Apple reaches A$2.25M settlement with Australian regulator over 4G iPad - Page 2

 

It wasn't. It was written which network the iPad was compatible with, yes. However, prior to being told by the court, Apple did not explicitly state that those American networks were the only ones where 4G worked. There's a subtle difference with a price tag of $2.25 million. Quit arguing and accept that you are wrong.

I don't think it was nothing, I just don't think it was a proportionate punishment. I guess you don't think $2.25m is a lot of money, but I do.

Apple has local legal and marketing staff in Australia, Europe, etc. to prevent these embarrasing and expensive gaffes.   Is Apple making use of these people or are they not doing their job?  In any event, Cook needs to take Schiller (Worldwide Marketing) and Sewell (General Counsel) to the woodshed.

 

Yeah your right, it was written compatible with US 4G and roaming ect. which for most people with half a brain would raise the question about compatibility with Australian networks. The ACCC had a problem with it being called the 4G iPad altogether. I agree it was badly done by Apple but the fine is ridiculous especially when offering a full refund to affected customers

Apple has a business to run. From the figure, it sounds like Apple said "we're probably going to spend $2-3 M to fight this (given the complexity and time involved in fighting government agencies), so we'll just settle for that amount and move on. The difference is that if they lost, they'd have spend $2-3 M PLUS any fines that were assigned (which would probably be larger if Apple lost). It was nothing more than an expedient business move.


Actually, it was a simple quirk of Australian law. International standards state that HSPA+ is 4G, so it is perfectly legitimate to advertise it as such. However, Australia foolishly legislates something different.

Besides, the device is capable of 4G/LTE, as well. Whether you are able to use it is irrelevant. See below.


The device IS capable of 4G (both HSPA+ and LTE). Whether you are able to use it is irrelevant.

By your standards, if you have a car with a top speed of 200 mph, you should be required to state that the top speed is 35 mph - because that's the fastest you can go in New York City. Or maybe 2 mph since that's going to be your top speed at rush hour.

Similarly, let's take the US where both HSPA+ and LTE are supported. By your logic, the Nebraska Apple Store should not be able to advertise LTE if the carriers don't offer LTE there. Or, if the customer lives in a valley and can't get LTE signals, is that Apple's fault?

In either case (and in the case of Australia), the device is fully functional. If you travel to an area which has LTE and HSPA+ at supported frequencies, it works exactly as advertised.


We have no idea if Apple would have won. They decided to settle. 'Guilty until proven innocent' is lousy logic.


But since you're not paying the fine, no one cares whether you think it's a lot of money. Apple apparently did not. On a case of this magnitude when competing against a government body that wants to prove a point, it's easy for legal fees to reach millions of dollars. It is very, very likely that Apple spent less money than they would have spent even if they won.

 

Who settles out of court? :) the innocent? if you could run a multi-billion dollar company & you felt that you were right, would you settle out of court? 

 

Have you ever seen an episode of 'Cops'? where a cop sees a dude, the guy spots the cops then starts running, the cops after a short chase catch the guy, (to the police, innocent don't run).

the cops ask why he ran away, hes like uuhhh i didn't know you were cops (despite them shouting 'stop, police'), turns out he has a crack pipe on him (they always have a crack pipe in that show)

:) yeah good times :)

 

I do agree, the definition of 4G isn't clearly stated enough to argue that the new iPad doesn't have 4G in Australia, even the (lets say my new iPad) is running HSPA+ & its running awesomely :) & it wouldn't be a stretch to say that HSPA+ could be called 4G (which means my 4s is 4G too :P )

Edited by Zozman - 6/8/12 at 7:27am

 

Had they actually advertised it as LTE and HSPA+ there would not have been a problem, but LTE and HSPA+ really don't have same snazzy marketing ring to it that 4G does. Although the word 4G is a rather ambiguous term, it was already being used in commerce within Australia, however, it was being used to describe something similar but different than what Apple was calling 4G so naturally there was going to be some confusion.

 

I think Apple was well aware of the risk in advance but chose to market it as such anyway.

Edited by mstone - 6/8/12 at 8:14am

Of course. It happens all the time. Do you really believe that every time a company settles out of court that they're guilty?

For example, my company (a subsidiary of a billion dollar corporation) was once sued for discrimination. EEOC said there was no evidence to support the allegations and we were 100% confident that we'd win. By my attorney said that the CHEAPEST discrimination case he'd ever dealt with ran up $50 K in legal fees, so he suggested that we offer the person $25 K to go away. From a business perspective, it makes eminent sense even if you're 100% innocent. Your options are:

Settle for $25 K and the issue is over

or

Litigate which means you spend AT LEAST $50 K in legal expenses (possibly many times more than that) and have a slight risk of losing and paying even greater damages.

It's really a no-brainer in many cases.

 

Companies/Celebrities settle out of court a lot of times. They weigh the legal cost, damage to PR/image against being right and potential win.  Sometimes it a whole lot cheaper to cut a check and make it go away then drag it out.

Apple should just increase the price of the iPhone and iPad range by A$0.99 per handset and they will recoop the cash in a few weeks.

Well the ACCC and the Australian courts don't agree with you and I know who I would tend to believe. Show me where I have given no evidence of something when asked?

 

Smart arse replies were given when deserved. Much like when you make comments like "And its hardly consumer rights, its more like protecting the stupid" which just makes you look stupid yourself.

 

This whole overblown "issue" from our nanny state government makes us Australian's appear to be too stupid to read and understand what's written on a box, website and promotional material, it also distracts from the real issue's this department should deal with such as banks siphoning off $ Billions in "fees", the call termination charges imposed on internetwork calls by phone carriers and petrol (gas) price fixing (It's strange how when the cost of a barrel of crude goes up the price change of petrol is usually reflected on the same day, yet when it goes down there is a lag of up to a week.), among other things.

 

The ACCC IS protecting the stupid (as assumed by them) AND diverting the stupid from the real issues.

Why are you still trying to use these stupid car analogies, they are not comparible, they are no where the same thing. The government has forced a speed limit on public roads, I can do any speed I like on my private roads.

Apple has advertised a feature you cannot use. Until you understand that countries have consumer laws for a reason this concept will be way above you. Apple didn't have to advertise it as 4G, they know you cannot advertise this way, and yet they did it anyway. There is a real simple concept that a lot of countries have in their consumer laws, you cannot use small print which might conceal information inregard to someone buying a product.

Here is an extract from the Commerce Commission NZ, many countries have the same conditions

http://www.comcom.govt.nz/fine-print/

Bottom line is Apple was wrong, and they were fined for it.

 

Apart from the fact, that in the right place the new iPad actually is "4G" compatible.

 

Apple stepped into a gray area of the law.

You have given the impression that you are in retail sales in Australia. If so, you might want to get some basic consumer law training as you obviously have no idea and are simply talking from emotions.

Yawn...obviously Apple wouldn't be paying this fine, changing the name and offering refunds if it was this simple. Your argument is lame.

 

The ACCC is working on the assumption that the average Australian is too stupid to know what a footnote is.

 

This was a political move purely to divert attention from other, more pressing issues.

 

How many aggrieved parties took advantage of Apple's refund offer.

 

Australians aren't as stupid as the ACCC likes to think.

Perhaps, but it does look like they messed up in Australia. In the entire civilized world, there are international standards as to what constitutes 4G - and this includes HSPA+. Australia legislates a definition of 4G which differs from the international standard and does NOT include HSPA+. I think it's still legitimate to argue that the device is capable of 4G even if Australia calls it something different. For example, even if you accept the Australian definition, you can still use 4G when you travel. The device is capable of it, even if it's not available locally.


As pointed out above, lots of companies find it far less expensive to settle ridiculous complaints rather than fight them. Apple probably realized that few Australians would be asking for refunds, anyway, so the cost was minimal. And the cost of settling was almost certainly less than the cost of fighting it.

You could turn your silly argument around. If Australia felt that it had such a strong case, why did THEY settle? Why didn't they fight it - and make Apple pay their legal expenses, pull the product off the market, refund the purchase price for EVERY consumer, and pay a huge fine? If they were so certain they would win, why wouldn't they do that?

You clearly have no clue how the law works in Australia so I suggest you stop commenting on it.

lol you obviously don't know how the ACCC and the courts in Australia work but keep going if you want. Your argument that you can travel and use 4G is bogus when it comes to the law and you clearly do not understand this.

Until you show me where Australia 'legislated' a 4G definition (I've asked you in previous thread and you failed to produce the goods there, either), your understanding of the issues are marginal at best, and pretty much wrong in reality. You're the kind of person who thinks if you simply keep repeating something, it becomes true. So keep talking brother.

Maybe if you are really lucky he will bring out one of his car analogies :-)

Hill60, you are 100% correct. It has been the Australian government's way for some time now: something controversial happens and they jump all over it, feeding the media, while they quietly slip through some new law or distract from other real issues. Everytime something stupid like this happens, I scan the quiet sections of the news or my regular legal update emails for the real actions that are being hidden.

It's relevant, because 4G means something else in this region. Apple hasn't been fair with the marketing. If, say, my mom buys a phone that says 4G, and then it turns out it doesn't work on the local 4G network, she has been mislead.
It's just disrespectful by Apple.

Ahh so this is the Australian governments fault now? Anyone else you want to blame?

Just like you're free to set up an LTE network inside your home (as long as you shield the home properly). Or you're free to travel to a country which has LTE. Or, you're free to use the international standard definition of 4G - in which case the iPad works even in Australia.

As for the government forcing a speed limit, who do you think allocates radio spectrum? It's exactly the same thing.

Really? Australia prevents you from traveling? Wow. I'd move.

The fact is that the device is fully capable of 4G LTE just as a Corvette is capable of 180 mph. The fact that you can't drive 180 mph in New York City doesn't change that fact.


That's what I get for believing you Apple haters. All the Apple haters were running around a few weeks ago saying that Australia legislated a definition of 4G which did not include HSPA+. Take it up with them. I simply repeated what they were saying.

If there is no legislation in Australia which is different than the international standard, then you Apple haters have even less grounds for complaint. The international standard for 4G includes HSPA+, so the iPad can do it - even in Australia. This whole case simply amounts to extortion.

Why do you label anyone who doesn't agree with everything Apple does as a "hater". Nothing wrong with liking Apple but also disagreeing with them sometimes.

 

They deserved to be called out on this one and just because you can't see it doesn't make everyone else a hater. 

 

Are you still trying to act like you don't understand this?  You cannot compare the speed of one object to the ability of using another.  You can still use the car car regardless of the speed limits, you cannot use LTE in Australia as the iPad doesn't support the frequencies in Australia.  Meaning you can't advertise it as supporting LTE because it doesn't.  It is simple, it applies to any company falsely advertising their products, this is not one of your "Apple hater" moments, this is Apple breaking the law and getting punished for it.

 

As for travelling, this isn't about any other country, this is purely about Australia.  This is a real simple case, Apple advertised their product in Australia as saying it support LTE, they then tried to hide the fact that it didn't in fine print.  The Australian government said this was illegal and they were fined for it.

 

Apple has not been the first to be fined for the exact same reason in Australia, and they will not be the last.  You only have to do a search for "ACCC fine print"

 

http://www.google.co.nz/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=accc+fine+print

 

And you'll find lots of other references.  Now can you please get off your high horse and accept you are wrong.

So what? You can still use the iPad in Australia just fine. That's the equivalent of still being able to drive the car.

Car:
Capable fo 180 mph
Limited to much lower speeds in some countries or cities due to either laws or regulations or physical conditions, but you can easily drive it at lower speeds.
Still capable of 180 mph if you take the car somewhere else.

iPad
Capable of LTE
Limited to much lower speeds in some countries due to either laws or regulations or physical conditions, but you can easily still use it at lower speeds.
Still capable of LTE if you take the iPad somewhere else.

AND, even in Australia, the iPad uses 4G - according to international standards.

So what's the difference?

Incorrect. The Australian government TRIED to fine Apple, but the issue was settled before it was determined if Apple was guilty or not.

Furthermore, the iPad supports LTE - regardless of whether Australia has the same frequencies or not - just as a Corvette is capable of 180 mph even if you live in New York City.

Please show me where Apple was convicted of a crime.

Oh, wait. They weren't. So get off YOUR high horse and accept that you are wrong.

Ahh so this is the Australian governments fault now? Anyone else you want to blame?

 

 

Well, obviously.

Well, obviously. 

The size of the fine might reflect the fact that apple were asked to drop the 4g claim. Had they done so there would probably have been no fine at all, as was the case in the UK. instead Apple went on the defensive claiming that 2 baked bean tins and a bit of string were technically 4G.

 

Apple put two fingers up and got slapped on the wrist. The size of the slap may well be increased soon though. It looks as though the Australians want the fine to be punitive, thereby sending a message to other law breakers.

 

 

This is your issue, you don't seem to be understanding this very simple concept, you are getting overly emotive with this.  The issue is not if the iPad is usable in Australia, it is can you use the then advertised LTE in Australia.

 

I will help you with this answer, it is NO.

 

Apple advertised a LTE product in Australia, then in the fine print said you can't actually use it.  According to Australian law that is illegal.  Now, try and prove this wrong, come on, please try, because you can't, this is a simple fact that you seem to be having a massive issue with, Apple was in the wrong and they have paid up for the fact.

 

Please stop with these stupid car analogies, they are no the same thing, you have been told several times they are not comparable, yet you just go on and on about it again.  This whole thing is about advertising, and advertising within finely detailed laws.

 

You keep going on about 4G, this has nothing to do with 4G, I will say this again as you still don't seem to understand it.  Apple advertised a LTE product, then said you can't use LTE in Australia in fine print, according to the Australian government this is illegal, nothing to do to with the definition of 4G.  This is the difference.

 

Sorry, Apple settled, this means they realised they were in the wrong, and they knew if would be cheaper to settle.  But wait, you go on about cars again, what is your thing with cars? 

 

Again, sorry I said they were convicted, they settled, Apple accepted they were in the wrong and settle.  I will accept this.

 

Now your turn, Apple broke Australian advertising laws, this is a fact, please accept this, and move on.

Ok, I'll give you a big leg up because you're simply incapable of getting it. 4G means 4G. Don't stress yourself about the ITU or the HSPA or the GSM or whatever it is you think it might mean. Its a contextual thing. HSPA+ has been marketed here as 3.5G since, well, forever. It has never been 4G here. never. So just let it go. You don't live here so you simply have no fucking clue. 4G here is specifically an LTE network which is only available in certain locations.

So Apple come along and say, Hey Guys, I can do the 4G. They called the product the 4G for chrissakes. So australia has, as we understand, it a 4G network. But this 4g iPad won't connect to it.

If you don't see the problem then you never will. The only country that seems to adhere to the 4G 'legal' definition (as you so authoritatively put it, incorrectly as well) is the blob of land which your fat arse currently sits on.

Apple CHANGED THE NAME OF THE PRODUCT. There must be dozens of people getting paid the equivalent of the GDP of a small African country to decide that the name of the product has to change and you still carry on like a pork chop.

it just makes you look like an ass. Backside where you are, a small horse where I am.

hahaha that has to be the best single post I have ever seen in this forum! I'm sure he will have another car analogy for you now.

Edited by fredaroony - 6/10/12 at 3:01am

Sorry, but your biased, Apple-hating opinion does not change the international standard definition. HSPA+ is 4G according to international standards.

You might like to join the civilized world.

Pot, meet Kettle...

I'm afraid it is you being the biased one, you seem to be blind to fact you are wrong. Why do you still refuse to accept you were wrong?

Can this thread get any more childish?

"Accept that you are wrong"? Does that make you feel big - what's next, your father's a cop?

If you have a solid argument, don't you think that demonstrating an understanding of the actual issues here, including why Apple branded their products this way, might actually establish the strength of your argument instead of this puerile machismo?

Or perhaps that's all there is, and you subscribe to the theory that he who shouts loudest wins the argument.

Ok rant over. This mindless squabbling pisses me off.

So, which of the iPhone, 2 iPads, an iPod touch, a MacBook pro or MacBook that I own was used to respond to your post? All getting to you through the Airport extreme I own connecting me to the internet? Admittedly, the mighty mouse I bought probably wasn't the best of choices but I'm sure you'll call me a hater for thinking that way.

 

There's enthusiastic, and then there's you.