In Australia, Apple Fined $2.5 Million For '4G' Advertising Claims 154
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."
So, that's about... (Score:4, Insightful)
10 minutes of iPad sales?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
We really are talking about 3-4 minutes of Apple profits. That's how much money they're raking in.
Re:So, that's about... (Score:4, Informative)
Apple earned about 25,000 million last year, which comes to 2.8 million per *60* minutes..... not a mere 3-4. I can't help wondering why the judge is worried about the fine being too large. Apple won't be hurt by this.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Apple earned about 25,000 million last year, which comes to 2.8 million per *60* minutes..... not a mere 3-4. I can't help wondering why the judge is worried about the fine being too large. Apple won't be hurt by this.
The judge specifcally said he was worried about the scale, not that it was too small, that the upper ranges he was talking about was a $300million company would suggest to me that if the numbers they do present show what you are saying he will flip his lid and up the penalty.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/judge-wants-data-on-wealth-before-he-rules-on-apple/story-e6frgakx-1226389535095
"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?"
Re:Judge not very bright? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Judge not very bright? (Score:4, Insightful)
You cannot pay fines with "market cap". It's not actual money.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And don't forget the slashdot article on how apple sidesteps paying taxes the world over.
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/04/28/2330225/how-apple-sidesteps-billions-in-global-taxes?sdsrc=popbyskidbtmprev [slashdot.org]
I wonder how much tax apple has evaded in Australia alone. Maybe this fine isn't big enough but it will crawl some of those dollars back.
It's not finalized yet (Score:2)
A reviewer judge has called for info on how much investment Apple has in Oz also how many ppl were affected.
Re:It's not finalized yet (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the cite from "The Australian". http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/judge-wants-data-on-wealth-before-he-rules-on-apple/story-e6frgakx-1226389535095 [theaustralian.com.au]
Judge wants more than the $2.5mil (Score:2, Insightful)
>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 artic
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Judge wants more than the $2.5mil (Score:5, Insightful)
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 fine is too small (as fines generally are), it is dismissed as a simple cost of business. The immediate problem is remedied (so as not to piss off the authoritative body that caught them), but similar problems are guaranteed to arise again in the future. After all, if it wasn't profitable to break the law in the first place, the company wouldn't have done it. If the fine is going to be a small fraction of that profit each time, the smart business decision is to continue the practice of doing something which breaks the law, preparing for the inevitable "whoops - we'll fix that, your honor" for when someone catches on, and milking the ill-gotten profits until then.
Re: (Score:2)
the process should be streamlined. can't we have the companies *pay in advance* to the authorities, in order to seek their favor.
(oh. right. they already do this. quite effectively, too.)
Re: (Score:2)
The obvious solution being, of course, to fine business entities as a proportion of annual profits averaged over, say, the last 5 years.
Re: (Score:3)
"The iPad WiFi + 4G" is the name
And if this device didn't support 802.11, would you also consider that it wasn't misleading?
Re: (Score:2)
Serious?
(sorry. I'll be quiet, now).
Pocket change... (Score:4, Interesting)
...and the resulting exposure probably saved them tens of millions in advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
To all those people who would hear this in the media, but not know about Apple?
Loosing fans (Score:3, Insightful)
"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
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It annoys me when Apple defenders use poor examples to back up their position. "Distinctive rows of colorful icons" made me cringe.
Large parts of the modern mobile touchscreen user interface, however, *were* seen integrated together for the first time when the iPhone was introduced and live-demo'ed in January 2007. Some people trot out the LG Prada as a touchscreen phone that was announced before the iPhone, but only by a month, and it was obviously in no way an inspiration for the latter.
The Prada had no v
Re: (Score:2)
The Prada had no virtual keyboard (text input via T9)
The Nokia 770, introduced in 2006 did, however.
There was no swipe to scroll (they used desktop-style scrollbars that a reviewer had a hell of a time using), or multitouch, or pinch-zoom
These are all cool, but they were first demoed in a TED talk around 2001. Small, cheap, capacitive touchscreens made them possible.
The traditional contacts and other phone programs looked like they'd been transplanted from a traditional candybar phone, and didn't take advantage of the larger screen space at all.
That's probably a valid criticism, and the current Android phone and contact programs certainly don't make me disagree that there's some very poor UI going on there. I'm not sure what iOS does in this regard, but if Android is copying it then it's nothing to be proud of, and if Android isn't copying it then Android isn't copying i
Re: (Score:2)
Before I begin, I'll repeat this for context: "Large parts of the modern mobile touchscreen user interface, however, *were* seen integrated together for the first time when the iPhone was introduced and live-demo'ed in January 2007. Some people trot out the LG Prada as a touchscreen phone that was announced before the iPhone, but only by a month, and it was obviously in no way an inspiration for the latter."
Notes: 1) "large parts of", not "all of" the modern mobile UI; and 2) "LG Prada [...] was obviously i
3g, 4g advertising scams (Score:1)
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?
Socialist paradise (Score:1, Funny)
>Why does only Apple get called on this nonsense?
I would say that it is because it is Australia, and we can.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Socialist paradise
Immigrating recently from Europe in Australia, I can tell you Australia isn't at any rate a socialist country, much less a paradise for socialists.
Re: (Score:1)
Living in Australia all my life, I can only sadly point out that irony is one of our national passtimes, as is sarcasm and satire, equally that consumer protection laws and bodies [like the ACCC] are often passed of by our American brethren as Communist.
Re: (Score:3)
Because this isn't just about a lack of coverage or network capacity. There are actual 4G LTE networks in Australia, and Apple was selling a device that wouldn't connect to them but advertising it as 4G.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because this device can't work on 4G in Australia at all.
"Apple had offered to provide full refunds" (Score:5, Informative)
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.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
This doesn't matter under Australian law. They aren't being sued by customers, they are being fined by the authorities for breaking the law.
Apple knew it's "4G" would not work on Australian LTE networks (the frequencies used
The fine was probably less than the lawyers. (Score:1)
Delimiter – an independent, Australia-focued tech news site – have been covering this story [delimiter.com.au]:
I wonder... (Score:1)
a little understated (Score:3)
Re:a little understated (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
WiMAX is 4G. Plenty of countries including US have WiMAX networks.
Re: (Score:2)
WiMax2 is 4G. WiMax is somewhere around 3.9G (by the ITU's criteria for 4G networks). Wimax2 hasn't been deployed anywhere yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Telstra has a 4G network here. But not one that is compatible with the iPad.
Re:a little understated (Score:5, Informative)
Australia has 4G; quite an extensive LTE network in fact and one that can be used with most new Android phones, it's just that we don't yet use the frequencies that only the USA uses and that Apple solely targeted. Europe is in the same boat, they have 4G but don't use the USA frequencies.
Apple clearly said "* You can have 4G if you are in America" however the * statements that would be allowed in America are not allowed here. Disclaimers in Australia cannot, under law, substantially change the headline of an advertisement. That is, you can't say 4G Capable in the headline then disclaim it as "Only in America" in the Australian market.
I'm surprised Apple didn't use an LTE chip with a larger number of bands. Restricting it to AT&T frequencies seems counter-productive.
Re: (Score:3)
Restricting it to AT&T frequencies seems counter-productive.
No, that's not the problem. Even if they had the same AT&T bands in Australia, they'd still be skating on thin ice [cultofmac.com].
The real problem is our US consumer watchdog agencies. They simply don't care anymore. If they did care, there would be a minimum font size for disclaimers shown on television (that I currently can't even read on my huge television), and the carriers wouldn't call their services "unlimited" (and Sprint, which calls all the other major carriers liars, wouldn't have a bs "data premium" fee it
Re: (Score:2)
a minimum font size for disclaimers shown on television
I worked for a company which ran a 1900 service (in aus that means you pay with your phone bill). The law said we had to put disclaimers in 4 point type when we advertised on big roadside signs. We used a bigger font for our disclaimers.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel for you.
In Denmark a telecom was recently fined for showing too small a disclaimer text.
(We also have same rules as Australia wrt 4G)
Re: (Score:2)
Telstra has rolled out 4G in Bendigo (central Victoria) and the Samsumg Galaxy S2 4G works on it just fine. I don't know whether it's a coincidence but 3G has been pretty much useless since they started rolling out 4G. Can't even load a web page a lot of the time.
Mod parent uninformed (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Carriers don't directly advertise the iPad, Apple does. So it's their own marketing that was misleading (in that they claimed it supported 4G LTE, but Telstra's 4G LTE network was incompatible by virtue of being a different frequency, so it was in fact not 4G LTE compatible in Australia. The reality is that it's not 4G compatible, it's AT&T compatible).
Re: (Score:3)
the ACCC also warned apple before they shipped that the way they were promoting the ipad could leadthem to trouble but apple chose to go ahead anyway because it was cheaper for them this way.
AT&T made a similar mistake... (Score:1)
Countersuit in 3...2...1.... (Score:2)
What loss to the customer ? (Score:2)
How about:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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!)
Re:Wow, AU... just when I though you guys made sen (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 wo
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If it's not interoperable with local networks what will the data rate be?
Re: (Score:2)
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 p
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 n
Re: (Score:2)
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 sh
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Just because they're technically right doesn't mean it isn't misleading advertising, which is what they were fined for.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 b
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you must have missed the part where consumer groups in Europe have also been attacking the "4G" label.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Long Term Evolution == 4G Lite (Score:1)
Actually no 4g networks or devices exist on earth.
But at least all the commercials for "4G Lite" are truthful, aren't they? ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
And yes, it is a moving target. 4G has changed greatly from when it was first use
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
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 [wikipedia.org], then you are welcome to convene your own standards body and redefin
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 th
Re: (Score:2)
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 c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Wow, AU... just when I though you guys made sen (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:1)
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 elec
Risky buisness (Score:3, Informative)
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 lovin
Re: (Score:2)
Australia is not like the USA in regards to loving/respecting companies ripping off the system.
And next you will complain if prices are higher in Australia, because the cost of doing business in Australia is higher. The cost to Apple of selling iPads in Australia has just gone up by two million dollars. So what do you think will that do to the price that customers pay?
Re: (Score:2)
The price disparity is already so broad it could pay for the ACCC fine and much, much more...
Re: (Score:2)
6 times faster != 4G. If it is 6 six times faster call it what it is, not 4G
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe these guys worked on their marketing campaign? http://dilbert.com/fast/2011-05-10 [dilbert.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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.