Apple rebrands 4G LTE iPad as 'iPad Wi-Fi + Cellular' - Page 2

You are kidding right?! Please tell me you are kidding. Red doesn't have legal definition?! How about scientific definition? Would that work for you? Or you don't believe in science?

Big deal. Call it the iPad whatever, comply, and just move on, so more consumers can get what they want without issue: iPads. 

 

When did I mention science? Of course it has a scientific definition.

 

Apart from the fact that it was just an illustrative example, I was talking about the law! Either show me where the word 'red' is defined in statute law, or take your attitude somewhere else.

Edited by Euphonious - 5/12/12 at 6:18pm

Just like AT&T putting a 4G logo on a 4S.
Yeah right.

 

"Your honor, I did not break the law when going through that intersection. The top light was lit. That doesn't mean the light was red!"

Try that one out. See how far that gets you.

For goodness sake, that doesn't mean that the law defines the word 'red'! The law may adopt the common meaning of the word 'red' where it is necessary to do so, and it may accept evidence that something was indeed 'red', but that is completely different to there being a precise legal definition of the term!

 

Now a thread about 4G has turned into a debate about the meaning of 'red', because you've both taken my attempt at a legal analogy and used it as an excuse to be combative. Congratulations.

There is no universal law dictionary where everything is defined. The law is based on facts and the fact is colors are defined by science. This is why in courtrooms they call in experts in the subject matter and not anyone from the street.

Yes, but I was talking about an authoritative legal definition - like the law defines the word 'land', or the word 'theft', or the word 'property'. Those words have a specific legal meaning which emanates from statute. 'Red' doesn't. That's why, if there was a dispute about whether something was red or not, the court might call an expert. There's no need to do that for 'land', because the court just has to interpret the statute.

 

Anyway, this is really, really irrelevant. Shall we move on?

Ahhh the joy of the australian system.

Existing 4g network

Apple advertise iPadwifi+4g

 

Aussies complain, apple enlarges explanation of what their 4g means.

 

Aussies complain some more.  Apple changes name.

 

Done deal.  All the poeple complaining about what 4g means, is meaningless.  Apple had to change the name based upon legal pressure from Australia, and obviously some other countries.

Nothing else matters.

Bending to the will of a "reasonable consumer" isn't really the high road though. The issue of stereotypes comes to mind. Stereotypes are something that if asked, people would generally frown upon their use, yet it's fair to say the average "reasonable" person nonetheless falls prey to using them. It seems to me that 4G being synonymous with LTE is a stereotype. It is not the truth or the whole story, yet it is the working assumption people use anyways. I wouldn't have a problem if Apple had taken a hard line on keeping the 4G term in their marketing materials if they had tried to educate consumers that 4G encompasses a range of technologies including HSPA+, DC-HSDPA, and of course LTE to break the stereotype. A "reasonable" person may currently understand 4G as being LTE, but being "reasonable" could learn and adopt the actual meaning of 4G. However, it looked like Apple itself couldn't decide on how to present 4G, whether to break or follow the sterotype, adding the 4G symbol in associated with HSPA+ on the iPhone 4S while narrowing 4G to only mean LTE on the iPad by relegating HSPA+ and DC-HSDPA to be general "very fast cellular networks". Removing the 4G term completely then is probably the best way to avoid the issue.

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.

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.

It does beg the question of what would have happened if Apple had stuck it out and been taken to court for false advertisement. A cellular expert witness would testify that 4G includes HSPA+ and DC-HSPDA so Apple is correct in calling the new iPad 4G even if LTE doesn't work. A cultural expert witness would testify that many/most people understand 4G to mean LTE so would misunderstand Apple's claims. It would be interesting how a court balances these two points of view.

Maybe in your world, but I've met quite a few people who believed Apple's original '4G' marketing in the UK.

 

'Cool! The iPad works with the new 4G stuff!'

 

Most of these people aren't idiots, they just don't enjoy having to read the fine print.

I'd suggest that you find some friends with IQs over 60.

Since Apple was factually correct, it doesn't matter if uneducated people jump to the wrong conclusions. Advertising does that all the time.

Well many people and several government bodies do not agree with you but I imagine you will label them as "uneducated" or having a IQ lower than 60.

I would have gone with iPad WiFi+GSM and iPad WiFi+CDMA.

Why cellular for markets outside the USA and Canada? Nobody uses that term outside those countries. What is known as a cell phone in the USA and Canada is called a mobile phone elsewhere. Only telecom workers will know what it means. Other people will believe it's an iPad that's specially made for use in prisons.

Yes other countries call LTE 4G, although technically it is not (speed is not high enough to qualify as a proper 4G technology). The problem is that ITU intended LTE to be used over certain frequency bands (just like they originally specified GSM to be used on the 900 and 1800 MHz bands, and 3G (UMTS) on the 2100 MHz band). The problem is that the USA decided to use a different, non-standard frequency band, and that's what Apple made the iPad 3 to work on, expecting the rest of the world to use the same non-standard frequency band as the USA.

Whilst I am glad that the change has been made I am saddened by the fact that the change was the direct result of legal action (and or the threat of it) rather than the wish to prevent confusion.

 

Someone in the advertising department needs to spoken to very sternly. At a time when everything Apple does is being scrutinised they need to be on top of their game.

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.

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.

fifty shades of wifi + data LOL
so what is it really ? "wifi + 4G" or "wifi + LTE" or "wifi + ..." + "wifi + data using a SIM card" " wifi + cellular"' ...

 

Right OK, too easy dude, don't know how everybody missed it.

Now perhaps you can focus on Afghanistan and provide Obama with the solution by this Tuesday COB ...  

Come on... until the Australian case, we all know that Apple were using the 4G moniker to refer to LTE. The HSPA+ 4G argument only entered the equation when their backs were against the wall.

 

Now it would  be interesting to see how Apple define "ultra fast wireless". With the next upgrade will that become "ultra super fast wireless"?

Edited by Toruk - 5/13/12 at 7:22am

OK, so you're incapable of understanding analogies.

Take a 200 mph car. Now, try to go 200 mph in Manhattan. It's not possible. Does that mean the car can't go 200 mph?

Or take a typical mid-western ice storm in February. Roads are covered with ice. There's no way in the world your car is ever going to get to 200 mph - you'll be off the road long before that. Does that mean that the car can't go 200 mph?

Or perhaps a traffic block where the police are out in force and arrest anyone going over 50 mph. Does that mean that the car can't go over 200 mph?

You need to differentiate the capability of the product from the ability of the infrastructure (roads, laws, or wireless network) to support all of the capabilities. An 4G iPad doesn't suddenly become non-4G when you cross a border. It retains the 4G capability, but the local infrastructure does not support it. It is up to the consumer to know the local rules.

By the same logic, if I buy a Ferrari that will go 220 mph and am cruising along at 200 mph in Germany and then cross into France, is it Ferrari's fault that France doesn't allow that kind of speed?

And, of course, that even ignores the fact that under international standards, 4G is supported in most of the world since HSPA+ meets the legal definition of 4G. And don't start with the 'we should go by what consumers think rather than standards bodies'. The average consumer has no idea what is happening and their opinion is worthless. That's why we have standards bodies.

 

 

Apple needs to conform its advertising to the level of technological sophistication prevalent in  its target customers.  If it is selling primarily to engineers, its advertising could well be different than if it were selling to first-time tech buyers.

 

As things are, Apple should strive to make its message crystal clear to its intended audience.  Short of that, it should be certain that nothing it says is likely to be misinterpreted by any sizeable segment of its intended audience. 

 

Apple is doing the right thing here.  They should have done it from the beginning.

 

 

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the issue is fraudulent advertising.  That is not the issue here.

 

Instead, the issue is misleading advertising.  As such, mere factual correctness doesn't go far enough.  It is entirely possible to mislead an audience and to cite only facts.

 

You need to understand the issue before proposing an opinion about it.  Otherwise, you are likely to mislead the audience by commenting on something not in issue.  

 

I find  itt curious that Apple has the "WiFi+" in the name. ISTM that they are concerned that people will imagine that the wireless models will not have that as a "lesser included" feature.

 

Why not iPad WiFi  and iPad Mobile?  Given that every single iPad has  WiFi, why mention it at all?  Why not just iPad and iPad Mobile or iPad + Mobile?

 

 

iPad Mobile would suffice.

When the iPad arrived just two years ago it was unique. Sure, other tablets existed before it but it was a new tablet concept that didn't use a desktop OS. I think they just wanted to be sure that WiFi connectivity was part of the device. Why? I don't know since from my PoV that is the one thing people would expect in 2010.

I would like that dropped since it's pretty pointless at this point. In fact ideally I'd like to see the various lines dropped in favour of one model that has the cellular and GPS HW included by default but will also have Find My iPad option accessible even if the user doesn't pay for cellular connectivity. I'm not holding my breath.

 

It makes sense to me.  The chips must be sufficiently unique in  some respect (maybe price?) that Apple is better off making two different models.  

 

That makes sense.

ROTFLMAO

So you're going to be critical of misleading advertising now? Better put every advertising agency on the planet out of business. EVERY ad is misleading in some way.

But, as usual, you'll criticize Apple for misleading advertising, but it's OK when Google, HTC, Samsung, Microsoft, and everyone else on the planet does it.

Hypocrite.

 

I'd be happy to hear how you think doing that wouldn't solve problems. I'm all ears, really. Do you think that every individual telecom in every individual country should be able to say what "4G" is?

 

But Wi-fi access is also mobile. Not long ago, even laptops were called mobile computing. So I think mobile would be confusing.

Only if they use their definition to attack Apple.

Better yet, how about a car speedometer that goes up to 120/140? Many cars are not capable of even going this fast, even if dropped out of an airplane.

And the tires (tyres for you Aussies) are most likely rated for less than the speedometer!

 

So why are auto-makers selling a car that even cannot go as fast as it's supposed to and even if it could, the tires are not rated for that speed?

Aren't they indeed, telling you it is acceptable to go 120MPH by the simple fact that is on the speedo?

 

Perhaps they should be charged with attempted murder for every vehicle sold...

Edited by Chris_CA - 5/13/12 at 9:14am

 

No, that's a flawed analogy. 200mph is the same everywhere - there's only one possible meaning of 200mph, so the claim can't be misleading, only flat-out false. If you lived in Manhattan and someone tried to sell you a car capable of 200mph, you'd immediately be able to think, 'I can't do 200mph in Manhattan, so what's the point of having that feature'? Then you'd be able to reject the car based on the facts presented.

 

Zither Zather Zuzz is correct - the issue is that the claim is misleading, not that it is false. 

 

Your comments about people with sub-60 IQs are highly unfair. It's not a matter of intelligence - it's a matter of knowledge and interest. You have a decent knowledge of phones, but do you have a similar knowledge of every product you ever buy? No, and you shouldn't be expected to gain one to protect yourself from misleading advertising.

 

If you think that it's the consumer's responsibility to educate themselves about the various different varieties of 4G before buying a '4G' device, then you're in cloud cuckoo land. The fact that lots of other companies also produce misleading advertising doesn't make it OK for Apple to do it.

Edited by Euphonious - 5/13/12 at 10:57am

 

they basically did. It's not their fault that folks don't read. 

 

The real issue is that some countries don't use that definition and they equate 4G with LTE, specifically their flavor of it. And they felt that Apple should spell out on each page in big bold bright print that their LTE isn't supported (or better yet Apple should have made models for every country so the LTE is supported). Rather than saying what two areas of LTE are covered and assuming that customers are smart enough to figure out that if they weren't in one of those two places it was a no go. 

 

Some folks are just dumb. They don't get that 'up to' isn't a promise of hitting that mark. so 'up to 10 hours of battery' doesn't mean you will always get 10 hours. Same for 'up to 4g speeds' doesn't mean you will always get those speeds. But because they are so dumb companies are being forced to write things so the idiots can understand it. And repeat it over and over to make sure they saw it. 

This may seem like I'm splitting hairs but I agree it's not their fault but I'd qualify that statement to say that it is their problem. Just like with the silly "antennagate" debacle they had to make public corrections to deal with foolish media and consumer blowback for an excellent and groundbreaking product to correct or prevent negative press from potentially hurting sales.. because consumers are generally idiots. For that reason it is their problem. However, in both cases I think Apple could have prevented most of it the issue by 1) adjusting the dB values per bar on the iPhone 4 before it shipped so that holding it in the hand wouldn't send it from 3 to 0 bars thus giving the impression there was no signal even though it would still connect in areas where other phones with more showing would not, and 2) being less ambiguous about what 4G refers to by either A) using Cellular from the start or B) being very clear that 4G refers specifically to an international organization definition and not to a specific country or carrier's definition.