<p> The equivalent in the US would have been to sell iPad 4G with a subscription to the Verizon network, but with an AT&T LTE chip inside.</p>
Which they don't do, first because they don't sell any iPads with a subscription and second because there isn't such a thing as an AT&T LTE iPad. But there is an AT&T 4G iPad. Heck in some areas that GSM 3G fallback in the Verizon iPad will get 4G speeds same as the GSM iPhones
The issue here is one of language. LTE and 4g are not the same thing under the current international naming standard. Has the UK barred use of that standard and set a rule that in fact only LTE can be called 4G. Probably not. So are there any carriers that provide the qualifying speeds to be called 4G, under the accepted standard, and do they service the iPad. If yes then Apple isn't the issue. User noneducation and ignorance is the issue. And while it serves Apple to help clear up that ignorance as part of their customer service, it's not a legal issue worthy of fines etc.
Which they don't do, first because they don't sell any iPads with a subscription and second because there isn't such a thing as an AT&T LTE iPad. But there is an AT&T 4G iPad. Heck in some areas that GSM 3G fallback in the Verizon iPad will get 4G speeds same as the GSM iPhones
The issue here is one of language. LTE and 4g are not the same thing under the current international naming standard. Has the UK barred use of that standard and set a rule that in fact only LTE can be called 4G. Probably not. So are there any carriers that provide the qualifying speeds to be called 4G, under the accepted standard, and do they service the iPad. If yes then Apple isn't the issue. User noneducation and ignorance is the issue. And while it serves Apple to help clear up that ignorance as part of their customer service, it's not a legal issue worthy of fines etc.
Yeah, those are details that make my example less than perfect, but you maybe get the idea.
It isn't an issue of advertising, even though that's the only thing that local legislations can complain about. The real issue is technological -- the lack of appropriate radios in the device. This is really an issue of caring about details and wanting to deliver the best user experience -- in this case, Apple is falling short.
The normal customer reaction should be, if you want a third generation iPad outside America, get a WiFi one instead of paying for a radio you aren't going to use.
Of course it does - just like it did the last few times it was explained to you.
The analogy is a sports car that has a dual turbo V12 engine rated at 800 HP and with a top speed of 210 mpg. If you live and drive in NYC and never leave the city, there's no way you can possibly use that car's performance.
If you leave NYC, there are a few locations where you can use that speed (albeit not legally on the roads in the US and not very practically even in countries where there is no speed limit). The performance is available, though, and if you have a situation that demands it, the car can provide it. The automaker specifically tells you that you can not achieve speeds of 210 mph in a crowded city.
The situation is identical to the 4G iPad. The device is fully capable of 4G (either LTE or HSPA+ by international standard definitions). If you go somewhere with an appropriate LTE or HSPA+ network, the iPad supports it*. Even in the UK, it supports HSPA+ which is classified as 4G.
So why should it be illegal?
* Australia is a minor exception in that they have a legal definition of 4G which does not include HSPA+. So there's at least a weak argument there (although the courts should throw it out because Apple is using a standard international definition).
Of course it does - just like it did the last few times it was explained to you.
The analogy is a sports car that has a dual turbo V12 engine rated at 800 HP and with a top speed of 210 mpg. If you live and drive in NYC and never leave the city, there's no way you can possibly use that car's performance.
If you leave NYC, there are a few locations where you can use that speed (albeit not legally on the roads in the US and not very practically even in countries where there is no speed limit). The performance is available, though, and if you have a situation that demands it, the car can provide it. The automaker specifically tells you that you can not achieve speeds of 210 mph in a crowded city.
The situation is identical to the 4G iPad. The device is fully capable of 4G (either LTE or HSPA+ by international standard definitions). If you go somewhere with an appropriate LTE or HSPA+ network, the iPad supports it*. Even in the UK, it supports HSPA+ which is classified as 4G.
So why should it be illegal?
* Australia is a minor exception in that they have a legal definition of 4G which does not include HSPA+. So there's at least a weak argument there (although the courts should throw it out because Apple is using a standard international definition).
The car analogy is flawed. Just imagine that in your example there's another car that can drive at top speed inside the city.
The situation is identical to the 4G iPad. The device is fully capable of 4G (either LTE or HSPA+ by international standard definitions). If you go somewhere with an appropriate LTE or HSPA+ network, the iPad supports it*. Even in the UK, it supports HSPA+ which is classified as 4G.
So why should it be illegal?
* Australia is a minor exception in that they have a legal definition of 4G which does not include HSPA+. So there's at least a weak argument there (although the courts should throw it out because Apple is using a standard international definition).
...and so is Sweden who also has a 4G LTE network that Apple doesn't offer compatibility with. Nor Russia. Nor South Korea. Nor Japan. Nor any 4G LTE network outside of North America. There's a coverage map here if you have any interest in knowing where Apple's 4G LTE capabilities aren't really 4G LTE compatible on established networks.
I don't think most are claiming it's illegal for Apple to advertise worldwide 4G LTE compatibility. Instead the claim is Apple misleading buyers.
FWIW, your car analogy is still poor IMO. I'm surprised you haven't come up with a better one rather than continuing to drag that one out. Analogies are a very difficult way to support an argument anyway.
Of course it does - just like it did the last few times it was explained to you.
The analogy is a sports car that has a dual turbo V12 engine rated at 800 HP and with a top speed of 210 mpg. If you live and drive in NYC and never leave the city, there's no way you can possibly use that car's performance.
If you leave NYC, there are a few locations where you can use that speed (albeit not legally on the roads in the US and not very practically even in countries where there is no speed limit). The performance is available, though, and if you have a situation that demands it, the car can provide it. The automaker specifically tells you that you can not achieve speeds of 210 mph in a crowded city.
The situation is identical to the 4G iPad. The device is fully capable of 4G (either LTE or HSPA+ by international standard definitions). If you go somewhere with an appropriate LTE or HSPA+ network, the iPad supports it*. Even in the UK, it supports HSPA+ which is classified as 4G.
So why should it be illegal?
* Australia is a minor exception in that they have a legal definition of 4G which does not include HSPA+. So there's at least a weak argument there (although the courts should throw it out because Apple is using a standard international definition).
No automaker advertises, in the product name, fer chissakes, that their car is capable of 210 MPH.
What you are searching for is something named the "Ultralightweight sports car" which says in fine print that you need to weigh it on the Moon.
* Australia is a minor exception in that they have a legal definition of 4G which does not include HSPA+. So there's at least a weak argument there (although the courts should throw it out because Apple is using a standard international definition).
There is NO standard international definition. That is a big part of the problem. There is a guideline that can be interpreted to allow HSPA+ and LTE to be 4G but nothing more. In fact none of them are REALLY 4G. Only LTE-Advanced is. LTE is truly 3.9G
...and so is Sweden who also has a 4G LTE network that Apple doesn't offer compatibility with. Nor Russia. Nor South Korea. Nor Japan. Nor any 4G LTE network outside of North America. There's a coverage map here if you have any interest in knowing where Apple's 4G LTE capabilities aren't really 4G LTE compatible on established networks.
I don't think most are claiming it's illegal for Apple to advertise worldwide 4G LTE compatibility. Instead the claim is Apple misleading buyers.
FWIW, your car analogy is still poor IMO. I'm surprised you haven't come up with a better one rather than continuing to drag that one out. Analogies are a very difficult way to support an argument anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
There is NO standard international definition. That is a big part of the problem. There is a guideline that can be interpreted to allow HSPA+ and LTE to be 4G but nothing more. In fact none of them are REALLY 4G. Only LTE-Advanced is. LTE is truly 3.9G
Wrong. ITC defines 4G to include HSPA+. Since Sweden and most of the other countries listed have HSPA+, they meet the standard international definition of 4G. So unless you live in a country which specifically requires LTE for something to be 4G (with Australia being the only one I can think of), Apple's 4G claim is accurate.
And even in Australia, they explain the technologies they offer and have offered a full refund to anyone who wants it, so there are no damages to speak of.
That's news. You're saying the European and Australian LTE deployments will use identical tech and frequency bands -- across all of the EU and AUS? When did that happen?
In Europe, three frequency bands are foreseen (and in several countries already used) for LTE: 800 MHz, 1800 MHz and 2600 MHz. Don't know about Australia, but I think I read they are using the 1800 MHz LTE band, too...
Apple sell two different iPad-4G models in the US, each having the appropriate radio for either AT&T or Verizon. It doesn't seem too far fetched to have one or more models that would work with European 4G providers. Yet, Apple has chosen to cut the associated costs and sell worldwide a device that cannot utilize the existing local networks to full capacity.
It is clear that Apple cares more about American customers than about European customers. It should not be surprising when the feelings are reciprocal.
No that's not clear at all. 2/3 of the LTE subscribers in the world are in the US, so they may have added LTE support sooner than they wanted to in order to remain competitive in the US. Since LTE isn't as widespread outside the US, they are not at a competitive disadvantage by not offering LTE. Note that the iPads use old LTE chipsets that draw a lot of power. Apple doesn't use them in the iPhone for that reason. I suspect that the new iPhone and next year's iPad will have LTE chipsets that support more markets.
What Apple did do for Europe was add support for HSPA+21 and DC-HSDPA (42MBps), which run about as fast as our LTE networks do here and do use the full capacity of Europe's 3G networks (which earlier devices did not). Note that there are no DC-HSDPA networks in the US.
Wrong. ITC defines 4G to include HSPA+. Since Sweden and most of the other countries listed have HSPA+, they meet the standard international definition of 4G. So unless you live in a country which specifically requires LTE for something to be 4G (with Australia being the only one I can think of), Apple's 4G claim is accurate.
And even in Australia, they explain the technologies they offer and have offered a full refund to anyone who wants it, so there are no damages to speak of.
I'm not sure whether ITU's definition of '4G' (which they also changed, after some networks wanted to call their faster 3G networks '4G' for marketing reasons) is really relevant in such a case. Here in Germany, as - I think - in most other countries in Europe, 4G was always synonymous with LTE. This is how the media and the industry has been telling it to the consumers for several years by now, especially when they started service in Germany 1.5 years ago. Whether some marketing definition by ITU is really relevant when it comes to deciding whether an advertisement is misleading, I'm not so sure...
In any case, at least in Germany Apple was always quite clear that with 4G they mean LTE. Their product page for the iPad 4G mentioned '4G LTE' and called 'DC-HSPA' as "the fastest 3G networks in existence". So there is no real question whether Apple was willing to follow "local" definitions. The problem was just, that they initially thought that a footnote saying something like "Availability depends on region and operator" was enough to point the potential customer to the fact that the device only works with LTE on another continent. (They by now have modified their German page several times, now they mention neither 4G nor LTE anymore on their "Features" page...).
Source in black and white please? Nowhere does it spell out HSPA+ as 4G. I only see this in a press release, which is hardly some standard.
"ITU has determined that “LTE-Advanced” and “WirelessMAN-Advanced” should be accorded the official designation of IMT-Advanced. As the most advanced technologies currently defined for global wireless mobile broadband communications, IMT-Advanced is considered as “4G”, although it is recognized that this term, while undefined, may also be applied to the forerunners of these technologies, LTE and WiMax, and to other evolved 3G technologies providing a substantial level of improvement in performance and capabilities with respect to the initial third generation systems now deployed"
Did the UK regulators find some Samsung, Motorola, HTC 'consumers' that were 'confused' by the 4G wording?
Have you an example of a smartphone or tablet made by these companies, that are marketed as '4G' in the UK? I could be wrong, but I thought all these devices containing '4G' in their name while not supporting LTE were for the US/Canadian market.
One would think some tiny effort could have been made to ensure compatibility with the existing 4G networks in continental Europe or Australia though...
Yeah I don't get that. But at least make sure no product marketing/packaging references 4G outside of North America.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
That makes no sense whatsoever.
Then read it again. Or perhaps you need location-relevant formatting. Something that suits your homeland.
Woe is me, can't you see
That my great iPad 3-
On whose box has been advertised
Speedy 4G-
Cannot go at that speed,
'least in MY country.
So I took up my arms;
Made myself quite a ruckus.
On the forums and sites said,
"I'll kick Apple's tuchus!
How dare they sell me something
I cannot use (well, except that I
couldn't have anyway), boo?!"
So I went to these sites
And they made me confused
They said, "go back and read
All the words Apple used
To describe its 4G."
So I went and I looked.
What I saw made me think that
Apple was quite crook'd.
"Works on Telus and Bell,
ATT and Verizon,
And on Rogers
If travel is on your horizon."
"How dare they," said I,
through my uncontrolled rage,
"I've no plans to hop 'cross the Pond for a day!"
I went back to those sites,
A smile 'pon my lips,
Expecting to give them
A couple of tips,
When a man came along,
A regular user
Whose words showed that he was
Indeed quite a bruiser
Said he, "Look, you fools,
Despite all your noise
You're making yourselves
Look like infantile boys
By saying your iPads
Are like big-wheel trikes
That can't drive on roads
Fast as real motorbikes."
"Your analogies," said the guy on the forum,
"Are quite fragile, pathetic,
And show no decorum.
Here's a better one now,
More accurate, too."
And for some reason his text
was now colored blue.
"Let's look at a sports car,
Oh, say, Lamborghini,
Whose power is not suitable
For a weenie.
This car," said the man,
"Can travel quite fast.
Or so say the dials
That sit in the dash."
"This speed, I'm afraid,
Is faster than you
Could possibly drive
(Even 'home to the loo')
On the roads of Her Majesty's Highway today.
To drive at those speeds, you must go away."
"Away to the Autobahn,
Or out to Montana,
Or even drive down
To the middle savanna
In Africa where there is
Wide open space."
You will not be driving this car
At full speed in a place
Where the roundabouts force
You to turn all the time."
Was it just me, or had this guy
shifted his rhyme?
"Anyway," said the user,
his text back to normal,
"Your logic is flawed,
Your writing informal.
Your iPad is not limited any more
Than the car in your driveway,
Its power in store."
I sat back from my screen
And read over his words
Again and again
Just because I could.
But did he make sense?
It's not my place to say.
For I'm not the one writing this,
That honor goes to the man
Whose analogy lies up above
And who DIDN'T pull it from his
Gruvvulous-Glove.
Make your own decisions,
Ones based in fact,
Not this abject nonsense
You pull from your sack
Oh so often on forums
Opposed to your cause.
'Cause trolling is nothing, nay, NOTHING but flaws.
Which they don't do, first because they don't sell any iPads with a subscription and second because there isn't such a thing as an AT&T LTE iPad. But there is an AT&T 4G iPad. Heck in some areas that GSM 3G fallback in the Verizon iPad will get 4G speeds same as the GSM iPhones
The issue here is one of language. LTE and 4g are not the same thing under the current international naming standard. Has the UK barred use of that standard and set a rule that in fact only LTE can be called 4G. Probably not. So are there any carriers that provide the qualifying speeds to be called 4G, under the accepted standard, and do they service the iPad. If yes then Apple isn't the issue. User noneducation and ignorance is the issue. And while it serves Apple to help clear up that ignorance as part of their customer service, it's not a legal issue worthy of fines etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Which they don't do, first because they don't sell any iPads with a subscription and second because there isn't such a thing as an AT&T LTE iPad. But there is an AT&T 4G iPad. Heck in some areas that GSM 3G fallback in the Verizon iPad will get 4G speeds same as the GSM iPhones
The issue here is one of language. LTE and 4g are not the same thing under the current international naming standard. Has the UK barred use of that standard and set a rule that in fact only LTE can be called 4G. Probably not. So are there any carriers that provide the qualifying speeds to be called 4G, under the accepted standard, and do they service the iPad. If yes then Apple isn't the issue. User noneducation and ignorance is the issue. And while it serves Apple to help clear up that ignorance as part of their customer service, it's not a legal issue worthy of fines etc.
Yeah, those are details that make my example less than perfect, but you maybe get the idea.
It isn't an issue of advertising, even though that's the only thing that local legislations can complain about. The real issue is technological -- the lack of appropriate radios in the device. This is really an issue of caring about details and wanting to deliver the best user experience -- in this case, Apple is falling short.
The normal customer reaction should be, if you want a third generation iPad outside America, get a WiFi one instead of paying for a radio you aren't going to use.
What you mean I dont need my Robotics modern any more there is more in the UK than 56k?????
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
That makes no sense whatsoever.
Of course it does - just like it did the last few times it was explained to you.
The analogy is a sports car that has a dual turbo V12 engine rated at 800 HP and with a top speed of 210 mpg. If you live and drive in NYC and never leave the city, there's no way you can possibly use that car's performance.
If you leave NYC, there are a few locations where you can use that speed (albeit not legally on the roads in the US and not very practically even in countries where there is no speed limit). The performance is available, though, and if you have a situation that demands it, the car can provide it. The automaker specifically tells you that you can not achieve speeds of 210 mph in a crowded city.
The situation is identical to the 4G iPad. The device is fully capable of 4G (either LTE or HSPA+ by international standard definitions). If you go somewhere with an appropriate LTE or HSPA+ network, the iPad supports it*. Even in the UK, it supports HSPA+ which is classified as 4G.
So why should it be illegal?
* Australia is a minor exception in that they have a legal definition of 4G which does not include HSPA+. So there's at least a weak argument there (although the courts should throw it out because Apple is using a standard international definition).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Of course it does - just like it did the last few times it was explained to you.
The analogy is a sports car that has a dual turbo V12 engine rated at 800 HP and with a top speed of 210 mpg. If you live and drive in NYC and never leave the city, there's no way you can possibly use that car's performance.
If you leave NYC, there are a few locations where you can use that speed (albeit not legally on the roads in the US and not very practically even in countries where there is no speed limit). The performance is available, though, and if you have a situation that demands it, the car can provide it. The automaker specifically tells you that you can not achieve speeds of 210 mph in a crowded city.
The situation is identical to the 4G iPad. The device is fully capable of 4G (either LTE or HSPA+ by international standard definitions). If you go somewhere with an appropriate LTE or HSPA+ network, the iPad supports it*. Even in the UK, it supports HSPA+ which is classified as 4G.
So why should it be illegal?
* Australia is a minor exception in that they have a legal definition of 4G which does not include HSPA+. So there's at least a weak argument there (although the courts should throw it out because Apple is using a standard international definition).
The car analogy is flawed. Just imagine that in your example there's another car that can drive at top speed inside the city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
That makes no sense whatsoever.
Then read it again. Or perhaps you need location-relevant formatting. Something that suits your homeland.
Woe is me, can't you see
That my great iPad 3-
On whose box has been advertised
Speedy 4G-
Cannot go at that speed,
'least in MY country.
So I took up my arms;
Made myself quite a ruckus.
On the forums and sites said,
"I'll kick Apple's tuchus!
How dare they sell me something
I cannot use (well, except that I
couldn't have anyway), boo?!"
So I went to these sites
And they made me confused
They said, "go back and read
All the words Apple used
To describe its 4G."
So I went and I looked.
What I saw made me think that
Apple was quite crook'd.
"Works on Telus and Bell,
ATT and Verizon,
And on Rogers
If travel is on your horizon."
"How dare they," said I,
through my uncontrolled rage,
"I've no plans to hop 'cross the Pond for a day!"
I went back to those sites,
A smile 'pon my lips,
Expecting to give them
A couple of tips,
When a man came along,
A regular user
Whose words showed that he was
Indeed quite a bruiser
Said he, "Look, you fools,
Despite all your noise
You're making yourselves
Look like infantile boys
By saying your iPads
Are like big-wheel trikes
That can't drive on roads
Fast as real motorbikes."
"Your analogies," said the guy on the forum,
"Are quite fragile, pathetic,
And show no decorum.
Here's a better one now,
More accurate, too."
And for some reason his text
was now colored blue.
"Let's look at a sports car,
Oh, say, Lamborghini,
Whose power is not suitable
For a weenie.
This car," said the man,
"Can travel quite fast.
Or so say the dials
That sit in the dash."
"This speed, I'm afraid,
Is faster than you
Could possibly drive
(Even 'home to the loo')
On the roads of Her Majesty's Highway today.
To drive at those speeds, you must go away."
"Away to the Autobahn,
Or out to Montana,
Or even drive down
To the middle savanna
In Africa where there is
Wide open space."
You will not be driving this car
At full speed in a place
Where the roundabouts force
You to turn all the time."
Was it just me, or had this guy
shifted his rhyme?
"Anyway," said the user,
his text back to normal,
"Your logic is flawed,
Your writing informal.
Your iPad is not limited any more
Than the car in your driveway,
Its power in store."
I sat back from my screen
And read over his words
Again and again
Just because I could.
But did he make sense?
It's not my place to say.
For I'm not the one writing this,
That honor goes to the man
Whose analogy lies up above
And who DIDN'T pull it from his
Gruvvulous-Glove.
Make your own decisions,
Ones based in fact,
Not this abject nonsense
You pull from your sack
Oh so often on forums
Opposed to your cause.
'Cause trolling is nothing, nay, NOTHING but flaws.
That makes even less sense in the context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The situation is identical to the 4G iPad. The device is fully capable of 4G (either LTE or HSPA+ by international standard definitions). If you go somewhere with an appropriate LTE or HSPA+ network, the iPad supports it*. Even in the UK, it supports HSPA+ which is classified as 4G.
So why should it be illegal?
* Australia is a minor exception in that they have a legal definition of 4G which does not include HSPA+. So there's at least a weak argument there (although the courts should throw it out because Apple is using a standard international definition).
...and so is Sweden who also has a 4G LTE network that Apple doesn't offer compatibility with. Nor Russia. Nor South Korea. Nor Japan. Nor any 4G LTE network outside of North America. There's a coverage map here if you have any interest in knowing where Apple's 4G LTE capabilities aren't really 4G LTE compatible on established networks.
http://ltemaps.org/
I don't think most are claiming it's illegal for Apple to advertise worldwide 4G LTE compatibility. Instead the claim is Apple misleading buyers.
FWIW, your car analogy is still poor IMO. I'm surprised you haven't come up with a better one rather than continuing to drag that one out. Analogies are a very difficult way to support an argument anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
That makes no sense whatsoever.
Of course it does - just like it did the last few times it was explained to you.
The analogy is a sports car that has a dual turbo V12 engine rated at 800 HP and with a top speed of 210 mpg. If you live and drive in NYC and never leave the city, there's no way you can possibly use that car's performance.
If you leave NYC, there are a few locations where you can use that speed (albeit not legally on the roads in the US and not very practically even in countries where there is no speed limit). The performance is available, though, and if you have a situation that demands it, the car can provide it. The automaker specifically tells you that you can not achieve speeds of 210 mph in a crowded city.
The situation is identical to the 4G iPad. The device is fully capable of 4G (either LTE or HSPA+ by international standard definitions). If you go somewhere with an appropriate LTE or HSPA+ network, the iPad supports it*. Even in the UK, it supports HSPA+ which is classified as 4G.
So why should it be illegal?
* Australia is a minor exception in that they have a legal definition of 4G which does not include HSPA+. So there's at least a weak argument there (although the courts should throw it out because Apple is using a standard international definition).
No automaker advertises, in the product name, fer chissakes, that their car is capable of 210 MPH.
What you are searching for is something named the "Ultralightweight sports car" which says in fine print that you need to weigh it on the Moon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
No automaker advertises, in the product name, fer chissakes, that their car is capable of 210 MPH.
What you are searching for is something named the "Ultralightweight sports car" which says in fine print that you need to weigh it on the Moon.
Do you think you could come up with any more ridiculous analogy?
The owner of a sports car can not take it to the moon, so your analogy makes zero sense - like 99.999% of what you post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
No automaker advertises, in the product name, fer chissakes, that their car is capable of 210 MPH.
What you are searching for is something named the "Ultralightweight sports car" which says in fine print that you need to weigh it on the Moon.
Do you think you could come up with any more ridiculous analogy?
The owner of a sports car can not take it to the moon, so your analogy makes zero sense - like 99.999% of what you post.
To the average buyer, transcontinental travel to use an advertised feature may as well be intergalactic travel to use an advertised feature.
What if Apple called it the "iPad Free Food For Life"*
*Free food available in Rwanda if you have been certified by the local warlord.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
* Australia is a minor exception in that they have a legal definition of 4G which does not include HSPA+. So there's at least a weak argument there (although the courts should throw it out because Apple is using a standard international definition).
There is NO standard international definition. That is a big part of the problem. There is a guideline that can be interpreted to allow HSPA+ and LTE to be 4G but nothing more. In fact none of them are REALLY 4G. Only LTE-Advanced is. LTE is truly 3.9G
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
...and so is Sweden who also has a 4G LTE network that Apple doesn't offer compatibility with. Nor Russia. Nor South Korea. Nor Japan. Nor any 4G LTE network outside of North America. There's a coverage map here if you have any interest in knowing where Apple's 4G LTE capabilities aren't really 4G LTE compatible on established networks.
http://ltemaps.org/
I don't think most are claiming it's illegal for Apple to advertise worldwide 4G LTE compatibility. Instead the claim is Apple misleading buyers.
FWIW, your car analogy is still poor IMO. I'm surprised you haven't come up with a better one rather than continuing to drag that one out. Analogies are a very difficult way to support an argument anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
There is NO standard international definition. That is a big part of the problem. There is a guideline that can be interpreted to allow HSPA+ and LTE to be 4G but nothing more. In fact none of them are REALLY 4G. Only LTE-Advanced is. LTE is truly 3.9G
Wrong. ITC defines 4G to include HSPA+. Since Sweden and most of the other countries listed have HSPA+, they meet the standard international definition of 4G. So unless you live in a country which specifically requires LTE for something to be 4G (with Australia being the only one I can think of), Apple's 4G claim is accurate.
And even in Australia, they explain the technologies they offer and have offered a full refund to anyone who wants it, so there are no damages to speak of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B
That's news. You're saying the European and Australian LTE deployments will use identical tech and frequency bands -- across all of the EU and AUS? When did that happen?
In Europe, three frequency bands are foreseen (and in several countries already used) for LTE: 800 MHz, 1800 MHz and 2600 MHz. Don't know about Australia, but I think I read they are using the 1800 MHz LTE band, too...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio
Apple sell two different iPad-4G models in the US, each having the appropriate radio for either AT&T or Verizon. It doesn't seem too far fetched to have one or more models that would work with European 4G providers. Yet, Apple has chosen to cut the associated costs and sell worldwide a device that cannot utilize the existing local networks to full capacity.
It is clear that Apple cares more about American customers than about European customers. It should not be surprising when the feelings are reciprocal.
No that's not clear at all. 2/3 of the LTE subscribers in the world are in the US, so they may have added LTE support sooner than they wanted to in order to remain competitive in the US. Since LTE isn't as widespread outside the US, they are not at a competitive disadvantage by not offering LTE. Note that the iPads use old LTE chipsets that draw a lot of power. Apple doesn't use them in the iPhone for that reason. I suspect that the new iPhone and next year's iPad will have LTE chipsets that support more markets.
What Apple did do for Europe was add support for HSPA+21 and DC-HSDPA (42MBps), which run about as fast as our LTE networks do here and do use the full capacity of Europe's 3G networks (which earlier devices did not). Note that there are no DC-HSDPA networks in the US.
Did the UK regulators find some Samsung, Motorola, HTC 'consumers' that were 'confused' by the 4G wording?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Wrong. ITC defines 4G to include HSPA+. Since Sweden and most of the other countries listed have HSPA+, they meet the standard international definition of 4G. So unless you live in a country which specifically requires LTE for something to be 4G (with Australia being the only one I can think of), Apple's 4G claim is accurate.
And even in Australia, they explain the technologies they offer and have offered a full refund to anyone who wants it, so there are no damages to speak of.
I'm not sure whether ITU's definition of '4G' (which they also changed, after some networks wanted to call their faster 3G networks '4G' for marketing reasons) is really relevant in such a case. Here in Germany, as - I think - in most other countries in Europe, 4G was always synonymous with LTE. This is how the media and the industry has been telling it to the consumers for several years by now, especially when they started service in Germany 1.5 years ago. Whether some marketing definition by ITU is really relevant when it comes to deciding whether an advertisement is misleading, I'm not so sure...
In any case, at least in Germany Apple was always quite clear that with 4G they mean LTE. Their product page for the iPad 4G mentioned '4G LTE' and called 'DC-HSPA' as "the fastest 3G networks in existence". So there is no real question whether Apple was willing to follow "local" definitions. The problem was just, that they initially thought that a footnote saying something like "Availability depends on region and operator" was enough to point the potential customer to the fact that the device only works with LTE on another continent. (They by now have modified their German page several times, now they mention neither 4G nor LTE anymore on their "Features" page...).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Wrong. ITC defines 4G to include HSPA+.
Source in black and white please? Nowhere does it spell out HSPA+ as 4G. I only see this in a press release, which is hardly some standard.
"ITU has determined that “LTE-Advanced” and “WirelessMAN-Advanced” should be accorded the official designation of IMT-Advanced. As the most advanced technologies currently defined for global wireless mobile broadband communications, IMT-Advanced is considered as “4G”, although it is recognized that this term, while undefined, may also be applied to the forerunners of these technologies, LTE and WiMax, and to other evolved 3G technologies providing a substantial level of improvement in performance and capabilities with respect to the initial third generation systems now deployed"
http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2010/48.aspx
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn
Did the UK regulators find some Samsung, Motorola, HTC 'consumers' that were 'confused' by the 4G wording?
Have you an example of a smartphone or tablet made by these companies, that are marketed as '4G' in the UK? I could be wrong, but I thought all these devices containing '4G' in their name while not supporting LTE were for the US/Canadian market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio
That's too bad for the UK.
One would think some tiny effort could have been made to ensure compatibility with the existing 4G networks in continental Europe or Australia though...
Yeah I don't get that. But at least make sure no product marketing/packaging references 4G outside of North America.