Yawn....perhaps you should work for Apple's marketing department if you think that's ok.
So are you saying that the New iPad with mobile connectivity DOES NOT contain a chip capable of connecting to 4G LTE networks in limited geographical areas?
So are you saying that the New iPad with mobile connectivity DOES NOT contain a chip capable of connecting to 4G LTE networks in limited geographical areas?
The only thing is, it does.
Like I said, if that's the way you look at it then you should work for Apple's marketing department. Your logic is just as flawed as their's.
The ACCC argument against Apple is just plain silly, just as the DoJ argument against Apple is silly.
How is the manufacturer of a highly desirable global wireless product supposed to advertise its products when the control of the construction of mobile networks, the allocation of frequency bands to network operators, and the adoption of network protocols is controlled by others? Do they want to suggest that Apple should only produce a product that supports all allocated 2G, 3G, and 4G frequency bands, all existing network operators, and all existing wireless protocols?
Maybe one day that will be possible in a product called the iBrick, but in the meantime perhaps the ACCC should focus its attention on sorting out the allocation of frequency bands and the adoption of wireless protocols in Australia, so that all products like the iPhone and iPad can access networks established by all network operators?
That is actually what the consumers of these current and future products actually require!
Do they want to suggest that Apple should only produce a product that supports all allocated 2G, 3G, and 4G frequency bands, all existing network operators, and all existing wireless protocols?
I think that they want to suggest that Apple not advertise capabilities which require inter-continental travel to access.
This will all be moot in a few months when Apple starts selling the iPad with support for international LTE frequencies. We're just waiting for an updated cellular chip.
I feel sorry for the international buyers of the US version though. Perhaps Apple will offer an upgrade.
I do think Apple made a big mistake on this one by not including international frequencies from the getgo.
This will all be moot in a few months when Apple starts selling the iPad with support for international LTE frequencies.
"Months"? No, no. This is the model we have until next year.
Quote:
I feel sorry for the international buyers of the US version though. Perhaps Apple will offer an upgrade.
Which is exactly why it's not happening… They're not going to pop out a new model "months" after the current one. They have a nice year-long update policy.
Quote:
I do think Apple made a big mistake on this one by not including international frequencies from the get go.
Agreed, but if the chips didn't exist, the chips didn't exist.
Fortunately, in most cases, the networks there don't exist, either.
Agreed, but if the chips didn't exist, the chips didn't exist.
What doesn't exist is the ability to pair more than 2 LTE operating bands for the MDM9600 baseband chip. Apple could have used different operating bands for various markets if they felt that was in their best interests.
I'm sure you've seen me remark on the upcoming issue with the supposed MDM9615 to be used in the next iPhone and the fact that the ability of 5 UMTS operating bands only arrived in 2010. Even if the 6th gen iPhone can take 5 LTE operating bands I don't think it will be enough which may lead to Apple splitting the iPhone models up per country for the first time ever.
Even if the 6th gen iPhone can take 5 LTE operating bands I don't think it will be enough which may lead to Apple splitting the iPhone models up per country for the first time ever.
Steve's dead? but what's stopping Apple from taking command and getting someone to create a chip that CAN do it all? They have the history, the gumption, and they certainly have the money.
Steve (well, whoever actually did it) asked Intel to shrink their Core 2 to fit in a smaller computer. And they did it. And now Intel's taking that line of chips and kicking Apple in the crotch as they photocopy Apple's designs and sell them as though it was their idea.
Steve's dead… but what's stopping Apple from taking command and getting someone to create a chip that CAN do it all? They have the history, the gumption, and they certainly have the money.
Unfortunately technology doesn't work that way. You can't just throw money at everything and have it magically come true or we would have seen an iPad WiFi + 4G that had a dozen LTE operating bands this year.
I assume Apple is working with Qualcomm on this but there is a limit to what can feasibly be done. Apple and Qualcomm have already done wonders with the power efficiency of their current world mode chips but there is a limit.
Quote:
Steve (well, whoever actually did it) asked Intel to shrink their Core 2 to fit in a smaller computer. And they did it. And now Intel's taking that line of chips and kicking Apple in the crotch as they photocopy Apple's designs and sell them as though it was their idea.
The SFF chip that Apple used was demoed by Intel well before the MBA released. It seems to me that Intel created the SFF chipset and Apple made it popular by having it put into production, not unlike Corning's Gorilla Glass.
PS: I have no idea what your comment about Steve being dead has to do with anything.
It's worth pointing out that that what Telstra is calling 4G isn't 4G at all. What Telstra has deployed is 1800MHz LTE or 3GPP LTE that at a specification level should cap out at a download speed of 100Mb/s and upload speed of 50Mbps [ed: and the public wonders why we can't just call it 4G?]. Telstra's sensibly not even claiming those figures, but a properly-certified solution that can actually lay claim to a 4G label should be capable of downloads at 1 gigabit per second; that's the official 4G variant known as LTE-A. Telstra's equipment should be upgradeable to LTE-A at a later date, but for now what it's actually selling under a '4G' label is more like 3.7-3.8G. "3.7ish G" doesn't sound anywhere near as impressive on an advertising billboard, though, so Telstra 4G it is.
As someone living in Australia I'd like to point out that there is only one network claiming to be "4G" and that belongs to Telstra (the formerly government owned company that dominates telecoms in this country). The quote above from here points out that, even though this is the fastest network in this country, it should not be called "4G".
The ACCC is trying to protect consumers from the possibility of, through misunderstanding the labels, buying a product that will fail to meet their expectations. I am not pretending that most consumers understand the true meaning of "4G". Of course they don't understand it - they are consumers not engineers/geeks/marketers or any other category of people who have a vested interest in keeping up with these things. Consumers here in Australia have a network that they now believe to be a "4G" network. If someone such as Apple then advertises a network device as being a "4G" device then it is not unreasonable that consumers would expect the 2 to work together. In the case of the Australian Telstra network and the newest Apple iPad they will not work together. I would have thought Apple would understand this and prefer not to confuse and confound their customers. This iPad is not going to work with any network in Australia as a "4G" device any time soon and so to call it "4G" here is wrong.
To my mind Telstra are wrong to call their network "4G", the ACCC are wrong to allow Telstra to call their network "4G" and Apple are wrong to advertise the iPad as being "4G" in any country but especially in Australia. The world will not see a true 4G network for a good few years and I'm not sure how the marketers will address it's arrival. Perhaps they will talk about "Full 4G" like they talk about "Full HD" for broadcast TV.
Comments
Ahh you sell Apple gear...all makes sense now. Biased much?
Want to buy a Galaxy Tab 10.1, a Note, HTC One X, Galaxy S 2, Nokia Lumia?
You want it I'll sell it to you.
Biased? Not much.
Yawn....perhaps you should work for Apple's marketing department if you think that's ok.
So are you saying that the New iPad with mobile connectivity DOES NOT contain a chip capable of connecting to 4G LTE networks in limited geographical areas?
The only thing is, it does.
Want to buy a Galaxy Tab 10.1, a Note, HTC One X, Galaxy S 2, Nokia Lumia?
You want it I'll sell it to you.
Biased? Not much.
I already have a HTC One X but thanks for the offer. Not really interested in going Android for a tablet.
So are you saying that the New iPad with mobile connectivity DOES NOT contain a chip capable of connecting to 4G LTE networks in limited geographical areas?
The only thing is, it does.
Like I said, if that's the way you look at it then you should work for Apple's marketing department. Your logic is just as flawed as their's.
Like I said, if that's the way you look at it then you should work for Apple's marketing department. Your logic is just as flawed as their's.
To have an argument, you must have evidence.
Here's a picture of the 4G chip in the iPad (highlighted in seafoam).
Your argument is defeated.
I already have a HTC One X but thanks for the offer. Not really interested in going Android for a tablet.
A lot of people seem to share that sentiment.
With the new iPad out of the way I guess some more will have to make do...
...a man's gotta eat.
To have an argument, you must have evidence.
Here's a picture of the 4G chip in the iPad (highlighted in seafoam).
Your argument is defeated.
I never said it didn't have a 4G chip.
Your argument is defeated.
I never said it didn't have a 4G chip.
Huh. I distinctly remember
The only thing is, [the new iPad] does [contain a chip capable of connecting to 4G LTE networks in limited geographical areas].
To which your reply was
?if that's the way you look at it then you should work for Apple's marketing department. Your logic is just as flawed as their's.
It's exactly what you said.
Huh. I distinctly remember
To which your reply was
It's exactly what you said.
How is that saying it doesn't have a 4G chip?
How is that saying it doesn't have a 4G chip?
If that's the way you want to pretend that words work, then you should work for Webster's.
If that's the way you want to pretend that words work, then you should work for Webster's.
I know how words work but thanks for your comment.
How is the manufacturer of a highly desirable global wireless product supposed to advertise its products when the control of the construction of mobile networks, the allocation of frequency bands to network operators, and the adoption of network protocols is controlled by others? Do they want to suggest that Apple should only produce a product that supports all allocated 2G, 3G, and 4G frequency bands, all existing network operators, and all existing wireless protocols?
Maybe one day that will be possible in a product called the iBrick, but in the meantime perhaps the ACCC should focus its attention on sorting out the allocation of frequency bands and the adoption of wireless protocols in Australia, so that all products like the iPhone and iPad can access networks established by all network operators?
That is actually what the consumers of these current and future products actually require!
Do they want to suggest that Apple should only produce a product that supports all allocated 2G, 3G, and 4G frequency bands, all existing network operators, and all existing wireless protocols?
I think that they want to suggest that Apple not advertise capabilities which require inter-continental travel to access.
I feel sorry for the international buyers of the US version though. Perhaps Apple will offer an upgrade.
I do think Apple made a big mistake on this one by not including international frequencies from the getgo.
This will all be moot in a few months when Apple starts selling the iPad with support for international LTE frequencies.
"Months"? No, no. This is the model we have until next year.
I feel sorry for the international buyers of the US version though. Perhaps Apple will offer an upgrade.
Which is exactly why it's not happening… They're not going to pop out a new model "months" after the current one. They have a nice year-long update policy.
I do think Apple made a big mistake on this one by not including international frequencies from the get go.
Agreed, but if the chips didn't exist, the chips didn't exist.
Fortunately, in most cases, the networks there don't exist, either.
Agreed, but if the chips didn't exist, the chips didn't exist.
What doesn't exist is the ability to pair more than 2 LTE operating bands for the MDM9600 baseband chip. Apple could have used different operating bands for various markets if they felt that was in their best interests.
I'm sure you've seen me remark on the upcoming issue with the supposed MDM9615 to be used in the next iPhone and the fact that the ability of 5 UMTS operating bands only arrived in 2010. Even if the 6th gen iPhone can take 5 LTE operating bands I don't think it will be enough which may lead to Apple splitting the iPhone models up per country for the first time ever.
Even if the 6th gen iPhone can take 5 LTE operating bands I don't think it will be enough which may lead to Apple splitting the iPhone models up per country for the first time ever.
Steve's dead? but what's stopping Apple from taking command and getting someone to create a chip that CAN do it all? They have the history, the gumption, and they certainly have the money.
Steve (well, whoever actually did it) asked Intel to shrink their Core 2 to fit in a smaller computer. And they did it. And now Intel's taking that line of chips and kicking Apple in the crotch as they photocopy Apple's designs and sell them as though it was their idea.
Steve's dead… but what's stopping Apple from taking command and getting someone to create a chip that CAN do it all? They have the history, the gumption, and they certainly have the money.
Unfortunately technology doesn't work that way. You can't just throw money at everything and have it magically come true or we would have seen an iPad WiFi + 4G that had a dozen LTE operating bands this year.
I assume Apple is working with Qualcomm on this but there is a limit to what can feasibly be done. Apple and Qualcomm have already done wonders with the power efficiency of their current world mode chips but there is a limit.
Steve (well, whoever actually did it) asked Intel to shrink their Core 2 to fit in a smaller computer. And they did it. And now Intel's taking that line of chips and kicking Apple in the crotch as they photocopy Apple's designs and sell them as though it was their idea.
The SFF chip that Apple used was demoed by Intel well before the MBA released. It seems to me that Intel created the SFF chipset and Apple made it popular by having it put into production, not unlike Corning's Gorilla Glass.
PS: I have no idea what your comment about Steve being dead has to do with anything.
It's worth pointing out that that what Telstra is calling 4G isn't 4G at all. What Telstra has deployed is 1800MHz LTE or 3GPP LTE that at a specification level should cap out at a download speed of 100Mb/s and upload speed of 50Mbps [ed: and the public wonders why we can't just call it 4G?]. Telstra's sensibly not even claiming those figures, but a properly-certified solution that can actually lay claim to a 4G label should be capable of downloads at 1 gigabit per second; that's the official 4G variant known as LTE-A. Telstra's equipment should be upgradeable to LTE-A at a later date, but for now what it's actually selling under a '4G' label is more like 3.7-3.8G. "3.7ish G" doesn't sound anywhere near as impressive on an advertising billboard, though, so Telstra 4G it is.
As someone living in Australia I'd like to point out that there is only one network claiming to be "4G" and that belongs to Telstra (the formerly government owned company that dominates telecoms in this country). The quote above from here points out that, even though this is the fastest network in this country, it should not be called "4G".
The ACCC is trying to protect consumers from the possibility of, through misunderstanding the labels, buying a product that will fail to meet their expectations. I am not pretending that most consumers understand the true meaning of "4G". Of course they don't understand it - they are consumers not engineers/geeks/marketers or any other category of people who have a vested interest in keeping up with these things. Consumers here in Australia have a network that they now believe to be a "4G" network. If someone such as Apple then advertises a network device as being a "4G" device then it is not unreasonable that consumers would expect the 2 to work together. In the case of the Australian Telstra network and the newest Apple iPad they will not work together. I would have thought Apple would understand this and prefer not to confuse and confound their customers. This iPad is not going to work with any network in Australia as a "4G" device any time soon and so to call it "4G" here is wrong.
To my mind Telstra are wrong to call their network "4G", the ACCC are wrong to allow Telstra to call their network "4G" and Apple are wrong to advertise the iPad as being "4G" in any country but especially in Australia. The world will not see a true 4G network for a good few years and I'm not sure how the marketers will address it's arrival. Perhaps they will talk about "Full 4G" like they talk about "Full HD" for broadcast TV.