Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
In most cases, developers and administrators read Release Notes. General users do not.
General users may peruse the EULA if they can even begin to understand it. They may read the change summary. Most rely on media, social, or the seller to communicate the benefits. Note I did not say changes.

I was trying to make a point. I have never read the Release notes for iOS. I have for Windows (job), I have for SAP (job), I have for some other software I am involved in.

Apple makes a point of stuffing the EULA in front of us. Do the same with the RN.
In this case, the change summary is the Release Notes. Why is this so complicated?? They're nowhere as complicated as the EULA, and, if anything, should be very informative to users.

Didn't read the release notes for iOS? No wonder you're complaining. I'm done arguing with you. Please don't bother replying back because I won't be reading it, thank you.

Just so you know, i'm 17, and I understand life much more than you seem to. I do not expect things handed to me on a silver platter. Apple informed the users vi Release Notes, meaning they did their job. Anything over and beyond is optional, even though they are known for that (e.g free Apple TV Dev Kits).

Grow up or at least get with the program, and shut Wi-Fi Assist off. End of story.
 
Last edited:
Who puts up a lawsuit over that, honestly?
I'm late to comment but this is actually pretty serious as the wifi assist even consumes roaming data, even when, according to my girlfriend the phone is set to airplane mode; she went to the Dominican Republic and upon returning she got hit with a $700 bill of roaming charges when she only went online while under the hotel wifi.
If this lawsuit is at some point open to international plaintiffs we will no doubt join it, and really, this should get more support, and not just dismissiveness…
 
  • Like
Reactions: dk001
No. I have an alert at 5GB for me, one if any line shows excessive data use, one if my son exceeds 5 GB, one if....
and just monitor the alerts (text and email).

Log in everyday is effective just a time/task eater I'd rather spend elsewhere.

True, there are alerts. But you're not getting a full view of activities and usage. So if a spike is happening you don't see it start.

Glancing at the usage pie chart takes three clicks and literally less than one minute.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EvilKittyCupcake
I'm late to comment but this is actually pretty serious as the wifi assist even consumes roaming data, even when, according to my girlfriend the phone is set to airplane mode; she went to the Dominican Republic and upon returning she got hit with a $700 bill of roaming charges when she only went online while under the hotel wifi.
If this lawsuit is at some point open to international plaintiffs we will no doubt join it, and really, this should get more support, and not just dismissiveness…
But that's not how it works. If it's truly behind it all then there's a flaw in its implementation, which is a whole different issue. That said, not quite sure how you'd actually know that it was behind it given that everything would point to it not being the case.
 
In this case, the change summary is the Release Notes. Why is this so complicated?? They're nowhere as complicated as the EULA, and, if anything, should be very informative to users.

Didn't read the release notes for iOS? No wonder you're complaining. I'm done arguing with you. Please don't bother replying back because I won't be reading it, thank you.

Just so you know, i'm 17, and I understand life much more than you seem to. I do not expect things handed to me on a silver platter. Apple informed the users vi Release Notes, meaning they did their job. Anything over and beyond is optional, even though they are known for that (e.g free Apple TV Dev Kits).

Grow up or at least get with the program, and shut Wi-Fi Assist off. End of story.


Release Notes are headlines. Period. they are not designed to teach general users about new features rather they are headlines pointing to a portion of the changes to the overall OS. The design Apple uses for these is primarily for Developers, Administrators, and Professionals. Not general users. That is a different format.
  • Wi-Fi Assist to automatically use cellular data when Wi-Fi connectivity is poor
Reading this I can't tell if this is a background process, a new foreground process, a change to existing hand-off between LTE and WiFi or what. How I get from this to a switch at the base of the Cellular page (long page) is indicated where exactly? Not seeing how your weight on Release Notes would have solved this issue.

btw: please keep your comments impersonal.
 
Release Notes are headlines. Period. they are not designed to teach general users about new features rather they are headlines pointing to a portion of the changes to the overall OS. The design Apple uses for these is primarily for Developers, Administrators, and Professionals. Not general users. That is a different format.
  • Wi-Fi Assist to automatically use cellular data when Wi-Fi connectivity is poor
Reading this I can't tell if this is a background process, a new foreground process, a change to existing hand-off between LTE and WiFi or what. How I get from this to a switch at the base of the Cellular page (long page) is indicated where exactly? Not seeing how your weight on Release Notes would have solved this issue.

btw: please keep your comments impersonal.
Does anything anywhere mention all the system services that use location, data, and other resources that are enabled when location services for anything are enabled? Where is the lawsuit over those?
 
Does anything anywhere mention all the system services that use location, data, and other resources that are enabled when location services for anything are enabled? Where is the lawsuit over those?

That one I can't answer.

I will say that after personally testing this function I am not surprised to see a lawsuit. This one though does seem hastily developed. I suspect will we see others. Likely from the International side (whatever they call them) too.
 
I think this "problem" is mostly bogus, and here's why. Doesn't it seem like it would be extremely rare for this feature to actually cause anyone a noticeable dent in their data usage and phone bill? Think about it for a minute. WiFi assist only activates for apps running in the foreground, and according to Apple, "...doesn’t activate with some third-party apps that stream audio or video, or download attachments, like an email app, as they might use large amounts of data." So for starters, it's pretty limited as far as what apps will even use the feature, and under what conditions it will kick in.

For most people, it's only going to activate when you're coming or going from a WiFi hotspot, while playing streaming audio or something like that. In that circumstance, cellular data usage should be negligible, because you were going to switch over anyway. This feature just did it more smoothly a few seconds sooner.

The only scenario I can imagine where someone might be surprised by this is if they're actively using a data-intensive app while remaining stationary in a location that has a weak wifi signal. But here's the thing about that. Except in circumstances where something has just changed about that wifi signal, that location would normally have weak signal, and the user would be accustomed to not being able to use data-intensive apps at that location. So the circumstances where this would create a noticeable problem would be someone using, for extended periods of time, a data-intensive native app, in the foreground, at a location that usually has crappy wifi, where data-intensive apps usually don't work well, but now suddenly the video comes in flawlessly in HD.

All that has to happen while the user thinks to use that video app in a spot where they couldn't do so before, and isn't in the least bit curious about the change, and doesn't notice that their status bar says "LTE," but does notice their cellular bill went up suddenly, and they actually are able to figure out why and isolate the problem to this one feature. As you tick off each of these accumulating conditional circumstances, the probability that this actually happened to someone goes down. With a few million people using iOS 9, the 'law of large numbers' suggests there could be a small handful of people for whom this scenario has played out. I'm not sure that that number would rise to a level justifying a class-action, though.

But wait. There's more. The other thing that makes me think the problem is mostly bogus is the fact that the alarm about this started making the rounds on social media within days of the initial release of iOS 9 to the public. The only people who could have lived through a low-probability scenario like the one described above long enough to have gotten that surprising phone bill and figured it all out are people who had been using beta versions of iOS 9. The probability of this sort of surprise happening to someone trying out the beta version is even lower, though, because that person is already cued to look for changes and wonder why they're suddenly able to play HD video where they couldn't before. That person's going to notice their phone says "LTE" before they binge-watch several seasons of "House of Cards" on their iPhone in that one room of the house where they couldn't get good wifi signal before.

No, Occam's Razor says to look for the simplest explanation. The simplest explanation would be that internet trolls came up with a trumped-up thing to try to create negative buzz about iOS 9 and the iPhone 6S release. That could be for reasons of general hater spitefulness inherent in trolling, or because Apple competitors intentionally planted the seed to try to inhibit Apple's sales of the 6S. Then some enterprising lawyers picked up on the trolls' output and dreamed up a class-action fishing expedition.
 
Last edited:
I think this "problem" is mostly bogus, and here's why. Doesn't it seem like it would be extremely rare for this feature to actually cause anyone a noticeable dent in their data usage and phone bill? ....

Simplest reason: Someone was bitten by this and had a lawyer buddy who was familiar with CA lawsuits. ;)

Couple of points.....
You should ask up front what would have been the responsible thing to do from Apple's perspective if it was truly acting as a consumer conscious company.
Next - look at this from a users perspective who was or could be negatively impacted. Take it from an International traveler's perspective; hotel WiFi can be skittish. If it fluctuates to lower than what this setting sees you can very very quickly rack up some serious unexpected charges.

As many have pointed out, this as a CA may be a bit "over the top" however the issue does exist. Apple should update this. They should have updated this when they acknowledged it and posted their "warning".
 
Just so you know, i'm 17, and I understand life much more than you seem to. I do not expect things handed to me on a silver platter. Apple informed the users vi Release Notes, meaning they did their job. Anything over and beyond is optional, even though they are known for that (e.g free Apple TV Dev Kits).

Grow up or at least get with the program, and shut Wi-Fi Assist off. End of story.
If your words/posts bear as much truth as your statement that you are 17, then you better think it over and hit the "Edit" button.
 
...Take it from an International traveler's perspective; hotel WiFi can be skittish. If it fluctuates to lower than what this setting sees you can very very quickly rack up some serious unexpected charges...

I take your point, but Apple also says "Wi-Fi Assist will not automatically switch to cellular if you're data roaming." Shouldn't that cover you for the scenario of skittish wifi in an international hotel?

It strikes me that this is one of those situations where defaulting the feature to "on" results in a smoother user experience for millions of users, with a potential negative impact for a very, very small number of people. Defaulting to "off" would have the inverse result. Avoiding heartache for a very, very small number of users would mean millions would never find the feature to turn it on in the first place. Even a company with a reputation based on the "it just works" mystique has to have a diminishing returns threshold. In fact, the "it just works" ethos actually kind of depends on not making you hunt through the settings to enable such a feature.
 
I take your point, but Apple also says "Wi-Fi Assist will not automatically switch to cellular if you're data roaming." Shouldn't that cover you for the scenario of skittish wifi in an international hotel?

It strikes me that this is one of those situations where defaulting the feature to "on" results in a smoother user experience for millions of users, with a potential negative impact for a very, very small number of people. Defaulting to "off" would have the inverse result. Avoiding heartache for a very, very small number of users would mean millions would never find the feature to turn it on in the first place. Even a company with a reputation based on the "it just works" mystique has to have a diminishing returns threshold. In fact, the "it just works" ethos actually kind of depends on not making you hunt through the settings to enable such a feature.

I data roam when I travel but am careful what I do when not on WiFi. Mostly emails and MMS (work stuff). I count on hotel or work site WiFi. I started thinking about this after testing it out yesterday and my travel habits fit the scenario for "fail".
 
I data roam when I travel but am careful what I do when not on WiFi. Mostly emails and MMS (work stuff). I count on hotel or work site WiFi. I started thinking about this after testing it out yesterday and my travel habits fit the scenario for "fail".

Let me ask that more precisely. You data roam when you travel, being careful what you do when not on WiFi, and you try to use WiFi for anything that would consume much data. According to apple, their WiFi Assist feature "...will not automatically switch to cellular if you're data roaming." Put succinctly, you're data roaming, but using WiFi. Apple's WiFi assist does nothing, leaving you with your WiFi no matter how slow it might be. So how exactly would your travel habits fit the scenario for "fail?"
 
I think this "problem" is mostly bogus, and here's why. Doesn't it seem like it would be extremely rare for this feature to actually cause anyone a noticeable dent in their data usage and phone bill? Think about it for a minute. WiFi assist only activates for apps running in the foreground, and according to Apple, "...doesn’t activate with some third-party apps that stream audio or video, or download attachments, like an email app, as they might use large amounts of data." So for starters, it's pretty limited as far as what apps will even use the feature, and under what conditions it will kick in.
Yeah, if you believe the marketing hype.
The fact is that once I updated to ios9 I got a warning from my provider that I was close to my limit and still had a week to go in the month. I have never come close to using even half my data allowance before after several years of using the phone. Whatever it claims it does, the truth is that it causes a massive jump in data usage.
After finding the wifi assist "feature" and turning it off, it went back to normal.
The feature is crap.
 
Let me ask that more precisely. You data roam when you travel, being careful what you do when not on WiFi, and you try to use WiFi for anything that would consume much data. According to apple, their WiFi Assist feature "...will not automatically switch to cellular if you're data roaming." Put succinctly, you're data roaming, but using WiFi. Apple's WiFi assist does nothing, leaving you with your WiFi no matter how slow it might be. So how exactly would your travel habits fit the scenario for "fail?"

At this stage there is a lot it is supposed to do or not do. True or not, there are posts here and elsewhere for people who have found the opposite. Some are by people I have found to be credible. Until I can try it roaming or it can be shown it works that way I'll take the risk-adverse road. I'll look for ways it "could" negatively impact me.

For me, this function is off until I can learn more and vet the function.
 
Yeah, if you believe the marketing hype.
The fact is that once I updated to ios9 I got a warning from my provider that I was close to my limit and still had a week to go in the month. I have never come close to using even half my data allowance before after several years of using the phone. Whatever it claims it does, the truth is that it causes a massive jump in data usage.
After finding the wifi assist "feature" and turning it off, it went back to normal.
The feature is crap.
So, if it's all actually tied to it, maybe the issue that should actually be at the center of it is not so much the feature itself (and how its presented, enabled/disabled, etc.), but that perhaps it's not working correctly as designed?
 
No, Occam's Razor says to look for the simplest explanation. The simplest explanation would be that internet trolls came up with a trumped-up thing to try to create negative buzz about iOS 9 and the iPhone 6S release. That could be for reasons of general hater spitefulness inherent in trolling, or because Apple competitors intentionally planted the seed to try to inhibit Apple's sales of the 6S. Then some enterprising lawyers picked up on the trolls' output and dreamed up a class-action fishing expedition.

Pretty sure that's the opposite of Occam's Razor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dk001
Some people really should Google how Class Action Lawsuits work in the US Court system.
$5 Million based on the potential number of affected users is actually quite low.
I know how they work. I just think It's just a rather large "damage" that in sure most people haven't even incurred nor can we really quantify exactly who and what the damages were. It's inlikely that we have seen even a total of a quarter of what this lawsuit is demanding in overages. I realize one doesn't even have to have been directly effected. I was just the recipient of $15 for some headlamps I bought a few years back because they had the potential to fail long before their advertised life (mine lasted longer, lucky me). I guess my problem is with the very nature of how class action lawsuits work, hence my post.

Fwiw many (most?) lawsuits seem to shoot for the stars. That's also just a matter of how our legal system works.

And while I thank you for your input, I think you can certainly approach the topic more
Politely. Not reason to assume the person you are talking to is completely clueless, or if you do assume it, no reason to talk down to them. Common courtesy, right? Cheers!
 
Last edited:
I know how they work. I just think It's just a rather large "damage" that in sure most people haven't even incurred nor can we really quantify exactly who and what the damages were. It's inlikely that we have seen even a total of a quarter of what this lawsuit is demanding in overages. I realize one doesn't even have to have been directly effected. I was just the recipient of $15 for some headlamps I bought a few years back because they had the potential to fail long before their advertised life (mine lasted longer, lucky me). I guess my problem is with the very nature of how class action lawsuits work, hence my post.

Fwiw many (most?) lawsuits seem to shoot for the stars. That's also just a matter of how our legal system works.

And while I thank you for your input, I think you can certainly approach the topic more
Politely. Not reason to assume the person you are talking to is completely clueless, or if you do assume it, no reason to talk down to them. Common courtesy, right? Cheers!

Didn't mean it personally - more of a "group" comment as so many have posted as if this was a personal overage cost. I have been the direct participant in two CA lawsuits and indirect in a bunch more. Most have been a driver for behavior change vs. actual cost to the litigants.
 
Isn't "wifi assist" nearly identical in functionality as Androids "avoid poor wifi connection"?

Apple catches flack for holding onto lousy wifi connections too long. Apple catches flack for copying Androids method. Apple gets sued for this blatant copy Android has been using for years but not by Google but their very own users...

Must be tough being Apple...lol

image.jpeg
 
Isn't "wifi assist" nearly identical in functionality as Androids "avoid poor wifi connection"?

Apple catches flack for holding onto lousy wifi connections too long. Apple catches flack for copying Androids method. Apple gets sued for this blatant copy Android has been using for years but not by Google but their very own users...

Must be tough being Apple...lol

View attachment 597979

Not exactly. This is to avoid initially connecting to low/poor signal WiFi.
There is a Smart Network Switch whose initial default setting is off and it gives you the warning when you open it as to what it really does.
It's what Apple should have done.
Screenshot_2015-11-04-08-06-06.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
Not exactly. This is to avoid initially connecting to low/poor signal WiFi.
There is a Smart Network Switch whose initial default setting is off and it gives you the warning when you open it as to what it really does.
It's what Apple should have done.
View attachment 598105

That is Samsungs skin if I'm not mistaken. I was referring to vanilla android.

In any case only Apple servers are able to be contacted via a multipath TCP making it nearly impossible to use any noticeable amount of data. If not it will show "LTE"...

This is assuming everything is operating properly. In my case it seems to be as I work with a very poor wifi connection and am currently under 100mb in 4 days.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.