[vladvasiliu]

> the whole idea of eSIM was to make things easier for the customer, not harder and more restrictive.

I remember reading an article in a French newspaper about how carriers were "uncomfortable" with the eSIM because it severed "the last connection" between them and their customers. The latter would basically no longer have a reason to "interact" with the former.

I don't quite see how that's a bad thing. The less you have to deal with "those people" (and this works from either side), the better it is, no? In my case, the last time I've "interacted" with my carrier was some 10 years ago when my phone got stolen, and I had to get a new SIM. Other than that, I pay them every month and they make sure my phone works every month.

At least with my carrier, it's cheaper to get an eSIM than a physical SIM. I didn't actually get one, since I've had my current SIM for a very long time. They basically charge for the "SIM service", and there's a separate charge for the physical part if you get it in a brick & mortar store, or for shipping if you want it delivered.

> Usually only locally sold models are allowed.

How can they tell, are there still country-specific models? I know people from the US and from Russia coming to France, popping a local SIM in and being in business. These were all iPhones, though.

[Nextgrid]

> I don't quite see how that's a bad thing

But how is the carrier going to "engage" you? How are all the people involved in sales and marketing there going to justify their job?

A carrier that operates fully automatically with minimal customer interaction could indeed be more profitable, but it's politically impossible for any established company to transition to such a model since it would obviate the need for many positions there - those same positions rely on the current status-quo (no matter how mediocre) and will fight any attempts at improving efficiency.

(this is not limited to carriers, any large legacy company has the same issues - lots of positions are just there to create work to sustain other, equally-useless positions, while the new output of the system being zero or even negative).

[TeMPOraL]

> because it severed "the last connection" between them and their customers. The latter would basically no longer have a reason to "interact" with the former.

I love how they put this because it's exactly how I phrase my general objection to and avoidance of SaaS and other kinds of services. I do NOT want to have a relationship with every single vendor. Managing relationships is costly. Most of the time, those relationships are highly abusive towards the customer. And they're almost always artificial anyway; they exist entirely to let the vendor keep a sales channel open. That's exactly what I do not want as a customer.

[jdietrich]

>I remember reading an article in a French newspaper about how carriers were "uncomfortable" with the eSIM because it severed "the last connection" between them and their customers.

That's a very delicate euphemism for "eSIM makes it easier to switch networks, which would increase churn and eat into our margins".

[mschuster91]

> The less you have to deal with "those people" (and this works from either side), the better it is, no?

The less contact, the less opportunity to upsell you to something that provides them recurring revenue.

It's all about rent seeking ("passive income") these days, everywhere.