Probably the most interesting thing from Apple today, in my opinion. The ability to buy short term plans from different providers effortlessly can turn my tablet into a much more versatile device, and increase competition and reduce long-term carrier lock-in.
It's pretty sweet and if it can set a standard for phones then we'll see carriers become true utilities between which customers can switch easily if they get poor service. In short, pretty awesome.
Today's carrier system kind of feels like this dinosaur, like a landline... archaic and unnecessary. With so many people travelling, changing places, changing technology etc, it makes a lot of sense to move from subscriptions to short-time payments, and eventually, pay-per second of use on the fly, directly, without an account or monthly statement, with a push payment instead of a pull payment. (digital currencies being a key element here). Anyway, getting a bit too off-topic here, but cool first move by Apple for sure!
There's nothing new about "soft" SIM cards. The problem has been that carriers like them locked to their own services. (This is true in Europe and I assume in the US also...)
> it makes a lot of sense to move from subscriptions to short-time payments
It makes sense for the consumer, but I don't think that's in the financial interest of the companies who have worked hard to make long-term service agreements for you phone something that is colloquially accepted in North America. I'm with you, I'd like to see the market change. Just.. don't hold your breath.
I understnad Pay-As-You-Go is much bigger in the UK, I wonder if that's because the companies there never tried to push long-term agreements of if they've actually found PAYG more profitable.
I think the real issue is that US customers (at least) have been conditioned to think of a smart phone as something that costs between $0 and $300 due to the common use of contracts and subsidies. Even if a carrier offers a non-contract plan, they are often not that much better as far as price (with some exceptions like TMobile and some MVNOs), so they balk at paying $650-850 for a handset.
That was one of the things I liked most about the Nexus 5 when it came out. Even unlocked you were getting a current gen phone, unlocked, worked with three major carriers and many MVNOs, and only cost $350. At that point, it's not as tough to make the jump and ditch the contract. Without the contract, you can just leave if a competitor offers a better deal or if your carrier screws you over.
Even with this new SIM, I imagine you're still either gonna pay full price or you're gonna get it subsidized with a contract and then have the option of flipping over to some secondary plan when needed. Might be good for smaller carriers with good rates but less coverage. Phone works great at home but drops off when you go to another town? Just flip to a prepaid SIM from a cheap prepaid carrier with service in the area.
shrug Just paid $750 for an iPhone 6, unlocked. The alternative was renting it from my carrier for a similar amount, divided into 24 months, and being handcuffed to them for unlocks and the like. By using BYOD pricing on my ATT plan, I pay less every month than I would on a subsidy.
Yeah, I'm not everyone, but arguing that "most people" won't do what I did is kind of missing the point-- they already DO pay that much, just not all at once. It's kind of crazier when you realize what people are paying without knowing it.
The subsidies are going away -- ATT and Verizon in the US are forcing people into their monthly payment plans -- which is kind of nice, because people actually see what they're paying instead of just seeing it "bundled".
You have to realize that it really wasn't until recently that you could do BYOD on the networks. They wouldn't give you a discount at all for owning the device outright, even at the end of the 2 year contract. There was no benefit to having paid $750 for a phone, except if you really really wanted that particular phone. The best math then was to upgrade to a new phone as soon as your contract ended. Otherwise, you were paying the built-in $10/mo or whatever for old tech. Far better to shell out $0-$200 for a new phone on contract and lock-in for another 2 years.
even when i was on the old unlimited-only-in-name from att which was the same price with a subsided device or not, having my own device still allowed me to:
- avoid crazy fees out of nowhere for canceling (wife had one refurbished $99 note ii. when canceling had to pay almost $200 on top of the values in the contract)
- be able to use own device overseas.
- not have sleazy device protection insurance BS added every month and you having to call in to cancel
One thing I learned is that there are things in life you shouldn't be cheap about, and one of them is most definitely a smartphone. You're buying a device you'll be using every day, likely pulling it up for few seconds every little while. You definitely don't want to have a smartphone that looks like crap, hangs up all the time and in the end won't let you do half of the things it was supposed to do. This would be introducing an incredibly big source of frustrations into your daily routine. I wouldn't be surprised if additional psychiatrist bill would be bigger than money saved on the phone.
I was stuck for three years with a crapphone (LG P150) that was too weak to lift its own operating system (Android). After those three years of torture (and using it only for calls and text messages, as turning on Internet would max out the processing power and memory and would require taking out the battery) I can say such phones should not be allowed on the market. Especially not pushed by telecoms on contracts. It's especially sad to look at people who get burned by this when buying their first smartphones. It's basically a story of shattered dreams. It's just evil.
So folks, either buy a dumbphone (if all you need is text and calls), or shell out for some decent tech. Buy that Nexus or S4. It's worth the money.
My SO switched to the same thing about 4 or 5 months ago. She was paying $40/mo with AT&T and had a crappy alcatel lucent phone. She has absolutely loved the Moto G. It is very, very similar to the Galaxy Nexus with a few updates. Definitely a good deal!
I completely agree with you. My point is that, in 2014, $750 is way more than twice as much as it costs to get a phone that exhibits exactly zero of the problems you describe. In fact, that has been true since at least 2012, when I bought the Nexus 4 that I'm still using.
So I agree, shell out for some decent tech, it's totally worth the money, but be excited that it only costs a couple hundred bucks to do so!
I agree. I'm used to european prices and also haven't consider that Nexus phones are actually quite cheap. I bought my current phone (S4) over a year ago for around $650.
I'm going to stick to buying high-end phones now and yes, I'm excited to learn it's not as expensive as I thought anymore :).
This reminds me of a comment from cockeyed.com's article about the price of an XBox One from the rent-to-own shop Aaron's [1]. The concept is the same, large payment up front is much cheaper than renting, if you can do it.
> $2,082 for a game console? Have you lost your mind?
> This is a ridiculous retail proposition. What fool would sign up for this?
> Not me, but I couldn't help noticing that Aaron's Xbox price ($79/month for 24 months) is the exact price and duration of my AT&T wireless contract which I signed to take delivery of my fancy new Galaxy Note smartphone.
I was quite surprised at how many people were surprised I bought my N5 outright last year, but I now pay nearly a third for a SIM only plan than others are paying for their smartphone plans.
Have converted a few people to that mindset - but (let's ignore the point about if you don't have much cash, locking yourself into a long term phone contract isn't smart, people will do it anyway), it is easier for people who live month to month to have it bundled like that, it's a bit like buying a sofa from DFS on credit...
Help me understand the math. With contract I pay $200. Without I pay $750. Difference = $550. Divided by 24 months = $23. Do I pay more than that to ATT each month? Assumption is that I get a new phone every 2 yrs which I have been for the past many cycles.
With a prepaid provider, I pay $50/month for unlimited internet, calling, and texting. There are no extra taxes or "recovery charges".
$750 + ($50 * 24) = $1950
Last I checked, AT&T was about $100/month. It also charges a $36 "upgrade fee".
$36 + $200 + ($100 * 24) = $2636
That also assumes you upgrade immediately after paying your 24th month of service. Otherwise, tack on $50 overpayment for every month you wait to upgrade.
May be I am missing something (I am not in the US). But, do you have to pay rent for the device if you go for the subsidised option? If so, then its not a subsidy. If it is a subsidy, then you are clearly gaining the subsidised amount. The only thing that you are losing is the ability to switch carriers for the contract period. Also, are you not allowed to choose a plan of your choice if you go for a subsidised phone?
The "subsidies" are not truly subsidies, they are built into the contract prices. At least in the EU every operator offers SIM-only contracts (though they may or may not advertise them), because not doing so would be a clear and blatant violation of EU anti-tying regulations, and they are always cheaper.
To the extent you are getting a real subsidy, it will be if the carrier decides to forgo margins on the device.
This isn't always true, though it's typically only not true when operators are throwing ridiculous offers at people who are trying to leave them. Similarly, I got phone a few years back at a ridiculous student-only deal. Both cases ended up with me paying about £200 more over the whole contract than I would've with SIM-only contracts, and both got me phones that retail for more than double that.
For any bundle they are offering they should have a non-zero cost in acquiring the phone, in which case they'd have a very hard time to justify not letting you sign up to an unbundled agreement where at the very least the cost of the phone is removed. They'd almost certainly be breaking the law if they do (of course that doesn't necessary mean they aren't doing it though)
Same here. I'm on AT&T, but bought an unlocked Verizon iPhone 6. I may not end up switching carriers in the next two years, but it's nice to have the extra flexibility for the same price I'd end up paying if I went with subsidized or Next plans.
Yeah, they sell off-contract Verizon phones at the fruit store. They're unlocked GSM global phones, pretty sweet. I got one because they were all my store had and immediately popped in my T-Mo SIM.
I paid ~$350 for a used S4 that I got activated on PagePlus. Why would I pay $80 a month to a big named carrier who keeps charging me rent on the phone after its paid off? (My plan is $39 for unlimited voice/text+1GB data, I used to do 500mb+1.2k min+3k texts for $29/mo).
Page Plus is truly amazing, especially now that they support 4G (but 3.5 Mbps throttle) as of a couple weeks ago. I just set someone up with a gently used S3 for ~$140, which if you compare specs to the S4, isn't much of a step down.
The carriers should be required to tell the customer the total price, including the contract. Perhaps then the consumers would know what they are signing up to. And the contract length should be limited, given how volatile and fast moving the market is.
Verizon told me the full price of my 6 and how that was broken down based on two different plans I could choose.
In the end since I had completed and past the end of my contract on the 4s the 6 was free. Pay 200 to get it and get 200 back for returning the 4s.
There are some good deals out there but most people don't look for them or worse ignore them. There are people won't do the 4s or such trade in because "its a hassle". Yeah, they mail you mailer and you send it back in postage paid. Oh, fill out a form on the site to start the process.
There are people who don't care what the true price is just as there are people who don't want to know; they aren't the same people
Actually, you aren't aware of the full price of your contract either. The second you get the opportunity to upgrade you should take it and seek to maximize the value of the discount you get.
Phone upgrades are like a call option you get every two years but since you had a 4S you let some time slide in between excercing. If you didn't like the 5s the better move would have been to upgrade anyway and immediately sell the phone, possibly saving the money to buy one later or spend it on something else.
The longer you wait to upgrade, once you have the ability, the less your upgrade is worth to you as the carrier has already made the discount back (and then some) through your payments.
The optimal strategy is to hit it as soon as you get it.
This is why I don't like this model. I don't need or want to spend money on a new phone every two years, but if I don't exercise the option, I'm leaving money on the table.
I think the optimal strategy is to avoid "buying" the option to begin with, get a cheap unsubsidized plan, get an inexpensive phone, and keep it for three to five years.
The full details of the contract are available right there on the contract. Not sure what more you think it would be reasonable to expect.
The length of the contract is usually limited to two years. Do you think we should have laws forbidding contracts of this duration? Why? Both parties are free to reject contracts they think are too long (or too short).
With the Nexus phones (previous versions at least) you could get them at a reasonable price direct from Google. Most of my friends bought direct from Google. I understand Apple let's you buy a phone direct as well, though they're prices aren't/weren't as reasonable.
Hopefully this helps to set the precedent that you can have your cake and eat it too (Have a reasonable phone at a reasonable price).
Originally in the UK market contracts were the norm. Then Pay-As-You-Go opened the cellphone market up to teenagers, people on a limited budget, and people who used cellphones infrequently. That combined with the release of the Nokia 5150 and Nokia 3310 phones drove the market away from contracts.
Plus in the UK the regulator is much more active in promoting competition (VNOs, Number Portability, tariff changes are all things the regulator has done to promote competition). In the US the regulator couldn't care less.
The first successful MVNO in the US came only 3 years after the first successful MVNO in the UK and mobile number portability was put into law in 2003 for both the US and the UK. The additional benefit is that because mobile numbers and wired numbers share the same area code base in the US, US number portability is basically universal. I don't see the basis based upon your listed criteria for saying that the FCC cares any less or that Ofcom cares any more about promoting competition.
Slightly unrelated but I find the idea of a mobile phone sharing an area code with landlines utterly bewildering. A phone, that by definition has no fixed abode, is now tied to a location and subject to long distance charges based on that location (As it was explained to me in Canada at least).
In a time when mobile phones were scarce, putting them on a local area code ensures that a large portion of their usage (calling to and from landlines within a geographic space that actually IS limited) doesn't require additional long distance charges for everyone. These days it may seem like a quirk, but really what 20-year-old technology decision doesn't?
T-Mobile has moved off long-term contracts almost entirely. AT&T is pushing their Next program hard, which decouples phone buying from the subscription (I believe you have to pay off the phone if you cancel, but the payments are separate and you don't lose out on a subsidy). Things seem to be moving pretty fast in that direction, and I'm hopeful.
T-Mobile does something basically equivalent, where they give you a line item on your bill for the device payment plus a line item for your subscription.
If this kind of card gets common I may have to buy one if I do any serious business travel again. It would be nice to never have to roam again, and instead simply make arrangements with a local carrier myself via the card.
This is kind of unclear, but are you saying T-Mobile's model is equivalent to the traditional carrier subsidy model? It really isn't, precisely because of the separation you mention - you can choose not to buy a new phone and you won't pay for it every month. With the traditional subsidy model, since the subsidy is included in the base price, you're paying for the subsidy whether or not you're using it.
PAYG and contract both exist in the uk. Initially you had to be able to get credit to get a contract, so eg kids got PAYG. The carriers preferred contracts as it was guaranteed income. Its a bit more flexible now, people choose what they want.
I'm actually with the subscription model, it gives you peace of mind. The thing is it's done bad in the US.
Here in Israel there was a big carrier "revolution" and now you can get a subscription for about $25 a month that gives you 6gb of surfing (then it slows you down), unlimited calls & text and access to this plan in several countries such as the UK and France, with more coming. For other countries it just costs something like 10 cents a minute for an outgoing call.
This way I only pay a fixed amount of money a month and spare the flux.
I definitely agree with this. It represents an interesting power shift; before the core technology was your SIM, and your phone shifted around your carrier. Apple kind of wants to change this by making it so that the iPhone is at the center, with the carrier being subservient to the consumers' whims. I would think this is a step too far for most carriers, but then again, Apple got carriers to agree to it...
In a truly competitive system there would be no need to ever conciously think about the carrier you were using. Your data would just be routed securely using the best means available and people would compete to be the best connection. Instead we have an absurd situation where carriers want to prevent customers using their product!
In a truly non-competitive system, we might be more conscious and more connected. Our internet connections might be routed using free high-speed publicly available internet and people would complain. Instead we have an absurd situation where a cartel of so-called "carriers" charge paying customers a toll for using the internet!
The end result of such a system would probably be to charge websites for last mile bandwidth instead of users. In a system with thousands of small ISPs that could actually work well to fund bandwidth expansion. Of course at that point everything would move to P2P and the system would break again.
I used that word because I assumed that someone would complain that my suggestion is insecure. Of course the internet is entirely built around sending data publically across networks that you cannot trust. If you are building a new system to route data intelligently from the first hop it would make sense to include an encryption standard to make it less bad than the status quo. Having different classes of trusted networks just encourages a false sense of safety.
AT&T, unless they've taken it away again yet, offers an iPad plan that's $25 for 1G or 3 months whichever comes first. Which is kind of sort of a short term plan.
The linked article suggests it's a method to save space in the hardware design so the SIM is not user serviceable. However, it also forces you to only buy data service from Apple approved carriers. Notice in the screen shot from the OP's article that Cricket or any of the more affordable MVNO's are not available as options.
This change is just as much about control over where you spend your carrier dollars (and, possibly, Apple getting a kickback) as it is about saving space.
People are missing the point that there isn't an actual sim card now, that you don't get the "apple" convenience AND the ability to pop in some random carrier's. It's convenience at the cost of flexibility.
That's actually pretty terrible. I was thinking it was a SIM card with some Apple-designed logic in it. Not a baked-in SIM card. I wasn't really considering the device but now it's out of the question. Hopefully they don't do the same thing to their phones.
I really don't like the sound of this. The SIM card is the one thing that keeps mobile service relatively divorced from the hardware. I can keep the same phone but change SIM whenever it suits. I can also take change hardware and just move the SIM.
I don't need to ask my provider or hardware OEM for permission. I have control. In the Apple scenario I'm giving this up. I vaguely remember some wrangling with GSMA over this.
Ultimately, as with many Apple products, we'll be trading control for convenience.
Now, yes. I'm fine with that. But there were already rumblings years ago about them wanting to take the SIM out of the equation. Obviously that's their goal. As long as the GSMA doesn't allow that (since the GSM standard mandates a SIM card) then this is a fine solution.
If switching, a user no longer has to wait on delivery of a small physical item from the new carrier. The user doesn't have to fiddle with a paperclip to pop out the SIM. (Average user could be scared to do so, or could scratch/bend the rather fragile SIM tray). It could all theoretically be done from a settings menu.
In the 6+ years I spent in Silicon Valley, I entered a Walgreens every three months to pick up a prescription, and probably could've dispensed with that if I'd taken half an hour to figure out my provider's online thing.
Other than that and the rare emergency, everything else (yes, including groceries) was ordered online and delivered to my home. The only businesses I routinely entered were my workplace and restaurants.
Why should I have to go to some stupid store to get a SIM card when I could just switch online in 30 seconds?
> Why should I have to go to some stupid store to get a SIM card when I could just switch online in 30 seconds?
Because online you'll be limited to whoever Apple has a deal with. SIM cards are about freedom. Sure, an online infrastructure and the laws to force an implementation of it are technically simple, and could be done, but with thousands of carriers in 200 countries, it's never going to be all-encompassing. SIM cards being mandated in the GSM standard in 1991 was amazingly forward-thinking and we have a lot to thank for it today.
> Any piece of hardware which is replaced by software is a win for consumers.
Replacing physical books and optical media with online DRM was a huge loss for consumers. Being able to remotely revoke the right to use something you bought is incredibly onerous.
> However that's a big step beyond a carrier locked phone at the hardware level like it used to be
"like it used to be"? Unlocked phones have always been easily available.
Whether it's a loss or win is dependent on the consumer's preferences, not your opinion. Consumer votes so far say that you're wrong, very wrong in fact. Consumers on average are having no problems with Amazon DRM.
It's a huge win for me. I will trade the DRM from Amazon in exchange for the hyper convenience, built-in lighting, and numerous other features of a kindle reader that holds hundreds of books, so that when I fly I don't have to lug around physical books. Not to mention I can only carry a few books with me when I travel, whereas with the kindle I can carry practically unlimited. Last but not least, kindle books are cheaper and should always be.
Consumers are overwhelmingly agreeing with me, the kindle is vastly superior to traditional books. They agree so emphatically, within another decade it's likely that over 3/4 of all book sales will be digital. Consumers didn't have to be dragged into that world, they went willingly: they chose the kindle + Amazon while traditional books were still very widely available and easy to purchase.
That's because the average consumer is generally unaware or apathetic of all the negative aspects of DRM - until it inconveniences them massively - and it's to the advantage of the companies that they be kept unaware. The convenience aspect is appealing but you can have even more convenience without DRM. I don't have to "lug around physical books either"; I have a few hundred DRM-free PDFs on my laptop which runs a free and open-source operating system, and I can read or copy between devices or do whatever else I want with those files, whenever I want.
I would love that, but it's a utopian vision. Apple will create a closed system only for them. Google will create a separate system. Firefox OS or any future competitors will be screwed over.
The GSM standard was possible in 1981 when it was designed by a handful of public telecoms and regulators in Europe who had consumer protection and intra-european competition as a stated goal.
The new standard will be designed by corporate behemoths who's goal is lock-in and a competitive advantage (not just Apple and Google but companies like AT&T and Vodafone who want to kill MVNOs).
As I said, European regulators -- both telecom and competition -- would not look kindly on such an outcome. In the US, the FCC is also unlikely to like it, nor will courts.
You're basically saying that the outcome of a new standards process will be obviously illegal.
In Europe, everyone I know who has a cellphone knows what a SIM is (even grannies), and they know this is the item connecting their phone to their service subscription.
I guess to people from the US this may seem "foreign", but it's really simple and it really works.
Exactly, I was speaking from a US perspective. The historical reason for this is in Europe, interoperability as you travel between countries was a priority, so a single European protocol (GSM) with a removable, interchangeable SIM developed.
In America, competition/free market was the priority so the result was many non-compatible digital protocols (CDMA/TDMA/Nextel/GSM). In the US, if you're switching carriers, you are probably throwing away your phone and getting a new (subsidized) one from your new carrier. Even if you are moving from a GSM to another GSM carrier, because of the subsidies the old SIM is probably locked to your old carrier and it might be cheaper to get a new, subsidized one anyway.
This is silly. I'm an Indian (country with largest penetration of mobile phones, primarily GSM) and I can reasonably say that a large majority of the population knows exactly what a SIM card is.
Phones here are not appliances that you buy from the carrier. The device and the service are properly decoupled enough that people know the difference.
I would argue that most people inserted the SIM in their phone themselfs. People switch carries all the time and most carries don't have stores, so who would put in the SIM if the customer doesn't?
If you buy the phone and SIM on the carries website, you don't get the SIM and phone in separate packages, so again who would insert the SIM if not the customer?
Changing carries from the settings app would most likely be more confusing. I think some people would be worried if the see the logo of a carrier other than their own in the settings menu.
In the Netherlands you can even buy simcards in supermarkets, almost every supermarket is a virtual provider itself. If you go to a telecomshop they'll install it for you. Your describing something that's completely foreign to everyone over here.
This would potentially allow you to change providers (O2->3, Vodafone->giffgaff) without needing to go to any physical shops. Just get a new contract online, apply it to your sim card. You get to also keep your number without having to fiddle with PAC codes and activation timeframes. I guess.
> If you want a new SIM card, and you don't have a contract, just buy a new SIM card and put it in your phone / tablet.
My parents couldn't change a SIM card to save their lives - they couldn't open the phone to get the card out, they'd have trouble holding the micro SIM card if they did get it open, and they'd probably put it in backwards and just scratch the hell out of the contacts if they made it that far. Why should they have to? Oh, sure, they can go to a store. That works if switching networks is something you only want to do very occasionally with plenty of time to plan, but if you can make it easier why not? It's all software, why are we authenticating it by a tiny fiddly piece of plastic? I mean, I do this often enough myself that I carry a little Nokia pin for the tiny hole that triggers the SIM card slot to open on my Nexus, but why should I have to?
I don't want to say it from a position of superiority or anything, just different mobile culture, but in here, changing SIM cards is normal. It's what you do when you buy a new phone, because - as I said below - you get a SIM card separately, even when you buy it right with the operator with the contract.
I've had 5 mobile phones...some candybar in the early 00's, a flip phone in the mid 00's, and iphone 3g, 4s, and now 6. I've never even /seen/ a sim card in person. It's a piece of tech that I shouldn't have to every even know exists. I just want my phone to work. I shouldn't have to play around with a microscopic piece of plastic and metal for that to happen.
It's a piece of tech that I shouldn't have to every even know exists. I just want my phone to work.
I see it the opposite way. Every phone should have a part in it that is removable and replaceable and ensures that you can do whatever you want with your device. I was staggered when I found out that some US CDMA devices are literally unusable without the permission of the company you originally had service with.
Having a replaceable part is not the only way to ensure you can do whatever you want with your device! It is possible to ensure that with a universal SIM purely through software. That this isn't the current situation doesn't mean it isn't possible. I don't have to replace a tiny little piece of plastic in my computer to install Linux instead of Windows or to connect to wifi using Comcast instead of Qwest.
Well in that case you have to have it tied with your name, so it will only work for contracts; and only about half of the people here are on contracts.
I'd be willing to bet that most people wherever you're from also can't change their own SIM and have the store employees do it (which is how it worked when I bought a SIM card in both London and Seattle in the last two months).
Southeast Asia? That's one area where there appears to be little, if any, technophobia around SIM cards; and in some of them, on average each person has more than one mobile phone. Multi-SIM devices are also extremely common there.
Same reason that you still keep credit cards around; security. When money becomes involved you don't want the device doing the authorization to have any way to be influenced by the one requesting it.
In the US, major carriers Verizon and Sprint have operated CDMA-based networks whose devices did not use SIM cards. I think it was the iPhone 4 that Apple once shipped 3 different versions of in the US: AT&T (GSM), Verizon (one set of CDMA bands), and Sprint (another set of CDMA bands).
But did you notice that Sprint is supported in this announcement? It is because LTE does in fact use a SIM, even on the carriers that rely on CDMA for voice. Fortunately for the iPad, it has no voice requirement.
In reality, there is the technical means to support this on ANY carrier. You just set the IMSI or ESN in software on the microprocessor and then hit an API at the carrier telling them to pair X device with Y unique ID. The difference now is that no one before Apple has had the weight to get the carriers to go along with this, since it encourages modularity and discourages device and carrier lock in.
In US you just get a phone with everything pre installed and sim tool :). So this thing does make it easier for Apple and a bit more convenient for users
what did you do prior to the advent of 10-band GSM radios?
I'm in the US and I've almost always bought cheap unlocked phones and SIM cards, but until recently I've had to hunt around to get the right variant of a phone for my preferred provider. Eg. T-Mobile uses 1700/1900/2100Mhz, AT&T uses 700/850/1700/2300.
The latest iPhones and some other phones now have radios that cover all frequencies, but those radios are expensive and typically only come on phones that cost more than $700.
Here, you got a separate SIM even with Apple phones. It's just how it's done.
The only toy I remember not having a separate SIM card was Amazon Kindle (the e-ink reader), and that's because they try to hide that the SIM is even there (and it's kind of weird).
Sure, there was no other choice. I'm just saying that if anybody was going to introduce a universal SIM in the USA, I would expect it to be Apple, and for exactly the reasons I described :)
True. Well, I have a dual-sim phone, so I keep one as mine, and the other one of the country where I am. So it's even simpler :) But I get what you are saying.
That means you either have to physically go to a store or wait for one to be delivered. This way, I could change carriers at 2am on a whim, without having to wait for stores to open or a package to be delivered.
I'm slightly amazed at the awed coverage this is getting.
As others have pointed out, multi-IMSI SIM cards are nothing new, though points to Apple for getting the network carriers on board and sharing keys.
Getting a replacement SIM card is not a problem (certainly not in the UK). Most of the networks will happily post you out one for free and you can buy them for virtually no money in all phone shops, most supermarkets, market stalls... everywhere -even in this tiny backwater technophobic village where I work.
My worry is that this is the start of a path down to devices having embedded SIM cards that are not user replaceable, or even have no SIM at all and just use the secure storage module built into the chipset. This seems like a bad hole to be heading down as it would directly take choice and power away from the end user.
I'm on the other side completely, I'm a little awed at the lack of coverage, and consumer demand for this.
I don't think this is a technological thing, it's an industry structure thing. Why do we even need SIMs? Obviously we need some way of deciding which phone should ring wen a call goes through the either, but why does it need to be a piece of plastic.
A simple software replacement for a SIM would open a lot ip. You could buy a $10 plan when you're in a different country for a week. If one of those company offering cheap international call sims could just sell you a software sim that doesn't require you to switch over everything.
The ability to shop selectively using different providers for different calls would be a profound change to the ecosystem. It'd have a lot of knock on effects.
Apple are good at bulling through changes like this. This could be the start. iPad only is a little weak though. I hope their reliance on carrier subsidies to sell phones doesn't impact Apple's willingness to push on this.
The physical SIM card is secure, it stores your private keys for identifying you, and you can't extract those keys without damaging the SIM card. At least if the SIM cards are produced to spec. Can you make it equally secure in software, or can I borrow your phone and "easily" clone you ?
> Can you make it equally secure in software, or can I borrow your phone and "easily" clone you ?
I think we need a TPM-like[1] device for that to work. And I think an iPhone has one of those[2].
Perhaps that is the point: Apple convinced credit card companies to give them "card present"-prices for Touch ID purchases because a Touch ID-enabled device uses special hardware for key storage. Perhaps Apple has convinced mobile carriers to allow them to store private keys for cellular networks in the same place, because of its alleged security.
that probably overrides/ignores the SIM card and use hardcoded GSM ids from the device. as if it has a sim slot plus 3 hardcoded sim, that you can select which one to use on software.
so i doubt you will be able to activate those hardcoded sims with any plan that easily. i doubt you will even be able to activate it without apple help.
but of course, im just guessing. have no idea if that is the case.
I created a little project that allows remote usage of multiple SIM cards as a Software-SIM on MTK based Android phones. Forward the commands via TCP from a modified Baseband-firmware.
This means you could e.g. have multiple SIM cards for your business trip without changing the card in your phone. Also malicious people could steal your SIM authentication if you use a vulnerable Android phone and use it:
I pay $176/month for 3 lines with AT&T and all 3 lines still have the unlimited data @$30/month on them. I can buy 3 subsidized iphone 6s for $600+tax total ($200 each) or I can buy them each at $650. The price per month works out to about $27/month per phone. Will AT&T knock $27 off per month per phone if I buy them outright? The answer is no. I've talked to supervisor after supervisor about it and there is no discount if I upgrade and buy the phone outright up front. So I ask, where's the incentive?
AT&T is by no means perfect but given all the traveling I've done and my experiences with Verizon and T-Mobile (never tried Sprint) I've found that AT&T and Verizon are interchangeable and T-Mobile is not quite on the same level.
I know my rate plan hasn't become more expensive when I upgrade so how can I expect that it will become cheaper if I bring my own device?
This is really an interesting feature (let's say 'feature' at this moment). Actually, in person, I do really consider this is an tremendous improvement for any carrier-required mobile devices.
It makes mobile devices really "mobile". Customers do not have to physically enter a local carrier store to add a new line/data-plan or transfer to another carrier. It might save a great amount of time and efforts especially when traveling overseas.
Hope it came to iPhone in near future. Due to the easiness of switching carriers, hope it would help bringing down prices.
So with this tech, how long until Apple starts offering MVNO services? And eventually completely destroys whatever profit margins the current operators have?
MVNOs still pay bulk data fees to real MNOs. And their traffic gets lower priority on the network. So the only current operators they could challenge is other MVNOs.
Yeah, I was imagining a situation where with "a little more software" Apple products could automatically detect which networks are available, their relative speeds, etc, and automatically use the right one all the time. And they could buy in sufficiently large bulk to get a good deal on the data rates.
A lot of devices in the M2M communications world already perform operations similar to this with available networks. Alongside use various weighting metrics regarding such as network strength and bandwidth cost to determine which one to use.
I've known about this for a while, though I don't remember my source. I seem to recall that it was first envisioned under Jobs, and AT&T started swinging punches when they caught a whiff. Although the source appears solid in hindsight, I chalked it up to a subterfuge project. Can anyone who has since left confirm this was the same initiative?
Wow this is a serious game changer, I was thinking about this the other day. I would be great to be able to turn off and on a sim card in your smartphone. So if you were using an iPhone and wanted to use your Android phone you just turned the iPhone sim off and used your android phone without having to call and de-activate it everytime.
I have an iPhone 5 with Sprint, and I thought I was more or less locked in because they used CDMA. I thought I would need a new phone if I wanted to switch to anything else.
Would love to know I've been wrong and can switch without buying out my contract and buying a phone...
I just depends on what the phone hardware supports. The Nexus 6 e.g. has two hardware variations. The US variation supports T-Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint all with the same device.
That's why it's on the iPad and not the iPhone, you're right.
The latest generations of iPads work with nearly (? I think there was one US carrier that was left out, as well as Canada maybe, I forget) every carrier, which was somewhat easier to do because the iPad is data-only, and the carriers data wireless technologies diverge less.
Why have SIM cards at all? What's the point in keeping credentials from the legitimate customer?
Store Ki directly on device. Modern phones have HSMs so key will be kept as secure as with a "real" SIM HSM, and bet phones could do the necessary crypto just fine.
Sure, a customer will be able to clone their own SIM card and share it with others, but I don't think that's a major issue. Logging onto the network with a cloned SIM is certainly preventable, and if you get kicked out every time other card clone logs in (and if that happens too frequently your account gets suspended altogether until you resolve the issue with a human support), sharing would be anything but desirable option.
The nice thing with SIMs is that if your battery is flat, or you put your phone through the washing machine, you can grab the card and throw it into a spare phone (or a friend's) and carry on.
If you have the Ki on the device, you're effectively going back to CDMA-style devices, whereby you need the carrier's assistance to move between handsets.
Lots of people (in all the economic brackets) keep multiple phones numbers in the develloping world..
Some because it's usually cheaper to call within a carrier so they use a certain line to call certain numbers.
Some to be reached more easily (for the same reason as above).
Some because there's no number portability and they want to keep their old number while they want to use a new one for whatever reason.
Some because networks can be unreliable.
Some because they'll give separate numbers to separate people (Pro/Personnal , wife/mistress, anybody/VIP).
And since most people are on prepaid, there's little to no cost to having multiples lines.
I'm not really privy to the psychy of someone who uses a dual SIM, I doubt most readers on Hackernews use one. To me, I visualize a Chinese business man who wants separate numbers to separate his official (married) life and his gray (mistress) life. But this is just a stereotype I developed to deal with going to the provinces.
I'm not sure why people would use it in a high-end phone, but on low-end phones people use multiple sims as a means to save money. Especially considering a lot of developing countries have prepaid schemes. So you'd have one sim for data and another for voice.
Though, thinking about it, maybe people still use multiple sims in higher-end phones for the same reason?
It's supper convenient to have a backup data plan just by switching to your second SIM on a dual-SIM phone, as I do regularly.
It's definitely a not mainstream feature so it falls flat in the high-end flagship phones. Also carriers won't bundle those, so it's really more of a market thing.
I bet many would use them if normal phones supported them.
A common use case is a local SIM card when travelling or commuting to a different country. Even people who don't travel a lot for work will typically travel semi-frequently in other countries in Europe, for family or vacations.
When I was in Thailand, one carrier had the ability to co-opt my China unicom SIM and provide service there. I don't think my SIM was a soft one, I think they were actually co-opting the numbers!
Easier to track for whom? If you think Apple doesn't already have a way of uniquely identifying a device, regardless of location and connection, you're out of it.
Interesting they don't mention Verizon. They do mention that participating carriers are subject to change though, so presumably they can add (or delete) carriers from the device.
I remember some years back Nokia made software SIM but it disappeared from the radar probably due Telcos pressure. Glad we get something to that direction finally.
Does it work with prepaid, or just contracts? If you could just temporarily swap over to T-Mobile's $30 prepaid unlimited data, that would be a big deal.
Not sure. I mean...I've swapped cards to switch carriers before but I never thought buying or swapping to another SIM was enough trouble that I'd need a programmable or multi-profile SIM.
I'm sure it's technically possible but the carriers could just as easily make it only work with certain plans. I remember needing a SIM activation kit to get on that $30 plan when I first got it. You couldn't just use any TMo SIM without some code from the kit and you couldn't get it in any TMo store. No idea if the adding of the code needed to activate the SIM would work with this new thing.
I'm mostly thinking it would be interesting for mobile data competition. Though so many people are tied up in complicated family plans that maybe it doesn't matter much.
If my AT&T 2-year commitment ran out and I could just press a button, put in a code from a card I bought at Wal-Mart, and take T-Mobile for a 1-month test, there'd be more pressure on AT&T to keep their prices sane.
This is less about switching providers more easily and more about preventing users from modifying even the SIM card. Apple wants you to never open or modify the device in any way possible.
It's pretty sweet and if it can set a standard for phones then we'll see carriers become true utilities between which customers can switch easily if they get poor service. In short, pretty awesome.
Today's carrier system kind of feels like this dinosaur, like a landline... archaic and unnecessary. With so many people travelling, changing places, changing technology etc, it makes a lot of sense to move from subscriptions to short-time payments, and eventually, pay-per second of use on the fly, directly, without an account or monthly statement, with a push payment instead of a pull payment. (digital currencies being a key element here). Anyway, getting a bit too off-topic here, but cool first move by Apple for sure!