house70 :
This is contradictory information. First, Cook complains about low sales in their own stores, as opposed to carrier's stores, then complains about carrier stores selling other phones, too, implying that they do not sell enough fruit? Carrier's stores sell too little, or too much (compared to Apple's stores)? Which is it?
BTW, it's not the salesperson fault if consumers choose a different device than the fruit-bearing one; it's just that people have learned to see past the shiny logo and realized that others have better devices. If one walks in a carrier's store and asks for the best devices available, they get pointed towards HTC One or Galaxy S4; can't fault the salespeople for telling the truth.
No, this isn't contradictory. It even says in the article that the carriers providing incentive to salespeople for not selling iPhones is what prompted the summit in the first place...
The recent summit is reportedly in retaliation against carrier stores who are reportedly providing incentives to salespeople who sell devices that are not iPhones
This means they are not pleased with the sales in the carrier stores and are looking for alternatives.
Fact is, EVERY phone manufacturer can have this same complaint. No carrier, be it Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, etc, has the manufacturers best interest at heart. It behooves each maker to protect their brands and such.
But the problem Apple, and every other cell phone maker has, is that while their is some good reasons to buy a non subsidized phones, those reasons are not necessarily reason enough for most people to do it. Until the carriers offer non subsidized calling plans, in other words, a plan that is cheaper if you bring your own device, there is not much reason to go and pay $650 or more for a phone when you pay the same amount per month for your cell phone plan had you just bought the phone at the subsidized price of $200 or less.