You conclusion that Telstra is using the UTI definition does not follow
Telstra brand HSPA+ under their NextG offering. NextG was originally their branding for straight 3G services.
No Telco here calls HSPA+ 4G. Just face it. It's true.
It doesn't matter what the telco wants to call 3G or 4G. The first thing that will be discussed in court is what is 4G and what if there is any law or regulation defined what it 4G. Apple can cite the UTI as their reference, which consider HSPA+ as 4G. What is the ACCC argument will be? word of mouth?
I guess just like one I purchase here in Australia, where Apple is being investigated for false advertising, as per this article.
Have you tried returning it? Dunno how it is in Australia but being investigated means just that. We don't know the outcome of that and an accusation alone doesn't mean it's true. Whatever the case a return for a full refund should be sufficient. I bet most buyers won't return it for that reason alone
It doesn't matter what the telco wants to call 3G or 4G. The first thing that will be discussed in court is what is 4G and what if there is any law or regulation defined what it 4G. Apple can cite the UTI as their reference, which consider HSPA+ as 4G. What is the ACCC argument will be? word of mouth?
We'll see what unfolds but I do see your point. Apple can lean on the UTI definition, the rest of Australia in the ACCC can lean on the vernacular. This kind of stuff doesn't exist in a vacuum. Being a consumer watchdog acting under the ACCC Act, the real question before the court would be "is it likely to mislead or deceive", and the reference point is joe consumer. It is easy to see that joe consumer is not likely to concern himself with the UTI definition of 4G. I disagree that the first question will be sparring over the technical definition of 4G. There is no issue that the iPad is a 4G device - the question is really whether Apple should be able to market the device as one in a country where the commonly accepted definition shows that it is not.
As a byline, Apple's own literature clearly talk about HSPA+ as 3G technology
"So you can browse the web, stream content or download a movie at blazing-fast speeds. It also works on GSM/UMTS worldwide network technologies including HSPA, HSPA+ and DC-HSDPA ? the fastest 3G networks out there"
I knew that they are building a case against apple, based on the 4G issue.
This is all based on Australian law, they have a pretty good case.
the thing is, when apple loses all the will probably have to do is pay a fine & change the box from saying 4G to 3G, & refund some people that are upset.
Its pretty simply, the box says 4G, the iPads 4G isnt compaitble with 4G in autsralia...people are buying it expecting it to work on 4G here, if something cant do a funtion as advertised then they consider that missleading & based on that, ACCC will very likely win the case here, it doesnt really matter, just means they will have to repackage, so eh.
Isn't it a fact that the concept of '4G' is so poorly defined at the moment, and that mobile service operators are so poorly regulated globally, that any global device manufacturer is on a hiding to nothing when they claim to have a '4G device'?
Sure, Apple should not have advertised the new iPad in Australia as a '4G-capable device' without clearly stating the limitations of mobile networks in Australia. But the real problem here is that there is no '4G network' available in Australia - just incompatible networks that are inaccurately marketed as '4G' and which operate at different radio frequencies from the '3G' networks that existing iPad can access.
Surely there is a need for mobile network providers and global device manufacturers to sit down in one locked room with no access to food or water until they agree on an acceptable and understandable set of product descriptions, a common set of radio frequency bands, and a limited number of mobile radio protocols. Only then can we, the consumers, have any hope of being able to use our mobile devices in the manner we would like, wherever we are.
I knew that they are building a case against apple, based on the 4G issue.
This is all based on Australian law, they have a pretty good case.
the thing is, when apple loses all the will probably have to do is pay a fine & change the box from saying 4G to 3G, & refund some people that are upset.
Its pretty simply, the box says 4G, the iPads 4G isnt compaitble with 4G in autsralia...people are buying it expecting it to work on 4G here, if something cant do a funtion as advertised then they consider that missleading & based on that, ACCC will very likely win the case here, it doesnt really matter, just means they will have to repackage, so eh.
Bingo! A fine! That's what its all about. Whenever I hear about big drama, it all comes down to one thing: follow the money!
The same should happen all over the world. Where I live in the UK the iPad is of course sold as 4G, but there are no 4G networks here, and when there are, they won't work with the iPad 4G.
It's a scam, and clearly designed to mislead consumers. Of course you can look at the small print and see it's a scam, but how many will do that? It's akin to advertising a car as being capable of doing 200mph*.
* - when towed by a rocket powered dragster.
Yes you could buy a rocket powered dragster, or in the iPad's case, travel to America to use it, but in reality that's never going to happen.
If 4G is not available in your country you reckon the new iPad as if by magic will enjoy a 4G connection. Maybe not only 4G is not available so is commen sense.
It is very sad to really think people are capable of such thoughts.
If 4G is not available in your country you reckon the new iPad as if by magic will enjoy a 4G connection. Maybe not only 4G is not available so is commen sense.
It is very sad to really think people are capable of such thoughts.
Except we *do* have 4G in Australia. Not a lot of it, mind, and not the 4G freqs that iPad supports. And therein lies the rub.
We'll see what unfolds but I do see your point. Apple can lean on the UTI definition, the rest of Australia in the ACCC can lean on the vernacular.
Once again, if Apple leans on the UTI definition, they are in the right. If the ACCC decides to base it on the new 2009 ITU-R recommendation that has not been completed, they are still wrong because the network that Telstra calls a 4G network is not capable of the 1Gb/sec standing, 100 Mb/sec mobile that the ITU-R has classified as 4G in the 2009 recommendation. If you are talking about the vernacular, you can make up any term you want.
I guess if it gets litigated in Australia as a local issue, perhaps the ACCC has something to stand on, but from an international perspective, the fact that Australia does not use either of the accepted definitions of 4G by the main recommending body, the ITU-R, makes their case pretty weak.
Once again, if Apple leans on the UTI definition, they are in the right. If the ACCC decides to base it on the new 2009 ITU-R recommendation that has not been completed, they are still wrong because the network that Telstra calls a 4G network is not capable of the 1Gb/sec standing, 100 Mb/sec mobile that the ITU-R has classified as 4G in the 2009 recommendation. If you are talking about the vernacular, you can make up any term you want.
I guess if it gets litigated in Australia as a local issue, perhaps the ACCC has something to stand on, but from an international perspective, the fact that Australia does not use either of the accepted definitions of 4G by the main recommending body, the ITU-R, makes their case pretty weak.
However, it's not "Australia" that does not use the definition. It's the Australian telco market themselve. As far as I'm concerned, not a whole lot may actually turn on the strict definition (which is essentially meaningless here) as the legislation is really about deceptive and misleading conduct with respect to the consumer. Consumer couldn't give a fig about UTI ABC XYZ. They will see "4G" ipad, oooh.... a "4G" network and join those dots. In Australia, those dots don't connect.
It's less circle jerking about the definitions and more about what is perceived by the consumer.
I knew that they are building a case against apple, based on the 4G issue.
This is all based on Australian law, they have a pretty good case.
the thing is, when apple loses all the will probably have to do is pay a fine & change the box from saying 4G to 3G, & refund some people that are upset.
Its pretty simply, the box says 4G, the iPads 4G isnt compaitble with 4G in autsralia...people are buying it expecting it to work on 4G here, if something cant do a funtion as advertised then they consider that missleading & based on that, ACCC will very likely win the case here, it doesnt really matter, just means they will have to repackage, so eh.
Yeah, this doesn't surprise me in the least. In some countries, keeping the bureaucrats fat and happy is just another cost of doing business. Down in Mexico they call it mordida, which literally means "the bite".
I knew that they are building a case against apple, based on the 4G issue.
This is all based on Australian law, they have a pretty good case.
the thing is, when apple loses all the will probably have to do is pay a fine & change the box from saying 4G to 3G, & refund some people that are upset.
Its pretty simply, the box says 4G, the iPads 4G isnt compaitble with 4G in autsralia...people are buying it expecting it to work on 4G here, if something cant do a funtion as advertised then they consider that missleading & based on that, ACCC will very likely win the case here, it doesnt really matter, just means they will have to repackage, so eh.
Except that the box already says that it will only run on 3G speeds. Given that all Apple's advertising has disclaimers and that I was able to find within 3 minutes that Telstra's LTE network isn't supported by the iPad's hardware, this is a non-issue. What a waste of my tax dollars this is.
It's not only the sticker though, there is also a warning on apple.com.au/store. And the only TV ad on apple.com.au is one that focuses on the retina display and doesn't even mention the connectivity.
I knew that they are building a case against apple, based on the 4G issue.
This is all based on Australian law, they have a pretty good case.
the thing is, when apple loses all the will probably have to do is pay a fine & change the box from saying 4G to 3G, & refund some people that are upset.
Its pretty simply, the box says 4G, the iPads 4G isnt compaitble with 4G in autsralia...people are buying it expecting it to work on 4G here, if something cant do a funtion as advertised then they consider that missleading & based on that, ACCC will very likely win the case here, it doesnt really matter, just means they will have to repackage, so eh.
Let's see how many folks in your country want a refund.
Also, in the process of the litigation, it might end up that, according to international definitions, Telstra's network might in fact get redefined s '4G'.
Maybe the ACCC should follow up with action against any Australian mobile network providers who claim they offer a '4G mobile' service when they actually don't, or only in a very limited geographical area.
And perhaps Telstra needs to explain why they chose the 1800 MHz band rather than 2100 MHz band that has been supported by far the most popular devices in the market place for several years now.
Except that the box already says that it will only run on 3G speeds. Given that all Apple's advertising has disclaimers and that I was able to find within 3 minutes that Telstra's LTE network isn't supported by the iPad's hardware, this is a non-issue. What a waste of my tax dollars this is.
Yeah that labelling is under the box, so when you get home & open the shipping package then get to the white box, then if you look under it, it has that sticker there :P
Unfortunately the law doesnt work that way here the advertising doesnt give the warnings, a small disclaimer isnt the issue its false advertising, adds & posters say, 4g.
Personally i dont really care, but if the heads of ACCC feel they have a legal case, im more then 100% possive they know more about australian law then people on a apple friendly forum :P just throwing that out there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475
Whatever.
So Apple broke Australian law. Who cares? There wasn't any malicious intent.
Just give Apple a slap on the wrist, remove any advertising that mentions 4G and offer refunds to customers (I bet no-one takes up this option!)
This whole process has been played out thousands of times. The only reason we hear about it now is because it's Apple.
Yup, pretty much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pauldfullerton
Maybe the ACCC should follow up with action against any Australian mobile network providers who claim they offer a '4G mobile' service when they actually don't, or only in a very limited geographical area.
And perhaps Telstra needs to explain why they chose the 1800 MHz band rather than 2100 MHz band that has been supported by far the most popular devices in the market place for several years now.
Yeah I totally agree, its crazieness.
I bought a iPad white 64gb 4G i have noooo intention of returning it, i love it already!, & i dont care what anyone says, i have the telstra next G, its pretty quick 1.6mb per sec download is fast enough for me, im very happy with it!, its sexypants
Comments
No, it means they are considering LTE as 4G.
You conclusion that Telstra is using the UTI definition does not follow
Telstra brand HSPA+ under their NextG offering. NextG was originally their branding for straight 3G services.
No Telco here calls HSPA+ 4G. Just face it. It's true.
It doesn't matter what the telco wants to call 3G or 4G. The first thing that will be discussed in court is what is 4G and what if there is any law or regulation defined what it 4G. Apple can cite the UTI as their reference, which consider HSPA+ as 4G. What is the ACCC argument will be? word of mouth?
I guess just like one I purchase here in Australia, where Apple is being investigated for false advertising, as per this article.
Have you tried returning it? Dunno how it is in Australia but being investigated means just that. We don't know the outcome of that and an accusation alone doesn't mean it's true. Whatever the case a return for a full refund should be sufficient. I bet most buyers won't return it for that reason alone
However, this is not a linguistic issue, 4G is not part of the name of the device,
I thought it was in the name of the model (iPad Wi-Fi + 4G). I agree the advertising part is a separate matter.
BTW that is a real soap product in Iran. Barf means snow.
It doesn't matter what the telco wants to call 3G or 4G. The first thing that will be discussed in court is what is 4G and what if there is any law or regulation defined what it 4G. Apple can cite the UTI as their reference, which consider HSPA+ as 4G. What is the ACCC argument will be? word of mouth?
We'll see what unfolds but I do see your point. Apple can lean on the UTI definition, the rest of Australia in the ACCC can lean on the vernacular. This kind of stuff doesn't exist in a vacuum. Being a consumer watchdog acting under the ACCC Act, the real question before the court would be "is it likely to mislead or deceive", and the reference point is joe consumer. It is easy to see that joe consumer is not likely to concern himself with the UTI definition of 4G. I disagree that the first question will be sparring over the technical definition of 4G. There is no issue that the iPad is a 4G device - the question is really whether Apple should be able to market the device as one in a country where the commonly accepted definition shows that it is not.
As a byline, Apple's own literature clearly talk about HSPA+ as 3G technology
"So you can browse the web, stream content or download a movie at blazing-fast speeds. It also works on GSM/UMTS worldwide network technologies including HSPA, HSPA+ and DC-HSDPA ? the fastest 3G networks out there"
I knew that they are building a case against apple, based on the 4G issue.
This is all based on Australian law, they have a pretty good case.
the thing is, when apple loses all the will probably have to do is pay a fine & change the box from saying 4G to 3G, & refund some people that are upset.
Its pretty simply, the box says 4G, the iPads 4G isnt compaitble with 4G in autsralia...people are buying it expecting it to work on 4G here, if something cant do a funtion as advertised then they consider that missleading & based on that, ACCC will very likely win the case here, it doesnt really matter, just means they will have to repackage, so eh.
I thought it was in the name of the model (iPad Wi-Fi + 4G). I agree the advertising part is a separate matter.
BTW that is a real soap product in Iran. Barf means snow.
I guessed it was real. Made my day. Thanks.
Sure, Apple should not have advertised the new iPad in Australia as a '4G-capable device' without clearly stating the limitations of mobile networks in Australia. But the real problem here is that there is no '4G network' available in Australia - just incompatible networks that are inaccurately marketed as '4G' and which operate at different radio frequencies from the '3G' networks that existing iPad can access.
Surely there is a need for mobile network providers and global device manufacturers to sit down in one locked room with no access to food or water until they agree on an acceptable and understandable set of product descriptions, a common set of radio frequency bands, and a limited number of mobile radio protocols. Only then can we, the consumers, have any hope of being able to use our mobile devices in the manner we would like, wherever we are.
Is that too simple?
I acutally work for the ACCC.
I knew that they are building a case against apple, based on the 4G issue.
This is all based on Australian law, they have a pretty good case.
the thing is, when apple loses all the will probably have to do is pay a fine & change the box from saying 4G to 3G, & refund some people that are upset.
Its pretty simply, the box says 4G, the iPads 4G isnt compaitble with 4G in autsralia...people are buying it expecting it to work on 4G here, if something cant do a funtion as advertised then they consider that missleading & based on that, ACCC will very likely win the case here, it doesnt really matter, just means they will have to repackage, so eh.
Bingo! A fine! That's what its all about. Whenever I hear about big drama, it all comes down to one thing: follow the money!
The same should happen all over the world. Where I live in the UK the iPad is of course sold as 4G, but there are no 4G networks here, and when there are, they won't work with the iPad 4G.
It's a scam, and clearly designed to mislead consumers. Of course you can look at the small print and see it's a scam, but how many will do that? It's akin to advertising a car as being capable of doing 200mph*.
* - when towed by a rocket powered dragster.
Yes you could buy a rocket powered dragster, or in the iPad's case, travel to America to use it, but in reality that's never going to happen.
If 4G is not available in your country you reckon the new iPad as if by magic will enjoy a 4G connection. Maybe not only 4G is not available so is commen sense.
It is very sad to really think people are capable of such thoughts.
If 4G is not available in your country you reckon the new iPad as if by magic will enjoy a 4G connection. Maybe not only 4G is not available so is commen sense.
It is very sad to really think people are capable of such thoughts.
Except we *do* have 4G in Australia. Not a lot of it, mind, and not the 4G freqs that iPad supports. And therein lies the rub.
OH YES IT'S 4G. (Just not your 4G)
We'll see what unfolds but I do see your point. Apple can lean on the UTI definition, the rest of Australia in the ACCC can lean on the vernacular.
Once again, if Apple leans on the UTI definition, they are in the right. If the ACCC decides to base it on the new 2009 ITU-R recommendation that has not been completed, they are still wrong because the network that Telstra calls a 4G network is not capable of the 1Gb/sec standing, 100 Mb/sec mobile that the ITU-R has classified as 4G in the 2009 recommendation. If you are talking about the vernacular, you can make up any term you want.
I guess if it gets litigated in Australia as a local issue, perhaps the ACCC has something to stand on, but from an international perspective, the fact that Australia does not use either of the accepted definitions of 4G by the main recommending body, the ITU-R, makes their case pretty weak.
Once again, if Apple leans on the UTI definition, they are in the right. If the ACCC decides to base it on the new 2009 ITU-R recommendation that has not been completed, they are still wrong because the network that Telstra calls a 4G network is not capable of the 1Gb/sec standing, 100 Mb/sec mobile that the ITU-R has classified as 4G in the 2009 recommendation. If you are talking about the vernacular, you can make up any term you want.
I guess if it gets litigated in Australia as a local issue, perhaps the ACCC has something to stand on, but from an international perspective, the fact that Australia does not use either of the accepted definitions of 4G by the main recommending body, the ITU-R, makes their case pretty weak.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/apple...328-1vxlm.html
and that is what apple intend to argue.
However, it's not "Australia" that does not use the definition. It's the Australian telco market themselve. As far as I'm concerned, not a whole lot may actually turn on the strict definition (which is essentially meaningless here) as the legislation is really about deceptive and misleading conduct with respect to the consumer. Consumer couldn't give a fig about UTI ABC XYZ. They will see "4G" ipad, oooh.... a "4G" network and join those dots. In Australia, those dots don't connect.
It's less circle jerking about the definitions and more about what is perceived by the consumer.
I acutally work for the ACCC.
I knew that they are building a case against apple, based on the 4G issue.
This is all based on Australian law, they have a pretty good case.
the thing is, when apple loses all the will probably have to do is pay a fine & change the box from saying 4G to 3G, & refund some people that are upset.
Its pretty simply, the box says 4G, the iPads 4G isnt compaitble with 4G in autsralia...people are buying it expecting it to work on 4G here, if something cant do a funtion as advertised then they consider that missleading & based on that, ACCC will very likely win the case here, it doesnt really matter, just means they will have to repackage, so eh.
Yeah, this doesn't surprise me in the least. In some countries, keeping the bureaucrats fat and happy is just another cost of doing business. Down in Mexico they call it mordida, which literally means "the bite".
I acutally work for the ACCC.
I knew that they are building a case against apple, based on the 4G issue.
This is all based on Australian law, they have a pretty good case.
the thing is, when apple loses all the will probably have to do is pay a fine & change the box from saying 4G to 3G, & refund some people that are upset.
Its pretty simply, the box says 4G, the iPads 4G isnt compaitble with 4G in autsralia...people are buying it expecting it to work on 4G here, if something cant do a funtion as advertised then they consider that missleading & based on that, ACCC will very likely win the case here, it doesnt really matter, just means they will have to repackage, so eh.
Except that the box already says that it will only run on 3G speeds. Given that all Apple's advertising has disclaimers and that I was able to find within 3 minutes that Telstra's LTE network isn't supported by the iPad's hardware, this is a non-issue. What a waste of my tax dollars this is.
It's not only the sticker though, there is also a warning on apple.com.au/store. And the only TV ad on apple.com.au is one that focuses on the retina display and doesn't even mention the connectivity.
Exactly.
I acutally work for the ACCC.
I knew that they are building a case against apple, based on the 4G issue.
This is all based on Australian law, they have a pretty good case.
the thing is, when apple loses all the will probably have to do is pay a fine & change the box from saying 4G to 3G, & refund some people that are upset.
Its pretty simply, the box says 4G, the iPads 4G isnt compaitble with 4G in autsralia...people are buying it expecting it to work on 4G here, if something cant do a funtion as advertised then they consider that missleading & based on that, ACCC will very likely win the case here, it doesnt really matter, just means they will have to repackage, so eh.
Uh uh. Looks like you and your bosses have been trumped. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...84ff624c48a.01
Let's see how many folks in your country want a refund.
Also, in the process of the litigation, it might end up that, according to international definitions, Telstra's network might in fact get redefined s '4G'.
So Apple broke Australian law. Who cares? There wasn't any malicious intent.
Just give Apple a slap on the wrist, remove any advertising that mentions 4G and offer refunds to customers (I bet no-one takes up this option!)
This whole process has been played out thousands of times. The only reason we hear about it now is because it's Apple.
And perhaps Telstra needs to explain why they chose the 1800 MHz band rather than 2100 MHz band that has been supported by far the most popular devices in the market place for several years now.
Except that the box already says that it will only run on 3G speeds. Given that all Apple's advertising has disclaimers and that I was able to find within 3 minutes that Telstra's LTE network isn't supported by the iPad's hardware, this is a non-issue. What a waste of my tax dollars this is.
Yeah that labelling is under the box, so when you get home & open the shipping package then get to the white box, then if you look under it, it has that sticker there :P
Unfortunately the law doesnt work that way here
Personally i dont really care, but if the heads of ACCC feel they have a legal case, im more then 100% possive they know more about australian law then people on a apple friendly forum :P just throwing that out there.
Whatever.
So Apple broke Australian law. Who cares? There wasn't any malicious intent.
Just give Apple a slap on the wrist, remove any advertising that mentions 4G and offer refunds to customers (I bet no-one takes up this option!)
This whole process has been played out thousands of times. The only reason we hear about it now is because it's Apple.
Yup, pretty much.
Maybe the ACCC should follow up with action against any Australian mobile network providers who claim they offer a '4G mobile' service when they actually don't, or only in a very limited geographical area.
And perhaps Telstra needs to explain why they chose the 1800 MHz band rather than 2100 MHz band that has been supported by far the most popular devices in the market place for several years now.
Yeah I totally agree, its crazieness.
I bought a iPad white 64gb 4G