Why the Apple Watch with LTE means a very Apple-y sort of freedom While Apple was making the iPhone less dependent on a Mac or PC, this week, it was tying its Watch even closer to the iPhone - contrary to what Apple's marketing material wants you to think. If you didn't know anything about Apple Watch Series 3 other than that it "now has a 4G SIM", you'd be forgiven for thinking this is a …
If you want to be begging to your Telco every time to let you change to some other Telco, go vote with your sheepish dollars for this shite.
If you like to have control - like when you travel abroad, put a SIM from a local Telco into the phone and switch back and forth whenever you please, do not spend a dime on eSIM devices.
If nobody buys such crap, we're safe until they force everybody to get chipped...
"If you still need an IPhone... where's the value?"
As far as I know in GSM, one phone number is tied to one SIM card only, so how would it even be possible to have the watch-phone independant of the phone without having it's own phone number? Maybe that's not the case for virtual SIM cards? or the GSM spec does actually allow for multiple SIMs to have the same number?
I had multiple phones on a single number for many years (car phones and the like) however the operators didnt like it and it never made a mainstream reason to exsist (why would a car have a SIM... )
Thats interesting, My car has an optional sim card accepting module that I didnt buy - I thought it would be a pain in the backside having two numbers/having to take the sim out of my phone to use in the car esp when it pairs with it over BT automatically anyway... Never even thought that there was a possibility of getting two sims with the same number!
It would be great to choose which phone (on the same number) to pick up on the way out of the house, just as one does one's shoes. Drunken night out? £20 Nokia. Train journey? 7" screened model with movies. Walk in the woods? Waterproofed model with extra long battery.
The mapping of the subscription identity in the SIM (IMSI) and the phone number (MSISDN) is a figment of the network, not the SIM. When you call a mobile, the network translates the MSISDN to IMSI, then goes looking for where it saw the hosting SIM last.
Likewise, the caller ID on outbound calls, gets set by the operator using the IMSI->MSISDN mapping.
So, mapping multiple IMSIs to one MSISDN is fairly trivial.
(3GPP nerds might now jump in and tell my I'm all wrong, leaving out many important details, but that is the overall effect)
"The reason why the Apple watch has such a terrible battery life ... WiFi radio ..."
Pretty much this. OK, a Series 2 with WatchOS 3 is heaps better than the original Watch with WatchOS 1.X and 2.X, but at least some of that is because of WatchOS 3. And because my utilisation has settled down into a less-thirsty pattern.
The main advantages of the WiFi are:
* I can be in WiFi range but out of Bluetooth range, and the watch can still find the phone.
* If I'm doing some sort of large sync task, it can use WiFi instead of 3 Mbps = 375KBps(1) over BlueTooth.
(1) YMMV if you use binary Mbps and KBps.
If I'm doing some sort of large sync task, it can use WiFi instead of 3 Mbps = 375KBps(1) over BlueTooth
Depends on your version of Bluetooth but power consumption over radio is directly related to bandwidth and distance. But it does make you wonder what kind of stuff you'd sync with a phone would require the bandwidth. I can and do use Bluetooth to play music round the flat and can easily do this for > 5m with a wall in the way.
While everything said about the iWatch may or may not be true (I wouldn't know - or care) I don't quite see why using an eSIM would _imply_ an inability to place calls. I haven't heard of such a limitation. The exact support that runs the software SIM application(s), be it a soldered-in eSIM chip or a traditional UICC "SIM card", should be functionally irrelevant beyond the fact that one cannot simply yank out a card and stick in another...
my guess, is because it is a (effectively) a 'data only' SIM. We have loads of them here for our mobile staff. They have cheap nokias for phone calls, and a tablet with a data only SIM for, well, everything else.
Also, to me at lease this explains the '2 SIM's 1 number' issue. It's not that that both have the same number, it's that only the one in your phone -needs- a number, because the one in your watch is only dealing with data, it doesnt need to care what 'number' it has.
1. From the Apple Website: "Phone and Messages - Make calls and send texts with just your watch." - https://www.apple.com/apple-watch-series-3/
2. The linked Appleinsider article was the usual made up conjecture that site specialises in, and wes dated well before the launch of the newest Barista Bracelet. It might as well have said 'Apple Watch with LTE may not support making calls in Welsh'.
3. EE gets exclusive rights to the series 3 in the UK. No idea how long for.
From the small print at the bottom of that exact same page of the Apple website:
"Apple Watch Series 3 (GPS + Cellular) requires an iPhone 6 or later with iOS 11 or later. Apple Watch and iPhone service provider must be the same. Not available with all service providers. Roaming is not available outside your carrier network coverage area. Wireless service plan required for cellular service. Contact your service provider for more details. Check www.apple.com/watch/cellular for participating wireless carriers and eligibility."
And more from the Apple site (emphasis mine): "Apple Watch Series 3 with cellular lets you make a call, send a text, and stream music — even when you leave your phone behind."
And from here - https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2017/09/apple-watch-series-3-features-built-in-cellular-and-more/ (again, emphasis mine): "Apple Watch Series 3 (GPS + Cellular) features a full LTE and UMTS cellular radio that switches seamlessly to cellular when it is away from iPhone."
So the Barista Bangle does require an iPhone for pairing and support, and will use the phone's cellular service when they are paired. I guess that's how you might use the watch when roaming: you wouldn't leave your phone at home. That makes a lot of sense from a battery usage point of view. But it's a standalone phone when its corresponding iPhone companion is away.
"Apple Watch Series 3 (GPS + Cellular) requires an iPhone 6 or later with iOS 11 or later. Apple Watch and iPhone service provider must be the same. Not available with all service providers. Roaming is not available outside your carrier network coverage area. Wireless service plan required for cellular service. Contact your service provider for more details. Check www.apple.com/watch/cellular for participating wireless carriers and eligibility."
You have to read that with the hurried mumbled legal disclaimer voice heard at the end of adverts:
"Available only at participating restaurants, check local media for details. May contain peanuts. Requires iPhone 6 or later."
So, if I was a user of such overpriced tat would I need a second sim contract?
How does that work with notifications? Which sim does the watch show notifications for? Do you need two numbers? Which number do you give out? Why even have a second sim when you have to be connected to your iPhone which already has a sim and bluetooth?
I'm thinking this is not very well thought out or it could in fact be very clever for the only network you can connect the watch and iPhone to.
Also, where does this sit with Ofcoms rules on unlocking a device? If it's locked to EE what if you want to go to another network?
"Also, where does this sit with Ofcoms rules on unlocking a device? If it's locked to EE what if you want to go to another network?"
Like most US companies, they assume the whole world works to US law and their T&Cs are enforceable because you can "sign away" your rights over there. Considering the slapping the Italians gave Apple over the enforcement of the EU mandated 2 year warranty that Apple were trying to claim was only one year and chargeable for the second year, you'd think they might have engaged some "local" lawyers in the their target markets by now.
Mobile operators have been clinging desperately to physical SIMs in order to prevent customers from switching easily. Apple is the company trying to break this down so that mobile operators actually have to behave more competitively. The Register then spins this into a scare story how Apple is trying to destroy customer freedom. The point about having to own an iPhone to work with Apple Watch is ... old hat, going back to the beginning of Apple Watch. Everything else is stuff that is fine for most people and not fine for some others. At least these mouth-breathing conniption fits are good for a laugh.
Apple is the company trying to break this down so that mobile operators actually have to behave more competitively.
Only in your dreams, fanboi. Andrew is entirely correct to suggest that Apple wants as much control of the device as possible. Control the SIM and you can run play MVNO. Any money saved by playing networks off against each other will go to Apple not to customers. Not they seem to mind, however, seeing how much Apple charges for the stuff.
No, quite the reverse. Right now, customers can switch by just getting a replacement SIM and stuffing it in. Operators already try to prevent this with network-locking on phones.
Now, as operators are required to do the eSIM mangling over-the-air, they are free to not do it at all, or charge for the service, or other nefarious friction-adding tricks.
The phone manufacturer is also involved - and can muck about with the process.
The freedom to own more than one SIM, and switch them about between phones will be taken away.
"The freedom to own more than one SIM, and switch them about between phones will be taken away."
That is worrying!
I'm sure the consumers will vote with their wallets so we don't get into that situation.
Because consumers are intelligent and rational.
Hang on...
Mobile operators have been clinging desperately to physical SIMs in order to prevent customers from switching easily.
How do you work that out? The sim in my phone can be swapped out in seconds and the mobile company can do sod all about it. With an esim I can't just swap the thing out I'm relying on the network to swap me over to a competitor of theirs or a local one abroad.
Mobile operators have been clinging desperately to physical SIMs in order to prevent customers from switching easily.
Quite the opposite. Mobile operators would love for someone to make non-removable SIMs a thing as that would mean they would get handset lockdown for free. That's what used to happen in the pre-GSM world, and what has been going on for decades in the US with the horrible CDMA carriers.
I hope this crap doesn't take off, because the moment this jumps into GSM handsets, operators will lock 'em down hard. And all because Apple has to keep their control freakery alive.
So am I understanding this right... if you get the apple watch with the eSIM you dont need to have your phone with you, but you still need to own a phone.
Im guessing from this then that the watch is capable of pairing with the phone over, Bluetooth, WiFi and now Cellular data? but cant use that cellular connection to do anything else?
Or have I completely misunderstood this and you need to have the phone and watch in close proximity for them to work (in that case what benefit is stumping up for the LTE watch)
d3vy that appears to be exactly it. An embedded internet connection that can link to the internet, your remote iPhone and Apple's servers. Everything has to come through that and you can only get that connection via Apple and a participating (presumably by bending over) mobile network in your home country. Looking at the specs it doesn't even seem to support LTE at 1800 MHz or UMTS at 2100 MHz so god knows what the coverage will be like outside the USA.
"Looks like El Reg still hates Apple?"
They don't seem to be showering MS with love either. I wonder if that little phrase in the masthead might have sometime to do with it? Something about hand, feed and bite if I recall correctly but it's just too much effort to scroll back up and check.
"Looks like El Reg still hates Apple"
(Shameful admission time) I own a Macbook Pro and an iPhone 6S so I'm possibly as near to being a fanboy as can be without actually being a fanboy! (Good tools for what I need but that's about my only emotional link to them).
I think The Register spreads the hate around fairly evenly and without prejudice. Admittedly The Register didn't have headline articles about the leaking of the iPhone X's name (not the specs, just the name) and then didn't have live reporting on the launch event unlike two of the so called quality British 'newspapers' (with free to view websites) which I regularly look at. So I can see, how compared to those two publications, they would appear haters.
What I can't understand is the reason for the iPhone in all this. If I have a device that can make and receive calls/SMS etc. why do I need to have the iPhone? If Samsung can fit a Nano sim into their watch so I can use that out of my phone then I don't need to pay the network fee for the watch. Okay so Apple want to sell some (more) iPhones and didn't like the idea that someone might skip their phone altogether. I quite like the idea of having something on my wrist that I can wear and means I can ditch my phone for a few days or even longer. The trouble is I don't like the iPhone because I'm a heavy user of widgets and rely on being able to bluetooth files around. Also it likely won't work going abroad which is where I would most like to ditch the phone. So I won't be going down my local Apple shop and splashing out on a Watch 3. Oh yeah and when it isn't tied to EE let me know.
I suspect there's a clue in the fact that it's marketed as LTE, not 4G. LTE doesn't support native voice, but relies on using VoLTE. If you look at the supported networks list, they're the networks who currently have VoLTE support up and running. 4G normally implies fall back support for 2G and 3G; LTE doesn't. Hence my guess is that there is no legacy support for 2G or 3G and they're playing some clever tricks with voice packets over LTE. That should also help them with power consumption, as VoLTE's much more efficient.
LTE is just American for 4G, since they started calling HSPA 3G, 4G!
As for VoLTE, most UK networks support this, for example Three call their VoLTE service "Super Voice" (because it gives you in building coverage on the lower frequency LTE bands where their 2100 MHz 3G signal can't reach). Oh and the watch does support 3G (WCDMA at 2100 MHz).
The SIM is very much about what GSM standards brought : open freedom to change operator.
If you've no SIMs, you've a risk of lock in. This was always the case with US standards like CDMAOne /I-95
Virtual SIMs will have to be very tightly regulated to ensure we don't just lose the benefit of physical SIMs
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
