Slashdot Mirror
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."
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."
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.
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.
To ban the sale of apple devices to people who dont know to turn off a default optiion. You can clearly see the the data conn active in the top bar.
are you kidding me?
this is a pretty awesome feature, and very apple'y in that it does things under the hood without bothering the user with stupid prompts. as long as the user consented to it, there should absolutely be no problem with it. now since it seems they didn't request that user's consent, and since people were charged money because of that, looks like there may well be grounds for a lawsuit. but the quote from an employee presented doesn't mention that!
there *may* have been technical (and possibly even legal, at least it seems from the tone in the quotation) problems that management didn't want to hear about it, and there *may* have been good reasons to invoke the PHB's image - but, as Wikipedia would put it, {{Not in citation given}}.
It's good to see the first three posts are neutral to positive toward Apple. But, it won't last.
Just another article written specifically to say, "Apple does it wrong, and needs to do what I think they should do, so their non-customers will be as happy as their customers".
Settings -> cellular-> cellular data usage
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.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Apple is merely doing this how Android does it. I'm a little surprised people could be using a mobile device and yet think they are *not* going to use mobile data. I think Apple's problem is that their customers are overprotected. Generally Android customers are willing to learn a little about technology and understand how things work. Apple customers practically want the device to read their mind and do what they want it to, and Apple makes it seem that way by actively holding back features that could make it seem otherwise. In this case, Apple miscalculated.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Hi, my name is Frank and I am a Fanboys, and proud of it.
AT&T sends me texts if i get to 65% of my data usage. happened twice when my wife and father in law decided to use too much data
You'd think after antennagate, bendgate, chipgate, and now datagate, people would learn not to buy iPhones. Apparently not.
Doesn't that just mean that you reliably get a message on around the 20th of each month? I mean, it's better than nothing, but they still rake you over the coals when you go over. Now, if the message said "reply to this message with 'more' to buy an additional 1 GB for $10" or something along those lines, it would be pretty good. Still not as good as a "soft cap", but better than a simple informational message.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
It would seem to be pretty trivial to implement a feature where the phone is aware of the account's data plan details (used, available, etc).
The phone could then have some user configurable warning threshold when the plan's available data goes below that threshold.
Apps and features (like wifi-assist) could then have a setting that allow/prohibits them to use data when the threshold has been exceeded.
If there was some standardized method of obtaining and communicating this info, shared data plans could manage these settings on the carrier account page per device -- individual caps, thresholds relative to individual caps or total shared caps.
That would mean losing about 90% of iPhone sales.
Remember, Apple has "strategic partnerships" with wireless providers. Do you really not think there was a discussion about this anywhere among the Apple executives and the brass from the telecoms?
You are welcome on my lawn.
You do realize that what you wrote isn't even coherent. . . .right?
You are presenting that because of pressure to, as you say it, "give data away for free," that the price it high. This would require me to accept that under other conditions, the price of data would be lower. However, you should recognize that never has been, and never will be "free markets."
Free markets are a theoretical structure. For Smith and Ricardian free markets to work, all actors need full knowledge of present and future conditions. Further, there must be no cost to the information (there also need to be no transaction costs and perfect factor mobility; but lets stick to information costs for the moment). So, because free markets rely on information being available to all actors, even if what you are saying is true (oh, and it isn't), free data would be a strong support of the free market.
However, the reality is that there is no free market. A small number of players have an unnatural advantage; this is usually the result of having very large sources of capital in the early stages of an industry. There are other ways; but this is the usual path. As stated, the Smith and Ricardian free markets are a theoretical structure. They are used to introduce entry level students to the ideas behind economics. They are not the end of economics, they are the beginning. If you really ant a better understanding of complex economics I recommend reading The Origin of Wealth by Eric D. Beinhocker.
Oh, and Net Neutrality was being discussed, initially, under the Bush administration.
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.
Metered plan is such a nice term for what these providers do.
Why not something more accurate, like "data rape" or "wallet diddle" plan?
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
I'm pretty sure that (s)he was trolling. I really hope that (s)he was trolling.
You'd think the slobbering morons who append "-gate" after everything, like some sort of misguided hipster buzzword, would eventually get tired of it and stop. Apparently not.
Dingdingding!
The cellular providers need to be dragged into this as well, as the scent of collusion is very strong in this case.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
"Things were working just fine without communist net neutrality."
You're ignoring the natural monopoly problem with cable and telecom services. Suppose your electric company was to negotiate a deal with Maytag to give you a discount on power consumed by its appliances, while charging everyone else a little more to make up the difference? That's why we make the electrical service in any given place a common carrier.
how about a class action against Microsoft which made millions of PCs download 3GB being MS Windows 10 -- just in case they wanted to upgrade. This pushed people over monthly broadband limits, sometimes at great expense. Apparently possible to disable, but the default was on.
While they are at it: another class action suit for spying on their users and exporting private data to the MS servers; again on by default and impossible to switch off completely.
"Circle the wagons. Those people who hate our cult are on the way."
Yeah, what a great way to encourage people to belong to the cult. It's very reinforcing to be an oppressed member of a group.
Just gtfo with your 'hater' labels. Quit being a baby because other people think slavering brand loyalty is dumb.
Unfortunately he's a judge, and therefore clueless about technology. That's the part of their life they leave to law clerks.
Nonsense.
I've got a gig of data. If I'm trying to watch a YouTube video and the WiFi is crappy, I don't switch over to cellular - I watch it later, when I have better WiFi. I sure as heck don't want to eat into my gig to watch the latest Star Wars Trailer supercut.
I'm curious - are you as offended about your electric bill as your data plan? After all, electricity is metered, and you pay more if you use more.
And natural gas in the places that use it. Metered.
And in some places, the water bill is metered as well. Wow, those evil water suppliers!
Damn, we're just surrounded by evil companies that charge us by the pound (or equivalent).!!!
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
no, they send you the text as soon as you hit the threshold to warn you
This feature shuts off WiFi when the WiFi connection you're trying to use, has crappy throughput, and uses Cellular instead. Just like Every Person In The World with a smartphone would do, when the WiFi they're trying to use is crap. Maybe add a popup saying "Hey, your WiFi throughput is crap, we switched you over to Cell, data charges may apply, click here to say OK, click this other box to say "Yeah I get it, never show me this again", " would have been nice, but come on, a freaking class action lawsuit? Only people who benefit from that, are the lawyers.
Problem is that the default behaviour changed and people used up their cellular data when they absolutely did not want to do so - when they were at home, in range of their home WiFi and used data intensive apps (like watching movies, installing updates etc.) BECAUSE they were sure only WiFi would be used as long as they are in range of their WiFi access point. But WiFi assist means that the phone can switch to cellular data even while you are still in range of your own WiFi, which was never the case before and which was not sufficiently explained by Apple when the iOS update was made available.
Sorry, what I meant was that - unless you are paying for more data than you need - you would be hitting your 65% limit pretty much every month. Yes, it's still useful if you get the warning unexpectedly early. But, no, it's not useful at all if you already hit 65% and then have your "oops" moment the next day.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
What's offensive is that when I exceed my limit, there is no notification, no automatic stop, no choice to spend more money. The provider simply reaches into my wallet and removes money at will. It should be possible for me to choose whether service continues automatically at great expense, or terminates until I opt in to spending more of my money. I want to say this is already a requirement III n Europe, but I'm not sure.
Electricity is generally a flat or continuous rate. Cell data is almost always and allocated chunk with a sharp inflection point in cost when that allocation is exceeded.
If you don't want an app to use cellular, go and turn it off. My 11 year old daughter knows how to do this since her pre-paid phone gives her about 300MB a month. For those that are on limited cell plans, you should have already been doing this before wifi assist existed.
I think wifi assist is a pretty awesome feature, no more Slack not working when I leave buildings (I travel between school buildings a lot during the day).
What, me worry?
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.
Apple claims that this feature does not function over data roaming- this is false. I am currently traveling in Canada and purchased an ATT passport plan- upon my second day in the country, while being on wifi for almost all my data use (basic browsing and email, no video,) the phone pulled down over 700mb of data and blew past my 500mb 'silver' plan. When I called ATT, they told me to turn assist off as it had been doing this for many users. They graciously updated my plan to the 'gold' plan (which I will have to pay for,) but I'm still out of data for the rest of my trip.
That the assist 'off' switch is at the bottom of my list of hundreds of apps is totally bogus and clearly intended to hide the feature.
When it flips to WiFi assist, the WiFi symbol in the status bar changes to 4G, 3G, LTE or whatever cellular network is being used.
AFAIK, it's not a matter of what percentage goes via WiFi and what percentage goes via cellular. It's more of a switch from one to the other.
The power company and other utilities don't advertise their plans as "unlimited" though. The cellular carriers have backed away from their unlimited plans to some degree, but a lot of cable companies are still calling capped plans unlimited so it's still an issue.
The guy is the programmer of the iStumbler network monitoring app. An app of the type where the UI only makes sense to the programmer that created it. And for which the documentation does nothing to explain to someone who doesn't already understand it.
I'm on the PHBs side on this one. I'm not surprised Apple pushed him out.
WiFi Assist is the best feature of iOS9 for me. iStumbler is something I once downloaded, and regretted the time it took to look it over.
Maybe there's an icon, but why add such a stupid feature in the first place? Do you think most users want to continuously monitor the top status bar or even know such a feature exists?
If the wifi connection is iffy, the user can always manually switch to the expensive cellular connection. Automatic switching is bad because it's expensive. Requiring users to hunt settings is bad because most common users don't go there except power users.
Google does the same thing with Android and I have to switch to airplane mode then turn wifi on to prevent accidental cellular usage. It's such a stupid way to implement connections to the internet.
He's not complaining that the data is metered, he's complaining about how the phone companies actually do it. For example: My wife's AT&T phone has the bare-minimum $15 plan. 200 megs a month. She's under wifi 99% of the time so we go as cheap as possible. We had to stay in a hotel one night and their wifi failed, meaning her phone flipped over into using LTE data. She got a text saying she had used three-quarters of her monthly allotment. Since it takes them some time to send that message, I used the AT&T app to see where she landed. It said 190/megs. She turned data off on her phone. Several hours later I got a text that she had gone over 200 megs and $10 had been added to my bill to give her another 200 megs, 40 of which had already been used. I called AT&T and asked how she could have used data when it was off. They said that it takes them four hours for them (and the app I used) to reflect our actual data usage. I asked them to set it up so that when her data goes over to just stop sending data when it's out. They said they cannot, their system was not set up that way. I told them that was bunk. When I had an iPad with a data plan through them. as soon as I ran out of data I got a message asking for permission to be charged for another allotment, clicking no cut me off. AT&T most certainly can do this but they choose not to. As a 'courtesy' they took off the charge which, and this is my favorite part, is the same amount it would cost me to get two gigs instead of 200 megs. Their approach is predatory and intended to trick their customers into going over. Oh, remember how I told you they mysteriously cannot turn off data when you run out? I asked why I would ever go through them to provide a cell phone to a misbehaving teenager if he or she could carelessly run up my bill? She was happy to tell me that for five dollars a month I could add parental controls to the line that included capping data usage. You know, the very service I was just told they cannot provide. I'm willing to bet that the original poster has a similar story to tell. American phone companies don't use metered data, they use tiered data, and if you had that sort of plan for power or water you'd be very upset the moment your routine changed.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
So turn off WiFi Assist. Personally I get unlimited data for 20 UKP a month ($30), so WiFi Assist is a brilliant feature no matter what the data is that I'm accessing.
What's offensive is that when I exceed my limit, there is no notification, no automatic stop, no choice to spend more money. The provider simply reaches into my wallet and removes money at will.
You do realize that you signed a contract agreeing to those specific actions, right?
Do you also realize you can get plans that offer different data caps, or no cap at all?
I have unlimited data on my phone, for a flat rate that I find acceptable. I don't know why you are so upset about something you have complete control over.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
I've been saying for years how happy I am with MetroPCS. I always had a flat rate for unlimited phone calls. Now I have a flat rate for unlimited data used on my phone.
The only cap is if I have my laptop tethered to my phone, or have the mobile hotspot active on my phone. Then it slows down to 3G speed after a couple GB of pass-thru data. Tethering and hotspot are very useful when needed, but I haven't come near the limit, since I only have to use it occasionally when on the road, and need to use the laptop for something instead of just looking it up on my phone.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Data is not POWER OR WATER. Its a VERY different beast, you sound stupid using those comparisons.
Good-bye
Actually, my power IS tiered. The more i use, the more expensive it gets per unit, up to $.25 per KWH.
Good-bye
Verizon does something different, but equally sleazy. My wife has 1GB which she never goes over. as soon as she hits 50%, they start sending her texts she can click to upgrade her plan. I've done the math, and upgrading to 2GB doesn't make sense unless she goes over 3 months in a row. There can be one day left with half her cap left and they will continually bug her to upgrade.
Cheap storage VM.
.... I don't know why you are so upset about something you have complete control over.
Nice little slip there. Complete? Really?
Forfeiting mod points because I accidentally modded down while I meant "insightful".
I thought mobile bandwidth was limited due to equipment (physical and logical) limitations. I've always been encouraged, in mobile company literature, to reduce wireless usage as much as possible. Keep the bandwidth available for others. But it's okay for Apple customers to use that bandwidth to the n'th degree?
So... this is who we're supposed to keep the bandwidth available for? I think I just opened a can of worms, but please don't attack the 'opener'.
Amen to Khyber's response to this parent.. I smell collusion.
- U.S. "Imaginary Dynamic Limitation Hater"
We, the ISP came up with the name. Not really, its what Cisco calls it in the the configs. It may make you mad you have to pay for data and the ISP has a meter just like the other utilities. I guess you wan't unlimited data,gas,electric and water to right. Since metering is evil.
It also has zero shelf life. Data used in the middle of the night in some area where there are few other users has no impact on the rest of the network. Counting data over a month makes little sense in this context.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
And what makes you think your work is so much more important than someone else's entertainment? Seriously. Your work does not trump someone else's play simply because it's "work".
Besides, IM and email are low bandwidth activities. The streaming video should be rendered unwatchable by network congestion long before you have any difficulty with your precious email. This particular problem is self-limiting.
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
in this case what should have happened is a box should have popped up saying
"Wifi Error rate in excess of setting Enable Wifi Assist (THIS WILL USE CELLULAR DATA)?
[YES] [NO] []save setting"
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.
What you're describing is Quality of Service, not metering. Why should I be subject to exactly the same rules in a congested inner city cell as an almost empty suburban one? My data cap is a data cap regardless if I'm using it at peak hour or at 3am when the only other traffic on a cell is keep alive signals.
You're right, i shouldnt be mad about something I have complete control over. Like, you know, the number and power rewuirements of devices I allow to be connected to my home's electrical wiring and when those devices are allowed access to power. An that's why I dont bitch about my electric company having implemented metered billing; in short, I am in full control of my usage, right up to the point of an equipment failure on my end, which is clearly my responsibility. To further my point, utility meters are regulated while there is no regulation or legally required metering mehodology for data, which only compounds the fact that someone else can just start firing unrequested packets in my direction and I'll get billed for them.
Well, I won't because I have unlimited data, but many dont even have it as an option from the carrier they're contractually bound to. For them, having a variable cost they literally have no control over (even if they dont request more data than their plan allows, nothing stops it from being sent - thimk DDoS) is a huge issue worth complaining about. And no, it is not negated by the fact that they agreed to it; as you have clearly demonstrated, not everyone realizes they won't be in control of the data they are paying for.
I'm just waiting for the first (desktop and/or server) malware that sends a steady stream of packets to random AT&T and Verizon mobile IPs. Think class-action, because you KNOW neither providers will block that traffic when they could bill for it instead.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
This is why Australia mandated that ISPs instantly alert people at 50% 75% and 100% of their data usage. This feature was very neat as I always had a bare minimum plan (constantly connected to wifi) but I always went over my limit when I travelled interstate (typically due to overuse of GPS). I can SMS a number with "200MB" "500MB" "1G" or "2G" to increase my cap and it automatically gets billed to my account, and I can even do it retrospectively. The only thing still dubious about the system is that I can't apply the same package twice, i.e. if I've used 200MB I can't use it again and go to 400MB, I need to pick an additional 500MB.
And "constructive dialog" must be either neutral or positive towards Apple?
Maybe we have a different definition of "constructive dialog".
You are welcome on my lawn.
For them, having a variable cost they literally have no control over
That is literally the dumbest thing I have read today. Yes, your mobile phone usage is a random number selected from a hat each month by your wireless company and arbitrarily inserted into your bill for kicks, with no involvement from you.
think DDoS ... I'm just waiting for the first (desktop and/or server) malware that sends a steady stream of packets to random AT&T and Verizon mobile IPs
I'm not sure who your phone company is, but most wireless networks I know of assign dynamic non-routable IP addresses behind carrier grade NAT to their customers' mobile devices. So, you know, good luck with your DDoS there.
Think class-action, because you KNOW neither providers will block that traffic when they could bill for it instead.
Yes, wireless companies are just dying to have people flood their networks with junk packets so they have an excuse to overbill people. They certainly don't do anything already to prevent just that kind of thing. You uncovered the conspiracy! You should probably just go out and spend the money right now that you are planning to win from your class action lawsuit. I hear tinfoil hats are on sale, but you may not wish to prop up the widely known corrupt practices of Big Tinfoil.
"95% of all Slashdot
i dont disagree with that in the slightest
the other side of me says
....... its a cell phone...... its going to use cell data... you should pay attention to what your phone is doing, not blame the company for giving you options (even if you need to turn said option off)
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
To be fair, I've never seen an "Unlimited" plan, well - not in a long time and I'm not sure if the one I saw before was "Unlimited." They've all been, "Unlimited*" and the asterisk is important. I make it a point to read the fine print. If i don't agree then I don't sign.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I've noted this for a while, that even with a perfectly good WiFi connection ("good" = streaming video bandwidth) my iPad insists on using cellular data for some network functions. So I leave the cellular data turned off unless I actually need it.
The motivation when I bought it was that I could use cellular data to access flight planning and weather information if I land at an airport that has cell coverage but no WiFi. It has served this function just fine, but somebody at Apple needs their ass kicked very hard over this one.
...laura
I don't actually normally even see my bill or anything but, due to a conversation here on /. recently, I got my username and password and logged in to see my data usage. I have 50 GB service and it appears, going through the history, that I have approached that limit twice. No, I have no idea what I was doing at the time and most of the time I use less than 1% of the data. I can only assume I was out of WiFi range and on the road somewhere.
Anyhow, the cellular company hasn't ever sent me an email, a text, or anything of that nature to tell me that I'm approaching a limit. They did send me 'special offers' via text but I had my accountant call them and they have stopped sending me those text messages. I'm told that they don't contact her, either, if I approach the limit. To be completely honest, it may be my own failing? I simply don't recall having ever done anything to make use of that much data. I've watched maybe a half dozen documentaries on Netflix, total - in my life, on my phone. Sure, I've done an ISO here and there when it was tethered. My usage history tends to reflect that, except for two months where I hit in the 90% range.
*shrugs* I don't know. They were two months in a row and the pattern didn't continue. I don't have a bunch of apps installed so it's probably not malware. I can only assume that I left it connected and was using it without paying attention. I sometimes end up concentrating on something so much that other things get forgotten. So, it must be that. Well, it probably is that.
I do wish that they'd send me (or my accountant) a warning. Maybe we need some sort of regulation, like Australia. I don't think I'd have ever said that before.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Do iPhones not have a way to easily turn off mobile data? On Android it is right at the top.
That is literally the dumbest thing I have read today.
And yet, you found it worthwhile enough to respond to.
Yes, your mobile phone usage is a random number selected from a hat each month by your wireless company and arbitrarily inserted into your bill for kicks, with no involvement from you.
Maybe read the rest of the sentence and realize that's not what I'm saying at all? Oh, look, you quoted the appropriate context even, so you clearly did read it.
I'm not sure who your phone company is, but most wireless networks I know of assign dynamic non-routable IP addresses behind carrier grade NAT to their customers' mobile devices. So, you know, good luck with your DDoS there.
Not only did you quote it, you replied to it as though you actually understood what I was saying; so, why did you still post the obvious misinterpretation of my words? Poorly constructed strawman, much? I do have to say, though, that you are absolutely correct about this, most carriers to use carrier grade NAT on their tethering APNs. Where you are mistaken is with regard to their mobile data APNs. I've run public servers from my phone on both AT&T and T-Mobile; you can't do that behind NAT unless you set up forwarding rules, which you can only do if you have access to the NAT configuration, not an option with most carriers. In short, yes, most phones actually have publicly routable IP addresses.
Yes, wireless companies are just dying to have people flood their networks with junk packets so they have an excuse to overbill people. They certainly don't do anything already to prevent just that kind of thing.
You haven't been paying much attention lately. First of all, the contracts are worded such that they allow billing for any and all received data, requested or otherwise, so there would be no overbilling as per the agreed-upon terms. Second, doing something to prevent it costs the carrier money, while letting it happen (as the contract has their asses covered) makes them money. Which do you think the shareholders would opt for? There hasn't been a class action yet because the attack that opens everyone's eyes to the vulnerabilities that exist (within these contracts) hasn't happened yet. Just wait and see.
You uncovered the conspiracy!
Technically, yes. Shareholders want profits, spending money to prevent the attacks these networks are vulnerable to reduces profits, especially when the networks are not currently being exploited, so the shareholders and carriers are conspiring to leave the networks vulnerable for now. I hadn't really looked at it that way before. In reality, it's just the classic "there is no security problem until it gets exploited" mindset most businesses have adopted, but I guess there is a technical conspiracy angle to it, as well.
You should probably just go out and spend the money right now that you are planning to win from your class action lawsuit.
You appear to lack reading comprehension skills. Having unlimited data, I wouldn't be a class member.
I hear tinfoil hats are on sale,
Maybe you should switch, you seem to be exhibiting signs of aluminum poisoning.
but you may not wish to prop up the widely known corrupt practices of Big Tinfoil.
While this is an obvious troll, I'll bite. Big Tinfoil doesn't shill like the carriers. Clearly, you're more comfortable attacking them than the industry that pays you to spread misinformation.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
That's the *best* feature? Really? Really? Not the ability to make a fucking phone call but WiFi Assist is the *best* feature "for me."
What's this? I don't even... Do you get paid to post that shit? I don't think I've ever accused anyone of being a shill (except for gangadude who invites it with his signature and then only in jest as a 'shill for the marijuana industry') but I am wondering if this might actually be a paid post. No, not the ability to make a phone call, that's not the best feature. The best feature is a wireless assist technology that, it appears, causes people to spend money they didn't know they were going to be obligated to pay.
Yup. That's the absolutely bestest fucking feature on the phone. I hope, for your sake, you're drunk or have the phone shoved up your ass so that you're able to get a little prostate massage from it. Want me to call so it vibrates?
Best feature... *sighs*
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Obviously. It's only constructive if it's misleading, off-topic, or in other ways prevents anything negative from being said. Just up the thread there was someone decrying this as THE BEST FEATURE! No, not the ability to make a fucking phone call but the wireless assist function was the BEST FEATURE!!!11eleventy!
It's constructive if it prevents actual constructive criticism. You know, not actually constructive. Alas, I'm preaching to the choir, I know. Ah well, karma to burn, baby. Karma to burn.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Have you ever paid a utility bill? Both my electric and water bills have always had 4 tiers... At the high-end, you'll be paying more than double the rate of the lower allotments. A big reason why so many people are installing solar panels, is because shaving just a few percent off the top of their electric bill will save them a LOT of money.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
For many portable devices, "self-healing" is a standard behavior. They're supposed to detect the strongest available and accessible wi-fi link, to select it automatically, and to switch transparently to or from that channel as it improves or degrades, and to incorporate locally provided authentication credentials with no user involvements.
Since most of the network problems for portable devices are, in fact, local and local configuration issues, it is completely reasonable to expect a portable that costs a week's salary to handle this correctly. The primary causes of wi-fi data failure are not magical and not very confusing, and can be dealt with locally on the portable device.
The guy seems to be talking about some other crazy thing, where he says:
-- "fix problems in the infrastructure?" What? This is working around problems. The phone isn't being asked to reconfigure everyone else's WiFi, which is what he seems to describe -- nor could it. So, again...what?
It makes sense to object to transfer metering. Gas, water, and electricity are metered based on what adds cost. There is no appreciable cost to transfer a byte of data. Maintaining the capacity to transfer data is what costs which is why non-consumer data is billed based on 95th percentile of the RATE.
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).
That's the *best* feature? Really? Really? Not the ability to make a fucking phone call but WiFi Assist is the *best* feature "for me."
What's this? I don't even... Do you get paid to post that shit? I don't think I've ever accused anyone of being a shill (except for gangadude who invites it with his signature and then only in jest as a 'shill for the marijuana industry') but I am wondering if this might actually be a paid post. No, not the ability to make a phone call, that's not the best feature. The best feature is a wireless assist technology that, it appears, causes people to spend money they didn't know they were going to be obligated to pay.
Yup. That's the absolutely bestest fucking feature on the phone. I hope, for your sake, you're drunk or have the phone shoved up your ass so that you're able to get a little prostate massage from it. Want me to call so it vibrates?
Best feature... *sighs*
He said the "best feature of iOS9", as in "the best feature that was added with the update".
The phone already made calls. It wasn't a new feature added in the update to iOS9.
It seems like you've lost the ability to read and parse the English language as the red mist of apple hate has descended on you.
You know what's nice about power? The meter is on the wall. I can go look at it any time I want and see what the power company thinks I've used, and the rate of use. Phone data is a mystery. Even measuring apps are off by 10% to 50% regularly. Are they measuring OTA size? L2 packet size? payload size? Because a user only cares about the payload, and that's almost never what's measured. And with so many things running in the background, it's hard to know what's using what when, not as big of a problem with electricity.
Learn to love Alaska
I like that about once a month, someone responds to me to tell me I'm wrong, while proving with their own argument that I am right. You wrote:
To further my point, utility meters are regulated while there is no regulation or legally required metering mehodology for data, which only compounds the fact that someone else can just start firing unrequested packets in my direction and I'll get billed for them.
Well, I won't because I have unlimited data,
So, you state quite clearly that you have control over your monthly data plan pricing, because you pay for unlimited data. You have no overage, thanks to the plan that you chose, and pay for. You have complete control over your billing, just as I said.
Thanks for your response proving mine correct.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
What of those who are contractually bound to carriers that don't offer unlimited data? You completely missed that part of my post, apparently. For anyone acquiring service today who needs their phone to work while traveling, the majority of carriers do not offer unlimited data (grandfathered unlimited plans mean fuck-all to someone who is new to the service) and, of the two major players in the US who do offer unlimited, one is dropping the option soon and the other doesn't work for a lot of people (e.g. they simply don't have coverage). I'm lucky in that T-Mobile covers my area fairly well. That does not apply to everyone.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Since I have unlimited data and wasn't whining, I'll assume these are your own words and not you sarcastically attempting to put words in my mouth. To that, I say STFU and get unlimited data, then. Or at least push for regulation so there are well-defined measurement methods and standards like there are with utilities; at least then the rates they charge you will be fair.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Metered plan is such a nice term for what these providers do.
Why not something more accurate, like "data rape" or "wallet diddle" plan?
Entitlement Complex Enrager plan?
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Yes, complete. You decide which carrier to go with, or none at all. That is control. My carrier has an unlimited data plan for a very good price, which is what I chose to enroll with. In fact, I upgraded to that plan just this past spring after getting a newer smartphone.
The comment I responded to specifically said:
What's offensive is that when I exceed my limit, there is no notification, no automatic stop, no choice to spend more money.
There are multiple carriers with multiple plans that cover multiple styles of phones with multiple features. There are prepaid phones from independent providers that certainly let you limit your spending. So when I say that the individual has "complete control" over their spending, that is the case. If you can't think of a way to achieve that, that's not my fault.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
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.
This is why I prefer using pre-paid/pay as you go plans. They literally cant charge you more than what you've already paid.
Bandwidth that is uncontested should be cheap, or free. Bandwidth that is contested should cost more.
This would be a fairer and more accurate system but it will never happen because:
1. It's too complex to explain to the average iphone using simpleton.
2. It's too complex to explain to the average iphone using simpleton. I know this is technically only one point but it's big enough to mention twice.
3. It would require telco's to dynamically adjust pricing based on current bandwidth at the tower. I doubt they could do this competently, I have no doubt they will never do it honestly.
4. It wouldn't help much. Data usage on mobile devices is usually dictated by their current location. Towers out in the middle of nowhere will never be busy, but towers in the middle of the CBD are going to be busy all day.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
"...of their spending" makes it very true. Without.... Eh. :)
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.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
I'm not sure what point you are attempting to make with that comment.
Complete control over their spending, over which carrier they choose, over which phone they buy, over which data plan they sign up for, over which applications they use on their phone to tell them how much data they have used. And the ultimate complete control, not buying a smart phone with a data plan. Several people on this site have stated they use a "cell phone" instead of a "smart phone", for this very reason.
So, whatever usage of "complete control" you want to toss out, yes you have that level of control.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
No, he said the best feature of and not the best new feature of - seems like you're interjecting words because you think it's smart. It's not. I can read. Can you? Do you often run around inserting words into people's mouths? You're as retarded as they are, or so it seems. "He meant what he didn't say - can't you read!!!" Wow... Just, wow...
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
They were born contractually bound to a carrier? They had one forced on them through the court system? Goons from Big Data kicked in their doors and forced them to sign the contract with their own blood?
I'm trying to figure out how people in your world have no control over which carrier they sign a contract with, before they sign the contract. You don't seem to understand I am stating that people choose which carrier to use, and which data plan to use. You yourself chose a plan from a national carrier that gives you unlimited data. It doesn't matter what "the majority of carriers" offered you, because you decided to go with one that gives you unlimited data. I also have an unlimited plan with a national carrier.
In addition, there are independent providers that piggyback on the national carriers, and they certainly have plans that let the users limit their spending, without having an unlimited plan.
You think I missed a part of you post. No, I read the whole thing, and it simply doesn't make the case you think it does.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Argumentum ad pomum: that the other buy is not a corporate shill, but is such a fanboi that $EVIL_CORPORATION doesn't even have to pay him.
Control of their network and the way they choose to handle voice and data, you being the one who fishy have a say in their back-end strategy? Yeah. That one.
Fishy = doesn't.
It does matter what the majority of carriers offer if the one that offers what you're looking for doesn't have coverage where you need to use it. You get what you can find or you do without, and most people won't simply do without, they just go with the lesser of the evils they have to choose from. "Ideal, if only there was coverage at work and at home" is functionally equivalent to "Useless", whereas "Has coverage and will work, but with caps" is the best most people can get. The root of the issue is that the carriers lie to people and tell them they can actually control their bill by controlling their data usage; while they can control their data usage (by only requesting the data they want) that doesn't really help control the bill, as the carrier will bill them for all data sent to their phone's IP address, requested or otherwise.
To hear the carriers tell it (and you have to keep in mind that the vast majority have no clue how things actually work, and that includes the carriers themselves for the most part), if you only browse the occasional mobile site you can get by on 200MB/mo, and they're probably right as long as they only bill you for the data you actually request. They don't, however, so you'll probably be fine most months but then, one month, your phone gets assigned (for, say, a few hours) an IP that was targeted by a DDoS meant for someone else (who had that IP at the time) and *BAM*, you've used a few GB.
The vast majority of people don't realize this is possible and the carriers deny it 'til they're blue in the face, but it is possible and you can be certain it does happen. The guy choosing the $10 200MB plan is likely choosing that because he will use Wi-Fi almost all of the time and doesn't want to spend $40 for something he does not plan to use. You can't fault him when every source of information he has available incorrectly tells him he *will* be able to control that data.
As for the indies, they by and far require that you buy a phone outright or already have one that is unlocked (read: off contract). When I say "by and far" I mean I have not encountered one that did not have this requirement. That makes them a non-starter for someone who doesn't have cash available to drop on a new phone (they'd need to finance or have it included in their plan) or for people who have phones locked to another carrier and still under contract. Additionally, if speed and availability is important, it is only fairly recently that the MVNOs were allowed to offer LTE services on the networks on which they ride, so many people would have ended up in contracts with providers who could actually over them what they're looking for in the time before the MVNOs were on that list.
Before T-Mobile started offering unlimited data, my choices were AT&T (with caps) or Verizon (Unlimited for nearly twice what I was paying AT&T). Sprint was out of the question because they didn't have worthwhile coverage in my area at the time and, with the exception of a local MVNO that only serviced my area (they've since expanded nationally, but at the time their footprint was a metro area) the MVNOs were still only offering 3g while AT&T and Verizon were already rolling out LTE and had been offering 4g for several years. That made the MVNOs a non-starter for me as, when I need to use mobile data, I need it to be fast. Doubling my bill was a non-starter, as well, so Verizon was right out the window. That left AT&T and a 4GB cap, which I did manage to stay within by tethering to my wife's grandfathered unlimited (my line was added after AT&T had dropped unlimited data) when I would be using it for any length of time. Sure, I could have gone with a PAYG plan and paid out the ass for everything, which would have given me the ability to control my spending in $10 increments; but AT&T offered a cheaper alternative that was actually something resembling workable for someone who might actually be concerned with controlling their spending in the first place. Have you priced out PAYG pl
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Control of their network and the way they choose to handle voice and data, you being the one who doesn't have a say in their back-end strategy? Yeah. That one.
So, when you are losing an argument, you switch what the argument is about. I wish I could say that was a unique pattern.
The "complete control" is in regards to how much they bill me. That is the whole point of this topic. I don't have control of what brand of switch they use, or what color they use for their logo, or what the CEO is paid. But whatever choice they make for those various situations, I have a contract saying they will not charge me more than a set fee every month. Nothing else you are mentioning matters at all. Because nothing you are mentioning changes what I, or you, pay per month. We have complete control over what we pay, and millions of others have that same control.
But to make my point using your attempt at moving the goalposts, here goes. I have a contract that guarantees that my carrier will not under any circumstances install Cisco switches and charge me a higher rate on my next bill. I have a contract that guarantees that my carrier will not under any circumstances route data differently and charge me a higher rate on my next bill. I have a contract that guarantees that my carrier will not under any circumstances change their method of signal modulation and charge me a higher rate on my next bill.
You want to try to claim I don't have control over my carrier's backend? I say you are wrong.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Nokia had a far better solution on the N900 - it does the OBVIOUS and asks you if you want to connect via the phone network if WiFi is not availabe.
As the other poster says, you don't understand how the English language works. By specifying iOS9, it means things that aren't in other version of iOS.
And you really have something lacking in your life to get so upset about what you thought someone said about a phone. Go outside, take a walk, smell the flowers, say hello to someone.
Uh huh... If you meant that then you'd have said that. It's nice that you tried the same excuse that the AC used. You couldn't even come up with your own excuse. Pathetic. *snickers*
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I called AT&T and asked how she could have used data when it was off. They said that it takes them four hours for them (and the app I used) to reflect our actual data usage. I asked them to set it up so that when her data goes over to just stop sending data when it's out. They said they cannot, their system was not set up that way. I told them that was bunk.
You need to move to a provider that isn't a prick. TMO (and Sprint I believe, though I'm not sure) both offer data plans that will result in little to no overage. I have not paid voice or data overage in 2 years on TMO. They do exactly what you said you want, but instead of stopping the data, you get throttled down to 128Kb/s (i.e., good 2G speeds).
I moved us over from AT&T and Verizon because both of them wanted us to pay overage once in a while, and randomly at that. You don't need to - there are options and they don't suck (my phone and data coverage with TMO is better than either AT&T or VZ were).
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
well the device worked as intended and the network connection seemed self healing and 'just worked'. it just happened to cost a lot more than the user thought.
for the majority of american users that's the iphone in a nutshell anyways, "oh it was only a 200 dollar upgrade... ... and 800 more in fees over 2 years. but hey i do get 3 bucks worth of data for free!"
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
At least he did more than you do, and you are using this as an excuse to invalidate him. Good grief.
"techs" should be a misnomer then...
You're doubling down on your argument, but it doesn't make it any more right.
It's a very common English turn of phrase that the original commenter used that you have chosen to deliberately (possibly, but maybe not, in which case I'm sorry for the heavy burden you carry day to day) misunderstand to make a ludicrous accusation that he is a paid-for shill.
Like I said, the red mist of apple hate is blinding you to the obvious.
Uh huh... If you meant that then you'd have said that. It's nice that you tried the same excuse that the AC used. You couldn't even come up with your own excuse. Pathetic. *snickers*
I never post as AC. Now you're ignoring basic and easily verifiable facts like the fact that people who disagree with you are logged in. It's no wonder you have trouble comprehending common English phrases.
? Who said he did more than I do? You have no idea what I do.
And no, it's not shit like iStumbler is.
I did say it. That's why both of us are telling you the same thing about the same mistake you made.
Is English not your first language?
So, again, after I claimed that people have "complete control" over how they choose to spend their money in regards to cell/smart phones, you show exactly that situation, while telling me I'm wrong. You follow every proof of my claim with, "So THAT'S a non-starter." Oh. and bringing up situations from years ago to back up your argument, and then admitting those situations no longer apply, yet still claiming it supports your argument? Priceless.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
You are atill missing my point. You CAN NOT fault the consumer for choosing poorly when their choice is based on FALSE INFORMATION and there is NO SOURCE OF CORRECT INFORMATION.
That is the situation we have right now, and the false information sounds plausoble enough that, absent any argument, it sounds right.
Furthermore, complete control implies that all options are available to everyone. I've demonstrated that they are not; some people can not afford unlimited, some don't live or work in the coverage areas of carriers who offer unlimited, some are under contracts and can't afford the ETF. I'm also not talking about years ago, either; as recently as 9mo ago, the MVNOs I looked at only offered 3g. Since most cell contracts run 2 or 3 years, here are plenty of people who are still on contract and can not switch unless they can afford the ETF and, then, only if their carrier is willing to unlock the phone out of a broken contract or they can afford another phone. At that point, it would take years of saved potential overages for them to just break even.
By your logic, it would seem that you think someone being made to do something at gunpoint was in complete control, as well. After all, they can simply not comply and accept getting shot. Wake up caal: that ain't complete control. That, just like most things in life (including choosing a cellular plan), is limited control. There are multiple variables that you DO NOT have control over, and that makes your control incomplete as fuck. Sure, you can not play along, but then you get shot; playing along means you maybe avoid that.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
That is what I meant by "non-fungible" : data now, when you need your email, is not the same as data tomorrow.
Didn't say "work". Said they wanted their low-bandwidth IM and email "to work", as in working communications (with your family and loved ones, as well as yes, your business associates).
Yes, it's self-limiting. So is herpes, but you don't want to go through that either.
If people weren't trying to do something futile and stupid (and rude, because of it's impact on others), then everyone's day would just run better.
I can assure you that I purchased more Apple devices in just this one year than you've purchased in your entire life. (I gifted and outfitted the the local elementary school with iPads - they only have 56 students and I purchased 12 extras for when they have problems.)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I can assure you that I purchased more Apple devices in just this one year than you've purchased in your entire life. (I gifted and outfitted the the local elementary school with iPads - they only have 56 students and I purchased 12 extras for when they have problems.)
How is that relevant to your inability to comprehend a pretty common piece of English language?
It's yet another example of you leaping to conclusions that suit your own preconceived notions. On further thought, I only bought a half dozen extras. I think I said I bought a dozen. That would be mistaken. What they wrote means exactly what they said unless they meant to write something else. There's no common anything, just the OP spouting gibberish at this point because they figured that they'd use your excuse. If they meant that then they'd have said that but, instead, they gushed like a fanchild about a feature that's far less meaningful than the ability to make a phone call.
You can believe what you want and help make excuses for them if you want. There's no common turn of phrase here. In fact, there's nary one citation on the internet for such a thing. No, they meant what they said and are now able to realize how silly it was and you're trying to help them out of some strange fascination and belief that I'm some sort of zealot for one type of device or the other. (Which is patently false, by the way.)
You're pretty happy making assumptions that seem to include things like putting words into people's mouths. Have at it. Don't mind if I make fun of you for doing so, however. Goober. They said nothing of the sort, you know it. There's no common anything here - just them trying to make excuses after the fact and the evidence is here for anyone to see. Don't worry, though. Nobody else will read this, really. Your secret is safe with me.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
What secret? I'm perfectly happy to stand behind my comments.
You're trying to deflect the argument with a non-sequitur. Your original, highly antagonistic and accusatory post, that the original commenter was literally a paid shill for Apple, was based on you being unable to comprehend a basic piece of English language.
For example, here is a piece from the verge using the same turn of phrase: http://www.theverge.com/2015/9...
Here's Cnet talking about Windows 10 using the same phrase structure in a video: http://www.cnet.com/videos/bes...
Here's Extreme Tech using the same turn of phrase to discuss the iPhone 6: http://www.extremetech.com/mob...
Like I said, it was a pretty basic construction that is used frequently in common English, especially when paired with a qualifier as it was in the original poster's comment.
You either deliberately took the comment out of context to try and claim he was a shill or you just didn't understand the phrase. Either way you were wrong and have been trying to twist in the wind to try and bluster your way out of the argument. There's no way out though - your original comment was plain wrong.
Yes, taking the comment, as written, is plain wrong. The poster obviously implied something that they didn't say. I made it as far as you first example where they claim the greatest feature is a keyboard with some new functionality. That's just as stupid and doesn't actually change anything. The greatest feature is the ability to make a phone call (if you use it as a phone). If they meant 'greatest new feature' they'd have said that. They didn't. Finding other stupid people does not a point make. There's no colloquialisms, turn of phrase, or otherwise. There's just people failing to speak properly or ignoring the actual features in favor of trivial features. If they meant 'new feature' then they'd have said 'new' in the first place. It's THREE letters and a SPACE. They'd have said that if that's what they meant. Finding a few others (the internet is huge and a few findings does not normalcy make) is not an adequate argument. If you search for "alot" do you then assume that's correct when you find a few examples? No? Why not?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I never said I fault the consumer. I said that the consumer makes their decision. And my original post in this thread was tied simply to the individual being in control of what he pays. You keep showing that it is possible, then show examples of why it is not possible. Pick one line and stick to it.
As far as using force to make someone choose a plan, I made that argument first. Stop mimicking me.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Pick one line and stick to it.
Indeed.
As far as using force to make someone choose a plan, I made that argument first.
And I pointed out the logical fallacy of your use of that argument.
Stop mimicking me.
I'd have to be doing so in the first place in order to stop. You might want to stick a pin in that ego before it swells up too much.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Now you're changing your argument again - you said you couldn't find any examples - in fact, you said (quote) "In fact, there's nary one citation on the internet for such a thing." and now you're saying that the three examples I found within a few seconds of googling (quote) "does not normalcy make".
So which is it? There are no examples or that the examples I found really quickly (there are thousands of others) are invalid because you've changed your argument again.
We're going round in circles here; you lost the argument because you misunderstood a very common English phrase and you're now trying to double down with a semantic argument that the omission of and implied adjective somehow totally changes the original poster's position. It is obviously what the poster means, but the qualifier "of iOS9" in a topic about the software update makes the adjective "new" redundant. It is grammatically correct in either form (i.e., included or omitted) and does not change the meaning of the sentence.
It is especially silly when you try to shore up your argument by trying to equate it with a piece of incorrect English. The two situations are not alike because one is perfectly solid English grammar and the other is a common but incorrect contraction of two words into a non word.
Let's not even get back to your totally ridiculous assertion that the original poster is a paid-for shill because you deliberately (or otherwise) misrepresented his comment.
I assume you just don't get called on being wrong very often and it has annoyed you. If you want to borrow a shovel to keep digging then I have one right here for you.
To add to the collusion fever:
Notice that the feature was added to the very bottom of the Cellular Data option list.
After all the apps.
It is the feature that Apple's Telecom partners didn't want you to see.
Apologies. I had mis-read your initial post as wanting email and IM in order to work.
I still think you're unfairly blaming the other users, though. Blame the provider. Any decent network config should easily transport email and IM even when it's so clogged as to make video unwatchable. They probably over-prioritize audio and video to avoid buffering issues to the point of completely destroying everything else. It's not the fault of the other people. After all, they're just using the service they paid for. It's the fault of the service provider for under-provisioning that location and for prioritizing streaming video such that it trumps everything else.
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
For Android users, I would strongly recommend My Data Manager. There have been times that it has picked up on system routines using data that the Android data manager didn't catch. MDM matched my provider's chart of my data usage spot-on. The Android manager was reporting 1 gig below where it should have been.
The culprit in this case was "Google Contact Sync" which somehow managed to use almost 400mb one day and almost 500mb the next.