Sign in / up

back to article 'Open' SIMs, brain chips and Google's Nest: What to expect in wireless in 2015

In mobile and wireless technologies, history will see 2014 as a year in which most of the dramas were about M&A rather than breakthrough technologies (although at least the industry was starting to move on from patent wars). However, it will also be seen as a year when the groundwork was laid for many trends that will shape the …

COMMENTS

Post your comment
House rules Send corrections
Add to 'My topics' unstar *

  1. This post has been deleted by its author

  2. Sir Lancelot
    Megaphone

    An Apple SIM is not a soft SIM and it requires a non-Apple network

    "...and Apple included a "soft SIM" option in its latest iPad. This allows the user to select from a list of operators (and switch between them) when activating the device, passing the control from the carrier to Apple."

    Wrong - Apple's SIM is not a soft SIM, it's a simple physical multi-IMSI nanoSIM (with limitations e.g. AT&T swap restrictions) still requiring network and suscription support from a participating MNO. The Apple SIM can still be replaced by whatever SIM you prefer so control has not passed from the carrier(s) to Apple. Apple has other means to put the pressure on carriers such as 4G network certification and commercial terms for the promotion and sales of handsets. Or is Apple thinking about becoming an M(V)NO?

    2 0 Reply
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: An Apple SIM is not a soft SIM and it requires a non-Apple network

      I highly doubt Apple wishes to be an MVNO. They just want to reduce the friction for carrier moves as much as possible by making it easy to switch.

      They have talked about a software SIM and have been working with GSMA trying to push that, but the carriers obviously are very resistant to this as it takes away some of their control over consumers. The best they can do for now is the SIM they offer that allows switching carriers, though apparently it isn't foolproof as the example you give of AT&T not letting you switch to another carrier once you've selected AT&T.

      It is a standard SIM that can be replaced with a carrier SIM so Apple is giving the consumer additional power, not adding any sort of Apple lock-in.

      0 0 Reply
  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Probably just me...

    But that whole article was a presentational disaster.

    3 0 Reply
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Probably just me...

      No, I found it hard to read too. Just add some animated GIFs and it could be proudly hosted by Geocities.

      0 0 Reply
  4. D@v3

    2015?

    For an article headed

    "What to expect in wireless in 2015

    We look at events that will shape the industry this year"

    There seemed to be an awful lot about last year.

    2 0 Reply
    1. VinceH
      Reply Icon

      Re: 2015?

      Judging by the amount of "next page" text, the writer(s) also appear to have based their approach to writing on modern TV documentaries. The only thing missing was a recap of the previous page at the start of each.

      5 0 Reply
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: 2015?

        It's all about ways to splice the article with more of the components that any commercial site is really about: ads. Unless it's a shopping site, of course, but they rarely have external ads anyway.

        0 0 Reply
  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Apple wanted rid of the SIM card. So Google is just carrying on that idea.

    Personally just banning SIM and network lock would be better, totally anti-competitive.

    0 0 Reply
    1. Sir Lancelot
      Reply Icon

      This would require (1) existing M(V)NOs to abandon their SIM-based network approach - rather unlikely - or (2) new SIMless networks to be established - any takers? I'm afraid the GSMA/ETNO train has left the station quite some time ago and will be hard to stop. The whole operator-centric SIM/IMSI approach has been engineerded into the GSM standards with the complicity of the ETNO and ITU and they are not in the habit of listening to what the end user wants.

      0 0 Reply
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Just needs a software SIM. Apple has been talking to GSMA for a few years about using software (i.e. an encrypted certificate of some sort) but since it is an industry organization where carriers wield a lot of power, they have resisted this mightily.

        0 0 Reply
        1. Sir Lancelot
          Reply Icon

          It does needs a bit more

          Remember the SIM (soft or hard) is pricipally used to store the IMSI(s) i.e. the handset's identity. Currently in the large majority of countries (ITU members) the only organisations allowed to manage and distribute IMSIs are MNOs owning an operational wireless GSM/LTE network. So even with softSIMs or handset vendor provided SIMs you would need to have an agreement with a MNO to get the IMSIs for your SIMs. Organisations thinking about rolling out M2M applications are also confronted with this problem and so far the MNOs are doing whatever they can to retain control over IMSI distribution. The critical part is not the SIM (hard/soft/reprogrammable), it's the IMSI.

          0 0 Reply
  6. Hud Dunlap
    Unhappy

    Goodbye Google Nest

    I bought the Nest before Google before Google bought them. It is ok, but I am looking for replacement since Google bought them. Right now, Nest claims none of the data is being sent to Google. That can change at any time.

    0 0 Reply
  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Correction

    This is just one example of Google using its acquisition as a stalking horse to influence platforms for the smart home, which will be a vital growth area for its applications and big data services in the coming years.

    That should be "a vital growth area for its privacy invading data acquisition services that invade the home". I'll be looking at Nest, but if it farms any data off to Google it won't get into my house at all. For Google, the IoT means more gadgets to use for spying on people's personal life.

    What? Yes, I'm paranoid. Haven't been proven wrong so far either.

    0 0 Reply

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

Forgotten password ?

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like