<div class="bbWrapper"><blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="Moose" data-source="post: 398479"
class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">
<div class="bbCodeBlock-title">
<a href="/goto/post?id=398479"
class="bbCodeBlock-sourceJump"
rel="nofollow"
data-xf-click="attribution"
data-content-selector="#post-398479">Moose said:</a>
</div>
<div class="bbCodeBlock-content">
<div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent ">
I'd bet it was the SIM. As SAP is Sim Access Protocol.<br />
In theory HFP (Hands Free Protocol) is better as it 'should' access the memory AND sim but in practice this only works with certain phones.
</div>
<div class="bbCodeBlock-expandLink js-expandLink"><a role="button" tabindex="0">Click to expand...</a></div>
</div>
</blockquote><br />
I don't know the details but SAP is the protocol that allows the MB BT puck to use the SIM security features from the SIM card on the phone, over a BT connection. This protocol would not perform the phone book transfer, that should be independent from SAP and the same as for BT HF profile.<br />
<br />
The fact that the SIM phone book is transferred must be either an issue of the phone implementation or perhaps it is possible to request one over the other (and then some mobiles may ignore the SIM/phone request and you may have different behaviour). <br />
<br />
If anyone would have the option to use both BT puck types with the same phone, this could be tested further, normally BT SAP phones allow either BT SAP or BT HF being used. On the other hand, the two BT pucks might have been implemented differently. Should invite some Peiker employees to join the forum...</div>
