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

Re: [wmlprogramming] It's not a gross copyright violation, it's a feature

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 16 , Feb 5, 2009
      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 2 of 16 , Feb 5, 2009
        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 3 of 16 , Feb 6, 2009
          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 4 of 16 , Feb 7, 2009
            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 5 of 16 , Feb 7, 2009
              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 6 of 16 , Feb 7, 2009
                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 7 of 16 , Feb 8, 2009
                  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 8 of 16 , Feb 8, 2009
                    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 9 of 16 , Feb 8, 2009
                      > 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 10 of 16 , Feb 8, 2009
                        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 11 of 16 , Feb 9, 2009
                          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.