They did - right from the start.There is absolutely no confusion in Apple's information. You get LTE in the US and Canada if you use one of the partner telcos. Elsewhere, you get 3G.
Sorry to say, but that statement is clearly wrong from a German reader's perspective. Given Germany is one of Apple's largest markets worldwide, this seems relevant.
1. In Germany, carrier advertisement and general public opinion on what "4G" means, is 100% clear, and it is related to LTE.
2. When you look at the German website, "4G" support is advertised as such (http://www.apple.com/de/ipad/features/). It's in German, on the center page of the German Apple site.
3. On this page - http://www.apple.com/de/ipad/4g/ - again 4G is mentioned; the text says - again in German - that you can download fast stuff using "4G networks" (which, again, Germans *WILL* read as "LTE networks), and then it says that it would use 3G networks - which are, it says, HSPA, HSPA+ and DC-HSPA.
4. On the same page, there are links to 3 of Germanys major carriers, Vodafone, T-Mobile and O2, two of which have just launched their LTE offerings in the last couple months. So while there is no direct mention of the fact that 4G/LTE will be supported on these carriers networks, the way the bits of information is put together is very suggestive.
5. It gets worse when you look at the fact that during the Oct. 4 2011 special event, Phil Schiller explicitly said that Apple would stay outside the 4G discussion and what's what - see minute 60+ of it, link found at http://itunes.apple.com/de/podcast/a...es/id275834665. Now they are talking about 4G, where there isn't any.
6. If you are really-really strict about definitions, even LTE doesn't pass as 4G, btw; look at what the definition of this is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G - only LTE Advanced would pass, and it isn't available yet.
There is already substantial talk here in Germany to take Apple to court based on false advertising around this and ask them to stop it.
I am not saying that the New iPad is not a great device; other features are clearly outstanding and it will sell well; it's also good that they have moved forward on the wireless system. The way they present it, however, and advertise it, is not very Apple-like and it leaves much to be desired. What makes me feel quite sad, btw., is that I think SJobs would have presented that part very differently as he was always very cautious about real truth in product feature messaging...... :-(
Sorry to say, but that statement is clearly wrong from a German reader's perspective. Given Germany is one of Apple's largest markets worldwide, this seems relevant.
1. In Germany, carrier advertisement and general public opinion on what "4G" means, is 100% clear, and it is related to LTE.
2. When you look at the German website, "4G" support is advertised as such (http://www.apple.com/de/ipad/features/). It's in German, on the center page of the German Apple site.
3. On this page - http://www.apple.com/de/ipad/4g/ - again 4G is mentioned; the text says - again in German - that you can download fast stuff using "4G networks" (which, again, Germans *WILL* read as "LTE networks), and then it says that it would use 3G networks - which are, it says, HSPA, HSPA+ and DC-HSPA.
4. On the same page, there are links to 3 of Germanys major carriers, Vodafone, T-Mobile and O2, two of which have just launched their LTE offerings in the last couple months. So while there is no direct mention of the fact that 4G/LTE will be supported on these carriers networks, the way the bits of information is put together is very suggestive.
5. It gets worse when you look at the fact that during the Oct. 4 2011 special event, Phil Schiller explicitly said that Apple would stay outside the 4G discussion and what's what - see minute 60+ of it, link found at http://itunes.apple.com/de/podcast/a...es/id275834665. Now they are talking about 4G, where there isn't any.
6. If you are really-really strict about definitions, even LTE doesn't pass as 4G, btw; look at what the definition of this is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G - only LTE Advanced would pass, and it isn't available yet.
There is already substantial talk here in Germany to take Apple to court based on false advertising around this and ask them to stop it.
I am not saying that the New iPad is not a great device; other features are clearly outstanding and it will sell well; it's also good that they have moved forward on the wireless system. The way they present it, however, and advertise it, is not very Apple-like and it leaves much to be desired. What makes me feel quite sad, btw., is that I think SJobs would have presented that part very differently as he was always very cautious about real truth in product feature messaging...... :-(
Best from Frankfurt,
Florian.
1) It clearly states "Datentarife separat erhältlich. Die 4G Abdeckung ist nicht in allen Regionen verfügbar und abhängig vom Anbieter. Nähere Informationen sind beim jeweiligen Mobilfunkanbieter erhältlich."
2) I find it odd that ONLY Apple has to advertise for the lowest common denominator carrier for its devices instead of getting to advertise what the device is capable of. Is it false advertising for Samsung to state on a US site that a device supports DC-HSPA when no US carrier supports it? Of course not because it's a capability of the device. Is if false advertising for Apple to claim the device has 802.11n if a customer's home only has 802.11g? Of course not because it's a capablity of the device.
3) Why does Germany not subscribe to the ITU definition of 4G, which includes HSPA+, or is it that they are so far behind the US in cellular infrastructure that they don't even have HSPA+ at this point?
1) It clearly states "Datentarife separat erhältlich. Die 4G Abdeckung ist nicht in allen Regionen verfügbar und abhängig vom Anbieter. Nähere Informationen sind beim jeweiligen Mobilfunkanbieter erhältlich."
2) I find it odd that ONLY Apple has to advertise for the lowest common denominator carrier for its devices instead of getting to advertise what the device is capable of. Is it false advertising for Samsung to state on a US site that a device supports DC-HSPA when no US carrier supports it? Of course not because it's a capability of the device. Is if false advertising for Apple to claim the device has 802.11n if a customer's home only has 802.11g? Of course not because it's a capablity of the device.
3) Why does Germany not subscribe to the ITU definition of 4G, which includes HSPA+, or is it that they are so far behind the US in cellular infrastructure that they don't even have HSPA+ at this point?
Even Apple seems to call HSPA+ a 3G technology...("It also works on GSM/UMTS worldwide network technologies, including HSPA+ and DC-HSDPA ? the fastest 3G networks out there"). I would say that even if the ITU includes HSPA+ in 4G most European countries only see LTE as 4G since this is a separate technology while HSPA+ is an development of the 3G technology. So in Euroup (fair or not) 3G and 4G depends on architecture and technology, not the theorethical download speed that is available for the moment. This is well known and I can not believe tha Apple did not know this. We are talking of a market with 500+ million inhabitants so it is not just a small isolated country...
Even Apple seems to call HSPA+ a 3G technology...("It also works on GSM/UMTS worldwide network technologies, including HSPA+ and DC-HSDPA — the fastest 3G networks out there"). I would say that even if the ITU includes HSPA+ in 4G most European countries only see LTE as 4G since this is a separate technology while HSPA+ is an development of the 3G technology. So in Euroup (fair or not) 3G and 4G depends on architecture and technology, not the theorethical download speed that is available for the moment. This is well known and I can not believe tha Apple did not know this. We are talking of a market with 500+ million inhabitants so it is not just a small isolated country...
That's the problem with 4G, it isn't based on the max theoretical capabilities of the product's HW. Instead it's based on an underlying architecture that is not marketable because it's not understood.
The ITU, under pressure after T-Mobile started to refer to their HSPA+ as their 4th generation network (completely legal) was a begrudging wake up call to the absurdity of it. Now the ITU's old definition certain made sense from their PoV but cellular tech had grown and carrier and vendors had started marketing the tech. Of course, the ones that really stuck are the simple ones. Consumer know that 2G is less than 3G is less than 4G, but they don't know that LTE is higher than EDGE unless you explain it to them.... usually more than once. We even have echnically inclined posers here that seem oblivious to how the ITU now defins 4G and that a carrier saying that it's their 4th generation network overhaul doesn't mean they are referring to some archaic ITU definition of underlying architecture.
Let's look at this absurdity: CDMA2000 at 154Kbps is 3G yet currently shipping products which have DC-HSPA at 42Mbps is also 3G. That's a factor of about 280. We really should be using a method that clearly and easily denotes the performance.
That's the problem with 4G, it isn't based on the max theoretical capabilities of the product's HW. Instead it's based on an underlying architecture that is not marketable because it's not understood.
The ITU, under pressure after T-Mobile started to refer to their HSPA+ as their 4th generation network (completely legal) was a begrudging wake up call to the absurdity of it. Now the ITU's old definition certain made sense from their PoV but cellular tech had grown and carrier and vendors had started marketing the tech. Of course, the ones that really stuck are the simple ones. Consumer know that 2G is less than 3G is less than 4G, but they don't know that LTE is higher than EDGE unless you explain it to them.... usually more than once. We even have echnically inclined posers here that seem oblivious to how the ITU now defins 4G and that a carrier saying that it's their 4th generation network overhaul doesn't mean they are referring to some archaic ITU definition of underlying architecture.
Let's look at this absurdity: CDMA2000 at 154Kbps is 3G yet currently shipping products which have DC-HSPA at 42Mbps is also 3G. That's a factor of about 280. We really should be using a method that clearly and easily denotes the performance.
I can see your point but on the other hand there is the life time of a network to also consider. This is why architecture and technology might not be soo bad for defining the generation.
The R&D on the major network vendors like Ericsson and Huawei is focused on LTE and offcourse next generation as well. The 3G technologies might overlap the 4G technologies for a period (shorter or longer) but in the end 4G ( LTE and next LTE version) have a much longer development plan and are in this context more future proof from a theoretical perspective. The LTE networks are built separate from the 3G networks even if they can be cohosted in several places when it comes to sites for installing transmission etc
The big problem with standardization is that too many stakeholders want to keep their technology. More or less the whole world wanted wcdma to be the only 3G standard but to get US to agree on a world wide standard for 3G CDMA 2000 was added in the end. In 2G it was even worse with one European, one American and one Japanese standard. And there it was the Japanese standard that was far ahead of the other two when it came to functionality and speed.
Well, next to any discussion about advertising and nomenclature, there is another point to be made.
Apple seems to be in the luxurious position to be offering two versions of the hardware for a US market of 300M people.
Europe is a market of 500M people, LTE is available from many carriers in many countries. I think it would have been quite suitable to come up with a EU-version of the hardware. What makes things worse is that they don't even make any statement of whether a future version of iPad will make use of LTE in Europe, and that all seems to happen under the umbrella of being able to sell the product globally from day-1, with Tim declaring how proud they are about this fast rollout. From my perspective, I would have found it much more appropriate to say that initially they will only sell the Wifi model in Europe, and that a compatible Wifi+4G model would see the light of day in six months or so, if that's the time they need to make it happen.....
I think it would have been quite suitable to come up with a EU-version of the hardware.
Can the MD9600 have more than 2 LTE bands? Apple being a for-profit company if there was a way to add more bands or a substantial financial gain to creating multiple cellular chips for various markets I assume that Apple would have done so.
Quote:
What makes things worse is that they don't even make any statement of whether a future version of iPad will make use of LTE in Europe,
Since when has Apple commented on future products? The only one I know of is the odd "iTV" demo in 2006 that seems geared to get movie studios on board.
Quote:
and that all seems to happen under the umbrella of being able to sell the product globally from day-1, with Tim declaring how proud they are about this fast rollout.From my perspective, I would have found it much more appropriate to say that initially they will only sell the Wifi model in Europe, and that a compatible Wifi+4G model would see the light of day in six months or so, if that's the time they need to make it happen.....
Let me get this right. Your suggestion to not have LTE bands available in ALL markets is to offer zero, zip, zilch cellular or GPS connectivity on the new iPad outside the US. Imagine the backlash if the rest of the world then.
Comments
They did - right from the start.There is absolutely no confusion in Apple's information. You get LTE in the US and Canada if you use one of the partner telcos. Elsewhere, you get 3G.
Sorry to say, but that statement is clearly wrong from a German reader's perspective. Given Germany is one of Apple's largest markets worldwide, this seems relevant.
1. In Germany, carrier advertisement and general public opinion on what "4G" means, is 100% clear, and it is related to LTE.
2. When you look at the German website, "4G" support is advertised as such (http://www.apple.com/de/ipad/features/). It's in German, on the center page of the German Apple site.
3. On this page - http://www.apple.com/de/ipad/4g/ - again 4G is mentioned; the text says - again in German - that you can download fast stuff using "4G networks" (which, again, Germans *WILL* read as "LTE networks), and then it says that it would use 3G networks - which are, it says, HSPA, HSPA+ and DC-HSPA.
4. On the same page, there are links to 3 of Germanys major carriers, Vodafone, T-Mobile and O2, two of which have just launched their LTE offerings in the last couple months. So while there is no direct mention of the fact that 4G/LTE will be supported on these carriers networks, the way the bits of information is put together is very suggestive.
5. It gets worse when you look at the fact that during the Oct. 4 2011 special event, Phil Schiller explicitly said that Apple would stay outside the 4G discussion and what's what - see minute 60+ of it, link found at http://itunes.apple.com/de/podcast/a...es/id275834665. Now they are talking about 4G, where there isn't any.
6. If you are really-really strict about definitions, even LTE doesn't pass as 4G, btw; look at what the definition of this is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G - only LTE Advanced would pass, and it isn't available yet.
There is already substantial talk here in Germany to take Apple to court based on false advertising around this and ask them to stop it.
I am not saying that the New iPad is not a great device; other features are clearly outstanding and it will sell well; it's also good that they have moved forward on the wireless system. The way they present it, however, and advertise it, is not very Apple-like and it leaves much to be desired. What makes me feel quite sad, btw., is that I think SJobs would have presented that part very differently as he was always very cautious about real truth in product feature messaging...... :-(
Best from Frankfurt,
Florian.
Sorry to say, but that statement is clearly wrong from a German reader's perspective. Given Germany is one of Apple's largest markets worldwide, this seems relevant.
1. In Germany, carrier advertisement and general public opinion on what "4G" means, is 100% clear, and it is related to LTE.
2. When you look at the German website, "4G" support is advertised as such (http://www.apple.com/de/ipad/features/). It's in German, on the center page of the German Apple site.
3. On this page - http://www.apple.com/de/ipad/4g/ - again 4G is mentioned; the text says - again in German - that you can download fast stuff using "4G networks" (which, again, Germans *WILL* read as "LTE networks), and then it says that it would use 3G networks - which are, it says, HSPA, HSPA+ and DC-HSPA.
4. On the same page, there are links to 3 of Germanys major carriers, Vodafone, T-Mobile and O2, two of which have just launched their LTE offerings in the last couple months. So while there is no direct mention of the fact that 4G/LTE will be supported on these carriers networks, the way the bits of information is put together is very suggestive.
5. It gets worse when you look at the fact that during the Oct. 4 2011 special event, Phil Schiller explicitly said that Apple would stay outside the 4G discussion and what's what - see minute 60+ of it, link found at http://itunes.apple.com/de/podcast/a...es/id275834665. Now they are talking about 4G, where there isn't any.
6. If you are really-really strict about definitions, even LTE doesn't pass as 4G, btw; look at what the definition of this is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G - only LTE Advanced would pass, and it isn't available yet.
There is already substantial talk here in Germany to take Apple to court based on false advertising around this and ask them to stop it.
I am not saying that the New iPad is not a great device; other features are clearly outstanding and it will sell well; it's also good that they have moved forward on the wireless system. The way they present it, however, and advertise it, is not very Apple-like and it leaves much to be desired. What makes me feel quite sad, btw., is that I think SJobs would have presented that part very differently as he was always very cautious about real truth in product feature messaging...... :-(
Best from Frankfurt,
Florian.
1) It clearly states "Datentarife separat erhältlich. Die 4G Abdeckung ist nicht in allen Regionen verfügbar und abhängig vom Anbieter. Nähere Informationen sind beim jeweiligen Mobilfunkanbieter erhältlich."
2) I find it odd that ONLY Apple has to advertise for the lowest common denominator carrier for its devices instead of getting to advertise what the device is capable of. Is it false advertising for Samsung to state on a US site that a device supports DC-HSPA when no US carrier supports it? Of course not because it's a capability of the device. Is if false advertising for Apple to claim the device has 802.11n if a customer's home only has 802.11g? Of course not because it's a capablity of the device.
3) Why does Germany not subscribe to the ITU definition of 4G, which includes HSPA+, or is it that they are so far behind the US in cellular infrastructure that they don't even have HSPA+ at this point?
1) It clearly states "Datentarife separat erhältlich. Die 4G Abdeckung ist nicht in allen Regionen verfügbar und abhängig vom Anbieter. Nähere Informationen sind beim jeweiligen Mobilfunkanbieter erhältlich."
2) I find it odd that ONLY Apple has to advertise for the lowest common denominator carrier for its devices instead of getting to advertise what the device is capable of. Is it false advertising for Samsung to state on a US site that a device supports DC-HSPA when no US carrier supports it? Of course not because it's a capability of the device. Is if false advertising for Apple to claim the device has 802.11n if a customer's home only has 802.11g? Of course not because it's a capablity of the device.
3) Why does Germany not subscribe to the ITU definition of 4G, which includes HSPA+, or is it that they are so far behind the US in cellular infrastructure that they don't even have HSPA+ at this point?
Even Apple seems to call HSPA+ a 3G technology...("It also works on GSM/UMTS worldwide network technologies, including HSPA+ and DC-HSDPA ? the fastest 3G networks out there"). I would say that even if the ITU includes HSPA+ in 4G most European countries only see LTE as 4G since this is a separate technology while HSPA+ is an development of the 3G technology. So in Euroup (fair or not) 3G and 4G depends on architecture and technology, not the theorethical download speed that is available for the moment. This is well known and I can not believe tha Apple did not know this. We are talking of a market with 500+ million inhabitants so it is not just a small isolated country...
Even Apple seems to call HSPA+ a 3G technology...("It also works on GSM/UMTS worldwide network technologies, including HSPA+ and DC-HSDPA — the fastest 3G networks out there"). I would say that even if the ITU includes HSPA+ in 4G most European countries only see LTE as 4G since this is a separate technology while HSPA+ is an development of the 3G technology. So in Euroup (fair or not) 3G and 4G depends on architecture and technology, not the theorethical download speed that is available for the moment. This is well known and I can not believe tha Apple did not know this. We are talking of a market with 500+ million inhabitants so it is not just a small isolated country...
That's the problem with 4G, it isn't based on the max theoretical capabilities of the product's HW. Instead it's based on an underlying architecture that is not marketable because it's not understood.
The ITU, under pressure after T-Mobile started to refer to their HSPA+ as their 4th generation network (completely legal) was a begrudging wake up call to the absurdity of it. Now the ITU's old definition certain made sense from their PoV but cellular tech had grown and carrier and vendors had started marketing the tech. Of course, the ones that really stuck are the simple ones. Consumer know that 2G is less than 3G is less than 4G, but they don't know that LTE is higher than EDGE unless you explain it to them.... usually more than once. We even have echnically inclined posers here that seem oblivious to how the ITU now defins 4G and that a carrier saying that it's their 4th generation network overhaul doesn't mean they are referring to some archaic ITU definition of underlying architecture.
Let's look at this absurdity: CDMA2000 at 154Kbps is 3G yet currently shipping products which have DC-HSPA at 42Mbps is also 3G. That's a factor of about 280. We really should be using a method that clearly and easily denotes the performance.
That's the problem with 4G, it isn't based on the max theoretical capabilities of the product's HW. Instead it's based on an underlying architecture that is not marketable because it's not understood.
The ITU, under pressure after T-Mobile started to refer to their HSPA+ as their 4th generation network (completely legal) was a begrudging wake up call to the absurdity of it. Now the ITU's old definition certain made sense from their PoV but cellular tech had grown and carrier and vendors had started marketing the tech. Of course, the ones that really stuck are the simple ones. Consumer know that 2G is less than 3G is less than 4G, but they don't know that LTE is higher than EDGE unless you explain it to them.... usually more than once. We even have echnically inclined posers here that seem oblivious to how the ITU now defins 4G and that a carrier saying that it's their 4th generation network overhaul doesn't mean they are referring to some archaic ITU definition of underlying architecture.
Let's look at this absurdity: CDMA2000 at 154Kbps is 3G yet currently shipping products which have DC-HSPA at 42Mbps is also 3G. That's a factor of about 280. We really should be using a method that clearly and easily denotes the performance.
I can see your point but on the other hand there is the life time of a network to also consider. This is why architecture and technology might not be soo bad for defining the generation.
The R&D on the major network vendors like Ericsson and Huawei is focused on LTE and offcourse next generation as well. The 3G technologies might overlap the 4G technologies for a period (shorter or longer) but in the end 4G ( LTE and next LTE version) have a much longer development plan and are in this context more future proof from a theoretical perspective. The LTE networks are built separate from the 3G networks even if they can be cohosted in several places when it comes to sites for installing transmission etc
The big problem with standardization is that too many stakeholders want to keep their technology. More or less the whole world wanted wcdma to be the only 3G standard but to get US to agree on a world wide standard for 3G CDMA 2000 was added in the end. In 2G it was even worse with one European, one American and one Japanese standard. And there it was the Japanese standard that was far ahead of the other two when it came to functionality and speed.
Apple seems to be in the luxurious position to be offering two versions of the hardware for a US market of 300M people.
Europe is a market of 500M people, LTE is available from many carriers in many countries. I think it would have been quite suitable to come up with a EU-version of the hardware. What makes things worse is that they don't even make any statement of whether a future version of iPad will make use of LTE in Europe, and that all seems to happen under the umbrella of being able to sell the product globally from day-1, with Tim declaring how proud they are about this fast rollout. From my perspective, I would have found it much more appropriate to say that initially they will only sell the Wifi model in Europe, and that a compatible Wifi+4G model would see the light of day in six months or so, if that's the time they need to make it happen.....
Cheers,
Florian.
I think it would have been quite suitable to come up with a EU-version of the hardware.
Can the MD9600 have more than 2 LTE bands? Apple being a for-profit company if there was a way to add more bands or a substantial financial gain to creating multiple cellular chips for various markets I assume that Apple would have done so.
What makes things worse is that they don't even make any statement of whether a future version of iPad will make use of LTE in Europe,
Since when has Apple commented on future products? The only one I know of is the odd "iTV" demo in 2006 that seems geared to get movie studios on board.
and that all seems to happen under the umbrella of being able to sell the product globally from day-1, with Tim declaring how proud they are about this fast rollout.From my perspective, I would have found it much more appropriate to say that initially they will only sell the Wifi model in Europe, and that a compatible Wifi+4G model would see the light of day in six months or so, if that's the time they need to make it happen.....
Let me get this right. Your suggestion to not have LTE bands available in ALL markets is to offer zero, zip, zilch cellular or GPS connectivity on the new iPad outside the US. Imagine the backlash if the rest of the world then.