• Great articles on other sites
  • RSS Great articles on other sites

  • Blog, Gadgets - Written by on Friday, June 8, 2012 18:09 - 17 Comments

    Apple agrees $2.25m iPad 4G fine

    blog From the Department of Technology-related Parking Fines comes the news that Apple has agreed to pay $2.25 million in penalties to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for falsely marketing its new iPad tablet as being capable of 4G mobile broadband speeds in Australia.

    Most of the nation’s major technology media outlets have reported the news from the Federal Court this morning; including The Australian, The Financial Review, ZDNet.com.au, iTNews and so on. However, according to SBS, the matter may not be settled as quickly as the ACCC and Apple might like. The media outlet reported today:

    “Justice Bromberg said there were three matters on which he would like more information … the financial position of Apple, the number of sales of its new iPad, and the difference between Telstra’s 3G network and the 4G network.”

    To your writer, a $2.2 million fine appears fairly ridiculous in the larger context of the issue, given the fact that Apple made some $4.88 billion in revenue from Australia in the past financial year. $2.2 million, in that context is less than a blip on Apple’s radar; and it’s certainly not a disincentive to do the same thing again. We’re talking about pocket change here.

    However, as I’ve previously also written, there have been questions raised about this issue from the start of the legal process. Why, for instance, is the ACCC still pursuing Apple over the issue, when Apple has already agreed to give anyone who complains about its new iPad (of which we expect there will be almost nobody) a refund, and modified its 4G marketing materials quickly, as soon as it became apparent the wording was an issue? The whole issue seems like the regulator is making a mountain out of a molehill. I think Apple is probably being too nice to the ACCC on this one, in agreeing to pay a fine at all. Perhaps the amount it’s agreed to be fined is merely less than the cost of its legal team having to seriously fight the case.

    Image credit: Apple

    submit to reddit


    You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

    1. Posted 08/06/2012 at 6:11 pm | Permalink | Reply

      “Justice Bromberg said there were three matters on which he would like more information … the financial position of Apple, the number of sales of its new iPad, and the difference between Telstra’s 3G network and the 4G network.”

      I also wanted to note that I can answer these three questions for Bromberg right here and now. The answers are, respectively: A metric shit-tonne, or, converting to the old system, an imperial assload; stinking rich and quite possibly the richest company in the world; and about 20Mbps, 30Mbps on a good day.

      • Posted 08/06/2012 at 9:14 pm | Permalink | Reply

        Imperial assload…..hmmm, I’m sure I remember seeing that conversion on an app in my phone… :D

        Seriously though, it may weel be a mountain/molehill scenario. Bu tI, for one, am happy to see the ACCC make that mountain out of Apple. They have some of the WORST marketing nonsense in this country and just assume because they’re big and we’re small they can get away with it. Not that others don’t.

    2. Posted 08/06/2012 at 6:14 pm | Permalink | Reply

      like previously unlimited ADSL BS, I think it’s awesome to see the ACCC
      cracking down on such claims, as a market leader, they deserve to be held
      to the highest standards

      BTW Just how much tax did Apple pay on the $4.88 Billion?

    3. Clinton
      Posted 08/06/2012 at 6:22 pm | Permalink | Reply

      it’s about this time that the ACCC is kicking themselves for not making the fine higher.

      • mr3oh7
        Posted 09/06/2012 at 11:46 pm | Permalink | Reply

        anytime your first offer gets accepted without problem means you are too high/low

    4. Posted 09/06/2012 at 2:40 am | Permalink | Reply

      “…when Apple has already agreed to give anyone who complains about its new iPad (of which we expect there will be almost nobody) a refund…”

      Cant exactly give them credit for this considering Australian consumer law states that if a product doesnt perform to its description you are entitled to a refund.

      Frankly I think Apple deserves every bitchslap that they have coming to them. wWther the specific situation is justified or not, they have worked up a lot of bad karma with their patent trolling bullshit, and I am over it. Yeah i don’t like Apple.

    5. Stephen
      Posted 09/06/2012 at 12:09 pm | Permalink | Reply

      The ACCC is by no means making a mountain out of a molehill. When the richest company on Earth feels that it can lie to consumers and get away with a warning, we have a problem.

      And Apple was lying – this cannot have been unintentional, they are fully aware of what bandwidths are used in different markets.

      This deserves more than a $2.25m fine – penalties should be something the company actually wants to avoid, rather than a cost centre.

      • Gwyntaglaw
        Posted 10/06/2012 at 11:31 am | Permalink | Reply

        Yes, Apple did itself no favours with its marketing here. The 4G label was confusing and possibly misleading.

        But “lying”? I don’t know. What we know: Telstra slapped a “4G” label on its network. Some dispute that their network is truly 4G, just as the US networks calling themselves “4G” are probably not 4G either.

        Is Apple lying because its definition is different from Telstra’s; both of which stand some way off from the ITU definition?

        • seven_tech
          Posted 10/06/2012 at 11:48 am | Permalink | Reply

          True to a certain extent Gwyntaglaw. However, Telstra’s LTE is A LOT closer to LTE advanced (what is actually 4G by ITU standard) than AT&T’s HSPA-DC that their iPhone shows as 4G. And this is the ONLY network that calls HSPA-DC it such in the world.

          I think its reasonable to say they lied. I mean come on, this company would know ALL sorts of confidential things about telcos worldwide, let alone the simple fact their frequencies aren’t compatible. It is simply misleading. They already knew, but tried to pass it off anyway. Sorry not on.

          • Posted 10/06/2012 at 3:26 pm | Permalink | Reply

            In my opinion (and I looked at the pages in question), Apple clearly stipulated that access to the 4G speeds would be dependent upon what country you were in, through what carrier etc.

            • Posted 11/06/2012 at 1:55 pm | Permalink | Reply

              That’s true Renai and I know Apple made that defence. However, the rebuttal made by the ACCC, which I think is valid too, is that the AVERAGE consumer doesn’t know what frequency 4G uses. It is therefore misleading of Apple to say it is 4G AT ALL in this country seeing as there is NO 4G capable of using the iPad here currently.

              I guess it comes down to: Yes, you put it in the T’s&C’s, usually down the bottom or with an asterix to point to it….but REALLY, how hard would it’ve been to simply change it and say “Not compatible with Aust. 4G frequencies”?

              It’s admission of limitations by proxy, not by default. I don’t think that is fair marketing behaviour.

              • Bill
                Posted 12/06/2012 at 12:04 pm | Permalink | Reply

                Completely agree – definitely not mountain out a molehill. The ACCC is set up to pursue claims against companies that contravene the Trade Practices Act, as Apple has done here. Thanks to the ACCC’s action, the average consumer should now be better informed about Apple’s iPad and its capabilities. One hopes that the average consumer will now look deeper next time the Apple marketing department start throwing terms like 4G around!

                • Bob
                  Posted 12/06/2012 at 1:07 pm | Permalink | Reply

                  Bill, the point about consumer legislation which Apple seems to have ignored, is that the average consumer should be able to believe the advertising.that is sprayed around without having to dig deeper. Tricky specs buried deep to obfuscate are not the way to go.

    6. Bob
      Posted 09/06/2012 at 12:31 pm | Permalink | Reply

      If I recall correctly, Apple did not go quietly until it was obvious that they had to cave. They had the lawyers argue (in court?) that yes, it did not use Telstra 4G frequency bands but it did use 3.5G and in many parts of the world that was considered to be as fast as or as good as 4G and even advertised as 4G. lt tried bs tactics. They deserve a much bigger fine. It may be interesting what the judge says. The ACCC and the Apple lawyers may have agreed but it is still up to the judge to decide what he wants and I hope he decides on a much bigger penalty.

      footnote: I am a techo and the Apple advertising had me believing that they could doTelstra 4G. I also had no intention of buying the iPad3 so I did not research it as there was no need.

    7. Rhys
      Posted 12/06/2012 at 7:47 am | Permalink | Reply

      Why say 2.2 mil is to little then say why is the ACCC following this up at all? I think that 2.2mil is fair concidering that the customers have full rights to refund if they feel they were miss-informed. Clear cut to me

    8. TallyHo
      Posted 21/06/2012 at 9:33 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Telstra FakeG is implemented as LTE-Basic (not LTE-Advanced) because that is all the Ericsson retards who supply Telstra’s equipment had on offer (Telstra are locked in). Telstra FakeG operates on a non standard frequency because that was the spectrum Telstra already owned. The end result is a network that is not 4G, does not operate on a standard frequency, and requires custom handsets to be manufactured for it to work. Telstra’s network is wrong on so many levels which is hardly Apple’s fault.

      • Posted 22/06/2012 at 6:03 am | Permalink | Reply

        Tallyho, I’m sorry, but it is short-sighted and actually quite incorrect to call Telstra’s 4G non-standard. Do you know how many frequencies there are in the US for 4G? 700, 1700, 1900, 2100, 2500. And how many of these are supported on the ‘new’ iPad? 700 and 2100. And THAT isn’t counting AT&T’s ‘4G’ which is bloody HSPA+DC! Telstra would be hauled over the COALS for calling HSPA ANYTHING 4G, considering it is a DIRECT extension of spread spectrum 3G technology, which is SPECIFICALLY discluded from 4G definitions. Telstra’s 4G-LTE, while not full blown LTE-A, IS considered 4G by the ITU definition as it is down the same path significantly to LTE-A, UNLIKE HSPA+DC.

        Know what frequencies Europe uses as well as some of theses listed? 800 and 2300…..and the iPad was marked 4G over there till the UK made a fuss AFTER the ACCC.

        There IS no standard frequency for 4G, although 700 is getting to be the most popular, as in most countries the analogue TV spectrum is 700 and they’re being switched off the world over.

        Apple marketed this as 4G. It is NOT compatible with the VAST majority of 4G networks on the planet, but it IS with 2 bands and 3 companies, JUST in the US. Apple is a US company and, in this instance, almost appear to have adopted your average US attitude- the US IS the world, everyone else is behind.

        Their attitude is wrong, arrogant, deceitful and simply should never have been allowed, as it was not, here, first.

        I fail to see how ANY of this is Telstra’s fault.

    Leave a Comment


  • Get our 'Best of the Week' newsletter on Fridays

    Just the most important stories, one email a week.

    Email address:

    Follow us on social media

    Use your RSS reader to subscribe to our articles feed or to our comments feed.

  • Most Popular Content

  • Enterprise IT stories

    • Super funds close to dumping $250m IT revamp facepalm2

      If you have even a skin deep awareness of the structure of Australia’s superannuation industry, you’ll be aware that much of the underlying infrastructure used by many of the nation’s major funds is provided by a centralised group, Superpartners. One of the group’s main projects in recent years has been to dramatically update and modernise its IT platform — its version of a core banking platform overhaul. Unfortunately, the $250 million project has not precisely been going well.

    • Qld’s Grant joins analyst firm IBRS peter-grant

      This week it emerged that Peter Grant, the two-time former Queensland Whole of Government CIO (pictured), has joined well-regarded analyst firm Intelligent Business Research Services (IBRS). We’ve long had a high regard for IBRS, and so it’s fantastic to see such an experienced executive join its ranks.

    • Westpac dumps desk phones for Samsung Android mobiles samsung-galaxy-ace-3

      The era of troublesome desk phones tied to physical locations is gradually coming to an end in many workplaces, with mobile phones becoming increasingly popular as organisations’ main method of voice telecommunications. But some groups are more advanced than others when it comes to adoption of the trend. One of those is Westpac.

    • Ministers’ cloud approval lasted just a year reverse

      Remember how twelve months ago, the Federal Government released a new cloud computing security and privacy directive which required departments and agencies to explicitly acquire the approval of the Attorney-General and the relevant portfolio minister before government data containing private information could be stored in offshore facilities? Remember how the policy was strongly criticised by Microsoft, Government CIOs and Delimiter? Well, it looks like the policy is about to be reversed.

    • WA Govt can’t fund school IT upgrades oops key

      In news from The Department of Disturbing Facts, iTNews revealed late last week that Western Australia’s Department of Education has run out of money halfway through the deployment of new fundamental IT infrastructure to the state’s schools.

    • Turnbull outlines Govt ICT vision turnbull-5

      Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has published an extensive article arguing that the Federal Government needed to do a better job of connecting with Australians via digital channels and that public sector IT projects needn’t cost the huge amounts that some have in the past.

    • NZ Govt pushes hard into cloud zealand

      New Zealand’s national Government announced a whole of government contract this morning for what it terms ‘Office Productivity as a Service’ services. This includes email and calendaring services, as well as file-sharing, mobility, instant messaging and collaboration services. The contract complements two existing contracts — Desktop as a Service and Enterprise Content Management as a Service.

    • CommBank reveals Harte’s replacement whiteing

      The Commonwealth Bank of Australia has promoted an internal executive who joined the bank in September after a lengthy career at petroleum giant VP and IT services group Accenture to replace its outgoing chief information officer Michael Harte, who announced in early May that he would leave the bank.

    • Jeff Smith quits Suncorp for IBM jeffsmith4

      Second-tier Australian bank and financial services group Suncorp today announced that its long-serving top technology executive Jeff Smith would leave to take up a senior role with IBM in the United States, in an announcement which marks the end of an era for the nation’s banking IT sector.

    • Small business missing the mobile, social, cloud revolution iphone-stock

      Most companies that live and breathe the online revolution are not tech startups, but smart smaller firms that use online tools to run their core business better: to cut costs, reach customers and suppliers, innovate and get more control. Many others, however, are falling behind, according to a new Grattan Institute discussion paper.

  • Blog, Enterprise IT - Jul 5, 2014 13:53 - 0 Comments

    Super funds close to dumping $250m IT revamp

    More In Enterprise IT

    Blog, Telecommunications - Jul 5, 2014 12:12 - 0 Comments

    What should the ACCC’s role be in guiding infrastructure spending?

    More In Telecommunications

    Analysis, Industry, Internet - Jun 23, 2014 10:33 - 0 Comments

    ‘Google Schmoogle’ – how Yellow Pages got it so wrong

    More In Industry

    Blog, Digital Rights - Jun 30, 2014 22:24 - 0 Comments

    Will Netflix launch in Australia, or not?

    More In Digital Rights