And consumers know (or are supposed to know) what that means. And they get along just fine.
So you're justifying one dubious business practice by pointing out another which you think is dubious? That is logically absurd.
It's also not a good comparison, because the GSM iPhone supports essentially every GSM frequency in common use throughout the world. You can't compare that to a product which only works on one country's 4G but is advertised worldwide as '4G'.
Of course they did! They told consumers in markets with incompatible 4G networks that the product supported 4G. The reasonable conclusion for those consumers to draw was that the product could receive a 4G signal in their country, according to the definition of '4G' as they reasonably understood it in reference to that market.
Consumers shouldn't have to learn about frequency bands in order to scrutinise Apple's claims. The onus is upon Apple as the supplier to market its products responsibly, and it failed to do so in this respect.
HSPA+ 4G, DC-HSDPA 4G or LTE 4G? Because each one of those are classifications of 4G by the ITU-R. What you're referring to is specifically LTE 4G, which Apple said will not work outside the US and Canada, but you're only stating 4G which means you're being disingenuous. If you claim that the ITU-R's redefining of 4G is invalid (for whatever reason) you then have to exclude to LTE as being 4G since LTE Advance would be the first 4G capable tech as defined by the original IT-U definition.
HSPA+ 4G, DC-HSDPA 4G or LTE 4G? Because each one of those are classifications of 4G by the ITU-R. What you're referring to is specifically LTE 4G, which Apple said will not work outside the US and Canada, but you're only stating 4G which means you're being disingenuous. If you claim that the ITU-R's redefining of 4G is invalid (for whatever reason) you then have to exclude to LTE as being 4G since LTE Advance would be the first 4G capable tech as defined by the original IT-U definition.
On this issue, it doesn't matter what the ITU-R or any other standards body thinks is 4G. The only definition of 4G which matters is that which is reasonably held by the consumer in the market in question.
If carriers in, say, Germany, offer an LTE service which they call '4G', then the German consumer will reasonably expect a product advertised as '4G' to work on 4G as it exists in Germany. If it does not, that is potentially misrepresentation. It is irrelevant what the ITU-R thinks because 99.9% of purchasers don't know what the ITU-R is, and the yardstick which the law will use is the reasonable consumer.
Good decision by Apple.. BS or not, it's just not worth the hassle, money and resources to spend dealing with it. [B]IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S CALLED 4G OR NOT. LOTS OF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BUY IT.[/B]
On this issue, it doesn't matter what the ITU-R or any other standards body thinks is 4G. The only definition of 4G which matters is that which is reasonably held by the consumer in the market in question.
If carriers in, say, Germany, offer an LTE service which they call '4G', then the German consumer will reasonably expect a product advertised as '4G' to work on 4G as it exists in Germany. If it does not, that is potentially misrepresentation. It is irrelevant what the ITU-R thinks because 99.9% of purchasers don't know what the ITU-R is, and the yardstick which the law will use is the reasonable consumer.
In the first paragraph you say an international organization has no barring, on the consumer's definition does. Then in the 2nd paragraph you say it's the carriers that make the decision. How in the world can that sound reasonable to you? Name me one other technical definition that was determined by the consumer? Does that mean I can sue because FireWire isn't really made of fire or because USB isn't actually throughout the universe? Of course not! Bottom line: Apple should have been more clear from the start, even going very general (like they are now) or being very specific (like saying as defined by a particular standards body).
As for your comment about what consumers know, 99.9% (which is generous since that's 1 out of a 1000) don't know what 4G is. They only know that the cardinal number 4 is one higher than the cardinal number 3 and is likely better than 3G. No carrier, much less a consumer, should be deciding what industry terms should be used as marketing terms.
Your post is even more incorrect in saying that a carrier can decide what industry terms are used for marketing but a vendor can not. Does that only apply to Apple or to all handset vendors that might want to use a cardinal number followed by the letter 'G'?
Then we have the elephant in the room. Do the Aussies and Brits call their mobile connected devices "cellular" devices? Not from what I've heard. Should Apple be sued yet again for using a term that carriers aren't using to describe these devices?
You're missing my point. In a particular market, the consumer will understand 4G to mean whatever it means in common parlance in that market. If the carriers have used LTE technology to create a network which they have branded '4G', then that is what '4G' means in that market for advertising purposes.
The average consumer doesn't know or care whether their local '4G' technology is based on LTE, HSPA+ or fairy dust. All that matters is that a product marketed as '4G' works on the networks marketed as '4G' in that country. The term '4G' is completely relative - it means whatever a particular market defines it to mean. Apple was being disingenuous by using the term '4G' in a different sense to the consumer's expectation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Then we have the elephant in the room. Do the Aussies and Brits call their mobile connected devices "cellular" devices? Not from what I've heard. Should Apple be sued yet again for using a term that carriers aren't using to describe these devices?
No. You're not taking on board what I've been saying about the reasonable expectation of the consumer.
I'm British. We call them mobile phones, but pretty much everybody in Britain knows what a cell phone is. But even if they didn't, the term couldn't be misleading because it can only possibly mean one thing. Using the term wouldn't be misleading - just bad marketing. It's using a term differently to its common meaning which is misleading.
lol so many of your posts are pointless but this one tops them off. This is 100% Apple's problem only created by them.
No it isn't. The cellular industry can't make up their minds what 4G LTE really means. The cellular industry is messed up with so many differences to confuse EVERYONE.
No it isn't. The cellular industry can't make up their minds what 4G LTE really means. The cellular industry is messed up with so many differences to confuse EVERYONE.
If it wasn't their problem then they wouldn't be changing the name.
You're missing my point. In a particular market, the consumer will understand 4G to mean whatever it means in common parlance in that market. If the carriers have used LTE technology to create a network which they have branded '4G', then that is what '4G' means in that market for advertising purposes.
The average consumer doesn't know or care whether their local '4G' technology is based on LTE, HSPA+ or fairy dust. All that matters is that a product marketed as '4G' works on the networks marketed as '4G' in that country. The term '4G' is completely relative - it means whatever a particular market defines it to mean. Apple was being disingenuous by using the term '4G' in a different sense to the consumer's expectation.
I get your point and you almost get your point, too, but then you twist it at the end for some reason. Let's dissect this post...
You claim that it's for advertising purposes, which it is. You claim that the customer doesn't know or care, which is also correct. I've made these statements plenty of times, even going back years to when Verizon was advertising their much larger CDMA2000 network as being '3G' over AT&T's '3G' coverage yet having lower speeds than AT&T's EDGE '2G' and wondering why AT&T isn't pointing that out.
There is nothing disingenuous about that. Verizon wasn't lying. Apple also wasn't lying. Using industry standards has been the norm for as long as I've been in this tech field. I can't even tell you the last time I've seen a colloquial term take precedence over an industry term. I've been against the way we market these generational terms and acronyms to customers from the start. It simply doesn't make sense. My solution is to put an indefinitely scalable value that represent maximum theoretical download speed on devices, not HSPA+, LTE, 4G or anything else.
But let's get back to your first paragraph. You say "market for advertising purposes" yet you don't see how that is the problem with your position. If you're only purpose is for marketing purposes with no distinction for an industry term then you can't say Apple (or anyone) is being disingenuous for using '4G' for marketing purposes. Your only way out of that is to show proof that Apple is lying which means there has to be a truth in technology which comes from standards, which you seem to be claiming have no barring. You have no argument.
That said, I've stated from the start that Apple is in the right legally, but they should be more clear on either end of the spectrum to not discourage customers. I've also stated this is a problem I think they should have through before calling '4G'. Again, not because it's false, but because it's not their best business move.
You say "market for advertising purposes" yet you don't see how that is the problem with your position. If you're only purpose is for marketing purposes with no distinction for an industry term then you can't say Apple (or anyone) is being disingenuous for using '4G' for marketing purposes. Your only way out of that is to show proof that Apple is lying which means there has to be a truth in technology which comes from standards, which you seem to be claiming have no barring. You have no argument.
Maybe I'm not being clear enough.
In any given country, the word '4G' will have a particular meaning which is defined largely by the technology used there and how it is marketed.
If Apple wants to brand a device as '4G' in that country, it has to conform to the meaning which has already been established - i.e. ensure that it works on that country's networks which are described as 4G.
Apple can't use '4G' in that market to mean something different, because the existing definition was there first! Apple would be using the term to mean something other than what the reasonable consumer understands it to mean. That is the problem.
I haven't laughed this hard since SJs reticent "apology" for antennagate.
Good to see government still has some power over corporate arrogance. It was never 4G, you can't call something 4G when it's not, and you look stupid trying to convince courts and regulatory bodies otherwise.
As I stated in a previous thread Apple shouldn't have ambiguous in any way as that benefits the plaintiffs. They should have called it WiFi + Cellular from the start or called it WiFi + 4G with a very clear definition that 4G refers to the ITU-R's international definition, not a colloquial or marketing definition of a country or carrier.
Somewhat true, but I think the point is that Apple is yet again being singled out here for an error they went out of their way not to commit. Other companies market 4G LTE products in these countries using the same sort of language and no one has ever taken them to court over it. Other companies have even called what Apple was calling 3G last year "4G" and sold the products in these countries.
Apple waited until they not only had 4G speeds but also used technology commonly referred to as 4G before even claiming "4G" as a moniker. They've been way nicer and fairer overall than any of the other companies, yet they are the one's pilloried in the press. Now that they've walked it back a bit we can probably expect class action lawsuits hoping to cash in on Apple's "admission" that they did something wrong.
It's just tiresome having to see Apple singled out like this time after time. It's stupid, and I agree with with Tallest Skil on this one.
Good. Idiot proof name. However, I don't think it will take long before other lawsuits appear claiming the name is misleading because the Apple says it is cellular but it doesn't make phone calls using the cellular network voice service!
In any given country, the word '4G' will have a particular meaning which is defined largely by the technology used there and how it is marketed.
If Apple wants to brand a device as '4G' in that country, it has to conform to the meaning which has already been established - i.e. ensure that it works on that country's networks which are described as 4G.
Apple can't use '4G' in that market to mean something different, because the existing definition was there first! Apple would be using the term to mean something other than what the reasonable consumer understands it to mean. That is the problem.
Show me a single law before the introduction of the iPad + 4G for any country that lawmakers defined 4G as being LTE (not just LTE Advanced) that excluded HSPA+ and DC-HSDPA.
Show me a single law before the introduction of the iPad + 4G for any country that lawmakers defined 4G as being LTE (not just LTE Advanced) that excluded HSPA+ and DC-HSDPA.
It is irrelevant whether or how the term is technically defined, legally or otherwise.
What is dubious is using the term to mean something other than what a reasonable consumer expects it to mean!
For example, the word 'red' is unlikely to have a particular definition in law. The fact that 'red' has no particular legal meaning doesn't mean that I can advertise a car as being red and then deliver a car to the buyer which is actually blue. Although 'red' isn't legally defined, I could still be breaking the law, because my blue car doesn't conform to the buyer's reasonable expectation of the car which I have advertised as red.
I think most of your posts are just fine. But in this case the problem was totally of Apple'a doing. I can see we're an average consumer could be confused the original label. After all, not everyone reads tech blogs.
For example, the word 'red' is unlikely to have a particular definition in law. The fact that 'red' has no particular legal meaning doesn't mean that I can advertise a car as being red and then deliver a car to the buyer which is actually blue. Although 'red' isn't legally defined, I could still be breaking the law, because my blue car doesn't conform to the buyer's reasonable expectation of the car which I have advertised as red.
Your example is only relevant if we're talking about a different shade of red that people refuse to acknowledge as red simply because they haven't seen this variance of red despite all technical definitions clearly showing that this does fall within the defined visual spectrum for the color red. Do you consider 65nm to be red or do you say that only 650nm is red? I'd consider them both red but based on your arguments you'd say that neither are red if a mobile network operator said that it wasn't.
Wi-Fi + Cellular? Doesn't sound as good as "Wi-Fi + Mobile", especially since most people outside of the U.S. refer to portable telephone communications as "Mobile". But kudos for Apple recognizing the inherent confusion in marketing something as 4G when it doesn't work as 4G in the local market where it is sold.
It is irrelevant whether or how the term is technically defined, legally or otherwise.
What is dubious is using the term to mean something other than what a reasonable consumer expects it to mean!
For example, the word 'red' is unlikely to have a particular definition in law. The fact that 'red' has no particular legal meaning doesn't mean that I can advertise a car as being red and then deliver a car to the buyer which is actually blue. Although 'red' isn't legally defined, I could still be breaking the law, because my blue car doesn't conform to the buyer's reasonable expectation of the car which I have advertised as red.
You are kidding right?! Please tell me you are kidding. Red doesn't have legal definition?! How about scientific definition? Would that work for you? Or you don't believe in science?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
And consumers know (or are supposed to know) what that means. And they get along just fine.
So you're justifying one dubious business practice by pointing out another which you think is dubious? That is logically absurd.
It's also not a good comparison, because the GSM iPhone supports essentially every GSM frequency in common use throughout the world. You can't compare that to a product which only works on one country's 4G but is advertised worldwide as '4G'.
HSPA+ 4G, DC-HSDPA 4G or LTE 4G? Because each one of those are classifications of 4G by the ITU-R. What you're referring to is specifically LTE 4G, which Apple said will not work outside the US and Canada, but you're only stating 4G which means you're being disingenuous. If you claim that the ITU-R's redefining of 4G is invalid (for whatever reason) you then have to exclude to LTE as being 4G since LTE Advance would be the first 4G capable tech as defined by the original IT-U definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
HSPA+ 4G, DC-HSDPA 4G or LTE 4G? Because each one of those are classifications of 4G by the ITU-R. What you're referring to is specifically LTE 4G, which Apple said will not work outside the US and Canada, but you're only stating 4G which means you're being disingenuous. If you claim that the ITU-R's redefining of 4G is invalid (for whatever reason) you then have to exclude to LTE as being 4G since LTE Advance would be the first 4G capable tech as defined by the original IT-U definition.
On this issue, it doesn't matter what the ITU-R or any other standards body thinks is 4G. The only definition of 4G which matters is that which is reasonably held by the consumer in the market in question.
If carriers in, say, Germany, offer an LTE service which they call '4G', then the German consumer will reasonably expect a product advertised as '4G' to work on 4G as it exists in Germany. If it does not, that is potentially misrepresentation. It is irrelevant what the ITU-R thinks because 99.9% of purchasers don't know what the ITU-R is, and the yardstick which the law will use is the reasonable consumer.
In the first paragraph you say an international organization has no barring, on the consumer's definition does. Then in the 2nd paragraph you say it's the carriers that make the decision. How in the world can that sound reasonable to you? Name me one other technical definition that was determined by the consumer? Does that mean I can sue because FireWire isn't really made of fire or because USB isn't actually throughout the universe? Of course not! Bottom line: Apple should have been more clear from the start, even going very general (like they are now) or being very specific (like saying as defined by a particular standards body).
As for your comment about what consumers know, 99.9% (which is generous since that's 1 out of a 1000) don't know what 4G is. They only know that the cardinal number 4 is one higher than the cardinal number 3 and is likely better than 3G. No carrier, much less a consumer, should be deciding what industry terms should be used as marketing terms.
Your post is even more incorrect in saying that a carrier can decide what industry terms are used for marketing but a vendor can not. Does that only apply to Apple or to all handset vendors that might want to use a cardinal number followed by the letter 'G'?
Then we have the elephant in the room. Do the Aussies and Brits call their mobile connected devices "cellular" devices? Not from what I've heard. Should Apple be sued yet again for using a term that carriers aren't using to describe these devices?
You're missing my point. In a particular market, the consumer will understand 4G to mean whatever it means in common parlance in that market. If the carriers have used LTE technology to create a network which they have branded '4G', then that is what '4G' means in that market for advertising purposes.
The average consumer doesn't know or care whether their local '4G' technology is based on LTE, HSPA+ or fairy dust. All that matters is that a product marketed as '4G' works on the networks marketed as '4G' in that country. The term '4G' is completely relative - it means whatever a particular market defines it to mean. Apple was being disingenuous by using the term '4G' in a different sense to the consumer's expectation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Then we have the elephant in the room. Do the Aussies and Brits call their mobile connected devices "cellular" devices? Not from what I've heard. Should Apple be sued yet again for using a term that carriers aren't using to describe these devices?
No. You're not taking on board what I've been saying about the reasonable expectation of the consumer.
I'm British. We call them mobile phones, but pretty much everybody in Britain knows what a cell phone is. But even if they didn't, the term couldn't be misleading because it can only possibly mean one thing. Using the term wouldn't be misleading - just bad marketing. It's using a term differently to its common meaning which is misleading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
lol so many of your posts are pointless but this one tops them off. This is 100% Apple's problem only created by them.
No it isn't. The cellular industry can't make up their minds what 4G LTE really means. The cellular industry is messed up with so many differences to confuse EVERYONE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
No it isn't. The cellular industry can't make up their minds what 4G LTE really means. The cellular industry is messed up with so many differences to confuse EVERYONE.
If it wasn't their problem then they wouldn't be changing the name.
I get your point and you almost get your point, too, but then you twist it at the end for some reason. Let's dissect this post...
You claim that it's for advertising purposes, which it is. You claim that the customer doesn't know or care, which is also correct. I've made these statements plenty of times, even going back years to when Verizon was advertising their much larger CDMA2000 network as being '3G' over AT&T's '3G' coverage yet having lower speeds than AT&T's EDGE '2G' and wondering why AT&T isn't pointing that out.
There is nothing disingenuous about that. Verizon wasn't lying. Apple also wasn't lying. Using industry standards has been the norm for as long as I've been in this tech field. I can't even tell you the last time I've seen a colloquial term take precedence over an industry term. I've been against the way we market these generational terms and acronyms to customers from the start. It simply doesn't make sense. My solution is to put an indefinitely scalable value that represent maximum theoretical download speed on devices, not HSPA+, LTE, 4G or anything else.
But let's get back to your first paragraph. You say "market for advertising purposes" yet you don't see how that is the problem with your position. If you're only purpose is for marketing purposes with no distinction for an industry term then you can't say Apple (or anyone) is being disingenuous for using '4G' for marketing purposes. Your only way out of that is to show proof that Apple is lying which means there has to be a truth in technology which comes from standards, which you seem to be claiming have no barring. You have no argument.
That said, I've stated from the start that Apple is in the right legally, but they should be more clear on either end of the spectrum to not discourage customers. I've also stated this is a problem I think they should have through before calling '4G'. Again, not because it's false, but because it's not their best business move.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
You say "market for advertising purposes" yet you don't see how that is the problem with your position. If you're only purpose is for marketing purposes with no distinction for an industry term then you can't say Apple (or anyone) is being disingenuous for using '4G' for marketing purposes. Your only way out of that is to show proof that Apple is lying which means there has to be a truth in technology which comes from standards, which you seem to be claiming have no barring. You have no argument.
Maybe I'm not being clear enough.
In any given country, the word '4G' will have a particular meaning which is defined largely by the technology used there and how it is marketed.
If Apple wants to brand a device as '4G' in that country, it has to conform to the meaning which has already been established - i.e. ensure that it works on that country's networks which are described as 4G.
Apple can't use '4G' in that market to mean something different, because the existing definition was there first! Apple would be using the term to mean something other than what the reasonable consumer understands it to mean. That is the problem.
I haven't laughed this hard since SJs reticent "apology" for antennagate.
Good to see government still has some power over corporate arrogance. It was never 4G, you can't call something 4G when it's not, and you look stupid trying to convince courts and regulatory bodies otherwise.
Good win ACCC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vandelay Industries
It was never 4G…
Except it was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
As I stated in a previous thread Apple shouldn't have ambiguous in any way as that benefits the plaintiffs. They should have called it WiFi + Cellular from the start or called it WiFi + 4G with a very clear definition that 4G refers to the ITU-R's international definition, not a colloquial or marketing definition of a country or carrier.
Somewhat true, but I think the point is that Apple is yet again being singled out here for an error they went out of their way not to commit. Other companies market 4G LTE products in these countries using the same sort of language and no one has ever taken them to court over it. Other companies have even called what Apple was calling 3G last year "4G" and sold the products in these countries.
Apple waited until they not only had 4G speeds but also used technology commonly referred to as 4G before even claiming "4G" as a moniker. They've been way nicer and fairer overall than any of the other companies, yet they are the one's pilloried in the press. Now that they've walked it back a bit we can probably expect class action lawsuits hoping to cash in on Apple's "admission" that they did something wrong.
It's just tiresome having to see Apple singled out like this time after time. It's stupid, and I agree with with Tallest Skil on this one.
Show me a single law before the introduction of the iPad + 4G for any country that lawmakers defined 4G as being LTE (not just LTE Advanced) that excluded HSPA+ and DC-HSDPA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Show me a single law before the introduction of the iPad + 4G for any country that lawmakers defined 4G as being LTE (not just LTE Advanced) that excluded HSPA+ and DC-HSDPA.
It is irrelevant whether or how the term is technically defined, legally or otherwise.
What is dubious is using the term to mean something other than what a reasonable consumer expects it to mean!
For example, the word 'red' is unlikely to have a particular definition in law. The fact that 'red' has no particular legal meaning doesn't mean that I can advertise a car as being red and then deliver a car to the buyer which is actually blue. Although 'red' isn't legally defined, I could still be breaking the law, because my blue car doesn't conform to the buyer's reasonable expectation of the car which I have advertised as red.
I think most of your posts are just fine. But in this case the problem was totally of Apple'a doing. I can see we're an average consumer could be confused the original label. After all, not everyone reads tech blogs.
Your example is only relevant if we're talking about a different shade of red that people refuse to acknowledge as red simply because they haven't seen this variance of red despite all technical definitions clearly showing that this does fall within the defined visual spectrum for the color red. Do you consider 65nm to be red or do you say that only 650nm is red? I'd consider them both red but based on your arguments you'd say that neither are red if a mobile network operator said that it wasn't.
Wi-Fi + Cellular? Doesn't sound as good as "Wi-Fi + Mobile", especially since most people outside of the U.S. refer to portable telephone communications as "Mobile". But kudos for Apple recognizing the inherent confusion in marketing something as 4G when it doesn't work as 4G in the local market where it is sold.
You are kidding right?! Please tell me you are kidding. Red doesn't have legal definition?! How about scientific definition? Would that work for you? Or you don't believe in science?