Slashdot Mirror
Australian Consumer Watchdog Sues Apple Over iPad Marketing
Fluffeh writes "Australia's competition regulator will today take iconic technology giant Apple to court for advertising its new iPad tablet as featuring '4G' speeds — which are not supported on Australian telecommunications networks. One of the key features of the new iPad is support for 4G speeds, however, the 4G speeds which the new iPad supports will not be available in Australia, with Apple's technical specifications page only listing it as supporting the 700Mhz and 2100Mhz spectrum bands, neither of which are being used by Australian telcos to provide 4G services. The case may be a bit shaky, though, as Apple does state in the fine print: '4G LTE is supported only on AT&T and Verizon networks in the US; and on Bell, Rogers and Telus networks in Canada. Data plans sold separately. See your carrier for details.'"
The article says that the fine print may make the case shaky:
The case may be a bit shaky, though, as Apple does state in the fine print: '4G LTE is supported only on AT&T and Verizon networks in the US; and on Bell, Rogers and Telus networks in Canada. Data plans sold separately. See your carrier for details.'"
But why can the fine print supercede what's in the main ad? How can an ad for a 4G device in Australia be legal if that device will never be able to work in Australia? They can list the 4G for USA and Canada on the specs page. As another example, if an ad screams "Unlimited 4G data!!!" in large print, they shouldn't be able to write "Unlimited plans subject to data caps that we won't reveal to you and throttling back to speeds slower than 2G speeds" down in the fine print. If it says "Unlimited" in the large print, then it really should be "Unlimited". Fine print shouldn't be able to contradict the main body of the ad.
We do have 4G here in Australia, it's just on a band that the Apple iPad doesn't support.
The Crux of the matter here is that 4G is available in Australia, Apple just can't be bothered making the iPad compatible with the Australian Network, yet advertises as if it were, that is false advertising in anyones book.
You never catch me alive
Uh, it's US which runs on different bands to the rest of the world.
Europe and Asia are using Australia's bands.
While Telstra is the only one with a 4G network right now, Optus is launching one in a month and Vodafone is soon to follow.
This appears to be just the same: advertise 4G, and in the small print, point out that you will probably never get 4G. It's dishonest.
Moreover outright dishonesty is not an element the ACCC needs to prove. The claim need not even be false, it need only be misleading
The relevant provision in the new Australian Consumer Law which replaces the old s52 Trade Practices Act 1974 and which the legislature in its inimitable wisdom has chosen to bury in Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, reads:
18 (1). A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.
I make a clear distinction between what is legal and what is ethical. Advertising a a 4G capability that none of the buyers will ever be able to use unless they travel abroad and then buy service is unethical. Telstra may deserve some crticism for only providing 4G on a limited range of frequencies, but that is irrelevent to the fact that the advertisements are highly misleading. Apple knew that the 4G would not work in Australia, yet they decided to advertise it anyway.
Car analogy: car maker advertises car with 1000 mile range, except that it needs unobtanium for fuel in order to get the 1K mile range. According to you, the fault would lie with the fuel companies for not selling unobtanium.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Let's have a look at 4G around around the world shall we?
http://www.worldtimezone.com/gsm.html
Oh look! It would appear that THE MAJORITY OF THE WORLD uses the 900/1800 GSM band.
Apple intentionally mislead consumers, and they were warned prior to the iPads release by the ACCC that what they were doing was in breach of advertising laws.
I've spoken to many CEO's (I work helpdesk for a private hospitals) who wanted to order the iPad and when I told them it wasn't 4G compatible in Australia they were all shocked to hear it. I would assume this is the same with many other consumers as well.
My internetting is no good.
which operates on a different spectrum than the 4G networks used everywhere else in the world
WTF are you talking about? The LTE ipad uses 700, 2100 MHz bands, and according to Wikipedia's 3GPP LTE page:
The US & Canada are the only countries in the world with LTE networks fully compatable with the ipad.
US !=The rest of the world.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
The ITU
Indeed. And according to the ITU, HSPA+ is "4G" and you can use the iPad 4G on Telstra's HSPA+ network, thus achieving a "4G" connection.
The problem stems from the fact that in Australia only Telstra's LTE network is advertised as "4G", and it is this network that the iPad is not compatible with. So, technically you can get a 4G connection on the new iPad, but Apple may be in trouble if it is determined that their advertising leads customers to believe that the device is compatible with the Telstra-advertised "4G" network.
Be careful. People in masks cannot be trusted.
By the rest of the world do you mean "The USA" or by the rest of the world do you mean "The rest of the world" ?
Because in Europe, Australia, and Asia 1800 is the standard frequency, with 2600 and 800 being also considered.
In the USA it's 700 and 1700/1900.
I guess the question would be... is it's Apple's responsibility to manage the wireless carriers infrastructure?
It is Apple's responsibility to manage their advertising, ensuring that when they advertise a device is 4G compatible, that is is compatible with whatever 4G means in the country they're advertising.
For instance, if a Swedish company was advertising a free slut with each car sold, and it turned out that all you got was the ability for the car to stop (slut means stop in swedish), you'd be.... disappointed wouldn't you? Well, this is the same thing. A company using a local definition in a foreign market to confuse the marketplace.
Apple also claims all iPads have WiFi but if you don't have WiFi at your house, should you sue Apple for false advertising?
This analogy is so fucking stupid that my brain has shrunk slightly upon reading it. How about this? If Apple claims a device has wifi, but it is not compatible with the local regulatory requirements for wifi, then yes, they will get sued.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
This is the point, and why the ACCC is suing. Apple's advertising states that 4G is a feature even though it's unavailable in Australia.
Whenever there is a global standard and a question on whether the US is following it, the safest best is that the US isn't.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."