Originally Posted by jragosta
This argument is no more rational than the last 10,000 times it was presented.
If I have a car that will go 200 mph under some conditions, is it misleading to say that the car will go 200 mph if you're advertising in a country where 200 mph is not legally allowed? or if the country's roads are so bad that 200 mph is impossible? or if the purchaser plans to drive it in a city? Obviously, none of those conditions change the fact that the car is capable of 200 mph even if the purchaser can not use that capability. It would be up to the purchaser to learn whether it is legal or practical to use that speed on their streets.
This is a shitty analogy. No matter what the conditions of the road, the population, the whatever, the car can still do 200mph as it is delivered and in the country it is delivered, unless the country is only 300 yards long on its longest side. You qualify apples position further below, but it doesn't change the fact they product is (was) called Wifi + 4G and marketed as such. The device cannot do 4g in certain markets because the infrastructure is either not there or is not compatible. Before you rage, read the next paragraph.
No one gives a fudge what the itU-R thinks 4G is. Half you guys probably didn't even know it existed before this brouhaha erupted. I did not. The market perception of what 4G is, is dependent upon that market itself and what that market chooses to call 4G. I thought 4G was LTE. That does not make me stupid. I was simply not interested in investigating the matter further. At least not until Apple released the current iPad.
Most first world countries (and arguably, those countries are a little more enlightened) do not let companies take advantage of sub 60 IQ individuals by burying "does 4g except for here" in the fine print. If you call a device 4g, then it needs to be able to do 4g in that market. That fact that it can elsewhere is not at all to the point. In fact, it is alomst completely irrelevant.
Nearly all consumer protection legislation frames a consumers expectation in terms of a 'reasonable' consumer. A reasonable consumer does not concern themselves about what some foreign standards body deems a particular standard to be. A reasonable consumer should be able to make a decision based on the information in front of them, the market that they are participating in, and without having to resort to fine print to discover a gotcha which goes to the very name of the product.
Apple obviously wised up to this. Good on them.
Similarly, the new iPad is capable of 4G - and Apple tells you which frequencies it supports and which countries. If your country doesn't support 4G, that doesn't mean that the device is not a 4G device - is simply means that your country doesn't support it. If you take the iPad to a country where it IS supported, it will work fine.
The whole thing is ridiculous. Apple's device meets the legal definition of 4G and people are defending consumers who are too stupid for words.
AFAIK my country doesn't have a legal definition of 4g, and whatever you think it might be, and whoever you think might be setting that definition, must be highly offended that we have HSPA+ and call it 3G, and leave LTE to carry the flag for 4G radio.
It must be painfully clear to you know that 4G as a definition is regionally contextual. Apple need to work within those contexts.