Apple rebrands 4G LTE iPad as 'iPad Wi-Fi + Cellular'

1234568»

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 158
    likkielikkie Posts: 42member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Then read my analogy for what it is instead.


     



     


     


    I still don't get it.  You said "Define Market".


     


    I said Australia, and then you started talking about guns....


     


    I don't see how that relates to the market.

  • Reply 142 of 158
    djsherlydjsherly Posts: 1,020member
    Define 'market'.

    If you can't join Australia and market in that paragraph and form the conclusion that market just might mean country, the problem probably lies with the reader.
    Then Australia better get to suing Apple for every single other product they sell. I see fine print on every product page. 

    Well yes, if the fine print is required to clarify product marketing which would otherwise mislead or deceive, they should. fine print in and of itself is not illegal. Why should it be?
  • Reply 143 of 158
    djsherlydjsherly Posts: 1,020member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Then read my analogy for what it is instead.


     




    Better bone up on my modern Australian educational shorts, then. Could have sworn you guys could have guns.



     


    Well, yes we do. We just don't hand 'em out willy nilly though. People get shot.

  • Reply 144 of 158
    euphoniouseuphonious Posts: 303member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Then read my analogy for what it is instead.



     


    I can't say I follow it either. What do Australian gun laws have to do with the market for 4G service?

  • Reply 145 of 158
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

    If you can't join Australia and market in that paragraph and form the conclusion that market just might mean country, the problem probably lies with the reader.


     


    So I can't ask for clarification from the horse's mouth? Because my analogy showed that his position was flawed, but that depended on the definition of 'market' to him.


     


    Quote:


    Well yes, if the fine print is required to clarify product marketing which would otherwise mislead or deceive, they should. fine print in and of itself is not illegal. Why should it be?



     


    Exactly, so they need to sue Apple for all of their products, because this happens with all their products. And some of it is for the exact same idea as for which the iPad was sued.

  • Reply 146 of 158
    euphoniouseuphonious Posts: 303member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Exactly, so they need to sue Apple for all of their products, because this happens with all their products. And some of it is for the exact same idea as for which the iPad was sued.



     


    Examples?

  • Reply 147 of 158
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Euphonious View Post

    Examples?


     


    The advertising of the ability to use wireless Internet. The advertising of the ability to USE the Internet at all. Advertising of PVC-free power cables. Apple products' EPEAT rating.


     


    All this on the Australian site. They're not PVC free in Australia. They're not EPEAT Gold in Australia. You might not HAVE wireless Internet near you. You'd have to, let's see, get in a vehicle and go somewhere that has said Internet. And then you might have to pay for it.


     


    Better get to suing, since this apparently isn't allowed.


     


    This is why I refuse to believe that a simple clarification of the location and compatibility of 4G was not a perfectly sufficient change that would have avoided lawsuit initially and should have ended the lawsuit now.

  • Reply 148 of 158
    euphoniouseuphonious Posts: 303member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    You might not HAVE wireless Internet near you. You'd have to, let's see, get in a vehicle and go somewhere that has said Internet. And then you might have to pay for it.


     


    Better get to suing, since this apparently isn't allowed.



     


    That's not even remotely comparable. Nobody with a modicum of sense would think that a product with Wi-Fi would work where there wasn't any Wi-Fi.


     


    Can you not see the difference? The Wi-Fi example would be unreasonable behaviour from the consumer. It's like expecting your car to keep working if you don't put any gas in it. Companies shouldn't have to communicate things if they're extremely obvious.


     


    Expecting a product to work on your country's 4G networks because it's advertised in that country as 4G, on the other hand, is entirely reasonable.

  • Reply 149 of 158
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Euphonious View Post

    That's not even remotely comparable. Nobody with a modicum of sense would think that a product with Wi-Fi would work where there wasn't any Wi-Fi.


     


    You obviously can't separate yourself from your tech background and put yourself in the shoes of a regular consumer.


     


    Quote:


    The Wi-Fi example would be unreasonable behaviour from the consumer. It's like expecting your car to keep working if you don't put any gas in it. Companies shouldn't have to communicate things if they're extremely obvious.


     


    Expecting a product to work on your country's 4G networks because it's advertised in that country as 4G, on the other hand, is entirely reasonable.



     


    I expect my iPad to work on Wi-Fi since it's advertised in this country as Wi-Fi. Why doesn't it work? I shouldn't have to buy anything else for it to work!


     


    It's the exact same argument. No "unreasonable behavior", save from the people suing for this.

  • Reply 150 of 158
    euphoniouseuphonious Posts: 303member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    I expect my iPad to work on Wi-Fi since it's advertised in this country as Wi-Fi. Why doesn't it work? I shouldn't have to buy anything else for it to work!


     


    It's the exact same argument. No "unreasonable behavior", save from the people suing for this.



     


    Can't you see that the level of knowledge and enquiry required to understand that there are different types of 4G, and that Apple is using a definition which differs from the common Australian definition, is dramatically higher than the level required to understand that a Wi-Fi product doesn't work where there's no Wi-Fi?


     


    It's not the exact same argument at all. It's dramatically different. The equivalent to the 4G issue would be buying an iPad in the knowledge that you have Wi-Fi, and then finding that it doesn't work on your Wi-Fi because the definition of Wi-Fi which Apple is using is a type which isn't used in your country.


     


    It is different because the terminology Apple is using is misleading, where there's nothing misleading about the word 'Wi-Fi' in typical usage.


     


    I'm increasingly getting the impression that you are constitutionally incapable of recognising any flaws in anything which Apple does.

  • Reply 151 of 158
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Euphonious View Post

    Can't you see that the level of knowledge and enquiry required to understand that there are different types of 4G, and that Apple is using a definition which differs from the common Australian definition, is dramatically higher than the level required to understand that a Wi-Fi product doesn't work where there's no Wi-Fi?


     


    No, it's pretty much par for the course. There's not a huge difference there at all. And as the issue is already resolved, the point is moot. Yes, Apple should have said (4G US-only) in more prominent lettering. But it no longer matters.


     


    Quote:



    It is different because the terminology Apple is using is misleading, where there's nothing misleading about the word 'Wi-Fi' in typical usage.



     


    And all wrongs have been righted. Anyone who bought thinking they could use 4G in Australia can return for a refund. Period. The story ends there. If they want to boycott all Apple products from now on, be my guest.


     


    Quote:


    I'm increasingly getting the impression that you are constitutionally incapable of recognising any flaws in anything which Apple does.



     


    Keep impressing, then. 

  • Reply 152 of 158
    euphoniouseuphonious Posts: 303member


    ... so, essentially, you've made a vague statement about it all being 'par for the course', and now you're attempting to close down the argument.


     


    Personally I can't see how the fact that the problem has been solved following legal intervention makes what Apple did any less dubious, but - there we go.

  • Reply 153 of 158
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Euphonious View Post

    Personally I can't see how the fact that the problem has been solved following legal intervention makes what Apple did any less dubious, but - there we go.


     


    WHAT was dubious that was done was the question, and I believe we've solved that. 

  • Reply 154 of 158
    euphoniouseuphonious Posts: 303member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    WHAT was dubious that was done was the question, and I believe we've solved that. 



     


    Perhaps 'solved' in the sense of 'agreeing to disagree'! I certainly wouldn't go any further than that.

  • Reply 155 of 158
    djsherlydjsherly Posts: 1,020member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    So I can't ask for clarification from the horse's mouth? Because my analogy showed that his position was flawed, but that depended on the definition of 'market' to him.


     


     


    Exactly, so they need to sue Apple for all of their products, because this happens with all their products. And some of it is for the exact same idea as for which the iPad was sued.



     


    Analogies attempt to simplify things but often leave the nuances out. You can't really disprove a position with an analogy. 


     


    What part of mislead or deceive are you missing? You made some asinine argument about the term Wifi being under the same suspicion. It's not even remotely comparable. For a start, Wifi has been around for years. I have a ten year old Wifi router in my house. A reasonable person would know what wifi is. If you're looking for wifi capability you would know it needs to connect to something. Wifi is the same everywhere, g, a, b, n, they're all the same implementation everywhere. At worst, you can buy a router to get that connectivity. You can't exactly go into Myer and buy yourself a 4G tower and hook it into the grid.


     


    This underscores the problem. This iPad does not connect to our 4G networks. It is misleading and deceptive to give a product that name and then qualify it by saying "does not do 4g".


     


    There are legal definitions of "reasonable person" and "deceptive and misleading conduct", either in the statues or in the case law. Just trust me, I know. You're completely on the wrong track here and you should pretty much shut up shop now before you make yourself look more silly than you've already done.

  • Reply 156 of 158

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    What part of "ITU which sets the international standard says that the iPad already supports 4G" do you not understand?


    I actually don't understand why they would say that as the very same ITU have also stated that true 4G must support peak speeds of at least 100 Mbps  while on the move and 1 Gbps peak speed while stationary. The ITU will only consider LTE to be labelled 4G if it will later be upgraded to LTE-A, however I believe that Apple would rather release a new iPad altogether than offer upgrades to LTE-A in the existing devices as there are currently no LTE-A networks (or, for that matter, generally available chipsets for use in mobile devices).

  • Reply 157 of 158
    euphoniouseuphonious Posts: 303member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mnemonic View Post


    I actually don't understand why they would say that as the very same ITU have also stated that true 4G must support peak speeds of at least 100 Mbps  while on the move and 1 Gbps peak speed while stationary. The ITU will only consider LTE to be labelled 4G if it will later be upgraded to LTE-A, however I believe that Apple would rather release a new iPad altogether than offer upgrades to LTE-A in the existing devices as there are currently no LTE-A networks (or, for that matter, generally available chipsets for use in mobile devices).



     


    If the ITU thinks that carriers and phone manufacturers will keep to that definition, then it is ignorant of the practical need for those companies to market their products.


     


    1Gbps is such a huge leap from current standards that it's not going to be reliably available for a fair while. Even if the hardware were available, it would be far too power-intensive at the minute to be included in a device like the iPad.


     


    In the meantime, how are carriers supposed to market services like LTE which are much faster than standard 3G, if they can't use the term '4G'? They need some kind of catchy term to distinguish it from the existing services, and it's not exactly going to be '3.5G' or '3.9G'!


     


    Far too many hairs are being split over what '4G' technically means. It's much more important that consumers get what they think they're getting.

  • Reply 158 of 158


    Do other countries not call LTE 4G? That's not the issue here; it's the incredible ambiguity of the scope of the 4G that Apple covers.

Sign In or Register to comment.