> Building in a modem just gives cell networks another chance to charge you for another data plan

Google Fi, at least, doesn't charge any extra for a cell modem: you can get a secondary SIM card and it gets billed exactly the same as using data on your phone.

Yeah, I'm also on Google Fi and I'd get this just for the convenience factor of not having to turn on tethering on my phone and not burning its battery down while I'm connected.

(That depends on how much it adds to the purchase price though. $100? You bet. $300? Nah.)

$225, then.

Last I checked (over a year ago) I think Google Fi wasn’t fully supported with Apple devices? I can’t recall the details, but I distinctively remember being disappointed the service sort of had a “for best experience, use an android device” component to it.

Their service doesn't support 5G on any Apple devices. My kids only have LTE on their iPads despite the modem having the capability.

I will say that tethering on my phone works in a situation where LTE doesn't work well. However the convenience of not having to worry about connectivity is worth the extra cost for the cellular iPad. I never wanted to be that parent, but it is the path of least friction since my oldest has a lot of acronym mental health issues.

You might not want this but businesses might. Rather than have to reimburse an employee's phone or provide a phone they can provide a cellular equipped device for users that regularly work outside the office but still need internet support.

Definitely a good use case, thanks.

I think it'll be a cold day in hell, full of flying pigs before my employer would issue me a cellular device that can't take calls.

There's millions of iPads deployed at businesses, for instance, that do just that.

How many employees are given just an iPad and no phone?

My companies entire sales force, some thousand-ish so of them. They have laptops and iPads, but we don't issue phones. They just get plan reimbursement.

It's so you don't have to tether your phone. It might cost you another data plan, but it makes it very convenient to just open your laptop and start browsing the internet in the train or something.

This sounds a lot like naysayers when Apple decided to ditch the audio port on iPhones. Why would I want bluetooth audio, I can connect my headphones to my phone already. Of course, there are people out there who still prefer that, but most people these days use bluetooth headphones/earbuds.

When Apple removed the headphone jack they took away choice. This however adds choice, it's not like they're taking away tethering.

I don't see the comparison here. You had bluetooth audio + the headphone jack. Then they took away one of your options. In this case they are adding an option and not taking anything away.

> This sounds a lot like naysayers when Apple decided to ditch the audio port on iPhones.

Those people were, and are, completely correct. The 3.5mm jack is way better than Bluetooth for headphones.

This may be true technically, but it's also pretty irrelevant. You can step into any gym or what have you and regardless of whether they're on Android or iPhone, most everyone uses bluetooth audio.

Tethering is a pain if you do it frequently. Apple tries some "it just works" magic to make tethering easier, but sometimes it doesn't "just" work.

If you frequently use it when out, it would be significantly more convenient to just have the cellular built in.

It can be nice for carriers that don’t allow/support tethering under some circumstances. Google Fi for example says that tethering won’t work internationally in some cases, but offers free data-only SIM cards which works around that nicely.

It’s also just nice to not need to break out a cable.

I wonder the same thing about cellular iPads sometimes because I have a hard time seeing a case where you'd have an iPad with you but not your phone to make some connection sharing. My supposition is that this might just for convenience: no need to worry about your phone battery life, for instance. I'm also curious about whether I'm missing something tho.

Most people barely understand the differences between WiFi and cellular, and the number that can start a hotspot and connect without it being a 'stressful computer problem' is a lot fewer than you would expect. Like, painfully fewer.

Source: I work in IT

If we're talking about the Apple ecosystem, you don't need to start a hotspot.

When you have an iPhone and MacBook nearby that are on the same Apple ID, the Mac shows a little notification "Connect to the Internet through <phone name>?" with the default button being OK, which instructs the phone to turn on the hotspot and the Mac to connect to it.

The phone also just shows up as another Wi-Fi network in the Wi-Fi menu alongside all the other networks, even if hotspot isn't on, using the same mechanism of letting the Mac remotely configure the hotspot.

It really would be convenient to not have to tether + deal with battery life. Or, have the macbook be the mobile hotspot instead for whatever reason.

You could say this about any component of the laptop. "I can connect a USB webcam. Why do I need a camera built-in." Convenience, compactness, cost, battery life, reliability, etc.

MDM access. All Pixel phones hit an MDM endpoint to determine if it should be provisioned.

So do iPhones. Apple calls it DEP, Device Enrollment Plan.

Even Macs have it now actually.

Options. As long as the WIFI chip and ability for ethernet stays it's just another option.

> ability for ethernet

Like an external separate USB-C ethernet adapter?

Yeah. I have one except it's USB 3. I've used it once and that was only to connect to an old NAS. Guessing USB-C has the same capability.

Apple can sell eSim to this device. Apple’s customers will buy because it’s Apple.

Yes, you're missing convenience. Tethering my phone to my laptop is possible, but annoying to set up, debug, etc. It also burns the battery of the device with the smaller battery, which is the opposite of how it should work.

This is another one of those "Dropbox is just rsync+cron" takes: convenience, ease and integration are worth a lot to people.

Convenience matters only if it's a worthy goal in the first place though. A cellular connection just sucks compared to wifi, so whenever possible one wants to be on wifi. It's totally reasonable for "the inferior option in case of emergency" to not be very convenient.

Latency is lower with a built in modem. IME the lag that a phone wifi network and an extra layer of routing adds is noticeable for certain things like RDP.

Tethering doesn't always work. I've experienced numerous failures even trying to pair a Macbook to an iPhone.

Besides that:

Phones will turn off tethering if they think the connection is idle, to save battery power. iPhones are very aggressive about this when the client device is not an Apple device.

Some cell networks don't support simultaneous voice and data usage, so a phone call will kick you offline.

It adds latency.

Some network operators charge for it because they can distinguish the tethered traffic.