wtf... You're not Australian. You're an Apple troll, TheRaven64. It wouldn't matter what the issue is, you will argue against Apple relentlessly even if you believe you are wrong. Kindly, piss off.
I am so sorry to offend your tremendously delicate sensibilities. The author of the article left out an important and salient detail. I pointed this out and you dismissed my complaint. When I argued civilly that the complaint held merit and backed it up with citations, you then began with your ad hominem insults because your argument was too weak to defend any further. You, my darling, are my favorite kind of adversary.
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.
But its ok that the most popular Australian newspaper... a NEWSPAPER... is named The Australian? And a multitudes of phones are known as Android? How about the territory of Queensland? Is the land owned by a queen? They have lots of queens running around? Coca-Cola hasn't had any cocaine for over a century, yet I don't recall any fines levied against them Why isn't that deceptive marketing? It appears that the laws in Australia are conveniently unequally applied when bratty gullible consumers don't get to have their cake and eat it too.
I don't think its necessarily the hardware Apple is taking issue with... there were candy bar phones prior to iPhone... but its the interface that has been copied. Prior to iPhone, there was no iPhone-like interface. After the iPhone, every other phone manufactuer ripped it off as fast as they could... the distinctive rows of colorful icons. Apple has a right to protect their brand and recognition of such.
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.
Show me the deceptive Apple marketing. What you are complaining about is the name Apple uses for their product, "The iPad WiFi + 4G" is the name. I don't drink, but American consumers of "Matilda Bay" alcoholic beverage aren't in the least bit deceived by the name, and bent out of shape when they discover that it is not, in fact, bottled liquid directly out of some romanitic Australian body of water. Neither are we confused about what The Australian is... which is to say a newspaper and not, in fact... some human trafficking enterprise... and so neither should Australian consumers, especially technology consumers, be deceived into believing that the name of a product is the same as deceptive marketing. It isn't snake oil. Its a piece of technolgy, and the name is not a lie.
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.
I see. Please direct me to the Australian standards body that defines 4G as "that which connects to the 4G networks in Australia."
The "iPad WiFi + 4G" is not marketing. That is its name. Excuse me while I bring litigation against The Australian for falsly advertising that is a citizen of Australia and not, in fact, fishwrap. (ok.. ok... I go too far... it is as I've always known it to be, a decent publication of fair journalism.... I'm just getting a bit annoyed at this accusatorial game that either Australian posters are playing, or perhaps it is merely American trolls, I can't tell. But Apple hasn't lied to anyone, and anyone mislead by their advertising has deeper issues than being swindled by Apple).
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.
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.
Frankly, I think it's time Apple completely ignored the AU market. They should do what Google did in China.... leave. If you want Apple to specifically design and make a device that is compatible with AU 4G networks, this is just about the worst way to convince them. You'll catch more flies with honey.
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.
I see, and it's not at all trivial for this information to be actually included in the article and explained further? How difficult is it to see the article itself is shill? Basically it's saying "free free free" and not providing any honest insight into how this is possible. I have the distinct impression the author or publisher is perhaps receiving a little something from Virgin to avoid saying anything about how Virgin might be profiting from this.
Journalism is the investigation and reporting of events, issues and trends to a broad audience.
Journalism should be plain, state the facts and all the facts, and not be some kind of find the wampus game.
If anything can be learned from this story, its that Australian consumers aren't exactly discrimating when it comes to spending money on technology. It's not too far a stretch that consumers might purchase the Samsung believing it is an Apple product, and then suing Apple and fining them when they determine that it sucks. So Apple has interest in preventing that.
No, it's a rational observation that a fine must be meaningful to a corporation for it to have any hope of affecting change.
If the change hoped for is that Apple develops hardware specifically to interface with Australian networks, this really isn't the way to go about it. Apple could pull out of the Australian market entirely without bleeding too much off their bottom line, the same as Google pulled out of the Chinese market. Where were the fines when Apple was selling computers called "Macintosh?" They were not fruit! That's false marketing! I honestly can't believe that Australian consumers were duped into purchasing technology products from a foreign country without at least considering that the technology might be... foreign.
Just MHO, but what this whole debocle appears to be is that Australian consumers are so voraciously hungry for Apple products that they're royally pissed off that no Apple 4G cellular data device can interface with AU networks no matter how much they shake their fists, and have turned away from eating their own government alive to create a new enemy because they're pissed off they don't have the shiney that they dreamed they'd have, and the AU goverment is ecstatic about this.
Do Austrialian citizens have any difficulty determining that The Australian is actually a newspaper, and not, as it were, a citizen of the country, as the product title would suggest? Though the publisher should not be concerned about a fine from the US goverment nor upsetting US consumers, as we have a few colloqualisms over here woven into our capitalistic culture... one is "buyer beware," and another is "a fool and his money are parted easily." But if Australian consumers wish to have Apple specifically develop technology to interface with networks in a foreign country, I highly recommend meditation on yet another: "you will catch more flies with honey."
...as they have since the dawn of their existence: The Apple ][ was not a fruit and the Macintosh was not either! The Apple Airport is not anything like a landing strip for planes! A mouse is an input device, not a small rodent! Shall we levy a fine against the publishers of The Australian because it is an untrue marketing claim that a periodical is a citizen of Australia? I don't see any AU lawsuits against any manufacturers of Android phones, even though it is quite obvious that a cell phone is nothing like a robot... haven't seen any that can do anything a robot can do. Or can we allow private companies to name their product whatever they want... it is, after all, their product.
Frankly, I think it's time Apple completely ignored the AU market. They should do what Google did in China.... leave. If you want Apple to specifically design and make a device that is compatible with AU 4G networks, this is just about the worst way to convince them. You'll catch more flies with honey.
If you read what the standard defines you'd know that its talking about data rates. It doesn't say a whit about interoperability with local networks.
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.
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.
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.
If you read what the standard defines you'd know that its talking about data rates. It doesn't say a whit about interoperability with local networks. As far as I know, Australian consumers are the only ones with their knickers in a bunch 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, it would be an arbitrary definition based on incidental local circumstance.
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.
FINALLY!!! Thank you for calling me out on that. That bit, of course, was a troll. Congratulations... you have an IQ over potato. I can't say as much for the authors of the other responses to my post.
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.
Exactly. This is what the issue is. This happens all the time, FWIW, but we don't try to say that the device in question isn't electric merely because it is incompatible with our electric grid. We merely say that it is incompatible. We certainly don't try to redefine international standards to match our local circumstances.
It's a 4G device that's not compatible with the 4G network in AU.
I grant you that... and Apple specified this possibility in its advertising.
The physical device will not work at 4G in AU, even if it does in Canada.
So what? I can't see Polaris from a telescope in Australia... does that mean it's not a star and not a telescope?
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.
Of course I read it, and it doesn't say this at all, implicity nor explicitly. And you are merely playing with language using this "4G compatible" nonsense. A network can also be "4G compatible," as well as a device can be a 4G device.
In March 2008, the International Telecommunications Union-Radio communications sector (ITU-R) specified a set of requirements for 4G standards, named the International Mobile Telecommunications Advanced (IMT-Advanced) specification, setting peak speed requirements for 4G service at 100megabits per second (Mbit/s) for high mobility communication (such as from trains and cars) and 1gigabit per second (Gbit/s) for low mobility communication (such as pedestrians and stationary users)
What you suggest just isn't true. Its not defining networks, per se, its talking specifically about data rates. If a network is capable of these data rates, then it is by definition, 4G. The same is true of 4G devices... in order to be considered 4G devices, they are not defined arbitrarily as being able to connect to a local network that may respect one or more aspects of 4G, they are defined as devices that are capable of the data rates specified. If you read down a bit further, you'll see:
Since 4G is a collection of wireless standards, the final form of a 4G device will constitute various standards.
And iPad can't use 4G in AU, yet is being advertised as such. That's a lie.
It is not logically impossible for the 4G iPad to achieve 4G data rates in the AU. Should the networks there be refitted or upgraded, the 4G iPad will indeed achieve those rates if the 4G technologies they employ are compatible.
And yes, it is a moving target. 4G has changed greatly from when it was first used.
No, you are incorrect. It is a standard. As far as I know, only marketing folk have incorrectly used the 4G term here in the US to say their devices were using a faster data rate, even though they didn't actually meet the defined standard of 4G. This kind of marketing is deceptive. Apple did not use these kinds of tactics. The 4G iPad is 4G hardware. Period.
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?
Again, so what?
And they don't define any interoperability,
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.
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.
So because you don't like the standard, because it leaves out any regard to compatibility or interoperability, you just want to redefine the internationally agreed upon standard to include compatibility... just locally in AU. I can see how useful that would be. On this side of the Pacific, we prefer our standards to actually be, you know, standard
Actually no 4g networks or devices exist on earth. And the article you linked substantiates that.
I'm not sure that it does. Citation?
So not only is AU right in this instance to slap down Apple,
Your logic is way screwed up... again, the 4G iPad meets the specifications for 4G hardware, thus, it is 4G hardware, irregardless of the fact that, as claimed, no network on Earth can supply data to it at speeds that would define the networks as legitmately 4G. So, again, the hardware IS 4G, but the networks are not. No where in the definition of 4G does it say that if the network is not 4G that it magically physically degrades the hardware to no longer be 4G. It is still 4G hardware, and once the networks are upgrades, will perform as such.
Just because they're technically right doesn't mean it isn't misleading advertising, which is what they were fined for.
The advertising matched the advertising everywhere. To say Apple intentionally deceived the AU market is absurd.... Apple even used a disclaimer explaining that the hardware may not be compatible with all worldwide networks... which AU consumers chose to ignore. They deceived themselves.
We have 4G LTE, they sell and advertise the product as 4G but it will never run on a 4G network in this country.
So what? My point is that 4G is 4G, regardless of the incompatibility of hardware and networks.
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.
Again... 4G is 4G no matter what that judge thinks... he doesn't decide technological international standards
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?
wtf.... ok, I concede... there's a 4G standards technological definition for the rest of the world, then there's 4G just for AU, where by as defined in Australia, only the AU networks are 4G... do you guys have your own math as well?
Perhaps Apple could have been clearer about the deficiencies of Austrailian cellular data networks, but the definition of 4G is not a moving target. It is what it is everywhere regardless of whether local networks are compatible. Even if there were no cellular data networks on the earth, the technology in the 4G iPad would still be, by definition, 4G. It matters not whether the 4G network in AU is incompatible with the 4G iPad... this does not magically make a physical device that is 4G in Canada no longer 4G when it is moved into Australia. It only means what it always means, that some 4G devices are not compatible with some 4G networks.
Then again, if a small fine will get silly unmindful consumers off Apple's back, it is a small price for them to pay.
Slashdot Mirror
wtf... You're not Australian. You're an Apple troll, TheRaven64. It wouldn't matter what the issue is, you will argue against Apple relentlessly even if you believe you are wrong. Kindly, piss off.
I am so sorry to offend your tremendously delicate sensibilities. The author of the article left out an important and salient detail. I pointed this out and you dismissed my complaint. When I argued civilly that the complaint held merit and backed it up with citations, you then began with your ad hominem insults because your argument was too weak to defend any further. You, my darling, are my favorite kind of adversary.
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.
But its ok that the most popular Australian newspaper ... a NEWSPAPER... is named The Australian? And a multitudes of phones are known as Android? How about the territory of Queensland? Is the land owned by a queen? They have lots of queens running around? Coca-Cola hasn't had any cocaine for over a century, yet I don't recall any fines levied against them Why isn't that deceptive marketing? It appears that the laws in Australia are conveniently unequally applied when bratty gullible consumers don't get to have their cake and eat it too.
I don't think its necessarily the hardware Apple is taking issue with... there were candy bar phones prior to iPhone... but its the interface that has been copied. Prior to iPhone, there was no iPhone-like interface. After the iPhone, every other phone manufactuer ripped it off as fast as they could... the distinctive rows of colorful icons. Apple has a right to protect their brand and recognition of such.
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.
Show me the deceptive Apple marketing. What you are complaining about is the name Apple uses for their product, "The iPad WiFi + 4G" is the name. I don't drink, but American consumers of "Matilda Bay" alcoholic beverage aren't in the least bit deceived by the name, and bent out of shape when they discover that it is not, in fact, bottled liquid directly out of some romanitic Australian body of water. Neither are we confused about what The Australian is... which is to say a newspaper and not, in fact... some human trafficking enterprise... and so neither should Australian consumers, especially technology consumers, be deceived into believing that the name of a product is the same as deceptive marketing. It isn't snake oil. Its a piece of technolgy, and the name is not a lie.
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.
I see. Please direct me to the Australian standards body that defines 4G as "that which connects to the 4G networks in Australia."
The "iPad WiFi + 4G" is not marketing. That is its name. Excuse me while I bring litigation against The Australian for falsly advertising that is a citizen of Australia and not, in fact, fishwrap. (ok.. ok... I go too far... it is as I've always known it to be, a decent publication of fair journalism.... I'm just getting a bit annoyed at this accusatorial game that either Australian posters are playing, or perhaps it is merely American trolls, I can't tell. But Apple hasn't lied to anyone, and anyone mislead by their advertising has deeper issues than being swindled by Apple).
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.
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 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.
From one of the main links in the article...
Trivial to find, if you intend to look at all.
I see, and it's not at all trivial for this information to be actually included in the article and explained further? How difficult is it to see the article itself is shill? Basically it's saying "free free free" and not providing any honest insight into how this is possible. I have the distinct impression the author or publisher is perhaps receiving a little something from Virgin to avoid saying anything about how Virgin might be profiting from this.
Journalism should be plain, state the facts and all the facts, and not be some kind of find the wampus game.
That they are trying to block the galaxy s3 here also hasn't made them very many friends either.
Let's examine this statement, shall we?
Why would Apple want to block sales of such a blatent knock off of their own product?
If anything can be learned from this story, its that Australian consumers aren't exactly discrimating when it comes to spending money on technology. It's not too far a stretch that consumers might purchase the Samsung believing it is an Apple product, and then suing Apple and fining them when they determine that it sucks. So Apple has interest in preventing that.
No, it's a rational observation that a fine must be meaningful to a corporation for it to have any hope of affecting change.
If the change hoped for is that Apple develops hardware specifically to interface with Australian networks, this really isn't the way to go about it. Apple could pull out of the Australian market entirely without bleeding too much off their bottom line, the same as Google pulled out of the Chinese market. Where were the fines when Apple was selling computers called "Macintosh?" They were not fruit! That's false marketing! I honestly can't believe that Australian consumers were duped into purchasing technology products from a foreign country without at least considering that the technology might be... foreign.
Just MHO, but what this whole debocle appears to be is that Australian consumers are so voraciously hungry for Apple products that they're royally pissed off that no Apple 4G cellular data device can interface with AU networks no matter how much they shake their fists, and have turned away from eating their own government alive to create a new enemy because they're pissed off they don't have the shiney that they dreamed they'd have, and the AU goverment is ecstatic about this.
Do Austrialian citizens have any difficulty determining that The Australian is actually a newspaper, and not, as it were, a citizen of the country, as the product title would suggest? Though the publisher should not be concerned about a fine from the US goverment nor upsetting US consumers, as we have a few colloqualisms over here woven into our capitalistic culture... one is "buyer beware," and another is "a fool and his money are parted easily." But if Australian consumers wish to have Apple specifically develop technology to interface with networks in a foreign country, I highly recommend meditation on yet another: "you will catch more flies with honey."
They are making an untrue marketing claim.
...as they have since the dawn of their existence: The Apple ][ was not a fruit and the Macintosh was not either! The Apple Airport is not anything like a landing strip for planes! A mouse is an input device, not a small rodent! Shall we levy a fine against the publishers of The Australian because it is an untrue marketing claim that a periodical is a citizen of Australia? I don't see any AU lawsuits against any manufacturers of Android phones, even though it is quite obvious that a cell phone is nothing like a robot... haven't seen any that can do anything a robot can do. Or can we allow private companies to name their product whatever they want... it is, after all, their product.
Frankly, I think it's time Apple completely ignored the AU market. They should do what Google did in China.... leave. If you want Apple to specifically design and make a device that is compatible with AU 4G networks, this is just about the worst way to convince them. You'll catch more flies with honey.
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.
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.
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.
If you read what the standard defines you'd know that its talking about data rates. It doesn't say a whit about interoperability with local networks. As far as I know, Australian consumers are the only ones with their knickers in a bunch 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, it would be an arbitrary definition based on incidental local circumstance.
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.
FINALLY!!! Thank you for calling me out on that. That bit, of course, was a troll. Congratulations... you have an IQ over potato. I can't say as much for the authors of the other responses to my post.
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.
Exactly. This is what the issue is. This happens all the time, FWIW, but we don't try to say that the device in question isn't electric merely because it is incompatible with our electric grid. We merely say that it is incompatible. We certainly don't try to redefine international standards to match our local circumstances.
It's a 4G device that's not compatible with the 4G network in AU.
I grant you that... and Apple specified this possibility in its advertising.
The physical device will not work at 4G in AU, even if it does in Canada.
So what? I can't see Polaris from a telescope in Australia... does that mean it's not a star and not a telescope?
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.
Of course I read it, and it doesn't say this at all, implicity nor explicitly. And you are merely playing with language using this "4G compatible" nonsense. A network can also be "4G compatible," as well as a device can be a 4G device.
What you suggest just isn't true. Its not defining networks, per se, its talking specifically about data rates. If a network is capable of these data rates, then it is by definition, 4G. The same is true of 4G devices... in order to be considered 4G devices, they are not defined arbitrarily as being able to connect to a local network that may respect one or more aspects of 4G, they are defined as devices that are capable of the data rates specified. If you read down a bit further, you'll see:
And iPad can't use 4G in AU, yet is being advertised as such. That's a lie.
It is not logically impossible for the 4G iPad to achieve 4G data rates in the AU. Should the networks there be refitted or upgraded, the 4G iPad will indeed achieve those rates if the 4G technologies they employ are compatible.
And yes, it is a moving target. 4G has changed greatly from when it was first used.
No, you are incorrect. It is a standard. As far as I know, only marketing folk have incorrectly used the 4G term here in the US to say their devices were using a faster data rate, even though they didn't actually meet the defined standard of 4G. This kind of marketing is deceptive. Apple did not use these kinds of tactics. The 4G iPad is 4G hardware. Period.
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?
Again, so what?
And they don't define any interoperability,
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.
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.
So because you don't like the standard, because it leaves out any regard to compatibility or interoperability, you just want to redefine the internationally agreed upon standard to include compatibility... just locally in AU. I can see how useful that would be. On this side of the Pacific, we prefer our standards to actually be, you know, standard
Actually no 4g networks or devices exist on earth. And the article you linked substantiates that.
I'm not sure that it does. Citation?
So not only is AU right in this instance to slap down Apple,
Your logic is way screwed up... again, the 4G iPad meets the specifications for 4G hardware, thus, it is 4G hardware, irregardless of the fact that, as claimed, no network on Earth can supply data to it at speeds that would define the networks as legitmately 4G. So, again, the hardware IS 4G, but the networks are not. No where in the definition of 4G does it say that if the network is not 4G that it magically physically degrades the hardware to no longer be 4G. It is still 4G hardware, and once the networks are upgrades, will perform as such.
Just because they're technically right doesn't mean it isn't misleading advertising, which is what they were fined for.
The advertising matched the advertising everywhere. To say Apple intentionally deceived the AU market is absurd.... Apple even used a disclaimer explaining that the hardware may not be compatible with all worldwide networks... which AU consumers chose to ignore. They deceived themselves.
We have 4G LTE, they sell and advertise the product as 4G but it will never run on a 4G network in this country.
So what? My point is that 4G is 4G, regardless of the incompatibility of hardware and networks.
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.
Again... 4G is 4G no matter what that judge thinks... he doesn't decide technological international standards
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?
wtf.... ok, I concede... there's a 4G standards technological definition for the rest of the world, then there's 4G just for AU, where by as defined in Australia, only the AU networks are 4G... do you guys have your own math as well?
Perhaps Apple could have been clearer about the deficiencies of Austrailian cellular data networks, but the definition of 4G is not a moving target. It is what it is everywhere regardless of whether local networks are compatible. Even if there were no cellular data networks on the earth, the technology in the 4G iPad would still be, by definition, 4G. It matters not whether the 4G network in AU is incompatible with the 4G iPad... this does not magically make a physical device that is 4G in Canada no longer 4G when it is moved into Australia. It only means what it always means, that some 4G devices are not compatible with some 4G networks.
Then again, if a small fine will get silly unmindful consumers off Apple's back, it is a small price for them to pay.