Slashdot Mirror
Apple Offers Nano-SIM Design Royalty-Free
judgecorp writes "Apple is reportedly offering its nano-SIM design free of royalties, hoping to swing the standards decision its way, for the next generation of even tinier SIM cards for phones and tablets."
Nokia has reportedly responded that they still prefer their own design.
I guess their standard will be the MicroSoft-SIM
There's a lot of news about this new standard but not much detail about the two competing designs. As for size, yes the cards are physically smaller and use less plastic, however, the design will probably contain details like power requirements, access protocols, etc that the manufacturers care about but the consumer does not.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
But it's rectangular! We all know Apple invented that. Ask Sam Sung if you don't believe me.
Take a look at this comparison:
http://socialbarrel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Apple-Pushes-For-Nano-SIM-Design-To-Become-Standard.jpg
The question is, Why the fuck are we still using SIM cards?
It has to be a rounded rectangle to be an Apple original. No sharp users, no sharp corners.
Perfect fit....
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
They're not just trying to mess with everyone; the article also states "It [Apple] also asks that all other patent holders accept the same terms in accordance with the principle of reciprocity." It seems to me that Apple wants access to patents that at least one of the other players has control of, and Apple is using this 'offer' to get free licensing, with the threat of trying to kick over the sand castle if they don't get what they want.
Apple is submitting their design to be a standard . If Apple wins or loses, there still will be a new standard. As such, please explain how Apple will fragment the market or how current marketshare in Asia affects how a European standards body will decide the merits of a standard in future smart phones.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
First, it is often an attribute of FRAND terms. Otherwise standards could not exist if a company offered their patented technology free but could get sued if they used other technology in it. Like in SDRAM, all the players agree to FRAND terms so that memory you get from one manufacturer should work with memory from another manufacturer.
Second, what "threat" are you talking about? This is a proposal for a new standard. If ETSI does not like anything in the design, they can tell Apple they are not accepting their proposal. Just a few days ago, everyone here was predicting Apple would leverage their proposal to get more in licensing money. Apple says that they will offer it royalty free and suddenly Apple has dark motives and is personified as a bully.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Does anyone get the feeling that this doesn't feel like the Apple we're used to?
Apple's always been found of royalty free standards and products in markets were they need some minimal presence, but aren't actually competing...
'Sensible' is a curse word.
acquired from Nortel for $4.5 Billion, so I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say that Apple has no patents on traditional cellular functionality.
Also, they are offering their patents in this case royalty-free, so I'm not sure what there is here to hang them by.
With the current SIM standard, I can take the SIM out of a 10 year old phone, and pop it in to a brand new phone (except the iPhone that uses the micro-SIM "standard") and keep on talking. Obviously this is bad for business, so they want to make sure that I'll have to buy a new SIM to use my new phone. There is no other justification for it. There is no phone on the planet too small for a regular SIM, and as long as we need to hold the phones in our hands, there can't be.
As for patentable... EVERYTHING is patentable.... whether it SHOULD be is a completely different question, but one that is completely irrelevant to the companies involved.
Apple may be in it for themselves but not the for the reason you are thinking. By accepting Apple's proposal as a standard, Apple does not automatically gain other patents. Apple buys patent protection if they manufacture the cards but don't get any protection in any way. All asking is saying is that if their proposal contains other SIM patents from other companies, they should also offer theirs royalty-free. The main threat to other companies is that they get no money from nano-SIM if Apple's design is accepted. Apple with their cash hoard does not need the money but other companies are not so financially solid.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
And the whole point to both the micro and nano SIM standards is to force you to change to a new form factor as often as possible. As long as we have to be able to hold phones in our hands, there is no reason at all not to use full size SIM cards, unless you are trying to prevent people from simply taking the SIM out of their old phone and putting it in a new one....
That's pretty small as it is, going smaller so soon seems a bit unnecessary?
You'd think so, wouldn't you? But if you take apart an iPhone, there's really not much left once you've removed the display and battery. The micro SIM slot takes up a surprising proportion of the space on the board; I can see how making it slightly smaller would increase space for the battery.
What they think is a better standard.
Look at this picture: http://tectrack.blogspot.com/2011/11/forget-micro-sim-nano-sim-will-be.html
Nano sim is thinner and 12mm X 9mm.
Now tell me with a straight face that adding the difference between a Micro sim and a Nano Sim will make any significant difference in battery size.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
I don't understand it. They are pretty small as is. What's the point of making them smaller?...so they're easier to lose the few times people have to handle them...like when they get a new phone or transfer there SIM for whatever reason?
Poor picture.
Try this one: http://tectrack.blogspot.com/2011/11/forget-micro-sim-nano-sim-will-be.html
or this one http://www.ixwebhosting.mobi/giesecke-devrient-launch-worlds-first-nano-sim-card-micro-sim-card-than-the-small-13/
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Apple's proposal is a smaller form factor, but it's electrically compatible with existing SIM (it can be inserted into a physical adapter containing no electronics and work with devices designed for micro, or mini SIM cards), making it backward compatible. It doesn't fragment the market any more than micro or mini SIM does.
The Nokia proprosal has changes to technical specs, it would actually create a new, (non-compatible???) standard.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Nano sim is thinner and 12mm X 9mm.
Now tell me with a straight face that adding the difference between a Micro sim and a Nano Sim will make any significant difference in battery size.
OK, I'll tell you with a straight face: it can. It's easy to see if you look at pictures of the current iPhone 4S motherboard and battery:
http://guide-images.ifixit.net/igi/dCidpYqpnbZ2JiDS.huge
http://guide-images.ifixit.net/igi/ADhhSUuY2cTIiuba.huge
Note how the width of the main section of the motherboard defines how much of the width of the phone is left for battery to fill. Make the board narrower, more battery. Note how the micro SIM socket is the largest component, and the motherboard can't get any narrower unless the size of the SIM socket is reduced.
(Now, you might also say the A5 chip would have to be narrower, and that's probably true, but the thing is -- Apple controls the A5's package design. If they want to make it more rectangular, they can. And reducing the size of a SIM card in both X and Y dimensions would give them room to do that.)
I'll also tell you another thing with a straight face: even if you were right about SIM card size being meaningless on its own, you'd still be an idiot. Nobody tries to improve battery capacity by addressing just one issue. They're constantly trying to miniaturize everything. If every component's size is cut, it adds up to something real in the end (especially size changes which allow more flexibility in how to arrange other components).
SIM cards are getting attention because their size is relatively low-hanging fruit. Most of the volume of a SIM card has always been packaging and the connector contacts. The active circuitry is very small (it's just a low capacity serial EEPROM chip). This is why there were stories a while back about Apple trying to push carriers into replacing the physical SIM with a blob of data stored in the phone's main flash storage. It's one of the largest non-battery internal components, and it does so little, so of course engineers want to reduce its size (or eliminate it).
You do realize what a "full size SIM card" actually is? It's the size of a credit card. The SIM card you're referring to is already called a mini SIM card.
Technology moves forward and miniaturizes. Older stuff becomes incompatible. It's unfortunate the nano format is already being proposed before the micro-SIM is even commonplace aside from Apple gear, but micro-SIMs were standardized in late 2003, almost 9 years ago. It's hardly Apple's fault that no one else wanted to take charge and move the technology ahead. Like USB on the iMac, they're driving and popularizing an existing standard.
Funny how every other phone manufacturer on the planet has been able to fit full size SIM cards in their phones, phones which are often no larger, and no less capable than the iPhone. If I don't know what I'm talking about, than neither to the engineers at every other cell phone company, the ones who have accidentally done something that you said there is no chance at all of doing.
A better standard that works for them.
It's not the first time they've done this - they did it with Mini-Displayport too, and now you see those all over the place, and it works for Apple because they really like small and simple connectors.
Apple's released their mini-DisplayPort royalty free, but burred deep down inside the license agreement is an exclusion that voids the license if the licensee "commence an action for patent infringement against Apple".
Ever read the license agreements for some other standards (especially single-vendor "standards", which mini-DP is not)? There's some scary stuff in there, the only reason people freak out about Apple in these cases is because it's Apple so some guy with a chip on his shoulder is likely to sit down and look for stuff that could make them look bad.
Since the transition to OS X Apple has been quite fond of open standards (but considering that a lot of people seem to still think that Apple computers can only handle a single mouse button I'm not surprised the myth of the locked-down proprietary protocols and other tech of the Apple walled garden thrives).
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
"the principal issues remain the technical superiority of our proposal and that Apple's proposal does not meet the pre-agreed ETSI requirements... Apple's proposal for royalty free licensing seems no more than an attempt to devalue the intellectual property of others."
That last part of it, about devaluing the IP of others looks like Nokia wants the licensing fees for their patents. Apple's no saint, but in this case I'm either with Apple or a third design that belongs to neither of them.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.