Slashdot Mirror
In Australia, Apple Fined $2.5 Million For '4G' Advertising Claims
Whiney Mac Fanboy writes "Apple has agreed to pay a $2.25 million (AUD) fine (along with 300k legal costs) to the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission for misleading advertising. Apple misrepresented their iPad product as being a '4G' device, when in fact they're only compatible with a very small percentage of 4G networks around the world. The Age online has the full story."
10 minutes of iPad sales?
A reviewer judge has called for info on how much investment Apple has in Oz also how many ppl were affected.
...and the resulting exposure probably saved them tens of millions in advertising.
worldmobilenet.com -- World Prepaid Wireless Internet plans
All carriers play pretty fast and loose with claims of wireless speeds, 3G, 4G, and associated coverage areas.
There is no "4g" coverage in my area, yet every phone retailer sells and advertises 4G phones.
Why does only Apple get called on this nonsense?
Funny how these markets and lawyers and politicians always leave-out relevant facts. "Alan Archibald, QC, acting for Apple, told the court it was irrelevant how many iPads had been sold or returned because Apple had offered to provide full refunds, so there was no loss to customers. "What conceiveable damage might there be?", he said."
The guy forgets that Apple only offered these refunds AFTER the government started prosecuting them. That alone is reason enough to fine them, because had the government not existed, then Apple would have happily lied with its "iPhone 4G" campaign and refused to refund the cash to the ripped-off Australians. (Also refunding the phone doesn't mean customers are exempt from the 2-3 year contracts. Now they are phoneless, but still stuck with a bill.)
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
"This piece of plastic wont work on our networks?"
I doubt it's the kind of advertising they either wanted or needed frankly. That being said it is their own fault and they deserve every lick the ACCC feels like giving them, certainly very few/if any people in the Australian community are supporting them in this, even the most rabid applebois that I know were saying that Apple was pretty stupid with their actions. That they are trying to block the galaxy s3 here also hasn't made them very many friends either.
Delimiter – an independent, Australia-focued tech news site – have been covering this story:
>Apple has agreed to pay a $2.25m fine and $300,000 towards the ACCC's legal costs but Federal Court judge Mordy Bromberg, who must approve the settlement, questioned why there was no information for him about the number of affected customers and Apple's total worth.
>"I don't know whether we're talking about a corporation that makes $10m or $300m," he said. "How do I know that it (the penalty) is meaningful for Apple if you don't put before me any idea of what its financial position is?"
From the article you linked, which suggests the judge is saying, "we are going to smack these folks around, and love it, but are we smacking them around hard enough, maybe you should raise the bar ACCC or tell me why we are only going this hard then i'll let them off light."
>Why does only Apple get called on this nonsense?
I would say that it is because it is Australia, and we can.
They sort of buried the lead a bit phrasing it that way. The last I heard, there are zero 4G towers in the entirety of Australia. Yeah, none. So now the law suit makes a lot of sense. A normal person would have removed "4G" from advertising if the entire country didn't have it. When it rolled out on phones and tablets in the US, only large cities had it and even that was controversial and had some small, local law suits. But zero towers in the country? That's just stupid. I see why Apple got fined.
AT&T Mobility made the same error in some online ads on their site because the computer programming adding the 4G logo saw the 4 in "iPhone 4" and assumed that meant 4G mistakenly.
I'm LostCluster but I lost my password to that user. Hey Slashdot, how about helping me get it back!
We have 4G LTE, they sell and advertise the product as 4G but it will never run on a 4G network in this country.
As far as it being a slap on the wrist, the judge seems to agree and has suggested that numbers need to be provided so that he can make the fine meaningful for apple.
BTW Consumer protection laws, don't you guys try to stop snake oil salespeople on your side of the ditch, or do you prefer to just let them roll with it?
Just because they're technically right doesn't mean it isn't misleading advertising, which is what they were fined for.
Dilbert RSS feed
Actually no 4g networks or devices exist on earth. And the article you linked substantiates that. So not only is AU right in this instance to slap down Apple, their next step should be to slap down all the idiots currently advertising 4g service in australia but not delivering it.
Of course, that's where it breaks down. Giving fanbois a consolation prize. You can always defend Apple by attacking everyone else in the market.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
It's a 4G device that's not compatible with the 4G network in AU. The physical device will not work at 4G in AU, even if it does in Canada. Read your own link. 4G is defined for networks only, not devices. It isn't a 4G device unless it's carrier equipment. User devices can be 4G compatible, but it's the network, not the device, that defines 4G. And iPad can't use 4G in AU, yet is being advertised as such. That's a lie.
And yes, it is a moving target. 4G has changed greatly from when it was first used. Yes, the ITU never changed it's oficial definition, but took what, 10 years from the first use of the term until they approved a definition? And they don't define any interoperability, so "4G" is locally defined for devices, as an international standard is useless for defining interoperability (And the ITU definition doesn't concern interoperability anyway) if every country uses unique frequencies and the device doesn't use the local frequencies.
Learn to love Alaska
In Australia we don't take to kindly to snake oil salesmen, it is why we have institutions like the ACCC.
Next we will be coming for their profits that they are shuffling off overseas to avoid taxation, the public discontent is growing with both Google and Apple about this, and the more they mess around and make themselves targets with things like this and trying to get injunctions against the galaxy S3, the closer they come to turning the public against them.
Australia is not like the USA in regards to loving/respecting companies ripping off the system.
Actually no 4g networks or devices exist on earth.
But at least all the commercials for "4G Lite" are truthful, aren't they? ;-)
This is a consumer protection organisation. They don't give a fuck about your pedantic nitpicking. Australia has 4G* LTE networks. The iPad was advertised as supporting 4G* LTE networks. The iPad did not support Australia's 4G* LTE networks. Ergo, the iPad did not support 4G* LTE networks. End of story. The CONSUMER protection organisation should not have to give a fuck about whether it supports 4G* LTE somewhere else, the question is, could the advertising be expected to give a consumer a reasonable belief that it would work with their 4G* LTE service. The answer is yes, so Apple broke the law. That you believe this is somehow OK for Apple to market in such a misleading way is telling of how little your government protects your consumers, and how brainwashed your consumers are by your corporations.
* Whether LTE is actually 4G is not addressed by this post, and is beside this point for the purposes of this discussion.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
6 times faster != 4G. If it is 6 six times faster call it what it is, not 4G
You should be one of those scumbag corporate lawyers if you aren't already. You've got the twisting of words, expanding of grey area, and the deniability of intent down pat!
So.. Apple makes a device in the full knowledge that it will not function on compliant 4G networks outside North America and you want them to be clearer about the deficiencies of others? Apple apologist much? The most glaring deficiencies for Apple are found in the mirror.
Just for purposes of comparison would you be okay with a company advertising and selling cordless power tools in the US with the fact that the included charger is 230V only mentioned in the fine print? It works fine with mains electricity. The fact that it doesn't work with YOUR mains power is of little consequence to them and not their problem.
Maybe these guys worked on their marketing campaign? http://dilbert.com/fast/2011-05-10
No, moron, those arent 4g. Read the fine print. 1gb/s for low mobility users? Not even close.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
all apple iphone managers and bosses must dress up as chickens and repeatedly attempt crossing the road. a busy road. almost anything near cupertino qualifies.
(and not only will apple feel a sense of punishment, we may actually find the answer to that age old riddle!)
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Actually you have it backwards. There is a 4G standard definition for the rest of the world, then there is the US/Canada. Australia is not the odd one out here.
I'm now waiting for Apple to turn around and countersue Telstra for making a 4G network that is not compliant with the capabilities of the Ipad. Clearly Telstra are advertising a 4G service that isn't compatible with a 4G device, which is misleading!
They sort of buried the lead a bit phrasing it that way. The last I heard, there are zero 4G towers in the entirety of Australia. Yeah, none.
You're woefully misinformed.
The US describes HSPA+ as 4G (in reality it's a 3.5 G technology) we've had that since 2008, in fact we were the first country to have a commercial HSPA+ service.
We've had commercial WIMAX networks since 2009.
All three network operators are deploying LTE as we speak. One telco, Telstra has an active commercial LTE network. In fact this is where the law suit makes a lot of sense, the Ipad does not operate on the same frequency as the LTE networks in Australia so it's limited to 3G technologies (no, Australia does not consider HSPA+ to be "4G"), Apple knew this and falsely advertised the feature deliberately.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
There are a set of acknowledged frequencies the majority of the world uses for 4g, apple DOESN'T work with them. They are not just in trouble in Australia for this, they are having legal and regulatory trouble all over the world for it. Australia has just been more direct by prosectuing them for misleading advertising, and rightly so.
His function is to interpret and apply Australian law, which is precisely what he did.
Have you been skipping your meds again? You sound awfully like an aspie.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
If it's not interoperable with local networks what will the data rate be?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
We are all crazy for ipad!
I really love club dresses ,
He probably does know. But he can't make a judgement based on what he "knows", only on the evidence that's been placed before him during the case. That's how the law works.
I can't see Polaris from a telescope in Australia... does that mean it's not a star and not a telescope?
"Buy the Australia iTelescope, the best for viewing Polaris"
Never mind. I had comments on your deliberate obtuseness, but didn't recognize it as deliberate until I started responding. The network is 4G, like a star is a star. If the telescope isn't a telescope, that has no effect on whether the star is a star. Austarlia has 4G. Many devices use it. the iPad can not operate in Australia as 4G, despite claiming it does 4G. They are making an untrue marketing claim. It is *not* 4G capable in Australia.
Learn to love Alaska
You cannot pay fines with "market cap". It's not actual money.
And Apple had to change their advertising in many countries as a result of the incompatibility. Of course it is deceiving to use 4G in your marketing in countries where it does not offer that capability. If I tried to sell a goose and wrote LAYS GOLDEN EGGS! with a smaller disclaimer of "may not actually lay golden eggs" underneath, that would also be misleading.
Yes, it did match the advertising everywhere, that's why they're being investigated in other countries too.
In Australia, it's misleading, period. Whether Apple did it "intentionally" or by gross incompetence is irrelevant.
And a reasonable person would consider that a disclaimer saying it may not be compatible "with all worldwide networks" would apply in case they traveled abroad, because it'd absurd - or, as in this case, illegal - to make a campaign advertising a feature that doesn't work.
Dilbert RSS feed
because the international standards organization correctly left out any mention of network compatibility, becuase had they attempted to include it with so many various proticols, then the standard could never be standard
You're correct that the definition of 4G is based on peak data rates (100Mbps for moving devices, 1Gbps for static devices).
However, I'm not sure how you can say that they "correctly" didn't include compatibility so that they could standardise it. What's actually the point in a standard if it doesn't guarantee some kind of compatibility? In a global economy (which we are in, even if the phone vendors seem to think that its a good idea to restrict particular models of phone to particular countries), you should be able to buy a device advertised as "4G" and have it work on any network advertised as "4G" - this is the whole point of standards. This is what we have with other standards - 802.11g is 802.11g the world over (ok, there are some minor differences in frequencies at the top and bottom ends of the band, but generally you can buy an 802.11g device anywhere in the world and have it work on an 802.11g network anywhere else in the world).
At the moment you can buy a device labelled as "4G" and find that it doesn't even work on half the 4G networks in the country you bought it from, let alone anywhere else in the world (because LTE and WiMax seem to be being rolled out in parallel, and most 4G devices only support one or the other). Whilst your average techie can research this and figure out what type of 4G he needs for his chosen network, the average consumer can't.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Your logic is way screwed up... again, the 4G iPad meets the specifications for 4G hardware, thus, it is 4G hardware,
Can it manage 1Gbps? No? Then it isn't 4G
http://blog.nexusuk.org
There are a set of acknowledged frequencies the majority of the world uses for 4g, apple DOESN'T work with them. They are not just in trouble in Australia for this, they are having legal and regulatory trouble all over the world for it. Australia has just been more direct by prosectuing them for misleading advertising, and rightly so.
This has nothing to do with whether or not hardware is 4G as defined by an international standards body. Apple's advertising is consistent world-wide. Apple is not preying upon unsuspecting consumers. It is nothing less than irrational paranoia to suggest this. Apple's advertisements included notice that the networks in AU were incompatible with the 4G components within the 4G iPad. When consumers complained, Apple made their notice even more obvious.
All this grievance amounts to is that the rest of the world is pissed off that an American company developed hardware that is compatible with American networks. The entire argument is ridiculous, and easily solved: don't buy it. But attempting to redefine an international standard to conveniently cast dispersion on Apple is complete anathema.
The Admin and the Engineer
And here we see the deception of the Libertarian viewpoint distilled. It's ok to defraud your customers, so long as whatever you're saying can be considered true somewhere in the world.
If it's not interoperable with local networks what will the data rate be?
Again, this is a misinterpretation of what 4G is defined as. 4G is defined as a maximum possible data rate, given by the international standards body. It is possible for the 4G iPad to achieve these rates as that's what the hardware is capable of. Even if Australia had no cellular ability whatsoever, data, voice, 2G, 3G or any identifiable network whatsoever, this would still not change the simple fact that the hardware is capable of achieving those speeds.
Why is this so difficult to understand? Another poster used a wonderful metaphor: If in the US, I purchased an electronic drill that was only compatible with the European electrical grid, and not compatible with the electric grid in the US, no one would attempt to claim that the device, magically, was no longer and electric device. It is still an electric drill, even if it won't work in the the US. It is merely incompatible with grid. The same is true of the 4G iPad in Australia... it is still 4G, irregardless of the incompatibility with the network. Further, Apple made this clear... and then changed their advertising to make it even clearer. It's a simple thing, and simply solved: buy another brand in Australia that is compatible with the 4G networks.
The Admin and the Engineer
Apple corporate spinmods hate it when somebody calls patent troll Apple a patent troll. Hey, maybe instead of sending out your minions to troll social geek sites you should stop patent trolling, that is a much better way to stop being called a patent troll. Sending out your minions just makes me more critical, why should you be surprised.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
The point being missed here (other than the whole blatant lying part) is that "4G networks in Australia" and "4G networks in parts of the world that aren't the USA" are synonymous.
The USA is a big market, to be sure, but it's not as big as the rest of the world. The rest of the world all uses the same mobile phone networks, which are different to America's. On top of that, the rest of the world generally has actual consumer protection laws, unlike America. You lie about "4G" to Australia, you lie about "4G" to the rest of the world.
Apple Advertises it as a 4G Ipad. In Australia your advertising cannot be MISLEADING. Australia has 4G networks therefore according to the laws if a person could be mislead into believing that the ipad 4G access will work in Australia then they are breaking the laws. This is not about international standards or any of that bullshit, it is purely about consumer protection. If you advertise in Australia your product does X then it bloody well better do X in Australia, not in some foreign country. If Apple don't want to change there advertising then they should live with the consequences of their actions as they have blatantly broken the law even though they were warned BEFORE the ipad was released that they would need to change their advertising.
If it's not interoperable with local networks what will the data rate be?
Again, this is a misinterpretation of what 4G is defined as. 4G is defined as a maximum possible data rate, given by the international standards body. It is possible for the 4G iPad to achieve these rates as that's what the hardware is capable of. Even if Australia had no cellular ability whatsoever, data, voice, 2G, 3G or any identifiable network whatsoever, this would still not change the simple fact that the hardware is capable of achieving those speeds.
Why is this so difficult to understand? Another poster used a wonderful metaphor: If in the US, I purchased an electronic drill that was only compatible with the European electrical grid, and not compatible with the electric grid in the US, no one would attempt to claim that the device, magically, was no longer and electric device. It is still an electric drill, even if it won't work in the the US. It is merely incompatible with grid. The same is true of the 4G iPad in Australia... it is still 4G, irregardless of the incompatibility with the network. Further, Apple made this clear... and then changed their advertising to make it even clearer. It's a simple thing, and simply solved: buy another brand in Australia that is compatible with the 4G networks.
And if you tried to sell an electric drill in Australia that was incompatible with our grid, you'd get shot down exactly the same as Apple is. The device is not fit for purpose. If you say a product can do something, it has to be able to do it here. Australian consumer protection laws are stricter than those in the US. Is this so difficult to understand?
How about:
The point being missed here (other than the whole blatant lying part) is that "4G networks in Australia" and "4G networks in parts of the world that aren't the USA" are synonymous.
Well I, for one, am at the edge of my seat to see if the rest of the world is as gullible as Australian technolgy consumers.
The USA is a big market, to be sure, but it's not as big as the rest of the world.
As far as Apple is concerned, I'm not sure that's as true as you believe it is. I'd like to see some proof of this. I can think of a lot of anecdotal evidence that strongly suggests otherwise. Hoodoo Gurus, Men at Work, and INXS were no where internationally until they came and chamed American consumers. Even The Beatles, for for that matter, weren't huge until they conquered America. The same is true of most artists, even Jimi Hendrix... toured the world before coming (back) to America and actually striking it big. The only counter example I can think of is what we call Soccar... huge money and popularity everywhere else, not so big here (but I love it, fwiw).
The rest of the world all uses the same mobile phone networks, which are different to America's. On top of that, the rest of the world generally has actual consumer protection laws, unlike America.
Yes, in America, it is the spender that is responsible for the spending: "buyer beware."
You lie about "4G" to Australia, you lie about "4G" to the rest of the world.
Your statements are tremendously prejudicial. You're lying to yourself and anyone that reads your comments if you believe and spread the libel that the "iPad WiFi + 4G" doesn't, in fact, by all the definitions of international standards, actually include 4G hardware. Geez... and I thought Americans were self-centered egotistical arrogant individuals, and before this story broke, had the greatest respect for the Australian people and spirit, and the AU government, as they always seemed to just do things right. But this event is not so much a black mark against Apple as evidence that Australians are even more intolerant of when the truth, the cold scientific truth, doesn't give them the ability to have their cake and eat it too. Capitalistically, it appears, Australia is still adolescent when it comes to international commerce.
The Admin and the Engineer
PRECISELY, they do not. Because if they did this then it could never be a standard... if they did this, the definition of 4G would be arbitrarily based on local circumstance. But it IS a standard, and thus NOT based on local circumstance.
THat's the kind of incorrect and wortheless shit you spew. Do you even think before you throw up on your computer? Do you know what 802.11 is? Did you know that 802.11b frequencies are *not* standard, yet the standard is defined for interoperability? That's right, it does everything you claim is impossible in a standard. But then, it's one of the most widely used standards in the world and has only been around 30+ years, so obviously deliberately ignorant people like yourself haven't heard of it yet.
Learn to love Alaska
And if you tried to sell an electric drill in Australia that was incompatible with our grid, you'd get shot down exactly the same as Apple is. The device is not fit for purpose. If you say a product can do something, it has to be able to do it here. Australian consumer protection laws are stricter than those in the US. Is this so difficult to understand?
What is difficult to comprehend is that you'd in fact declare that the incompatible electric drill was not an electric device. There is self-delusion... and then there is self-delusion. Time to grow up, Australia.
The Admin and the Engineer
The only reason any phones have been advertised as 4G is because the US FTC gave the industry assurances that it would not sue manufacturers for falsely labeling 3G products like LTE and HSPA+ as 4G. Call it an under-the-table economic stimulus plan - get everyone to buy new phones even though they are nothing new.
Neither HSPA+ nor LTE are 4G technologies. The only 4G network that meets the ITU 4G specification is LTE-Advanced, and there are currently no consumer devices that support it.
Nobody complained about the iPad name. You are just making up shit so you can argue against yourself, one you always win, and you are too stupid to notice you always lose as well.
PRECISELY, they do not. Because if they did this then it could never be a standard... if they did this, the definition of 4G would be arbitrarily based on local circumstance. But it IS a standard, and thus NOT based on local circumstance.
THat's the kind of incorrect and wortheless shit you spew. Do you even think before you throw up on your computer? Do you know what 802.11 is? Did you know that 802.11b frequencies are *not* standard, yet the standard is defined for interoperability? That's right, it does everything you claim is impossible in a standard. But then, it's one of the most widely used standards in the world and has only been around 30+ years, so obviously deliberately ignorant people like yourself haven't heard of it yet.
And now you have degraded what was a perfectly good adversarial argument into a worthless spewing of fallacious ad hominem insults. Nicely played.
Allow me to attempt to salvage this. The point was that there were many technologies being developed in parallel. The standards body needed ot create a definition for the fourth generation of cellular technology. They settled on data rates. If you're not happy with the standards set by the ITU-R, then you are welcome to convene your own standards body and redefine 4G as "compatible with AU networks" or "interoperable with local networks." Is there such an Australian standards body defining 4G as such? No? Then STFU.
The Admin and the Engineer
The standards body needed ot create a definition for the fourth generation of cellular technology.
Right, because before they did, nobody was using the term, and after they did, nobody misused the term. A "standard" that defines something in common usage is useless. There are plenty of "standard" defnitions of color. Many of them conflict, and none of them are relevant. The Apple iPad is incapable of operating under the definition you worship in Australia. Since they sold it with that blessed moniker attached, they lied. Many other devices with that moniker attached work just fine in Australia, but the iPad doesn't.
As Apple knew for a fact that it was impossible to get the 4G to work under 4G, they should have dropped the local marketing asserting such. Call it WiFi/cellular, rather than WiFi/4G. No more lies, everyone would be happy. But no, they persisted in using a term they knew to be false when marketing their product. That's illegal.
Learn to love Alaska
Call it WiFi/cellular, rather than WiFi/4G.
Then you agree that it is the name of the device, and not an attempt at deceptive marketing copy. Tell The Australian to change its name, as it is clearly guilty of the same crime that Apple is.
No more lies, everyone would be happy.
Yes... please stop libeling Apple by claiming that 4G technolgy is not 4G if it doesn't interface with Australian networks.
But no, they persisted in using a term they knew to be false when marketing their product. That's illegal.
In case of point, Apple immediately altered their advertising to make it obvious to anyone that saw it that the device was not compatible with the 4G on local Australian networks. Changing the name itself is asking for a bit much. Its about brand recognition. You don't expect Coca-Cola to change its name, even though it has not contained any cocaine for a century ... why is that not false advertising? Because its the name, it is the brand, not advertising.
The Admin and the Engineer
The judge is only allowed to make the ruling based on the evidence presented by both sides. If the prosecution failed to enter as evidence the amount that Apple made from iPhone sales, then this is their omission, not the judge's. A fine equal to the iPhone-related profits made while the misleading advertising was running would have been a strong deterrent, but if no one tells the judge what that amount is then he is not allowed to look it up from random (possibly biased or inaccurate) sources online.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The only counter example I can think of is what we call Soccar... huge money and popularity everywhere else, not so big here (but I love it, fwiw).
Apparently you don't love it enough to know how to spell it (and it's football, you play handegg over there). Besides, you've yet to address another point in this thread. You maintain that "WiFi + 4G" is just a name. So if the device wouldn't include working WiFi, would that be a-ok too?
If it is incompatible with the electric grid here in Australia it is no longer an Electric Device, but a paper weight. in no way can it be used as it intended purpose and is usefulness is reduced to well a paper weight.
This is patently absurd. If I handed you an electrical adapter, suddenly and magically, your paperweight becomes an electric drill again... then, if I take the adapter away it is, beyond comprehension, no longer a product of electrical engineering. Likewise, what you are in effect saying is that if an Australian man has no offspring or is impotent or has lost his children to war or even to them relocating to Spain, then he is no longer a man, because the purpose of gender is procreation, and if a man does not procreate and have offspring locally in Australia, then he is a living paperweight and not a man. Your radical relativism and extreme psychologically egotistical subjectivism are soundly rejected by all intelligent mindful individuals, myself among them.
The Admin and the Engineer
When Microsoft paid that antitrust fine a long time ago I thought: This is nothing more than tax for them. Their browser's popularity owes EVERYTHING to that disloyal behavior. The Apple case sounds just like that. I think research should be conducted into how much companies earned by their unethical practices, then fine them with twice as much. If they were willing to con/force people to give them money, let them return it, and ensure they don't think of it again. Otherwise it'll be business as usual.
Then you agree that it is the name of the device, and not an attempt at deceptive marketing copy
No, I make no such agreement. It is the model, not name. The device is iPad. The model is WiFi or 4G.
How would Nissan Xterra 4x4 go over if it wasn't a 4x4? That would be deceptive marketing copy.
Changing the name itself is asking for a bit much. Its about brand recognition. You don't expect Coca-Cola to change its name, even though it has not contained any cocaine for a century ... why is that not false advertising?
My understanding is that Coca-Cola sold in the US does contain coca-plant derivatives (active ingredient removed). It's in the ingredient list under "natural flavors". Thus, it started out as a cocaine tonic, which was outlawed in the US and removed less than 100 years ago (about 1929), but still managed to contain cocaine for about 50 years before that, as opposed to the iPad 4G which operated as 4G for 0 years before being labeled as such in marketing copy.
Because its the name, it is the brand, not advertising.
One of the issues is that in the US "Xterra 4x4*" with the * being "not actually 4x4" is legal. But in Australia, it is not. If the small print directly contradicts the big print, the truthiness of the statements are evaluated with the conflicting small print essentially removed.
Learn to love Alaska
I guess you must have missed the part where consumer groups in Europe have also been attacking the "4G" label.
You mean they weren't big in America until they made it big in America ? Amazing !
Americans have a nasty habit of assuming just because something isn't popular there, it isn't popular anywhere else. Not to mention all your examples above are 20+ years old.
For the buyer to "beware", the seller must not misrepresent their product.
Because I think deceptive advertising should be stamped out ?
And The Australian? Your 4x4 counter example is inapplicable. The hw in the iPad WiFi + 4G is not deceptive, but in fact, by all definitions and standards of 4G, actually 4G hardware. If Australian consumers wish to convene their own standards organization and redefine 4G, they are welcome to do so, but they have not. So as it stands there is ONLY ONE DEFINITION of 4G, and the new iPad meets the definition, regardless of the self-deception of Australian consumers. The model name is NOT marketing... it's a name. If you examine the marketing, Apple makes it clear that it will be unable to interface with AU 4G infrastructure... but THIS IS INCIDENTAL, not intentional deceptive marketing.
The Admin and the Engineer
The hw in the iPad WiFi + 4G is not deceptive, but in fact, by all definitions and standards of 4G, actually 4G hardware.
But it doesn't work on 4G, and thus isn't, under the Australian definition, where this case is being heard.
The model name is NOT marketing... it's a name.
Liar. If you believe that, you wouldn't have ignored the 4x4 example, as that's the name, and not "marketing" (which is another lie, as names are marketing as well). You've stopped responding and just say what makes you feel better, so there's no reason for me to even read your response to this, which I presume will be filled with further lies and not actually address the issue (iPad 4G will not work as a 4G device in Australia, but was marketed as such).
Learn to love Alaska
The hw in the iPad WiFi + 4G is not deceptive, but in fact, by all definitions and standards of 4G, actually 4G hardware.
But it doesn't work on 4G,
As I said, this is incidental. It is 4G by the only definition of 4G.
and thus isn't, under the Australian definition, where this case is being heard.
There is no "Australian definition" of 4G!! If there is such a thing, by all means, show it... don't just arbitrarily make one up. In point of fact, none of the Australian networks even meet the standard to be called 4G.
The model name is NOT marketing... it's a name.
Liar. If you believe that, you wouldn't have ignored the 4x4 example, as that's the name, and not "marketing" (which is another lie, as names are marketing as well).
I am not a liar and I did not ignore the example, I dismissed it as inapplicable, i.e. a poor metaphor. For it to be a proper metaphor, the 4x4 would need to be a 4x4 somewhere and meet the definition of what a 4x4 is... then, for some reason, it would need to be incompatible with Australia. As I said... poor metaphor... does not fit.
You've stopped responding and just say what makes you feel better, so there's no reason for me to even read your response to this, which I presume will be filled with further lies and not actually address the issue (iPad 4G will not work as a 4G device in Australia, but was marketed as such).
Well, I can easily degrade a perfectly good argument into ad hominem attacks as well (you're an idiot!), except that I don't need to, because my argument is strong.
To recap: It is the Australian providers that are engaging in misleading marketing, because no data network in Australia meets the definition of what 4G is, yet they are using the standard term. Apple's hardware meets the only definition of 4G that exists! It is incidental that it will not reach 4G speeds on Australia's networks... it doesn't change Apple's hardware.
The case is being tried in what is by definition, and ironically enough, a kangaroo court, and will have little effect on international consumers.
The Admin and the Engineer
To anyone but a moron it would be plainly obvious that the following are facts.
In Australia our major carrier advertises and sells 4G (by our definintion) access it does not matter if someone else defines that differently. The ipad 4G does not work with our 4G network.
How you can deny the bleeding obvious truth that Apple deliberately lied in its ad's is nothing short of stupid, or to put it another way an Apple fanboy.