# Is Apple responsible for data charges caused by its Wi-Fi feature



## nolafotoknut (Oct 26, 2015)

Should Apple be responsible for data charges incurred by users of the iPhone due to a feature in the iOS 9?

In summary, upgrading to iOS 9 enables a Wi-Fi assist feature that is turned on by default which switches to cellular data when a Wi-Fi connection becomes weak.  Some users feel that Apple should be responsible for charges as they did not know about this feature.

I came across this article about a couple suing Apple for their cellular data charges.

http://www.computerweekly.com/news/...ver Wi-Fi assist data charges_&utm_source=EDA

IMO, users should take ownership and responsibility when installing upgrades.  Apple offers an informational about the iOS 9 that consumers can read before any updates. 

http://www.apple.com/ios/whats-new/


----------



## Toothless (Oct 26, 2015)

Working as a Customer Care agent for Sprint, Apple needs to get their heads out of their asses. 

People that downgrade to iOS 9 call in because of data overages, phones not working, and other horrid software issues. Overages ranging from a few dollars to $140+. ($15 per 1GB over)

They should be responsible and should pay up for the loss that there customers are suffering, because I'm tired of hearing it multiple times per work day.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 26, 2015)

nolafotoknut said:


> Should Apple be responsible for data charges incurred by users of the iPhone due to a feature in the iOS 9?
> 
> In summary, upgrading to iOS 9 enables a Wi-Fi assist feature that is turned on by default which switches to cellular data when a Wi-Fi connection becomes weak.  Some users feel that Apple should be responsible for charges as they did not know about this feature.
> 
> ...



May I ask for a point of clarification?

During the update process you click through an EULA.  Said EULA basically makes Apple a non-entity from the perspective of culpability for changes.  In more general terms, "we {Apple) don't provide this update without the end user (you) acknowledging that any detrimental effects aren't our fault and it's 100% your problem."  The EULA makes various references, which can be directly interpreted to mean that data usage and settings are the end user's responsibility to set, and that their defaults provide only the "best" experience.

Framing the discussion with that, I ask my question.  Do you mean culpability by Apple for this specific update being not what they assumed, or the more general culpability for updates having their relevant changes buried into too much legalese for the lay user to actually be able to understand and act upon?




Depending upon your answer, I have multiple responses. 
1) If you mean general culpability for poor notification to its users, Apple isn't the only guilty party here.  Complex software often has too many notes to understand.  I think it's in Apple's best interest to make default settings good for users, but at the same time it isn't something they are legally culpable for.
2) If you mean this specific upgrade, I think that's just a stupid argument.  The argument you'd have to make is that this update is special, and that the end user was incapable of altering the device to function as advertised.  The former argument could easily dismissed on its face, and the later is a civil suite that can be dismissed by a hand full of $25 Apple store gift cards.  Apple gets good PR for attending to their customer's needs, while never getting blamed for their customers being incompetent.  Not a genuine win for users, but the affected user pool is likely so small as to be insignificant.  100 $25 gift cards to your store could buy you millions in good will from your customers.

Neither of these options appear on the poll.  Frankly, upgrading requires you to sign a EULA that makes changes a user's responsibility.  As such, Apple is legally in the clear here.



Edit:
I don't seem to have @Toothless's perspective here.  Everyone I know with an iPhone hasn't had this issue, so my perception is that it is a minor one.  If that is not the case, then it won't exactly be a couple of $25 gift cards.  

Unfortunately, Apple has enough brand recognition and legal support to make this kind of issue a customer problem.  I don't think they'll take responsibility for it unless there's some monumental event, of which I cannot conceive at the moment.


----------



## Toothless (Oct 26, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> May I ask for a point of clarification?
> 
> As such, Apple is legally in the clear here.


As Apple does not let users know as they're bumping the OS up that it's not a complete OS. I have to explain to customers over and over that iOS 9 is a beta operating system that Apple should have put in a little pop up saying "This software is not in final stages of completion and may effect your cellular usage." That would put them in the clear, while what they're doing now is completely unethical while they hide behind the EULA. 

They also have yet to fully explain to customers what the Wi-Fi Sense actually does to the customer. Carriers are losing customers because of this, while all we can do is advise customers to call up Apple for this. 

Yes, I do tell angry customers to go yell at Apple.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 26, 2015)

Toothless said:


> As Apple does not let users know as they're bumping the OS up that it's not a complete OS. I have to explain to customers over and over that iOS 9 is a beta operating system that Apple should have put in a little pop up saying "This software is not in final stages of completion and may effect your cellular usage." That would put them in the clear, while what they're doing now is completely unethical while they hide behind the EULA.
> 
> They also have yet to fully explain to customers what the Wi-Fi Sense actually does to the customer. Carriers are losing customers because of this, while all we can do is advise customers to call up Apple for this.
> 
> Yes, I do tell angry customers to go yell at Apple.



The callus part of me wants to say "Oh no, another OS launching before its done and having issues?  Why, it's like MS and Apple are both giving users a taste of the future where their "constant" OSs are simply a bug pile slowly being stomped until a decently capable one can be found in the rubble."

The nerd side of me wants to ask these technical throw-backs where their Apple god is now?  They've always touted absolute superiority of the iPhone above all else.  More than once I've heard that the iPhone "just works."  It seems like what they mean is actually "it just works, until when it fails and explodes into flaming shrapnel."  


The human part of me wants to ask why these people actually expect service from Apple.  They've got the EULA, which means any law suit is crushed.  Apple doesn't need PR, as demonstrated by the same lines to give Apple money for an iPhone despite Cook's absolute lack of charisma.  Despite there being multiple objectively more feature rich phones on the market, people still buy Apple products.  I'm sorry, but this is Apple showing consumers that they could sell a turd for a hundred dollars, and still have people lined up around the street to buy it.  What is their motive for losing a couple of customers, who their own research probably indicates will be back on an Apple product in a year because the Android (and to a lesser extent WP10) experience isn't as good?


----------



## nolafotoknut (Oct 26, 2015)

I believe it's probably hidden in the EULA.  But as a user, I feel it's the user's responsibility to track data usage, educate oneself, and see what's using data on the phone. The information is out there, users just need to research.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205296

I believe there is joint culpability here but not 100% on Apple.  If you own a phone, you should understand certain implications and at least track your data if you do a lot of streaming/web surfing.  The tools are there to do so!


----------



## n-ster (Oct 26, 2015)

This was obviously going to be an issue for many people. Knowing this and not informing the general public, is in my opinion, negligence from Apple. Adding a pop-up that asks you if you want faster speeds even on Wi-Fi and in small characters saying it uses data would have been fine, and in that case many people would still be having data usage issues, but Apple would have not been negligent as they tried to inform their users.

Your average non-techsavvy user will probably fall prey to not knowing why their usage is suddenly so high, parents of teenagers suddenly can have hundreds of dollars overage fees... I think Apple should be liable up to ~50$ per device that has proof of going over the month they installed iOS9. Future months are all on the consumer though. Unfortunately this is my opinion, not the law


----------



## nolafotoknut (Oct 26, 2015)

Toothless said:


> Working as a Customer Care agent for Sprint, Apple needs to get their heads out of their asses.
> 
> People that downgrade to iOS 9 call in because of data overages, phones not working, and other horrid software issues. Overages ranging from a few dollars to $140+. ($15 per 1GB over)
> 
> They should be responsible and should pay up for the loss that there customers are suffering, because I'm tired of hearing it multiple times per work day.


I understand your frustration with customers!  Does Sprint have a tech support department for iPhones that assists customers with turning off this feature to avoid further charges?  I do feel sorry for customer service reps as yourself and customers are wrong for placing the blame for irresponsibility.  Users can see if their Wi-Fi is being used with the icon in the top left corner of their phone.  I just feel customers need to take some responsibility.


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 26, 2015)

Everyone is freaking out over this feature, I don't get it.  It has been in Android for a while now.  No one give a shit when it was put in the Android OS.

You have to ask yourself, how often are you connected to a WiFi network that is so bad it doesn't provide an internet connection?  Because that is what has to happen for the WiFi assist to kick in.

Finally, when WiFi assist is active, the data icon on the phone actually changes from the WiFi symbol to the Cellular symbol.  So the user is *clearly* told they are not using WiFi and have no excuse for not knowing they aren't connected to their WiFi.  No one should just assume they are connected to a WiFi connection when doing anything that would take up a lot of data.


----------



## Toothless (Oct 26, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> The callus part of me wants to say "Oh no, another OS launching before its done and having issues?  Why, it's like MS and Apple are both giving users a taste of the future where their "constant" OSs are simply a bug pile slowly being stomped until a decently capable one can be found in the rubble."
> 
> The nerd side of me wants to ask these technical throw-backs where their Apple god is now?  They've always touted absolute superiority of the iPhone above all else.  More than once I've heard that the iPhone "just works."  It seems like what they mean is actually "it just works, until when it fails and explodes into flaming shrapnel."
> 
> ...


It's the brand name that'll keep selling. Not for the weak hardware but for the fully-tweaked and "easy to use" software. 


nolafotoknut said:


> I understand your frustration with customers!  Does Sprint have a tech support department for iPhones that assists customers with turning off this feature to avoid further charges?  I do feel sorry for customer service reps as yourself and customers are wrong for placing the blame for irresponsibility.  Users can see if their Wi-Fi is being used with the icon in the top left corner of their phone.  I just feel customers need to take some responsibility.


Customer Care would be the ones to help the customer disable the feature (meaning me as our tech takes on more serious matters)

Customers want credits for data they went over. We explain it's technically Apple's new OS at issue, and direct them to Apple Care while I shove $15 into their face to make them happy.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 26, 2015)

n-ster said:


> This was obviously going to be an issue for many people. Knowing this and not informing the general public, is in my opinion, negligence from Apple. Adding a pop-up that asks you if you want faster speeds even on Wi-Fi and in small characters saying it uses data would have been fine, and in that case many people would still be having data usage issues, but Apple would have not been negligent as they tried to inform their users.
> 
> Your average non-techsavvy user will probably fall prey to not knowing why their usage is suddenly so high, parents of teenagers suddenly can have hundreds of dollars overage fees... I think Apple should be liable up to ~50$ per device that has proof of going over the month they installed iOS9. Future months are all on the consumer though. Unfortunately this is my opinion, not the law




Starting from the point that I hate Apple products, let me play devil's advocate.

The next upgrade to iPhone says in the EULA that all calls will be recorded, and all data usage will be monitored by default.  The collected data is Apple's resource, and can be sold to anyone at any time.  Said text appears in the EULA.  It takes 30 seconds to navigate to the data collection option, 2 seconds to click the option, and another 2 to deactivate data collection.  Apple can argue that consumers decided to have their data tracked, because in less than a minute they could have that feature disabled.  Such options exist now in phones, and users don't take the time to use them (while complaining of invaded privacy).

Likewise, let's ask the average user what they actually read.  I ask because I'm a cynic, that has seen more than one person "upgrade" to Windows 10 because that pop-up occurred.  Malware often installs for the same exact reason, people mindlessly check "yes," without ever reading anything.



Knowing the above, you're now Apple.  You've made it clear that you upgrade doesn't mean 100% functionality, via the EULA.  Your users have demonstrated they don't even read that (really, who's going to build a nuke with an Apple device?).  How do you, as a company, let users know about what has changed?  How do you even determine what will influence them?  800 pop-ups on upgrade is no better than a 5 page EULA, and the value of that information degrades with quantity.  How do you ever claim responsibility, when your consumer is inept?  

I think Apple should stand their ground here.  It won't be publicly great, but it'll reinforce that EULAs and agreements should be read.  Apple actually asking their customers to take some responsibility would be a nice change of pace.

Devil's advocacy over.


----------



## n-ster (Oct 26, 2015)

Data collection, bugs in software etc are different than enabling Wi-Fi Assist by default, knowing full well millions of devices will now be using more data, hurting their users financially. Sure there are things, like data collection and the like, that are in the grey zone, but to me, Wi-Fi assist isn't. There is absolutely no doubt that Apple knew full well that this was going to cause many people to go over their data plans. Furthermore, this wasn't originally in iOS, so users should be properly informed of significant changes that could impact them in updates like these


----------



## Toothless (Oct 26, 2015)

n-ster said:


> Data collection, bugs in software etc are different than enabling Wi-Fi Assist by default, knowing full well millions of devices will now be using more data, hurting their users financially. Sure there are things, like data collection and the like, that are in the grey zone, but to me, Wi-Fi assist isn't. There is absolutely no doubt that Apple knew full well that this was going to cause many people to go over their data plans. Furthermore, this wasn't originally in iOS, so users should be properly informed of significant changes that could impact them in updates like these


The issue is most Apple customers with iOS 9 don't know about Wi-Fi Assist. No one let them know about it.

Time for work, I'll see if i find a customer with this issue today and see how they feel about it.


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 26, 2015)

n-ster said:


> Data collection, bugs in software etc are different than enabling Wi-Fi Assist by default, knowing full well millions of devices will now be using more data, hurting their users financially. Sure there are things, like data collection and the like, that are in the grey zone, but to me, Wi-Fi assist isn't. There is absolutely no doubt that Apple knew full well that this was going to cause many people to go over their data plans. Furthermore, this wasn't originally in iOS, so users should be properly informed of significant changes that could impact them in updates like these





Toothless said:


> The issue is most Apple customers with iOS 9 don't know about Wi-Fi Assist. No one let them know about it.
> 
> Time for work, I'll see if i find a customer with this issue today and see how they feel about it.



Again, you are informed that you are not using WiFi.  There is no excuse for claiming you didn't know you were using Cellular data or higher bills.


----------



## AsRock (Oct 26, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> Again, you are informed that you are not using WiFi.  There is no excuse for claiming you didn't know you were using Cellular data or higher bills.



Informed ?, after or before it connects ?.  To me it sounds like it should pop up a simple yes \ no option if it should or not.  As it sounds to me it pops the message up after it's connected.


----------



## n-ster (Oct 26, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> Again, you are informed that you are not using WiFi.  There is no excuse for claiming you didn't know you were using Cellular data or higher bills.



Say John upgrades his IPhone 6 to iOS9. John has a 100MB plan and has Wi-Fi at school, work and home. John is watching streaming an NHL game on his phone because this class is boring, but many people are doing the same, so the school's Wi-Fi is a bit slower. What happens when iOS decides to use your data? is there a pop-up? Because if you expect him to notice his Wi-Fi symbol changing while he is concentrated on watching the game, I think you are expecting a bit much

Now imagine the same situation, but with a business man who checks his emails abroad, so he needs his data roaming on. At the hotel he has Wi-Fi so he relaxes and watches some Netflix on his 4G iPad or something. Suddenly, instead of 10MB he can come out to 1.5GB usage. At 1$/MB, that hurts like hell. Even if he notices it after a few minutes, chances are 50-100MB, so 50-100$ is already used (invalid scenario as per newtekie's response)


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 26, 2015)

You're missing the point.  Everyone seems to be assuming that the average consumer isn't an idiot, and because there isn't a huge glowing warning this is Apple's fault.

As @newtekie1 said, there is a visual cue that you're not on wi-fi.  There's a EULA you sign (and don't apparently read) prior to upgrading.  Likewise, being charged for usage is no different than silent data harvesting.  Apple is selling their consumers out, and is being praised for it.  Data sales don't come in a monthly bill, but they aren't something free of cost.  The only reason this is an issue is because people are seeing it on their monthly billing.



I'm more than guilty of this, so let's look back at why people buy Apple products.  It isn't features, the Galaxy line beats them pants down.  It isn't hardware, again other competitors blow them out of the water.  Finally, it isn't pricing.  The only thing left is idiot proofing.  The iPhone does this elegantly, by stealing all real power from the user.  That's why I recommend them, the tech support calls just don't happen (until 2 years is up, and the phone self destructs).  The only reason this is an issue is consumers have bought this chunk of junk because it's a status symbol and idiot proof.  Congratulations, just like the virus proofing we've discovered that Apple isn't infallible.  It sucks that people are getting billed for it, but tell me how anyone believes legal action against Apple is going to do anything?  Tell me why we don't have the balls to just not buy their crap....  Is it the same reason we still buy from EA?  The same reason we tolerate Uplay?

I'm getting tired of people moaning that they've been done wrong, then not having the spine to not buy from a company.  Apple is no different, yet somehow when the next OS or device launches there'll be lines of people waiting to pay them for their crap.  Anyone want to bet against it?


Edit:


n-ster said:


> Say John upgrades his IPhone 6 to iOS9. John has a 100MB plan and has Wi-Fi at school, work and home. John is watching streaming an NHL game on his phone because this class is boring, but many people are doing the same, so the school's Wi-Fi is a bit slower. What happens when iOS decides to use your data? is there a pop-up? Because if you expect him to notice his Wi-Fi symbol changing while he is concentrated on watching the game, I think you are expecting a bit much
> 
> Now imagine the same situation, but with a business man who checks his emails abroad, so he needs his data roaming on. At the hotel he has Wi-Fi so he relaxes and watches some Netflix on his 4G iPad or something. Suddenly, instead of 10MB he can come out to 1.5GB usage. At 1$/MB, that hurts like hell. Even if he notices it after a few minutes, chances are 50-100MB, so 50-100$ is already used



Let's say your hotel room example is valid.  There is also a hospitality fridge in the room.  Prices are clearly listed, but the person doesn't pay attention to them (like not reading the EULA).  He eats $100 in peanuts and candy.  Whenever the bill is delivered to him, he notes the charge discrepancy, and angrily calls the hotel.

The hotel says prices were clearly listed.  The man says it was in his room, so he assumed it was part of the cost of the room.  The hotel clerk gets yelled at, but has no power to change anything.

Is the hotel to blame for the man eating the goods?  Should the hotel decrease the charge, because the man didn't pay attention?  The answer here is no.  It's simple, because ignorance to things that should have been clear is not an excuse.  It sucks for the man, but the hotel shouldn't be expected to pay for the goods because of the man's chosen ignorance.


----------



## n-ster (Oct 26, 2015)

The average time it would take for a person to read all the EULAs they encounter is ~250 hours per year... btw, if Apple wants to target people who want idiot-proof phones, Wi-Fi Assist would be against that philosophy

I've never seen an iPhone on Wi-Fi Assist, what is this visual cue? If it's just the Wi-Fi symbol disappearing or something of that sort, it's ridiculous to think that's fair. Since when do you expect people to notice that


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 26, 2015)

n-ster said:


> Say John upgrades his IPhone 6 to iOS9. John has a 100MB plan and has Wi-Fi at school, work and home. John is watching streaming an NHL game on his phone because this class is boring, but many people are doing the same, so the school's Wi-Fi is a bit slower. What happens when iOS decides to use your data? is there a pop-up? Because if you expect him to notice his Wi-Fi symbol changing while he is concentrated on watching the game, I think you are expecting a bit much
> 
> Now imagine the same situation, but with a business man who checks his emails abroad, so he needs his data roaming on. At the hotel he has Wi-Fi so he relaxes and watches some Netflix on his 4G iPad or something. Suddenly, instead of 10MB he can come out to 1.5GB usage. At 1$/MB, that hurts like hell. Even if he notices it after a few minutes, chances are 50-100MB, so 50-100$ is already used



Except that isn't how WiFi assist works.  WiFi assist only kicks in when there is *no* internet access via the WiFi connection. It doesn't boost a slow WiFi connection, it kicks in when there is no response to internet requests at all via the WiFi connection.

Also, WiFi Assist will not activate if you are data roaming, so the businessman scenario would never happen.  It also doesn't activate when streaming video/music, so the student scenario would never happen either...



n-ster said:


> I've never seen an iPhone on Wi-Fi Assist, what is this visual cue? If it's just the Wi-Fi symbol disappearing or something of that sort, it's ridiculous to think that's fair. Since when do you expect people to notice that



Yes, the data icon at the top changes from the WiFi signal to the Cellular signal.  I pay attention to it all the time on my android phone.  I check it every time before I do anything that would consume a lot of data.  No one should just assume they are connected to WiFi.  And if they do things that consume a lot of data when they aren't connected to WiFi because they assumed they were, that is no one else's fault but their own.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 26, 2015)

Toothless said:


> while I shove $15 into their face to make them happy.



we are all unhappy about this   can you shove $15 into our faces to make us all happy


----------



## n-ster (Oct 26, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> Except that isn't how WiFi assist works. WiFi assist only kicks in when there is *no* internet access via the WiFi connection. It doesn't boost a slow WiFi connection, it kicks in when there is no response to internet requests at all via the WiFi connection.



What I understood from https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205296 was that it activates if the connection is slow to respond, but I guess if it kicks in at the same rate as the web browser would say the connection timed-out, it's not so bad. At my office we have iPhones, and many of our users had very high usages after the iOS update, our sample size is about 40 users, which isn't big, but enough to say that if 15 out of the 40 users were able to have a very noticeable spike in their data usage, something is wrong with this feature. Perhaps it kicks in too fast etc. Maybe it isn't Wi-Fi Assist and something else in iOS9, idk.



lilhasselhoffer said:


> Let's say your hotel room example is valid. There is also a hospitality fridge in the room. Prices are clearly listed, but the person doesn't pay attention to them (like not reading the EULA). He eats $100 in peanuts and candy. Whenever the bill is delivered to him, he notes the charge discrepancy, and angrily calls the hotel.
> 
> The hotel says prices were clearly listed. The man says it was in his room, so he assumed it was part of the cost of the room. The hotel clerk gets yelled at, but has no power to change anything.
> 
> Is the hotel to blame for the man eating the goods? Should the hotel decrease the charge, because the man didn't pay attention? The answer here is no. It's simple, because ignorance to things that should have been clear is not an excuse. It sucks for the man, but the hotel shouldn't be expected to pay for the goods because of the man's chosen ignorance.



To me, Wi-Fi Assist would be more akin to usually having a hotel room with free Peanuts. Then, one day, they remodel your usual room. Now, they have 2 bowls of Peanuts in the room, and one is free, one is 10$. They technically say in the check-in paperwork that the red bowl is free and the blue bowl isn't... but common. To be fair, this scenario is a bit of a stretch as well, since it's not Apple charging for data and it's hard to make equivalences in this situation.

Personally, I think Wi-Fi assist should only be for web pages, and shouldn't include any bigger transfers like downloads, videos etc.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 26, 2015)

n-ster said:


> What I understood from https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205296 was that it activates if the connection is slow to respond, but I guess if it kicks in at the same rate as the web browser would say the connection timed-out, it's not so bad. At my office we have iPhones, and many of our users had very high usages after the iOS update, our sample size is about 40 users, which isn't big, but enough to say that if 15 out of the 40 users were able to have a very noticeable spike in their data usage, something is wrong with this feature. Perhaps it kicks in too fast etc. Maybe it isn't Wi-Fi Assist and something else in iOS9, idk.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Fair.

Let's take another crack at it, from your perspective.  The man eats all of the peanuts in the red bowl.  He assumes that the peanuts in the blue bowl are therefore free.  He's still guilty of eating all of the peanuts, without even thinking about the clear visual distinction between the bowls.

You assume the hotel is responsible for the man being incompetent.  I assume that incompetence is the consumer's fault.  If you really wanted to stop fighting semantics, you just book reservations at a new hotel (ie, stop buying Apple products).  We can agree that the charging isn't consumer friendly, but do you seriously think Apple will care?  Even if they genuinely care, do you think they'll offer financial restitution?  I'd hazard the guess that they won't, and no reasonable court would convict them after seeing that EULA.


----------



## n-ster (Oct 26, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Fair.
> 
> Let's take another crack at it, from your perspective.  The man eats all of the peanuts in the red bowl.  He assumes that the peanuts in the blue bowl are therefore free.  He's still guilty of eating all of the peanuts, without even thinking about the clear visual distinction between the bowls.
> 
> You assume the hotel is responsible for the man being incompetent.  I assume that incompetence is the consumer's fault.  If you really wanted to stop fighting semantics, you just book reservations at a new hotel (ie, stop buying Apple products).  We can agree that the charging isn't consumer friendly, but do you seriously think Apple will care?  Even if they genuinely care, do you think they'll offer financial restitution?  I'd hazard the guess that they won't, and no reasonable court would convict them after seeing that EULA.



Does the EULA specifically mention the Wi-Fi Assist feature?

EDIT: I think the EULA is here http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iOS9.pdf (10 first pages for English)



			
				Section 2 (g) said:
			
		

> "Use of the App Store requires a unique user name and password combination, known as an Apple ID. An Apple ID is also required to access app updates and certain features of the iOS Software and Services. In addition, *you acknowledge that many features, built-in apps, and Services of the iOS Software transmit data and could impact charges to your data plan, and that you are responsible for any such charges*. You can view and control which applications are permitted to use cellular data and view an estimate of how much data such applications have consumed under Cellular Data Settings. For more information, please consult the User Guide for your iOS Device."



IMO, if they add a new feature that is going to be using it, at the very least mention it specifically. I'm still in the camp that Apple definitively should have done something about it (mentionning it specifically in the EULA would probably not be enough in my eyes, and they didn't do that either). Legally, my guess is that unless it is proven that they did something ridiculous like doing this to make carriers happy, Apple is probably off the hook, but I think that they deserve the bad publicity.

Personally, I feel they should pay back the "victims" of overages as it was so obvious and negligent from Apple, but legally I understand it not being the case, and I'm okay with the law not implementing laws that would make it so either, since it would be a slippery slope. Basically TL;DR from me is: Morally wrong, legally off-the-hook


----------



## Toothless (Oct 26, 2015)

No calls about it so far. It's been an android day so far.


----------



## nolafotoknut (Oct 26, 2015)

I believe ignorance is no defense.  Here are images that appear BEFORE user chooses to upgrade.

 

So, if the user chooses NOT to read, shame on them.  Yes, I own an iPhone; however, I am by no means an Apple fanboy.  Honestly, first chance I get, I'm dumping it for a Windows phone.  I just think people need to accept some culpability.


----------



## n-ster (Oct 26, 2015)

But what was the one for iOS 9.0? Any mention of Wi-Fi Assist and the risk of data usage? I believe, from what I can see, it doesn't.


----------



## nolafotoknut (Oct 26, 2015)

n-ster said:


> But what was the one for iOS 9.0? Any mention of Wi-Fi Assist and the risk of data usage? I believe, from what I can see, it doesn't.


There were so many updates with iOS 9 that the user needed to click the link For Details.


----------



## arbiter (Oct 26, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> Except that isn't how WiFi assist works. WiFi assist only kicks in when there is *no* internet access via the WiFi connection. It doesn't boost a slow WiFi connection, it kicks in when there is no response to internet requests at all via the WiFi connection.


From what i understand it doesn't kick in when there is "*no**"*, It kicks in when wifi is slow. Problem is what is the limit of what is called slow? Some people have said that iOS8 had same feature in it and had no problem. SO would sound like they changed the threshold of that "slow wifi". So really comes to if they threshold to dump to mobile data little to quickly. They should have a popup that does say when it does it to alert users when it happens or have it off by default not on.


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 27, 2015)

arbiter said:


> From what i understand it doesn't kick in when there is "*no**"*, It kicks in when wifi is slow. Problem is what is the limit of what is called slow? Some people have said that iOS8 had same feature in it and had no problem. SO would sound like they changed the threshold of that "slow wifi". So really comes to if they threshold to dump to mobile data little to quickly. They should have a popup that does say when it does it to alert users when it happens or have it off by default not on.



I think Apple is pretty clear with how it works.



			
				Apple WiFi Assist Webpage said:
			
		

> if you're using Safari with a poor Wi-Fi connection and *a webpage doesn't load*, Wi-Fi Assist will activate and automatically switch to cellular so that the webpage continues to load



That is pretty clear that it kicks in when the WiFi isn't providing an internet connection, not when the WiFi is slow.  WiFi Assist does not boost a slow connection.  It kicks in whan the WiFi is refusing to provide access to the internet(for whatever reason).

And, like I said too, Android has had this feature for at least a year now.  It isn't a problem. 
*
Edit:* Apparently it was implemented all the way back in 2012 on Android. ZOMG, The Humanity, Why Won't Anyone Think Of The Children!!!


----------



## Toothless (Oct 27, 2015)

Wifi Assist kicks in when it feels as if the wifi network is too slow and that the data network is faster. I took a class on this dumb thing.

As for calls, none regarding iOS9 today. I might pull an 11 hour day tomorrow if I feel up to it.


----------



## arbiter (Oct 27, 2015)

Toothless said:


> Wifi Assist kicks in when it feels as if the wifi network is too slow and that the data network is faster. I took a class on this dumb thing.


that is what I was hitting on, WHat is the threshold for wifi assist to kick in? What is considered "slow"? The definition of slow seems like it changed from 8 to 9 hence people seeing a jump in usage and their bill.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 27, 2015)

arbiter said:


> that is what I was hitting on, WHat is the threshold for wifi assist to kick in? What is considered "slow"? The definition of slow seems like it changed from 8 to 9 hence people seeing a jump in usage and their bill.



Do you believe that the difference in consumption is sufficient enough to warrant a $150 phone bill, as cited earlier?  What kind of data usage was regular before (somebody might be moaning about a $150 overage, when their usual was $100).  Do you also assume that the average user is also incompetent to the point of not understanding how to turn the mobile data usage off whenever they want to use Wifi?

People are stupid, but not that stupid.  The cited court case is a class action suit, for the amount of $5 million.  Let's say that the average user has an overage of $20.  Let's also say that only $1 million is lawyer fees.  4,000,000/20 = 200,000.  What these people are alleging is that 200,000 people were so inept as to not be able to turn off roaming data, or even monitor it, and shouldn't be culpable for their ignorance.  Seriously?


Let's pose an alternate:  
Occifer, I wash too drunk to dribe, but I didunt know bettuh.  I wash ignurant, so that telephone pole shuld pay fur my car to be fished.  An'uh bar shul pay to.
(Officer, I was too drunk to drive, but I didn't know better.  I was ignorant, so that telephone pole should pay for my car to be fixed.  The bar should help pay too.)

Same argument.  Same assumption of ignorance.  No criminal charges.  Does the drunk not knowing better really give them license to sue the bar and telephone company?  If it doesn't, then these people shouldn't get the chance either.  None of this even touches on the EULA and warnings that the current OS is still very much a beta, but let's just conveniently overlook that for now.


----------



## n-ster (Oct 27, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> I think Apple is pretty clear with how it works.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That`s not clear to me actually. I could easily see that as ìf the webpage doesn`t load within X seconds. With internet browsers it`s something like 30 seconds right? I don`t think there is a 30 second delay with Wi-Fi Assist, so how long does it try?

Android is not a problem because it is disabled by default...

Again, out of our 40 users, about 15 had a spike in usage. We have a 3GB plan, these users usually use up to 1GB, the month they decided to upgrade to iOS 9, their usage spike, and many got very close to their 3GB limit despite never doing so before. After we went around to disable this feature for people, usage went back to what it was before. I admit, small sample size, can't know if there are other factors etc, but 15 out of 40, or 37.5% of your users, have noticeable spikes, the feature is not optimized correctly IMO. We're in a major city too, so it's not like we are in a remote area or something


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 27, 2015)

If I might extend a sort of olive branch here, allow me a moment to review our positions.

1) We agree that the new OS is incomplete, and can agree that Apple labeled it as beta for a good reason.
2) We agree that these users decided to upgrade to a beta, despite being risked.  
3) We agree that we'll never know what Apple classifies as a slow connection quantitatively, unless someone at Apple leaks numbers.  Apple doesn't even share this information with its developers.
4) We agree that the EULA basically makes Apple non-culpable for damages, despite said lack of culpability generally being seen as an affront to consumers.


If we can agree to all of that, then lets look at our real differences.
1) Do you believe that Apple will provide monetary reimbursements to its customers, despite lack of legal obligation?
2) Does Apple provide sufficient warnings within its EULA to cover additional data charges, which the consumer could easily have prevented?
3) What responsibility does Apple have to its consumers?  Should it not provide them beta software?  What warnings must be provided?  Who even determines the content of said warnings?

Questions 1-3 are tricky.  1 is entirely based upon personal tastes and values.  2 is a matter for courts to decide, but money will probably answer that the EULA was sufficient (between Apple's legal department, and a court system that generally favors corporations).  3 is entirely subjective.  Software is such a new thing (to the legal system) that we don't have precedent for these questions.  While it's fun to argue, there's a part of me that fears the day when precedent is set for this kind of event.


----------



## Toothless (Oct 27, 2015)

To be fair, Apple should just release a text notification to everyone with a TL;DR about iOS9 and Wifi Assist to better cover their asses, because if someone happened to go over their data limit be even 3GB, that's a $45+ charge (coming from Sprint at least) on their bill that we shouldn't help with. We'll educate, we'll probably help with some of the charges, but ultimately we point the finger at Apple. Their OS, their apps, their inconsideration for ignorant people which quite honestly has to be 60% of their user base.


----------



## n-ster (Oct 27, 2015)

FYI, these are opinions:
I don't think the legal system should punish Apple for this, as Apple does have a catch-all in the EULA the protects them. I don't want this kind of precedent in the legal system either anyways. 
I think Apple should still extend an olive branch and reimburse some people, especially since their claim to fame were these average-Joe customers. I don't really like this option, but there's no other option really.Having them disable this feature by default would be nice, though the benefits of doing this are now greatly diminished.
Really, what pisses me off here was the lack of proper warning. I think that in this case, it was pretty avoidable, as it wasn't something like an unwanted side-effect or anything, this was BY DESIGN. You know this risks hurting your customers financially, you know the risks, and they are obvious too.

Is Wi-Fi Assist not in the stable version of iOS? I'm not sure why the beta is being mentionned.

What I think Apple deserves is bad publicity for this, as this shows lack of consideration for their customers. For a brand relying so heavily on the perception that they'll do anything for their customer, you expect it to be a bit more idiot-proof and not hiding these kinds of things.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 27, 2015)

Toothless said:


> To be fair, Apple should just release a text notification to everyone with a TL;DR about iOS9 and Wifi Assist to better cover their asses, because if someone happened to go over their data limit be even 3GB, that's a $45+ charge (coming from Sprint at least) on their bill that we shouldn't help with. We'll educate, we'll probably help with some of the charges, but ultimately we point the finger at Apple. Their OS, their apps, their inconsideration for ignorant people which quite honestly has to be 60% of their user base.



Something like this?:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/15...n-wake-of-complaints-about-excessive-data-use

Or perhaps the page "detailing" what wifi assist is:
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205296


Am I barking up the right tree here, or do you mean something else?

While I personally believe Apple didn't do this maliciously, users are still adults with responsibilities.  They did this crap, and thus are responsible for it.  Arguing that Apple was somehow uniquely dishonest seems like a heck of an uphill battle here.


----------



## n-ster (Oct 27, 2015)

I think he means an actual notification. People who don't know about Wi-Fi Assist won't be searching for it in the first place.

I feel like apps like Apple Music shouldn't be using Wi-Fi Assist, or should have a toggle or something


----------



## Toothless (Oct 27, 2015)

Implying people are actually going to look it up before calling to complain to their carrier?

If Apple released a text to everyone explaining what it is and how to disable it, then this issue wouldn't be so bad. Not everyone wants to pay more for an unlimited plan.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 27, 2015)

n-ster said:


> I think he means an actual notification. People who don't know about Wi-Fi Assist won't be searching for it in the first place.
> 
> I feel like apps like Apple Music shouldn't be using Wi-Fi Assist, or should have a toggle or something



Fair.


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 27, 2015)

n-ster said:


> Android is not a problem because it is disabled by default...



Not on my LG it wasn't.



n-ster said:


> Again, out of our 40 users, about 15 had a spike in usage. We have a 3GB plan, these users usually use up to 1GB, the month they decided to upgrade to iOS 9, their usage spike, and many got very close to their 3GB limit despite never doing so before. After we went around to disable this feature for people, usage went back to what it was before. I admit, small sample size, can't know if there are other factors etc, but 15 out of 40, or 37.5% of your users, have noticeable spikes, the feature is not optimized correctly IMO. We're in a major city too, so it's not like we are in a remote area or something



Hasn't it only been out for a month and a half?  How do you already have 2 months of data information?  I have this funny feeling you're just making this up to try to argue your point.

Plus, did you ever consider the spike in data usage was from downloading the iOS update itself?  It is, after all, a 1GB+ download.  If they did that on cellular, then it would easily account for the spike in data you saw last month.


----------



## Toothless (Oct 27, 2015)

Would be spiked in release month from download, spike in month two from WA (wifi assist just happens to match with Washington)

I though the update only went over wifi anyway. I might look into that.


----------



## 95Viper (Oct 27, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Let's also say that only $1 million is lawyer fees.



You might need to re-calculate your figures: because, I can tell you from experience the lawyer's take 35% to 45% of the total, in no fee schedule cases, like class action lawsuits.



n-ster said:


> feel like apps like Apple Music shouldn't be using Wi-Fi Assist, or should have a toggle or something



They shouldn't use the WiFi Assist when streaming and a few other reasons; quote from Apple's site:



Spoiler






> *About Wi-Fi Assist*
> With iOS 9, you can use Wi-Fi Assist to automatically switch to cellular when you have a poor Wi-Fi connection.
> 
> *How Wi-Fi Assist works*
> ...








> *Learn more*
> 
> Wi-Fi Assist will not automatically switch to cellular if you're data roaming.
> Wi-Fi Assist only works when you have apps running in the foreground and doesn't activate with background downloading of content.
> ...




I don't like Apple.  With that said.
Opinion, here and below.
I don't believe the lawsuit has any merit.
What was Apple to gain by this... nothing, it was/is a feature of convenience for the consumer.
The user of any consumer goods/devices, from chewing gum to fusion reactors, should be aware of the operating instructions and proper use of the devices in their possession.
You (the public) have a brain use it... if you have a device, understand it's proper use.  If that device is updated, read and understand the update and investigate/learn about any changes.
Ask, if you don't know or understand.
Don't be blaming others for your lack of understanding, or, not asking.

I, actually, blame the user for laziness, in not finding out what is involved in using or upgrading to the OS, in this case or any other case as this.

Heck, the one they should be bitching at is the ones who are profiting from this... the DATA PROVIDERS.
I bet you a dime they knew all about this.


----------



## Toothless (Oct 27, 2015)

Excuse you. Sure we're getting extra for overages but the customers are pissed off and that is where the real money is; loyalty. It's not our fuck up for what Apple did.


----------



## n-ster (Oct 27, 2015)

95Viper said:


> They shouldn't use the WiFi Assist when streaming and a few other reasons; quote from



It says "You can use Wi-Fi Assist with most apps like Safari, *Apple Music*, Mail, Maps, and more."

It only blocks streaming if it's a third party app from what I understood



newtekie1 said:


> Hasn't it only been out for a month and a half? How do you already have 2 months of data information? I have this funny feeling you're just making this up to try to argue your point.
> 
> Plus, did you ever consider the spike in data usage was from downloading the iOS update itself? It is, after all, a 1GB+ download. If they did that on cellular, then it would easily account for the spike in data you saw last month.



I'm not sure if it's our MDM or apple, but it forces you to be connected to Wi-Fi to do the upgrade. Also the iOS 9 release didn't coordinate with the beginning of the cell phone plans, and we ended up disabling WA before a month past anyways, so we probably had a few weeks worth, not a month, but the spike was noticeable anyways.

Apparently our MDM provider claims apple hasn't given them the option to be able to control WA, which is a d$%k move for their enterprise customers. I haven't checked with my MDM provider recently though, so maybe something's changed.

I'm not sure how aggressive the Android version is, it could be that it is less noticeable because it's less aggressive.  At least from what I can tell, the great majority have this option disabled by default. Combine the limited amount of people affected with people not realizing that feature is on, more tech-savvy users on average, people who actually want the feature on, lack of publicity about it etc, it flying under the radar is understandable. Whether it's LG or Apple, it bothers me, though the sheer scale and what I interpret as hypocrisy (user base, supposedly customer-oriented, idiot-proof, simple etc) from Apple makes me more pissed.


----------



## Toothless (Oct 30, 2015)

Sprint no longer has data overages for phones. If you go over then you get 2G speeds.


----------



## taz420nj (Nov 10, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> Everyone is freaking out over this feature, I don't get it.  It has been in Android for a while now.  No one give a shit when it was put in the Android OS.



Smart Network Switch is OFF by default.  The user has to enable it, and the fact that it automatically switches to mobile data is in plain text right next to the checkbox.



> You have to ask yourself, how often are you connected to a WiFi network that is so bad it doesn't provide an internet connection?  Because that is what has to happen for the WiFi assist to kick in.



Um, it happens. Not everyone has multiple APs, maybe it doesn't work so hot in the garage or the back yard where you might be streaming Pandora.  Also, what about when there's nothing wrong with the Wifi but the gateway/ISP has issues, or the kids are maxing out your download connection with Netflix streams, or you're on a public network that's so congested that it decides mobile data is faster?  That's certainly not uncommon.



> Finally, when WiFi assist is active, the data icon on the phone actually changes from the WiFi symbol to the Cellular symbol.  So the user is *clearly* told they are not using WiFi and have no excuse for not knowing they aren't connected to their WiFi.  No one should just assume they are connected to a WiFi connection when doing anything that would take up a lot of data.



You sure about that?  Android devices show the Wifi symbol at all times when connected to WiFi - even if SNS has fallen back to mobile data for internet.

The bottom line is that Apple should NEVER have made this an opt-out feature, considering there are only a few cell carriers left that offer unlimited data where it wouldn't be an issue.


----------

