Sure, but if you enable location services there's nothing telling you about the background system ones that get enabled and used. Your user assumption would be I'm enabling them so that different apps I use (like Maps or others) could use them, you aren't provided information about a bunch of other extraneous things that would be using them.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Hit With Class Action Lawsuit for New Wi-Fi Assist Feature
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How is that changed here? If wifi assist kicks in you see that got wifi connection isn't there as you are dropped to cellular connection just like before. This still works the same way as before--you aren't somehow shown that you are still on wifi while cellular data is being used.
Statistic is from individuals...therefore..in order to get statistic is by their experience...since i'm not going all around the world to ask to fill out a survey...when people state that their experience before iOS 9 and after upgrade to ios9 is going to be the indication of data usage (comparing it with THEIR baseline)..and they will explain how they use their daily usage. Apparently, from reading your posts commenting others that iOS 9 wi-fi assists is NOT the reason for high data usage is like saying...they are just delusional. If you want statistics...that's how it is...otherwise you gotta ask apple for it with their diagnostic test thing.
Yeah, I could see that costing someone $5 million in a month and a half.
Can we please get back down to planet earth? I'd really like to see a judge hit some of these lawyers with sanctions for filing frivolous lawsuits.
I'm saying that there have always been reports of higher usage after many iOS updates, and those couldn't be tied to wifi assist since that didn't exist before. So what makes it different time to specifically point wifi assist being behind it vs something else that has been behind it for all kinds of people in previous years. Just the mere existence of wifi assist? Well, that's not how cause and effect work--something actually has to link things and show that link before the mere presence of them and assumption.
Clearly people are reading their own biases into what I've been saying twisting things into whatever they feel like they want to see them say. Nowhere do I say that wifi assist can't be responsible for it, but I would like to see that it's actually shown to be rather than blindly assume that it is simply because of its presence.
First, you are arbitrarily determining what constitutes a class action lawsuit based on your criteria, not reality.
Since, you have still failed to acknowledge the millions of people that upgrade their hardware or bought new hardware who didn't get those release notes you keep referencing.
It's not "greed". Class action lawsuits have multiple purposes and one being a cautionary tale for the defendant or others who are in the same industry.
And 5 million for a class action isn't a lot when the class that's effected is all iOS 9 users.
And 5 million for a class action isn't a lot when the class that's effected is all iOS 9 users.
I see. We are supposed to take your word for it, and everyone that disagrees with you can go stuff it.
Did I get that right? Or did I miss the clause in the MacRumors user agreement that doesn't allow anyone to disagree with you?
I'll make you a deal: You acknowledge YOUR accountability for not reading the release notes and disabling WiFi Assist, or disabling cellular data usage by the apps that you don't want to switch over from WiFi.
Then, we can all hold Apple accountable by:
- Filing a bug report on the issue and/or
- Making a feature request to change the behavior, and
- Optionally, joining the iOS beta tester program and taking the time to identify these issues BEFORE release.
This would be far more productive than your fake outrage, and the threat of a lawsuit that will do nothing but enrich a US lawyer. You would never see a dime of this settlement anyway, unless Apple thinks you are a US-based user.
Okay, well...I don't know where you come about saying it's bias. Why don't you try 1 month period of using wi-fi assist..and 1 month without. Then clearly...you'll see the difference. If not...then it's something else. Other wise...as I said...go to apple and ask them for data.
got a question for you...do you think WI-FI assist is the culprit to high data usage?
I've told a story before about how I usually use around 500 MB a month on a family plan, but in September I somehow used 400 MB from 9/21 to 9/26. We went over and paid a $15 overage on Verizon for the 9/21-10/21 cycle. The last time we went over was January.
Well, that would be a start to try to compare these things. So far it doesn't seem like anything like that has been done, yet people are jumping to conclusions that it's wifi assist. It could be, but without something actually supporting it beyond assumptions it doesn't mean that it is.
Why? So not having full disclosure is just fine then? You aren't told about all those things in relation to enabling location services. So same thing can apply here, you are enabling wifi, so the underlying details of wifi assist also being enabled in relation to that should be just fine then by that logic.
Yeah, I could see that costing someone $5 million in a month and a half.
Can we please get back down to planet earth? I'd really like to see a judge hit some of these lawyers with sanctions for filing frivolous lawsuits.
$5 million between the plaintiffs and class members. Maybe 100,000+ people are affected by this.
iPhone 4 class suit was the cost of the phone unlocked for plaintiffs, and class members just got $15 and the bumpers.
Or you could just trust Apple...
“When Wi-Fi Assist is activated, you’ll see the cellular data icon in the status bar on your device,” assured Apple in its support page. “Because you’ll stay connected to the Internet over cellular when you have a poor Wi-Fi connection, you might use more cellular data. For most users, this should only be a small percentage higher than previous usage.”
Since other people's responses are invalid to you...you try it and report back. Thanks.
This WAS the criteria for a class-action lawsuit, before the ambulance-chasers found a more lucrative target.
There has been much discussion about where the aggregate amount of $5M came from. The answer is: that's the minimum amount of "damages" for which a class-action will be considered in federal court.
It's going to be interesting to see how the complainants prove those damages. They can't subpoena billing records from Apple, and even if every iOS 9 user were to submit their cell phone bill showing an overage charge, the judge won't accept it was caused by "WiFi Assist" without some evidence.
Are you starting to see the problem? this isn't about compensating "victims". This isn't about forcing Apple to do anything different for their users.
This is nothing but a shakedown, with a hope that Apple will settle for the minimum amount rather than slogging through discovery and a bench trial. The lawyers will collect a tidy $2M for a sloppy filing.
But hey, we have to threaten Apple to get them to be responsive to their users, and give some lawyers enough money to retire, so that you can get your pound of flesh.
With an estimated 94M iPhones in the US, and 50% of them upgraded to iOS 9 (so far), that's $3M spread over 47M users, or about 6 cents apiece. Assuming that Apple credits it to your iTunes account, that would buy you --- nothing of any significant value.
How's that going to work out for you?
I wasn't aware of my obligation to respond. But my response is similar: Apple publishes those release notes on-line. They also publish an online manual.
http://help.apple.com/iphone/9/#/iph3dd5f213
Your failure to take the time to read them is yours, not Apple's.
Oh, I can see the irony. I'm not sure you do.
You are free to disagree with me. But, I expect you to explain why and not just say: "because I said so".
If this lawsuit actually goes through, Apple won't be hurt, and neither will their PR, so it's all good either way. I'm done arguing with ignorant users.
But, wouldn't that require you to READ what Apple wrote?
If I refuse to read it, can I trust them or not?
But that's what you're also doing. Hence the iront. Simply put - we disagree.
At the end of the day - it is of my opinion that this feature should be at the very least moved to the top of the list. And after that - defaulted to off - and/or during set up ask which you want it set up to.
Not everyone is as brilliant or as studious as you (I mean I am, but hey - that's another matter
) I think we both know that much of the general public could very likely be oblivious to many aspects of how their phone works.I am not suggesting Apple did anything intention or is trying to screw anyone over. I think they simply didn't factor in or in their testing discover any "major" hiccup. It happens. But I also don't think that they would change their communication without the threat of legal entanglement... or a TON of bad press. They did get some significant "press" on this issue which is why they created a support page specifically for it. It appears that some people want more from Apple. It's their decision to pursue. You can think it's wrong. But you're going beyond that.
I'm interested in the case and whether it will be settled out of court and/or it will go to trial. Like I said earlier - this COULD wind up similar to the in-app purchase scenario - and affect not only Apple, but all OEM if they have a similar function on their phones - now or in the future.