文章以时间线凸显 eSIM 带来的「不确定性」：SIM 从 1990 年代一路缩小到 nanoSIM，但 eSIM 标准在 2016 年才推出，近年才被手机厂强制推进；Google 于 2026 年的 Pixel 10 系列在美版取消实体卡槽，让作者不得不改用 eSIM。

文中最明确的量化回报是「空间换电量」：iPhone 14 率先在部分市场改为 eSIM-only；iPhone 17 有卡槽的国际版电池比 eSIM-only 版小，差距约 8%，作者质疑这点提升是否值得。

作者以频率与耗时对比风险：过去几乎每天换机、每月约十几款手机评测，实体 SIM 几乎零故障；改用 eSIM 的三个月内仅偶尔转移却两度卡在「号码 limbo」。顺利时靠电信 App 几分钟解决，不顺时因以简讯验证身分而无法收码，只能到实体门市，原本约 30 秒的换卡变成约 1 小时等待。

The piece argues that eSIM adoption trades the reliability of a removable SIM for software-mediated transfers that can fail. SIMs have existed since the 1990s and shrank through multiple form factors, while the eSIM standard arrived in 2016 and only recently became mandatory on some flagship phones, including Google’s US Pixel 10 models in 2026.

It quantifies the supposed hardware benefit: eSIMs save space, and an example claim is that the international iPhone 17 with a physical SIM slot has a smaller battery than the eSIM-only version by about 8%. The author suggests this single-digit gain is a weak justification for removing a simple, user-controlled part.

The author contrasts near-zero issues with physical SIM swaps against repeated eSIM failures: after years of frequent phone switching (sometimes nearly daily, with roughly a dozen phones per month), the first three months on eSIM produced two lockouts. One was resolved in minutes via a carrier app; the other required an in-store visit because identity checks defaulted to SMS, turning a ~30-second swap into about an hour.