Of course, however there might be a slight issue when the iPad will actually support a true 4G technology. On the other hand, they can then just go on and call it 5G...
What part of "ITU which sets the international standard says that the iPad already supports 4G" do you not understand?
There you go, banging on again like this is important in the context of the argument. Keep hitting that drum, brother.
In post #121, mnemonic said "Of course, however there might be a slight issue when the iPad will actually support a true 4G technology. "
According to the ITU which sets the standard, it already uses a true 4G technology. So why in the world would you think it's not relevant in the context of the argument?
Huh? Why on earth is it relevant whether he's Australian or not?
That's what this is all about. If he bought it due to the vague advertising, that's a problem and he can easily return it. But it's the advertising that is the problem, not the device. The gallon analogy itself is faulty, but it's certainly close.
We want to keep talking about cars, then we only need one word: gas (well, petrol).
Let's say the car's performance is based on the gas put into it… but gas that is sold in one place is only partially compatible with the car. You can't get race car performance in a race car out of standard unleaded.
"But the problem isn't that the right gas isn't sold, it's that the car doesn't accept it. It's the car's problem."
It's a problem for both parties, not one. The only problem for the one party comes in the vagueness of the advertising of gasoline acceptance.
Which becomes confusing to try to keep within the metaphor, so you know what I mean.
Said as an Aussie who doesn't seem to understand the issue here.
Since this whole ridiculous debacle is about a Marketing problem in Australia, I would have thought being an Aussie would be 50% of the qualification required for a proper understanding of the problem.
You see this problem isn't really about the technology its about the misleading use of the truth in marketing. Thats against the law in this country as it should be everywhere.
You see this problem isn't really about the technology its about the misleading use of the truth in marketing. Thats against the law in this country as it should be everywhere.
Right. And when the information about the US and Canada was appended, the issue was resolved. Anyone wronged by confusing advertising need only return the iPad and be done with it.
Right. And when the information about the US and Canada was appended, the issue was resolved. Anyone wronged by confusing advertising need only return the iPad and be done with it.
The ACCC said in a statement that "any move" by Apple to cease using the '4G' descriptor in marketing "would mitigate against the ACCC's concerns" but would "not deal with any past conduct". It added that the legal action against Apple was "continuing" and going to trial on June 4.
In post #121, mnemonic said "Of course, however there might be a slight issue when the iPad will actually support a true 4G technology. "
According to the ITU which sets the standard, it already uses a true 4G technology. So why in the world would you think it's not relevant in the context of the argument?
It's been said multiple times in this thread and elsewhere, yet you refuse to acknowledge this: the fact that it is 4G capable is not relevant. I don't think that anyone is disputing that, so you should just let it go.
If it is being sold as a 4g device then it better well be able to do 4g in the market in which it is sold. The definition of 4G varies by market, despite what the ITU says 4G is. You keep parroting ITU ITU ITU like it's some kind of slogan but it's irrelevant from the consumer's point of view. From the consumer's point of view, here in Australia, it does not do 4G. It simply does not. This is in spite of what ITU tells you 4G is. We're talking about consumer law here, not hair splitting on definitions. Why do you not get this?
It is not to the point that is theoretically possible to use 4G if you get on a plane and go to merika. In this country, you are not allowed to hide in fine print what you are asserting. It can be construed as misleading or deceptive conduct and the ACCC can (and did) take action under the Australian Competition and Consumer Law (2010), Shedule 2 from memory. This is a federal act and applies to all corporations in Australia.
The fact that the product itself was called 4G makes it worse.
THAT is why the ITU definition is irrelevant. I think I've explained it as well as I can over numerous posts. The point is to educate, not pillory, but it's clear you do not want the first, and prefer to engage in the second.
If it is being sold as a 4g device then it better well be able to do 4g in the market in which it is sold.
Define 'market'.
Quote:
In this country, you are not allowed to hide in fine print what you are asserting. It can be construed as misleading or deceptive conduct and the ACCC can (and did) take action under the Australian Competition and Consumer Law (2010), Shedule 2 from memory. This is a federal act and applies to all corporations in Australia.
Then Australia better get to suing Apple for every single other product they sell. I see fine print on every product page.
So the entire country, then. So are there complaints that people have to drive all the way out to the bush to shoot off their guns instead of being able to shoot them in Canberra?
So the entire country, then. So are there complaints that people have to drive all the way out to the bush to shoot off their guns instead of being able to shoot them in Canberra?
You asked for the market to be defined.
I don't see what this has to do with guns, which BTW are also illegal here. You can't just shoot them off, city or country.
Comments
What part of "ITU which sets the international standard says that the iPad already supports 4G" do you not understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
What part of "ITU which sets the international standard says that the iPad already supports 4G" do you not understand?
Surprisingly, only "which", "the" (the first one), and "already".
A~nd no wink emoticon…
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
What part of "ITU which sets the international standard says that the iPad already supports 4G" do you not understand?
There you go, banging on again like this is important in the context of the argument. Keep hitting that drum, brother.
In post #121, mnemonic said "Of course, however there might be a slight issue when the iPad will actually support a true 4G technology. "
According to the ITU which sets the standard, it already uses a true 4G technology. So why in the world would you think it's not relevant in the context of the argument?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Yet another stupid analogy from an Apple hater.
No, actually it is highly analogous this the Apple 4G situation. It is a probably the best analogy I have read on this topic. Well done Euphonious!
What we have from you is another automated denial from an AppleBot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Likkie
No, actually it is highly analogous this the Apple 4G situation. It is a probably the best analogy I have read on this topic. Well done Euphonious!
What we have from you is another automated denial from an AppleBot.
Said as an Aussie who doesn't seem to understand the issue here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Said as an Aussie who doesn't seem to understand the issue here.
Huh? Why on earth is it relevant whether he's Australian or not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious
Huh? Why on earth is it relevant whether he's Australian or not?
That's what this is all about. If he bought it due to the vague advertising, that's a problem and he can easily return it. But it's the advertising that is the problem, not the device. The gallon analogy itself is faulty, but it's certainly close.
We want to keep talking about cars, then we only need one word: gas (well, petrol).
Let's say the car's performance is based on the gas put into it… but gas that is sold in one place is only partially compatible with the car. You can't get race car performance in a race car out of standard unleaded.
"But the problem isn't that the right gas isn't sold, it's that the car doesn't accept it. It's the car's problem."
It's a problem for both parties, not one. The only problem for the one party comes in the vagueness of the advertising of gasoline acceptance.
Which becomes confusing to try to keep within the metaphor, so you know what I mean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Said as an Aussie who doesn't seem to understand the issue here.
Since this whole ridiculous debacle is about a Marketing problem in Australia, I would have thought being an Aussie would be 50% of the qualification required for a proper understanding of the problem.
You see this problem isn't really about the technology its about the misleading use of the truth in marketing. Thats against the law in this country as it should be everywhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Likkie
You see this problem isn't really about the technology its about the misleading use of the truth in marketing. Thats against the law in this country as it should be everywhere.
Right. And when the information about the US and Canada was appended, the issue was resolved. Anyone wronged by confusing advertising need only return the iPad and be done with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Right. And when the information about the US and Canada was appended, the issue was resolved. Anyone wronged by confusing advertising need only return the iPad and be done with it.
That's not satisfactory in this country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Likkie
That's not satisfactory in this country.
So what's satisfactory?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
So what's satisfactory?
Well, what Apple have done recently (i.e. changing the product name) seems to satisfy what is required, but that is for the ACCC to decide.
This excerpt from an article I read in the Sydney Morning Herald seems to sum it up:
Quote:
The ACCC said in a statement that "any move" by Apple to cease using the '4G' descriptor in marketing "would mitigate against the ACCC's concerns" but would "not deal with any past conduct". It added that the legal action against Apple was "continuing" and going to trial on June 4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
In post #121, mnemonic said "Of course, however there might be a slight issue when the iPad will actually support a true 4G technology. "
According to the ITU which sets the standard, it already uses a true 4G technology. So why in the world would you think it's not relevant in the context of the argument?
It's been said multiple times in this thread and elsewhere, yet you refuse to acknowledge this: the fact that it is 4G capable is not relevant. I don't think that anyone is disputing that, so you should just let it go.
If it is being sold as a 4g device then it better well be able to do 4g in the market in which it is sold. The definition of 4G varies by market, despite what the ITU says 4G is. You keep parroting ITU ITU ITU like it's some kind of slogan but it's irrelevant from the consumer's point of view. From the consumer's point of view, here in Australia, it does not do 4G. It simply does not. This is in spite of what ITU tells you 4G is. We're talking about consumer law here, not hair splitting on definitions. Why do you not get this?
It is not to the point that is theoretically possible to use 4G if you get on a plane and go to merika. In this country, you are not allowed to hide in fine print what you are asserting. It can be construed as misleading or deceptive conduct and the ACCC can (and did) take action under the Australian Competition and Consumer Law (2010), Shedule 2 from memory. This is a federal act and applies to all corporations in Australia.
The fact that the product itself was called 4G makes it worse.
THAT is why the ITU definition is irrelevant. I think I've explained it as well as I can over numerous posts. The point is to educate, not pillory, but it's clear you do not want the first, and prefer to engage in the second.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly
If it is being sold as a 4g device then it better well be able to do 4g in the market in which it is sold.
Define 'market'.
Quote:
In this country, you are not allowed to hide in fine print what you are asserting. It can be construed as misleading or deceptive conduct and the ACCC can (and did) take action under the Australian Competition and Consumer Law (2010), Shedule 2 from memory. This is a federal act and applies to all corporations in Australia.
Then Australia better get to suing Apple for every single other product they sell. I see fine print on every product page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Define 'market'.
Australia. Haven't you been following along??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Likkie
Australia. Haven't you been following along??
So the entire country, then. So are there complaints that people have to drive all the way out to the bush to shoot off their guns instead of being able to shoot them in Canberra?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Define 'market'.
Then Australia better get to suing Apple for every single other product they sell. I see fine print on every product page.
Well, if it is discovered that they are hiding something in that fine print, then there may be a court action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
So the entire country, then. So are there complaints that people have to drive all the way out to the bush to shoot off their guns instead of being able to shoot them in Canberra?
You asked for the market to be defined.
I don't see what this has to do with guns, which BTW are also illegal here. You can't just shoot them off, city or country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Likkie
I don't see what this has to do with guns…
Then read my analogy for what it is instead.
Quote:
…which BTW are also illegal here.
Better bone up on my modern Australian educational shorts, then. Could have sworn you guys could have guns.