or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Motorola & RIM propose nano-SIM compromise with Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Motorola & RIM propose nano-SIM compromise with Apple

post #1 of 89
Thread Starter 
A new design concept for a next-generation, smaller "nano-SIM" card has been submitted by Motorola and RIM, which tweaks a design originally pushed by Apple.

The new nano-SIM design, according to The Verge, is "80 percent Apple and 20 percent RIM / Motorola." It features the same outline and contacts originally included in Apple's design, which means it will be backward compatible with larger SIM cards when used with an adapter, but it also includes a notch on one edge that would allow a mechanism that would secure the card once pushed in, and allow it to be pushed again to pop it out.

Apple's design, without the notch, would have required a tray to hold it in place. The new design proposed by RIM and Motorola negates the need for the tray with the use of what RIM calls the "push-push" mechanism.

The proposed nano-SIM design from Apple was first revealed in late March before the European Telecommunications Standards Institute was scheduled to make a decision. But that vote was postponed as two competing camps led by Apple and Nokia could not come to an agreement.

Nokia stood in opposition to Apple's design because the Finnish handset maker believed the design would violate a "no jamming" rule. Their issue was based on the fact that the length of Apple's proposed nano-SIM is too similar to the width of current-generation micro-SIMs, which could lead consumers to accidentally jam it into a smartphone and have it get stuck.

Apple made slight tweaks to its nano-SIM design which were revealed earlier this month. SIM card maker Giesecke & Devrient showed off Apple's new nano-SIM design with slightly adjusted dimensions at the CTIA trade show in New Orleans, La.

Nano-SIM


Apple's tweaked design added a small amount of plastic to the edges of the electrical contacts. That made the revised nano-SIM card too long to be forced lengthwise into an existing micro-SIM slot.

But Apple's tweaked design would have apparently still required a tray for holding the nano-SIM card inside a smartphone. RIM and Motorola's revised proposal relies instead on the "push-push" mechanism to negate the need for a tray.

Apple previously objected to the inclusion of a notch on the nano-SIM card, claiming that the addition of one would extend time to market of the new design because it would reduce the space for silicon inside the smaller SIM card.

The next ETSI meeting is scheduled to take place starting May 31, at which a decision should be made on the proposed nano-SIM redesigns from both Apple as well as Motorola and RIM.
post #2 of 89
cute, everybody copies apples' designs, (or modifies them) . but, this is the way Apple products shoud be copied... by making the new design better (or at least different)
in any case /joke
Edited by haar - 5/18/12 at 5:33am
post #3 of 89
How well do external phone slots hold up to debris? I've never owned a phone with an external slot, but it seems insisting on direct external access seems a little silly. To take a tangential example, all my cameras have doors covering the slots. A buddy's iPhone gets a lot of lint packed into the dock, which causes me to think the tray is a good idea for the SIM card, you get a good cover for the slot. A dock connector can be scraped out with a plastic or wood tooth pick, a card slot isn't so easy.
post #4 of 89

Ignoring the size of the SIM itself, how much space is saved with the Push-Push vs. the tray?

 

A tray sounds clunky, but, for all I know, the push-push mechanism may be as large or larger when implemented.

post #5 of 89

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

How well do external phone slots hold up to debris? I've never owned a phone with an external slot, but it seems insisting on direct external access seems a little silly. To take a tangential example, all my cameras have doors covering the slots. A buddy's iPhone gets a lot of lint packed into the dock, which causes me to think the tray is a good idea for the SIM card, you get a good cover for the slot. A dock connector can be scraped out with a plastic or wood tooth pick, a card slot isn't so easy.

Yeah, my iPhone's stereo jack gets linty too.  :P

post #6 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

How well do external phone slots hold up to debris? I've never owned a phone with an external slot, but it seems insisting on direct external access seems a little silly. To take a tangential example, all my cameras have doors covering the slots. A buddy's iPhone gets a lot of lint packed into the dock, which causes me to think the tray is a good idea for the SIM card, you get a good cover for the slot. A dock connector can be scraped out with a plastic or wood tooth pick, a card slot isn't so easy.


I don't think this is an exposed design. There should still be a cap on the outside but just that: a cap not a complete tray.

post #7 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

How well do external phone slots hold up to debris? I've never owned a phone with an external slot, but it seems insisting on direct external access seems a little silly. To take a tangential example, all my cameras have doors covering the slots. A buddy's iPhone gets a lot of lint packed into the dock, which causes me to think the tray is a good idea for the SIM card, you get a good cover for the slot. A dock connector can be scraped out with a plastic or wood tooth pick, a card slot isn't so easy.

 

no reason it needs to be an external slot, all the phones i've had for the last 15-ish years allowed me to open them up for changing battery, sim card, memory card etc., these are all protected inside, as long as the case design is good (which it has been on all the ones i've used so far) there's no ingress of crud

 

apple's design doesn't have a cover normally intended for removal by the user, so it needs an external sim slot with a carrier tray to cover the hole

 

if manufacturers want to carry on using internal sim mounting it'd explain their resistance to a nano-sim design that would force them to waste space on a carrier tray

post #8 of 89

THAT'S it? THAT'S what the whole debate boils down to? A notch in the plastic?!

 

At the time the battle first started there were lots of articles about the "technical superiority" of the RIM/Moto/Nokia design, but none of the articles actually stated what the "superiority" was. Now we know - a notch.

post #9 of 89

It's amazing that company such as RIM, inching ever closer into oblivion still has some say in these things.

Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
post #10 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

How well do external phone slots hold up to debris? I've never owned a phone with an external slot, but it seems insisting on direct external access seems a little silly. To take a tangential example, all my cameras have doors covering the slots. 

What RIM and NOK are suggesting is exactly what your camera has.  Seems like a good idea, but I wonder how much internal space it adds?  I suppose it doesn't preclude those who want to use a tray from doing it.

 

Seems like a win-win. Surprised Apple didn't have this in the original design.

post #11 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maury Markowitz View Post

THAT'S it? THAT'S what the whole debate boils down to? A notch in the plastic?!

 

At the time the battle first started there were lots of articles about the "technical superiority" of the RIM/Moto/Nokia design, but none of the articles actually stated what the "superiority" was. Now we know - a notch.

Seems to me like the notch is technically superior.  You don't agree?  If it really does allow a locking of the card and that push-push eject method, and without the notch that's not possible, I'd say this is clearly technically better.

post #12 of 89

Did I miss it or did the article not mention if the new Moto/Rim proposal is for a card that can be used either way... tray and push/push?
 

post #13 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson1 View Post

Did I miss it or did the article not mention if the new Moto/Rim proposal is for a card that can be used either way... tray and push/push?
 

I don't see why it wouldnt.  The current card is designed that way and fits in a tray.  There's nothing special about putting a push-push card into a tray as Apple does it, so I'm sure that's the case here.

post #14 of 89

Nokia and RIM are suggesting the notched version - where you either have an exposed opening, or have to have a cover over the opening to protect it (or hide it behind the battery) - much like most non-Apple smartphones use today.  They're not looking to improve the overall aesthetic or design of their phones, they're using short-term, old, thinking for creating what has been done already.  I, personally, hate the trap doors with flimsy plastic "living" hinges that most of these crappy phones and cameras use to cover port or card slots.  They are either hard to open or end up breaking off completely after opening them a few too many times.

 

They're not improving on Apple's design, they just want things to be like they are today or were yesterday.  Of course, Apple shouldn't have an issue with it - they can still use the tray and offer the clean outside appearance, while RIM and Nokia keep making their crappy plastic living hinge slot covers on their phones.

 

Bravo RIM and Nokia, bravo.

post #15 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by umumum View Post

no reason it needs to be an external slot, all the phones i've had for the last 15-ish years allowed me to open them up for changing battery, sim card, memory card etc., these are all protected inside, as long as the case design is good (which it has been on all the ones i've used so far) there's no ingress of crud

apple's design doesn't have a cover normally intended for removal by the user, so it needs an external sim slot with a carrier tray to cover the hole

if manufacturers want to carry on using internal sim mounting it'd explain their resistance to a nano-sim design that would force them to waste space on a carrier tray

If it's internally accessed, then it's just like current designs, no tray is necessary. The tray was necessary for external access to make sure the SIM is oriented properly on insertion, i.e., not backwards or flipped.
post #16 of 89

Still looks like they are just removing as much plastic around the contacts only.  In my mind, a nano-sim should be a quarter to half the size of the current micro-sim.  

post #17 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple's tweaked design added a small amount of plastic to the edges of the electrical contacts. That made the revised nano-SIM card too long to be forced lengthwise into an existing micro-SIM slot. But Apple's tweaked design would have apparently still required a tray for holding the nano-SIM card inside a smartphone. RIM and Motorola's revised proposal relies instead on the "push-push" mechanism to negate the need for a tray.

 

And this is why "design by committee" or consensus never works.  Now we end up with something that is almost indistinguishable from the micro-SIMS we already use and has such a small gain design-wise that it's almost not worth implementing at all.  

 

Apple: How about no SIM at all.

Industry: F*ck you Apple!

 

Apple: How about ... the smallest a SIM could possibly be without compromising functionality?

Industry: Tray's are too efficient, we want to keep the shitty non-tray option, and what about idiots who put it in sideways?

 

Apple's: Okay, just enough more plastic so you can't put it in sideways, works without a tray, but better with (use a tray). 

Industry: Let's put the notch back and add a bit more plastic, then everyone will get everything they want.

 

Apple: You realise this is almost identical to where we started right?  

post #18 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

How well do external phone slots hold up to debris? I've never owned a phone with an external slot, but it seems insisting on direct external access seems a little silly. To take a tangential example, all my cameras have doors covering the slots. A buddy's iPhone gets a lot of lint packed into the dock, which causes me to think the tray is a good idea for the SIM card, you get a good cover for the slot. A dock connector can be scraped out with a plastic or wood tooth pick, a card slot isn't so easy.
I believe, from what I've been reading, that this will have a cover, just as before. But the SIM will be inserted into a slot in that cover, restrained by the slot with some sort of spring catch. Then that will be inserted into the SIM slot in the device as usual.

This will make the design even smaller than with the holder.
post #19 of 89

As long as the gap between the inside dimension of the slot end and the outside dimension of the micro-sim is minimal a trayless sim slot is no more likely to be a lint-collector than the gap between the current on/off button and its surrounding case-edge. Just supplying a cheap dummy card of the right size would solve the (Verizon) empty slot problem.

post #20 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maury Markowitz View Post

THAT'S it? THAT'S what the whole debate boils down to? A notch in the plastic?!

At the time the battle first started there were lots of articles about the "technical superiority" of the RIM/Moto/Nokia design, but none of the articles actually stated what the "superiority" was. Now we know - a notch.
This notch is a new development. Having worked in standards setting committees, I can say that even the smallest detail can be argued over for months, even years. Every company wants its own IP in the standard, even if they won't benefit financially in any direct way.

Some of this will make sense, and some won't seem to. In addition to the possible monetary advantages that may occur, there is the prestige in having one's own IP in there, and it gives companies some control over the process. Then there is the problem that all of the companies, and sometimes governments as well, think that their technology is actually better.

The rest is just a macho fight.
post #21 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I believe, from what I've been reading, that this will have a cover, just as before. But the SIM will be inserted into a slot in that cover, restrained by the slot with some sort of spring catch. Then that will be inserted into the SIM slot in the device as usual.
This will make the design even smaller than with the holder.

Again, this is simply making the current design somewhat smaller - and the design that RIM and Nokia want necessitates the use of a slot cover.  This is not moving forward and it's one of the reasons why RIM and Nokia are not performing at the same level that Apple is.  Apple was right in wanting to move away from SIMs altogether.  They are not a lot different than the floppy drive, cd's, dvd's, etc.  These old-school businesses are holding onto the past and instead should be trying to push forward.

post #22 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

What RIM and NOK are suggesting is exactly what your camera has.  Seems like a good idea, but I wonder how much internal space it adds?  I suppose it doesn't preclude those who want to use a tray from doing it.

Seems like a win-win. Surprised Apple didn't have this in the original design.

The point is to eliminate the tray. With the notch providing secure holding ability, the tray becomes unnecessary. I can't see a good reason why any company would want to use one.
post #23 of 89

So what ever happened to Apple's scheme to perform the same functions in software or firmware?  This would enable switching carriers on the fly with an intuitive app that lays out the options available for any geographic area.  Prepaid would be a cinch.

post #24 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmgregory1 View Post

Again, this is simply making the current design somewhat smaller - and the design that RIM and Nokia want necessitates the use of a slot cover.  This is not moving forward and it's one of the reasons why RIM and Nokia are not performing at the same level that Apple is.  Apple was right in wanting to move away from SIMs altogether.  They are not a lot different than the floppy drive, cd's, dvd's, etc.  These old-school businesses are holding onto the past and instead should be trying to push forward.

Smaller is the bomb here. They all want it smaller, and the smaller the better. You can bet that if they could cut the SIM in half again, they would do it. The cover is really necessary. You don't want the SIM exposed.

The carriers didn't want to do away with the SIM. I would bet that every phone manufacturer would be very happy to do so.
post #25 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by flowney View Post

So what ever happened to Apple's scheme to perform the same functions in software or firmware?  This would enable switching carriers on the fly with an intuitive app that lays out the options available for any geographic area.  Prepaid would be a cinch.

That "switching carriers on the fly" is why the carriers opposed the no SIM phone concept. They have enough problems with churn now. This would only increase it. They couldn't see anything positive in it for them. As it is, they are terrified on the losing of control the iPhone began in 2007, which is the major reason they took to Android so quickly.
post #26 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I believe, from what I've been reading, that this will have a cover, just as before. But the SIM will be inserted into a slot in that cover, restrained by the slot with some sort of spring catch. Then that will be inserted into the SIM slot in the device as usual.
This will make the design even smaller than with the holder.

 

I don't truly understand what your trying to explain here, but the external, no tray SIM slot with the "push-push" is less accurate and prone to the weather getting in.  They usually have some kind of shitty rubberised plug over the hole (which falls off eventually) to counter that.  The mechanism to eject the SIM is also arguably just as bulky and takes up just as much space as Apple's tray.  

 

The only time a non-tray SIM seems to be more efficient and use less space is when it's inside the phone under the battery. So this is really about keeping the external slot for extra-crappy pay as you go plastic junk phones, and hanging on to the fading idea that there is always going to be a way to get inside the phone by removing some kind of back cover. 

 

It's just old thinking, and bad design.  They are applying the needs of last years phones to the design of a SIM for future phones.  

It's a classic case of hobbling your design by holding onto perceived needs that should really be abandoned early in the design process.  There is nothing stopping the industry from still using microSIMs on the phones they have now (most still use miniSIM anyway), and nothing to lose by dropping those requirements for future phones.  These guys are designing with blinders on and loving it whereas Apple is trying to show them a clear way forward.  

 

or ... liberal vs. conservative mindset.  Classic. :) 

post #27 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

I don't truly understand what your trying to explain here, but the external, no tray SIM slot with the "push-push" is less accurate and prone to the weather getting in.  They usually have some kind of shitty rubberised plug over the hole (which falls off eventually) to counter that.  The mechanism to eject the SIM is also arguably just as bulky and takes up just as much space as Apple's tray.  

The only time a non-tray SIM seems to be more efficient and use less space is when it's inside the phone under the battery. So this is really about keeping the external slot for extra-crappy pay as you go plastic junk phones, and hanging on to the fading idea that there is always going to be a way to get inside the phone by removing some kind of back cover. 

It's just old thinking, and bad design.  They are applying the needs of last years phones to the design of a SIM for future phones.  
It's a classic case of hobbling your design by holding onto perceived needs that should really be abandoned early in the design process.  There is nothing stopping the industry from still using microSIMs on the phones they have now (most still use miniSIM anyway), and nothing to lose by dropping those requirements for future phones.  These guys are designing with blinders on and loving it whereas Apple is trying to show them a clear way forward.  

or ... liberal vs. conservative mindset.  Classic. 1smile.gif 

But it doesn't really hurt to put the notch there.

Apple doesn't have to use it - they can still use a tray. If the crapware phone manufacturers want to use it, it will be just one more way that their phones are inferior.
"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 #28 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

Still looks like they are just removing as much plastic around the contacts only.  In my mind, a nano-sim should be a quarter to half the size of the current micro-sim.  

I'm not even sure they're maintaining pin layout compatibility. If you keep that, all it takes is a different tool to punch the card, and keep the rest of the production line the same for three different sizes of SIMs.

I think the limit of human factors is being approached, anything smaller than the nano sim is going to be harder to manage.

Ideally, they'd switch to an embedded SIM, but you need carriers to get on board with it.
post #29 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


That "switching carriers on the fly" is why the carriers opposed the no SIM phone concept. They have enough problems with churn now. This would only increase it. They couldn't see anything positive in it for them. As it is, they are terrified on the losing of control the iPhone began in 2007, which is the major reason they took to Android so quickly.

Not quite.

 

Without the sim "lock" people can switch carriers easily. Removing the SIM, which is a key part of the GSM family, makes it easy for the devices to be cloned. Keeping this part separate is what allows you to buy a used phone that isn't tied permanently to the carrier and customer. Just look at the kind of corporate crybabies the entertainment software industry is over used games. When you try to sell game consoles, you find they've been modded or banned. Try moving your content from one console to another. That's the kind of mess you'd see on cell phones.

post #30 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

I don't truly understand what your trying to explain here, but the external, no tray SIM slot with the "push-push" is less accurate and prone to the weather getting in.  They usually have some kind of shitty rubberised plug over the hole (which falls off eventually) to counter that.  The mechanism to eject the SIM is also arguably just as bulky and takes up just as much space as Apple's tray.  

The only time a non-tray SIM seems to be more efficient and use less space is when it's inside the phone under the battery. So this is really about keeping the external slot for extra-crappy pay as you go plastic junk phones, and hanging on to the fading idea that there is always going to be a way to get inside the phone by removing some kind of back cover. 

It's just old thinking, and bad design.  They are applying the needs of last years phones to the design of a SIM for future phones.  
It's a classic case of hobbling your design by holding onto perceived needs that should really be abandoned early in the design process.  There is nothing stopping the industry from still using microSIMs on the phones they have now (most still use miniSIM anyway), and nothing to lose by dropping those requirements for future phones.  These guys are designing with blinders on and loving it whereas Apple is trying to show them a clear way forward.  

or ... liberal vs. conservative mindset.  Classic. 1smile.gif 

Have you a Tha,ly used Ny of Apple's devices? It doesn't sound as though you have. Apple has had these sim slots since 2007. As far S I know, there haven't been problems due to them. There is no rubber cover. There was, in the old phones, a plastic outside part. On ected to the tray. For several years, the "cover", which is part of the tray, which you can easily see from any photo's published recently about this, is metal. If you're talking about some other manufacturer's crummy, and cheap methods, then I really don't care. Apple's work fine.

The dumb continued usage of replaceable batteries is used for some phones these days, but is becoming obsolete. Only ohones that really need to have their batteries recharges too often need replaceable batteries. There is no reason why you should have to open your phone to change sims. Removing a cover, and a battery to do so is primitive, and a pain.
post #31 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misa View Post

Not quite.

Without the sim "lock" people can switch carriers easily. Removing the SIM, which is a key part of the GSM family, makes it easy for the devices to be cloned. Keeping this part separate is what allows you to buy a used phone that isn't tied permanently to the carrier and customer. Just look at the kind of corporate crybabies the entertainment software industry is over used games. When you try to sell game consoles, you find they've been modded or banned. Try moving your content from one console to another. That's the kind of mess you'd see on cell phones.

I'm giving you the reason why the carriers opposed it. Whatever your reasons are are fine for you, but it's not the reason the carriers opposed it
post #32 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misa View Post

Removing the SIM, which is a key part of the GSM family, makes it easy for the devices to be cloned. Keeping this part separate is what allows you to buy a used phone that isn't tied permanently to the carrier and customer.

The Smart card in the SIM is providing cryptographic security, but there is nothing to prevent this same transaction with an e-sim. The problem with implementing it is who controls the database-- the carriers can't do it alone without a very clunky interface for de-registering a phone from one number to the other.

E-SIMs make a huge amount of sense for people traveling internationally, and could bring more revenue to the carriers if they milked it properly... With the consumers still pretty darned happy. I really wish it would happen soon.
post #33 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


But it doesn't really hurt to put the notch there.
Apple doesn't have to use it - they can still use a tray. If the crapware phone manufacturers want to use it, it will be just one more way that their phones are inferior.

 

Yeah, I'm just saying that overall it's a bit of a cluster*ck.  Out of fear and stupidity and trying to please everyone, they end up with a design that's a few millimetres smaller than the current one, saves no real space overall and looks so similar people are going to get confused anyway.  

 

Apple should have just moved ahead with the "no-SIM" electronic SIM and not cooperated at all.  

post #34 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Apple should have just moved ahead with the "no-SIM" electronic SIM and not cooperated at all.  

While I'd love to see that, even Apple doesn't have the clout to force that down the carriers' throats.
"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 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

Yeah, I'm just saying that overall it's a bit of a cluster*ck.  Out of fear and stupidity and trying to please everyone, they end up with a design that's a few millimetres smaller than the current one, saves no real space overall and looks so similar people are going to get confused anyway.  

 

Apple should have just moved ahead with the "no-SIM" electronic SIM and not cooperated at all.  

I agree - Apple needs to just push forward with the no-SIM option.  They have the clout to force the telcos to get in line.  Heck, the have the power to effect a change with other handset makers at this point.  Frankly, I think the idea of consumers being able to change from one provider to another won't result in great churn rates.  It will if the provider isn't providing good service, sure, but I'm not interested in changing providers just because.  And you'd think the idea of eliminating handset subsidies would only be a good thing for the telcos (other than the fact that then they can't bundle in the cost and might have to lower their rates).  And once Apple forces this to happen, they can do the same to broadcast tv and keep those who don't give a crap about watching sports on tv from paying for the ridiculous athletic salaries through their cable subscription.  Charge me for what I watch, when I watch it and I'd be completely happy, just like I get charged for my phone use.

post #36 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

Seems to me like the notch is technically superior.  You don't agree?  If it really does allow a locking of the card and that push-push eject method, and without the notch that's not possible, I'd say this is clearly technically better.

 

No no no, that's not it at all. THIS is it...

 

"Apple’s proposal for royalty-free licensing seems no more than an attempt to devalue the intellectual property of others"

 

Nokia and Moto *attacked* Apple for their design. They said Apple was trying to take over the world, and that giving it away for free was tantamount to MS-the-bad. Nokia went further, and threatened not only to not follow the standard, but pull ALL of their patents from the SIM system *in toto*, meaning that *no one* could build a nano-sim.

 

And so what does this hissy fit turn out to be about? What is this superior "intellectual property" that Apple was going to "devalue"? A frigging NOTCH IN THE PLASTIC.

 

Uggg.

post #37 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maury Markowitz View Post
Nokia went further, and threatened not only to not follow the standard, but pull ALL of their patents from the SIM system *in toto*, meaning that *no one* could build a nano-sim.

 

And they would have been sued and the patents put up as FRAND, forcing them to make it possible. No big deal.

 

Apple's should win this easily. Push-push is NOT what you want for this sort of thing.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #38 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmgregory1 View Post

... I think the idea of consumers being able to change from one provider to another won't result in great churn rates.  It will if the provider isn't providing good service, sure, but I'm not interested in changing providers just because.  ...

 

I've always thought this too.  The thing about "churn" is it's a bit of a boondoggle from the carriers.  

 

"Churn" only exists because of the myriad of confusing options and deals that are thrown at the consumer and the general feeling (rightly so) that the carriers are basically ripping them off in terms of the prices they charge and the rules they enforce. 

 

A quality carrier that offers a fair deal to consumers (i.e. - waaaay lower prices than they currently charge), would experience no churn problems at all.  At the moment, they charge through the nose for everything while pumping out misleading, underhanded "deals," which creates the churn in the first place, then they turn around and tell us they have to charge us more to cover their "churn costs."  

 

It's rather blatant theft, which is what you always get in a monopoly situation when there is no government involvement or control of the market. 

post #39 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by uguysrnuts View Post

It's amazing that company such as RIM, inching ever closer into oblivion still has some say in these things.

 

One would think Samsung and Apple should decide this between them :)

post #40 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


But it doesn't really hurt to put the notch there.
Apple doesn't have to use it - they can still use a tray. If the crapware phone manufacturers want to use it, it will be just one more way that their phones are inferior.

 

Exactly right. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Motorola & RIM propose nano-SIM compromise with Apple