1) That has its own problems because you excluded WiFi. Personally I think including WiFi is probably redundant. If you don't know if these devices have WiFI then you probably don't know if you have a WiFI router at home.
2) US's LTE tech isn't any different than the world's LTE. It's not the homegrown TD-LTE like China Mobile and Softbank are using. The only difference is the operating bands. They clearly state what bands it connects to... but then they go even farther and tell you what carriers and countries.
3) At this point they should call it WiFi+NextG for Australia... or is NextG only used for Telestra. BTW, NextG is also a marketing term which adds to the lunacy of this whole debate.
1) That looks like a secondary product name for that model as written.
2) That same sentence that mentions WiFi + 4G does say "around the world" and not "in Australia."
NextG is a Telstra trademark for 850MHz 3G, like STD for long-distance and Message Bank for voicemail.
Telstra were government owned and sold off by a previous government.
NextG is a Telstra trademark for 850MHz 3G, like STD for long-distance and Message Bank for voicemail.
Telstra were government owned and sold off by a previous government.
Maybe Apple should have just trademarked WiFi+4G™.
PS: Why aren't the Aussies up in arms about Telestra advertising NextG? The next generation after 3G is 4G. If people confused about Apple's 4G clearly referring to the ITU's HSPA+ and DC-HSDPA classification then it seems impossible that they'd be able to wrap their heads about Telestra's NextG still referring to what they call 3G.
They should put that quote at the of the page in enormous bold letters. That way nobody outside the US/Canada would waste their money buying the WiFi+4G version.
Are the 3G(+) networks really as uselessly bad in the UK, as you seem to imply?
So if someone travels to the US with an iPad and runs up a large roaming bill due to the high speed of being connected to 4G, would Apple become liable for NOT advertising the 4G functionality?
HSPA+ is NOT considered to be or advertised as 4G in the UK.
Why? Because the government are planning to auction the 4G spectrum next year so it would be MISLEADING.
Even when we do get 4G the iPad STILL WON’T WORK on 4G coz Apple in their wisdom chose not support any of the 4G bands outside the US and Canada.
It's very clear to anyone who doesn't have their head stuck up Apple's backside that Apple have made a mistake and should have stuck with "WiFi + 3G" for their advertising everywhere outside the US/Canada were the bloody thing actually works.
My prediction: The ASA will make Apple change their wording in the UK within the next few days/weeks.
When the UK gets 4G next year, there will be a new model of iPad, meanwhile you can use the current one on limited 4G networks in North America, as Apple plainly states.
I'd guess this is where the problem really lies. ITU-T bent into the demands of the US operators marketing teams and in that caused a lot of confusion by changing an already quite well known term's definition.
In many parts of the world 4G has been equated with LTE for a long time. It's quite recent (and heavily US-led) to call HSPA+ networks 4G. In Europe for eample 4G has been used much more (dare I say almost exclusively in the past years) in LTE marketing and hardly at all in HSPA+ marketing.
So if you go to such a market, which already has LTE (which in many consumer's view is 4G) and market your device as 4G, but it doesn't do LTE in your country even though it does have LTE, that is confusing. Naturally for the visitors of this site, it's not an issue, but for a vast consumer population it is.
The information about LTE working only in a few networks in US and Canada is on the site yes, but it's in small print, which many, many people do not read.
Technically Apple is correct, but that's not what the case is about.
It's not an apple only problem, it's an industry-wide marketing problem, which may lead to other similar suits with other vendors as well in similar cases.
Regs, Jarkko
Mainly due to Sprint advertising WiMax as 4G which was shown to be slower than the 3G (+) available on other networks, in real world tests.
The problem is there is a large performance overlap of 3G & 4G with a perception that 4G "must be better" when quite often it isn't.
This is especially so at this early stage of the game.
Not to the original message that the response was to, which was quite badly erroneous considering Sweden indeed was the first to deploy LTE (which clearly annoys the ..... out of you).
Not to the original message that the response was to, which was quite badly erroneous considering Sweden indeed was the first to deploy LTE (which clearly annoys the ..... out of you).
Oh no, I am not annoyed in the least. Seriously. Just confused.
I was simply pointing out that to suggest that someone implemented a "standard" (or whatever else) "first" is not terribly relevant to anything in particular. Was the poster saying that Sweden therefore has "true LTE" and therefore, they have a legitimate claim to sue? And that the US/Canadian versions of it are somehow inferior, and therefore Apple does not have a leg to stand on? Or something else? What exactly is the point?
Having been the first or biggest or best or cutting-edge at some point in the past, even relatively recent past, has very little to do with the rapid pace of technological change, shifting legal definitions and issues, and most important, what is at the heart of this story.
Perhaps you can explain the connection between being first and this story is?
Launching a product world wide and advertising its 4g capability when in fact it only has this capability in north America seems like shooting yourself in the foot. Did Apple really use 4g as a selling point internationally?
To be fair, the UN's definition of "4G" includes the fast HSDPA that is included with the new iPad. I notice, though, that Apple's websites now have been clarified to state that LTE (which is the minimum that carriers in many countries consider 4G) works only in the US and Canada.
I suspect that this will largely blow over. LTE isn't really very developed in most countries, and even where it is it doesn't offer much different download speeds from high speed 3G networks. The US is a different story because our 3G networks are overloaded.
I notice, though, that Apple's websites now have been clarified to state that LTE (which is the minimum that carriers in many countries consider 4G) works only in the US and Canada.
That has been the case since day 1. Itself only change I'm seeing is the removable of the 4G logo in the images into a generic one representing mobile connectivity.
Oh no, I am not annoyed in the least. Seriously. Just confused.
I was simply pointing out that to suggest that someone implemented a "standard" (or whatever else) "first" is not terribly relevant to anything in particular. Was the poster saying that Sweden therefore has "true LTE" and therefore, they have a legitimate claim to sue? And that the US/Canadian versions of it are somehow inferior, and therefore Apple does not have a leg to stand on? Or something else? What exactly is the point?
Having been the first or biggest or best or cutting-edge at some point in the past, even relatively recent past, has very little to do with the rapid pace of technological change, shifting legal definitions and issues, and most important, what is at the heart of this story.
Perhaps you can explain the connection between being first and this story is?
Sweden being the first to implement LTE is highly relevant to this story. You can easily imagine that having the most advanced telecommunications in the world has been publicized, talked about on TV, printed in newspapers. Telcos have been advertising services based on this technology. In brief, the average citizen has been made well aware that the technology exists in the country.
Now, Apple is selling a product that claims to make use of that same (or one that has a similar name) technology. It is therefore more important that Apple makes it crystal clear that the 4G iPad will in fact NOT use this advanced technology in Sweden.
It may be true that Apple is correct in using the 4G label, and Sweden isn't. That is however not the point of this discussion. The point is whether the average consumer will be informed sufficiently well of the possibilities once they decide to buy a 4G iPad.
Apple is scared? No fuck is give. Check your packaging or Apple website/store. Apple is selling Wi-Fi + 4G iPads. Not LTE iPads. Just ask ITU, 4G is so broadly defined that the latest iPads can easily conform to.
Perhaps you can explain the connection between being first and this story is?
The original post that you responded to was itself a response to a post, where the poster said: "If a country doesn't have 4G connectivity only gullible people will think they can, by magic, have 4G connectivity by buying the new iPad.".
That is where the answer "Sweden was in fact the first to implement LTE" came to play. Thus the relevance (not directly to the article itself).
Sweden and many of the "early adopters" marketed LTE as 4G -> 4G = LTE in consumers minds. Thus the consumer confusion if iPad 4G doesn't provide them with the 4G they expect even though they might factually get better speeds with DC HSDPA. So there is a bit of relevance even to the main thread.
And I don't believe anyone is claiming the US LTE to be inferior on a technical basis, just that the US spectrum allocation differs from a large part of the rest of this globe (which is actually the root cause for the confusion, which Apple's marketing didn't help with)
That has been the case since day 1. Itself only change I'm seeing is the removable of the 4G logo in the images into a generic one representing mobile connectivity.
That is not true. The Apple web sites for at least Sweden and Norway did say LTE connectivity in SE and NO during the first few days after the key note. They also mentioned the local operators that could give you access to LTE networks. After complaints from consumers and talks between operators and Apple, at least the Swedish operators made a statement saying that the new iPad would not connect to any Swedish LTE networks. After this the text on the websites was rewritten.
That is not true. The Apple web sites for at least Sweden and Norway did say LTE connectivity in SE and NO during the first few days after the key note. It also mentioned the operators tha coul give you acces to LTE networks. After complaints from consumers and talks between operators and Apple, at least the Swedish operators made a statement saying that the new iPad would not connect to any Swedish LTE networks. After this the text on the websites was rewritten.
if it's not true then prove it. There has been quite a bit of bellyaching over Apple not including LTE bands for small countries so show us the screenshots and promotional images that say that LTE was capable in other countries.
if it's not true then prove it. There has been quite a bit of bellyaching over Apple not including LTE bands for small countries so show us the screenshots and promotional images that say that LTE was capable in other countries.
Comments
1) That has its own problems because you excluded WiFi. Personally I think including WiFi is probably redundant. If you don't know if these devices have WiFI then you probably don't know if you have a WiFI router at home.
2) US's LTE tech isn't any different than the world's LTE. It's not the homegrown TD-LTE like China Mobile and Softbank are using. The only difference is the operating bands. They clearly state what bands it connects to... but then they go even farther and tell you what carriers and countries.
3) At this point they should call it WiFi+NextG for Australia... or is NextG only used for Telestra. BTW, NextG is also a marketing term which adds to the lunacy of this whole debate.
1) That looks like a secondary product name for that model as written.
2) That same sentence that mentions WiFi + 4G does say "around the world" and not "in Australia."
NextG is a Telstra trademark for 850MHz 3G, like STD for long-distance and Message Bank for voicemail.
Telstra were government owned and sold off by a previous government.
NextG is a Telstra trademark for 850MHz 3G, like STD for long-distance and Message Bank for voicemail.
Telstra were government owned and sold off by a previous government.
Maybe Apple should have just trademarked WiFi+4G™.
PS: Why aren't the Aussies up in arms about Telestra advertising NextG? The next generation after 3G is 4G. If people confused about Apple's 4G clearly referring to the ITU's HSPA+ and DC-HSDPA classification then it seems impossible that they'd be able to wrap their heads about Telestra's NextG still referring to what they call 3G.
They should put that quote at the of the page in enormous bold letters. That way nobody outside the US/Canada would waste their money buying the WiFi+4G version.
Are the 3G(+) networks really as uselessly bad in the UK, as you seem to imply?
So if someone travels to the US with an iPad and runs up a large roaming bill due to the high speed of being connected to 4G, would Apple become liable for NOT advertising the 4G functionality?
You just don't get it do you.
HSPA+ is NOT considered to be or advertised as 4G in the UK.
Why? Because the government are planning to auction the 4G spectrum next year so it would be MISLEADING.
Even when we do get 4G the iPad STILL WON’T WORK on 4G coz Apple in their wisdom chose not support any of the 4G bands outside the US and Canada.
It's very clear to anyone who doesn't have their head stuck up Apple's backside that Apple have made a mistake and should have stuck with "WiFi + 3G" for their advertising everywhere outside the US/Canada were the bloody thing actually works.
My prediction: The ASA will make Apple change their wording in the UK within the next few days/weeks.
When the UK gets 4G next year, there will be a new model of iPad, meanwhile you can use the current one on limited 4G networks in North America, as Apple plainly states.
I'd guess this is where the problem really lies. ITU-T bent into the demands of the US operators marketing teams and in that caused a lot of confusion by changing an already quite well known term's definition.
In many parts of the world 4G has been equated with LTE for a long time. It's quite recent (and heavily US-led) to call HSPA+ networks 4G. In Europe for eample 4G has been used much more (dare I say almost exclusively in the past years) in LTE marketing and hardly at all in HSPA+ marketing.
So if you go to such a market, which already has LTE (which in many consumer's view is 4G) and market your device as 4G, but it doesn't do LTE in your country even though it does have LTE, that is confusing. Naturally for the visitors of this site, it's not an issue, but for a vast consumer population it is.
The information about LTE working only in a few networks in US and Canada is on the site yes, but it's in small print, which many, many people do not read.
Technically Apple is correct, but that's not what the case is about.
It's not an apple only problem, it's an industry-wide marketing problem, which may lead to other similar suits with other vendors as well in similar cases.
Regs, Jarkko
Mainly due to Sprint advertising WiMax as 4G which was shown to be slower than the 3G (+) available on other networks, in real world tests.
The problem is there is a large performance overlap of 3G & 4G with a perception that 4G "must be better" when quite often it isn't.
This is especially so at this early stage of the game.
Apple iPad WiFi+Not 4G
Apple iPad WiFi + but only sometimes 4G
Yeah, yeah. And Ericsson was the largest telco equipment maker in the world; Nokia, next door, the largest mobile handset maker, etc.
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
Not to the original message that the response was to, which was quite badly erroneous considering Sweden indeed was the first to deploy LTE (which clearly annoys the ..... out of you).
Not to the original message that the response was to, which was quite badly erroneous considering Sweden indeed was the first to deploy LTE (which clearly annoys the ..... out of you).
Oh no, I am not annoyed in the least. Seriously. Just confused.
I was simply pointing out that to suggest that someone implemented a "standard" (or whatever else) "first" is not terribly relevant to anything in particular. Was the poster saying that Sweden therefore has "true LTE" and therefore, they have a legitimate claim to sue? And that the US/Canadian versions of it are somehow inferior, and therefore Apple does not have a leg to stand on? Or something else? What exactly is the point?
Having been the first or biggest or best or cutting-edge at some point in the past, even relatively recent past, has very little to do with the rapid pace of technological change, shifting legal definitions and issues, and most important, what is at the heart of this story.
Perhaps you can explain the connection between being first and this story is?
Launching a product world wide and advertising its 4g capability when in fact it only has this capability in north America seems like shooting yourself in the foot. Did Apple really use 4g as a selling point internationally?
To be fair, the UN's definition of "4G" includes the fast HSDPA that is included with the new iPad. I notice, though, that Apple's websites now have been clarified to state that LTE (which is the minimum that carriers in many countries consider 4G) works only in the US and Canada.
I suspect that this will largely blow over. LTE isn't really very developed in most countries, and even where it is it doesn't offer much different download speeds from high speed 3G networks. The US is a different story because our 3G networks are overloaded.
I notice, though, that Apple's websites now have been clarified to state that LTE (which is the minimum that carriers in many countries consider 4G) works only in the US and Canada.
That has been the case since day 1. Itself only change I'm seeing is the removable of the 4G logo in the images into a generic one representing mobile connectivity.
Oh no, I am not annoyed in the least. Seriously. Just confused.
I was simply pointing out that to suggest that someone implemented a "standard" (or whatever else) "first" is not terribly relevant to anything in particular. Was the poster saying that Sweden therefore has "true LTE" and therefore, they have a legitimate claim to sue? And that the US/Canadian versions of it are somehow inferior, and therefore Apple does not have a leg to stand on? Or something else? What exactly is the point?
Having been the first or biggest or best or cutting-edge at some point in the past, even relatively recent past, has very little to do with the rapid pace of technological change, shifting legal definitions and issues, and most important, what is at the heart of this story.
Perhaps you can explain the connection between being first and this story is?
Sweden being the first to implement LTE is highly relevant to this story. You can easily imagine that having the most advanced telecommunications in the world has been publicized, talked about on TV, printed in newspapers. Telcos have been advertising services based on this technology. In brief, the average citizen has been made well aware that the technology exists in the country.
Now, Apple is selling a product that claims to make use of that same (or one that has a similar name) technology. It is therefore more important that Apple makes it crystal clear that the 4G iPad will in fact NOT use this advanced technology in Sweden.
It may be true that Apple is correct in using the 4G label, and Sweden isn't. That is however not the point of this discussion. The point is whether the average consumer will be informed sufficiently well of the possibilities once they decide to buy a 4G iPad.
Perhaps you can explain the connection between being first and this story is?
The original post that you responded to was itself a response to a post, where the poster said: "If a country doesn't have 4G connectivity only gullible people will think they can, by magic, have 4G connectivity by buying the new iPad.".
That is where the answer "Sweden was in fact the first to implement LTE" came to play. Thus the relevance (not directly to the article itself).
Sweden and many of the "early adopters" marketed LTE as 4G -> 4G = LTE in consumers minds. Thus the consumer confusion if iPad 4G doesn't provide them with the 4G they expect even though they might factually get better speeds with DC HSDPA. So there is a bit of relevance even to the main thread.
And I don't believe anyone is claiming the US LTE to be inferior on a technical basis, just that the US spectrum allocation differs from a large part of the rest of this globe (which is actually the root cause for the confusion, which Apple's marketing didn't help with)
Regs, Jarkko
So what are you trying to say, I am referring to gullible people not where LTE is first implemented.
Since we are at it what have the done to promote a world standard LTE?
That has been the case since day 1. Itself only change I'm seeing is the removable of the 4G logo in the images into a generic one representing mobile connectivity.
That is not true. The Apple web sites for at least Sweden and Norway did say LTE connectivity in SE and NO during the first few days after the key note. They also mentioned the local operators that could give you access to LTE networks. After complaints from consumers and talks between operators and Apple, at least the Swedish operators made a statement saying that the new iPad would not connect to any Swedish LTE networks. After this the text on the websites was rewritten.
That is not true. The Apple web sites for at least Sweden and Norway did say LTE connectivity in SE and NO during the first few days after the key note. It also mentioned the operators tha coul give you acces to LTE networks. After complaints from consumers and talks between operators and Apple, at least the Swedish operators made a statement saying that the new iPad would not connect to any Swedish LTE networks. After this the text on the websites was rewritten.
if it's not true then prove it. There has been quite a bit of bellyaching over Apple not including LTE bands for small countries so show us the screenshots and promotional images that say that LTE was capable in other countries.
if it's not true then prove it. There has been quite a bit of bellyaching over Apple not including LTE bands for small countries so show us the screenshots and promotional images that say that LTE was capable in other countries.
http://www.telstra.com.au/mobile-pho...nformation/4g/
http://www.telstra.com.au/mobile-pho...nformation/4g/
You claimed Apple's website claimed that LTE was capable with the iPad 3 in Australia. You have yet to prove it.
You claimed Apple's website claimed that LTE was capable with the iPad 3 in Australia. You have yet to prove it.
I did? Where exactly?