Cheers. As I recall, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPad and iPad2 generally did not have any confusion. Because 3G was 3G for the most part, no two ways about it.
That's not even close to being true.
Let's say you bought an AT&T 3G phone - and then traveled to somewhere that they didn't have 3G coverage. That doesn't make it stop being a 3G phone - and no one in their right mind would blame the phone manufacturer.
Similarly, millions of people bought 3G phones and then went overseas and found that they didn't work. Does that mean that the manufacturer lied when they said that it was a 3G phone?
Let's say you bought an AT&T 3G phone - and then traveled to somewhere that they didn't have 3G coverage. That doesn't make it stop being a 3G phone - and no one in their right mind would blame the phone manufacturer.
Similarly, millions of people bought 3G phones and then went overseas and found that they didn't work. Does that mean that the manufacturer lied when they said that it was a 3G phone?
You're wandering far off base with that answer. It was a 3G device where it was purchased and travel elsewhere with any device has always been the traveler's problem to deal with. The issue here is that the iPad 4g isn't 4G (based on local understanding of what 4G is) in huge majority of countries it's sold in. Even those with 4G LTE service in their country are out of luck unless that country is one of only two, the US or Canada.
The Trade Practices Act ("TPA") is no longer a powerful piece of legislation. It no longer has any power, as it is no longer in force.
It's been superseded by the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 ("CCA"), which came into effect on 1 January 2011. That said, the CCA incorporates virtually everything that was in the TPA. A lot of it has just been restructured. There are some significant additions, though, but none of those are relevant to the current discussion AFAIK.
Well Apple has a 14 days return policy. If people fell for the belief that the iPad would work on LTE in Australia only to find out it doesn't they would've returned their iPads..some probably already did.
People who mistakenly for whatever reason bought the item expecting a functionality it does not have, have always had the option to return it, for ANY reason and move on.
So if they have, they should. But how many are sold versus the WiFi only ones in any case?
People who mistakenly for whatever reason bought the item expecting a functionality it does not have, have always had the option to return it, for ANY reason and move on.
What if the ads said "$1000 cash rebate on all iPads Worldwide!*
Just look at the iPhone 3G. It didn't work on Verizon's 3G network. It didn't work on Sprint's 3G network. In fact, there were many 3G networks ALL OVER THE WORLD it did not run on. Yet, this was NEVER an issue then. Why not? Were consumers a lot smarter 3 years ago? Or did they actually look at the fine print and MAKE SURE the phone was compatible with their carrier's "3G" network?
There's something else going on here and it has NOTHING to do with consumer confusion. It has more to do with Apple becoming so successful that someone is out there dissecting each product and trying to find ANY fault with it. I mean honestly has any single consumer product in the history of the world EVER been under sooooo much scrutiny? It hasn't even been out out a month yet and how many FALSE faults have been claimed?
Customers have 14 days to return the iPad after purchase. How long does it take to figure it not 4 Gen (LTE) compatible.
Apple took prompt action after being notified so what the Australian gov is doing is just a cheap shot at Apple for a few bucks.
Well if you ordered the sim card at the same time you pre-ordered the iPad, the sim card took two weeks to arrive, while the smart cover took 2 days, and the iPad arrived on the advertised day, but late at night. So if you were sitting around waiting for the sim card before trying it, yes it would have been 14 days.
That said, anyone that bought the LTE ipad thinking it was going to work in LTE mode in EU or AU is sadly mistaken, and that's not Apple's fault. You can only support so many bands per generation of radio chips, and the immature level of LTE networks that exist right now make it impossible to say "it will" work on the networks not yet rolled out, even if they some how produced a model with the required radio bands.
Put it this way, all of EU and all of AU need to roll out their 700Mhz networks before Apple can release a "world LTE" model of ipad or iphone. Otherwise only one band may be supported, and that band may not be the one your carrier of choice leased a licence for. Right now the HSPA+ support is good enough for world support until more LTE networks are available. The latency of LTE is just barely good enough to maybe play World of Warcraft on, but you'll be at a disadvantage to anyone on a wired line.
Apple took prompt action after being notified so what the Australian gov is doing is just a cheap shot at Apple for a few bucks.
The ACCC notified Apple of it's concerns before the iPad 4G ever went on sale to the Australian public. Apple chose not to address the concerns which is why the ACCC felt it had no choice but to take them to court to force the issue.
Offering refunds is a hilarious option. There's no faster way to stop people from complaining than to say "No problem. Take it back.". I've seen that happening online with the silly "warm" conversation. A guy says "My new iPad runs too hot!!!" Fine. Take it back and get an iPad 2 instead. "What?!? Are you nuts?" Exactly. The new iPad isn't perfect. I sure wish it ran a little cooler and was lighter... but wow, what an upgrade! I can't imagine anyone who really uses an iPad returning the new one.
The ACC needs to pull its head in... Anyone who thought 4G would work in Australia, isn't smart enough to turn on an iPad, let alone know what 4G stands for. Sounds like sour grapes from rival manufactures. Come on ACC... much bigger issues at hand.
Yes but they are smart enough to know its called the ACCC....At least get your own facts straight before calling others stupid.
I was really surprised to see Apple didn't do more to clarify this issue on the box (just like they didn't do enough to clarify that Siri locations weren't available outside the US) but I don't see too many iPad's being returned over this.
Me too!! Apple should've known better. But they had a lot going on during the iPad launch, not just in iPad itself, but all the supporting technologies. In any case, I'm sure Apple will remedy this issue with their Australian customers. And all will be happy again in Apple-ville.
NexG right now only means 3G at 850mhz, whereby 850mhz is a common 3G band. Even the iPhone 3G supported it. Telstra's LTE is 1800mhz and devices on Telstra are supposed to use LTE 1800mhz and fall back to 3G 850mhz.
Not sure how 2100mhz is an issue?
Because the Wikipedia article says .. "Telstra opted to use the 850 MHz band for Next G in preference to the more common 2100 MHz band ...". Now I don't know whether that comment is correct or not. But, if it is, perhaps Telstra need to explain why they chose 1800 MHz rather than 2100 MHz when they probably already knew that Apple would use the 2100 MHz band used by AT&T, and that by choosing 1800 MHz they would not be able to offer 4G LTE support for the run-away best selling tablet device on the planet.
Let just hope that Optus and Vodafone have thought more carefully about their choice of band for 4G LTE or whatever '4G' technology they choose to rollout.
Does everything really have to be a court case? If you're not happy with the product just return it for a refund. Although it is a company's responsibility to advertise their products carefully, shouldn't consumers also know what they are buying? How can Apple users be tech savvy if they don't even know that the new iPad is not compatible with certain networks?
I think that sometimes Apple makes their products so user friendly that even iPad heating is an issue. I guess we always have to find fault in something.
We have a 4G LTE network in Australia. Telstra advertises this heavily.
Apple's iPad is marketed as being 4G LTE capable.
Consumers in Australia should rightly expect that the two things that are being marketed to them using the same nomenclature would work together.
At the moment there is a lot of hype surrounding this and the majority of iPad purchasers are aware of these issues. However, in a few months time the hype will have settled down and people buying and iPad won't necessarily be tech savvy, won't be aware of the differences in networks around the world. These are the people that the ACCC is attempting to protect, by making Apple properly advertise the capabilities of the device they are selling in the market they are selling it.
That is not unreasonable. In fact its the law of the land.
Apple offering refunds is a nice gesture, but what the ACCC will want is a clear disclaimer on advertising and marketing materials for the iPad about compatibility. Apple, in doing so would thereafter never have to issue a refund in the basis of 4G compatibility.
Apple is expected to abide by the laws of this country just like any other company wanting to do business here. Anything else is pure arrogance.
Because the Wikipedia article says .. "Telstra opted to use the 850 MHz band for Next G in preference to the more common 2100 MHz band ...". Now I don't know whether that comment is correct or not. But, if it is, perhaps Telstra need to explain why they chose 1800 MHz rather than 2100 MHz when they probably already knew that Apple would use the 2100 MHz band used by AT&T, and that by choosing 1800 MHz they would not be able to offer 4G LTE support for the run-away best selling tablet device on the planet.
Let just hope that Optus and Vodafone have thought more carefully about their choice of band for 4G LTE or whatever '4G' technology they choose to rollout.
I would challenge that. 1800mhz is a prominent and suitable band for 4G LTE. Just because it's not what is supported by the new iPad does not invalidate the band: http://www.itwire.com/it-industry-ne...lte-worldwideq.
At the same time, 850mhz is a suitable choice for 3G. I'm not sure what exactly Wiki is referring to but 2100mhz is not a dominant band from what I can see... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMTS_frequency_bands ... So it's not a band that is even used in the US for "3G" ~ even if Telstra chose this for 3G there would not really be a case for facilitating 4G. Again, at the same time, 2100mhz is by no means a standard 4G band. So 2100mhz has never been a no-brainer choice.
Telstra Mobile at least, has sat down and thought this through. They're not perfect, but they appear to have focused on the service first and foremost, rather than what devices would sell well. Because of a history of government ownership at varying degrees, they have been compelled to at least think a little more about what they are supposed to deliver rather than be let loose purely to the winds of market forces. So I do think they have thought "more carefully" about things, and maybe you're thinking about things in reverse... Because no one knows what Apple is going to release, and Apple can change anything at any time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That's not even close to being true.
Let's say you bought an AT&T 3G phone - and then traveled to somewhere that they didn't have 3G coverage. That doesn't make it stop being a 3G phone - and no one in their right mind would blame the phone manufacturer.
Similarly, millions of people bought 3G phones and then went overseas and found that they didn't work. Does that mean that the manufacturer lied when they said that it was a 3G phone?
I would challenge this as well. The AT&T 3G iPhone did not work ~everywhere~, but it worked in many, many countries. The iPhone 3G and 3GS was extremely widespread despite being officially available in very few countries, especially initially. Same for the history of iPad 3G.
The iPad 4G ~doesn't work~ anywhere except the US and Canada, and I wonder what other countries it works in, would be great if someone fills us in. But there is a distinct difference between AT&T 3G and iPad 4G.
Show me one thing for Apple that says it's capable of "4G LTE" in Australia.
what I see is big letters saying 'Designed with next generation wireless technology, the new ipad with Wi-Fi + 4G connects to fast data networks around the world.'
and in small foot notes down the bottom '4G LTE is supported only on AT&T and Verizon networks in the US; and on Bell, Rogers and Telus networks in Canada.'
I personally think that can be confusing, so I used my dad as a test subject! Surprisingly, he mistaken the new ipad to be 4G capable in Australia. I told him the fact and asked why, he said the phrase 'next generation wireless technology' and 'connects to fast data networks around the world' tricked him because he know 3G and Wifi is not that new, so next generation wireless technology around the world must mean 4G around the world.
Then I showed him the footnote, he laughed and said he didn't even notice they were there.
As you mentioned earlier, technically speaking Apple is correct, but it is still somehow misleading (at least to my dad )
what I see is big letters saying 'Designed with next generation wireless technology, the new ipad with Wi-Fi + 4G connects to fast data networks around the world.'
and in small foot notes down the bottom '4G LTE is supported only on AT&T and Verizon networks in the US; and on Bell, Rogers and Telus networks in Canada.'
I personally think that can be confusing, so I used my dad as a test subject! Surprisingly, he mistaken the new ipad to be 4G capable in Australia. I told him the fact and asked why, he said the phrase 'next generation wireless technology' and 'connects to fast data networks around the world' tricked him because he know 3G and Wifi is not that new, so next generation wireless technology around the world must mean 4G around the world.
Then I showed him the footnote, he laughed and said he didn't even notice they were there.
As you mentioned earlier, technically speaking Apple is correct, but it is still somehow misleading (at least to my dad )
1) He should know the footnotes are there because they are noted in the text above as you're reading the info.
2) If "next generation" is confusing then why isn't Australia up in arms about the use of NextG by Telestra? Surely if you think HSPA+ and DC-HSDPA is '3G' then you must think NextG is still '3G' yet they claim it's the 'next generation.' Does the fact that it's trademarked allow them to lie and deceive customers the way Apple is apparently doing?
1) He should know the footnotes are there because they are noted in the text above as you're reading the info.
2) If "next generation" is confusing then why isn't Australia up in arms about the use of NextG by Telestra? Surely if you think HSPA+ and DC-HSDPA is '3G' then you must think NextG is still '3G' yet they claim it's the 'next generation.' Does the fact that it's trademarked allow them to lie and deceive customers the way Apple is apparently doing?
you are right on that one , many of my friends do think NextG is 4G and I agree telstra is being very misleading by using that name
Comments
Cheers. As I recall, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPad and iPad2 generally did not have any confusion. Because 3G was 3G for the most part, no two ways about it.
That's not even close to being true.
Let's say you bought an AT&T 3G phone - and then traveled to somewhere that they didn't have 3G coverage. That doesn't make it stop being a 3G phone - and no one in their right mind would blame the phone manufacturer.
Similarly, millions of people bought 3G phones and then went overseas and found that they didn't work. Does that mean that the manufacturer lied when they said that it was a 3G phone?
That's not even close to being true.
Let's say you bought an AT&T 3G phone - and then traveled to somewhere that they didn't have 3G coverage. That doesn't make it stop being a 3G phone - and no one in their right mind would blame the phone manufacturer.
Similarly, millions of people bought 3G phones and then went overseas and found that they didn't work. Does that mean that the manufacturer lied when they said that it was a 3G phone?
You're wandering far off base with that answer. It was a 3G device where it was purchased and travel elsewhere with any device has always been the traveler's problem to deal with. The issue here is that the iPad 4g isn't 4G (based on local understanding of what 4G is) in huge majority of countries it's sold in. Even those with 4G LTE service in their country are out of luck unless that country is one of only two, the US or Canada.
The Trade Practices Act ("TPA") is no longer a powerful piece of legislation. It no longer has any power, as it is no longer in force.
It's been superseded by the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 ("CCA"), which came into effect on 1 January 2011. That said, the CCA incorporates virtually everything that was in the TPA. A lot of it has just been restructured. There are some significant additions, though, but none of those are relevant to the current discussion AFAIK.
The relevant section is section 18.
You're absolutely right. Looks like I'm a little out of date.
Well Apple has a 14 days return policy. If people fell for the belief that the iPad would work on LTE in Australia only to find out it doesn't they would've returned their iPads..some probably already did.
People who mistakenly for whatever reason bought the item expecting a functionality it does not have, have always had the option to return it, for ANY reason and move on.
So if they have, they should. But how many are sold versus the WiFi only ones in any case?
People who mistakenly for whatever reason bought the item expecting a functionality it does not have, have always had the option to return it, for ANY reason and move on.
What if the ads said "$1000 cash rebate on all iPads Worldwide!*
*Check locally for details."
Would a refund of the purchase price excuse that?
Just look at the iPhone 3G. It didn't work on Verizon's 3G network. It didn't work on Sprint's 3G network. In fact, there were many 3G networks ALL OVER THE WORLD it did not run on. Yet, this was NEVER an issue then. Why not? Were consumers a lot smarter 3 years ago? Or did they actually look at the fine print and MAKE SURE the phone was compatible with their carrier's "3G" network?
There's something else going on here and it has NOTHING to do with consumer confusion. It has more to do with Apple becoming so successful that someone is out there dissecting each product and trying to find ANY fault with it. I mean honestly has any single consumer product in the history of the world EVER been under sooooo much scrutiny? It hasn't even been out out a month yet and how many FALSE faults have been claimed?
Customers have 14 days to return the iPad after purchase. How long does it take to figure it not 4 Gen (LTE) compatible.
Apple took prompt action after being notified so what the Australian gov is doing is just a cheap shot at Apple for a few bucks.
Well if you ordered the sim card at the same time you pre-ordered the iPad, the sim card took two weeks to arrive, while the smart cover took 2 days, and the iPad arrived on the advertised day, but late at night. So if you were sitting around waiting for the sim card before trying it, yes it would have been 14 days.
That said, anyone that bought the LTE ipad thinking it was going to work in LTE mode in EU or AU is sadly mistaken, and that's not Apple's fault. You can only support so many bands per generation of radio chips, and the immature level of LTE networks that exist right now make it impossible to say "it will" work on the networks not yet rolled out, even if they some how produced a model with the required radio bands.
Put it this way, all of EU and all of AU need to roll out their 700Mhz networks before Apple can release a "world LTE" model of ipad or iphone. Otherwise only one band may be supported, and that band may not be the one your carrier of choice leased a licence for. Right now the HSPA+ support is good enough for world support until more LTE networks are available. The latency of LTE is just barely good enough to maybe play World of Warcraft on, but you'll be at a disadvantage to anyone on a wired line.
Apple took prompt action after being notified so what the Australian gov is doing is just a cheap shot at Apple for a few bucks.
The ACCC notified Apple of it's concerns before the iPad 4G ever went on sale to the Australian public. Apple chose not to address the concerns which is why the ACCC felt it had no choice but to take them to court to force the issue.
The ACC needs to pull its head in... Anyone who thought 4G would work in Australia, isn't smart enough to turn on an iPad, let alone know what 4G stands for. Sounds like sour grapes from rival manufactures. Come on ACC... much bigger issues at hand.
Yes but they are smart enough to know its called the ACCC....At least get your own facts straight before calling others stupid.
I was really surprised to see Apple didn't do more to clarify this issue on the box (just like they didn't do enough to clarify that Siri locations weren't available outside the US) but I don't see too many iPad's being returned over this.
Me too!! Apple should've known better. But they had a lot going on during the iPad launch, not just in iPad itself, but all the supporting technologies. In any case, I'm sure Apple will remedy this issue with their Australian customers. And all will be happy again in Apple-ville.
NexG right now only means 3G at 850mhz, whereby 850mhz is a common 3G band. Even the iPhone 3G supported it. Telstra's LTE is 1800mhz and devices on Telstra are supposed to use LTE 1800mhz and fall back to 3G 850mhz.
Not sure how 2100mhz is an issue?
Because the Wikipedia article says .. "Telstra opted to use the 850 MHz band for Next G in preference to the more common 2100 MHz band ...". Now I don't know whether that comment is correct or not. But, if it is, perhaps Telstra need to explain why they chose 1800 MHz rather than 2100 MHz when they probably already knew that Apple would use the 2100 MHz band used by AT&T, and that by choosing 1800 MHz they would not be able to offer 4G LTE support for the run-away best selling tablet device on the planet.
Let just hope that Optus and Vodafone have thought more carefully about their choice of band for 4G LTE or whatever '4G' technology they choose to rollout.
I think that sometimes Apple makes their products so user friendly that even iPad heating is an issue. I guess we always have to find fault in something.
Moving along...
We have a 4G LTE network in Australia. Telstra advertises this heavily.
Apple's iPad is marketed as being 4G LTE capable.
Consumers in Australia should rightly expect that the two things that are being marketed to them using the same nomenclature would work together.
At the moment there is a lot of hype surrounding this and the majority of iPad purchasers are aware of these issues. However, in a few months time the hype will have settled down and people buying and iPad won't necessarily be tech savvy, won't be aware of the differences in networks around the world. These are the people that the ACCC is attempting to protect, by making Apple properly advertise the capabilities of the device they are selling in the market they are selling it.
That is not unreasonable. In fact its the law of the land.
Apple offering refunds is a nice gesture, but what the ACCC will want is a clear disclaimer on advertising and marketing materials for the iPad about compatibility. Apple, in doing so would thereafter never have to issue a refund in the basis of 4G compatibility.
Apple is expected to abide by the laws of this country just like any other company wanting to do business here. Anything else is pure arrogance.
Its very simple really.
We have a 4G LTE network in Australia. Telstra advertises this heavily.
Apple's iPad is marketed as being 4G LTE capable.
Show me one thing for Apple that says it's capable of "4G LTE" in Australia.
Because the Wikipedia article says .. "Telstra opted to use the 850 MHz band for Next G in preference to the more common 2100 MHz band ...". Now I don't know whether that comment is correct or not. But, if it is, perhaps Telstra need to explain why they chose 1800 MHz rather than 2100 MHz when they probably already knew that Apple would use the 2100 MHz band used by AT&T, and that by choosing 1800 MHz they would not be able to offer 4G LTE support for the run-away best selling tablet device on the planet.
Let just hope that Optus and Vodafone have thought more carefully about their choice of band for 4G LTE or whatever '4G' technology they choose to rollout.
I would challenge that. 1800mhz is a prominent and suitable band for 4G LTE. Just because it's not what is supported by the new iPad does not invalidate the band: http://www.itwire.com/it-industry-ne...lte-worldwideq.
At the same time, 850mhz is a suitable choice for 3G. I'm not sure what exactly Wiki is referring to but 2100mhz is not a dominant band from what I can see... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMTS_frequency_bands ... So it's not a band that is even used in the US for "3G" ~ even if Telstra chose this for 3G there would not really be a case for facilitating 4G. Again, at the same time, 2100mhz is by no means a standard 4G band. So 2100mhz has never been a no-brainer choice.
Telstra Mobile at least, has sat down and thought this through. They're not perfect, but they appear to have focused on the service first and foremost, rather than what devices would sell well. Because of a history of government ownership at varying degrees, they have been compelled to at least think a little more about what they are supposed to deliver rather than be let loose purely to the winds of market forces. So I do think they have thought "more carefully" about things, and maybe you're thinking about things in reverse... Because no one knows what Apple is going to release, and Apple can change anything at any time.
That's not even close to being true.
Let's say you bought an AT&T 3G phone - and then traveled to somewhere that they didn't have 3G coverage. That doesn't make it stop being a 3G phone - and no one in their right mind would blame the phone manufacturer.
Similarly, millions of people bought 3G phones and then went overseas and found that they didn't work. Does that mean that the manufacturer lied when they said that it was a 3G phone?
I would challenge this as well. The AT&T 3G iPhone did not work ~everywhere~, but it worked in many, many countries. The iPhone 3G and 3GS was extremely widespread despite being officially available in very few countries, especially initially. Same for the history of iPad 3G.
The iPad 4G ~doesn't work~ anywhere except the US and Canada, and I wonder what other countries it works in, would be great if someone fills us in. But there is a distinct difference between AT&T 3G and iPad 4G.
Show me one thing for Apple that says it's capable of "4G LTE" in Australia.
what I see is big letters saying 'Designed with next generation wireless technology, the new ipad with Wi-Fi + 4G connects to fast data networks around the world.'
and in small foot notes down the bottom '4G LTE is supported only on AT&T and Verizon networks in the US; and on Bell, Rogers and Telus networks in Canada.'
I personally think that can be confusing, so I used my dad as a test subject! Surprisingly, he mistaken the new ipad to be 4G capable in Australia. I told him the fact and asked why, he said the phrase 'next generation wireless technology' and 'connects to fast data networks around the world' tricked him because he know 3G and Wifi is not that new, so next generation wireless technology around the world must mean 4G around the world.
Then I showed him the footnote, he laughed and said he didn't even notice they were there.
As you mentioned earlier, technically speaking Apple is correct, but it is still somehow misleading (at least to my dad
the page my dad read: http://www.apple.com/au/ipad/
what I see is big letters saying 'Designed with next generation wireless technology, the new ipad with Wi-Fi + 4G connects to fast data networks around the world.'
and in small foot notes down the bottom '4G LTE is supported only on AT&T and Verizon networks in the US; and on Bell, Rogers and Telus networks in Canada.'
I personally think that can be confusing, so I used my dad as a test subject! Surprisingly, he mistaken the new ipad to be 4G capable in Australia. I told him the fact and asked why, he said the phrase 'next generation wireless technology' and 'connects to fast data networks around the world' tricked him because he know 3G and Wifi is not that new, so next generation wireless technology around the world must mean 4G around the world.
Then I showed him the footnote, he laughed and said he didn't even notice they were there.
As you mentioned earlier, technically speaking Apple is correct, but it is still somehow misleading (at least to my dad
the page my dad read: http://www.apple.com/au/ipad/
1) He should know the footnotes are there because they are noted in the text above as you're reading the info.
2) If "next generation" is confusing then why isn't Australia up in arms about the use of NextG by Telestra? Surely if you think HSPA+ and DC-HSDPA is '3G' then you must think NextG is still '3G' yet they claim it's the 'next generation.' Does the fact that it's trademarked allow them to lie and deceive customers the way Apple is apparently doing?
1) He should know the footnotes are there because they are noted in the text above as you're reading the info.
2) If "next generation" is confusing then why isn't Australia up in arms about the use of NextG by Telestra? Surely if you think HSPA+ and DC-HSDPA is '3G' then you must think NextG is still '3G' yet they claim it's the 'next generation.' Does the fact that it's trademarked allow them to lie and deceive customers the way Apple is apparently doing?
you are right on that one