<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: About</title>
	<atom:link href="http://meownewsletter.com/about/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://meownewsletter.com</link>
	<description>Multimedia Ecosystem Opportunity Watch</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 May 2010 06:52:14 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Shanfan Design &#187; A Mind Exercise: Design Is A Dialogue</title>
		<link>http://meownewsletter.com/about/comment-page-1/#comment-10183</link>
		<dc:creator>Shanfan Design &#187; A Mind Exercise: Design Is A Dialogue</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:33:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://meownewsletter.com/?page_id=4#comment-10183</guid>
		<description>[...] Chairman Meow is a believer in Apple way of doing business: Many have been commenting that Google’s (or Nokia’s or Microsoft’s) ecosystems are more “open” or “flexible” with respect to Apple’s.  And that in the long run that is the right architecture.  That may be, however implementing loose ecosystems coupled loosely to modular devices and operating systems and services as a whole will not be competitive.  They will be too late, too slow and too hard to use.  They will be awkward to position and the benefits will be impossible to explain to end users.  They will be sold through a distribution channel that is too long and with poor information feedback.  Too many “vested” interests will dilute the product’s reason for being.  The pricing of the integrated player will cause poor economies for the modular cohort. I could go on but it suffices to say that the modular approach will fail to be competitive. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Chairman Meow is a believer in Apple way of doing business: Many have been commenting that Google’s (or Nokia’s or Microsoft’s) ecosystems are more “open” or “flexible” with respect to Apple’s.  And that in the long run that is the right architecture.  That may be, however implementing loose ecosystems coupled loosely to modular devices and operating systems and services as a whole will not be competitive.  They will be too late, too slow and too hard to use.  They will be awkward to position and the benefits will be impossible to explain to end users.  They will be sold through a distribution channel that is too long and with poor information feedback.  Too many “vested” interests will dilute the product’s reason for being.  The pricing of the integrated player will cause poor economies for the modular cohort. I could go on but it suffices to say that the modular approach will fail to be competitive. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
