Antenna, I think. It's more a question of frequencies, isn't it?
I understood it was the particular Qualcomm chipset Apple chose. I believe other's (Samsung, Motorola, Huawei) that offer 4G compatibity for specific countries use chipsets tailored for those networks.
Sweden already has 4G LTE. Apple's iPad omitted the chip necessary to work on it.
1) I don't think omit is the right word. It implies a pejorative. If Apple could have added more LTE operating bands to the same device they would have. Even one more would have allowed them to reduce the number of cellular US and Canada iPad models by 1/2. Now you could question why don't they have a different, unique model for every country but you can answer that by asking why they don't have 100 different different models for every country. You can further back that by their profit share in the smartphone and tablet markets.
2) Lots of countries have the E-UTRA air interface. I'd say at least 20 countries are now active. The problem is the HW simply isn't ready to support all of them. We'll need a lot more than we needed fo UMTS. Wikipedia lists 43 different bands with half of those allocated.
3) If we only got 5 band support in 2010 with Nokia and Apple how long before we'll have support for the world's LTE across a dozen operating bands? Hopefully it will scale quickly because this is a longterm issue Qualcomm has been working on... but I have my doubts.
4) Apple's efficient design to use world-mode chips could hurt them over the next few years if there isn't a method for supporting multiple E-UTRA operating bands. If not, they'll have to continue to ignore smaller countries with LTE or change their modus operandi by creating distinct HW models. This Autumn will be interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I understood it was the particular Qualcomm chipset Apple chose. I believe other's (Samsung, Motorola, Huawei) that offer 4G compatibity for specific countries use chipsets tailored for those networks.
1) What do you mean by "chips"? At this part of the conversation you should be getting more precise as it's getting more technical.
2) I don't think the MDM9600 has a problem supporting any of the E-UTRA operating bands, but it does, as previously mentioned, have a limit of two. Will the MDM9615 expected to be in the 6th gen iPhone support more than 2? I sure hope so, but will it support 5, or 12, or 43? I highly doubt it.
1) Now you could question why don't they have a different, unique model for every country but you can answer that by asking why they don't have 100 different different models for every country. You can further back that by their profit share in the smartphone and tablet markets.
I've never thought it was about anything else but profits.
I've never thought it was about anything else but profits.
But it's also that way for every vendor, it's just that Apple goes about it in a different way than most.
Most are akin who play roulette by placing chips on every number. You win every hand but you lose more than you win because you spread yourself too thin and decided to play a game by guessing instead of thinking. Apple is playing poker. They are judging their opponents, counting the cards, and calculating the odds because the only goal is winning at the end, not simply making yourself look good in the quarter so you can be headhunted to a better paying CEO position.
Apple is playing poker. They are judging their opponents, counting the cards, and calculating the odds because the only goal is winning at the end
I agree with that too. Apple made marketing decisions that included being a little vague on the capabilities. I believe it was purposeful as Apple almost always knows exactly what it's doing. They calculated the odds of fines and legal expenses being more costly than lack of clarity for countries whose 4G wouldn't work with Apple's frequency choices, and being less than straightforward was the better business choice.
Not so different from their Italian AppleCare legal problems. I'm certain AppleCare paid many times more than the fines due. You've seen or heard the same from other companies or groups. If the penalties are minor but the potential profits big, the world's biggest chemical, oil or pharmaceutical companies have been known to shoot for the profit, penalties be damned. No reason why tech companies would be any different.
I agree with that too. Apple made marketing decisions that included being a little vague on the capabilities. I believe it was purposeful as Apple almost always knows exactly what it's doing.
I don't think they account for everything but I also wouldn't put past them to have planned this for the free advertising. There was nothing untruthful about their use of 4G but it seems unlikely they didn't know some countries have stupid laws defining 4G as LTE and ignoring the other ITU-R definitions of 4G.
Quote:
They calculated the odds of fines and legal expenses being more costly than lack of clarity for countries whose 4G wouldn't work with Apple's frequency choices, and being less than straightforward was the better business choice.
Except that it does. Since this is a US-based forum that has members from all around the world it makes no sense to refer to 4G to mean 4G LTE so you're either accidentally not being clear or choosing to be vague. In a world or US-centric view we should be using the standard definitions of 4G and HSPA+ and DC-HSDPA fall into that category... and they work throughout the world assuming you're network supports one of the 4 bands offered in the iPad.
Bottom line: No where did Apple state that LTE worked outside the US and Canada.
Bottomer line: Apple will not be hurt by this.
Bottomest line: With each Apple product relase there is a kerfuffle that ultimately leads no where.
I don't think they account for everything but I also wouldn't put past them to have planned this for the free advertising. There was nothing untruthful about their use of 4G but it seems unlikely they didn't know some countries have stupid laws defining 4G as LTE and ignoring the other ITU-R definitions of 4G.
Except that it does. Since this is a US-based forum that has members from all around the world it makes no sense to refer to 4G to mean 4G LTE so you're either accidentally not being clear or choosing to be vague. In a world or US-centric view we should be using the standard definitions of 4G and HSPA+ and DC-HSDPA fall into that category... and they work throughout the world assuming you're network supports one of the 4 bands offered in the iPad.
Bottom line: No where did Apple state that LTE worked outside the US and Canada.
Bottomer line: Apple will not be hurt by this.
Bottomest line: With Apple product there is a kerfuffle that ultimately leads no where.
Agreed again. Apple is so huge and it's pockets so deep this is no more than a few swarming gnats and nothing that's going to cause any harm.
Sweden already has 4G LTE. Apple's iPad omitted the chip necessary to work on it.
So what? The new iPad meets the legal requirements for 4G service in Sweden. And their advertising specifically states that LTE is only available in the US and Canada.
Frankly, countries should not have their regulatory authorities making an issue of this. It's only an issue if you're taking the position that your citizens are too stupid to be allowed outside the home without a handler so they're simply implying that their citizens are stupid.
Frankly, countries should not have their regulatory authorities making an issue of this. It's only an issue if you're taking the position that your citizens are too stupid to be allowed outside the home without a handler so they're simply implying that their citizens are stupid.
I can't think of any other example where a colloquial definition created by marketers trumps a formal definition. This whole issue seems so outlandish that perhaps Apple was blindsided by this whole 4G issue.
So what? The new iPad meets the legal requirements for 4G service in Sweden. And their advertising specifically states that LTE is only available in the US and Canada.
If Apple clearly stated that 4G services were available only in North America, or better yet not available in the country of purchase, then I don't think this would ever come up. They didn't until threatened by consumer protection agencies no matter how many times you like to claim they did.
Originally on their country specific product order pages they'd say that 4G would also be available when traveling in the US or Canada, but not that its wasn't available in the country of purchase, nor even that NA was the only place Apple included compatibility for. Even that was a much smaller type, medium gray on a white background, beneath the product description. To find any mention that 4G services were available only in the US and Canada you'd have to look for a tiny footnote at the bottom of another entirely separate page. It was treated as an afterthought. That must be your "specifically stated".
I can't think of any other example where a colloquial definition created by marketers trumps a formal definition. This whole issue seems so outlandish that perhaps Apple was blindsided by this whole 4G issue.
How could they be blind-sided when their own descriptors acknowledge HESPA, HESPA+ and 4G as different critters? Now you're playing Apple as not very savvy about the markets they play in.
If Apple clearly stated that 4G services were available only in North America, or better yet not available in the country of purchase, then I don't think this would ever come up. They didn't until threatened by consumer protection agencies no matter how many times you like to claim they did.
As usual, you're mis-stating the situation.
In almost the entire world, HSPA+ is formally classified as 4G, so calling it a 4G device is reasonable. Australia is one of the few exceptions, but even there, the advertising says 'UP TO 4G speeds' or something like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Originally on their country specific product order pages they'd say that 4G would also be available when traveling in the US or Canada, but not that its wasn't available in the country of purchase, nor even that NA was the only place Apple included compatibility for. Even that was a much smaller type, medium gray on a white background, beneath the product description. To find any mention that 4G services were available only in the US and Canada you'd have to look for a tiny footnote at the bottom of another entirely separate page. It was treated as an afterthought. That must be your "specifically stated".
So you're bragging about your inability to read and comprehend a simple advertisement? What does 'up to' mean? Furthermore, (again, ignoring Australia for the moment), HSPA+ does constitute 4G in most of the world, so what's wrong with advertising it as a 4G device?
Once again, you're putting yourself in the position of arguing that it should be illegal for GM to advertise that the Corvette will go 197 mph simply because there are some countries that are too mountainous to use that speed and others have speed limits that make it illegal.
How could they be blind-sided when their own descriptors acknowledge HESPA, HESPA+ and 4G as different critters? Now you're playing Apple as not very savvy about the markets they play in.
Where? Once again, you're making things up. HSPA+ is NOT a 'different critter' from 4G. It is actually a subset of 4G.
In almost the entire world, HSPA+ is formally classified as 4G, so calling it a 4G device is reasonable. Australia is one of the few exceptions, but even there, the advertising says 'UP TO 4G speeds' or something like that.
Apple themselves clearly differentiate 4G from HESPA or any other variant.
"4G LTE; CDMA EV-DO Rev. A; UMTS/HSPA/HSPA+/DC-HSDPA; GSM/EDGE" are all listed by Apple.
They know what it means in the real world. You're arguing just to argue. Adding Sweden's 4G LTE which Apple omits from its support as the final nail in your already debunked argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Once again, you're putting yourself in the position of arguing that it should be illegal for GM to advertise that the Corvette will go 197 mph simply because there are some countries that are too mountainous to use that speed and others have speed limits that make it illegal.
In what country is it incapable of reaching a top speed of 197mph? Now your analogy is debunked for the second time. IMO analogies are almost never ideal for proving your point.
I don't exactly see what your collective problem with this is. It is entirely reasonable that companies advertise in a way that is not misleading. The advertising in Australia was misleading as it used 4G. The public cannot be expect to know what the latest acronym thrown at them means it is. They just want an iPad.
In the uk if Apple mislead consumers then it will be penalized. Simple.
It was only misleading to someone with a very low ability to read or understand English.
Now it truly is misleading, there is nothing to indicate that it will connect to 4G LTE networks if you take it to the US or Canada.
How could they be blind-sided when their own descriptors acknowledge HESPA, HESPA+ and 4G as different critters? Now you're playing Apple as not very savvy about the markets they play in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Apple themselves clearly differentiate 4G from HESPA or any other variant.
"4G LTE; CDMA EV-DO Rev. A; UMTS/HSPA/HSPA+/DC-HSDPA; GSM/EDGE" are all listed by Apple.
They know what it means in the real world. You're arguing just to argue. Adding Sweden's 4G LTE which Apple omits from its support as the final nail in your already debunked argument.
Notice they don't simply say 4G, but refer to a more specific marketing term 4G LTE. They don't say 4G = LTE and only LTE, they refer to it as 4G LTE as that is the marketing terminology. Within the ITU-R's 4G bubble resides HSPA+, DC-HSDPA, WiMAX, LTE, and LTE Advanced, as of right now.
So what Australia and some other countries are effectively doing, though perhaps on even aware of it, are saying that anything with the UTRA air interface is 3G and anything with the E-UTRA air interface is 4G. I think that's perfectly reasonable as it's a clear generational step, but so far I've read nothing that has even argued that point.
PS: As perviously stated, the whole concept of using very technical terminology as colloquial marketing terms is a very bad way to sell a product. It causes confusion (no need for me to use examples years after I started saying this).
I recommend that the maximum theoretical speed of the device that can be accessed by a country/carrier should be used. A simple, universal number. Perhaps based on the power of 10Mb/s and rounded to the nearest whole number.
For instance. For the 73Mb/s LTE that the iPad can potentially achieve if you are connected to a capable network that can support that HW it will show 7x speed in the menu bar. For DC-HSDPA it would show 4x. Once we get 320Mb/s LTE Advanced it would show 32x. Simple and easily understand and calculated by pretty much everyone on the planet that would be using these devices. This can work for WiFi and other high-speed networks, too.
In which countries won't a Corvette Centennial Edition hit a top speed of 197mph?
If there is one where they aren't made capable of doing so but still advertised as tho it can, even you might consider that false advertising if targeting that countries buyers, correct?
And the new iPad CAN connect to some 4G LTE networks, if available.
That function HAS NOT been disabled, no matter where on earth you are.
I'm still stuck in my hospital bed but I asked my husband to stop by the Apple store on the way to visit me to pick up a new Seagate wireless HD. I also asked him to see if there was any disclaimer notifying customers about the 4G issue. There were none, Switzerland doesn't have a LTE network yet. So I understand that consumers should understand what their buying before hand but Apple also needs to point out these faults.
Sorry but Apple needs to clearly notify it's customers before selling something under false pretenses. I know a disclaimer doesn't look good underneath the features list but it seems like it needs to be done as consumers aren't able to do their homework before leaping.
It would defiantly stop all of this silly business.
It was only misleading to someone with a very low ability to read or understand English.
Now it truly is misleading, there is nothing to indicate that it will connect to 4G LTE networks if you take it to the US or Canada.
Which makes up about 50 percent of gadget buyers. Sorry but people buy things without reading the fine print or doing any research on the internet. They see a new shiny gizmo and common sense goes out of the window, you can't tell me that you haven't done it to. I have a few things in my collection that I have regretted.
And the new iPad CAN connect to some 4G LTE networks, if available.
That function HAS NOT been disabled, no matter where on earth you are.
You don't want to get it, but you certainly understand nevertheless. You're smarter than your making believe you are.
Corvette Centennial Edition can achieve 197 mph in every market the Corvette Centennial Edition is advertised in unless you have some evidence to the contrary. The iPad 4G is not capable of connecting to advertised 4G services in every country they've marketed to and there is evidence for that. I know you're looking for wiggle room but the girdle is pretty tight.
Comments
Antenna, I think. It's more a question of frequencies, isn't it?
I understood it was the particular Qualcomm chipset Apple chose. I believe other's (Samsung, Motorola, Huawei) that offer 4G compatibity for specific countries use chipsets tailored for those networks.
Sweden already has 4G LTE. Apple's iPad omitted the chip necessary to work on it.
1) I don't think omit is the right word. It implies a pejorative. If Apple could have added more LTE operating bands to the same device they would have. Even one more would have allowed them to reduce the number of cellular US and Canada iPad models by 1/2. Now you could question why don't they have a different, unique model for every country but you can answer that by asking why they don't have 100 different different models for every country. You can further back that by their profit share in the smartphone and tablet markets.
2) Lots of countries have the E-UTRA air interface. I'd say at least 20 countries are now active. The problem is the HW simply isn't ready to support all of them. We'll need a lot more than we needed fo UMTS. Wikipedia lists 43 different bands with half of those allocated.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-UTRA#...nel_bandwidths
3) If we only got 5 band support in 2010 with Nokia and Apple how long before we'll have support for the world's LTE across a dozen operating bands? Hopefully it will scale quickly because this is a longterm issue Qualcomm has been working on... but I have my doubts.4) Apple's efficient design to use world-mode chips could hurt them over the next few years if there isn't a method for supporting multiple E-UTRA operating bands. If not, they'll have to continue to ignore smaller countries with LTE or change their modus operandi by creating distinct HW models. This Autumn will be interesting.
I understood it was the particular Qualcomm chipset Apple chose. I believe other's (Samsung, Motorola, Huawei) that offer 4G compatibity for specific countries use chipsets tailored for those networks.
1) What do you mean by "chips"? At this part of the conversation you should be getting more precise as it's getting more technical.
2) I don't think the MDM9600 has a problem supporting any of the E-UTRA operating bands, but it does, as previously mentioned, have a limit of two. Will the MDM9615 expected to be in the 6th gen iPhone support more than 2? I sure hope so, but will it support 5, or 12, or 43? I highly doubt it.
1) Now you could question why don't they have a different, unique model for every country but you can answer that by asking why they don't have 100 different different models for every country. You can further back that by their profit share in the smartphone and tablet markets.
I've never thought it was about anything else but profits.
I've never thought it was about anything else but profits.
But it's also that way for every vendor, it's just that Apple goes about it in a different way than most.
Most are akin who play roulette by placing chips on every number. You win every hand but you lose more than you win because you spread yourself too thin and decided to play a game by guessing instead of thinking. Apple is playing poker. They are judging their opponents, counting the cards, and calculating the odds because the only goal is winning at the end, not simply making yourself look good in the quarter so you can be headhunted to a better paying CEO position.
Apple is playing poker. They are judging their opponents, counting the cards, and calculating the odds because the only goal is winning at the end
I agree with that too. Apple made marketing decisions that included being a little vague on the capabilities. I believe it was purposeful as Apple almost always knows exactly what it's doing. They calculated the odds of fines and legal expenses being more costly than lack of clarity for countries whose 4G wouldn't work with Apple's frequency choices, and being less than straightforward was the better business choice.
Not so different from their Italian AppleCare legal problems. I'm certain AppleCare paid many times more than the fines due. You've seen or heard the same from other companies or groups. If the penalties are minor but the potential profits big, the world's biggest chemical, oil or pharmaceutical companies have been known to shoot for the profit, penalties be damned. No reason why tech companies would be any different.
I agree with that too. Apple made marketing decisions that included being a little vague on the capabilities. I believe it was purposeful as Apple almost always knows exactly what it's doing.
I don't think they account for everything but I also wouldn't put past them to have planned this for the free advertising. There was nothing untruthful about their use of 4G but it seems unlikely they didn't know some countries have stupid laws defining 4G as LTE and ignoring the other ITU-R definitions of 4G.
They calculated the odds of fines and legal expenses being more costly than lack of clarity for countries whose 4G wouldn't work with Apple's frequency choices, and being less than straightforward was the better business choice.
Except that it does. Since this is a US-based forum that has members from all around the world it makes no sense to refer to 4G to mean 4G LTE so you're either accidentally not being clear or choosing to be vague. In a world or US-centric view we should be using the standard definitions of 4G and HSPA+ and DC-HSDPA fall into that category... and they work throughout the world assuming you're network supports one of the 4 bands offered in the iPad.
Bottom line: No where did Apple state that LTE worked outside the US and Canada.
Bottomer line: Apple will not be hurt by this.
Bottomest line: With each Apple product relase there is a kerfuffle that ultimately leads no where.
I don't think they account for everything but I also wouldn't put past them to have planned this for the free advertising. There was nothing untruthful about their use of 4G but it seems unlikely they didn't know some countries have stupid laws defining 4G as LTE and ignoring the other ITU-R definitions of 4G.
Except that it does. Since this is a US-based forum that has members from all around the world it makes no sense to refer to 4G to mean 4G LTE so you're either accidentally not being clear or choosing to be vague. In a world or US-centric view we should be using the standard definitions of 4G and HSPA+ and DC-HSDPA fall into that category... and they work throughout the world assuming you're network supports one of the 4 bands offered in the iPad.
Bottom line: No where did Apple state that LTE worked outside the US and Canada.
Bottomer line: Apple will not be hurt by this.
Bottomest line: With Apple product there is a kerfuffle that ultimately leads no where.
Agreed again. Apple is so huge and it's pockets so deep this is no more than a few swarming gnats and nothing that's going to cause any harm.
Sweden already has 4G LTE. Apple's iPad omitted the chip necessary to work on it.
So what? The new iPad meets the legal requirements for 4G service in Sweden. And their advertising specifically states that LTE is only available in the US and Canada.
Frankly, countries should not have their regulatory authorities making an issue of this. It's only an issue if you're taking the position that your citizens are too stupid to be allowed outside the home without a handler so they're simply implying that their citizens are stupid.
Frankly, countries should not have their regulatory authorities making an issue of this. It's only an issue if you're taking the position that your citizens are too stupid to be allowed outside the home without a handler so they're simply implying that their citizens are stupid.
I can't think of any other example where a colloquial definition created by marketers trumps a formal definition. This whole issue seems so outlandish that perhaps Apple was blindsided by this whole 4G issue.
So what? The new iPad meets the legal requirements for 4G service in Sweden. And their advertising specifically states that LTE is only available in the US and Canada.
If Apple clearly stated that 4G services were available only in North America, or better yet not available in the country of purchase, then I don't think this would ever come up. They didn't until threatened by consumer protection agencies no matter how many times you like to claim they did.
Originally on their country specific product order pages they'd say that 4G would also be available when traveling in the US or Canada, but not that its wasn't available in the country of purchase, nor even that NA was the only place Apple included compatibility for. Even that was a much smaller type, medium gray on a white background, beneath the product description. To find any mention that 4G services were available only in the US and Canada you'd have to look for a tiny footnote at the bottom of another entirely separate page. It was treated as an afterthought. That must be your "specifically stated".
I can't think of any other example where a colloquial definition created by marketers trumps a formal definition. This whole issue seems so outlandish that perhaps Apple was blindsided by this whole 4G issue.
How could they be blind-sided when their own descriptors acknowledge HESPA, HESPA+ and 4G as different critters? Now you're playing Apple as not very savvy about the markets they play in.
If Apple clearly stated that 4G services were available only in North America, or better yet not available in the country of purchase, then I don't think this would ever come up. They didn't until threatened by consumer protection agencies no matter how many times you like to claim they did.
As usual, you're mis-stating the situation.
In almost the entire world, HSPA+ is formally classified as 4G, so calling it a 4G device is reasonable. Australia is one of the few exceptions, but even there, the advertising says 'UP TO 4G speeds' or something like that.
Originally on their country specific product order pages they'd say that 4G would also be available when traveling in the US or Canada, but not that its wasn't available in the country of purchase, nor even that NA was the only place Apple included compatibility for. Even that was a much smaller type, medium gray on a white background, beneath the product description. To find any mention that 4G services were available only in the US and Canada you'd have to look for a tiny footnote at the bottom of another entirely separate page. It was treated as an afterthought. That must be your "specifically stated".
So you're bragging about your inability to read and comprehend a simple advertisement? What does 'up to' mean? Furthermore, (again, ignoring Australia for the moment), HSPA+ does constitute 4G in most of the world, so what's wrong with advertising it as a 4G device?
Once again, you're putting yourself in the position of arguing that it should be illegal for GM to advertise that the Corvette will go 197 mph simply because there are some countries that are too mountainous to use that speed and others have speed limits that make it illegal.
How could they be blind-sided when their own descriptors acknowledge HESPA, HESPA+ and 4G as different critters? Now you're playing Apple as not very savvy about the markets they play in.
Where? Once again, you're making things up. HSPA+ is NOT a 'different critter' from 4G. It is actually a subset of 4G.
In almost the entire world, HSPA+ is formally classified as 4G, so calling it a 4G device is reasonable. Australia is one of the few exceptions, but even there, the advertising says 'UP TO 4G speeds' or something like that.
Apple themselves clearly differentiate 4G from HESPA or any other variant.
"4G LTE; CDMA EV-DO Rev. A; UMTS/HSPA/HSPA+/DC-HSDPA; GSM/EDGE" are all listed by Apple.
They know what it means in the real world. You're arguing just to argue. Adding Sweden's 4G LTE which Apple omits from its support as the final nail in your already debunked argument.
Once again, you're putting yourself in the position of arguing that it should be illegal for GM to advertise that the Corvette will go 197 mph simply because there are some countries that are too mountainous to use that speed and others have speed limits that make it illegal.
In what country is it incapable of reaching a top speed of 197mph? Now your analogy is debunked for the second time. IMO analogies are almost never ideal for proving your point.
I don't exactly see what your collective problem with this is. It is entirely reasonable that companies advertise in a way that is not misleading. The advertising in Australia was misleading as it used 4G. The public cannot be expect to know what the latest acronym thrown at them means it is. They just want an iPad.
In the uk if Apple mislead consumers then it will be penalized. Simple.
It was only misleading to someone with a very low ability to read or understand English.
Now it truly is misleading, there is nothing to indicate that it will connect to 4G LTE networks if you take it to the US or Canada.
How could they be blind-sided when their own descriptors acknowledge HESPA, HESPA+ and 4G as different critters? Now you're playing Apple as not very savvy about the markets they play in.
Apple themselves clearly differentiate 4G from HESPA or any other variant.
"4G LTE; CDMA EV-DO Rev. A; UMTS/HSPA/HSPA+/DC-HSDPA; GSM/EDGE" are all listed by Apple.
They know what it means in the real world. You're arguing just to argue. Adding Sweden's 4G LTE which Apple omits from its support as the final nail in your already debunked argument.
Notice they don't simply say 4G, but refer to a more specific marketing term 4G LTE. They don't say 4G = LTE and only LTE, they refer to it as 4G LTE as that is the marketing terminology. Within the ITU-R's 4G bubble resides HSPA+, DC-HSDPA, WiMAX, LTE, and LTE Advanced, as of right now.
So what Australia and some other countries are effectively doing, though perhaps on even aware of it, are saying that anything with the UTRA air interface is 3G and anything with the E-UTRA air interface is 4G. I think that's perfectly reasonable as it's a clear generational step, but so far I've read nothing that has even argued that point.
PS: As perviously stated, the whole concept of using very technical terminology as colloquial marketing terms is a very bad way to sell a product. It causes confusion (no need for me to use examples years after I started saying this).
I recommend that the maximum theoretical speed of the device that can be accessed by a country/carrier should be used. A simple, universal number. Perhaps based on the power of 10Mb/s and rounded to the nearest whole number.
For instance. For the 73Mb/s LTE that the iPad can potentially achieve if you are connected to a capable network that can support that HW it will show 7x speed in the menu bar. For DC-HSDPA it would show 4x. Once we get 320Mb/s LTE Advanced it would show 32x. Simple and easily understand and calculated by pretty much everyone on the planet that would be using these devices. This can work for WiFi and other high-speed networks, too.
In which countries won't a Corvette Centennial Edition hit a top speed of 197mph?
If there is one where they aren't made capable of doing so but still advertised as tho it can, even you might consider that false advertising if targeting that countries buyers, correct?
And the new iPad CAN connect to some 4G LTE networks, if available.
That function HAS NOT been disabled, no matter where on earth you are.
Sorry but Apple needs to clearly notify it's customers before selling something under false pretenses. I know a disclaimer doesn't look good underneath the features list but it seems like it needs to be done as consumers aren't able to do their homework before leaping.
It would defiantly stop all of this silly business.
It was only misleading to someone with a very low ability to read or understand English.
Now it truly is misleading, there is nothing to indicate that it will connect to 4G LTE networks if you take it to the US or Canada.
Which makes up about 50 percent of gadget buyers. Sorry but people buy things without reading the fine print or doing any research on the internet. They see a new shiny gizmo and common sense goes out of the window, you can't tell me that you haven't done it to. I have a few things in my collection that I have regretted.
And the new iPad CAN connect to some 4G LTE networks, if available.
That function HAS NOT been disabled, no matter where on earth you are.
You don't want to get it, but you certainly understand nevertheless. You're smarter than your making believe you are.
Corvette Centennial Edition can achieve 197 mph in every market the Corvette Centennial Edition is advertised in unless you have some evidence to the contrary. The iPad 4G is not capable of connecting to advertised 4G services in every country they've marketed to and there is evidence for that. I know you're looking for wiggle room but the girdle is pretty tight.