Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

It's not a gross copyright violation, it's a feature

Expand Messages
  • Jason Delport
    The Widget Bar application can be placed on any portal or off-portal web page that is delivered to mobile browsers, allowing operators to maintain a valuable
    Message 1 of 16 , Feb 5, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      "The Widget Bar application can be placed on any portal or off-portal
      web page that is delivered to mobile browsers, allowing operators to
      maintain a valuable presence in front of their customers at all
      times."

      http://www.bytemobile.com/news-events/2009/archive_040209.html
    • Luca Passani
      ... How can I talk again about transcoding and not be accused of sounding like a broken record? Many keep saying that transcoders are bound to disappear, but
      Message 2 of 16 , Feb 5, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Jason Delport wrote:
        > "The Widget Bar application can be placed on any portal or off-portal
        > web page that is delivered to mobile browsers, allowing operators to
        > maintain a valuable presence in front of their customers at all
        > times."
        >
        > http://www.bytemobile.com/news-events/2009/archive_040209.html
        >

        How can I talk again about transcoding and not be accused of sounding
        like a broken record?

        Many keep saying that transcoders are bound to disappear, but this
        hasn't happened yet. Worse than that: they are gaining momentum. Trying
        to win W3C support for transcoding web and mobile sites alike, breaking
        HTTPS, injecting advertisement in content they have no rights to and so on.

        I always said that Novarra is the worst offender, but I wonder whether
        ByteMobile is any better: they keep a low profile with developers, but
        their deployments and their sales pitches are approximately as abusive
        as the ones by Novarra.

        What is to be done?

        Luca
      • Tom Hume
        Are there any transcoder vendors that *don t* offer this as a feature? InfoGin: http://www.infogin.com/solutions.asp Customized footers enable end users to
        Message 3 of 16 , Feb 5, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Are there any transcoder vendors that *don't* offer this as a feature?

          InfoGin: http://www.infogin.com/solutions.asp
          "Customized footers enable end users to continue their PC browsing
          habits on their mobile devices, such as: History, Favorites and most-
          commonly surfed sites."

          OpenWave: http://www.openwave.com/us/products/mobile_internet_services/openweb/
          (see also PDF)
          "OpenWeb enables operators to leverage their most unique asset -
          information about subscriber preferences and location � to generate
          revenue from targeted, personalized and context-based merchandising
          and advertising."

          Volantis: http://www.volantis.com/transcoder
          "Customers remain involved in the delivery chain when subscribers
          browse "off-portal", allowing advertisements and menus to be
          automatically inserted into headers and footers.

          On 5 Feb 2009, at 18:30, Luca Passani wrote:

          > Jason Delport wrote:
          > > "The Widget Bar application can be placed on any portal or off-
          > portal
          > > web page that is delivered to mobile browsers, allowing operators to
          > > maintain a valuable presence in front of their customers at all
          > > times."
          > >
          > > http://www.bytemobile.com/news-events/2009/archive_040209.html
          > >
          >
          > How can I talk again about transcoding and not be accused of sounding
          > like a broken record?
          >
          > Many keep saying that transcoders are bound to disappear, but this
          > hasn't happened yet. Worse than that: they are gaining momentum.
          > Trying
          > to win W3C support for transcoding web and mobile sites alike,
          > breaking
          > HTTPS, injecting advertisement in content they have no rights to and
          > so on.
          >
          > I always said that Novarra is the worst offender, but I wonder whether
          > ByteMobile is any better: they keep a low profile with developers, but
          > their deployments and their sales pitches are approximately as abusive
          > as the ones by Novarra.
          >
          > What is to be done?
          >
          > Luca
          >
          >
          >

          --
          Future Platforms
          e: Tom.Hume@...
          t: +44 (0) 1273 819038
          m: +44 (0) 7971 781422
          work: www.futureplatforms.com
          play: tomhume.org







          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • passani@eunet.no
          InfoGin, Openwave and Volantis have signed the Manifesto. This means that if a customer of theirs deploys an abusive transcoder, we can turn to that customer
          Message 4 of 16 , Feb 5, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            InfoGin, Openwave and Volantis have signed the Manifesto. This means that
            if a customer of theirs deploys an abusive transcoder, we can turn to that
            customer (typically an operator) and demand that they back down without
            them blaming it on the vendor. This is not theory. This has happened in
            the past.

            In the case of Novarra and ByteMobile, they have not signed the Manifesto
            because they prefer the strategy where they whisper in operators' ears
            "it's your customers. you can do what you want. let those poor bastard
            independent mobile sites burn and die".
            When someone complains with the operator, the operator has a chance to say
            "this is how bytemobile works". Water gets mudded and it all becomes
            harder.

            For this reason, ByteMobile deserves to be depicted for what it is: an
            abusive company which pollutes the mobile ecosystem, steals content they
            have no rights to and ruthlessly bullshits their customers by promoting
            unethical business practices.

            ByteMobile is our enemy. They deserve no respect.

            Luca

            > Are there any transcoder vendors that *don't* offer this as a feature?
            >
            > InfoGin: http://www.infogin.com/solutions.asp
            > "Customized footers enable end users to continue their PC browsing
            > habits on their mobile devices, such as: History, Favorites and most-
            > commonly surfed sites."
            >
            > OpenWave:
            > http://www.openwave.com/us/products/mobile_internet_services/openweb/
            > (see also PDF)
            > "OpenWeb enables operators to leverage their most unique asset -
            > information about subscriber preferences and location — to generate
            > revenue from targeted, personalized and context-based merchandising
            > and advertising."
            >
            > Volantis: http://www.volantis.com/transcoder
            > "Customers remain involved in the delivery chain when subscribers
            > browse "off-portal", allowing advertisements and menus to be
            > automatically inserted into headers and footers.
            >
            > On 5 Feb 2009, at 18:30, Luca Passani wrote:
            >
            >> Jason Delport wrote:
            >> > "The Widget Bar application can be placed on any portal or off-
            >> portal
            >> > web page that is delivered to mobile browsers, allowing operators to
            >> > maintain a valuable presence in front of their customers at all
            >> > times."
            >> >
            >> > http://www.bytemobile.com/news-events/2009/archive_040209.html
            >> >
            >>
            >> How can I talk again about transcoding and not be accused of sounding
            >> like a broken record?
            >>
            >> Many keep saying that transcoders are bound to disappear, but this
            >> hasn't happened yet. Worse than that: they are gaining momentum.
            >> Trying
            >> to win W3C support for transcoding web and mobile sites alike,
            >> breaking
            >> HTTPS, injecting advertisement in content they have no rights to and
            >> so on.
            >>
            >> I always said that Novarra is the worst offender, but I wonder whether
            >> ByteMobile is any better: they keep a low profile with developers, but
            >> their deployments and their sales pitches are approximately as abusive
            >> as the ones by Novarra.
            >>
            >> What is to be done?
            >>
            >> Luca
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >
            > --
            > Future Platforms
            > e: Tom.Hume@...
            > t: +44 (0) 1273 819038
            > m: +44 (0) 7971 781422
            > work: www.futureplatforms.com
            > play: tomhume.org
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > As of July 14 2005, it's much easier to be banned from WMLProgramming!
            > Please fail to read http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/ before
            > you post.Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • Tom Hume
            So none of those vendors will deploy transcoders which use that feature they ve all implemented and sell? They ve all committed that they won t do that? Wow.
            Message 5 of 16 , Feb 5, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              So none of those vendors will deploy transcoders which use that
              feature they've all implemented and sell? They've all committed that
              they won't do that?

              Wow.

              On 5 Feb 2009, at 22:03, passani@... wrote:

              >
              > InfoGin, Openwave and Volantis have signed the Manifesto. This means
              > that
              > if a customer of theirs deploys an abusive transcoder, we can turn
              > to that
              > customer (typically an operator) and demand that they back down
              > without
              > them blaming it on the vendor. This is not theory. This has happened
              > in
              > the past.
              >
              > In the case of Novarra and ByteMobile, they have not signed the
              > Manifesto
              > because they prefer the strategy where they whisper in operators' ears
              > "it's your customers. you can do what you want. let those poor bastard
              > independent mobile sites burn and die".
              > When someone complains with the operator, the operator has a chance
              > to say
              > "this is how bytemobile works". Water gets mudded and it all becomes
              > harder.
              >
              > For this reason, ByteMobile deserves to be depicted for what it is: an
              > abusive company which pollutes the mobile ecosystem, steals content
              > they
              > have no rights to and ruthlessly bullshits their customers by
              > promoting
              > unethical business practices.
              >
              > ByteMobile is our enemy. They deserve no respect.
              >
              > Luca
              >
              > > Are there any transcoder vendors that *don't* offer this as a
              > feature?
              > >
              > > InfoGin: http://www.infogin.com/solutions.asp
              > > "Customized footers enable end users to continue their PC browsing
              > > habits on their mobile devices, such as: History, Favorites and
              > most-
              > > commonly surfed sites."
              > >
              > > OpenWave:
              > > http://www.openwave.com/us/products/mobile_internet_services/
              > openweb/
              > > (see also PDF)
              > > "OpenWeb enables operators to leverage their most unique asset -
              > > information about subscriber preferences and location — to genera
              > te
              > > revenue from targeted, personalized and context-based merchandising
              > > and advertising."
              > >
              > > Volantis: http://www.volantis.com/transcoder
              > > "Customers remain involved in the delivery chain when subscribers
              > > browse "off-portal", allowing advertisements and menus to be
              > > automatically inserted into headers and footers.
              > >
              > > On 5 Feb 2009, at 18:30, Luca Passani wrote:
              > >
              > >> Jason Delport wrote:
              > >> > "The Widget Bar application can be placed on any portal or off-
              > >> portal
              > >> > web page that is delivered to mobile browsers, allowing
              > operators to
              > >> > maintain a valuable presence in front of their customers at all
              > >> > times."
              > >> >
              > >> > http://www.bytemobile.com/news-events/2009/archive_040209.html
              > >> >
              > >>
              > >> How can I talk again about transcoding and not be accused of
              > sounding
              > >> like a broken record?
              > >>
              > >> Many keep saying that transcoders are bound to disappear, but this
              > >> hasn't happened yet. Worse than that: they are gaining momentum.
              > >> Trying
              > >> to win W3C support for transcoding web and mobile sites alike,
              > >> breaking
              > >> HTTPS, injecting advertisement in content they have no rights to
              > and
              > >> so on.
              > >>
              > >> I always said that Novarra is the worst offender, but I wonder
              > whether
              > >> ByteMobile is any better: they keep a low profile with
              > developers, but
              > >> their deployments and their sales pitches are approximately as
              > abusive
              > >> as the ones by Novarra.
              > >>
              > >> What is to be done?
              > >>
              > >> Luca
              > >>
              > >>
              > >>
              > >
              > > --
              > > Future Platforms
              > > e: Tom.Hume@...
              > > t: +44 (0) 1273 819038
              > > m: +44 (0) 7971 781422
              > > work: www.futureplatforms.com
              > > play: tomhume.org
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > ------------------------------------
              > >
              > > As of July 14 2005, it's much easier to be banned from
              > WMLProgramming!
              > > Please fail to read http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/
              > before
              > > you post.Yahoo! Groups Links
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Luca Passani
              Tom, you are dangerously close to being banned from WMLProgramming. You know perfectly well already that I think you are in bad faith. You have been defending
              Message 6 of 16 , Feb 5, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Tom, you are dangerously close to being banned from WMLProgramming. You
                know perfectly well already that I think you are in bad faith.
                You have been defending transcoders beyond reasonable doubts and now you
                are out to create confusion again with your carefully built
                misrepresentations of what I am writing. I am certainly not going to
                waste all the time you made me waste last time when we discussed about
                transcoders here. Guaranteed.

                Back to the point: All transcoder vendors compete for the same customers
                and all have "abusive" features in their arsenal.
                There are two kinds of transcoder vendors, though:

                1) those who acknowledge the damage that irresponsibly deployed
                transcoders can do, and

                2) those who don't, because they prefer to go for the potential extra
                revenue (by getting their customers to transcode more than they should
                and, consequently, pay for more shitvision(tm) TPS).

                The first kind is sensitive to developers' needs. This puts developers
                in a stronger position when dealing with operators. In many cases, these
                vendors have provided the channel into the operator to rectify abusive
                behavior. This has been the case with Openwave and InfoGin in the case
                of Sprint, Vodacom and MSN (which are publicly known cases. There have
                been more cases where operators have referred to the Manifesto for their
                requirements to transcoder vendors, but this is not publicly known).

                The second kind has deployed abusive transcoders and, when asked to
                refrain, has refused to answer publicly and has come up with excuses not
                to change anything. Novarra in particular is trying to exploit W3C to
                legitimize its wrong doing (which includes breaking HTTPS and
                transcoding mobile-optimised sites. More TPS).

                The first group has signed the Manifesto. The second has not.

                Of course, in an ideal world, transcoders would just exist as real
                opt-ins (or even not exist at all). But, contrary to what many have
                falsely argued, the Manifesto is a real compromise and represents a
                viable solution for transcoder vendors. A compromise which will grant
                mobile content owners a minimal level of respect for their work, while
                allowing transcoders to compete with one another in terms of features.

                In particular, signers of the Manifesto have committed to have abusive
                features switched off in their default configuration, which leaves the
                responsability of turning it on 100% in the hands of operators. At this
                point, operators typically deploy responsibly (either because they are
                responsible, or because they are afraid of developer reaction or just
                because they are lazy). I think this is a great result. A result that
                CTG (which still lies in a state of total mess one and a half year
                later) can only dream about.

                And now my advice to you. Take a good night of sleep before you answer
                to this message and, tomorrow, when you can think with a fresh mind,
                refrain from doing it.

                Luca


                Tom Hume wrote:
                > So none of those vendors will deploy transcoders which use that
                > feature they've all implemented and sell? They've all committed that
                > they won't do that?
                >
                > Wow.
                >
                > On 5 Feb 2009, at 22:03, passani@... wrote:
                >
                >
                >> InfoGin, Openwave and Volantis have signed the Manifesto. This means
                >> that
                >> if a customer of theirs deploys an abusive transcoder, we can turn
                >> to that
                >> customer (typically an operator) and demand that they back down
                >> without
                >> them blaming it on the vendor. This is not theory. This has happened
                >> in
                >> the past.
                >>
                >> In the case of Novarra and ByteMobile, they have not signed the
                >> Manifesto
                >> because they prefer the strategy where they whisper in operators' ears
                >> "it's your customers. you can do what you want. let those poor bastard
                >> independent mobile sites burn and die".
                >> When someone complains with the operator, the operator has a chance
                >> to say
                >> "this is how bytemobile works". Water gets mudded and it all becomes
                >> harder.
                >>
                >> For this reason, ByteMobile deserves to be depicted for what it is: an
                >> abusive company which pollutes the mobile ecosystem, steals content
                >> they
                >> have no rights to and ruthlessly bullshits their customers by
                >> promoting
                >> unethical business practices.
                >>
                >> ByteMobile is our enemy. They deserve no respect.
                >>
                >> Luca
                >>
                >>
                >>> Are there any transcoder vendors that *don't* offer this as a
                >>>
                >> feature?
                >>
                >>> InfoGin: http://www.infogin.com/solutions.asp
                >>> "Customized footers enable end users to continue their PC browsing
                >>> habits on their mobile devices, such as: History, Favorites and
                >>>
                >> most-
                >>
                >>> commonly surfed sites."
                >>>
                >>> OpenWave:
                >>> http://www.openwave.com/us/products/mobile_internet_services/
                >>>
                >> openweb/
                >>
                >>> (see also PDF)
                >>> "OpenWeb enables operators to leverage their most unique asset -
                >>> information about subscriber preferences and location — to genera
                >>>
                >> te
                >>
                >>> revenue from targeted, personalized and context-based merchandising
                >>> and advertising."
                >>>
                >>> Volantis: http://www.volantis.com/transcoder
                >>> "Customers remain involved in the delivery chain when subscribers
                >>> browse "off-portal", allowing advertisements and menus to be
                >>> automatically inserted into headers and footers.
                >>>
                >>> On 5 Feb 2009, at 18:30, Luca Passani wrote:
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>> Jason Delport wrote:
                >>>>
                >>>>> "The Widget Bar application can be placed on any portal or off-
                >>>>>
                >>>> portal
                >>>>
                >>>>> web page that is delivered to mobile browsers, allowing
                >>>>>
                >> operators to
                >>
                >>>>> maintain a valuable presence in front of their customers at all
                >>>>> times."
                >>>>>
                >>>>> http://www.bytemobile.com/news-events/2009/archive_040209.html
                >>>>>
                >>>>>
                >>>> How can I talk again about transcoding and not be accused of
                >>>>
                >> sounding
                >>
                >>>> like a broken record?
                >>>>
                >>>> Many keep saying that transcoders are bound to disappear, but this
                >>>> hasn't happened yet. Worse than that: they are gaining momentum.
                >>>> Trying
                >>>> to win W3C support for transcoding web and mobile sites alike,
                >>>> breaking
                >>>> HTTPS, injecting advertisement in content they have no rights to
                >>>>
                >> and
                >>
                >>>> so on.
                >>>>
                >>>> I always said that Novarra is the worst offender, but I wonder
                >>>>
                >> whether
                >>
                >>>> ByteMobile is any better: they keep a low profile with
                >>>>
                >> developers, but
                >>
                >>>> their deployments and their sales pitches are approximately as
                >>>>
                >> abusive
                >>
                >>>> as the ones by Novarra.
                >>>>
                >>>> What is to be done?
                >>>>
                >>>> Luca
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>
              • Tom Hume
                Thanks for the threat Luca, but I m not talking about the Manifesto. I m pointing out that every major transcoder (that I found with a cursory search) has the
                Message 7 of 16 , Feb 5, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thanks for the threat Luca, but I'm not talking about the Manifesto.
                  I'm pointing out that every major transcoder (that I found with a
                  cursory search) has the feature you consider irresponsible in it. Yes,
                  I'm expressing mild scepticism that they've implemented (and
                  presumably maintain or develop) this feature but would never support
                  its deployment. And if the responsibility lies not with the vendors,
                  then it's important to engage with operators in this discussion:
                  because they're the ones who decide to deploy responsibly or
                  irresponsibly.

                  Or to put it more positively: what else can we do to persuade
                  operators to behave responsibly - whether that be by signing the
                  manifesto or any other means?

                  On 5 Feb 2009, at 23:12, Luca Passani wrote:

                  >
                  > Tom, you are dangerously close to being banned from WMLProgramming.
                  > You
                  > know perfectly well already that I think you are in bad faith.
                  > You have been defending transcoders beyond reasonable doubts and now
                  > you
                  > are out to create confusion again with your carefully built
                  > misrepresentations of what I am writing. I am certainly not going to
                  > waste all the time you made me waste last time when we discussed about
                  > transcoders here. Guaranteed.
                  >
                  > Back to the point: All transcoder vendors compete for the same
                  > customers
                  > and all have "abusive" features in their arsenal.
                  > There are two kinds of transcoder vendors, though:
                  >
                  > 1) those who acknowledge the damage that irresponsibly deployed
                  > transcoders can do, and
                  >
                  > 2) those who don't, because they prefer to go for the potential extra
                  > revenue (by getting their customers to transcode more than they should
                  > and, consequently, pay for more shitvision(tm) TPS).
                  >
                  > The first kind is sensitive to developers' needs. This puts developers
                  > in a stronger position when dealing with operators. In many cases,
                  > these
                  > vendors have provided the channel into the operator to rectify abusive
                  > behavior. This has been the case with Openwave and InfoGin in the case
                  > of Sprint, Vodacom and MSN (which are publicly known cases. There have
                  > been more cases where operators have referred to the Manifesto for
                  > their
                  > requirements to transcoder vendors, but this is not publicly known).
                  >
                  > The second kind has deployed abusive transcoders and, when asked to
                  > refrain, has refused to answer publicly and has come up with excuses
                  > not
                  > to change anything. Novarra in particular is trying to exploit W3C to
                  > legitimize its wrong doing (which includes breaking HTTPS and
                  > transcoding mobile-optimised sites. More TPS).
                  >
                  > The first group has signed the Manifesto. The second has not.
                  >
                  > Of course, in an ideal world, transcoders would just exist as real
                  > opt-ins (or even not exist at all). But, contrary to what many have
                  > falsely argued, the Manifesto is a real compromise and represents a
                  > viable solution for transcoder vendors. A compromise which will grant
                  > mobile content owners a minimal level of respect for their work, while
                  > allowing transcoders to compete with one another in terms of features.
                  >
                  > In particular, signers of the Manifesto have committed to have abusive
                  > features switched off in their default configuration, which leaves the
                  > responsability of turning it on 100% in the hands of operators. At
                  > this
                  > point, operators typically deploy responsibly (either because they are
                  > responsible, or because they are afraid of developer reaction or just
                  > because they are lazy). I think this is a great result. A result that
                  > CTG (which still lies in a state of total mess one and a half year
                  > later) can only dream about.
                  >
                  > And now my advice to you. Take a good night of sleep before you answer
                  > to this message and, tomorrow, when you can think with a fresh mind,
                  > refrain from doing it.
                  >
                  > Luca
                  >
                  > Tom Hume wrote:
                  > > So none of those vendors will deploy transcoders which use that
                  > > feature they've all implemented and sell? They've all committed that
                  > > they won't do that?
                  > >
                  > > Wow.
                  > >
                  > > On 5 Feb 2009, at 22:03, passani@... wrote:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >> InfoGin, Openwave and Volantis have signed the Manifesto. This
                  > means
                  > >> that
                  > >> if a customer of theirs deploys an abusive transcoder, we can turn
                  > >> to that
                  > >> customer (typically an operator) and demand that they back down
                  > >> without
                  > >> them blaming it on the vendor. This is not theory. This has
                  > happened
                  > >> in
                  > >> the past.
                  > >>
                  > >> In the case of Novarra and ByteMobile, they have not signed the
                  > >> Manifesto
                  > >> because they prefer the strategy where they whisper in operators'
                  > ears
                  > >> "it's your customers. you can do what you want. let those poor
                  > bastard
                  > >> independent mobile sites burn and die".
                  > >> When someone complains with the operator, the operator has a chance
                  > >> to say
                  > >> "this is how bytemobile works". Water gets mudded and it all
                  > becomes
                  > >> harder.
                  > >>
                  > >> For this reason, ByteMobile deserves to be depicted for what it
                  > is: an
                  > >> abusive company which pollutes the mobile ecosystem, steals content
                  > >> they
                  > >> have no rights to and ruthlessly bullshits their customers by
                  > >> promoting
                  > >> unethical business practices.
                  > >>
                  > >> ByteMobile is our enemy. They deserve no respect.
                  > >>
                  > >> Luca
                  > >>
                  > >>
                  > >>> Are there any transcoder vendors that *don't* offer this as a
                  > >>>
                  > >> feature?
                  > >>
                  > >>> InfoGin: http://www.infogin.com/solutions.asp
                  > >>> "Customized footers enable end users to continue their PC browsing
                  > >>> habits on their mobile devices, such as: History, Favorites and
                  > >>>
                  > >> most-
                  > >>
                  > >>> commonly surfed sites."
                  > >>>
                  > >>> OpenWave:
                  > >>> http://www.openwave.com/us/products/mobile_internet_services/
                  > >>>
                  > >> openweb/
                  > >>
                  > >>> (see also PDF)
                  > >>> "OpenWeb enables operators to leverage their most unique asset -
                  > >>> information about subscriber preferences and location � to genera
                  > >>>
                  > >> te
                  > >>
                  > >>> revenue from targeted, personalized and context-based
                  > merchandising
                  > >>> and advertising."
                  > >>>
                  > >>> Volantis: http://www.volantis.com/transcoder
                  > >>> "Customers remain involved in the delivery chain when subscribers
                  > >>> browse "off-portal", allowing advertisements and menus to be
                  > >>> automatically inserted into headers and footers.
                  > >>>
                  > >>> On 5 Feb 2009, at 18:30, Luca Passani wrote:
                  > >>>
                  > >>>
                  > >>>> Jason Delport wrote:
                  > >>>>
                  > >>>>> "The Widget Bar application can be placed on any portal or off-
                  > >>>>>
                  > >>>> portal
                  > >>>>
                  > >>>>> web page that is delivered to mobile browsers, allowing
                  > >>>>>
                  > >> operators to
                  > >>
                  > >>>>> maintain a valuable presence in front of their customers at all
                  > >>>>> times."
                  > >>>>>
                  > >>>>> http://www.bytemobile.com/news-events/2009/archive_040209.html
                  > >>>>>
                  > >>>>>
                  > >>>> How can I talk again about transcoding and not be accused of
                  > >>>>
                  > >> sounding
                  > >>
                  > >>>> like a broken record?
                  > >>>>
                  > >>>> Many keep saying that transcoders are bound to disappear, but
                  > this
                  > >>>> hasn't happened yet. Worse than that: they are gaining momentum.
                  > >>>> Trying
                  > >>>> to win W3C support for transcoding web and mobile sites alike,
                  > >>>> breaking
                  > >>>> HTTPS, injecting advertisement in content they have no rights to
                  > >>>>
                  > >> and
                  > >>
                  > >>>> so on.
                  > >>>>
                  > >>>> I always said that Novarra is the worst offender, but I wonder
                  > >>>>
                  > >> whether
                  > >>
                  > >>>> ByteMobile is any better: they keep a low profile with
                  > >>>>
                  > >> developers, but
                  > >>
                  > >>>> their deployments and their sales pitches are approximately as
                  > >>>>
                  > >> abusive
                  > >>
                  > >>>> as the ones by Novarra.
                  > >>>>
                  > >>>> What is to be done?
                  > >>>>
                  > >>>> Luca
                  > >>>>
                  > >>>>
                  > >>>>
                  > >>>>
                  >
                  >
                  >

                  --
                  Future Platforms
                  e: Tom.Hume@...
                  t: +44 (0) 1273 819038
                  m: +44 (0) 7971 781422
                  work: www.futureplatforms.com
                  play: tomhume.org







                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Luca Passani
                  I am not sure why you keep arguing on something different than I have said. ... did I say this? I did not. I said that the responsibility lies partly with the
                  Message 8 of 16 , Feb 6, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I am not sure why you keep arguing on something different than I have said.

                    > And if the responsibility lies not with the vendors....

                    did I say this? I did not. I said that the responsibility lies partly
                    with the vendors and partly with the operators. In addition, I said that
                    identifying which of two kinds of vendors we are dealing with, because
                    this changes the approach we need to take.

                    Some transcoder vendors are proactively promoting their transcoding
                    features with their customers (novarra and bytemobile), while others
                    transcoder vendors (infogin, openwave and volantis) implement them to be
                    competitive in the market, but are not proactive in convincing operators
                    to use them (this is because the vendor realizes of the damage they are
                    doing).

                    The good vendors are the ones we can talk civilizedly to, because we
                    know they are reasonable and will cooperate in finding a compromise that
                    is good enough for everyone.

                    The second kind are arrogant bastards that need to be treated as the
                    beasts they are. This may also apply to their customers who were stupid
                    enough to let themselves be misled by vendor BS. In this case, blogging
                    hard and complaining loudly is the way to go. Operators will go back to
                    their vendor and ask "why did you bring this mountain of poo down on my
                    carefully built good brand name? didn't you tell me that I was about to
                    get mountains of free content and everyone would be happy?"

                    In some extreme cases, operators may be knowledgeably trying to
                    subjugate the ecosystem (Vodafone is a textbook example here). There we
                    should be complaining loudly about the operator too. The operator
                    strategy there is to keep doing the abuse for long enough until it
                    becomes old news. Our counter strategy should be to keep telling them
                    how much we hate them until they don't cease and desist.

                    Luca

                    Tom Hume wrote:
                    > Thanks for the threat Luca, but I'm not talking about the Manifesto.
                    > I'm pointing out that every major transcoder (that I found with a
                    > cursory search) has the feature you consider irresponsible in it. Yes,
                    > I'm expressing mild scepticism that they've implemented (and
                    > presumably maintain or develop) this feature but would never support
                    > its deployment. And if the responsibility lies not with the vendors,
                    > then it's important to engage with operators in this discussion:
                    > because they're the ones who decide to deploy responsibly or
                    > irresponsibly.
                    >
                    > Or to put it more positively: what else can we do to persuade
                    > operators to behave responsibly - whether that be by signing the
                    > manifesto or any other means?
                    >
                  • Jim McLachlan
                    I ve basically stopped reading the threads on this group because I get so annoyed by what I see going on. I have avoided getting involved because I don t have
                    Message 9 of 16 , Feb 7, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I've basically stopped reading the threads on this group because I get
                      so annoyed by what I see going on. I have avoided getting involved
                      because I don't have the abundant patience that Luca demonstrates.
                      This will be my one posting about what I see.

                      Seriously Luca, respect to you for not completely losing it by now.

                      I just got my digest and yet again, I see Tom Hume posting his toxic
                      time-wasting arguments. His arguments are a disturbing mix of
                      weasel-words, slight-of-hand, manipulation and political double-talk.
                      His only purpose on this forum seems to be to muddy the waters and
                      endlessly argue in order to waste everyone's time. There *might* be
                      one or two positive and useful contributions that he's made, but he
                      has also post far too much rubbish to wade through.

                      This is a really good example:

                      > Are there any transcoder vendors that *don't* offer this as a feature?
                      >
                      > InfoGin: http://www.infogin.com/solutions.asp
                      > "Customized footers enable end users to continue their PC browsing
                      > habits on their mobile devices, such as: History, Favorites and most-
                      > commonly surfed sites."
                      >
                      > OpenWave:
                      http://www.openwave.com/us/products/mobile_internet_services/openweb/
                      > (see also PDF)
                      > "OpenWeb enables operators to leverage their most unique asset -
                      > information about subscriber preferences and location — to generate
                      > revenue from targeted, personalized and context-based merchandising
                      > and advertising."
                      >
                      > Volantis: http://www.volantis.com/transcoder
                      > "Customers remain involved in the delivery chain when subscribers
                      > browse "off-portal", allowing advertisements and menus to be
                      > automatically inserted into headers and footers.
                      >

                      He is *clearly* saying with this comment that he finds this acceptable
                      because "that's what everyone does". I'm sure that he'll argue that
                      he didn't say that, or that he didn't mean that, or that "in the
                      context of the entire thread... blah blah blah", but this is exactly
                      my point. "I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some
                      moments ago." Weasel words and double talk.

                      All those quotes are one-sided and only express the benefits to
                      operators. In each case they are just saying that they enable the
                      insertion of additional (unrequested) content (adverts) into sites
                      without the permission of the site author (copyright holder).

                      A while ago, I saw a series of statements supporting Tom's right to
                      have his say and arguing that Luca shouldn't ban him. If I remember
                      correctly, that was due to "bad faith" arguing about the Manifesto.
                      So, having logged make this post, what do I find, but yet another
                      forum-troll response from Tom:

                      "Thanks for the threat Luca, but I'm not talking about the Manifesto."

                      Does anyone else see this deliberate attempt to wind up Luca by trying
                      to dodge the rules about his behaviour by claiming that he's now
                      arguing about something else?

                      And the sarcasm!!!!!

                      "So none of those vendors will deploy transcoders which use that
                      feature they've all implemented and sell? They've all committed that
                      they won't do that?

                      Wow."

                      "(that I found with a cursory search)"

                      Tom, you are clearly a clever, well educated and eloquent man. You
                      clearly have a good knowledge of the workings of the mobile industry.
                      What is wrong with you? Get your act together. Make some useful,
                      helpful, positive contributions or please leave the forum.

                      Jim.
                    • Tom Hume
                      Jim I think I m not explaining myself clearly: if this feature is objectionable (and I can see good reasons why it is), then surely it s objectionable no
                      Message 10 of 16 , Feb 7, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Jim

                        I think I'm not explaining myself clearly: if this feature is
                        objectionable (and I can see good reasons why it is), then surely it's
                        objectionable no matter who supplies it? My point is that it's not
                        just the Bad Transcoders (Bad defined by whatever definition you're
                        using - non-manifesto signatories, history of abusive deployments,
                        failure to listen to developers, whatever) - it's *all* of them. And
                        yes, I'm sceptical that they're putting time and money into developing
                        features which they are simultaneously committing to not deploy.

                        Of course the quotes I supply are one-sided: they're copy-n-pasted
                        from those vendors sites. I'm not saying I find the feature
                        acceptable: I'm pointing out that they're all offering it, and have
                        been for some time: this isn't anything new.

                        If it's OK for transcoder vendors to develop software with this
                        feature, and if we want to avoid this sort of thing happening, then
                        why not talk to the operators and others deploying the software, as
                        well as the software vendors?

                        So I'll say it again: how about some constructive ideas as to how we
                        engage with the folks deploying transcoders, to minimise the damage
                        they're doing?

                        Tom

                        On 7 Feb 2009, at 11:16, Jim McLachlan wrote:

                        > I've basically stopped reading the threads on this group because I get
                        > so annoyed by what I see going on. I have avoided getting involved
                        > because I don't have the abundant patience that Luca demonstrates.
                        > This will be my one posting about what I see.
                        >
                        > Seriously Luca, respect to you for not completely losing it by now.
                        >
                        > I just got my digest and yet again, I see Tom Hume posting his toxic
                        > time-wasting arguments. His arguments are a disturbing mix of
                        > weasel-words, slight-of-hand, manipulation and political double-talk.
                        > His only purpose on this forum seems to be to muddy the waters and
                        > endlessly argue in order to waste everyone's time. There *might* be
                        > one or two positive and useful contributions that he's made, but he
                        > has also post far too much rubbish to wade through.
                        >
                        > This is a really good example:
                        >
                        > > Are there any transcoder vendors that *don't* offer this as a
                        > feature?
                        > >
                        > > InfoGin: http://www.infogin.com/solutions.asp
                        > > "Customized footers enable end users to continue their PC browsing
                        > > habits on their mobile devices, such as: History, Favorites and
                        > most-
                        > > commonly surfed sites."
                        > >
                        > > OpenWave:
                        > http://www.openwave.com/us/products/mobile_internet_services/openweb/
                        > > (see also PDF)
                        > > "OpenWeb enables operators to leverage their most unique asset -
                        > > information about subscriber preferences and location � to generate
                        > > revenue from targeted, personalized and context-based merchandising
                        > > and advertising."
                        > >
                        > > Volantis: http://www.volantis.com/transcoder
                        > > "Customers remain involved in the delivery chain when subscribers
                        > > browse "off-portal", allowing advertisements and menus to be
                        > > automatically inserted into headers and footers.
                        > >
                        >
                        > He is *clearly* saying with this comment that he finds this acceptable
                        > because "that's what everyone does". I'm sure that he'll argue that
                        > he didn't say that, or that he didn't mean that, or that "in the
                        > context of the entire thread... blah blah blah", but this is exactly
                        > my point. "I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some
                        > moments ago." Weasel words and double talk.
                        >
                        > All those quotes are one-sided and only express the benefits to
                        > operators. In each case they are just saying that they enable the
                        > insertion of additional (unrequested) content (adverts) into sites
                        > without the permission of the site author (copyright holder).
                        >
                        > A while ago, I saw a series of statements supporting Tom's right to
                        > have his say and arguing that Luca shouldn't ban him. If I remember
                        > correctly, that was due to "bad faith" arguing about the Manifesto.
                        > So, having logged make this post, what do I find, but yet another
                        > forum-troll response from Tom:
                        >
                        > "Thanks for the threat Luca, but I'm not talking about the Manifesto."
                        >
                        > Does anyone else see this deliberate attempt to wind up Luca by trying
                        > to dodge the rules about his behaviour by claiming that he's now
                        > arguing about something else?
                        >
                        > And the sarcasm!!!!!
                        >
                        > "So none of those vendors will deploy transcoders which use that
                        > feature they've all implemented and sell? They've all committed that
                        > they won't do that?
                        >
                        > Wow."
                        >
                        > "(that I found with a cursory search)"
                        >
                        > Tom, you are clearly a clever, well educated and eloquent man. You
                        > clearly have a good knowledge of the workings of the mobile industry.
                        > What is wrong with you? Get your act together. Make some useful,
                        > helpful, positive contributions or please leave the forum.
                        >
                        > Jim.
                        >
                        >
                        >

                        --
                        Future Platforms
                        e: Tom.Hume@...
                        t: +44 (0) 1273 819038
                        m: +44 (0) 7971 781422
                        work: www.futureplatforms.com
                        play: tomhume.org







                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Luca Passani
                        Bye bye, Tom Luca
                        Message 11 of 16 , Feb 7, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Bye bye, Tom

                          Luca

                          Tom Hume wrote:
                          > Jim
                          >
                          > I think I'm not explaining myself clearly: if this feature is
                          > objectionable (and I can see good reasons why it is), then surely it's
                          > objectionable no matter who supplies it? My point is that it's not
                          > just the Bad Transcoders (Bad defined by whatever definition you're
                          > using - non-manifesto signatories, history of abusive deployments,
                          > failure to listen to developers, whatever) - it's *all* of them. And
                          > yes, I'm sceptical that they're putting time and money into developing
                          > features which they are simultaneously committing to not deploy.
                          >
                          > Of course the quotes I supply are one-sided: they're copy-n-pasted
                          > from those vendors sites. I'm not saying I find the feature
                          > acceptable: I'm pointing out that they're all offering it, and have
                          > been for some time: this isn't anything new.
                          >
                          > If it's OK for transcoder vendors to develop software with this
                          > feature, and if we want to avoid this sort of thing happening, then
                          > why not talk to the operators and others deploying the software, as
                          > well as the software vendors?
                          >
                          > So I'll say it again: how about some constructive ideas as to how we
                          > engage with the folks deploying transcoders, to minimise the damage
                          > they're doing?
                          >
                          > Tom
                          >
                          > On 7 Feb 2009, at 11:16, Jim McLachlan wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          >> I've basically stopped reading the threads on this group because I get
                          >> so annoyed by what I see going on. I have avoided getting involved
                          >> because I don't have the abundant patience that Luca demonstrates.
                          >> This will be my one posting about what I see.
                          >>
                          >> Seriously Luca, respect to you for not completely losing it by now.
                          >>
                          >> I just got my digest and yet again, I see Tom Hume posting his toxic
                          >> time-wasting arguments. His arguments are a disturbing mix of
                          >> weasel-words, slight-of-hand, manipulation and political double-talk.
                          >> His only purpose on this forum seems to be to muddy the waters and
                          >> endlessly argue in order to waste everyone's time. There *might* be
                          >> one or two positive and useful contributions that he's made, but he
                          >> has also post far too much rubbish to wade through.
                          >>
                          >> This is a really good example:
                          >>
                          >>
                          >>> Are there any transcoder vendors that *don't* offer this as a
                          >>>
                          >> feature?
                          >>
                          >>> InfoGin: http://www.infogin.com/solutions.asp
                          >>> "Customized footers enable end users to continue their PC browsing
                          >>> habits on their mobile devices, such as: History, Favorites and
                          >>>
                          >> most-
                          >>
                          >>> commonly surfed sites."
                          >>>
                          >>> OpenWave:
                          >>>
                          >> http://www.openwave.com/us/products/mobile_internet_services/openweb/
                          >>
                          >>> (see also PDF)
                          >>> "OpenWeb enables operators to leverage their most unique asset -
                          >>> information about subscriber preferences and location — to generate
                          >>> revenue from targeted, personalized and context-based merchandising
                          >>> and advertising."
                          >>>
                          >>> Volantis: http://www.volantis.com/transcoder
                          >>> "Customers remain involved in the delivery chain when subscribers
                          >>> browse "off-portal", allowing advertisements and menus to be
                          >>> automatically inserted into headers and footers.
                          >>>
                          >>>
                          >> He is *clearly* saying with this comment that he finds this acceptable
                          >> because "that's what everyone does". I'm sure that he'll argue that
                          >> he didn't say that, or that he didn't mean that, or that "in the
                          >> context of the entire thread... blah blah blah", but this is exactly
                          >> my point. "I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some
                          >> moments ago." Weasel words and double talk.
                          >>
                          >> All those quotes are one-sided and only express the benefits to
                          >> operators. In each case they are just saying that they enable the
                          >> insertion of additional (unrequested) content (adverts) into sites
                          >> without the permission of the site author (copyright holder).
                          >>
                          >> A while ago, I saw a series of statements supporting Tom's right to
                          >> have his say and arguing that Luca shouldn't ban him. If I remember
                          >> correctly, that was due to "bad faith" arguing about the Manifesto.
                          >> So, having logged make this post, what do I find, but yet another
                          >> forum-troll response from Tom:
                          >>
                          >> "Thanks for the threat Luca, but I'm not talking about the Manifesto."
                          >>
                          >> Does anyone else see this deliberate attempt to wind up Luca by trying
                          >> to dodge the rules about his behaviour by claiming that he's now
                          >> arguing about something else?
                          >>
                          >> And the sarcasm!!!!!
                          >>
                          >> "So none of those vendors will deploy transcoders which use that
                          >> feature they've all implemented and sell? They've all committed that
                          >> they won't do that?
                          >>
                          >> Wow."
                          >>
                          >> "(that I found with a cursory search)"
                          >>
                          >> Tom, you are clearly a clever, well educated and eloquent man. You
                          >> clearly have a good knowledge of the workings of the mobile industry.
                          >> What is wrong with you? Get your act together. Make some useful,
                          >> helpful, positive contributions or please leave the forum.
                          >>
                          >> Jim.
                          >>
                          >>
                          >>
                          >>
                        • Simon Maddox
                          Luca, I ve read these threads over the recent months, and have been appaled at your negativity towards anything new. Now, Tom is big enough to speak for
                          Message 12 of 16 , Feb 8, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Luca,

                            I've read these threads over the recent months, and have been appaled at
                            your negativity towards anything new.

                            Now, Tom is big enough to speak for himself, but obviously now you've
                            ejected him from the list I feel like I've got to say something...

                            I think everyone reading this list agrees that what Byte Mobile (and others)
                            are doing is totally wrong - afaik, nobody disputes that.

                            Tom Hume merely pointed out that almost every transcoder vendor - even the
                            ones which have signed your manifesto - have implemented this "feature".

                            Do you really think that a feature that many companies have spent time and
                            money implementing and deploying will never see the light of day? Especially
                            if they're still actively promoting said feature?

                            To ban Tom for raising that point is, in my opinion, downright ludicrous. I
                            think I've also run my course with the wmlprogramming list - the ability for
                            anyone to question what you say without being publicly insulted has gone,
                            and that has led to this list going from a whole load of posts each day, to
                            the odd one or two.

                            If anyone knows of a place where mobile developers can discuss things
                            without the fear of ridicule and banning - please let me know.

                            Luca - thanks for what you've done with WURFL. It's a great project.

                            Regards,

                            Simon

                            On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Luca Passani <passani@...> wrote:

                            >
                            > Bye bye, Tom
                            >
                            > Luca
                            >
                            > Tom Hume wrote:
                            > > Jim
                            > >
                            > > I think I'm not explaining myself clearly: if this feature is
                            > > objectionable (and I can see good reasons why it is), then surely it's
                            > > objectionable no matter who supplies it? My point is that it's not
                            > > just the Bad Transcoders (Bad defined by whatever definition you're
                            > > using - non-manifesto signatories, history of abusive deployments,
                            > > failure to listen to developers, whatever) - it's *all* of them. And
                            > > yes, I'm sceptical that they're putting time and money into developing
                            > > features which they are simultaneously committing to not deploy.
                            > >
                            > > Of course the quotes I supply are one-sided: they're copy-n-pasted
                            > > from those vendors sites. I'm not saying I find the feature
                            > > acceptable: I'm pointing out that they're all offering it, and have
                            > > been for some time: this isn't anything new.
                            > >
                            > > If it's OK for transcoder vendors to develop software with this
                            > > feature, and if we want to avoid this sort of thing happening, then
                            > > why not talk to the operators and others deploying the software, as
                            > > well as the software vendors?
                            > >
                            > > So I'll say it again: how about some constructive ideas as to how we
                            > > engage with the folks deploying transcoders, to minimise the damage
                            > > they're doing?
                            > >
                            > > Tom
                            > >
                            > > On 7 Feb 2009, at 11:16, Jim McLachlan wrote:
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >> I've basically stopped reading the threads on this group because I get
                            > >> so annoyed by what I see going on. I have avoided getting involved
                            > >> because I don't have the abundant patience that Luca demonstrates.
                            > >> This will be my one posting about what I see.
                            > >>
                            > >> Seriously Luca, respect to you for not completely losing it by now.
                            > >>
                            > >> I just got my digest and yet again, I see Tom Hume posting his toxic
                            > >> time-wasting arguments. His arguments are a disturbing mix of
                            > >> weasel-words, slight-of-hand, manipulation and political double-talk.
                            > >> His only purpose on this forum seems to be to muddy the waters and
                            > >> endlessly argue in order to waste everyone's time. There *might* be
                            > >> one or two positive and useful contributions that he's made, but he
                            > >> has also post far too much rubbish to wade through.
                            > >>
                            > >> This is a really good example:
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >>> Are there any transcoder vendors that *don't* offer this as a
                            > >>>
                            > >> feature?
                            > >>
                            > >>> InfoGin: http://www.infogin.com/solutions.asp
                            > >>> "Customized footers enable end users to continue their PC browsing
                            > >>> habits on their mobile devices, such as: History, Favorites and
                            > >>>
                            > >> most-
                            > >>
                            > >>> commonly surfed sites."
                            > >>>
                            > >>> OpenWave:
                            > >>>
                            > >> http://www.openwave.com/us/products/mobile_internet_services/openweb/
                            > >>
                            > >>> (see also PDF)
                            > >>> "OpenWeb enables operators to leverage their most unique asset -
                            > >>> information about subscriber preferences and location � to generate
                            > >>> revenue from targeted, personalized and context-based merchandising
                            > >>> and advertising."
                            > >>>
                            > >>> Volantis: http://www.volantis.com/transcoder
                            > >>> "Customers remain involved in the delivery chain when subscribers
                            > >>> browse "off-portal", allowing advertisements and menus to be
                            > >>> automatically inserted into headers and footers.
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >> He is *clearly* saying with this comment that he finds this acceptable
                            > >> because "that's what everyone does". I'm sure that he'll argue that
                            > >> he didn't say that, or that he didn't mean that, or that "in the
                            > >> context of the entire thread... blah blah blah", but this is exactly
                            > >> my point. "I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some
                            > >> moments ago." Weasel words and double talk.
                            > >>
                            > >> All those quotes are one-sided and only express the benefits to
                            > >> operators. In each case they are just saying that they enable the
                            > >> insertion of additional (unrequested) content (adverts) into sites
                            > >> without the permission of the site author (copyright holder).
                            > >>
                            > >> A while ago, I saw a series of statements supporting Tom's right to
                            > >> have his say and arguing that Luca shouldn't ban him. If I remember
                            > >> correctly, that was due to "bad faith" arguing about the Manifesto.
                            > >> So, having logged make this post, what do I find, but yet another
                            > >> forum-troll response from Tom:
                            > >>
                            > >> "Thanks for the threat Luca, but I'm not talking about the Manifesto."
                            > >>
                            > >> Does anyone else see this deliberate attempt to wind up Luca by trying
                            > >> to dodge the rules about his behaviour by claiming that he's now
                            > >> arguing about something else?
                            > >>
                            > >> And the sarcasm!!!!!
                            > >>
                            > >> "So none of those vendors will deploy transcoders which use that
                            > >> feature they've all implemented and sell? They've all committed that
                            > >> they won't do that?
                            > >>
                            > >> Wow."
                            > >>
                            > >> "(that I found with a cursory search)"
                            > >>
                            > >> Tom, you are clearly a clever, well educated and eloquent man. You
                            > >> clearly have a good knowledge of the workings of the mobile industry.
                            > >> What is wrong with you? Get your act together. Make some useful,
                            > >> helpful, positive contributions or please leave the forum.
                            > >>
                            > >> Jim.
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > ------------------------------------
                            >
                            > As of July 14 2005, it's much easier to be banned from WMLProgramming!
                            > Please fail to read http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/ before
                            > you post.Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Luca Passani
                            Simon, my only regret about this is that I did not ban Tom earlier. He was in bad faith, thinking he was smart and simply making fun of us. Your comments are
                            Message 13 of 16 , Feb 8, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Simon, my only regret about this is that I did not ban Tom earlier. He
                              was in bad faith, thinking he was smart and simply making fun of us.

                              Your comments are unfair. On this list, discussions have always been
                              very open and frank, sometimes harsh, but always respectful of those who
                              deserved respect.

                              Please no more posts about the banning of Tom Hume. This has already
                              burned way too many cycles that I could have spent more usefully on
                              WURFL itself.

                              Luca

                              Simon Maddox wrote:
                              > Luca,
                              >
                              > I've read these threads over the recent months, and have been appaled at
                              > your negativity towards anything new.
                              >
                              > Now, Tom is big enough to speak for himself, but obviously now you've
                              > ejected him from the list I feel like I've got to say something...
                              >
                              > I think everyone reading this list agrees that what Byte Mobile (and others)
                              > are doing is totally wrong - afaik, nobody disputes that.
                              >
                              > Tom Hume merely pointed out that almost every transcoder vendor - even the
                              > ones which have signed your manifesto - have implemented this "feature".
                              >
                              > Do you really think that a feature that many companies have spent time and
                              > money implementing and deploying will never see the light of day? Especially
                              > if they're still actively promoting said feature?
                              >
                              > To ban Tom for raising that point is, in my opinion, downright ludicrous. I
                              > think I've also run my course with the wmlprogramming list - the ability for
                              > anyone to question what you say without being publicly insulted has gone,
                              > and that has led to this list going from a whole load of posts each day, to
                              > the odd one or two.
                              >
                              > If anyone knows of a place where mobile developers can discuss things
                              > without the fear of ridicule and banning - please let me know.
                              >
                              > Luca - thanks for what you've done with WURFL. It's a great project.
                              >
                              > Regards,
                              >
                              > Simon
                              >
                              > On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Luca Passani <passani@...> wrote:
                              >
                              >
                              >> Bye bye, Tom
                              >>
                              >> Luca
                              >>
                              >> Tom Hume wrote:
                              >>
                              >>> Jim
                              >>>
                              >>> I think I'm not explaining myself clearly: if this feature is
                              >>> objectionable (and I can see good reasons why it is), then surely it's
                              >>> objectionable no matter who supplies it? My point is that it's not
                              >>> just the Bad Transcoders (Bad defined by whatever definition you're
                              >>> using - non-manifesto signatories, history of abusive deployments,
                              >>> failure to listen to developers, whatever) - it's *all* of them. And
                              >>> yes, I'm sceptical that they're putting time and money into developing
                              >>> features which they are simultaneously committing to not deploy.
                              >>>
                              >>> Of course the quotes I supply are one-sided: they're copy-n-pasted
                              >>> from those vendors sites. I'm not saying I find the feature
                              >>> acceptable: I'm pointing out that they're all offering it, and have
                              >>> been for some time: this isn't anything new.
                              >>>
                              >>> If it's OK for transcoder vendors to develop software with this
                              >>> feature, and if we want to avoid this sort of thing happening, then
                              >>> why not talk to the operators and others deploying the software, as
                              >>> well as the software vendors?
                              >>>
                              >>> So I'll say it again: how about some constructive ideas as to how we
                              >>> engage with the folks deploying transcoders, to minimise the damage
                              >>> they're doing?
                              >>>
                              >>> Tom
                              >>>
                              >>> On 7 Feb 2009, at 11:16, Jim McLachlan wrote:
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> I've basically stopped reading the threads on this group because I get
                              >>>> so annoyed by what I see going on. I have avoided getting involved
                              >>>> because I don't have the abundant patience that Luca demonstrates.
                              >>>> This will be my one posting about what I see.
                              >>>>
                              >>>> Seriously Luca, respect to you for not completely losing it by now.
                              >>>>
                              >>>> I just got my digest and yet again, I see Tom Hume posting his toxic
                              >>>> time-wasting arguments. His arguments are a disturbing mix of
                              >>>> weasel-words, slight-of-hand, manipulation and political double-talk.
                              >>>> His only purpose on this forum seems to be to muddy the waters and
                              >>>> endlessly argue in order to waste everyone's time. There *might* be
                              >>>> one or two positive and useful contributions that he's made, but he
                              >>>> has also post far too much rubbish to wade through.
                              >>>>
                              >>>> This is a really good example:
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>> Are there any transcoder vendors that *don't* offer this as a
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>>
                              >>>> feature?
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>> InfoGin: http://www.infogin.com/solutions.asp
                              >>>>> "Customized footers enable end users to continue their PC browsing
                              >>>>> habits on their mobile devices, such as: History, Favorites and
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>>
                              >>>> most-
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>> commonly surfed sites."
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>> OpenWave:
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>>
                              >>>> http://www.openwave.com/us/products/mobile_internet_services/openweb/
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>> (see also PDF)
                              >>>>> "OpenWeb enables operators to leverage their most unique asset -
                              >>>>> information about subscriber preferences and location — to generate
                              >>>>> revenue from targeted, personalized and context-based merchandising
                              >>>>> and advertising."
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>> Volantis: http://www.volantis.com/transcoder
                              >>>>> "Customers remain involved in the delivery chain when subscribers
                              >>>>> browse "off-portal", allowing advertisements and menus to be
                              >>>>> automatically inserted into headers and footers.
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>>
                              >>>> He is *clearly* saying with this comment that he finds this acceptable
                              >>>> because "that's what everyone does". I'm sure that he'll argue that
                              >>>> he didn't say that, or that he didn't mean that, or that "in the
                              >>>> context of the entire thread... blah blah blah", but this is exactly
                              >>>> my point. "I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some
                              >>>> moments ago." Weasel words and double talk.
                              >>>>
                              >>>> All those quotes are one-sided and only express the benefits to
                              >>>> operators. In each case they are just saying that they enable the
                              >>>> insertion of additional (unrequested) content (adverts) into sites
                              >>>> without the permission of the site author (copyright holder).
                              >>>>
                              >>>> A while ago, I saw a series of statements supporting Tom's right to
                              >>>> have his say and arguing that Luca shouldn't ban him. If I remember
                              >>>> correctly, that was due to "bad faith" arguing about the Manifesto.
                              >>>> So, having logged make this post, what do I find, but yet another
                              >>>> forum-troll response from Tom:
                              >>>>
                              >>>> "Thanks for the threat Luca, but I'm not talking about the Manifesto."
                              >>>>
                              >>>> Does anyone else see this deliberate attempt to wind up Luca by trying
                              >>>> to dodge the rules about his behaviour by claiming that he's now
                              >>>> arguing about something else?
                              >>>>
                              >>>> And the sarcasm!!!!!
                              >>>>
                              >>>> "So none of those vendors will deploy transcoders which use that
                              >>>> feature they've all implemented and sell? They've all committed that
                              >>>> they won't do that?
                              >>>>
                              >>>> Wow."
                              >>>>
                              >>>> "(that I found with a cursory search)"
                              >>>>
                              >>>> Tom, you are clearly a clever, well educated and eloquent man. You
                              >>>> clearly have a good knowledge of the workings of the mobile industry.
                              >>>> What is wrong with you? Get your act together. Make some useful,
                              >>>> helpful, positive contributions or please leave the forum.
                              >>>>
                              >>>> Jim.
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>
                              >> ------------------------------------
                              >>
                              >> As of July 14 2005, it's much easier to be banned from WMLProgramming!
                              >> Please fail to read http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/ before
                              >> you post.Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > ------------------------------------
                              >
                              > As of July 14 2005, it's much easier to be banned from WMLProgramming!
                              > Please fail to read http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/ before you post.Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                            • David Tolnem
                              ... Bye bye, wmlprogramming. It s been interesting. /David
                              Message 14 of 16 , Feb 8, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment
                                > Bye bye, Tom

                                Bye bye, wmlprogramming. It's been interesting.

                                /David
                              • James Pearce
                                Ditto. I m sorry to see that a once-respected mailing list has become a running joke of the mobile industry. Mobile developers deserve a better reputation. The
                                Message 15 of 16 , Feb 8, 2009
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Ditto. I'm sorry to see that a once-respected mailing list has become a
                                  running joke of the mobile industry. Mobile developers deserve a better
                                  reputation.

                                  The sore point that Tom has touched on is simple but true. The Manifesto
                                  hasn't been signed by any operators. Transcoder deployments are entirely
                                  shaped by those companies' business models and strategies, and getting
                                  lip-service from their vendors should only ever have been the start.

                                  Rather than squabbling within the list and being extremely abusive about
                                  other groups' work, it would have been helpful to have united to figure out
                                  how to do that.

                                  But I'll leave you to it. The constructive stuff is all happening over at
                                  http://mobiForge.com, folks.

                                  Sad day indeed.

                                  James



                                  2009/2/8 David Tolnem <yahoo@...>

                                  > > Bye bye, Tom
                                  >
                                  > Bye bye, wmlprogramming. It's been interesting.
                                  >
                                  > /David
                                  >
                                  >


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Luca Passani
                                  James, I think I have found a name for you. The jackal. You jump into an unrelated thread (which I had explicitly asked to please stop discussing), and you use
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Feb 9, 2009
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    James, I think I have found a name for you. The jackal. You jump into an
                                    unrelated thread (which I had explicitly asked to please stop
                                    discussing), and you use it to smear falsity and infamy on
                                    WMLprogramming and the Manifesto AND divert attention to the .Mobi stuff.

                                    This forces me to set the record straight about a few things:

                                    > http://mobiForge.com

                                    I never said anything bad about .Mobi, but since you ask, I think that
                                    the joke is a consortium that takes the data and the ideas from an
                                    open-source project to create a tool they sell for money without feeding
                                    anything back.
                                    Also, .Mobi is backed by Vodafone, Google and Microsoft among others.
                                    Questioning its independence would be more than legitimate.
                                    Having the dotMobi ex-CTO accuse WMLprogramming of being a joke makes me
                                    sad, because it means that I have misjudged your moral integrity all of
                                    this time.

                                    > once-respected mailing list has become a
                                    > running joke of the mobile industry.

                                    this is the mailing list on which WURFL, the GAP and the Manifesto were
                                    born. Your attempt to wind me up started on the wrong foot.

                                    > Manifesto

                                    it was not signed by operators because they had nothing to gain in
                                    signing it, but it was very well received, because they built their
                                    transcoding requirements on it. Loads of real deployments have been
                                    stopped, fixed and re-designed because of the Manifesto.
                                    Compare this to W3C's CTG (backed by .mobi) which is still not final
                                    after one and a half year of work and, so far, has achieved the following:
                                    - allowed Novarra to deploy abusively in the name of W3C.
                                    - has become a tool for transcoder vendors to get legitimation for
                                    breaking HTTPS (they have not managed yet, but they are still trying)
                                    - has become a tool for transcoder vendors to "optimize" already mobile
                                    optimised sites(!) (still trying)

                                    And of course, let's not forget that CTG's message to developers in this
                                    moment is:

                                    "Transcoders should leave your content alone, but if they don't, it is
                                    your duty to place no-transcode headers on each and every file served.
                                    This may work if transcoders are kind and abide by CTG"

                                    (compare this to the Manifesto message "you don't need to do anything.
                                    If some operator transcodes your content, refer them to the manifesto
                                    which a very large share of the industry has embraced and *demand* that
                                    your rights are respected").

                                    > extremely abusive about other groups' work

                                    if you are referring to CTG, the reality is that W3C has turned into an
                                    instrument for justifying abusive behavior.
                                    My reaction, which was admittedly strong at some point, was
                                    proportionate to the actions which were being carried out in W3C's name.
                                    Of course, this transcoder issue is embarassing for .Mobi, which would
                                    like to build an image as a developer friend, but has vodafone and
                                    google among its supporters. This is not my problem and, above all, it's
                                    really pathetic that your reaction is to bring WMLprogramming to disrepute.

                                    > Tom Hume

                                    In almonst 10 years, nobody was banned that was not a spammer or a
                                    no-strings-attached idiot. Tom is the first exception to this. The
                                    problem is that he was on a scientific mission to create confusion and
                                    he had been warned to stop several times. Since it's my duty to keep a
                                    3000 developer strong list running smoothly and provide value to
                                    everyone, I decided that this had to stop. And this decision came with
                                    some regret, because Tom was an old-timer. Yet, it was the right thing
                                    to do. I think that 10 years of service for the community buys me
                                    credits to do this and be believed that it was the right thing to do.

                                    Once more. Let's stop the Tom thread here.

                                    Luca


                                    James Pearce wrote:
                                    > Ditto. I'm sorry to see that a once-respected mailing list has become a
                                    > running joke of the mobile industry. Mobile developers deserve a better
                                    > reputation.
                                    >
                                    > The sore point that Tom has touched on is simple but true. The Manifesto
                                    > hasn't been signed by any operators. Transcoder deployments are entirely
                                    > shaped by those companies' business models and strategies, and getting
                                    > lip-service from their vendors should only ever have been the start.
                                    >
                                    > Rather than squabbling within the list and being extremely abusive about
                                    > other groups' work, it would have been helpful to have united to figure out
                                    > how to do that.
                                    >
                                    > But I'll leave you to it. The constructive stuff is all happening over at
                                    > http://mobiForge.com, folks.
                                    >
                                    > Sad day indeed.
                                    >
                                    > James
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > 2009/2/8 David Tolnem <yahoo@...>
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >> > Bye bye, Tom
                                    >>
                                    >> Bye bye, wmlprogramming. It's been interesting.
                                    >>
                                    >> /David
                                    >>
                                    >>
                                    >>
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.