iPad '4G' claims face scrutiny from UK regulator

[xxMATTGxx]

I would validate their advertising campaign on two key points:

1. They're clearly marketing based on the 4G definition as defined within the United States and Canada, so they're not just making up baseless claims about their product.

2. Just because a service doesn't exist in an area doesn't mean you should be banned from marketing it in that area (usually). LTE devices were marketed to me where I am in Canada before we had the infrastructure.

I guess this is why we have a better advertising agency. Because it clearly states on the Apple UK site that the iPad you are going to buy has 4G which it doesn't for anyone who uses it in the United Kingdom or Europe.

[Chippiewill]

They're clearly marketing based on the 4G definition as defined within the United States and Canada, so they're not just making up baseless claims about their product.

I'm going to use the mars definition, because they invented it therefore we should use it even though in any other place it means something different and consumers will believe it's something different to what we actually have but it's ok since the official authority, but not here, says it's ok.

The whole point of following laws is to follow the ones where you are, not where you've come from.

Just because a service doesn't exist in an area doesn't mean you should be banned from marketing it in that area (usually). LTE devices were marketed to me where I am in Canada before we had the infrastructure.

Then canada has a ****** ASA, doesn't mean it's ok to do. It would be ok if this was an innocent mistake but Apple is clearly acting out of bad faith and is intentionally trying to deceive consumers.

[HotelUser]

I guess this is why we have a better advertising agency. Because it clearly states on the Apple UK site that the iPad you are going to buy has 4G which it doesn't for anyone who uses it in the United Kingdom or Europe.

Change "better" to "different" and what you said becomes more accurate.

I'm going to use the mars definition, because they invented it therefore we should use it even though in any other place it means something different and consumers will believe it's something different to what we actually have but it's ok since the official authority, but not here, says it's ok.

The whole point of following laws is to follow the ones where you are, not where you've come from.

Then canada has a ****** ASA, doesn't mean it's ok to do. It would be ok if this was an innocent mistake but Apple is clearly acting out of bad faith and is intentionally trying to deceive consumers.

You cannot call Canada's ASA ****** because you know nothing about it, if you did you would have called it by its name, ASC.

[Recursion]

I would validate their advertising campaign on two key points:

1. They're clearly marketing based on the 4G definition as defined within the United States and Canada, so they're not just making up baseless claims about their product.

2. Just because a service doesn't exist in an area doesn't mean you should be banned from marketing it in that area (usually). LTE devices were marketed to me where I am in Canada before we had the infrastructure.

The 4G definition in the US may be very different to that in the UK, funnily enough the UK isn't the USA. In regards to "doesn't exist in an area" you can't use that for an ENTIRE COUNTRY.

UK advertising laws are there to protect the consumer, Apple shouldn't be allowed to advertise something as 4G capable when there is NO 4G capability in the UK, and even if there were to be in the next few months it may not necessarily work. 4G doesn't yet exist in the UK, there is nothing to define the iPad as 4G capable in our country.

[xxMATTGxx]

Change "better" to "different" and what you said becomes more accurate.



You cannot call Canada's ASA ****** because you know nothing about it, if you did you would have called it by its name, ASC.

Better because they are protecting the consumers.

[HotelUser]

Better because they are protecting the consumers.

Patriotism is a terrible thing to bring up in the Technology Forums; what were you thinking?

The 4G definition in the US may be very different to that in the UK, funnily enough the UK isn't the USA. In regards to "doesn't exist in an area" you can't use that for an ENTIRE COUNTRY.

UK advertising laws are there to protect the consumer, Apple shouldn't be allowed to advertise something as 4G capable when there is NO 4G capability in the UK, and even if there were to be in the next few months it may not necessarily work. 4G doesn't yet exist in the UK, there is nothing to define the iPad as 4G capable in our country.

Which brings me back to the following:

there is a conflict of interest here because I'm used to advertisement regulations over here, and you're used to advertisement regulations over there

I see and understand your views and I also see and understand mine.

[Recursion]

I just don't understand how they could get away with it in any country, say the US didn't yet have any sort of 4G, it's pretty simple deception.

[HotelUser]

I just don't understand how they could get away with it in any country, say the US didn't yet have any sort of 4G, it's pretty simple deception.

Because they're not disseminating completely inaccurate information about their product, I suppose you have to live here to understand the norm for what we see as socially acceptable advertisement and I suppose I would have to live over there to understand what you see as the mismarketing injustice that's going on.

[xxMATTGxx]

Why would you try to sell a product that mentions it has 4G capabilities in a country with NO 4G networks. It does not make sense. There is no actual point in doing it apart from misleading people into buying it.

[HotelUser]

Why would you try to sell a product that mentions it has 4G capabilities in a country with NO 4G networks. It does not make sense. There is no actual point in doing it apart from misleading people into buying it.

I would hope the ASC here is more concerned with regulating advertisements about things such as drugs or loans as opposed to telling companies not to advertise non product selling point features which will likely be introduced to the market shortly anyway, because of the off chance that someone is stupid enough to spend a thousand dollars on the product not knowing what it does and who is incapable of going back to the store to return it in the event that s/he is dissatisfied once coming to the (should be immediate) realization that the thousand dollars they spent on the product included spending money on a feature they cannot use. In my opinion and presumably the opinion of Ad Standards Canada, there is a difference between protecting consumers and spoon feeding them all the "right" answers.