or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple-revised nano-SIM design to address Nokia objections ahead of standards vote
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple-revised nano-SIM design to address Nokia objections ahead of standards vote

post #1 of 49
Thread Starter 
SIM card maker Giesecke & Devrient is showing off Apple's new nano-SIM design, which has been modified to resolve Nokia's objections to it, at the CTIA tradeshow in New Orleans, La.

Handset makers have been lobbying for their preferred fourth form factor (4FF) SIM card standards as a vote by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute nears. The ETSI was scheduled to decide on the standard in March, but it postponed the vote because of continued disagreement between Apple and Nokia.

Nokia voiced strong objection to Apple's proposed nano-SIM design, accusing it of not meeting the ETSI's requirements. The Finnish company claimed the design violates a "no jamming" rule because its length is too similar to the width of current-generation micro-SIMs.

Apple now appears to have responded by slightly adjusting the dimensions of its proposed nano-SIM. The Verge viewed the new design at G&D's booth at the CTIA wireless show.

"A small amount of plastic has been added around the edges of the electrical contacts, making the new nano-SIM just long enough so that it can't be forced lengthwise into an incompatible socket," the report read.

Apple's nano-SIM design
Apple's revised nano-SIM design | Source: The Verge


As a voting member of the ETSI, G&D declined to say whether it is backing Apple's design and instead told the publication, "We work with everybody."

G&D did hint, however, that Apple is likely to quickly implement the new standard if it is ratified. "We'll see a product very soon after ratification," the company was reported as saying. As such, The Verge noted that it's a "very safe bet" that the 2013 iPhone will feature Apple's nano-SIM design if the vote goes in the company's favor.

Apple has promised to grant royalty-free licenses for any of its patents related to the standard if its design is chosen and competitors reciprocate with their own standards-essential IP. However, Nokia has dismissed the gesture as "no more than an attempt to devalue the intellectual property of others" because it doesn't believe Apple holds any patents essential to the proposal.

In light of its objections, Nokia has said it will not license its own patents for Apple's proposal if it is selected. It's not yet clear whether the small changes Apple has made to its nano-SIM design will appease Nokia.
post #2 of 49
That's not much smaller than current micro-SIM. The obvious difference is the edge is much more even on all sides rather than one thicker edge at the bottom. The metal contact in the middle also more rectangular rather than ovally but that's it.
post #3 of 49

I cannot for the life of me see how this can be justified. It's barely any smaller than a micro-sim, and it will mean every telco having to issue new sims to everyone AGAIN. It's not only pointless, but also an obscene waste of time and resources. 

post #4 of 49

I think the real issue here is fear. A blind fear that Apple will somehow, someway parley this new standard to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of other handset makers (or of Nokia, at least, as they seem to be making all the noise).

"You can't fall off the floor"   From 128k Mac to 8GB MBP

Reply

"You can't fall off the floor"   From 128k Mac to 8GB MBP

Reply
post #5 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

<....>, but also an obscene waste of time and resources. 

 

No sex, please, we are British.

post #6 of 49

I think that the backwards compatibility is far more important than a total overhaul which provides nothing new to the functionality and is only there to make Nokia and RIM money from licensing their design.

post #7 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

I cannot for the life of me see how this can be justified. It's barely any smaller than a micro-sim, and it will mean every telco having to issue new sims to everyone AGAIN. It's not only pointless, but also an obscene waste of time and resources. 

Bitch to the carriers. The fact that we still have to deal with removable SIMs is ridiculous in and of itself.

post #8 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slang4Art View Post

Bitch to the carriers. The fact that we still have to deal with removable SIMs is ridiculous in and of itself.

 

Well, yes and no!

 

What you certainly don't want is a situation where you need your carrier assistance/permission/control over which device you use with their mobile service. And/or need their control to swap which device you use. You certainly don't want the CDMA style of system where the device is paired by its device ID to the network service.

 

What you do want, is something more like a 'login system', where you enter your credentials into your device, and it presents them to the network.

 

Such a step, removing the physical token that carries them would also make it easier to end the 1-to-1 paring of a device to service. Therefore make it easier for users to use multiple service providers simultaneously and/or interchangably without sim swapping.

 

I certainly would not trust EITHER the mobile network (who make their money from selling the services, not providing the local link bit) OR Apple to develop this necessarily in the consumers best interest. They are engaged in a power game for control of the consumer and access to revenue share against each other. Not empowering the consumer.

It's what I do.
Reply
It's what I do.
Reply
post #9 of 49
Thanks to Apple for indirectly shedding light on this has brouhaha. By tweaking their "design" to be compatible with the guidelines, they also made the card big enough to make the previously negligible space savings to practically vanish now. In this way, it becomes rather obvious that the real motivation in redesigning the SIM card has nothing to do with functionality and everything to do with licensing.

I would guess that the older players in the SIM business are currently getting royalties from the old SIM design (including not only the shape of the surrounding plastic but also the design of the actual chip), which they don't want to lose. Apple had suggested to offer their "design" royalty free, which would prevent Nokia from gaining any royalties as well, including ones from Apple. Nokia's reaction to that was to claim that Apple was undermining Nokia's IP by offering to give away the "redesigned' (trimmed) chip for free, which sounds fair enough given the resources either company has invested into their respective part of the design.

Clearly Apple wants to get out of paying royalties for the SIM, while Nokia wants to keep its revenue stream. Clearly also there is no advantage for the consumer from changing the design, no matter which one is chosen, since the added inconvenience in SIM card swapping outweights the "saving" in device weight. However, we do win by getting a cheaper design, even if it's at the expense of the owners of the real IP (meaning here chip design rather than plastic trimming). Ideally, someone will offer to give for free a design that is similar to the current micro SIM design but with 1 micron shaved off from each side of the card.

Let's see how this plays out.

post #10 of 49

as articles go, this one carried less than the bare minimum. examples of information that could have helped us understand the issue better:

1. how much smaller is the nano sim card in comparison to the micro?

2. in what other ways are the nano and the micro cards different?

3. is the nano (or any putative 4ff design) supposed to be better by any objective criteria? 

4. how much does it cost companies to use the current design?

5. who would lose out and who would gain from a new design?

6. why should end users care about this?

 

i fully realise that it may have been in other recent articles that i have not bothered to read, but a quick recap in such articles couldn't hurt. those who already know this stuff will just skip that paragraph.

post #11 of 49

I normally can understand Apple's logic for something but I don't see the need for or the advantage offered by this slightly smaller card.

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
Reply
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
Reply
post #12 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splash-reverse View Post

That's not much smaller than current micro-SIM. The obvious difference is the edge is much more even on all sides rather than one thicker edge at the bottom. The metal contact in the middle also more rectangular rather than ovally but that's it.

It looks like it's about half the size of the current micro-SIM.

 

nanosim.jpg

post #13 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by ged View Post

as articles go, this one carried less than the bare minimum. examples of information that could have helped us understand the issue better:

I agree that the article isn't focusing on the most important issues. Here's my take on the questions that you asked:
Quote:
1. how much smaller is the nano sim card in comparison to the micro?

Roughly 62% of the size, or 50 cubic mm smaller. That is about 0.08% of the volume of iPhone 4.
Quote:
2. in what other ways are the nano and the micro cards different?
None that I am aware of.
Quote:
3. is the nano (or any putative 4ff design) supposed to be better by any objective criteria? 

Hardly any. Nokia's and Motorola's designs would not require a tray.
Quote:
4. how much does it cost companies to use the current design?
I don't have the number, and I don't know if they're publicly available. The costs are likely bundled together with other GSM related costs.
Quote:
5. who would lose out and who would gain from a new design?
If Apple gets their design through, Apple wins for not having to pay royalties for the old SIM designs. Any manufacturer who isn't a part of the old SIM standard also wins, because Apple has promised to give the new design royalty free. Nokia and the other old players lose out on lost royalties.

If somebody else wins, I guess the current status quo will be roughly preserved.
Quote:
6. why should end users care about this?

Mostly because of the inconvenience of changing the standard. It would make it more cumbersome to pop your SIM card into your old phone while the new one is out for repair, for example.
post #14 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop of Southwark View Post

 

Well, yes and no!

 

What you certainly don't want is a situation where you need your carrier assistance/permission/control over which device you use with their mobile service. And/or need their control to swap which device you use. You certainly don't want the CDMA style of system where the device is paired by its device ID to the network service.

 

What you do want, is something more like a 'login system', where you enter your credentials into your device, and it presents them to the network.

 

 

 

The problem here is that the sim cards say which towers to communicate with and have cryptography tokens. If it's was simply a login, it has to query all carriers on all bands, thus wasting power and time in the handoff process. The CDMA system is likewise terrible because the devices are not portable to other carriers and have low to no resale value. More landfill. GSM-family devices that have the USIM can be used until they break. Even stolen ones (if they don't work in the US, sell it to Canada, Europe, Africa, etc.)

 

They could theoretically solve the need for the SIM if the phone's have NFC, and "activating" the phone with a new carrier is simply a matter of tapping a prepaid or postpaid card to the phone, and then if you want to transfer service to another device you just tap the "transfer service" put the new device on top of the old one and done. This is much less secure than the physical SIM card, but it would remove all the whine about having to put a card in the device.

 

It'll never happen that way. If Apple can do away with the SIM card, you can can bet they would make the phone even thinner.

post #15 of 49

Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic View Post

I normally can understand Apple's logic for something but I don't see the need for or the advantage offered by this slightly smaller card.

Seriously?  Look at the blue area removed from the current micro-SIM and tell me, how many thousands (millions?) of transistors do you suppose you could fit inside that removed area?  32nm is pretty damn small...

 

Every nanometer counts.

post #16 of 49
Somene buy that guy some nail clippers already.
post #17 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus009 View Post

Seriously?  Look at the blue area removed from the current micro-SIM and tell me, how many thousands (millions?) of transistors do you suppose you could fit inside that removed area?  32nm is pretty damn small...

Every nanometer counts.

Your example is very unrealistic. It is pointless to compare the saved space with an arbitrarily chosen small component (a chip, in your case). The only relevant comparison is with the size of the entire device (cf. my calculations above).
post #18 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Your example is very unrealistic. It is pointless to compare the saved space with an arbitrarily chosen small component (a chip, in your case). The only relevant comparison is with the size of the entire device (cf. my calculations above).

 

I read your post and appreciated the breakdown, but it's rather difficult to attach meaning to a percentage.  The ever-diminishing size of the transistor (not a chip) is a very relevant and simple means to express the value of space within today's electronic devices.  The 0.08% figure does little to impute this sense of value.

post #19 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus009 View Post

...The 0.08% figure does little to impute this sense of value.

That's because the value is so little that it is practically vanishing.

99.92 ~= 100
post #20 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


Apple has promised to grant royalty-free licenses for any of its patents related to the standard if its design is chosen and competitors reciprocate with their own standards-essential IP. However, Nokia has dismissed the gesture as "no more than an attempt to devalue the intellectual property of others" because it doesn't believe Apple holds any patents essential to the proposal.
 

This one paragraph is nokia's whole objection.  The rest of the article is filler.   Nokia is pissed that apple will give this away for free, thereby making this one less thing to have to pay royalties for.  Nokia wants the money for there sim  pure and simple and they want every phone on the planet that implements this which is all new phones eventually to pay money to them for the rights to use it.   It is greed on nokia's part pure and simple.   The public quote from nokia "no more than an attempt to devalue the intellectual property of others"  says it all.  Where others is in that sentence it should say Nokia.  So it should read "no more than an attempt to devalue the intellectual property of NOKIA" 

post #21 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

I think that the backwards compatibility is far more important than a total overhaul which provides nothing new to the functionality and is only there to make Nokia and RIM money from licensing their design.

I agree. At least this design allows you to cut down existing SIMs so that you can use them in new phones. It also allows for a tray so that new SIMs can be used in old phones. That seems to be vastly superior to Nokia's entirely new design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop of Southwark View Post

Well, yes and no!

What you certainly don't want is a situation where you need your carrier assistance/permission/control over which device you use with their mobile service. And/or need their control to swap which device you use. You certainly don't want the CDMA style of system where the device is paired by its device ID to the network service.

What you do want, is something more like a 'login system', where you enter your credentials into your device, and it presents them to the network.

Such a step, removing the physical token that carries them would also make it easier to end the 1-to-1 paring of a device to service. Therefore make it easier for users to use multiple service providers simultaneously and/or interchangably without sim swapping.

I certainly would not trust EITHER the mobile network (who make their money from selling the services, not providing the local link bit) OR Apple to develop this necessarily in the consumers best interest. They are engaged in a power game for control of the consumer and access to revenue share against each other. Not empowering the consumer.

I agree 100%. We don't need SIMs at all. If SIMs were eliminated, you'd save not just the volume of the SIM itself, but also the volume and cost of the tray, contacts, and ancillary circuitry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

If Apple gets their design through, Apple wins for not having to pay royalties for the old SIM designs. Any manufacturer who isn't a part of the old SIM standard also wins, because Apple has promised to give the new design royalty free. Nokia and the other old players lose out on lost royalties.

Not true. Apple has said that THEY won't charge any royalties, but since the design is based on the old SIM design, there may still be license fees involved. If Motorola, for example, has a patent which covers the existing SIM design, Apple can't simply make that patent go away by cutting off some plastic.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #22 of 49

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

That's because the value is so little that it is practically vanishing.

 

Every last bit counts.  Considering such small details is a big part of why Apple has done so well.

post #23 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misa View Post

 If Apple can do away with the SIM card, you can can bet they would make the phone even thinner.

Apple has proposed to do away with sim cards and intact has a patent for doing just that.    It caused such a stink among the european carriers that they were forced to drop the idea for now.

post #24 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus009 View Post

Every last bit counts.  Considering such small details is a big part of why Apple has done so well.

Let's agree to disagree here.

Paying attention to what's important while sacrificing what isn't is my idea of what's behind Apple's success.
post #25 of 49
This idea is much better than what Nokia is proposing which is a complete revamp of the sim and there is no backward compatibility whereas this proposal of Apple will ensure all the past and present mobile phones can be used.
post #26 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Not true. Apple has said that THEY won't charge any royalties, but since the design is based on the old SIM design, there may still be license fees involved. If Motorola, for example, has a patent which covers the existing SIM design, Apple can't simply make that patent go away by cutting off some plastic.

That sounds reasonable. In that case, Nokia indeed has a very strong leverage with its SIM-related patents.

In the absence of obvious financial gains, the motivation behind Apple's design is more puzzling. Some have suggested it has to do with the SIM tray that Apple patented recently, but there are non-Apple phones which have similar trays.

Most likely we'll never know what Apple had in mind.
post #27 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slang4Art View Post

Bitch to the carriers. The fact that we still have to deal with removable SIMs is ridiculous in and of itself.

I recall a lot of Europe requires it. Also, the card has its own microprocessor to handle the encryption, that's one reason why newer phones came with a new SIM, even if you already had a good SIM, to switch to a newer encryption regime and it upgrades your encryption engine.

I don't know what the next system is, I think it's still being worked on. A secure way of managing carriers & changing accounts in a digital manner might be a pretty thorny problem. The existing CDMA way is PITA because it means a half hour call to customer service to switch phones.

50mm^3 is enough space to add another IC so it might be worth switching to a nanoSIM vs. a microSIM.
Edited by JeffDM - 5/9/12 at 7:23am
post #28 of 49

CDMA's not looking to shabby right now, is it? lol.gif

 

Everyone wants embedded SIMs, anyway.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #29 of 49

2 Points on this:

 

1) Size is less important than cost -- Royalties go away, or are minimized.

 

2) Experience is more important than carrier -- supposedly, Apple's implementation include a SIM with ROM and Flash, ROM for network security and ID, Flash for Carrier Info.  This would allow Apple to embed SIM in phone and flash to whatever carrier consumer wants at POS. It also would let consumer change carriers by going through Apple instead of carrier.

post #30 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Let's agree to disagree here.
Paying attention to what's important while sacrificing what isn't is my idea of what's behind Apple's success.

Actually, Apple's success is based on the premise that EVERYTHING is important. Jobs was notorious for spending a lot of time and money on getting even minor things just right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

That sounds reasonable. In that case, Nokia indeed has a very strong leverage with its SIM-related patents.
In the absence of obvious financial gains, the motivation behind Apple's design is more puzzling. Some have suggested it has to do with the SIM tray that Apple patented recently, but there are non-Apple phones which have similar trays.
Most likely we'll never know what Apple had in mind.

Any number of reasons - backwards compatibility. Perhaps their tray design is easier to manufacture. Perhaps they are able to avoid some of the licensing fees by switching to the new design. Reduction in size of the SIM reduces the overall cost (in spite of your denial). Lots of reasons.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #31 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleabuser View Post

2 Points on this:

1) Size is less important than cost -- Royalties go away, or are minimized.

2) Experience is more important than carrier -- supposedly, Apple's implementation include a SIM with ROM and Flash, ROM for network security and ID, Flash for Carrier Info.  This would allow Apple to embed SIM in phone and flash to whatever carrier consumer wants at POS. It also would let consumer change carriers by going through Apple instead of carrier.

Once again, royalties do not go away. I'm not sure that they're even minimized. Apple's SIM design is basically the same as the old one with some of the plastic trimmed away. I don't see how it would reduce the royalties at all.

Of course, it would prevent Nokia from controlling the market and setting new (presumably higher) royalties if the Nokia SIM is selected.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #32 of 49
That sim card looks bigger than an iPhone!

/
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
post #33 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Actually, Apple's success is based on the premise that EVERYTHING is important. Jobs was notorious for spending a lot of time and money on getting even minor things just right.

This is fiction. Nearly every Apples product of late is a trade off. Apple has been finding the right balance, and doing the right trade-offs.

Example 1: new iPad size. It's both thicker and heavier than the old iPad 2, which was advertised as "thinner lighter faster". However, keeping a record-setting battery life was more important to Apple.
Example 2: new iPad radios. There are components on the market that would have allowed Apple to sell customized 4G iPads for many European countries. Fast roll out, lower number of models, and excellent performance on the local 3G networks is what Apple preferred to do instead.
Quote:
Any number of reasons - backwards compatibility. Perhaps their tray design is easier to manufacture. Perhaps they are able to avoid some of the licensing fees by switching to the new design. Reduction in size of the SIM reduces the overall cost (in spite of your denial). Lots of reasons.

Backwards compatibility would not be necessary if there is no change.

I don't deny the savings, I only insist that they are so negligible that they cannot offset the cost of introducing yet another design.
post #34 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

This is fiction. Nearly every Apples product of late is a trade off. Apple has been finding the right balance, and doing the right trade-offs.
Example 1: new iPad size. It's both thicker and heavier than the old iPad 2, which was advertised as "thinner lighter faster". However, keeping a record-setting battery life was more important to Apple.
Example 2: new iPad radios. There are components on the market that would have allowed Apple to sell customized 4G iPads for many European countries. Fast roll out, lower number of models, and excellent performance on the local 3G networks is what Apple preferred to do instead.

Of course there are always tradeoffs. But you claimed that Apple couldn't possibly care about the size of the smaller SIM because it was insignificant. Apple has spent lots of time and money on things that were even less important than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Backwards compatibility would not be necessary if there is no change.
I don't deny the savings, I only insist that they are so negligible that they cannot offset the cost of introducing yet another design.

Please show us how you calculated that.

Furthermore, Apple may have concluded that there is going to be a new design, anyway, so they might as well get their design incorporated and reduce the size at the same time.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #35 of 49

It seems like most of the people here complaining about the requirement to have a SIM have not experienced the pain that is involved in switching out a phone on a CDMA carrier.  For starters, the whole concept of an unlocked CDMA phone is just not there.  You can have a Verizon CDMA phone, or a Sprint CDMA phone, or <insert some CDMA carrier here> phone.  On GSM, you can have unlocked phones that are relatively compatible across different GSM networks (sure, you may have issues with the bands your carrier uses for data not being supported, but in general, voice calls just work as long as you have a SIM and unlocked phone).

 

I can't see why people complain about the hassle of having to insert a SIM card either. Generally, it's a quick process that can be done in less than a minute.  And most people will never touch the SIM card in normal usage.  But for the people that do need to swap a SIM (broken phone, switching carriers, upgrading without signing a new contract, etc, etc), the SIM card is probably the best compromise we have.  Anything SIM-less is going to end up requiring carrier intervention most likely, which just gives them another chance to charge you a "service fee".  Why anyone would want that is beyond me.

post #36 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Of course there are always tradeoffs. But you claimed that Apple couldn't possibly care about the size of the smaller SIM because it was insignificant. Apple has spent lots of time and money on things that were even less important than that.
If Apple wanted to change the design solely to reduce the size, they could have pushed for that with the micro SIM a few years ago. It's a no brainer.

Can you give examples of Apple spending on things that are less important than making a device 0.08% smaller?
Quote:
Please show us how you calculated that.
Let's see, how can we calculate Apple's savings from making one component 50 mm^3 smaller? There is no change in the number of parts, so we can exclude savings from manufacturing (in fact, changing the design of internal parts will incur expenses, but I assume that the design will change anyway). So we are left with savings from materials. The material supporting the internal structure of the iPhone is steel, and I will also assume that we are saving the same volume as from the SIM card, i.e. 50 mm^3. Steel weights about 8 mg/mm^3, so we save 400 mg per phone. If Apple sells 200 million iPhones this year, then they will save 80 tons of steel in total. Assuming a price of $800/ton, we get $64 000. That's how much Apple will save in a year. If you think the expenses will be less than 64 grand, boy, I don't know what to tell you.
Quote:
Furthermore, Apple may have concluded that there is going to be a new design, anyway, so they might as well get their design incorporated and reduce the size at the same time.

How do you know "there is going to be a new design, anyway"? Don't the involved parties decide that, or does it just happen?

I have heard the arguments for and against going SIM-free (my own contention is that it is unfeasible and undesirable at the moment). However, I have not heard a single reasonable argument for decreasing the size of one of the smallest components in the phone with a meager 1/3. I am sure one can shave off more from the battery, and regain the 3 minutes of lost battery life by moving to a smaller circuit litography. One can make the glass-plates thinner by 0.0035 mm and get the same volume savings.

Finally, I agree that there is a slim chance that there's a wretched team at Apple which has been tasked with optimizing device size by shrinking one of the smallest components. I find it very strange though that Apple would not put those $110 billion to a better use.
Edited by DrDoppio - 5/9/12 at 10:20am
post #37 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop of Southwark View Post

 

What you do want, is something more like a 'login system', where you enter your credentials into your device, and it presents them to the network.

 

Bingo.

Quote:
I certainly would not trust EITHER the mobile network (who make their money from selling the services, not providing the local link bit) OR Apple to develop this necessarily in the consumers best interest. They are engaged in a power game for control of the consumer and access to revenue share against each other. Not empowering the consumer.

Why would Apple care? As far as I know they advocate a SIM-less design.

post #38 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Mostly because of the inconvenience of changing the standard. It would make it more cumbersome to pop your SIM card into your old phone while the new one is out for repair, for example.

AT&T gives me stacks of free SIMs. I keep an old one laying around just in case it's need. That's a pretty easy fix. The extra amount of space, in engineering terms, is quite valuable. The royalties, well I admit I support Apple, but to me making it smaller is the end game, and I am eager for the day when SIMs disappear all together.

post #39 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slang4Art View Post

AT&T gives me stacks of free SIMs. I keep an old one laying around just in case it's need. That's a pretty easy fix. The extra amount of space, in engineering terms, is quite valuable. The royalties, well I admit I support Apple, but to me making it smaller is the end game, and I am eager for the day when SIMs disappear all together.

That's the first that I hear of a stack of SIMs that would be active with the same account.

The extra amount of space IS valuable, I never denied that; the question is how much space and how valuable. There has to be a lower limit when it doesn't matter any more. If not 50 mm^3, then how much is this limit? 5? 0.5? How do you calculate it? For reference, 50 mm^3 is the volume of an average drop of water.

Until someone gives me a reasonable argument as to why a 0.08% decrease in the total size would matter, I am going to maintain that this decrease is negligible and not worth redesigning the SIM.
post #40 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


I recall a lot of Europe requires it. Also, the card has its own microprocessor to handle the encryption, that's one reason why newer phones came with a new SIM, even if you already had a good SIM, to switch to a newer encryption regime and it upgrades your encryption engine.
I don't know what the next system is, I think it's still being worked on. A secure way of managing carriers & changing accounts in a digital manner might be a pretty thorny problem. The existing CDMA way is PITA because it means a half hour call to customer service to switch phones.
50mm^3 is enough space to add another IC so it might be worth switching to a nanoSIM vs. a microSIM.

Government bureaucracy at its finest. That same microprocessor could be embedded on the SoC or elsewhere, saving precious space. Given that we live in a time where voice, print and face recognition are all possible, that phone call is a sign of humanity's addiction to nostalgia.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Apple-revised nano-SIM design to address Nokia objections ahead of standards vote
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple-revised nano-SIM design to address Nokia objections ahead of standards vote