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.
Come on... until the Australian case, we all know that Apple were using the 4G moniker to refer to LTE. The HSPA+ 4G argument only entered the equation when their backs were against the wall.
Now it would be interesting to see how Apple define "ultra fast wireless". With the next upgrade will that become "ultra super fast wireless"?
Show me a single law before the introduction of the iPad + 4G for any country that lawmakers defined 4G as being LTE (not just LTE Advanced) that excluded HSPA+ and DC-HSDPA.
The United Kingdom categorises HSPA+ and DC-HSDPA as 3.75G and Long Term Evolution (LTE) and WiMAX as 4G.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
In the US, sure, but most of the world knows it as Mobile, not Cellular. You ever will read pedantic, anti-American posters claim that Americans are stupid for calling it cellular.
A mobile phone is referred to by either its connectivity (i.e. cell) or by its portability (i.e. mobile). The connectivity is known as cellular.
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.
OK, so you're incapable of understanding analogies.
Take a 200 mph car. Now, try to go 200 mph in Manhattan. It's not possible. Does that mean the car can't go 200 mph?
Or take a typical mid-western ice storm in February. Roads are covered with ice. There's no way in the world your car is ever going to get to 200 mph - you'll be off the road long before that. Does that mean that the car can't go 200 mph?
Or perhaps a traffic block where the police are out in force and arrest anyone going over 50 mph. Does that mean that the car can't go over 200 mph?
You need to differentiate the capability of the product from the ability of the infrastructure (roads, laws, or wireless network) to support all of the capabilities. An 4G iPad doesn't suddenly become non-4G when you cross a border. It retains the 4G capability, but the local infrastructure does not support it. It is up to the consumer to know the local rules.
By the same logic, if I buy a Ferrari that will go 220 mph and am cruising along at 200 mph in Germany and then cross into France, is it Ferrari's fault that France doesn't allow that kind of speed?
And, of course, that even ignores the fact that under international standards, 4G is supported in most of the world since HSPA+ meets the legal definition of 4G. And don't start with the 'we should go by what consumers think rather than standards bodies'. The average consumer has no idea what is happening and their opinion is worthless. That's why we have standards bodies.
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.
Apple needs to conform its advertising to the level of technological sophistication prevalent in its target customers. If it is selling primarily to engineers, its advertising could well be different than if it were selling to first-time tech buyers.
As things are, Apple should strive to make its message crystal clear to its intended audience. Short of that, it should be certain that nothing it says is likely to be misinterpreted by any sizeable segment of its intended audience.
Apple is doing the right thing here. They should have done it from the beginning.
Since Apple was factually correct, it doesn't matter if uneducated people jump to the wrong conclusions. Advertising does that all the time.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that the issue is fraudulent advertising. That is not the issue here.
Instead, the issue is misleading advertising. As such, mere factual correctness doesn't go far enough. It is entirely possible to mislead an audience and to cite only facts.
You need to understand the issue before proposing an opinion about it. Otherwise, you are likely to mislead the audience by commenting on something not in issue.
I would have gone with iPad WiFi+GSM and iPad WiFi+CDMA.
I find itt curious that Apple has the "WiFi+" in the name. ISTM that they are concerned that people will imagine that the wireless models will not have that as a "lesser included" feature.
Why not iPad WiFi and iPad Mobile? Given that every single iPad has WiFi, why mention it at all? Why not just iPad and iPad Mobile or iPad + Mobile?
Why not just iPad and iPad Mobile or iPad + Mobile?
When the iPad arrived just two years ago it was unique. Sure, other tablets existed before it but it was a new tablet concept that didn't use a desktop OS. I think they just wanted to be sure that WiFi connectivity was part of the device. Why? I don't know since from my PoV that is the one thing people would expect in 2010.
I would like that dropped since it's pretty pointless at this point. In fact ideally I'd like to see the various lines dropped in favour of one model that has the cellular and GPS HW included by default but will also have Find My iPad option accessible even if the user doesn't pay for cellular connectivity. I'm not holding my breath.
Why not just iPad and iPad Mobile or iPad + Mobile?
When the iPad arrived just two years ago it was unique. Sure, other tablets existed before it but it was a new tablet concept that didn't use a desktop OS. I think they just wanted to be sure that WiFi connectivity was part of the device. Why? I don't know since from my PoV that is the one thing people would expect in 2010.
I would like that dropped since it's pretty pointless at this point. In fact ideally I'd like to see the various lines dropped in favour of one model that has the cellular and GPS HW included by default but will also have Find My iPad option accessible even if the user doesn't pay for cellular connectivity. I'm not holding my breath.
It makes sense to me. The chips must be sufficiently unique in some respect (maybe price?) that Apple is better off making two different models.
As I stated in a previous thread Apple shouldn't have ambiguous in any way as that benefits the plaintiffs. They should have called it WiFi + Cellular from the start or called it WiFi + 4G with a very clear definition that 4G refers to the ITU-R's international definition, not a colloquial or marketing definition of a country or carrier.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that the issue is fraudulent advertising. That is not the issue here.
Instead, the issue is misleading advertising. As such, mere factual correctness doesn't go far enough. It is entirely possible to mislead an audience and to cite only facts.
You need to understand the issue before proposing an opinion about it. Otherwise, you are likely to mislead the audience by commenting on something not in issue.
ROTFLMAO
So you're going to be critical of misleading advertising now? Better put every advertising agency on the planet out of business. EVERY ad is misleading in some way.
But, as usual, you'll criticize Apple for misleading advertising, but it's OK when Google, HTC, Samsung, Microsoft, and everyone else on the planet does it.
Right OK, too easy dude, don't know how everybody missed it.
Now perhaps you can focus on Afghanistan and provide Obama with the solution by this Tuesday COB ...
I'd be happy to hear how you think doing that wouldn't solve problems. I'm all ears, really. Do you think that every individual telecom in every individual country should be able to say what "4G" is?
I'd be happy to hear how you think doing that wouldn't solve problems. I'm all ears, really. Do you think that every individual telecom in every individual country should be able to say what "4G" is?
Only if they use their definition to attack Apple.
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.
Better yet, how about a car speedometer that goes up to 120/140? Many cars are not capable of even going this fast, even if dropped out of an airplane.
And the tires (tyres for you Aussies) are most likely rated for less than the speedometer!
So why are auto-makers selling a car that even cannot go as fast as it's supposed to and even if it could, the tires are not rated for that speed?
Aren't they indeed, telling you it is acceptable to go 120MPH by the simple fact that is on the speedo?
Perhaps they should be charged with attempted murder for every vehicle sold...
OK, so you're incapable of understanding analogies.
Take a 200 mph car. Now, try to go 200 mph in Manhattan. It's not possible. Does that mean the car can't go 200 mph?
No, that's a flawed analogy. 200mph is the same everywhere - there's only one possible meaning of 200mph, so the claim can't be misleading, only flat-out false. If you lived in Manhattan and someone tried to sell you a car capable of 200mph, you'd immediately be able to think, 'I can't do 200mph in Manhattan, so what's the point of having that feature'? Then you'd be able to reject the car based on the facts presented.
Zither Zather Zuzz is correct - the issue is that the claim is misleading, not that it is false.
Your comments about people with sub-60 IQs are highly unfair. It's not a matter of intelligence - it's a matter of knowledge and interest. You have a decent knowledge of phones, but do you have a similar knowledge of every product you ever buy? No, and you shouldn't be expected to gain one to protect yourself from misleading advertising.
If you think that it's the consumer's responsibility to educate themselves about the various different varieties of 4G before buying a '4G' device, then you're in cloud cuckoo land. The fact that lots of other companies also produce misleading advertising doesn't make it OK for Apple to do it.
called it WiFi + 4G with a very clear definition that 4G refers to the ITU-R's international definition, not a colloquial or marketing definition of a country or carrier.
they basically did. It's not their fault that folks don't read.
The real issue is that some countries don't use that definition and they equate 4G with LTE, specifically their flavor of it. And they felt that Apple should spell out on each page in big bold bright print that their LTE isn't supported (or better yet Apple should have made models for every country so the LTE is supported). Rather than saying what two areas of LTE are covered and assuming that customers are smart enough to figure out that if they weren't in one of those two places it was a no go.
Some folks are just dumb. They don't get that 'up to' isn't a promise of hitting that mark. so 'up to 10 hours of battery' doesn't mean you will always get 10 hours. Same for 'up to 4g speeds' doesn't mean you will always get those speeds. But because they are so dumb companies are being forced to write things so the idiots can understand it. And repeat it over and over to make sure they saw it.
they basically did. It's not their fault that folks don't read.
This may seem like I'm splitting hairs but I agree it's not their fault but I'd qualify that statement to say that it is their problem. Just like with the silly "antennagate" debacle they had to make public corrections to deal with foolish media and consumer blowback for an excellent and groundbreaking product to correct or prevent negative press from potentially hurting sales.. because consumers are generally idiots. For that reason it is their problem. However, in both cases I think Apple could have prevented most of it the issue by 1) adjusting the dB values per bar on the iPhone 4 before it shipped so that holding it in the hand wouldn't send it from 3 to 0 bars thus giving the impression there was no signal even though it would still connect in areas where other phones with more showing would not, and 2) being less ambiguous about what 4G refers to by either A) using Cellular from the start or being very clear that 4G refers specifically to an international organization definition and not to a specific country or carrier's definition.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that the issue is fraudulent advertising. That is not the issue here.
Instead, the issue is misleading advertising. As such, mere factual correctness doesn't go far enough. It is entirely possible to mislead an audience and to cite only facts.
You need to understand the issue before proposing an opinion about it. Otherwise, you are likely to mislead the audience by commenting on something not in issue.
ROTFLMAO
So you're going to be critical of misleading advertising now? Better put every advertising agency on the planet out of business. EVERY ad is misleading in some way.
Whether or not it is true that "all advertising is misleading", you seem to be under the misapprehension that there are no matters of degree.
The issue is not whether technically, all claims are arguably correct. The issue is not whether some degree of misleading is inherent in other company's ads. The issue is whether Apple's ads were excessively misleading.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
COP OUT.
What's with these countries? This isn't Apple's problem. It's an international problem that every country needs to come together and fix.
Define what 4G is. Period. Make it illegal to misrepresent that. Problem solved.
Right OK, too easy dude, don't know how everybody missed it.
Now perhaps you can focus on Afghanistan and provide Obama with the solution by this Tuesday COB ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcommander.data
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.
Come on... until the Australian case, we all know that Apple were using the 4G moniker to refer to LTE. The HSPA+ 4G argument only entered the equation when their backs were against the wall.
Now it would be interesting to see how Apple define "ultra fast wireless". With the next upgrade will that become "ultra super fast wireless"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Show me a single law before the introduction of the iPad + 4G for any country that lawmakers defined 4G as being LTE (not just LTE Advanced) that excluded HSPA+ and DC-HSDPA.
The United Kingdom categorises HSPA+ and DC-HSDPA as 3.75G and Long Term Evolution (LTE) and WiMAX as 4G.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
In the US, sure, but most of the world knows it as Mobile, not Cellular. You ever will read pedantic, anti-American posters claim that Americans are stupid for calling it cellular.
A mobile phone is referred to by either its connectivity (i.e. cell) or by its portability (i.e. mobile). The connectivity is known as cellular.
OK, so you're incapable of understanding analogies.
Take a 200 mph car. Now, try to go 200 mph in Manhattan. It's not possible. Does that mean the car can't go 200 mph?
Or take a typical mid-western ice storm in February. Roads are covered with ice. There's no way in the world your car is ever going to get to 200 mph - you'll be off the road long before that. Does that mean that the car can't go 200 mph?
Or perhaps a traffic block where the police are out in force and arrest anyone going over 50 mph. Does that mean that the car can't go over 200 mph?
You need to differentiate the capability of the product from the ability of the infrastructure (roads, laws, or wireless network) to support all of the capabilities. An 4G iPad doesn't suddenly become non-4G when you cross a border. It retains the 4G capability, but the local infrastructure does not support it. It is up to the consumer to know the local rules.
By the same logic, if I buy a Ferrari that will go 220 mph and am cruising along at 200 mph in Germany and then cross into France, is it Ferrari's fault that France doesn't allow that kind of speed?
And, of course, that even ignores the fact that under international standards, 4G is supported in most of the world since HSPA+ meets the legal definition of 4G. And don't start with the 'we should go by what consumers think rather than standards bodies'. The average consumer has no idea what is happening and their opinion is worthless. That's why we have standards bodies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGJ
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.
Apple needs to conform its advertising to the level of technological sophistication prevalent in its target customers. If it is selling primarily to engineers, its advertising could well be different than if it were selling to first-time tech buyers.
As things are, Apple should strive to make its message crystal clear to its intended audience. Short of that, it should be certain that nothing it says is likely to be misinterpreted by any sizeable segment of its intended audience.
Apple is doing the right thing here. They should have done it from the beginning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Since Apple was factually correct, it doesn't matter if uneducated people jump to the wrong conclusions. Advertising does that all the time.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that the issue is fraudulent advertising. That is not the issue here.
Instead, the issue is misleading advertising. As such, mere factual correctness doesn't go far enough. It is entirely possible to mislead an audience and to cite only facts.
You need to understand the issue before proposing an opinion about it. Otherwise, you are likely to mislead the audience by commenting on something not in issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE
I would have gone with iPad WiFi+GSM and iPad WiFi+CDMA.
I find itt curious that Apple has the "WiFi+" in the name. ISTM that they are concerned that people will imagine that the wireless models will not have that as a "lesser included" feature.
Why not iPad WiFi and iPad Mobile? Given that every single iPad has WiFi, why mention it at all? Why not just iPad and iPad Mobile or iPad + Mobile?
Quote:
Originally Posted by haar
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"' ...
iPad Mobile would suffice.
When the iPad arrived just two years ago it was unique. Sure, other tablets existed before it but it was a new tablet concept that didn't use a desktop OS. I think they just wanted to be sure that WiFi connectivity was part of the device. Why? I don't know since from my PoV that is the one thing people would expect in 2010.
I would like that dropped since it's pretty pointless at this point. In fact ideally I'd like to see the various lines dropped in favour of one model that has the cellular and GPS HW included by default but will also have Find My iPad option accessible even if the user doesn't pay for cellular connectivity. I'm not holding my breath.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
Why not just iPad and iPad Mobile or iPad + Mobile?
When the iPad arrived just two years ago it was unique. Sure, other tablets existed before it but it was a new tablet concept that didn't use a desktop OS. I think they just wanted to be sure that WiFi connectivity was part of the device. Why? I don't know since from my PoV that is the one thing people would expect in 2010.
I would like that dropped since it's pretty pointless at this point. In fact ideally I'd like to see the various lines dropped in favour of one model that has the cellular and GPS HW included by default but will also have Find My iPad option accessible even if the user doesn't pay for cellular connectivity. I'm not holding my breath.
It makes sense to me. The chips must be sufficiently unique in some respect (maybe price?) that Apple is better off making two different models.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
As I stated in a previous thread Apple shouldn't have ambiguous in any way as that benefits the plaintiffs. They should have called it WiFi + Cellular from the start or called it WiFi + 4G with a very clear definition that 4G refers to the ITU-R's international definition, not a colloquial or marketing definition of a country or carrier.
That makes sense.
ROTFLMAO
So you're going to be critical of misleading advertising now? Better put every advertising agency on the planet out of business. EVERY ad is misleading in some way.
But, as usual, you'll criticize Apple for misleading advertising, but it's OK when Google, HTC, Samsung, Microsoft, and everyone else on the planet does it.
Hypocrite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kymcha
Right OK, too easy dude, don't know how everybody missed it.
Now perhaps you can focus on Afghanistan and provide Obama with the solution by this Tuesday COB ...
I'd be happy to hear how you think doing that wouldn't solve problems. I'm all ears, really. Do you think that every individual telecom in every individual country should be able to say what "4G" is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
iPad Mobile would suffice.
But Wi-fi access is also mobile. Not long ago, even laptops were called mobile computing. So I think mobile would be confusing.
Only if they use their definition to attack Apple.
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.
Better yet, how about a car speedometer that goes up to 120/140? Many cars are not capable of even going this fast, even if dropped out of an airplane.
And the tires (tyres for you Aussies) are most likely rated for less than the speedometer!
So why are auto-makers selling a car that even cannot go as fast as it's supposed to and even if it could, the tires are not rated for that speed?
Aren't they indeed, telling you it is acceptable to go 120MPH by the simple fact that is on the speedo?
Perhaps they should be charged with attempted murder for every vehicle sold...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
OK, so you're incapable of understanding analogies.
Take a 200 mph car. Now, try to go 200 mph in Manhattan. It's not possible. Does that mean the car can't go 200 mph?
No, that's a flawed analogy. 200mph is the same everywhere - there's only one possible meaning of 200mph, so the claim can't be misleading, only flat-out false. If you lived in Manhattan and someone tried to sell you a car capable of 200mph, you'd immediately be able to think, 'I can't do 200mph in Manhattan, so what's the point of having that feature'? Then you'd be able to reject the car based on the facts presented.
Zither Zather Zuzz is correct - the issue is that the claim is misleading, not that it is false.
Your comments about people with sub-60 IQs are highly unfair. It's not a matter of intelligence - it's a matter of knowledge and interest. You have a decent knowledge of phones, but do you have a similar knowledge of every product you ever buy? No, and you shouldn't be expected to gain one to protect yourself from misleading advertising.
If you think that it's the consumer's responsibility to educate themselves about the various different varieties of 4G before buying a '4G' device, then you're in cloud cuckoo land. The fact that lots of other companies also produce misleading advertising doesn't make it OK for Apple to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
called it WiFi + 4G with a very clear definition that 4G refers to the ITU-R's international definition, not a colloquial or marketing definition of a country or carrier.
they basically did. It's not their fault that folks don't read.
The real issue is that some countries don't use that definition and they equate 4G with LTE, specifically their flavor of it. And they felt that Apple should spell out on each page in big bold bright print that their LTE isn't supported (or better yet Apple should have made models for every country so the LTE is supported). Rather than saying what two areas of LTE are covered and assuming that customers are smart enough to figure out that if they weren't in one of those two places it was a no go.
Some folks are just dumb. They don't get that 'up to' isn't a promise of hitting that mark. so 'up to 10 hours of battery' doesn't mean you will always get 10 hours. Same for 'up to 4g speeds' doesn't mean you will always get those speeds. But because they are so dumb companies are being forced to write things so the idiots can understand it. And repeat it over and over to make sure they saw it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
You seem to be under the misapprehension that the issue is fraudulent advertising. That is not the issue here.
Instead, the issue is misleading advertising. As such, mere factual correctness doesn't go far enough. It is entirely possible to mislead an audience and to cite only facts.
You need to understand the issue before proposing an opinion about it. Otherwise, you are likely to mislead the audience by commenting on something not in issue.
ROTFLMAO
So you're going to be critical of misleading advertising now? Better put every advertising agency on the planet out of business. EVERY ad is misleading in some way.
Whether or not it is true that "all advertising is misleading", you seem to be under the misapprehension that there are no matters of degree.
The issue is not whether technically, all claims are arguably correct. The issue is not whether some degree of misleading is inherent in other company's ads. The issue is whether Apple's ads were excessively misleading.
Two rebuttals, two straw men. Par for the course?