<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Mashable - The Social Media Guide - Latest Comments in 2007/10/08/gphone-2/</title><link>http://mashable.disqus.com/</link><description>Internet and Technology News - Mashable is the world’s largest blog focused exclusively on Web 2.0 and Social Networking news. With more than 5 million monthly pageviews, Mashable is the most prolific blog reviewing new Web sites and services, publishing breaking news on what’s new on the web.</description><atom:link href="https://mashable.disqus.com/thread_2508/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:24:00 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: 2007/10/08/gphone-2/</title><link>http://mashable.com/2007/10/08/gphone-2/#comment-5980362</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Yea, although the mobile Web in the US is already slow enough ... waiting for a bunch of ads to load as well will make it even worse!  Though, it's good to make the investment now I suppose so when our networks get better (sometime in our lifetime hopefully) Google is a big player.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Adam Ostrow</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:24:00 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: 2007/10/08/gphone-2/</title><link>http://mashable.com/2007/10/08/gphone-2/#comment-5980361</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I know a historical minded technologist is somewhat ironic, but Google's ad diversification is both necessary and detrimental in the same breath.  Dominating the search based advertising sector requires an interest in mobile platforms, but the infrastructure required will hinder Google when the market saturates.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Angelos</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:18:53 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: 2007/10/08/gphone-2/</title><link>http://mashable.com/2007/10/08/gphone-2/#comment-5980360</link><description>&lt;p&gt;iPhone rocks, Google is late&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://vidsonly.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://vidsonly.blogspot.com"&gt;http://vidsonly.blogspot.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">phenom</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:27:02 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: 2007/10/08/gphone-2/</title><link>http://mashable.com/2007/10/08/gphone-2/#comment-5980359</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Agreed ... The bigger deal IMO is that Google is taking it's ad-based model to mobile, offering its software for free versus the licensing models currently in place by other mobile OS providers.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Adam Ostrow</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:39:48 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: 2007/10/08/gphone-2/</title><link>http://mashable.com/2007/10/08/gphone-2/#comment-5980358</link><description>&lt;p&gt;NYT's report covers no new ground, and IMO is a thinly veiled hit piece against Google, where the underlying message is "Why go gPhone when you go to &lt;a href="http://Google.com" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="Google.com"&gt;Google.com&lt;/a&gt; from a phone already?"  The guy just doesn't seem to get it.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Mark \"Rizzn\" Hopkins</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:35:29 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: 2007/10/08/gphone-2/</title><link>http://mashable.com/2007/10/08/gphone-2/#comment-5980357</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Doesn't it looks a little ugly?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Leandro A.</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:33:41 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>