I'm still stuck in my hospital bed but I asked my husband to stop by the Apple store on the way to visit me to pick up a new Seagate wireless HD. I also asked him to see if there was any disclaimer notifying customers about the 4G issue. There were none, Switzerland doesn't have a LTE network yet. So I understand that consumers should understand what their buying before hand but Apple also needs to point out these faults.
You might not have LTE but you likely do have 4G so you can go 'up to 4G' as Apple states.
To put another way Penicilin is an antibiotic but not all antibiotics are Penicilin.
Quote:
Sorry but Apple needs to clearly notify it's customers before selling something under false pretenses. I know a disclaimer doesn't look good underneath the features list but it seems like it needs to be done as consumers aren't able to do their homework before leaping.
.
They have had disclaimers since the first day that clearly stated where LTE works.
But officially there are NO 4G solutions. And AT&T is arguing that even slower data is "4G"…
Nice catch TS as I had overlooked that (tho I'm sure its been pointed out before). So its another reason for Apple to be completely clear on what they mean when mentioning 4G and how it applies to the region/country it's being marketed to rather than adding to the confusion.
People have got to remember that the advertising rules in the UK are strict. You can't use banner-sized text to promote a feature if that feature isn't available in the UK - even if there is a disclaimer in minuscule text later on.
People have got to remember that the advertising rules in the UK are strict. You can't use banner-sized text to promote a feature if that feature isn't available in the UK - even if there is a disclaimer in minuscule text later on.
It's the same here in Australia hence Apple changing it only after they were forced too. Some of the retailers made their own signs in their shops before Apple did the right thing.
It's the same here in Australia hence Apple changing it only after they were forced too. Some of the retailers made their own signs in their shops before Apple did the right thing.
Yes, the actual feature or price has to be as big as the headline if they are not the same and may be misleading. JB Hifi had on release many A4 office-printed signs saying the 4G didn't work on 4G.
Apple doesn't say 4G much online any more... you only see it when you go to buy the iPad, after you've chosen the colour. Then 4G is then mentioned (with the smaller disclaimer as required by the court). And of course 4G is labelled on the side of all the iPad boxes.
I'm surprised that Apple didn't just say "3G" in Australia and elsewhere. If customers are smart enough to understand the reality then this wouldn't make the slightest difference to anyone, as customers know the reality anyway. And for those customers 'not smart enough', they wouldn't have incorrectly thought that the iPad 4G worked on 4G.
I think the issue is that Apple would have preferred to wait until the more efficient, smaller 28nm LTE chipsets became widely available (they are just starting to be produced now). The LTE chip they did use is about a year old using a 45nm design. The newer chips also support more frequencies. Since Europe in general is about a year or two behind the US in terms of LTE deployment, Apple likely figured waiting until the next update wouldn't cost them significant sales. In the US, however, there is a big difference between our 3G/HSPA and LTE networks, and lack of LTE would have put the new cellular iPad at a bigger competitive disadvantage.
I guess the rest of the world would have been far happier if Apple had released, say, a 1800/2100 Mhz LTE device instead of a 700/2100 Mhz for AT&T.
1800Mhz has been the surprise growth area for LTE. Almost every GSM operator started with 900, expanding into 1800 to handle growth, and then 3G on 2100. Now as the pressure for data increases they notice that they don't have anywhere near as many people on 2G anymore and 1800 is almost free, and able to be used for LTE without waiting for auctions in 2600 or the TV frequencies to become available.
So an 1800Mhz iPad would have worked on 15 international LTE networks which use 1800Mhz (Australia, Italy, Finland, Germany, France, Poland, Hong Kong, Singapore, and a few more) - sometimes only on one operator in that country, or one of their LTE bands, but at least partially functional. And LTE on 1800 is growing really fast with more and more providers worldwide each month... so a good frequency to use.
An 1800/2100 LTE device would have genuinely been an LTE device on AT&T, but just not on the 700Mhz bit, where it would have to fall back to HSPA which they call 4G anyway. In theory, anyone in this thread who has supported Apple's calling iPad "LTE" outside the US would have to say this is still entirely valid, right? .... a 1800/2100 iPad just wouldn't work quite as well in the US.
If you meant LTE market penetration ( which I'm guessing you are) you'd be correct.
Main reasons for the differences being that current deployed HSPA+ networks in europe and asia offer similar or often better service than current deployed LTE networks so the rush to market is smaller.
This situation together with the lack of world mode LTE chipsets is likely the reason there is no Non-North american LTE model yet. there is simply no need for it as HSPA+ offers the same user experience outside N.America and as someone stated product fragmentation is something Apple seems keen to avoid.
Situation will iikely change when one of both of the following happen:
a world mode low power LTE chipset becomes available
LTE starts offering better service to customers (speed, coverage, battery life etc.) than HSPA+ and Forces the rest of the world to speed up LTE deployment
Comments
I'm still stuck in my hospital bed but I asked my husband to stop by the Apple store on the way to visit me to pick up a new Seagate wireless HD. I also asked him to see if there was any disclaimer notifying customers about the 4G issue. There were none, Switzerland doesn't have a LTE network yet. So I understand that consumers should understand what their buying before hand but Apple also needs to point out these faults.
You might not have LTE but you likely do have 4G so you can go 'up to 4G' as Apple states.
To put another way Penicilin is an antibiotic but not all antibiotics are Penicilin.
Sorry but Apple needs to clearly notify it's customers before selling something under false pretenses. I know a disclaimer doesn't look good underneath the features list but it seems like it needs to be done as consumers aren't able to do their homework before leaping.
.
They have had disclaimers since the first day that clearly stated where LTE works.
But officially there are NO 4G solutions. And AT&T is arguing that even slower data is "4G"…
Nice catch TS as I had overlooked that (tho I'm sure its been pointed out before). So its another reason for Apple to be completely clear on what they mean when mentioning 4G and how it applies to the region/country it's being marketed to rather than adding to the confusion.
I don't have a 802.11n access point at home. Can I sue Apple for false advertising?
If you have one but it still won't work since Apple didn't really make it compatible in the first place....?
People have got to remember that the advertising rules in the UK are strict. You can't use banner-sized text to promote a feature if that feature isn't available in the UK - even if there is a disclaimer in minuscule text later on.
It's the same here in Australia hence Apple changing it only after they were forced too. Some of the retailers made their own signs in their shops before Apple did the right thing.
It's the same here in Australia hence Apple changing it only after they were forced too. Some of the retailers made their own signs in their shops before Apple did the right thing.
Yes, the actual feature or price has to be as big as the headline if they are not the same and may be misleading. JB Hifi had on release many A4 office-printed signs saying the 4G didn't work on 4G.
Apple doesn't say 4G much online any more... you only see it when you go to buy the iPad, after you've chosen the colour. Then 4G is then mentioned (with the smaller disclaimer as required by the court). And of course 4G is labelled on the side of all the iPad boxes.
I'm surprised that Apple didn't just say "3G" in Australia and elsewhere. If customers are smart enough to understand the reality then this wouldn't make the slightest difference to anyone, as customers know the reality anyway. And for those customers 'not smart enough', they wouldn't have incorrectly thought that the iPad 4G worked on 4G.
If you have one but it still won't work since Apple didn't really make it compatible in the first place....?
Nowhere is Apple claiming compatibility with any bands that aren't part of the iPad. The question is one of the definition of 4G.
Nowhere is Apple claiming compatibility with any bands that aren't part of the iPad. The question is one of the definition of 4G.
You're right TS and I wasn't saying they did. Instead I was trying to get the OP to understand the flaw in his comparison.
I think the issue is that Apple would have preferred to wait until the more efficient, smaller 28nm LTE chipsets became widely available (they are just starting to be produced now). The LTE chip they did use is about a year old using a 45nm design. The newer chips also support more frequencies. Since Europe in general is about a year or two behind the US in terms of LTE deployment, Apple likely figured waiting until the next update wouldn't cost them significant sales. In the US, however, there is a big difference between our 3G/HSPA and LTE networks, and lack of LTE would have put the new cellular iPad at a bigger competitive disadvantage.
I guess the rest of the world would have been far happier if Apple had released, say, a 1800/2100 Mhz LTE device instead of a 700/2100 Mhz for AT&T.
1800Mhz has been the surprise growth area for LTE. Almost every GSM operator started with 900, expanding into 1800 to handle growth, and then 3G on 2100. Now as the pressure for data increases they notice that they don't have anywhere near as many people on 2G anymore and 1800 is almost free, and able to be used for LTE without waiting for auctions in 2600 or the TV frequencies to become available.
So an 1800Mhz iPad would have worked on 15 international LTE networks which use 1800Mhz (Australia, Italy, Finland, Germany, France, Poland, Hong Kong, Singapore, and a few more) - sometimes only on one operator in that country, or one of their LTE bands, but at least partially functional. And LTE on 1800 is growing really fast with more and more providers worldwide each month... so a good frequency to use.
An 1800/2100 LTE device would have genuinely been an LTE device on AT&T, but just not on the 700Mhz bit, where it would have to fall back to HSPA which they call 4G anyway. In theory, anyone in this thread who has supported Apple's calling iPad "LTE" outside the US would have to say this is still entirely valid, right? .... a 1800/2100 iPad just wouldn't work quite as well in the US.
But not the US and Canada..
Europe: 700+M (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Europe)
N.America: 459M (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra..._North_America)
If you meant LTE market penetration ( which I'm guessing you are) you'd be correct.
Main reasons for the differences being that current deployed HSPA+ networks in europe and asia offer similar or often better service than current deployed LTE networks so the rush to market is smaller.
This situation together with the lack of world mode LTE chipsets is likely the reason there is no Non-North american LTE model yet. there is simply no need for it as HSPA+ offers the same user experience outside N.America and as someone stated product fragmentation is something Apple seems keen to avoid.
Situation will iikely change when one of both of the following happen: