[nknighthb]

What is... "store"?

In the 6+ years I spent in Silicon Valley, I entered a Walgreens every three months to pick up a prescription, and probably could've dispensed with that if I'd taken half an hour to figure out my provider's online thing.

Other than that and the rare emergency, everything else (yes, including groceries) was ordered online and delivered to my home. The only businesses I routinely entered were my workplace and restaurants.

Why should I have to go to some stupid store to get a SIM card when I could just switch online in 30 seconds?

[kalleboo]

> Why should I have to go to some stupid store to get a SIM card when I could just switch online in 30 seconds?

Because online you'll be limited to whoever Apple has a deal with. SIM cards are about freedom. Sure, an online infrastructure and the laws to force an implementation of it are technically simple, and could be done, but with thousands of carriers in 200 countries, it's never going to be all-encompassing. SIM cards being mandated in the GSM standard in 1991 was amazingly forward-thinking and we have a lot to thank for it today.

[danielrhodes]

Any piece of hardware which is replaced by software is a win for consumers.

In this case, maybe the carrier is gated by Apple. However that's a big step beyond a carrier locked phone at the hardware level like it used to be.

[kalleboo]

> Any piece of hardware which is replaced by software is a win for consumers.

Replacing physical books and optical media with online DRM was a huge loss for consumers. Being able to remotely revoke the right to use something you bought is incredibly onerous.

> However that's a big step beyond a carrier locked phone at the hardware level like it used to be

"like it used to be"? Unlocked phones have always been easily available.

[adventured]

Whether it's a loss or win is dependent on the consumer's preferences, not your opinion. Consumer votes so far say that you're wrong, very wrong in fact. Consumers on average are having no problems with Amazon DRM.

It's a huge win for me. I will trade the DRM from Amazon in exchange for the hyper convenience, built-in lighting, and numerous other features of a kindle reader that holds hundreds of books, so that when I fly I don't have to lug around physical books. Not to mention I can only carry a few books with me when I travel, whereas with the kindle I can carry practically unlimited. Last but not least, kindle books are cheaper and should always be.

Consumers are overwhelmingly agreeing with me, the kindle is vastly superior to traditional books. They agree so emphatically, within another decade it's likely that over 3/4 of all book sales will be digital. Consumers didn't have to be dragged into that world, they went willingly: they chose the kindle + Amazon while traditional books were still very widely available and easy to purchase.

[userbinator]

That's because the average consumer is generally unaware or apathetic of all the negative aspects of DRM - until it inconveniences them massively - and it's to the advantage of the companies that they be kept unaware. The convenience aspect is appealing but you can have even more convenience without DRM. I don't have to "lug around physical books either"; I have a few hundred DRM-free PDFs on my laptop which runs a free and open-source operating system, and I can read or copy between devices or do whatever else I want with those files, whenever I want.

Let's not forget what could happen if we let these companies and their DRM schemes take over completely: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

[xg15]

...until Amazon decides that it doesn't like the publisher of the book you're reading.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18ama...

[nknighthb]

That's not a reason to keep a stupid, obsolete design around. It's a reason to fix the problem correctly with a modern public key infrastructure.

[kalleboo]

I would love that, but it's a utopian vision. Apple will create a closed system only for them. Google will create a separate system. Firefox OS or any future competitors will be screwed over.

[nknighthb]

This is effectively saying that the very GSM standard you cited is impossible.

Particularly in light of close regulatory scrutiny in Europe, that seems unlikely.

[kalleboo]

The GSM standard was possible in 1981 when it was designed by a handful of public telecoms and regulators in Europe who had consumer protection and intra-european competition as a stated goal.

The new standard will be designed by corporate behemoths who's goal is lock-in and a competitive advantage (not just Apple and Google but companies like AT&T and Vodafone who want to kill MVNOs).

[nknighthb]

As I said, European regulators -- both telecom and competition -- would not look kindly on such an outcome. In the US, the FCC is also unlikely to like it, nor will courts.

You're basically saying that the outcome of a new standards process will be obviously illegal.

[korzun]

You sound like a peasant. I have a Taskrabbit that goes online for me to switch my SIM.