It can if it's a roaming eSIM. I'm sure all the countries mentioned here e.g. Australia still handles US SIMs roaming there fine even when the US SIM dossn't have ID tied to it.
A roaming eSIM would work the same way as a roaming SIM. Just because it's easier to set up (no need to get a physical SIM) doesn't change the regulations around it.
I suppose this depends on how the law is written, but are roaming users subject to local SIM regulations for network use? I can't imagine asking for ID from tourists using their existing SIMs is going to work.
I believe some travel eSIMs are actually issued from outside the country you're going to.
Typically not. Because they don't have local phone numbers nor IP addresses, so they cannot be used for scams or fake identities domestically. In China, roaming SIMs also bypass all internet filtering, it's basically a built in VPN back to your home telecom.
And as you said, ones marketed as "China travel SIMs" are typically issued from Hong Kong. Interestingly, Hong Kong also has an ID rule (though it allows self upload of ID anyway), but it exempts these roaming-only cards. If you want the card to work in HK, and it is issued from there, you must scan your passport to activate it.
Right, but that distinction is not because it's an eSIM - it's just how it's issued. There's no technical distinction, just a practical ease of issuance.
This is not straightforwardly true. Many people say that Toyota sells their data to insurance companies, but they do not unless you *affirmatively* opt in.
If you read the lawsuits and allegations carefully, they all say that they were tricked into opting in (NOT that they weren't opted in). If you review the setup process you see that the claim is outlandish and likely someone else did setup for them or they "forgot."
Toyota makes you affirmatively click a "yes" or "no" (or maybe it says "Accept" / "Reject" or whatever) for Insurance sharing when setting up a profile.
No disrespect for your valuable discovery but this attitude of “it’s possible, if you do these non-obvious steps” feels a lot like victim blaming in UI.
If Apple (or anyone else) wanted to make a feature used, they can. For everyone else, if Siri is off CarPlay doesn’t work. And that’s by design.
Not the design of “ooh if Siri is off then voice in CarPlay won’t work” (warnable), but punishment if Siri is off.
Again this pattern isn’t Apple only but it’s bad everywhere.
It feels cynical to see this as a punishment when it's such a specific use case that does demonstrate deep integration with Siri. Maps, Messages, etc. use Siri for their interactions.
I am sure that there was a meeting where they decided what to do when Siri was off and somebody decided (very possibly with ulterior motives) not to split the feature set - all or nothing. However I don't think the challenge they were faced with in this hypothetical meeting was an easy one.
The alternative is you open the Messages app and you can't send messages. You open Maps and you can't get directions (unless parked). Sure, I get that they could show a screen saying "Sending messages is not available when Siri is disabled" but now you're hitting error messages while driving.
Anyways, the main reason people would disable Siri is accidental activation, and Apple provides all the toggles needed to avoid that without disabling the core components needed for CarPlay.
I don't really understand what you mean - yes, it is designed for Apple Music, a tab for browsing for new music, etc.
But it still has library views for songs, albums, artists, and playlists. That's the whole thing. Additional tabs to support modern music streaming don't devalue those tabs.
reply