On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 06:23:22 -0800 (PST), (c) The OS/2 Guy (c) wrote:

> On Nov 23, 12:06 am, Ian Robinson <j...@canicula.invalid> wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 01:29:37 +0000, c) The OS/2 Guy (c) wrote
>> (in article
>> <dce94fc9-4b34-4bf3-844b-2ed2c29db...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> Next we have the loss of SMStexting. Ok,so you don't text and who
>>> cares because you can rely on the browser function to get you to an
>>> online texting service.
>>
>> Why would you lose SMS messaging on an unlocked iPhone?

> You don't lose SMS messaging but you might as well. It is entirely
> dependent upon your unauthorized service provider's data service.

Huh? So you know of some network provider that doesn't provide SMS? I
personally have never met heard of one in europe.

> Apple/Service Provider deal includes the provision of OS X server-side
> implementations as well as required Edge enhancements by the Service
> Provider.

Well, I wouldn't call it an enhancement, but yes, it requires edge at the
moment (which is available from other providers).

> What you end up with on an unlocked iPhone is a hit or miss
> feature that is harder to implement. What the hackers will suggest is
> to avoid the iPhone's SMS messaging feature and use the many free
> online text messaging services.

I have never heard that suggested, especially as they are hard to find,
unlike SMS services.

> Again, these too entirely dependent
> on the quality of the unauthorized service provider's data service.
> And those unauthorized SP's know this by either raising the cost of
> their data plans or lowering the number of text messages that can be
> sent or offering it as unlimited on a system that is so hampered or
> unreliable that it requires more work on the part of the customer to
> get that message through to their intended target.

I really cant understand where you are using a phone if you have ever heard
of these restrictions.

> In the short run the unlocked iPhone seems appealing.

Indeed, I could get a phone service that was more reliable and many times
cheaper without having to be stuck in an expensive 18 month contract.

> In the long run
> it results in higher fees for less service and features.

Not in the UK it wouldn't.

> if you've never known good service and had access to all the iPhone's
> fine features then you don't know or understand what it is you are
> missing. You just know that the [hacked] iPhone you own doesn't seem
> worth it.

The iPhone has a nice interface - it is a bit light on features and the
only thing you would lose on a different provider is visual voicemail, the
loss of which would depend on how much you use voicemail.

> Which is why Apple suggests the purchase of an iTouch if you want the
> iPod and Video features and can live with a second flip phone for your
> phone/messaging needs.

What is a 'flip phone' - I have a capable phone, but it has no flipping?

--
Woody