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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
... 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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
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.
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 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
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.
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.
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
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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.
While I'd love to see that, even Apple doesn't have the clout to force that down the carriers' throats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maury Markowitz
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmgregory1
... 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uguysrnuts
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
One would think Samsung and Apple should decide this between them
Yes, if you only consider who the strong of the day are; except they don't hold the relevant IP...