Apple Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over iOS Wi-Fi Assist (appleinsider.com)

An anonymous reader writes: A class-action suit has been filed against Apple in U.S. District Court over Wi-Fi Assist being turned on by default in iOS 9. Wi-Fi Assist is designed to switch to cellular data when a user is trying to perform an action over the internet on a poor Wi-Fi signal. This has the natural side effect of using cellular data. Since iOS 9 turned it on for many users, they weren't necessarily expecting that extra use, causing some of them to exceed their data caps. A former Apple employee who was in a leadership position for Mac OS X Wi-Fi software has commented on the issue, saying that the Wi-Fi Assist mess was unavoidable given how Apple's management treats that part of the business.

Quoting :"[O]ne particular directorial edict which I pushed back against at the end of my tenure sticks out as not just particularly telling, but deeply misguided: 'Make it self-healing.' Self healing in this context meaning that the networking system, Wi-Fi in particular, should try to correct problems that caused the network to fail, which, if you have spent any time trying to diagnose networking issues is a clear misunderstanding of the issues involved. ... Asking the devices which connect to this vast complex network of networks to detect, and then transparently fix problems in the infrastructure without the permission of the administrators is, well, it's absolutely the pinnacle of buzzword driven product management. Real pointy-haired boss territory."

Comments

It's a good idea, but shouldn't be on by default

[supremebob]

I like the IDEA of Wi-Fi Assist, as it comes in handy when you're on a crummy WiFi connection like the kind that you'll find at a hotel or on a train.

It just shouldn't be turned on by default without prompting the user, though. Nobody likes surprises like that, especially if you're on a metered data plan like most of us are.

It's all a matter of perspective

[timholman]

Asking the devices which connect to this vast complex network of networks to detect, and then transparently fix problems in the infrastructure without the permission of the administrators is, well, it's absolutely the pinnacle of buzzword driven product management. Real pointy-haired boss territory.

Except that what Apple is doing with WiFi Assist is hardly so cryptic. Transparently switching from one network to another (both of which the user has permission to access) in order to maintain a data connection is hardly "the pinnacle of buzzword driven product management". I would say that it is the sort of behavior that most people would expect in the modern mobile era.

Apple's mistake was not in creating the feature. Their mistake was in implementing the feature as being "on" by default without considering the ridiculously low data caps of many cellular contracts, and the ridiculously high overage fees of some of them. In the next iOS update WiFi Assist will be turned "off" by default, and this entire "controversy" will be filed on the shelf right next to Bendgate.

If Apple really wants to shake things up, they need to build their own cellular network with 100 GB or 200 GB data caps. Sprint looks like a good candidate to buy in the U.S. given its current financial situation. Do that, and people won't be bitching about WiFi Assist; they'll be praising it as the new normal.

Re:An new case has to be filed be filed

[MightyYar]

In my opinion, the only company who does data caps in a fair way is T-Mobile. You still have a data limit, but rather than unexpected charges on your account you get a slowdown in speed. Now, it would be nice if they had more options for increasing the limit - even temporarily - but that is the only customer-friendly way to approach data caps. It is very easy to have an "oops" moment and exceed your data plan. You can blame people for being stupid, but even smart people make mistakes.

Re:It's a good idea, but shouldn't be on by defaul

[Applehu Akbar]

What I would like to see is an indicator on the iOS top bar ('status bar') that lets a user know how when cellular data is in use on a network connection, and by how much in assistance to a WiFi connection. Instead of adding a new symbol to the status bar, we could turn the WiFi radiating-lines icon red to indicate that cellular data is in use. If WiFi Assist is in use to supplement a wobbly WiFi connection, we could turn a pie wedge of the WiFi icon red to indicate the proportion of cellular assist. The size of the red sector compared to the icon as a whole would shift to indicate the percentage contribution of cellular, in the same way that the number of dark radiating lines in the icon describes the strength of the signal.

Re:It's a good idea, but shouldn't be on by defaul

[binarylarry]

Metered plan is such a nice term for what these providers do.

Why not something more accurate, like "data rape" or "wallet diddle" plan?

Re:It's a good idea, but shouldn't be on by defaul

[Dr_Barnowl]

I think metering is fair on mobile wireless.

Well, OK, it's not fair, but it's more fair than not having any metering.

Mobile wireless is a limited and non-fungible resources. On any given cell at any given time, there's a limited amount of bandwidth to be shared around. If that cell has enough bandwidth to serve everyone using it, they should be able to fill their boots. If that cell is congested, you need some mechanism to prevent all the bandwidth being consumed by a few users. When I'm in a setting like a railway station with a thousand people all wanting some bandwidth, it makes me angry to see the people streaming video on their phone like their entertainment is more important than everyone else who wants their email and IM to work.

What we have now does not really work ; it's a pricing mechanism of deterring excessive use, but it doesn't assign prices correctly, it just bills your bandwidth use at a flat rate. Bandwidth that is uncontested should be cheap, or free. Bandwidth that is contested should cost more. What really needs to happen in these circumstances is a kind of Dutch auction, where every handset has a notion of what price it's prepared to pay for bandwidth, and the cell sets the price according to how congested it is. But this would be too complicated to sell to most people.

Unmetered wireless bandwidth is not fair, because it's only "too cheap to meter" when the cell has very few clients. Part of the drive for 5G is to push things to this point - 4G too (or else why would they provide such tiny caps with such huge bandwidth that you can burn through it all in minutes - it's not about giving your more bandwidth, it's about having enough bandwidth to serve more customers). As long as we keep up thinking of new media that consume more bandwidth, wireless will not be good enough to serve crowded cells.

Re:It's a good idea, but shouldn't be on by defaul

[Solandri]

It's fascinating watching the mental gymnastics people are going through to try to preserve their desire to have both "it just works" and "I want to control it" coexist.

Android just lets you set a threshold for how many GB (or MB) of cellular data you can use in your billing cycle. When you hit it, it warns you or automatically shuts off cellular data. Yes it's an extra step and requires you to know when you billing cycle starts and what your data cap is, so isn't as simple as "it just works.". But it seems to me it's a whole lot simpler than the convoluted colored pie wedge indicator icon idea you've come up with. What good is knowing what proportion of your current data use is cellular, if you don't know how close you are to your cap?

If you let yourself be pigeonholed by artificial absolute rules (e.g. "in the interest of simplicity, it must just work"), you needlessly limit the possible solutions. Which can result in the simplest solution compliant with your "simplicity" rule being a lot more complicated than the simplest solution which does not comply with your "simplicity" rule. The only absolute rule is that there are no absolute rules (except this one).

Re: It's a good idea, but shouldn't be on by defa

[I'm New Around Here]

What in the hell does that have to do with complete control? You're talking about 'complete management of your own usage'.

Which is the exact topic I was responding to, because the AC stated: "What's offensive is that when I exceed my limit, there is no notification, no automatic stop, no choice to spend more money." We as consumers do have control over what phone we buy, what carrier we go with, and what features we require from both the phone and carrier.

I have complete control over the amount of money I give to my provider every month. I've had that same control for the last decade. It was the one criteria I had when I got a new phone after moving across the country for a job. So, yes, complete control.