft product because of its superiority would be dangerous to Apple's image.
</p><p>I'm sure that Apple's relationship is uneasy, but I doubt it has turned to decisively to outright war that Apple would shoot itself in the foot to hurt Google.  If I had to make a prediction, it would be that you'd see the introduction of Apple-branded alternatives without cutting out Google's products.  Look at how they've dealt with Microsoft Office as an example (introducing iWork and supporting Exchange with Mail/iCal/Address book while still relying on MSOffice).  I wouldn't doubt Apple's ability to create a search engine.  I would sooner question whether they wanted to send people all over the country developing the maps for a Google Maps competitor, and whether they're actually interested in being as involved in advertising as Google is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think it makes sense , and I say this for a variety of types of reasons .
First , Jobs seems like the sort of guy who holds a grudge , and he seems to not like Microsoft .
That 's just my read on the situation , but I would n't guess that he 'd be eager to jump into bed with Microsoft without a strong reason .
Second , it does n't make sense to jump to Bing just because Google releases a phone .
It only makes sense if Bing is better than Google .
If you think about it , as long as the iPhone and Google phones are using the same maps , searches , etc. , then it ca n't be counted as an advantage for Google .
People ca n't say , " Well I want to buy an Android phone because they use Google for their search engine .
The iPhone uses [ whatever ] , and I do n't like it as much .
" So if Apple were to switch to something else , it really needs to be better .
Not just arguably better or " some people think it 's a little better , " but decisively better in a way that Apple can count it as an advantage .
I know Microsoft is offering payoffs for anyone who switches to Bing ( not criticizing here , Google also pays for placement ) , but Apple tends to focus on customer experience as the most important thing , and I ca n't see Jobs opting for a substandard solution even if it came with a big cash bonus .
Apple does n't need the cash .
And so far , I have n't seen anything that leads me to believe that Bing is decisively superior to Google .
Third , Apple makes a lot of hay from making Microsoft the butt of jokes .
Whenever Microsoft screws up or fails at anything , it helps reinforce their image as bumbling idiots , which in turn helps reinforce Apple 's image as slick/cool geniuses .
Every partnership they have with Microsoft serves to undercut that , and announcing that Apple is actively switching to a Microsoft product because of its superiority would be dangerous to Apple 's image .
I 'm sure that Apple 's relationship is uneasy , but I doubt it has turned to decisively to outright war that Apple would shoot itself in the foot to hurt Google .
If I had to make a prediction , it would be that you 'd see the introduction of Apple-branded alternatives without cutting out Google 's products .
Look at how they 've dealt with Microsoft Office as an example ( introducing iWork and supporting Exchange with Mail/iCal/Address book while still relying on MSOffice ) .
I would n't doubt Apple 's ability to create a search engine .
I would sooner question whether they wanted to send people all over the country developing the maps for a Google Maps competitor , and whether they 're actually interested in being as involved in advertising as Google is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think it makes sense, and I say this for a variety of types of reasons.
First, Jobs seems like the sort of guy who holds a grudge, and he seems to not like Microsoft.
That's just my read on the situation, but I wouldn't guess that he'd be eager to jump into bed with Microsoft without a strong reason.
Second, it doesn't make sense to jump to Bing just because Google releases a phone.
It only makes sense if Bing is better than Google.
If you think about it, as long as the iPhone and Google phones are using the same maps, searches, etc., then it can't be counted as an advantage for Google.
People can't say, "Well I want to buy an Android phone because they use Google for their search engine.
The iPhone uses [whatever], and I don't like it as much.
"  So if Apple were to switch to something else, it really needs to be better.
Not just arguably better or "some people think it's a little better," but decisively better in a way that Apple can count it as an advantage.
I know Microsoft is offering payoffs for anyone who switches to Bing (not criticizing here, Google also pays for placement), but Apple tends to focus on customer experience as the most important thing, and I can't see Jobs opting for a substandard solution even if it came with a big cash bonus.
Apple doesn't need the cash.
And so far, I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe that Bing is decisively superior to Google.
Third, Apple makes a lot of hay from making Microsoft the butt of jokes.
Whenever Microsoft screws up or fails at anything, it helps reinforce their image as bumbling idiots, which in turn helps reinforce Apple's image as slick/cool geniuses.
Every partnership they have with Microsoft serves to undercut that, and announcing that Apple is actively switching to a Microsoft product because of its superiority would be dangerous to Apple's image.
I'm sure that Apple's relationship is uneasy, but I doubt it has turned to decisively to outright war that Apple would shoot itself in the foot to hurt Google.
If I had to make a prediction, it would be that you'd see the introduction of Apple-branded alternatives without cutting out Google's products.
Look at how they've dealt with Microsoft Office as an example (introducing iWork and supporting Exchange with Mail/iCal/Address book while still relying on MSOffice).
I wouldn't doubt Apple's ability to create a search engine.
I would sooner question whether they wanted to send people all over the country developing the maps for a Google Maps competitor, and whether they're actually interested in being as involved in advertising as Google is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800544</id>
	<title>Maybe a movie?</title>
	<author>ElusiveJoe</author>
	<datestamp>1263718920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Separated by a mere 10 miles in Silicon Valley, the two have been on famously good terms for almost a decade. Now the companies have entered a new, more adversarial phase. With Nexus One, Google, which had been content to power multiple phonemakers' devices with Android, enters the hardware game, becoming a direct threat to the iPhone.</p> </div><p>Sounds like an opening line for a movie trailer. "Blood &amp; Silicon. In theatres, march 2010"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Separated by a mere 10 miles in Silicon Valley , the two have been on famously good terms for almost a decade .
Now the companies have entered a new , more adversarial phase .
With Nexus One , Google , which had been content to power multiple phonemakers ' devices with Android , enters the hardware game , becoming a direct threat to the iPhone .
Sounds like an opening line for a movie trailer .
" Blood &amp; Silicon .
In theatres , march 2010 "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Separated by a mere 10 miles in Silicon Valley, the two have been on famously good terms for almost a decade.
Now the companies have entered a new, more adversarial phase.
With Nexus One, Google, which had been content to power multiple phonemakers' devices with Android, enters the hardware game, becoming a direct threat to the iPhone.
Sounds like an opening line for a movie trailer.
"Blood &amp; Silicon.
In theatres, march 2010"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800376</id>
	<title>Re:i don't believe this for a second</title>
	<author>mr\_lizard13</author>
	<datestamp>1263760560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This conspiracy theory is half baked. Google's core business is search. </p></div><p>
Google's core business is advertising.  They make their money by targeting advertising, and a search engine gives them a place to put those ads.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This conspiracy theory is half baked .
Google 's core business is search .
Google 's core business is advertising .
They make their money by targeting advertising , and a search engine gives them a place to put those ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This conspiracy theory is half baked.
Google's core business is search.
Google's core business is advertising.
They make their money by targeting advertising, and a search engine gives them a place to put those ads.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799444</id>
	<title>i don't believe this for a second</title>
	<author>dirtyhippie</author>
	<datestamp>1263753120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This conspiracy theory is half baked. Google's core business is search. And based on what we've seen from the Nexus One so far, apple has nothing to fear whatsoever from google in the mobile phone market. The Nexus One hardware is nice, but the software is crap. It's not even remotely a threat to apple's iPhone market. And don't forget that apple sells computers and mp3 players too. This is not enough for apple to ally with Microsoft. They tried that once before, and they got IE for mac out of it. They've learned from that mistake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This conspiracy theory is half baked .
Google 's core business is search .
And based on what we 've seen from the Nexus One so far , apple has nothing to fear whatsoever from google in the mobile phone market .
The Nexus One hardware is nice , but the software is crap .
It 's not even remotely a threat to apple 's iPhone market .
And do n't forget that apple sells computers and mp3 players too .
This is not enough for apple to ally with Microsoft .
They tried that once before , and they got IE for mac out of it .
They 've learned from that mistake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This conspiracy theory is half baked.
Google's core business is search.
And based on what we've seen from the Nexus One so far, apple has nothing to fear whatsoever from google in the mobile phone market.
The Nexus One hardware is nice, but the software is crap.
It's not even remotely a threat to apple's iPhone market.
And don't forget that apple sells computers and mp3 players too.
This is not enough for apple to ally with Microsoft.
They tried that once before, and they got IE for mac out of it.
They've learned from that mistake.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800202</id>
	<title>Switching to Bing would cost too many customers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263758880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A good chunk of the iPhone market share stems from customers that are fed up with Windows Mobile and similar crap. I doubt that those would be too happy to be driven back into the hell hole they've just escaped.</p><p>Jobs is clever enough not to risk that. He might be tempted but he's not an idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A good chunk of the iPhone market share stems from customers that are fed up with Windows Mobile and similar crap .
I doubt that those would be too happy to be driven back into the hell hole they 've just escaped.Jobs is clever enough not to risk that .
He might be tempted but he 's not an idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A good chunk of the iPhone market share stems from customers that are fed up with Windows Mobile and similar crap.
I doubt that those would be too happy to be driven back into the hell hole they've just escaped.Jobs is clever enough not to risk that.
He might be tempted but he's not an idiot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800006</id>
	<title>Or maybe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263757380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or maybe Apple could just belly up and die.  And so could Microsoft.  There is no reason at all that the future must be a dystopian nightmare.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or maybe Apple could just belly up and die .
And so could Microsoft .
There is no reason at all that the future must be a dystopian nightmare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or maybe Apple could just belly up and die.
And so could Microsoft.
There is no reason at all that the future must be a dystopian nightmare.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800166</id>
	<title>Allegiance or alliance?</title>
	<author>dido</author>
	<datestamp>1263758640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Apple were in allegiance with Microsoft, we'd have Apple becoming subservient to Microsoft.  I think the word here should be alliance, as allies are partners working together, and generally should treat each other as equals.  However, given Microsoft's history of treating its "allies", the word 'allegiance' may well become more apt as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Apple were in allegiance with Microsoft , we 'd have Apple becoming subservient to Microsoft .
I think the word here should be alliance , as allies are partners working together , and generally should treat each other as equals .
However , given Microsoft 's history of treating its " allies " , the word 'allegiance ' may well become more apt as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Apple were in allegiance with Microsoft, we'd have Apple becoming subservient to Microsoft.
I think the word here should be alliance, as allies are partners working together, and generally should treat each other as equals.
However, given Microsoft's history of treating its "allies", the word 'allegiance' may well become more apt as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30805130</id>
	<title>Re:This makes perfect sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263756420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow you are one hell of an Apple fanboy. Seriously? I'm typing this from my 27" iMac, next to my Macbook Air and Macbook Pro, and I think your Mac faggotry is so ignorant its laughable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow you are one hell of an Apple fanboy .
Seriously ? I 'm typing this from my 27 " iMac , next to my Macbook Air and Macbook Pro , and I think your Mac faggotry is so ignorant its laughable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow you are one hell of an Apple fanboy.
Seriously? I'm typing this from my 27" iMac, next to my Macbook Air and Macbook Pro, and I think your Mac faggotry is so ignorant its laughable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30802614</id>
	<title>I'm sure Steve Jobs is quaking in his boots</title>
	<author>Scareduck</author>
	<datestamp>1263732780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2010/01/13/nexus-one-sells-20000-units-in-first-week/" title="boygeniusreport.com">what with the 20,000 units the Nexus One sold in the first week</a> [boygeniusreport.com].
<p>
What's that? The iPhone 3GS moved <i>1.6 million phones</i> during its first week of sales?
</p><p>
Oh. Never mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what with the 20,000 units the Nexus One sold in the first week [ boygeniusreport.com ] .
What 's that ?
The iPhone 3GS moved 1.6 million phones during its first week of sales ?
Oh. Never mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what with the 20,000 units the Nexus One sold in the first week [boygeniusreport.com].
What's that?
The iPhone 3GS moved 1.6 million phones during its first week of sales?
Oh. Never mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799556</id>
	<title>Google versus Everyone?</title>
	<author>jaypifer</author>
	<datestamp>1263753960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google cannot keep fighting Microsoft/Apple/US DOJ/China/Evil at once and win.  They are going to have to find allies at some point or go bankrupt.
<br> <br>
And what is it with people loving to predict the demise of the iPhone?  Years ago it was the iPod killer and the only company that was able to kill the iPod was Apple.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google can not keep fighting Microsoft/Apple/US DOJ/China/Evil at once and win .
They are going to have to find allies at some point or go bankrupt .
And what is it with people loving to predict the demise of the iPhone ?
Years ago it was the iPod killer and the only company that was able to kill the iPod was Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google cannot keep fighting Microsoft/Apple/US DOJ/China/Evil at once and win.
They are going to have to find allies at some point or go bankrupt.
And what is it with people loving to predict the demise of the iPhone?
Years ago it was the iPod killer and the only company that was able to kill the iPod was Apple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800796</id>
	<title>I've got to agree</title>
	<author>NotSoHeavyD3</author>
	<datestamp>1263720300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean if I was Apple I'd be worried about MS taking the Zune HD platform and turning that into a MS phone. (After flooding it with apps which is something MS would do.) I admit the Zune brand isn't the best right now but really a quick brand re-name to something like M-Phone would do the trick. (I mean look at Vista Mark II. Oh I'm sorry, it's called Windows 7 and people don't seem to have a problem that they would have if it was called Vista SP3</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean if I was Apple I 'd be worried about MS taking the Zune HD platform and turning that into a MS phone .
( After flooding it with apps which is something MS would do .
) I admit the Zune brand is n't the best right now but really a quick brand re-name to something like M-Phone would do the trick .
( I mean look at Vista Mark II .
Oh I 'm sorry , it 's called Windows 7 and people do n't seem to have a problem that they would have if it was called Vista SP3</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean if I was Apple I'd be worried about MS taking the Zune HD platform and turning that into a MS phone.
(After flooding it with apps which is something MS would do.
) I admit the Zune brand isn't the best right now but really a quick brand re-name to something like M-Phone would do the trick.
(I mean look at Vista Mark II.
Oh I'm sorry, it's called Windows 7 and people don't seem to have a problem that they would have if it was called Vista SP3</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800310</id>
	<title>Apple would never do that</title>
	<author>EmotionToilet</author>
	<datestamp>1263759960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's quite apparent that Apple would not want to partner with MS. Mostly because they have 30 BIllion $ in the bank and they probably feel they can design a better user experience than any of their competitors. For example Apple <a href="http://blogs.computerworld.com/14835/apple\_purchased\_mapping\_company\_in\_july\_to\_replace\_google" title="computerworld.com" rel="nofollow">already purchased a maps company called Placebase</a> [computerworld.com] and now they're getting into advertising to make it easy for developers to make money off of free apps (also helps Apple make money off of free apps). Another reason is that Apple hates the way MS does business. They hate their products and they hate their design. Bing is terribly designed from a visual standpoint. Google is already the standard and Apple isn't going to get into the search engine territory any time soon (that I know of) so it would make sense for them to continue using Google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's quite apparent that Apple would not want to partner with MS. Mostly because they have 30 BIllion $ in the bank and they probably feel they can design a better user experience than any of their competitors .
For example Apple already purchased a maps company called Placebase [ computerworld.com ] and now they 're getting into advertising to make it easy for developers to make money off of free apps ( also helps Apple make money off of free apps ) .
Another reason is that Apple hates the way MS does business .
They hate their products and they hate their design .
Bing is terribly designed from a visual standpoint .
Google is already the standard and Apple is n't going to get into the search engine territory any time soon ( that I know of ) so it would make sense for them to continue using Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's quite apparent that Apple would not want to partner with MS. Mostly because they have 30 BIllion $ in the bank and they probably feel they can design a better user experience than any of their competitors.
For example Apple already purchased a maps company called Placebase [computerworld.com] and now they're getting into advertising to make it easy for developers to make money off of free apps (also helps Apple make money off of free apps).
Another reason is that Apple hates the way MS does business.
They hate their products and they hate their design.
Bing is terribly designed from a visual standpoint.
Google is already the standard and Apple isn't going to get into the search engine territory any time soon (that I know of) so it would make sense for them to continue using Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799532</id>
	<title>Bing? Really?</title>
	<author>Spazed</author>
	<datestamp>1263753840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think Apple would make Bing the default search engine for any of its products. At the very most Apple would allow users to change their search engine. Think about it, this move would gain Apple nothing. Mobile phone searches don't happen enough for Google to worry about the lost ad revenue and Safari's market share is still pretty low on the desktop, so it wouldn't be a huge hit there either.
<br> <br>
The only thing this would do is make users angry, Apple won't switch to Bing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think Apple would make Bing the default search engine for any of its products .
At the very most Apple would allow users to change their search engine .
Think about it , this move would gain Apple nothing .
Mobile phone searches do n't happen enough for Google to worry about the lost ad revenue and Safari 's market share is still pretty low on the desktop , so it would n't be a huge hit there either .
The only thing this would do is make users angry , Apple wo n't switch to Bing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think Apple would make Bing the default search engine for any of its products.
At the very most Apple would allow users to change their search engine.
Think about it, this move would gain Apple nothing.
Mobile phone searches don't happen enough for Google to worry about the lost ad revenue and Safari's market share is still pretty low on the desktop, so it wouldn't be a huge hit there either.
The only thing this would do is make users angry, Apple won't switch to Bing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30810414</id>
	<title>Re:What nonsense</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1263842220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Business is War" - Jack Tramiel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Business is War " - Jack Tramiel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Business is War" - Jack Tramiel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800436</id>
	<title>Live Mesh</title>
	<author>thpdg</author>
	<datestamp>1263761280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps this will lead to a Live Mesh client for iPhone. It would be nice to sync files to the device over-the-air through a tool I already use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps this will lead to a Live Mesh client for iPhone .
It would be nice to sync files to the device over-the-air through a tool I already use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps this will lead to a Live Mesh client for iPhone.
It would be nice to sync files to the device over-the-air through a tool I already use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800594</id>
	<title>I don't buy it</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1263719160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just can't see Apple and Microsoft working closely together - it'd be too much like one of those PBS Elizabethan dramas. Intrigue, shifting alliances, betrayal, maybe a little murder...</p><p>But however this plays out, I think we stand to benefit. Competition is almost always good. The rise of Apple is good, even for fans of Microsoft's products; and the rise of Google is good for fans of Apple's products. And for those who aren't fans of any of these companies, competition helps keep one player from accumulating too much power (or, with regards to the past, helps shift power away from the behemoths that've held it).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just ca n't see Apple and Microsoft working closely together - it 'd be too much like one of those PBS Elizabethan dramas .
Intrigue , shifting alliances , betrayal , maybe a little murder...But however this plays out , I think we stand to benefit .
Competition is almost always good .
The rise of Apple is good , even for fans of Microsoft 's products ; and the rise of Google is good for fans of Apple 's products .
And for those who are n't fans of any of these companies , competition helps keep one player from accumulating too much power ( or , with regards to the past , helps shift power away from the behemoths that 've held it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just can't see Apple and Microsoft working closely together - it'd be too much like one of those PBS Elizabethan dramas.
Intrigue, shifting alliances, betrayal, maybe a little murder...But however this plays out, I think we stand to benefit.
Competition is almost always good.
The rise of Apple is good, even for fans of Microsoft's products; and the rise of Google is good for fans of Apple's products.
And for those who aren't fans of any of these companies, competition helps keep one player from accumulating too much power (or, with regards to the past, helps shift power away from the behemoths that've held it).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30801540</id>
	<title>Don't Belive the hype</title>
	<author>tuppe666</author>
	<datestamp>1263725280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having got a nexus one, and owned an apple Iphone I have to say you need to take a second look at the google apps. Having the ability to navigate using streetview; identify items by phone; make VOIP calls. Where Google wins is the cloud and Apple need to catch up, as for playing bought tunes apple wins, but for streaming them they have to catch up. Maybe if Apple hadn't rejected some of these apps Apple iPhone would have better software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having got a nexus one , and owned an apple Iphone I have to say you need to take a second look at the google apps .
Having the ability to navigate using streetview ; identify items by phone ; make VOIP calls .
Where Google wins is the cloud and Apple need to catch up , as for playing bought tunes apple wins , but for streaming them they have to catch up .
Maybe if Apple had n't rejected some of these apps Apple iPhone would have better software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having got a nexus one, and owned an apple Iphone I have to say you need to take a second look at the google apps.
Having the ability to navigate using streetview; identify items by phone; make VOIP calls.
Where Google wins is the cloud and Apple need to catch up, as for playing bought tunes apple wins, but for streaming them they have to catch up.
Maybe if Apple hadn't rejected some of these apps Apple iPhone would have better software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30802544</id>
	<title>Re:MicroApple ? must be desperate...</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1263732120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Apple must be desperate if this is considered, maybe they thought to be "invincible" and they got Nokia upset, now they have Google gnawing at the heel and this is another one.</i></p><p>You realise that Apple is not considering that at all, as far as anyone knows. That this is all made up by some blogger. But don't that stop you from making declarations about Apple.</p><p>If Apple did this, then they would be stupid, as you say. Microsoft is always the far bigger enemy, and one that has proven time and time again not to be trusted. If Apple did start pulling any data from Bing, you can bet ever ad would be for Windows Mobile 7. Apple are not that stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple must be desperate if this is considered , maybe they thought to be " invincible " and they got Nokia upset , now they have Google gnawing at the heel and this is another one.You realise that Apple is not considering that at all , as far as anyone knows .
That this is all made up by some blogger .
But do n't that stop you from making declarations about Apple.If Apple did this , then they would be stupid , as you say .
Microsoft is always the far bigger enemy , and one that has proven time and time again not to be trusted .
If Apple did start pulling any data from Bing , you can bet ever ad would be for Windows Mobile 7 .
Apple are not that stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple must be desperate if this is considered, maybe they thought to be "invincible" and they got Nokia upset, now they have Google gnawing at the heel and this is another one.You realise that Apple is not considering that at all, as far as anyone knows.
That this is all made up by some blogger.
But don't that stop you from making declarations about Apple.If Apple did this, then they would be stupid, as you say.
Microsoft is always the far bigger enemy, and one that has proven time and time again not to be trusted.
If Apple did start pulling any data from Bing, you can bet ever ad would be for Windows Mobile 7.
Apple are not that stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30809226</id>
	<title>Apple is partly owned by Microsoft</title>
	<author>darkeye</author>
	<datestamp>1263836820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>one should not forget that Apple is partly owned by Microsoft - the 'sales and image war' they have between themselves is quite superficial</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>one should not forget that Apple is partly owned by Microsoft - the 'sales and image war ' they have between themselves is quite superficial</tokentext>
<sentencetext>one should not forget that Apple is partly owned by Microsoft - the 'sales and image war' they have between themselves is quite superficial</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799512</id>
	<title>Re:This makes perfect sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263753660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...they are not large enough to build their own search engine, advertising platform, and back end services to run them.</p></div><p>Sure they are. They can do it easily. As a matter of fact, I think Apple's brand is so strong, if they created their own search engine, they'd crush Google and Bing.</p><p>A search engine is nothing more than algorithms and marketing to get folks to use it and get the subsequent advertising revenue - the hardware and programming involved and its costs are not a factor. Actually, having a search engine driven by Macs would be a hell of a marketing gimmick.</p><p>As far as talent in regards to the search algorithms, that's wouldn't be hard to get at all. Don't forget, Google, Excite, and other search engines started on one guy's computer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...they are not large enough to build their own search engine , advertising platform , and back end services to run them.Sure they are .
They can do it easily .
As a matter of fact , I think Apple 's brand is so strong , if they created their own search engine , they 'd crush Google and Bing.A search engine is nothing more than algorithms and marketing to get folks to use it and get the subsequent advertising revenue - the hardware and programming involved and its costs are not a factor .
Actually , having a search engine driven by Macs would be a hell of a marketing gimmick.As far as talent in regards to the search algorithms , that 's would n't be hard to get at all .
Do n't forget , Google , Excite , and other search engines started on one guy 's computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...they are not large enough to build their own search engine, advertising platform, and back end services to run them.Sure they are.
They can do it easily.
As a matter of fact, I think Apple's brand is so strong, if they created their own search engine, they'd crush Google and Bing.A search engine is nothing more than algorithms and marketing to get folks to use it and get the subsequent advertising revenue - the hardware and programming involved and its costs are not a factor.
Actually, having a search engine driven by Macs would be a hell of a marketing gimmick.As far as talent in regards to the search algorithms, that's wouldn't be hard to get at all.
Don't forget, Google, Excite, and other search engines started on one guy's computer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800248</id>
	<title>Doubtful.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263759300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This story sounds like fluff intended to stir the pot. I'm sure people at Apple are keeping their eye on Google and certainly they must realize that your average consumer can only remain loyal so long before they start craving something new and different. However, to suggest that they'll somehow be driven to work with Microsoft simply because of a threat from Google seems ridiculous at best.</p><p>Apple is a hardware maker, first and foremost, while both Google and Microsoft are software companies. And Apple has the advantage over the other two that they do also very good resources on the software side. This ensures that in this market Apple will always have the advantage because of far superior integration. Software and hardware is developed concurrently under a unified visions. The other guys basically develop the software then find a vendor to provide a phone that meets certain requirements. And because both Microsoft and Google provide their OSs for a variety of phones it inherently means their systems are compromised. It's far more difficult to provide a unified, closely maintained platform and an integrated app store. And Apple has managed to keep very tight control over their phone despite offering it on AT&amp;T. Most other smartphones are crippled by the garbage service providers dump on there, and I'm not sure the hardware makers have the luxury of making demands.</p><p>For Microsoft, and presumably Google once their OS becomes more widespread we are going to see the same kinds of issues with PCs. Apple again wins with integration. The others have to make do with whatever the hardware makers decide to include with the OS.</p><p>As for the search engines, those are pretty much irrelevant. Google and Bing are pretty much the only top tier search engines out there. From my experience they produce results of comparable quality. What matters, however is advertising and web apps especially for businesses. One of the big reasons we use Google at my company is because the analytics and extensive marketing resources, and obviously, because it's currently got the biggest market share. I think Microsoft is at a disadvantage here mainly because they're still a more traditional software developer although they obviously have the resources and the experience. In this market Apple is really a non-entity. They've got great OSs and perhaps an app or two that stand out and that's it. I routinely use their iWork suite and am not impressed by it at all. It's no more intuitive than Office and is generally less powerful. Office is still the better suite.</p><p>I think ultimately the question is, is Apple looking to compete directly with Google and MS. I realize that the pundits are always clamoring for this sort of direct competition with anything that's even remotely similar but at this point I don't yet see it. It would be a very different focus for Apple. I do think if they were going to take this route it would make sense that they acquired a smaller search engine company and then work on it internally. Partnerships don't always turn out well for Apple and they don't really sync well with the company's focus on integration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This story sounds like fluff intended to stir the pot .
I 'm sure people at Apple are keeping their eye on Google and certainly they must realize that your average consumer can only remain loyal so long before they start craving something new and different .
However , to suggest that they 'll somehow be driven to work with Microsoft simply because of a threat from Google seems ridiculous at best.Apple is a hardware maker , first and foremost , while both Google and Microsoft are software companies .
And Apple has the advantage over the other two that they do also very good resources on the software side .
This ensures that in this market Apple will always have the advantage because of far superior integration .
Software and hardware is developed concurrently under a unified visions .
The other guys basically develop the software then find a vendor to provide a phone that meets certain requirements .
And because both Microsoft and Google provide their OSs for a variety of phones it inherently means their systems are compromised .
It 's far more difficult to provide a unified , closely maintained platform and an integrated app store .
And Apple has managed to keep very tight control over their phone despite offering it on AT&amp;T .
Most other smartphones are crippled by the garbage service providers dump on there , and I 'm not sure the hardware makers have the luxury of making demands.For Microsoft , and presumably Google once their OS becomes more widespread we are going to see the same kinds of issues with PCs .
Apple again wins with integration .
The others have to make do with whatever the hardware makers decide to include with the OS.As for the search engines , those are pretty much irrelevant .
Google and Bing are pretty much the only top tier search engines out there .
From my experience they produce results of comparable quality .
What matters , however is advertising and web apps especially for businesses .
One of the big reasons we use Google at my company is because the analytics and extensive marketing resources , and obviously , because it 's currently got the biggest market share .
I think Microsoft is at a disadvantage here mainly because they 're still a more traditional software developer although they obviously have the resources and the experience .
In this market Apple is really a non-entity .
They 've got great OSs and perhaps an app or two that stand out and that 's it .
I routinely use their iWork suite and am not impressed by it at all .
It 's no more intuitive than Office and is generally less powerful .
Office is still the better suite.I think ultimately the question is , is Apple looking to compete directly with Google and MS. I realize that the pundits are always clamoring for this sort of direct competition with anything that 's even remotely similar but at this point I do n't yet see it .
It would be a very different focus for Apple .
I do think if they were going to take this route it would make sense that they acquired a smaller search engine company and then work on it internally .
Partnerships do n't always turn out well for Apple and they do n't really sync well with the company 's focus on integration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This story sounds like fluff intended to stir the pot.
I'm sure people at Apple are keeping their eye on Google and certainly they must realize that your average consumer can only remain loyal so long before they start craving something new and different.
However, to suggest that they'll somehow be driven to work with Microsoft simply because of a threat from Google seems ridiculous at best.Apple is a hardware maker, first and foremost, while both Google and Microsoft are software companies.
And Apple has the advantage over the other two that they do also very good resources on the software side.
This ensures that in this market Apple will always have the advantage because of far superior integration.
Software and hardware is developed concurrently under a unified visions.
The other guys basically develop the software then find a vendor to provide a phone that meets certain requirements.
And because both Microsoft and Google provide their OSs for a variety of phones it inherently means their systems are compromised.
It's far more difficult to provide a unified, closely maintained platform and an integrated app store.
And Apple has managed to keep very tight control over their phone despite offering it on AT&amp;T.
Most other smartphones are crippled by the garbage service providers dump on there, and I'm not sure the hardware makers have the luxury of making demands.For Microsoft, and presumably Google once their OS becomes more widespread we are going to see the same kinds of issues with PCs.
Apple again wins with integration.
The others have to make do with whatever the hardware makers decide to include with the OS.As for the search engines, those are pretty much irrelevant.
Google and Bing are pretty much the only top tier search engines out there.
From my experience they produce results of comparable quality.
What matters, however is advertising and web apps especially for businesses.
One of the big reasons we use Google at my company is because the analytics and extensive marketing resources, and obviously, because it's currently got the biggest market share.
I think Microsoft is at a disadvantage here mainly because they're still a more traditional software developer although they obviously have the resources and the experience.
In this market Apple is really a non-entity.
They've got great OSs and perhaps an app or two that stand out and that's it.
I routinely use their iWork suite and am not impressed by it at all.
It's no more intuitive than Office and is generally less powerful.
Office is still the better suite.I think ultimately the question is, is Apple looking to compete directly with Google and MS. I realize that the pundits are always clamoring for this sort of direct competition with anything that's even remotely similar but at this point I don't yet see it.
It would be a very different focus for Apple.
I do think if they were going to take this route it would make sense that they acquired a smaller search engine company and then work on it internally.
Partnerships don't always turn out well for Apple and they don't really sync well with the company's focus on integration.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30804376</id>
	<title>Because it's shiny and trendy</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1263748140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is a slick looking piece of hardware with the highest resolution screen out there. As such it is attracting a lot of attention from the "Oooo shiny!" crowd. Well, that would be the crowd that is the iPhone's big market. It's quick success was not due to offering some amazing feature other smart phones don't, it was due to it being trendy and cool. Apple is exceedingly good at selling cool. That's what they did with the iPod. It wasn't the first MP3 player, wasn't the cheapest, wasn't the smallest, etc, etc. What it was is the first one that became a fashion accessory. People bought iPods because they were fashionable music players, not because they were music players.</p><p>Well, as people in the clothing fashion industry will tell you, fashion is extremely fickle. Trends can set in and stay a long time, or they can come and go quickly. As such a phone that has the same trendy appeal is one that is a direct threat to Apple's main market. If it becomes the "in" thing, Apple could lose a lot of their main market in a hurry.</p><p>Also note that the Nexus is something everyone is being made aware of. The reason is that Google controls a massive amount of online ads these days and they are pushing it through that. I see that damn thing all over the place.</p><p>So while I don't think Google will take over the mobile market, I don't think any company will ever do that there'll always be competition, I do think they pose a threat to the iPhone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a slick looking piece of hardware with the highest resolution screen out there .
As such it is attracting a lot of attention from the " Oooo shiny !
" crowd .
Well , that would be the crowd that is the iPhone 's big market .
It 's quick success was not due to offering some amazing feature other smart phones do n't , it was due to it being trendy and cool .
Apple is exceedingly good at selling cool .
That 's what they did with the iPod .
It was n't the first MP3 player , was n't the cheapest , was n't the smallest , etc , etc .
What it was is the first one that became a fashion accessory .
People bought iPods because they were fashionable music players , not because they were music players.Well , as people in the clothing fashion industry will tell you , fashion is extremely fickle .
Trends can set in and stay a long time , or they can come and go quickly .
As such a phone that has the same trendy appeal is one that is a direct threat to Apple 's main market .
If it becomes the " in " thing , Apple could lose a lot of their main market in a hurry.Also note that the Nexus is something everyone is being made aware of .
The reason is that Google controls a massive amount of online ads these days and they are pushing it through that .
I see that damn thing all over the place.So while I do n't think Google will take over the mobile market , I do n't think any company will ever do that there 'll always be competition , I do think they pose a threat to the iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a slick looking piece of hardware with the highest resolution screen out there.
As such it is attracting a lot of attention from the "Oooo shiny!
" crowd.
Well, that would be the crowd that is the iPhone's big market.
It's quick success was not due to offering some amazing feature other smart phones don't, it was due to it being trendy and cool.
Apple is exceedingly good at selling cool.
That's what they did with the iPod.
It wasn't the first MP3 player, wasn't the cheapest, wasn't the smallest, etc, etc.
What it was is the first one that became a fashion accessory.
People bought iPods because they were fashionable music players, not because they were music players.Well, as people in the clothing fashion industry will tell you, fashion is extremely fickle.
Trends can set in and stay a long time, or they can come and go quickly.
As such a phone that has the same trendy appeal is one that is a direct threat to Apple's main market.
If it becomes the "in" thing, Apple could lose a lot of their main market in a hurry.Also note that the Nexus is something everyone is being made aware of.
The reason is that Google controls a massive amount of online ads these days and they are pushing it through that.
I see that damn thing all over the place.So while I don't think Google will take over the mobile market, I don't think any company will ever do that there'll always be competition, I do think they pose a threat to the iPhone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799798</id>
	<title>Changing the default iphone search back to Google</title>
	<author>deft</author>
	<datestamp>1263756000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Changing the default iphone search back to Google..</p><p>There sure will be an app for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Changing the default iphone search back to Google..There sure will be an app for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Changing the default iphone search back to Google..There sure will be an app for that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799564</id>
	<title>Another solution for Apple</title>
	<author>RoscBottle</author>
	<datestamp>1263754020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>To avoid Microsoft Apple could buy whatever is left of AltaVista. And then we'll have Apple Vista. No, wait...</htmltext>
<tokenext>To avoid Microsoft Apple could buy whatever is left of AltaVista .
And then we 'll have Apple Vista .
No , wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To avoid Microsoft Apple could buy whatever is left of AltaVista.
And then we'll have Apple Vista.
No, wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30801944</id>
	<title>Re:Buy, not build</title>
	<author>alvinrod</author>
	<datestamp>1263727740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sometimes companies purchase another smaller company just to keep it out of the hands of the competition.
<br> <br>
From what I've heard, Apple was in talks with AdMob before Google purchased them. I also heard a rumor that Apple bought Lala because Google was in negotiations to purchase them.
<br> <br>
Neither company has much overlap into the business areas of the other, but both are large and experiencing incredible growth. I believe that they're both very afraid of each other, though. If Apple were to run away with mobile phones like they have with the iPod, what's to stop them from creating their own alternative to Google and putting them out of business. I'm sure Apple also sees Google as a threat in some similar way as well.
<br> <br>
It seems as though this simple pissing contest is turning into a full out arms race.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes companies purchase another smaller company just to keep it out of the hands of the competition .
From what I 've heard , Apple was in talks with AdMob before Google purchased them .
I also heard a rumor that Apple bought Lala because Google was in negotiations to purchase them .
Neither company has much overlap into the business areas of the other , but both are large and experiencing incredible growth .
I believe that they 're both very afraid of each other , though .
If Apple were to run away with mobile phones like they have with the iPod , what 's to stop them from creating their own alternative to Google and putting them out of business .
I 'm sure Apple also sees Google as a threat in some similar way as well .
It seems as though this simple pissing contest is turning into a full out arms race .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes companies purchase another smaller company just to keep it out of the hands of the competition.
From what I've heard, Apple was in talks with AdMob before Google purchased them.
I also heard a rumor that Apple bought Lala because Google was in negotiations to purchase them.
Neither company has much overlap into the business areas of the other, but both are large and experiencing incredible growth.
I believe that they're both very afraid of each other, though.
If Apple were to run away with mobile phones like they have with the iPod, what's to stop them from creating their own alternative to Google and putting them out of business.
I'm sure Apple also sees Google as a threat in some similar way as well.
It seems as though this simple pissing contest is turning into a full out arms race.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30805152</id>
	<title>Apple == Microsoft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263756720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft ows a huge chunk of Apple since forever. It's almost the same company. Color me not surprised.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft ows a huge chunk of Apple since forever .
It 's almost the same company .
Color me not surprised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft ows a huge chunk of Apple since forever.
It's almost the same company.
Color me not surprised.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800654</id>
	<title>How many here have seriously tried Bing?</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1263719460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the tests I've run, it looks like Bing is actually more useful than Google right now. The main reason seems to be that the search engine optimization people seem to have figured out Google, and so the top results on Google searches have a lot of sites that are trying to sell you stuff related (barely) to your search. They either haven't figured out, or haven't turned their attention to, Bing yet, so the Bing search tends to be more useful.</p><p>No doubt that will change as Bing grows, but search is one of those things where <i>now</i> is all that matters, which is an argument for using Bing at the moment.</p><p>That said, 95\% of the time I use Google, out of habit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the tests I 've run , it looks like Bing is actually more useful than Google right now .
The main reason seems to be that the search engine optimization people seem to have figured out Google , and so the top results on Google searches have a lot of sites that are trying to sell you stuff related ( barely ) to your search .
They either have n't figured out , or have n't turned their attention to , Bing yet , so the Bing search tends to be more useful.No doubt that will change as Bing grows , but search is one of those things where now is all that matters , which is an argument for using Bing at the moment.That said , 95 \ % of the time I use Google , out of habit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the tests I've run, it looks like Bing is actually more useful than Google right now.
The main reason seems to be that the search engine optimization people seem to have figured out Google, and so the top results on Google searches have a lot of sites that are trying to sell you stuff related (barely) to your search.
They either haven't figured out, or haven't turned their attention to, Bing yet, so the Bing search tends to be more useful.No doubt that will change as Bing grows, but search is one of those things where now is all that matters, which is an argument for using Bing at the moment.That said, 95\% of the time I use Google, out of habit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799540</id>
	<title>ZOMG! Fanboi orgy incoming!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263753900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft, Apple and Google all in one article?  It will be an apocalypse of flames and jizz! XD</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft , Apple and Google all in one article ?
It will be an apocalypse of flames and jizz !
XD</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft, Apple and Google all in one article?
It will be an apocalypse of flames and jizz!
XD</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30805288</id>
	<title>Re:i don't believe this for a second</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263844980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep, totally agree with you.</p><p>Jobs doesn't compete by circling the wagons... he innovates and creates. He doesn't care about search engines, they are so 90's.</p><p>The Nexus is just a cheap version of an iPhone. It fills a smartphone void that Apple is never going near. Something that extends internet use and facilitates Google's core business, which is what Google is in business for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , totally agree with you.Jobs does n't compete by circling the wagons... he innovates and creates .
He does n't care about search engines , they are so 90 's.The Nexus is just a cheap version of an iPhone .
It fills a smartphone void that Apple is never going near .
Something that extends internet use and facilitates Google 's core business , which is what Google is in business for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, totally agree with you.Jobs doesn't compete by circling the wagons... he innovates and creates.
He doesn't care about search engines, they are so 90's.The Nexus is just a cheap version of an iPhone.
It fills a smartphone void that Apple is never going near.
Something that extends internet use and facilitates Google's core business, which is what Google is in business for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30802112</id>
	<title>Nimroddery Alert</title>
	<author>DannyO152</author>
	<datestamp>1263729180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has BusinessWeek learned nothing about Apple over the last 13 years?</p><p>Apple does not need to be the only or number one product in a sector to make money. It's nice when they are, because they really, really, make money when it happens. So Google now makes a phone. It is not likely to harm the phone with the better interface as much as the phones with lousy or no interface.</p><p>Meanwhile, Google pays Apple for the customers it delivers. I'm sure if Microsoft wants to pay, Apple will cordially listen, but it won't say yes just to frost off Google. They'll say yes if the green comes in from Redmond.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has BusinessWeek learned nothing about Apple over the last 13 years ? Apple does not need to be the only or number one product in a sector to make money .
It 's nice when they are , because they really , really , make money when it happens .
So Google now makes a phone .
It is not likely to harm the phone with the better interface as much as the phones with lousy or no interface.Meanwhile , Google pays Apple for the customers it delivers .
I 'm sure if Microsoft wants to pay , Apple will cordially listen , but it wo n't say yes just to frost off Google .
They 'll say yes if the green comes in from Redmond .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has BusinessWeek learned nothing about Apple over the last 13 years?Apple does not need to be the only or number one product in a sector to make money.
It's nice when they are, because they really, really, make money when it happens.
So Google now makes a phone.
It is not likely to harm the phone with the better interface as much as the phones with lousy or no interface.Meanwhile, Google pays Apple for the customers it delivers.
I'm sure if Microsoft wants to pay, Apple will cordially listen, but it won't say yes just to frost off Google.
They'll say yes if the green comes in from Redmond.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30802412</id>
	<title>Re:MicroApple ? must be desperate...</title>
	<author>RobertM1968</author>
	<datestamp>1263731100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple must be desperate if this is considered...</p></div><p>Except, the article seems to be pure speculation by BusinessWeek, as opposed to anything from Apple hinting at it. These "<b>anal</b>ysts" can think or say what they want... they've been wrong in the past, especially about Apple. Time will tell... but I still think Apple would not even consider such a partnership.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple must be desperate if this is considered...Except , the article seems to be pure speculation by BusinessWeek , as opposed to anything from Apple hinting at it .
These " analysts " can think or say what they want... they 've been wrong in the past , especially about Apple .
Time will tell... but I still think Apple would not even consider such a partnership .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple must be desperate if this is considered...Except, the article seems to be pure speculation by BusinessWeek, as opposed to anything from Apple hinting at it.
These "analysts" can think or say what they want... they've been wrong in the past, especially about Apple.
Time will tell... but I still think Apple would not even consider such a partnership.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800364</id>
	<title>MoToRoLa &amp; Go-Ogle</title>
	<author>buravirgil</author>
	<datestamp>1263760440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have I missed a mention of MotoRola? Or the break from MotoRola Jobs made over "power" processors? Or MotoRola's apparent bowing out of the cellular market, despite the success of Razors, only now to return with Go-Ogle? To a global market soundly held by NoKia? Or the bandwidth that Go-Ogle negotiated? Because AT&amp;T can barely handle the iPhone as it is.</p><p>The "fight" is over whether wireless services will be a subscription service of monthly bills or an ad based medium on a screen removed from a desk.</p><p>Both will exist, but it is likely the average of $50+/month that the telephony companies have enjoyed from every account holder will end. The rub is a parameter of time. No one knows. Verizon cut a deal with Microsoft because Google wouldn't bother as Google threatens both endeavors. From my perspective, such efforts of branding are the delusions of over-paid advertising companies.</p><p>What phone companies have been charging for the past 10 years is near extortion. We all need a phone, but supposedly want a phone with the latest feature. You can see it in every Verizon store-- the posh and large floor space for a few products. An ever present security guard. The salespeople dress and behave in a manner more fitting a broker or corporate executive than a geek selling technology. These are, to me, indicators of bored middle managers inventing a reality.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...there was a geeky dream once that simple voice connectivity would become free, paid for by the profit of more data intensive services. But the gadget grew with a camera and games and an organizer and a music device until finally we experienced phones that prohibited sampling any sound a user might wish to be used as a ringtone for the latest fad-- only $1.99. Branding...bah. Tacit cooperation of distribution and content providers...more likely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have I missed a mention of MotoRola ?
Or the break from MotoRola Jobs made over " power " processors ?
Or MotoRola 's apparent bowing out of the cellular market , despite the success of Razors , only now to return with Go-Ogle ?
To a global market soundly held by NoKia ?
Or the bandwidth that Go-Ogle negotiated ?
Because AT&amp;T can barely handle the iPhone as it is.The " fight " is over whether wireless services will be a subscription service of monthly bills or an ad based medium on a screen removed from a desk.Both will exist , but it is likely the average of $ 50 + /month that the telephony companies have enjoyed from every account holder will end .
The rub is a parameter of time .
No one knows .
Verizon cut a deal with Microsoft because Google would n't bother as Google threatens both endeavors .
From my perspective , such efforts of branding are the delusions of over-paid advertising companies.What phone companies have been charging for the past 10 years is near extortion .
We all need a phone , but supposedly want a phone with the latest feature .
You can see it in every Verizon store-- the posh and large floor space for a few products .
An ever present security guard .
The salespeople dress and behave in a manner more fitting a broker or corporate executive than a geek selling technology .
These are , to me , indicators of bored middle managers inventing a reality .
...there was a geeky dream once that simple voice connectivity would become free , paid for by the profit of more data intensive services .
But the gadget grew with a camera and games and an organizer and a music device until finally we experienced phones that prohibited sampling any sound a user might wish to be used as a ringtone for the latest fad-- only $ 1.99 .
Branding...bah. Tacit cooperation of distribution and content providers...more likely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have I missed a mention of MotoRola?
Or the break from MotoRola Jobs made over "power" processors?
Or MotoRola's apparent bowing out of the cellular market, despite the success of Razors, only now to return with Go-Ogle?
To a global market soundly held by NoKia?
Or the bandwidth that Go-Ogle negotiated?
Because AT&amp;T can barely handle the iPhone as it is.The "fight" is over whether wireless services will be a subscription service of monthly bills or an ad based medium on a screen removed from a desk.Both will exist, but it is likely the average of $50+/month that the telephony companies have enjoyed from every account holder will end.
The rub is a parameter of time.
No one knows.
Verizon cut a deal with Microsoft because Google wouldn't bother as Google threatens both endeavors.
From my perspective, such efforts of branding are the delusions of over-paid advertising companies.What phone companies have been charging for the past 10 years is near extortion.
We all need a phone, but supposedly want a phone with the latest feature.
You can see it in every Verizon store-- the posh and large floor space for a few products.
An ever present security guard.
The salespeople dress and behave in a manner more fitting a broker or corporate executive than a geek selling technology.
These are, to me, indicators of bored middle managers inventing a reality.
...there was a geeky dream once that simple voice connectivity would become free, paid for by the profit of more data intensive services.
But the gadget grew with a camera and games and an organizer and a music device until finally we experienced phones that prohibited sampling any sound a user might wish to be used as a ringtone for the latest fad-- only $1.99.
Branding...bah. Tacit cooperation of distribution and content providers...more likely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30802776</id>
	<title>Re:What nonsense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263733740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google are targetting the niche market that apple is playing in as it is the most profitable, it can't be anything but war unless one of them decides it no longer wants that particular market segment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google are targetting the niche market that apple is playing in as it is the most profitable , it ca n't be anything but war unless one of them decides it no longer wants that particular market segment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google are targetting the niche market that apple is playing in as it is the most profitable, it can't be anything but war unless one of them decides it no longer wants that particular market segment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800872</id>
	<title>Re:Google versus Everyone?</title>
	<author>tuppe666</author>
	<datestamp>1263720840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having sat through lets face it misinformation from Journalists(this is not about fans) after the Nexus One launch that have been reported even on this site. Google is fighting is not against Microsoft/Apple, but Googles battle is against the Media, which seem to love Microsoft and Apple even more so. I can only put it down to they don't have to pay for their overpriced inferior products.

You can talk about an iPhone killer if you want...but lets face it the Nexus is a generation on hardware wise than the iPhone. It really is a Superphone, as the device that's primary function is small device tethered to the net that you can use as a phone with that function in every way its more capable at that. The iPhone really is last Gen, but that fact got almost no reporting even here!!

but if your point is that the iPhone makes a better iPod than the Nexus...your right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having sat through lets face it misinformation from Journalists ( this is not about fans ) after the Nexus One launch that have been reported even on this site .
Google is fighting is not against Microsoft/Apple , but Googles battle is against the Media , which seem to love Microsoft and Apple even more so .
I can only put it down to they do n't have to pay for their overpriced inferior products .
You can talk about an iPhone killer if you want...but lets face it the Nexus is a generation on hardware wise than the iPhone .
It really is a Superphone , as the device that 's primary function is small device tethered to the net that you can use as a phone with that function in every way its more capable at that .
The iPhone really is last Gen , but that fact got almost no reporting even here ! !
but if your point is that the iPhone makes a better iPod than the Nexus...your right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having sat through lets face it misinformation from Journalists(this is not about fans) after the Nexus One launch that have been reported even on this site.
Google is fighting is not against Microsoft/Apple, but Googles battle is against the Media, which seem to love Microsoft and Apple even more so.
I can only put it down to they don't have to pay for their overpriced inferior products.
You can talk about an iPhone killer if you want...but lets face it the Nexus is a generation on hardware wise than the iPhone.
It really is a Superphone, as the device that's primary function is small device tethered to the net that you can use as a phone with that function in every way its more capable at that.
The iPhone really is last Gen, but that fact got almost no reporting even here!!
but if your point is that the iPhone makes a better iPod than the Nexus...your right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799548</id>
	<title>Buy, not build</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1263753900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google bought a mobile ad company called AdMob.<br>Apple bought a mobile ad company called Quattro.</p><p>Whatever happened to doing things in-house?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google bought a mobile ad company called AdMob.Apple bought a mobile ad company called Quattro.Whatever happened to doing things in-house ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google bought a mobile ad company called AdMob.Apple bought a mobile ad company called Quattro.Whatever happened to doing things in-house?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30801250</id>
	<title>Re:Buy, not build</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263723300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google bought a mobile ad company called AdMob.<br>Apple bought a mobile ad company called Quattro.</p><p>Whatever happened to doing things in-house?</p></div><p>Why reinvent the wheel?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google bought a mobile ad company called AdMob.Apple bought a mobile ad company called Quattro.Whatever happened to doing things in-house ? Why reinvent the wheel ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google bought a mobile ad company called AdMob.Apple bought a mobile ad company called Quattro.Whatever happened to doing things in-house?Why reinvent the wheel?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799926</id>
	<title>Re:This makes perfect sense</title>
	<author>NewbieProgrammerMan</author>
	<datestamp>1263756780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Third, Apple makes a lot of hay from making Microsoft the butt of jokes. Whenever Microsoft screws up or fails at anything, it helps reinforce their image as bumbling idiots, which in turn helps reinforce Apple's image as slick/cool geniuses.</p></div><p>I hope Apple and MS team up just so I can see all the "I'm a PC/Mac" commercial spoofs that will result.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Third , Apple makes a lot of hay from making Microsoft the butt of jokes .
Whenever Microsoft screws up or fails at anything , it helps reinforce their image as bumbling idiots , which in turn helps reinforce Apple 's image as slick/cool geniuses.I hope Apple and MS team up just so I can see all the " I 'm a PC/Mac " commercial spoofs that will result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Third, Apple makes a lot of hay from making Microsoft the butt of jokes.
Whenever Microsoft screws up or fails at anything, it helps reinforce their image as bumbling idiots, which in turn helps reinforce Apple's image as slick/cool geniuses.I hope Apple and MS team up just so I can see all the "I'm a PC/Mac" commercial spoofs that will result.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799894</id>
	<title>BusinessWeek are MORONS</title>
	<author>tyrione</author>
	<datestamp>1263756540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>No this does not make perfect sense. Steve has a feud with Bill going back to NeXT. Sorry, but this will never fly. Apple has made their continent and are growing it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No this does not make perfect sense .
Steve has a feud with Bill going back to NeXT .
Sorry , but this will never fly .
Apple has made their continent and are growing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No this does not make perfect sense.
Steve has a feud with Bill going back to NeXT.
Sorry, but this will never fly.
Apple has made their continent and are growing it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30803282</id>
	<title>Re:Google versus Everyone?</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1263738180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Google cannot keep fighting Microsoft/Apple/US DOJ/China/Evil at once and win. They are going to have to find allies at some point or go bankrupt.</p></div> </blockquote><p>

Strange, Google is doing fairly well, being the smallest company out of the three (by no of employee's) they a similar net income to Apple US$4-5 billion and rising. Microsoft's net income is US$14 Billion and falling.<br> <br>

Google is not in any kind of financial trouble. Leaving China is actually going to make them money (the whole reason they are doing it is because China is one giant money sink for Google)<br> <br>

Further more Google has plenty of partners. These partners include NASA, Time Warner, Life magazine, Sun Microsystems, GeoEye Inc. and many more. This doesn't include things like being a member of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open\_Handset\_Alliance#Members" title="wikipedia.org">OHA (Open Handset Alliance)</a> [wikipedia.org], which partners them with many of the worlds Telco's, handset manufacturers and semiconductor manufacturers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google can not keep fighting Microsoft/Apple/US DOJ/China/Evil at once and win .
They are going to have to find allies at some point or go bankrupt .
Strange , Google is doing fairly well , being the smallest company out of the three ( by no of employee 's ) they a similar net income to Apple US $ 4-5 billion and rising .
Microsoft 's net income is US $ 14 Billion and falling .
Google is not in any kind of financial trouble .
Leaving China is actually going to make them money ( the whole reason they are doing it is because China is one giant money sink for Google ) Further more Google has plenty of partners .
These partners include NASA , Time Warner , Life magazine , Sun Microsystems , GeoEye Inc. and many more .
This does n't include things like being a member of the OHA ( Open Handset Alliance ) [ wikipedia.org ] , which partners them with many of the worlds Telco 's , handset manufacturers and semiconductor manufacturers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google cannot keep fighting Microsoft/Apple/US DOJ/China/Evil at once and win.
They are going to have to find allies at some point or go bankrupt.
Strange, Google is doing fairly well, being the smallest company out of the three (by no of employee's) they a similar net income to Apple US$4-5 billion and rising.
Microsoft's net income is US$14 Billion and falling.
Google is not in any kind of financial trouble.
Leaving China is actually going to make them money (the whole reason they are doing it is because China is one giant money sink for Google) 

Further more Google has plenty of partners.
These partners include NASA, Time Warner, Life magazine, Sun Microsystems, GeoEye Inc. and many more.
This doesn't include things like being a member of the OHA (Open Handset Alliance) [wikipedia.org], which partners them with many of the worlds Telco's, handset manufacturers and semiconductor manufacturers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800732</id>
	<title>good luck with that</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1263719880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An alliance with Microsoft is what companies tend to do just before they self-destruct... maybe Apple's one-trick pony is coming to an end?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An alliance with Microsoft is what companies tend to do just before they self-destruct... maybe Apple 's one-trick pony is coming to an end ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An alliance with Microsoft is what companies tend to do just before they self-destruct... maybe Apple's one-trick pony is coming to an end?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799510</id>
	<title>MicroApple ? must be desperate...</title>
	<author>what about</author>
	<datestamp>1263753660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple and Google reminds me of an old joke where the Husband cuts "his attributes" to "annoy" the wife... in this case Apple is the Husband, and Google is the wife, but beside the joke.</p><p>Apple must be desperate if this is considered, maybe they thought to be "invincible" and they got Nokia upset, now they have Google gnawing at the heel and this is another one. I cannot believe Microsoft sheer luck, Bing has any success by bribe, (vendors being paid to have Bing set), SW monopoly (IE8 having Bing as default search) and now even Apple that switches to Bing.</p><p>I do switch any Bing defaults to Google and install Chrome for free where I go, and just to annoy Microsoft I search for "google chrome" using Bing (you would be amazed at the variety of responses<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>The way it is going is like when Apple "invented" personal computer and then IBM compatible ruled the world.<br>It seems like Apple "invented" the iphone and then Google rules the world trough open platform Android.</p><p>What can Apple do ?<br>Avoid making the already rich Microsoft richer, start opening up and avoid bossing other players around (maybe attempt to partner with Google ?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple and Google reminds me of an old joke where the Husband cuts " his attributes " to " annoy " the wife... in this case Apple is the Husband , and Google is the wife , but beside the joke.Apple must be desperate if this is considered , maybe they thought to be " invincible " and they got Nokia upset , now they have Google gnawing at the heel and this is another one .
I can not believe Microsoft sheer luck , Bing has any success by bribe , ( vendors being paid to have Bing set ) , SW monopoly ( IE8 having Bing as default search ) and now even Apple that switches to Bing.I do switch any Bing defaults to Google and install Chrome for free where I go , and just to annoy Microsoft I search for " google chrome " using Bing ( you would be amazed at the variety of responses : - ) The way it is going is like when Apple " invented " personal computer and then IBM compatible ruled the world.It seems like Apple " invented " the iphone and then Google rules the world trough open platform Android.What can Apple do ? Avoid making the already rich Microsoft richer , start opening up and avoid bossing other players around ( maybe attempt to partner with Google ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple and Google reminds me of an old joke where the Husband cuts "his attributes" to "annoy" the wife... in this case Apple is the Husband, and Google is the wife, but beside the joke.Apple must be desperate if this is considered, maybe they thought to be "invincible" and they got Nokia upset, now they have Google gnawing at the heel and this is another one.
I cannot believe Microsoft sheer luck, Bing has any success by bribe, (vendors being paid to have Bing set), SW monopoly (IE8 having Bing as default search) and now even Apple that switches to Bing.I do switch any Bing defaults to Google and install Chrome for free where I go, and just to annoy Microsoft I search for "google chrome" using Bing (you would be amazed at the variety of responses :-)The way it is going is like when Apple "invented" personal computer and then IBM compatible ruled the world.It seems like Apple "invented" the iphone and then Google rules the world trough open platform Android.What can Apple do ?Avoid making the already rich Microsoft richer, start opening up and avoid bossing other players around (maybe attempt to partner with Google ?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799496</id>
	<title>Why on earth is everyone so hung up on Nexus One?</title>
	<author>jabbathewocket</author>
	<datestamp>1263753540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>granted its 'new to google' to be you know selling phones directly<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. but this is not a "war" with carriers or handset makers, its more of a war on.. noone?
<br>
Its really not that much different from going to the HTC website and clicking buy now and being directed to a web seller of any given phone as well as the carriers who sell them.. all google is REALLY doing here is creating a platform they can use to advertise android.. by that I mean.. when Verizon is done spamming millions of Droid Does! ads.. Android is left with being just another handset in the carriers collection of handsets.. by creating a direct way of buying , they have more importantly created a direct "sales conduit" that showcases Android and only android devices..
<br>
For all intents and purposes this is no different than the ADP1 and ADP2 only now rather than buying unlocked, you buy them with tmobile service, which was the only place the unlocked dev phones worked in 3g anyhow.
<br>
If Google was trying to be a gamechanger, they would have become an MVNO buying bandwidth from t-mobile, and reselling it (at reduced rates) in exchange for advertising/collecting demographic data from all the buyers, possibly even going with a pure GoogleVoice device that was IP only and no actual telephone service..
<br>
Now if they would just fix the fragmented Android mess of a landscape, do away with the half-assed java applets and move to entirely native apps.. as well as license SenseUI from HTC OR convince HTC to offer its app stack over the marketplace.. they could almost become a decent size player in the mobile space.. until then.. MS/Nokia and Apple will contine to eat their lunch.. Pity that Google didn't buy Palm and kill the Pre before it shipped as it too is hurting Android's long term viability as a platform.</htmltext>
<tokenext>granted its 'new to google ' to be you know selling phones directly .. but this is not a " war " with carriers or handset makers , its more of a war on.. noone ? Its really not that much different from going to the HTC website and clicking buy now and being directed to a web seller of any given phone as well as the carriers who sell them.. all google is REALLY doing here is creating a platform they can use to advertise android.. by that I mean.. when Verizon is done spamming millions of Droid Does !
ads.. Android is left with being just another handset in the carriers collection of handsets.. by creating a direct way of buying , they have more importantly created a direct " sales conduit " that showcases Android and only android devices. . For all intents and purposes this is no different than the ADP1 and ADP2 only now rather than buying unlocked , you buy them with tmobile service , which was the only place the unlocked dev phones worked in 3g anyhow .
If Google was trying to be a gamechanger , they would have become an MVNO buying bandwidth from t-mobile , and reselling it ( at reduced rates ) in exchange for advertising/collecting demographic data from all the buyers , possibly even going with a pure GoogleVoice device that was IP only and no actual telephone service. . Now if they would just fix the fragmented Android mess of a landscape , do away with the half-assed java applets and move to entirely native apps.. as well as license SenseUI from HTC OR convince HTC to offer its app stack over the marketplace.. they could almost become a decent size player in the mobile space.. until then.. MS/Nokia and Apple will contine to eat their lunch.. Pity that Google did n't buy Palm and kill the Pre before it shipped as it too is hurting Android 's long term viability as a platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>granted its 'new to google' to be you know selling phones directly .. but this is not a "war" with carriers or handset makers, its more of a war on.. noone?

Its really not that much different from going to the HTC website and clicking buy now and being directed to a web seller of any given phone as well as the carriers who sell them.. all google is REALLY doing here is creating a platform they can use to advertise android.. by that I mean.. when Verizon is done spamming millions of Droid Does!
ads.. Android is left with being just another handset in the carriers collection of handsets.. by creating a direct way of buying , they have more importantly created a direct "sales conduit" that showcases Android and only android devices..

For all intents and purposes this is no different than the ADP1 and ADP2 only now rather than buying unlocked, you buy them with tmobile service, which was the only place the unlocked dev phones worked in 3g anyhow.
If Google was trying to be a gamechanger, they would have become an MVNO buying bandwidth from t-mobile, and reselling it (at reduced rates) in exchange for advertising/collecting demographic data from all the buyers, possibly even going with a pure GoogleVoice device that was IP only and no actual telephone service..

Now if they would just fix the fragmented Android mess of a landscape, do away with the half-assed java applets and move to entirely native apps.. as well as license SenseUI from HTC OR convince HTC to offer its app stack over the marketplace.. they could almost become a decent size player in the mobile space.. until then.. MS/Nokia and Apple will contine to eat their lunch.. Pity that Google didn't buy Palm and kill the Pre before it shipped as it too is hurting Android's long term viability as a platform.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799464</id>
	<title>Apple and Microsoft</title>
	<author>Murdoch5</author>
	<datestamp>1263753300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Microsoft builds a phone it will probably sell great and at the same time suck on both the hardware and software specs.    People will buy what there told to with out understanding what there really buying.
<br>
<br>
It's the same reason "bing" is successful, it's a mediocre search engine at best and has no way to stand up to google.  It's the same way with the microsoft windows OS, people buy it because there told they should, Another example of just a mediocre product being pushed.
<br>
<br>
On the other hand we have a company like Apple telling you to buy there stuff because it's easier to use and somehow that should make it better.   In reality they have the worst customer service I've ever experienced and an OS that is so slightly better then Windows it's not even worth trying to separate them.
<br>
<br>
Now we look at google, and there not telling you to buy there stuff and yet people do, there not telling you to use there search engine because it's better and more proprietary yet people do.  To top it off there not telling people to use there cloud based OS and people do, see a trend.
<br>
<br>
If a company like google who's products are known to be better and can manage to force company's who push there products down the publics throat to merge then it's not wonder what the real solution should be.  Maybe lets focus on making a great product that allows people to do what they need to in constrast to making a product and trying to force someone to use it because it "easier to use"   or I guess as apple would say it's "iEasier to use".</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Microsoft builds a phone it will probably sell great and at the same time suck on both the hardware and software specs .
People will buy what there told to with out understanding what there really buying .
It 's the same reason " bing " is successful , it 's a mediocre search engine at best and has no way to stand up to google .
It 's the same way with the microsoft windows OS , people buy it because there told they should , Another example of just a mediocre product being pushed .
On the other hand we have a company like Apple telling you to buy there stuff because it 's easier to use and somehow that should make it better .
In reality they have the worst customer service I 've ever experienced and an OS that is so slightly better then Windows it 's not even worth trying to separate them .
Now we look at google , and there not telling you to buy there stuff and yet people do , there not telling you to use there search engine because it 's better and more proprietary yet people do .
To top it off there not telling people to use there cloud based OS and people do , see a trend .
If a company like google who 's products are known to be better and can manage to force company 's who push there products down the publics throat to merge then it 's not wonder what the real solution should be .
Maybe lets focus on making a great product that allows people to do what they need to in constrast to making a product and trying to force someone to use it because it " easier to use " or I guess as apple would say it 's " iEasier to use " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Microsoft builds a phone it will probably sell great and at the same time suck on both the hardware and software specs.
People will buy what there told to with out understanding what there really buying.
It's the same reason "bing" is successful, it's a mediocre search engine at best and has no way to stand up to google.
It's the same way with the microsoft windows OS, people buy it because there told they should, Another example of just a mediocre product being pushed.
On the other hand we have a company like Apple telling you to buy there stuff because it's easier to use and somehow that should make it better.
In reality they have the worst customer service I've ever experienced and an OS that is so slightly better then Windows it's not even worth trying to separate them.
Now we look at google, and there not telling you to buy there stuff and yet people do, there not telling you to use there search engine because it's better and more proprietary yet people do.
To top it off there not telling people to use there cloud based OS and people do, see a trend.
If a company like google who's products are known to be better and can manage to force company's who push there products down the publics throat to merge then it's not wonder what the real solution should be.
Maybe lets focus on making a great product that allows people to do what they need to in constrast to making a product and trying to force someone to use it because it "easier to use"   or I guess as apple would say it's "iEasier to use".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30930568</id>
	<title>Re:Not the MS-Apple deal I would expect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264711620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your the same person who said this:<br>Raise your hand if you have iTunes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Raise your hand if you have a FireWire port<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Raise your hand if you have both<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Raise your hand if you have $400 to spend on a cute Apple device<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>There is Apple's market. Pretty slim, eh? I don't see many sales in the future of iPod.</p><p>~LoudMusic</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your the same person who said this : Raise your hand if you have iTunes ...Raise your hand if you have a FireWire port ...Raise your hand if you have both ...Raise your hand if you have $ 400 to spend on a cute Apple device ...There is Apple 's market .
Pretty slim , eh ?
I do n't see many sales in the future of iPod. ~ LoudMusic</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your the same person who said this:Raise your hand if you have iTunes ...Raise your hand if you have a FireWire port ...Raise your hand if you have both ...Raise your hand if you have $400 to spend on a cute Apple device ...There is Apple's market.
Pretty slim, eh?
I don't see many sales in the future of iPod.~LoudMusic</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30809742</id>
	<title>Re:Buy, not build</title>
	<author>manastungare</author>
	<datestamp>1263839100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You could try to create eyeballs from scratch, but all you'll end up with is Frankenstein.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could try to create eyeballs from scratch , but all you 'll end up with is Frankenstein .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could try to create eyeballs from scratch, but all you'll end up with is Frankenstein.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30803792</id>
	<title>Re:This makes perfect sense</title>
	<author>GaryPatterson</author>
	<datestamp>1263742860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Apple near BK" means "Apple had US$4B in the bank as cash, earning all sorts of interest."</p><p>I don't even know where people get their wrong info from these days. It's like they don't want to know the facts, preferring a conspiracy theory that would blunt Occam's Razor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Apple near BK " means " Apple had US $ 4B in the bank as cash , earning all sorts of interest .
" I do n't even know where people get their wrong info from these days .
It 's like they do n't want to know the facts , preferring a conspiracy theory that would blunt Occam 's Razor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Apple near BK" means "Apple had US$4B in the bank as cash, earning all sorts of interest.
"I don't even know where people get their wrong info from these days.
It's like they don't want to know the facts, preferring a conspiracy theory that would blunt Occam's Razor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30805016</id>
	<title>Nothing to see here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263755220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple does not dominate the smartphone market (17\% in 3Q 2009) (http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/11/apple-grabs-17-of-smartphone-market-in-latest-quarter.ars), and Google is (probably) not their biggest threat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple does not dominate the smartphone market ( 17 \ % in 3Q 2009 ) ( http : //arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/11/apple-grabs-17-of-smartphone-market-in-latest-quarter.ars ) , and Google is ( probably ) not their biggest threat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple does not dominate the smartphone market (17\% in 3Q 2009) (http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/11/apple-grabs-17-of-smartphone-market-in-latest-quarter.ars), and Google is (probably) not their biggest threat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30805638</id>
	<title>Re:What nonsense</title>
	<author>webreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1263807360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Very good point. Google aren't trying to produce the iPhone-killer, since they make a whole bunch of revenue via search/maps/gmail on the iPhone. What google probably want is a Microsoft-killer and Nokia-killer. There's plenty enough revenue in the smartphone market for 2 players, and Google makes money from both of them....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Very good point .
Google are n't trying to produce the iPhone-killer , since they make a whole bunch of revenue via search/maps/gmail on the iPhone .
What google probably want is a Microsoft-killer and Nokia-killer .
There 's plenty enough revenue in the smartphone market for 2 players , and Google makes money from both of them... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very good point.
Google aren't trying to produce the iPhone-killer, since they make a whole bunch of revenue via search/maps/gmail on the iPhone.
What google probably want is a Microsoft-killer and Nokia-killer.
There's plenty enough revenue in the smartphone market for 2 players, and Google makes money from both of them....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799378</id>
	<title>This makes perfect sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263752580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple is a great company, but they are not large enough to build their own search engine, advertising platform, and back end services to run them.    Microsoft's search (bing), advertising platform, and back end services are all designed for partnering - its the core business model.</p><p>of course, Microsoft will compete with Apple in the phone space at some point in the future (we are clearly uncompetitive now...), but if Apple is going to be in bed with a competitor, its much better that it be Microsoft rather than google - better for both companies.
I mentioed this to <a href="http://slashdot.org/~symbolset" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Symbolset</a> [slashdot.org] in a
post <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1495166&amp;cid=30637512" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">here</a> [slashdot.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is a great company , but they are not large enough to build their own search engine , advertising platform , and back end services to run them .
Microsoft 's search ( bing ) , advertising platform , and back end services are all designed for partnering - its the core business model.of course , Microsoft will compete with Apple in the phone space at some point in the future ( we are clearly uncompetitive now... ) , but if Apple is going to be in bed with a competitor , its much better that it be Microsoft rather than google - better for both companies .
I mentioed this to Symbolset [ slashdot.org ] in a post here [ slashdot.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is a great company, but they are not large enough to build their own search engine, advertising platform, and back end services to run them.
Microsoft's search (bing), advertising platform, and back end services are all designed for partnering - its the core business model.of course, Microsoft will compete with Apple in the phone space at some point in the future (we are clearly uncompetitive now...), but if Apple is going to be in bed with a competitor, its much better that it be Microsoft rather than google - better for both companies.
I mentioed this to Symbolset [slashdot.org] in a
post here [slashdot.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800342</id>
	<title>Re:This makes perfect sense</title>
	<author>teknopurge</author>
	<datestamp>1263760260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bill gates and Steve Jobs are old friends and have been for the better part of 30 years.  When Apple was near BK Gates loaned Jobs a \_large\_ sum of money in exchange for shares.  MS and Apple have been in the sack for the better part of the past 3 decades.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bill gates and Steve Jobs are old friends and have been for the better part of 30 years .
When Apple was near BK Gates loaned Jobs a \ _large \ _ sum of money in exchange for shares .
MS and Apple have been in the sack for the better part of the past 3 decades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bill gates and Steve Jobs are old friends and have been for the better part of 30 years.
When Apple was near BK Gates loaned Jobs a \_large\_ sum of money in exchange for shares.
MS and Apple have been in the sack for the better part of the past 3 decades.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30802904</id>
	<title>Re:This makes perfect sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263735000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yea!  Wow, now that I think if it, you are right.  its all SO easy!  I guess that is what you are doing and you will soon be a billionaire.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea !
Wow , now that I think if it , you are right .
its all SO easy !
I guess that is what you are doing and you will soon be a billionaire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea!
Wow, now that I think if it, you are right.
its all SO easy!
I guess that is what you are doing and you will soon be a billionaire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799536</id>
	<title>What? no.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263753840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would using google give Google ideas on how to improve android.  "iPhone users look at Apple news a lot and search for apple stuff online - quick! We need to rebrand Nexus One put a bunch of apple logos on it!" or "people shop online! holy crap!" or "holy crap! people look at news online!".  I'm not saying Apple isn't considering this as a threat, but I'm just saying I don't think they're considering it all out war as these analysts are thinking, and I just don't see why Apple would do that for fear Google will sniff out how to improve Android.  They may cut Google out of ad revenue, which makes more sense, but seriously, they're not afraid Google will figure out how to improve Android by seeing what keywords iPhone users search for.</p><p>Also, let's not forget analysts get paid by how many people view and are interested in their analyses.  The more outrageous the claim, the more clicks.  Apple and Microsoft cuddling up?  Yeah.</p><p>Awesome troll guys, brilliant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would using google give Google ideas on how to improve android .
" iPhone users look at Apple news a lot and search for apple stuff online - quick !
We need to rebrand Nexus One put a bunch of apple logos on it !
" or " people shop online !
holy crap !
" or " holy crap !
people look at news online ! " .
I 'm not saying Apple is n't considering this as a threat , but I 'm just saying I do n't think they 're considering it all out war as these analysts are thinking , and I just do n't see why Apple would do that for fear Google will sniff out how to improve Android .
They may cut Google out of ad revenue , which makes more sense , but seriously , they 're not afraid Google will figure out how to improve Android by seeing what keywords iPhone users search for.Also , let 's not forget analysts get paid by how many people view and are interested in their analyses .
The more outrageous the claim , the more clicks .
Apple and Microsoft cuddling up ?
Yeah.Awesome troll guys , brilliant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would using google give Google ideas on how to improve android.
"iPhone users look at Apple news a lot and search for apple stuff online - quick!
We need to rebrand Nexus One put a bunch of apple logos on it!
" or "people shop online!
holy crap!
" or "holy crap!
people look at news online!".
I'm not saying Apple isn't considering this as a threat, but I'm just saying I don't think they're considering it all out war as these analysts are thinking, and I just don't see why Apple would do that for fear Google will sniff out how to improve Android.
They may cut Google out of ad revenue, which makes more sense, but seriously, they're not afraid Google will figure out how to improve Android by seeing what keywords iPhone users search for.Also, let's not forget analysts get paid by how many people view and are interested in their analyses.
The more outrageous the claim, the more clicks.
Apple and Microsoft cuddling up?
Yeah.Awesome troll guys, brilliant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799526</id>
	<title>"mee too" Marketing</title>
	<author>foobsr</author>
	<datestamp>1263753780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>TFS: "When companies start to imitate one another<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."
<br> <br>
This was once called "mee too"&mdash;marketing and should be taken as a sign of incompetent marketing (an)droids at work.
<br> <br>
CC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFS : " When companies start to imitate one another ... " This was once called " mee too "    marketing and should be taken as a sign of incompetent marketing ( an ) droids at work .
CC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFS: "When companies start to imitate one another ..."
 
This was once called "mee too"—marketing and should be taken as a sign of incompetent marketing (an)droids at work.
CC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800090</id>
	<title>thank goodness it is real competition and not</title>
	<author>Locutus</author>
	<datestamp>1263757980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>thank goodness it is real competition and not the kind of competition Microsoft plays such as buying up another vendors customers and paying them to use Microsoft's technology.  Apple came out with a great piece of hardware and software to back it up and they took over the mess which was also called "the smartphone market".  That was three years ago and Microsoft has come up with pretty much nothing comparable on the software side. But what Microsoft had done was pay off every phone vendor at last years big mobile phone conference to \_not\_ talk about anything but Windows Mobile. So the public and press knew nothing about the Android wave which was about to overflow the market by the end of the year. On the hardware side, in the open platform segment, they have been getting there but still not close to what's been in the iPhone. It again took Apple to put the Cortex-A8 CPU in their phone to get the rest of the market to wake up to the performance levels obtainable using that technology. But like how quickly Apple sprung onto the wasteland which was called the smartphone segment, Google purchased a small company who put together a very nice phone software platform called Android and got it out there. They haven't been paying companies to not talk about other companies products and they know they need to make it as compelling, or better, than the Apple iPhone.  Wow, real competition by making good product and competing on quality and value.<br><br>This kind of competition does not exist in the markets Microsofts dominates and they continue to use their wealth to limit competition. Just look at the Verizon-Microsoft deal where Microsoft's BING search engine, via an update, replaced all other choices of Blackberry phone user's phones.  These exclusionary deals don't result in better product and market choice. So it's great to see Google and Apple competing by making better products and services.  And I welcome Apple to the search or mobile ad markets too if it means a better products for consumers.  I find it hard to believe that Apple would even consider a play with Microsoft thinking that it will help them compete with Android.  Apple makes a good profit off their Mac franchise not by being the lowend player, they do it with quality hardware and software people are willing to pay a bit more for. Same for the iPhone and the iPod. it's good to have real competition in this market. IMO<br><br>LoB</htmltext>
<tokenext>thank goodness it is real competition and not the kind of competition Microsoft plays such as buying up another vendors customers and paying them to use Microsoft 's technology .
Apple came out with a great piece of hardware and software to back it up and they took over the mess which was also called " the smartphone market " .
That was three years ago and Microsoft has come up with pretty much nothing comparable on the software side .
But what Microsoft had done was pay off every phone vendor at last years big mobile phone conference to \ _not \ _ talk about anything but Windows Mobile .
So the public and press knew nothing about the Android wave which was about to overflow the market by the end of the year .
On the hardware side , in the open platform segment , they have been getting there but still not close to what 's been in the iPhone .
It again took Apple to put the Cortex-A8 CPU in their phone to get the rest of the market to wake up to the performance levels obtainable using that technology .
But like how quickly Apple sprung onto the wasteland which was called the smartphone segment , Google purchased a small company who put together a very nice phone software platform called Android and got it out there .
They have n't been paying companies to not talk about other companies products and they know they need to make it as compelling , or better , than the Apple iPhone .
Wow , real competition by making good product and competing on quality and value.This kind of competition does not exist in the markets Microsofts dominates and they continue to use their wealth to limit competition .
Just look at the Verizon-Microsoft deal where Microsoft 's BING search engine , via an update , replaced all other choices of Blackberry phone user 's phones .
These exclusionary deals do n't result in better product and market choice .
So it 's great to see Google and Apple competing by making better products and services .
And I welcome Apple to the search or mobile ad markets too if it means a better products for consumers .
I find it hard to believe that Apple would even consider a play with Microsoft thinking that it will help them compete with Android .
Apple makes a good profit off their Mac franchise not by being the lowend player , they do it with quality hardware and software people are willing to pay a bit more for .
Same for the iPhone and the iPod .
it 's good to have real competition in this market .
IMOLoB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thank goodness it is real competition and not the kind of competition Microsoft plays such as buying up another vendors customers and paying them to use Microsoft's technology.
Apple came out with a great piece of hardware and software to back it up and they took over the mess which was also called "the smartphone market".
That was three years ago and Microsoft has come up with pretty much nothing comparable on the software side.
But what Microsoft had done was pay off every phone vendor at last years big mobile phone conference to \_not\_ talk about anything but Windows Mobile.
So the public and press knew nothing about the Android wave which was about to overflow the market by the end of the year.
On the hardware side, in the open platform segment, they have been getting there but still not close to what's been in the iPhone.
It again took Apple to put the Cortex-A8 CPU in their phone to get the rest of the market to wake up to the performance levels obtainable using that technology.
But like how quickly Apple sprung onto the wasteland which was called the smartphone segment, Google purchased a small company who put together a very nice phone software platform called Android and got it out there.
They haven't been paying companies to not talk about other companies products and they know they need to make it as compelling, or better, than the Apple iPhone.
Wow, real competition by making good product and competing on quality and value.This kind of competition does not exist in the markets Microsofts dominates and they continue to use their wealth to limit competition.
Just look at the Verizon-Microsoft deal where Microsoft's BING search engine, via an update, replaced all other choices of Blackberry phone user's phones.
These exclusionary deals don't result in better product and market choice.
So it's great to see Google and Apple competing by making better products and services.
And I welcome Apple to the search or mobile ad markets too if it means a better products for consumers.
I find it hard to believe that Apple would even consider a play with Microsoft thinking that it will help them compete with Android.
Apple makes a good profit off their Mac franchise not by being the lowend player, they do it with quality hardware and software people are willing to pay a bit more for.
Same for the iPhone and the iPod.
it's good to have real competition in this market.
IMOLoB</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30801466</id>
	<title>But they are already cooperating</title>
	<author>Casandro</author>
	<datestamp>1263724740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm confused now. Haven't Microsoft and Apple been cooperating for decades now? After all Microsoft wrote MacPaint, and ported Office and IE to the Mac, while Apple for many years shipped with IE by default. Hey you can even get iTunes for Windows.</p><p>There is no competition between those companies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm confused now .
Have n't Microsoft and Apple been cooperating for decades now ?
After all Microsoft wrote MacPaint , and ported Office and IE to the Mac , while Apple for many years shipped with IE by default .
Hey you can even get iTunes for Windows.There is no competition between those companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm confused now.
Haven't Microsoft and Apple been cooperating for decades now?
After all Microsoft wrote MacPaint, and ported Office and IE to the Mac, while Apple for many years shipped with IE by default.
Hey you can even get iTunes for Windows.There is no competition between those companies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799794</id>
	<title>Re:i don't believe this for a second</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1263756000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a general rule, when someone anthropomorphizes companies, it is a half baked theory.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a general rule , when someone anthropomorphizes companies , it is a half baked theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a general rule, when someone anthropomorphizes companies, it is a half baked theory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800514</id>
	<title>There are some synergies here</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1263761940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's Microsoft that has somehow convinced the OEM world outside of Apple that innovative, performant and stylish PC products are "niche" products to be avoided.  They have somehow pursuaded the world's largest PC producers to pursue the course of cranking out generation after generation of low-margin commodity vanilla platforms that they have to move millions of to break even.  The OEMs then utterly rely on Microsoft's Market Development Funds to buy advertising and promotions to create the illusion of product differentiation - and incidentally give Microsoft obscene negotiating leverage.  This leaves the lucrative high-unit-margin premium platform space to Apple who's riding that pony to the bank with unheard of margins and profits.
</p><p>Of course because Apple's making their own profits they don't need advertising money from anybody else - and they're making the most of their advertising spend by developing memes that people spread <a href="http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/" title="apple.com">on their own</a> [apple.com] because they're entertaining in and of themselves. My friends and I pass around links to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cX4t5-YpHQ" title="youtube.com">Microsoft's advertising videos</a> [youtube.com] too, but that's probably not a good thing for Microsoft.  The entertainment value there is that the videos are <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11NOblvuEpU" title="youtube.com">painfully awkward</a> [youtube.com] and don't inspire trust and confidence in the company or product or make them "cool".
</p><p>But I doubt this will ever happen.  <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upzKj-1HaKw" title="youtube.com">What he said was "third rate".</a> [youtube.com]  I'll agree with you - the whole holding Mac Office over their heads like it's the Holy Grail is just absurd.  Especially when they defeature it and deliver it late like they do.  This is just the sort of gamesmanship that prevents Apple from taking them seriously as a partner.  That and the fact that he's right - they really do have no taste.
</p><p>On the other hand it might make sense. Microsoft at least is a company Apple knows they can reliably handle.  Google doesn't have that attribute.  Ok, I'm not sure how this one will work out.  It will be interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's Microsoft that has somehow convinced the OEM world outside of Apple that innovative , performant and stylish PC products are " niche " products to be avoided .
They have somehow pursuaded the world 's largest PC producers to pursue the course of cranking out generation after generation of low-margin commodity vanilla platforms that they have to move millions of to break even .
The OEMs then utterly rely on Microsoft 's Market Development Funds to buy advertising and promotions to create the illusion of product differentiation - and incidentally give Microsoft obscene negotiating leverage .
This leaves the lucrative high-unit-margin premium platform space to Apple who 's riding that pony to the bank with unheard of margins and profits .
Of course because Apple 's making their own profits they do n't need advertising money from anybody else - and they 're making the most of their advertising spend by developing memes that people spread on their own [ apple.com ] because they 're entertaining in and of themselves .
My friends and I pass around links to Microsoft 's advertising videos [ youtube.com ] too , but that 's probably not a good thing for Microsoft .
The entertainment value there is that the videos are painfully awkward [ youtube.com ] and do n't inspire trust and confidence in the company or product or make them " cool " .
But I doubt this will ever happen .
What he said was " third rate " .
[ youtube.com ] I 'll agree with you - the whole holding Mac Office over their heads like it 's the Holy Grail is just absurd .
Especially when they defeature it and deliver it late like they do .
This is just the sort of gamesmanship that prevents Apple from taking them seriously as a partner .
That and the fact that he 's right - they really do have no taste .
On the other hand it might make sense .
Microsoft at least is a company Apple knows they can reliably handle .
Google does n't have that attribute .
Ok , I 'm not sure how this one will work out .
It will be interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's Microsoft that has somehow convinced the OEM world outside of Apple that innovative, performant and stylish PC products are "niche" products to be avoided.
They have somehow pursuaded the world's largest PC producers to pursue the course of cranking out generation after generation of low-margin commodity vanilla platforms that they have to move millions of to break even.
The OEMs then utterly rely on Microsoft's Market Development Funds to buy advertising and promotions to create the illusion of product differentiation - and incidentally give Microsoft obscene negotiating leverage.
This leaves the lucrative high-unit-margin premium platform space to Apple who's riding that pony to the bank with unheard of margins and profits.
Of course because Apple's making their own profits they don't need advertising money from anybody else - and they're making the most of their advertising spend by developing memes that people spread on their own [apple.com] because they're entertaining in and of themselves.
My friends and I pass around links to Microsoft's advertising videos [youtube.com] too, but that's probably not a good thing for Microsoft.
The entertainment value there is that the videos are painfully awkward [youtube.com] and don't inspire trust and confidence in the company or product or make them "cool".
But I doubt this will ever happen.
What he said was "third rate".
[youtube.com]  I'll agree with you - the whole holding Mac Office over their heads like it's the Holy Grail is just absurd.
Especially when they defeature it and deliver it late like they do.
This is just the sort of gamesmanship that prevents Apple from taking them seriously as a partner.
That and the fact that he's right - they really do have no taste.
On the other hand it might make sense.
Microsoft at least is a company Apple knows they can reliably handle.
Google doesn't have that attribute.
Ok, I'm not sure how this one will work out.
It will be interesting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30814326</id>
	<title>Re:This makes perfect sense</title>
	<author>flabordec</author>
	<datestamp>1263818400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Second, it doesn't make sense to jump to Bing just because Google releases a phone. It only makes sense if Bing is better than Google. If you think about it, as long as the iPhone and Google phones are using the same maps, searches, etc., then it can't be counted as an advantage for Google. People can't say, "Well I want to buy an Android phone because they use Google for their search engine. The iPhone uses [whatever], and I don't like it as much."</p></div><p>But people could say: "Well, I want to buy an Android phone because the iPhone uses the same maps, searches, etc. but it is more expensive." But I'm also guessing that most Apple fanboys are a high income group more interested in the brand recognition than in software.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Second , it does n't make sense to jump to Bing just because Google releases a phone .
It only makes sense if Bing is better than Google .
If you think about it , as long as the iPhone and Google phones are using the same maps , searches , etc. , then it ca n't be counted as an advantage for Google .
People ca n't say , " Well I want to buy an Android phone because they use Google for their search engine .
The iPhone uses [ whatever ] , and I do n't like it as much .
" But people could say : " Well , I want to buy an Android phone because the iPhone uses the same maps , searches , etc .
but it is more expensive .
" But I 'm also guessing that most Apple fanboys are a high income group more interested in the brand recognition than in software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Second, it doesn't make sense to jump to Bing just because Google releases a phone.
It only makes sense if Bing is better than Google.
If you think about it, as long as the iPhone and Google phones are using the same maps, searches, etc., then it can't be counted as an advantage for Google.
People can't say, "Well I want to buy an Android phone because they use Google for their search engine.
The iPhone uses [whatever], and I don't like it as much.
"But people could say: "Well, I want to buy an Android phone because the iPhone uses the same maps, searches, etc.
but it is more expensive.
" But I'm also guessing that most Apple fanboys are a high income group more interested in the brand recognition than in software.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800360</id>
	<title>Or it may not make up Apples mind or something</title>
	<author>Dupple</author>
	<datestamp>1263760380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From TFA<br><br>"A BusinessWeek report suggests<br><br>I suggest something else... who cares?<br><br>Some analysts believe the Apple-Google battle is likely to get much rougher in the months ahead<br><br>Some people think it may be warm in summer<br><br>Ovum's Yarmis thinks Apple may soon decide to dump<br>&amp;#65279;<br>Or they may not<br><br>Google as the default search engine on its devices, primarily to cut Google off from mobile data that could<br><br>Or could not...<br><br>The entire post is BS. Could, If, May be, Or may be not<br><br>WTF are the Salshdot eds doing? This is a total non story, may be or perhaps, possibly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA " A BusinessWeek report suggestsI suggest something else... who cares ? Some analysts believe the Apple-Google battle is likely to get much rougher in the months aheadSome people think it may be warm in summerOvum 's Yarmis thinks Apple may soon decide to dump    Or they may notGoogle as the default search engine on its devices , primarily to cut Google off from mobile data that couldOr could not...The entire post is BS .
Could , If , May be , Or may be notWTF are the Salshdot eds doing ?
This is a total non story , may be or perhaps , possibly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA"A BusinessWeek report suggestsI suggest something else... who cares?Some analysts believe the Apple-Google battle is likely to get much rougher in the months aheadSome people think it may be warm in summerOvum's Yarmis thinks Apple may soon decide to dump﻿Or they may notGoogle as the default search engine on its devices, primarily to cut Google off from mobile data that couldOr could not...The entire post is BS.
Could, If, May be, Or may be notWTF are the Salshdot eds doing?
This is a total non story, may be or perhaps, possibly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30810360</id>
	<title>Re:Buy, not build</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1263841980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What does Apple do in-house? They improve things, yes, but start them? Not all that much.</p><p>They bough NeXT, and out of that grew MacOS X. They also got WebObjects from NeXT.<br>They bought KeyGrip from Macromedia (before Adobe bought the rest of it), and relabeled it "Final Cut".<br>They bought DVDirector from Astarte, and relabeled it "DVD Studio"<br>They bought Spruce Technologies, got DVD Maestro from that deal, and that became "DVD Studio Pro" (guess they liked it better than DVDirector).<br>They bought eMagic, and got Logic. Still called Logic. GarageBand was developed, originally as a clone of Acid, by the same eMagic folks.<br>They bought Silicon Color, got FinalTouch in the deal, relabeled it "Color"<br>They bought Nothing Real (a spinoff of Sony Imageworks) and acquired Shake. Still called Shake.<br>They forked the KHTML rendering engine to create WebKit, and from it, Safari.</p><p>This is why it's good to have lots of cash. Part of what you get, particularly when you buy an existing application AND the development team, is not just an existing and tested application, but a development team with perhaps decades of experience. It's much harder to start from scratch and build something competitive, but particularly if you don't have a team that does that thing. This is professional software, too... few of these things existing in any similar professional level on Linux, largely due to a fairly exclusive market. And, well, folks like Apple buying up these little companies and killing off any non-Apple versions of the products (plenty of this happening among Windows companies, too).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does Apple do in-house ?
They improve things , yes , but start them ?
Not all that much.They bough NeXT , and out of that grew MacOS X. They also got WebObjects from NeXT.They bought KeyGrip from Macromedia ( before Adobe bought the rest of it ) , and relabeled it " Final Cut " .They bought DVDirector from Astarte , and relabeled it " DVD Studio " They bought Spruce Technologies , got DVD Maestro from that deal , and that became " DVD Studio Pro " ( guess they liked it better than DVDirector ) .They bought eMagic , and got Logic .
Still called Logic .
GarageBand was developed , originally as a clone of Acid , by the same eMagic folks.They bought Silicon Color , got FinalTouch in the deal , relabeled it " Color " They bought Nothing Real ( a spinoff of Sony Imageworks ) and acquired Shake .
Still called Shake.They forked the KHTML rendering engine to create WebKit , and from it , Safari.This is why it 's good to have lots of cash .
Part of what you get , particularly when you buy an existing application AND the development team , is not just an existing and tested application , but a development team with perhaps decades of experience .
It 's much harder to start from scratch and build something competitive , but particularly if you do n't have a team that does that thing .
This is professional software , too... few of these things existing in any similar professional level on Linux , largely due to a fairly exclusive market .
And , well , folks like Apple buying up these little companies and killing off any non-Apple versions of the products ( plenty of this happening among Windows companies , too ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does Apple do in-house?
They improve things, yes, but start them?
Not all that much.They bough NeXT, and out of that grew MacOS X. They also got WebObjects from NeXT.They bought KeyGrip from Macromedia (before Adobe bought the rest of it), and relabeled it "Final Cut".They bought DVDirector from Astarte, and relabeled it "DVD Studio"They bought Spruce Technologies, got DVD Maestro from that deal, and that became "DVD Studio Pro" (guess they liked it better than DVDirector).They bought eMagic, and got Logic.
Still called Logic.
GarageBand was developed, originally as a clone of Acid, by the same eMagic folks.They bought Silicon Color, got FinalTouch in the deal, relabeled it "Color"They bought Nothing Real (a spinoff of Sony Imageworks) and acquired Shake.
Still called Shake.They forked the KHTML rendering engine to create WebKit, and from it, Safari.This is why it's good to have lots of cash.
Part of what you get, particularly when you buy an existing application AND the development team, is not just an existing and tested application, but a development team with perhaps decades of experience.
It's much harder to start from scratch and build something competitive, but particularly if you don't have a team that does that thing.
This is professional software, too... few of these things existing in any similar professional level on Linux, largely due to a fairly exclusive market.
And, well, folks like Apple buying up these little companies and killing off any non-Apple versions of the products (plenty of this happening among Windows companies, too).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30805188</id>
	<title>That would be the day.</title>
	<author>prefec2</author>
	<datestamp>1263757140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most Apple users are not so M$ friendly. When Apple would switch to Bing, they will loose some of their reputation. However, they can get Forestle (www.forestle.org). That would fit with their customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most Apple users are not so M $ friendly .
When Apple would switch to Bing , they will loose some of their reputation .
However , they can get Forestle ( www.forestle.org ) .
That would fit with their customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most Apple users are not so M$ friendly.
When Apple would switch to Bing, they will loose some of their reputation.
However, they can get Forestle (www.forestle.org).
That would fit with their customers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800668</id>
	<title>This has to be the most idiotic thing ever</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1263719520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple has been EXTREMELY lucky with the iPod. Through it millions of people have become exposed NOT just to an Apple product but the idea that MS is NOT the end all of computers. Apple computer sales have soared thanks to the iPod effect and Apple is doing really really well at the moment.
</p><p>The iPhone is "just" more of the same effect (and counting the iPod touch as the same). Showing people that far more then "just an MP3 player" can be not-windows.
</p><p>Apple has gained HUGE sales because people are starting to accept that PC does NOT have to mean Windows... and then they are going to put Bing/MS on their own flagship products?
</p><p>That would be like Shell putting a sticker on its F1 cars "runs on Exxon". McDonalds might as well advertise that chicken tastes better and flame grilled is the best for a burger.
</p><p>The financial situation of the world is very understandable when you see the financial media produce this kind of shortsighted stuff.
</p><p>Google and Apple compete on mobile phones, so Apple will run to MS, with which it competes on Operating System, productivity software, media codecs, MP3 players, browser oh and lets not forget MOBILE PHONES!
</p><p>Surely Businessweek is aware MS is involved with mobile phones? I know they are not all that successful but surely someone in that office has heard of it?
</p><p>So to screw google out of the data they get through search they give all that data to MS? That makes a LOT of sense.
</p><p>Businessweek, read by the people that gave you the recession.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple has been EXTREMELY lucky with the iPod .
Through it millions of people have become exposed NOT just to an Apple product but the idea that MS is NOT the end all of computers .
Apple computer sales have soared thanks to the iPod effect and Apple is doing really really well at the moment .
The iPhone is " just " more of the same effect ( and counting the iPod touch as the same ) .
Showing people that far more then " just an MP3 player " can be not-windows .
Apple has gained HUGE sales because people are starting to accept that PC does NOT have to mean Windows... and then they are going to put Bing/MS on their own flagship products ?
That would be like Shell putting a sticker on its F1 cars " runs on Exxon " .
McDonalds might as well advertise that chicken tastes better and flame grilled is the best for a burger .
The financial situation of the world is very understandable when you see the financial media produce this kind of shortsighted stuff .
Google and Apple compete on mobile phones , so Apple will run to MS , with which it competes on Operating System , productivity software , media codecs , MP3 players , browser oh and lets not forget MOBILE PHONES !
Surely Businessweek is aware MS is involved with mobile phones ?
I know they are not all that successful but surely someone in that office has heard of it ?
So to screw google out of the data they get through search they give all that data to MS ?
That makes a LOT of sense .
Businessweek , read by the people that gave you the recession .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple has been EXTREMELY lucky with the iPod.
Through it millions of people have become exposed NOT just to an Apple product but the idea that MS is NOT the end all of computers.
Apple computer sales have soared thanks to the iPod effect and Apple is doing really really well at the moment.
The iPhone is "just" more of the same effect (and counting the iPod touch as the same).
Showing people that far more then "just an MP3 player" can be not-windows.
Apple has gained HUGE sales because people are starting to accept that PC does NOT have to mean Windows... and then they are going to put Bing/MS on their own flagship products?
That would be like Shell putting a sticker on its F1 cars "runs on Exxon".
McDonalds might as well advertise that chicken tastes better and flame grilled is the best for a burger.
The financial situation of the world is very understandable when you see the financial media produce this kind of shortsighted stuff.
Google and Apple compete on mobile phones, so Apple will run to MS, with which it competes on Operating System, productivity software, media codecs, MP3 players, browser oh and lets not forget MOBILE PHONES!
Surely Businessweek is aware MS is involved with mobile phones?
I know they are not all that successful but surely someone in that office has heard of it?
So to screw google out of the data they get through search they give all that data to MS?
That makes a LOT of sense.
Businessweek, read by the people that gave you the recession.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30803130</id>
	<title>performance</title>
	<author>codepunk</author>
	<datestamp>1263736920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When one of these android devices can perform like a iphone then it may happen, but that<br>is certainly not a issue for apple yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When one of these android devices can perform like a iphone then it may happen , but thatis certainly not a issue for apple yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When one of these android devices can perform like a iphone then it may happen, but thatis certainly not a issue for apple yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30802258</id>
	<title>Re:Google versus Everyone?</title>
	<author>Xaduurv</author>
	<datestamp>1263730140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google cannot keep fighting Microsoft/Apple/US DOJ/China/Evil at once and win.</p></div><p>Yes they can. They're GOOGLE!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google can not keep fighting Microsoft/Apple/US DOJ/China/Evil at once and win.Yes they can .
They 're GOOGLE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google cannot keep fighting Microsoft/Apple/US DOJ/China/Evil at once and win.Yes they can.
They're GOOGLE!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799744</id>
	<title>Won't have to wait for Hadron collider ...</title>
	<author>ctmurray</author>
	<datestamp>1263755700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this happens we won't have to wait for the Hadron collider to end the universe...</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this happens we wo n't have to wait for the Hadron collider to end the universe.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this happens we won't have to wait for the Hadron collider to end the universe...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799922</id>
	<title>Can't possibly happen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263756780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone knows Bing is a Cherry and theres already enough fruit around San Francisco</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows Bing is a Cherry and theres already enough fruit around San Francisco</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows Bing is a Cherry and theres already enough fruit around San Francisco</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799890</id>
	<title>Re:This makes perfect sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263756540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sure they are. They can do it easily. As a matter of fact, I think Apple's brand is so strong, if they created their own search engine, they'd crush Google and Bing.</p></div><p>You're either joking or really, really dumb. That's like saying "Toyota's brand is so strong, if they created their own cola, they'd crush Coke and Pepsi".</p><p>Their brand is strong <i>in a certain area</i>. Just like Google's brand is strong <i>in a certain area</i>. There's a reason searching online is called "Googling".</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and that's just talking brand. Google is already entrenched in most people as habit, they have by far the best search technology (and are constantly improving), and they most importantly have the crazy infrastructure necessary to enable everything they do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure they are .
They can do it easily .
As a matter of fact , I think Apple 's brand is so strong , if they created their own search engine , they 'd crush Google and Bing.You 're either joking or really , really dumb .
That 's like saying " Toyota 's brand is so strong , if they created their own cola , they 'd crush Coke and Pepsi " .Their brand is strong in a certain area .
Just like Google 's brand is strong in a certain area .
There 's a reason searching online is called " Googling " .
... and that 's just talking brand .
Google is already entrenched in most people as habit , they have by far the best search technology ( and are constantly improving ) , and they most importantly have the crazy infrastructure necessary to enable everything they do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure they are.
They can do it easily.
As a matter of fact, I think Apple's brand is so strong, if they created their own search engine, they'd crush Google and Bing.You're either joking or really, really dumb.
That's like saying "Toyota's brand is so strong, if they created their own cola, they'd crush Coke and Pepsi".Their brand is strong in a certain area.
Just like Google's brand is strong in a certain area.
There's a reason searching online is called "Googling".
... and that's just talking brand.
Google is already entrenched in most people as habit, they have by far the best search technology (and are constantly improving), and they most importantly have the crazy infrastructure necessary to enable everything they do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799558</id>
	<title>Re:This makes perfect sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263753960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple is not a great company. They are trying to undermine opernsource software everyday and proprietize the world around them. Fuck you and fuck apple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is not a great company .
They are trying to undermine opernsource software everyday and proprietize the world around them .
Fuck you and fuck apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is not a great company.
They are trying to undermine opernsource software everyday and proprietize the world around them.
Fuck you and fuck apple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30931956</id>
	<title>Re:Not the MS-Apple deal I would expect</title>
	<author>Krabbs</author>
	<datestamp>1264686300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In 2001:

"I don't see many sales in the future of iPod.

~LoudMusic"
Maybe you should stop trying to predict the future, man.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In 2001 : " I do n't see many sales in the future of iPod .
~ LoudMusic " Maybe you should stop trying to predict the future , man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 2001:

"I don't see many sales in the future of iPod.
~LoudMusic"
Maybe you should stop trying to predict the future, man.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30812136</id>
	<title>GMail and Apple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263807120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple's new app, TouchText, can be used to send email on GMail. In case you live under a rock and haven't heard about TouchText yet, it's the app that you download and then you can text in a whole new way that totally avoids the annoying iphone keypad. All you need to know is the alphabet. Apple loves it. Everyone loves it! It's genius!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple 's new app , TouchText , can be used to send email on GMail .
In case you live under a rock and have n't heard about TouchText yet , it 's the app that you download and then you can text in a whole new way that totally avoids the annoying iphone keypad .
All you need to know is the alphabet .
Apple loves it .
Everyone loves it !
It 's genius !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple's new app, TouchText, can be used to send email on GMail.
In case you live under a rock and haven't heard about TouchText yet, it's the app that you download and then you can text in a whole new way that totally avoids the annoying iphone keypad.
All you need to know is the alphabet.
Apple loves it.
Everyone loves it!
It's genius!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30805056</id>
	<title>Google vs. Apple?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263755760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Apple abandons Google, they should go to Alta Vista since they preceeded Google and have far more vast database.</p><p>Microsoft has invested in Apple with cash.  Microsoft has developed software for Apple hardware which is "mission critical".  Microsoft is not old line capital with low growth and is not a challenge to Apple anymore.  Google still is to some limited degree.</p><p>In about 5-9 years Apple will be able to afford to buy Microsoft (and IBM) and will refuse to do so.</p><p>Am I crazy?  Like a fox?</p><p>JJ</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Apple abandons Google , they should go to Alta Vista since they preceeded Google and have far more vast database.Microsoft has invested in Apple with cash .
Microsoft has developed software for Apple hardware which is " mission critical " .
Microsoft is not old line capital with low growth and is not a challenge to Apple anymore .
Google still is to some limited degree.In about 5-9 years Apple will be able to afford to buy Microsoft ( and IBM ) and will refuse to do so.Am I crazy ?
Like a fox ? JJ</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Apple abandons Google, they should go to Alta Vista since they preceeded Google and have far more vast database.Microsoft has invested in Apple with cash.
Microsoft has developed software for Apple hardware which is "mission critical".
Microsoft is not old line capital with low growth and is not a challenge to Apple anymore.
Google still is to some limited degree.In about 5-9 years Apple will be able to afford to buy Microsoft (and IBM) and will refuse to do so.Am I crazy?
Like a fox?JJ</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30802790</id>
	<title>Allegiance with?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263733860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not a native speaker, but don't you mean allegiance to? or alliance with?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a native speaker , but do n't you mean allegiance to ?
or alliance with ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a native speaker, but don't you mean allegiance to?
or alliance with?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30839668</id>
	<title>BS, Android is not a threat to iPhone</title>
	<author>gig</author>
	<datestamp>1263990300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple sells more iPhone 3GS in a week than all the Android phones combined sell in a month. The same exact thing can also be said for iPhone 3G and iPod touch<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... each of those models sells more in a week than all of the Android phones combined sell in a month. Is the Zune a threat to the iPod? No. Same goes for Android and iPhone.</p><p>I guarantee you, the smartphone that pisses Apple off is the new Palm, because Palm hired away so many Apple employees and then produced a clone of iPhone. And Palm are selling more phones than Android.</p><p>One can even argue that Android helps iPhone and Apple. Android replaced Windows Mobile on the exact same phones, that means that Droid and Nexus One are running an Apple WebKit browser and ISO MPEG-4 media player instead of a Microsoft IE browser and Windows Media player. Therefore Android users are better Apple clients than they would have been with Windows Mobile, whether for Apple Store or for iTunes Store or as Mac users. Also, the work that Google does on mobile Search and Maps for Android benefits the iPhone. The work that Google does on its Android apps shows up in Google's iPhone apps. The battery door falling off the Droid and Verizon applying a sticker to it to hold it on makes Apple hardware look better by comparison. The 1GHz Nexus One having a less fluid interface than the 600MHz iPhone 3GS makes Apple software look better by comparison. Google's Nexus One launch with the round robin Google/T-Mobile/HTC "support" made Apple's support look totally fucking awesome by comparison. Google shipping malware out of Android Market was one of the first news stories that explained iPhone app approvals, and some people are now calling for Google to do approvals of Android apps, like they ban malware website from their search index. Google has proven that making and selling and supporting a smartphone and application platform is really, really hard. Google has proven that Apple made a lot of things look really easy over the past few years.</p><p>This is not a knock against Android. If you are happy with your Android phone, then more power to you. But what has that got to do with iPhone? Almost nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple sells more iPhone 3GS in a week than all the Android phones combined sell in a month .
The same exact thing can also be said for iPhone 3G and iPod touch ... each of those models sells more in a week than all of the Android phones combined sell in a month .
Is the Zune a threat to the iPod ?
No. Same goes for Android and iPhone.I guarantee you , the smartphone that pisses Apple off is the new Palm , because Palm hired away so many Apple employees and then produced a clone of iPhone .
And Palm are selling more phones than Android.One can even argue that Android helps iPhone and Apple .
Android replaced Windows Mobile on the exact same phones , that means that Droid and Nexus One are running an Apple WebKit browser and ISO MPEG-4 media player instead of a Microsoft IE browser and Windows Media player .
Therefore Android users are better Apple clients than they would have been with Windows Mobile , whether for Apple Store or for iTunes Store or as Mac users .
Also , the work that Google does on mobile Search and Maps for Android benefits the iPhone .
The work that Google does on its Android apps shows up in Google 's iPhone apps .
The battery door falling off the Droid and Verizon applying a sticker to it to hold it on makes Apple hardware look better by comparison .
The 1GHz Nexus One having a less fluid interface than the 600MHz iPhone 3GS makes Apple software look better by comparison .
Google 's Nexus One launch with the round robin Google/T-Mobile/HTC " support " made Apple 's support look totally fucking awesome by comparison .
Google shipping malware out of Android Market was one of the first news stories that explained iPhone app approvals , and some people are now calling for Google to do approvals of Android apps , like they ban malware website from their search index .
Google has proven that making and selling and supporting a smartphone and application platform is really , really hard .
Google has proven that Apple made a lot of things look really easy over the past few years.This is not a knock against Android .
If you are happy with your Android phone , then more power to you .
But what has that got to do with iPhone ?
Almost nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple sells more iPhone 3GS in a week than all the Android phones combined sell in a month.
The same exact thing can also be said for iPhone 3G and iPod touch ... each of those models sells more in a week than all of the Android phones combined sell in a month.
Is the Zune a threat to the iPod?
No. Same goes for Android and iPhone.I guarantee you, the smartphone that pisses Apple off is the new Palm, because Palm hired away so many Apple employees and then produced a clone of iPhone.
And Palm are selling more phones than Android.One can even argue that Android helps iPhone and Apple.
Android replaced Windows Mobile on the exact same phones, that means that Droid and Nexus One are running an Apple WebKit browser and ISO MPEG-4 media player instead of a Microsoft IE browser and Windows Media player.
Therefore Android users are better Apple clients than they would have been with Windows Mobile, whether for Apple Store or for iTunes Store or as Mac users.
Also, the work that Google does on mobile Search and Maps for Android benefits the iPhone.
The work that Google does on its Android apps shows up in Google's iPhone apps.
The battery door falling off the Droid and Verizon applying a sticker to it to hold it on makes Apple hardware look better by comparison.
The 1GHz Nexus One having a less fluid interface than the 600MHz iPhone 3GS makes Apple software look better by comparison.
Google's Nexus One launch with the round robin Google/T-Mobile/HTC "support" made Apple's support look totally fucking awesome by comparison.
Google shipping malware out of Android Market was one of the first news stories that explained iPhone app approvals, and some people are now calling for Google to do approvals of Android apps, like they ban malware website from their search index.
Google has proven that making and selling and supporting a smartphone and application platform is really, really hard.
Google has proven that Apple made a lot of things look really easy over the past few years.This is not a knock against Android.
If you are happy with your Android phone, then more power to you.
But what has that got to do with iPhone?
Almost nothing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799700</id>
	<title>The enemy of your enemy is...</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1263755100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... oh, wait, is about Microsoft we are talking about?</htmltext>
<tokenext>... oh , wait , is about Microsoft we are talking about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... oh, wait, is about Microsoft we are talking about?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799596</id>
	<title>Gag me with a blender!</title>
	<author>OpinionatedDude</author>
	<datestamp>1263754320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple is doing just fine all by itself just like it has from the start.
The thing that has me bothered is that I've been driving Ford's all my life (Dad worked for Ford forever).  Now that Ford has been infected with Microsoft I may have to get my cars from somebody else.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;(</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is doing just fine all by itself just like it has from the start .
The thing that has me bothered is that I 've been driving Ford 's all my life ( Dad worked for Ford forever ) .
Now that Ford has been infected with Microsoft I may have to get my cars from somebody else .
; (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is doing just fine all by itself just like it has from the start.
The thing that has me bothered is that I've been driving Ford's all my life (Dad worked for Ford forever).
Now that Ford has been infected with Microsoft I may have to get my cars from somebody else.
;(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799482</id>
	<title>I have a very hard time buying this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263753420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jobs thinks everything Microsoft does is second-rate. He won't team up with them for that reason alone, never mind the fact that Apple has been burned by trusting Microsoft in the past, and I can't see that mistake being made again.</p><p>~Philly</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jobs thinks everything Microsoft does is second-rate .
He wo n't team up with them for that reason alone , never mind the fact that Apple has been burned by trusting Microsoft in the past , and I ca n't see that mistake being made again. ~ Philly</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jobs thinks everything Microsoft does is second-rate.
He won't team up with them for that reason alone, never mind the fact that Apple has been burned by trusting Microsoft in the past, and I can't see that mistake being made again.~Philly</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30809776</id>
	<title>Re:This makes perfect sense</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1263839280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You would kind of hope that Apple makes these decisions based on "better". But they don't... they're making their decisions based on "better for Apple". They could have any and all Google apps on the iPhone... they keep them out because they're threatened by it in some way. Or because they have their own app, and want to force every iPhone user into using that.</p><p>That's typical... same reason you can't get an alternate web browser for the iPhone. Is Safari good? Sure. Is it the best possible mobile web browser there ever will be. Unlikely, and that question's answer is certainly based on personal preferences. Is it the best ever to be on the iPhone... best, worst, and only.</p><p>Apple will certainly take this approach with every other app they want every iPhone user using. And this is the precise reason Google got into the phone business. They clearly didn't care about making money selling a phone OS, but they did care about access to mobile search, which will be larger than desktop search before you know it. Given that mobile platforms have typically been locked down harder than desktops, Google took a great approach -- build a better mobile OS, keep it open, and give it away.</p><p>In the long run, Apple will be relegated to the same kind of niche they enjoy in the desktop world. They won't make an iPhone so cheap it's "free with a 2 year contract", but there will be Android phones sold that way, by 2011 if not 2010. It is inevitable that Android eclipse the iPhone, and other proprietary systems. This probably doesn't worry Apple all that much... they're already the most profitable company selling cellphones (in a big part because they ONLY sell smart phones, and the smart phone market generates over half the revenue and 2/3 of the profit in the cellular hardware industry), and that's probably not going to change, for the same reason. As long as they can keep adding less than $40 to the BOM of an iPod and getting 3x the retail price, they'll be happy enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You would kind of hope that Apple makes these decisions based on " better " .
But they do n't... they 're making their decisions based on " better for Apple " .
They could have any and all Google apps on the iPhone... they keep them out because they 're threatened by it in some way .
Or because they have their own app , and want to force every iPhone user into using that.That 's typical... same reason you ca n't get an alternate web browser for the iPhone .
Is Safari good ?
Sure. Is it the best possible mobile web browser there ever will be .
Unlikely , and that question 's answer is certainly based on personal preferences .
Is it the best ever to be on the iPhone... best , worst , and only.Apple will certainly take this approach with every other app they want every iPhone user using .
And this is the precise reason Google got into the phone business .
They clearly did n't care about making money selling a phone OS , but they did care about access to mobile search , which will be larger than desktop search before you know it .
Given that mobile platforms have typically been locked down harder than desktops , Google took a great approach -- build a better mobile OS , keep it open , and give it away.In the long run , Apple will be relegated to the same kind of niche they enjoy in the desktop world .
They wo n't make an iPhone so cheap it 's " free with a 2 year contract " , but there will be Android phones sold that way , by 2011 if not 2010 .
It is inevitable that Android eclipse the iPhone , and other proprietary systems .
This probably does n't worry Apple all that much... they 're already the most profitable company selling cellphones ( in a big part because they ONLY sell smart phones , and the smart phone market generates over half the revenue and 2/3 of the profit in the cellular hardware industry ) , and that 's probably not going to change , for the same reason .
As long as they can keep adding less than $ 40 to the BOM of an iPod and getting 3x the retail price , they 'll be happy enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You would kind of hope that Apple makes these decisions based on "better".
But they don't... they're making their decisions based on "better for Apple".
They could have any and all Google apps on the iPhone... they keep them out because they're threatened by it in some way.
Or because they have their own app, and want to force every iPhone user into using that.That's typical... same reason you can't get an alternate web browser for the iPhone.
Is Safari good?
Sure. Is it the best possible mobile web browser there ever will be.
Unlikely, and that question's answer is certainly based on personal preferences.
Is it the best ever to be on the iPhone... best, worst, and only.Apple will certainly take this approach with every other app they want every iPhone user using.
And this is the precise reason Google got into the phone business.
They clearly didn't care about making money selling a phone OS, but they did care about access to mobile search, which will be larger than desktop search before you know it.
Given that mobile platforms have typically been locked down harder than desktops, Google took a great approach -- build a better mobile OS, keep it open, and give it away.In the long run, Apple will be relegated to the same kind of niche they enjoy in the desktop world.
They won't make an iPhone so cheap it's "free with a 2 year contract", but there will be Android phones sold that way, by 2011 if not 2010.
It is inevitable that Android eclipse the iPhone, and other proprietary systems.
This probably doesn't worry Apple all that much... they're already the most profitable company selling cellphones (in a big part because they ONLY sell smart phones, and the smart phone market generates over half the revenue and 2/3 of the profit in the cellular hardware industry), and that's probably not going to change, for the same reason.
As long as they can keep adding less than $40 to the BOM of an iPod and getting 3x the retail price, they'll be happy enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30801590</id>
	<title>Re:I have a very hard time buying this</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1263725640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree the GUI on Android is still not as good. It feels less polished especially on the browser. However Nexus One with Android 2.1 is much smoother and nicer than phones with old Android releases.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree the GUI on Android is still not as good .
It feels less polished especially on the browser .
However Nexus One with Android 2.1 is much smoother and nicer than phones with old Android releases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree the GUI on Android is still not as good.
It feels less polished especially on the browser.
However Nexus One with Android 2.1 is much smoother and nicer than phones with old Android releases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800402</id>
	<title>Re:What nonsense</title>
	<author>Jeff DeMaagd</author>
	<datestamp>1263760860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's "war" because it makes great press copy.  Makes it seem dramatic.  And some people get really emotional about their purchase choices, so they'll go make belligerent statements on the web on behalf of their favorite company, for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's " war " because it makes great press copy .
Makes it seem dramatic .
And some people get really emotional about their purchase choices , so they 'll go make belligerent statements on the web on behalf of their favorite company , for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's "war" because it makes great press copy.
Makes it seem dramatic.
And some people get really emotional about their purchase choices, so they'll go make belligerent statements on the web on behalf of their favorite company, for free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30801232</id>
	<title>Re:Doubtful.</title>
	<author>indiechild</author>
	<datestamp>1263723180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole premise of the article is just silly. Apple (and Steve Jobs) is like the archetypal alpha male, they're not going to partner up with Microsoft, nor are they going to be concerned about Google being "in competition" with them. Apple knows exactly what it wants and it is perfectly happy going its own way -- it doesn't let others dictate its strategies or vision. Worrying that  others are going to overtake you is a classic trait of the beta male.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole premise of the article is just silly .
Apple ( and Steve Jobs ) is like the archetypal alpha male , they 're not going to partner up with Microsoft , nor are they going to be concerned about Google being " in competition " with them .
Apple knows exactly what it wants and it is perfectly happy going its own way -- it does n't let others dictate its strategies or vision .
Worrying that others are going to overtake you is a classic trait of the beta male .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole premise of the article is just silly.
Apple (and Steve Jobs) is like the archetypal alpha male, they're not going to partner up with Microsoft, nor are they going to be concerned about Google being "in competition" with them.
Apple knows exactly what it wants and it is perfectly happy going its own way -- it doesn't let others dictate its strategies or vision.
Worrying that  others are going to overtake you is a classic trait of the beta male.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30803264</id>
	<title>Learn a lesson from MS</title>
	<author>kentsin</author>
	<datestamp>1263738120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple, the company in second time, lead the world of IT into the future.</p><p>It fail in the PC turn. Now, it is leading the more personal Mobile wind.</p><p>Same setting, same ahead, better technology, but</p><p>Will Apple learn a lesson from MS ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple , the company in second time , lead the world of IT into the future.It fail in the PC turn .
Now , it is leading the more personal Mobile wind.Same setting , same ahead , better technology , butWill Apple learn a lesson from MS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple, the company in second time, lead the world of IT into the future.It fail in the PC turn.
Now, it is leading the more personal Mobile wind.Same setting, same ahead, better technology, butWill Apple learn a lesson from MS ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800024</id>
	<title>Re:i don't believe this for a second</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263757560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google's core business is search.</p></div><p>Exactly how does search get money for Google?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google 's core business is search.Exactly how does search get money for Google ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google's core business is search.Exactly how does search get money for Google?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30804032</id>
	<title>It's the Android, stupid</title>
	<author>Guerilla Antix</author>
	<datestamp>1263745260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The big threat to Apple's dominance in the cellphone market isn't from a single competitor.  Nexus One is receiving a lot of hype because of the Google tag.  A few months ago Verizon generated its own hype with bold commercials for the Droid (which, for disclosure reasons, I will mention I bought and am happy with).  The real story and threat to Apple is from the Android operating system, not Google directly.  The N1 story actually seems closer to Zune than anything else: powerful software company attempts to break into hardware oriented sector and appears ill-prepared.</p><p>In the case of Apple the enemy of their enemy is not their friend.  For a M$/Apple partnership to make any sense at all M$ would have to be throwing in the towel with Windows Mobile.  Instead, it looks like the opposite will hold true.  The smartphone market is just like the 80's and Google has taken huge steps to ensure themselves a tenable position in the brawl that is about to occur.</p><p>Most<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers should be damn happy about the current climate.  Google pretty much is sneaking the Linux OS through the back door w/o the general populace even understanding it (and the only way they'll ever switch to it).  When phones become dockable portable computers it might very well be Linux the world is running on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The big threat to Apple 's dominance in the cellphone market is n't from a single competitor .
Nexus One is receiving a lot of hype because of the Google tag .
A few months ago Verizon generated its own hype with bold commercials for the Droid ( which , for disclosure reasons , I will mention I bought and am happy with ) .
The real story and threat to Apple is from the Android operating system , not Google directly .
The N1 story actually seems closer to Zune than anything else : powerful software company attempts to break into hardware oriented sector and appears ill-prepared.In the case of Apple the enemy of their enemy is not their friend .
For a M $ /Apple partnership to make any sense at all M $ would have to be throwing in the towel with Windows Mobile .
Instead , it looks like the opposite will hold true .
The smartphone market is just like the 80 's and Google has taken huge steps to ensure themselves a tenable position in the brawl that is about to occur.Most /.ers should be damn happy about the current climate .
Google pretty much is sneaking the Linux OS through the back door w/o the general populace even understanding it ( and the only way they 'll ever switch to it ) .
When phones become dockable portable computers it might very well be Linux the world is running on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big threat to Apple's dominance in the cellphone market isn't from a single competitor.
Nexus One is receiving a lot of hype because of the Google tag.
A few months ago Verizon generated its own hype with bold commercials for the Droid (which, for disclosure reasons, I will mention I bought and am happy with).
The real story and threat to Apple is from the Android operating system, not Google directly.
The N1 story actually seems closer to Zune than anything else: powerful software company attempts to break into hardware oriented sector and appears ill-prepared.In the case of Apple the enemy of their enemy is not their friend.
For a M$/Apple partnership to make any sense at all M$ would have to be throwing in the towel with Windows Mobile.
Instead, it looks like the opposite will hold true.
The smartphone market is just like the 80's and Google has taken huge steps to ensure themselves a tenable position in the brawl that is about to occur.Most /.ers should be damn happy about the current climate.
Google pretty much is sneaking the Linux OS through the back door w/o the general populace even understanding it (and the only way they'll ever switch to it).
When phones become dockable portable computers it might very well be Linux the world is running on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799606</id>
	<title>Ain't Gonna Happen</title>
	<author>SkydiverFL</author>
	<datestamp>1263754440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple has shown a clear desire to not remain glued to Microsoft.  This is evident with the release of iWork and the dead-end path of the Office products on the Apple platform.</p><p>Because of my position, I have almost every handheld and PDA device that hits the market.  As a seasoned<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET developer, I am biased towards Microsoft.  However, that being said, the Windows Mobile platform is horrible.  Even on devices like Samsung's Omnia, it is sluggish and cumbersome at best.  Memory management is a nightmare.</p><p>The only realistic path is for the Windows Mobile platform to die off or be revamped from scratch.  At most they may build a mobile version of Office for iPhone and Android but even that is a stretch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple has shown a clear desire to not remain glued to Microsoft .
This is evident with the release of iWork and the dead-end path of the Office products on the Apple platform.Because of my position , I have almost every handheld and PDA device that hits the market .
As a seasoned .NET developer , I am biased towards Microsoft .
However , that being said , the Windows Mobile platform is horrible .
Even on devices like Samsung 's Omnia , it is sluggish and cumbersome at best .
Memory management is a nightmare.The only realistic path is for the Windows Mobile platform to die off or be revamped from scratch .
At most they may build a mobile version of Office for iPhone and Android but even that is a stretch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple has shown a clear desire to not remain glued to Microsoft.
This is evident with the release of iWork and the dead-end path of the Office products on the Apple platform.Because of my position, I have almost every handheld and PDA device that hits the market.
As a seasoned .NET developer, I am biased towards Microsoft.
However, that being said, the Windows Mobile platform is horrible.
Even on devices like Samsung's Omnia, it is sluggish and cumbersome at best.
Memory management is a nightmare.The only realistic path is for the Windows Mobile platform to die off or be revamped from scratch.
At most they may build a mobile version of Office for iPhone and Android but even that is a stretch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799756</id>
	<title>What nonsense</title>
	<author>BearRanger</author>
	<datestamp>1263755760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is it always "war"?  You know, it's just possible that the market for mobile phones is large enough to support many different vendors.  Apple has consistently shown that they're happy with just a portion of the markets they play in--provided it's the most lucrative end of that market.  The iPod is more an anomaly than the norm in terms of how Apple approaches its various markets.  Google and Apple stand to gain more here if they continue to cooperate than if they become all out adversaries.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it always " war " ?
You know , it 's just possible that the market for mobile phones is large enough to support many different vendors .
Apple has consistently shown that they 're happy with just a portion of the markets they play in--provided it 's the most lucrative end of that market .
The iPod is more an anomaly than the norm in terms of how Apple approaches its various markets .
Google and Apple stand to gain more here if they continue to cooperate than if they become all out adversaries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it always "war"?
You know, it's just possible that the market for mobile phones is large enough to support many different vendors.
Apple has consistently shown that they're happy with just a portion of the markets they play in--provided it's the most lucrative end of that market.
The iPod is more an anomaly than the norm in terms of how Apple approaches its various markets.
Google and Apple stand to gain more here if they continue to cooperate than if they become all out adversaries.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30801812</id>
	<title>Re:Google versus Everyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263726900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hopefully they make their peace with someone other than Evil. I'm not sure MS/Apple/US/China can compete against Google/Evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully they make their peace with someone other than Evil .
I 'm not sure MS/Apple/US/China can compete against Google/Evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully they make their peace with someone other than Evil.
I'm not sure MS/Apple/US/China can compete against Google/Evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800250</id>
	<title>Re:This makes perfect sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263759300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sure they are. They can do it easily. As a matter of fact, I think Apple's brand is so strong, if they created their own search engine, they'd crush Google and Bing.</p></div><p>Just like they did with safari.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure they are .
They can do it easily .
As a matter of fact , I think Apple 's brand is so strong , if they created their own search engine , they 'd crush Google and Bing.Just like they did with safari .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure they are.
They can do it easily.
As a matter of fact, I think Apple's brand is so strong, if they created their own search engine, they'd crush Google and Bing.Just like they did with safari.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799878</id>
	<title>Re:I have a very hard time buying this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263756420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Jobs thinks everything Microsoft does is second-rate</p></div></blockquote><p>On the other hand, Microsoft is at the top of the game economically.  Microsoft never got the smartphone right, and they went five iterations of WinCE/Windows Mobile before they got the PDA right. For a PDA-only device I prefer Windows Mobile to the iPhone. For a "convergence" device (PDA + Phone) I prefer the iPhone.</p><p>However, Apple almost failed with the iPhone; they just didn't get it and initially released it with the intent of never offering an SDK, but making only web-based apps. It wasn't until the iPhone was jailbroken and apps were released through third-party sources that Apple realized that there was not only no threat nor stability issue by opening the phone, but a tremendous market, they released the SDK and opened the app store.  The only thing Apple needs to do is open the phone further and allow flash, easy access to application files (for example, to allow users to share shopping list, task list, and other data), and so forth. I believe they will eventually do it but only as a defensive move against google.  Also, some people bought the iPhone for utility, and jailbreak them to get the sort of apps Apple disapproves of (for example, a bash shell and openssh for creation of server monitoring and maintenance utilities, and to enable multitasking), or to customize the phone with themes.</p><p>I think Google is offering too little, too late with the android phones. Why? They initially indicated it would be open, which would achieve what openmoko attempted, but then did the same thing Apple did by locking the phone down. If they open it up then they will be a threat to Apple.  The GUI is not nearly as good as the iPhone at this point, and the GUI is less responsive than even the 3G, let alone the 3G S.  Multitasking is no better; in fact if you jailbreak the phone</p><p>Until google fixes a few key issues with android (GUI navigation, responsiveness, app availability) Apple has very little to fear.</p><p>I would not choose the iPhone if Bing were the default search engine though unless it could be changed to google; Google is by far the best search engine, and without the ability to change the search engine (without jailbreaking) why buy the most expensive mainstream cellphone when it provides inferior service?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Jobs thinks everything Microsoft does is second-rateOn the other hand , Microsoft is at the top of the game economically .
Microsoft never got the smartphone right , and they went five iterations of WinCE/Windows Mobile before they got the PDA right .
For a PDA-only device I prefer Windows Mobile to the iPhone .
For a " convergence " device ( PDA + Phone ) I prefer the iPhone.However , Apple almost failed with the iPhone ; they just did n't get it and initially released it with the intent of never offering an SDK , but making only web-based apps .
It was n't until the iPhone was jailbroken and apps were released through third-party sources that Apple realized that there was not only no threat nor stability issue by opening the phone , but a tremendous market , they released the SDK and opened the app store .
The only thing Apple needs to do is open the phone further and allow flash , easy access to application files ( for example , to allow users to share shopping list , task list , and other data ) , and so forth .
I believe they will eventually do it but only as a defensive move against google .
Also , some people bought the iPhone for utility , and jailbreak them to get the sort of apps Apple disapproves of ( for example , a bash shell and openssh for creation of server monitoring and maintenance utilities , and to enable multitasking ) , or to customize the phone with themes.I think Google is offering too little , too late with the android phones .
Why ? They initially indicated it would be open , which would achieve what openmoko attempted , but then did the same thing Apple did by locking the phone down .
If they open it up then they will be a threat to Apple .
The GUI is not nearly as good as the iPhone at this point , and the GUI is less responsive than even the 3G , let alone the 3G S. Multitasking is no better ; in fact if you jailbreak the phoneUntil google fixes a few key issues with android ( GUI navigation , responsiveness , app availability ) Apple has very little to fear.I would not choose the iPhone if Bing were the default search engine though unless it could be changed to google ; Google is by far the best search engine , and without the ability to change the search engine ( without jailbreaking ) why buy the most expensive mainstream cellphone when it provides inferior service ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jobs thinks everything Microsoft does is second-rateOn the other hand, Microsoft is at the top of the game economically.
Microsoft never got the smartphone right, and they went five iterations of WinCE/Windows Mobile before they got the PDA right.
For a PDA-only device I prefer Windows Mobile to the iPhone.
For a "convergence" device (PDA + Phone) I prefer the iPhone.However, Apple almost failed with the iPhone; they just didn't get it and initially released it with the intent of never offering an SDK, but making only web-based apps.
It wasn't until the iPhone was jailbroken and apps were released through third-party sources that Apple realized that there was not only no threat nor stability issue by opening the phone, but a tremendous market, they released the SDK and opened the app store.
The only thing Apple needs to do is open the phone further and allow flash, easy access to application files (for example, to allow users to share shopping list, task list, and other data), and so forth.
I believe they will eventually do it but only as a defensive move against google.
Also, some people bought the iPhone for utility, and jailbreak them to get the sort of apps Apple disapproves of (for example, a bash shell and openssh for creation of server monitoring and maintenance utilities, and to enable multitasking), or to customize the phone with themes.I think Google is offering too little, too late with the android phones.
Why? They initially indicated it would be open, which would achieve what openmoko attempted, but then did the same thing Apple did by locking the phone down.
If they open it up then they will be a threat to Apple.
The GUI is not nearly as good as the iPhone at this point, and the GUI is less responsive than even the 3G, let alone the 3G S.  Multitasking is no better; in fact if you jailbreak the phoneUntil google fixes a few key issues with android (GUI navigation, responsiveness, app availability) Apple has very little to fear.I would not choose the iPhone if Bing were the default search engine though unless it could be changed to google; Google is by far the best search engine, and without the ability to change the search engine (without jailbreaking) why buy the most expensive mainstream cellphone when it provides inferior service?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800328</id>
	<title>Re:Another solution for Apple</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1263760140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would be a nice fit.  AltaVista was created by DEC to sell Alphas, so having it run be Apple to sell Macs would be a logical continuation.  Unfortunately, you'll find that AltaVista is now owned by Yahoo!  A bit surprising, given that they're now using Bing rather than their in house search engine or AltaVista for search results, so maybe they'd be willing to sell it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be a nice fit .
AltaVista was created by DEC to sell Alphas , so having it run be Apple to sell Macs would be a logical continuation .
Unfortunately , you 'll find that AltaVista is now owned by Yahoo !
A bit surprising , given that they 're now using Bing rather than their in house search engine or AltaVista for search results , so maybe they 'd be willing to sell it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be a nice fit.
AltaVista was created by DEC to sell Alphas, so having it run be Apple to sell Macs would be a logical continuation.
Unfortunately, you'll find that AltaVista is now owned by Yahoo!
A bit surprising, given that they're now using Bing rather than their in house search engine or AltaVista for search results, so maybe they'd be willing to sell it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800716</id>
	<title>Re:This makes perfect sense</title>
	<author>dogzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1263719760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Advertising is a critical part of launching a new publishing platform that includes magazines and newspapers. I don't think that necessarily means that Apple is launching a search engine, but even if it does, it doesn't necessarily follow that Apple will follow Google's model and extract ad revenue from the search engine - Apple could be perfectly happy with simply keeping the data out of Google's hands.</p><p>Also, Apple recently acquired Placebase, a Google competitor. Not sure if they have street view, but they have excellent maps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Advertising is a critical part of launching a new publishing platform that includes magazines and newspapers .
I do n't think that necessarily means that Apple is launching a search engine , but even if it does , it does n't necessarily follow that Apple will follow Google 's model and extract ad revenue from the search engine - Apple could be perfectly happy with simply keeping the data out of Google 's hands.Also , Apple recently acquired Placebase , a Google competitor .
Not sure if they have street view , but they have excellent maps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Advertising is a critical part of launching a new publishing platform that includes magazines and newspapers.
I don't think that necessarily means that Apple is launching a search engine, but even if it does, it doesn't necessarily follow that Apple will follow Google's model and extract ad revenue from the search engine - Apple could be perfectly happy with simply keeping the data out of Google's hands.Also, Apple recently acquired Placebase, a Google competitor.
Not sure if they have street view, but they have excellent maps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30806832</id>
	<title>Re:This makes perfect sense</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1263822660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>As a matter of fact, I think Apple's brand is so strong, if they created their own search engine, they'd crush Google and Bing.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
I think you'd better email Steve Jobs with your plan immediately. To be honest, I'm quite surprised Apple never thought of it themselves.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a matter of fact , I think Apple 's brand is so strong , if they created their own search engine , they 'd crush Google and Bing .
I think you 'd better email Steve Jobs with your plan immediately .
To be honest , I 'm quite surprised Apple never thought of it themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a matter of fact, I think Apple's brand is so strong, if they created their own search engine, they'd crush Google and Bing.
I think you'd better email Steve Jobs with your plan immediately.
To be honest, I'm quite surprised Apple never thought of it themselves.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799458</id>
	<title>Not the MS-Apple deal I would expect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263753240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see very little chance of Apple using Bing as the default search provider on the iPhone. More likely they'd want MS to provide ultra compatible Office apps for the iPhone to help them get into the business smartphone market, competing directly with RIM / Blackberry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see very little chance of Apple using Bing as the default search provider on the iPhone .
More likely they 'd want MS to provide ultra compatible Office apps for the iPhone to help them get into the business smartphone market , competing directly with RIM / Blackberry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see very little chance of Apple using Bing as the default search provider on the iPhone.
More likely they'd want MS to provide ultra compatible Office apps for the iPhone to help them get into the business smartphone market, competing directly with RIM / Blackberry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30805054</id>
	<title>Re:Doubtful.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263755760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You got one thing wrong. Apple customers are the ones stuck with the hardware that is included. PC users and android as well can pick the hardware that they need because they have the choice. If you want keyboard there are phones with the keyboard. If you hate keyboards there are phones for that too. Soon we will be seeing front facing cameras for video Skype calls, TV tuners, and other stuff that might be irrelevant fir most users, but with a small set of users that love it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You got one thing wrong .
Apple customers are the ones stuck with the hardware that is included .
PC users and android as well can pick the hardware that they need because they have the choice .
If you want keyboard there are phones with the keyboard .
If you hate keyboards there are phones for that too .
Soon we will be seeing front facing cameras for video Skype calls , TV tuners , and other stuff that might be irrelevant fir most users , but with a small set of users that love it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You got one thing wrong.
Apple customers are the ones stuck with the hardware that is included.
PC users and android as well can pick the hardware that they need because they have the choice.
If you want keyboard there are phones with the keyboard.
If you hate keyboards there are phones for that too.
Soon we will be seeing front facing cameras for video Skype calls, TV tuners, and other stuff that might be irrelevant fir most users, but with a small set of users that love it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800248</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30809742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30810414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30803282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30930568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30805660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30801944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30801540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30814326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30802480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30807782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30805638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30931956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30803792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30804376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30802412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30801232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30802544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30802258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30802776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30809776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30805054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30805128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30801250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30801590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30802904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30805130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30801812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30806832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30805288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1639221_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30810360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1639221.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30805288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30801540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800376
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1639221.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1639221.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30802544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30802412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1639221.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30803122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1639221.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30802776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30810414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30805638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800402
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1639221.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1639221.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1639221.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800328
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1639221.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30801010
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1639221.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30804376
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1639221.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30801232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30805054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1639221.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800090
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1639221.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30809742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30810360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30801250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30801944
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1639221.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1639221.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1639221.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800716
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30814326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800796
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799926
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30807782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800342
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30803792
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30809776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799512
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30802904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30805660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800250
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799890
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30802480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30805130
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30806832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1639221.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30931956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30930568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1639221.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799878
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30801590
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1639221.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1639221.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1639221.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799540
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1639221.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1639221.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30799556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30800872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30805128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30801812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30803282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1639221.30802258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
