Given L shaped battery rumours the next iPhone won't have a Physical SIM. Why would the watch ever have one?
I don't follow. What does an L-shaped battery have to do with preventing a physical SIM from existing. There still has to be a logic board, and the notion of an L-shaped design makes me assume the logic board would be in the area not used by the battery and still have edge access.
Personally, I can't wait until we finally move to only have virtual SIMs, but that day doesn't look to be here because of the carrier's reluctance. At least with the Apple Watch they may have a way of gaining some traction with it.
Some people also need to switch between devices, so a physical sim card is more useful than a virtual one.
Outlier use case. Apple will not design products around that.
Aren't they already designed around that?
My point was, when the day comes that a v-sim satisfies Apple's primary use cases and the only thing that doesn't is the inconvenience to those who switch devices via removable sim cards, expect those people to be inconvenienced. Apple designs to deliver a good solution for the majority of people, not a solution for every single person.
And let's be clear that there's nothing technical that would prevent moving a vSIM between devices. The primary and secondary reasons for this to be be easily transferable, I speculate, are the carriers lack of interest when they finally get onboard with a vSIM and Apple not wanting to bother with such a minuscule subset of users, respectively.
if my Watch had LTE I'd want it to share the same number and account as my iPhone - I wouldn't want the hassle of a different account, subscription or obile number on my Watch. Just the setup effort would put most people off and I doubt many would pay a high fee for a separate Watch contract.
When I receive a call I want both devices to ring simultaneously, as they do now, and I'd like the option of making voice calls from my Watch if my iPhone battery is flat.
iPhone already shares its credit card details and WiFi password to bpthe Watch so sharing the iPhone SIM to a Watch's virtual SIM makes sense. I appreciate the security and implementation are complex but it's the way I'd expect Apple to go. It may only be supported by limited carriers initially but carriers wouldn't want to lose all those well-off tech-savvy iPhone customers who splashed out the extra for an Apple Watch: they're probably some of the most valuable customers.
if my Watch had LTE I'd want it to share the same number and account as my iPhone - I wouldn't want the hassle of a different account, subscription or obile number on my Watch. Just the setup effort would put most people off and I doubt many would pay a high fee for a separate Watch contract.
When I receive a call I want both devices to ring simultaneously, as they do now, and I'd like the option of making voice calls from my Watch if my iPhone battery is flat.
iPhone already shares its credit card details and WiFi password to bpthe Watch so sharing the iPhone SIM to a Watch's virtual SIM makes sense. I appreciate the security and implementation are complex but it's the way I'd expect Apple to go. It may only be supported by limited carriers initially but carriers wouldn't want to lose all those well-off tech-savvy iPhone customers who splashed out the extra for an Apple Watch: they're probably some of the most valuable customers.
I don't know what the future holds, but I agree with the issues you bring up. I'd even wager that Apple also agrees with them. One possible solution could mirror how Apple Pay works with your physical credit card on the financial institution's servers.
For instance, you use your physical card number to request from the bank a virtual number that then gets applied to Apple Pay in your Wallet app for transactions so that your physical card number is never jeopardized. If you transfer that to your phone number and the telcos, you would use your iPhone's number to request a phone number to be tied to your Watch. However, all the calls will still get routed to your Watch with the same phone number and any outgoing calls will show up as your iPhone's phone number.
Part of this is already enabled on the iPad with cellular if you have your iPad (or Mac) let you accept a call when it comes into your iPhone. The iPad's cellular number isn't used, only the BT-HS connection between your iPhone and iPad (or Watch or Mac).
The difference is that when you use cellular data on your iPad it does associate with the phone number, but that's not a big deal, and actually has benefit of its own. The only thing that really matters is that when you make a phone call from another device that it goes through your iPhone (or at least shows up as coming from your iPhone's number.
PS: I seem to recall that this Handoff feature was going to have a WAN connectivity so that your iPhone didn't have to be direct proximity to your Watch, but that it was nixed. I'm 100% sure I'm remembering it correctly.
if my Watch had LTE I'd want it to share the same number and account as my iPhone - I wouldn't want the hassle of a different account, subscription or obile number on my Watch. Just the setup effort would put most people off and I doubt many would pay a high fee for a separate Watch contract.
When I receive a call I want both devices to ring simultaneously, as they do now, and I'd like the option of making voice calls from my Watch if my iPhone battery is flat.
iPhone already shares its credit card details and WiFi password to bpthe Watch so sharing the iPhone SIM to a Watch's virtual SIM makes sense. I appreciate the security and implementation are complex but it's the way I'd expect Apple to go. It may only be supported by limited carriers initially but carriers wouldn't want to lose all those well-off tech-savvy iPhone customers who splashed out the extra for an Apple Watch: they're probably some of the most valuable customers.
I thought a big part of the design of LTE was the understanding Users would have multiple devices so they decoupled the number from the user ID so that the same number could reach all the users devices. I know some providers have this in mind and allow mutli-sims on the same plan to share data allowance. I think as others have pointed out number sharing and carriers have been reluctant to bring such features on line as it adds to thier relegation to pipe providers.
well first of all, there is no real legitimate reason to include LTE in a watch. all you need is 3G.
AT&T says for a watch you do not need more then 50 mb a month!
second of all, if they go apple sim, then that means its just going to be like the iPad. and Verizon will want none of that. and no one on verizon will be able to use it. so you will need to have a regular sim card slot.
you are free to express your own opinions on your insider website , but lets deal with the facts. and lets be realistic.
LTE utilizes a global standard (although across different bands in different countries), where as 3G was split between UMTS and CDMA (your Verizon example). LTE is also more power efficient. Given the LTE deployment state, there is no need for Apple to support the older 3G technologies on a device category like Apple Watch.
No compelling reason for a cellular Apple Watch to support voice - data only would support 90+% of all use cases (supporting voice via VoLTE, FaceTime, Skype, etc...).
I disagree about the voice. The Apple Watch supports voice for phone calls now. I've used it during the winter when my phone, in a case on my belt, was inaccessible because of the winter coat. Instead, I picked the call up on my watch, and spoke using that. Works really well. There are other circumstances where the Watch is useful for w/o ice, such as when you're cooking, and don't want to pick up a phone with you hands full of flour or fish guts, or whatever. But just touching the phone with a tip of the finger that you can quickly wipe off, is great. Same thing if you take a bath. The phone can be elsewhere in the room, or just outside, but you can use your watch if someone calls, and you want to take it. These are all scenarios I've come across, including working in my shops.
@melgross ;Just to be clear (and I realize I wasn't completely), I was referring to the need for a cellular AW to support "traditional" cellular voice (e.g. GSM). This requires additional technology and bands. I was stating my view that a device like AW (at least in its initial cellular versions), is still going to be mostly a companion to an iPhone, and as such doesn't require that "full cellular" solution. With LTE only, such an AW can still have voice support via FaceTime, Skype, VoLTE support (offered by more carriers all the time), etc. Voice over the data service.
I thought we already discussed this on another thread. (The concept, not this specific report.) A physical SIM tray would take up way too much room for a watch, and introduces a new entry point for moisture, so it makes sense they'd use the vSIM instead, but then they have to get carriers onboard (not just Verizon, but at least enough carriers in each market to make it worthwhile).
For instance, no carriers in Australia currently support the vSIM in the recent iPads (9.7" Pro, and generic). Only GigaSky and another roaming MVNO come up as options. (And they won't let you connect to an Australian network with an Australian account address.) I think the best way to get them on board would be to tether the Watch data to an iPhone account.
I thought we already discussed this on another thread. (The concept, not this specific report.) A physical SIM tray would take up way too much room for a watch, and introduces a new entry point for moisture, so it makes sense they'd use the vSIM instead, but then they have to get carriers onboard (not just Verizon, but at least enough carriers in each market to make it worthwhile).
For instance, no carriers in Australia currently support the vSIM in the recent iPads (9.7" Pro, and generic). Only GigaSky and another roaming MVNO come up as options. (And they won't let you connect to an Australian network with an Australian account address.) I think the best way to get them on board would be to tether the Watch data to an iPhone account.
" tether the Watch data to an iPhone account" ... And that would solve a host of other, coordination type problems...
Given L shaped battery rumours the next iPhone won't have a Physical SIM. Why would the watch ever have one?
I don't follow. What does an L-shaped battery have to do with preventing a physical SIM from existing. There still has to be a logic board, and the notion of an L-shaped design makes me assume the logic board would be in the area not used by the battery and still have edge access.
Personally, I can't wait until we finally move to only have virtual SIMs, but that day doesn't look to be here because of the carrier's reluctance. At least with the Apple Watch they may have a way of gaining some traction with it.
Some people also need to switch between devices, so a physical sim card is more useful than a virtual one.
Outlier use case. Apple will not design products around that.
Aren't they already designed around that?
Not at all. You even need a tool to get the SIM card tray out. Nothing about it suggests Apple designed their iPhones so that you can move a SIM card between two iPhones on a regular basis.
I was simply referring to the fact that you can remove the sim. Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought he was saying that they wouldn't design them around removable sims.
Given L shaped battery rumours the next iPhone won't have a Physical SIM. Why would the watch ever have one?
I don't follow. What does an L-shaped battery have to do with preventing a physical SIM from existing. There still has to be a logic board, and the notion of an L-shaped design makes me assume the logic board would be in the area not used by the battery and still have edge access.
Personally, I can't wait until we finally move to only have virtual SIMs, but that day doesn't look to be here because of the carrier's reluctance. At least with the Apple Watch they may have a way of gaining some traction with it.
Some people also need to switch between devices, so a physical sim card is more useful than a virtual one.
Outlier use case. Apple will not design products around that.
Aren't they already designed around that?
My point was, when the day comes that a v-sim satisfies Apple's primary use cases and the only problem is the inconvenience to those who switch devices via removable sim cards, expect those people to be inconvenienced. Apple designs to deliver a good solution for the majority of people, not a solution for every single person.
Ok. I get it. You're saying that the internal sim will become standard, and that they won't have removable sims anymore. I imagine that that day will come at some point.
if my Watch had LTE I'd want it to share the same number and account as my iPhone - I wouldn't want the hassle of a different account, subscription or obile number on my Watch. Just the setup effort would put most people off and I doubt many would pay a high fee for a separate Watch contract.
When I receive a call I want both devices to ring simultaneously, as they do now, and I'd like the option of making voice calls from my Watch if my iPhone battery is flat.
iPhone already shares its credit card details and WiFi password to bpthe Watch so sharing the iPhone SIM to a Watch's virtual SIM makes sense. I appreciate the security and implementation are complex but it's the way I'd expect Apple to go. It may only be supported by limited carriers initially but carriers wouldn't want to lose all those well-off tech-savvy iPhone customers who splashed out the extra for an Apple Watch: they're probably some of the most valuable customers.
It should be the way it is now. My iPad rings when my phone does. Whether it's the same number or not doesn't matter. But that's using Bluetooth, so it's different.
Comments
When I receive a call I want both devices to ring simultaneously, as they do now, and I'd like the option of making voice calls from my Watch if my iPhone battery is flat.
iPhone already shares its credit card details and WiFi password to bpthe Watch so sharing the iPhone SIM to a Watch's virtual SIM makes sense. I appreciate the security and implementation are complex but it's the way I'd expect Apple to go. It may only be supported by limited carriers initially but carriers wouldn't want to lose all those well-off tech-savvy iPhone customers who splashed out the extra for an Apple Watch: they're probably some of the most valuable customers.
For instance, you use your physical card number to request from the bank a virtual number that then gets applied to Apple Pay in your Wallet app for transactions so that your physical card number is never jeopardized. If you transfer that to your phone number and the telcos, you would use your iPhone's number to request a phone number to be tied to your Watch. However, all the calls will still get routed to your Watch with the same phone number and any outgoing calls will show up as your iPhone's phone number.
Part of this is already enabled on the iPad with cellular if you have your iPad (or Mac) let you accept a call when it comes into your iPhone. The iPad's cellular number isn't used, only the BT-HS connection between your iPhone and iPad (or Watch or Mac).
The difference is that when you use cellular data on your iPad it does associate with the phone number, but that's not a big deal, and actually has benefit of its own. The only thing that really matters is that when you make a phone call from another device that it goes through your iPhone (or at least shows up as coming from your iPhone's number.
PS: I seem to recall that this Handoff feature was going to have a WAN connectivity so that your iPhone didn't have to be direct proximity to your Watch, but that it was nixed. I'm 100% sure I'm remembering it correctly.
I thought we already discussed this on another thread. (The concept, not this specific report.) A physical SIM tray would take up way too much room for a watch, and introduces a new entry point for moisture, so it makes sense they'd use the vSIM instead, but then they have to get carriers onboard (not just Verizon, but at least enough carriers in each market to make it worthwhile).
For instance, no carriers in Australia currently support the vSIM in the recent iPads (9.7" Pro, and generic). Only GigaSky and another roaming MVNO come up as options. (And they won't let you connect to an Australian network with an Australian account address.) I think the best way to get them on board would be to tether the Watch data to an iPhone account.
... And that would solve a host of other, coordination type problems...