Funny I don't see Apple running away from anyone with their tail between their legs as the story claims, considering they have probably one the best legal teams corporate money can buy.
The iPad makes more sense. It's not on contract (usually) and as such isn't subsidised.
...
Imagine arriving in Germany, and your iPad automatically becomes a T-mobile device and offers a page to pay for 1GB of data (direct from your iTunes account perhaps?). If it tethers to your laptop it'll be even more effective.
It would be brilliant yes. IF it uses an open stadard adoptable by any operator without Apple having the possibility to block your operator because they don't play with Apple. If I own a device, I should have full freedom to choose how I use it.
You see, otherwise the control moves from the consumer to Apple (potentially you can only use Apple certified operators). This would restrict my choice of operators. And there is my rub and why I do endorse the operator's standpoint on this. A open system would be better. Maybe the GSMA one will be such.
This tech if done in a proprietary manner would cause you to be locked deeper into the Apple ecosystem as transferring user data from an idevice to another vendors device is already difficult for a basic consumer. With a removable SIM, I can at least copy my contacts to the SIM and transfer it to another phone. Surely Apple would like more lockin, but it reduces consumer choice in the long run (think Microsoft ecosystem even today in office environments - bad).
So what stops someone from just guessing someone else's 20 digit number and using it?
Only person who has issues with SIMs is Apple, since their main obsession with anything they make is how thin it is rather than how well it works.
You can guess the 15-digit IMSI yes, but you cannot guess the Authentication Key, that is embedded into the SIM or USIM (for more modern networks). The IMSI is rarely transferred on air, the authentication key is never transferred on air.
And as the authentication procedure and ciphering key calculation is done within the SIM (not the phone), it is more secure by design than a pure SW piece would be.
With an embedded SIM, the interesting question is: how do you securely transfer the subscription specific authentication key without running the risk of someone grabbing the data and cracking it as it was transferred via NFC, BT or whatever?
With a SIM card, the transfer is within a secured physical component (the SIM).
The 20-digit ICC-ID you are talking about is just the serial number of the card. Nothing else. It is NOT used for authentication and is never transferred to the network. This is just an ID for the operator to know which SIM card was given to you so that they can activate the correct IMSI and Authentication Key combo for you in their HLR.
Something which apple were rumored to be working on is now rumored to be cancelled because of an unnamed source? And Apple are being criticised for cancelling something they never announced?
Absolutely hilarious.
Just in case some of you are still at high school and haven't done business 101, it is standard practice for companies to work on new ideas internally and test the viability, profitability and practicality of such ideas. These are often tossed and around and discarded.
You don't criticise a company because they are trying to innovate.
You misunderstand the concept of SIM. Apple and GSMA are not colluding to removing the SIM from devices, they are working on removing the need for a physical SIM card that takes up a great deal of space for its data size and functionality, and is a potential weak point for engineering. All this does is make it integrated, not disappear. Instead of having multiple SIM cards you have swap in and out, you?d just use BT, NFC, or manual input to put in the 20 digit code that you can then switch easily via your settings.
so how does this make it easier if when i travel to a new country and I want to put a new local sim in my phone ? firstly are all the sim's going to be available from apple that are in a corner shop in egypt ? secondly how do i use this sim without my laptop ?
this is 2 steps backwards if it limits my choice .., and means i have to carry my laptop with me everywhere i go.
I would just like to add my voice to all of those who are shocked -- just shocked! -- to see rumors being reported at Appleinsider. For years I've been relying on this venerable institution (the "grey lady" of the Internet, if you will) to bring us stories based only on the hardest of hard evidence. To see the purity of this fine site degraded with the stain of rumor... it just gives me the vapors!
The tale of offering the programmable SIM - and withdrawal of same - exist only in the realm of gossip and rumor. The only humorous part is all the people who participate in useless discussion of the unconfirmable.
This insanity is no longer funny. It borders on psychotic. Rumors of rumored possibilities beget rumors of reactions to rumors of rumors. Certain rumors are then rumored to be fact which causes "analysts" to react to the rumored factual rumors.
Then, when reality sticks it's ugly head into the equation, reality itself becomes a rumor to be dismissed as a rumor only to be resurrected as a prediction come true.
To the posters here who are discussing this as if it were fact...are you really that damn stupid?
What compleat nonsense! We saw this same stuff when Apple was rumored to be changing the name of the Apple TV to "iTV". The British network was rumored to have responded to the rumor, or perhaps even more silly, actually responded to the rumor.
A rumored response to a rumor. Really? Ye gods I hate slow news days.
I would just like to add my voice to all of those who are shocked -- just shocked! -- to see rumors being reported at Appleinsider. For years I've been relying on this venerable institution (the "grey lady" of the Internet, if you will) to bring us stories based only on the hardest of hard evidence. To see the purity of this fine site degraded with the stain of rumor... it just gives me the vapors!
While I found the whole rumored response to rumored action thing bloody silly and agree in principal with lkrupp's entry as noted, the responses in these august threads do, as you seem to allude, offer some level of hilarity. Especially those who take high dudgeon and umbrage with the rumored actions - on either side.
Like an earnest John (poster) approaching a tarted-up trolly(AI) on the corner "excuse me miss - are you an high-priced escort?" "Oy, guv, I'm a workin' girl - don't come much cheapa than me luv!" "I beg your pardon ma'am - I mistook you for a high-priced tart! Talley-ho!!"
That was a dream come true for me. I wish if carrier companies could be controlled. I fully support Apple in their thoughts but I know lots of barriers. All I would say, Apple, go ahead and just do it. I love the idea of embedded sims.
no. hope its true. apple needs a taste of its own medicine.
Firstly, the iPhone did most of this damage from day 1, where the carrier cannot make changes or brand the phone in any way. The carrier became a carrier only, not a supplier of phones. Even if they supplied the phone they had no special place.
But mainly, why do you need any kind of sim to lock someone in. If a carrier says I can have the phone at a subsidised price, IF I sign contract, who cares what the sim is?
I am locked in by the contract, in which I agree to remain with the carrier for the contract period, paying the contracted amount. Sure, I can take the phone elsewhere and keep paying off the contract, but they don't care about that either.
So that's my main issue, you're locked in by a legal contract, what else matters?
I fail to see how Apple did any "damage from day 1." You say that Apple refused to allow the carrier to brand the iPhone in any way. I applaud that decision. Why should carriers get their branding on a product that they had absolutely no role in designing.
Also, it's not like carriers are getting the raw end of the deal entirely. Yes, they have a limited role, but still, they get to charge the same amount of money on plans for iPhones as they do for other smartphones. For example, the data plan for the iPhone is the same cost as it is for every other smartphone on AT&T. Also, AT&T doesn't deal with any phone support (including warranties). Also, AT&T doesn't do any advertising for the platform. The way I see it, AT&T is making a mint off of iPhone users without expending an iota of energy.
Comments
The iPad makes more sense. It's not on contract (usually) and as such isn't subsidised.
...
Imagine arriving in Germany, and your iPad automatically becomes a T-mobile device and offers a page to pay for 1GB of data (direct from your iTunes account perhaps?). If it tethers to your laptop it'll be even more effective.
It would be brilliant yes. IF it uses an open stadard adoptable by any operator without Apple having the possibility to block your operator because they don't play with Apple. If I own a device, I should have full freedom to choose how I use it.
You see, otherwise the control moves from the consumer to Apple (potentially you can only use Apple certified operators). This would restrict my choice of operators. And there is my rub and why I do endorse the operator's standpoint on this. A open system would be better. Maybe the GSMA one will be such.
This tech if done in a proprietary manner would cause you to be locked deeper into the Apple ecosystem as transferring user data from an idevice to another vendors device is already difficult for a basic consumer. With a removable SIM, I can at least copy my contacts to the SIM and transfer it to another phone. Surely Apple would like more lockin, but it reduces consumer choice in the long run (think Microsoft ecosystem even today in office environments - bad).
Regs, Jarkko
So what stops someone from just guessing someone else's 20 digit number and using it?
Only person who has issues with SIMs is Apple, since their main obsession with anything they make is how thin it is rather than how well it works.
You can guess the 15-digit IMSI yes, but you cannot guess the Authentication Key, that is embedded into the SIM or USIM (for more modern networks). The IMSI is rarely transferred on air, the authentication key is never transferred on air.
And as the authentication procedure and ciphering key calculation is done within the SIM (not the phone), it is more secure by design than a pure SW piece would be.
With an embedded SIM, the interesting question is: how do you securely transfer the subscription specific authentication key without running the risk of someone grabbing the data and cracking it as it was transferred via NFC, BT or whatever?
With a SIM card, the transfer is within a secured physical component (the SIM).
The 20-digit ICC-ID you are talking about is just the serial number of the card. Nothing else. It is NOT used for authentication and is never transferred to the network. This is just an ID for the operator to know which SIM card was given to you so that they can activate the correct IMSI and Authentication Key combo for you in their HLR.
Regs, Jarkko
Absolutely hilarious.
Just in case some of you are still at high school and haven't done business 101, it is standard practice for companies to work on new ideas internally and test the viability, profitability and practicality of such ideas. These are often tossed and around and discarded.
You don't criticise a company because they are trying to innovate.
You misunderstand the concept of SIM. Apple and GSMA are not colluding to removing the SIM from devices, they are working on removing the need for a physical SIM card that takes up a great deal of space for its data size and functionality, and is a potential weak point for engineering. All this does is make it integrated, not disappear. Instead of having multiple SIM cards you have swap in and out, you?d just use BT, NFC, or manual input to put in the 20 digit code that you can then switch easily via your settings.
so how does this make it easier if when i travel to a new country and I want to put a new local sim in my phone ? firstly are all the sim's going to be available from apple that are in a corner shop in egypt ? secondly how do i use this sim without my laptop ?
this is 2 steps backwards if it limits my choice .., and means i have to carry my laptop with me everywhere i go.
This insanity is no longer funny. It borders on psychotic. Rumors of rumored possibilities beget rumors of reactions to rumors of rumors. Certain rumors are then rumored to be fact which causes "analysts" to react to the rumored factual rumors.
Then, when reality sticks it's ugly head into the equation, reality itself becomes a rumor to be dismissed as a rumor only to be resurrected as a prediction come true.
To the posters here who are discussing this as if it were fact...are you really that damn stupid?
What compleat nonsense! We saw this same stuff when Apple was rumored to be changing the name of the Apple TV to "iTV". The British network was rumored to have responded to the rumor, or perhaps even more silly, actually responded to the rumor.
A rumored response to a rumor. Really? Ye gods I hate slow news days.
I would just like to add my voice to all of those who are shocked -- just shocked! -- to see rumors being reported at Appleinsider. For years I've been relying on this venerable institution (the "grey lady" of the Internet, if you will) to bring us stories based only on the hardest of hard evidence. To see the purity of this fine site degraded with the stain of rumor... it just gives me the vapors!
While I found the whole rumored response to rumored action thing bloody silly and agree in principal with lkrupp's entry as noted, the responses in these august threads do, as you seem to allude, offer some level of hilarity. Especially those who take high dudgeon and umbrage with the rumored actions - on either side.
Like an earnest John (poster) approaching a tarted-up trolly(AI) on the corner "excuse me miss - are you an high-priced escort?" "Oy, guv, I'm a workin' girl - don't come much cheapa than me luv!" "I beg your pardon ma'am - I mistook you for a high-priced tart! Talley-ho!!"
That was a dream come true for me. I wish if carrier companies could be controlled. I fully support Apple in their thoughts but I know lots of barriers. All I would say, Apple, go ahead and just do it. I love the idea of embedded sims.
no. hope its true. apple needs a taste of its own medicine.
I never understood this rumour.
Firstly, the iPhone did most of this damage from day 1, where the carrier cannot make changes or brand the phone in any way. The carrier became a carrier only, not a supplier of phones. Even if they supplied the phone they had no special place.
But mainly, why do you need any kind of sim to lock someone in. If a carrier says I can have the phone at a subsidised price, IF I sign contract, who cares what the sim is?
I am locked in by the contract, in which I agree to remain with the carrier for the contract period, paying the contracted amount. Sure, I can take the phone elsewhere and keep paying off the contract, but they don't care about that either.
So that's my main issue, you're locked in by a legal contract, what else matters?
I fail to see how Apple did any "damage from day 1." You say that Apple refused to allow the carrier to brand the iPhone in any way. I applaud that decision. Why should carriers get their branding on a product that they had absolutely no role in designing.
Also, it's not like carriers are getting the raw end of the deal entirely. Yes, they have a limited role, but still, they get to charge the same amount of money on plans for iPhones as they do for other smartphones. For example, the data plan for the iPhone is the same cost as it is for every other smartphone on AT&T. Also, AT&T doesn't deal with any phone support (including warranties). Also, AT&T doesn't do any advertising for the platform. The way I see it, AT&T is making a mint off of iPhone users without expending an iota of energy.