Posts: 21,452
Threads: 243
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation:
0
C(-)ris wrote:
[quote=Bimwad]
If Apple had their way, there wouldn't be physical SIMs at all.
Verizon is just being Verizon.
You would think they would have learned from the first time they turned down Apple.
Hasn't Verizon stayed the largest carrier in the USA? Not sure they suffered much for not having the iPhone for a few years. Largest carrier in 2007, largest carrier in 2014 and I think every year in between. Anyone got numbers to the contrary? I think Apple choosing GSM in the beginning was a boon for international roll out, so no big loss to Apple either.
Posts: 3,898
Threads: 150
Joined: Jan 2022
Reputation:
0
I'm guessing Apple gets a cut of what you're paying for data. So they're doing what they need to do to keep you from swapping SIMs.
Posts: 21,452
Threads: 243
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation:
0
MGS_forgot_password wrote:
I'm guessing Apple gets a cut of what you're paying for data. So they're doing what they need to do to keep you from swapping SIMs.
That's a pretty consumer unfriendly reason. Apple has nice margins on the tablet alone, especially with the mark up on the mobile data versions. No need to get greedy. I like being able to swap a SIM in order to swap service and/or device at my convenience. Seems like an integrated SIM would degrade to a CDMA era of control of the device. I'm more worried what this means for iPhones.
Posts: 2,443
Threads: 266
Joined: Aug 2017
Reputation:
0
MGS_forgot_password wrote:
I'm guessing Apple gets a cut of what you're paying for data. So they're doing what they need to do to keep you from swapping SIMs.
Apple doesn't get a cut, and there's nothing to prevent the user from swapping SIMs.
The pre-installed "Apple SIM" can be configured for any participating carrier.
Presumably, Verizon users will have to swap it out for a Verizon SIM, though it's not clear whether that will occur at the Apple store, or users will have to do it on their own.
From Apple's point of view, they can dispense with the complexity of carrying SKUs for each carrier, and ship just one model for each capacity and color, instead of three. The Air 2 hardware is universal, and unlocked. just as it was for the Air.
Since cellular iPads aren't sold primarily as subsidized devices, Apple can ignore the carriers and do what they like, such as selling all of the hardware unlocked, and eliminating the removable SIM, just as they wanted to do with the iPhone. They haven't done the latter, yet, but there's little reason to think they Apple would purposely do that to limit the user's choices.
Posts: 21,452
Threads: 243
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation:
0
Bimwad wrote:
From Apple's point of view, they can dispense with the complexity of carrying SKUs for each carrier, and ship just one model for each capacity and color, instead of three. The Air 2 hardware is universal, and unlocked. just as it was for the Air.
This doesn't make any sense. Unlocked devices are traditionally sold SIM free. The different SKUs generally reflect color, capacity, supported radio frequencies, etc. If the new iPad is a universal device, why not simply sell one model and have the consumer pick up the necessary SIM?
Bimwad wrote: Since cellular iPads aren't sold primarily as subsidized devices, Apple can ignore the carriers and do what they like, such as selling all of the hardware unlocked, and eliminating the removable SIM, just as they wanted to do with the iPhone. They haven't done the latter, yet, but there's little reason to think they Apple would purposely do that to limit the user's choices.
What's the consumer benefit here. As a SIM user for over a decade, this "improvement" is lost on me. Especially since not all carriers are participants in the program. Notice there are no MVNOs or smaller carriers listed, in addition to the absence of Verizon.
Posts: 2,443
Threads: 266
Joined: Aug 2017
Reputation:
0
silvarios wrote:
This doesn't make any sense. Unlocked devices are traditionally sold SIM free. The different SKUs generally reflect color, capacity, supported radio frequencies, etc. If the new iPad is a universal device, why not simply sell one model and have the consumer pick up the necessary SIM?
What doesn't make sense? Have you ever purchased a cellular iPad? Prior to this, each one had a pre-installed carrier-specific SIM. Take each color, capacity, and multiply by a factor of three different models, one for each carrier. The user had to select which carrier model before purchase. They aren't sold like unlocked phones with no SIMs.
Now, there is single model for each configuration with a programmable SIM where the user has the convenience of selecting the carrier during setup, instead of procuring their own SIM from the carrier.
How is that less advantageous, for either Apple, or the user, unless they're a Verizon subscriber?
What's the consumer benefit here. As a SIM user for over a decade, this "improvement" is lost on me. Especially since not all carriers are participants in the program. Notice there are no MVNOs or smaller carriers listed, in addition to the absence of Verizon.
The users receive a marginal benefit of a smaller or thinner device. Argue that all you wish. Apple gets to eliminate the physical SIM tray assembly, and treat it as just another chip on the logic board.
Posts: 48,066
Threads: 9,823
Joined: Dec 2021
Reputation:
0
Bimwad wrote:
...
The users receive a marginal benefit of a smaller or thinner device. Argue that all you wish. Apple gets to eliminate the physical SIM tray assembly, and treat it as just another chip on the logic board.
It seems that you can still remove the Apple SIM and put in the SIM of your choice.
Posts: 2,443
Threads: 266
Joined: Aug 2017
Reputation:
0
space-time wrote:
[quote=Bimwad]
...
The users receive a marginal benefit of a smaller or thinner device. Argue that all you wish. Apple gets to eliminate the physical SIM tray assembly, and treat it as just another chip on the logic board.
It seems that you can still remove the Apple SIM and put in the SIM of your choice.
Yes, that is still the current situation with the iPad Air 2.
But future models may not, at least for iPads. It's part of the worst case scenario that Nathan often envisions.
Posts: 21,452
Threads: 243
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation:
0
Bimwad wrote:
What doesn't make sense? Have you ever purchased a cellular iPad? Prior to this, each one had a pre-installed carrier-specific SIM. Take each color, capacity, and multiply by a factor of three different models, one for each carrier. The user had to select which carrier model before purchase. They aren't sold like unlocked phones with no SIMs.
Now, there is single model for each configuration with a programmable SIM where the user has the convenience of selecting the carrier during setup, instead of procuring their own SIM from the carrier
Right, but if the hardware is now fully compatible with all carriers, then you don't need to include a SIM at all. Just sell the iPad as unlocked with a helpful link to supported carriers (by frequency, not silly integrated SIM compatibility). Most unlocked devices ship sans SIM and the consumer simply chooses one from their preferred carrier. Apple had to make different iPads for different carriers in the past, primarily to support CDMA carriers, but also for the different LTE bands in use in the world (there's a lot).
Again, unlocked devices have generally been GSM devices and it was up to the consumer to pick the devices with the correct frequencies for their carrier, not that there weren't pentaband HSPA devices on the market that made such decision even easier. Different supported frequencies could result in multiple SKUs, however, if you had a device that supported all frequencies, such as the aforementioned pentaband models, you only need a different SKU for color or capacity, or similar. Either way, a bundled SIM would not effect the SKU because an unlocked device is by definition not tied to a carrier. As such, there was never a need to bundle a SIM for an unlocked device.
Bimwad wrote: How is that less advantageous, for either Apple, or the user, unless they're a Verizon subscriber?
Or a Walmart Family Mobile customer, or H20 Wireless. There are many smaller USA GSM carriers not supported plus all of the many worldwide carriers not supported. There's a lot of carriers missing. Apple is making is harder to swap devices and not terribly easier to swap services. Unless every carrier is onboard this isn't an ideal solution for carrier swaps. For device swaps, it's even worse, unless you only plan on swapping from iPad to iPad, which is ultimately the point, isn't it?
Bimwad wrote: The users receive a marginal benefit of a smaller or thinner device. Argue that all you wish. Apple gets to eliminate the physical SIM tray assembly, and treat it as just another chip on the logic board.
My Nokia e72 had a removable battery, microSD and full size SIM. It was about the same thickness as the iPhone 4S that has none of those features. The Samsung S5 is on par with the iPhone 5/5s/5c and not much thicker than the new iPhone 6 yet has a larger SIM (micro versus nano), removable battery, and microSD. This isn't about those devices necessarily being better just a size comparison. There's marginal improvements with these devices when it comes to size of SIM and size of device, but I think your statement at trying to reduce costs (thus increasing profit margins) is probably the true reason for Apple trying to eventually eliminate the tray assembly.
Eliminating the SIM will not make me happy. Swapping SIMs is one of the benefits to GSM. I largely eschewed CDMA carriers in the USA because I didn't want to deal with contacting the carrier every time I wanted to swap my devices. I hope Verizon never gives in, because a precedent of no SIM would be worse than the choice of an optional programmable SIM. I like choices. Give me both.
|
