<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_23_1616221</id>
	<title>Google Android &mdash; a Universe of Incompatible Devices</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1266943260000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.infoworld.com/" rel="nofollow">snydeq</a> writes <i>"Galen Gruman writes about the <a href="http://infoworld.com/d/mobilize/google-androids-self-destruction-derby-begins-863">dark side of the recent flood of Android smartphones</a>: versions run amok. 'That flood of options should be a good thing &mdash; but it's not. In fact, it's a self-destruction derby in action, as phones come out with different versions of the Android OS, with no clear upgrade strategy for either the operating system or the applications users have installed, and with inconsistent deployment of core features. In short, the Android platform is turning out not to be a platform at all, but merely a starting point for a universe of incompatible devices,' Gruman writes. 'This mess leaves developers and users in an unstable position, as each new Android device adds another variation and compatibility question.' In the end, <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobilize/why-open-source-could-kill-androids-chances-029">Google's naive approach to open sourcing Android</a> may in fact be precipitating this free-for-all &mdash; one that might ultimately turn off both end-users and developers alike."</i>
As reader donberryman points out, you can even <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/189954/hack\_shows\_how\_to\_get\_android\_21\_on\_some\_windows\_mobile\_phones.html">put Android onto some Windows Mobile phones</a>, now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>snydeq writes " Galen Gruman writes about the dark side of the recent flood of Android smartphones : versions run amok .
'That flood of options should be a good thing    but it 's not .
In fact , it 's a self-destruction derby in action , as phones come out with different versions of the Android OS , with no clear upgrade strategy for either the operating system or the applications users have installed , and with inconsistent deployment of core features .
In short , the Android platform is turning out not to be a platform at all , but merely a starting point for a universe of incompatible devices, ' Gruman writes .
'This mess leaves developers and users in an unstable position , as each new Android device adds another variation and compatibility question .
' In the end , Google 's naive approach to open sourcing Android may in fact be precipitating this free-for-all    one that might ultimately turn off both end-users and developers alike .
" As reader donberryman points out , you can even put Android onto some Windows Mobile phones , now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>snydeq writes "Galen Gruman writes about the dark side of the recent flood of Android smartphones: versions run amok.
'That flood of options should be a good thing — but it's not.
In fact, it's a self-destruction derby in action, as phones come out with different versions of the Android OS, with no clear upgrade strategy for either the operating system or the applications users have installed, and with inconsistent deployment of core features.
In short, the Android platform is turning out not to be a platform at all, but merely a starting point for a universe of incompatible devices,' Gruman writes.
'This mess leaves developers and users in an unstable position, as each new Android device adds another variation and compatibility question.
' In the end, Google's naive approach to open sourcing Android may in fact be precipitating this free-for-all — one that might ultimately turn off both end-users and developers alike.
"
As reader donberryman points out, you can even put Android onto some Windows Mobile phones, now.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248620</id>
	<title>Re:no upgrades??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266956820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the version of android has nothing to do with the article</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the version of android has nothing to do with the article</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the version of android has nothing to do with the article</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31249240</id>
	<title>One example</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266958500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The way you pick Contacts is different from 1.6 to 2.0, so you need to have two different class implementations there. But that's not the issue. I thought I was doing my implementation just fine until I ran into a Motorola CLIQ. They have some abstract layer on top of the regular android contacts activity that force closes after a contact is chosen. Nice. It's when the manufacturers tinker with the Android framework that shit happens.. Sense UI, Blur, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way you pick Contacts is different from 1.6 to 2.0 , so you need to have two different class implementations there .
But that 's not the issue .
I thought I was doing my implementation just fine until I ran into a Motorola CLIQ .
They have some abstract layer on top of the regular android contacts activity that force closes after a contact is chosen .
Nice. It 's when the manufacturers tinker with the Android framework that shit happens.. Sense UI , Blur , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way you pick Contacts is different from 1.6 to 2.0, so you need to have two different class implementations there.
But that's not the issue.
I thought I was doing my implementation just fine until I ran into a Motorola CLIQ.
They have some abstract layer on top of the regular android contacts activity that force closes after a contact is chosen.
Nice. It's when the manufacturers tinker with the Android framework that shit happens.. Sense UI, Blur, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246456</id>
	<title>Yawn....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266949440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like Android matches the phone market it's trying to operate in. Oh noes. Android still improved the situation dramatically. Google could only go so far without the device makers fully onboard. Now that the device makers are on the bus there will be advantages for ones that toe the line. Like having you as a customer or a developer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like Android matches the phone market it 's trying to operate in .
Oh noes .
Android still improved the situation dramatically .
Google could only go so far without the device makers fully onboard .
Now that the device makers are on the bus there will be advantages for ones that toe the line .
Like having you as a customer or a developer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like Android matches the phone market it's trying to operate in.
Oh noes.
Android still improved the situation dramatically.
Google could only go so far without the device makers fully onboard.
Now that the device makers are on the bus there will be advantages for ones that toe the line.
Like having you as a customer or a developer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248992</id>
	<title>Re:no upgrades??</title>
	<author>bled</author>
	<datestamp>1266957840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems like the official yet-to-be-released Android version 1.6 for the Galaxy has been leaked [1].
I haven't tried it myself yet, but the forum posts seem to be very promising!<br> <br>

[1] <a href="http://phandroid.com/2010/02/23/samsung-galaxy-gets-official-android-1-6-update-unofficially/" title="phandroid.com" rel="nofollow">http://phandroid.com/2010/02/23/samsung-galaxy-gets-official-android-1-6-update-unofficially/</a> [phandroid.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems like the official yet-to-be-released Android version 1.6 for the Galaxy has been leaked [ 1 ] .
I have n't tried it myself yet , but the forum posts seem to be very promising !
[ 1 ] http : //phandroid.com/2010/02/23/samsung-galaxy-gets-official-android-1-6-update-unofficially/ [ phandroid.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems like the official yet-to-be-released Android version 1.6 for the Galaxy has been leaked [1].
I haven't tried it myself yet, but the forum posts seem to be very promising!
[1] http://phandroid.com/2010/02/23/samsung-galaxy-gets-official-android-1-6-update-unofficially/ [phandroid.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31252510</id>
	<title>Fios..?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266928080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although it's off topic, would you mind sharing your problems with Fios service? I use Verizon for DSL currently (slow, but I've had no problems, which is more than I can say about Comcast) and AT&amp;T for my cellphone, but I'm going to be moving fairly soon to a location that can get Fios service, and was planning on doing so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although it 's off topic , would you mind sharing your problems with Fios service ?
I use Verizon for DSL currently ( slow , but I 've had no problems , which is more than I can say about Comcast ) and AT&amp;T for my cellphone , but I 'm going to be moving fairly soon to a location that can get Fios service , and was planning on doing so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although it's off topic, would you mind sharing your problems with Fios service?
I use Verizon for DSL currently (slow, but I've had no problems, which is more than I can say about Comcast) and AT&amp;T for my cellphone, but I'm going to be moving fairly soon to a location that can get Fios service, and was planning on doing so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246520</id>
	<title>Think long-term</title>
	<author>NoCowardsHere</author>
	<datestamp>1266949620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Replace the word "phone" with "browser," and you've got a pretty good description of the state of the web in the 90's. Replace it with "PC," and you're describing the desktop market in the 80's. I bet you could find quotes from those decades lamenting exactly the same "problems."</p><p>The truth is, evolution <i>requires</i> lots of variation. In a few years, we'll see what worked and what didn't... and much of what does work will be things that nobody has even thought of yet, and nobody would <i>ever</i> think of if they were all forced to hold strictly to one specific vision of what a smartphone "should" be.</p><p>This is how we move forward: periods of rapid expansion of new ideas, followed by longer periods of consolidation, pruning, and enhancement. Call them revolution and evolution, or invention and innovation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Replace the word " phone " with " browser , " and you 've got a pretty good description of the state of the web in the 90 's .
Replace it with " PC , " and you 're describing the desktop market in the 80 's .
I bet you could find quotes from those decades lamenting exactly the same " problems .
" The truth is , evolution requires lots of variation .
In a few years , we 'll see what worked and what did n't... and much of what does work will be things that nobody has even thought of yet , and nobody would ever think of if they were all forced to hold strictly to one specific vision of what a smartphone " should " be.This is how we move forward : periods of rapid expansion of new ideas , followed by longer periods of consolidation , pruning , and enhancement .
Call them revolution and evolution , or invention and innovation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Replace the word "phone" with "browser," and you've got a pretty good description of the state of the web in the 90's.
Replace it with "PC," and you're describing the desktop market in the 80's.
I bet you could find quotes from those decades lamenting exactly the same "problems.
"The truth is, evolution requires lots of variation.
In a few years, we'll see what worked and what didn't... and much of what does work will be things that nobody has even thought of yet, and nobody would ever think of if they were all forced to hold strictly to one specific vision of what a smartphone "should" be.This is how we move forward: periods of rapid expansion of new ideas, followed by longer periods of consolidation, pruning, and enhancement.
Call them revolution and evolution, or invention and innovation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246622</id>
	<title>Re:no upgrades??</title>
	<author>Z34107</author>
	<datestamp>1266949980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It depends on what phone you have.  Most of them won't let you upgrade to arbitrary versions of the "plain" Android OS; you have to wait for your carrier to push out their version.  You also can't roll your own OS image for commercial phones; they check for digital signatures.</p><p>But, how many people not only want to <i>upgrade</i> their OS, let alone roll their own?  It's still impressive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends on what phone you have .
Most of them wo n't let you upgrade to arbitrary versions of the " plain " Android OS ; you have to wait for your carrier to push out their version .
You also ca n't roll your own OS image for commercial phones ; they check for digital signatures.But , how many people not only want to upgrade their OS , let alone roll their own ?
It 's still impressive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends on what phone you have.
Most of them won't let you upgrade to arbitrary versions of the "plain" Android OS; you have to wait for your carrier to push out their version.
You also can't roll your own OS image for commercial phones; they check for digital signatures.But, how many people not only want to upgrade their OS, let alone roll their own?
It's still impressive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246156</id>
	<title>Fake Steve Jobs is happy</title>
	<author>cant\_get\_a\_good\_nick</author>
	<datestamp>1266948180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Real Steve Jobs too busy rolling around on a pile of money wearing nothing but a black mock-turtleneck to supply quotes for this interview.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Real Steve Jobs too busy rolling around on a pile of money wearing nothing but a black mock-turtleneck to supply quotes for this interview .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Real Steve Jobs too busy rolling around on a pile of money wearing nothing but a black mock-turtleneck to supply quotes for this interview.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31256118</id>
	<title>Why this article is not quite on spot</title>
	<author>samfeldman</author>
	<datestamp>1266952680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A friend of mine wrote a blog response to this: <a href="http://cjannett.personal.asu.edu/wordpress/?p=15" title="asu.edu" rel="nofollow">http://cjannett.personal.asu.edu/wordpress/?p=15</a> [asu.edu]</htmltext>
<tokenext>A friend of mine wrote a blog response to this : http : //cjannett.personal.asu.edu/wordpress/ ? p = 15 [ asu.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A friend of mine wrote a blog response to this: http://cjannett.personal.asu.edu/wordpress/?p=15 [asu.edu]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31266138</id>
	<title>Re:It is not a problem it is an opportunity.</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1265112180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The freedom of the Android platform could use some development house to take the lead. They should pick a platform or 3 that are the most popular and develop their own version of Android as well as quality applications and quality application reviews.</p></div><p>I may be completely misreading you, but what you're saying sounds something like this:</p><p>The solution to fragmentation is to create a new, better and unfragmented platform to compete with everybody else.</p><p>That works great for Linux distros, window managers and desktop environments, right?</p><p>You don't win an n-way shouting match by turning it into an (n+1)-way shouting match except if you shout really frigging loudly.  On the other hand, you can make the shouting match go away if you can make everybody say the same thing---or, outside of the analogy, make people standardize on whatever is relevant to the fragmentation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The freedom of the Android platform could use some development house to take the lead .
They should pick a platform or 3 that are the most popular and develop their own version of Android as well as quality applications and quality application reviews.I may be completely misreading you , but what you 're saying sounds something like this : The solution to fragmentation is to create a new , better and unfragmented platform to compete with everybody else.That works great for Linux distros , window managers and desktop environments , right ? You do n't win an n-way shouting match by turning it into an ( n + 1 ) -way shouting match except if you shout really frigging loudly .
On the other hand , you can make the shouting match go away if you can make everybody say the same thing---or , outside of the analogy , make people standardize on whatever is relevant to the fragmentation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The freedom of the Android platform could use some development house to take the lead.
They should pick a platform or 3 that are the most popular and develop their own version of Android as well as quality applications and quality application reviews.I may be completely misreading you, but what you're saying sounds something like this:The solution to fragmentation is to create a new, better and unfragmented platform to compete with everybody else.That works great for Linux distros, window managers and desktop environments, right?You don't win an n-way shouting match by turning it into an (n+1)-way shouting match except if you shout really frigging loudly.
On the other hand, you can make the shouting match go away if you can make everybody say the same thing---or, outside of the analogy, make people standardize on whatever is relevant to the fragmentation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247020</id>
	<title>Re:Fake Steve Jobs is happy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266951240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just keep the camera focus on his upper-body part please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just keep the camera focus on his upper-body part please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just keep the camera focus on his upper-body part please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248272</id>
	<title>The main problem is that 1.5 even STILL EXISTS</title>
	<author>Miamicanes</author>
	<datestamp>1266955740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's the REAL problem with Android right now: over the past 9 months or so, Android has advanced from 1.5 to 1.6, 2.0.x, and 2.1. Each of those advances added lots of desirable new capabilities. The problem is, roughly half the Android owners in North America were sold brand new phones last fall that came with Android 1.5... months after 1.6 was mainstream, barely a month before 2.0.x arrived with the Droid, and less than 3 months before 2.1 arrived in January. Of course, we've (almost) all been promised 2.1... sometime in the first half of 2010.</p><p>Speaking on behalf of Sprint Hero owners, we didn't even get positive confirmation that it was shipping with 1.5 instead of 1.6 until literally a few days before they arrived at Best Buy, and even then it was taken for granted by pretty much everyone that we'd have 1.6 on our phones by Thanksgiving. Of course, at that point, 2.0.x and the Droid were barely even credible rumors, especially given the fact that 1.6 was only a few months old at the time, and the way Google, Motorola &amp; Verizon managed to keep 2.0 practically a state secret until the day before the Droid hit stores. I'll freely admit I was absolutely *livid* when I found out the Nexus One (with 2.1) was coming out less than 2 weeks after Christmas, before my own 1.5-crippled phone had its 3-month anniversary. And even now, HTC is still being coy about when we're going to finally get to have 2.1, besides vaguely repeating that it'll be sometime before July 1.</p><p>This really, really sucks. Seriously. Imagine you'd just gone out and spent a thousand bucks on a brand new laptop running Windows 3.1 a couple of months after Windows 95 hit the streets. You wanted Win95 too, but your ISP only allowed you to use that specific laptop sold with Windows 3.1... and it was widely understood by everyone (besides your ISP and the laptop's maker) that you could upgrade to Win95 on your own, anyway. Except after buying it, you discovered that the manufacturer locked it down to prevent you from booting from a Win95 installation disc. Then, after you finally managed to hack around that limitation, you discovered that none of its hardware drivers would work under Win95... not even in Win32s compatibility mode. But wait, it gets better...</p><p>A month later, amidst rumors that didn't become confirmed until literally days before release, a new, incompatible laptop with Windows 2000 came out... and your own laptop's manufacturer released a press release saying, "Good news! Since it's already obsolete, we're skipping Windows 95, and going straight to Windows 2000! You'll get to have it NEXT YEAR." A month later, yet another new laptop, equally-incompatible, with a substantially faster CPU, more ram, a much larger hard drive, and better display came out running XP... and the same day, Microsoft announced XP's arrival on MSDN. Oh, your laptop's maker sent out another press release... forget Win2k, it's going to be XP instead. At least they didn't push back the release date yet again, but in the meantime you're still hobbling along with Windows 3.1. Half the software that comes out can't be installed at all, and half the software that CAN crashes the moment you try launching it, because you're still running an ancient version of Windows.</p><p>Google &amp; the Android team made things worse than they had to be by designing the new APIs as a core part of the OS, instead of a user-installable upgrade. If the gestures library and Bluetooth API were installable under 1.5 as shared libraries, instead of locked away in the kernel (which can't be easily upgraded without at least the non-interference, if not the actual cooperation, of the manufacturer), the distinction between 1.5 and 2.0 would *almost* be academic. The best any of us can do right now is to install a hacked-up 1.5 kernel that's had some band-aids to sort of run 2.0 apps, but it's kind of like the programs that came out around 1995 that tried to make Windows 3.11 look more like Windows 95... or the programs that stripped down Windows 98's Explorer to use Windows 95's l</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the REAL problem with Android right now : over the past 9 months or so , Android has advanced from 1.5 to 1.6 , 2.0.x , and 2.1 .
Each of those advances added lots of desirable new capabilities .
The problem is , roughly half the Android owners in North America were sold brand new phones last fall that came with Android 1.5... months after 1.6 was mainstream , barely a month before 2.0.x arrived with the Droid , and less than 3 months before 2.1 arrived in January .
Of course , we 've ( almost ) all been promised 2.1... sometime in the first half of 2010.Speaking on behalf of Sprint Hero owners , we did n't even get positive confirmation that it was shipping with 1.5 instead of 1.6 until literally a few days before they arrived at Best Buy , and even then it was taken for granted by pretty much everyone that we 'd have 1.6 on our phones by Thanksgiving .
Of course , at that point , 2.0.x and the Droid were barely even credible rumors , especially given the fact that 1.6 was only a few months old at the time , and the way Google , Motorola &amp; Verizon managed to keep 2.0 practically a state secret until the day before the Droid hit stores .
I 'll freely admit I was absolutely * livid * when I found out the Nexus One ( with 2.1 ) was coming out less than 2 weeks after Christmas , before my own 1.5-crippled phone had its 3-month anniversary .
And even now , HTC is still being coy about when we 're going to finally get to have 2.1 , besides vaguely repeating that it 'll be sometime before July 1.This really , really sucks .
Seriously. Imagine you 'd just gone out and spent a thousand bucks on a brand new laptop running Windows 3.1 a couple of months after Windows 95 hit the streets .
You wanted Win95 too , but your ISP only allowed you to use that specific laptop sold with Windows 3.1... and it was widely understood by everyone ( besides your ISP and the laptop 's maker ) that you could upgrade to Win95 on your own , anyway .
Except after buying it , you discovered that the manufacturer locked it down to prevent you from booting from a Win95 installation disc .
Then , after you finally managed to hack around that limitation , you discovered that none of its hardware drivers would work under Win95... not even in Win32s compatibility mode .
But wait , it gets better...A month later , amidst rumors that did n't become confirmed until literally days before release , a new , incompatible laptop with Windows 2000 came out... and your own laptop 's manufacturer released a press release saying , " Good news !
Since it 's already obsolete , we 're skipping Windows 95 , and going straight to Windows 2000 !
You 'll get to have it NEXT YEAR .
" A month later , yet another new laptop , equally-incompatible , with a substantially faster CPU , more ram , a much larger hard drive , and better display came out running XP... and the same day , Microsoft announced XP 's arrival on MSDN .
Oh , your laptop 's maker sent out another press release... forget Win2k , it 's going to be XP instead .
At least they did n't push back the release date yet again , but in the meantime you 're still hobbling along with Windows 3.1 .
Half the software that comes out ca n't be installed at all , and half the software that CAN crashes the moment you try launching it , because you 're still running an ancient version of Windows.Google &amp; the Android team made things worse than they had to be by designing the new APIs as a core part of the OS , instead of a user-installable upgrade .
If the gestures library and Bluetooth API were installable under 1.5 as shared libraries , instead of locked away in the kernel ( which ca n't be easily upgraded without at least the non-interference , if not the actual cooperation , of the manufacturer ) , the distinction between 1.5 and 2.0 would * almost * be academic .
The best any of us can do right now is to install a hacked-up 1.5 kernel that 's had some band-aids to sort of run 2.0 apps , but it 's kind of like the programs that came out around 1995 that tried to make Windows 3.11 look more like Windows 95... or the programs that stripped down Windows 98 's Explorer to use Windows 95 's l</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the REAL problem with Android right now: over the past 9 months or so, Android has advanced from 1.5 to 1.6, 2.0.x, and 2.1.
Each of those advances added lots of desirable new capabilities.
The problem is, roughly half the Android owners in North America were sold brand new phones last fall that came with Android 1.5... months after 1.6 was mainstream, barely a month before 2.0.x arrived with the Droid, and less than 3 months before 2.1 arrived in January.
Of course, we've (almost) all been promised 2.1... sometime in the first half of 2010.Speaking on behalf of Sprint Hero owners, we didn't even get positive confirmation that it was shipping with 1.5 instead of 1.6 until literally a few days before they arrived at Best Buy, and even then it was taken for granted by pretty much everyone that we'd have 1.6 on our phones by Thanksgiving.
Of course, at that point, 2.0.x and the Droid were barely even credible rumors, especially given the fact that 1.6 was only a few months old at the time, and the way Google, Motorola &amp; Verizon managed to keep 2.0 practically a state secret until the day before the Droid hit stores.
I'll freely admit I was absolutely *livid* when I found out the Nexus One (with 2.1) was coming out less than 2 weeks after Christmas, before my own 1.5-crippled phone had its 3-month anniversary.
And even now, HTC is still being coy about when we're going to finally get to have 2.1, besides vaguely repeating that it'll be sometime before July 1.This really, really sucks.
Seriously. Imagine you'd just gone out and spent a thousand bucks on a brand new laptop running Windows 3.1 a couple of months after Windows 95 hit the streets.
You wanted Win95 too, but your ISP only allowed you to use that specific laptop sold with Windows 3.1... and it was widely understood by everyone (besides your ISP and the laptop's maker) that you could upgrade to Win95 on your own, anyway.
Except after buying it, you discovered that the manufacturer locked it down to prevent you from booting from a Win95 installation disc.
Then, after you finally managed to hack around that limitation, you discovered that none of its hardware drivers would work under Win95... not even in Win32s compatibility mode.
But wait, it gets better...A month later, amidst rumors that didn't become confirmed until literally days before release, a new, incompatible laptop with Windows 2000 came out... and your own laptop's manufacturer released a press release saying, "Good news!
Since it's already obsolete, we're skipping Windows 95, and going straight to Windows 2000!
You'll get to have it NEXT YEAR.
" A month later, yet another new laptop, equally-incompatible, with a substantially faster CPU, more ram, a much larger hard drive, and better display came out running XP... and the same day, Microsoft announced XP's arrival on MSDN.
Oh, your laptop's maker sent out another press release... forget Win2k, it's going to be XP instead.
At least they didn't push back the release date yet again, but in the meantime you're still hobbling along with Windows 3.1.
Half the software that comes out can't be installed at all, and half the software that CAN crashes the moment you try launching it, because you're still running an ancient version of Windows.Google &amp; the Android team made things worse than they had to be by designing the new APIs as a core part of the OS, instead of a user-installable upgrade.
If the gestures library and Bluetooth API were installable under 1.5 as shared libraries, instead of locked away in the kernel (which can't be easily upgraded without at least the non-interference, if not the actual cooperation, of the manufacturer), the distinction between 1.5 and 2.0 would *almost* be academic.
The best any of us can do right now is to install a hacked-up 1.5 kernel that's had some band-aids to sort of run 2.0 apps, but it's kind of like the programs that came out around 1995 that tried to make Windows 3.11 look more like Windows 95... or the programs that stripped down Windows 98's Explorer to use Windows 95's l</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247488</id>
	<title>Re:It is not a problem it is an opportunity.</title>
	<author>scamper\_22</author>
	<datestamp>1266952860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a problem because people think software is magical.</p><p>No one thinks... I have a 2001 Civic.  Let me upgrade it to the 2008 Civic.<br>No, you buy a new car.</p><p>Yet somehow everyone thinks software should just run forever and be compatible forever and for everything.</p><p>Should my Chrysler engine just pop into my Acrua?<br>Even if the parts were free, there would still be incompatibilities.  Different nuts and bolts and ocnnectors and wires and who knows what else.</p><p>Alright, I am well aware of the differences between hardware and software... I do it for a living... take my car analogy very very lightly.<br>Yet there are real barriers to making things compatible and supporting different platforms.  Doesn't matter if it is open source or not.  APIs change.  Models change.  Back end behavior changes even though it shouldn't affect the caller...</p><p>And so is it a problem that you can't upgrade your device?  Maybe.<br>Is it an unreasonable problem?  I don't think so.  You get a new device every few years.  That is your solution.<br>It is a great opportunity as well and a money maker for the companies.</p><p>I've always found making sure you can import and export data easily is a far better way of ensuring transitions.  On that end, Google has always had the right idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a problem because people think software is magical.No one thinks... I have a 2001 Civic .
Let me upgrade it to the 2008 Civic.No , you buy a new car.Yet somehow everyone thinks software should just run forever and be compatible forever and for everything.Should my Chrysler engine just pop into my Acrua ? Even if the parts were free , there would still be incompatibilities .
Different nuts and bolts and ocnnectors and wires and who knows what else.Alright , I am well aware of the differences between hardware and software... I do it for a living... take my car analogy very very lightly.Yet there are real barriers to making things compatible and supporting different platforms .
Does n't matter if it is open source or not .
APIs change .
Models change .
Back end behavior changes even though it should n't affect the caller...And so is it a problem that you ca n't upgrade your device ?
Maybe.Is it an unreasonable problem ?
I do n't think so .
You get a new device every few years .
That is your solution.It is a great opportunity as well and a money maker for the companies.I 've always found making sure you can import and export data easily is a far better way of ensuring transitions .
On that end , Google has always had the right idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a problem because people think software is magical.No one thinks... I have a 2001 Civic.
Let me upgrade it to the 2008 Civic.No, you buy a new car.Yet somehow everyone thinks software should just run forever and be compatible forever and for everything.Should my Chrysler engine just pop into my Acrua?Even if the parts were free, there would still be incompatibilities.
Different nuts and bolts and ocnnectors and wires and who knows what else.Alright, I am well aware of the differences between hardware and software... I do it for a living... take my car analogy very very lightly.Yet there are real barriers to making things compatible and supporting different platforms.
Doesn't matter if it is open source or not.
APIs change.
Models change.
Back end behavior changes even though it shouldn't affect the caller...And so is it a problem that you can't upgrade your device?
Maybe.Is it an unreasonable problem?
I don't think so.
You get a new device every few years.
That is your solution.It is a great opportunity as well and a money maker for the companies.I've always found making sure you can import and export data easily is a far better way of ensuring transitions.
On that end, Google has always had the right idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246880</id>
	<title>Re:no upgrades??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266950760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you upgrade using the motorola website?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you upgrade using the motorola website ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you upgrade using the motorola website?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246562</id>
	<title>Re:no upgrades??</title>
	<author>SiChemist</author>
	<datestamp>1266949740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly!  The problem is not Android, the problems are the wireless carriers and the phone manufacturers.  <br>
&nbsp; <br>When there is an Android update, first the phone manufacturer has to update its proprietary UI (sense, motoblur), then the carrier has to test and approve the update.  If all phones used Vanilla Android the whole thing would be a non-issue.</p><p>If the wireless carrier wants to remove features, there is another holdup while they alter things and test.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly !
The problem is not Android , the problems are the wireless carriers and the phone manufacturers .
  When there is an Android update , first the phone manufacturer has to update its proprietary UI ( sense , motoblur ) , then the carrier has to test and approve the update .
If all phones used Vanilla Android the whole thing would be a non-issue.If the wireless carrier wants to remove features , there is another holdup while they alter things and test .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly!
The problem is not Android, the problems are the wireless carriers and the phone manufacturers.
  When there is an Android update, first the phone manufacturer has to update its proprietary UI (sense, motoblur), then the carrier has to test and approve the update.
If all phones used Vanilla Android the whole thing would be a non-issue.If the wireless carrier wants to remove features, there is another holdup while they alter things and test.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31251920</id>
	<title>Re:Phone Manufacturers Don't Upgrade Software</title>
	<author>Tromad</author>
	<datestamp>1266925200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows mobile has consistently allowed you to upgrade at least one version up from the version you purchased, but yes, that is a major problem with other carriers and one reason the iphone is at least somewhat attractive in that regard. It surprises me that google would choose to go the way of windows mobile instead of the iphone. My contract has been up for over a year and I'm considering the nexus one, HTC HD2, and the iphone, but I guess I should wait a little longer to see if the nexus one is going to allow OS upgrades, because the other phones will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows mobile has consistently allowed you to upgrade at least one version up from the version you purchased , but yes , that is a major problem with other carriers and one reason the iphone is at least somewhat attractive in that regard .
It surprises me that google would choose to go the way of windows mobile instead of the iphone .
My contract has been up for over a year and I 'm considering the nexus one , HTC HD2 , and the iphone , but I guess I should wait a little longer to see if the nexus one is going to allow OS upgrades , because the other phones will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows mobile has consistently allowed you to upgrade at least one version up from the version you purchased, but yes, that is a major problem with other carriers and one reason the iphone is at least somewhat attractive in that regard.
It surprises me that google would choose to go the way of windows mobile instead of the iphone.
My contract has been up for over a year and I'm considering the nexus one, HTC HD2, and the iphone, but I guess I should wait a little longer to see if the nexus one is going to allow OS upgrades, because the other phones will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248626</id>
	<title>Screw the devices, the SDK sucks</title>
	<author>pseudorand</author>
	<datestamp>1266956820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure about the devices (I'm just working with the SDK and emulator right now), but the whole thing is like pulling teeth. Hello World took a bit of time, which I should considering the platform is, by necessity, complex, but I figured things would go smoothly after that. Usually it's a) get Hello World working, b) use the API docs, c) profit. But then I tried adding Internet access, GPS and image capture, the later two of which was unnecessarily complicated. I still can't get image capture working because the SDK example for that simply directs you to the Camera API docs and Eclipse can't resolve MediaStore.ACTION\_IMAGE\_CAPTURE, even though it's used in every example I can find online. Come one Google, one would think I could at least download an example app that uses key features like camera and GPS and get them to work without modification.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure about the devices ( I 'm just working with the SDK and emulator right now ) , but the whole thing is like pulling teeth .
Hello World took a bit of time , which I should considering the platform is , by necessity , complex , but I figured things would go smoothly after that .
Usually it 's a ) get Hello World working , b ) use the API docs , c ) profit .
But then I tried adding Internet access , GPS and image capture , the later two of which was unnecessarily complicated .
I still ca n't get image capture working because the SDK example for that simply directs you to the Camera API docs and Eclipse ca n't resolve MediaStore.ACTION \ _IMAGE \ _CAPTURE , even though it 's used in every example I can find online .
Come one Google , one would think I could at least download an example app that uses key features like camera and GPS and get them to work without modification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure about the devices (I'm just working with the SDK and emulator right now), but the whole thing is like pulling teeth.
Hello World took a bit of time, which I should considering the platform is, by necessity, complex, but I figured things would go smoothly after that.
Usually it's a) get Hello World working, b) use the API docs, c) profit.
But then I tried adding Internet access, GPS and image capture, the later two of which was unnecessarily complicated.
I still can't get image capture working because the SDK example for that simply directs you to the Camera API docs and Eclipse can't resolve MediaStore.ACTION\_IMAGE\_CAPTURE, even though it's used in every example I can find online.
Come one Google, one would think I could at least download an example app that uses key features like camera and GPS and get them to work without modification.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247064</id>
	<title>Not so bad</title>
	<author>nilbog</author>
	<datestamp>1266951420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I agree this is an annoyance for developers, Android is pretty good at only offering you apps you can install in the market.  This is how pretty much every Windows Mobile or other smartphone (Palm OS, etc.) has worked since they came out.  They came with the operating system they came with and, for the most part, that was it.</p><p>The fact that Android is open source, and Google has promised to make the source for new versions available is the only reason people feel they should get an upgrade when, in reality, the phone was designed for whatever operating system it came with.  The fact that all the manufacturers work on new roms for old phones is actually a really nice bonus.  I know my hero will get an official 2.1 upgrade within the coming months (it only came out in October).  However my Windows Mobile phone is still running the same OS it came with 3 years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree this is an annoyance for developers , Android is pretty good at only offering you apps you can install in the market .
This is how pretty much every Windows Mobile or other smartphone ( Palm OS , etc .
) has worked since they came out .
They came with the operating system they came with and , for the most part , that was it.The fact that Android is open source , and Google has promised to make the source for new versions available is the only reason people feel they should get an upgrade when , in reality , the phone was designed for whatever operating system it came with .
The fact that all the manufacturers work on new roms for old phones is actually a really nice bonus .
I know my hero will get an official 2.1 upgrade within the coming months ( it only came out in October ) .
However my Windows Mobile phone is still running the same OS it came with 3 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree this is an annoyance for developers, Android is pretty good at only offering you apps you can install in the market.
This is how pretty much every Windows Mobile or other smartphone (Palm OS, etc.
) has worked since they came out.
They came with the operating system they came with and, for the most part, that was it.The fact that Android is open source, and Google has promised to make the source for new versions available is the only reason people feel they should get an upgrade when, in reality, the phone was designed for whatever operating system it came with.
The fact that all the manufacturers work on new roms for old phones is actually a really nice bonus.
I know my hero will get an official 2.1 upgrade within the coming months (it only came out in October).
However my Windows Mobile phone is still running the same OS it came with 3 years ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247560</id>
	<title>Re:Oh no! It's InfoWorld!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266953160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course they did.  These stories generate ad revenue, in the short term.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course they did .
These stories generate ad revenue , in the short term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course they did.
These stories generate ad revenue, in the short term.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247640</id>
	<title>Good news for Galaxy .... bad news for Android &am</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266953340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A good news for you, some british and french fellows have gone into a the rumble : http://code.google.com/p/gaosp/ This is the port of the Android trunk to Galaxy, yeah this means Android 2.1 on your device. Some issues are still to be fixed but they are a fast moving target<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>All this shows two things about Android :<br>- The license model chosen is not protective for the users/customers. Samsung did publish the changes done to the GPLed part (aka the kernel patches) but the rest of the changes (the dalvik for instance and some other low level stuffs) are kept private only. As a consequence, full control of the platform evolution for a given handset is kept by in manufacturer hands. Well at least, until some goodwill do reverseengeneer the stuffs and build the patches from scratch<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(<br>- No standards basis applied see http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=3343 for the debate on lack of "standard basement" to Android will endanger the middle term compatibility. At any time, a feature can be removed, dropped, etc. No garantee of any form but the goodwill of google.</p><p>Google has failed to address those issues so far.</p><p>Understanding that google is using part of the harmony project from Apache, I also do not understand why they did not went for Java SE compatibility. Well.. I got some idea : having a standard API based will remove the "exclusivity" of an application to the android platform. This is exactly the same way that Apple did on iPhone (by forbidding Java and Flash to run on their babies). And this is also the same thing that Samsung plan with Bada<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p><p>As a consequence, if you are creating applications for mobile, instead of having Java application running everywhere (shall I remember you that all the ARM based microprocessors do have hardware accelerated Java bytecode support ?), you end up with application specific for each platform : API on iphone is completely different that API on Android, etc.</p><p>IMHO, if Oracle would want to "play a little" with its new Java asset, they have a good opportunity : release a JDK for iphone and try to submit it (FYI, OpenJDK/Icedtea build on ARM already). If Apple refuse to diffuse its "application" (aka the OpenJDK) they could have legal guys start a good "discussion" with Apple. Doing so Oracle can make their platform refocus on the highend mobile market as the reference.</p><p>By the way Adobe can "play" the same kind of "game" for the same purpose.</p><p>Who will start the game first ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A good news for you , some british and french fellows have gone into a the rumble : http : //code.google.com/p/gaosp/ This is the port of the Android trunk to Galaxy , yeah this means Android 2.1 on your device .
Some issues are still to be fixed but they are a fast moving target ; - ) All this shows two things about Android : - The license model chosen is not protective for the users/customers .
Samsung did publish the changes done to the GPLed part ( aka the kernel patches ) but the rest of the changes ( the dalvik for instance and some other low level stuffs ) are kept private only .
As a consequence , full control of the platform evolution for a given handset is kept by in manufacturer hands .
Well at least , until some goodwill do reverseengeneer the stuffs and build the patches from scratch : ( - No standards basis applied see http : //code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail ? id = 3343 for the debate on lack of " standard basement " to Android will endanger the middle term compatibility .
At any time , a feature can be removed , dropped , etc .
No garantee of any form but the goodwill of google.Google has failed to address those issues so far.Understanding that google is using part of the harmony project from Apache , I also do not understand why they did not went for Java SE compatibility .
Well.. I got some idea : having a standard API based will remove the " exclusivity " of an application to the android platform .
This is exactly the same way that Apple did on iPhone ( by forbidding Java and Flash to run on their babies ) .
And this is also the same thing that Samsung plan with Bada : ( As a consequence , if you are creating applications for mobile , instead of having Java application running everywhere ( shall I remember you that all the ARM based microprocessors do have hardware accelerated Java bytecode support ?
) , you end up with application specific for each platform : API on iphone is completely different that API on Android , etc.IMHO , if Oracle would want to " play a little " with its new Java asset , they have a good opportunity : release a JDK for iphone and try to submit it ( FYI , OpenJDK/Icedtea build on ARM already ) .
If Apple refuse to diffuse its " application " ( aka the OpenJDK ) they could have legal guys start a good " discussion " with Apple .
Doing so Oracle can make their platform refocus on the highend mobile market as the reference.By the way Adobe can " play " the same kind of " game " for the same purpose.Who will start the game first ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A good news for you, some british and french fellows have gone into a the rumble : http://code.google.com/p/gaosp/ This is the port of the Android trunk to Galaxy, yeah this means Android 2.1 on your device.
Some issues are still to be fixed but they are a fast moving target ;-)All this shows two things about Android :- The license model chosen is not protective for the users/customers.
Samsung did publish the changes done to the GPLed part (aka the kernel patches) but the rest of the changes (the dalvik for instance and some other low level stuffs) are kept private only.
As a consequence, full control of the platform evolution for a given handset is kept by in manufacturer hands.
Well at least, until some goodwill do reverseengeneer the stuffs and build the patches from scratch :(- No standards basis applied see http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=3343 for the debate on lack of "standard basement" to Android will endanger the middle term compatibility.
At any time, a feature can be removed, dropped, etc.
No garantee of any form but the goodwill of google.Google has failed to address those issues so far.Understanding that google is using part of the harmony project from Apache, I also do not understand why they did not went for Java SE compatibility.
Well.. I got some idea : having a standard API based will remove the "exclusivity" of an application to the android platform.
This is exactly the same way that Apple did on iPhone (by forbidding Java and Flash to run on their babies).
And this is also the same thing that Samsung plan with Bada :(As a consequence, if you are creating applications for mobile, instead of having Java application running everywhere (shall I remember you that all the ARM based microprocessors do have hardware accelerated Java bytecode support ?
), you end up with application specific for each platform : API on iphone is completely different that API on Android, etc.IMHO, if Oracle would want to "play a little" with its new Java asset, they have a good opportunity : release a JDK for iphone and try to submit it (FYI, OpenJDK/Icedtea build on ARM already).
If Apple refuse to diffuse its "application" (aka the OpenJDK) they could have legal guys start a good "discussion" with Apple.
Doing so Oracle can make their platform refocus on the highend mobile market as the reference.By the way Adobe can "play" the same kind of "game" for the same purpose.Who will start the game first ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246448</id>
	<title>Re:Wasn't JAVA supposed to prevent this?</title>
	<author>silas\_moeckel</author>
	<datestamp>1266949380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Java makes the binary run on arbitrary cpu's.  The issue is mostly with look and feel as well as capabilities.  Making an application especially a touch screen app work well at arbitrary screen sizes and resolutions is very hard.  As in that the touch pad might support 1 to n touch points simultaneously and the rest of the hardware platform could have all sorts of features everything from a vibrate function to various sensors.  Effectively this leads to making lots of cases and work a rounds to get the app to work ok on every device.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Java makes the binary run on arbitrary cpu 's .
The issue is mostly with look and feel as well as capabilities .
Making an application especially a touch screen app work well at arbitrary screen sizes and resolutions is very hard .
As in that the touch pad might support 1 to n touch points simultaneously and the rest of the hardware platform could have all sorts of features everything from a vibrate function to various sensors .
Effectively this leads to making lots of cases and work a rounds to get the app to work ok on every device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Java makes the binary run on arbitrary cpu's.
The issue is mostly with look and feel as well as capabilities.
Making an application especially a touch screen app work well at arbitrary screen sizes and resolutions is very hard.
As in that the touch pad might support 1 to n touch points simultaneously and the rest of the hardware platform could have all sorts of features everything from a vibrate function to various sensors.
Effectively this leads to making lots of cases and work a rounds to get the app to work ok on every device.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248770</id>
	<title>Re:Keep in mind the source</title>
	<author>duplicate-nickname</author>
	<datestamp>1266957180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's this?  Yet <a href="http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/02/windows-7-memory-hog-story-takes-turn-towards-the-strange.ars" title="arstechnica.com">another</a> [arstechnica.com] Infoworld writer using their blogs to advance their personal agenda?  When is Slashdot going to stop being a lackey for <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;rlz=1C1\_\_\_\_\_enUS367US367&amp;q=site:slashdot.org+infoworld+OR+computerworld+OR+macworld+OR+\%22pc+world\%22&amp;btnG=Search&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=&amp;oq=" title="google.com">IDG</a> [google.com]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's this ?
Yet another [ arstechnica.com ] Infoworld writer using their blogs to advance their personal agenda ?
When is Slashdot going to stop being a lackey for IDG [ google.com ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's this?
Yet another [arstechnica.com] Infoworld writer using their blogs to advance their personal agenda?
When is Slashdot going to stop being a lackey for IDG [google.com]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246502</id>
	<title>Would this be a "distro" type of problem?</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1266949620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are going to be multiple hardware configurations and there will be multiple sets of core features and functionalities based on the carrier and what it will allow.</p><p>So, there are Linux distros of different sources and then there are Linux distros of the same source but different hardware architectures supported (like i386, x86\_64, PPC, ARM).  If there is any confusion about the whole thing, perhaps the best solution is to be found in naming conventions.</p><p>So the question asked might be "will this package work with my phone?"  Well, the packages should be named appropriately with a *provider\_name* *distro\_name* *distro\_version* etc as differences are required.</p><p>The point here is that this is pretty much normal behavior...for ANY OS that supports varying hardware and has multiple versions of the OS.  This exists for Windows9x, Windows 2000, Windows XP, 2003, Vista and 7.  (Not all software works with all versions of Windows)  This exists for Mac OS X as well.  For appliances and hand-held devices, this is a somewhat new problem.  Windows CE and Windows Mobile devices generally work from the same basic hardware configurations and things tend to be more compatible as a result, but even in that case, there are similar problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are going to be multiple hardware configurations and there will be multiple sets of core features and functionalities based on the carrier and what it will allow.So , there are Linux distros of different sources and then there are Linux distros of the same source but different hardware architectures supported ( like i386 , x86 \ _64 , PPC , ARM ) .
If there is any confusion about the whole thing , perhaps the best solution is to be found in naming conventions.So the question asked might be " will this package work with my phone ?
" Well , the packages should be named appropriately with a * provider \ _name * * distro \ _name * * distro \ _version * etc as differences are required.The point here is that this is pretty much normal behavior...for ANY OS that supports varying hardware and has multiple versions of the OS .
This exists for Windows9x , Windows 2000 , Windows XP , 2003 , Vista and 7 .
( Not all software works with all versions of Windows ) This exists for Mac OS X as well .
For appliances and hand-held devices , this is a somewhat new problem .
Windows CE and Windows Mobile devices generally work from the same basic hardware configurations and things tend to be more compatible as a result , but even in that case , there are similar problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are going to be multiple hardware configurations and there will be multiple sets of core features and functionalities based on the carrier and what it will allow.So, there are Linux distros of different sources and then there are Linux distros of the same source but different hardware architectures supported (like i386, x86\_64, PPC, ARM).
If there is any confusion about the whole thing, perhaps the best solution is to be found in naming conventions.So the question asked might be "will this package work with my phone?
"  Well, the packages should be named appropriately with a *provider\_name* *distro\_name* *distro\_version* etc as differences are required.The point here is that this is pretty much normal behavior...for ANY OS that supports varying hardware and has multiple versions of the OS.
This exists for Windows9x, Windows 2000, Windows XP, 2003, Vista and 7.
(Not all software works with all versions of Windows)  This exists for Mac OS X as well.
For appliances and hand-held devices, this is a somewhat new problem.
Windows CE and Windows Mobile devices generally work from the same basic hardware configurations and things tend to be more compatible as a result, but even in that case, there are similar problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247598</id>
	<title>Re:Yep. Android's cool, BUT</title>
	<author>Palmateer</author>
	<datestamp>1266953280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm running WinMo 6.1 on an HTC Touch (CDMA).  I got it for $0 when I renewed my 3 year phone contract with Bell in Canada.   True the GUI is clunky (there are many available 3rd party overlays to fix) and the hardware slow (but acceptable) with poor battery life, but the versatility is amazing and whatever I want to do with it... there's four or five really great and often free apps for that including a huge catalogue of compatible software written for older versions of WinCE and DotNet.  Plus, I can run *multiple* programs at the same time and while in a call.  Really, a bit smoother UI (there are 6.5 roms which will run) and a bit more HP and I'd have very few complaints.  That Samsung Omnia II is looking pretty good.  So I guess what I'm saying is that 'sucks' is perhaps a bit strong of a word for WinMo's shortcomings, especially for Slashdotters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm running WinMo 6.1 on an HTC Touch ( CDMA ) .
I got it for $ 0 when I renewed my 3 year phone contract with Bell in Canada .
True the GUI is clunky ( there are many available 3rd party overlays to fix ) and the hardware slow ( but acceptable ) with poor battery life , but the versatility is amazing and whatever I want to do with it... there 's four or five really great and often free apps for that including a huge catalogue of compatible software written for older versions of WinCE and DotNet .
Plus , I can run * multiple * programs at the same time and while in a call .
Really , a bit smoother UI ( there are 6.5 roms which will run ) and a bit more HP and I 'd have very few complaints .
That Samsung Omnia II is looking pretty good .
So I guess what I 'm saying is that 'sucks ' is perhaps a bit strong of a word for WinMo 's shortcomings , especially for Slashdotters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm running WinMo 6.1 on an HTC Touch (CDMA).
I got it for $0 when I renewed my 3 year phone contract with Bell in Canada.
True the GUI is clunky (there are many available 3rd party overlays to fix) and the hardware slow (but acceptable) with poor battery life, but the versatility is amazing and whatever I want to do with it... there's four or five really great and often free apps for that including a huge catalogue of compatible software written for older versions of WinCE and DotNet.
Plus, I can run *multiple* programs at the same time and while in a call.
Really, a bit smoother UI (there are 6.5 roms which will run) and a bit more HP and I'd have very few complaints.
That Samsung Omnia II is looking pretty good.
So I guess what I'm saying is that 'sucks' is perhaps a bit strong of a word for WinMo's shortcomings, especially for Slashdotters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246608</id>
	<title>Updates are coming</title>
	<author>rwa2</author>
	<datestamp>1266949920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most devices (except maybe the G1, due to hardware limitations) should be able to get upgraded to android 2.1<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... maybe even as soon as next month.<br><a href="http://androidandme.com/2010/01/phones/t-mobile-mytouch-3g-users-to-get-android-2-1-this-spring/" title="androidandme.com">http://androidandme.com/2010/01/phones/t-mobile-mytouch-3g-users-to-get-android-2-1-this-spring/</a> [androidandme.com]</p><p>It is certainly possible that some manufacturers may opt not to release updates to their devices.  Maybe they don't want to dedicate resources to "old" products, maybe they want to drive people to buy the new ones.  Can't really fault Google for that...   I think they've actually been pretty good with backporting things to their older Android releases (like GMM 4 for Android 1.6 with just about everything except maybe voice navigation), but can't force all developers to support the older releases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most devices ( except maybe the G1 , due to hardware limitations ) should be able to get upgraded to android 2.1 ... maybe even as soon as next month.http : //androidandme.com/2010/01/phones/t-mobile-mytouch-3g-users-to-get-android-2-1-this-spring/ [ androidandme.com ] It is certainly possible that some manufacturers may opt not to release updates to their devices .
Maybe they do n't want to dedicate resources to " old " products , maybe they want to drive people to buy the new ones .
Ca n't really fault Google for that... I think they 've actually been pretty good with backporting things to their older Android releases ( like GMM 4 for Android 1.6 with just about everything except maybe voice navigation ) , but ca n't force all developers to support the older releases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most devices (except maybe the G1, due to hardware limitations) should be able to get upgraded to android 2.1 ... maybe even as soon as next month.http://androidandme.com/2010/01/phones/t-mobile-mytouch-3g-users-to-get-android-2-1-this-spring/ [androidandme.com]It is certainly possible that some manufacturers may opt not to release updates to their devices.
Maybe they don't want to dedicate resources to "old" products, maybe they want to drive people to buy the new ones.
Can't really fault Google for that...   I think they've actually been pretty good with backporting things to their older Android releases (like GMM 4 for Android 1.6 with just about everything except maybe voice navigation), but can't force all developers to support the older releases.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247322</id>
	<title>You are welcome Google</title>
	<author>Fdisk81</author>
	<datestamp>1266952260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The solution is simple.  Google should provide the OS upgrades on their website and make the OS upgradable (Not necessarily rooted, just allow end users to upgrade themselves)

Obviously some devices can't handle 2.0 and 2.1 and this will continue to be the case in the future, but Google should have a page with system upgrades and leave it up to the user to decide whether their device can handle it or not.

When you buy an HP/Dell/Gateway/MSI/Asus/Lenovo/Apple computer you don't wait for the manufacturer to upgrade your operating system every time a new version comes out; you either download the upgrade through Windows Update or purchase the upgrade in the case of Macs.  Why can't they just do this for smartphones? They are computers anyway!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution is simple .
Google should provide the OS upgrades on their website and make the OS upgradable ( Not necessarily rooted , just allow end users to upgrade themselves ) Obviously some devices ca n't handle 2.0 and 2.1 and this will continue to be the case in the future , but Google should have a page with system upgrades and leave it up to the user to decide whether their device can handle it or not .
When you buy an HP/Dell/Gateway/MSI/Asus/Lenovo/Apple computer you do n't wait for the manufacturer to upgrade your operating system every time a new version comes out ; you either download the upgrade through Windows Update or purchase the upgrade in the case of Macs .
Why ca n't they just do this for smartphones ?
They are computers anyway !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The solution is simple.
Google should provide the OS upgrades on their website and make the OS upgradable (Not necessarily rooted, just allow end users to upgrade themselves)

Obviously some devices can't handle 2.0 and 2.1 and this will continue to be the case in the future, but Google should have a page with system upgrades and leave it up to the user to decide whether their device can handle it or not.
When you buy an HP/Dell/Gateway/MSI/Asus/Lenovo/Apple computer you don't wait for the manufacturer to upgrade your operating system every time a new version comes out; you either download the upgrade through Windows Update or purchase the upgrade in the case of Macs.
Why can't they just do this for smartphones?
They are computers anyway!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246512</id>
	<title>Dumb. And old news.</title>
	<author>unwesen</author>
	<datestamp>1266949620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's been a relative scare over this a few months ago, in or around Novembre 2009. Suddenly a flurry of blog posts announced that the fragmentation in Android devices and OS versions will surely doom the platform forever.</p><p>Interestingly enough, round about the same time, some Facebook developer got vocal about Apple's app store policies and talked about rejecting the iPhone because it sucks so much (paraphrased).</p><p>To me, all this means that there's a platform war raging right now, and perpetuating one myth or another by reposting it is not going to help the better platform win.</p><p>Now I earn money developing for both platforms, and - if you take my word for it - I can tell you that each of them sucks in it's own way, and pretty hard in some cases. I'll not give a list of what *I* think sucks on each platform, because ymmv.</p><p>But this whole fragmentation thing being a problem is mostly a myth. Yes, you'll need to design your app a little carefully to run on all (or almost all) devices out there. But then you need to do the same thing for other platforms as well, it's just not as widely advertised.</p><p>The release of the iPad might change people's perceptions of that when it comes to iPhone OS - there's already a pretty severe fragmentation happening here, but people tend not to realize unless they use certain functionality. Games depending on high framerates. Or phone functionality. Or a compass. Or whatever.</p><p>Fragmentation when it comes to mobile devices is pretty much inevitable. If you didn't expect that, you're an idiot. At least Android tries to be helpful and points that out right in it's developer documentation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's been a relative scare over this a few months ago , in or around Novembre 2009 .
Suddenly a flurry of blog posts announced that the fragmentation in Android devices and OS versions will surely doom the platform forever.Interestingly enough , round about the same time , some Facebook developer got vocal about Apple 's app store policies and talked about rejecting the iPhone because it sucks so much ( paraphrased ) .To me , all this means that there 's a platform war raging right now , and perpetuating one myth or another by reposting it is not going to help the better platform win.Now I earn money developing for both platforms , and - if you take my word for it - I can tell you that each of them sucks in it 's own way , and pretty hard in some cases .
I 'll not give a list of what * I * think sucks on each platform , because ymmv.But this whole fragmentation thing being a problem is mostly a myth .
Yes , you 'll need to design your app a little carefully to run on all ( or almost all ) devices out there .
But then you need to do the same thing for other platforms as well , it 's just not as widely advertised.The release of the iPad might change people 's perceptions of that when it comes to iPhone OS - there 's already a pretty severe fragmentation happening here , but people tend not to realize unless they use certain functionality .
Games depending on high framerates .
Or phone functionality .
Or a compass .
Or whatever.Fragmentation when it comes to mobile devices is pretty much inevitable .
If you did n't expect that , you 're an idiot .
At least Android tries to be helpful and points that out right in it 's developer documentation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's been a relative scare over this a few months ago, in or around Novembre 2009.
Suddenly a flurry of blog posts announced that the fragmentation in Android devices and OS versions will surely doom the platform forever.Interestingly enough, round about the same time, some Facebook developer got vocal about Apple's app store policies and talked about rejecting the iPhone because it sucks so much (paraphrased).To me, all this means that there's a platform war raging right now, and perpetuating one myth or another by reposting it is not going to help the better platform win.Now I earn money developing for both platforms, and - if you take my word for it - I can tell you that each of them sucks in it's own way, and pretty hard in some cases.
I'll not give a list of what *I* think sucks on each platform, because ymmv.But this whole fragmentation thing being a problem is mostly a myth.
Yes, you'll need to design your app a little carefully to run on all (or almost all) devices out there.
But then you need to do the same thing for other platforms as well, it's just not as widely advertised.The release of the iPad might change people's perceptions of that when it comes to iPhone OS - there's already a pretty severe fragmentation happening here, but people tend not to realize unless they use certain functionality.
Games depending on high framerates.
Or phone functionality.
Or a compass.
Or whatever.Fragmentation when it comes to mobile devices is pretty much inevitable.
If you didn't expect that, you're an idiot.
At least Android tries to be helpful and points that out right in it's developer documentation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246276</id>
	<title>Fast Time to Market</title>
	<author>mpapet</author>
	<datestamp>1266948780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and compatibility are two conflicting goals.</p><p>The fault lies with Google.  They need to step up and either enforce *some* kinds of compatibility.</p><p>The devs at the mobile phone brands certainly don't have the time allocated to being compatible with their competitors phones.  The executive staff would have apoplectic fits of rage if *they* had to bear the burden of maintaining compatibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and compatibility are two conflicting goals.The fault lies with Google .
They need to step up and either enforce * some * kinds of compatibility.The devs at the mobile phone brands certainly do n't have the time allocated to being compatible with their competitors phones .
The executive staff would have apoplectic fits of rage if * they * had to bear the burden of maintaining compatibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and compatibility are two conflicting goals.The fault lies with Google.
They need to step up and either enforce *some* kinds of compatibility.The devs at the mobile phone brands certainly don't have the time allocated to being compatible with their competitors phones.
The executive staff would have apoplectic fits of rage if *they* had to bear the burden of maintaining compatibility.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31257256</id>
	<title>Re:The main problem is that 1.5 even STILL EXISTS</title>
	<author>webreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1265108580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the solution is what - Google should wait 5 years between OS upgrades? In which case people would be complaining that Google never updates the functionality.

</p><p>Phones are not computers. Most people upgrade their phones annually, and a lot of consumers don't know about or expect an OS upgrade during that time. I think you're over-egging the pudding on this.

</p><p>And besides, I still use XP despite Vista and W7 being released in the last few years. XP works just fine, thanks. And the same goes for Android - I know plenty of people for whom 1.6 is just perfect. 2.0 would be nice, but it's not essential.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the solution is what - Google should wait 5 years between OS upgrades ?
In which case people would be complaining that Google never updates the functionality .
Phones are not computers .
Most people upgrade their phones annually , and a lot of consumers do n't know about or expect an OS upgrade during that time .
I think you 're over-egging the pudding on this .
And besides , I still use XP despite Vista and W7 being released in the last few years .
XP works just fine , thanks .
And the same goes for Android - I know plenty of people for whom 1.6 is just perfect .
2.0 would be nice , but it 's not essential .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the solution is what - Google should wait 5 years between OS upgrades?
In which case people would be complaining that Google never updates the functionality.
Phones are not computers.
Most people upgrade their phones annually, and a lot of consumers don't know about or expect an OS upgrade during that time.
I think you're over-egging the pudding on this.
And besides, I still use XP despite Vista and W7 being released in the last few years.
XP works just fine, thanks.
And the same goes for Android - I know plenty of people for whom 1.6 is just perfect.
2.0 would be nice, but it's not essential.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245740</id>
	<title>Just like desktop linux.</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1266947040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is essentially the same problem that desktop linux has.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is essentially the same problem that desktop linux has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is essentially the same problem that desktop linux has.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246218</id>
	<title>Choice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266948420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep, that's why I'm going today to get my iPhone on the Verizon network....oh, wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , that 's why I 'm going today to get my iPhone on the Verizon network....oh , wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, that's why I'm going today to get my iPhone on the Verizon network....oh, wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245914</id>
	<title>Re:Just like desktop linux.</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1266947520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This is essentially the same problem that desktop linux has.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
The same problem, and the same strength.
</p><p>
Centralized has some advantages over decentralized, and some disadvantages.  If linux were just RedHat, it could never have become Ubuntu.  On the other hand, it's frustrating when even copy/paste doesn't always work<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is essentially the same problem that desktop linux has .
The same problem , and the same strength .
Centralized has some advantages over decentralized , and some disadvantages .
If linux were just RedHat , it could never have become Ubuntu .
On the other hand , it 's frustrating when even copy/paste does n't always work : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is essentially the same problem that desktop linux has.
The same problem, and the same strength.
Centralized has some advantages over decentralized, and some disadvantages.
If linux were just RedHat, it could never have become Ubuntu.
On the other hand, it's frustrating when even copy/paste doesn't always work :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245900</id>
	<title>This is EXACTLY why I don't have an andoid phone..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266947460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The proliferating, incompatible versions is precisely why I don't have an android powered smartphone.  I really like Verizon's service (thus no iPhone: AT&amp;T == Satan), but the Android phones are scattered and disjoint: they all look different, they all are different, and I'd hate to develop on them because its worse than windows: a proliferating set of devices, all different and all inconsistent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The proliferating , incompatible versions is precisely why I do n't have an android powered smartphone .
I really like Verizon 's service ( thus no iPhone : AT&amp;T = = Satan ) , but the Android phones are scattered and disjoint : they all look different , they all are different , and I 'd hate to develop on them because its worse than windows : a proliferating set of devices , all different and all inconsistent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The proliferating, incompatible versions is precisely why I don't have an android powered smartphone.
I really like Verizon's service (thus no iPhone: AT&amp;T == Satan), but the Android phones are scattered and disjoint: they all look different, they all are different, and I'd hate to develop on them because its worse than windows: a proliferating set of devices, all different and all inconsistent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246362</id>
	<title>No arguments again...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266949020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same situation is with Symbian. And? There are plenty of apps, and plenty of phones with symbian (uiq3, 6.0, etc.) which are not compatible. Though devs somehow manage it. And if vendor X does not release an application Y, vendor Z does. I've had my SE M600i phone for almost three years, and got almost all the applications i needed.</p><p>Now i own a motorola milestone. and it's fantastic.I don't care if Nexus supports some apps that milestone does not, or vice versa. I've got almost every application i needed. Though maybe i'm not a regular user? i don't need applications that whistle, make noises or "poop"</p><p>And the article<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. it only mentions Iphone, Blackberry, but hey, Nokia has around 40\% of mobile market share. and hey, they make A LOT  of phones running symbian. Post some real arguments. Uh wait.. but this is slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same situation is with Symbian .
And ? There are plenty of apps , and plenty of phones with symbian ( uiq3 , 6.0 , etc .
) which are not compatible .
Though devs somehow manage it .
And if vendor X does not release an application Y , vendor Z does .
I 've had my SE M600i phone for almost three years , and got almost all the applications i needed.Now i own a motorola milestone .
and it 's fantastic.I do n't care if Nexus supports some apps that milestone does not , or vice versa .
I 've got almost every application i needed .
Though maybe i 'm not a regular user ?
i do n't need applications that whistle , make noises or " poop " And the article .. it only mentions Iphone , Blackberry , but hey , Nokia has around 40 \ % of mobile market share .
and hey , they make A LOT of phones running symbian .
Post some real arguments .
Uh wait.. but this is slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same situation is with Symbian.
And? There are plenty of apps, and plenty of phones with symbian (uiq3, 6.0, etc.
) which are not compatible.
Though devs somehow manage it.
And if vendor X does not release an application Y, vendor Z does.
I've had my SE M600i phone for almost three years, and got almost all the applications i needed.Now i own a motorola milestone.
and it's fantastic.I don't care if Nexus supports some apps that milestone does not, or vice versa.
I've got almost every application i needed.
Though maybe i'm not a regular user?
i don't need applications that whistle, make noises or "poop"And the article .. it only mentions Iphone, Blackberry, but hey, Nokia has around 40\% of mobile market share.
and hey, they make A LOT  of phones running symbian.
Post some real arguments.
Uh wait.. but this is slashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31249024</id>
	<title>Gruman needs to get a grip with reality</title>
	<author>recharged95</author>
	<datestamp>1266957900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Has there even been a time when devices <i>were</i> compatible!!???
<br>
<br>
Palm devices weren't completely 1-to-1 with Handspring devices. When Treo cellphones came out, compatibility was out the door.
<p>Then Symbian had it's own thing and Nokia pushed out different S-versions.
</p><p>Microsoft PPC, Windows Mobile, Windows CF? Hello?
</p><p>Apple? I can't run apps on my iPod unless I paid the stupid 9.99 fee? And iTunes complains all the time from that... Look at the 2.1 to 3.0 SDK mess/update. Same deal!
</p><p>Mameo? It's linux, it's been forked, etc...
</p><p>Access?
</p><p>OpenMoko?
</p><p>Bada?
</p><p>Brew?
</p><p>J2ME? MIDP, CLDC, CDC..? What?
<br>
<br>
Yeah, if this guy thinks Android will make the mobile industry fragmented with devices, he must be smoking too much iPhone weeds. Seriously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has there even been a time when devices were compatible ! ! ? ? ?
Palm devices were n't completely 1-to-1 with Handspring devices .
When Treo cellphones came out , compatibility was out the door .
Then Symbian had it 's own thing and Nokia pushed out different S-versions .
Microsoft PPC , Windows Mobile , Windows CF ?
Hello ? Apple ?
I ca n't run apps on my iPod unless I paid the stupid 9.99 fee ?
And iTunes complains all the time from that... Look at the 2.1 to 3.0 SDK mess/update .
Same deal !
Mameo ? It 's linux , it 's been forked , etc.. . Access ? OpenMoko ?
Bada ? Brew ?
J2ME ? MIDP , CLDC , CDC.. ?
What ? Yeah , if this guy thinks Android will make the mobile industry fragmented with devices , he must be smoking too much iPhone weeds .
Seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has there even been a time when devices were compatible!!???
Palm devices weren't completely 1-to-1 with Handspring devices.
When Treo cellphones came out, compatibility was out the door.
Then Symbian had it's own thing and Nokia pushed out different S-versions.
Microsoft PPC, Windows Mobile, Windows CF?
Hello?
Apple?
I can't run apps on my iPod unless I paid the stupid 9.99 fee?
And iTunes complains all the time from that... Look at the 2.1 to 3.0 SDK mess/update.
Same deal!
Mameo? It's linux, it's been forked, etc...
Access?
OpenMoko?
Bada?
Brew?
J2ME? MIDP, CLDC, CDC..?
What?


Yeah, if this guy thinks Android will make the mobile industry fragmented with devices, he must be smoking too much iPhone weeds.
Seriously.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31252280</id>
	<title>The real wrold says the OP is wrong.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266927000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have used a number of the "newer" devices including the X10, desire and others that I cant name. All of these have been pre-release. I have installed literally hundreds of apps via the marketplace and have had exactly one problem (one app assumed a physical navigation mechanism and this did not work on X10).</p><p>In short - Android does an amazing job on cross-device support of apps. I hope this continues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have used a number of the " newer " devices including the X10 , desire and others that I cant name .
All of these have been pre-release .
I have installed literally hundreds of apps via the marketplace and have had exactly one problem ( one app assumed a physical navigation mechanism and this did not work on X10 ) .In short - Android does an amazing job on cross-device support of apps .
I hope this continues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have used a number of the "newer" devices including the X10, desire and others that I cant name.
All of these have been pre-release.
I have installed literally hundreds of apps via the marketplace and have had exactly one problem (one app assumed a physical navigation mechanism and this did not work on X10).In short - Android does an amazing job on cross-device support of apps.
I hope this continues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247116</id>
	<title>Re:This is EXACTLY why I don't have an andoid phon</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1266951600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, you think AT&amp;T is evil, compared to Verizon?</p><p>Let me tell you, for 3 of the last 4 years, we had phones in my house from both companies.  Verizon because my Mother-in law thought she'd be nice, and commit my wife and I to a 2 year contract on a phone so she and my wife could take for free (not that i could not already call her free on VoIP, so really she bought my wife a gift to save herself money at our expense).  I had AT&amp;T provided by the office, and later got an iPhone.</p><p>Let me clue you in on some of the discrepancies between these 2 companies I've experienced:<br>1) Verizon has a data plan cap on their unlimited plan, and RIDICULOUS overage charges.  AT&amp;T has a "soft cap" at 5GB, has no overage charges, and has not disconnected or throttled a single known customer for exceeding the cap (even given the network strain).<br>2) Verizon doubled its termination fees recently, on devices AT&amp;T also sells with the same subsidies.  AT&amp;T has mode no move to change, and the FCC and FTC are crawling up Verizon's back over the policy.<br>3) Verizon's adds are all about those great multitasking devices, but they fail to mention in any literature or media that those devices come strictly limited to voice and data use independently, meaning you can't use GPS and take a call at the same time, or be on a call and look something up, a CORE FEATURE of those platforms.<br>4) Verizon embeds custom firmware in 3rd party devices, disabling advertised hardware features so they can charge for their own services.  For example, on most of their camera phones (including all of them from Motorola I'm aware of), have the ability to sync with a PC over both a cable and bluetooth, but Verizon hacked the firmware to explicitly forbid this, in favor of a fee based service to "send yourself" images through their network at $0.29 each, and they didn't even bother to take the "PC sync cable sold separately" line off their OWN BOX (not Moto's box, completely Verizon's branded box).  After we lodged a complaint with tech support, and after repeated, and repeated failed call backs, we finally were told Verizon would never sell that cable, but oops, you've had that device over 14 days now, so you can't return it without a huge contract penalty...<br>5) Billing for the next full utilized minute.  You make a call for 30 seconds, 2 minutes are charged...<br>6) No ability what so ever to disable text messaging on any phone that supports it on Verizon.  AT&amp;T offers both a filtering service for a fee as well as a similar service at no charge if you get inundated with too many unsolicited texts, and you can also simply outright have text disabled completely.<br>7) Strict 2 year handset replacement policy.  After 2 years, the new phone is only (up to) $200 off, not $400 off like a new iPhone, and you're still locked into a 2 year renewal anyway.  New subscribers get a better deal than existing ones.<br>8) automatic contract renewal for a variety of things:  Add a new line to an existing contract, even with a pre-existing phone, resets to 2 years, even if you were more than a year in on the existing line, changing plans extends contracts in many cases, replace a broken phone mid way through by any means other than their own (deductible incurring) additional warranty extends the contract, etc.<br>9) no rollover minutes.<br>10) extra charge for using ActiveSync or BES, even to YOUR OWN SERVERS, which have NOTHING to do with Verizon other than using their data channel.</p><p>I can go on.</p><p>AT&amp;T may be a tad dishonest in it's ads (questionably), but so are all the others.  AT&amp;T's up front pricing is the same or lower than Verizon's across the board.  Their network issues have nothing to do with their network, but with available FCC frequency and they readily admit that (btw, Verizon and Sprint are having the SAME issues, you just don't hear about it as much since they're not iPhone-hater targets).  AT&amp;T may be a hotly hated company, and they certainly have their share of issues I can't defend them for, but they're practically SAINTS compared to how Verizon treats their customers.  Don't even get me started on Fios...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , you think AT&amp;T is evil , compared to Verizon ? Let me tell you , for 3 of the last 4 years , we had phones in my house from both companies .
Verizon because my Mother-in law thought she 'd be nice , and commit my wife and I to a 2 year contract on a phone so she and my wife could take for free ( not that i could not already call her free on VoIP , so really she bought my wife a gift to save herself money at our expense ) .
I had AT&amp;T provided by the office , and later got an iPhone.Let me clue you in on some of the discrepancies between these 2 companies I 've experienced : 1 ) Verizon has a data plan cap on their unlimited plan , and RIDICULOUS overage charges .
AT&amp;T has a " soft cap " at 5GB , has no overage charges , and has not disconnected or throttled a single known customer for exceeding the cap ( even given the network strain ) .2 ) Verizon doubled its termination fees recently , on devices AT&amp;T also sells with the same subsidies .
AT&amp;T has mode no move to change , and the FCC and FTC are crawling up Verizon 's back over the policy.3 ) Verizon 's adds are all about those great multitasking devices , but they fail to mention in any literature or media that those devices come strictly limited to voice and data use independently , meaning you ca n't use GPS and take a call at the same time , or be on a call and look something up , a CORE FEATURE of those platforms.4 ) Verizon embeds custom firmware in 3rd party devices , disabling advertised hardware features so they can charge for their own services .
For example , on most of their camera phones ( including all of them from Motorola I 'm aware of ) , have the ability to sync with a PC over both a cable and bluetooth , but Verizon hacked the firmware to explicitly forbid this , in favor of a fee based service to " send yourself " images through their network at $ 0.29 each , and they did n't even bother to take the " PC sync cable sold separately " line off their OWN BOX ( not Moto 's box , completely Verizon 's branded box ) .
After we lodged a complaint with tech support , and after repeated , and repeated failed call backs , we finally were told Verizon would never sell that cable , but oops , you 've had that device over 14 days now , so you ca n't return it without a huge contract penalty...5 ) Billing for the next full utilized minute .
You make a call for 30 seconds , 2 minutes are charged...6 ) No ability what so ever to disable text messaging on any phone that supports it on Verizon .
AT&amp;T offers both a filtering service for a fee as well as a similar service at no charge if you get inundated with too many unsolicited texts , and you can also simply outright have text disabled completely.7 ) Strict 2 year handset replacement policy .
After 2 years , the new phone is only ( up to ) $ 200 off , not $ 400 off like a new iPhone , and you 're still locked into a 2 year renewal anyway .
New subscribers get a better deal than existing ones.8 ) automatic contract renewal for a variety of things : Add a new line to an existing contract , even with a pre-existing phone , resets to 2 years , even if you were more than a year in on the existing line , changing plans extends contracts in many cases , replace a broken phone mid way through by any means other than their own ( deductible incurring ) additional warranty extends the contract , etc.9 ) no rollover minutes.10 ) extra charge for using ActiveSync or BES , even to YOUR OWN SERVERS , which have NOTHING to do with Verizon other than using their data channel.I can go on.AT&amp;T may be a tad dishonest in it 's ads ( questionably ) , but so are all the others .
AT&amp;T 's up front pricing is the same or lower than Verizon 's across the board .
Their network issues have nothing to do with their network , but with available FCC frequency and they readily admit that ( btw , Verizon and Sprint are having the SAME issues , you just do n't hear about it as much since they 're not iPhone-hater targets ) .
AT&amp;T may be a hotly hated company , and they certainly have their share of issues I ca n't defend them for , but they 're practically SAINTS compared to how Verizon treats their customers .
Do n't even get me started on Fios.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, you think AT&amp;T is evil, compared to Verizon?Let me tell you, for 3 of the last 4 years, we had phones in my house from both companies.
Verizon because my Mother-in law thought she'd be nice, and commit my wife and I to a 2 year contract on a phone so she and my wife could take for free (not that i could not already call her free on VoIP, so really she bought my wife a gift to save herself money at our expense).
I had AT&amp;T provided by the office, and later got an iPhone.Let me clue you in on some of the discrepancies between these 2 companies I've experienced:1) Verizon has a data plan cap on their unlimited plan, and RIDICULOUS overage charges.
AT&amp;T has a "soft cap" at 5GB, has no overage charges, and has not disconnected or throttled a single known customer for exceeding the cap (even given the network strain).2) Verizon doubled its termination fees recently, on devices AT&amp;T also sells with the same subsidies.
AT&amp;T has mode no move to change, and the FCC and FTC are crawling up Verizon's back over the policy.3) Verizon's adds are all about those great multitasking devices, but they fail to mention in any literature or media that those devices come strictly limited to voice and data use independently, meaning you can't use GPS and take a call at the same time, or be on a call and look something up, a CORE FEATURE of those platforms.4) Verizon embeds custom firmware in 3rd party devices, disabling advertised hardware features so they can charge for their own services.
For example, on most of their camera phones (including all of them from Motorola I'm aware of), have the ability to sync with a PC over both a cable and bluetooth, but Verizon hacked the firmware to explicitly forbid this, in favor of a fee based service to "send yourself" images through their network at $0.29 each, and they didn't even bother to take the "PC sync cable sold separately" line off their OWN BOX (not Moto's box, completely Verizon's branded box).
After we lodged a complaint with tech support, and after repeated, and repeated failed call backs, we finally were told Verizon would never sell that cable, but oops, you've had that device over 14 days now, so you can't return it without a huge contract penalty...5) Billing for the next full utilized minute.
You make a call for 30 seconds, 2 minutes are charged...6) No ability what so ever to disable text messaging on any phone that supports it on Verizon.
AT&amp;T offers both a filtering service for a fee as well as a similar service at no charge if you get inundated with too many unsolicited texts, and you can also simply outright have text disabled completely.7) Strict 2 year handset replacement policy.
After 2 years, the new phone is only (up to) $200 off, not $400 off like a new iPhone, and you're still locked into a 2 year renewal anyway.
New subscribers get a better deal than existing ones.8) automatic contract renewal for a variety of things:  Add a new line to an existing contract, even with a pre-existing phone, resets to 2 years, even if you were more than a year in on the existing line, changing plans extends contracts in many cases, replace a broken phone mid way through by any means other than their own (deductible incurring) additional warranty extends the contract, etc.9) no rollover minutes.10) extra charge for using ActiveSync or BES, even to YOUR OWN SERVERS, which have NOTHING to do with Verizon other than using their data channel.I can go on.AT&amp;T may be a tad dishonest in it's ads (questionably), but so are all the others.
AT&amp;T's up front pricing is the same or lower than Verizon's across the board.
Their network issues have nothing to do with their network, but with available FCC frequency and they readily admit that (btw, Verizon and Sprint are having the SAME issues, you just don't hear about it as much since they're not iPhone-hater targets).
AT&amp;T may be a hotly hated company, and they certainly have their share of issues I can't defend them for, but they're practically SAINTS compared to how Verizon treats their customers.
Don't even get me started on Fios...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248946</id>
	<title>Android:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1266957720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Write once &mdash; run nowhere.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Write once    run nowhere .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Write once — run nowhere.
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31249270</id>
	<title>Re:Yep. Android's cool, BUT</title>
	<author>naturaverl</author>
	<datestamp>1266958620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think you should worry about not being able to find new apps after a year.  Here's why:

The same motivation (financial or otherwise) that caused the developer to write the app in the first place is likely also going to motivate the developer to have the largest userbase possible.  At present, there are still a lot of 1.5 devices out there.  Any developer with a good app should want a piece of that, so they'll likely target 1.5 and 2.0.

After a year when nobody is still selling devices with 1.5, there will still be a significant amount of 1.5 devices in use.  After a couple of years the percentages will be lower for sure, but by then you would have either been updated to 1.6, or even 2.x on your current hardware, or you could go buy a new phone.  After a couple of years it's pretty much time to upgrade anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think you should worry about not being able to find new apps after a year .
Here 's why : The same motivation ( financial or otherwise ) that caused the developer to write the app in the first place is likely also going to motivate the developer to have the largest userbase possible .
At present , there are still a lot of 1.5 devices out there .
Any developer with a good app should want a piece of that , so they 'll likely target 1.5 and 2.0 .
After a year when nobody is still selling devices with 1.5 , there will still be a significant amount of 1.5 devices in use .
After a couple of years the percentages will be lower for sure , but by then you would have either been updated to 1.6 , or even 2.x on your current hardware , or you could go buy a new phone .
After a couple of years it 's pretty much time to upgrade anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think you should worry about not being able to find new apps after a year.
Here's why:

The same motivation (financial or otherwise) that caused the developer to write the app in the first place is likely also going to motivate the developer to have the largest userbase possible.
At present, there are still a lot of 1.5 devices out there.
Any developer with a good app should want a piece of that, so they'll likely target 1.5 and 2.0.
After a year when nobody is still selling devices with 1.5, there will still be a significant amount of 1.5 devices in use.
After a couple of years the percentages will be lower for sure, but by then you would have either been updated to 1.6, or even 2.x on your current hardware, or you could go buy a new phone.
After a couple of years it's pretty much time to upgrade anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245956</id>
	<title>Growing pains, not worsethan older phones</title>
	<author>Coopjust</author>
	<datestamp>1266947640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The idea of Android isn't bad - far from it. From what I've seen, HTC's software was pretty shoddy before Anrdoid, but the hardware was solid, for instance. And while I don't own an Android device, I have used it and heard great feedback from friends.
<br> <br>
Google's rules on Android are important, because Google has reached a fork in the road.<ul> <li>Google can continue to keep Android very free in its usage terms. ODMs will continue to like and adapt the OS to their devices, but they may provide custom interfaces, choose not to release upgrades for the phone OS. Inconsistency may drive people away.</li>
<li>Google restricts the terms of usage, sets forth rules on UI consistency, upgrades, etc...this provides a more consistent experience but may scare device makers away.</li></ul><p>Google might do the former now (to spur adoption) and the latter later, once everyone is using the OS. It's tough to say, because if Google tries to tighten control too early, they'll lose their support, while if they're too late, people may have already given up on developing for the platform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea of Android is n't bad - far from it .
From what I 've seen , HTC 's software was pretty shoddy before Anrdoid , but the hardware was solid , for instance .
And while I do n't own an Android device , I have used it and heard great feedback from friends .
Google 's rules on Android are important , because Google has reached a fork in the road .
Google can continue to keep Android very free in its usage terms .
ODMs will continue to like and adapt the OS to their devices , but they may provide custom interfaces , choose not to release upgrades for the phone OS .
Inconsistency may drive people away .
Google restricts the terms of usage , sets forth rules on UI consistency , upgrades , etc...this provides a more consistent experience but may scare device makers away.Google might do the former now ( to spur adoption ) and the latter later , once everyone is using the OS .
It 's tough to say , because if Google tries to tighten control too early , they 'll lose their support , while if they 're too late , people may have already given up on developing for the platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea of Android isn't bad - far from it.
From what I've seen, HTC's software was pretty shoddy before Anrdoid, but the hardware was solid, for instance.
And while I don't own an Android device, I have used it and heard great feedback from friends.
Google's rules on Android are important, because Google has reached a fork in the road.
Google can continue to keep Android very free in its usage terms.
ODMs will continue to like and adapt the OS to their devices, but they may provide custom interfaces, choose not to release upgrades for the phone OS.
Inconsistency may drive people away.
Google restricts the terms of usage, sets forth rules on UI consistency, upgrades, etc...this provides a more consistent experience but may scare device makers away.Google might do the former now (to spur adoption) and the latter later, once everyone is using the OS.
It's tough to say, because if Google tries to tighten control too early, they'll lose their support, while if they're too late, people may have already given up on developing for the platform.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245860</id>
	<title>This was predictable ...</title>
	<author>WrongSizeGlass</author>
	<datestamp>1266947400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... since all the manufacturers were waiting for Google's customer support to call them back with 'compatibility information'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... since all the manufacturers were waiting for Google 's customer support to call them back with 'compatibility information' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... since all the manufacturers were waiting for Google's customer support to call them back with 'compatibility information'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31254106</id>
	<title>Re:Yep. Android's cool, BUT</title>
	<author>BatGnat</author>
	<datestamp>1266936060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/samsung-galaxy-i7500-getting-android-2-1-in-q2-668322" title="techradar.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/samsung-galaxy-i7500-getting-android-2-1-in-q2-668322</a> [techradar.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/samsung-galaxy-i7500-getting-android-2-1-in-q2-668322 [ techradar.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/samsung-galaxy-i7500-getting-android-2-1-in-q2-668322 [techradar.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246062</id>
	<title>Re:no upgrades??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266947880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summary talks about the upgrade strategy for the OS and apps on phones in general, not about the OS update feature. Basically, some phones may break if Android updates and some applications may have problems or fail. For the user of a given phone, they don't know what version they should have and never know if all the apps provided with their particular phone will continue to work as their OS updates.Google did fine with their update feature, but the marketplace is a jumble right now leading to uncertainty whether a "Android" application will work on a particular phone and if a phone will work with a particular Android OS update.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary talks about the upgrade strategy for the OS and apps on phones in general , not about the OS update feature .
Basically , some phones may break if Android updates and some applications may have problems or fail .
For the user of a given phone , they do n't know what version they should have and never know if all the apps provided with their particular phone will continue to work as their OS updates.Google did fine with their update feature , but the marketplace is a jumble right now leading to uncertainty whether a " Android " application will work on a particular phone and if a phone will work with a particular Android OS update .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary talks about the upgrade strategy for the OS and apps on phones in general, not about the OS update feature.
Basically, some phones may break if Android updates and some applications may have problems or fail.
For the user of a given phone, they don't know what version they should have and never know if all the apps provided with their particular phone will continue to work as their OS updates.Google did fine with their update feature, but the marketplace is a jumble right now leading to uncertainty whether a "Android" application will work on a particular phone and if a phone will work with a particular Android OS update.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31256704</id>
	<title>FUD</title>
	<author>jilles</author>
	<datestamp>1265101980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This kind of criticism has been popping up repeatedly regarding Android. Most of these reports are speculative and seem to be ignoring the facts, which are that:</p><p>1) There are hardly any vendor specific Android SDKs, everybody gets their SDK from Google. Apparently this is not causing any problems with respect to compatibility between the included emulator and device compatibility. If this was an issue, people would be downloading vendor specific APIs to work around the problem. As it is, they are not. It's a non issue. It just works.<br>2) Most speculative pieces like the hardly original one cited here on compatibility come without any concrete examples whatsoever: which popular Android applications are actually problematic? Where are the hordes of disgruntled users? What's the actual technical analysis of the underlying causes? Where are the device specific applications?<br>3) Barring documented differences, the Android platform is actually backwards compatible. So if you want to target Android 1.6-2.1, don't use any features introduced after 1.6 or make the use of those features optional.<br>4) So far the first available Android device, i.e. the G1, has been updated to the latest Android version. Not right away of course, but the fact is that most Android devices in the market are 1.6 or newer either because they shipped like that or because they have been upgraded at some point.<br>5) The predominant application development platform on the Android phone is Java. What you think you might know about compatibility and native platforms simply does not apply to a proper Java platform covered in unit tests like Android. By and large backwards compatibility is a complete non issue. See 2. If you have evidence suggesting otherwise, share it. If it's not backwards compatible, your unit tests fail and you fix the problem. It's that simple.<br>6) Most other vendors address this issue by not licensing their platforms to others (e.g. RIM) and shipping only a handful of devices (Apple) or regularly breaking compatibility (MS). Given the competition, Google is actually doing pretty decent shipping a platform that runs on dozens of devices from dozens of vendors. Windows mobile is the closest thing in terms of breadth and we all love windows mobile for its excellent compatibility track record right? (NOT<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) ). The failure of other vendors to address this issue is what has been driving Android growth in the past year.<br>7) Of course there are bad devices out there and vendors with bad software update policies. SE shipping a 1.6 device at this point in time is illustrative of their poor strategy. Their inability to get this device out of the door is testimony to their incompetence. Their declining market share is well deserved. Don't blame Google for that though.<br>8) The practice of forking code, which is what some vendors do, is bad for compatibility and time to market. This is true for any piece of software. If you are going to get an Android device, make sure it is running Android 2.x and that the vendor in question has a track record of supporting their devices in the field with updates. Extensive vendor or operator specific customizations mean significant delays between getting updates on your device and increased dependence on a probably not so competent development team.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This kind of criticism has been popping up repeatedly regarding Android .
Most of these reports are speculative and seem to be ignoring the facts , which are that : 1 ) There are hardly any vendor specific Android SDKs , everybody gets their SDK from Google .
Apparently this is not causing any problems with respect to compatibility between the included emulator and device compatibility .
If this was an issue , people would be downloading vendor specific APIs to work around the problem .
As it is , they are not .
It 's a non issue .
It just works.2 ) Most speculative pieces like the hardly original one cited here on compatibility come without any concrete examples whatsoever : which popular Android applications are actually problematic ?
Where are the hordes of disgruntled users ?
What 's the actual technical analysis of the underlying causes ?
Where are the device specific applications ? 3 ) Barring documented differences , the Android platform is actually backwards compatible .
So if you want to target Android 1.6-2.1 , do n't use any features introduced after 1.6 or make the use of those features optional.4 ) So far the first available Android device , i.e .
the G1 , has been updated to the latest Android version .
Not right away of course , but the fact is that most Android devices in the market are 1.6 or newer either because they shipped like that or because they have been upgraded at some point.5 ) The predominant application development platform on the Android phone is Java .
What you think you might know about compatibility and native platforms simply does not apply to a proper Java platform covered in unit tests like Android .
By and large backwards compatibility is a complete non issue .
See 2 .
If you have evidence suggesting otherwise , share it .
If it 's not backwards compatible , your unit tests fail and you fix the problem .
It 's that simple.6 ) Most other vendors address this issue by not licensing their platforms to others ( e.g .
RIM ) and shipping only a handful of devices ( Apple ) or regularly breaking compatibility ( MS ) .
Given the competition , Google is actually doing pretty decent shipping a platform that runs on dozens of devices from dozens of vendors .
Windows mobile is the closest thing in terms of breadth and we all love windows mobile for its excellent compatibility track record right ?
( NOT : - ) ) .
The failure of other vendors to address this issue is what has been driving Android growth in the past year.7 ) Of course there are bad devices out there and vendors with bad software update policies .
SE shipping a 1.6 device at this point in time is illustrative of their poor strategy .
Their inability to get this device out of the door is testimony to their incompetence .
Their declining market share is well deserved .
Do n't blame Google for that though.8 ) The practice of forking code , which is what some vendors do , is bad for compatibility and time to market .
This is true for any piece of software .
If you are going to get an Android device , make sure it is running Android 2.x and that the vendor in question has a track record of supporting their devices in the field with updates .
Extensive vendor or operator specific customizations mean significant delays between getting updates on your device and increased dependence on a probably not so competent development team .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This kind of criticism has been popping up repeatedly regarding Android.
Most of these reports are speculative and seem to be ignoring the facts, which are that:1) There are hardly any vendor specific Android SDKs, everybody gets their SDK from Google.
Apparently this is not causing any problems with respect to compatibility between the included emulator and device compatibility.
If this was an issue, people would be downloading vendor specific APIs to work around the problem.
As it is, they are not.
It's a non issue.
It just works.2) Most speculative pieces like the hardly original one cited here on compatibility come without any concrete examples whatsoever: which popular Android applications are actually problematic?
Where are the hordes of disgruntled users?
What's the actual technical analysis of the underlying causes?
Where are the device specific applications?3) Barring documented differences, the Android platform is actually backwards compatible.
So if you want to target Android 1.6-2.1, don't use any features introduced after 1.6 or make the use of those features optional.4) So far the first available Android device, i.e.
the G1, has been updated to the latest Android version.
Not right away of course, but the fact is that most Android devices in the market are 1.6 or newer either because they shipped like that or because they have been upgraded at some point.5) The predominant application development platform on the Android phone is Java.
What you think you might know about compatibility and native platforms simply does not apply to a proper Java platform covered in unit tests like Android.
By and large backwards compatibility is a complete non issue.
See 2.
If you have evidence suggesting otherwise, share it.
If it's not backwards compatible, your unit tests fail and you fix the problem.
It's that simple.6) Most other vendors address this issue by not licensing their platforms to others (e.g.
RIM) and shipping only a handful of devices (Apple) or regularly breaking compatibility (MS).
Given the competition, Google is actually doing pretty decent shipping a platform that runs on dozens of devices from dozens of vendors.
Windows mobile is the closest thing in terms of breadth and we all love windows mobile for its excellent compatibility track record right?
(NOT :-) ).
The failure of other vendors to address this issue is what has been driving Android growth in the past year.7) Of course there are bad devices out there and vendors with bad software update policies.
SE shipping a 1.6 device at this point in time is illustrative of their poor strategy.
Their inability to get this device out of the door is testimony to their incompetence.
Their declining market share is well deserved.
Don't blame Google for that though.8) The practice of forking code, which is what some vendors do, is bad for compatibility and time to market.
This is true for any piece of software.
If you are going to get an Android device, make sure it is running Android 2.x and that the vendor in question has a track record of supporting their devices in the field with updates.
Extensive vendor or operator specific customizations mean significant delays between getting updates on your device and increased dependence on a probably not so competent development team.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31263338</id>
	<title>Re:The main problem is that 1.5 even STILL EXISTS</title>
	<author>Deosyne</author>
	<datestamp>1265143020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your life will probably be much more satisfying if you start to buy products based upon what they do today and not what you think that they'll do someday based upon what other products do.</p><p>I'm looking forward to the official 2.1 release from Motorola/Verizon for my Droid, but it isn't like my Droid magically became any less functional when the Nexus One came out with Android 2.1 installed on it. It's does exactly what I bought it to do and is still pretty freakin' awesome, and gets more awesome all the time as I find or make new apps that become a regular part of my usage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your life will probably be much more satisfying if you start to buy products based upon what they do today and not what you think that they 'll do someday based upon what other products do.I 'm looking forward to the official 2.1 release from Motorola/Verizon for my Droid , but it is n't like my Droid magically became any less functional when the Nexus One came out with Android 2.1 installed on it .
It 's does exactly what I bought it to do and is still pretty freakin ' awesome , and gets more awesome all the time as I find or make new apps that become a regular part of my usage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your life will probably be much more satisfying if you start to buy products based upon what they do today and not what you think that they'll do someday based upon what other products do.I'm looking forward to the official 2.1 release from Motorola/Verizon for my Droid, but it isn't like my Droid magically became any less functional when the Nexus One came out with Android 2.1 installed on it.
It's does exactly what I bought it to do and is still pretty freakin' awesome, and gets more awesome all the time as I find or make new apps that become a regular part of my usage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245870</id>
	<title>Perhaps</title>
	<author>zogger</author>
	<datestamp>1266947400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps what is needed is the benevolent dictator model, before something can be called "android".</p><p>Perhaps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps what is needed is the benevolent dictator model , before something can be called " android " .Perhaps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps what is needed is the benevolent dictator model, before something can be called "android".Perhaps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247120</id>
	<title>Re:Wasn't JAVA supposed to prevent this?</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1266951600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why isn't JAVA (or some JAVA-like byte code embedded language) being used to address this- wasn't that the point of JAVA? I am not a CS guy, so maybe somebody can clue me in.

JP</p></div><p>Even though the byte-code is compatible across devices, the features invoked by that byte code may or may not be present for a given device; or a given OS version.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is n't JAVA ( or some JAVA-like byte code embedded language ) being used to address this- was n't that the point of JAVA ?
I am not a CS guy , so maybe somebody can clue me in .
JPEven though the byte-code is compatible across devices , the features invoked by that byte code may or may not be present for a given device ; or a given OS version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why isn't JAVA (or some JAVA-like byte code embedded language) being used to address this- wasn't that the point of JAVA?
I am not a CS guy, so maybe somebody can clue me in.
JPEven though the byte-code is compatible across devices, the features invoked by that byte code may or may not be present for a given device; or a given OS version.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246096</id>
	<title>Re:no upgrades??</title>
	<author>Mr.Bananas</author>
	<datestamp>1266948000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Um... I think by "easily upgrade" you mean "easily upgrade to any level sanctioned by your mobile carrier."  For example, the Samsung Moment is stuck at version 1.5 right now until Sprint feels like letting its users upgrade to 1.6.  The G1 I think is at 1.6 by now, but only after T-Mobile felt like issuing updates.  Meanwhile the Droid is at 2.0 until Verizon feels like rolling 2.1, and the Nexus One is at 2.1, which is currently the latest version.<br>
<br>
So... yeah, the article raises a good point.  It also highlights one of the benefits of rooting your phone- the *real* open source community behind Android is the modders, which try their best to keep your phone at the highest level of Android the hardware can take.  I think the Android OS has incredible potential at the end of the day to really be something special, but standardization may be one of its biggest roadblocks.  The steadily loosening death-grip of the carriers needs to completely go away, though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um... I think by " easily upgrade " you mean " easily upgrade to any level sanctioned by your mobile carrier .
" For example , the Samsung Moment is stuck at version 1.5 right now until Sprint feels like letting its users upgrade to 1.6 .
The G1 I think is at 1.6 by now , but only after T-Mobile felt like issuing updates .
Meanwhile the Droid is at 2.0 until Verizon feels like rolling 2.1 , and the Nexus One is at 2.1 , which is currently the latest version .
So... yeah , the article raises a good point .
It also highlights one of the benefits of rooting your phone- the * real * open source community behind Android is the modders , which try their best to keep your phone at the highest level of Android the hardware can take .
I think the Android OS has incredible potential at the end of the day to really be something special , but standardization may be one of its biggest roadblocks .
The steadily loosening death-grip of the carriers needs to completely go away , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um... I think by "easily upgrade" you mean "easily upgrade to any level sanctioned by your mobile carrier.
"  For example, the Samsung Moment is stuck at version 1.5 right now until Sprint feels like letting its users upgrade to 1.6.
The G1 I think is at 1.6 by now, but only after T-Mobile felt like issuing updates.
Meanwhile the Droid is at 2.0 until Verizon feels like rolling 2.1, and the Nexus One is at 2.1, which is currently the latest version.
So... yeah, the article raises a good point.
It also highlights one of the benefits of rooting your phone- the *real* open source community behind Android is the modders, which try their best to keep your phone at the highest level of Android the hardware can take.
I think the Android OS has incredible potential at the end of the day to really be something special, but standardization may be one of its biggest roadblocks.
The steadily loosening death-grip of the carriers needs to completely go away, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246742</id>
	<title>Re:no upgrades??</title>
	<author>kaiser423</author>
	<datestamp>1266950340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is why Google pumped out the Nexus One (N1).  It's a raw, native device.  If a new version of Android is released, just put it on your N1.  It will work.
<br> <br>
Everyone else has their own skin on top, and their own special "value added" apps, which in many cases are quite nice to have.  But then you're at the mercy of that company to update their stack and push it out to your phone.  With the N1 there's no "extras", there's no "value added", which adds value in that you don't have to worry about fragmentation; you just get the upgrade.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why Google pumped out the Nexus One ( N1 ) .
It 's a raw , native device .
If a new version of Android is released , just put it on your N1 .
It will work .
Everyone else has their own skin on top , and their own special " value added " apps , which in many cases are quite nice to have .
But then you 're at the mercy of that company to update their stack and push it out to your phone .
With the N1 there 's no " extras " , there 's no " value added " , which adds value in that you do n't have to worry about fragmentation ; you just get the upgrade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why Google pumped out the Nexus One (N1).
It's a raw, native device.
If a new version of Android is released, just put it on your N1.
It will work.
Everyone else has their own skin on top, and their own special "value added" apps, which in many cases are quite nice to have.
But then you're at the mercy of that company to update their stack and push it out to your phone.
With the N1 there's no "extras", there's no "value added", which adds value in that you don't have to worry about fragmentation; you just get the upgrade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246968</id>
	<title>You could run it unrooted on WinMo</title>
	<author>ircmaxell</author>
	<datestamp>1266951060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FTS:<blockquote><div><p>As reader donberryman points out, you can even put Android onto some Windows Mobile phones, now.</p></div></blockquote><p>

I had android (1.0) running on my UNROOTED winmo phone (AT&amp;T Tilt, HTC Tyan II) way back when the G1 JUST came out (early in 2008).  You booted into WinMo, then ran the kickstart app, and it unloaded WinMo, and booted Android.  It worked quite nice until I got my G1.  Why is the fact that you can load a ROM onto a rooted device even news (especially considering the OS has been running on those devices for nearly 2 years)?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTS : As reader donberryman points out , you can even put Android onto some Windows Mobile phones , now .
I had android ( 1.0 ) running on my UNROOTED winmo phone ( AT&amp;T Tilt , HTC Tyan II ) way back when the G1 JUST came out ( early in 2008 ) .
You booted into WinMo , then ran the kickstart app , and it unloaded WinMo , and booted Android .
It worked quite nice until I got my G1 .
Why is the fact that you can load a ROM onto a rooted device even news ( especially considering the OS has been running on those devices for nearly 2 years ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTS:As reader donberryman points out, you can even put Android onto some Windows Mobile phones, now.
I had android (1.0) running on my UNROOTED winmo phone (AT&amp;T Tilt, HTC Tyan II) way back when the G1 JUST came out (early in 2008).
You booted into WinMo, then ran the kickstart app, and it unloaded WinMo, and booted Android.
It worked quite nice until I got my G1.
Why is the fact that you can load a ROM onto a rooted device even news (especially considering the OS has been running on those devices for nearly 2 years)?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248214</id>
	<title>Re:no upgrades??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266955560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So it does small incremental upgrades, but there hasn't been a major version upgrade pushed this way, which is what this article is talking about</p></div><p>Not true if you include all Android phones. My G1 was upgraded over the air to 1.5 and then to 1.6.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So it does small incremental upgrades , but there has n't been a major version upgrade pushed this way , which is what this article is talking aboutNot true if you include all Android phones .
My G1 was upgraded over the air to 1.5 and then to 1.6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it does small incremental upgrades, but there hasn't been a major version upgrade pushed this way, which is what this article is talking aboutNot true if you include all Android phones.
My G1 was upgraded over the air to 1.5 and then to 1.6.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247742</id>
	<title>Need simple way to upgrade</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266953700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have an HTC Hero, and it runs 1.5<br>I can't upgrade before HTC sends out an update, and they are working on getting there sence UI to work.</p><p>If only Androind was more a basic system, and UI mobs was just a module.<br>Then you could upgrade the system to 1.6, 2.0, 2.1 X.xxx.  And the UI wold just work, maybe with a few quick changes.</p><p>But on that way people would upgrade faster</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have an HTC Hero , and it runs 1.5I ca n't upgrade before HTC sends out an update , and they are working on getting there sence UI to work.If only Androind was more a basic system , and UI mobs was just a module.Then you could upgrade the system to 1.6 , 2.0 , 2.1 X.xxx .
And the UI wold just work , maybe with a few quick changes.But on that way people would upgrade faster</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have an HTC Hero, and it runs 1.5I can't upgrade before HTC sends out an update, and they are working on getting there sence UI to work.If only Androind was more a basic system, and UI mobs was just a module.Then you could upgrade the system to 1.6, 2.0, 2.1 X.xxx.
And the UI wold just work, maybe with a few quick changes.But on that way people would upgrade faster</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31254286</id>
	<title>Re:This is EXACTLY why I don't have an andoid phon</title>
	<author>adolf</author>
	<datestamp>1266937440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Verizon unlimited PDA plans have no cap, but don't include tethering.</p><p>Their "unlimited" aircard plan does have a cap (instituted several years ago) of 5GB, but you can do whatever the hell you want with those 5GB from the comfort of a real computer.</p><p>For reference, I beat the fuck out of the data plan on my Droid, abusing it whenever possible.  It just works, at $30/mo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Verizon unlimited PDA plans have no cap , but do n't include tethering.Their " unlimited " aircard plan does have a cap ( instituted several years ago ) of 5GB , but you can do whatever the hell you want with those 5GB from the comfort of a real computer.For reference , I beat the fuck out of the data plan on my Droid , abusing it whenever possible .
It just works , at $ 30/mo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Verizon unlimited PDA plans have no cap, but don't include tethering.Their "unlimited" aircard plan does have a cap (instituted several years ago) of 5GB, but you can do whatever the hell you want with those 5GB from the comfort of a real computer.For reference, I beat the fuck out of the data plan on my Droid, abusing it whenever possible.
It just works, at $30/mo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246368</id>
	<title>I don't understand the problem.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266949080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course I didn't read the article, but I don't understand how application and platform upgrades can't be performed easily.</p><p>All these phones need is apt/yum or similar packaging system and have the app stores be a part of that. Each flavor of android should have it's own repositories just as each distribution of linux does.</p><p>As new versions of apps appear, you upgrade. As the new versions of the platform appear, you dist-upgrade. Of course all this should be presented in a simple GUI.</p><p>From the developer side, check for feature support before you use them.</p><p>What's the big deal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course I did n't read the article , but I do n't understand how application and platform upgrades ca n't be performed easily.All these phones need is apt/yum or similar packaging system and have the app stores be a part of that .
Each flavor of android should have it 's own repositories just as each distribution of linux does.As new versions of apps appear , you upgrade .
As the new versions of the platform appear , you dist-upgrade .
Of course all this should be presented in a simple GUI.From the developer side , check for feature support before you use them.What 's the big deal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course I didn't read the article, but I don't understand how application and platform upgrades can't be performed easily.All these phones need is apt/yum or similar packaging system and have the app stores be a part of that.
Each flavor of android should have it's own repositories just as each distribution of linux does.As new versions of apps appear, you upgrade.
As the new versions of the platform appear, you dist-upgrade.
Of course all this should be presented in a simple GUI.From the developer side, check for feature support before you use them.What's the big deal?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247890</id>
	<title>Keep in mind the source</title>
	<author>C\_Kode</author>
	<datestamp>1266954300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Galen Gruman (the writer of the article) used to write for Macworld and is also part of iPhoneInTouch developers group.</p><p>This can all be found on his linkin profile. <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/galen-gruman/0/37/599" title="linkedin.com">http://www.linkedin.com/pub/galen-gruman/0/37/599</a> [linkedin.com]</p><p>It's something you would want to take with a grain of salt, if he wasn't hounding it with every article he wrote about it.  FUD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Galen Gruman ( the writer of the article ) used to write for Macworld and is also part of iPhoneInTouch developers group.This can all be found on his linkin profile .
http : //www.linkedin.com/pub/galen-gruman/0/37/599 [ linkedin.com ] It 's something you would want to take with a grain of salt , if he was n't hounding it with every article he wrote about it .
FUD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Galen Gruman (the writer of the article) used to write for Macworld and is also part of iPhoneInTouch developers group.This can all be found on his linkin profile.
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/galen-gruman/0/37/599 [linkedin.com]It's something you would want to take with a grain of salt, if he wasn't hounding it with every article he wrote about it.
FUD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31249698</id>
	<title>Re:Just like desktop linux.</title>
	<author>Zordak</author>
	<datestamp>1266917040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> If linux were just RedHat, it could never have become Ubuntu.</p></div><p>Wait, where's the part where you list an advantage of decentralization?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If linux were just RedHat , it could never have become Ubuntu.Wait , where 's the part where you list an advantage of decentralization ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If linux were just RedHat, it could never have become Ubuntu.Wait, where's the part where you list an advantage of decentralization?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246000</id>
	<title>Say what you want about Apple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266947700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But at least there's a very controlled and limited number of different configurations for their hardware.</p><p>From a programmer point of view, Android is a total mess (a LOT of different screen resolutions, completely different input methods and layouts, etc).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But at least there 's a very controlled and limited number of different configurations for their hardware.From a programmer point of view , Android is a total mess ( a LOT of different screen resolutions , completely different input methods and layouts , etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But at least there's a very controlled and limited number of different configurations for their hardware.From a programmer point of view, Android is a total mess (a LOT of different screen resolutions, completely different input methods and layouts, etc).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247232</id>
	<title>Re:Wasn't JAVA supposed to prevent this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266952020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why isn't JAVA (or some JAVA-like byte code embedded language) being used to address this- wasn't that the point of JAVA? I am not a CS guy, so maybe somebody can clue me in.</p><p>JP</p></div><p>It uses Dalvik, which is Java-esque (uses non-native bytecode which is interpreted by the VM). The main compatibility problem arises from newer versions of android changing parts of the system APIs. It's worth noting that newer versions of android *do* still provide the old APIs for compatibility. The main problem is app developers selecting the latest version of android as the build target, when they don't actually need any additional features over earlier APIs. This means it can only run on the latest version. This *is* simplifying matters a little bit, because there is also the problem of particular devices supporting some features while others don't, as well as different screen resolutions, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is n't JAVA ( or some JAVA-like byte code embedded language ) being used to address this- was n't that the point of JAVA ?
I am not a CS guy , so maybe somebody can clue me in.JPIt uses Dalvik , which is Java-esque ( uses non-native bytecode which is interpreted by the VM ) .
The main compatibility problem arises from newer versions of android changing parts of the system APIs .
It 's worth noting that newer versions of android * do * still provide the old APIs for compatibility .
The main problem is app developers selecting the latest version of android as the build target , when they do n't actually need any additional features over earlier APIs .
This means it can only run on the latest version .
This * is * simplifying matters a little bit , because there is also the problem of particular devices supporting some features while others do n't , as well as different screen resolutions , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why isn't JAVA (or some JAVA-like byte code embedded language) being used to address this- wasn't that the point of JAVA?
I am not a CS guy, so maybe somebody can clue me in.JPIt uses Dalvik, which is Java-esque (uses non-native bytecode which is interpreted by the VM).
The main compatibility problem arises from newer versions of android changing parts of the system APIs.
It's worth noting that newer versions of android *do* still provide the old APIs for compatibility.
The main problem is app developers selecting the latest version of android as the build target, when they don't actually need any additional features over earlier APIs.
This means it can only run on the latest version.
This *is* simplifying matters a little bit, because there is also the problem of particular devices supporting some features while others don't, as well as different screen resolutions, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246100</id>
	<title>dont count your chickens before they die</title>
	<author>Ryyuajnin</author>
	<datestamp>1266948000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>more comparable to a solar system really (T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint, Deathstar/at&amp;t); Android being the sun, carriers the planets. If Google is in the same position with the other carriers as it is with T-Mobile, it has the ultimate authority over the platform; perhaps being able to remove apps remotely isn't the only administrative advantage Google retains? Still, ultimately the carriers that use best practices in terms of interoperability, will effectively be a single force in the android system. We'll see how this massing Linux community manifests; mistakes will be made, lessons will be learned. I for one remain confident that this project will live up to the hype in ways we haven't yet imagined<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>more comparable to a solar system really ( T-Mobile , Verizon , Sprint , Deathstar/at&amp;t ) ; Android being the sun , carriers the planets .
If Google is in the same position with the other carriers as it is with T-Mobile , it has the ultimate authority over the platform ; perhaps being able to remove apps remotely is n't the only administrative advantage Google retains ?
Still , ultimately the carriers that use best practices in terms of interoperability , will effectively be a single force in the android system .
We 'll see how this massing Linux community manifests ; mistakes will be made , lessons will be learned .
I for one remain confident that this project will live up to the hype in ways we have n't yet imagined : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>more comparable to a solar system really (T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint, Deathstar/at&amp;t); Android being the sun, carriers the planets.
If Google is in the same position with the other carriers as it is with T-Mobile, it has the ultimate authority over the platform; perhaps being able to remove apps remotely isn't the only administrative advantage Google retains?
Still, ultimately the carriers that use best practices in terms of interoperability, will effectively be a single force in the android system.
We'll see how this massing Linux community manifests; mistakes will be made, lessons will be learned.
I for one remain confident that this project will live up to the hype in ways we haven't yet imagined :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246048</id>
	<title>Who said it was going to be easy?</title>
	<author>Com2Kid</author>
	<datestamp>1266947880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you think Microsoft just screwed up Windows Mobile on purpose for all those years?</p><p>Look at history, Windows Mobile came out swinging strong, kicking butt and taking names, and then it got bogged down in its own ecosytem as it attempted to support an ever wider and wider range and form factors of devices running on more and more different hardware platforms.</p><p>Mobile deviecs are far more complicated than desktops, both in terms of the little things (boot loaders!) to the big things (OEM relations!)</p><p>Microsoft learned this, I don't see how Google expected to basically copy Microsoft's mobile OS strategy (in every detail except for pricing) and have any <i>less</i> issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you think Microsoft just screwed up Windows Mobile on purpose for all those years ? Look at history , Windows Mobile came out swinging strong , kicking butt and taking names , and then it got bogged down in its own ecosytem as it attempted to support an ever wider and wider range and form factors of devices running on more and more different hardware platforms.Mobile deviecs are far more complicated than desktops , both in terms of the little things ( boot loaders !
) to the big things ( OEM relations !
) Microsoft learned this , I do n't see how Google expected to basically copy Microsoft 's mobile OS strategy ( in every detail except for pricing ) and have any less issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you think Microsoft just screwed up Windows Mobile on purpose for all those years?Look at history, Windows Mobile came out swinging strong, kicking butt and taking names, and then it got bogged down in its own ecosytem as it attempted to support an ever wider and wider range and form factors of devices running on more and more different hardware platforms.Mobile deviecs are far more complicated than desktops, both in terms of the little things (boot loaders!
) to the big things (OEM relations!
)Microsoft learned this, I don't see how Google expected to basically copy Microsoft's mobile OS strategy (in every detail except for pricing) and have any less issues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246468</id>
	<title>Re:Wasn't JAVA supposed to prevent this?</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1266949440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's not so much about actual bytecode than about features, bug fixes. Do you want the program you're writing to take advantage of 2.1 latest feature, or to be compatible with 1.5 ? How can I be sure that my software will run correctly on all those different phones (different screen sizes, different touch screens, different buttons...) without testing on all of them ? What if one android phone only has 128k RAM, and my app uses 130 ? What if my full screen games does not run well on phone XYZ which has a large screen, but a slow CPU ? and so on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's not so much about actual bytecode than about features , bug fixes .
Do you want the program you 're writing to take advantage of 2.1 latest feature , or to be compatible with 1.5 ?
How can I be sure that my software will run correctly on all those different phones ( different screen sizes , different touch screens , different buttons... ) without testing on all of them ?
What if one android phone only has 128k RAM , and my app uses 130 ?
What if my full screen games does not run well on phone XYZ which has a large screen , but a slow CPU ?
and so on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's not so much about actual bytecode than about features, bug fixes.
Do you want the program you're writing to take advantage of 2.1 latest feature, or to be compatible with 1.5 ?
How can I be sure that my software will run correctly on all those different phones (different screen sizes, different touch screens, different buttons...) without testing on all of them ?
What if one android phone only has 128k RAM, and my app uses 130 ?
What if my full screen games does not run well on phone XYZ which has a large screen, but a slow CPU ?
and so on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246124</id>
	<title>Same exact issue as WinMo 5/6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266948060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a Windows Mobile developer, I can attest to this being a real (and really annoying) issue. At least Android has higher minimum requirements than WM6 does, but the variety of resolutions, DPI, and hardware features, makes it extremely painful to develop for the platform. I'm normally an Apple hater, but they really did something right with the iPhone, in terms of consistency. I still wouldn't be caught dead with one, but I can see the attraction. It looks like MS is learning from their own (and Android's) mistakes, and Apple's success, about device consistency with Windows Phone 7 Series (idiotic name, but that's another story). The device requirements are very strict, so it should be easier to develop for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a Windows Mobile developer , I can attest to this being a real ( and really annoying ) issue .
At least Android has higher minimum requirements than WM6 does , but the variety of resolutions , DPI , and hardware features , makes it extremely painful to develop for the platform .
I 'm normally an Apple hater , but they really did something right with the iPhone , in terms of consistency .
I still would n't be caught dead with one , but I can see the attraction .
It looks like MS is learning from their own ( and Android 's ) mistakes , and Apple 's success , about device consistency with Windows Phone 7 Series ( idiotic name , but that 's another story ) .
The device requirements are very strict , so it should be easier to develop for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a Windows Mobile developer, I can attest to this being a real (and really annoying) issue.
At least Android has higher minimum requirements than WM6 does, but the variety of resolutions, DPI, and hardware features, makes it extremely painful to develop for the platform.
I'm normally an Apple hater, but they really did something right with the iPhone, in terms of consistency.
I still wouldn't be caught dead with one, but I can see the attraction.
It looks like MS is learning from their own (and Android's) mistakes, and Apple's success, about device consistency with Windows Phone 7 Series (idiotic name, but that's another story).
The device requirements are very strict, so it should be easier to develop for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247162</id>
	<title>Re:Who said it was going to be easy?</title>
	<author>john\_uy</author>
	<datestamp>1266951720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will have to agree with you.</p><p>Look at the new Windows Phone 7.  It looks like they are following the footsteps of Apple.  I have the feeling they are going to release the phone in limited varieties.  The new design is quite impressive for me, thinking of buying when its out.  This is a far cry from existing Windows Mobile 6.5 and below where the phone OS is visible.  The new one, I suspect will have limited tweaking and customization capabilities in the OS.</p><p>I guess what can happen is that if you want the status symbol, get Apple. If you want to want to be hip and new, get Microsoft. If you are the geeky kind, get Android.  Business users will be Blackberry.  The market is getting more polarized. I guess there won't be a one size fits all phone.  I had to accept the fact that you can't get business features with all the hip stuff.  I've been waiting for a good HTC WinMo prone with keyboard and it seems they have killed it.  I will have to accept that keyboards will be a thing of the past.  Oh well.  Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube is the new internet.</p><p>John</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will have to agree with you.Look at the new Windows Phone 7 .
It looks like they are following the footsteps of Apple .
I have the feeling they are going to release the phone in limited varieties .
The new design is quite impressive for me , thinking of buying when its out .
This is a far cry from existing Windows Mobile 6.5 and below where the phone OS is visible .
The new one , I suspect will have limited tweaking and customization capabilities in the OS.I guess what can happen is that if you want the status symbol , get Apple .
If you want to want to be hip and new , get Microsoft .
If you are the geeky kind , get Android .
Business users will be Blackberry .
The market is getting more polarized .
I guess there wo n't be a one size fits all phone .
I had to accept the fact that you ca n't get business features with all the hip stuff .
I 've been waiting for a good HTC WinMo prone with keyboard and it seems they have killed it .
I will have to accept that keyboards will be a thing of the past .
Oh well .
Facebook , Twitter , and Youtube is the new internet.John</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will have to agree with you.Look at the new Windows Phone 7.
It looks like they are following the footsteps of Apple.
I have the feeling they are going to release the phone in limited varieties.
The new design is quite impressive for me, thinking of buying when its out.
This is a far cry from existing Windows Mobile 6.5 and below where the phone OS is visible.
The new one, I suspect will have limited tweaking and customization capabilities in the OS.I guess what can happen is that if you want the status symbol, get Apple.
If you want to want to be hip and new, get Microsoft.
If you are the geeky kind, get Android.
Business users will be Blackberry.
The market is getting more polarized.
I guess there won't be a one size fits all phone.
I had to accept the fact that you can't get business features with all the hip stuff.
I've been waiting for a good HTC WinMo prone with keyboard and it seems they have killed it.
I will have to accept that keyboards will be a thing of the past.
Oh well.
Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube is the new internet.John</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248924</id>
	<title>Re:no upgrades??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266957660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It may not be in the interest of a carrier to allow an OS upgrade.  How will they force you to buy a new phone/commit to a contract if you can upgrade the OS and get most or all of the latest and greatest features with the upgrade?</p><p>Imagine how much havoc would be raised with revenue and revenue projections if people could freely move from carrier to carrier.  Carriers would have to start caring about customer service and value.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It may not be in the interest of a carrier to allow an OS upgrade .
How will they force you to buy a new phone/commit to a contract if you can upgrade the OS and get most or all of the latest and greatest features with the upgrade ? Imagine how much havoc would be raised with revenue and revenue projections if people could freely move from carrier to carrier .
Carriers would have to start caring about customer service and value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may not be in the interest of a carrier to allow an OS upgrade.
How will they force you to buy a new phone/commit to a contract if you can upgrade the OS and get most or all of the latest and greatest features with the upgrade?Imagine how much havoc would be raised with revenue and revenue projections if people could freely move from carrier to carrier.
Carriers would have to start caring about customer service and value.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245832</id>
	<title>no upgrades??</title>
	<author>ccole8</author>
	<datestamp>1266947280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is so completely untrue!  Android checks for upgrades every 24 hours, and allows you to easily upgrade any of your applications or the entire OS itself.  I've owned the Droid since it first came out, and the ease of upgrading is one of the features I've been fairly impressed with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is so completely untrue !
Android checks for upgrades every 24 hours , and allows you to easily upgrade any of your applications or the entire OS itself .
I 've owned the Droid since it first came out , and the ease of upgrading is one of the features I 've been fairly impressed with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is so completely untrue!
Android checks for upgrades every 24 hours, and allows you to easily upgrade any of your applications or the entire OS itself.
I've owned the Droid since it first came out, and the ease of upgrading is one of the features I've been fairly impressed with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31251790</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>kaffiene</author>
	<datestamp>1266924660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've not written any android apps, but I know a bunch of people who have (on the javagaming website).  I've not heard any issues with compatibility at all.  When someone has an app to test, it appears to run on everyone's Android devices without too much hassle.</p><p>As I say, this is second hand, but these guys would be complaining if there was a problem here.  And they ain't.  Admittedly, these are actual developers and not industry schills, so what would they know?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:o)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've not written any android apps , but I know a bunch of people who have ( on the javagaming website ) .
I 've not heard any issues with compatibility at all .
When someone has an app to test , it appears to run on everyone 's Android devices without too much hassle.As I say , this is second hand , but these guys would be complaining if there was a problem here .
And they ai n't .
Admittedly , these are actual developers and not industry schills , so what would they know ?
: o )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've not written any android apps, but I know a bunch of people who have (on the javagaming website).
I've not heard any issues with compatibility at all.
When someone has an app to test, it appears to run on everyone's Android devices without too much hassle.As I say, this is second hand, but these guys would be complaining if there was a problem here.
And they ain't.
Admittedly, these are actual developers and not industry schills, so what would they know?
:o)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31251134</id>
	<title>Re:Growing pains, not worsethan older phones</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1266922320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except what everyone overlooks, Android is developed by the open handset alliance, sure google is the major player there but google by far is not the one which can dictate the rules.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except what everyone overlooks , Android is developed by the open handset alliance , sure google is the major player there but google by far is not the one which can dictate the rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except what everyone overlooks, Android is developed by the open handset alliance, sure google is the major player there but google by far is not the one which can dictate the rules.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31250884</id>
	<title>Re:no upgrades??</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1266921540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem also  is the vendors, they are not very eager to support any phone model longer than three months if at all. The situation like we have it on WinMo repeats itself, the phone vendors take your money if you are lucky you get another update and three months later the successor is there and then you can only rely on the community for hack roms.<br>I would say it is WinMobile reloaded, and that lots of the drivers are closes source does not make the situation easier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem also is the vendors , they are not very eager to support any phone model longer than three months if at all .
The situation like we have it on WinMo repeats itself , the phone vendors take your money if you are lucky you get another update and three months later the successor is there and then you can only rely on the community for hack roms.I would say it is WinMobile reloaded , and that lots of the drivers are closes source does not make the situation easier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem also  is the vendors, they are not very eager to support any phone model longer than three months if at all.
The situation like we have it on WinMo repeats itself, the phone vendors take your money if you are lucky you get another update and three months later the successor is there and then you can only rely on the community for hack roms.I would say it is WinMobile reloaded, and that lots of the drivers are closes source does not make the situation easier.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246728</id>
	<title>"Self" destruction?</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1266950280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Different versions all around? Is not so much Android (or google) who decides to upgrade the android version on a particular device. Is the carrier or the maker, specially when makers or carriers customize or add their own apps to their own devices.<br>Different hardware means apps not working in all devices? In PC we have something of that...apps that requires over certian amount of ram or hd, apps that take advantage of certain hardware that could be missing for some funcionality (don't even have a printer).That has fragmented the PC market?<br><br>Has linux kernel fragmented because it runs from embedded hardware to mainframes and supercomputers? Flexibility and adaptability to whatever hardware it want to be installed is a strenght, not a weakness. Android is being installed in cellphones, netbooks, tablets and other devices and if some devels don't take that into account is not the platform fault.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Different versions all around ?
Is not so much Android ( or google ) who decides to upgrade the android version on a particular device .
Is the carrier or the maker , specially when makers or carriers customize or add their own apps to their own devices.Different hardware means apps not working in all devices ?
In PC we have something of that...apps that requires over certian amount of ram or hd , apps that take advantage of certain hardware that could be missing for some funcionality ( do n't even have a printer ) .That has fragmented the PC market ? Has linux kernel fragmented because it runs from embedded hardware to mainframes and supercomputers ?
Flexibility and adaptability to whatever hardware it want to be installed is a strenght , not a weakness .
Android is being installed in cellphones , netbooks , tablets and other devices and if some devels do n't take that into account is not the platform fault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Different versions all around?
Is not so much Android (or google) who decides to upgrade the android version on a particular device.
Is the carrier or the maker, specially when makers or carriers customize or add their own apps to their own devices.Different hardware means apps not working in all devices?
In PC we have something of that...apps that requires over certian amount of ram or hd, apps that take advantage of certain hardware that could be missing for some funcionality (don't even have a printer).That has fragmented the PC market?Has linux kernel fragmented because it runs from embedded hardware to mainframes and supercomputers?
Flexibility and adaptability to whatever hardware it want to be installed is a strenght, not a weakness.
Android is being installed in cellphones, netbooks, tablets and other devices and if some devels don't take that into account is not the platform fault.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246324</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe not a crisis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266948900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, because code like that is so pleasant to work with.</p><p>if (hasCompassV2()) {<nobr> <wbr></nobr>// do something;<br>} else if (hasCompassV1()) {<nobr> <wbr></nobr>// do soemthing slightly different<br>} else if (hasOldBrokenCompass()) {<nobr> <wbr></nobr>// do painful work around<br>} else if (hasOtherThing()) {<nobr> <wbr></nobr>// fake it up using the other thing<br>} else if (hackTestForPropertyX()) {<nobr> <wbr></nobr>// do something nasty<br>} else {<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//damn it, just draw a non-working icon<br>}</p><p>And of course now whenever you change something you have to test it on a dozen variants to make sure you didn't break any.</p><p>And then of course you find one that hasCompassV2() us true, but has a something broken/different so you need to special case that one out to...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because code like that is so pleasant to work with.if ( hasCompassV2 ( ) ) { // do something ; } else if ( hasCompassV1 ( ) ) { // do soemthing slightly different } else if ( hasOldBrokenCompass ( ) ) { // do painful work around } else if ( hasOtherThing ( ) ) { // fake it up using the other thing } else if ( hackTestForPropertyX ( ) ) { // do something nasty } else { //damn it , just draw a non-working icon } And of course now whenever you change something you have to test it on a dozen variants to make sure you did n't break any.And then of course you find one that hasCompassV2 ( ) us true , but has a something broken/different so you need to special case that one out to.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because code like that is so pleasant to work with.if (hasCompassV2()) { // do something;} else if (hasCompassV1()) { // do soemthing slightly different} else if (hasOldBrokenCompass()) { // do painful work around} else if (hasOtherThing()) { // fake it up using the other thing} else if (hackTestForPropertyX()) { // do something nasty} else { //damn it, just draw a non-working icon}And of course now whenever you change something you have to test it on a dozen variants to make sure you didn't break any.And then of course you find one that hasCompassV2() us true, but has a something broken/different so you need to special case that one out to...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247802</id>
	<title>Two Options will Work Long-Term</title>
	<author>geoffrobinson</author>
	<datestamp>1266953940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Go the Apple route. Control the operating system and the whole ecosystem.</p><p>2) Use something akin to Java and have interpreted byte code for apps.</p><p>Google doesn't control the whole ecosystem. But could they have all standard flavors of Android use Java? I would think so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Go the Apple route .
Control the operating system and the whole ecosystem.2 ) Use something akin to Java and have interpreted byte code for apps.Google does n't control the whole ecosystem .
But could they have all standard flavors of Android use Java ?
I would think so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Go the Apple route.
Control the operating system and the whole ecosystem.2) Use something akin to Java and have interpreted byte code for apps.Google doesn't control the whole ecosystem.
But could they have all standard flavors of Android use Java?
I would think so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247826</id>
	<title>Re:But it's OPEN</title>
	<author>geoffrobinson</author>
	<datestamp>1266954000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This guy isn't a troll. He makes an excellent point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy is n't a troll .
He makes an excellent point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy isn't a troll.
He makes an excellent point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31251830</id>
	<title>Re:This is EXACTLY why I don't have an andoid phon</title>
	<author>GravityStar</author>
	<datestamp>1266924780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ditto. I too haven't bought an Android phone yet because I've got no guarantees, promises or even allusions from the manufacturer that they will upgrade the firmware of the phone when a new Android version comes out.</p><p>The only reason I'm considering buying the Google Nexus is because Google sells the phone and supports the phone. Also, as Google has given the Google Nexus to its employees, there's a good chance it will keep getting updates for it's lifetime.</p><p>Note; if HTC were to come out and say "we'll make Android updates for the next X years for device Y" that would be cool for me too. I would just hate being stuck without updates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ditto .
I too have n't bought an Android phone yet because I 've got no guarantees , promises or even allusions from the manufacturer that they will upgrade the firmware of the phone when a new Android version comes out.The only reason I 'm considering buying the Google Nexus is because Google sells the phone and supports the phone .
Also , as Google has given the Google Nexus to its employees , there 's a good chance it will keep getting updates for it 's lifetime.Note ; if HTC were to come out and say " we 'll make Android updates for the next X years for device Y " that would be cool for me too .
I would just hate being stuck without updates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ditto.
I too haven't bought an Android phone yet because I've got no guarantees, promises or even allusions from the manufacturer that they will upgrade the firmware of the phone when a new Android version comes out.The only reason I'm considering buying the Google Nexus is because Google sells the phone and supports the phone.
Also, as Google has given the Google Nexus to its employees, there's a good chance it will keep getting updates for it's lifetime.Note; if HTC were to come out and say "we'll make Android updates for the next X years for device Y" that would be cool for me too.
I would just hate being stuck without updates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246426</id>
	<title>Re:Wasn't JAVA supposed to prevent this?</title>
	<author>Scorchio</author>
	<datestamp>1266949260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could replace "Android" with "Java" in this story and you'll probably find you have a dupe of a story from 5-6 years ago.</p><p>I worked on Java apps for cell phones and ran into all sorts of incompatibilities between handsets. Problems ranged from fundamental differences like screen sizes, variations in what libraries are implemented or not, all the way down to slight differences in behavior of library calls. It seems that unless you have one hardware/software source, like Apple and the iPhone, you're going to come across and have to work around a ton of variations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could replace " Android " with " Java " in this story and you 'll probably find you have a dupe of a story from 5-6 years ago.I worked on Java apps for cell phones and ran into all sorts of incompatibilities between handsets .
Problems ranged from fundamental differences like screen sizes , variations in what libraries are implemented or not , all the way down to slight differences in behavior of library calls .
It seems that unless you have one hardware/software source , like Apple and the iPhone , you 're going to come across and have to work around a ton of variations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could replace "Android" with "Java" in this story and you'll probably find you have a dupe of a story from 5-6 years ago.I worked on Java apps for cell phones and ran into all sorts of incompatibilities between handsets.
Problems ranged from fundamental differences like screen sizes, variations in what libraries are implemented or not, all the way down to slight differences in behavior of library calls.
It seems that unless you have one hardware/software source, like Apple and the iPhone, you're going to come across and have to work around a ton of variations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31251946</id>
	<title>Re:It is not a problem it is an opportunity.</title>
	<author>GravityStar</author>
	<datestamp>1266925320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A manufacturer's opportunity is a customer's danger. These opportunities you speak of frustrate customers as they attempt to find out if a brand is trustworthy or not. Worse, they confuse would-be customers, and scare them away from the platform to begin with.</p><p>There should be no need for a extra branding or quality guarantee. If it's on the app store than it works. (Caveat, except for stuff that's squirreled away under something like 'experimental', but at that point the user's anticipations are being managed by the labeling.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A manufacturer 's opportunity is a customer 's danger .
These opportunities you speak of frustrate customers as they attempt to find out if a brand is trustworthy or not .
Worse , they confuse would-be customers , and scare them away from the platform to begin with.There should be no need for a extra branding or quality guarantee .
If it 's on the app store than it works .
( Caveat , except for stuff that 's squirreled away under something like 'experimental ' , but at that point the user 's anticipations are being managed by the labeling .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A manufacturer's opportunity is a customer's danger.
These opportunities you speak of frustrate customers as they attempt to find out if a brand is trustworthy or not.
Worse, they confuse would-be customers, and scare them away from the platform to begin with.There should be no need for a extra branding or quality guarantee.
If it's on the app store than it works.
(Caveat, except for stuff that's squirreled away under something like 'experimental', but at that point the user's anticipations are being managed by the labeling.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246358</id>
	<title>Google's own approach: fork-and-extend</title>
	<author>mi</author>
	<datestamp>1266949020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google's own approach is to fork everything they use... Sure, they make their changes available, but, apparently, don't try very hard to just stick to the original versions of whatever they pick.

</p><p>The more famous of recent examples are the forks in <a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/364528/" title="lwn.net">Chrome</a> [lwn.net]. The changes, that Google made to their own versions, are substantial enough for their forks to be incompatible with the stock versions in too many cases. Was that <em>really</em> necessary?.. Google thinks, it was, but I am not convinced by their <a href="http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2009/12/forking.html" title="neugierig.org">argument</a> [neugierig.org]. At all...

</p><p>Hard to blame the device-makers for taking a particular snapshot of Android OS, <em>forking it</em>, and not wanting to retest everything for an upgrade six months later...

</p><p>I always liked Sun's position, prohibiting forks of Java by the very license &mdash; for this exact reason. You may think, you need to fix this burning bug with "the fierce urgency of <em>now</em>", but, by creating your own slightly-incompatible fork, you are doing more harm than good. (Such local forks are only excusable, when the upstream project is dead or almost dead...)

</p><p>Too many <em>programmers</em>, too few <em>software engineers<em>...</em></em></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google 's own approach is to fork everything they use... Sure , they make their changes available , but , apparently , do n't try very hard to just stick to the original versions of whatever they pick .
The more famous of recent examples are the forks in Chrome [ lwn.net ] .
The changes , that Google made to their own versions , are substantial enough for their forks to be incompatible with the stock versions in too many cases .
Was that really necessary ? . .
Google thinks , it was , but I am not convinced by their argument [ neugierig.org ] .
At all.. . Hard to blame the device-makers for taking a particular snapshot of Android OS , forking it , and not wanting to retest everything for an upgrade six months later.. . I always liked Sun 's position , prohibiting forks of Java by the very license    for this exact reason .
You may think , you need to fix this burning bug with " the fierce urgency of now " , but , by creating your own slightly-incompatible fork , you are doing more harm than good .
( Such local forks are only excusable , when the upstream project is dead or almost dead... ) Too many programmers , too few software engineers.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google's own approach is to fork everything they use... Sure, they make their changes available, but, apparently, don't try very hard to just stick to the original versions of whatever they pick.
The more famous of recent examples are the forks in Chrome [lwn.net].
The changes, that Google made to their own versions, are substantial enough for their forks to be incompatible with the stock versions in too many cases.
Was that really necessary?..
Google thinks, it was, but I am not convinced by their argument [neugierig.org].
At all...

Hard to blame the device-makers for taking a particular snapshot of Android OS, forking it, and not wanting to retest everything for an upgrade six months later...

I always liked Sun's position, prohibiting forks of Java by the very license — for this exact reason.
You may think, you need to fix this burning bug with "the fierce urgency of now", but, by creating your own slightly-incompatible fork, you are doing more harm than good.
(Such local forks are only excusable, when the upstream project is dead or almost dead...)

Too many programmers, too few software engineers...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247052</id>
	<title>Re:Yep. Android's cool, BUT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266951360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Buy from a manufacturer that does promise upgrades. Like HTC. I know my Hero will get official 2.1 upgrade as HTC already promised it. Actually, Heros in Taiwan are already shipping with it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Buy from a manufacturer that does promise upgrades .
Like HTC .
I know my Hero will get official 2.1 upgrade as HTC already promised it .
Actually , Heros in Taiwan are already shipping with it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buy from a manufacturer that does promise upgrades.
Like HTC.
I know my Hero will get official 2.1 upgrade as HTC already promised it.
Actually, Heros in Taiwan are already shipping with it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31249910</id>
	<title>Samsung Galaxy with v1.6 TODAY!</title>
	<author>KlaymenDK</author>
	<datestamp>1266917880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Behind this cryptic topic:<br><a href="http://androidforums.com/samsung-i7500/47548-firmware-i7500xefjb2.html" title="androidforums.com">http://androidforums.com/samsung-i7500/47548-firmware-i7500xefjb2.html</a> [androidforums.com]<br>is hidden the key to running v1.6! It's not 2.1, but it's a step in the right direction.</p><p>Samsung has done big-time wrong by a lot of customers, but the community is brilliant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Behind this cryptic topic : http : //androidforums.com/samsung-i7500/47548-firmware-i7500xefjb2.html [ androidforums.com ] is hidden the key to running v1.6 !
It 's not 2.1 , but it 's a step in the right direction.Samsung has done big-time wrong by a lot of customers , but the community is brilliant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Behind this cryptic topic:http://androidforums.com/samsung-i7500/47548-firmware-i7500xefjb2.html [androidforums.com]is hidden the key to running v1.6!
It's not 2.1, but it's a step in the right direction.Samsung has done big-time wrong by a lot of customers, but the community is brilliant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246598</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe not a crisis</title>
	<author>unix1</author>
	<datestamp>1266949860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. Android was meant to be used on all kinds of devices with all kinds of different features, of which touchscreen mobile phones are just one (but perhaps the most important to-date) category. If you want a single OS / single device "platform" there are other options available on the market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Android was meant to be used on all kinds of devices with all kinds of different features , of which touchscreen mobile phones are just one ( but perhaps the most important to-date ) category .
If you want a single OS / single device " platform " there are other options available on the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Android was meant to be used on all kinds of devices with all kinds of different features, of which touchscreen mobile phones are just one (but perhaps the most important to-date) category.
If you want a single OS / single device "platform" there are other options available on the market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246160</id>
	<title>No different ...</title>
	<author>LoudMusic</author>
	<datestamp>1266948180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As reader donberryman points out, you can even put Android onto some Windows Mobile phones, now.</p></div><p>How is hacking Android onto hardware it wasn't designed for any different from hacking OS X onto hardware Apple doesn't support? I don't think you can count "misuse" as a fault of Google.</p><p>The rest of it, yes I can agree. There needs to be more specific handling of hardware and software requirements. But to be fair, RIM has a twisted inconsistency of which of their own devices can run which versions of the Blackberry software and what all of their capabilities are. Even Apple's line of iDevices and Macintosh computers have had issues over the years of which devices could do what.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As reader donberryman points out , you can even put Android onto some Windows Mobile phones , now.How is hacking Android onto hardware it was n't designed for any different from hacking OS X onto hardware Apple does n't support ?
I do n't think you can count " misuse " as a fault of Google.The rest of it , yes I can agree .
There needs to be more specific handling of hardware and software requirements .
But to be fair , RIM has a twisted inconsistency of which of their own devices can run which versions of the Blackberry software and what all of their capabilities are .
Even Apple 's line of iDevices and Macintosh computers have had issues over the years of which devices could do what .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As reader donberryman points out, you can even put Android onto some Windows Mobile phones, now.How is hacking Android onto hardware it wasn't designed for any different from hacking OS X onto hardware Apple doesn't support?
I don't think you can count "misuse" as a fault of Google.The rest of it, yes I can agree.
There needs to be more specific handling of hardware and software requirements.
But to be fair, RIM has a twisted inconsistency of which of their own devices can run which versions of the Blackberry software and what all of their capabilities are.
Even Apple's line of iDevices and Macintosh computers have had issues over the years of which devices could do what.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245890</id>
	<title>Oh no! It's InfoWorld!</title>
	<author>Optic7</author>
	<datestamp>1266947460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like they haven't learned anything from the Windows 7 memory FUD scandal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like they have n't learned anything from the Windows 7 memory FUD scandal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like they haven't learned anything from the Windows 7 memory FUD scandal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245916</id>
	<title>Yep. Android's cool, BUT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266947520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just got a Samsung Galaxy this month, because my old WinMo 6.0 phone was crap and needed to be put down. It runs Android 1.5. There's no plans to upgrade it to 2.0. I knew this when I got it, and if I could have, I'd have waited until I could have gotten a 2.0 phone. But the platform fragments even within forks just because manufacturers don't bother to update the system. I figure in a year or so, I won't be able to find any new apps that work with my phone because they'll all be written for the newest version. Say what you will about Windows Mobile (it sucks), but at least you can rest assured that you'll be on a level playing field with other phones, app-wise. Hell, I probably could have upgraded my old phone to 6.5, if it wasn't busted. Platform solidarity and longevity are important if you want it to be a success.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just got a Samsung Galaxy this month , because my old WinMo 6.0 phone was crap and needed to be put down .
It runs Android 1.5 .
There 's no plans to upgrade it to 2.0 .
I knew this when I got it , and if I could have , I 'd have waited until I could have gotten a 2.0 phone .
But the platform fragments even within forks just because manufacturers do n't bother to update the system .
I figure in a year or so , I wo n't be able to find any new apps that work with my phone because they 'll all be written for the newest version .
Say what you will about Windows Mobile ( it sucks ) , but at least you can rest assured that you 'll be on a level playing field with other phones , app-wise .
Hell , I probably could have upgraded my old phone to 6.5 , if it was n't busted .
Platform solidarity and longevity are important if you want it to be a success .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just got a Samsung Galaxy this month, because my old WinMo 6.0 phone was crap and needed to be put down.
It runs Android 1.5.
There's no plans to upgrade it to 2.0.
I knew this when I got it, and if I could have, I'd have waited until I could have gotten a 2.0 phone.
But the platform fragments even within forks just because manufacturers don't bother to update the system.
I figure in a year or so, I won't be able to find any new apps that work with my phone because they'll all be written for the newest version.
Say what you will about Windows Mobile (it sucks), but at least you can rest assured that you'll be on a level playing field with other phones, app-wise.
Hell, I probably could have upgraded my old phone to 6.5, if it wasn't busted.
Platform solidarity and longevity are important if you want it to be a success.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31251542</id>
	<title>right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266923760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, so there, because before Android all the different phones worked together seamlessly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , so there , because before Android all the different phones worked together seamlessly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, so there, because before Android all the different phones worked together seamlessly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247912</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe not a crisis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266954360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Welcome to the world of web development and IE6 compatibility. Some of us struggle with this on a daily basis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to the world of web development and IE6 compatibility .
Some of us struggle with this on a daily basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to the world of web development and IE6 compatibility.
Some of us struggle with this on a daily basis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246430</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe not a crisis</title>
	<author>mdm-adph</author>
	<datestamp>1266949320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. I don't know what the problem with all this is -- just code for the 1.5 API right now.  Androids development tools make it easy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
I do n't know what the problem with all this is -- just code for the 1.5 API right now .
Androids development tools make it easy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
I don't know what the problem with all this is -- just code for the 1.5 API right now.
Androids development tools make it easy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246180</id>
	<title>Re:Just like desktop linux.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266948300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, he means stuff like different versions of the kernel and libraries I think, which made it impossible for me to run geordi on debian without some serious tweaking a year ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , he means stuff like different versions of the kernel and libraries I think , which made it impossible for me to run geordi on debian without some serious tweaking a year ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, he means stuff like different versions of the kernel and libraries I think, which made it impossible for me to run geordi on debian without some serious tweaking a year ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247242</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe not a crisis</title>
	<author>guycouch</author>
	<datestamp>1266952020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is actually a little harder than this, since JAVA is statically compiled. You can't have a class referenced in code if it's not available in the JVM, even if that code branch is never executed. So this will not work:

if (ANDROID\_2\_1) {
      BluetoothManager.doSomething();
}

There are a few good tutorials for handling this, while avoiding reflection. They take advantage of JAVA's lazy loading of static classes. The official Android blog has a post here:
<a href="http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2009/04/backward-compatibility-for-android.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2009/04/backward-compatibility-for-android.html</a> [blogspot.com]

and here is a great, detailed tutorial:
<a href="http://devtcg.blogspot.com/2009/12/gracefully-supporting-multiple-android.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://devtcg.blogspot.com/2009/12/gracefully-supporting-multiple-android.html</a> [blogspot.com]

With that said, sdk 2.1 isn't terribly different than sdk 1.6, really. You can write most apps using 1.6, and should for now. Code modifications go through a lengthy deprecation period before being considered for removal.

Should Google really feature-freeze a platform because a single phone got released?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is actually a little harder than this , since JAVA is statically compiled .
You ca n't have a class referenced in code if it 's not available in the JVM , even if that code branch is never executed .
So this will not work : if ( ANDROID \ _2 \ _1 ) { BluetoothManager.doSomething ( ) ; } There are a few good tutorials for handling this , while avoiding reflection .
They take advantage of JAVA 's lazy loading of static classes .
The official Android blog has a post here : http : //android-developers.blogspot.com/2009/04/backward-compatibility-for-android.html [ blogspot.com ] and here is a great , detailed tutorial : http : //devtcg.blogspot.com/2009/12/gracefully-supporting-multiple-android.html [ blogspot.com ] With that said , sdk 2.1 is n't terribly different than sdk 1.6 , really .
You can write most apps using 1.6 , and should for now .
Code modifications go through a lengthy deprecation period before being considered for removal .
Should Google really feature-freeze a platform because a single phone got released ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is actually a little harder than this, since JAVA is statically compiled.
You can't have a class referenced in code if it's not available in the JVM, even if that code branch is never executed.
So this will not work:

if (ANDROID\_2\_1) {
      BluetoothManager.doSomething();
}

There are a few good tutorials for handling this, while avoiding reflection.
They take advantage of JAVA's lazy loading of static classes.
The official Android blog has a post here:
http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2009/04/backward-compatibility-for-android.html [blogspot.com]

and here is a great, detailed tutorial:
http://devtcg.blogspot.com/2009/12/gracefully-supporting-multiple-android.html [blogspot.com]

With that said, sdk 2.1 isn't terribly different than sdk 1.6, really.
You can write most apps using 1.6, and should for now.
Code modifications go through a lengthy deprecation period before being considered for removal.
Should Google really feature-freeze a platform because a single phone got released?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246374</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe not a crisis</title>
	<author>tkinnun0</author>
	<datestamp>1266949080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You forgot a few tests: isCompassHalfBroken(), isCompassReallySlow(), isCompassSometimesWildlyInaccurate(), isCompassJustAPieceOfCrap().</htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot a few tests : isCompassHalfBroken ( ) , isCompassReallySlow ( ) , isCompassSometimesWildlyInaccurate ( ) , isCompassJustAPieceOfCrap ( ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot a few tests: isCompassHalfBroken(), isCompassReallySlow(), isCompassSometimesWildlyInaccurate(), isCompassJustAPieceOfCrap().</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31250740</id>
	<title>Re:This is EXACTLY why I don't have an andoid phon</title>
	<author>salesgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1266921060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL, actually developing for Android is a joy compared to Windows.  Android apps generally do not run on the hardware - they run on a java virtual machine, so a lot of the issues being discussed here are simply not true...  compile once... run everywhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL , actually developing for Android is a joy compared to Windows .
Android apps generally do not run on the hardware - they run on a java virtual machine , so a lot of the issues being discussed here are simply not true... compile once... run everywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL, actually developing for Android is a joy compared to Windows.
Android apps generally do not run on the hardware - they run on a java virtual machine, so a lot of the issues being discussed here are simply not true...  compile once... run everywhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31256900</id>
	<title>Re:Just like desktop linux.</title>
	<author>the\_womble</author>
	<datestamp>1265104260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the other hand, it's frustrating when even copy/paste doesn't always work</p></div><p>When does copy/paste not work?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , it 's frustrating when even copy/paste does n't always workWhen does copy/paste not work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, it's frustrating when even copy/paste doesn't always workWhen does copy/paste not work?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248084</id>
	<title>Phone Manufacturers Don't Upgrade Software</title>
	<author>IronicToo</author>
	<datestamp>1266955020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The real issue here isn't an Android problem at all, it is the fact that manufacturers/carriers never upgrade the software. They have no incentive to, they already sold the product and made their money, why would they waste time/money making sure the new version will work? It actually works in their favor not to as the customers have to spend more money getting a new phone with new software. Until you actually own your phone and can upgrade it at your discretion this will continue to be a problem. Or buy something from Apple who actually understands this and has the clout to force it on the carriers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real issue here is n't an Android problem at all , it is the fact that manufacturers/carriers never upgrade the software .
They have no incentive to , they already sold the product and made their money , why would they waste time/money making sure the new version will work ?
It actually works in their favor not to as the customers have to spend more money getting a new phone with new software .
Until you actually own your phone and can upgrade it at your discretion this will continue to be a problem .
Or buy something from Apple who actually understands this and has the clout to force it on the carriers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real issue here isn't an Android problem at all, it is the fact that manufacturers/carriers never upgrade the software.
They have no incentive to, they already sold the product and made their money, why would they waste time/money making sure the new version will work?
It actually works in their favor not to as the customers have to spend more money getting a new phone with new software.
Until you actually own your phone and can upgrade it at your discretion this will continue to be a problem.
Or buy something from Apple who actually understands this and has the clout to force it on the carriers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247864</id>
	<title>Remember Windows CE?</title>
	<author>Xunker</author>
	<datestamp>1266954180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The oldies among us may remember this is also the same problem that Windows CE had in the beginning, mid 1990's.  There were at least three different CPU platforms, four form factors with at least as many distinct input methods and an array of mutually incompatible screen setups.</p><p>In the early 2000's then Microsoft Decreed several standards for the hardware and the rom customisations.  The OEMs whined but in the end it allowed the devices to unify somewhat, albeit painfully.  The fact Windows Mobile 7 exists at all is because of this decision.</p><p>Yes, you can argue that Windows Mobile (the direct descendant of WinCE) is a failed state, but I think it would also be agree'd that it would have been dead long, long ago had MS not done what it did.</p><p>Google has the additional "problem" (if you will) of Android being open-source.  With WinCE, Microsoft could be the ultimate gatekeeper but there is nothing stopping any device manufacturer from doing whatever the hell they want with Android.  They may try to initiate some kind of "Google Certified" plan to signify that an OS variant meets certain interopability standards... but the LSB has tried to do that on the desktop and, well, has it had the traction everyone hoped?</p><p>This becomes one of the larger arguments for the 'Walled Garden' approach Apple has taken and I guess that's the choice you make: stability, predictability that comes with restrictions or variability and instability that comes with openness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The oldies among us may remember this is also the same problem that Windows CE had in the beginning , mid 1990 's .
There were at least three different CPU platforms , four form factors with at least as many distinct input methods and an array of mutually incompatible screen setups.In the early 2000 's then Microsoft Decreed several standards for the hardware and the rom customisations .
The OEMs whined but in the end it allowed the devices to unify somewhat , albeit painfully .
The fact Windows Mobile 7 exists at all is because of this decision.Yes , you can argue that Windows Mobile ( the direct descendant of WinCE ) is a failed state , but I think it would also be agree 'd that it would have been dead long , long ago had MS not done what it did.Google has the additional " problem " ( if you will ) of Android being open-source .
With WinCE , Microsoft could be the ultimate gatekeeper but there is nothing stopping any device manufacturer from doing whatever the hell they want with Android .
They may try to initiate some kind of " Google Certified " plan to signify that an OS variant meets certain interopability standards... but the LSB has tried to do that on the desktop and , well , has it had the traction everyone hoped ? This becomes one of the larger arguments for the 'Walled Garden ' approach Apple has taken and I guess that 's the choice you make : stability , predictability that comes with restrictions or variability and instability that comes with openness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The oldies among us may remember this is also the same problem that Windows CE had in the beginning, mid 1990's.
There were at least three different CPU platforms, four form factors with at least as many distinct input methods and an array of mutually incompatible screen setups.In the early 2000's then Microsoft Decreed several standards for the hardware and the rom customisations.
The OEMs whined but in the end it allowed the devices to unify somewhat, albeit painfully.
The fact Windows Mobile 7 exists at all is because of this decision.Yes, you can argue that Windows Mobile (the direct descendant of WinCE) is a failed state, but I think it would also be agree'd that it would have been dead long, long ago had MS not done what it did.Google has the additional "problem" (if you will) of Android being open-source.
With WinCE, Microsoft could be the ultimate gatekeeper but there is nothing stopping any device manufacturer from doing whatever the hell they want with Android.
They may try to initiate some kind of "Google Certified" plan to signify that an OS variant meets certain interopability standards... but the LSB has tried to do that on the desktop and, well, has it had the traction everyone hoped?This becomes one of the larger arguments for the 'Walled Garden' approach Apple has taken and I guess that's the choice you make: stability, predictability that comes with restrictions or variability and instability that comes with openness.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31256484</id>
	<title>Re:The main problem is that 1.5 even STILL EXISTS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265142540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Dude, get a grip.&nbsp; You have enough money to buy a phone site unseen but you bitch about a three month delay in instant gratification for something you don't, in fact, need at all.<br><br>What the fuck ever, grow up and get some perspective.&nbsp; </tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , get a grip.   You have enough money to buy a phone site unseen but you bitch about a three month delay in instant gratification for something you do n't , in fact , need at all.What the fuck ever , grow up and get some perspective.  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, get a grip.  You have enough money to buy a phone site unseen but you bitch about a three month delay in instant gratification for something you don't, in fact, need at all.What the fuck ever, grow up and get some perspective.  </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246044</id>
	<title>Rogers.... sigh</title>
	<author>zcold</author>
	<datestamp>1266947820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Im still very annoyed over the basterdized HTC Dream that rogers released last year. What I have come to find out about the phone is that google had nothing to do with it other than create android.

If you own a Rogers HTC Dream or Magic, you essentially have a Cheap Android Knockoff.

I was recently forced an update, a good update, as it allowed me to make 911 calls while GPS is enabled. But sadly I am stuck waiting on rogers, who are waiting on HTC to release 1.6 software for the phone. Which nobody is sure if it even works. The hardware is different and god only knows what they have done to the software. They even stripped the soft keyboard out of the Dream... I had to manually install it. My brother has a dream dev phone and every day he will show me something his phone can do that mine can not.

Google really dropped the ball with this and should have had some very strict standards when allowing someone to make and release an android capable device.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Im still very annoyed over the basterdized HTC Dream that rogers released last year .
What I have come to find out about the phone is that google had nothing to do with it other than create android .
If you own a Rogers HTC Dream or Magic , you essentially have a Cheap Android Knockoff .
I was recently forced an update , a good update , as it allowed me to make 911 calls while GPS is enabled .
But sadly I am stuck waiting on rogers , who are waiting on HTC to release 1.6 software for the phone .
Which nobody is sure if it even works .
The hardware is different and god only knows what they have done to the software .
They even stripped the soft keyboard out of the Dream... I had to manually install it .
My brother has a dream dev phone and every day he will show me something his phone can do that mine can not .
Google really dropped the ball with this and should have had some very strict standards when allowing someone to make and release an android capable device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Im still very annoyed over the basterdized HTC Dream that rogers released last year.
What I have come to find out about the phone is that google had nothing to do with it other than create android.
If you own a Rogers HTC Dream or Magic, you essentially have a Cheap Android Knockoff.
I was recently forced an update, a good update, as it allowed me to make 911 calls while GPS is enabled.
But sadly I am stuck waiting on rogers, who are waiting on HTC to release 1.6 software for the phone.
Which nobody is sure if it even works.
The hardware is different and god only knows what they have done to the software.
They even stripped the soft keyboard out of the Dream... I had to manually install it.
My brother has a dream dev phone and every day he will show me something his phone can do that mine can not.
Google really dropped the ball with this and should have had some very strict standards when allowing someone to make and release an android capable device.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246464</id>
	<title>But it's OPEN</title>
	<author>intheshelter</author>
	<datestamp>1266949440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought fragmentation didn't matter because it was OPEN?  Damn Apple and their walled garden that works well every time because of centralized, well thought out control.</p><p>Turns out OPEN doesn't necessarily mean better (or worse), it just means OPEN.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought fragmentation did n't matter because it was OPEN ?
Damn Apple and their walled garden that works well every time because of centralized , well thought out control.Turns out OPEN does n't necessarily mean better ( or worse ) , it just means OPEN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought fragmentation didn't matter because it was OPEN?
Damn Apple and their walled garden that works well every time because of centralized, well thought out control.Turns out OPEN doesn't necessarily mean better (or worse), it just means OPEN.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247624</id>
	<title>Bull, pure bull.</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1266953340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Android supports various hardware directly in the SDK. Develop for 1.5 and it works in the later phones. The SDK also supports various screen sizes, hardware checks and many many other features that makes developing for various hardware a non issue.</p><p>The only way to avoid different hardware is to limit the hardware accepted. That would be insane considering the rapid development today in mobile hardware be it phones, netbooks, smartbooks, e-readers or pads. Googles solution is much nicer and works very well except for a few applications where they need hardware your gadget dont have. Like, not being able to run "Compass elite app" without having the friggin compass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Android supports various hardware directly in the SDK .
Develop for 1.5 and it works in the later phones .
The SDK also supports various screen sizes , hardware checks and many many other features that makes developing for various hardware a non issue.The only way to avoid different hardware is to limit the hardware accepted .
That would be insane considering the rapid development today in mobile hardware be it phones , netbooks , smartbooks , e-readers or pads .
Googles solution is much nicer and works very well except for a few applications where they need hardware your gadget dont have .
Like , not being able to run " Compass elite app " without having the friggin compass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Android supports various hardware directly in the SDK.
Develop for 1.5 and it works in the later phones.
The SDK also supports various screen sizes, hardware checks and many many other features that makes developing for various hardware a non issue.The only way to avoid different hardware is to limit the hardware accepted.
That would be insane considering the rapid development today in mobile hardware be it phones, netbooks, smartbooks, e-readers or pads.
Googles solution is much nicer and works very well except for a few applications where they need hardware your gadget dont have.
Like, not being able to run "Compass elite app" without having the friggin compass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247532</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe not a crisis</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1266953040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well hopefully you'd create a factory method and return compass objects with a common interface instead of using a bastardized case switch, although even more hopefully, the Android SDK provides that functionality already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well hopefully you 'd create a factory method and return compass objects with a common interface instead of using a bastardized case switch , although even more hopefully , the Android SDK provides that functionality already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well hopefully you'd create a factory method and return compass objects with a common interface instead of using a bastardized case switch, although even more hopefully, the Android SDK provides that functionality already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247942</id>
	<title>iphone vs ipod and versions</title>
	<author>codepunk</author>
	<datestamp>1266954480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's bad enough trying to target a iphone / ipod release and or device and that is from a single manufacturer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's bad enough trying to target a iphone / ipod release and or device and that is from a single manufacturer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's bad enough trying to target a iphone / ipod release and or device and that is from a single manufacturer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246290</id>
	<title>It is not a problem it is an opportunity.</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1266948780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This "problem" isn't a problem at all, it is an opportunity for a business.  The freedom of the Android platform could use some development house to take the lead.  They should pick a platform or 3 that are the most popular and develop their own version of Android as well as quality applications and quality application reviews.  They need to find the best apps in the app market and improve them and brand them so that they are guaranteed to work on their version of Android and have customer support or at least real bug tracking and message boards for suggestions to bug fixes.  Maybe even sell it as a monthly service.  Something that would really stand out.<br>
<br>
If I didn't already have a job and I had the start up capital I would have already been working on it, but since I have a nice job and no start up capital I leave it up to someone else to develop a business around the Android platform.  Currently there is a hodgepodge of unheard of development houses making apps that look like they were developed by undergrads.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This " problem " is n't a problem at all , it is an opportunity for a business .
The freedom of the Android platform could use some development house to take the lead .
They should pick a platform or 3 that are the most popular and develop their own version of Android as well as quality applications and quality application reviews .
They need to find the best apps in the app market and improve them and brand them so that they are guaranteed to work on their version of Android and have customer support or at least real bug tracking and message boards for suggestions to bug fixes .
Maybe even sell it as a monthly service .
Something that would really stand out .
If I did n't already have a job and I had the start up capital I would have already been working on it , but since I have a nice job and no start up capital I leave it up to someone else to develop a business around the Android platform .
Currently there is a hodgepodge of unheard of development houses making apps that look like they were developed by undergrads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This "problem" isn't a problem at all, it is an opportunity for a business.
The freedom of the Android platform could use some development house to take the lead.
They should pick a platform or 3 that are the most popular and develop their own version of Android as well as quality applications and quality application reviews.
They need to find the best apps in the app market and improve them and brand them so that they are guaranteed to work on their version of Android and have customer support or at least real bug tracking and message boards for suggestions to bug fixes.
Maybe even sell it as a monthly service.
Something that would really stand out.
If I didn't already have a job and I had the start up capital I would have already been working on it, but since I have a nice job and no start up capital I leave it up to someone else to develop a business around the Android platform.
Currently there is a hodgepodge of unheard of development houses making apps that look like they were developed by undergrads.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245958</id>
	<title>Re:no upgrades??</title>
	<author>twidarkling</author>
	<datestamp>1266947640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, no. Because my Galaxy is stuck at 1.5, so no, you cannot just easily upgrade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , no .
Because my Galaxy is stuck at 1.5 , so no , you can not just easily upgrade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, no.
Because my Galaxy is stuck at 1.5, so no, you cannot just easily upgrade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31252062</id>
	<title>Re:This is EXACTLY why I don't have an andoid phon</title>
	<author>Tromad</author>
	<datestamp>1266925920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have a problem with FIOS you've never had COX cable. At least with FIOS I'm not getting random dropouts or constantly being throttled, not to mention COX has a 60gb cap (I just installed win7, steam, and impulse. I probably downloaded 60gb just last night) and so far FIOS is "unlimited".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have a problem with FIOS you 've never had COX cable .
At least with FIOS I 'm not getting random dropouts or constantly being throttled , not to mention COX has a 60gb cap ( I just installed win7 , steam , and impulse .
I probably downloaded 60gb just last night ) and so far FIOS is " unlimited " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have a problem with FIOS you've never had COX cable.
At least with FIOS I'm not getting random dropouts or constantly being throttled, not to mention COX has a 60gb cap (I just installed win7, steam, and impulse.
I probably downloaded 60gb just last night) and so far FIOS is "unlimited".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246220</id>
	<title>autoconf</title>
	<author>oglueck</author>
	<datestamp>1266948420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We need something like autoconf for Android:</p><p>if (hasCompass() &amp;&amp; compassProbablyWorks() &amp;&amp; !compassIsKnownBroken() &amp;&amp; compass.type != COMPASS\_GPS &amp;&amp; a myriard of other creative stuff) {<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; doCompassStuff();<br>}</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We need something like autoconf for Android : if ( hasCompass ( ) &amp;&amp; compassProbablyWorks ( ) &amp;&amp; ! compassIsKnownBroken ( ) &amp;&amp; compass.type ! = COMPASS \ _GPS &amp;&amp; a myriard of other creative stuff ) {     doCompassStuff ( ) ; }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need something like autoconf for Android:if (hasCompass() &amp;&amp; compassProbablyWorks() &amp;&amp; !compassIsKnownBroken() &amp;&amp; compass.type != COMPASS\_GPS &amp;&amp; a myriard of other creative stuff) {
    doCompassStuff();}</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246470</id>
	<title>How is this worse?</title>
	<author>bcboy</author>
	<datestamp>1266949440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a Verizon phone. The platform could not be more locked-down. Nonetheless, app developers seem to be completely overwhelmed by the variety of devices on this completely locked platform. Only a handful of devices are supported by any given application, and the support is complicated by incompatible OS upgrades. In fact, Verizon is unable to give a consistent answer when asked what is the latest OS version for my phone. While the phone randomly crashes when using different apps, I'm shuttled between Verizon and the developers looking for a resolution, and no one can agree on what OS version should work.</p><p>At least with an open system there would be a final recourse: I could look at the damn code myself, and directly experiment with possible solutions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a Verizon phone .
The platform could not be more locked-down .
Nonetheless , app developers seem to be completely overwhelmed by the variety of devices on this completely locked platform .
Only a handful of devices are supported by any given application , and the support is complicated by incompatible OS upgrades .
In fact , Verizon is unable to give a consistent answer when asked what is the latest OS version for my phone .
While the phone randomly crashes when using different apps , I 'm shuttled between Verizon and the developers looking for a resolution , and no one can agree on what OS version should work.At least with an open system there would be a final recourse : I could look at the damn code myself , and directly experiment with possible solutions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a Verizon phone.
The platform could not be more locked-down.
Nonetheless, app developers seem to be completely overwhelmed by the variety of devices on this completely locked platform.
Only a handful of devices are supported by any given application, and the support is complicated by incompatible OS upgrades.
In fact, Verizon is unable to give a consistent answer when asked what is the latest OS version for my phone.
While the phone randomly crashes when using different apps, I'm shuttled between Verizon and the developers looking for a resolution, and no one can agree on what OS version should work.At least with an open system there would be a final recourse: I could look at the damn code myself, and directly experiment with possible solutions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31252418</id>
	<title>Re:Just like desktop linux.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266927720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love seeing how defensive all the linux-heads get at the merest mention that their beloved OS can be a pain in the flippin a** to use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love seeing how defensive all the linux-heads get at the merest mention that their beloved OS can be a pain in the flippin a * * to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love seeing how defensive all the linux-heads get at the merest mention that their beloved OS can be a pain in the flippin a** to use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245872</id>
	<title>just got a droid</title>
	<author>Spiked\_Three</author>
	<datestamp>1266947400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I needed better remote web access than my previous phone provided. I will have to say so far I am happy with it as a phone and mobile web device. I am a little disappointed in the games available (something to kill time while waiting in the drs office), but that is a small part of why I got it.<br>
But the premise of the story does worry me a little. This is one area where a central control  point (ie apple or microsoft) has a huge advantage in my opinion. A failure in the android market will confirm this as a potential defect in open source. Time will tell.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I needed better remote web access than my previous phone provided .
I will have to say so far I am happy with it as a phone and mobile web device .
I am a little disappointed in the games available ( something to kill time while waiting in the drs office ) , but that is a small part of why I got it .
But the premise of the story does worry me a little .
This is one area where a central control point ( ie apple or microsoft ) has a huge advantage in my opinion .
A failure in the android market will confirm this as a potential defect in open source .
Time will tell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I needed better remote web access than my previous phone provided.
I will have to say so far I am happy with it as a phone and mobile web device.
I am a little disappointed in the games available (something to kill time while waiting in the drs office), but that is a small part of why I got it.
But the premise of the story does worry me a little.
This is one area where a central control  point (ie apple or microsoft) has a huge advantage in my opinion.
A failure in the android market will confirm this as a potential defect in open source.
Time will tell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245940</id>
	<title>tradegy... strife... and fired please</title>
	<author>exabrial</author>
	<datestamp>1266947580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>OH ANDROID IS A COUNTRY SONG.<br>
<br>
If I remember right, pundits were predicting the death of android because google was releasing the Nexus One.<br>
<br>
Next, Android was going to flail and explode because evil Google wasn't bothering to spend time pushing irrelavent patches all the main Kernel tree (yes, because I want a phone's security model on my desktop linux please).<br>
<br>
Now, horors of horors, a \_very very very small\_ percentage of applications don't work everywhere. I predict complete failure as a platform. No operating system platform in the world has experienced this and managed to suceeed.<br>
<br>
<br>
I couldn't stand to RTFA; does the author of the article own an Android device? I do, and it's a v1.5 (Samsung Moment). In a few months, it'll be upgraded to v2.1. Till then, I've downloaded exactly \_one\_ application that isn't compatibile with 1.5. Time to sing about tradgedy, strife and whatever analyst wrote this getting fired.</htmltext>
<tokenext>OH ANDROID IS A COUNTRY SONG .
If I remember right , pundits were predicting the death of android because google was releasing the Nexus One .
Next , Android was going to flail and explode because evil Google was n't bothering to spend time pushing irrelavent patches all the main Kernel tree ( yes , because I want a phone 's security model on my desktop linux please ) .
Now , horors of horors , a \ _very very very small \ _ percentage of applications do n't work everywhere .
I predict complete failure as a platform .
No operating system platform in the world has experienced this and managed to suceeed .
I could n't stand to RTFA ; does the author of the article own an Android device ?
I do , and it 's a v1.5 ( Samsung Moment ) .
In a few months , it 'll be upgraded to v2.1 .
Till then , I 've downloaded exactly \ _one \ _ application that is n't compatibile with 1.5 .
Time to sing about tradgedy , strife and whatever analyst wrote this getting fired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OH ANDROID IS A COUNTRY SONG.
If I remember right, pundits were predicting the death of android because google was releasing the Nexus One.
Next, Android was going to flail and explode because evil Google wasn't bothering to spend time pushing irrelavent patches all the main Kernel tree (yes, because I want a phone's security model on my desktop linux please).
Now, horors of horors, a \_very very very small\_ percentage of applications don't work everywhere.
I predict complete failure as a platform.
No operating system platform in the world has experienced this and managed to suceeed.
I couldn't stand to RTFA; does the author of the article own an Android device?
I do, and it's a v1.5 (Samsung Moment).
In a few months, it'll be upgraded to v2.1.
Till then, I've downloaded exactly \_one\_ application that isn't compatibile with 1.5.
Time to sing about tradgedy, strife and whatever analyst wrote this getting fired.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245950</id>
	<title>Much like Linux...</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1266947580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'That flood of options should be a good thing -- but it's not. In fact, it's a self-destruction derby in action, as phones come out with different versions of the Android OS, with no clear upgrade strategy for either the operating system or the applications users have installed, and with inconsistent deployment of core features. In short, the Android platform is turning out not to be a platform at all, but merely a starting point for a universe of incompatible devices,'</p></div><p>Much like Linux...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'That flood of options should be a good thing -- but it 's not .
In fact , it 's a self-destruction derby in action , as phones come out with different versions of the Android OS , with no clear upgrade strategy for either the operating system or the applications users have installed , and with inconsistent deployment of core features .
In short , the Android platform is turning out not to be a platform at all , but merely a starting point for a universe of incompatible devices,'Much like Linux.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'That flood of options should be a good thing -- but it's not.
In fact, it's a self-destruction derby in action, as phones come out with different versions of the Android OS, with no clear upgrade strategy for either the operating system or the applications users have installed, and with inconsistent deployment of core features.
In short, the Android platform is turning out not to be a platform at all, but merely a starting point for a universe of incompatible devices,'Much like Linux...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247832</id>
	<title>"flood of options"</title>
	<author>azgard</author>
	<datestamp>1266954060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flood is never a good thing. Flood of options? Meh.</p><p>What we need is irrigation. Irrigation of options. Yeah, that and tubes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flood is never a good thing .
Flood of options ?
Meh.What we need is irrigation .
Irrigation of options .
Yeah , that and tubes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flood is never a good thing.
Flood of options?
Meh.What we need is irrigation.
Irrigation of options.
Yeah, that and tubes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246446</id>
	<title>TFA is a troll</title>
	<author>bl8n8r</author>
	<datestamp>1266949380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA: "Who wants to commit to a two-year cell contract for an Android phone when it's not clear if a better version will be out next month or if the operating system and apps you put on your Android device will be supported in the future?"</p><p>There's no guarantee that palm will ever fix it's frustrating SMTP/TLS implementation to match the RFC , or that Apple won't force every developer to DRM everything that enters the iPhone.  I'm also not guaranteed that I'll ever be spyware free on Windows, or that Microsoft won't shut down my PC because they think it's pirated.</p><p>The article is just the same opportunistic FUD against Open Source that went around in the mid 90s.  Next thing coming out of InfoWorld will be an article written by someone from the Yankee Group declaring android is infringing on copyrights.  Go ahead and drink the kool-aid if you want folks.  The only thing your doing is limiting your own choices down the road.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : " Who wants to commit to a two-year cell contract for an Android phone when it 's not clear if a better version will be out next month or if the operating system and apps you put on your Android device will be supported in the future ?
" There 's no guarantee that palm will ever fix it 's frustrating SMTP/TLS implementation to match the RFC , or that Apple wo n't force every developer to DRM everything that enters the iPhone .
I 'm also not guaranteed that I 'll ever be spyware free on Windows , or that Microsoft wo n't shut down my PC because they think it 's pirated.The article is just the same opportunistic FUD against Open Source that went around in the mid 90s .
Next thing coming out of InfoWorld will be an article written by someone from the Yankee Group declaring android is infringing on copyrights .
Go ahead and drink the kool-aid if you want folks .
The only thing your doing is limiting your own choices down the road .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA: "Who wants to commit to a two-year cell contract for an Android phone when it's not clear if a better version will be out next month or if the operating system and apps you put on your Android device will be supported in the future?
"There's no guarantee that palm will ever fix it's frustrating SMTP/TLS implementation to match the RFC , or that Apple won't force every developer to DRM everything that enters the iPhone.
I'm also not guaranteed that I'll ever be spyware free on Windows, or that Microsoft won't shut down my PC because they think it's pirated.The article is just the same opportunistic FUD against Open Source that went around in the mid 90s.
Next thing coming out of InfoWorld will be an article written by someone from the Yankee Group declaring android is infringing on copyrights.
Go ahead and drink the kool-aid if you want folks.
The only thing your doing is limiting your own choices down the road.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246354</id>
	<title>All I see</title>
	<author>TheQuantumShift</author>
	<datestamp>1266949020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is weaker (cheaper) devices use older versions of the OS, which is understandable. Maybe a clear definition of class of devices would help.
<ul>
<li>Android basic. Version 1.5/6, limited app compatibility.</li>
<li>Android standard. Version 2.0 and up, full compatibility.</li>
<li>Android custom. Carrier/Manufacturer modified (motoblur, etc.) see your OEM for compatibility.</li>
</ul><p>
And no, no "Ultimate". Ever.
<br> <br>
I am a little surprised by the incompatibilities between the version, but I really think more and more devices will standardize on &gt;=2.0 now that the platform has stabilized and the hardware required to run it has gotten cheaper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is weaker ( cheaper ) devices use older versions of the OS , which is understandable .
Maybe a clear definition of class of devices would help .
Android basic .
Version 1.5/6 , limited app compatibility .
Android standard .
Version 2.0 and up , full compatibility .
Android custom .
Carrier/Manufacturer modified ( motoblur , etc .
) see your OEM for compatibility .
And no , no " Ultimate " .
Ever . I am a little surprised by the incompatibilities between the version , but I really think more and more devices will standardize on &gt; = 2.0 now that the platform has stabilized and the hardware required to run it has gotten cheaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is weaker (cheaper) devices use older versions of the OS, which is understandable.
Maybe a clear definition of class of devices would help.
Android basic.
Version 1.5/6, limited app compatibility.
Android standard.
Version 2.0 and up, full compatibility.
Android custom.
Carrier/Manufacturer modified (motoblur, etc.
) see your OEM for compatibility.
And no, no "Ultimate".
Ever.
 
I am a little surprised by the incompatibilities between the version, but I really think more and more devices will standardize on &gt;=2.0 now that the platform has stabilized and the hardware required to run it has gotten cheaper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31254870</id>
	<title>The internet has truly moved to phones.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266941280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Penguin baiting... There's an app for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Penguin baiting... There 's an app for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Penguin baiting... There's an app for that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31249682</id>
	<title>Linux</title>
	<author>pastababa</author>
	<datestamp>1266916920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well... that's Linux.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well... that 's Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well... that's Linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31249108</id>
	<title>Re:no upgrades??</title>
	<author>brentrad</author>
	<datestamp>1266958140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Droid has been out for LESS THAN 4 MONTHS, and has already had one fairly major upgrade (2.0 -&gt; 2.0.1).  It was mostly bug fixes, but also included some new functionality.  The 2.1 update is imminent - although we don't have an exact date, Verizon has stated flat our on their Facebook page that the Droid WILL get the 2.1 update soon.
<p>
Just for comparison, but how often do upgrades come out for the iPhone?  Major new versions once a year, minor point upgrades about every quarter, bugfix upgrades every month or two:
</p><p>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone\_OS\_version\_history" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone\_OS\_version\_history</a> [wikipedia.org]
</p><p>
The Droid got 2.0.1 about a month and a half after launch, and is getting 2.1 about 4 months after launch.  Sounds pretty equivalent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Droid has been out for LESS THAN 4 MONTHS , and has already had one fairly major upgrade ( 2.0 - &gt; 2.0.1 ) .
It was mostly bug fixes , but also included some new functionality .
The 2.1 update is imminent - although we do n't have an exact date , Verizon has stated flat our on their Facebook page that the Droid WILL get the 2.1 update soon .
Just for comparison , but how often do upgrades come out for the iPhone ?
Major new versions once a year , minor point upgrades about every quarter , bugfix upgrades every month or two : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone \ _OS \ _version \ _history [ wikipedia.org ] The Droid got 2.0.1 about a month and a half after launch , and is getting 2.1 about 4 months after launch .
Sounds pretty equivalent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Droid has been out for LESS THAN 4 MONTHS, and has already had one fairly major upgrade (2.0 -&gt; 2.0.1).
It was mostly bug fixes, but also included some new functionality.
The 2.1 update is imminent - although we don't have an exact date, Verizon has stated flat our on their Facebook page that the Droid WILL get the 2.1 update soon.
Just for comparison, but how often do upgrades come out for the iPhone?
Major new versions once a year, minor point upgrades about every quarter, bugfix upgrades every month or two:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone\_OS\_version\_history [wikipedia.org]

The Droid got 2.0.1 about a month and a half after launch, and is getting 2.1 about 4 months after launch.
Sounds pretty equivalent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246616</id>
	<title>Handset Manufactuerers will Standardize Naturally</title>
	<author>dbkluck</author>
	<datestamp>1266949920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>TFA posits that the proliferation of forked implementations and proprietary extensions will create a vast jungle of mutually incompatible Android phones.  The problem with this argument is that, as Apple's "There's an app for that" campaign shows, it is increasingly not the features of the hardware that are selling mobile phones as much as it is the app ecosystem surrounding the platform.  I'm inclined to think that handset manufacturers are going to be constrained in the amount of forking and proprietary extending they're going to be able to do without risking breaking compatibility with the mainstream app development.  If it gets to a point where, for example, a large number of apps in the market have notes from the developer that say "won't work with HTC's super-Dream because of its proprietary SenseUI system," HTC will have effectively cut itself off from the major factor driving adoption of its product.  Standardization is the handset manufacturer's problem, not the users' or the developers'.  Developers will naturally build their apps for the most popular implementations, and other manufacturers will have to make sure their implementations compatible with those if they expect to compete.</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA posits that the proliferation of forked implementations and proprietary extensions will create a vast jungle of mutually incompatible Android phones .
The problem with this argument is that , as Apple 's " There 's an app for that " campaign shows , it is increasingly not the features of the hardware that are selling mobile phones as much as it is the app ecosystem surrounding the platform .
I 'm inclined to think that handset manufacturers are going to be constrained in the amount of forking and proprietary extending they 're going to be able to do without risking breaking compatibility with the mainstream app development .
If it gets to a point where , for example , a large number of apps in the market have notes from the developer that say " wo n't work with HTC 's super-Dream because of its proprietary SenseUI system , " HTC will have effectively cut itself off from the major factor driving adoption of its product .
Standardization is the handset manufacturer 's problem , not the users ' or the developers' .
Developers will naturally build their apps for the most popular implementations , and other manufacturers will have to make sure their implementations compatible with those if they expect to compete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA posits that the proliferation of forked implementations and proprietary extensions will create a vast jungle of mutually incompatible Android phones.
The problem with this argument is that, as Apple's "There's an app for that" campaign shows, it is increasingly not the features of the hardware that are selling mobile phones as much as it is the app ecosystem surrounding the platform.
I'm inclined to think that handset manufacturers are going to be constrained in the amount of forking and proprietary extending they're going to be able to do without risking breaking compatibility with the mainstream app development.
If it gets to a point where, for example, a large number of apps in the market have notes from the developer that say "won't work with HTC's super-Dream because of its proprietary SenseUI system," HTC will have effectively cut itself off from the major factor driving adoption of its product.
Standardization is the handset manufacturer's problem, not the users' or the developers'.
Developers will naturally build their apps for the most popular implementations, and other manufacturers will have to make sure their implementations compatible with those if they expect to compete.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31254362</id>
	<title>Re:Growing pains, not worsethan older phones</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1266938040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The idea of Android isn't bad - far from it. From what I've seen, HTC's software was pretty shoddy before Anrdoid, but the hardware was solid, for instance. And while I don't own an Android device, I have used it and heard great feedback from friends.

Google's rules on Android are important, because Google has reached a fork in the road.<br> <br>

    * Google can continue to keep Android very free in its usage terms. ODMs will continue to like and adapt the OS to their devices, but they may provide custom interfaces, choose not to release upgrades for the phone OS. Inconsistency may drive people away.<br>
    * Google restricts the terms of usage, sets forth rules on UI consistency, upgrades, etc...this provides a more consistent experience but may scare device makers away.<br> <br>

Google might do the former now (to spur adoption) and the latter later, once everyone is using the OS. It's tough to say, because if Google tries to tighten control too early, they'll lose their support, while if they're too late, people may have already given up on developing for the platform.</p></div></blockquote><p>

I've said this since I first got my Android phone in May last year, Android is attempting to do for the mobile phone market what MS did to the Computer market. Previous to DOS we had a bunch of vertical integrators that controlled everything, hardware, software and service stack from a single supplier, the same is true with mobile phones, one supplier (the telco) has complete control over the hardware, software and service. Google has successfully separated the hardware and software stack but we are still victims (for the most part) to the telco's controlling the service part.<br> <br>

Google will maintain the open part, this isn't as big of a problem as people think, even if I download an<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.apk for Android 2.0 any decent installer will simply do a version check on my Dream (Android 1.6) which is just a uname -a and refuse to install. The problem with different versions is that bad programmers don't follow good development practices. Having a singular version or walled garden approach wont fix the problem of bad developers. Eventually the applications framework will settle by itself (by this I mean whatever Google, the OHA and the Developers all end up using), Android is new and is going through a few growing pains and most of them are over now.<br> <br>

Android is as homogeneous as Windows, you have the same basic libraries but differing optional libraries, for example most w32 programs run on 98-win7 but get more complex and you need to make sure you have<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net installed, then even more complex to make sure<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net 3.5 is installed then it's patches/service packs and it might also need DirectX 10 (I've bought games that required a specific revsion of DirectX, but once again this is bad development, not bad OS design). The same is true for android, you can easily make a program that can run on Android 1-2.1 but as you get more complex this becomes harder. This has not killed the Windows development industry, in fact room for non-uniformity has helped it by increasing what applications can do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea of Android is n't bad - far from it .
From what I 've seen , HTC 's software was pretty shoddy before Anrdoid , but the hardware was solid , for instance .
And while I do n't own an Android device , I have used it and heard great feedback from friends .
Google 's rules on Android are important , because Google has reached a fork in the road .
* Google can continue to keep Android very free in its usage terms .
ODMs will continue to like and adapt the OS to their devices , but they may provide custom interfaces , choose not to release upgrades for the phone OS .
Inconsistency may drive people away .
* Google restricts the terms of usage , sets forth rules on UI consistency , upgrades , etc...this provides a more consistent experience but may scare device makers away .
Google might do the former now ( to spur adoption ) and the latter later , once everyone is using the OS .
It 's tough to say , because if Google tries to tighten control too early , they 'll lose their support , while if they 're too late , people may have already given up on developing for the platform .
I 've said this since I first got my Android phone in May last year , Android is attempting to do for the mobile phone market what MS did to the Computer market .
Previous to DOS we had a bunch of vertical integrators that controlled everything , hardware , software and service stack from a single supplier , the same is true with mobile phones , one supplier ( the telco ) has complete control over the hardware , software and service .
Google has successfully separated the hardware and software stack but we are still victims ( for the most part ) to the telco 's controlling the service part .
Google will maintain the open part , this is n't as big of a problem as people think , even if I download an .apk for Android 2.0 any decent installer will simply do a version check on my Dream ( Android 1.6 ) which is just a uname -a and refuse to install .
The problem with different versions is that bad programmers do n't follow good development practices .
Having a singular version or walled garden approach wont fix the problem of bad developers .
Eventually the applications framework will settle by itself ( by this I mean whatever Google , the OHA and the Developers all end up using ) , Android is new and is going through a few growing pains and most of them are over now .
Android is as homogeneous as Windows , you have the same basic libraries but differing optional libraries , for example most w32 programs run on 98-win7 but get more complex and you need to make sure you have .net installed , then even more complex to make sure .net 3.5 is installed then it 's patches/service packs and it might also need DirectX 10 ( I 've bought games that required a specific revsion of DirectX , but once again this is bad development , not bad OS design ) .
The same is true for android , you can easily make a program that can run on Android 1-2.1 but as you get more complex this becomes harder .
This has not killed the Windows development industry , in fact room for non-uniformity has helped it by increasing what applications can do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea of Android isn't bad - far from it.
From what I've seen, HTC's software was pretty shoddy before Anrdoid, but the hardware was solid, for instance.
And while I don't own an Android device, I have used it and heard great feedback from friends.
Google's rules on Android are important, because Google has reached a fork in the road.
* Google can continue to keep Android very free in its usage terms.
ODMs will continue to like and adapt the OS to their devices, but they may provide custom interfaces, choose not to release upgrades for the phone OS.
Inconsistency may drive people away.
* Google restricts the terms of usage, sets forth rules on UI consistency, upgrades, etc...this provides a more consistent experience but may scare device makers away.
Google might do the former now (to spur adoption) and the latter later, once everyone is using the OS.
It's tough to say, because if Google tries to tighten control too early, they'll lose their support, while if they're too late, people may have already given up on developing for the platform.
I've said this since I first got my Android phone in May last year, Android is attempting to do for the mobile phone market what MS did to the Computer market.
Previous to DOS we had a bunch of vertical integrators that controlled everything, hardware, software and service stack from a single supplier, the same is true with mobile phones, one supplier (the telco) has complete control over the hardware, software and service.
Google has successfully separated the hardware and software stack but we are still victims (for the most part) to the telco's controlling the service part.
Google will maintain the open part, this isn't as big of a problem as people think, even if I download an .apk for Android 2.0 any decent installer will simply do a version check on my Dream (Android 1.6) which is just a uname -a and refuse to install.
The problem with different versions is that bad programmers don't follow good development practices.
Having a singular version or walled garden approach wont fix the problem of bad developers.
Eventually the applications framework will settle by itself (by this I mean whatever Google, the OHA and the Developers all end up using), Android is new and is going through a few growing pains and most of them are over now.
Android is as homogeneous as Windows, you have the same basic libraries but differing optional libraries, for example most w32 programs run on 98-win7 but get more complex and you need to make sure you have .net installed, then even more complex to make sure .net 3.5 is installed then it's patches/service packs and it might also need DirectX 10 (I've bought games that required a specific revsion of DirectX, but once again this is bad development, not bad OS design).
The same is true for android, you can easily make a program that can run on Android 1-2.1 but as you get more complex this becomes harder.
This has not killed the Windows development industry, in fact room for non-uniformity has helped it by increasing what applications can do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245912</id>
	<title>Re:Just like desktop linux.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266947520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is essentially the same problem that desktop linux has.</p></div><p>You mean that desktop linux has several packaging systems you can choose from? Or that (zomg) there are different desktop managers with special feature sets, whose programs you can still run while using a different manager as long as you install needed libraries/prerequisites? Oh wait, this sounds like no problem at all!</p><p>I fail to see your point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is essentially the same problem that desktop linux has.You mean that desktop linux has several packaging systems you can choose from ?
Or that ( zomg ) there are different desktop managers with special feature sets , whose programs you can still run while using a different manager as long as you install needed libraries/prerequisites ?
Oh wait , this sounds like no problem at all ! I fail to see your point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is essentially the same problem that desktop linux has.You mean that desktop linux has several packaging systems you can choose from?
Or that (zomg) there are different desktop managers with special feature sets, whose programs you can still run while using a different manager as long as you install needed libraries/prerequisites?
Oh wait, this sounds like no problem at all!I fail to see your point.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245992</id>
	<title>Re:no upgrades??</title>
	<author>dirk</author>
	<datestamp>1266947700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While this is true to some extent, does your phone have Android 2.1?  Unless you hacked it, the answer is no.  So it does small incremental upgrades, but there hasn't been a major version upgrade pushed this way, which is what this article is talking about.  There are phones currently being sold with at least 3 version of android (1.6, 2.0. and 2.1), with no current upgrade path to get to the next major version.</p><p>This is the big problem with WinMobile phones, and will be a huge issue for Android phones unless they get an upgrade path out there.  If the phone can take it, there is no reason not to allow them to upgrade to the newest version of the OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While this is true to some extent , does your phone have Android 2.1 ?
Unless you hacked it , the answer is no .
So it does small incremental upgrades , but there has n't been a major version upgrade pushed this way , which is what this article is talking about .
There are phones currently being sold with at least 3 version of android ( 1.6 , 2.0. and 2.1 ) , with no current upgrade path to get to the next major version.This is the big problem with WinMobile phones , and will be a huge issue for Android phones unless they get an upgrade path out there .
If the phone can take it , there is no reason not to allow them to upgrade to the newest version of the OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While this is true to some extent, does your phone have Android 2.1?
Unless you hacked it, the answer is no.
So it does small incremental upgrades, but there hasn't been a major version upgrade pushed this way, which is what this article is talking about.
There are phones currently being sold with at least 3 version of android (1.6, 2.0. and 2.1), with no current upgrade path to get to the next major version.This is the big problem with WinMobile phones, and will be a huge issue for Android phones unless they get an upgrade path out there.
If the phone can take it, there is no reason not to allow them to upgrade to the newest version of the OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246058</id>
	<title>Carrier Footdragging</title>
	<author>capitaladot</author>
	<datestamp>1266947880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It kept MMS off the iPhone, caused the stagnation in Windows Mobile, and is forcing this.  Regulatory (or legislative) intervention in the form of forcing carriers to decouple phone provision from the network (following from Carterphone in the wired telco world) is one solution.  Perhaps there are others?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It kept MMS off the iPhone , caused the stagnation in Windows Mobile , and is forcing this .
Regulatory ( or legislative ) intervention in the form of forcing carriers to decouple phone provision from the network ( following from Carterphone in the wired telco world ) is one solution .
Perhaps there are others ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It kept MMS off the iPhone, caused the stagnation in Windows Mobile, and is forcing this.
Regulatory (or legislative) intervention in the form of forcing carriers to decouple phone provision from the network (following from Carterphone in the wired telco world) is one solution.
Perhaps there are others?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31250686</id>
	<title>Fucksticks</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1266920880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When will you fucksticks learn?</p><p>Android is a PLATFORM.</p><p>It is not the cellular saving grace from Google.<br>It is not the iPhone killer.<br>It is not a unified experience.<br>It is not a hardware specification.</p><p>Why the fuck do you morons expect Android to "save" you from the iPhone?  Just don't buy an iPhone - there are plenty of fucking superior devices out there.  You can develop for just about all of those devices, too!  And you can even do it in a way that works for many of them, AND a way that leverages the unique features of each.</p><p>Fagsticks who can't be arsed to develop for more that one piece of hardware need to do something very simple - design your application in the best way possible.  Don't fucking design useless application #486394 that is nothing buy a front end for a web service that uses the touchscreen.  99.9\% of "apps" are complete shit.  I have NO sympathy for the developers of those "apps".  Real developers will make shit work, and successful, useful software drives hardware design.</p><p>The fact that mobile hardware is so diverse is DUE to the following:</p><p>Users have diverse desires.<br>Very few useful applications NEED something that isn't available on the majority of devices.</p><p>If you make an application that people want, and it requires that you own a duck, people will buy a fucking duck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When will you fucksticks learn ? Android is a PLATFORM.It is not the cellular saving grace from Google.It is not the iPhone killer.It is not a unified experience.It is not a hardware specification.Why the fuck do you morons expect Android to " save " you from the iPhone ?
Just do n't buy an iPhone - there are plenty of fucking superior devices out there .
You can develop for just about all of those devices , too !
And you can even do it in a way that works for many of them , AND a way that leverages the unique features of each.Fagsticks who ca n't be arsed to develop for more that one piece of hardware need to do something very simple - design your application in the best way possible .
Do n't fucking design useless application # 486394 that is nothing buy a front end for a web service that uses the touchscreen .
99.9 \ % of " apps " are complete shit .
I have NO sympathy for the developers of those " apps " .
Real developers will make shit work , and successful , useful software drives hardware design.The fact that mobile hardware is so diverse is DUE to the following : Users have diverse desires.Very few useful applications NEED something that is n't available on the majority of devices.If you make an application that people want , and it requires that you own a duck , people will buy a fucking duck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When will you fucksticks learn?Android is a PLATFORM.It is not the cellular saving grace from Google.It is not the iPhone killer.It is not a unified experience.It is not a hardware specification.Why the fuck do you morons expect Android to "save" you from the iPhone?
Just don't buy an iPhone - there are plenty of fucking superior devices out there.
You can develop for just about all of those devices, too!
And you can even do it in a way that works for many of them, AND a way that leverages the unique features of each.Fagsticks who can't be arsed to develop for more that one piece of hardware need to do something very simple - design your application in the best way possible.
Don't fucking design useless application #486394 that is nothing buy a front end for a web service that uses the touchscreen.
99.9\% of "apps" are complete shit.
I have NO sympathy for the developers of those "apps".
Real developers will make shit work, and successful, useful software drives hardware design.The fact that mobile hardware is so diverse is DUE to the following:Users have diverse desires.Very few useful applications NEED something that isn't available on the majority of devices.If you make an application that people want, and it requires that you own a duck, people will buy a fucking duck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245936</id>
	<title>PCs all over again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266947580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it just me or is the smartphone market looking exactly like the computer market did in the transition from minicomputers to personal computers? Blackberry and the old Palms are the minis. Then there's the hot shot closed system in the iPhone and the competing disparate open systems in Android, Web OS, and the new Windows Mobile. I'm hoping for a partial repeat of the PC market: Open wins. But hopefully somebody besides Microsoft comes out on top this time. Maybe Amiga will make a comeback on the smart phone!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it just me or is the smartphone market looking exactly like the computer market did in the transition from minicomputers to personal computers ?
Blackberry and the old Palms are the minis .
Then there 's the hot shot closed system in the iPhone and the competing disparate open systems in Android , Web OS , and the new Windows Mobile .
I 'm hoping for a partial repeat of the PC market : Open wins .
But hopefully somebody besides Microsoft comes out on top this time .
Maybe Amiga will make a comeback on the smart phone !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it just me or is the smartphone market looking exactly like the computer market did in the transition from minicomputers to personal computers?
Blackberry and the old Palms are the minis.
Then there's the hot shot closed system in the iPhone and the competing disparate open systems in Android, Web OS, and the new Windows Mobile.
I'm hoping for a partial repeat of the PC market: Open wins.
But hopefully somebody besides Microsoft comes out on top this time.
Maybe Amiga will make a comeback on the smart phone!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246302</id>
	<title>Re:Wasn't JAVA supposed to prevent this?</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1266948840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>By universe of incompatible devices they mean the hardware itself is different (different screen resolution, system memory, camera resolution, accelerometer available, kind of touch screen available) making it hard to develop an application that works on any device. Google can easily fix this by making standard certified hardware platforms. In reality they probably will not bother at all. This also happens with the PC platform and people manage fine.
<p>
Android uses Dalvik which is a sort of Java like VM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By universe of incompatible devices they mean the hardware itself is different ( different screen resolution , system memory , camera resolution , accelerometer available , kind of touch screen available ) making it hard to develop an application that works on any device .
Google can easily fix this by making standard certified hardware platforms .
In reality they probably will not bother at all .
This also happens with the PC platform and people manage fine .
Android uses Dalvik which is a sort of Java like VM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By universe of incompatible devices they mean the hardware itself is different (different screen resolution, system memory, camera resolution, accelerometer available, kind of touch screen available) making it hard to develop an application that works on any device.
Google can easily fix this by making standard certified hardware platforms.
In reality they probably will not bother at all.
This also happens with the PC platform and people manage fine.
Android uses Dalvik which is a sort of Java like VM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31251470</id>
	<title>Somehow the market provides...</title>
	<author>petenz</author>
	<datestamp>1266923460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To whatever extent the original article is true, there are ways around any problems - just look at:
<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.geeksphone.com/en/" title="geeksphone.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.geeksphone.com/en/</a> [geeksphone.com]
<br>
<br>
If these guys can put together a working android phone in a short timeframe, as they appear to have done, and be looking ahead to their second model, and building a community, it shows that there can be a way forward for open source software in combination with hardware... In fact it makes 'computer companies' into hardware companies again through allowing the community to work on what it can easily - the software - and leaving the company to sort out the hardware - and do it at what is to my eyes a pretty compelling price.
<br>
<br>
In the 'phone' (aka mobile computing) world this is the equivalent to being able to go to ubuntu.com and order a ubuntu branded pc/laptop/netbook/MID/smartphone, and know that I'm going to get a device that works, is free (speech), and will work with other devices from the same company - is it not?</htmltext>
<tokenext>To whatever extent the original article is true , there are ways around any problems - just look at : http : //www.geeksphone.com/en/ [ geeksphone.com ] If these guys can put together a working android phone in a short timeframe , as they appear to have done , and be looking ahead to their second model , and building a community , it shows that there can be a way forward for open source software in combination with hardware... In fact it makes 'computer companies ' into hardware companies again through allowing the community to work on what it can easily - the software - and leaving the company to sort out the hardware - and do it at what is to my eyes a pretty compelling price .
In the 'phone ' ( aka mobile computing ) world this is the equivalent to being able to go to ubuntu.com and order a ubuntu branded pc/laptop/netbook/MID/smartphone , and know that I 'm going to get a device that works , is free ( speech ) , and will work with other devices from the same company - is it not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To whatever extent the original article is true, there are ways around any problems - just look at:


http://www.geeksphone.com/en/ [geeksphone.com]


If these guys can put together a working android phone in a short timeframe, as they appear to have done, and be looking ahead to their second model, and building a community, it shows that there can be a way forward for open source software in combination with hardware... In fact it makes 'computer companies' into hardware companies again through allowing the community to work on what it can easily - the software - and leaving the company to sort out the hardware - and do it at what is to my eyes a pretty compelling price.
In the 'phone' (aka mobile computing) world this is the equivalent to being able to go to ubuntu.com and order a ubuntu branded pc/laptop/netbook/MID/smartphone, and know that I'm going to get a device that works, is free (speech), and will work with other devices from the same company - is it not?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245922</id>
	<title>Wasn't JAVA supposed to prevent this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266947520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why isn't JAVA (or some JAVA-like byte code embedded language) being used to address this- wasn't that the point of JAVA? I am not a CS guy, so maybe somebody can clue me in.<br><br>JP</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is n't JAVA ( or some JAVA-like byte code embedded language ) being used to address this- was n't that the point of JAVA ?
I am not a CS guy , so maybe somebody can clue me in.JP</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why isn't JAVA (or some JAVA-like byte code embedded language) being used to address this- wasn't that the point of JAVA?
I am not a CS guy, so maybe somebody can clue me in.JP</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246450</id>
	<title>Re:Wasn't JAVA supposed to prevent this?</title>
	<author>perlchild</author>
	<datestamp>1266949440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of the hardware problems are tied to hardware capabilities and how apps use them.  Java just ensures the code YOU write to support a piece of hardware will work, it says nothing about how to use them.  Normally, there is a standard library, but the standard library for J2ME(Java mobile edition) predates even the iphone, AFAIK.  Having a standard library that knows about touch/multitouch, cameras, would be nice, but(I'm not a mobile dev, but I've been active in this space for a while) it doesn't again, AFAIK exist.</p><p>Now even if it did... When you write an app, if you want to support two phones, each having different features, you have to basically code 1.2 apps(a gross estimate of the work involved), supporting five phones(with a choice matrix of features supported &gt;2) is probably more work than writing two whole apps.<br>The real "beauty" of apple's offerings right now is that as a single manufacturer, they've only released phones with increasing features/screen size. Meaning that current apps rarely have to worry about working on a bigger phone, since almost everything the older phone did is done mostly the same way on the new one, and whatever features are missing, are usually missing on the older equipment, which means the developer can just leave his app as-is, or work to port it on the new equipment to get the sales.</p><p>Having a multi-vendor environment is great for avoiding consumer lock-in, however, it means that manufacturers/carriers(depending on country, many a reasoned thesis could be written on this) compete on phone features, which means the person designing the hardware actually <b>wants</b> incomptible hardware(aka apps that will only run on their platform).</p><p>I don't think it's so much a failure of android in this case, as a failure of the business model prevalent in the US/Canada, especially.  Having the phones seen as a competitive differentiator actually clashes with third party apps developers' wishes.  The postitioning of android as open source was great, for getting a lot of people interested in a new platform, but I doubt it can sustain interest in the platform, by itself, and that's likely to be for as long as the platforms are designed by people who don't want to be compatible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the hardware problems are tied to hardware capabilities and how apps use them .
Java just ensures the code YOU write to support a piece of hardware will work , it says nothing about how to use them .
Normally , there is a standard library , but the standard library for J2ME ( Java mobile edition ) predates even the iphone , AFAIK .
Having a standard library that knows about touch/multitouch , cameras , would be nice , but ( I 'm not a mobile dev , but I 've been active in this space for a while ) it does n't again , AFAIK exist.Now even if it did... When you write an app , if you want to support two phones , each having different features , you have to basically code 1.2 apps ( a gross estimate of the work involved ) , supporting five phones ( with a choice matrix of features supported &gt; 2 ) is probably more work than writing two whole apps.The real " beauty " of apple 's offerings right now is that as a single manufacturer , they 've only released phones with increasing features/screen size .
Meaning that current apps rarely have to worry about working on a bigger phone , since almost everything the older phone did is done mostly the same way on the new one , and whatever features are missing , are usually missing on the older equipment , which means the developer can just leave his app as-is , or work to port it on the new equipment to get the sales.Having a multi-vendor environment is great for avoiding consumer lock-in , however , it means that manufacturers/carriers ( depending on country , many a reasoned thesis could be written on this ) compete on phone features , which means the person designing the hardware actually wants incomptible hardware ( aka apps that will only run on their platform ) .I do n't think it 's so much a failure of android in this case , as a failure of the business model prevalent in the US/Canada , especially .
Having the phones seen as a competitive differentiator actually clashes with third party apps developers ' wishes .
The postitioning of android as open source was great , for getting a lot of people interested in a new platform , but I doubt it can sustain interest in the platform , by itself , and that 's likely to be for as long as the platforms are designed by people who do n't want to be compatible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the hardware problems are tied to hardware capabilities and how apps use them.
Java just ensures the code YOU write to support a piece of hardware will work, it says nothing about how to use them.
Normally, there is a standard library, but the standard library for J2ME(Java mobile edition) predates even the iphone, AFAIK.
Having a standard library that knows about touch/multitouch, cameras, would be nice, but(I'm not a mobile dev, but I've been active in this space for a while) it doesn't again, AFAIK exist.Now even if it did... When you write an app, if you want to support two phones, each having different features, you have to basically code 1.2 apps(a gross estimate of the work involved), supporting five phones(with a choice matrix of features supported &gt;2) is probably more work than writing two whole apps.The real "beauty" of apple's offerings right now is that as a single manufacturer, they've only released phones with increasing features/screen size.
Meaning that current apps rarely have to worry about working on a bigger phone, since almost everything the older phone did is done mostly the same way on the new one, and whatever features are missing, are usually missing on the older equipment, which means the developer can just leave his app as-is, or work to port it on the new equipment to get the sales.Having a multi-vendor environment is great for avoiding consumer lock-in, however, it means that manufacturers/carriers(depending on country, many a reasoned thesis could be written on this) compete on phone features, which means the person designing the hardware actually wants incomptible hardware(aka apps that will only run on their platform).I don't think it's so much a failure of android in this case, as a failure of the business model prevalent in the US/Canada, especially.
Having the phones seen as a competitive differentiator actually clashes with third party apps developers' wishes.
The postitioning of android as open source was great, for getting a lot of people interested in a new platform, but I doubt it can sustain interest in the platform, by itself, and that's likely to be for as long as the platforms are designed by people who don't want to be compatible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31251438</id>
	<title>Yeah.. this was also forseeable</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1266923340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>App upgrades are actually handled just dandy.. at least in the Android Market. Anything you downloaded via Android Market will show up, once updated in the market, as a notification of a new app. In fact, it's better than Windows and as good as Linux... as long as you got all your Linux apps via update-manager or something similar.  It works, and it's properly centralized. As opposed to Windows, where, if you're not careful, you'll wind up with a few dozen "check for update" daemons. Yuk.</p><p>Far the OS<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... yeah, they screwed the pooch on this. The problem is not understanding the process of OS release, but not understanding the fact that phone and CE companies don't have much of a clue about dealing with application processing platforms. If you got a DVD player back in the 1990s, there's a good chance it didn't support DVD-R, and worse yet, DVD+R. But this was not usually a shortcoming of the hardware design, but rather, bugs in the DVD reference code. I have a Pioneer DVD player around here somehere, not based on the Toshiba/DVD Forum reference code, which worked with all of those new formats. The CE companies simply looked upon this as a way to sell new DVD players.</p><p>With all that's evil about Apple these days, their distant personal computer heritage has them smart about OS upgrades. So virtually any iPhone can run the latest iPhoneOS. That's easier when you're centrally managed, but not that hard otherwise.</p><p>The key to this kind of upgrade is a truly modular OS. That's kind of the anthesis of Linux thinking... it wasn't all that long ago when "rebuild the kernel to add that new device" was kind of the answer to that thing you just added to your PC. Android really should have had a number of independent modules.</p><p>Module #1 is the HAL (hardware abstraction layer). Motorola and HTC author HALs, and build them into the smartphone,This is a standard, low-level interface to each chunk of hardware, done in a standard way. Nothing as complex as a device driver, this is basically a plug: storage devices all look the same, cameras, screens, etc.</p><p>Module #2 is the OS. This comes from Google. Using the HAL, every device can drop in that OS... it essentially plugs into the HAL on every phone. This would largely eliminate the need to make OS upgrades the hardware company's problem. New hardware supported in the OS would simply not mate with HAL objects.. no problems. Google pushed out 2.1 (or any other developer) and you can drop that new binary into any phone, with memory limits.</p><p>Module #3 is all apps. So the "home" screen, whether Google's or Motorola's or Sony's, would work on any phone.. just another app. Things like "MotoBlur" live here. You could drop Android 2.1 in any time you like after it's released, and then add in app updates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>App upgrades are actually handled just dandy.. at least in the Android Market .
Anything you downloaded via Android Market will show up , once updated in the market , as a notification of a new app .
In fact , it 's better than Windows and as good as Linux... as long as you got all your Linux apps via update-manager or something similar .
It works , and it 's properly centralized .
As opposed to Windows , where , if you 're not careful , you 'll wind up with a few dozen " check for update " daemons .
Yuk.Far the OS ... yeah , they screwed the pooch on this .
The problem is not understanding the process of OS release , but not understanding the fact that phone and CE companies do n't have much of a clue about dealing with application processing platforms .
If you got a DVD player back in the 1990s , there 's a good chance it did n't support DVD-R , and worse yet , DVD + R .
But this was not usually a shortcoming of the hardware design , but rather , bugs in the DVD reference code .
I have a Pioneer DVD player around here somehere , not based on the Toshiba/DVD Forum reference code , which worked with all of those new formats .
The CE companies simply looked upon this as a way to sell new DVD players.With all that 's evil about Apple these days , their distant personal computer heritage has them smart about OS upgrades .
So virtually any iPhone can run the latest iPhoneOS .
That 's easier when you 're centrally managed , but not that hard otherwise.The key to this kind of upgrade is a truly modular OS .
That 's kind of the anthesis of Linux thinking... it was n't all that long ago when " rebuild the kernel to add that new device " was kind of the answer to that thing you just added to your PC .
Android really should have had a number of independent modules.Module # 1 is the HAL ( hardware abstraction layer ) .
Motorola and HTC author HALs , and build them into the smartphone,This is a standard , low-level interface to each chunk of hardware , done in a standard way .
Nothing as complex as a device driver , this is basically a plug : storage devices all look the same , cameras , screens , etc.Module # 2 is the OS .
This comes from Google .
Using the HAL , every device can drop in that OS... it essentially plugs into the HAL on every phone .
This would largely eliminate the need to make OS upgrades the hardware company 's problem .
New hardware supported in the OS would simply not mate with HAL objects.. no problems .
Google pushed out 2.1 ( or any other developer ) and you can drop that new binary into any phone , with memory limits.Module # 3 is all apps .
So the " home " screen , whether Google 's or Motorola 's or Sony 's , would work on any phone.. just another app .
Things like " MotoBlur " live here .
You could drop Android 2.1 in any time you like after it 's released , and then add in app updates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>App upgrades are actually handled just dandy.. at least in the Android Market.
Anything you downloaded via Android Market will show up, once updated in the market, as a notification of a new app.
In fact, it's better than Windows and as good as Linux... as long as you got all your Linux apps via update-manager or something similar.
It works, and it's properly centralized.
As opposed to Windows, where, if you're not careful, you'll wind up with a few dozen "check for update" daemons.
Yuk.Far the OS ... yeah, they screwed the pooch on this.
The problem is not understanding the process of OS release, but not understanding the fact that phone and CE companies don't have much of a clue about dealing with application processing platforms.
If you got a DVD player back in the 1990s, there's a good chance it didn't support DVD-R, and worse yet, DVD+R.
But this was not usually a shortcoming of the hardware design, but rather, bugs in the DVD reference code.
I have a Pioneer DVD player around here somehere, not based on the Toshiba/DVD Forum reference code, which worked with all of those new formats.
The CE companies simply looked upon this as a way to sell new DVD players.With all that's evil about Apple these days, their distant personal computer heritage has them smart about OS upgrades.
So virtually any iPhone can run the latest iPhoneOS.
That's easier when you're centrally managed, but not that hard otherwise.The key to this kind of upgrade is a truly modular OS.
That's kind of the anthesis of Linux thinking... it wasn't all that long ago when "rebuild the kernel to add that new device" was kind of the answer to that thing you just added to your PC.
Android really should have had a number of independent modules.Module #1 is the HAL (hardware abstraction layer).
Motorola and HTC author HALs, and build them into the smartphone,This is a standard, low-level interface to each chunk of hardware, done in a standard way.
Nothing as complex as a device driver, this is basically a plug: storage devices all look the same, cameras, screens, etc.Module #2 is the OS.
This comes from Google.
Using the HAL, every device can drop in that OS... it essentially plugs into the HAL on every phone.
This would largely eliminate the need to make OS upgrades the hardware company's problem.
New hardware supported in the OS would simply not mate with HAL objects.. no problems.
Google pushed out 2.1 (or any other developer) and you can drop that new binary into any phone, with memory limits.Module #3 is all apps.
So the "home" screen, whether Google's or Motorola's or Sony's, would work on any phone.. just another app.
Things like "MotoBlur" live here.
You could drop Android 2.1 in any time you like after it's released, and then add in app updates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247454</id>
	<title>apple FUD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266952800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>half the google results for "galen gruman" point to articles about how the iPhone and Apple are awesome and so on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... slashvertisement at its best</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>half the google results for " galen gruman " point to articles about how the iPhone and Apple are awesome and so on ... slashvertisement at its best</tokentext>
<sentencetext>half the google results for "galen gruman" point to articles about how the iPhone and Apple are awesome and so on ... slashvertisement at its best</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31249404</id>
	<title>Re:Wasn't JAVA supposed to prevent this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266915900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>J2ME attempted that and the result is a nightmare. A good chunk of problems when developing for J2ME stem from that it desperately tries to hide differences from the developer.</p><p>It's corny. Due to extreme differences in available memory, screen size, etc. there wouldn't be a single game for J2ME if you weren't able to build different packages for different devices. Yet the platform doesn't, for example let us use the native bitmap format.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>J2ME attempted that and the result is a nightmare .
A good chunk of problems when developing for J2ME stem from that it desperately tries to hide differences from the developer.It 's corny .
Due to extreme differences in available memory , screen size , etc .
there would n't be a single game for J2ME if you were n't able to build different packages for different devices .
Yet the platform does n't , for example let us use the native bitmap format .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>J2ME attempted that and the result is a nightmare.
A good chunk of problems when developing for J2ME stem from that it desperately tries to hide differences from the developer.It's corny.
Due to extreme differences in available memory, screen size, etc.
there wouldn't be a single game for J2ME if you weren't able to build different packages for different devices.
Yet the platform doesn't, for example let us use the native bitmap format.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246792</id>
	<title>Re:Oh no! It's InfoWorld!</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1266950460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think there's some truth in what you say, this basically sounds like more FUD.</p><p>Sure Android can't guarantee you a fixed screen size, or fixed hardware availability, but it does make it easy to poll to find out what actually is available. It's probably easier to do this than on most platforms that don't retain static hardware requirements in fact.</p><p>But TFA seems to take it even further by suggesting we have a DLL hell type scenario or something, and that really is FUD.</p><p>As Infoworld is now proven as a site that spouts lies for hits, I can't help but think that this is perhaps just another case of them continuing to do that. I guess they decided to continue playing the troll, rather than trying to rebuild their devastated reputation.</p><p>Still, Slashdot falls for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there 's some truth in what you say , this basically sounds like more FUD.Sure Android ca n't guarantee you a fixed screen size , or fixed hardware availability , but it does make it easy to poll to find out what actually is available .
It 's probably easier to do this than on most platforms that do n't retain static hardware requirements in fact.But TFA seems to take it even further by suggesting we have a DLL hell type scenario or something , and that really is FUD.As Infoworld is now proven as a site that spouts lies for hits , I ca n't help but think that this is perhaps just another case of them continuing to do that .
I guess they decided to continue playing the troll , rather than trying to rebuild their devastated reputation.Still , Slashdot falls for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there's some truth in what you say, this basically sounds like more FUD.Sure Android can't guarantee you a fixed screen size, or fixed hardware availability, but it does make it easy to poll to find out what actually is available.
It's probably easier to do this than on most platforms that don't retain static hardware requirements in fact.But TFA seems to take it even further by suggesting we have a DLL hell type scenario or something, and that really is FUD.As Infoworld is now proven as a site that spouts lies for hits, I can't help but think that this is perhaps just another case of them continuing to do that.
I guess they decided to continue playing the troll, rather than trying to rebuild their devastated reputation.Still, Slashdot falls for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31253072</id>
	<title>Re:This is EXACTLY why I don't have an andoid phon</title>
	<author>bensch128</author>
	<datestamp>1266930720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have verizon and hate their standard Moto razr or krazr, get a droid instead.  I've had mine for months now and love it. I can upload/download whatever I want onto the SDcard (music, video, apps) and can download whatever I want from the app market. Mostly I use it for pandora and music playing. But in the future, I hope to use it for server monitoring/maintence. (Please someone port Juniper's VPN client to droid!!)</p><p>Sure, I play ~$100/month but I think its money well spent. I get unlimited downloads + limited uploads and more notifications then I can deal with. I get to make my own apps and give them to my friends without anyone needing to get a development license from google or jailbreaking...</p><p>Verizon was desperate to get people back from the iphone so they FINALLY opened up their devices. at least the droid. The only current forseeable problem is that moto doesnt send us the 2.1 update like they promised. If it doesn't happen by the end of feburary, I'll probably just jailbreak the phone and follow one of the guides for installing a custom 2.1 image for the droid.</p><p>btw, I would recommend the insurance because I don't trust the hardware to last more then a year. But the great thing is that if the device does die, all of my contact info is still backed up onto google.<br>I'll have to scrap the info out of google but I doubt it'll be a huge problem...</p><p>It's a win-win for everyone (except ATT and apple)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have verizon and hate their standard Moto razr or krazr , get a droid instead .
I 've had mine for months now and love it .
I can upload/download whatever I want onto the SDcard ( music , video , apps ) and can download whatever I want from the app market .
Mostly I use it for pandora and music playing .
But in the future , I hope to use it for server monitoring/maintence .
( Please someone port Juniper 's VPN client to droid ! !
) Sure , I play ~ $ 100/month but I think its money well spent .
I get unlimited downloads + limited uploads and more notifications then I can deal with .
I get to make my own apps and give them to my friends without anyone needing to get a development license from google or jailbreaking...Verizon was desperate to get people back from the iphone so they FINALLY opened up their devices .
at least the droid .
The only current forseeable problem is that moto doesnt send us the 2.1 update like they promised .
If it does n't happen by the end of feburary , I 'll probably just jailbreak the phone and follow one of the guides for installing a custom 2.1 image for the droid.btw , I would recommend the insurance because I do n't trust the hardware to last more then a year .
But the great thing is that if the device does die , all of my contact info is still backed up onto google.I 'll have to scrap the info out of google but I doubt it 'll be a huge problem...It 's a win-win for everyone ( except ATT and apple )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have verizon and hate their standard Moto razr or krazr, get a droid instead.
I've had mine for months now and love it.
I can upload/download whatever I want onto the SDcard (music, video, apps) and can download whatever I want from the app market.
Mostly I use it for pandora and music playing.
But in the future, I hope to use it for server monitoring/maintence.
(Please someone port Juniper's VPN client to droid!!
)Sure, I play ~$100/month but I think its money well spent.
I get unlimited downloads + limited uploads and more notifications then I can deal with.
I get to make my own apps and give them to my friends without anyone needing to get a development license from google or jailbreaking...Verizon was desperate to get people back from the iphone so they FINALLY opened up their devices.
at least the droid.
The only current forseeable problem is that moto doesnt send us the 2.1 update like they promised.
If it doesn't happen by the end of feburary, I'll probably just jailbreak the phone and follow one of the guides for installing a custom 2.1 image for the droid.btw, I would recommend the insurance because I don't trust the hardware to last more then a year.
But the great thing is that if the device does die, all of my contact info is still backed up onto google.I'll have to scrap the info out of google but I doubt it'll be a huge problem...It's a win-win for everyone (except ATT and apple)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31251832</id>
	<title>Re:no upgrades??</title>
	<author>CompMD</author>
	<datestamp>1266924840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only reason the G1 is on Android 1.6 and not 2.0 is because HTC isn't bothering to write drivers for the camera and microphone compatible with 2.0, and bluetooth is mostly broken.  Other than that, 2.0 runs fine on a G1...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reason the G1 is on Android 1.6 and not 2.0 is because HTC is n't bothering to write drivers for the camera and microphone compatible with 2.0 , and bluetooth is mostly broken .
Other than that , 2.0 runs fine on a G1.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only reason the G1 is on Android 1.6 and not 2.0 is because HTC isn't bothering to write drivers for the camera and microphone compatible with 2.0, and bluetooth is mostly broken.
Other than that, 2.0 runs fine on a G1...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248954</id>
	<title>Galen Gruman is biased</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1266957780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Galen Gruman is the author of the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Mac-OS-Snow-Leopard-Bible/dp/047045363X" title="amazon.com">Mac OS X Snow Leopard Bible</a> [amazon.com], so it's a good bet he is biased towards Apple and against Android.</p><p>I have owned several Android devices and I haven't had significant compatibility problems.  Some software takes a little while to get updated to the latest version of Android, but that's pretty much it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Galen Gruman is the author of the Mac OS X Snow Leopard Bible [ amazon.com ] , so it 's a good bet he is biased towards Apple and against Android.I have owned several Android devices and I have n't had significant compatibility problems .
Some software takes a little while to get updated to the latest version of Android , but that 's pretty much it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Galen Gruman is the author of the Mac OS X Snow Leopard Bible [amazon.com], so it's a good bet he is biased towards Apple and against Android.I have owned several Android devices and I haven't had significant compatibility problems.
Some software takes a little while to get updated to the latest version of Android, but that's pretty much it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31254150</id>
	<title>Re:Updates are coming</title>
	<author>BatGnat</author>
	<datestamp>1266936360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>+1 Insightful....(best I can do, no points)</htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 Insightful.... ( best I can do , no points )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 Insightful....(best I can do, no points)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247644</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe not a crisis</title>
	<author>Klync</author>
	<datestamp>1266953400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, look! It's Javascript!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , look !
It 's Javascript !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, look!
It's Javascript!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31258522</id>
	<title>Re:This is EXACTLY why I don't have an andoid phon</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1265122080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For insurance, i have a rider policy on my homeowners insurance, costs about $30 a year, and covers loss, theft, accidental, and incidental damage of any of my PEDs.  There's a $100 deductible per incident (not per device).  This is far cheaper than insurance from the provider.  You should contact your insurer and see if they offer a similar rider policy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For insurance , i have a rider policy on my homeowners insurance , costs about $ 30 a year , and covers loss , theft , accidental , and incidental damage of any of my PEDs .
There 's a $ 100 deductible per incident ( not per device ) .
This is far cheaper than insurance from the provider .
You should contact your insurer and see if they offer a similar rider policy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For insurance, i have a rider policy on my homeowners insurance, costs about $30 a year, and covers loss, theft, accidental, and incidental damage of any of my PEDs.
There's a $100 deductible per incident (not per device).
This is far cheaper than insurance from the provider.
You should contact your insurer and see if they offer a similar rider policy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31253072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246576</id>
	<title>Where is the problem?</title>
	<author>keithpreston</author>
	<datestamp>1266949800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where is this incompatibility?   Specific examples please?    This is all speculation.   I work an on unreleased Android smart phone and download apps all the time from the market and don't see any compatibility issues.   Yes there is a lot of variation in phone, but the framework has methods to deal with that.   Incompatibilities are more likely the programmer's fault rather then the phone's fault.</p><p>The only place this could be a problem is cutting edge new features or sensors, usually a ODM will implement it in an incompatible way the first generation, but then Google will standardize the interface in the next release (i.e. multitouch)
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where is this incompatibility ?
Specific examples please ?
This is all speculation .
I work an on unreleased Android smart phone and download apps all the time from the market and do n't see any compatibility issues .
Yes there is a lot of variation in phone , but the framework has methods to deal with that .
Incompatibilities are more likely the programmer 's fault rather then the phone 's fault.The only place this could be a problem is cutting edge new features or sensors , usually a ODM will implement it in an incompatible way the first generation , but then Google will standardize the interface in the next release ( i.e .
multitouch )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where is this incompatibility?
Specific examples please?
This is all speculation.
I work an on unreleased Android smart phone and download apps all the time from the market and don't see any compatibility issues.
Yes there is a lot of variation in phone, but the framework has methods to deal with that.
Incompatibilities are more likely the programmer's fault rather then the phone's fault.The only place this could be a problem is cutting edge new features or sensors, usually a ODM will implement it in an incompatible way the first generation, but then Google will standardize the interface in the next release (i.e.
multitouch)
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31252474</id>
	<title>Re:This is EXACTLY why I don't have an andoid phon</title>
	<author>MadShark</author>
	<datestamp>1266927960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My wife has Verizon service.  She was able to call and get text messages disabled.  No charges.  It took her all of five minutes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My wife has Verizon service .
She was able to call and get text messages disabled .
No charges .
It took her all of five minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My wife has Verizon service.
She was able to call and get text messages disabled.
No charges.
It took her all of five minutes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31251524</id>
	<title>Just like desktop linux *HAD*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266923700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's more a question of phases.</p><p>As with Linux-on-the-Desktop, there's a moment of explosive chaos.<br>Followed by a market self-selection, with only a few mainstream solutions remaining at the center of interests.<br>Then under the impulse of these main leader, collaboration insures interoperability, which in turn make the whole stuff work better.</p><p>It was such with Linux, during the "great disto war". Nowaday, Ubuntu is pretty much the main game in town for newbie, with redhat, suse and debian maintaining stronghold with classic users, and a pile of small satelite filling specific niche ("Gentoo" for ricer customiser / Knoppix for Boot disks / Task-oriented specific disto like SystemRescueCD / low foot-print like DamnSmall). Yes there is a long list of distro mentioned on <a href="http://distrowatch.com/" title="distrowatch.com" rel="nofollow">DistroWatch</a> [distrowatch.com]. But currently, if you want to "just get linux"  (and not something terribly specific) it's a no brainier, just pick among the 2-3 main. Or just use whichever came with the laptop you bought.<br>Same with the desktop: KDE and Gnome are the main game in town, despite the much larger available choice.<br>Same with browser : dozen of eccentric ones exist, but people usually want Firefox.<br>There are efforts like FreeDesktop making sure that copy-pasting and other core functions still work, no matter which choice you made.</p><p>Well, the phone are following the same train.</p><p>In fact with Android, the situation is getting better. Before, it was pretty much every developer slapping their own stack on a linux kernel (Motorola RAZR2, LinPhone, ALP, QTopia, Mobilin, OpenMoko, all the Open-{###bla###}-Aliances). Now Android is pretty much the main game in town, with MeeGo the only other significant platform (and WebOS catering to some niche)</p><p>Now most new constructor to jump into the Linux Bandwagon just use android.<br>After a few years (and a few experiments) the market will settle for a more-or-less standard Android distribution with a more-or-less default update system (so development has only to target version within a small range).<br>Efforts akin to FreeSmartphone.org would probably have helped reaching that point.<br>And the people would still be complaining that open-source leads to too much different variation of mesh-networking-based-free-VoIP.<br>Meanwhile, the iPhone development will be so strict, that developing a farts-simulators will be the only sensible thing if you don't want your app pulled out of the AppStore because Saint-Jobs sneezed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's more a question of phases.As with Linux-on-the-Desktop , there 's a moment of explosive chaos.Followed by a market self-selection , with only a few mainstream solutions remaining at the center of interests.Then under the impulse of these main leader , collaboration insures interoperability , which in turn make the whole stuff work better.It was such with Linux , during the " great disto war " .
Nowaday , Ubuntu is pretty much the main game in town for newbie , with redhat , suse and debian maintaining stronghold with classic users , and a pile of small satelite filling specific niche ( " Gentoo " for ricer customiser / Knoppix for Boot disks / Task-oriented specific disto like SystemRescueCD / low foot-print like DamnSmall ) .
Yes there is a long list of distro mentioned on DistroWatch [ distrowatch.com ] .
But currently , if you want to " just get linux " ( and not something terribly specific ) it 's a no brainier , just pick among the 2-3 main .
Or just use whichever came with the laptop you bought.Same with the desktop : KDE and Gnome are the main game in town , despite the much larger available choice.Same with browser : dozen of eccentric ones exist , but people usually want Firefox.There are efforts like FreeDesktop making sure that copy-pasting and other core functions still work , no matter which choice you made.Well , the phone are following the same train.In fact with Android , the situation is getting better .
Before , it was pretty much every developer slapping their own stack on a linux kernel ( Motorola RAZR2 , LinPhone , ALP , QTopia , Mobilin , OpenMoko , all the Open- { # # # bla # # # } -Aliances ) .
Now Android is pretty much the main game in town , with MeeGo the only other significant platform ( and WebOS catering to some niche ) Now most new constructor to jump into the Linux Bandwagon just use android.After a few years ( and a few experiments ) the market will settle for a more-or-less standard Android distribution with a more-or-less default update system ( so development has only to target version within a small range ) .Efforts akin to FreeSmartphone.org would probably have helped reaching that point.And the people would still be complaining that open-source leads to too much different variation of mesh-networking-based-free-VoIP.Meanwhile , the iPhone development will be so strict , that developing a farts-simulators will be the only sensible thing if you do n't want your app pulled out of the AppStore because Saint-Jobs sneezed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's more a question of phases.As with Linux-on-the-Desktop, there's a moment of explosive chaos.Followed by a market self-selection, with only a few mainstream solutions remaining at the center of interests.Then under the impulse of these main leader, collaboration insures interoperability, which in turn make the whole stuff work better.It was such with Linux, during the "great disto war".
Nowaday, Ubuntu is pretty much the main game in town for newbie, with redhat, suse and debian maintaining stronghold with classic users, and a pile of small satelite filling specific niche ("Gentoo" for ricer customiser / Knoppix for Boot disks / Task-oriented specific disto like SystemRescueCD / low foot-print like DamnSmall).
Yes there is a long list of distro mentioned on DistroWatch [distrowatch.com].
But currently, if you want to "just get linux"  (and not something terribly specific) it's a no brainier, just pick among the 2-3 main.
Or just use whichever came with the laptop you bought.Same with the desktop: KDE and Gnome are the main game in town, despite the much larger available choice.Same with browser : dozen of eccentric ones exist, but people usually want Firefox.There are efforts like FreeDesktop making sure that copy-pasting and other core functions still work, no matter which choice you made.Well, the phone are following the same train.In fact with Android, the situation is getting better.
Before, it was pretty much every developer slapping their own stack on a linux kernel (Motorola RAZR2, LinPhone, ALP, QTopia, Mobilin, OpenMoko, all the Open-{###bla###}-Aliances).
Now Android is pretty much the main game in town, with MeeGo the only other significant platform (and WebOS catering to some niche)Now most new constructor to jump into the Linux Bandwagon just use android.After a few years (and a few experiments) the market will settle for a more-or-less standard Android distribution with a more-or-less default update system (so development has only to target version within a small range).Efforts akin to FreeSmartphone.org would probably have helped reaching that point.And the people would still be complaining that open-source leads to too much different variation of mesh-networking-based-free-VoIP.Meanwhile, the iPhone development will be so strict, that developing a farts-simulators will be the only sensible thing if you don't want your app pulled out of the AppStore because Saint-Jobs sneezed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246400</id>
	<title>This sounds actually exactly like</title>
	<author>aussersterne</author>
	<datestamp>1266949200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>early mobile Windows platforms (CE, HPC, HPC Pro, PPC, etc.)</p><p>For any given device, you could find the 5-6 apps released by the manufacturer, a few old scattered apps by a shareware dev that happened to have the same device as you, and a whole universe of apps for "mobile Windows" platforms, each of which supported only one or two very specific devices in one or two very specific embedded Windows versions.</p><p>As a result of this, millions of these were sold in the '90s only to fall into disuse within a year or so in each case as technology and connectivity needs moved on, but only the very latest devices were supported by the latest developments in software to fulfill consumer needs. Consumers got smart and decided it was a generally bad deal to buy these devices because they'd be totally unsupported within a year, essentially a wasted $400-$800 investment on a device that would simply be left incompatible with the ecosystem before very long.</p><p>You can now find lots of these devices on eBay for less than $100 (various PDAs, handheld PCs, etc.) that are worthless because they only sync to Windows 95 or 98, have only rudimentary built-in tools, and are blessed in each case with a paucity of compatible applications.</p><p>Hopefully this doesn't happen to Android, too. I'm an iPhone user and am very satisfied, but it's always nice to think there are alternatives, and I like the Android platform, in concept, an awful lot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>early mobile Windows platforms ( CE , HPC , HPC Pro , PPC , etc .
) For any given device , you could find the 5-6 apps released by the manufacturer , a few old scattered apps by a shareware dev that happened to have the same device as you , and a whole universe of apps for " mobile Windows " platforms , each of which supported only one or two very specific devices in one or two very specific embedded Windows versions.As a result of this , millions of these were sold in the '90s only to fall into disuse within a year or so in each case as technology and connectivity needs moved on , but only the very latest devices were supported by the latest developments in software to fulfill consumer needs .
Consumers got smart and decided it was a generally bad deal to buy these devices because they 'd be totally unsupported within a year , essentially a wasted $ 400- $ 800 investment on a device that would simply be left incompatible with the ecosystem before very long.You can now find lots of these devices on eBay for less than $ 100 ( various PDAs , handheld PCs , etc .
) that are worthless because they only sync to Windows 95 or 98 , have only rudimentary built-in tools , and are blessed in each case with a paucity of compatible applications.Hopefully this does n't happen to Android , too .
I 'm an iPhone user and am very satisfied , but it 's always nice to think there are alternatives , and I like the Android platform , in concept , an awful lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>early mobile Windows platforms (CE, HPC, HPC Pro, PPC, etc.
)For any given device, you could find the 5-6 apps released by the manufacturer, a few old scattered apps by a shareware dev that happened to have the same device as you, and a whole universe of apps for "mobile Windows" platforms, each of which supported only one or two very specific devices in one or two very specific embedded Windows versions.As a result of this, millions of these were sold in the '90s only to fall into disuse within a year or so in each case as technology and connectivity needs moved on, but only the very latest devices were supported by the latest developments in software to fulfill consumer needs.
Consumers got smart and decided it was a generally bad deal to buy these devices because they'd be totally unsupported within a year, essentially a wasted $400-$800 investment on a device that would simply be left incompatible with the ecosystem before very long.You can now find lots of these devices on eBay for less than $100 (various PDAs, handheld PCs, etc.
) that are worthless because they only sync to Windows 95 or 98, have only rudimentary built-in tools, and are blessed in each case with a paucity of compatible applications.Hopefully this doesn't happen to Android, too.
I'm an iPhone user and am very satisfied, but it's always nice to think there are alternatives, and I like the Android platform, in concept, an awful lot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247316</id>
	<title>It's just like a popluar restaurant...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266952260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It got so busy, nobody goes there anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It got so busy , nobody goes there anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It got so busy, nobody goes there anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31249238</id>
	<title>Re:PCs all over again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266958500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm hoping for a partial repeat of the PC market: Open wins.</p></div><p>On the other hand, it could look more like a repeat of the video game market: Closed wins.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm hoping for a partial repeat of the PC market : Open wins.On the other hand , it could look more like a repeat of the video game market : Closed wins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm hoping for a partial repeat of the PC market: Open wins.On the other hand, it could look more like a repeat of the video game market: Closed wins.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31251682</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe not a crisis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266924300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea, code like that would be difficult to work with.  And that's why OOP is quite popular because you can instead call ICompass.DoSomething().</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , code like that would be difficult to work with .
And that 's why OOP is quite popular because you can instead call ICompass.DoSomething ( ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, code like that would be difficult to work with.
And that's why OOP is quite popular because you can instead call ICompass.DoSomething().</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245882</id>
	<title>Maybe not a crisis</title>
	<author>hey</author>
	<datestamp>1266947400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just do:</p><p>if (hasCompass())<br>{<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; doCompassStuff()<br>}</p><p>etc</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just do : if ( hasCompass ( ) ) {     doCompassStuff ( ) } etc</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just do:if (hasCompass()){
    doCompassStuff()}etc</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248520</id>
	<title>Re:no upgrades??</title>
	<author>Gorgeous Si</author>
	<datestamp>1266956580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Absolutely... I have an HTC Magic on Vodafone in the UK, and there's no sign of the update to 2.0 / 2.1 - I've been looking into it lately because the Google Buzz page requires Android 2.0, so currently I can't use it at all.<br> <br>
A Google app that doesn't work on a Google branded phone because the Google OS hasn't been updated.<br> <br>
Great.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely... I have an HTC Magic on Vodafone in the UK , and there 's no sign of the update to 2.0 / 2.1 - I 've been looking into it lately because the Google Buzz page requires Android 2.0 , so currently I ca n't use it at all .
A Google app that does n't work on a Google branded phone because the Google OS has n't been updated .
Great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely... I have an HTC Magic on Vodafone in the UK, and there's no sign of the update to 2.0 / 2.1 - I've been looking into it lately because the Google Buzz page requires Android 2.0, so currently I can't use it at all.
A Google app that doesn't work on a Google branded phone because the Google OS hasn't been updated.
Great.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245964</id>
	<title>Re:no upgrades??</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1266947640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There in lies the problem though - some smartphones are designed with a very specific Droid OS In mind, so upgrading your droid could be over writing whatever open sourced hack was written to make features work.</p><p>Or, in certain cases</p><p>Yay I have the latest version of android!</p><p>How come my calendar lost all its appointments?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There in lies the problem though - some smartphones are designed with a very specific Droid OS In mind , so upgrading your droid could be over writing whatever open sourced hack was written to make features work.Or , in certain casesYay I have the latest version of android ! How come my calendar lost all its appointments ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There in lies the problem though - some smartphones are designed with a very specific Droid OS In mind, so upgrading your droid could be over writing whatever open sourced hack was written to make features work.Or, in certain casesYay I have the latest version of android!How come my calendar lost all its appointments?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247370</id>
	<title>Android needs time to mature</title>
	<author>mcguyver</author>
	<datestamp>1266952500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have an iPhone so my opinions are speculation.  It seems to me that an Android phone is like using desktop linux 10-15 years ago.  It was clumsy, with enough effort it could do everything needed and the product wasn't ready for all consumers.  I wouldn't recommend linux to my grandmother a decade ago just like I wouldn't recommend and Android phone to her today.  Over time the Andriod phones will (hopefully) be more fully featured &amp; easier to use than the iPhone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have an iPhone so my opinions are speculation .
It seems to me that an Android phone is like using desktop linux 10-15 years ago .
It was clumsy , with enough effort it could do everything needed and the product was n't ready for all consumers .
I would n't recommend linux to my grandmother a decade ago just like I would n't recommend and Android phone to her today .
Over time the Andriod phones will ( hopefully ) be more fully featured &amp; easier to use than the iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have an iPhone so my opinions are speculation.
It seems to me that an Android phone is like using desktop linux 10-15 years ago.
It was clumsy, with enough effort it could do everything needed and the product wasn't ready for all consumers.
I wouldn't recommend linux to my grandmother a decade ago just like I wouldn't recommend and Android phone to her today.
Over time the Andriod phones will (hopefully) be more fully featured &amp; easier to use than the iPhone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31249672</id>
	<title>Thanks, Open Source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266916920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, you can thank open source software for this one. How many different versions of Linux are there???? It's the same situation with the open sourcing of Java. Everybody and their Grandma will create new versions of Java and require me to download each separate one. I'll have 15 different versions of Java that all do something differently. What a mess!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you can thank open source software for this one .
How many different versions of Linux are there ? ? ? ?
It 's the same situation with the open sourcing of Java .
Everybody and their Grandma will create new versions of Java and require me to download each separate one .
I 'll have 15 different versions of Java that all do something differently .
What a mess !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you can thank open source software for this one.
How many different versions of Linux are there????
It's the same situation with the open sourcing of Java.
Everybody and their Grandma will create new versions of Java and require me to download each separate one.
I'll have 15 different versions of Java that all do something differently.
What a mess!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31254106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31251134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31251832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31256900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31263338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31249108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31249698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31253072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31258522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31256484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31251682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31252510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31251920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31249404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31254150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31250740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31266138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31250884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31251524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31249270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31257256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31249238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31252418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31252474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31254362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31249910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31251830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31251946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31254286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1616221_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31252062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1616221.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1616221.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1616221.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31254286
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31252510
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31253072
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31258522
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31252062
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31252474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31251830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31250740
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1616221.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31257256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31256484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31263338
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1616221.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247020
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1616221.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246324
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31251682
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1616221.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31251790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1616221.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1616221.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31249404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1616221.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31254150
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1616221.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1616221.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1616221.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1616221.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1616221.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1616221.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246096
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246562
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31251832
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246880
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248520
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248214
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31249108
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246742
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31250884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245958
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1616221.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31251920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1616221.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247864
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1616221.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31249238
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1616221.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31248946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1616221.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1616221.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1616221.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247162
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1616221.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31251134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31254362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1616221.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1616221.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1616221.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1616221.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31249270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31254106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31249910
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1616221.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245914
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31249698
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31251524
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31256900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31245912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246180
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31252418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1616221.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31246290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31266138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31247488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1616221.31251946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
