or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › Genius Bar › Apple rebrands 4G LTE iPad as 'iPad Wi-Fi + Cellular'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple rebrands 4G LTE iPad as 'iPad Wi-Fi + Cellular' - Page 4

post #121 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by mnemonic View Post

Of course, however there might be a slight issue when the iPad will actually support a true 4G technology. On the other hand, they can then just go on and call it 5G...

What part of "ITU which sets the international standard says that the iPad already supports 4G" do you not understand?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #122 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
What part of "ITU which sets the international standard says that the iPad already supports 4G" do you not understand?

 

Surprisingly, only "which", "the" (the first one), and "already".

 

A~nd no wink emoticon…

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #123 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


What part of "ITU which sets the international standard says that the iPad already supports 4G" do you not understand?

There you go, banging on again like this is important in the context of the argument. Keep hitting that drum, brother.

post #124 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

There you go, banging on again like this is important in the context of the argument. Keep hitting that drum, brother.

In post #121, mnemonic said "Of course, however there might be a slight issue when the iPad will actually support a true 4G technology. "

According to the ITU which sets the standard, it already uses a true 4G technology. So why in the world would you think it's not relevant in the context of the argument?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #125 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Yet another stupid analogy from an Apple hater.

 

 

No, actually it is highly analogous this the Apple 4G situation.  It is a probably the best analogy I have read on this topic.  Well done Euphonious!

 

What we have from you is another automated denial from an AppleBot.

post #126 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Likkie View Post
No, actually it is highly analogous this the Apple 4G situation.  It is a probably the best analogy I have read on this topic.  Well done Euphonious!

 

What we have from you is another automated denial from an AppleBot.

 

Said as an Aussie who doesn't seem to understand the issue here.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #127 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Said as an Aussie who doesn't seem to understand the issue here.

 

Huh? Why on earth is it relevant whether he's Australian or not? :s

post #128 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious View Post
Huh? Why on earth is it relevant whether he's Australian or not? :s

 

That's what this is all about. If he bought it due to the vague advertising, that's a problem and he can easily return it. But it's the advertising that is the problem, not the device. The gallon analogy itself is faulty, but it's certainly close.

 

We want to keep talking about cars, then we only need one word: gas (well, petrol).

 

Let's say the car's performance is based on the gas put into it… but gas that is sold in one place is only partially compatible with the car. You can't get race car performance in a race car out of standard unleaded.

 

"But the problem isn't that the right gas isn't sold, it's that the car doesn't accept it. It's the car's problem."

It's a problem for both parties, not one. The only problem for the one party comes in the vagueness of the advertising of gasoline acceptance.

 

Which becomes confusing to try to keep within the metaphor, so you know what I mean.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #129 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Said as an Aussie who doesn't seem to understand the issue here.

 

 

Since this whole ridiculous debacle is about a Marketing problem in Australia, I would have thought being an Aussie would be 50% of the qualification required for a proper understanding of the problem.

 

You see this problem isn't really about the technology its about the misleading use of the truth in marketing.  Thats against the law in this country as it should be everywhere.

post #130 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Likkie View Post

You see this problem isn't really about the technology its about the misleading use of the truth in marketing.  Thats against the law in this country as it should be everywhere.

 

Right. And when the information about the US and Canada was appended, the issue was resolved. Anyone wronged by confusing advertising need only return the iPad and be done with it.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #131 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Right. And when the information about the US and Canada was appended, the issue was resolved. Anyone wronged by confusing advertising need only return the iPad and be done with it.

 

That's not satisfactory in this country.

post #132 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Likkie View Post
That's not satisfactory in this country.

 

So what's satisfactory?

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #133 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

So what's satisfactory?

 

Well, what Apple have done recently (i.e. changing the product name) seems to satisfy what is required, but that is for the ACCC to decide.

 

This excerpt from an article I read in the Sydney Morning Herald seems to sum it up:

 

 

Quote:
The ACCC said in a statement that "any move" by Apple to cease using the '4G' descriptor in marketing "would mitigate against the ACCC's concerns" but would "not deal with any past conduct". It added that the legal action against Apple was "continuing" and going to trial on June 4.
post #134 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


In post #121, mnemonic said "Of course, however there might be a slight issue when the iPad will actually support a true 4G technology. "
According to the ITU which sets the standard, it already uses a true 4G technology. So why in the world would you think it's not relevant in the context of the argument?

It's been said multiple times in this thread and elsewhere, yet you refuse to acknowledge this: the fact that it is 4G capable is not relevant. I don't think that anyone is disputing that, so you should just let it go.

 

If it is being sold as a 4g device then it better well be able to do 4g in the market in which it is sold. The definition of 4G varies by market, despite what the ITU says 4G is. You keep parroting ITU ITU ITU like it's some kind of slogan but it's irrelevant from the consumer's point of view. From the consumer's point of view, here in Australia, it does not do 4G. It simply does not. This is in spite of what ITU tells you 4G is. We're talking about consumer law here, not hair splitting on definitions. Why do you not get this?

 

It is not to the point that is theoretically possible to use 4G if you get on a plane and go to merika. In this country, you are not allowed to hide in fine print what you are asserting. It can be construed as misleading or deceptive conduct and the ACCC can (and did) take action under the Australian Competition and Consumer Law (2010), Shedule 2 from memory. This is a federal act and applies to all corporations in Australia.

 

The fact that the product itself was called 4G makes it worse. 

 

THAT is why the ITU definition is irrelevant. I think I've explained it as well as I can over numerous posts. The point is to educate, not pillory, but it's clear you do not want the first, and prefer to engage in the second.

post #135 of 157
Quote:

Originally Posted by djsherly View Post
If it is being sold as a 4g device then it better well be able to do 4g in the market in which it is sold.

 

Define 'market'.

 

Quote:

In this country, you are not allowed to hide in fine print what you are asserting. It can be construed as misleading or deceptive conduct and the ACCC can (and did) take action under the Australian Competition and Consumer Law (2010), Shedule 2 from memory. This is a federal act and applies to all corporations in Australia.

 

Then Australia better get to suing Apple for every single other product they sell. I see fine print on every product page. 

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #136 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Define 'market'.

 

 

Australia.  Haven't you been following along?? :)

post #137 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Likkie View Post
Australia.  Haven't you been following along?? :)

 

So the entire country, then. So are there complaints that people have to drive all the way out to the bush to shoot off their guns instead of being able to shoot them in Canberra? 

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #138 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Define 'market'.

 

 

Then Australia better get to suing Apple for every single other product they sell. I see fine print on every product page. 

 

Well, if it is discovered that they are hiding something in that fine print, then there may be a court action.

post #139 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

So the entire country, then. So are there complaints that people have to drive all the way out to the bush to shoot off their guns instead of being able to shoot them in Canberra? 

 

 

You asked for the market to be defined. 

 

I don't see what this has to do with guns, which BTW are also illegal here.  You can't just shoot them off, city or country.

post #140 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Likkie View Post
I don't see what this has to do with guns…

 

Then read my analogy for what it is instead.

 

Quote:
…which BTW are also illegal here.


Better bone up on my modern Australian educational shorts, then. Could have sworn you guys could have guns.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #141 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Then read my analogy for what it is instead.

 

 

 

I still don't get it.  You said "Define Market".

 

I said Australia, and then you started talking about guns....

 

I don't see how that relates to the market.

post #142 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Define 'market'.

If you can't join Australia and market in that paragraph and form the conclusion that market just might mean country, the problem probably lies with the reader.
Quote:
Then Australia better get to suing Apple for every single other product they sell. I see fine print on every product page. 

Well yes, if the fine print is required to clarify product marketing which would otherwise mislead or deceive, they should. fine print in and of itself is not illegal. Why should it be?
Edited by djsherly - 5/14/12 at 10:54pm
post #143 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Then read my analogy for what it is instead.

 


Better bone up on my modern Australian educational shorts, then. Could have sworn you guys could have guns.

 

Well, yes we do. We just don't hand 'em out willy nilly though. People get shot.

post #144 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Then read my analogy for what it is instead.

 

I can't say I follow it either. What do Australian gun laws have to do with the market for 4G service?

post #145 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post
If you can't join Australia and market in that paragraph and form the conclusion that market just might mean country, the problem probably lies with the reader.

 

So I can't ask for clarification from the horse's mouth? Because my analogy showed that his position was flawed, but that depended on the definition of 'market' to him.

 

Quote:
Well yes, if the fine print is required to clarify product marketing which would otherwise mislead or deceive, they should. fine print in and of itself is not illegal. Why should it be?

 

Exactly, so they need to sue Apple for all of their products, because this happens with all their products. And some of it is for the exact same idea as for which the iPad was sued.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #146 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Exactly, so they need to sue Apple for all of their products, because this happens with all their products. And some of it is for the exact same idea as for which the iPad was sued.

 

Examples?

post #147 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious View Post
Examples?

 

The advertising of the ability to use wireless Internet. The advertising of the ability to USE the Internet at all. Advertising of PVC-free power cables. Apple products' EPEAT rating.

 

All this on the Australian site. They're not PVC free in Australia. They're not EPEAT Gold in Australia. You might not HAVE wireless Internet near you. You'd have to, let's see, get in a vehicle and go somewhere that has said Internet. And then you might have to pay for it.

 

Better get to suing, since this apparently isn't allowed.

 

This is why I refuse to believe that a simple clarification of the location and compatibility of 4G was not a perfectly sufficient change that would have avoided lawsuit initially and should have ended the lawsuit now.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #148 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

You might not HAVE wireless Internet near you. You'd have to, let's see, get in a vehicle and go somewhere that has said Internet. And then you might have to pay for it.

 

Better get to suing, since this apparently isn't allowed.

 

That's not even remotely comparable. Nobody with a modicum of sense would think that a product with Wi-Fi would work where there wasn't any Wi-Fi.

 

Can you not see the difference? The Wi-Fi example would be unreasonable behaviour from the consumer. It's like expecting your car to keep working if you don't put any gas in it. Companies shouldn't have to communicate things if they're extremely obvious.

 

Expecting a product to work on your country's 4G networks because it's advertised in that country as 4G, on the other hand, is entirely reasonable.

post #149 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious View Post
That's not even remotely comparable. Nobody with a modicum of sense would think that a product with Wi-Fi would work where there wasn't any Wi-Fi.

 

You obviously can't separate yourself from your tech background and put yourself in the shoes of a regular consumer.

 

Quote:

The Wi-Fi example would be unreasonable behaviour from the consumer. It's like expecting your car to keep working if you don't put any gas in it. Companies shouldn't have to communicate things if they're extremely obvious.

 

Expecting a product to work on your country's 4G networks because it's advertised in that country as 4G, on the other hand, is entirely reasonable.

 

I expect my iPad to work on Wi-Fi since it's advertised in this country as Wi-Fi. Why doesn't it work? I shouldn't have to buy anything else for it to work!

 

It's the exact same argument. No "unreasonable behavior", save from the people suing for this.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #150 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I expect my iPad to work on Wi-Fi since it's advertised in this country as Wi-Fi. Why doesn't it work? I shouldn't have to buy anything else for it to work!

 

It's the exact same argument. No "unreasonable behavior", save from the people suing for this.

 

Can't you see that the level of knowledge and enquiry required to understand that there are different types of 4G, and that Apple is using a definition which differs from the common Australian definition, is dramatically higher than the level required to understand that a Wi-Fi product doesn't work where there's no Wi-Fi?

 

It's not the exact same argument at all. It's dramatically different. The equivalent to the 4G issue would be buying an iPad in the knowledge that you have Wi-Fi, and then finding that it doesn't work on your Wi-Fi because the definition of Wi-Fi which Apple is using is a type which isn't used in your country.

 

It is different because the terminology Apple is using is misleading, where there's nothing misleading about the word 'Wi-Fi' in typical usage.

 

I'm increasingly getting the impression that you are constitutionally incapable of recognising any flaws in anything which Apple does.

post #151 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious View Post
Can't you see that the level of knowledge and enquiry required to understand that there are different types of 4G, and that Apple is using a definition which differs from the common Australian definition, is dramatically higher than the level required to understand that a Wi-Fi product doesn't work where there's no Wi-Fi?

 

No, it's pretty much par for the course. There's not a huge difference there at all. And as the issue is already resolved, the point is moot. Yes, Apple should have said (4G US-only) in more prominent lettering. But it no longer matters.

 

Quote:

It is different because the terminology Apple is using is misleading, where there's nothing misleading about the word 'Wi-Fi' in typical usage.

 

And all wrongs have been righted. Anyone who bought thinking they could use 4G in Australia can return for a refund. Period. The story ends there. If they want to boycott all Apple products from now on, be my guest.

 

Quote:
I'm increasingly getting the impression that you are constitutionally incapable of recognising any flaws in anything which Apple does.

 

Keep impressing, then. 

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #152 of 157

... so, essentially, you've made a vague statement about it all being 'par for the course', and now you're attempting to close down the argument.

 

Personally I can't see how the fact that the problem has been solved following legal intervention makes what Apple did any less dubious, but - there we go.

post #153 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious View Post
Personally I can't see how the fact that the problem has been solved following legal intervention makes what Apple did any less dubious, but - there we go.

 

WHAT was dubious that was done was the question, and I believe we've solved that. 

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #154 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

WHAT was dubious that was done was the question, and I believe we've solved that. 

 

Perhaps 'solved' in the sense of 'agreeing to disagree'! I certainly wouldn't go any further than that.

post #155 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

So I can't ask for clarification from the horse's mouth? Because my analogy showed that his position was flawed, but that depended on the definition of 'market' to him.

 

 

Exactly, so they need to sue Apple for all of their products, because this happens with all their products. And some of it is for the exact same idea as for which the iPad was sued.

 

Analogies attempt to simplify things but often leave the nuances out. You can't really disprove a position with an analogy. 

 

What part of mislead or deceive are you missing? You made some asinine argument about the term Wifi being under the same suspicion. It's not even remotely comparable. For a start, Wifi has been around for years. I have a ten year old Wifi router in my house. A reasonable person would know what wifi is. If you're looking for wifi capability you would know it needs to connect to something. Wifi is the same everywhere, g, a, b, n, they're all the same implementation everywhere. At worst, you can buy a router to get that connectivity. You can't exactly go into Myer and buy yourself a 4G tower and hook it into the grid.

 

This underscores the problem. This iPad does not connect to our 4G networks. It is misleading and deceptive to give a product that name and then qualify it by saying "does not do 4g".

 

There are legal definitions of "reasonable person" and "deceptive and misleading conduct", either in the statues or in the case law. Just trust me, I know. You're completely on the wrong track here and you should pretty much shut up shop now before you make yourself look more silly than you've already done.

post #156 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


What part of "ITU which sets the international standard says that the iPad already supports 4G" do you not understand?

I actually don't understand why they would say that as the very same ITU have also stated that true 4G must support peak speeds of at least 100 Mbps  while on the move and 1 Gbps peak speed while stationary. The ITU will only consider LTE to be labelled 4G if it will later be upgraded to LTE-A, however I believe that Apple would rather release a new iPad altogether than offer upgrades to LTE-A in the existing devices as there are currently no LTE-A networks (or, for that matter, generally available chipsets for use in mobile devices).

post #157 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by mnemonic View Post

I actually don't understand why they would say that as the very same ITU have also stated that true 4G must support peak speeds of at least 100 Mbps  while on the move and 1 Gbps peak speed while stationary. The ITU will only consider LTE to be labelled 4G if it will later be upgraded to LTE-A, however I believe that Apple would rather release a new iPad altogether than offer upgrades to LTE-A in the existing devices as there are currently no LTE-A networks (or, for that matter, generally available chipsets for use in mobile devices).

 

If the ITU thinks that carriers and phone manufacturers will keep to that definition, then it is ignorant of the practical need for those companies to market their products.

 

1Gbps is such a huge leap from current standards that it's not going to be reliably available for a fair while. Even if the hardware were available, it would be far too power-intensive at the minute to be included in a device like the iPad.

 

In the meantime, how are carriers supposed to market services like LTE which are much faster than standard 3G, if they can't use the term '4G'? They need some kind of catchy term to distinguish it from the existing services, and it's not exactly going to be '3.5G' or '3.9G'!

 

Far too many hairs are being split over what '4G' technically means. It's much more important that consumers get what they think they're getting.


Edited by Euphonious - 5/16/12 at 3:36pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Genius Bar
AppleInsider › Forums › General › Genius Bar › Apple rebrands 4G LTE iPad as 'iPad Wi-Fi + Cellular'