Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 19th Nov 2010 22:33 UTC, submitted by Governa
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless Well, this is fascinating. There have been rumours going around for a while now that Apple is working with Gemalto on an integrated sim card, allowing customers to choose their own carrier and then activate the phone through Apple. European mobile phone carriers aren't particularly pleased with this.
Order by: Score:
Then I'll go with a different provider
by Sabon on Fri 19th Nov 2010 22:44 UTC
Sabon
Member since:
2005-07-06

Not every provider will remote subsidies. Those that don't will get a lot more customers because there are a lot of people have are a LOT more loyal to iPhones than they are their cell / data provider.

They WILL cave in. It's only a matter of time. Everyone was shocked with what AT&T gave to Apple as far as full control over the app store, etc. It's only the beginning.

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

They WILL cave in.


I doubt it. This move by Apple would threaten the very core of the carrier's business model, and remember, there are only a few carriers per country, and they're generally all owned by the same companies Europe-wide. If they agree together - as the FT states - to cease subsidies - Apple is in trouble.

Reply Score: 3

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I second that, and add that at least here in France, agreeing on financial matters and preventing potential competitors from messing with their business is something which mobile carriers are *really good* at.

What's happened when the government recently decided to introduce a fourth carrier has only shown it too well.

Edited 2010-11-19 23:47 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Headrush Member since:
2006-01-03

This move by Apple would threaten the very core of the carrier's business model

I don't understand this, can someone explain this?

How is the SIM card being provided by the carrier vs Apple changing anything.
(Other then a customer likely to stick with same carrier since they have their SIM already.)

Reply Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

(Other then a customer likely to stick with same carrier since they have their SIM already.)

It's not quite that. If I understood this story well, we're talking about a sort of rewritable SIM card. Apple only has to remotely reprogram that card for you to switch from one carrier to another.

Reply Score: 3

mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

"This move by Apple would threaten the very core of the carrier's business model

I don't understand this, can someone explain this?

How is the SIM card being provided by the carrier vs Apple changing anything.
"

Presently telcos lock you in with their SIM for the period of the contract - the device is locked to their SIM. If you choose to switch carriers during your contract period you have to pay them an out fee to unlock your phone. This option would be like selling an unlocked phone that Apple could, upon request, move to a different telco. It's like going from and iPhone to some Android based phones, they both have lock-ins, it's the extent of the lock and who controls it that changes.

Reply Score: 3

Headrush Member since:
2006-01-03

At least here in Canada still seems like they would maintain a fair amount of control with their normal 3 year contracts and high cancellation fees.

Reply Score: 2

mgl.branco Member since:
2009-07-22

At least here in Canada still seems like they would maintain a fair amount of control with their normal 3 year contracts and high cancellation fees.

3 years!?. Wow!.
Spanish contracts are on average of 18 months and from the first year on you can generally change telecom without having to pay any fee.

Reply Score: 1

Piranha Member since:
2008-06-24

Don't forget.. We don't get our phones unlocked when we get out of our contract.

Rogers and Telus (I've tried) will not give out the unlock codes. The usual way to unlock is to have someone online give out one based off an IMEI number.

Reply Score: 1

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Presently telcos lock you in with their SIM for the period of the contract - the device is locked to their SIM. If you choose to switch carriers during your contract period you have to pay them an out fee to unlock your phone. This option would be like selling an unlocked phone that Apple could, upon request, move to a different telco. It's like going from and iPhone to some Android based phones, they both have lock-ins, it's the extent of the lock and who controls it that changes.


New Zealand and Australia are two countries I know of which have contract phones but don't have SIM card locks - just because you have a contract doesn't mean that it has to have the SIM card locked because you're still going to have to keep paying the contract even if you destroyed the mobile phone or moved the sim from one device to another device. The idea that some how the business model is destroyed because of the lack of SIM lock in simply ignores how a contract operates and the fact that you keep paying regardless of whether you use *THAT* particular phone you pay for. If you want to get out of that contract then you have to pay to get out of it - normally paying the difference between the full price and subsidised price plus a small penalty.

Reply Score: 2

Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

It is the same in Germany. Sim lock is only used for pre-paid plans, where you can opt out at any time by simply not loading new money onto the phone.

The data plans an iphone ships with are not affected by that.

Edited 2010-11-20 21:07 UTC

Reply Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

It is the same in Germany. Sim lock is only used for pre-paid plans, where you can opt out at any time by simply not loading new money onto the phone.

The data plans an iphone ships with are not affected by that.


Even for prepaid's in New Zealand you purchase the phone out right and it isn't SIM locked - of course the $99 phones are the very low end Nokia phones designed for third world markets but if you really want a cheap phone that you fully own it is quite easy. Personally I'd sooner see all phones lose their subsidies and then when you sign up for a contract you get a rebate based on how long the contract is for - for example a 24 month contract might yield a $200 rebate effectively making some phones free.

Reply Score: 2

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

"Presently telcos lock you in with their SIM for the period of the contract - the device is locked to their SIM.


New Zealand and Australia are two countries I know of which have contract phones but don't have SIM card locks - just because you have a contract doesn't mean that it has to have the SIM card locked because you're still going to have to keep paying the contract even if you destroyed the mobile phone or moved the sim from one device to another device.
"

Canada is the same way, at least with GSM phones.

Telus and Bell, with their old CDMA phone, locked the phone number to the phone to the contract requiring lots of hoop-jumping and paperwork to swap phones mid-contract.

Rogers, though, the phone number is locked to the SIM and nothing else. What you do with the SIM is up to you. Nothing stops you from popping the SIM out of one phone, popping it into another phone, and making calls/transferring data as per normal. We've even used that to transfer phone books between phones when the wife has lost her phone. We regularly trade phones when hers is in the shop, so that I use the crappy loaner.

Don't know how Telus/Bell GMS/HSPA SIMs work, or how any of the PAYG companies work with SIM cards.

I've never understood the reasoning for keeping the SIM card internal to the phone, or locking a specific SIM to a specific card.

Reply Score: 2

Piranha Member since:
2008-06-24

I've NEVER experienced what you're talking about with Bell/Telus when switching phones mid contract.

I had gone through about 10 phones on the CDMA network. You can call into 611 and a rep will swap it (free, if you sweet talk them). They also have an online site to do it - but it costs $10.

It still sucks, but you're by no means locked to a single phone for your contract.

Reply Score: 1

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

You've been lucky, then.

Everyone I know that used Telus/Bell before their HSPA network roll-out had a horror story to tell about switching phones mid-contract. Especially with their "you can't transfer contacts/settings/etc between phones, but we can do it for $25 if you want" options.

It's one of the main reasons I've stuck with Rogers for so long. Their TDMA network was a heck of a lot better than whatever Telus used. And their migration to GSM was very smooth. And their policies around SIM cards have been very hands-off.

It's just too bad their selection of "good" phones sucks. It's still hard to beat their pricing, but without good phones (and no, I don't consider having the BB Torch and the iPhone4 "enough" when they have 0 Android phones worth using) it's getting harder and harder to stay with them.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Presently telcos lock you in with their SIM for the period of the contract - the device is locked to their SIM


This is not about the North American market though.

Reply Score: 2

binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

"They WILL cave in.


I doubt it. This move by Apple would threaten the very core of the carrier's business model, and remember, there are only a few carriers per country, and they're generally all owned by the same companies Europe-wide. If they agree together - as the FT states - to cease subsidies - Apple is in trouble.
"

Ah, but even if Apple didn't do this, as arstechnica points out, it may not matter:

The carriers may have more than Apple and the iPhone to worry about, though. The GSM Association, which helps define the standards used for mobile communications, announced Thursday that it was forming a task force to develop a standardized programmable SIM module expected to be used in devices launching in 2012.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/11/embedded-sim-could-cause-...

Reply Score: 4

Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

This is a long fight.

But the outcome is almost certain.

The bit pipe owners will become mere utilities competing on price per bits and nothing else. The idea that bit pipe owners (carriers, cable companies, etc) should have any power over the end user or be involved in delivering anything other than a bit pipe will come to be seen as an anachronism.

Apple is the strongest placed player to break the power of the bit pipe owners. Their fight has been complicated by the emergence of Android which has temporally assisted the bit pipe owners to resist Apple's attack. Apple has manoeuvred through and around the bit pipe owners power but its strategic direction is set - to destroy the power of the bit pipe owners. This latest manoeuvre is part of the bigger game, a tactical shift, but the war continues. Let's all hope that Apple wins and the bit pipe owners power is broken. Then the bits can flow freely.

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Let's all hope that Apple wins and the bit pipe owners power is broken. Then the bits can flow freely.


Except when those bits are critical of Apple, contain rumours about an upcoming product, nude people or pornography, or if those bits compete with Apple's bits, or... Or...

At least our carriers/ISPs here in The Netherlands don't care about what bits they send through, and at least our carriers/ISPs have actively been fighting big content and other anti-consumer, anti0privacy, and anti-freedom forces.

Carriers/ISPs > Apple.

Reply Score: 6

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Well, a lot of people really don't mind if a single company has sight and control on a large part of their life, so this might work anyway...

Examples are many. In the tech world, one may think of...
-Google, Facebook (obviously)
-Apple (considering how much information on a single individual can be extracted from an iTunes account)
-Microsoft (most of what happens on a PC nowadays goes through Windows and other black boxes from them)

Edited 2010-11-20 15:28 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

"Let's all hope that Apple wins and the bit pipe owners power is broken. Then the bits can flow freely.


Except when those bits are critical of Apple, contain rumours about an upcoming product, nude people or pornography, or if those bits compete with Apple's bits, or... Or...

At least our carriers/ISPs here in The Netherlands don't care about what bits they send through, and at least our carriers/ISPs have actively been fighting big content and other anti-consumer, anti0privacy, and anti-freedom forces.

Carriers/ISPs > Apple.
"

Once the power of the bit pipe owners is broken it will stay broken.

Then you can choose whether you want a curated experience or not.

No matter how big or powerful Apple get there will always be alternatives to Apple's curated model. Nothing Apple does comes close to the power and restrictions that the bit pipe owners currently have.

Try buying just one cable TV channel - the one you want - from a cable company. Impossible. In the future such restrictions will seem strange and weird.

If you want digital freedom then support those attacking the power of the bit pipe monopolists, even if that means supporting someone like Apple that you may have other differences with or whose product model you may dislike.

The key battle for digital freedom now is that to break the power of the bit pipe owners, everything else is secondary.

Reply Score: 3

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

This view of the situation is maybe a bit optimistic.

In the game of thrones that the telecom people play, getting rid of an enemy often means helping another one to get stronger, if it's not done right.

Nothing Apple does comes close to the power and restrictions that the bit pipe owners currently have.

As far as I know, most ISPs don't apply censorship on the Web we see, nor do they force us to browse the web exclusively through their home page. This is in contrast with the App Store model : you're forced to go through it if you want to install something on an Apple device, and content is censored on it for frivolous reasons (because a breast is shown somewhere, because Apple has a bad relationship with the brand creating it...).

It's a matter of opinion, of course, but I think that such censorship is a much more serious matter than monthly caps on bandwidth and DRMs on video. The latter are bad, obviously, but they do not violate basic constitutional rights.

Reply Score: 4

Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

This view of the situation is maybe a bit optimistic.

It's a matter of opinion, of course, but I think that such censorship is a much more serious matter than monthly caps on bandwidth and DRMs on video. The latter are bad, obviously, but they do not violate basic constitutional rights.


Try this. Contact your cable TV company and tell them you don't want any bundles, you only want three particular channels, and ask them how much that costs. The answer you will get of course is fuck off.

You buy TV their way not the way that every single cable consumer actually wants to buy TV.

That's the bit pipe owner's power that is threatened by the rise of the net in your pocket, the net everywhere.

Who will break that power - Google?

Microsoft?

FaceBook?

Or Apple perhaps.

Like it or loathe it Apple is the best hope we have of seeing such power broken, nobody else is even trying.

Reply Score: 2

Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

We are talking ISPs not cable companies, but point taken; where the two overlap, cable companies are often pretty bad. Where internet providers have succesfully challenged the old cable companies you typically have better service and better rates.

Edited 2010-11-22 00:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Maybe it's true in the United States, but in France (maybe in the EU in general, I don't know) it's illegal to sell things in bundle without selling them separately to customers requesting it, even though companies are not forced to advertise this possibility publicly.

If I go to the supermarket, see a pack of soda can, but only want one, I can open the pack and take one, then go at the entry of the shop, and they'll be forced to accept it. This also applies to more immaterial things : ISPs would love to sell us all Internet+TV+Phone plans, but internet-only plans exist for a reason.

As for the rest... Well, I think the other person proposing an explanation of this in this thread has a better chance to be right than you. Apple is a big company. Company's primary goal is to get money, and since the invention of shareholders they need an ever-increasing flow of money. This need for a flow of money in exponential growth is a destructive cycle which at some point always end up being harmful to customers. There's no room for the idealistic guys you imagine at Apple in a world of money, only for some birds of prey who run circles above us in a more or less subtle fashion, though we don't know how they'll rip our internals off yet.

The exponential monster requires an ever-increasing set of compromises to feed him, and with things like iTunes and the App Store I think that Apple have shown how much they nowadays care about customer freedom reasonably well.

Edited 2010-11-22 07:17 UTC

Reply Score: 2

werpu Member since:
2006-01-18

This is a long fight.

But the outcome is almost certain.

The bit pipe owners will become mere utilities competing on price per bits and nothing else. The idea that bit pipe owners (carriers, cable companies, etc) should have any power over the end user or be involved in delivering anything other than a bit pipe will come to be seen as an anachronism.

Apple is the strongest placed player to break the power of the bit pipe owners. Their fight has been complicated by the emergence of Android which has temporally assisted the bit pipe owners to resist Apple's attack. Apple has manoeuvred through and around the bit pipe owners power but its strategic direction is set - to destroy the power of the bit pipe owners. This latest manoeuvre is part of the bigger game, a tactical shift, but the war continues. Let's all hope that Apple wins and the bit pipe owners power is broken. Then the bits can flow freely.




Problem here is that apple just wants to take away the power and use it itself, unless the entire handling is done by a third party I would not trust either of them. The status quo here at least is that if you travel you just get yourself another sim card and drop it into your phone, if you have an unlocked phone which is easy to get.
What now happens then is that you are dependend on the current mood of uncle Steve for that, do you really want that?

Reply Score: 4

klon Member since:
2010-11-20

But can they force thier (Mobile virtual Network Operators) MVNOs to stop the subsidies, here in the UK there are a plethora of MVNOs most nowhere near as big as the network providers but they provide competitive rates. If they were to take on the iPhone then the network providers are up sh*ts creek.

ps - OSnews, FT is behind a pay wall but if you register (free)you get to read 3 articles a month.

Reply Score: 1

A logical next step
by shotsman on Fri 19th Nov 2010 22:52 UTC
shotsman
Member since:
2005-07-22

for Apple.
Let's take T-Mobile. Thay have plans for both Android & iPhones. For most people having 900 (iPhone) or 1200 (Android) minutes is meaningless. By this I mean that they'll never get to 900 mins let alone 1200 in a month.
So why is the Android phone £5.00 a month more than the iPhone.
Wasn't the Android proposition one that it was going to be cheaper than the evil iPhone?

So Apple will be able to sell you an unlocked iPhone. Already, you can buy a sim card from any of the UK networks and use it on any plan you want probably saving you a whole wad of cash over a two year period.

This is just the net step. Now you won't need a different sim card. This will (I hope) lead to users being able to switch networks and take their phone number with them. Could this be a little more power to the user? If so then rock on Apple.

Edited 2010-11-19 22:53 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: A logical next step
by Morty on Fri 19th Nov 2010 23:44 UTC in reply to "A logical next step"
Morty Member since:
2005-07-06

This will (I hope) lead to users being able to switch networks and take their phone number with them.

This is already possible in most of Europe, if not all, regardless of carrier. Anything else is really so last century. You should really start to demand better consumer rights, rather than thinking changing the leash from carriers to Apple wil gain you in the end.

I have kept the same number for more than 10 years, although having switched carriers 7 or 8 times. (For about 4 or 5 of those I used it for work, and it was paid for and hence legally owned by my employer.) Changing is easy, you only need to inform the new carrier and they have to handle the transfer of the number from your old. And send you a new sim card.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: A logical next step
by sagum on Sat 20th Nov 2010 12:16 UTC in reply to "RE: A logical next step"
sagum Member since:
2006-01-23

Same with me Morty. I've had the same number for a little over 12 years now, had 2 simcards replaced (lost and a broken) and tried every big carrier in the UK as well as a few little ones that poped up and have kept the same SIM card AND phone number when I transfered to them, and I'm not even on contract anymore, just PAYG.

What annoys me is when people get a new phone each year and they're like oh yeah sorry you couldn't contact me for the last few months... here's my new number... and I'm like WTH just keep your number!
Of course it falls on deaf ears. They dont want to know.


I think Apple setting up the transfer of the number would be great, stop people changing to new number every 12months.

For anyone else who wants to keep their number, the process is pretty easy. You get the PAC code from your old provider, and forward it to your new provider. At least thats how it is setup to work in the UK.

I can only assume Apple is wanting to roll the same experiance out over Euroland for everyone else.

Edited 2010-11-20 12:20 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: A logical next step
by dizzey on Sat 20th Nov 2010 14:46 UTC in reply to "A logical next step"
dizzey Member since:
2005-10-15

cant we do that already.
in sweden when i switch carrier i always keep my number.
it really is not somthing that you need to keep your sim card

Reply Score: 2

RE: A logical next step
by elsewhere on Sun 21st Nov 2010 21:26 UTC in reply to "A logical next step"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

This is just the net step. Now you won't need a different sim card. This will (I hope) lead to users being able to switch networks and take their phone number with them. Could this be a little more power to the user? If so then rock on Apple.


That's hard to reconcile with Apple's current business model. They don't want empowered users, they provide a carefully controlled experience that favors Apple.

I don't doubt they would like to play the carriers off against each other, they had no qualms about doing that in Canada for instance, but any benefit to the customer is incidental. Their model is built on locking customers in.

An internal SIM card allows Apple to control which carriers will be permitted to "support" the iPhone on their network, which is counter to the whole point of the GSM standard. It will also discourage users from swapping to and from a competing handset (ie. I used to simply swap my SIM between my 3GS and Nexus One at will), and by tying the process to iTunes could be used to lock the phone to a user account to discourage reselling used handsets. They wrestle many of the providers into providing hefty subsidies to ensure that iPhone users are able to easily upgrade their models on a regular basis and would probably prefer that the upgraded handsets are retired rather than recycled.

Unlike Google, who basically sees the mobile platform as a method of driving users to online services, Apple's business is built around selling hardware a sweet margins and using their online services like iTunes to lock customers to the hardware. Apple doesn't get a piece of the pie when someone sells their old handset to get a new one.

Apple's expertise is providing user experience, but that should never be confused with empowering users. My speculation aside, this is a move that simply gives Apple too much control over the user's hardware. The existing SIM card paradigm empowers users with choice when available, Apple's move will seek to limit that.

Just my 2c.

Reply Score: 6

No reduction
by jonsmirl on Fri 19th Nov 2010 23:12 UTC
jonsmirl
Member since:
2005-07-06

In the US the contract price is the same with a subsidized phone vs a non-subsided one so always take the subsidized phone since it is effectively free. I get a new phone every two years even if I don't need it, I just want new free batteries.

If contracts were cheaper without subsidized phones, I'd stop doing this. But I don't get to make that choice.

Reply Score: 3

RE: No reduction
by Moredhas on Sat 20th Nov 2010 00:15 UTC in reply to "No reduction"
Moredhas Member since:
2008-04-10

On Optus, in Australia, the contracts are no cheaper, but include more call value for people who bring their own phones.

Reply Score: 2

RE: No reduction
by bosco_bearbank on Sat 20th Nov 2010 02:06 UTC in reply to "No reduction"
bosco_bearbank Member since:
2005-10-12

Actually, T-mobile does offer a reduced price without a contract - $49.99/mo vs. $59.99/mo for a family plan w/ two lines, 700 min/mo.

Reply Score: 1

RE: No reduction
by WereCatf on Sat 20th Nov 2010 04:54 UTC in reply to "No reduction"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

In the US the contract price is the same with a subsidized phone vs a non-subsided one so always take the subsidized phone since it is effectively free. I get a new phone every two years even if I don't need it, I just want new free batteries.

Here in Finland it's completely vice versa; contracts without a phone can be as little as a euro a month, and if you want a phone with your contract you have to pay 30 or 40 euro a month. So obviously, if you have a working phone or have bought one from somewhere else where it's cheaper then it's also obviously cheaper to just get a contract without a phone.

This will (I hope) lead to users being able to switch networks and take their phone number with them.

This has been possible here for years now. When you open a contract they always ask if you want your old number transferred to them and if you do they'll take care of all that's involved. It works even if you make the contract online on their website. It really couldn't get any easier.

Edited 2010-11-20 04:56 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: No reduction
by jsvensso on Sat 20th Nov 2010 21:31 UTC in reply to "RE: No reduction"
jsvensso Member since:
2007-09-06

Yes keeping your number (MNP - Mobile Number Partability) when switching operator is old here in Sweden as well and I believe it is commonly used. (Although we seem to have very slow system/rules according to wiki.)


And what I can see on wiki it should be possible in US as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_number_portability

Reply Score: 1

RE: No reduction
by vocivus on Sun 21st Nov 2010 21:08 UTC in reply to "No reduction"
vocivus Member since:
2010-03-13

In the US the contract price is the same with a subsidized phone vs a non-subsided one so



Not so with T-mo. Their plan is cheaper per month if you buy the handset up-front. They call it the "even more plus" plan as opposed to the "even more" plan, and it has the obvious benefit of being a non-contract plan. You can bail at any time.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Gregory Isaacs
by Gregory Isaacs on Fri 19th Nov 2010 23:21 UTC
Gregory Isaacs
Member since:
2006-06-30

Yes, I believe they'll cave in as well. They will take their share offered by Apple. All those providers are fighting for a share of a small piece of cake and they'll take every tiny bit they can get.

Reply Score: 1

I hate SIMs
by Moredhas on Sat 20th Nov 2010 00:12 UTC
Moredhas
Member since:
2008-04-10

There are two things a SIM does. They store a small amount of data, i.e., your contacts, and they have a unique fifteen digit number. This number tells the telco which account that phone is using. On a daily basis, I think I must replace half a dozen SIMs that have stopped working for some reason or other (for those who don't stalk my comments, I work in a phone shop). In my opinion, we should replace SIMs with username/password logins. How cool would it be if you left your phone at home and didn't want to waste someone else's credit: Just log them out, search for your carrier and log in, suddenly you're on YOUR phone account. Or if you buy a new phone, just log in, no fuss. It just removes one more thing that can fail if we were to dump SIMs entirely and instead use usernames and passwords.

Reply Score: 3

RE: I hate SIMs
by ozonehole on Sat 20th Nov 2010 00:40 UTC in reply to "I hate SIMs"
ozonehole Member since:
2006-01-07

In my opinion, we should replace SIMs with username/password logins.


I can see a real problem with this: security. I can imagine a huge market in stolen usernames/passwords. If you think it's bad already with disputes about carriers overbilling customers, just wait until it's possible to steal login information. I'm not sure I'd even want to have a cell phone under those circumstances, unless I used a pre-pay plan (which would limit the damage if I got hacked).

SIM cards may wear out eventually, but it takes a long time. I've never had a SIM card wear out on me - my current one is 3 years old. A friend of mine did have it happen, but the card was 8 years old and replacement was free. How many electronic devices last that long?

Edited 2010-11-20 01:00 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: I hate SIMs
by Moredhas on Sat 20th Nov 2010 01:45 UTC in reply to "RE: I hate SIMs"
Moredhas Member since:
2008-04-10

Honestly, I think most phones are frying SIM cards, because I regularly see the same customers back every month or so, their SIMs not working for some reason or other, and I haven't had to replace mine since I got this phone number four years ago.

As for security, it's already possible to mimic SIMs, I think, even if it is a little tricky.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: I hate SIMs
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 20th Nov 2010 01:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I hate SIMs"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I have the one and the same SIM they gave me 6 years ago. Still works.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: I hate SIMs
by anevilyak on Sat 20th Nov 2010 16:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I hate SIMs"
anevilyak Member since:
2005-09-14

That makes two of us, mine's almost 7 years old now.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I hate SIMs
by mfaudzinr on Sat 20th Nov 2010 08:13 UTC in reply to "RE: I hate SIMs"
mfaudzinr Member since:
2008-02-13

The latest mobile offering in Malaysia is a 4G implementation. And it is simless I believe. Just use username/password to log in. I've registered early. I don't really have problem with that. But of course there's always the danger of the telco being hacked...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I hate SIMs
by Soulbender on Sat 20th Nov 2010 17:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I hate SIMs"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

.

Edited 2010-11-20 17:55 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I hate SIMs
by phoenix on Sun 21st Nov 2010 04:26 UTC in reply to "RE: I hate SIMs"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

While it's possible to clone SIMs and what not, two-factor authentication (something you have, the SIM, and something you know, the PIN) will always be more secure than one-factor authentication (something you know, the username/password).

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: I hate SIMs
by Moredhas on Sun 21st Nov 2010 21:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I hate SIMs"
Moredhas Member since:
2008-04-10

The SIM pin is data stored on the individual SIM though. To steal serrvice, you don't need a full copy of the SIM, you just need it to announce the sam SIM number to the network, which you can read off the physical card itself.

Reply Score: 2

whats the big deal?
by Soulbender on Sat 20th Nov 2010 17:34 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

Activating thru Apple or not, you still need a plan with the carrier in order to use their network.
It makes it easier to change carrier? Really? I can already switch carriers to my hearts content simply by swapping out the SIM. Heck, I could even get a dual-sim phone if I wanted. How does involving Apple improve anything?

Reply Score: 3

Sweet!
by mweichert on Sun 21st Nov 2010 14:59 UTC
mweichert
Member since:
2006-03-23

This would be very nice!

Reply Score: 1

Bad for consumers
by unoengborg on Mon 22nd Nov 2010 01:34 UTC
unoengborg
Member since:
2005-07-06

I fail to see how this will hurt the carriers, Apple would have to pay the carriers to have something to activate.

However, it would probably be bad for the consumers, now you can use different SIM cards in different countries, or one SIM card for work and one for personal use.

My guess is that this will be much more complicated if you have to involve Apple to remotely reprogram your built in SIM. I could even imagine that there would be some fee involved. Either to Apple or to the carriers, or perhaps to both Apple and the carriers.

Reply Score: 3

Apple's SIM not pro-consumer
by TemporalBeing on Mon 22nd Nov 2010 19:07 UTC
TemporalBeing
Member since:
2007-08-22

Seriously, the change locks you into Apple too - since you cannot pull the SIM and switch devices. You're stuck with getting another SIM or getting another phone from Apple that support it.

As a consumer/customer this is not something I would want.

For instance, my Motorola v180 had a GSM/2G SIM with it. After I got my Nexus One, I simply asked for GSM/3G SIM, switch it out, and was on my way. If I wanted to switch to T-Mobile, I could just switch the SIM.

With Apple's proposal, I'd be locked into whatever SIM came with the phone, and only that phone or buying a new phone from Apple. Thanks, but no thanks.

Even here in the USA, I'd side with the carriers on that one as it's no better than what Verizon does for their phones.

Reply Score: 2