UK ad authority moves closer to '4G' iPad investigation - Page 2

Antenna, I think. It's more a question of frequencies, isn't it?

I understood it was the particular Qualcomm chipset Apple chose. I believe other's (Samsung, Motorola, Huawei) that offer 4G compatibity for specific countries use chipsets tailored for those networks.

1) I don't think omit is the right word. It implies a pejorative. If Apple could have added more LTE operating bands to the same device they would have. Even one more would have allowed them to reduce the number of cellular US and Canada iPad models by 1/2. Now you could question why don't they have a different, unique model for every country but you can answer that by asking why they don't have 100 different different models for every country. You can further back that by their profit share in the smartphone and tablet markets.

2) Lots of countries have the E-UTRA air interface. I'd say at least 20 countries are now active. The problem is the HW simply isn't ready to support all of them. We'll need a lot more than we needed fo UMTS. Wikipedia lists 43 different bands with half of those allocated.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-UTRA#...nel_bandwidths

3) If we only got 5 band support in 2010 with Nokia and Apple how long before we'll have support for the world's LTE across a dozen operating bands? Hopefully it will scale quickly because this is a longterm issue Qualcomm has been working on... but I have my doubts.

4) Apple's efficient design to use world-mode chips could hurt them over the next few years if there isn't a method for supporting multiple E-UTRA operating bands. If not, they'll have to continue to ignore smaller countries with LTE or change their modus operandi by creating distinct HW models. This Autumn will be interesting.




1) What do you mean by "chips"? At this part of the conversation you should be getting more precise as it's getting more technical.

2) I don't think the MDM9600 has a problem supporting any of the E-UTRA operating bands, but it does, as previously mentioned, have a limit of two. Will the MDM9615 expected to be in the 6th gen iPhone support more than 2? I sure hope so, but will it support 5, or 12, or 43? I highly doubt it.

I've never thought it was about anything else but profits.

But it's also that way for every vendor, it's just that Apple goes about it in a different way than most.

Most are akin who play roulette by placing chips on every number. You win every hand but you lose more than you win because you spread yourself too thin and decided to play a game by guessing instead of thinking. Apple is playing poker. They are judging their opponents, counting the cards, and calculating the odds because the only goal is winning at the end, not simply making yourself look good in the quarter so you can be headhunted to a better paying CEO position.

I agree with that too. Apple made marketing decisions that included being a little vague on the capabilities. I believe it was purposeful as Apple almost always knows exactly what it's doing. They calculated the odds of fines and legal expenses being more costly than lack of clarity for countries whose 4G wouldn't work with Apple's frequency choices, and being less than straightforward was the better business choice.

Not so different from their Italian AppleCare legal problems. I'm certain AppleCare paid many times more than the fines due. You've seen or heard the same from other companies or groups. If the penalties are minor but the potential profits big, the world's biggest chemical, oil or pharmaceutical companies have been known to shoot for the profit, penalties be damned. No reason why tech companies would be any different.

I don't think they account for everything but I also wouldn't put past them to have planned this for the free advertising. There was nothing untruthful about their use of 4G but it seems unlikely they didn't know some countries have stupid laws defining 4G as LTE and ignoring the other ITU-R definitions of 4G.


Except that it does. Since this is a US-based forum that has members from all around the world it makes no sense to refer to 4G to mean 4G LTE so you're either accidentally not being clear or choosing to be vague. In a world or US-centric view we should be using the standard definitions of 4G and HSPA+ and DC-HSDPA fall into that category... and they work throughout the world assuming you're network supports one of the 4 bands offered in the iPad.

Bottom line: No where did Apple state that LTE worked outside the US and Canada.
Bottomer line: Apple will not be hurt by this.
Bottomest line: With each Apple product relase there is a kerfuffle that ultimately leads no where.

Agreed again. Apple is so huge and it's pockets so deep this is no more than a few swarming gnats and nothing that's going to cause any harm.

So what? The new iPad meets the legal requirements for 4G service in Sweden. And their advertising specifically states that LTE is only available in the US and Canada.

Frankly, countries should not have their regulatory authorities making an issue of this. It's only an issue if you're taking the position that your citizens are too stupid to be allowed outside the home without a handler so they're simply implying that their citizens are stupid.

I can't think of any other example where a colloquial definition created by marketers trumps a formal definition. This whole issue seems so outlandish that perhaps Apple was blindsided by this whole 4G issue.

If Apple clearly stated that 4G services were available only in North America, or better yet not available in the country of purchase, then I don't think this would ever come up. They didn't until threatened by consumer protection agencies no matter how many times you like to claim they did.

Originally on their country specific product order pages they'd say that 4G would also be available when traveling in the US or Canada, but not that its wasn't available in the country of purchase, nor even that NA was the only place Apple included compatibility for. Even that was a much smaller type, medium gray on a white background, beneath the product description. To find any mention that 4G services were available only in the US and Canada you'd have to look for a tiny footnote at the bottom of another entirely separate page. It was treated as an afterthought. That must be your "specifically stated".

How could they be blind-sided when their own descriptors acknowledge HESPA, HESPA+ and 4G as different critters? Now you're playing Apple as not very savvy about the markets they play in.

As usual, you're mis-stating the situation.

In almost the entire world, HSPA+ is formally classified as 4G, so calling it a 4G device is reasonable. Australia is one of the few exceptions, but even there, the advertising says 'UP TO 4G speeds' or something like that.


So you're bragging about your inability to read and comprehend a simple advertisement? What does 'up to' mean? Furthermore, (again, ignoring Australia for the moment), HSPA+ does constitute 4G in most of the world, so what's wrong with advertising it as a 4G device?

Once again, you're putting yourself in the position of arguing that it should be illegal for GM to advertise that the Corvette will go 197 mph simply because there are some countries that are too mountainous to use that speed and others have speed limits that make it illegal.

Where? Once again, you're making things up. HSPA+ is NOT a 'different critter' from 4G. It is actually a subset of 4G.

Apple themselves clearly differentiate 4G from HESPA or any other variant.
"4G LTE; CDMA EV-DO Rev. A; UMTS/HSPA/HSPA+/DC-HSDPA; GSM/EDGE" are all listed by Apple.
They know what it means in the real world. You're arguing just to argue. Adding Sweden's 4G LTE which Apple omits from its support as the final nail in your already debunked argument.


In what country is it incapable of reaching a top speed of 197mph? Now your analogy is debunked for the second time. IMO analogies are almost never ideal for proving your point.

It was only misleading to someone with a very low ability to read or understand English.

Now it truly is misleading, there is nothing to indicate that it will connect to 4G LTE networks if you take it to the US or Canada.

Notice they don't simply say 4G, but refer to a more specific marketing term 4G LTE. They don't say 4G = LTE and only LTE, they refer to it as 4G LTE as that is the marketing terminology. Within the ITU-R's 4G bubble resides HSPA+, DC-HSDPA, WiMAX, LTE, and LTE Advanced, as of right now.

So what Australia and some other countries are effectively doing, though perhaps on even aware of it, are saying that anything with the UTRA air interface is 3G and anything with the E-UTRA air interface is 4G. I think that's perfectly reasonable as it's a clear generational step, but so far I've read nothing that has even argued that point.


PS: As perviously stated, the whole concept of using very technical terminology as colloquial marketing terms is a very bad way to sell a product. It causes confusion (no need for me to use examples years after I started saying this).

I recommend that the maximum theoretical speed of the device that can be accessed by a country/carrier should be used. A simple, universal number. Perhaps based on the power of 10Mb/s and rounded to the nearest whole number.

For instance. For the 73Mb/s LTE that the iPad can potentially achieve if you are connected to a capable network that can support that HW it will show 7x speed in the menu bar. For DC-HSDPA it would show 4x. Once we get 320Mb/s LTE Advanced it would show 32x. Simple and easily understand and calculated by pretty much everyone on the planet that would be using these devices. This can work for WiFi and other high-speed networks, too.

And the new iPad CAN connect to some 4G LTE networks, if available.

That function HAS NOT been disabled, no matter where on earth you are.

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.

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.

It would defiantly stop all of this silly business.

Which makes up about 50 percent of gadget buyers. Sorry but people buy things without reading the fine print or doing any research on the internet. They see a new shiny gizmo and common sense goes out of the window, you can't tell me that you haven't done it to. I have a few things in my collection that I have regretted.

You don't want to get it, but you certainly understand nevertheless. You're smarter than your making believe you are.

Corvette Centennial Edition can achieve 197 mph in every market the Corvette Centennial Edition is advertised in unless you have some evidence to the contrary. The iPad 4G is not capable of connecting to advertised 4G services in every country they've marketed to and there is evidence for that. I know you're looking for wiggle room but the girdle is pretty tight.

Aren't able, or choose not to?

I suppose the store page could still be misconstrued as working on 4G everywhere, but the product page itself can't anymore. You also pointed out that there's a lack of LTE in Switzerland in the first place. That differentiates this issue slightly from the one being encountered in Scandinavia in that since there's no network to which one can connect, the lack of knowledge (or concern) of 4G (as LTE) is larger.

And I've just had a revelation. Perhaps Apple is considering HSDPA+ "4G" in all areas (for the purposes of marketing) since AT&T is. If so, that would clarify muchif not allof the argument.

The argument over not being able to connect to "4G" networks, that is. Not the argument over what is and isn't 4G. That argument would JUST be getting started.


I've seen you do this a few times now, and I realize that English isn't your first language, so I'd like to just say that you mean 'definitely' here instead of 'defiantly'. It's a common error, even among native speakers. No biggie.

What 4G? There is no 4G in the UK, except, where?, Brighton?

His analogy is sound. The car itself is capable of something but that doesn't mean it's achievable when you place it under unique conditions for it work.

• Can it legally achieve speeds of 197 MPH on US roads? Nope!
• Can it technically achieve speeds of 197 MPH on US roads? Yes, if the road is of high enough quality and straight enough to allow for the proper acceleration.
• Can it technically achieve speeds of 197 MPH on countries with poor road conditions and very curvy roads? Nope.
• Are people who buy this car likely to test out the max speed limit? I don't think so.
• Are people who buy this care going to the complain to the manufacture for false advertising because the "network" of roads and legal constraints make it impossible for them to achieve the advertised top speed? Not unless it's called an Apple Corvette.

Don't make believe you don't understand either. A public highway is not the only place a vehicle can be driven. A buyer should be able to find a place in Sweden to drive his car 197 mph (assuming GM's claim is true to begin with and it was advertised there). GM has placed no limits on the vehicle's ability to hit 197 MPH.

He will not find a place in Sweden to connect his iPad 4G (LTE) to Sweden's 4G LTE network. Apple has put limits on the ability to connect to other countries advertised 4G networks outside of North America. That's completely in Apple's control.

No the analogy is not sound. Your argument wasn't even one of your better efforts.

Apple has placed no limits on the iPad to use 73Mb/s (theoretical) speeds. I'm not even sure if any US markets have that level of LTE implemented.

What you're doing is creating an ideal scenario for the car to work in to achieve that maximum speed. It has nothing to do with anything else but the car's top speed. It says nothing about the markets in which it is sold.

It's like you saying Chevy is lying because you live in the sudan and the car can't be used in the desert. But that would be a silly argument to make. The car doesn't have the right equipment for that terrain just as the iPad doesn't have the right equipment for other terrain. That doesn't mean the iPad nor the Corvette are not capable of achieving the top speeds being mentioned.

But even that is beside the point because if you're going to argue the one then you should be arguing that the top theoretical speed of the technology is a lie if you can't achieve that with the device which means that everything with networking capabilities are big fat fibbers.

You're trying to change the discussion to a legal definition of 4G rather than a particular counties advertised (and consumer expected) 4G services where Apple markets their product. That's at the root of Apple's problem with consumer protection agencies and why there's claims of misleading advertising.

So that didn't make the analogy any better Solip. There's a really good reason both you and I tend to avoid using them.

Can you think of an analogy to support that opinion? (Mostly joking, but I am curious if it can be done.)

And golly we just had a discussion and disagreement yet didn't call each other names, mock each other or throw troll, obtuse, or shill into the conversation. We should all be so considerate of other members. Of course that takes a little more thought than I think some might be capable of.

The iPad 4G most certainly is capable of connecting with an LTE network with the right frequencies no matter where you place it. Lack of network isn't Apple's fault.

Let's say you find an island country that doesn't have any roads. Does that mean that Apple can't advertise a top speed of 197 mph in that country? Obviously not.

You're right, it's not as much fun.

Of course it's Apple fault. What prevents them from using a chipset with the proper frequencies supported for that country's advertised 4G services? Nothing other than the cost.

Other manufacturers do, but yes it would be more effort with less profit if Apple were to do the same. The name of the game is profit and Apple plays it better than any other mobile player right now.

Sure, it's Apple's fault the way it's Samsung's fault for not investing into better SW development or Google not caring about vetting apps on Google Play the way Apple does. That doesn't make it wrong, it makes it a business decision.


The cost is minimal. We're not even talking about different baseband chips, but power amps for the different operating bands. They'd likely make more money in the short run just as they would if they created many different products that are unique to each market, but that's a myopic view of how to run a company.

Just look at what happened to Nokia. They still sell the most phones and the most models of phones but diluted their brand and stretched themselves too thin. Sure, it was all fine and dandy before the iPhone came along but that's how things work. It's exactly like playing most strategy-based games.

So why would Apple take less profit now for something that's an easy per-country resolution? Simple: Consistency. Now the US and Canada iPads are a different story because they still have a CDMA-based network which has unfortunately split the network. Now we have decent 3G world-mode chips but we don't LTE chips that support more than 2 bands, at least not in the iPad. So why did they did allow it for the US and Canada? Simple: It wasn't a psychological change YoY. Once they can get 3 or more LTE bands I assume we'll be down to 12 models for the US and Canada, unless new CDMA carriers come on board.

So this goes back to the upcoming problem I mentioned earlier about the challenge Apple will have in still trying to have one base device for most of the world when the LTE chips seem so limited in the number of bands they support. We might see them split the devices across nations for the first time, or they might simply rollout LTE to new markets that can support the most commonly used bands that will help their sales. The iPhone has a lot of competition so there is a need to saturate the market more aggressively.

Now the iPad is a different story than the iPhone, and always has been. There is no iPad competition, especially for cellular, so there was no overwhelming need to push LTE to all countries that have it simply because they exist.

• In Australia, what percentage of iPads are sold with mobile chips?
• In Australia, how many of them are activated?
• In Australia, what percentage of cellphone users are using an LTE phone on an LTE network?

I bet it's pretty damn low compared to the US. I also bet if Canada wasn't inline with US operating bands they wouldn't have been included either.

So what country or countries are next? I'm guessing the one(s) with the highest level of LTE users for a certain operating frequency. So which one is that?

Bottom line: If you don't like the products a company offers then don't buy it. If you think the company is dragging its feet because there isn't enough competition to motivate it don't blame the company, blame its inept competition.

And yet again we agree.

I get that Apple hasn't bothered with making an LTE iPad for Australia. Our population is low, we only have the 1800Mhz network for now, later 2600 and 700Mhz (Aussie version which isn't finalised)). And the carrier with 1800Mhz is offering DC-HSPA which is regularly getting very fast connections (half the 4G rate, but 2-4x what we would normally expect).

But for Europe the bands are quite aligned for 800/1800/2600, and I'm surprised that Apple isn't producing a variant for that combination (or part of it). I see that Verizon removes DC-HSPA and gets CDMA options - the European market is bigger than Verizon. An 1800/2600 device would even work on our 1800/2600 in Australia.
Perhaps the next iPad?

I expect that for the next 2 years, we'll see the 3G networks bump up to DC-HSPA, while localised versions of 4G devices pick just 1 or 2 of the bands that the local country uses, with a fall back to DC-HSPA in that country and when roaming. Data roaming is so expensive that it's better just to leave it turned off, so even 2G roaming will be enough.

So 700MHz is the frequency band, but what is the operating band. It seems power amps can't share frequency bands or the iPad 3 would have been usable on Verizon and AT&T's 700MHz spectrums.


So that's three frequency bands and potentially a lot more operating bands.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-UTRA#...nel_bandwidths

Since the iPad only has two operating bands and they could have reduced the number of cellular models in the US by half by simply having three bands in one iPad I think it's safe to say that it's not possible.

So it three is the minimum then it's one too many and it could be an indicator of why they had to pass on the European market. Are there countries that use more than 2 operating bands because different carriers have allocated different parts of the spectrum within a country? That would be an issue for an otherwise homogenized device.


It's part of the MDM9600 baseband processor and they include the same 4 bands so I assume that it also has the driver to run DC-HSDPA on either device type.

• Wi-Fi + 4G for AT&T model: 4G LTE (700, 2100 MHz)3; UMTS/HSPA/HSPA+/DC-HSDPA (850, 900, 1900, 2100 MHz); GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz)

• Wi-Fi + 4G for Verizon model: 4G LTE (700 MHz)3; CDMA EV-DO Rev. A (800, 1900 MHz); UMTS/HSPA/HSPA+/

DC-HSDPA (850, 900, 1900, 2100 MHz); GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz)
But not the US and Canada. Remember, since adding Verizon and other CDMA-based carriers Apple has to keep it fairly homogenized. We've seen what taking even a minor step back can do with the iPad 3 being 0.1lb and 0.6mm thicker than the iPad 2 yet lighter and thinner than the iPad 1. The difference being they improved it in another way tremendously and by ignoring Verizon to give preference to AT&T for the same market would have been a bad thing. This doesn't apply outside a market or if they hadn't yet partnered with Verizon, but they have so from a business perspectve they are stuck.

Geez this discussion is off track. This is simply about whether Apple advertised in the applicable country in a way that is misleading. If they made claims that a reasonable person could be mislead by, then they loose. If they want to sell in OZ or the UK or wherever then they have to comply with the law. Keep it simple.

I be very surprised if the current Verizon LTE market wasn't significantly larger than the so-called LTE market in Europe, fragmented or no. I can say with certainty Verizon's currently LTE coverage is far wider today than AT&T will even be by 2013.


Again, LTE in the UK is vaporware outside of the one tiny test market. For those that insist on the contortion that LTE = 4G (and it isn't), nobody should be advertising anything as 4G in the UK, regardless of device capabilities. Maybe they should have the nanny state bureaucrats ban the term entirely?

Not sure about the UK, but in Germany they explicitly advertised 4G LTE. Together with a footnote, that originally stated, that availability depends on area and operator, or something unspecific like that. It was left as an exercise to the reader to figure out, that this "availability" referred to another continent. While this might be technically (and maybe also legally) correct, I think Apple initially did a pretty bad job in informing its potential customers.

By now they have modified the German version twice. Initially, the it was made clear that 4G LTE was restricted to the US and Canada, while otherwise the iPad would support "with HSPA, HSPA+ and DC-HSPA the fastest 3G networks in existence". By now, they have dropped mentioning 4G (and LTE) altogether, as I just saw.

All legal considerations aside, I think Apple should have right from the start adapted their wording to the countries they target the respective website at. So, for Germany, stress that it supports DC-HSPA with 42 Mbit/s, and maybe as a "bonus" mention, that you can even use LTE if you are in North America. That's plain, simple and straight forward. And I thought, simplicity and being self-explanatory is something that is very important to Apple.

Now wait for the response that anyone in Germany who misunderstood is a "moron" or "can't read" or "can't comprehend" .