It was written on the Apple site the 4G is not compatible with current Australian networks.
It wasn't. It was written which network the iPad was compatible with, yes. However, prior to being told by the court, Apple did not explicitly state that those American networks were the only ones where 4G worked. There's a subtle difference with a price tag of $2.25 million. Quit arguing and accept that you are wrong.
Apple has local legal and marketing staff in Australia, Europe, etc. to prevent these embarrasing and expensive gaffes. Is Apple making use of these people or are they not doing their job? In any event, Cook needs to take Schiller (Worldwide Marketing) and Sewell (General Counsel) to the woodshed.
It wasn't. It was written which network the iPad was compatible with, yes. However, prior to being told by the court, Apple did not explicitly state that those American networks were the only ones where 4G worked. There's a subtle difference with a price tag of $2.25 million. Quit arguing and accept that you are wrong.
Yeah your right, it was written compatible with US 4G and roaming ect. which for most people with half a brain would raise the question about compatibility with Australian networks. The ACCC had a problem with it being called the 4G iPad altogether. I agree it was badly done by Apple but the fine is ridiculous especially when offering a full refund to affected customers
If my math is correct the settlement comes out to 1.36 cents USD per share. I think it's silly and would have fought this for the principle of the matter but, as you say, no one is losing sleep in Cupertino over this.
Apple has a business to run. From the figure, it sounds like Apple said "we're probably going to spend $2-3 M to fight this (given the complexity and time involved in fighting government agencies), so we'll just settle for that amount and move on. The difference is that if they lost, they'd have spend $2-3 M PLUS any fines that were assigned (which would probably be larger if Apple lost). It was nothing more than an expedient business move.
Hey, I'm an Apple fan but this was their mistake. Truth in advertising: it says 4G LTE all over the box and in the adverts but it can't deliver (yet). Wouldn't have been a problem if it had been compatible with Telstra 4G but it isn't.
Just as long as as the ACCC is consistent in the application of these standards to other companies, I can't see the problem. It's not going to hurt Apple that much
Actually, it was a simple quirk of Australian law. International standards state that HSPA+ is 4G, so it is perfectly legitimate to advertise it as such. However, Australia foolishly legislates something different.
Besides, the device is capable of 4G/LTE, as well. Whether you are able to use it is irrelevant. See below.
I think it's fair.
It's only truly "4G" in two countries in the whole world, and shouldn't be marketed as such in other countries.
Sorry Apple. Until it's multiband, it's not "4G" in the rest of the world.
The device IS capable of 4G (both HSPA+ and LTE). Whether you are able to use it is irrelevant.
By your standards, if you have a car with a top speed of 200 mph, you should be required to state that the top speed is 35 mph - because that's the fastest you can go in New York City. Or maybe 2 mph since that's going to be your top speed at rush hour.
Similarly, let's take the US where both HSPA+ and LTE are supported. By your logic, the Nebraska Apple Store should not be able to advertise LTE if the carriers don't offer LTE there. Or, if the customer lives in a valley and can't get LTE signals, is that Apple's fault?
In either case (and in the case of Australia), the device is fully functional. If you travel to an area which has LTE and HSPA+ at supported frequencies, it works exactly as advertised.
I don't think it was nothing, I just don't think it was a proportionate punishment. I guess you don't think $2.25m is a lot of money, but I do.
But since you're not paying the fine, no one cares whether you think it's a lot of money. Apple apparently did not. On a case of this magnitude when competing against a government body that wants to prove a point, it's easy for legal fees to reach millions of dollars. It is very, very likely that Apple spent less money than they would have spent even if they won.
We have no idea if Apple would have won. They decided to settle. 'Guilty until proven innocent' is lousy logic.
Who settles out of court? the innocent? if you could run a multi-billion dollar company & you felt that you were right, would you settle out of court?
Have you ever seen an episode of 'Cops'? where a cop sees a dude, the guy spots the cops then starts running, the cops after a short chase catch the guy, (to the police, innocent don't run).
the cops ask why he ran away, hes like uuhhh i didn't know you were cops (despite them shouting 'stop, police'), turns out he has a crack pipe on him (they always have a crack pipe in that show)
yeah good times
I do agree, the definition of 4G isn't clearly stated enough to argue that the new iPad doesn't have 4G in Australia, even the (lets say my new iPad) is running HSPA+ & its running awesomely & it wouldn't be a stretch to say that HSPA+ could be called 4G (which means my 4s is 4G too :P )
If you travel to an area which has LTE and HSPA+ at supported frequencies, it works exactly as advertised.
Had they actually advertised it as LTE and HSPA+ there would not have been a problem, but LTE and HSPA+ really don't have same snazzy marketing ring to it that 4G does. Although the word 4G is a rather ambiguous term, it was already being used in commerce within Australia, however, it was being used to describe something similar but different than what Apple was calling 4G so naturally there was going to be some confusion.
I think Apple was well aware of the risk in advance but chose to market it as such anyway.
Who settles out of court? the innocent? if you could run a multi-billion dollar company & you felt that you were right, would you settle out of court?
Of course. It happens all the time. Do you really believe that every time a company settles out of court that they're guilty?
For example, my company (a subsidiary of a billion dollar corporation) was once sued for discrimination. EEOC said there was no evidence to support the allegations and we were 100% confident that we'd win. By my attorney said that the CHEAPEST discrimination case he'd ever dealt with ran up $50 K in legal fees, so he suggested that we offer the person $25 K to go away. From a business perspective, it makes eminent sense even if you're 100% innocent. Your options are:
Settle for $25 K and the issue is over
or
Litigate which means you spend AT LEAST $50 K in legal expenses (possibly many times more than that) and have a slight risk of losing and paying even greater damages.
Who settles out of court? the innocent? if you could run a multi-billion dollar company & you felt that you were right, would you settle out of court?
Have you ever seen an episode of 'Cops'? where a cop sees a dude, the guy spots the cops then starts running, the cops after a short chase catch the guy, (to the police, innocent don't run).
the cops ask why he ran away, hes like uuhhh i didn't know you were cops (despite them shouting 'stop, police'), turns out he has a crack pipe on him (they always have a crack pipe in that show)
yeah good times
I do agree, the definition of 4G isn't clearly stated enough to argue that the new iPad doesn't have 4G in Australia, even the (lets say my new iPad) is running HSPA+ & its running awesomely & it wouldn't be a stretch to say that HSPA+ could be called 4G (which means my 4s is 4G too :P )
Companies/Celebrities settle out of court a lot of times. They weigh the legal cost, damage to PR/image against being right and potential win. Sometimes it a whole lot cheaper to cut a check and make it go away then drag it out.
Evidence? I don't think you should be asking for evidence. All you do is make smart arse replies giving no evidence at all.
And its hardly consumer rights, its more like protecting the stupid. It was written on the Apple site the 4G is not compatible with current Australian networks. All you had to do was read the information before entering credit card details.
Well the ACCC and the Australian courts don't agree with you and I know who I would tend to believe. Show me where I have given no evidence of something when asked?
Smart arse replies were given when deserved. Much like when you make comments like "And its hardly consumer rights, its more like protecting the stupid" which just makes you look stupid yourself.
Well the ACCC and the Australian courts don't agree with you and I know who I would tend to believe. Show me where I have given no evidence of something when asked?
Smart arse replies were given when deserved. Much like when you make comments like "And its hardly consumer rights, its more like protecting the stupid" which just makes you look stupid yourself.
This whole overblown "issue" from our nanny state government makes us Australian's appear to be too stupid to read and understand what's written on a box, website and promotional material, it also distracts from the real issue's this department should deal with such as banks siphoning off $ Billions in "fees", the call termination charges imposed on internetwork calls by phone carriers and petrol (gas) price fixing (It's strange how when the cost of a barrel of crude goes up the price change of petrol is usually reflected on the same day, yet when it goes down there is a lag of up to a week.), among other things.
The ACCC IS protecting the stupid (as assumed by them) AND diverting the stupid from the real issues.
Besides, the device is capable of 4G/LTE, as well. Whether you are able to use it is irrelevant. See below.
The device IS capable of 4G (both HSPA+ and LTE). Whether you are able to use it is irrelevant.
By your standards, if you have a car with a top speed of 200 mph, you should be required to state that the top speed is 35 mph - because that's the fastest you can go in New York City. Or maybe 2 mph since that's going to be your top speed at rush hour.
Why are you still trying to use these stupid car analogies, they are not comparible, they are no where the same thing. The government has forced a speed limit on public roads, I can do any speed I like on my private roads.
Apple has advertised a feature you cannot use. Until you understand that countries have consumer laws for a reason this concept will be way above you. Apple didn't have to advertise it as 4G, they know you cannot advertise this way, and yet they did it anyway. There is a real simple concept that a lot of countries have in their consumer laws, you cannot use small print which might conceal information inregard to someone buying a product.
Here is an extract from the Commerce Commission NZ, many countries have the same conditions
Many advertisements include fine print sections containing details of conditions and qualifications. Fine print should not be used to conceal important information which would be critical to a person's decision to buy goods or services. If the overall impression given by an advertisement is misleading, it will breach the Fair Trading Act no matter what information is provided in fine print.
Bottom line is Apple was wrong, and they were fined for it.
This whole overblown "issue" from our nanny state government makes us Australian's appear to be too stupid to read and understand what's written on a box, website and promotional material, it also distracts from the real issue's this department should deal with such as banks siphoning off $ Billions in "fees", the call termination charges imposed on internetwork calls by phone carriers and petrol (gas) price fixing (It's strange how when the cost of a barrel of crude goes up the price change of petrol is usually reflected on the same day, yet when it goes down there is a lag of up to a week.), among other things.
The ACCC IS protecting the stupid (as assumed by them) AND diverting the stupid from the real issues.
You have given the impression that you are in retail sales in Australia. If so, you might want to get some basic consumer law training as you obviously have no idea and are simply talking from emotions.
You have given the impression that you are in retail sales in Australia. If so, you might want to get some basic consumer law training as you obviously have no idea and are simply talking from emotions.
The ACCC is working on the assumption that the average Australian is too stupid to know what a footnote is.
This was a political move purely to divert attention from other, more pressing issues.
Apart from the fact, that in the right place the new iPad actually is "4G" compatible.
Apple stepped into a gray area of the law.
Perhaps, but it does look like they messed up in Australia. In the entire civilized world, there are international standards as to what constitutes 4G - and this includes HSPA+. Australia legislates a definition of 4G which differs from the international standard and does NOT include HSPA+. I think it's still legitimate to argue that the device is capable of 4G even if Australia calls it something different. For example, even if you accept the Australian definition, you can still use 4G when you travel. The device is capable of it, even if it's not available locally.
Yawn...obviously Apple wouldn't be paying this fine, changing the name and offering refunds if it was this simple. Your argument is lame.
As pointed out above, lots of companies find it far less expensive to settle ridiculous complaints rather than fight them. Apple probably realized that few Australians would be asking for refunds, anyway, so the cost was minimal. And the cost of settling was almost certainly less than the cost of fighting it.
You could turn your silly argument around. If Australia felt that it had such a strong case, why did THEY settle? Why didn't they fight it - and make Apple pay their legal expenses, pull the product off the market, refund the purchase price for EVERY consumer, and pay a huge fine? If they were so certain they would win, why wouldn't they do that?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by OllieWallieWhiskers
in unrelated news, Apple has slightly increased the price of all products sold in Australia.
That's not news.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoadm
It was written on the Apple site the 4G is not compatible with current Australian networks.
It wasn't. It was written which network the iPad was compatible with, yes. However, prior to being told by the court, Apple did not explicitly state that those American networks were the only ones where 4G worked. There's a subtle difference with a price tag of $2.25 million. Quit arguing and accept that you are wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
You make it sound like it was nothing, they openly broke the law and only fixed it when they were forced to.
I don't think it was nothing, I just don't think it was a proportionate punishment. I guess you don't think $2.25m is a lot of money, but I do.
Apple has local legal and marketing staff in Australia, Europe, etc. to prevent these embarrasing and expensive gaffes. Is Apple making use of these people or are they not doing their job? In any event, Cook needs to take Schiller (Worldwide Marketing) and Sewell (General Counsel) to the woodshed.
Yeah your right, it was written compatible with US 4G and roaming ect. which for most people with half a brain would raise the question about compatibility with Australian networks. The ACCC had a problem with it being called the 4G iPad altogether. I agree it was badly done by Apple but the fine is ridiculous especially when offering a full refund to affected customers
Apple has a business to run. From the figure, it sounds like Apple said "we're probably going to spend $2-3 M to fight this (given the complexity and time involved in fighting government agencies), so we'll just settle for that amount and move on. The difference is that if they lost, they'd have spend $2-3 M PLUS any fines that were assigned (which would probably be larger if Apple lost). It was nothing more than an expedient business move.
Actually, it was a simple quirk of Australian law. International standards state that HSPA+ is 4G, so it is perfectly legitimate to advertise it as such. However, Australia foolishly legislates something different.
Besides, the device is capable of 4G/LTE, as well. Whether you are able to use it is irrelevant. See below.
The device IS capable of 4G (both HSPA+ and LTE). Whether you are able to use it is irrelevant.
By your standards, if you have a car with a top speed of 200 mph, you should be required to state that the top speed is 35 mph - because that's the fastest you can go in New York City. Or maybe 2 mph since that's going to be your top speed at rush hour.
Similarly, let's take the US where both HSPA+ and LTE are supported. By your logic, the Nebraska Apple Store should not be able to advertise LTE if the carriers don't offer LTE there. Or, if the customer lives in a valley and can't get LTE signals, is that Apple's fault?
In either case (and in the case of Australia), the device is fully functional. If you travel to an area which has LTE and HSPA+ at supported frequencies, it works exactly as advertised.
We have no idea if Apple would have won. They decided to settle. 'Guilty until proven innocent' is lousy logic.
But since you're not paying the fine, no one cares whether you think it's a lot of money. Apple apparently did not. On a case of this magnitude when competing against a government body that wants to prove a point, it's easy for legal fees to reach millions of dollars. It is very, very likely that Apple spent less money than they would have spent even if they won.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
We have no idea if Apple would have won. They decided to settle. 'Guilty until proven innocent' is lousy logic.
Who settles out of court?
Have you ever seen an episode of 'Cops'? where a cop sees a dude, the guy spots the cops then starts running, the cops after a short chase catch the guy, (to the police, innocent don't run).
the cops ask why he ran away, hes like uuhhh i didn't know you were cops (despite them shouting 'stop, police'), turns out he has a crack pipe on him (they always have a crack pipe in that show)
I do agree, the definition of 4G isn't clearly stated enough to argue that the new iPad doesn't have 4G in Australia, even the (lets say my new iPad) is running HSPA+ & its running awesomely
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
If you travel to an area which has LTE and HSPA+ at supported frequencies, it works exactly as advertised.
Had they actually advertised it as LTE and HSPA+ there would not have been a problem, but LTE and HSPA+ really don't have same snazzy marketing ring to it that 4G does. Although the word 4G is a rather ambiguous term, it was already being used in commerce within Australia, however, it was being used to describe something similar but different than what Apple was calling 4G so naturally there was going to be some confusion.
I think Apple was well aware of the risk in advance but chose to market it as such anyway.
Of course. It happens all the time. Do you really believe that every time a company settles out of court that they're guilty?
For example, my company (a subsidiary of a billion dollar corporation) was once sued for discrimination. EEOC said there was no evidence to support the allegations and we were 100% confident that we'd win. By my attorney said that the CHEAPEST discrimination case he'd ever dealt with ran up $50 K in legal fees, so he suggested that we offer the person $25 K to go away. From a business perspective, it makes eminent sense even if you're 100% innocent. Your options are:
Settle for $25 K and the issue is over
or
Litigate which means you spend AT LEAST $50 K in legal expenses (possibly many times more than that) and have a slight risk of losing and paying even greater damages.
It's really a no-brainer in many cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zozman
Who settles out of court?
Have you ever seen an episode of 'Cops'? where a cop sees a dude, the guy spots the cops then starts running, the cops after a short chase catch the guy, (to the police, innocent don't run).
the cops ask why he ran away, hes like uuhhh i didn't know you were cops (despite them shouting 'stop, police'), turns out he has a crack pipe on him (they always have a crack pipe in that show)
I do agree, the definition of 4G isn't clearly stated enough to argue that the new iPad doesn't have 4G in Australia, even the (lets say my new iPad) is running HSPA+ & its running awesomely
Companies/Celebrities settle out of court a lot of times. They weigh the legal cost, damage to PR/image against being right and potential win. Sometimes it a whole lot cheaper to cut a check and make it go away then drag it out.
Apple should just increase the price of the iPhone and iPad range by A$0.99 per handset and they will recoop the cash in a few weeks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoadm
Evidence? I don't think you should be asking for evidence. All you do is make smart arse replies giving no evidence at all.
And its hardly consumer rights, its more like protecting the stupid. It was written on the Apple site the 4G is not compatible with current Australian networks. All you had to do was read the information before entering credit card details.
Well the ACCC and the Australian courts don't agree with you and I know who I would tend to believe. Show me where I have given no evidence of something when asked?
Smart arse replies were given when deserved. Much like when you make comments like "And its hardly consumer rights, its more like protecting the stupid" which just makes you look stupid yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
Well the ACCC and the Australian courts don't agree with you and I know who I would tend to believe. Show me where I have given no evidence of something when asked?
Smart arse replies were given when deserved. Much like when you make comments like "And its hardly consumer rights, its more like protecting the stupid" which just makes you look stupid yourself.
This whole overblown "issue" from our nanny state government makes us Australian's appear to be too stupid to read and understand what's written on a box, website and promotional material, it also distracts from the real issue's this department should deal with such as banks siphoning off $ Billions in "fees", the call termination charges imposed on internetwork calls by phone carriers and petrol (gas) price fixing (It's strange how when the cost of a barrel of crude goes up the price change of petrol is usually reflected on the same day, yet when it goes down there is a lag of up to a week.), among other things.
The ACCC IS protecting the stupid (as assumed by them) AND diverting the stupid from the real issues.
Why are you still trying to use these stupid car analogies, they are not comparible, they are no where the same thing. The government has forced a speed limit on public roads, I can do any speed I like on my private roads.
Apple has advertised a feature you cannot use. Until you understand that countries have consumer laws for a reason this concept will be way above you. Apple didn't have to advertise it as 4G, they know you cannot advertise this way, and yet they did it anyway. There is a real simple concept that a lot of countries have in their consumer laws, you cannot use small print which might conceal information inregard to someone buying a product.
Here is an extract from the Commerce Commission NZ, many countries have the same conditions
http://www.comcom.govt.nz/fine-print/
Bottom line is Apple was wrong, and they were fined for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
You make it sound like it was nothing, they openly broke the law and only fixed it when they were forced to.
Apart from the fact, that in the right place the new iPad actually is "4G" compatible.
Apple stepped into a gray area of the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
This whole overblown "issue" from our nanny state government makes us Australian's appear to be too stupid to read and understand what's written on a box, website and promotional material, it also distracts from the real issue's this department should deal with such as banks siphoning off $ Billions in "fees", the call termination charges imposed on internetwork calls by phone carriers and petrol (gas) price fixing (It's strange how when the cost of a barrel of crude goes up the price change of petrol is usually reflected on the same day, yet when it goes down there is a lag of up to a week.), among other things.
The ACCC IS protecting the stupid (as assumed by them) AND diverting the stupid from the real issues.
You have given the impression that you are in retail sales in Australia. If so, you might want to get some basic consumer law training as you obviously have no idea and are simply talking from emotions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Apart from the fact, that in the right place the new iPad actually is "4G" compatible.
Apple stepped into a gray area of the law.
Yawn...obviously Apple wouldn't be paying this fine, changing the name and offering refunds if it was this simple. Your argument is lame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
You have given the impression that you are in retail sales in Australia. If so, you might want to get some basic consumer law training as you obviously have no idea and are simply talking from emotions.
The ACCC is working on the assumption that the average Australian is too stupid to know what a footnote is.
This was a political move purely to divert attention from other, more pressing issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
Yawn...obviously Apple wouldn't be paying this fine, changing the name and offering refunds if it was this simple. Your argument is lame.
How many aggrieved parties took advantage of Apple's refund offer.
Australians aren't as stupid as the ACCC likes to think.
Perhaps, but it does look like they messed up in Australia. In the entire civilized world, there are international standards as to what constitutes 4G - and this includes HSPA+. Australia legislates a definition of 4G which differs from the international standard and does NOT include HSPA+. I think it's still legitimate to argue that the device is capable of 4G even if Australia calls it something different. For example, even if you accept the Australian definition, you can still use 4G when you travel. The device is capable of it, even if it's not available locally.
As pointed out above, lots of companies find it far less expensive to settle ridiculous complaints rather than fight them. Apple probably realized that few Australians would be asking for refunds, anyway, so the cost was minimal. And the cost of settling was almost certainly less than the cost of fighting it.
You could turn your silly argument around. If Australia felt that it had such a strong case, why did THEY settle? Why didn't they fight it - and make Apple pay their legal expenses, pull the product off the market, refund the purchase price for EVERY consumer, and pay a huge fine? If they were so certain they would win, why wouldn't they do that?