<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_14_1348230</id>
	<title>Where Microsoft's Profits Come From</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1266160080000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>derrida writes <i>"Microsoft is the largest, most profitable software company in the world. In case you had any doubts about where Microsoft's profit comes from, there's nothing better than a <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-microsoft-operating-income-by-division-2010-2">graph</a> to make all those numbers clear. As you may have guessed, the desktop division is quite profitable, while the <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-microsofts-operating-income-2010-1">online division is a money pit</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>derrida writes " Microsoft is the largest , most profitable software company in the world .
In case you had any doubts about where Microsoft 's profit comes from , there 's nothing better than a graph to make all those numbers clear .
As you may have guessed , the desktop division is quite profitable , while the online division is a money pit .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>derrida writes "Microsoft is the largest, most profitable software company in the world.
In case you had any doubts about where Microsoft's profit comes from, there's nothing better than a graph to make all those numbers clear.
As you may have guessed, the desktop division is quite profitable, while the online division is a money pit.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134846</id>
	<title>Re:really?</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1266167160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't see Microsoft's profits here and Microsoft's profits in a parallel universe without Linux/Firefox/Google/OO.O side by side. For all we know, in that other universe they could be making twice as much as they are here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't see Microsoft 's profits here and Microsoft 's profits in a parallel universe without Linux/Firefox/Google/OO.O side by side .
For all we know , in that other universe they could be making twice as much as they are here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't see Microsoft's profits here and Microsoft's profits in a parallel universe without Linux/Firefox/Google/OO.O side by side.
For all we know, in that other universe they could be making twice as much as they are here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136680</id>
	<title>Quarterly returns</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1266139740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Then we look at the other graph and sees that Windows and Office has a 2Billion a year profit, EACH</i> </p><p>That other chart shows profit for each <b>quarter.</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then we look at the other graph and sees that Windows and Office has a 2Billion a year profit , EACH That other chart shows profit for each quarter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then we look at the other graph and sees that Windows and Office has a 2Billion a year profit, EACH That other chart shows profit for each quarter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134822</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting graph!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266166860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What I find most interesting is the way all changes are perfectly synchronized with the exception of entertainment related stuff.  This is clear indication of the power of vendor lock-in and tying unrelated products together.</p></div><p>It's a result of a stacked chart. What I find interesting is your immediate response as a "clear indication" of vendor-lockin when in fact it's nothing of the sort.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I find most interesting is the way all changes are perfectly synchronized with the exception of entertainment related stuff .
This is clear indication of the power of vendor lock-in and tying unrelated products together.It 's a result of a stacked chart .
What I find interesting is your immediate response as a " clear indication " of vendor-lockin when in fact it 's nothing of the sort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I find most interesting is the way all changes are perfectly synchronized with the exception of entertainment related stuff.
This is clear indication of the power of vendor lock-in and tying unrelated products together.It's a result of a stacked chart.
What I find interesting is your immediate response as a "clear indication" of vendor-lockin when in fact it's nothing of the sort.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134654</id>
	<title>Google is similar...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266165540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>in that they have a single-source of revenue. Discounting the pocket-change that they make elsewhere, take away google's ad revenue and they would cease to exist.  Would the same be said of Windows and MS?  Maybe Office or 360?</htmltext>
<tokenext>in that they have a single-source of revenue .
Discounting the pocket-change that they make elsewhere , take away google 's ad revenue and they would cease to exist .
Would the same be said of Windows and MS ?
Maybe Office or 360 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in that they have a single-source of revenue.
Discounting the pocket-change that they make elsewhere, take away google's ad revenue and they would cease to exist.
Would the same be said of Windows and MS?
Maybe Office or 360?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135862</id>
	<title>Microsoft's Revenues are Interconnected</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1266176700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One point that has been missed so far in this discussion, IMHO, is that Microsoft's substantial Windows and Office revenues are not entirely disconnected from the addon effects of satellite products and services which help to preserve and enhance the profitability of the core franchises; even though individually those satellite products in services might only break even or even lose money. For example, do you believe that Microsoft Office would be nearly as valuable as it is today without the integration with SharePoint and other Microsoft products and business servers? A substantial part of the value proposition of Microsoft is in this "ecosystem" of products and servers which work well together in an enterprise setting ala <i>Voltron</i> or, if you like, the Borg.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One point that has been missed so far in this discussion , IMHO , is that Microsoft 's substantial Windows and Office revenues are not entirely disconnected from the addon effects of satellite products and services which help to preserve and enhance the profitability of the core franchises ; even though individually those satellite products in services might only break even or even lose money .
For example , do you believe that Microsoft Office would be nearly as valuable as it is today without the integration with SharePoint and other Microsoft products and business servers ?
A substantial part of the value proposition of Microsoft is in this " ecosystem " of products and servers which work well together in an enterprise setting ala Voltron or , if you like , the Borg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One point that has been missed so far in this discussion, IMHO, is that Microsoft's substantial Windows and Office revenues are not entirely disconnected from the addon effects of satellite products and services which help to preserve and enhance the profitability of the core franchises; even though individually those satellite products in services might only break even or even lose money.
For example, do you believe that Microsoft Office would be nearly as valuable as it is today without the integration with SharePoint and other Microsoft products and business servers?
A substantial part of the value proposition of Microsoft is in this "ecosystem" of products and servers which work well together in an enterprise setting ala Voltron or, if you like, the Borg.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31142236</id>
	<title>Re:really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266230880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is... it's taking a bite out of their growth.  Compare the profits to the growth of the computer industry as a whole.  If Office was being installed on every machine from the beginning of that chart to the end, the bar would be growing rather than maintaining.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is... it 's taking a bite out of their growth .
Compare the profits to the growth of the computer industry as a whole .
If Office was being installed on every machine from the beginning of that chart to the end , the bar would be growing rather than maintaining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is... it's taking a bite out of their growth.
Compare the profits to the growth of the computer industry as a whole.
If Office was being installed on every machine from the beginning of that chart to the end, the bar would be growing rather than maintaining.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134630</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting graph!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266165240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>What I find most interesting is the way all changes are perfectly synchronized with the exception of entertainment related stuff.</p></div></blockquote><p>Are you sure that isn't just how the graph looks because it is stacking the data series on each other?</p><p>The stacking does not account for the synchronous nature of the top money makers.  The different colors are almost perfectly parallel, so each of the top data sets moves proportionately with the others.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I find most interesting is the way all changes are perfectly synchronized with the exception of entertainment related stuff.Are you sure that is n't just how the graph looks because it is stacking the data series on each other ? The stacking does not account for the synchronous nature of the top money makers .
The different colors are almost perfectly parallel , so each of the top data sets moves proportionately with the others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I find most interesting is the way all changes are perfectly synchronized with the exception of entertainment related stuff.Are you sure that isn't just how the graph looks because it is stacking the data series on each other?The stacking does not account for the synchronous nature of the top money makers.
The different colors are almost perfectly parallel, so each of the top data sets moves proportionately with the others.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135960</id>
	<title>Re:Monkeyboy needs to go</title>
	<author>iluvcapra</author>
	<datestamp>1266177600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Competition is good. Even if MS is for a change not the one that tries to hold a monopoly, basically Bing is what forces Google to be "not evil".</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Competiton causes actors to <em>not</em> do evil things?  That's a fascinating conclusion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Competition is good .
Even if MS is for a change not the one that tries to hold a monopoly , basically Bing is what forces Google to be " not evil " .
Competiton causes actors to not do evil things ?
That 's a fascinating conclusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Competition is good.
Even if MS is for a change not the one that tries to hold a monopoly, basically Bing is what forces Google to be "not evil".
Competiton causes actors to not do evil things?
That's a fascinating conclusion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134738</id>
	<title>really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266166200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is OO.O not taking a bite out of their profits?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is OO.O not taking a bite out of their profits ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is OO.O not taking a bite out of their profits?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134916</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting graph!</title>
	<author>Whatanut</author>
	<datestamp>1266167700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You + stacked graph reading = fail.    Stacked graphs are always in sync.   You have to read each layer independently to see what's going on.  Just because layer 1 increased, layer 2 will go up.  That doesn't mean layer 2 increased.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You + stacked graph reading = fail .
Stacked graphs are always in sync .
You have to read each layer independently to see what 's going on .
Just because layer 1 increased , layer 2 will go up .
That does n't mean layer 2 increased .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You + stacked graph reading = fail.
Stacked graphs are always in sync.
You have to read each layer independently to see what's going on.
Just because layer 1 increased, layer 2 will go up.
That doesn't mean layer 2 increased.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136664</id>
	<title>Re:Preparing for the Future or Buying Their Own Hy</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1266139620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>But Office hasn't changed meaningfully in 6-12 years--sure there are new features that some folks like, but when I switched from WordPerfect 5.1 to Office 97 (?) that was the last time I noticed a significant change in feature set and usability. And the Windows OS has had a lot of changes under the hood, but XP to Windows 7 is much the same progression as Office 97 to Office 2007--security and cosmetics but no real innovation. </i>
</p><p>Can you define what you mean by "innovation" ?  Examples would be best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But Office has n't changed meaningfully in 6-12 years--sure there are new features that some folks like , but when I switched from WordPerfect 5.1 to Office 97 ( ?
) that was the last time I noticed a significant change in feature set and usability .
And the Windows OS has had a lot of changes under the hood , but XP to Windows 7 is much the same progression as Office 97 to Office 2007--security and cosmetics but no real innovation .
Can you define what you mean by " innovation " ?
Examples would be best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> But Office hasn't changed meaningfully in 6-12 years--sure there are new features that some folks like, but when I switched from WordPerfect 5.1 to Office 97 (?
) that was the last time I noticed a significant change in feature set and usability.
And the Windows OS has had a lot of changes under the hood, but XP to Windows 7 is much the same progression as Office 97 to Office 2007--security and cosmetics but no real innovation.
Can you define what you mean by "innovation" ?
Examples would be best.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135800</id>
	<title>Business is War.</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1266176040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As always, you forget Business is War.</p><p>Just think how much would the alternative cost Microsoft in the long run.</p><p>You don't just do stuff to gain profit, you do everything to keep the competition from catching up. If you can keep (incompetent) domination of a sector at a 5\% loss, you're better off if you allow a competent competitor to gain this domination (and earn lots), and then let them use their profits to dominate you in domains where you profit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As always , you forget Business is War.Just think how much would the alternative cost Microsoft in the long run.You do n't just do stuff to gain profit , you do everything to keep the competition from catching up .
If you can keep ( incompetent ) domination of a sector at a 5 \ % loss , you 're better off if you allow a competent competitor to gain this domination ( and earn lots ) , and then let them use their profits to dominate you in domains where you profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As always, you forget Business is War.Just think how much would the alternative cost Microsoft in the long run.You don't just do stuff to gain profit, you do everything to keep the competition from catching up.
If you can keep (incompetent) domination of a sector at a 5\% loss, you're better off if you allow a competent competitor to gain this domination (and earn lots), and then let them use their profits to dominate you in domains where you profit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134816</id>
	<title>Re:Ok, let's see</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266166800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, its loosing 500 Million per quoter, so it's 2 Billion per year.</p><p>But the thing I don't understand is: Why does Microsoft think that search is such an important thing, and how do they plan to even gain return on their investment.</p><p>I mean even if Microsoft manage to make a success full search engine and get 25\% of the market, where does this help with the rest of their products to create a strategy?</p><p>Windows, Offices and their other tools does in a way give value to each other, because they allow Microsoft to offer a turnkey solution, but where does internet search fit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , its loosing 500 Million per quoter , so it 's 2 Billion per year.But the thing I do n't understand is : Why does Microsoft think that search is such an important thing , and how do they plan to even gain return on their investment.I mean even if Microsoft manage to make a success full search engine and get 25 \ % of the market , where does this help with the rest of their products to create a strategy ? Windows , Offices and their other tools does in a way give value to each other , because they allow Microsoft to offer a turnkey solution , but where does internet search fit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, its loosing 500 Million per quoter, so it's 2 Billion per year.But the thing I don't understand is: Why does Microsoft think that search is such an important thing, and how do they plan to even gain return on their investment.I mean even if Microsoft manage to make a success full search engine and get 25\% of the market, where does this help with the rest of their products to create a strategy?Windows, Offices and their other tools does in a way give value to each other, because they allow Microsoft to offer a turnkey solution, but where does internet search fit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135218</id>
	<title>Re:interest income?</title>
	<author>DaveGod</author>
	<datestamp>1266170760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Finance income and charges are added/deducted after operating profits. Investors usually want to look at how a company manages it's finances differently to how they want to analyse operations. Wiki has an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income\_statement#Earnings\_per\_share" title="wikipedia.org">example income statement</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finance income and charges are added/deducted after operating profits .
Investors usually want to look at how a company manages it 's finances differently to how they want to analyse operations .
Wiki has an example income statement [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finance income and charges are added/deducted after operating profits.
Investors usually want to look at how a company manages it's finances differently to how they want to analyse operations.
Wiki has an example income statement [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134546</id>
	<title>Ok, let's see</title>
	<author>JamesP</author>
	<datestamp>1266164460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We look at the graph: MS is losing like 500Million per year on the Online Division</p><p>Then we look at the other graph and sees that Windows and Office has a 2Billion a year profit, EACH</p><p>And then we have to read crap like this: "We wonder when Microsoft will finally decide to do what it should have done years ago: Save its money and flush its entire online division down the drain."</p><p>No hon, SteveB is stupid, but not as stupid as you. It's called 'strategy', look it up. If it's working or not it's a whole different matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We look at the graph : MS is losing like 500Million per year on the Online DivisionThen we look at the other graph and sees that Windows and Office has a 2Billion a year profit , EACHAnd then we have to read crap like this : " We wonder when Microsoft will finally decide to do what it should have done years ago : Save its money and flush its entire online division down the drain .
" No hon , SteveB is stupid , but not as stupid as you .
It 's called 'strategy ' , look it up .
If it 's working or not it 's a whole different matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We look at the graph: MS is losing like 500Million per year on the Online DivisionThen we look at the other graph and sees that Windows and Office has a 2Billion a year profit, EACHAnd then we have to read crap like this: "We wonder when Microsoft will finally decide to do what it should have done years ago: Save its money and flush its entire online division down the drain.
"No hon, SteveB is stupid, but not as stupid as you.
It's called 'strategy', look it up.
If it's working or not it's a whole different matter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134704</id>
	<title>I'm impressed</title>
	<author>assertation</author>
	<datestamp>1266165900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This graph impressed me.</p><p>It shows that Microsoft hasn't been significantly successful in diversifying the sources of its profits.  MS Windows/Server tools aren't going anywhere soon.  However, there are a number of alternative office suites out there, some low cost, that are user friendly.   If a company with marketing intelligence and financial resources got behind one of them Microsoft could be in serious trouble.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This graph impressed me.It shows that Microsoft has n't been significantly successful in diversifying the sources of its profits .
MS Windows/Server tools are n't going anywhere soon .
However , there are a number of alternative office suites out there , some low cost , that are user friendly .
If a company with marketing intelligence and financial resources got behind one of them Microsoft could be in serious trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This graph impressed me.It shows that Microsoft hasn't been significantly successful in diversifying the sources of its profits.
MS Windows/Server tools aren't going anywhere soon.
However, there are a number of alternative office suites out there, some low cost, that are user friendly.
If a company with marketing intelligence and financial resources got behind one of them Microsoft could be in serious trouble.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134686</id>
	<title>That's pretty consistent</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1266165780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Office and Windows have been their big profit centers for a long time.  The big surprise there is that Office looks like it accounts for slightly more of their overall profit. And it was a surprise to see the margin on the server group.  Back in the day I worked in a MSFT shop, it seemed like every day we were shelling out money for some license, another CAL or connector because the one we got didn't cover internet connections during a full moon, the support subscriptions that would regularly see large price increases, a piece of support software that was expiring.  It was an every day thing that someone would come in and need money for something.  Getting on without Windows servers is a blissful breeze in comparison.

</p><p>You can argue the merits, but I find OpenOffice and GoogleDocs work for me.  At home and the office.  When we replaced Office with OpenOffice at the shop there weren't any complaints about the change.  We did field a lot of calls about how to do stuff (mail merge), but there wasn't anyone crying for Microsoft leeks and onions.  Although we didn't have anyone doing a lot of footnotes, either.  If memory serves that's one feature of Word that pays for itself in a research setting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Office and Windows have been their big profit centers for a long time .
The big surprise there is that Office looks like it accounts for slightly more of their overall profit .
And it was a surprise to see the margin on the server group .
Back in the day I worked in a MSFT shop , it seemed like every day we were shelling out money for some license , another CAL or connector because the one we got did n't cover internet connections during a full moon , the support subscriptions that would regularly see large price increases , a piece of support software that was expiring .
It was an every day thing that someone would come in and need money for something .
Getting on without Windows servers is a blissful breeze in comparison .
You can argue the merits , but I find OpenOffice and GoogleDocs work for me .
At home and the office .
When we replaced Office with OpenOffice at the shop there were n't any complaints about the change .
We did field a lot of calls about how to do stuff ( mail merge ) , but there was n't anyone crying for Microsoft leeks and onions .
Although we did n't have anyone doing a lot of footnotes , either .
If memory serves that 's one feature of Word that pays for itself in a research setting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Office and Windows have been their big profit centers for a long time.
The big surprise there is that Office looks like it accounts for slightly more of their overall profit.
And it was a surprise to see the margin on the server group.
Back in the day I worked in a MSFT shop, it seemed like every day we were shelling out money for some license, another CAL or connector because the one we got didn't cover internet connections during a full moon, the support subscriptions that would regularly see large price increases, a piece of support software that was expiring.
It was an every day thing that someone would come in and need money for something.
Getting on without Windows servers is a blissful breeze in comparison.
You can argue the merits, but I find OpenOffice and GoogleDocs work for me.
At home and the office.
When we replaced Office with OpenOffice at the shop there weren't any complaints about the change.
We did field a lot of calls about how to do stuff (mail merge), but there wasn't anyone crying for Microsoft leeks and onions.
Although we didn't have anyone doing a lot of footnotes, either.
If memory serves that's one feature of Word that pays for itself in a research setting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135664</id>
	<title>Re:Class action lawsuit ?</title>
	<author>nitroscen</author>
	<datestamp>1266174600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft doesn't pay dividends.</p></div><p>Microsoft has been paying a quarterly dividend since 2004. Also, even if they did not pay a dividend, companies sometimes buy their own stock to un-dilute the shares. The shareholders then have stock that is worth more money.

<a href="http://www.google.com/finance?q=microsoft" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/finance?q=microsoft</a> [google.com]
Click the "5years" button.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft does n't pay dividends.Microsoft has been paying a quarterly dividend since 2004 .
Also , even if they did not pay a dividend , companies sometimes buy their own stock to un-dilute the shares .
The shareholders then have stock that is worth more money .
http : //www.google.com/finance ? q = microsoft [ google.com ] Click the " 5years " button .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft doesn't pay dividends.Microsoft has been paying a quarterly dividend since 2004.
Also, even if they did not pay a dividend, companies sometimes buy their own stock to un-dilute the shares.
The shareholders then have stock that is worth more money.
http://www.google.com/finance?q=microsoft [google.com]
Click the "5years" button.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134662</id>
	<title>Sept and Dec</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266165600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The two most notorious months where we are subjected to those awful Microsoft advertising blitzkrieg's. Sept/Dec. That's when parents buy their young students a new laptop with MS OS included and gift them with a shiny new console for well,,, you know,,,study time. Then the students being somewhat more intelligent spend their money on beer and pot, so on mass reject any of the online crap that M$ tries to push. I see perfect sense in the charts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The two most notorious months where we are subjected to those awful Microsoft advertising blitzkrieg 's .
Sept/Dec. That 's when parents buy their young students a new laptop with MS OS included and gift them with a shiny new console for well,, , you know,,,study time .
Then the students being somewhat more intelligent spend their money on beer and pot , so on mass reject any of the online crap that M $ tries to push .
I see perfect sense in the charts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The two most notorious months where we are subjected to those awful Microsoft advertising blitzkrieg's.
Sept/Dec. That's when parents buy their young students a new laptop with MS OS included and gift them with a shiny new console for well,,, you know,,,study time.
Then the students being somewhat more intelligent spend their money on beer and pot, so on mass reject any of the online crap that M$ tries to push.
I see perfect sense in the charts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31137468</id>
	<title>Re:Monkeyboy needs to go</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266144780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>how did the OP get modded insightful?

<br> <br>
just about everything under Balmer has been a roaring financial success. Morons look at the books and say "oh look they lost X billion in online business" and think that it is a failure. Instead you should be looking at how that "investment" helped shore up their server and client business by keeping competitors out of their extreme profit areas. Any idiot that thinks they have been a failure knows nothing about business</htmltext>
<tokenext>how did the OP get modded insightful ?
just about everything under Balmer has been a roaring financial success .
Morons look at the books and say " oh look they lost X billion in online business " and think that it is a failure .
Instead you should be looking at how that " investment " helped shore up their server and client business by keeping competitors out of their extreme profit areas .
Any idiot that thinks they have been a failure knows nothing about business</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how did the OP get modded insightful?
just about everything under Balmer has been a roaring financial success.
Morons look at the books and say "oh look they lost X billion in online business" and think that it is a failure.
Instead you should be looking at how that "investment" helped shore up their server and client business by keeping competitors out of their extreme profit areas.
Any idiot that thinks they have been a failure knows nothing about business</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135120</id>
	<title>Trustworthyness: Zero!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1266169680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The &ldquo;article&rdquo; does not contain a single info on where the data actually comes from. (Or have I missed it?)</p><p>Which makes it impossible to determine, if it is legit, or fake.<br>I also never heard of &ldquo;businessinsider.com&rdquo;, which means that they don&rsquo;t have acquired any trust credit.</p><p>So there is really only one thing to do: Ignore the graph.<br>And give a negative credit to them, for failing to give credit (by|/) offer(ing) a source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The    article    does not contain a single info on where the data actually comes from .
( Or have I missed it ?
) Which makes it impossible to determine , if it is legit , or fake.I also never heard of    businessinsider.com    , which means that they don    t have acquired any trust credit.So there is really only one thing to do : Ignore the graph.And give a negative credit to them , for failing to give credit ( by | / ) offer ( ing ) a source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The “article” does not contain a single info on where the data actually comes from.
(Or have I missed it?
)Which makes it impossible to determine, if it is legit, or fake.I also never heard of “businessinsider.com”, which means that they don’t have acquired any trust credit.So there is really only one thing to do: Ignore the graph.And give a negative credit to them, for failing to give credit (by|/) offer(ing) a source.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494</id>
	<title>Interesting graph!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266164040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I find most interesting is the way all changes are perfectly synchronized with the exception of entertainment related stuff.  This is clear indication of the power of vendor lock-in and tying unrelated products together.</p><p>What I would find interesting is to know what events occurred during the valleys and rapid climb moments indicated in the graph.  Specifically, what happened in Dec '06 and Sep '09?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I find most interesting is the way all changes are perfectly synchronized with the exception of entertainment related stuff .
This is clear indication of the power of vendor lock-in and tying unrelated products together.What I would find interesting is to know what events occurred during the valleys and rapid climb moments indicated in the graph .
Specifically , what happened in Dec '06 and Sep '09 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I find most interesting is the way all changes are perfectly synchronized with the exception of entertainment related stuff.
This is clear indication of the power of vendor lock-in and tying unrelated products together.What I would find interesting is to know what events occurred during the valleys and rapid climb moments indicated in the graph.
Specifically, what happened in Dec '06 and Sep '09?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134844</id>
	<title>WTF does Buzz have to do with Sharepoint?</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1266167100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Google Buzz, an add-on to Gmail that some have compared most closely to Sharepoint, one of Microsoft's enterprise tools.</i></p><p>Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?</p><p>Sharepoint is like a corporate wiki. It's got more in common with Google Wave... in fact Wave is like a cross between Sharepoint and OneNote.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google Buzz , an add-on to Gmail that some have compared most closely to Sharepoint , one of Microsoft 's enterprise tools.Whiskey Tango Foxtrot , over ? Sharepoint is like a corporate wiki .
It 's got more in common with Google Wave... in fact Wave is like a cross between Sharepoint and OneNote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google Buzz, an add-on to Gmail that some have compared most closely to Sharepoint, one of Microsoft's enterprise tools.Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?Sharepoint is like a corporate wiki.
It's got more in common with Google Wave... in fact Wave is like a cross between Sharepoint and OneNote.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134652</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting graph!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266165540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some actually are buying retail copies - but not all that many. Most of it is people buying computers near the holidays. This time MS actually had the OS ready for those people buying near Christmas (they had missed that date with Vista and of course Vista's reputation kept many away too). Lots of people had put off purchasing a new box until it was going to come with Windows 7.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some actually are buying retail copies - but not all that many .
Most of it is people buying computers near the holidays .
This time MS actually had the OS ready for those people buying near Christmas ( they had missed that date with Vista and of course Vista 's reputation kept many away too ) .
Lots of people had put off purchasing a new box until it was going to come with Windows 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some actually are buying retail copies - but not all that many.
Most of it is people buying computers near the holidays.
This time MS actually had the OS ready for those people buying near Christmas (they had missed that date with Vista and of course Vista's reputation kept many away too).
Lots of people had put off purchasing a new box until it was going to come with Windows 7.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134956</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting graph!</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1266168060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Point taken.</p><p>If you hadn't linked me to a Microsoft page that made my Firefox go crazy after I enabled javascript, I would have responded sooner.  (I'm not saying that Microsoft's page is hostile to my installation of Firefox exactly, but I have not rebooted my computer in a few weeks despite having installed updates that could easily be trampling all over one another at the moment... however, all other web page browsing seems normal until I enable javascript on that page.  Seems odd.  I love the "no script" addon... lets me control who affects/infects me better.)</p><p>After staring at the chart, I see what you mean.  I did, in fact, misinterpret the graph.  I think a stacked graph like that is appropriate for that display of information at all.  While placing the least varying data at the bottom would serve to reduce the possibility of misinterpretation, it would not eliminate it.  The page linked to actually shows a better and much more appropriate implementation of stacked data of this sort... a stacked bar chart.</p><p>My original statement was generally true, but using that chart to evidence the asserting was incorrect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Point taken.If you had n't linked me to a Microsoft page that made my Firefox go crazy after I enabled javascript , I would have responded sooner .
( I 'm not saying that Microsoft 's page is hostile to my installation of Firefox exactly , but I have not rebooted my computer in a few weeks despite having installed updates that could easily be trampling all over one another at the moment... however , all other web page browsing seems normal until I enable javascript on that page .
Seems odd .
I love the " no script " addon... lets me control who affects/infects me better .
) After staring at the chart , I see what you mean .
I did , in fact , misinterpret the graph .
I think a stacked graph like that is appropriate for that display of information at all .
While placing the least varying data at the bottom would serve to reduce the possibility of misinterpretation , it would not eliminate it .
The page linked to actually shows a better and much more appropriate implementation of stacked data of this sort... a stacked bar chart.My original statement was generally true , but using that chart to evidence the asserting was incorrect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Point taken.If you hadn't linked me to a Microsoft page that made my Firefox go crazy after I enabled javascript, I would have responded sooner.
(I'm not saying that Microsoft's page is hostile to my installation of Firefox exactly, but I have not rebooted my computer in a few weeks despite having installed updates that could easily be trampling all over one another at the moment... however, all other web page browsing seems normal until I enable javascript on that page.
Seems odd.
I love the "no script" addon... lets me control who affects/infects me better.
)After staring at the chart, I see what you mean.
I did, in fact, misinterpret the graph.
I think a stacked graph like that is appropriate for that display of information at all.
While placing the least varying data at the bottom would serve to reduce the possibility of misinterpretation, it would not eliminate it.
The page linked to actually shows a better and much more appropriate implementation of stacked data of this sort... a stacked bar chart.My original statement was generally true, but using that chart to evidence the asserting was incorrect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134788</id>
	<title>interest income?</title>
	<author>jschen</author>
	<datestamp>1266166620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft has about $40 billion in cash. Surely interest income should be there somewhere, probably higher than Entertainment and Devices is on the graph.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft has about $ 40 billion in cash .
Surely interest income should be there somewhere , probably higher than Entertainment and Devices is on the graph .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft has about $40 billion in cash.
Surely interest income should be there somewhere, probably higher than Entertainment and Devices is on the graph.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135638</id>
	<title>Re:Class action lawsuit ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266174420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At $.13/share, yes, Microsoft does pay dividends.<br>http://www.google.com/finance?q=MSFT</p><p>- A MSFT stockholder</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At $ .13/share , yes , Microsoft does pay dividends.http : //www.google.com/finance ? q = MSFT- A MSFT stockholder</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At $.13/share, yes, Microsoft does pay dividends.http://www.google.com/finance?q=MSFT- A MSFT stockholder</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134870</id>
	<title>Re:really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266167400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because nobody uses it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because nobody uses it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because nobody uses it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135090</id>
	<title>Re:XBOX 360?</title>
	<author>NSIM</author>
	<datestamp>1266169260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What, unless I'm reading the chart wrong, Windows + Server &amp; Tools generated about 7-7.5B of profit each in the last quarter. Even if I'm reading the chart wrong and it's about 7.5B between them, on what planet could the Games business be generating more?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What , unless I 'm reading the chart wrong , Windows + Server &amp; Tools generated about 7-7.5B of profit each in the last quarter .
Even if I 'm reading the chart wrong and it 's about 7.5B between them , on what planet could the Games business be generating more ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, unless I'm reading the chart wrong, Windows + Server &amp; Tools generated about 7-7.5B of profit each in the last quarter.
Even if I'm reading the chart wrong and it's about 7.5B between them, on what planet could the Games business be generating more?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136336</id>
	<title>Re:Monkeyboy needs to go</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1266180780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I posted this point above, but since we all hate Microsoft for being a monopoly, isn't it a *good thing* that they're working to prevent Google from being a  monopoly?</p><p>Unless you swallow the "don't be evil" kool-aid, I guess.</p><p>The fact that you can use the web completely Google-free with Bing is really Microsoft's innovation. (Even Yahoo was using Google behind the scenes.) That's a good thing. Competition is a good thing. We should be encouraging competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I posted this point above , but since we all hate Microsoft for being a monopoly , is n't it a * good thing * that they 're working to prevent Google from being a monopoly ? Unless you swallow the " do n't be evil " kool-aid , I guess.The fact that you can use the web completely Google-free with Bing is really Microsoft 's innovation .
( Even Yahoo was using Google behind the scenes .
) That 's a good thing .
Competition is a good thing .
We should be encouraging competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I posted this point above, but since we all hate Microsoft for being a monopoly, isn't it a *good thing* that they're working to prevent Google from being a  monopoly?Unless you swallow the "don't be evil" kool-aid, I guess.The fact that you can use the web completely Google-free with Bing is really Microsoft's innovation.
(Even Yahoo was using Google behind the scenes.
) That's a good thing.
Competition is a good thing.
We should be encouraging competition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135614</id>
	<title>Re:The chart is mis-labeled</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1266174300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How am I wasting money by paying for products like Win7 and Office?</p></div><p>Because you could get something faster, more stable, more secure, more adaptable, and without the activation nonsense for less or no money.</p><p>And that gives you more spare cash for computer hardware, cars, holidays, eating out, or whatever else actually matters in your life.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How am I wasting money by paying for products like Win7 and Office ? Because you could get something faster , more stable , more secure , more adaptable , and without the activation nonsense for less or no money.And that gives you more spare cash for computer hardware , cars , holidays , eating out , or whatever else actually matters in your life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How am I wasting money by paying for products like Win7 and Office?Because you could get something faster, more stable, more secure, more adaptable, and without the activation nonsense for less or no money.And that gives you more spare cash for computer hardware, cars, holidays, eating out, or whatever else actually matters in your life.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134914</id>
	<title>Changes between versions of Office</title>
	<author>wwphx</author>
	<datestamp>1266167700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I noticed one difference between Access XP and Access 2003.  They apparently added data dictionary triggers, so if you changed a field name or table name in a database, it automatically updated views and forms and reports based on that table.  I thought that was pretty cool.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I noticed one difference between Access XP and Access 2003 .
They apparently added data dictionary triggers , so if you changed a field name or table name in a database , it automatically updated views and forms and reports based on that table .
I thought that was pretty cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I noticed one difference between Access XP and Access 2003.
They apparently added data dictionary triggers, so if you changed a field name or table name in a database, it automatically updated views and forms and reports based on that table.
I thought that was pretty cool.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134946</id>
	<title>Re:Class action lawsuit ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266168000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IANAL either, but I don't believe a stockholder can simply sue a company for not being profitable enough.  I know you hear all about how a CEO's only responsibility is to make short-term profit for shareholders, but I'm under the impression that it's quite a bit overblown.  I believe it's more like, if you can show some kind of unethical behavior where they're purposefully sacrificing profits for personal gain, then you have some kind of case.
</p><p>The way you hear it around here, you'd think a CEO can be thrown in prison for failing to screw an old lady out of her last dime because he has an enormous legal responsibility to maximize this quarter's profits.  I have a hard time believing that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL either , but I do n't believe a stockholder can simply sue a company for not being profitable enough .
I know you hear all about how a CEO 's only responsibility is to make short-term profit for shareholders , but I 'm under the impression that it 's quite a bit overblown .
I believe it 's more like , if you can show some kind of unethical behavior where they 're purposefully sacrificing profits for personal gain , then you have some kind of case .
The way you hear it around here , you 'd think a CEO can be thrown in prison for failing to screw an old lady out of her last dime because he has an enormous legal responsibility to maximize this quarter 's profits .
I have a hard time believing that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL either, but I don't believe a stockholder can simply sue a company for not being profitable enough.
I know you hear all about how a CEO's only responsibility is to make short-term profit for shareholders, but I'm under the impression that it's quite a bit overblown.
I believe it's more like, if you can show some kind of unethical behavior where they're purposefully sacrificing profits for personal gain, then you have some kind of case.
The way you hear it around here, you'd think a CEO can be thrown in prison for failing to screw an old lady out of her last dime because he has an enormous legal responsibility to maximize this quarter's profits.
I have a hard time believing that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135080</id>
	<title>This is how monopolies die</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1266169140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One year they have vast amounts of money, think they own the world. 10 years later, their cash is being spent on a dozen failures which they can't own up to and then, suddenly someone makes their core monopoly irrelevant.</p><p>It takes years, possibly decades for them to stop moving but it happens.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One year they have vast amounts of money , think they own the world .
10 years later , their cash is being spent on a dozen failures which they ca n't own up to and then , suddenly someone makes their core monopoly irrelevant.It takes years , possibly decades for them to stop moving but it happens .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>One year they have vast amounts of money, think they own the world.
10 years later, their cash is being spent on a dozen failures which they can't own up to and then, suddenly someone makes their core monopoly irrelevant.It takes years, possibly decades for them to stop moving but it happens.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134690</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting graph!</title>
	<author>rjch</author>
	<datestamp>1266165780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What I would find interesting is to know what events occurred during the valleys and rapid climb moments indicated in the graph.  Specifically, what happened in Dec '06 and Sep '09?</p></div><p>December 2006 was the release of Vista. (Well, November 30th, but close enough)
September 2009 was the release of Windows 7.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I would find interesting is to know what events occurred during the valleys and rapid climb moments indicated in the graph .
Specifically , what happened in Dec '06 and Sep '09 ? December 2006 was the release of Vista .
( Well , November 30th , but close enough ) September 2009 was the release of Windows 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I would find interesting is to know what events occurred during the valleys and rapid climb moments indicated in the graph.
Specifically, what happened in Dec '06 and Sep '09?December 2006 was the release of Vista.
(Well, November 30th, but close enough)
September 2009 was the release of Windows 7.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134726</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting graph!</title>
	<author>fullfactorial</author>
	<datestamp>1266166080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What I find most interesting is the way all changes are perfectly synchronized with the exception of entertainment related stuff.  This is clear indication of the power of vendor lock-in and tying unrelated products together.</p></div><p>
No. It's a clear indication that TFA used a <a href="http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/excel/HA102186631033.aspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">Stacked Line Chart</a> [microsoft.com]. If you were to move Office and Server to the bottom of the stack, you would see that they both account for relatively small sales bumps (~1 billion), with the real movement coming from the release of Windows Vista (Mar '07 bump) and Windows 7 (Dec '09 bump).
</p><p>
Normally you avoid data distortions like this by putting the least-variable data at the bottom of a stacked chart. I think "Chart of the Day" needs a better-trained Excel monkey.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I find most interesting is the way all changes are perfectly synchronized with the exception of entertainment related stuff .
This is clear indication of the power of vendor lock-in and tying unrelated products together .
No. It 's a clear indication that TFA used a Stacked Line Chart [ microsoft.com ] .
If you were to move Office and Server to the bottom of the stack , you would see that they both account for relatively small sales bumps ( ~ 1 billion ) , with the real movement coming from the release of Windows Vista ( Mar '07 bump ) and Windows 7 ( Dec '09 bump ) .
Normally you avoid data distortions like this by putting the least-variable data at the bottom of a stacked chart .
I think " Chart of the Day " needs a better-trained Excel monkey .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I find most interesting is the way all changes are perfectly synchronized with the exception of entertainment related stuff.
This is clear indication of the power of vendor lock-in and tying unrelated products together.
No. It's a clear indication that TFA used a Stacked Line Chart [microsoft.com].
If you were to move Office and Server to the bottom of the stack, you would see that they both account for relatively small sales bumps (~1 billion), with the real movement coming from the release of Windows Vista (Mar '07 bump) and Windows 7 (Dec '09 bump).
Normally you avoid data distortions like this by putting the least-variable data at the bottom of a stacked chart.
I think "Chart of the Day" needs a better-trained Excel monkey.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31137686</id>
	<title>Re:That's pretty consistent</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1266146340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Office and Windows have been their big profit centers for a long time. The big surprise there is that Office looks like it accounts for slightly more of their overall profit. And it was a surprise to see the margin on the server group.</p></div><p>It's "Server &amp; Tools Business" (STB), actually, and the name isn't very clear on what actually is in there. For example, all Microsoft development tools - C++ compiler,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, Visual Studio, Expression Suite - are developed in STB; it's the "tools" part of it. The "servers" part is Windows Server, SQL Server, and virtualization - and the latter might also be skewing the result somewhat.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Office and Windows have been their big profit centers for a long time .
The big surprise there is that Office looks like it accounts for slightly more of their overall profit .
And it was a surprise to see the margin on the server group.It 's " Server &amp; Tools Business " ( STB ) , actually , and the name is n't very clear on what actually is in there .
For example , all Microsoft development tools - C + + compiler , .NET , Visual Studio , Expression Suite - are developed in STB ; it 's the " tools " part of it .
The " servers " part is Windows Server , SQL Server , and virtualization - and the latter might also be skewing the result somewhat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Office and Windows have been their big profit centers for a long time.
The big surprise there is that Office looks like it accounts for slightly more of their overall profit.
And it was a surprise to see the margin on the server group.It's "Server &amp; Tools Business" (STB), actually, and the name isn't very clear on what actually is in there.
For example, all Microsoft development tools - C++ compiler, .NET, Visual Studio, Expression Suite - are developed in STB; it's the "tools" part of it.
The "servers" part is Windows Server, SQL Server, and virtualization - and the latter might also be skewing the result somewhat.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134904</id>
	<title>Re:Class action lawsuit ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266167640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dividends? How quaint! The profits are there to line the CEOs pockets and to allow 'journalists' to fluff up the share price. The only way you (or any outsider) to make money is to buy low and sell high. Investing is so last century. Gotta Gamble Baby!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dividends ?
How quaint !
The profits are there to line the CEOs pockets and to allow 'journalists ' to fluff up the share price .
The only way you ( or any outsider ) to make money is to buy low and sell high .
Investing is so last century .
Got ta Gamble Baby !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dividends?
How quaint!
The profits are there to line the CEOs pockets and to allow 'journalists' to fluff up the share price.
The only way you (or any outsider) to make money is to buy low and sell high.
Investing is so last century.
Gotta Gamble Baby!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135362</id>
	<title>Microsoft and the Big Cloud...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266172260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If their online "profits" are any indicator, we'll see where the rest of their profits go as we all slip further and further into cloud computing.  The rise in popularity of Mac OS and other alternate platforms make the "switch" pretty easy these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If their online " profits " are any indicator , we 'll see where the rest of their profits go as we all slip further and further into cloud computing .
The rise in popularity of Mac OS and other alternate platforms make the " switch " pretty easy these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If their online "profits" are any indicator, we'll see where the rest of their profits go as we all slip further and further into cloud computing.
The rise in popularity of Mac OS and other alternate platforms make the "switch" pretty easy these days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31137706</id>
	<title>Re:Mice</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1266146460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, our keyboards are nice, too! ~</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , our keyboards are nice , too !
~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, our keyboards are nice, too!
~</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31139976</id>
	<title>You think like a ReThuglican Jew</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266162300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You think like a ReThuglican Jew</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You think like a ReThuglican Jew</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think like a ReThuglican Jew</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135296</id>
	<title>Re:really?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1266171480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be interesting to see the breakdown between corporate site licenses and individual licenses.  Is MS Office better than OpenOffice?  Probably[1].  Is it $200 better?  Probably not.  But if you've got a site license for MS Office, is it easier to switch everyone to the latest version or to migrate them all to OO.o?  Probably easier to stay with MS Office.  </p><p>
Most of the Windows money, I'd imagine, comes from OEM sales, with corporate site licenses second and boxed editions a very distant third.
</p><p>[1] Last time I used MS Office was Office 2000, and I remember it being very similar to what OO.o is now.  Presumably it's improved in the last decade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be interesting to see the breakdown between corporate site licenses and individual licenses .
Is MS Office better than OpenOffice ?
Probably [ 1 ] . Is it $ 200 better ?
Probably not .
But if you 've got a site license for MS Office , is it easier to switch everyone to the latest version or to migrate them all to OO.o ?
Probably easier to stay with MS Office .
Most of the Windows money , I 'd imagine , comes from OEM sales , with corporate site licenses second and boxed editions a very distant third .
[ 1 ] Last time I used MS Office was Office 2000 , and I remember it being very similar to what OO.o is now .
Presumably it 's improved in the last decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be interesting to see the breakdown between corporate site licenses and individual licenses.
Is MS Office better than OpenOffice?
Probably[1].  Is it $200 better?
Probably not.
But if you've got a site license for MS Office, is it easier to switch everyone to the latest version or to migrate them all to OO.o?
Probably easier to stay with MS Office.
Most of the Windows money, I'd imagine, comes from OEM sales, with corporate site licenses second and boxed editions a very distant third.
[1] Last time I used MS Office was Office 2000, and I remember it being very similar to what OO.o is now.
Presumably it's improved in the last decade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136156</id>
	<title>Re:really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266179460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You want all the reasons?</p><p>1) Writer compatibility with the word<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc format is not perfect.  It's good enough for 95\% of uses, but not perfect.<br>2) Impress is not a functional substitute for Powerpoint.  Even though most users rarely use Powerpoint, this is a factor.<br>3) Calc is not compatible with existing Excel macros.  Even though only idiots use Excel macros, this is a factor.<br>4) MS has done a good job of pricing and bundling, as usual.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You want all the reasons ? 1 ) Writer compatibility with the word .doc format is not perfect .
It 's good enough for 95 \ % of uses , but not perfect.2 ) Impress is not a functional substitute for Powerpoint .
Even though most users rarely use Powerpoint , this is a factor.3 ) Calc is not compatible with existing Excel macros .
Even though only idiots use Excel macros , this is a factor.4 ) MS has done a good job of pricing and bundling , as usual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want all the reasons?1) Writer compatibility with the word .doc format is not perfect.
It's good enough for 95\% of uses, but not perfect.2) Impress is not a functional substitute for Powerpoint.
Even though most users rarely use Powerpoint, this is a factor.3) Calc is not compatible with existing Excel macros.
Even though only idiots use Excel macros, this is a factor.4) MS has done a good job of pricing and bundling, as usual.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134698</id>
	<title>Re:The chart is mis-labeled</title>
	<author>DAldredge</author>
	<datestamp>1266165840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>How am I wasting money by paying for products like Win7 and Office?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How am I wasting money by paying for products like Win7 and Office ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How am I wasting money by paying for products like Win7 and Office?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134796</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting graph!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266166680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I find it interesting you think <i>quarterly</i> reports are released every three year on random months. You might want to wikipedia that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I find it interesting you think quarterly reports are released every three year on random months .
You might want to wikipedia that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I find it interesting you think quarterly reports are released every three year on random months.
You might want to wikipedia that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136292</id>
	<title>Re:Preparing for the Future or Buying Their Own Hy</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1266180480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm going to make the horrible patriotic arguments that people around here hate, but... well here goes.</p><p>I'm actually really glad that one of the major game consoles is made by an American company again, and puts out almost entirely games aimed for an American audience. Before the Xbox came out, every console RPG involved metrosexuals with 12-foot-long swords, the Xbox instantly changed that from day 1 with Morrowind. Before the Xbox, virtually all shooters were third-person, I can't stand those games.</p><p>It doesn't hurt that both the original Xbox and Xbox 360 are *excellent* systems that both Sony and Nintendo are scrambling to catch up to. (Software-wise.)</p><p>Seriously, an American company hasn't had much of a say in console gaming since the freakin' Atari in 1983. What's happening now in the market is good and healthy, and even if Microsoft is losing money, I love them for it.</p><p>Now please mod me down for being too American and supporting Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to make the horrible patriotic arguments that people around here hate , but... well here goes.I 'm actually really glad that one of the major game consoles is made by an American company again , and puts out almost entirely games aimed for an American audience .
Before the Xbox came out , every console RPG involved metrosexuals with 12-foot-long swords , the Xbox instantly changed that from day 1 with Morrowind .
Before the Xbox , virtually all shooters were third-person , I ca n't stand those games.It does n't hurt that both the original Xbox and Xbox 360 are * excellent * systems that both Sony and Nintendo are scrambling to catch up to .
( Software-wise. ) Seriously , an American company has n't had much of a say in console gaming since the freakin ' Atari in 1983 .
What 's happening now in the market is good and healthy , and even if Microsoft is losing money , I love them for it.Now please mod me down for being too American and supporting Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to make the horrible patriotic arguments that people around here hate, but... well here goes.I'm actually really glad that one of the major game consoles is made by an American company again, and puts out almost entirely games aimed for an American audience.
Before the Xbox came out, every console RPG involved metrosexuals with 12-foot-long swords, the Xbox instantly changed that from day 1 with Morrowind.
Before the Xbox, virtually all shooters were third-person, I can't stand those games.It doesn't hurt that both the original Xbox and Xbox 360 are *excellent* systems that both Sony and Nintendo are scrambling to catch up to.
(Software-wise.)Seriously, an American company hasn't had much of a say in console gaming since the freakin' Atari in 1983.
What's happening now in the market is good and healthy, and even if Microsoft is losing money, I love them for it.Now please mod me down for being too American and supporting Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31137578</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting graph!</title>
	<author>daver00</author>
	<datestamp>1266145440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surely the OEMs would have put in massive preorders to have Win7 machines ready at launch?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely the OEMs would have put in massive preorders to have Win7 machines ready at launch ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely the OEMs would have put in massive preorders to have Win7 machines ready at launch?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135578</id>
	<title>Mice</title>
	<author>gatkinso</author>
	<datestamp>1266174000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like their mice.</p><p>That's about it however.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like their mice.That 's about it however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like their mice.That's about it however.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134486</id>
	<title>Hmm...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266163920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Frosty piss!<br> <br>
Boogers!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Frosty piss !
Boogers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frosty piss!
Boogers!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31147218</id>
	<title>Re:Ok, let's see</title>
	<author>Actually, I do RTFA</author>
	<datestamp>1266264900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They haven't done a lot since then that makes money in the same way.</p></div></blockquote><p>And they don't have to.  If Bing keeps Google from making enough money to push ChromiumOS, and the Xbox 360 breaks even (it's profitable, but that's another story) keeping your home network Microsoft, then they are protecting their OS/Office profits.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They have n't done a lot since then that makes money in the same way.And they do n't have to .
If Bing keeps Google from making enough money to push ChromiumOS , and the Xbox 360 breaks even ( it 's profitable , but that 's another story ) keeping your home network Microsoft , then they are protecting their OS/Office profits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They haven't done a lot since then that makes money in the same way.And they don't have to.
If Bing keeps Google from making enough money to push ChromiumOS, and the Xbox 360 breaks even (it's profitable, but that's another story) keeping your home network Microsoft, then they are protecting their OS/Office profits.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135994</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266177840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How the heck are you trying to correct the parent with fucked-up English?!</p><p>It's LOSING, not 'loosing', you stupid motherfucker.</p><p>And QUARTER, not 'quoter'.</p><p>Go back to fucking grade school.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How the heck are you trying to correct the parent with fucked-up English ?
! It 's LOSING , not 'loosing ' , you stupid motherfucker.And QUARTER , not 'quoter'.Go back to fucking grade school .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How the heck are you trying to correct the parent with fucked-up English?
!It's LOSING, not 'loosing', you stupid motherfucker.And QUARTER, not 'quoter'.Go back to fucking grade school.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134968</id>
	<title>Re:Monkeyboy needs to go</title>
	<author>Smidge207</author>
	<datestamp>1266168120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>-ted</p><p>Ted <i>Turner</i>? Is dat you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>-tedTed Turner ?
Is dat you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-tedTed Turner?
Is dat you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135612</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting graph!</title>
	<author>xOneca</author>
	<datestamp>1266174300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What surprises me is the massive boost in OS profits in Dec 09.</p></div><p>Christmas presents. People wait until last minute to buy gifts. Computers that come with pre-installed Windows (whichever version it is).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What surprises me is the massive boost in OS profits in Dec 09.Christmas presents .
People wait until last minute to buy gifts .
Computers that come with pre-installed Windows ( whichever version it is ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What surprises me is the massive boost in OS profits in Dec 09.Christmas presents.
People wait until last minute to buy gifts.
Computers that come with pre-installed Windows (whichever version it is).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135970</id>
	<title>Re:really?</title>
	<author>dbcad7</author>
	<datestamp>1266177660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is, in small chunks.. The majority of sales come from businesses who have for a long time perceived that to be "professional" they have to have MS Office. As we have had tougher economic times, there have been more businesses willing to give OO.o a shot.. These are actual lost sales.. However, MS is so entrenched in some places, you have people who wouldn't give it a try regardless of of the price or even if it was better or faster.. these people will never switch based on any sane rational... As to the average consumer, pretty much the same types of people willing to shell out money on an overpriced office suite, will still do it.. MS has long ago priced themselves higher than the average person wants to spend on it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is , in small chunks.. The majority of sales come from businesses who have for a long time perceived that to be " professional " they have to have MS Office .
As we have had tougher economic times , there have been more businesses willing to give OO.o a shot.. These are actual lost sales.. However , MS is so entrenched in some places , you have people who would n't give it a try regardless of of the price or even if it was better or faster.. these people will never switch based on any sane rational... As to the average consumer , pretty much the same types of people willing to shell out money on an overpriced office suite , will still do it.. MS has long ago priced themselves higher than the average person wants to spend on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is, in small chunks.. The majority of sales come from businesses who have for a long time perceived that to be "professional" they have to have MS Office.
As we have had tougher economic times, there have been more businesses willing to give OO.o a shot.. These are actual lost sales.. However, MS is so entrenched in some places, you have people who wouldn't give it a try regardless of of the price or even if it was better or faster.. these people will never switch based on any sane rational... As to the average consumer, pretty much the same types of people willing to shell out money on an overpriced office suite, will still do it.. MS has long ago priced themselves higher than the average person wants to spend on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135042</id>
	<title>same story in Macintosh days</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266168780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Recently I came across Guy Kawasaki's lectures. In one of them he mentioned, back in the 80s when he was a Mac-Evangelist, Macintosh department employees were given world class treatment like professional massage treatments during working days, First Class air tickets if the flight is 2+ hours etc.</p><p>But in reality, Macintosh wasn't earning a dime and continuing the spending spree of all what Apple II department was earning. In return, not a single Apple II employee was permitted to enter the Macintosh building.</p><p>I observe some similarity here in Microsoft too (i.e. one department earns, other spends). But seems it is not that bad.</p><p>In my humble opinion, I predict the demise of Office and Windows OS in next 10 years (maybe there will be cloud versions). I believe Microsoft will move into more enterprise/back-end technology space rather than remaining in desktop/consumer space (just like IBM). But nothing can be predicted to a higher accuracy, as the internet backbone is yet to achieve higher bandwidths and reliability, which is somewhat mandatory before a full migration in to a cloud based software eco-system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Recently I came across Guy Kawasaki 's lectures .
In one of them he mentioned , back in the 80s when he was a Mac-Evangelist , Macintosh department employees were given world class treatment like professional massage treatments during working days , First Class air tickets if the flight is 2 + hours etc.But in reality , Macintosh was n't earning a dime and continuing the spending spree of all what Apple II department was earning .
In return , not a single Apple II employee was permitted to enter the Macintosh building.I observe some similarity here in Microsoft too ( i.e .
one department earns , other spends ) .
But seems it is not that bad.In my humble opinion , I predict the demise of Office and Windows OS in next 10 years ( maybe there will be cloud versions ) .
I believe Microsoft will move into more enterprise/back-end technology space rather than remaining in desktop/consumer space ( just like IBM ) .
But nothing can be predicted to a higher accuracy , as the internet backbone is yet to achieve higher bandwidths and reliability , which is somewhat mandatory before a full migration in to a cloud based software eco-system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recently I came across Guy Kawasaki's lectures.
In one of them he mentioned, back in the 80s when he was a Mac-Evangelist, Macintosh department employees were given world class treatment like professional massage treatments during working days, First Class air tickets if the flight is 2+ hours etc.But in reality, Macintosh wasn't earning a dime and continuing the spending spree of all what Apple II department was earning.
In return, not a single Apple II employee was permitted to enter the Macintosh building.I observe some similarity here in Microsoft too (i.e.
one department earns, other spends).
But seems it is not that bad.In my humble opinion, I predict the demise of Office and Windows OS in next 10 years (maybe there will be cloud versions).
I believe Microsoft will move into more enterprise/back-end technology space rather than remaining in desktop/consumer space (just like IBM).
But nothing can be predicted to a higher accuracy, as the internet backbone is yet to achieve higher bandwidths and reliability, which is somewhat mandatory before a full migration in to a cloud based software eco-system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134574</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting graph!</title>
	<author>Amanieu</author>
	<datestamp>1266164700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe that the two drops and spikes correspond to a new version of Windows being release. Prior to release, people will stop buying the old version, which would be seen as a drop in profits. After the release, a lot of people will upgrade, which accounts for the spike in profits. The second spike (2009) is bigger than the first (2006) because Windows Vista wasn't as successful as Windows 7.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that the two drops and spikes correspond to a new version of Windows being release .
Prior to release , people will stop buying the old version , which would be seen as a drop in profits .
After the release , a lot of people will upgrade , which accounts for the spike in profits .
The second spike ( 2009 ) is bigger than the first ( 2006 ) because Windows Vista was n't as successful as Windows 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that the two drops and spikes correspond to a new version of Windows being release.
Prior to release, people will stop buying the old version, which would be seen as a drop in profits.
After the release, a lot of people will upgrade, which accounts for the spike in profits.
The second spike (2009) is bigger than the first (2006) because Windows Vista wasn't as successful as Windows 7.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135594</id>
	<title>Re:Class action lawsuit ?</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1266174120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only kind of shareholder lawsuits that have a chance of winning are in cases of fraud/deception or gross incompetence.  If a company tells shareholders that they are going to do something, and then make a decent effort towards trying to reach that goal, there is not much shareholders can do, other than try to replace the board of directors (which sometimes happens).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only kind of shareholder lawsuits that have a chance of winning are in cases of fraud/deception or gross incompetence .
If a company tells shareholders that they are going to do something , and then make a decent effort towards trying to reach that goal , there is not much shareholders can do , other than try to replace the board of directors ( which sometimes happens ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only kind of shareholder lawsuits that have a chance of winning are in cases of fraud/deception or gross incompetence.
If a company tells shareholders that they are going to do something, and then make a decent effort towards trying to reach that goal, there is not much shareholders can do, other than try to replace the board of directors (which sometimes happens).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134902</id>
	<title>Re:Class action lawsuit ?</title>
	<author>furball</author>
	<datestamp>1266167640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft doesn't pay dividends.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft does n't pay dividends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft doesn't pay dividends.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136386</id>
	<title>Re:Class action lawsuit ?</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1266181140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft doesn't generally pay dividends at all. I think a group of stockholders basically got snippy and talked Microsoft into paying dividends a few years ago, IIRC. Generally, though, they don't. (They're hardly alone, a ton of stocks don't pay dividends.)</p><p>As for suing a corporation for not making enough money, that's just ridiculous. If you don't like the way they're doing business, sell your shares and don't buy any new ones-- that's how you signal your opinion. If everybody sells their shares and doesn't buy new ones, the share price goes down and the company sink.</p><p>In any case, the investment in Online and Media is strategic. It's not expected to pay off the first day, or even the first decade... I know, for example, that the Xbox division's original plan was to be profitable in 5 years. Everybody knew going in that the Xbox wasn't going to bring in huge cash on day one, business just doesn't work that way. If you think it's a bad strategy, then sell your shares and signal your intent that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft does n't generally pay dividends at all .
I think a group of stockholders basically got snippy and talked Microsoft into paying dividends a few years ago , IIRC .
Generally , though , they do n't .
( They 're hardly alone , a ton of stocks do n't pay dividends .
) As for suing a corporation for not making enough money , that 's just ridiculous .
If you do n't like the way they 're doing business , sell your shares and do n't buy any new ones-- that 's how you signal your opinion .
If everybody sells their shares and does n't buy new ones , the share price goes down and the company sink.In any case , the investment in Online and Media is strategic .
It 's not expected to pay off the first day , or even the first decade... I know , for example , that the Xbox division 's original plan was to be profitable in 5 years .
Everybody knew going in that the Xbox was n't going to bring in huge cash on day one , business just does n't work that way .
If you think it 's a bad strategy , then sell your shares and signal your intent that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft doesn't generally pay dividends at all.
I think a group of stockholders basically got snippy and talked Microsoft into paying dividends a few years ago, IIRC.
Generally, though, they don't.
(They're hardly alone, a ton of stocks don't pay dividends.
)As for suing a corporation for not making enough money, that's just ridiculous.
If you don't like the way they're doing business, sell your shares and don't buy any new ones-- that's how you signal your opinion.
If everybody sells their shares and doesn't buy new ones, the share price goes down and the company sink.In any case, the investment in Online and Media is strategic.
It's not expected to pay off the first day, or even the first decade... I know, for example, that the Xbox division's original plan was to be profitable in 5 years.
Everybody knew going in that the Xbox wasn't going to bring in huge cash on day one, business just doesn't work that way.
If you think it's a bad strategy, then sell your shares and signal your intent that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135830</id>
	<title>Re:Monkeyboy needs to go</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266176340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heh, and maybe, just maybe, he feels breath of Google Apps, ChromeOS and the likes on his neck, and tries to deprive Google of its cash cow, just to save the rest?</p><p>Search war is not there to profit from search, it's to prevent doom of all the rest, which would definitely be the case if Google wins Office, OS and Server markets. Hit'em where it hurts even at a big cost to yourself, before they march all over your flagship areas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh , and maybe , just maybe , he feels breath of Google Apps , ChromeOS and the likes on his neck , and tries to deprive Google of its cash cow , just to save the rest ? Search war is not there to profit from search , it 's to prevent doom of all the rest , which would definitely be the case if Google wins Office , OS and Server markets .
Hit'em where it hurts even at a big cost to yourself , before they march all over your flagship areas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh, and maybe, just maybe, he feels breath of Google Apps, ChromeOS and the likes on his neck, and tries to deprive Google of its cash cow, just to save the rest?Search war is not there to profit from search, it's to prevent doom of all the rest, which would definitely be the case if Google wins Office, OS and Server markets.
Hit'em where it hurts even at a big cost to yourself, before they march all over your flagship areas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134636</id>
	<title>Class action lawsuit ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266165300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IANAL and IANAAC (american citizen), so i'm asking this to whoever is any...</p><p>can't shareholder sue microsoft's chief officers/board of directors for lost profits ?</p><p>I mean, 2 bil a year is money they could be paying as dividends, right ?</p><p>can someone clarify this to me ? thanks;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL and IANAAC ( american citizen ) , so i 'm asking this to whoever is any...ca n't shareholder sue microsoft 's chief officers/board of directors for lost profits ? I mean , 2 bil a year is money they could be paying as dividends , right ? can someone clarify this to me ?
thanks ;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL and IANAAC (american citizen), so i'm asking this to whoever is any...can't shareholder sue microsoft's chief officers/board of directors for lost profits ?I mean, 2 bil a year is money they could be paying as dividends, right ?can someone clarify this to me ?
thanks;</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136168</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting graph!</title>
	<author>DemonBeaver</author>
	<datestamp>1266179520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think you read it correctly: while OS sales rise and fall (and rise like crazy with Windows 7), the rest remain more or less constant, as each is only marked by the width of their band (for example, Office constantly provides slightly less than $4B).<br> Or would you believe that Microsoft makes twice as much from Office as it does from Windows?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think you read it correctly : while OS sales rise and fall ( and rise like crazy with Windows 7 ) , the rest remain more or less constant , as each is only marked by the width of their band ( for example , Office constantly provides slightly less than $ 4B ) .
Or would you believe that Microsoft makes twice as much from Office as it does from Windows ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think you read it correctly: while OS sales rise and fall (and rise like crazy with Windows 7), the rest remain more or less constant, as each is only marked by the width of their band (for example, Office constantly provides slightly less than $4B).
Or would you believe that Microsoft makes twice as much from Office as it does from Windows?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136552</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting graph!</title>
	<author>daath93</author>
	<datestamp>1266139080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it's not as if people are buying Windows 7 off store shelves to upgrade older computers (are they?)</p></div><p>I did! Works quicker on my laptop than vista did, though I didn't have any complaints with vista either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's not as if people are buying Windows 7 off store shelves to upgrade older computers ( are they ?
) I did !
Works quicker on my laptop than vista did , though I did n't have any complaints with vista either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's not as if people are buying Windows 7 off store shelves to upgrade older computers (are they?
)I did!
Works quicker on my laptop than vista did, though I didn't have any complaints with vista either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135008</id>
	<title>Re:Ok, let's see</title>
	<author>Jeff DeMaagd</author>
	<datestamp>1266168480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's a question of how long they expect to spend money on a strategy that hasn't succeeded in a long time.  Office is an old product, Windows is an old product.  They haven't done a lot since then that makes money in the same way.</p><p>Right now, it looks like Microsoft's strategy is to throw whole pots of spaghetti to the wall in the hopes that a couple strands stick, with a questionable profitability when they do stick, because the rest of the world may well have moved on to something else by the time their seed capital produces fruit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's a question of how long they expect to spend money on a strategy that has n't succeeded in a long time .
Office is an old product , Windows is an old product .
They have n't done a lot since then that makes money in the same way.Right now , it looks like Microsoft 's strategy is to throw whole pots of spaghetti to the wall in the hopes that a couple strands stick , with a questionable profitability when they do stick , because the rest of the world may well have moved on to something else by the time their seed capital produces fruit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's a question of how long they expect to spend money on a strategy that hasn't succeeded in a long time.
Office is an old product, Windows is an old product.
They haven't done a lot since then that makes money in the same way.Right now, it looks like Microsoft's strategy is to throw whole pots of spaghetti to the wall in the hopes that a couple strands stick, with a questionable profitability when they do stick, because the rest of the world may well have moved on to something else by the time their seed capital produces fruit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31137738</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting graph!</title>
	<author>zuperduperman</author>
	<datestamp>1266146580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;  What surprises me is the massive boost in OS profits in Dec 09.</p><p>I'm amazed not so much by the boost as by the dip - during the prior 12 months profit fell by an amazing ~30\% on Windows.  This is despite MS offering vouchers for upgrades to Win7 for most of the year with new computers.   It must be really terrifying to watch that as a MS exec and wonder<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "will it come back<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... is it really just Win 7 or is the bottom falling out of our company?".   And it *did* come back.   But I wouldn't have liked to have been in their shoes and watching that throughout 09.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; What surprises me is the massive boost in OS profits in Dec 09.I 'm amazed not so much by the boost as by the dip - during the prior 12 months profit fell by an amazing ~ 30 \ % on Windows .
This is despite MS offering vouchers for upgrades to Win7 for most of the year with new computers .
It must be really terrifying to watch that as a MS exec and wonder ... " will it come back ... is it really just Win 7 or is the bottom falling out of our company ? " .
And it * did * come back .
But I would n't have liked to have been in their shoes and watching that throughout 09 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;  What surprises me is the massive boost in OS profits in Dec 09.I'm amazed not so much by the boost as by the dip - during the prior 12 months profit fell by an amazing ~30\% on Windows.
This is despite MS offering vouchers for upgrades to Win7 for most of the year with new computers.
It must be really terrifying to watch that as a MS exec and wonder ... "will it come back ... is it really just Win 7 or is the bottom falling out of our company?".
And it *did* come back.
But I wouldn't have liked to have been in their shoes and watching that throughout 09.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134808</id>
	<title>Re:really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266166740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because it's not as good as Office, even with the cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it 's not as good as Office , even with the cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it's not as good as Office, even with the cost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134952</id>
	<title>Re:Preparing for the Future or Buying Their Own Hy</title>
	<author>devent</author>
	<datestamp>1266168000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>And yet, a decade without innovation seems to have cost Microsoft nothing in terms of their core markets, and their experimental markets seem to be flat. Almost as if they are trying to push the market in a direction the market knows better than to follow. </i> </p><p>What a surprise. If you want to sell an Office or Operation System the first thing your customers will ask you, how good does it support Microsoft Office file format or how good will my Windows only applications running. </p><p>It's good to have an almost monopoly, you just need to polish your old applications, make the binary formats slightly incompatible, so if some important person buys the new one, everyone else must upgrade, too. </p><p>I mean, what choice do customers have? It's either Windows 7 Starter or Windows 7 Home Basic or an Mac in the Apple Store.</p><p>Every school in the western world is teaching only Windows and Office. Microsoft is not a company, it's an institution. Every Computer vendor in this world have to support Windows and all the big ones are promoting Windows with everything they have. Just try to get a new Computer, everyone will have a "Xxx recommends  Windows 7" and if Microsoft will have a new Windows 8, every big vendor will put a "Xxx recommends  Windows 8", regardless of any quality.</p><p>For MS and the vendors it's a win/win situation. Microsoft have ads and it sells Windows, as well as other products that are build on top of Windows. The vendors get the Windows copy for free (or almost for free).</p><p>Just try and implement and sell a new system or office suite. The entry line to this market is like enter in the tourist space market or to colonize a new planet. But a system or an office suite are very simple applications. You need some know-how, but it's not rocket science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet , a decade without innovation seems to have cost Microsoft nothing in terms of their core markets , and their experimental markets seem to be flat .
Almost as if they are trying to push the market in a direction the market knows better than to follow .
What a surprise .
If you want to sell an Office or Operation System the first thing your customers will ask you , how good does it support Microsoft Office file format or how good will my Windows only applications running .
It 's good to have an almost monopoly , you just need to polish your old applications , make the binary formats slightly incompatible , so if some important person buys the new one , everyone else must upgrade , too .
I mean , what choice do customers have ?
It 's either Windows 7 Starter or Windows 7 Home Basic or an Mac in the Apple Store.Every school in the western world is teaching only Windows and Office .
Microsoft is not a company , it 's an institution .
Every Computer vendor in this world have to support Windows and all the big ones are promoting Windows with everything they have .
Just try to get a new Computer , everyone will have a " Xxx recommends Windows 7 " and if Microsoft will have a new Windows 8 , every big vendor will put a " Xxx recommends Windows 8 " , regardless of any quality.For MS and the vendors it 's a win/win situation .
Microsoft have ads and it sells Windows , as well as other products that are build on top of Windows .
The vendors get the Windows copy for free ( or almost for free ) .Just try and implement and sell a new system or office suite .
The entry line to this market is like enter in the tourist space market or to colonize a new planet .
But a system or an office suite are very simple applications .
You need some know-how , but it 's not rocket science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> And yet, a decade without innovation seems to have cost Microsoft nothing in terms of their core markets, and their experimental markets seem to be flat.
Almost as if they are trying to push the market in a direction the market knows better than to follow.
What a surprise.
If you want to sell an Office or Operation System the first thing your customers will ask you, how good does it support Microsoft Office file format or how good will my Windows only applications running.
It's good to have an almost monopoly, you just need to polish your old applications, make the binary formats slightly incompatible, so if some important person buys the new one, everyone else must upgrade, too.
I mean, what choice do customers have?
It's either Windows 7 Starter or Windows 7 Home Basic or an Mac in the Apple Store.Every school in the western world is teaching only Windows and Office.
Microsoft is not a company, it's an institution.
Every Computer vendor in this world have to support Windows and all the big ones are promoting Windows with everything they have.
Just try to get a new Computer, everyone will have a "Xxx recommends  Windows 7" and if Microsoft will have a new Windows 8, every big vendor will put a "Xxx recommends  Windows 8", regardless of any quality.For MS and the vendors it's a win/win situation.
Microsoft have ads and it sells Windows, as well as other products that are build on top of Windows.
The vendors get the Windows copy for free (or almost for free).Just try and implement and sell a new system or office suite.
The entry line to this market is like enter in the tourist space market or to colonize a new planet.
But a system or an office suite are very simple applications.
You need some know-how, but it's not rocket science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136388</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting graph!</title>
	<author>uassholes</author>
	<datestamp>1266138000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So the problem is they used microsoft?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the problem is they used microsoft ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the problem is they used microsoft?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134966</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting graph!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266168120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually the graph is neither a direct data series nor a stacked data series. You can tell this because the plot for "Entertainments and Devices" at a point between Mar '08 and Jun '08 shows area both below Online Services and above the x-axis. This is impossible for a direct data series. This is also impossible for a stacked data series.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually the graph is neither a direct data series nor a stacked data series .
You can tell this because the plot for " Entertainments and Devices " at a point between Mar '08 and Jun '08 shows area both below Online Services and above the x-axis .
This is impossible for a direct data series .
This is also impossible for a stacked data series .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually the graph is neither a direct data series nor a stacked data series.
You can tell this because the plot for "Entertainments and Devices" at a point between Mar '08 and Jun '08 shows area both below Online Services and above the x-axis.
This is impossible for a direct data series.
This is also impossible for a stacked data series.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135792</id>
	<title>Billy Gates</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266175980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Everything else under Balmer's tenure has been a (financial) failure.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Just like it was under Billy Gates.  The company didn't suddenly start sucking with fat monkeyboy.  It has always sucked.
</p><p>
Microsoft has been the "New SCO" since before SCO.  Billy saw the red ink and bailed.  Enron-style creative accounting can only keep fools fooled for so long.  Eventually they are so broke no amount of diddling can hid the losses and then top executives have to be let go for lack of funds.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everything else under Balmer 's tenure has been a ( financial ) failure .
Just like it was under Billy Gates .
The company did n't suddenly start sucking with fat monkeyboy .
It has always sucked .
Microsoft has been the " New SCO " since before SCO .
Billy saw the red ink and bailed .
Enron-style creative accounting can only keep fools fooled for so long .
Eventually they are so broke no amount of diddling can hid the losses and then top executives have to be let go for lack of funds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everything else under Balmer's tenure has been a (financial) failure.
Just like it was under Billy Gates.
The company didn't suddenly start sucking with fat monkeyboy.
It has always sucked.
Microsoft has been the "New SCO" since before SCO.
Billy saw the red ink and bailed.
Enron-style creative accounting can only keep fools fooled for so long.
Eventually they are so broke no amount of diddling can hid the losses and then top executives have to be let go for lack of funds.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31137436</id>
	<title>When Linux comes, Microsoft goes</title>
	<author>u64</author>
	<datestamp>1266144600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows, Office, and Server will eventually be replaced with Linux someday...</p><p>"Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect" -Linus</p><p>The sad part is that the kernel alone wont replace Windows. We still need to fix GNOME into something<br>non-bloated and good enough that most will agree on it beeing 'the GUI for Linux' . KDE and most<br>WindowManagers are very nice but they dont fill that gap.</p><p>A fully working replacement for ActiveDirectory is also required. Or am i missing something obvious?</p><p>And a little more work on Wine.</p><p>With these three in place i dont see any reason for n00bs nor organizations nor me to loose any more<br>money to Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows , Office , and Server will eventually be replaced with Linux someday... " Really , I 'm not out to destroy Microsoft .
That will just be a completely unintentional side effect " -LinusThe sad part is that the kernel alone wont replace Windows .
We still need to fix GNOME into somethingnon-bloated and good enough that most will agree on it beeing 'the GUI for Linux ' .
KDE and mostWindowManagers are very nice but they dont fill that gap.A fully working replacement for ActiveDirectory is also required .
Or am i missing something obvious ? And a little more work on Wine.With these three in place i dont see any reason for n00bs nor organizations nor me to loose any moremoney to Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows, Office, and Server will eventually be replaced with Linux someday..."Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft.
That will just be a completely unintentional side effect" -LinusThe sad part is that the kernel alone wont replace Windows.
We still need to fix GNOME into somethingnon-bloated and good enough that most will agree on it beeing 'the GUI for Linux' .
KDE and mostWindowManagers are very nice but they dont fill that gap.A fully working replacement for ActiveDirectory is also required.
Or am i missing something obvious?And a little more work on Wine.With these three in place i dont see any reason for n00bs nor organizations nor me to loose any moremoney to Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135034</id>
	<title>Re:Class action lawsuit ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266168720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The short answer is no, you can't do that - they aren't losing the profits, they just may be investing them in other projects that have created business lines that aren't so profitable.  That isn't illegal, it's a strategy, and it may eventually pay out or it may not.</p><p>Now, there are tools like filing proxies, or getting your own board members put in place, that are possible for groups of shareholders working together which can put significant pressure on companies to change their capital structure, dividend policies, share buyback plans and so on.  And those have worked to some extent with Microsoft, which was pressured into paying out a huge one-time cash dividend 4 or 5 years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The short answer is no , you ca n't do that - they are n't losing the profits , they just may be investing them in other projects that have created business lines that are n't so profitable .
That is n't illegal , it 's a strategy , and it may eventually pay out or it may not.Now , there are tools like filing proxies , or getting your own board members put in place , that are possible for groups of shareholders working together which can put significant pressure on companies to change their capital structure , dividend policies , share buyback plans and so on .
And those have worked to some extent with Microsoft , which was pressured into paying out a huge one-time cash dividend 4 or 5 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The short answer is no, you can't do that - they aren't losing the profits, they just may be investing them in other projects that have created business lines that aren't so profitable.
That isn't illegal, it's a strategy, and it may eventually pay out or it may not.Now, there are tools like filing proxies, or getting your own board members put in place, that are possible for groups of shareholders working together which can put significant pressure on companies to change their capital structure, dividend policies, share buyback plans and so on.
And those have worked to some extent with Microsoft, which was pressured into paying out a huge one-time cash dividend 4 or 5 years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31207508</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting graph!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266597540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136080</id>
	<title>Re:Class action lawsuit ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266178740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft doesn't pay dividends.</p></div><p>Wrong.  Microsoft does indeed pay dividends.  It's last dividend was<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.13/share.</p><p>http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2009/dec09/12-09DecQuarterlyDividendPR.mspx</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft does n't pay dividends.Wrong .
Microsoft does indeed pay dividends .
It 's last dividend was .13/share.http : //www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2009/dec09/12-09DecQuarterlyDividendPR.mspx</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft doesn't pay dividends.Wrong.
Microsoft does indeed pay dividends.
It's last dividend was .13/share.http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2009/dec09/12-09DecQuarterlyDividendPR.mspx
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134826</id>
	<title>Correlation/Causation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266166860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>What I find most interesting is the way all changes are perfectly synchronized with the exception of entertainment related stuff. This is clear indication of the power of vendor lock-in and tying unrelated products together.</i>

</p><p>That's one possibility.  Another would be the economy itself.  Maybe when things are good people buy more software so both go up at the same time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I find most interesting is the way all changes are perfectly synchronized with the exception of entertainment related stuff .
This is clear indication of the power of vendor lock-in and tying unrelated products together .
That 's one possibility .
Another would be the economy itself .
Maybe when things are good people buy more software so both go up at the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> What I find most interesting is the way all changes are perfectly synchronized with the exception of entertainment related stuff.
This is clear indication of the power of vendor lock-in and tying unrelated products together.
That's one possibility.
Another would be the economy itself.
Maybe when things are good people buy more software so both go up at the same time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134620</id>
	<title>Monkeyboy needs to go</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266165060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft is the same company they were 20 years ago.  Windows, Office, and Server software are how they make money.</p><p>Everything else under Balmer's tenure has been a (financial) failure.</p><p>Now, Balmer wants to spend the war chest to win the "search" war.  I've just got one question for Steve:</p><p>Hey Steve, how much money did you make on the browser war?</p><p>This idiot wants to kill Google by spending tons of money on search, yet he has not explained how this will make Microsoft a single dime.</p><p>For Microsoft to grow and prosper in other areas, Steve Balmer needs to go.</p><p>-ted</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is the same company they were 20 years ago .
Windows , Office , and Server software are how they make money.Everything else under Balmer 's tenure has been a ( financial ) failure.Now , Balmer wants to spend the war chest to win the " search " war .
I 've just got one question for Steve : Hey Steve , how much money did you make on the browser war ? This idiot wants to kill Google by spending tons of money on search , yet he has not explained how this will make Microsoft a single dime.For Microsoft to grow and prosper in other areas , Steve Balmer needs to go.-ted</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is the same company they were 20 years ago.
Windows, Office, and Server software are how they make money.Everything else under Balmer's tenure has been a (financial) failure.Now, Balmer wants to spend the war chest to win the "search" war.
I've just got one question for Steve:Hey Steve, how much money did you make on the browser war?This idiot wants to kill Google by spending tons of money on search, yet he has not explained how this will make Microsoft a single dime.For Microsoft to grow and prosper in other areas, Steve Balmer needs to go.-ted</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134876</id>
	<title>Re:Monkeyboy needs to go</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266167460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hey Steve, how much money did you make on the browser war?</p></div><p>From the graph I'd say he's making around $10B per year. Winning the browser war means 90\% of the world is locked into using Internet Explorer, which means they're also locked into Windows, which means they'll also buy Office. It also means the sysadmins at most companies support Windows machines, so they may as well support Windows servers and databases too.</p><p>The loss Microsoft takes in the other divisions is trivial compared to the profits they get from a locked in customer base. Balmer knows that, and has protected that base very, very well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey Steve , how much money did you make on the browser war ? From the graph I 'd say he 's making around $ 10B per year .
Winning the browser war means 90 \ % of the world is locked into using Internet Explorer , which means they 're also locked into Windows , which means they 'll also buy Office .
It also means the sysadmins at most companies support Windows machines , so they may as well support Windows servers and databases too.The loss Microsoft takes in the other divisions is trivial compared to the profits they get from a locked in customer base .
Balmer knows that , and has protected that base very , very well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey Steve, how much money did you make on the browser war?From the graph I'd say he's making around $10B per year.
Winning the browser war means 90\% of the world is locked into using Internet Explorer, which means they're also locked into Windows, which means they'll also buy Office.
It also means the sysadmins at most companies support Windows machines, so they may as well support Windows servers and databases too.The loss Microsoft takes in the other divisions is trivial compared to the profits they get from a locked in customer base.
Balmer knows that, and has protected that base very, very well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31138764</id>
	<title>Re:Monkeyboy needs to go</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266153720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is time to kill Microsoft. The method is to adopt open standards and ensure development of Openoffice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is time to kill Microsoft .
The method is to adopt open standards and ensure development of Openoffice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is time to kill Microsoft.
The method is to adopt open standards and ensure development of Openoffice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31138544</id>
	<title>Gaming is pocket change</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1266152100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Gaming is a huge industry and the Xbox is fairly popular.</i> </p><p>The console and PC game industry as a whole was worth $20 billion in 2007. <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10\_08/b4167064465834.htm" title="businessweek.com">Electronic Arts: Lost in an Alien Landscape</a> [businessweek.com] Microsoft raked in $19 billion in revenues in its last <b>quarter.</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gaming is a huge industry and the Xbox is fairly popular .
The console and PC game industry as a whole was worth $ 20 billion in 2007 .
Electronic Arts : Lost in an Alien Landscape [ businessweek.com ] Microsoft raked in $ 19 billion in revenues in its last quarter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gaming is a huge industry and the Xbox is fairly popular.
The console and PC game industry as a whole was worth $20 billion in 2007.
Electronic Arts: Lost in an Alien Landscape [businessweek.com] Microsoft raked in $19 billion in revenues in its last quarter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134560</id>
	<title>Preparing for the Future or Buying Their Own Hype?</title>
	<author>Alaren</author>
	<datestamp>1266164580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just looking at that graph makes me wonder what Microsoft thinks it is doing.  Over the total lifetime of the division, what is the net profit of the "Entertainment and Devices" department?  How much has Online cost, total?  And what has it positioned them to do in the long run?

</p><p>For years, the buzz has been building on "the cloud."  For two generations of gaming consoles, it has been Sony and Microsoft's strategy both to infiltrate your living room so as to better profit from entertainment services.

</p><p>But Office hasn't changed meaningfully in 6-12 years--sure there are new features that some folks like, but when I switched from WordPerfect 5.1 to Office 97 (?) that was the last time I noticed a significant change in feature set and usability.  And the Windows OS has had a lot of changes under the hood, but XP to Windows 7 is much the same progression as Office 97 to Office 2007--security and cosmetics but no real innovation.

</p><p>And yet, a decade without innovation seems to have cost Microsoft nothing in terms of their core markets, and their experimental markets seem to be flat.  Almost as if they are trying to push the market in a direction the market knows better than to follow.

</p><p>In other words, online and "cloud" services as well as the gradual move to digital delivery on consoles are both areas where Microsoft is seeking to erode ownership in favor of a rental model, while Desktop Services is still a physical product you buy (in spite of the net-based tentacles they've been extending of late).  I was under the impression that people were falling for it hook, line, and sinker.

</p><p>This graph is pleasantly surprising.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just looking at that graph makes me wonder what Microsoft thinks it is doing .
Over the total lifetime of the division , what is the net profit of the " Entertainment and Devices " department ?
How much has Online cost , total ?
And what has it positioned them to do in the long run ?
For years , the buzz has been building on " the cloud .
" For two generations of gaming consoles , it has been Sony and Microsoft 's strategy both to infiltrate your living room so as to better profit from entertainment services .
But Office has n't changed meaningfully in 6-12 years--sure there are new features that some folks like , but when I switched from WordPerfect 5.1 to Office 97 ( ?
) that was the last time I noticed a significant change in feature set and usability .
And the Windows OS has had a lot of changes under the hood , but XP to Windows 7 is much the same progression as Office 97 to Office 2007--security and cosmetics but no real innovation .
And yet , a decade without innovation seems to have cost Microsoft nothing in terms of their core markets , and their experimental markets seem to be flat .
Almost as if they are trying to push the market in a direction the market knows better than to follow .
In other words , online and " cloud " services as well as the gradual move to digital delivery on consoles are both areas where Microsoft is seeking to erode ownership in favor of a rental model , while Desktop Services is still a physical product you buy ( in spite of the net-based tentacles they 've been extending of late ) .
I was under the impression that people were falling for it hook , line , and sinker .
This graph is pleasantly surprising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just looking at that graph makes me wonder what Microsoft thinks it is doing.
Over the total lifetime of the division, what is the net profit of the "Entertainment and Devices" department?
How much has Online cost, total?
And what has it positioned them to do in the long run?
For years, the buzz has been building on "the cloud.
"  For two generations of gaming consoles, it has been Sony and Microsoft's strategy both to infiltrate your living room so as to better profit from entertainment services.
But Office hasn't changed meaningfully in 6-12 years--sure there are new features that some folks like, but when I switched from WordPerfect 5.1 to Office 97 (?
) that was the last time I noticed a significant change in feature set and usability.
And the Windows OS has had a lot of changes under the hood, but XP to Windows 7 is much the same progression as Office 97 to Office 2007--security and cosmetics but no real innovation.
And yet, a decade without innovation seems to have cost Microsoft nothing in terms of their core markets, and their experimental markets seem to be flat.
Almost as if they are trying to push the market in a direction the market knows better than to follow.
In other words, online and "cloud" services as well as the gradual move to digital delivery on consoles are both areas where Microsoft is seeking to erode ownership in favor of a rental model, while Desktop Services is still a physical product you buy (in spite of the net-based tentacles they've been extending of late).
I was under the impression that people were falling for it hook, line, and sinker.
This graph is pleasantly surprising.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135264</id>
	<title>Re:Preparing for the Future or Buying Their Own Hy</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1266171240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Over the total lifetime of the division, what is the net profit of the "Entertainment and Devices" department? How much has Online cost, total? And what has it positioned them to do in the long run?</p></div><p>Well sometimes there is a sort of "halo effect".  The XBox may be helping keep both developers and gamers on Windows, which would justify even substantial losses.  Online service might not be making money in itself, but it might be worth it to them just to keep people away from Google.
</p><p>On the other hand, I've also had a lot of times where I wonder what the hell Microsoft is doing.  They often seem content to dump money into R&amp;D while refusing to turn any of it into decent products.  Meanwhile they seem intent on maintaining their userbase through lock-in rather than customer satisfaction.  Honestly, there are times when I think Microsoft executives are sitting in a room somewhere saying, "Who gives a crap if anyone likes this product?! We'll just make sure they have to buy it whether they like it or not."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Over the total lifetime of the division , what is the net profit of the " Entertainment and Devices " department ?
How much has Online cost , total ?
And what has it positioned them to do in the long run ? Well sometimes there is a sort of " halo effect " .
The XBox may be helping keep both developers and gamers on Windows , which would justify even substantial losses .
Online service might not be making money in itself , but it might be worth it to them just to keep people away from Google .
On the other hand , I 've also had a lot of times where I wonder what the hell Microsoft is doing .
They often seem content to dump money into R&amp;D while refusing to turn any of it into decent products .
Meanwhile they seem intent on maintaining their userbase through lock-in rather than customer satisfaction .
Honestly , there are times when I think Microsoft executives are sitting in a room somewhere saying , " Who gives a crap if anyone likes this product ? !
We 'll just make sure they have to buy it whether they like it or not .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over the total lifetime of the division, what is the net profit of the "Entertainment and Devices" department?
How much has Online cost, total?
And what has it positioned them to do in the long run?Well sometimes there is a sort of "halo effect".
The XBox may be helping keep both developers and gamers on Windows, which would justify even substantial losses.
Online service might not be making money in itself, but it might be worth it to them just to keep people away from Google.
On the other hand, I've also had a lot of times where I wonder what the hell Microsoft is doing.
They often seem content to dump money into R&amp;D while refusing to turn any of it into decent products.
Meanwhile they seem intent on maintaining their userbase through lock-in rather than customer satisfaction.
Honestly, there are times when I think Microsoft executives are sitting in a room somewhere saying, "Who gives a crap if anyone likes this product?!
We'll just make sure they have to buy it whether they like it or not.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134988</id>
	<title>XBOX 360?</title>
	<author>Titan8990</author>
	<datestamp>1266168300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What would really be interesting is see a comparison of profits from their OS division to their gaming division. Gaming is a huge industry and the Xbox is fairly popular. I would not be surprised if the gaming division kept up with the OS division but I can imagine the profit margin is lower for each game/console sold.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What would really be interesting is see a comparison of profits from their OS division to their gaming division .
Gaming is a huge industry and the Xbox is fairly popular .
I would not be surprised if the gaming division kept up with the OS division but I can imagine the profit margin is lower for each game/console sold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would really be interesting is see a comparison of profits from their OS division to their gaming division.
Gaming is a huge industry and the Xbox is fairly popular.
I would not be surprised if the gaming division kept up with the OS division but I can imagine the profit margin is lower for each game/console sold.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135086</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting graph!</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1266169200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're only stacked because of the profits they make. Office just happens to make the most profit and they will more or less match up because companies won't be just buying Windows and then just buying Office. They'll get a package deal from MS that will include everything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're only stacked because of the profits they make .
Office just happens to make the most profit and they will more or less match up because companies wo n't be just buying Windows and then just buying Office .
They 'll get a package deal from MS that will include everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're only stacked because of the profits they make.
Office just happens to make the most profit and they will more or less match up because companies won't be just buying Windows and then just buying Office.
They'll get a package deal from MS that will include everything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135240</id>
	<title>Re:really?</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1266171060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I suspect MS' revenue from households buying Office is a tiny fraction of what their revenues from businesses are so until we start seeing OO.o (or Google docs) taking off in businesses then you probably won't see much happen to Office profits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect MS ' revenue from households buying Office is a tiny fraction of what their revenues from businesses are so until we start seeing OO.o ( or Google docs ) taking off in businesses then you probably wo n't see much happen to Office profits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect MS' revenue from households buying Office is a tiny fraction of what their revenues from businesses are so until we start seeing OO.o (or Google docs) taking off in businesses then you probably won't see much happen to Office profits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135258</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting graph!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266171180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What I find most interesting is the way all changes are perfectly synchronized with the exception of entertainment related stuff.  This is clear indication of the power of vendor lock-in and tying unrelated products together.</p></div><p>Possibly it is because companies upgrade all their software at one go - or when they get new hardware. In fact, you might see popular software of other companies that run on Windows also follow similar trends...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I find most interesting is the way all changes are perfectly synchronized with the exception of entertainment related stuff .
This is clear indication of the power of vendor lock-in and tying unrelated products together.Possibly it is because companies upgrade all their software at one go - or when they get new hardware .
In fact , you might see popular software of other companies that run on Windows also follow similar trends.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I find most interesting is the way all changes are perfectly synchronized with the exception of entertainment related stuff.
This is clear indication of the power of vendor lock-in and tying unrelated products together.Possibly it is because companies upgrade all their software at one go - or when they get new hardware.
In fact, you might see popular software of other companies that run on Windows also follow similar trends...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135744</id>
	<title>Re:Monkeyboy needs to go</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1266175320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every dollar they make today, from any product, is because they won the browser war. The predictions from 1996 turned out correct: the browser *is* the operating system; the browser *is* the platform on which software is developed. We can see that somewhat today, and in an increasing manner.</p><p>As for search, I'm less convinced. Search might be the web's killer app, but it's not a platform, so it won't be as important.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every dollar they make today , from any product , is because they won the browser war .
The predictions from 1996 turned out correct : the browser * is * the operating system ; the browser * is * the platform on which software is developed .
We can see that somewhat today , and in an increasing manner.As for search , I 'm less convinced .
Search might be the web 's killer app , but it 's not a platform , so it wo n't be as important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every dollar they make today, from any product, is because they won the browser war.
The predictions from 1996 turned out correct: the browser *is* the operating system; the browser *is* the platform on which software is developed.
We can see that somewhat today, and in an increasing manner.As for search, I'm less convinced.
Search might be the web's killer app, but it's not a platform, so it won't be as important.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135622</id>
	<title>Windows?</title>
	<author>algormortis</author>
	<datestamp>1266174300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is this "Windows" label on the region of the graph where "white collar crime" is supposed to go?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is this " Windows " label on the region of the graph where " white collar crime " is supposed to go ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is this "Windows" label on the region of the graph where "white collar crime" is supposed to go?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31140066</id>
	<title>Re:Ok, let's see</title>
	<author>ajlisows</author>
	<datestamp>1266163080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would imagine that they don't really want people going over to google at all.  People use Google's search and like it.  People use Google Mail and like it.  People use Google Docs and like it.  Suddenly the idea pops into some heads that "Hey, instead of paying for Exchange, Office, Server 2003, and all of this other crap lets move everything over to the Googleplex of Google Cloud Solutions instead.  Microsoft wants to avoid that at all costs.
</p><p> If everyone typed "Bing.com" instead of "Google.com" when they wanted to search the Internet, they wouldn't be exposed to all those shiny Google Applications that could lure people away from some of Microsoft's core products. I'd also have to guess that at some point Bing will become more "Google Like" in that they will have "Bing Search", "Bing Office", "Bing Exchange", and especially "Bing VendorLockIn".  Windows/Office/Exchange/Sharepoint/SQL/Windows Server may be the turnkey solution of today, but the Internet is becoming more vital to business of all sizes.  Search/Maps/Social networks/Next Big thing may need to be part of that turnkey solution five to ten years from now.</p><p>I actually have to applaud Microsoft for showing some foresight here and not just looking at present day numbers and saying "No Profit in this new sector?  Cut it."  Compare this to the XXAA's and Newspapers who are thinking "we have been doing business this way for 1000 years and we don't want to change."  Microsoft does some really idiotic things but I have to say this isn't one of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would imagine that they do n't really want people going over to google at all .
People use Google 's search and like it .
People use Google Mail and like it .
People use Google Docs and like it .
Suddenly the idea pops into some heads that " Hey , instead of paying for Exchange , Office , Server 2003 , and all of this other crap lets move everything over to the Googleplex of Google Cloud Solutions instead .
Microsoft wants to avoid that at all costs .
If everyone typed " Bing.com " instead of " Google.com " when they wanted to search the Internet , they would n't be exposed to all those shiny Google Applications that could lure people away from some of Microsoft 's core products .
I 'd also have to guess that at some point Bing will become more " Google Like " in that they will have " Bing Search " , " Bing Office " , " Bing Exchange " , and especially " Bing VendorLockIn " .
Windows/Office/Exchange/Sharepoint/SQL/Windows Server may be the turnkey solution of today , but the Internet is becoming more vital to business of all sizes .
Search/Maps/Social networks/Next Big thing may need to be part of that turnkey solution five to ten years from now.I actually have to applaud Microsoft for showing some foresight here and not just looking at present day numbers and saying " No Profit in this new sector ?
Cut it .
" Compare this to the XXAA 's and Newspapers who are thinking " we have been doing business this way for 1000 years and we do n't want to change .
" Microsoft does some really idiotic things but I have to say this is n't one of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would imagine that they don't really want people going over to google at all.
People use Google's search and like it.
People use Google Mail and like it.
People use Google Docs and like it.
Suddenly the idea pops into some heads that "Hey, instead of paying for Exchange, Office, Server 2003, and all of this other crap lets move everything over to the Googleplex of Google Cloud Solutions instead.
Microsoft wants to avoid that at all costs.
If everyone typed "Bing.com" instead of "Google.com" when they wanted to search the Internet, they wouldn't be exposed to all those shiny Google Applications that could lure people away from some of Microsoft's core products.
I'd also have to guess that at some point Bing will become more "Google Like" in that they will have "Bing Search", "Bing Office", "Bing Exchange", and especially "Bing VendorLockIn".
Windows/Office/Exchange/Sharepoint/SQL/Windows Server may be the turnkey solution of today, but the Internet is becoming more vital to business of all sizes.
Search/Maps/Social networks/Next Big thing may need to be part of that turnkey solution five to ten years from now.I actually have to applaud Microsoft for showing some foresight here and not just looking at present day numbers and saying "No Profit in this new sector?
Cut it.
"  Compare this to the XXAA's and Newspapers who are thinking "we have been doing business this way for 1000 years and we don't want to change.
"  Microsoft does some really idiotic things but I have to say this isn't one of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135898</id>
	<title>It's called "Christmas"</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1266177060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe you heard of it - it's when a lot of people buy new PCs<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and new PCs all have copies of Windows preinstalled.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe you heard of it - it 's when a lot of people buy new PCs ... and new PCs all have copies of Windows preinstalled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe you heard of it - it's when a lot of people buy new PCs ... and new PCs all have copies of Windows preinstalled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136520</id>
	<title>Re:Class action lawsuit ?</title>
	<author>thoth</author>
	<datestamp>1266138780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes they do.  Others have put up various links; here is one from Microsoft's website about their dividends:<br><a href="http://www.microsoft.com/msft/FAQ/dividend.mspx" title="microsoft.com">http://www.microsoft.com/msft/FAQ/dividend.mspx</a> [microsoft.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes they do .
Others have put up various links ; here is one from Microsoft 's website about their dividends : http : //www.microsoft.com/msft/FAQ/dividend.mspx [ microsoft.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes they do.
Others have put up various links; here is one from Microsoft's website about their dividends:http://www.microsoft.com/msft/FAQ/dividend.mspx [microsoft.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134666</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting graph!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266165660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This could be the result of accounting tricks to make revenue from the base products look stable. Then shareholders can be soothed by the consistent numbers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This could be the result of accounting tricks to make revenue from the base products look stable .
Then shareholders can be soothed by the consistent numbers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This could be the result of accounting tricks to make revenue from the base products look stable.
Then shareholders can be soothed by the consistent numbers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31142910</id>
	<title>Re:Preparing for the Future or Buying Their Own Hy</title>
	<author>gtall</author>
	<datestamp>1266240000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As much as I detest MS, but in fairness to their R&amp;D...well....R&amp;D in general...it does not need to translate into new products. It needs to get translated into products even if those products are currently existing and the R&amp;D is simply streamlining them or making them better in some way. Those kinds of improvements will be off the radar to most end users. It isn't clear that MS is doing this but I expect some of it must be happening.</p><p>That said, MS probably has the problems many big companies have with R&amp;D, any genuinely new idea for a new product will be seen as a threat by Business School Product running the company. They will marshal their forces to defend any current products by claiming the new product will cannibalize their old products. And that may very well be the case but the result is the tired lineup of products that MS is currently pimping.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as I detest MS , but in fairness to their R&amp;D...well....R&amp;D in general...it does not need to translate into new products .
It needs to get translated into products even if those products are currently existing and the R&amp;D is simply streamlining them or making them better in some way .
Those kinds of improvements will be off the radar to most end users .
It is n't clear that MS is doing this but I expect some of it must be happening.That said , MS probably has the problems many big companies have with R&amp;D , any genuinely new idea for a new product will be seen as a threat by Business School Product running the company .
They will marshal their forces to defend any current products by claiming the new product will cannibalize their old products .
And that may very well be the case but the result is the tired lineup of products that MS is currently pimping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as I detest MS, but in fairness to their R&amp;D...well....R&amp;D in general...it does not need to translate into new products.
It needs to get translated into products even if those products are currently existing and the R&amp;D is simply streamlining them or making them better in some way.
Those kinds of improvements will be off the radar to most end users.
It isn't clear that MS is doing this but I expect some of it must be happening.That said, MS probably has the problems many big companies have with R&amp;D, any genuinely new idea for a new product will be seen as a threat by Business School Product running the company.
They will marshal their forces to defend any current products by claiming the new product will cannibalize their old products.
And that may very well be the case but the result is the tired lineup of products that MS is currently pimping.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134642</id>
	<title>Eggs all in one basket, and an old basket at that</title>
	<author>Palestrina</author>
	<datestamp>1266165480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They make their profit on their monopoly products and lose money on almost everything else.  That is why the methods they use to maintain these monopolies continue to be the subject of antitrust investigations.</p><p>This also demonstrates that they are very good at maintaining their monopoly, but not so good at successful new product development.  With a stagnant pipeline, they are especially at risk as FOSS alternatives like Linux, Firefox and OpenOffice become less "alternative" and more "maintstream".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They make their profit on their monopoly products and lose money on almost everything else .
That is why the methods they use to maintain these monopolies continue to be the subject of antitrust investigations.This also demonstrates that they are very good at maintaining their monopoly , but not so good at successful new product development .
With a stagnant pipeline , they are especially at risk as FOSS alternatives like Linux , Firefox and OpenOffice become less " alternative " and more " maintstream " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They make their profit on their monopoly products and lose money on almost everything else.
That is why the methods they use to maintain these monopolies continue to be the subject of antitrust investigations.This also demonstrates that they are very good at maintaining their monopoly, but not so good at successful new product development.
With a stagnant pipeline, they are especially at risk as FOSS alternatives like Linux, Firefox and OpenOffice become less "alternative" and more "maintstream".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135224</id>
	<title>Re:Google is similar...</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1266170820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google does kill off products. So when will MS kill off Bing, Zune or the 360?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google does kill off products .
So when will MS kill off Bing , Zune or the 360 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google does kill off products.
So when will MS kill off Bing, Zune or the 360?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136274</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting graph!</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1266180420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What surprises me is the massive boost in OS profits in Dec 09. Could that really be Windows 7, and if so, how? It costs about the same as XP/Vista, and it's not as if people are buying Windows 7 off store shelves to upgrade older computers (are they?)</i> </p><p>They are:</p><p> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/software/ref=pd\_zg\_hrsr\_sw\_1\_1" title="amazon.com">Windows 7 Home Premium Upgrade</a> [amazon.com] </p><p>235 days in the top 100. As always this time of year, tax preparation software takes center stage.</p><p>There were of course many - many - new and used refurbished PCs sold around the holidays that came with a free upgrade to Windows 7. For HP's Win 7 customer service workers, every day was Black Thursday.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What surprises me is the massive boost in OS profits in Dec 09 .
Could that really be Windows 7 , and if so , how ?
It costs about the same as XP/Vista , and it 's not as if people are buying Windows 7 off store shelves to upgrade older computers ( are they ?
) They are : Windows 7 Home Premium Upgrade [ amazon.com ] 235 days in the top 100 .
As always this time of year , tax preparation software takes center stage.There were of course many - many - new and used refurbished PCs sold around the holidays that came with a free upgrade to Windows 7 .
For HP 's Win 7 customer service workers , every day was Black Thursday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What surprises me is the massive boost in OS profits in Dec 09.
Could that really be Windows 7, and if so, how?
It costs about the same as XP/Vista, and it's not as if people are buying Windows 7 off store shelves to upgrade older computers (are they?
) They are: Windows 7 Home Premium Upgrade [amazon.com] 235 days in the top 100.
As always this time of year, tax preparation software takes center stage.There were of course many - many - new and used refurbished PCs sold around the holidays that came with a free upgrade to Windows 7.
For HP's Win 7 customer service workers, every day was Black Thursday.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135546</id>
	<title>Re:Class action lawsuit ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266173760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;can't shareholder sue microsoft's chief officers/board of directors for lost profits ?</p><p>Define lost profits.   Is money invested in a non-immediate return a lost profit?  Is money invested in a non-existent shell company a lost profit?  Sure, but one's criminal and the other is not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ca n't shareholder sue microsoft 's chief officers/board of directors for lost profits ? Define lost profits .
Is money invested in a non-immediate return a lost profit ?
Is money invested in a non-existent shell company a lost profit ?
Sure , but one 's criminal and the other is not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;can't shareholder sue microsoft's chief officers/board of directors for lost profits ?Define lost profits.
Is money invested in a non-immediate return a lost profit?
Is money invested in a non-existent shell company a lost profit?
Sure, but one's criminal and the other is not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134996</id>
	<title>Re:Ok, let's see</title>
	<author>beringreenbear</author>
	<datestamp>1266168360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why does Microsoft think that search is such an important thing</p></div><p>This goes into philosophy of how a business profits from the Internet. There are basically two ways: creating content for people to <em>buy</em>, or telling people how to get to content and selling the re-direction as a service be it to advertisers or any other buyer. Theoretically, someone could charge directly for Search itself.</p><p>Google built the most successful business model of telling people how to find stuff. And that is why Microsoft thinks that Search is so important. Microsoft makes money on selling people their content. That business is old-growth and stable. Which, in business, means that it is subject to atrophy and decay. To quote Ray Kroc, the man who understood business as well as anyone (He bought McDonald's from the McDonald brothers and grew it into the behemoth it is today), "When you're green you're growing. When you're not, you're not."</p><p>Microsoft has to keep trying to find ways to grow their business. Owning a piece of the search infrastructure, even if it's not being used but is available, is part of their growth strategy. Microsoft doesn't have to dominate. They just have to offer a compelling alternative to Google. Whether they do or not is beyond the scope of this comment.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does Microsoft think that search is such an important thingThis goes into philosophy of how a business profits from the Internet .
There are basically two ways : creating content for people to buy , or telling people how to get to content and selling the re-direction as a service be it to advertisers or any other buyer .
Theoretically , someone could charge directly for Search itself.Google built the most successful business model of telling people how to find stuff .
And that is why Microsoft thinks that Search is so important .
Microsoft makes money on selling people their content .
That business is old-growth and stable .
Which , in business , means that it is subject to atrophy and decay .
To quote Ray Kroc , the man who understood business as well as anyone ( He bought McDonald 's from the McDonald brothers and grew it into the behemoth it is today ) , " When you 're green you 're growing .
When you 're not , you 're not .
" Microsoft has to keep trying to find ways to grow their business .
Owning a piece of the search infrastructure , even if it 's not being used but is available , is part of their growth strategy .
Microsoft does n't have to dominate .
They just have to offer a compelling alternative to Google .
Whether they do or not is beyond the scope of this comment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does Microsoft think that search is such an important thingThis goes into philosophy of how a business profits from the Internet.
There are basically two ways: creating content for people to buy, or telling people how to get to content and selling the re-direction as a service be it to advertisers or any other buyer.
Theoretically, someone could charge directly for Search itself.Google built the most successful business model of telling people how to find stuff.
And that is why Microsoft thinks that Search is so important.
Microsoft makes money on selling people their content.
That business is old-growth and stable.
Which, in business, means that it is subject to atrophy and decay.
To quote Ray Kroc, the man who understood business as well as anyone (He bought McDonald's from the McDonald brothers and grew it into the behemoth it is today), "When you're green you're growing.
When you're not, you're not.
"Microsoft has to keep trying to find ways to grow their business.
Owning a piece of the search infrastructure, even if it's not being used but is available, is part of their growth strategy.
Microsoft doesn't have to dominate.
They just have to offer a compelling alternative to Google.
Whether they do or not is beyond the scope of this comment.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134632</id>
	<title>Time to fire some exectives</title>
	<author>Vicegrip</author>
	<datestamp>1266165300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>After all these years... it's still Windows and Office. After all these years and new products.

It's time to fire some executives. Microsoft apparently can't make money at anything new it does. Unlike Apple.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After all these years... it 's still Windows and Office .
After all these years and new products .
It 's time to fire some executives .
Microsoft apparently ca n't make money at anything new it does .
Unlike Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all these years... it's still Windows and Office.
After all these years and new products.
It's time to fire some executives.
Microsoft apparently can't make money at anything new it does.
Unlike Apple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135812</id>
	<title>Re:really?</title>
	<author>Kenshin</author>
	<datestamp>1266176160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's because people who use OO.o are likely people who wouldn't have paid for Office anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's because people who use OO.o are likely people who would n't have paid for Office anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's because people who use OO.o are likely people who wouldn't have paid for Office anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134972</id>
	<title>So if Office makes all the money</title>
	<author>Thad Zurich</author>
	<datestamp>1266168120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>then why isn't it better?</htmltext>
<tokenext>then why is n't it better ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>then why isn't it better?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31139474</id>
	<title>Re:Preparing for the Future or Buying Their Own Hy</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1266158400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But a system or an office suite are very simple applications. You need some know-how, but it's not rocket science.</i> </p><p>There is nothing simple about an OS or an office suite.</p><p>In 2003-2004  OpenOffice.org had reached 9 to 12 million lines of code. <a href="http://www.openoffice.org/FAQs/build\_faq.html" title="openoffice.org">Build FAQ for OpenOffice.org</a> [openoffice.org]. <a href="http://blogs.sun.com/ratte/entry/openoffice\_org\_statcvs\_lines\_of" title="sun.com">OpenOffice.org statcvs (Lines of code)</a> [sun.com] </p><p>Microsoft spends an enormous amount of time and money on studies of office work and the office worker. That is why it can take a chance on something like the ribbon and win - and why competitors like OpenOffice.org are left playing catch-up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But a system or an office suite are very simple applications .
You need some know-how , but it 's not rocket science .
There is nothing simple about an OS or an office suite.In 2003-2004 OpenOffice.org had reached 9 to 12 million lines of code .
Build FAQ for OpenOffice.org [ openoffice.org ] .
OpenOffice.org statcvs ( Lines of code ) [ sun.com ] Microsoft spends an enormous amount of time and money on studies of office work and the office worker .
That is why it can take a chance on something like the ribbon and win - and why competitors like OpenOffice.org are left playing catch-up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But a system or an office suite are very simple applications.
You need some know-how, but it's not rocket science.
There is nothing simple about an OS or an office suite.In 2003-2004  OpenOffice.org had reached 9 to 12 million lines of code.
Build FAQ for OpenOffice.org [openoffice.org].
OpenOffice.org statcvs (Lines of code) [sun.com] Microsoft spends an enormous amount of time and money on studies of office work and the office worker.
That is why it can take a chance on something like the ribbon and win - and why competitors like OpenOffice.org are left playing catch-up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134558</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting graph!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266164580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What I find most interesting is the way all changes are perfectly synchronized with the exception of entertainment related stuff.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Are you sure that isn't just how the graph looks because it is stacking the data series on each other?
</p><p>
What surprises me is the massive boost in OS profits in Dec 09.  Could that really be Windows 7, and if so, how?  It costs about the same as XP/Vista, and it's not as if people are buying Windows 7 off store shelves to upgrade older computers (are they?)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I find most interesting is the way all changes are perfectly synchronized with the exception of entertainment related stuff .
Are you sure that is n't just how the graph looks because it is stacking the data series on each other ?
What surprises me is the massive boost in OS profits in Dec 09 .
Could that really be Windows 7 , and if so , how ?
It costs about the same as XP/Vista , and it 's not as if people are buying Windows 7 off store shelves to upgrade older computers ( are they ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I find most interesting is the way all changes are perfectly synchronized with the exception of entertainment related stuff.
Are you sure that isn't just how the graph looks because it is stacking the data series on each other?
What surprises me is the massive boost in OS profits in Dec 09.
Could that really be Windows 7, and if so, how?
It costs about the same as XP/Vista, and it's not as if people are buying Windows 7 off store shelves to upgrade older computers (are they?
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31139878</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting graph!</title>
	<author>ajlisows</author>
	<datestamp>1266161460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to wonder if that doesn't have something to do with corporate purchases.  I doubt many businesses have already moved to Windows 7 (although I have no idea what the Windows 7 in the workplace penetration has been) but I'm thinking a lot of them are considering it in the near future. </p><p> With the economy as it was this year, IT departments probably submitted a smaller budget, got it approved, and sat on it for the year in case of disaster.  End of year comes and their attempts at being frugal leave quite a bit of unused budget money.  In a sane business world, they would have left the money unused and been applauded by the higher ups.  In reality, the higher ups would think "Awesome!  I can give myself a bigger bonus.  I figured IT could run on a smaller budget.  I can't wait to slash their next year's budget to less than the amount they spent this year, giving me an even larger bonus next year."</p><p>  Realizing that leaving the money unspent would be slitting their department's wrists for the future, IT managers probably saw that Microsoft released Windows 7, and just went and blew the wad on upgrading their volume license agreements from Windows XP, Server 2003, Exchange 2003, and Office 2003 to Windows 7, Server 2008, Exchange 2010, and Office 2007.  They know they'll want/have to do it sooner or later.  Might as well spring for it now.  You can lay out a 2 year plan of testing and rolling out all the new Client and Server stuff at the same time, which will also give you the ability to say "Look at all this work that we are going to do...we can't lose any of our staff during this critical transition" so that their department isn't gutted in cost saving measures.</p><p>This may not be what happened, but it seems plausible to me.  I have no evidence to back up said claims and I thought of it just now so it could be an utterly foolish idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to wonder if that does n't have something to do with corporate purchases .
I doubt many businesses have already moved to Windows 7 ( although I have no idea what the Windows 7 in the workplace penetration has been ) but I 'm thinking a lot of them are considering it in the near future .
With the economy as it was this year , IT departments probably submitted a smaller budget , got it approved , and sat on it for the year in case of disaster .
End of year comes and their attempts at being frugal leave quite a bit of unused budget money .
In a sane business world , they would have left the money unused and been applauded by the higher ups .
In reality , the higher ups would think " Awesome !
I can give myself a bigger bonus .
I figured IT could run on a smaller budget .
I ca n't wait to slash their next year 's budget to less than the amount they spent this year , giving me an even larger bonus next year .
" Realizing that leaving the money unspent would be slitting their department 's wrists for the future , IT managers probably saw that Microsoft released Windows 7 , and just went and blew the wad on upgrading their volume license agreements from Windows XP , Server 2003 , Exchange 2003 , and Office 2003 to Windows 7 , Server 2008 , Exchange 2010 , and Office 2007 .
They know they 'll want/have to do it sooner or later .
Might as well spring for it now .
You can lay out a 2 year plan of testing and rolling out all the new Client and Server stuff at the same time , which will also give you the ability to say " Look at all this work that we are going to do...we ca n't lose any of our staff during this critical transition " so that their department is n't gutted in cost saving measures.This may not be what happened , but it seems plausible to me .
I have no evidence to back up said claims and I thought of it just now so it could be an utterly foolish idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to wonder if that doesn't have something to do with corporate purchases.
I doubt many businesses have already moved to Windows 7 (although I have no idea what the Windows 7 in the workplace penetration has been) but I'm thinking a lot of them are considering it in the near future.
With the economy as it was this year, IT departments probably submitted a smaller budget, got it approved, and sat on it for the year in case of disaster.
End of year comes and their attempts at being frugal leave quite a bit of unused budget money.
In a sane business world, they would have left the money unused and been applauded by the higher ups.
In reality, the higher ups would think "Awesome!
I can give myself a bigger bonus.
I figured IT could run on a smaller budget.
I can't wait to slash their next year's budget to less than the amount they spent this year, giving me an even larger bonus next year.
"  Realizing that leaving the money unspent would be slitting their department's wrists for the future, IT managers probably saw that Microsoft released Windows 7, and just went and blew the wad on upgrading their volume license agreements from Windows XP, Server 2003, Exchange 2003, and Office 2003 to Windows 7, Server 2008, Exchange 2010, and Office 2007.
They know they'll want/have to do it sooner or later.
Might as well spring for it now.
You can lay out a 2 year plan of testing and rolling out all the new Client and Server stuff at the same time, which will also give you the ability to say "Look at all this work that we are going to do...we can't lose any of our staff during this critical transition" so that their department isn't gutted in cost saving measures.This may not be what happened, but it seems plausible to me.
I have no evidence to back up said claims and I thought of it just now so it could be an utterly foolish idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134534</id>
	<title>The chart is mis-labeled</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266164340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
It should be labeled "Where stupid people waste their money."
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It should be labeled " Where stupid people waste their money .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It should be labeled "Where stupid people waste their money.
"
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135512</id>
	<title>Costs?</title>
	<author>Registered Coward v2</author>
	<datestamp>1266173400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The graph provides no insight into how costs are allocated and determined across MS.  Without an understanding of costing it's hard to say anything about product profitability; except that MS made a lot of money overall.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The graph provides no insight into how costs are allocated and determined across MS. Without an understanding of costing it 's hard to say anything about product profitability ; except that MS made a lot of money overall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The graph provides no insight into how costs are allocated and determined across MS.  Without an understanding of costing it's hard to say anything about product profitability; except that MS made a lot of money overall.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135766</id>
	<title>Re:Class action lawsuit ?</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1266175560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but the legal threshold is very high. This instance wouldn't even come close to that threshold.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but the legal threshold is very high .
This instance would n't even come close to that threshold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but the legal threshold is very high.
This instance wouldn't even come close to that threshold.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134548</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting graph!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266164460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft released its quarterly financial reports?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft released its quarterly financial reports ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft released its quarterly financial reports?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134962</id>
	<title>Re:Monkeyboy needs to go</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1266168120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look at the big picture and realize that it isn't so much a direct revenue goal they have for things like browsers or search engines, as it is to ensure their cash cow stays a monopoly.</p><p>Netscape, as it was pointed out a few posts ago, planned to make its own OS. Google now actually did just that. Browsers and even more search engines are key to influencing people's opinions. You can easily, if you control a search engine, boost your opinions and cripple your competitors. Is is, in fact, for many people their window to the web. It would be trivial for Google to push a sizable portion of internet users towards their OS and hush up about Windows if they chose so, whenever people look for a "good" OS for their computer. If they make it similar enough to Windows that people don't notice the difference, they won't complain.</p><p>Unless of course there was an alternative for Google as a search engine that you could instead turn to should they provide bogus, biased and outright forged search results to push their own agenda.</p><p>Competition is good. Even if MS is for a change not the one that tries to hold a monopoly, basically Bing is what forces Google to be "not evil".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at the big picture and realize that it is n't so much a direct revenue goal they have for things like browsers or search engines , as it is to ensure their cash cow stays a monopoly.Netscape , as it was pointed out a few posts ago , planned to make its own OS .
Google now actually did just that .
Browsers and even more search engines are key to influencing people 's opinions .
You can easily , if you control a search engine , boost your opinions and cripple your competitors .
Is is , in fact , for many people their window to the web .
It would be trivial for Google to push a sizable portion of internet users towards their OS and hush up about Windows if they chose so , whenever people look for a " good " OS for their computer .
If they make it similar enough to Windows that people do n't notice the difference , they wo n't complain.Unless of course there was an alternative for Google as a search engine that you could instead turn to should they provide bogus , biased and outright forged search results to push their own agenda.Competition is good .
Even if MS is for a change not the one that tries to hold a monopoly , basically Bing is what forces Google to be " not evil " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at the big picture and realize that it isn't so much a direct revenue goal they have for things like browsers or search engines, as it is to ensure their cash cow stays a monopoly.Netscape, as it was pointed out a few posts ago, planned to make its own OS.
Google now actually did just that.
Browsers and even more search engines are key to influencing people's opinions.
You can easily, if you control a search engine, boost your opinions and cripple your competitors.
Is is, in fact, for many people their window to the web.
It would be trivial for Google to push a sizable portion of internet users towards their OS and hush up about Windows if they chose so, whenever people look for a "good" OS for their computer.
If they make it similar enough to Windows that people don't notice the difference, they won't complain.Unless of course there was an alternative for Google as a search engine that you could instead turn to should they provide bogus, biased and outright forged search results to push their own agenda.Competition is good.
Even if MS is for a change not the one that tries to hold a monopoly, basically Bing is what forces Google to be "not evil".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135914</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting graph!</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1266177180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows 7 came out in Oct 2009, so Sept 2009 was low because people were waiting for it to come out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 came out in Oct 2009 , so Sept 2009 was low because people were waiting for it to come out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 came out in Oct 2009, so Sept 2009 was low because people were waiting for it to come out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135742</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting graph!</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1266175320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. A stacked chart is the wrong choice. An independent (overlapping) color line chart would make it much easier to see change relationships.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
A stacked chart is the wrong choice .
An independent ( overlapping ) color line chart would make it much easier to see change relationships .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
A stacked chart is the wrong choice.
An independent (overlapping) color line chart would make it much easier to see change relationships.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136224</id>
	<title>Re:Ok, let's see</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1266180000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since people here generally hate monopolies, would you prefer they stop all their online services and make Google into a monopoly? Or would you prefer that they continue fighting against Google, so that people have a non-Google alternative to things like web mail and search engines?</p><p>(Obviously I'm discounting Yahoo here, which may not be entirely fair, but I'm making a point.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since people here generally hate monopolies , would you prefer they stop all their online services and make Google into a monopoly ?
Or would you prefer that they continue fighting against Google , so that people have a non-Google alternative to things like web mail and search engines ?
( Obviously I 'm discounting Yahoo here , which may not be entirely fair , but I 'm making a point .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since people here generally hate monopolies, would you prefer they stop all their online services and make Google into a monopoly?
Or would you prefer that they continue fighting against Google, so that people have a non-Google alternative to things like web mail and search engines?
(Obviously I'm discounting Yahoo here, which may not be entirely fair, but I'm making a point.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31141472</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting graph!</title>
	<author>jeremyp</author>
	<datestamp>1266264360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, I don't see that at all.  For instance, after September 09 there's a huge peak in Windows profits but the Office products remain flat.  There are also two peaks in June and December 08 in the server tools section where Windows and Office remain mostly flat.</p><p>At least, that is my reading of the graph.  The top line is Microsoft's total profits and the shaded areas represent the contributions of particular areas.  You could also read it as five separate graphs superimposed, but I would argue that makes it deceptive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , I do n't see that at all .
For instance , after September 09 there 's a huge peak in Windows profits but the Office products remain flat .
There are also two peaks in June and December 08 in the server tools section where Windows and Office remain mostly flat.At least , that is my reading of the graph .
The top line is Microsoft 's total profits and the shaded areas represent the contributions of particular areas .
You could also read it as five separate graphs superimposed , but I would argue that makes it deceptive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, I don't see that at all.
For instance, after September 09 there's a huge peak in Windows profits but the Office products remain flat.
There are also two peaks in June and December 08 in the server tools section where Windows and Office remain mostly flat.At least, that is my reading of the graph.
The top line is Microsoft's total profits and the shaded areas represent the contributions of particular areas.
You could also read it as five separate graphs superimposed, but I would argue that makes it deceptive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31137578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31207508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31139474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31147218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31139976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31141472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31139878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31137738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31137436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31140066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31138764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31138544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31137706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31137686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31142236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31137468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1348230_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31142910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1348230.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31137468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31138764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1348230.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135120
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1348230.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135264
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31142910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31139474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1348230.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135042
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1348230.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1348230.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134844
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1348230.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1348230.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134698
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135614
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1348230.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31137686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1348230.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31137706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1348230.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31207508
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135612
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136552
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135898
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136274
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31137738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135086
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31137578
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31139878
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134956
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135742
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31137436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31141472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1348230.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1348230.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135008
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31147218
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135994
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134996
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31140066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1348230.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31139976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134902
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136520
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135664
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1348230.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31138544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135090
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1348230.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135218
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1348230.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31135970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31142236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31136156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1348230.31134846
</commentlist>
</conversation>
