Well not just a refund, consumers will most likely get the the right to break contract without penalty if they signed up for wireless data along with the sale.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Australian Regulators Targeting Apple Over '4G' Marketing Claims on New iPad
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well not just a refund, consumers will most likely get the the right to break contract without penalty if they signed up for wireless data along with the sale.
I don't use Wikipedia. I've been reading ITU docs for about ten years now. They can be convoluted, as befits a United Nations organziation such as they are.
IMO, Cube is most correct.
The ITU says that sometime in the first half of 2012, they hope to come up with a definition for "4G".
However, they're not really concerned with what's called 3G or 4G. (Especially since, for political reasons, sometimes organizations will arbitrarily hide behind either other term. E.g. WiMAX supporters have sometimes categorized it as 3G simply so that countries will allow them to use 3G reserved airspace.)
The ITU defines their own categories as IMT-2000, IMT-2000 Enhanced, and IMT-Advanced. They usually consider any 3G method that's been boosted (like UMTS-3G with HSPA) as IMT-2000 Enhanced.
Also, the idea that something has to START at 100Mbps to be IMT-Advanced, is not correct. The ITU charts IMT-Advanced for mobile as starting around 20Mbs and going up. The oft-quoted 100Mbps is the upper end that the technology should support, or at least be aimed for with R&D, but even that has not been codified yet.
In short, as most people suspect, 4G right now is more of a marketing term, and the ITU simply recognized that it is being used as such.
That might be the case if someone was suing them for $$$$$$$$ and the court was picking over the legal semantics of the small print.
That's not what's happening in the EU and Australia - they're being investigated by advertising regulatory bodies to see if their ad is misleading. Such bodies will give more credence to how a "typical customer" would interpret the advertising than whether the small print is technically correct. At stake is not some multi-million class-action payout, but whether Apple will be given a slapped wrist and required to change their advertsing.
I've already posted this in another thread, but here's an earlier example of Apple getting sent to the naughty step by the Advertising Standards Agency in the UK, over the "all of the internet" claim for the iPhone: http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2008/8/Apple-(UK)-Ltd/TF_ADJ_44891.aspx
Meanwhile to everybody claiming that HSPA+ etc. are "4G", that is not how they are being sold outside of the US. Here's chapter and verse from "Ofcom" the UK comms regulatory body:
Here's the UK carrier Three explaining 4G (their existing services include HSPA+ in some areas):
Finally, people should be aware that Apple has already been tweaking the wording on its international websites. E.g. all of the footnotes now say "*4G LTE is supported only on AT&T and Verizon networks in the US" - although this was always on the tech specs page, the "features" page used to have a "not available in all areas".
? can you show me where they say this? By "word it differently" I assume you mean don't say that at all, right?
http://www.apple.com/uk/ipad/features/
As I said, Apple view HSPA+ as a 3G network.
Just like people complaining about their 1TB HD having less than 1TB of usable space. Marketing calls all of those technologies 4G, even though none of them are the true original definition of 4G. HSPA+ is 4G so this lawsuit is frivolous.
Please don't lump all of us 'Aussies' together - we didn't all have a gymboree down the pub and decide to have a go at Apple over a Fosters before heading to the Outback for a delicious kangaroo steak.
In addition, far be it from me to actually defend the ACCC - I think in general they have been appallingly weak in protecting consumers, other than a handful of high profile instances. The way they let eBay's clear third line forcing through PayPal in this country only go mostly unchallenged (especially for sellers, who are the ones actually paying them for transacting) was ridiculous.
Whatever the ITU's definition of 4G is quite frankly doesn't matter at this stage - neither Apple, nor local carriers, are relying on any definition that lumps HSPA+ in as 4G (not to mention the actual coverage of the single HSPA+ network is barely greater than the small coverage of the single LTE network, on just one carrier).
Apple, the carriers, and most retailers have gone to lengths to ensure that there is a clarification at the point of sale that the product called "iPad WiFi + 4G" does not actually have what they have agreed to be 4G capabilities in Australia. Most of us aren't idiots and are well-informed enough to appreciate what this means and the clarification makes the distinction crystal clear.
However, it also means that selling a product as "iPad WiFi + 4G" when neither Apple nor its carrier partners claim it can achieve 4G speeds in Australia, is misleading - an ordinary consumer acting reasonably can't be expected to discern the distinction on their own, and the fine print and point of sale clarifications may be inadequate in their coverage and ambit to make this sufficiently clear to them.
Nor can you point to an international standard that states that existing services may be considered 4G when neither their carrier or the manufacturer actually acknowledge that, especially when they clearly expect far more within their own definitions of 4G. Again, until Apple actually start relying on the ITU's definition (and there is ample evidence to submit that they have not, nor have their carrier partners) then what is relevant is what an ordinary consumer would reasonably expect when sold a product with '4G' in its name.
There's a simple solution to this - call it "iPad WiFi + 3G" anywhere it is not compatible with LTE or carrier-marketed "4G" services. It involves putting a sticker on the box, something they do already. Not that big of a deal, as Steve would say.
In addition, far be it from me to actually defend the ACCC - I think in general they have been appallingly weak in protecting consumers, other than a handful of high profile instances. The way they let eBay's clear third line forcing through PayPal in this country only go mostly unchallenged (especially for sellers, who are the ones actually paying them for transacting) was ridiculous.
Whatever the ITU's definition of 4G is quite frankly doesn't matter at this stage - neither Apple, nor local carriers, are relying on any definition that lumps HSPA+ in as 4G (not to mention the actual coverage of the single HSPA+ network is barely greater than the small coverage of the single LTE network, on just one carrier).
Apple, the carriers, and most retailers have gone to lengths to ensure that there is a clarification at the point of sale that the product called "iPad WiFi + 4G" does not actually have what they have agreed to be 4G capabilities in Australia. Most of us aren't idiots and are well-informed enough to appreciate what this means and the clarification makes the distinction crystal clear.
However, it also means that selling a product as "iPad WiFi + 4G" when neither Apple nor its carrier partners claim it can achieve 4G speeds in Australia, is misleading - an ordinary consumer acting reasonably can't be expected to discern the distinction on their own, and the fine print and point of sale clarifications may be inadequate in their coverage and ambit to make this sufficiently clear to them.
Nor can you point to an international standard that states that existing services may be considered 4G when neither their carrier or the manufacturer actually acknowledge that, especially when they clearly expect far more within their own definitions of 4G. Again, until Apple actually start relying on the ITU's definition (and there is ample evidence to submit that they have not, nor have their carrier partners) then what is relevant is what an ordinary consumer would reasonably expect when sold a product with '4G' in its name.
There's a simple solution to this - call it "iPad WiFi + 3G" anywhere it is not compatible with LTE or carrier-marketed "4G" services. It involves putting a sticker on the box, something they do already. Not that big of a deal, as Steve would say.
All the talk of what the ITU or carriers view as 4G is irrelevant - the item up for discussion is how Apple have been marketing the new iPad. As I keep pointing out, the Apple website is very clear that LTE = 4G and everything else = 3G.
Apple are marketing the new iPad as being a 4G device world wide, yet they define 4G as LTE which is only available in the USA and Canada. If the iPad's 4G functionality, as defined by themselves, is not available world wide they shouldn't be marketing it as 4G.
Can anyone post a link to an Apple site that says HSPA+ or anything else (other than LTE) is a 4G technology?
Apple are marketing the new iPad as being a 4G device world wide, yet they define 4G as LTE which is only available in the USA and Canada. If the iPad's 4G functionality, as defined by themselves, is not available world wide they shouldn't be marketing it as 4G.
Can anyone post a link to an Apple site that says HSPA+ or anything else (other than LTE) is a 4G technology?
I said Apple would get in trouble for this, and they have. You can't call something 4G when it can only use 3G frequencies. Here in Australia the only thing marketed as 4G is LTE, Telstra is implementing 60mbps HSDPA+ and that is still considered 3G. So since the iPad can only run on 3G in Australia, not LTE which is our only 4G infrastructure it is misleading to call the iPad Wifi + 4G. I was going to get the 4G iPad when the store came back up after the announcement but then I read the frequencies it used and realized it can't run on 4G here.
Australia is run by idiots (I am an Australian so it's ok to say that), but your analogy is a little in the wrong direction. It'd be like your TV manufacturer saying "Here's two of our TV's, one is SD, and one is HD. HD is better than SD." They've advertised HD, and said HD is better, but if you advertise that in an area where HD TV is not available then it becomes misleading.
And it's not suing. This is the government doing something of a reprimand, and allowing those who have been mislead to be compensated.
That said, I don't think anyone upgraded for the LTE capabilities, that's just a pseudo-bonus.
they don't say 4g worldwide. It only takes a minute yet no one does it. They make it quite clear how they're marketing the device. If you're in us or Canada you'll have lte. If not you can still use hspa+.
Reread the little blurb you posted. It's clear as day.
It isn't clear as day, which is why they are in trouble in Australia.
They market it as having Wifi + 4G even in the UK, where the 4G won't work.
The keyword is upto 4g. Clear as day. And they're not in "trouble". They're about in as much trouble as they were when cr said the ipad overheats.
Chicken little scenario. It'll blow over in a week, and we'll have a new thing that is supposed to spell the end for Apple.
Well, "local industry consensus" was precisely the reason that international standards organizations were created to begin with.
I can't imagine why interoperability would be a problem where "local industry consensus" was used to set standards.
I don't have time right now, but it might be fun to look up who the European delegate organizations are that contribute to the ITU, and if there are Scandinavians on it. I'm guessing there must at least be adequate Finnish representation, given it's the corporate headquarters for Nokia.
Well, since the ITU hasn't actually defined 4G yet the carriers in various countries have agreed on what they consider 4G, why can't Apple respect that? It wouldn't be hard for Apple to adjust the marketing in each country since they have subsidiaries in each of these countries that regularly negotiates with the individual carriers in the countries anyway, Apple being an international company doesn't make that unfeasible as some would claim.
No, it's not on the carriers. It's only on the carriers if they say "Look, It's 4G" but then it doesn't work on their network. And our ACCC is always at the throats of our companies. The issue is that the Apple Australia site says "4G" and in Australia LTE is marketed as "4G" while HSPA+ is advertised as 3G (or NextG in the case of Telstra). The ACCC are simply saying "Advertise it as 3G, and anyone who bought the iPad thinking it was compatible with our 4G networks should be compensated."
It's no good to say "HEY LOOK WE HAVE LTE"
*LTE doesn't work.
Hey Aussies, do a software upgrade you might get a 4G on your iPad like us in ATT USA on iPhone 4S
hope no one else said the same thing this thread already
hope no one else said the same thing this thread already Thing is that we have a carrier that supports 4G LTE. iPad doesn't work on it. That's the issue. It's advertised as 4G. The average person doesn't look into the different frequencies. They won't look into international rules. They'll see "Hey, iPad says 4G, and Telstra says 4G. Should work, right?"
What do you do on the website then ? If you advertise it as 3G, many people in the US and Canada would not buy it. If you advertise it as 4G, you get the rest of the people complaining.
Eh, Apple have different versions of the website for each country
http://www.apple.com/choose-your-country/
Even easy call them "iPad" and "iPad+Mobile Data" or something equally generic like that. Then even if under Mobile Data specs they said 4G- LTE (bands) it would be a non issue as long as the local sales materials are clear.
I think that would help them anyway the number of people who ask me if the "+3G" or "+4G" is faster or better is incredible. People I though would be clued in. Given the sales reps I've dealt if in the past I really wouldn't put it past them to take advantage of the confusion.
Exactly. The major advertising message that Apple is pushing over here the iPad 3's 4G capabilities, when they (Apple) know that it simply wont work on the frequiencies designated to our current (and for the forseable future) 4G spectrum.
Even the new ipad's 4G radio worked in Australia, you litteraly have to be in the CBD of a capital city for it to work. The ACCC would be on their ass even if it did work on 4G here.
Didn't think it would need to be pointed out this far into the thread, but yes, it is as the gentleman has pointed out - see here: http://www.apple.com/au/ipad/4g/
There is nothing at all objectionable about the copy on the Australian iPad page - referring to being able to connect to the 'fast networks around the world' is completely fine (others may have a slight issue with the suggestion of 'comprehensive support', but I don't think that's a big deal).
The problem, once more, is nevertheless selling a model called 'iPad WiFi + 4G' despite the fact that the 4G part is, by their own standards, not accurate within the country of sale. Again, I don't personally have a problem with it, and I think they're as clear as can be in everything else they say that what they consider a '4G' service is not available - but at the same time I recognise that the product name, which is pretty much ubiquitous, has the potential to mislead.
It's a nomenclature problem, partially exacerbated by the lack of a specific model name for the entire new iPad line, as well as the historical decision to define the 'cellular' model of the iPad specifically as '3G'. It's messy, but as I said earlier, the simplest solution would be to change the model name '4G' to '3G' in countries where this is an issue (or some generic reference, like 'Mobile Data' as noted above - though this is a bit messy, and I imagine Apple would prefer something a bit neater and more concise).