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?
When did I mention science? Of course it has a scientific definition.
Apart from the fact that it was just an illustrative example, I was talking about the law! Either show me where the word 'red' is defined in statute law, or take your attitude somewhere else.
Apart from the fact that it was just an illustrative example, I was talking about the law! Either show me where the word 'red' is defined in statute law, or take your attitude somewhere else.
"Your honor, I did not break the law when going through that intersection. The top light was lit. That doesn't mean the light was red!"
For goodness sake, that doesn't mean that the law defines the word 'red'! The law may adopt the common meaning of the word 'red' where it is necessary to do so, and it may accept evidence that something was indeed 'red', but that is completely different to there being a precise legal definition of the term!
Now a thread about 4G has turned into a debate about the meaning of 'red', because you've both taken my attempt at a legal analogy and used it as an excuse to be combative. Congratulations.
When did I mention science? Of course it has a scientific definition.
Apart from the fact that it was just an illustrative example, I was talking about the law! Either show me where the word 'red' is defined in statute law, or take your attitude somewhere else.
There is no universal law dictionary where everything is defined. The law is based on facts and the fact is colors are defined by science. This is why in courtrooms they call in experts in the subject matter and not anyone from the street.
Yes, but I was talking about an authoritative legal definition - like the law defines the word 'land', or the word 'theft', or the word 'property'. Those words have a specific legal meaning which emanates from statute. 'Red' doesn't. That's why, if there was a dispute about whether something was red or not, the court might call an expert. There's no need to do that for 'land', because the court just has to interpret the statute.
Anyway, this is really, really irrelevant. Shall we move on?
Aussies complain, apple enlarges explanation of what their 4g means.
Aussies complain some more. Apple changes name.
Done deal. All the poeple complaining about what 4g means, is meaningless. Apple had to change the name based upon legal pressure from Australia, and obviously some other countries.
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.
Bending to the will of a "reasonable consumer" isn't really the high road though. The issue of stereotypes comes to mind. Stereotypes are something that if asked, people would generally frown upon their use, yet it's fair to say the average "reasonable" person nonetheless falls prey to using them. It seems to me that 4G being synonymous with LTE is a stereotype. It is not the truth or the whole story, yet it is the working assumption people use anyways. I wouldn't have a problem if Apple had taken a hard line on keeping the 4G term in their marketing materials if they had tried to educate consumers that 4G encompasses a range of technologies including HSPA+, DC-HSDPA, and of course LTE to break the stereotype. A "reasonable" person may currently understand 4G as being LTE, but being "reasonable" could learn and adopt the actual meaning of 4G. However, it looked like Apple itself couldn't decide on how to present 4G, whether to break or follow the sterotype, adding the 4G symbol in associated with HSPA+ on the iPhone 4S while narrowing 4G to only mean LTE on the iPad by relegating HSPA+ and DC-HSDPA to be general "very fast cellular networks". Removing the 4G term completely then is probably the best way to avoid the issue.
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.
This argument is no more rational than the last 10,000 times it was presented.
If I have a car that will go 200 mph under some conditions, is it misleading to say that the car will go 200 mph if you're advertising in a country where 200 mph is not legally allowed? or if the country's roads are so bad that 200 mph is impossible? or if the purchaser plans to drive it in a city? Obviously, none of those conditions change the fact that the car is capable of 200 mph even if the purchaser can not use that capability. It would be up to the purchaser to learn whether it is legal or practical to use that speed on their streets.
Similarly, the new iPad is capable of 4G - and Apple tells you which frequencies it supports and which countries. If your country doesn't support 4G, that doesn't mean that the device is not a 4G device - is simply means that your country doesn't support it. If you take the iPad to a country where it IS supported, it will work fine.
The whole thing is ridiculous. Apple's device meets the legal definition of 4G and people are defending consumers who are too stupid for words.
Yes, but I was talking about an authoritative legal definition - like the law defines the word 'land', or the word 'theft', or the word 'property'. Those words have a specific legal meaning which emanates from statute. 'Red' doesn't. That's why, if there was a dispute about whether something was red or not, the court might call an expert. There's no need to do that for 'land', because the court just has to interpret the statute.
Anyway, this is really, really irrelevant. Shall we move on?
It does beg the question of what would have happened if Apple had stuck it out and been taken to court for false advertisement. A cellular expert witness would testify that 4G includes HSPA+ and DC-HSPDA so Apple is correct in calling the new iPad 4G even if LTE doesn't work. A cultural expert witness would testify that many/most people understand 4G to mean LTE so would misunderstand Apple's claims. It would be interesting how a court balances these two points of view.
This argument is no more rational than the last 10,000 times it was presented.
If I have a car that will go 200 mph under some conditions, is it misleading to say that the car will go 200 mph if you're advertising in a country where 200 mph is not legally allowed? or if the country's roads are so bad that 200 mph is impossible? or if the purchaser plans to drive it in a city? Obviously, none of those conditions change the fact that the car is capable of 200 mph even if the purchaser can not use that capability. It would be up to the purchaser to learn whether it is legal or practical to use that speed on their streets.
Similarly, the new iPad is capable of 4G - and Apple tells you which frequencies it supports and which countries. If your country doesn't support 4G, that doesn't mean that the device is not a 4G device - is simply means that your country doesn't support it. If you take the iPad to a country where it IS supported, it will work fine.
The whole thing is ridiculous. Apple's device meets the legal definition of 4G and people are defending consumers who are too stupid for words.
Maybe in your world, but I've met quite a few people who believed Apple's original '4G' marketing in the UK.
'Cool! The iPad works with the new 4G stuff!'
Most of these people aren't idiots, they just don't enjoy having to read the fine print.
It does beg the question of what would have happened if Apple had stuck it out and been taken to court for false advertisement. A cellular expert witness would testify that 4G includes HSPA+ and DC-HSPDA so Apple is correct in calling the new iPad 4G even if LTE doesn't work. A cultural expert witness would testify that many/most people understand 4G to mean LTE so would misunderstand Apple's claims. It would be interesting how a court balances these two points of view.
Since Apple was factually correct, it doesn't matter if uneducated people jump to the wrong conclusions. Advertising does that all the time.
Why cellular for markets outside the USA and Canada? Nobody uses that term outside those countries. What is known as a cell phone in the USA and Canada is called a mobile phone elsewhere. Only telecom workers will know what it means. Other people will believe it's an iPad that's specially made for use in prisons.
Yes other countries call LTE 4G, although technically it is not (speed is not high enough to qualify as a proper 4G technology). The problem is that ITU intended LTE to be used over certain frequency bands (just like they originally specified GSM to be used on the 900 and 1800 MHz bands, and 3G (UMTS) on the 2100 MHz band). The problem is that the USA decided to use a different, non-standard frequency band, and that's what Apple made the iPad 3 to work on, expecting the rest of the world to use the same non-standard frequency band as the USA.
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.
Whilst I am glad that the change has been made I am saddened by the fact that the change was the direct result of legal action (and or the threat of it) rather than the wish to prevent confusion.
Someone in the advertising department needs to spoken to very sternly. At a time when everything Apple does is being scrutinised they need to be on top of their game.
This argument is no more rational than the last 10,000 times it was presented.
If I have a car that will go 200 mph under some conditions, is it misleading to say that the car will go 200 mph if you're advertising in a country where 200 mph is not legally allowed? or if the country's roads are so bad that 200 mph is impossible? or if the purchaser plans to drive it in a city? Obviously, none of those conditions change the fact that the car is capable of 200 mph even if the purchaser can not use that capability. It would be up to the purchaser to learn whether it is legal or practical to use that speed on their streets.
This is a shitty analogy. No matter what the conditions of the road, the population, the whatever, the car can still do 200mph as it is delivered and in the country it is delivered, unless the country is only 300 yards long on its longest side. You qualify apples position further below, but it doesn't change the fact they product is (was) called Wifi + 4G and marketed as such. The device cannot do 4g in certain markets because the infrastructure is either not there or is not compatible. Before you rage, read the next paragraph.
No one gives a fudge what the itU-R thinks 4G is. Half you guys probably didn't even know it existed before this brouhaha erupted. I did not. The market perception of what 4G is, is dependent upon that market itself and what that market chooses to call 4G. I thought 4G was LTE. That does not make me stupid. I was simply not interested in investigating the matter further. At least not until Apple released the current iPad.
Most first world countries (and arguably, those countries are a little more enlightened) do not let companies take advantage of sub 60 IQ individuals by burying "does 4g except for here" in the fine print. If you call a device 4g, then it needs to be able to do 4g in that market. That fact that it can elsewhere is not at all to the point. In fact, it is alomst completely irrelevant.
Nearly all consumer protection legislation frames a consumers expectation in terms of a 'reasonable' consumer. A reasonable consumer does not concern themselves about what some foreign standards body deems a particular standard to be. A reasonable consumer should be able to make a decision based on the information in front of them, the market that they are participating in, and without having to resort to fine print to discover a gotcha which goes to the very name of the product.
Apple obviously wised up to this. Good on them.
Similarly, the new iPad is capable of 4G - and Apple tells you which frequencies it supports and which countries. If your country doesn't support 4G, that doesn't mean that the device is not a 4G device - is simply means that your country doesn't support it. If you take the iPad to a country where it IS supported, it will work fine.
The whole thing is ridiculous. Apple's device meets the legal definition of 4G and people are defending consumers who are too stupid for words.
AFAIK my country doesn't have a legal definition of 4g, and whatever you think it might be, and whoever you think might be setting that definition, must be highly offended that we have HSPA+ and call it 3G, and leave LTE to carry the flag for 4G radio.
It must be painfully clear to you know that 4G as a definition is regionally contextual. Apple need to work within those contexts.
fifty shades of wifi + data LOL so what is it really ? "wifi + 4G" or "wifi + LTE" or "wifi + ..." + "wifi + data using a SIM card" " wifi + cellular"' ...
Comments
Big deal. Call it the iPad whatever, comply, and just move on, so more consumers can get what they want without issue: iPads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE
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?
When did I mention science? Of course it has a scientific definition.
Apart from the fact that it was just an illustrative example, I was talking about the law! Either show me where the word 'red' is defined in statute law, or take your attitude somewhere else.
Yeah right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious
Apart from the fact that it was just an illustrative example, I was talking about the law! Either show me where the word 'red' is defined in statute law, or take your attitude somewhere else.
"Your honor, I did not break the law when going through that intersection. The top light was lit. That doesn't mean the light was red!"
Try that one out. See how far that gets you.
For goodness sake, that doesn't mean that the law defines the word 'red'! The law may adopt the common meaning of the word 'red' where it is necessary to do so, and it may accept evidence that something was indeed 'red', but that is completely different to there being a precise legal definition of the term!
Now a thread about 4G has turned into a debate about the meaning of 'red', because you've both taken my attempt at a legal analogy and used it as an excuse to be combative. Congratulations.
There is no universal law dictionary where everything is defined. The law is based on facts and the fact is colors are defined by science. This is why in courtrooms they call in experts in the subject matter and not anyone from the street.
Yes, but I was talking about an authoritative legal definition - like the law defines the word 'land', or the word 'theft', or the word 'property'. Those words have a specific legal meaning which emanates from statute. 'Red' doesn't. That's why, if there was a dispute about whether something was red or not, the court might call an expert. There's no need to do that for 'land', because the court just has to interpret the statute.
Anyway, this is really, really irrelevant. Shall we move on?
Ahhh the joy of the australian system.
Existing 4g network
Apple advertise iPadwifi+4g
Aussies complain, apple enlarges explanation of what their 4g means.
Aussies complain some more. Apple changes name.
Done deal. All the poeple complaining about what 4g means, is meaningless. Apple had to change the name based upon legal pressure from Australia, and obviously some other countries.
Nothing else matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious
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.
Bending to the will of a "reasonable consumer" isn't really the high road though. The issue of stereotypes comes to mind. Stereotypes are something that if asked, people would generally frown upon their use, yet it's fair to say the average "reasonable" person nonetheless falls prey to using them. It seems to me that 4G being synonymous with LTE is a stereotype. It is not the truth or the whole story, yet it is the working assumption people use anyways. I wouldn't have a problem if Apple had taken a hard line on keeping the 4G term in their marketing materials if they had tried to educate consumers that 4G encompasses a range of technologies including HSPA+, DC-HSDPA, and of course LTE to break the stereotype. A "reasonable" person may currently understand 4G as being LTE, but being "reasonable" could learn and adopt the actual meaning of 4G. However, it looked like Apple itself couldn't decide on how to present 4G, whether to break or follow the sterotype, adding the 4G symbol in associated with HSPA+ on the iPhone 4S while narrowing 4G to only mean LTE on the iPad by relegating HSPA+ and DC-HSDPA to be general "very fast cellular networks". Removing the 4G term completely then is probably the best way to avoid the issue.
This argument is no more rational than the last 10,000 times it was presented.
If I have a car that will go 200 mph under some conditions, is it misleading to say that the car will go 200 mph if you're advertising in a country where 200 mph is not legally allowed? or if the country's roads are so bad that 200 mph is impossible? or if the purchaser plans to drive it in a city? Obviously, none of those conditions change the fact that the car is capable of 200 mph even if the purchaser can not use that capability. It would be up to the purchaser to learn whether it is legal or practical to use that speed on their streets.
Similarly, the new iPad is capable of 4G - and Apple tells you which frequencies it supports and which countries. If your country doesn't support 4G, that doesn't mean that the device is not a 4G device - is simply means that your country doesn't support it. If you take the iPad to a country where it IS supported, it will work fine.
The whole thing is ridiculous. Apple's device meets the legal definition of 4G and people are defending consumers who are too stupid for words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious
Yes, but I was talking about an authoritative legal definition - like the law defines the word 'land', or the word 'theft', or the word 'property'. Those words have a specific legal meaning which emanates from statute. 'Red' doesn't. That's why, if there was a dispute about whether something was red or not, the court might call an expert. There's no need to do that for 'land', because the court just has to interpret the statute.
Anyway, this is really, really irrelevant. Shall we move on?
It does beg the question of what would have happened if Apple had stuck it out and been taken to court for false advertisement. A cellular expert witness would testify that 4G includes HSPA+ and DC-HSPDA so Apple is correct in calling the new iPad 4G even if LTE doesn't work. A cultural expert witness would testify that many/most people understand 4G to mean LTE so would misunderstand Apple's claims. It would be interesting how a court balances these two points of view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
This argument is no more rational than the last 10,000 times it was presented.
If I have a car that will go 200 mph under some conditions, is it misleading to say that the car will go 200 mph if you're advertising in a country where 200 mph is not legally allowed? or if the country's roads are so bad that 200 mph is impossible? or if the purchaser plans to drive it in a city? Obviously, none of those conditions change the fact that the car is capable of 200 mph even if the purchaser can not use that capability. It would be up to the purchaser to learn whether it is legal or practical to use that speed on their streets.
Similarly, the new iPad is capable of 4G - and Apple tells you which frequencies it supports and which countries. If your country doesn't support 4G, that doesn't mean that the device is not a 4G device - is simply means that your country doesn't support it. If you take the iPad to a country where it IS supported, it will work fine.
The whole thing is ridiculous. Apple's device meets the legal definition of 4G and people are defending consumers who are too stupid for words.
Maybe in your world, but I've met quite a few people who believed Apple's original '4G' marketing in the UK.
'Cool! The iPad works with the new 4G stuff!'
Most of these people aren't idiots, they just don't enjoy having to read the fine print.
I'd suggest that you find some friends with IQs over 60.
Since Apple was factually correct, it doesn't matter if uneducated people jump to the wrong conclusions. Advertising does that all the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I'd suggest that you find some friends with IQs over 60.
Since Apple was factually correct, it doesn't matter if uneducated people jump to the wrong conclusions. Advertising does that all the time.
Well many people and several government bodies do not agree with you but I imagine you will label them as "uneducated" or having a IQ lower than 60.
Why cellular for markets outside the USA and Canada? Nobody uses that term outside those countries. What is known as a cell phone in the USA and Canada is called a mobile phone elsewhere. Only telecom workers will know what it means. Other people will believe it's an iPad that's specially made for use in prisons.
Yes other countries call LTE 4G, although technically it is not (speed is not high enough to qualify as a proper 4G technology). The problem is that ITU intended LTE to be used over certain frequency bands (just like they originally specified GSM to be used on the 900 and 1800 MHz bands, and 3G (UMTS) on the 2100 MHz band). The problem is that the USA decided to use a different, non-standard frequency band, and that's what Apple made the iPad 3 to work on, expecting the rest of the world to use the same non-standard frequency band as the USA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by entification
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.
Whilst I am glad that the change has been made I am saddened by the fact that the change was the direct result of legal action (and or the threat of it) rather than the wish to prevent confusion.
Someone in the advertising department needs to spoken to very sternly. At a time when everything Apple does is being scrutinised they need to be on top of their game.
This is a shitty analogy. No matter what the conditions of the road, the population, the whatever, the car can still do 200mph as it is delivered and in the country it is delivered, unless the country is only 300 yards long on its longest side. You qualify apples position further below, but it doesn't change the fact they product is (was) called Wifi + 4G and marketed as such. The device cannot do 4g in certain markets because the infrastructure is either not there or is not compatible. Before you rage, read the next paragraph.
No one gives a fudge what the itU-R thinks 4G is. Half you guys probably didn't even know it existed before this brouhaha erupted. I did not. The market perception of what 4G is, is dependent upon that market itself and what that market chooses to call 4G. I thought 4G was LTE. That does not make me stupid. I was simply not interested in investigating the matter further. At least not until Apple released the current iPad.
Most first world countries (and arguably, those countries are a little more enlightened) do not let companies take advantage of sub 60 IQ individuals by burying "does 4g except for here" in the fine print. If you call a device 4g, then it needs to be able to do 4g in that market. That fact that it can elsewhere is not at all to the point. In fact, it is alomst completely irrelevant.
Nearly all consumer protection legislation frames a consumers expectation in terms of a 'reasonable' consumer. A reasonable consumer does not concern themselves about what some foreign standards body deems a particular standard to be. A reasonable consumer should be able to make a decision based on the information in front of them, the market that they are participating in, and without having to resort to fine print to discover a gotcha which goes to the very name of the product.
Apple obviously wised up to this. Good on them.
AFAIK my country doesn't have a legal definition of 4g, and whatever you think it might be, and whoever you think might be setting that definition, must be highly offended that we have HSPA+ and call it 3G, and leave LTE to carry the flag for 4G radio.
It must be painfully clear to you know that 4G as a definition is regionally contextual. Apple need to work within those contexts.
so what is it really ? "wifi + 4G" or "wifi + LTE" or "wifi + ..." + "wifi + data using a SIM card" " wifi + cellular"' ...