Given L shaped battery rumours the next iPhone won't have a Physical SIM. Why would the watch ever have one?
I don't follow. What does an L-shaped battery have to do with preventing a physical SIM from existing. There still has to be a logic board, and the notion of an L-shaped design makes me assume the logic board would be in the area not used by the battery and still have edge access.
Personally, I can't wait until we finally move to only have virtual SIMs, but that day doesn't look to be here because of the carrier's reluctance. At least with the Apple Watch they may have a way of gaining some traction with it.
Some people also need to switch between devices, so a physical sim card is more useful than a virtual one.
Outlier use case. Apple will not design products around that.
On top of all the technical points raised above, there is also the huge sales advantage of Apple requiring the pairing of an Watch with an iPhone. It's called a twofer I believe.
No, it's not a conspiracy and the added sales are not a design factor for the design team. Stand alone data makes the most sense but the capabilities aren't there yet. When they are, Apple will make the move.
Given L shaped battery rumours the next iPhone won't have a Physical SIM. Why would the watch ever have one?
Ah, rumors. You may have noticed that Verizon is not on the list of carriers who support this idea. That was supposedly why Apple didn't do this sooner. If Verizon refuses to support the idea on phones and tablets, which they still do, then doing it on a watch might work, because they will understand that it's not practical on a watch, but that's it. And since Apple's phones are world phones, they will need the support of most all the carriers. Otherwise, they will lose substantial sales.
Given L shaped battery rumours the next iPhone won't have a Physical SIM. Why would the watch ever have one?
I don't follow. What does an L-shaped battery have to do with preventing a physical SIM from existing. There still has to be a logic board, and the notion of an L-shaped design makes me assume the logic board would be in the area not used by the battery and still have edge access.
Personally, I can't wait until we finally move to only have virtual SIMs, but that day doesn't look to be here because of the carrier's reluctance. At least with the Apple Watch they may have a way of gaining some traction with it.
The logic board is already tightly packed. Devices gets thinner,camera and speakers want more space also push logic board tighter so where does the volume for extra battery come from? sure the big chips might get a tad smaller, they might do like the watch and get everything closer with a package on board. Still is that really going to get you to an l shaped battery without getting rid of the sim carrier. Which is the next biggest waste of volume after the headphone socket which already gone!
It's already been said that Apple is going to a different, and shorter board for the phone, allowing that battery.
Last October I posted "It's 2016, why are we still using physical SIM cards?" and got downvoted but nobody posed a response. I still think it is stupid to have physical cards for something that can be done purely in software (and elegantly).
There has been a lot written about this, and not only on this site. As this story relates, but doesn't really admit to, in a direct way, most carriers don't support that internal sim. Most carriers, so far, have said they don't like the idea of that sim. So that is why we don't have it yet. Actually, though, I believe that some iPads and phones do have it, but that they still have the external one.
Given L shaped battery rumours the next iPhone won't have a Physical SIM. Why would the watch ever have one?
I don't follow. What does an L-shaped battery have to do with preventing a physical SIM from existing. There still has to be a logic board, and the notion of an L-shaped design makes me assume the logic board would be in the area not used by the battery and still have edge access.
Personally, I can't wait until we finally move to only have virtual SIMs, but that day doesn't look to be here because of the carrier's reluctance. At least with the Apple Watch they may have a way of gaining some traction with it.
Some people also need to switch between devices, so a physical sim card is more useful than a virtual one.
And just like now, the Apple Watch with a software SIM won't be for everyone.
He never said anything about Verizon being one of those companies that will allow for one to use the Apple SIM? Are they not going to jump on? If not, I'm going to be pissed!
I really don't get the whole Cell Service garbage on a watch, why? So you want to pay another $120 or so a year just for your watch so you can do things on a TINY screen without your phone? No thanks!
Wifi is more then good enough. Well that and Blue Tooth. I've left my phone in my office at work and get a call and forget I didn't crap my phone and my Apple Watch is ringing anyway and I can answer and chat and if it's going to be long to call me back in 5 minutes so I can get to my phone. I'm still getting my important Texts, and so on. Same when I'm home and place my phone someplace. I'm still getting data from the phone in other places at my house. Why do I need cell? So I can go jog and not carry my phone? Is that it?
That's not likely how it would work. Remover Apple is the company that changed how carriers offer cellular plans with the original iPhone. There are already family plans available that allow customers to share a pool of data and minutes between all the phones on the plan. So in theory, Apple would work out a deal with the carriers that support the software SIM to provide such a bundle for the iPhone and AW, with no particular premium attached for such a service. The Phone then becomes the primary device that automatically activates and deactivates the cellular communications on the watch depending on its proximity to it. The customer would then be able to set "roaming" parameters for the watch, just like they can now on the iPhone. And yes, there are many situations where it's not convenient to carry a phone, nor wise to do so due to environmental conditions. Moreover, having a completely autonomous watch allows Apple to expand the potential market exponentially beyond the limited iPhone tethered market it's presently confined by.
well first of all, there is no real legitimate reason to include LTE in a watch. all you need is 3G.
AT&T says for a watch you do not need more then 50 mb a month!
second of all, if they go apple sim, then that means its just going to be like the iPad. and Verizon will want none of that. and no one on verizon will be able to use it. so you will need to have a regular sim card slot.
you are free to express your own opinions on your insider website , but lets deal with the facts. and lets be realistic.
LTE utilizes a global standard (although across different bands in different countries), where as 3G was split between UMTS and CDMA (your Verizon example). LTE is also more power efficient. Given the LTE deployment state, there is no need for Apple to support the older 3G technologies on a device category like Apple Watch.
No compelling reason for a cellular Apple Watch to support voice - data only would support 90+% of all use cases (supporting voice via VoLTE, FaceTime, Skype, etc...).
I disagree about the voice. The Apple Watch supports voice for phone calls now. I've used it during the winter when my phone, in a case on my belt, was inaccessible because of the winter coat. Instead, I picked the call up on my watch, and spoke using that. Works really well. There are other circumstances where the Watch is useful for w/o ice, such as when you're cooking, and don't want to pick up a phone with you hands full of flour or fish guts, or whatever. But just touching the phone with a tip of the finger that you can quickly wipe off, is great. Same thing if you take a bath. The phone can be elsewhere in the room, or just outside, but you can use your watch if someone calls, and you want to take it. These are all scenarios I've come across, including working in my shops.
On top of all the technical points raised above, there is also the huge sales advantage of Apple requiring the pairing of an Watch with an iPhone. It's called a twofer I believe.
I don't think that is the reason. If you remove the Watch from being paired with the phone it looses substantial functionality but doesn't gain a thing.
I really don't get the whole Cell Service garbage on a watch, why? So you want to pay another $120 or so a year just for your watch so you can do things on a TINY screen without your phone? No thanks!
Wifi is more then good enough. Well that and Blue Tooth. I've left my phone in my office at work and get a call and forget I didn't crap my phone and my Apple Watch is ringing anyway and I can answer and chat and if it's going to be long to call me back in 5 minutes so I can get to my phone. I'm still getting my important Texts, and so on. Same when I'm home and place my phone someplace. I'm still getting data from the phone in other places at my house. Why do I need cell? So I can go jog and not carry my phone? Is that it?
Verizon is offering it for $5 a month now, just $60 a year. Yeah, yeah, for some, that's still too much. So what? For most people, a smartwatch is too much. For some, a smartphone is too much. What does that have to do with those who might want the feature.
i'm always amazed that for those who don't want something, or don't want to pay for it, it's garbage. Hey friend, that's on you, not us.
well first of all, there is no real legitimate reason to include LTE in a watch. all you need is 3G.
AT&T says for a watch you do not need more then 50 mb a month!
second of all, if they go apple sim, then that means its just going to be like the iPad. and Verizon will want none of that. and no one on verizon will be able to use it. so you will need to have a regular sim card slot.
you are free to express your own opinions on your insider website , but lets deal with the facts. and lets be realistic.
LTE utilizes a global standard (although across different bands in different countries), where as 3G was split between UMTS and CDMA (your Verizon example). LTE is also more power efficient. Given the LTE deployment state, there is no need for Apple to support the older 3G technologies on a device category like Apple Watch.
No compelling reason for a cellular Apple Watch to support voice - data only would support 90+% of all use cases (supporting voice via VoLTE, FaceTime, Skype, etc...).
I disagree about the voice. The Apple Watch supports voice for phone calls now. I've used it during the winter when my phone, in a case on my belt, was inaccessible because of the winter coat. Instead, I picked the call up on my watch, and spoke using that. Works really well. There are other circumstances where the Watch is useful for w/o ice, such as when you're cooking, and don't want to pick up a phone with you hands full of flour or fish guts, or whatever. But just touching the phone with a tip of the finger that you can quickly wipe off, is great. Same thing if you take a bath. The phone can be elsewhere in the room, or just outside, but you can use your watch if someone calls, and you want to take it. These are all scenarios I've come across, including working in my shops.
That was well said. Actually I was going to say about the same -- until I realized he was suggesting that the Watch could use a different protocol (such as VOIP or Facetime, etc) to take voice calls... That's an interesting idea -- and one that could actually be applied to the phone as well. I wonder though if that would reduce signal availability or have some other side effect?
Given L shaped battery rumours the next iPhone won't have a Physical SIM. Why would the watch ever have one?
I don't follow. What does an L-shaped battery have to do with preventing a physical SIM from existing. There still has to be a logic board, and the notion of an L-shaped design makes me assume the logic board would be in the area not used by the battery and still have edge access.
Personally, I can't wait until we finally move to only have virtual SIMs, but that day doesn't look to be here because of the carrier's reluctance. At least with the Apple Watch they may have a way of gaining some traction with it.
Some people also need to switch between devices, so a physical sim card is more useful than a virtual one.
Outlier use case. Apple will not design products around that.
My recollection of my original nook was it came with a rudimentary ATT cell connection. Since the device can't really consume much data, likely ATT gave that away (or a nominal cost to B&N.) I would consider upgrading my series 1 AW if the new one had a always on cell connection to emergency services at no monthly fee. Dial 911 and I get the usal connection, notification of my ICE contacts and hopefully a continuous broadcast of my location (even if GPS isn't included, the cell triangulation would be likely sufficient.)
I wish rumor sites would stop posting research notes from sell side analysts. Any supplier working with Apple isn't going to leak future product details to a Wall Street analyst.
Given L shaped battery rumours the next iPhone won't have a Physical SIM. Why would the watch ever have one?
I don't follow. What does an L-shaped battery have to do with preventing a physical SIM from existing. There still has to be a logic board, and the notion of an L-shaped design makes me assume the logic board would be in the area not used by the battery and still have edge access.
Personally, I can't wait until we finally move to only have virtual SIMs, but that day doesn't look to be here because of the carrier's reluctance. At least with the Apple Watch they may have a way of gaining some traction with it.
Some people also need to switch between devices, so a physical sim card is more useful than a virtual one.
I'm sure some people do, but is that something Apple would work to support? Some phone vendors had some models with dual SIM support, but Apple never supported that. With a vSIM, that could be supported again, and even storing vSIM data on two devices could be possible which would effectively allow you to switch devices (but I'm guess that feature will not be supported for a variety of reasons).
Given L shaped battery rumours the next iPhone won't have a Physical SIM. Why would the watch ever have one?
I don't follow. What does an L-shaped battery have to do with preventing a physical SIM from existing. There still has to be a logic board, and the notion of an L-shaped design makes me assume the logic board would be in the area not used by the battery and still have edge access.
Personally, I can't wait until we finally move to only have virtual SIMs, but that day doesn't look to be here because of the carrier's reluctance. At least with the Apple Watch they may have a way of gaining some traction with it.
Some people also need to switch between devices, so a physical sim card is more useful than a virtual one.
Outlier use case. Apple will not design products around that.
Aren't they already designed around that?
Not at all. You even need a tool to get the SIM card tray out. Nothing about it suggests Apple designed their iPhones so that you can move a SIM card between two iPhones on a regular basis.
Given L shaped battery rumours the next iPhone won't have a Physical SIM. Why would the watch ever have one?
I don't follow. What does an L-shaped battery have to do with preventing a physical SIM from existing. There still has to be a logic board, and the notion of an L-shaped design makes me assume the logic board would be in the area not used by the battery and still have edge access.
Personally, I can't wait until we finally move to only have virtual SIMs, but that day doesn't look to be here because of the carrier's reluctance. At least with the Apple Watch they may have a way of gaining some traction with it.
Some people also need to switch between devices, so a physical sim card is more useful than a virtual one.
Outlier use case. Apple will not design products around that.
Aren't they already designed around that?
My point was, when the day comes that a v-sim satisfies Apple's primary use cases and the only problem is the inconvenience to those who switch devices via removable sim cards, expect those people to be inconvenienced. Apple designs to deliver a good solution for the majority of people, not a solution for every single person.
Comments
There has been a lot written about this, and not only on this site. As this story relates, but doesn't really admit to, in a direct way, most carriers don't support that internal sim. Most carriers, so far, have said they don't like the idea of that sim. So that is why we don't have it yet. Actually, though, I believe that some iPads and phones do have it, but that they still have the external one.
That's not likely how it would work. Remover Apple is the company that changed how carriers offer cellular plans with the original iPhone. There are already family plans available that allow customers to share a pool of data and minutes between all the phones on the plan. So in theory, Apple would work out a deal with the carriers that support the software SIM to provide such a bundle for the iPhone and AW, with no particular premium attached for such a service. The Phone then becomes the primary device that automatically activates and deactivates the cellular communications on the watch depending on its proximity to it. The customer would then be able to set "roaming" parameters for the watch, just like they can now on the iPhone. And yes, there are many situations where it's not convenient to carry a phone, nor wise to do so due to environmental conditions. Moreover, having a completely autonomous watch allows Apple to expand the potential market exponentially beyond the limited iPhone tethered market it's presently confined by.
I disagree about the voice. The Apple Watch supports voice for phone calls now. I've used it during the winter when my phone, in a case on my belt, was inaccessible because of the winter coat. Instead, I picked the call up on my watch, and spoke using that. Works really well. There are other circumstances where the Watch is useful for w/o ice, such as when you're cooking, and don't want to pick up a phone with you hands full of flour or fish guts, or whatever. But just touching the phone with a tip of the finger that you can quickly wipe off, is great. Same thing if you take a bath. The phone can be elsewhere in the room, or just outside, but you can use your watch if someone calls, and you want to take it. These are all scenarios I've come across, including working in my shops.
Verizon is offering it for $5 a month now, just $60 a year. Yeah, yeah, for some, that's still too much. So what? For most people, a smartwatch is too much. For some, a smartphone is too much. What does that have to do with those who might want the feature.
i'm always amazed that for those who don't want something, or don't want to pay for it, it's garbage. Hey friend, that's on you, not us.