I am confused about why regulators should be involved. The purpose of the ETSI is to create mobile industry standards. I think the author would argue that these benefit the consumer.
The main issue with the article isn't its hyperbolic headline, but the fact that the author implies that Apple is introducting their nano-SIM design in order to further lock down devices, when their design is actually more backwards compatible than the ones submitted by Nokia and RIM: http://www.theverge.com/2012/3/26/2904153/apple-vs-nokia-4ff...
(I'm the author)
I don't think that the nano-SIM is going to lock down devices any more than the micro-SIM. I'm saying that while everyone is battling it out over that standard, Apple will introduce their "Virtual SIM". Possibly as a last resort if their standard doesn't make it.
In short, Apple is becoming an MNVO. With Mobile Network Virtual Operators, you don't know which carrier your connection is actually going over.
Apple is signaling to the rest of us that the "dumb pipe" future which carriers are facing is quickly approaching.
None of us will care who provides the future 4G/5G/6G connection; we'll just go with the cheapest carrier at the time. Apple here is just streamlining this process so their customers won't have to waste their time and money figuring it out, and they probably won't be alone in offering this type of service to the public.
---
Edit: The article makes a big deal about not being able to remove the SIM card from your phone. CDMA phones have never had SIM cards - to switch phones with Verizon or Sprint, you have to update which MEID or IMEI (number from the phone) is attached to your account. For many years, we were locked into brand-only phones because they were the only ones in the "allowed" database.
Verizon's new LTE phones have sim cards, although I'm not sure if they are for the phone's LTE radio only - I just got a warranty replacement phone and the activation process was simply switching the sim card.
Verizon's LTE phones do use SIM cards, but it would probably be futile to try to use them on Sprint or AT&T's LTE networks, since they run on different frequencies, and you wouldn't get standard voice or 3G data coverage.
Fixed-line broadband is just about as close to a 'dumb pipe connection' as you can get, and I still find it valuable to pay a premium for a better service.
Given all the myriad ways technical investment can improve the user experience of a mobile connection (additional cell sites, properly located microcells, sufficient backhaul bandwidth, sensibly sized buffers, etc), as well as less tangible benefits like better customer service, there will always be reasons to choose one carrier over another. Those still apply even if they all sold an 'identical' product consisting only of connectivity.
(Now, getting your average consumer to care about a technically better service instead of the flashiest subsidized handset for the bundle price? That might be a bit harder. Operators have been trying to differentiate with value-add services for years in the UK, and I don't know many people who care.)
Of course, with only four operators in the UK and a bunch of MVNOs it's a little trickier to find a 'niche, focused on quality-of-service' operator for mobile. In the fixed-line broadband market, I can choose between a couple of hundred ISPs, many of whom run their own infrastructure to a greater or lesser degree.
I think the author confuses MNVO and SIMless phones. Typically, MNVO just rents the physical network and the SIM works just like before.
The usual MNVO in Europe is a 'dumber pipe' option, with cheaper plans but they state clearly which network they are on. Further, MNVOs get often acquired by the network provider, and continue operating just as a subsidiary with a differentiating marketing strategy / target audience.
Great thing about MNVOs is that they could possibly use multiple network providers, and work seamlessly also globally using the available networks with constant pricing. For some reason, this hasn't happened yet.
Apple could become a MNVO, but not SIMless because of regulations. However, they can bundle the SIM with the phone and provide custom services only on their network, which gives a better experience to the customer and little reason to change network.
I look forward to the moment when I can buy a world-wide subscription from Apple as an MNVO that just works all over the globe without the almost criminal roaming rates and hassles that we currently have.
Earlier this year I was on a trip to Europe and accidentally turned on my iPhone in Paris. It automatically checked my email and I probably reloaded my twitter stream. It was just 700 KB but I was charged a good $25 for that. That roaming rate translates to roughly 35000 CAD/GB.
THIRTY-FIVE-THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR ONE GIG OF DATA
Someone please end this madness. Please let this be Apple.
You might want to disable the data roaming setting in the "Cellular Data" section of the phone's Settings. It actually defaults to off in my experience, but maybe some SIM-locked ones have it enabled by the carrier by default?
Otherwise, I agree, the typical data roaming charges are ridiculous. I don't see why they should be more than, say, twice your home rate (as there are 2 companies involved). Many of the mobile networks are giant multinationals anyway - the fact that roaming in, say, Vodafone.de's network as a Vodafone.co.uk customer, costs a made-up amount of money is just ridiculous. Hutchison 3G ('3') actually have a system called '3LikeHome' in some countries, which let you roam in foreign '3' networks for the same price as your home network - this only includes calls and texts to other 3 numbers, but also, crucially, data. It's great, but there aren't many countries covered by it. And I can only assume it's not driving enough customers away from other operators to affect their bottom lines. But then most people don't seem to choose their phone tariffs rationally anyway. (OMG! A free phone! Only €50 a month! [NB: minimum contract 2 years])
I'm just fearful that taking the SIM card out of the equation will leave us in a worse position, where we can't even work around the problem by buying prepaid SIM cards when abroad.
I guess the problem is it's a shared medium. In many European countries, LTE (4G) rollout has been used as an excuse to halt investment in the DSL connectivity of rural areas. The results thus far have been disappointing, with LTE cells already becoming overloaded where no sensible DSL speeds are available. And that's with the severe volume caps that come with LTE contracts.
Why would they? Out of benevolence? I'm all for carriers becoming dumb pipes, but I seriously doubt situations will improve if device makers become opaque data service providers.
In my experience, Apple actually made this process of "global roaming" worse, not better.
Case in point: I spend about 2 months a year in Japan and a month in London. I live in the US and have a plan through ATT. I used to have an iPhone 3gs, and then a 4 (now a Galaxy Nexus).
The first time I travelled to London with my iPhone, I knew enough to be paranoid about overages and activated my global roaming service and bought 25MB of data coverage just so I could use it in a pinch. ATT customers were supposed to be able to get free WiFi at Starbucks. That turned out to be false. Fortunately, almost every pub in London has free wifi and I tend to spend more time in pubs than Starbucks anyway.
The second or third day I was there I called ATT to try to get them to give me the unlock code so I could swap my US SIM out for one from O2. After about 30 minutes on the phone, I finally got someone who put it plainly, "Sir, if you had any other phone besides the iPhone, we'd be glad to let you unlock your phone so you could use the SIM from the local carrier. But we are under strict orders from Apple not to." I bought a 20£ throwaway Nokia the next day which had a free 30£ top-up with it and used it for the duration of the trip.
I have had similar experiences in Japan, except I have always had a Japanese phone (because I use the NFC-based Suica card for the Metro and in convenience stores). A couple years ago, I needed to be on-call whilst in Tokyo and wanted to be able to answer my iPhone if it rang. Long story short, my iPhone didn't even work in Tokyo ... regardless that the global roaming was turned on (and I was paying for it).
Was in Tokyo from Nov-Jan this last year. Brought my [unlocked] Galaxy S2 I had at the time. Went to Softbank with my wife, and went through the normal procedure of proving citizenship (hers, not mine) etc. to get Japanese rate plans. Also had brought my Japanese phone. SIM swapped into my GS2, worked perfectly. No more global roaming/iPhone drama. Had tried to do similar with iPhone previously, carriers in Tokyo wouldn't touch it. Same thing, "Under strict orders from Apple not to …"
Went back with my Nexus recently. Put SIM from GS2 into Nexus. Worked flawlessly, as unlocked phones have been doing forever. I do not yearn for an Apple-controlled MNVO. a) I like specifically choosing whatever carrier works best for my needs at the time (via a SIM card) b) my experiences roaming with iPhone so far have been much MORE expensive than with any other phone.
Edit: wanted to make it clear that the "unlocked" GS2 was an ATT GS2 which ATT voluntarily gave me the unlock code for when I called and told them I would be travelling with it.
I have a Verizon iPhone 3GS, which I bought specifically so that I could use it in the US and the UK. After three months, which is Verizon's minimum wait period, I called them up and had them unlock the phone for an international SIM. On traveling to the UK, I cut my trusty Orange SIM card down to size and inserted it. Everything worked perfectly.
things may be better now. the trip to london I was speaking about was with a 3GS in 2009-2010, and at that point the (sole) carrier in the US (ATT) apparently couldn't offer unlocked service. i could have unlocked it myself and voided the warranty, i guess, but didn't opt to do that at the time.
of course, now americans can just buy unlocked iphones. so problem solved, i guess. remarkably happy with the nexus and don't plan to go back to the iphone, so i guess i won't find out.
All the things you describe are carrier business model problems and have nothing to do with Apple. You can blame yourself for not buying an unlocked phone or for not having a separate unlocked phone for traveling.
I disagree. The fact that ATT unlocked my Galaxy S2 last November for me without hesitation when I told them I would be out of the country 3 months each year says otherwise. Even last year, with my iPhone4 they wouldn't do this for me. ATT essentially said the same thing they had in 2009, "we're sorry, if you had any other device but an iPhone we'd be glad to unlock it, but we're prohibited by Apple from doing so..."
Maybe Verizon is better for customers who travel abroad often. But ATT showed me they were willing to unlock my non-iPhone without hesitation, so I still blame Apple. And the number of shady iPhone unlocker operations in both London and Tokyo tells me I'm not alone in their aggressive lock-in practices.
Maybe Verizon customers get a better deal, and I know unlocked iPhones are available now. Honestly, for the hefty price tag I've never considered unlocked iPhones here in the states. Sim-free plans in the US don't seem to offer the same level of discount that they do elsewhere in the world. Here it seems better to just sign the contract and take the carrier subsidy (something which I fully blame the carriers, not Apple, for).
It wasn't until Google started selling the Galaxy Nexus through the Play store for $399 that I even considered buying an unlocked phone. I am still under contract with ATT, but for this price the extra freedom I get is worth it to me. Definitely not gonna pay > $600 for it though.
FYI, I do have a number of unlocked phones I carry in other countries. But honestly, wouldn't you rather carry just one phone, the one you use for all your contacts and as a camera, music player, etc ... than having to carry two phones all the time? Kind of a PITA.
I think it is complete utter BS that "apple prohibits unlocks" .. why would Apple care? This is just AT&T afraid to lose a customer with an unlocked phone.
Your home carrier is mostly just passing on the roaming cost billed to them from whatever network you were using while abroad. How much leverage do you think Apple would have over carriers around the world? Keep in mind that in many places cellular service is a government-run monopoly. If you want your phone to work, you have to take their prices.
That's pretty funny. I live in the same country as st3fan and my home carrier charges anywhere from 1.75 times less, through 7 times less in Paris, up to 35 times less in the U.S. for roaming data than his carrier apparently does (Wind, $20/MB, $5/MB, $1/MB respectively). They must have one hell of a negotiating team.
Needless to say, neither Canada nor France are cellular-monopoly countries.
It was just 700 KB but I was charged a good $25 for that. That roaming rate translates to roughly 35000 CAD/GB.
What I do when I travel: remove my sim card and put it in a CD sleeve. That way, I can still listen to music and use the device on WiFi, and not worry. Another option, in case you think you'd lose your sim, is to put the phone on "Airplane" mode but turn on WiFi.
This would also prevent you from seeing potentially important phone calls. Technically speaking airplane mode with wifi is no longer airplane mode. Your phone should have a "don't use data when roaming" option, use it.
This would also prevent you from seeing potentially important phone calls.
I didn't want to get calls at all while overseas.
Technically speaking airplane mode with wifi is no longer airplane mode.
For one thing, this is how the iPhone UI presents it, and since "Airplane Mode" is just an arbitrary UI thing, that's as valid as anything. For another thing, many airplanes now have WiFi during flight, so it seems you'd be hoist on the level of pedantic you're currently invoking.
However, using the "Data Roaming" option is a good idea.
Nah, it's the airlines/regulators that are being hoisted. Normally you are 'required' to shut down all transmitters in your devices during flight, and this is what airplane mode would do. As has been discussed over and again, the reasons for this are mostly bunk, which is underlined by allowing transmitting 802.11 (only if there's money in it, natch). I can't speak for how Apple chooses to represent concepts in their UI...
How about apple wanting to create a more user friendly experience. Buy several devices and instantly switch your single virtual sim around through web, iTunes or the device. Sounds good to me. Apple proved they can control the telco's with or without the virtual sim.
I really like this idea. I've been considering an iPad and I'd love to tether it to my iPhone's data plan. I'm on Verizon. Unless I pay the tethering tax I can't do it without jail breaking. If I can take my data plan and apply it to any device that I own that'd be great. I'm one person, why should I need two data plans?
If Apple are really planning a move like this we have to consider their other actions. FaceTime, Messages. I don't think we need to worry about roaming or numbers. All we'd have is data ...
This entire article is just your viewpoint on this dressed up as being the facts. Most of it is just completely daft what-ifs. e.g.
> If or when Apple go bust – you may be left with a brick. There will be no way to update it.
really....?
At the end of the day the iPhone is a consumer electronic. You vote with your dollar (or euro). Apple has a product and a set of constraints they will dictate. If you don't want it, you don't buy it. It isn't like you would die without a smartphone.
Not that I disagree, but the argument against this is often: consumers are idiots. Most people have no idea about the finer details of "problems" like this one and so will completely ignore it when making their purchase. If the iPhone meets all their needs but does secret voodoo to carriers on the back end, consumers are losing -- sometimes long after they've voted with their dollar.
I see this as progress. Yes, Apple could use the SIM-less phone to control everything and that would be bad.
But this also means we could have "unlocked" SIM-less phones where I could swap networks freely.
I never understood SIM cards: what I want is to use Orange like I use Skype. That is, input an user and password and presto! If I want to switch over to Vodafone, input my Vodafone credentials and that's it.
Unless you can store identities on the phone, and switch carriers by pressing a button or some other completely painless process that takes less than 5 minutes, it won't be as nice as SIM cards, where you can have one for each country you travel to and pop them in & out as you go along.
Vodafone SIM is your Vodafone login and password, and it is the same with any other operator. And with the problems we are facing with PKI right now, it might as well be the most practical way to do it, since MITM on mobile network would have been a night mare.
Then again, it probably isn't the most practical way, the technology is old and the encryption broken.
Apple has already made a SIM-less iPhone before, for Verizon. But whatever, I'm sure that doesn't fit in with this goofball's doomsaying. What a shitty piece of FUD.
The Verizon iPhone was running on 3GPP2/CDMA network, this does not have SIM card. It is the 3GPP (note the missing 2) track that uses SIM cards. The 3GPP track is the most common track outside North America where the CDMA was strong. For 4G it looks like a total walk over for LTE though, LTE comes from the 3GPP track.
The 2G/3G/4G evolution for 3GPP looks something like this (sorry for the alphabet soup) : GSM->WCDMA->LTE
This sounds ideal to me! Let's think of some other possible pros, since the author hasn't seemed to bother:
Stolen phones can't be used.
No changing SIMs when you travel
No roaming fees!
One bill for cell usage and purchases
Apple's excellent customer support, full-stack
- to name a few. The main point is, the user doesn't have to mess around with installing a SIM card. In my opinion, the SIM is a holdover from a previous status quo, - we accept it because we've never known an alternative.
I believe it should be possible to virtually route the calls to whatever numbers you've decided - let's say you have one personal and one business number. However, you can switch of the business number when you leave the work, or limit incoming calls for personal number only to close family members, etc.
Besides, phone numbers are obsolete as well. I think this virtualisation should give possibility to move away from them.
If monopoly and charging high tariffs for usage are what Apple wants, they can simply work with a single carrier in a market to achieve them. Apple already had that control before.
Perhaps the more sound reason to go SIM-less is to reduce the barrier to switch, promote competition among mobile carriers and improve the whole user experience.
Don't forget that iPhone only works well with good mobile services. To Apple, the prices are easy to control but the quality of service is not. If virtual SIM is really coming, we could even expect a configuration that allows you to use different operators in different locations or for different purposes (data, voice call or SMS). I believe that this is what Apple is truly interested in.
I'd posit that reducing the barrier to switch doesn't improve the whole user experience. Granted Apple would staunchly disagree with me on that. But when I engage in a 2 year contract, that's on the carrier-side. I should be able to use whatever phone I want on that contract. I no longer use an iPhone, but I used to regularly pop the SIM out and put in an old flip phone if I thought I was going to do something that had a high likelihood of breaking my iPhone.
>Perhaps the more sound reason to go SIM-less is to reduce the barrier to switch, promote competition among mobile carriers and improve the whole user experience.
What a load of crap. Most of this article isn't even true. Last time I checked, Apple could care less how much data is used. The only reason FaceTime is wifi only is because of the carriers.
Article aside, virtualization of the SIM means a few technically joyful possibilities:
* Potentially little more than a software tweak to add UI for automatic SIM swap while roaming. The current best solution for this is a dodgy Chinese dual SIM phone, or that just-before-landing step on the plane when the battery comes out and your phone loses its time, and fires all calendar reminders when switched back on again.
* Potentially user hardware gets a chance to intercept the Ki (subscriber authentication key) as it passes through iTunes. At this point all kinds of interesting things can be done (entirely outside of the mobile network's TOS, of course). Like an app that lets you rent a SIM in a target country for 24 hours, at local subscriber calling rates. While within 10 years Europe's roaming rates will be normalized, this would still be a killer feature for international travel.
Sadly chances are high they'll get this right, and the vSIM will be delivered encrypted to some security module on the handset. Sometimes incompetence is a desirable thing.
One nice feature of the iPhone right now (and the Nokia N9, but not any other phones I've used): you can simply hot-swap the SIM without any battery pulling or even rebooting. Just take out the tray, replace the SIM, and pop it back in.
Now to be fair, the oldest phone I've ever used is the Blackberry 8100, released in 2006, but I've never had a phone lose its clock when pulling the main battery.
Maybe I'm too trusting, but I can't imagine Apple would provide a worse experience than I've had with AT&T for the last few years.
Also, I'm pretty certain that even if Apple controlled the "virtual-SIM" card, there would still be hackers jailbreaking and unlocking the devices to make them work on other networks. So, I'm not too scared.
A SIM-less network will have to developed sooner or later. If we are to connect n * 10 billion devices to the mobile network the amount of gold used for the SIM cards will become an issue. So removing the need for a SIM, and thus the gold used, will be neccessity.
But most likely this will be driven through the "normal" standardization committees (3GPP etc) instead of coming from Apple.
My understanding of what Apple is likely trying to do with a SIM-less phone is allow you to choose your carrier and change it at any time directly from your phone, without needing to seek out a little piece of plastic and a paperclip.
When I went to Europe this summer with my 3G iPad, it was difficult in some cities to find a place to even buy a SIM card (let alone a paperclip to use to eject the SIM tray). Since my iPad is unlocked, it seemed to be a bit ridiculous that I even had to go through this. My device should just do a network scan, see what networks are available, and let me compare the plans (price/data) and choose one directly from my device.
SIM = Evil. Takes up precious battery space! Door makes edge of phone non-smooth. Internal mechanism adds to cost of goods and manufacturing. Overall non-green. Simply anachronistic.
- I can't find any relevant information on the "O2 was really just Apple as MVNO" bit from the article - I have never heard this and if it's true I'd live to read more
- Apple didnt just create the Micro-SIM to lock you in to the iPhone 4 -- since day 1 (American) carriers have had access to stockpiles of SIM cards and can very easily swap you to a normal sized one if need be. Literally, it has never been difficult.
- If Apple really wants the Virtual SIM, why are they feinting with heavy tactics like saying they'll license the Nano SIM for free to anyone that wants it should it become the next spec? Hardly seems like the strategy to put behind your losing prospective.
I think the operators should stay focused on what they do the best - building and updating infrastructure. It shouldn't be their job to provide the marketing for device, service or even apps. However, since they are the owners of this massive usage data, they can comprehend in a most accurate way what is the customer like and what does it want. They have the best metrics to measure how the customer responds to marketing, etc.
But bottom line is that I just want my phone to work. I don't care what network it runs, I want it to WORK. I don't want to pay less for something that doesn't work (surprise surprise Lycamobile doesn't cater 3G for iPhone 4S). I don't want to pay for ridiculous unlimited 100000 minutes and 100000000 texts per month. However, I do want to pay for 1 Gb monthly data, and a sensible amount for 5 calls I make per month (heh, try that - O2 PAYG single call or text price is close to the european roaming charges...)
And the last thing I want to pay is extra charges for using VoIP (TeliaSonera).
So for me, operators are not on my side. I am always in lose-lose situation.
This may be true in the USA, but in my country it's illegal to lock a phone to a single provider.
You buy a SIM card. You stick it in a phone. Viola. So SIMless phones would have to be supported by the networks. I would imagine that they're all working on it.
This seems extremely conspiratorial and likely wrong.
iPhones can already be locked to a carrier. Whether the SIM card is virtual is irrelevant. If the carriers want to screw you, they already have means to do so.
In fact, I suspect a phone with a virtual SIM card may be easier to unlock than a physical one since Apple must distribute software designed to program the virtual SIM card. You also won't need to physically get a SIM card to use a network and you'll be able to use multiple networks with the same phone. That sounds like a plus to me.
Regardless, the SIM card is certainly not the limiting factor in carrier portability or locking. It's essentially a floppy disk, and is quite unnecessary given data connectivity these days.
The idea that Apple wanted a smaller SIM as a step closer to no SIM is ridiculous. What difference does the size make? Having a card or not having a card is binary.
Apple-bashing aside, in the US, we already have this problem. We call them CDMA phones. They're locked to networks, aren't portable in any way (if they have a SIM slot for GSM use, it can't be used domestically), and they're typically worth a lot less on resale.
73 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 119 ms ] threadThe main issue with the article isn't its hyperbolic headline, but the fact that the author implies that Apple is introducting their nano-SIM design in order to further lock down devices, when their design is actually more backwards compatible than the ones submitted by Nokia and RIM: http://www.theverge.com/2012/3/26/2904153/apple-vs-nokia-4ff...
Apple is signaling to the rest of us that the "dumb pipe" future which carriers are facing is quickly approaching.
None of us will care who provides the future 4G/5G/6G connection; we'll just go with the cheapest carrier at the time. Apple here is just streamlining this process so their customers won't have to waste their time and money figuring it out, and they probably won't be alone in offering this type of service to the public.
---
Edit: The article makes a big deal about not being able to remove the SIM card from your phone. CDMA phones have never had SIM cards - to switch phones with Verizon or Sprint, you have to update which MEID or IMEI (number from the phone) is attached to your account. For many years, we were locked into brand-only phones because they were the only ones in the "allowed" database.
Given constraints. I'm not going with the cheapest if they drop my connection every minute.
That is still the case. Verizon and Sprint will not activate any phone that they haven't previously sold.
Fixed-line broadband is just about as close to a 'dumb pipe connection' as you can get, and I still find it valuable to pay a premium for a better service.
Given all the myriad ways technical investment can improve the user experience of a mobile connection (additional cell sites, properly located microcells, sufficient backhaul bandwidth, sensibly sized buffers, etc), as well as less tangible benefits like better customer service, there will always be reasons to choose one carrier over another. Those still apply even if they all sold an 'identical' product consisting only of connectivity.
(Now, getting your average consumer to care about a technically better service instead of the flashiest subsidized handset for the bundle price? That might be a bit harder. Operators have been trying to differentiate with value-add services for years in the UK, and I don't know many people who care.)
Of course, with only four operators in the UK and a bunch of MVNOs it's a little trickier to find a 'niche, focused on quality-of-service' operator for mobile. In the fixed-line broadband market, I can choose between a couple of hundred ISPs, many of whom run their own infrastructure to a greater or lesser degree.
The usual MNVO in Europe is a 'dumber pipe' option, with cheaper plans but they state clearly which network they are on. Further, MNVOs get often acquired by the network provider, and continue operating just as a subsidiary with a differentiating marketing strategy / target audience.
Great thing about MNVOs is that they could possibly use multiple network providers, and work seamlessly also globally using the available networks with constant pricing. For some reason, this hasn't happened yet.
Apple could become a MNVO, but not SIMless because of regulations. However, they can bundle the SIM with the phone and provide custom services only on their network, which gives a better experience to the customer and little reason to change network.
Earlier this year I was on a trip to Europe and accidentally turned on my iPhone in Paris. It automatically checked my email and I probably reloaded my twitter stream. It was just 700 KB but I was charged a good $25 for that. That roaming rate translates to roughly 35000 CAD/GB.
THIRTY-FIVE-THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR ONE GIG OF DATA
Someone please end this madness. Please let this be Apple.
Otherwise, I agree, the typical data roaming charges are ridiculous. I don't see why they should be more than, say, twice your home rate (as there are 2 companies involved). Many of the mobile networks are giant multinationals anyway - the fact that roaming in, say, Vodafone.de's network as a Vodafone.co.uk customer, costs a made-up amount of money is just ridiculous. Hutchison 3G ('3') actually have a system called '3LikeHome' in some countries, which let you roam in foreign '3' networks for the same price as your home network - this only includes calls and texts to other 3 numbers, but also, crucially, data. It's great, but there aren't many countries covered by it. And I can only assume it's not driving enough customers away from other operators to affect their bottom lines. But then most people don't seem to choose their phone tariffs rationally anyway. (OMG! A free phone! Only €50 a month! [NB: minimum contract 2 years])
I'm just fearful that taking the SIM card out of the equation will leave us in a worse position, where we can't even work around the problem by buying prepaid SIM cards when abroad.
I don't see why they should be more than, say, the price you pay for data on a DSL or Cable connection :-)
Case in point: I spend about 2 months a year in Japan and a month in London. I live in the US and have a plan through ATT. I used to have an iPhone 3gs, and then a 4 (now a Galaxy Nexus).
The first time I travelled to London with my iPhone, I knew enough to be paranoid about overages and activated my global roaming service and bought 25MB of data coverage just so I could use it in a pinch. ATT customers were supposed to be able to get free WiFi at Starbucks. That turned out to be false. Fortunately, almost every pub in London has free wifi and I tend to spend more time in pubs than Starbucks anyway.
The second or third day I was there I called ATT to try to get them to give me the unlock code so I could swap my US SIM out for one from O2. After about 30 minutes on the phone, I finally got someone who put it plainly, "Sir, if you had any other phone besides the iPhone, we'd be glad to let you unlock your phone so you could use the SIM from the local carrier. But we are under strict orders from Apple not to." I bought a 20£ throwaway Nokia the next day which had a free 30£ top-up with it and used it for the duration of the trip.
I have had similar experiences in Japan, except I have always had a Japanese phone (because I use the NFC-based Suica card for the Metro and in convenience stores). A couple years ago, I needed to be on-call whilst in Tokyo and wanted to be able to answer my iPhone if it rang. Long story short, my iPhone didn't even work in Tokyo ... regardless that the global roaming was turned on (and I was paying for it).
Was in Tokyo from Nov-Jan this last year. Brought my [unlocked] Galaxy S2 I had at the time. Went to Softbank with my wife, and went through the normal procedure of proving citizenship (hers, not mine) etc. to get Japanese rate plans. Also had brought my Japanese phone. SIM swapped into my GS2, worked perfectly. No more global roaming/iPhone drama. Had tried to do similar with iPhone previously, carriers in Tokyo wouldn't touch it. Same thing, "Under strict orders from Apple not to …"
Went back with my Nexus recently. Put SIM from GS2 into Nexus. Worked flawlessly, as unlocked phones have been doing forever. I do not yearn for an Apple-controlled MNVO. a) I like specifically choosing whatever carrier works best for my needs at the time (via a SIM card) b) my experiences roaming with iPhone so far have been much MORE expensive than with any other phone.
Edit: wanted to make it clear that the "unlocked" GS2 was an ATT GS2 which ATT voluntarily gave me the unlock code for when I called and told them I would be travelling with it.
of course, now americans can just buy unlocked iphones. so problem solved, i guess. remarkably happy with the nexus and don't plan to go back to the iphone, so i guess i won't find out.
Maybe Verizon is better for customers who travel abroad often. But ATT showed me they were willing to unlock my non-iPhone without hesitation, so I still blame Apple. And the number of shady iPhone unlocker operations in both London and Tokyo tells me I'm not alone in their aggressive lock-in practices.
Maybe Verizon customers get a better deal, and I know unlocked iPhones are available now. Honestly, for the hefty price tag I've never considered unlocked iPhones here in the states. Sim-free plans in the US don't seem to offer the same level of discount that they do elsewhere in the world. Here it seems better to just sign the contract and take the carrier subsidy (something which I fully blame the carriers, not Apple, for).
It wasn't until Google started selling the Galaxy Nexus through the Play store for $399 that I even considered buying an unlocked phone. I am still under contract with ATT, but for this price the extra freedom I get is worth it to me. Definitely not gonna pay > $600 for it though.
FYI, I do have a number of unlocked phones I carry in other countries. But honestly, wouldn't you rather carry just one phone, the one you use for all your contacts and as a camera, music player, etc ... than having to carry two phones all the time? Kind of a PITA.
Needless to say, neither Canada nor France are cellular-monopoly countries.
What I do when I travel: remove my sim card and put it in a CD sleeve. That way, I can still listen to music and use the device on WiFi, and not worry. Another option, in case you think you'd lose your sim, is to put the phone on "Airplane" mode but turn on WiFi.
I didn't want to get calls at all while overseas.
Technically speaking airplane mode with wifi is no longer airplane mode.
For one thing, this is how the iPhone UI presents it, and since "Airplane Mode" is just an arbitrary UI thing, that's as valid as anything. For another thing, many airplanes now have WiFi during flight, so it seems you'd be hoist on the level of pedantic you're currently invoking.
However, using the "Data Roaming" option is a good idea.
Fair enough on the calls.
Perhaps someday. Nowadays, people who are paying subscriptions to T-Mobile resellers pretty well know they're on T-Mobile.
This entire article is just your viewpoint on this dressed up as being the facts. Most of it is just completely daft what-ifs. e.g. > If or when Apple go bust – you may be left with a brick. There will be no way to update it. really....?
Hence: regulators.
But this also means we could have "unlocked" SIM-less phones where I could swap networks freely.
I never understood SIM cards: what I want is to use Orange like I use Skype. That is, input an user and password and presto! If I want to switch over to Vodafone, input my Vodafone credentials and that's it.
Then again, it probably isn't the most practical way, the technology is old and the encryption broken.
The 2G/3G/4G evolution for 3GPP looks something like this (sorry for the alphabet soup) : GSM->WCDMA->LTE
Stolen phones can't be used. No changing SIMs when you travel No roaming fees! One bill for cell usage and purchases Apple's excellent customer support, full-stack
- to name a few. The main point is, the user doesn't have to mess around with installing a SIM card. In my opinion, the SIM is a holdover from a previous status quo, - we accept it because we've never known an alternative.
Besides, phone numbers are obsolete as well. I think this virtualisation should give possibility to move away from them.
Perhaps the more sound reason to go SIM-less is to reduce the barrier to switch, promote competition among mobile carriers and improve the whole user experience.
Don't forget that iPhone only works well with good mobile services. To Apple, the prices are easy to control but the quality of service is not. If virtual SIM is really coming, we could even expect a configuration that allows you to use different operators in different locations or for different purposes (data, voice call or SMS). I believe that this is what Apple is truly interested in.
What?
* Potentially little more than a software tweak to add UI for automatic SIM swap while roaming. The current best solution for this is a dodgy Chinese dual SIM phone, or that just-before-landing step on the plane when the battery comes out and your phone loses its time, and fires all calendar reminders when switched back on again.
* Potentially user hardware gets a chance to intercept the Ki (subscriber authentication key) as it passes through iTunes. At this point all kinds of interesting things can be done (entirely outside of the mobile network's TOS, of course). Like an app that lets you rent a SIM in a target country for 24 hours, at local subscriber calling rates. While within 10 years Europe's roaming rates will be normalized, this would still be a killer feature for international travel.
Sadly chances are high they'll get this right, and the vSIM will be delivered encrypted to some security module on the handset. Sometimes incompetence is a desirable thing.
Also, I'm pretty certain that even if Apple controlled the "virtual-SIM" card, there would still be hackers jailbreaking and unlocking the devices to make them work on other networks. So, I'm not too scared.
But most likely this will be driven through the "normal" standardization committees (3GPP etc) instead of coming from Apple.
When I went to Europe this summer with my 3G iPad, it was difficult in some cities to find a place to even buy a SIM card (let alone a paperclip to use to eject the SIM tray). Since my iPad is unlocked, it seemed to be a bit ridiculous that I even had to go through this. My device should just do a network scan, see what networks are available, and let me compare the plans (price/data) and choose one directly from my device.
Are you sure that's how you feel about it? I'd say Apple is on the side of consumers, against operators that are notoriously anti-consumer.
- Apple didnt just create the Micro-SIM to lock you in to the iPhone 4 -- since day 1 (American) carriers have had access to stockpiles of SIM cards and can very easily swap you to a normal sized one if need be. Literally, it has never been difficult.
- If Apple really wants the Virtual SIM, why are they feinting with heavy tactics like saying they'll license the Nano SIM for free to anyone that wants it should it become the next spec? Hardly seems like the strategy to put behind your losing prospective.
You buy a SIM card. You stick it in a phone. Viola. So SIMless phones would have to be supported by the networks. I would imagine that they're all working on it.
iPhones can already be locked to a carrier. Whether the SIM card is virtual is irrelevant. If the carriers want to screw you, they already have means to do so.
In fact, I suspect a phone with a virtual SIM card may be easier to unlock than a physical one since Apple must distribute software designed to program the virtual SIM card. You also won't need to physically get a SIM card to use a network and you'll be able to use multiple networks with the same phone. That sounds like a plus to me.
Regardless, the SIM card is certainly not the limiting factor in carrier portability or locking. It's essentially a floppy disk, and is quite unnecessary given data connectivity these days.
The idea that Apple wanted a smaller SIM as a step closer to no SIM is ridiculous. What difference does the size make? Having a card or not having a card is binary.
Don't do business with a company designed to take advantage of you. Problem solved.