SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:47b4fee6$0$36361$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> The Bob wrote:
>
>> - this has precluded Apple from signing new agreements with new
>> carriers in more than the four countries they currently have
>> agreements for
>>
>> - not being able to sell phones in more than four countries means
>> that they don't sell as many phones
>
> That seems to be the source of your confusion,

I have no confusion on the subjecyt. You are simply trying to argue a
point that runsa counter to the great majority of analytical views.


> you believe that the
> supply of unlocked iPhones, mostly coming from the U.S., is the reason
> that Apple hasn't been able to sign more carriers in other countries.

The reason? No. A significant reason? Absolutely. Why would a carrier
tie themselves to an "exclusive " deal that costs them a piece of their
own revenue when they don't get exclusivity?

>
> The functionality of the unlocked iPhone is severely limited. You can
> use it as a quad band world phone and as a WiFi web browser, but not
> with 2G data services.

The functionality of a locked iPhone is extremely limited.

>
> What you need to understand are the real reasons that carriers are
> reluctant to sign up for the iPhone, and why sales are slumping even
> in countries where it has been released by a carrier. Those reasons
> have been discussed extensively, but include the lack of enterprise
> solutions, lack of 3G, lack of voice dialing, lack of third-party
> apps, lack of OTA calendar synchronization, and especially Apple's
> requirement of revenue sharing.

Now lookie there at that last point. Now why would that be a bopne of
contention? Could it be because so many unlocked phones are out there
that don't require a sharing of revenue?

Looks like you might be the one needing to gain an understanding of
things.


>
> You also need to understand that the sale of unlocked handsets are
> _increasing_ revenue for Apple, not decreasing it.
>

You need to understand that you're not talking to John Navas here. You
may consider yourself an expert on everything as John does, but just
like John, your ego drives your posts. Your history in various cellular
newsgroups over the years prove that you purposely slant things to fit
your own agenda.