Apple Defeats Lawsuit Related to iCloud's Measly 5GB of Free Storage

[Abazigal]

Fighting this lawsuit probably costed more than just raising the free storage tier

They will never stop. Raise the iCloud storage from 5gb to whatever is being requested, and it's only a matter of time before critics start criticising the new tier as being too little and Apple needs to raise it yet again. And again. And again.

Just look at the Mac section. Already, there are people claiming that 16gb ram feels too little, it costs too much to go to 24gb ram and that there's always some angle where Apple is concerned.

 

[drrich2]

Free tier's been working okay for me for years. That said, the idea of cheap additional storage (like the $1/month plan) has an appeal in that it incentivizes continuance of the service.

I've had free services in the past I used to host photos ceased service. First was one that offered photo products, then one called PhotoBucket ceased their unlimited offering (can't recall for sure whether I was paying by that point?), and a Google Photos service of some sort eventually stopped.

Everything a business provides has to be monetized to survive. Either we pay, or we're subjected to ad.s, or we pay more for other things and some of the profits are redistributed to this.

When they do it like this, the paying is done by those who want to use a given extra level of storage, to the extent they do, for as long as they do.

P.S.: The problem with the idea of giving an amount (let's say 5-gigabytes) free per Apple device purchased and registered is it'd either be time-limited and expire at a set date beyond purchase (which could lead to accusations of pressuring users to upgrade devices), or accumulate beyond legitimate use (like if I had 5-gigabytes for every Apple device one of my nuclear family ever owned, bought in my name).

 

[God of Biscuits]

It's absolutely amazing how much whining and complaining (and apparently lawyering) people will do over $1 a month.

And really the only reason they charge that at all is so that people don't abandon accounts with tons of data that Apple has to store forever.

SO not the point.

 

[Jay Tee]

As to deterrent, that’s not a bad thing. Right now the plaintiffs aren’t paying for their attorneys fees. I’d even be happy with that if they were forced to pay attorneys fees for their own side. There needs to be some downside for them to bring up a frivolous lawsuit when they lose.

They take zero risk, and even if the defendant wins, they’re still out tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In Apple's case, it'll be in the millions, surely.

 

[MNGR]

This reminds me - I need to figure out a network attached storage system that will allow me to entirely bypass any paid cloud storage system.

Use your Mac

 

[God of Biscuits]

I'm ok with paying for my 2TB plan, but I'd very much like to sync my Music folder without an Apple Music subscription.

That's not the point of the lawsuit.

 

[God of Biscuits]

They are under no obligation to give out any storage for free. I don't understand this mindset.

Don't say you "dont' understand" when really what you mean is you disagree with it.

 

[God of Biscuits]

It is a measly amount, but I'm sure tons of people use their iPhones without subscribing to storage. In fact, I would guess its the vast majority.

Stupid is not always criminal.

But misleading to the point of lying in trade *IS*.

 

[drrich2]

SO not the point.

It's a point, though. At some point, old account contents become onerous enough a burden to need deleting. So how do they go about that? Delete anything not accessed in x months or years? Or when people haven't paid for a set number of months? Charging a small subscription fee provides a small disincentive to non-paying users from piling on large amounts of junk in free accounts that would take them past the 5 GB point...or induce them to at least pay a little. When they get low on space, it's time to prune back or pay up (either way, a win for Apple).

But misleading to the point of lying in trade *IS*.

Please state your conceptualization of what lie Apple is supposedly committing.

From the article:

The lawsuit alleged that Apple deceived customers into purchasing iCloud-enabled devices by misleading customers into believing that they can easily keep their iCloud storage usage below the free 5GB limit. In reality, the plaintiffs alleged that users quickly exceed this limit and then must pay for increasingly costly iCloud storage plans. In the U.S., these plans range from 50GB for $0.99 per month to 12TB for $59.99 per month.

1.) How many people purchase iCloud enabled devices because they think they can easily keep their iCloud storage below the free 5GB limit? How many people are persuaded on that basis, with that the 'make or break' concern?

2.) It's a gross overstatement to claim users quickly exceed this limit, given that some don't for years, if ever. Question: what % of Apple device users pay for an iCloud subscription?

3.) To state customers "...then must pay for increasingly costly iCloud storage plans" is blatantly untrue. Obviously many do not. Who is forced to do so?

Basic functionality is free and $1/month gets 10x's the storage limit.

 

[DigiH]

Absolutely no idea where this myth came from where Apple under Steve Jobs was this charitable company that gave everything away for free, but it’s absolutely not true.

Even the first OS X public beta cost $30 on disc and actually timed out after the official final initial release, so you had to buy the full version again

 

[ApAx]

I'm ok with paying for my 2TB plan, but I'd very much like to sync my Music folder without an Apple Music subscription.

I just spent considerable time helping my mother with this issue. She is getting a new phone and her music was loaded from iTunes three computers ago. Would have saved a bunch of headache to just sync her music from iCloud like her photos.

 

[Starfia]

Just look at the Mac section. Already, there are people claiming that 16gb ram feels too little…

Way ahead of you.

 

[Starfia]

I've been saying for years that Apple should give 5gb of free storage for each Apple device you purchase. So if you bought a Mac, iPhone and iPad, you'd have 15gb. That seems reasonable to me.

P.S.: The problem with the idea of giving an amount (let's say 5-gigabytes) free per Apple device purchased and registered is it'd either be time-limited and expire at a set date beyond purchase (which could lead to accusations of pressuring users to upgrade devices), or accumulate beyond legitimate use (like if I had 5-gigabytes for every Apple device one of my nuclear family ever owned, bought in my name).

I thought the per-device thing seemed reasonable on its face as well, but those were precisely the implications that came to mind when I tried to think it through. For users who, say, bought three devices and became accustomed to leaving most of 15 gigs of data in the cloud for most of, say, two decades, how would it feel to learn one device's quota was about to expire and knock them back to ten gigs? Would a hundred million instances of that kind of situation really be better on balance for Apple and for its users than having a reliable, unchanging, free quota alongside the paid offering for those, and only for those, who actively deem it worth the cost?

 

[eveluvsrainbows]

*removed*

 

[svish]

There is always an option to not use iCloud storage at all. So no way Apple was going to lose the case. But 5GB is very less. Apple should increase the free storage capacity.

 

[Mister Do It]

Analogy: If there is no more space in my apartment/house (analogous to too many photos on the iPhone) to store things, then I need more space and have to rent a storage room, room or garage. Or I rent or buy a new, larger room or house. (analogous to upgrading to an iPhone with more GB or TB). And no one would think that it has to be free.
I just don't understand some people...

 

[Abazigal]

Analogy: If there is no more space in my apartment/house (analogous to too many photos on the iPhone) to store things, then I need more space and have to rent a storage room, room or garage. Or I rent or buy a new, larger room or house. (analogous to upgrading to an iPhone with more GB or TB). And no one would think that it has to be free.
I just don't understand some people...

It’s hard to make some people understand a certain concept when their entire stance (make Apple give more free stuff) hinges on them not understanding it.

 

[Mister Do It]

In Germany, we say ‘Hopfen und Malz verloren’—it means ‘Hop and malt are lost.’ It’s a beer-inspired way of saying something is hopeless or a lost cause, rooted in Bavarian culture, like when a brewing batch goes wrong. It’s our fun, beer-inspired way of expressing defeat.” 😉

 

[russell_314]

In Apple's case, it'll be in the millions, surely.

Most likely and that’s unfortunate. If it was a legitimate lawsuit, then OK go for it. It’s almost a joke how these frivolous lawsuits are made by lawyers because there’s no penalty for losing. What’s worse is even if it’s a legitimate issue the real plaintiffs get a little or sometimes nothing. Look up the lawsuit where Google was sued. In a scheme with lawyers and the judge, Google got to “donate“ money to their friends instead of actually paying the plaintiffs. The current system may be well intentioned, but it’s being abused badly. Something needs to be improved.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Analogy: If there is no more space in my apartment/house (analogous to too many photos on the iPhone) to store things, then I need more space and have to rent a storage room, room or garage. Or I rent or buy a new, larger room or house. (analogous to upgrading to an iPhone with more GB or TB). And no one would think that it has to be free.
I just don't understand some people...

That's a really inaccurate analogy for this situation

Physical space doesn't map well onto digital situations

 

[russell_314]

That's a really inaccurate analogy for this situation

Physical space doesn't map well onto digital situations

The analogy isn’t the same item but both cost money. The analogy is people expecting free stuff. It’s not surprising at all though.

 

[Hammerd]

The jump from 200GB to 2TB is unfortunate. Still nothing in between?

Classic upsell

 

[CarAnalogy]

"In fact, two named plaintiffs were still on the 5GB tier."

Oops.

This is the funniest part of the whole thing to me. How was this even known? I assume Apple requested that as part of discovery.

 

[CarAnalogy]

I agree with the general sentiment that the lawsuit was too much and unprovable, but also that it's kind of weird they don't have more flexible storage tiers.

I pay for 1TB, but only because I'm using slightly over 200GB. They have to have stats that show that that's probably the most common usage level.

It is kind of annoying that the tiers seem purposely designed to be not quite enough, strongly encouraging you to go to the next tier. It's exactly like their Mac specs and upgrades were until very recently. These days I'd say their base specs are finally enough for just about everyone (even though they are still slightly skimping on storage.)

I do still hope to see Apple one day pleasantly surprise us all with a bump to 10GB as the base and/or more flexible pricing.

 

[code-m]

I only use iCloud for keychain, when there are better options out there that are competitively priced why both with iCloud+.

Now if only I can delete the stupid email@icloud.com that would be great, called CS many times and no help.

Eventually I will migrate my keychain and be done with anything iCloud related.

I get 500GB for $1/month and E2EE.