Apple reaches A$2.25M settlement with Australian regulator over 4G iPad

1246

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 104
    fredaroonyfredaroony Posts: 619member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


     


    The ACCC is working on the assumption that the average Australian is too stupid to know what a footnote is.


     


    This was a political move purely to divert attention from other, more pressing issues.



    You clearly have no clue how the law works in Australia so I suggest you stop commenting on it.

  • Reply 62 of 104
    fredaroonyfredaroony Posts: 619member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Perhaps, but it does look like they messed up in Australia. In the entire civilized world, there are international standards as to what constitutes 4G - and this includes HSPA+. Australia legislates a definition of 4G which differs from the international standard and does NOT include HSPA+. I think it's still legitimate to argue that the device is capable of 4G even if Australia calls it something different. For example, even if you accept the Australian definition, you can still use 4G when you travel. The device is capable of it, even if it's not available locally.

    As pointed out above, lots of companies find it far less expensive to settle ridiculous complaints rather than fight them. Apple probably realized that few Australians would be asking for refunds, anyway, so the cost was minimal. And the cost of settling was almost certainly less than the cost of fighting it.

    You could turn your silly argument around. If Australia felt that it had such a strong case, why did THEY settle? Why didn't they fight it - and make Apple pay their legal expenses, pull the product off the market, refund the purchase price for EVERY consumer, and pay a huge fine? If they were so certain they would win, why wouldn't they do that?


    lol you obviously don't know how the ACCC and the courts in Australia work but keep going if you want. Your argument that you can travel and use 4G is bogus when it comes to the law and you clearly do not understand this.

  • Reply 63 of 104
    djsherlydjsherly Posts: 1,022member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Perhaps, but it does look like they messed up in Australia. In the entire civilized world, there are international standards as to what constitutes 4G - and this includes HSPA+. Australia legislates a definition of 4G which differs from the international standard and does NOT include HSPA+. I think it's still legitimate to argue that the device is capable of 4G even if Australia calls it something different. For example, even if you accept the Australian definition, you can still use 4G when you travel. The device is capable of it, even if it's not available locally.

    As pointed out above, lots of companies find it far less expensive to settle ridiculous complaints rather than fight them. Apple probably realized that few Australians would be asking for refunds, anyway, so the cost was minimal. And the cost of settling was almost certainly less than the cost of fighting it.

    You could turn your silly argument around. If Australia felt that it had such a strong case, why did THEY settle? Why didn't they fight it - and make Apple pay their legal expenses, pull the product off the market, refund the purchase price for EVERY consumer, and pay a huge fine? If they were so certain they would win, why wouldn't they do that?


    Until you show me where Australia 'legislated' a 4G definition (I've asked you in previous thread and you failed to produce the goods there, either), your understanding of the issues are marginal at best, and pretty much wrong in reality. You're the kind of person who thinks if you simply keep repeating something, it becomes true. So keep talking brother.

  • Reply 64 of 104
    fredaroonyfredaroony Posts: 619member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by djsherly View Post


    Until you show me where Australia 'legislated' a 4G definition (I've asked you in previous thread and you failed to produce the goods there, either), your understanding of the issues are marginal at best, and pretty much wrong in reality. You're the kind of person who thinks if you simply keep repeating something, it becomes true. So keep talking brother.



    Maybe if you are really lucky he will bring out one of his car analogies :-)

  • Reply 65 of 104
    tibortibor Posts: 12member
    Hill60, you are 100% correct. It has been the Australian government's way for some time now: something controversial happens and they jump all over it, feeding the media, while they quietly slip through some new law or distract from other real issues. Everytime something stupid like this happens, I scan the quiet sections of the news or my regular legal update emails for the real actions that are being hidden.
  • Reply 66 of 104
    palegolaspalegolas Posts: 1,283member
    jragosta wrote: »
    .
    The device IS capable of 4G (both HSPA+ and LTE). Whether you are able to use it is irrelevant.
    .
    It's relevant, because 4G means something else in this region. Apple hasn't been fair with the marketing. If, say, my mom buys a phone that says 4G, and then it turns out it doesn't work on the local 4G network, she has been mislead.
    It's just disrespectful by Apple.
  • Reply 67 of 104
    fredaroonyfredaroony Posts: 619member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tibor View Post



    Hill60, you are 100% correct. It has been the Australian government's way for some time now: something controversial happens and they jump all over it, feeding the media, while they quietly slip through some new law or distract from other real issues. Everytime something stupid like this happens, I scan the quiet sections of the news or my regular legal update emails for the real actions that are being hidden.


    Ahh so this is the Australian governments fault now? Anyone else you want to blame?

  • Reply 68 of 104
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    jfanning wrote: »
    Why are you still trying to use these stupid car analogies, they are not comparible, they are no where the same thing. The government has forced a speed limit on public roads, I can do any speed I like on my private roads.
    Apple has advertised a feature you cannot use. Until you understand that countries have consumer laws for a reason this concept will be way above you. Apple didn't have to advertise it as 4G, they know you cannot advertise this way, and yet they did it anyway. There is a real simple concept that a lot of countries have in their consumer laws, you cannot use small print which might conceal information inregard to someone buying a product..

    Just like you're free to set up an LTE network inside your home (as long as you shield the home properly). Or you're free to travel to a country which has LTE. Or, you're free to use the international standard definition of 4G - in which case the iPad works even in Australia.

    As for the government forcing a speed limit, who do you think allocates radio spectrum? It's exactly the same thing.
    fredaroony wrote: »
    lol you obviously don't know how the ACCC and the courts in Australia work but keep going if you want. Your argument that you can travel and use 4G is bogus when it comes to the law and you clearly do not understand this.

    Really? Australia prevents you from traveling? Wow. I'd move.

    The fact is that the device is fully capable of 4G LTE just as a Corvette is capable of 180 mph. The fact that you can't drive 180 mph in New York City doesn't change that fact.

    djsherly wrote: »
    Until you show me where Australia 'legislated' a 4G definition (I've asked you in previous thread and you failed to produce the goods there, either), your understanding of the issues are marginal at best, and pretty much wrong in reality. You're the kind of person who thinks if you simply keep repeating something, it becomes true. So keep talking brother.

    That's what I get for believing you Apple haters. All the Apple haters were running around a few weeks ago saying that Australia legislated a definition of 4G which did not include HSPA+. Take it up with them. I simply repeated what they were saying.

    If there is no legislation in Australia which is different than the international standard, then you Apple haters have even less grounds for complaint. The international standard for 4G includes HSPA+, so the iPad can do it - even in Australia. This whole case simply amounts to extortion.
  • Reply 69 of 104
    fredaroonyfredaroony Posts: 619member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post



     




    Really? Australia prevents you from traveling? Wow. I'd move.

    The fact is that the device is fully capable of 4G LTE just as a Corvette is capable of 180 mph. The fact that you can't drive 180 mph in New York City doesn't change that fact.

    That's what I get for believing you Apple haters. All the Apple haters were running around a few weeks ago saying that Australia legislated a definition of 4G which did not include HSPA+. Take it up with them. I simply repeated what they were saying.

    If there is no legislation in Australia which is different than the international standard, then you Apple haters have even less grounds for complaint. The international standard for 4G includes HSPA+, so the iPad can do it - even in Australia. This whole case simply amounts to extortion.


    Why do you label anyone who doesn't agree with everything Apple does as a "hater". Nothing wrong with liking Apple but also disagreeing with them sometimes.


     


    They deserved to be called out on this one and just because you can't see it doesn't make everyone else a hater. 

  • Reply 70 of 104
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,391member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Just like you're free to set up an LTE network inside your home (as long as you shield the home properly). Or you're free to travel to a country which has LTE. Or, you're free to use the international standard definition of 4G - in which case the iPad works even in Australia.

    As for the government forcing a speed limit, who do you think allocates radio spectrum? It's exactly the same thing.

    Really? Australia prevents you from traveling? Wow. I'd move.

    The fact is that the device is fully capable of 4G LTE just as a Corvette is capable of 180 mph. The fact that you can't drive 180 mph in New York City doesn't change that fact.

     


     


    Are you still trying to act like you don't understand this?  You cannot compare the speed of one object to the ability of using another.  You can still use the car car regardless of the speed limits, you cannot use LTE in Australia as the iPad doesn't support the frequencies in Australia.  Meaning you can't advertise it as supporting LTE because it doesn't.  It is simple, it applies to any company falsely advertising their products, this is not one of your "Apple hater" moments, this is Apple breaking the law and getting punished for it.


     


    As for travelling, this isn't about any other country, this is purely about Australia.  This is a real simple case, Apple advertised their product in Australia as saying it support LTE, they then tried to hide the fact that it didn't in fine print.  The Australian government said this was illegal and they were fined for it.


     


    Apple has not been the first to be fined for the exact same reason in Australia, and they will not be the last.  You only have to do a search for "ACCC fine print"


     


    http://www.google.co.nz/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=accc+fine+print


     


    And you'll find lots of other references.  Now can you please get off your high horse and accept you are wrong.

  • Reply 71 of 104
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    jfanning wrote: »
    Are you still trying to act like you don't understand this?  You cannot compare the speed of one object to the ability of using another.  You can still use the car car regardless of the speed limits, you cannot use LTE in Australia as the iPad doesn't support the frequencies in Australia.  Meaning you can't advertise it as supporting LTE because it doesn't.  It is simple, it applies to any company falsely advertising their products, this is not one of your "Apple hater" moments, this is Apple breaking the law and getting punished for it.

    So what? You can still use the iPad in Australia just fine. That's the equivalent of still being able to drive the car.

    Car:
    Capable fo 180 mph
    Limited to much lower speeds in some countries or cities due to either laws or regulations or physical conditions, but you can easily drive it at lower speeds.
    Still capable of 180 mph if you take the car somewhere else.

    iPad
    Capable of LTE
    Limited to much lower speeds in some countries due to either laws or regulations or physical conditions, but you can easily still use it at lower speeds.
    Still capable of LTE if you take the iPad somewhere else.

    AND, even in Australia, the iPad uses 4G - according to international standards.

    So what's the difference?
    jfanning wrote: »
    As for travelling, this isn't about any other country, this is purely about Australia.  This is a real simple case, Apple advertised their product in Australia as saying it support LTE, they then tried to hide the fact that it didn't in fine print.  The Australian government said this was illegal and they were fined for it.

    Incorrect. The Australian government TRIED to fine Apple, but the issue was settled before it was determined if Apple was guilty or not.

    Furthermore, the iPad supports LTE - regardless of whether Australia has the same frequencies or not - just as a Corvette is capable of 180 mph even if you live in New York City.
    jfanning wrote: »
    Apple has not been the first to be fined for the exact same reason in Australia, and they will not be the last.  You only have to do a search for "ACCC fine print"

    http://www.google.co.nz/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=accc+fine+print

    And you'll find lots of other references.  Now can you please get off your high horse and accept you are wrong.

    Please show me where Apple was convicted of a crime.

    Oh, wait. They weren't. So get off YOUR high horse and accept that you are wrong.
  • Reply 72 of 104
    tibortibor Posts: 12member


    Ahh so this is the Australian governments fault now? Anyone else you want to blame?


     


     


    Well, obviously.

  • Reply 73 of 104
    tibortibor Posts: 12member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post


    Ahh so this is the Australian governments fault now? Anyone else you want to blame?



    Well, obviously. 

  • Reply 74 of 104
    hungoverhungover Posts: 603member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ascii View Post


    Seems a bit steep for an advertising breach. Maybe $100k or so would be more reasonable, specially given the term they used was technically correct.



    The size of the fine might reflect the fact that apple were asked to drop the 4g claim. Had they done so there would probably have been no fine at all, as was the case in the UK. instead Apple went on the defensive claiming that 2 baked bean tins and a bit of string were technically 4G.


     


    Apple put two fingers up and got slapped on the wrist. The size of the slap may well be increased soon though. It looks as though the Australians want the fine to be punitive, thereby sending a message to other law breakers.

  • Reply 75 of 104
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,391member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    So what? You can still use the iPad in Australia just fine. That's the equivalent of still being able to drive the car.

    Car:

    Capable fo 180 mph

    Limited to much lower speeds in some countries or cities due to either laws or regulations or physical conditions, but you can easily drive it at lower speeds.

    Still capable of 180 mph if you take the car somewhere else.

    iPad

    Capable of LTE

    Limited to much lower speeds in some countries due to either laws or regulations or physical conditions, but you can easily still use it at lower speeds.

    Still capable of LTE if you take the iPad somewhere else.

    AND, even in Australia, the iPad uses 4G - according to international standards.

    So what's the difference?

    Incorrect. The Australian government TRIED to fine Apple, but the issue was settled before it was determined if Apple was guilty or not.

    Furthermore, the iPad supports LTE - regardless of whether Australia has the same frequencies or not - just as a Corvette is capable of 180 mph even if you live in New York City.

    Please show me where Apple was convicted of a crime.

    Oh, wait. They weren't. So get off YOUR high horse and accept that you are wrong.


     


     


    This is your issue, you don't seem to be understanding this very simple concept, you are getting overly emotive with this.  The issue is not if the iPad is usable in Australia, it is can you use the then advertised LTE in Australia.


     


    I will help you with this answer, it is NO.


     


    Apple advertised a LTE product in Australia, then in the fine print said you can't actually use it.  According to Australian law that is illegal.  Now, try and prove this wrong, come on, please try, because you can't, this is a simple fact that you seem to be having a massive issue with, Apple was in the wrong and they have paid up for the fact.


     


    Please stop with these stupid car analogies, they are no the same thing, you have been told several times they are not comparable, yet you just go on and on about it again.  This whole thing is about advertising, and advertising within finely detailed laws.


     


    You keep going on about 4G, this has nothing to do with 4G, I will say this again as you still don't seem to understand it.  Apple advertised a LTE product, then said you can't use LTE in Australia in fine print, according to the Australian government this is illegal, nothing to do to with the definition of 4G.  This is the difference.


     


    Sorry, Apple settled, this means they realised they were in the wrong, and they knew if would be cheaper to settle.  But wait, you go on about cars again, what is your thing with cars? 


     


    Again, sorry I said they were convicted, they settled, Apple accepted they were in the wrong and settle.  I will accept this.


     


    Now your turn, Apple broke Australian advertising laws, this is a fact, please accept this, and move on.

  • Reply 76 of 104
    djsherlydjsherly Posts: 1,022member
    jragosta wrote: »
    Just like you're free to set up an LTE network inside your home (as long as you shield the home properly). Or you're free to travel to a country which has LTE. Or, you're free to use the international standard definition of 4G - in which case the iPad works even in Australia.
    As for the government forcing a speed limit, who do you think allocates radio spectrum? It's exactly the same thing.
    Really? Australia prevents you from traveling? Wow. I'd move.
    The fact is that the device is fully capable of 4G LTE just as a Corvette is capable of 180 mph. The fact that you can't drive 180 mph in New York City doesn't change that fact.
    That's what I get for believing you Apple haters. All the Apple haters were running around a few weeks ago saying that Australia legislated a definition of 4G which did not include HSPA+. Take it up with them. I simply repeated what they were saying.
    If there is no legislation in Australia which is different than the international standard, then you Apple haters have even less grounds for complaint. The international standard for 4G includes HSPA+, so the iPad can do it - even in Australia. This whole case simply amounts to extortion.


    Ok, I'll give you a big leg up because you're simply incapable of getting it. 4G means 4G. Don't stress yourself about the ITU or the HSPA or the GSM or whatever it is you think it might mean. Its a contextual thing. HSPA+ has been marketed here as 3.5G since, well, forever. It has never been 4G here. never. So just let it go. You don't live here so you simply have no fucking clue. 4G here is specifically an LTE network which is only available in certain locations.

    So Apple come along and say, Hey Guys, I can do the 4G. They called the product the 4G for chrissakes. So australia has, as we understand, it a 4G network. But this 4g iPad won't connect to it.

    If you don't see the problem then you never will. The only country that seems to adhere to the 4G 'legal' definition (as you so authoritatively put it, incorrectly as well) is the blob of land which your fat arse currently sits on.

    Apple CHANGED THE NAME OF THE PRODUCT. There must be dozens of people getting paid the equivalent of the GDP of a small African country to decide that the name of the product has to change and you still carry on like a pork chop.

    it just makes you look like an ass. Backside where you are, a small horse where I am.
  • Reply 77 of 104
    fredaroonyfredaroony Posts: 619member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by djsherly View Post





    Ok, I'll give you a big leg up because you're simply incapable of getting it. 4G means 4G. Don't stress yourself about the ITU or the HSPA or the GSM or whatever it is you think it might mean. Its a contextual thing. HSPA+ has been marketed here as 3.5G since, well, forever. It has never been 4G here. never. So just let it go. You don't live here so you simply have no fucking clue. 4G here is specifically an LTE network which is only available in certain locations.

    So Apple come along and say, Hey Guys, I can do the 4G. They called the product the 4G for chrissakes. So australia has, as we understand, it a 4G network. But this 4g iPad won't connect to it.

    If you don't see the problem then you never will. The only country that seems to adhere to the 4G 'legal' definition (as you so authoritatively put it, incorrectly as well) is the blob of land which your fat arse currently sits on.

    Apple CHANGED THE NAME OF THE PRODUCT. There must be dozens of people getting paid the equivalent of the GDP of a small African country to decide that the name of the product has to change and you still carry on like a pork chop.

    it just makes you look like an ass. Backside where you are, a small horse where I am.


    hahaha that has to be the best single post I have ever seen in this forum! I'm sure he will have another car analogy for you now.

  • Reply 78 of 104
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    djsherly wrote: »
    Ok, I'll give you a big leg up because you're simply incapable of getting it. 4G means 4G. Don't stress yourself about the ITU or the HSPA or the GSM or whatever it is you think it might mean. Its a contextual thing. HSPA+ has been marketed here as 3.5G since, well, forever. It has never been 4G here. never. So just let it go. You don't live here so you simply have no fucking clue. 4G here is specifically an LTE network which is only available in certain locations.

    Sorry, but your biased, Apple-hating opinion does not change the international standard definition. HSPA+ is 4G according to international standards.

    You might like to join the civilized world.
  • Reply 79 of 104
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,391member
    jragosta wrote: »
    Sorry, but your biased, Apple-hating opinion does not change the international standard definition. HSPA+ is 4G according to international standards.
    You might like to join the civilized world.

    Pot, meet Kettle...

    I'm afraid it is you being the biased one, you seem to be blind to fact you are wrong. Why do you still refuse to accept you were wrong?
  • Reply 80 of 104
    forisforis Posts: 25member
    Can this thread get any more childish?

    "Accept that you are wrong"? Does that make you feel big - what's next, your father's a cop?

    If you have a solid argument, don't you think that demonstrating an understanding of the actual issues here, including why Apple branded their products this way, might actually establish the strength of your argument instead of this puerile machismo?

    Or perhaps that's all there is, and you subscribe to the theory that he who shouts loudest wins the argument.

    Ok rant over. This mindless squabbling pisses me off.
Sign In or Register to comment.