Re:Apple Watch 3
by JohnTHaller on Tuesday September 12, 2017 @02:02PM
(#15229685)
If it's another thing with a connection to a carrier network, it's another thing you have to pay an additional monthly fee for on all US carriers. I'd wager Apple is negotiating 'discount' 2nd/3rd/4th line rates with the carriers that will sell the Apple Watch in their retail locations, so it may be less than adding another full line on some carriers.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
I was wondering if the "shares a numbers" was to circumvent the device charge some carriers have. I would prefer this watch with no phone period.
if I can do that then I am in, but at its price point what is the need of a phone? is the run time too short?
I don't think it is about circumventing charges. I think it is so a "phone" number just becomes a general contact number, irrespective of whatever device I happen to have available at the time.
I hope not. I'm paying for access to the network via a phone number. This remains unchanged when I use my watch. Anyone have a different perspective?
I feel like the core question/goal/ideal is to have two sim chips linked to the same number, so that requests (such as phone calls/texts) are cloned and sent to both devices.
I'd think that'd require some reconfiguration on their backend service though. I'm not too familiar with how telecoms work.
Linking to the same number happens at the iCloud level. Apple already has hooks in place with carriers to enable "Wi-Fi Calling on iCloud-connected devices", so an iPad/Mac can make/answer calls from the cellular number of an iCloud-linked iPhone (without going through the iPhone at all). The LTE Apple Watch is just another device like that.
That was for Wi-Fi calling though
The new Apple Watch will have it's own actual cellular connection