Apple potentially cost people money even if you feel they should have been paying more attention to their own stuff. My provider has warnings on data usage that I set. It notifies me when I have reached 50% - 75% - and 90% of my data.
It does not necessarily tell me what is eating it all up. That is up to me to find out. Still Apple should not have done this.
What is even more troubling to me is how fast a class action forms against Apple, but seemingly other companies slide by.
Why the heck has Microsoft gotten away Scott free from downloading GBs of Windows 10 installs on machines that never asked for it, don't want it, never want it, and were never given the chance to "opt-out"?
I am sure there must be plenty of people world wide that have data caps on their internet that Microsoft ate up and cost them money or even suspension of services.
Trolls came out with full force today. I don't know what the f was wrong with you guys? I had only 3GB data plan and shared with my wife. I didn't see any problem with it. These idiots must be doing something wrong.
By the way, I don't know what kind of network provider these people are using. ATT would alert me every time when my data reaches 75%, 90% and 100% before adding another GB $15. It would take these idiots so many alerts to reach $5M data cost. Pure stupid.
Well anyone using iOS 9 clicked "I AGREE" to the terms and conditions, making this nice and legal. The plaintiffs did read the terms and conditions, right?
"Should I eat cuttlefish and asparagus, or the vanilla paste?"
Sometimes it takes a lawsuit to make arrogant developers wake up. Maybe if Apple Engineering took the feedbacks seriously, put the setting at the top of the list and turned off by default instead of thumbing their noses at the bug reports, this lawsuit would not have happened. But I am still waiting to see if AT&T, Verizon and other carriers lobbied Apple to have this setting turned on by default and buried at the bottom of the pile of apps so they could collect more data fees.
Come on Apple, cut all these assholes their $5 cheque for going over on data and move on.
In fact, maybe they could set up a webpage where people can send their previous months bill showing the data overage, and then they'll be reimbursed by Apple. I bet so few people would bother for a couple dollars that it would cost Apple next to nothing.
Plus it would cut the lawyers completely out of the picture, since there would no longer be any need for a class action lawsuit.
I know, not realistic, but for once I'd love to see something proactive like this happen which would deny the lawyers their (huge) cut of some lump sum payout.
But I am still waiting to see if AT&T, Verizon and other carriers lobbied Apple to have this setting turned on by default and buried at the bottom of the pile of apps so they could collect more data fees.
Do you honestly believe this long overdue feature is simply a massive conspiracy and anti-trust violation by Apple and mobile network operators? :no:
I totally agree with this suit. I think the class action should be considerably more. This feature automatically turned on AND the recent non-stop background usage from apps like FB and Yahoo, translate into some pretty horrible data and battery usage. Not to mention the overall pain in the arse of diagnosing these things. I look forward to my $5 iTunes card in the near future.
So Apple should be sued because of Facebook's background activity?
Apple, (by default) 'allowed' Facebook's background activity. Default should be to 'protect' from it.
"Wi-Fi Assist" is a just a name. Like "Image Capture" or "Mission Control". The phrase could mean anything. And it certainly makes no reference to "Paid-Cellular-Data".
For this to be turned on by anyone other than the user is just stupid. Really stupid.
Do you honestly believe this long overdue feature is simply a massive conspiracy and anti-trust violation by Apple and mobile network operators?
What do you consider "long overdue"? Having this option, or having it turned on by default and placed all the way at the bottom of the list?
I figured if we could put the blame on the mobile carriers, then the people who are currently complaining about the lawsuit might start to favor it because Apple would no longer be taking all the blame.
[quote name="Haggar" url="/t/189708/lawsuit-accuses-apples-ios-9-wi-fi-assist-of-burning-through-5m-in-data/80#post_2795373"]What do you consider "long overdue"? Having this option, or having it turned on by default and placed all the way at the bottom of the list?[/QUOTE]
Since this feature is new and Apple has enabled most new features by default, I am clearly referring to the feature itself. As I stated earlier in the thread, this is a feature I've been wanting for many years, have talked about on AI for many years, and even suggested to Apple. I also stated that they should have been more forthcoming about the feature, suggested a couple ways in which they could have made it better known, and even gave a post script of another, more troubling issue I find with how they list the Apple Watch's connection to the iPhone as simply being "paired" by a typical BT accessory.
During the beta period I had this turned on as it is by default. I knew about it and looked forward to it and could totally see why to use it especially when in a restaurant that might have free WiFi but normally saturated.
However when the final release came out there were issues that when I received a phone call my data dropped out and would not return unless I switched mobile data off then on. After contacting my phone company they said disable WiFi assist and should work no problem. This fixed it. So there are other issues in there somewhere as well.
Personally I'm not bothered about it being on by default. I read the release notes and knew what I was getting what is more annoying as has been said is the location of the toggle. I don't think there are any other toggles at such at the bottom of a list that could grow and grow. Why hide it there?
BTW since there is WiFi almost everywhere, I don't come near to using my 100mb data limit.
It may be somewhere in the documentation, but I would like to bring to your attention that public Wi-Fi can be dangerous, especially if it is unencrypted, as in no password required. You check your mail, fill out a web form or check your bank balance and you could potentially be giving away your login credentials and personal information to a hacker sitting next to you at a cafe. I have ask to join wifi turned off and only use cellular when not at home or at work.
Yes you are correct about your WiFi security concerns, which I'm quite aware of. Basically the net isn't totally secure and never can be. Hacking in is not a big task, so I never have sensitive info on my iPhone, nor do I ever do banking on it.
Of course your iPhone could be stolen, then nothing protects you.
My iPhone's online activity is basically to retrieve information, which I act on in other much more secure ways.
Since the net is not secure, I don't even Email sensitive info, like my credit card number.
"As reported on 9to5Mac, WiFi Assist is a new setting for maintaining a strong online connection. If you're in an area with bad WiFi, the enabled feature will automatically transfer your device from WiFi to a cellular connection." What part of this says that WiFi Assist won't use cellular data? It uses a cellular connection and that is never free.
What else do people need, someone to hold their hand for every purchase and explain everything?
So knowing that cellular data is never free, Apple should have had this feature turned off by default. That is the crux of the argument.
My Network operator, Vodafone, charges thusly:
Quote:
Data €1.99 per day for 100MB, then €1 per MB thereafter
Given there are such rates of charging in this world, it was simply not reasonable, or in their customers best interests, for Apple to have this 'feature' turned on by default. Saying people should read the manual reminds me of Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy and the impending destruction of the Earth:
Quote:
There’s no point in acting surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now. … What do you mean you’ve never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh, for heaven’s sake, mankind, it’s only four light years away, you know. I’m sorry, but if you can’t be bothered to take an interest in local affairs, that’s your own lookout. Energize the demolition beams.
I could not agree more... If wifi is not working properly then I would like to know before using cell data. Apple made a mistake turning this feature on by default. I have been telling anyone who is not on unlimited plan to turn it off.
So those people are unable to inform themselves about the new features and are unable to take conscious decisions themselves?
This lawsuit again demonstrates that people use their insufficient ability to think as an excuse that they were not "protected". They should not be allowed to vote or drive cars as well.
In my early twenties I coined the phrase 'CLUB 95' meaning the 95% of the population that lacks common scense, is stupid to various degrees etc., now approaching 70 and reading Apple Insider over the years I realise I got the percentage wrong. It was too low! If folks fail to read the synopsis before upgrading, or read Apple's upgrade details before they give the go-ahead to upgrade and so on then it is their problem. As other posts have pointed out, this is about their stupidity being used to leverage money from someone. Quite honestly it makes the rest of us look positively brilliant!
Yes. In general, Apple's approach to products is to think long and hard about things that their customers, in consequence, no longer need to.
If it requires long and hard thinking to understand things like wifi assist then maybe one should refrain from anything with more than one button.
I know of course where you're going. The "it just works" meme. However, when you draw the line between user responsibility and "I don't need to worry"? In my eyes no one would argue that having an adaptive cruise control in your car would refueled you from the responsibility of driving (well, actually the guy who left the drivers seat and went to the back of his mobile home to make a coffe because he "thought" the CC would take care of all shows there are really idiots in this world), just because it's smaller and doesn't kill people when getting out of control doesn't mean I should not RTFM.
Okey, I have some experience with product liability. I know cases like the guy who "wore" his lawn mower with a belt around his belly because he thought it's a smart idea to trim his hedge. There, the manufacturer was found guilty because he should have anticipated something like this and add an automated dead switch through an inclination sensor. "Norma"l people, however, would say that this guy deserves the Darwin Award, not a fortune from the manufacturer.
I see an overall trend to render people "stupider". And they like it. At the same time they claim they can vote, eg. Doesn't fit for me.
If it requires long and hard thinking to understand things like wifi assist then maybe one should refrain from anything with more than one button.
I know of course where you're going. The "it just works" meme. However, when you draw the line between user responsibility and "I don't need to worry"? In my eyes no one would argue that having an adaptive cruise control in your car would refueled you from the responsibility of driving (well, actually the guy who left the drivers seat and went to the back of his mobile home to make a coffe because he "thought" the CC would take care of all shows there are really idiots in this world), just because it's smaller and doesn't kill people when getting out of control doesn't mean I should not RTFM.
Okey, I have some experience with product liability. I know cases like the guy who "wore" his lawn mower with a belt around his belly because he thought it's a smart idea to trim his hedge. There, the manufacturer was found guilty because he should have anticipated something like this and add an automated dead switch through an inclination sensor. "Norma"l people, however, would say that this guy deserves the Darwin Award, not a fortune from the manufacturer.
I see an overall trend to render people "stupider". And they like it. At the same time they claim they can vote, eg. Doesn't fit for me.
People aren't becoming "stupider". At all. The general public doesn't give a damn (and never has) about technology unless it somehow improves their lives without their having to do anything for it — VCRs did wonders for people, but only a tiny fraction ever programmed them until integrated EPG and auto-searching made it easy (the rest were "12-o'clock-blinkers").
This stuff has gone mainstream. It is no longer the tiny tech elite using it, but everybody. That doesn't change people. Nobody will ever read manuals. (That's the hyperbolic argumentative "nobody".)
As for using anything with more than one button on it: Take a look at the front of that iPhone, or iPad. Notice anything? Yeah?
Comments
For me I guess it comes down to this...
Apple potentially cost people money even if you feel they should have been paying more attention to their own stuff. My provider has warnings on data usage that I set. It notifies me when I have reached 50% - 75% - and 90% of my data.
It does not necessarily tell me what is eating it all up. That is up to me to find out. Still Apple should not have done this.
What is even more troubling to me is how fast a class action forms against Apple, but seemingly other companies slide by.
Why the heck has Microsoft gotten away Scott free from downloading GBs of Windows 10 installs on machines that never asked for it, don't want it, never want it, and were never given the chance to "opt-out"?
I am sure there must be plenty of people world wide that have data caps on their internet that Microsoft ate up and cost them money or even suspension of services.
Trolls came out with full force today. I don't know what the f was wrong with you guys? I had only 3GB data plan and shared with my wife. I didn't see any problem with it. These idiots must be doing something wrong.
By the way, I don't know what kind of network provider these people are using. ATT would alert me every time when my data reaches 75%, 90% and 100% before adding another GB $15. It would take these idiots so many alerts to reach $5M data cost. Pure stupid.
Well anyone using iOS 9 clicked "I AGREE" to the terms and conditions, making this nice and legal. The plaintiffs did read the terms and conditions, right?
"Should I eat cuttlefish and asparagus, or the vanilla paste?"
Sometimes it takes a lawsuit to make arrogant developers wake up. Maybe if Apple Engineering took the feedbacks seriously, put the setting at the top of the list and turned off by default instead of thumbing their noses at the bug reports, this lawsuit would not have happened. But I am still waiting to see if AT&T, Verizon and other carriers lobbied Apple to have this setting turned on by default and buried at the bottom of the pile of apps so they could collect more data fees.
Apple should never negotiate with terrorists.
Do you honestly believe this long overdue feature is simply a massive conspiracy and anti-trust violation by Apple and mobile network operators? :no:
I totally agree with this suit. I think the class action should be considerably more. This feature automatically turned on AND the recent non-stop background usage from apps like FB and Yahoo, translate into some pretty horrible data and battery usage. Not to mention the overall pain in the arse of diagnosing these things. I look forward to my $5 iTunes card in the near future.
So Apple should be sued because of Facebook's background activity?
Apple, (by default) 'allowed' Facebook's background activity. Default should be to 'protect' from it.
"Wi-Fi Assist" is a just a name. Like "Image Capture" or "Mission Control". The phrase could mean anything. And it certainly makes no reference to "Paid-Cellular-Data".
For this to be turned on by anyone other than the user is just stupid. Really stupid.
Apple's going to pay on this one.
Do you honestly believe this long overdue feature is simply a massive conspiracy and anti-trust violation by Apple and mobile network operators?
What do you consider "long overdue"? Having this option, or having it turned on by default and placed all the way at the bottom of the list?
I figured if we could put the blame on the mobile carriers, then the people who are currently complaining about the lawsuit might start to favor it because Apple would no longer be taking all the blame.
Since this feature is new and Apple has enabled most new features by default, I am clearly referring to the feature itself. As I stated earlier in the thread, this is a feature I've been wanting for many years, have talked about on AI for many years, and even suggested to Apple. I also stated that they should have been more forthcoming about the feature, suggested a couple ways in which they could have made it better known, and even gave a post script of another, more troubling issue I find with how they list the Apple Watch's connection to the iPhone as simply being "paired" by a typical BT accessory.
However when the final release came out there were issues that when I received a phone call my data dropped out and would not return unless I switched mobile data off then on. After contacting my phone company they said disable WiFi assist and should work no problem. This fixed it. So there are other issues in there somewhere as well.
Personally I'm not bothered about it being on by default. I read the release notes and knew what I was getting what is more annoying as has been said is the location of the toggle. I don't think there are any other toggles at such at the bottom of a list that could grow and grow. Why hide it there?
My problem has always been with my iPhone trying too hard to connect via WiFi. I usually have to turn WiFi off to get it to connect to3G/LTE.
BTW since there is WiFi almost everywhere, I don't come near to using my 100mb data limit.
It may be somewhere in the documentation, but I would like to bring to your attention that public Wi-Fi can be dangerous, especially if it is unencrypted, as in no password required. You check your mail, fill out a web form or check your bank balance and you could potentially be giving away your login credentials and personal information to a hacker sitting next to you at a cafe. I have ask to join wifi turned off and only use cellular when not at home or at work.
Yes you are correct about your WiFi security concerns, which I'm quite aware of. Basically the net isn't totally secure and never can be. Hacking in is not a big task, so I never have sensitive info on my iPhone, nor do I ever do banking on it.
Of course your iPhone could be stolen, then nothing protects you.
My iPhone's online activity is basically to retrieve information, which I act on in other much more secure ways.
Since the net is not secure, I don't even Email sensitive info, like my credit card number.
Apple has a support page. Not sure when it was actually first posted: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205296. I was also able to quickly find articles talking about WiFi Assist during the iOS 9 beta period, including this one: http://www.informationweek.com/software/operating-systems/ios-9-beta-wifi-assist-app-revamps/d/d-id/1321671
"As reported on 9to5Mac, WiFi Assist is a new setting for maintaining a strong online connection. If you're in an area with bad WiFi, the enabled feature will automatically transfer your device from WiFi to a cellular connection." What part of this says that WiFi Assist won't use cellular data? It uses a cellular connection and that is never free.
What else do people need, someone to hold their hand for every purchase and explain everything?
So knowing that cellular data is never free, Apple should have had this feature turned off by default. That is the crux of the argument.
My Network operator, Vodafone, charges thusly:
Given there are such rates of charging in this world, it was simply not reasonable, or in their customers best interests, for Apple to have this 'feature' turned on by default. Saying people should read the manual reminds me of Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy and the impending destruction of the Earth:
Why? To relief you from thinking?
So those people are unable to inform themselves about the new features and are unable to take conscious decisions themselves?
This lawsuit again demonstrates that people use their insufficient ability to think as an excuse that they were not "protected". They should not be allowed to vote or drive cars as well.
Why? To relief you from thinking?
Yes. In general, Apple's approach to products is to think long and hard about things that their customers, in consequence, no longer need to.
If it requires long and hard thinking to understand things like wifi assist then maybe one should refrain from anything with more than one button.
I know of course where you're going. The "it just works" meme. However, when you draw the line between user responsibility and "I don't need to worry"? In my eyes no one would argue that having an adaptive cruise control in your car would refueled you from the responsibility of driving (well, actually the guy who left the drivers seat and went to the back of his mobile home to make a coffe because he "thought" the CC would take care of all shows there are really idiots in this world), just because it's smaller and doesn't kill people when getting out of control doesn't mean I should not RTFM.
Okey, I have some experience with product liability. I know cases like the guy who "wore" his lawn mower with a belt around his belly because he thought it's a smart idea to trim his hedge. There, the manufacturer was found guilty because he should have anticipated something like this and add an automated dead switch through an inclination sensor. "Norma"l people, however, would say that this guy deserves the Darwin Award, not a fortune from the manufacturer.
I see an overall trend to render people "stupider". And they like it. At the same time they claim they can vote, eg. Doesn't fit for me.
If it requires long and hard thinking to understand things like wifi assist then maybe one should refrain from anything with more than one button.
I know of course where you're going. The "it just works" meme. However, when you draw the line between user responsibility and "I don't need to worry"? In my eyes no one would argue that having an adaptive cruise control in your car would refueled you from the responsibility of driving (well, actually the guy who left the drivers seat and went to the back of his mobile home to make a coffe because he "thought" the CC would take care of all shows there are really idiots in this world), just because it's smaller and doesn't kill people when getting out of control doesn't mean I should not RTFM.
Okey, I have some experience with product liability. I know cases like the guy who "wore" his lawn mower with a belt around his belly because he thought it's a smart idea to trim his hedge. There, the manufacturer was found guilty because he should have anticipated something like this and add an automated dead switch through an inclination sensor. "Norma"l people, however, would say that this guy deserves the Darwin Award, not a fortune from the manufacturer.
I see an overall trend to render people "stupider". And they like it. At the same time they claim they can vote, eg. Doesn't fit for me.
People aren't becoming "stupider". At all. The general public doesn't give a damn (and never has) about technology unless it somehow improves their lives without their having to do anything for it — VCRs did wonders for people, but only a tiny fraction ever programmed them until integrated EPG and auto-searching made it easy (the rest were "12-o'clock-blinkers").
This stuff has gone mainstream. It is no longer the tiny tech elite using it, but everybody. That doesn't change people. Nobody will ever read manuals. (That's the hyperbolic argumentative "nobody".)
As for using anything with more than one button on it: Take a look at the front of that iPhone, or iPad. Notice anything? Yeah?
Exactly.