How so? If the SIM is separate then I can take an unlocked phone to just about any country in the world, buy a SIM card in the mobile phone store in the airport, and immediately have a local phone that I can use. I did this with my Motorola GSM phone back in 2004 when I went to Australia and New Zealand. Local SIM cards from each country worked in my phone without any problems whatsoever.
If I didn't have the ability to swap SIM cards then it would have been a huge pain in the ass to get my phone to work in those countries. At the very least I'd have to contact the carrier in each country and swap some information about my phone with them in hopes that it would work.
How does an integrated SIM provide more freedom or less of a locked down environment than a removable SIM? How easier can it be then to walk into a store, purchase a SIM, and drop it into your phone?
How so? If the SIM is separate then I can take an unlocked phone to just about any country in the world, buy a SIM card in the mobile phone store in the airport, and immediately have a local phone that I can use. I did this with my Motorola GSM phone back in 2004 when I went to Australia and New Zealand. Local SIM cards from each country worked in my phone without any problems whatsoever.
If I didn't have the ability to swap SIM cards then it would have been a huge pain in the ass to get my phone to work in those countries. At the very least I'd have to contact the carrier in each country and swap some information about my phone with them in hopes that it would work.
How does an integrated SIM provide more freedom or less of a locked down environment than a removable SIM? How easier can it be then to walk into a store, purchase a SIM, and drop it into your phone?
People are making the assertion that integrated SIM would save space and the tedium of having to take a piece of plastic out of your phone. Instead, a location-aware device can simply talk to the nearest networks and purchase data in turn.
Well if it's true, and it's a big IF, then it's carriers 1 consumer 0
I bought my ip4 this time around and it's great and easy switching between the carriers with non contract. T-mobile is the best in my area and only £10 a month
How so? If the SIM is separate then I can take an unlocked phone to just about any country in the world, buy a SIM card in the mobile phone store in the airport, and immediately have a local phone that I can use. I did this with my Motorola GSM phone back in 2004 when I went to Australia and New Zealand. Local SIM cards from each country worked in my phone without any problems whatsoever.
If I didn't have the ability to swap SIM cards then it would have been a huge pain in the ass to get my phone to work in those countries. At the very least I'd have to contact the carrier in each country and swap some information about my phone with them in hopes that it would work.
How does an integrated SIM provide more freedom or less of a locked down environment than a removable SIM? How easier can it be then to walk into a store, purchase a SIM, and drop it into your phone?
An integrated SIM doesn’t mean there is no SIM, it just means there is no physical SIM that is moved around. This mental block on how a SIM has to work is silly. All it has on it is some very basic data. Basic data that that can be added to a 3GPP device via many avenues. For example, the future of SIMs could be using NFC or BT to securely handshake and transfer the data at carrier’s store or through a kiosk. Another is buying the code in a vending machine and inputting it the way your would a unique serial key for software.
Again, the integrated SIM isn’t removing the SIM, just integrating, and it’s not going to make unlocked devices locked. It’s just removing the superfluous physical plastic for data that can be more easily and conveniently moved in other ways in this 21.1 century C.E. A truly world traveler could potentially have dozens of of SIMs for various countries and carriers in his phone at all times and only needs to access the Settings to switch between them as he crosses borders.
But the role carriers play is way overblown, particularly in their own minds. God bless Apple for having at least gotten the industry to allow activation at home.
One of them? You mean, one of those folks that enjoy liberty and privacy? My god, how ridiculous. Perhaps it may relieve some of the chafing of your undergarments to know that I dislike all parties and have no affiliation to any politician or organization. Obama is just an easy target because he over-promised in a way that no other president ever has and has truly failed to keep any of his promises or represent the people of this country whatsoever. He has, however, raised my taxes and allowed the TSA to get away with some truly terrible things on his watch. If you endorse Obama or government limitation of liberty in general, then there's probably little conversation to have to begin with. Most liberals (for lack of a better term) think their opinions validate the control and manipulation of others. Tucking your tail is certainly an easier choice to make than actually engaging the issue. And seriously, here in the States, I'm not the only person who is fed up with the governments of the world. If you aren't, you're mental, quite frankly.
Better watch out for those black UN helicopters -- I think the voices inside your head must be telling you they're coming for you (not to suggest actual insanity -- it's probably just the shrill droning of some Australian media magnate's shills :-)
The carriers are making a big mistake, you can't just threaten Apple.... I think that steve is really going to remember this some time in the future...
No, but it is the company which has got the most press about EU anti-trust measures, so it must have the driving force behind your comment. And since you strongly implied that no European companies have been targeted by the EU anti-trust activities, you clearly do not know much about them.
The EU's search tool is under maintenance this weekend so only older cases are available but just to pick the cases closed in the year 1998:
No, tell me again that there are no European companies among these.
You've obviously got a lot of issues that you need to work through because you keep making things up that I never said. Maybe you should see a psychologist.
I never said that the EU doesn't investigate European companies. That would be absurd.
Regarding Microsoft, I actually agree with the decisions the EU made in that case. But it's hard to know whether they made the right decision in that case for the right reason or the wrong reason. With these carriers colluding to punish Apple we have a test of whether the EU makes these decisions for the right reason or the wrong reason. The EU should investigate whether there's collusion here and if there is, the carriers should be punished. If the EU doesn't look into it, I question their objectivity.
The Telegraph? Seriously?! And we are supposed to believe these "news"? Co'mon, 15 years in the UK have taught me to never ever believe what the media publishes here. Their only aim is to sell headlines, not to inform!
I find it highly amusing that folks are getting charged up about a rumor that another rumor might not be happening because of carriers strong-arming Apple over something that no one has provided any compelling argument as to why they really would care all that much about in the first place.
I'm sure apple bashers will still somehow declare victory when the next iPhone has a normal (mini) sim.
But the role carriers play is way overblown, particularly in their own minds. God bless Apple for having at least gotten the industry to allow activation at home.
Actually, many carriers have had the ability to do OTA activations for years. Apple [re]started the whole must activate in the store thing. Not AT&T.
Actually, many carriers have had the ability to do OTA activations for years. Apple [re]started the whole must activate in the store thing. Not AT&T.
From what I recall, Apple had the original iPhone activate via iTunes, whether it be at home, in the Apple Store or carrier?s store. For the iPhone 3G they required an in-store activation at first, and with the next iPhones they allowed you to have them shipped to you and activated through iTunes again, or through the Apple Store or carrier?s store.
From what I recall, Apple had the original iPhone activate via iTunes, whether it be at home, in the Apple Store or carrier’s store. For the iPhone 3G they required an in-store activation at first, and with the next iPhones they allowed you to have them shipped to you and activated through iTunes again, or through the Apple Store or carrier’s store.
In store activations such as they were for the 3G were driven by Apple primarily but for the same reason we have seen in other countries where people bought several and then sold them off at higher prices.
I find it highly amusing that folks are getting charged up about a rumor that another rumor might not be happening because of carriers strong-arming Apple over something that no one has provided any compelling argument as to why they really would care all that much about in the first place.
I'm sure apple bashers will still somehow declare victory when the next iPhone has a normal (mini) sim.
The whole thing sounded weak to begin with, but the idea that the iPad 2 could be released within a few weeks when Black Friday is in 5 days clenches this as complete BS.
Not that I think the next iPad is coming that soon, but the fact that Black Friday is in 5 days would only serve to make it more likely, not less. Apple could get rid of all stock of existing iPads by pricing them right, and then move on to the next version. Not gonna happen, but your logic is off.
Comments
Funny, I take it as opposite.
How so? If the SIM is separate then I can take an unlocked phone to just about any country in the world, buy a SIM card in the mobile phone store in the airport, and immediately have a local phone that I can use. I did this with my Motorola GSM phone back in 2004 when I went to Australia and New Zealand. Local SIM cards from each country worked in my phone without any problems whatsoever.
If I didn't have the ability to swap SIM cards then it would have been a huge pain in the ass to get my phone to work in those countries. At the very least I'd have to contact the carrier in each country and swap some information about my phone with them in hopes that it would work.
How does an integrated SIM provide more freedom or less of a locked down environment than a removable SIM? How easier can it be then to walk into a store, purchase a SIM, and drop it into your phone?
How so? If the SIM is separate then I can take an unlocked phone to just about any country in the world, buy a SIM card in the mobile phone store in the airport, and immediately have a local phone that I can use. I did this with my Motorola GSM phone back in 2004 when I went to Australia and New Zealand. Local SIM cards from each country worked in my phone without any problems whatsoever.
If I didn't have the ability to swap SIM cards then it would have been a huge pain in the ass to get my phone to work in those countries. At the very least I'd have to contact the carrier in each country and swap some information about my phone with them in hopes that it would work.
How does an integrated SIM provide more freedom or less of a locked down environment than a removable SIM? How easier can it be then to walk into a store, purchase a SIM, and drop it into your phone?
People are making the assertion that integrated SIM would save space and the tedium of having to take a piece of plastic out of your phone. Instead, a location-aware device can simply talk to the nearest networks and purchase data in turn.
I bought my ip4 this time around and it's great and easy switching between the carriers with non contract. T-mobile is the best in my area and only £10 a month
How so? If the SIM is separate then I can take an unlocked phone to just about any country in the world, buy a SIM card in the mobile phone store in the airport, and immediately have a local phone that I can use. I did this with my Motorola GSM phone back in 2004 when I went to Australia and New Zealand. Local SIM cards from each country worked in my phone without any problems whatsoever.
If I didn't have the ability to swap SIM cards then it would have been a huge pain in the ass to get my phone to work in those countries. At the very least I'd have to contact the carrier in each country and swap some information about my phone with them in hopes that it would work.
How does an integrated SIM provide more freedom or less of a locked down environment than a removable SIM? How easier can it be then to walk into a store, purchase a SIM, and drop it into your phone?
An integrated SIM doesn’t mean there is no SIM, it just means there is no physical SIM that is moved around. This mental block on how a SIM has to work is silly. All it has on it is some very basic data. Basic data that that can be added to a 3GPP device via many avenues. For example, the future of SIMs could be using NFC or BT to securely handshake and transfer the data at carrier’s store or through a kiosk. Another is buying the code in a vending machine and inputting it the way your would a unique serial key for software.
Again, the integrated SIM isn’t removing the SIM, just integrating, and it’s not going to make unlocked devices locked. It’s just removing the superfluous physical plastic for data that can be more easily and conveniently moved in other ways in this 21.1 century C.E. A truly world traveler could potentially have dozens of of SIMs for various countries and carriers in his phone at all times and only needs to access the Settings to switch between them as he crosses borders.
But the role carriers play is way overblown, particularly in their own minds. God bless Apple for having at least gotten the industry to allow activation at home.
What I'd like to see with integrated SIM is simultaneous dual carrier support, enabling clear differentiation of work and personal phone numbers.
So keep up the good work Apple!
One of them? You mean, one of those folks that enjoy liberty and privacy? My god, how ridiculous. Perhaps it may relieve some of the chafing of your undergarments to know that I dislike all parties and have no affiliation to any politician or organization. Obama is just an easy target because he over-promised in a way that no other president ever has and has truly failed to keep any of his promises or represent the people of this country whatsoever. He has, however, raised my taxes and allowed the TSA to get away with some truly terrible things on his watch. If you endorse Obama or government limitation of liberty in general, then there's probably little conversation to have to begin with. Most liberals (for lack of a better term) think their opinions validate the control and manipulation of others. Tucking your tail is certainly an easier choice to make than actually engaging the issue. And seriously, here in the States, I'm not the only person who is fed up with the governments of the world. If you aren't, you're mental, quite frankly.
Better watch out for those black UN helicopters -- I think the voices inside your head must be telling you they're coming for you (not to suggest actual insanity -- it's probably just the shrill droning of some Australian media magnate's shills :-)
I would think the EU would be all over this protecting the rights of consumers, blah blah blah.
The EU only cares about the rights of consumers when it means they can milk a bunch of money from companies not based in the EU.
-kpluck
No, but it is the company which has got the most press about EU anti-trust measures, so it must have the driving force behind your comment. And since you strongly implied that no European companies have been targeted by the EU anti-trust activities, you clearly do not know much about them.
The EU's search tool is under maintenance this weekend so only older cases are available but just to pick the cases closed in the year 1998:
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/anti...1990.html#1998
No, tell me again that there are no European companies among these.
You've obviously got a lot of issues that you need to work through because you keep making things up that I never said. Maybe you should see a psychologist.
I never said that the EU doesn't investigate European companies. That would be absurd.
Regarding Microsoft, I actually agree with the decisions the EU made in that case. But it's hard to know whether they made the right decision in that case for the right reason or the wrong reason. With these carriers colluding to punish Apple we have a test of whether the EU makes these decisions for the right reason or the wrong reason. The EU should investigate whether there's collusion here and if there is, the carriers should be punished. If the EU doesn't look into it, I question their objectivity.
Hahahahahaha. Chicken apple.
Sorry but you failed!
Apple was trying to go against the grain of a very established and mostly corrupted,greedy a**, controlling telecomm industry
Apple chicken? Hardly!
The EU only cares about the rights of consumers when it means they can milk a bunch of money from companies not based in the EU.
Exactomundo! And cellular services are a great source of tax revenue. Keeping the cost of services high is of benefit to deficit-spending governments.
I'm sure apple bashers will still somehow declare victory when the next iPhone has a normal (mini) sim.
"marginalizing the role carriers play"
But the role carriers play is way overblown, particularly in their own minds. God bless Apple for having at least gotten the industry to allow activation at home.
Actually, many carriers have had the ability to do OTA activations for years. Apple [re]started the whole must activate in the store thing. Not AT&T.
Actually, many carriers have had the ability to do OTA activations for years. Apple [re]started the whole must activate in the store thing. Not AT&T.
From what I recall, Apple had the original iPhone activate via iTunes, whether it be at home, in the Apple Store or carrier?s store. For the iPhone 3G they required an in-store activation at first, and with the next iPhones they allowed you to have them shipped to you and activated through iTunes again, or through the Apple Store or carrier?s store.
From what I recall, Apple had the original iPhone activate via iTunes, whether it be at home, in the Apple Store or carrier’s store. For the iPhone 3G they required an in-store activation at first, and with the next iPhones they allowed you to have them shipped to you and activated through iTunes again, or through the Apple Store or carrier’s store.
In store activations such as they were for the 3G were driven by Apple primarily but for the same reason we have seen in other countries where people bought several and then sold them off at higher prices.
I find it highly amusing that folks are getting charged up about a rumor that another rumor might not be happening because of carriers strong-arming Apple over something that no one has provided any compelling argument as to why they really would care all that much about in the first place.
I'm sure apple bashers will still somehow declare victory when the next iPhone has a normal (mini) sim.
micro
The whole thing sounded weak to begin with, but the idea that the iPad 2 could be released within a few weeks when Black Friday is in 5 days clenches this as complete BS.
Not that I think the next iPad is coming that soon, but the fact that Black Friday is in 5 days would only serve to make it more likely, not less. Apple could get rid of all stock of existing iPads by pricing them right, and then move on to the next version. Not gonna happen, but your logic is off.