Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Proposes Standard for Smaller SIM Cards to Make Even Thinner iPhones
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
spazzcat
macrumors 601
Mousse
macrumors 601
Indeed. Drop the proprietary iPod connection in favor of the standardized microUSB. That'll be bigger (and better) news for me. Smaller SIM.🙄
ciTiger
macrumors 6502a
Yes we are getting there, but we still aren't there yet...
Besides people like to add covers and cases which defeats the purpose...
If one gets to be too thin just put it in case I guess...
spazzcat
macrumors 601
spazzcat
macrumors 601
And force people that have spent $100s of dollars in accessories to re-buy them....
The same reason people have started adopting micro-sim. Apple is one of the very few people that use it but yes it out there and it hasn't bothered people but i am sure that little bit of space made a difference in making of the iPhone 4.
In order to move forward in one aspect you need to sacrifice another aspect. I am not saying apple's need for a smaller sim is justified, but i not saying its not justified either. All i am saying is don't judge until you see the final product. Stop being so angry about everything.
You don't know the reason for the smaller sim, it dosent have to mean thinner phone. For all your know it could be some revolutionary breakthrough in which helps the next iPhone achiever 10 times more battery power 😛
With the revolution in interface it made way for the design to be implemented more easily. I dont remember seeing any design similar to the iphone on the mainstream before the iPhone do you?
Its funny how people are hating on this smaller card because they think the iphone is gonna become smaller but are fine with a soft sim card?
I know we would all rather have soft sim card's but that means it gives apple the chance to make the phones even smaller?
darrenmoffatt
macrumors newbie
Whoa there cowboy!
Whoa, let's not state this as a fact or anything. Since the iPhone was not the first real smartphone. When it was first released it didn't even have the ability to load custom applications into the phone.
Give credit where credit is due mate; the IBM Simon came out in 1994 and had a significant amount of functionality that would later be seen in smartphones like the Handspring Treo and RIM's Blackberry line (circa 2002).
Once could argue that the iPhone was the first smartphone to be adopted by the average consumer en masse. It also defined a new form factor that now appears to be the gold standard for many of today's smartphones. </rant>
Whoa, let's not state this as a fact or anything. Since the iPhone was not the first real smartphone. When it was first released it didn't even have the ability to load custom applications into the phone.
Give credit where credit is due mate; the IBM Simon came out in 1994 and had a significant amount of functionality that would later be seen in smartphones like the Handspring Treo and RIM's Blackberry line (circa 2002).
Once could argue that the iPhone was the first smartphone to be adopted by the average consumer en masse. It also defined a new form factor that now appears to be the gold standard for many of today's smartphones. </rant>
lewis82
macrumors 68000
The iPod dock connector is much more verstile than micro USB... it offers support for a lot of accessories (think docking stations, FM transmitters, car integration, home theater integration, even MIDI interfaces for musical instruments, guitar amplifiers...) and is more than just USB but rather USB + line out + VGA + HDMI...
Yes, it is proprietary, but the acceptance is so wide (as iPods are nearly universal) that it does not become a problem. (The new HP phones, on the other hand, rely on magnetic connectors. These are a pain).
Apple made waves last year with reports that the company was seeking to deploy embedded SIM cards, a step that would remove some of the power of carriers over phone distribution.
It would have meant the exact opposite.
It would have meant the exact opposite.
Its not an assumption, that's what i got out of the post i read about people's opinions on soft sim card's . If you have an opinion against it, state it so i better understand why.
We're talking about Apple here. The company that:
a) Forces you to gain permission to use a device you've paid for (i.e. activate it) using their servers every time you restore it. If Apple's servers don't work (or they close them down) you can't use your device.
b) Requires you to download an entire 650MB+ file to update the smallest of things - USING A COMPUTER! when other manufacturers have had OTA and small updates for years
c) Requires you to sync with iTunes (I'm not even going to write about how bad iTunes is) to do the tinest of things like adding a ringtone to your phone, when other devices can do it without a computer at all
d) Plays to every whim of the carriers (particularly AT&T), restricting how people use their devices
I don't expect a "soft SIM" approach implemented by Apple to be of any benefit to consumers. The above four things benefit Carriers but not users. I expect(ed) Apple's "Soft SIM" approach to be no different.
I can't perceive how a "Soft SIM" approach implemented even by a saint would be of any benefit to consumers. It simply wouldn't offer them any more flexibility than they already have and it would take conveniences away from them.
Last edited:
What does any of that have to do with a soft sim card? So what its a little bit of effort and time. You dont like going through all those hoops dont use an iPhone.
Its like saying I dont want apple to produce any more products cause of the kind of company they are?
If that were the case they might as well shut down and stop bringing out products
fabian9
macrumors 65816
I don't think thickness makes much of a difference here. As it stands at the moment, the sim has to lie parallel to the front and rear face of the phone in order to fit in - an orientation that takes away a lot of real estate in the two horizontal directions. A smaller (note not necessarily thinner!) sim card would allow apple to package it in a different orientation, freeing up space for other components.
Because advances in technology don't happen overnight - they evolve with time. If you can't get rid of the SIM, make it as small as you can. Why not make it smaller if you can? Would you rather have a larger battery and better battery life, or use an old-fashioned sim card?
On a different note, could you link to some phones that 1) had a similar design and UI to iPhone before 2007. And 2) some phones that are thinner, use mini sims and offer the same performance as the iPhone 4?
It's not the effort or the time, it's simply that people talk as if "Soft SIM" makes things more competitive or more convenient for users.
I don't see how that's the case given Apple's track record on this very area. They jump into bed with carriers in exclusivity deals and they use all of the technology at their disposal to ensure carriers get their way.
The status quo (a standardised module that can be put into any phone) promotes competitiveness and openness much better.
I live in the UK, so I have an unlocked iPhone (unlocked for free by my carrier) and I can put any SIM from the 6 fully compatible carriers that the UK has into it.
It doesn't mean that Apple and AT&T's relationship in the US isn't bad for consumers everywhere though.
