Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

iOS 11 Will Prevent Your iPhone From Automatically Connecting To Unreliable Wi-Fi Networks (trustedreviews.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the headache-free dept.

A new feature spotted in iOS 11 beta 2 intelligently manages wireless networks based on their reliability, learning to ignore those that are too far away to provide a consistent experience. TrustedReviews reports: It follows the company's Wi-Fi Assist feature which meant handsets would switch to a data connection when Wi-Fi networks became too slow. Naturally, users weren't thrilled with the resulting data usage issues, and it seems Apple is looking to do better this time around. This new feature will disable "Auto join" for any network which suffers from low speed issues or is deemed to be generally unreliable. Users will, of course, still be able to join these networks manually, but the change should prevent the frustration that comes from iPhones automatically joining networks users know to be inadequate. At this point, there's no way to know how well the feature will work, and there will undoubtedly be issues when it eventually arrives in iOS 11.

49 of 88 comments (clear)

  1. Recent XKCD post by cerberusss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's actually a very recent XKCD post about reliability of WiFi versus cellular: https://xkcd.com/1865/

    --
    8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    1. Re:Recent XKCD post by peragrin · · Score: 1

      90% of wifi nodes are the isps modem that they rent you. Placed in a convient spot for cable tv but not broadcasting wireless. I have always had my own routers and ap's and as such speeds are decent and coverage is great. My current house if setup the traditional way would have coverage for the main house barely. My setup with an outside ap and ceiling mounting ap covers the house, the garage the driveway and half the back yard in usable signal.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:Recent XKCD post by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

      You mean $50k radios, with access to highly regulated frequencies, in bands that are far better suited for long-range communication provide a better connection than the cheap pieces of shit most people put in their homes, usually in awful locations, on an unregulated and congested frequency band? Man, I'm shocked.

    3. Re:Recent XKCD post by skids · · Score: 1

      It's not like, with apple devices, using an uncongested 5GHz band will help, unless you know enough to tune down your 2.4G radios so the 5GHz signal is always at least 3dB stronger, and play with the beacon interval to make 5GHz statistically more likely to be seen. And, make sure you aren't still joined to the AP by the door you came in from, because Apple wifi drivers won't let go of it despite being right next to another AP.

      I can't wait to see what new hell iOS11 brings to our enterprise setup.

      --
      Someone had to do it.
    4. Re:Recent XKCD post by skids · · Score: 1

      Heheh. I know who YOU are. Congratulations on stalking me into a completely apolitical thread.

      --
      Someone had to do it.
  2. So... not actually addressing the issue by mrbester · · Score: 2

    Nothing there suggests that users still won't get bumped to a cellular network should the wireless one be deemed to be slow / unreliable (what is "slow"? Is that configurable?) just that you have to force the connection as it has been flagged. Will the forced connection remain even if it is "unreliable"?

    How about just a notification on the icon (like a ! ) to easily let the user know the connection isn't up to snuff for whatever reason? Then the _user_ can decide if they want to go on a (potentially metered) cellular network. This can have an configuration option (default off) that automatically does this should the user be on an unmetered plan.

    Given the options of "pay and get the content (probably an add) quicker" or "I can wait a few more seconds for free" even iPhone users would probably choose the latter.

    --
    "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    1. Re:So... not actually addressing the issue by mrbester · · Score: 1

      Yeah I know: "add". I even corrected the auto-correct, but it auto-corrected itself...

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    2. Re:So... not actually addressing the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > but it auto-corrected itself...

      This is eerily self-referencial. There's another post up there about "corporations knowing better than end users", and I was about to answer that what infuriates me is "software know better than end users", which to me is designer meta-arrogance. Utterly insulting.

      Sadly, you even meet this pattern in free software!

      Then, there you have it: your autocorrect knows better than you.

    3. Re:So... not actually addressing the issue by necro81 · · Score: 1

      Nothing there suggests that users still won't get bumped to a cellular network should the wireless one be deemed to be slow / unreliable

      That is a feature (or is it a bug?) that is easily disabled. One could argue that it ought to be turned off by default, rather than turned on. I've had it off for years. Considering that turning WiFi on an off is one swipe and tap away in most circumstances, it is trivial for me (or anyone else) to fall back on cellular data when the WiFi is crappy.

      I'll ask the audience: is there anyone who feels that WiFi Assist is a useful feature?

    4. Re:So... not actually addressing the issue by MikeMo · · Score: 1

      You already have this. It's obvious when the connection isn't working well. With your suggestion, things would remain as they are: you notice internet sucks, you go turn off wifi.

      I have this happen to me all the time. I happen to have an Xfinity cable, and my phone automatically connects to any Xfinity hotspots when I'm outside the home. They usually suck, and I have to go to settings and turn wifi off. I hate having to do that, because I usually forget to turn it back on!

      I'm looking forward to this feature.

    5. Re:So... not actually addressing the issue by swb · · Score: 1

      I think it's useful to the extent that the WiFi "signal strength" meter is 3 bars of meaningless information, and I'm often in a location where I get "1 bar" WiFi. I *could* let the app time out, swipe around to turn off WiFi (and forget to turn it back on) and then just use cellular, but it seems to me that assist prevents most data timeouts and gets me the useful information I'm looking for without a bunch of manual intervention.

      Of course, it's mostly when I'm doing something that requires a small amount of data so the "extra" cellular data is really insignificant. And in fact, the extra cellular data used by WiFi assist is probably less than the extra cellular data consumed by forgetting WiFi is off and being in an area of good coverage (like at home) and then consuming a bunch of data without realizing you're slurping cellular.

      Of course, I'm not a huge consumer of video on the phone with primary access to WiFi on always-marginal networks. I could see where those people get burned, but for ordinary app-type data access, I think assist is a smart feature.

      My wife is a great example -- she was majorly spiking data usage, and I figured out she had "auto join" enabled and was just smart enough to turn off WiFi to get data service, and never turned it back on. I disabled auto-join for her and her data usage actually went down as she stopped connecting to shitty hotspots and stopped turning WiFi off as often.

    6. Re:So... not actually addressing the issue by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Nothing there suggests that users still won't get bumped to a cellular network should the wireless one be deemed to be slow / unreliable (what is "slow"? Is that configurable?) just that you have to force the connection as it has been flagged. Will the forced connection remain even if it is "unreliable"?

      How about just a notification on the icon (like a ! ) to easily let the user know the connection isn't up to snuff for whatever reason? Then the _user_ can decide if they want to go on a (potentially metered) cellular network. This can have an configuration option (default off) that automatically does this should the user be on an unmetered plan.

      Given the options of "pay and get the content (probably an add) quicker" or "I can wait a few more seconds for free" even iPhone users would probably choose the latter.

      Yeah, Apple is evil, and wants you to spend money ON A CELL NETWORK THEY DON'T OWN.

      Riiiight.

      Fucking Haters.

    7. Re:So... not actually addressing the issue by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      What? Your home wifi doesn't have a unique SSID?

      It occurred to me long ago that a great attack vector would be to have an open network with a common default SSID. Especially for people who's gadgets autoconnect to whatever their default wireless name is at home.

      I don't connect to any open wireless network named after an ISP or a router manufacturer, and all the wifi systems I've set up have unique, meaningful names. (And they're not open, but that's another discussion.)

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    8. Re:So... not actually addressing the issue by mrbester · · Score: 1

      No, my point was that to give the user the fastest response the phone switches networks for them. The priority is on the speed of transfer (which is fair enough, users want content NOW),, not any associated cost that might arise from it.

      Maybe Apple think that if you can afford their stuff you're most likely on an unmetered plan or don't mind a few dollars extra on your bill at the end of the month. Or maybe they didn't even consider the unintended circumstance because it didn't affect any of those who thought it was a good idea. I'd go with the latter because of the complaints mentioned in TFS.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    9. Re:So... not actually addressing the issue by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      No, my point was that to give the user the fastest response the phone switches networks for them. The priority is on the speed of transfer (which is fair enough, users want content NOW),, not any associated cost that might arise from it.

      Maybe Apple think that if you can afford their stuff you're most likely on an unmetered plan or don't mind a few dollars extra on your bill at the end of the month. Or maybe they didn't even consider the unintended circumstance because it didn't affect any of those who thought it was a good idea. I'd go with the latter because of the complaints mentioned in TFS.

      I think that any algorithm may have corner-cases and weighting-issues; and I also think that Apple will need some real-world data to tune said algorithm.

      IOW, it's too soon to tell.

  3. Sketchy Wifi maybe more of a concern by rmdingler · · Score: 2

    so it won't work with most hotel wifi?

    "Of course it will very very much.

    Please enjoy here shopping and banking online."

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Sketchy Wifi maybe more of a concern by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Isn't this one of the problems that HTTPs is supposed to fix? The wifi might be bugged, but you can verify you are really talking to the bank and then establish a secure connection over HTTPs and your details are protected.

      If it were any other way you would be pretty much screwed because your packets have to pass through many untrusted servers on their way to the bank.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Sketchy Wifi maybe more of a concern by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      Isn't this one of the problems that HTTPs is supposed to fix? The wifi might be bugged, but you can verify you are really talking to the bank and then establish a secure connection over HTTPs and your details are protected.

      If it were any other way you would be pretty much screwed because your packets have to pass through many untrusted servers on their way to the bank.

      Maybe.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

  4. No way of knowing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    At this point, there's no way to know how well the feature will work

    Well given that there's a public beta and your website is called TrustedReviews, how about you do your job, install the beta, and review how it works? Or are you just going to regurgitate information you found on the web? Because that's not a review I trust.

  5. How about deleting old networks by necro81 · · Score: 1

    When traveling, I often join a local WiFi network for an hour or a day. When I am leaving the area, I don't always remember to go into iOS wifi settings and saying to "forget this network". Once the network is out of range, I don't know of a way to tell iOS to forget about it. I know that this increases my threat envelope somewhat, because iOS will keep looking for that network (or one with the same SSID).

    So: does anyone know of a way to get iOS to list all the WiFi networks it has remembered, so that they can be selectively deleted? does someone produce an app for that? OS X has had this ability since...well...forever. Why doesn't iOS have it?

    1. Re:How about deleting old networks by Frederic54 · · Score: 1

      hummm, well, it's 2017, and has been in every windows distro or android, so this must exist in iOS too

      --
      "Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:How about deleting old networks by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 1

      OS X and iOS have been exchanging WiFi connections for ages so I wonder if you delete it from OS X, if that will delete it from iOS as well.
      I can't test is as this feature for some reason does not work with my iCloud account and I can't get it to work.

  6. old beta had this as well by johnjones · · Score: 1

    what really is intriguing is the evaluation of the network bandwidth since apple can not even set the captive portal detection server they run to send HTTP headers correctly to no-cache... I'd like to see their workings and I'm sure the network administrators who control the MDM systems would as well...

    Apple has quite an investment in the enterprise space and a change to networking would be quite a change...

    regards

    John Jones

  7. Re:Of course, of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Eh? This isn't about you losing any control - you retain the choice to join any WiFi network you like.

    It's about the OS not choosing to auto-join ones that don't work.

  8. Re:Network Neutrality by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    Haven't you heard? There's no team working on AirPort products at Apple anymore. That means even Apple users need to buy bug-ridden, backdoor-infested routers from crap companies now.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  9. Re:Of course, of course... by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2

    I'm more surprised anyone would auto-join open wireless networks at all. Why would you want it to, without asking?

    It doesn't. It joins known networks to which you've previously connected. You can also tell it to forget a network.

  10. Re: Of course, of course... by joetomato · · Score: 2

    10 years without a UI update is EXACTLY what I would want in an OS. The whole point of an OS is to allow me to run software and stay the hell out of my way. Changing a usable UI just for the sake of changing it is just a learning curve nobody needs.

  11. Why not just let users set a signal threshhold? by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

    I have this same problem on my Android phone. Both my cellular and my home internet ISPs have hotspots all over the place that I can use for "free" (read included with my plans). They really do have heavy coverage which is handy if you are in a business or public venue or whatever and can connect to their "free" wifi. The problem is, I may walk into a business that is a few doors down from one with a hotspot, and my phone will happily connect to the SSID at -85 dBm. This is not a particularly useable signal, and I end up having to disable wifi so I can have a proper connection on LTE, then remember to enable it again when I leave.

    If I could just have a setting that says "Don't connect to any wifi below (insert signal strength here, I'd probably go with about -60 to -65 dBm)", problem solved. Yes I know SNR matters too, but the above would probably take care of the vast majority of cases that cause me issues.

    1. Re:Why not just let users set a signal threshhold? by hackel · · Score: 1

      Obviously asking users to understand what signal strength in dB means is not an option. They could have a slider or something, though. "poor-low-med-high' etc. In the meantime, you can enable "Aggressive Wi-Fi to Mobile handover" in developer options.

    2. Re:Why not just let users set a signal threshhold? by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      Then I end up on LTE when I am at home sitting next to my access point. I'm not sure how it is trying to measure "bandwidth", but it does not work well.

  12. What constitutes unreliable? by HyperStasis · · Score: 1

    And how long before blocking malware/adware/marketing at the router level considered "unreliable"?

  13. Re:Of course, of course... by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

    If you wanted control, you would never go for apple. Apple is for sheep. :)

    Listen, FUCKTARD:

    1. You can disable Auto-Join.

    2. You can tell it to "Forget" a Network.

    3. It NEVER Joins a "NEW" (never previously connected) Network without ASKING first.

    So, take your HATER BULLSHIT and SHOVE IT UP YOUR ANONYMOUS, COWARDLY ASS!!!

    Got it?

  14. Re: Of course, of course... by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

    10 years without a UI update is EXACTLY what I would want in an OS. The whole point of an OS is to allow me to run software and stay the hell out of my way. Changing a usable UI just for the sake of changing it is just a learning curve nobody needs.

    EXACTLY.

    The opposite of that is what you got with the Windows 7 to 8 transition.

  15. Lagging behind as usual... by hackel · · Score: 1

    I believe Android has had this feature since at least the 4.0 days. It definitely seems like a must. Apple is too focused on shiny toys to attract their baby-like fans instead of actual technical solutions people need. Oh well, glad they've finally gotten it.

  16. Re:Network Neutrality by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

    Haven't you heard? There's no team working on AirPort products at Apple anymore. That means even Apple users need to buy bug-ridden, backdoor-infested routers from crap companies now.

    Which actually concerns me greatly. Since they were never one of the growing number of router and AP brands that had exploits.

    Guess I need to buy one of their AC routers before they're all gone...

  17. Re:Of course, of course... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    Orphaned again...

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  18. Re:Of course, of course... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    No, don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.

    (um, it's just a phone...)

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  19. Re:Of course, of course... by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

    No, don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.

    (um, it's just a phone...)

    Tell that to the Haters.

  20. It may be deemed unreliable, but.... by aklinux · · Score: 1

    My Android devices have been doing this as well lately, especially my Pixel C, and I get it. The problem is that I realize that the network has some reliability issues when I choose to connect to it but it's what's available without using up my cellular data allowances. All the available WiFi in the area is about the same as far as reliability goes. My choices are to tolerate it, or go to my home or office for a "reliable" connection.

  21. Sounds good to me, if it is what I think it is by blindseer · · Score: 1

    At home when storms roll through my crappy cable internet can die on my but the Wi-Fi signal will still be strong. My iPhone will keep hammering away at the Wi-Fi because it sees a signal but it goes no where. If I disable the Wi-Fi and use the cellular network instead then I can go back to my e-mail, surf the web, or whatever. If the iPhone was smart enough to switch to cellular data when the Wi-Fi internet connection dies on me then that would be convenient. When the Wi-Fi internet comes back, because the cable company finally got their act together, then I'd like the iPhone to switch back automatically without me having to remember to re-enable Wi-Fi.

    I'd want some indication on the screen that a Wi-Fi connection is available but deemed "unworthy" so I can look into why it failed. This is also so I can be aware I'm using my limited cell data instead of an unlimited Wi-Fi. I have certain apps disabled from using cellular data to keep me from going too far on grabbing data but even so I have to watch myself. For instance I had web browsing disabled on the cellular network to keep me from watching YouTube and using up all my data, but then I found that this also kept me from comparing prices online as I shopped. Some finer grained control might be handy here as well.

    I will say that the Wi-Fi calling feature sure it nice. As I sit in my basement office I'll sometimes have a marginal cell signal. With Wi-Fi calling it's not a worry, at least until storms knock out my cable internet again. It was also nice to see that I could still make phone calls even in a basement lecture hall. No cell signal there but the campus Wi-Fi worked.

    It seems this preference for Wi-Fi is now becoming a problem and it's nice to see Apple working on it.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    1. Re:Sounds good to me, if it is what I think it is by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      At home when storms roll through my crappy cable internet can die on my but the Wi-Fi signal will still be strong. My iPhone will keep hammering away at the Wi-Fi because it sees a signal but it goes no where

      Fair enough. A great wifi radio signal with no backhaul would be kind of the opposite of my issue and just as annoying. Hopefully future solutions will consider all the various failure modes.

    2. Re:Sounds good to me, if it is what I think it is by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      You could swap your iPhone with an Android phone and this problem will be fixed.

      Or you could want until the iOS update with this feature and you phone will start ignoring your home WiFi completely, even when there is no storm.

  22. Like Android? by taniwha · · Score: 1

    My Nexus6 wont connect to wifi in China if the phone is connected .... why? because Google considers a network to be seriously broken if you can't access Google's servers .... so Google thinks your expensive roaming connection is the only valid connection you have

    You can get around this by doing the counter intuitive going into flight mode and then tuirning on wifi

    While it's arguable that the connection IS broken it's still useful (wechat works for example) even if you're stuck with bing

    1. Re:Like Android? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      You can turn off mobile data without flight mode. You can still use the cellular connection for calling and text messaging.

  23. I have an idea by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    Perhaps the phone should only automatically connect to networks the user has requested it do so.

    Like on my laptop, there is a "Connect automatically" checkbox.

    1. Re:I have an idea by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      Like on my laptop, there is a "Connect automatically" checkbox.

      Yes. We would like a "Connect automatically if this network is better than the one I'm on" checkbox, with a handful of parameters to define better.

  24. Re:Of course, of course... by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

    No, they're just putting a bit of common sense into which connection they'll use. As opposed to Android, which will strain for minutes at a time to connect to some dodgy WiFi signal with the throughput of a 2400bps modem rather than using the high-speed 4G cellular that's all around it. Or connect to the 1-bar WiFi with almost no connectivity when there's a five-bar signal present alongside it. Or several other equally dumb options.

  25. Re: Of course, of course... by dbialac · · Score: 1

    Updating iOS wouldn't be "changing just for the sake of changing." iOS fails its users (and developers) because it can't take advantage of they types of things that more modern OS's (Android and Windows Phone) can. In a nutshell, the home screen is static, forcing you to bury yourself into various different applications in order to find information. People using either of these platforms have already put their phones away in the time it takes for a user of iOS to open up the app they need to get at the information they're looking for.

  26. Re: Of course, of course... by joetomato · · Score: 1
    I'll give you that, the iOS home screen is my worst pet peeve. I ended up putting my dozen or so apps into folders by subject so I can find stuff pretty much instantly but nobody else using my phone would stand a chance.

    but I'll still take it over the android way, my inlaws get a new Samsung note every other year and every time it's a totally new learning curve trying to find where all the settings got moved to this time.

    I know you can install your own launcher on android and get mostly the same experience, (used to use Nova Launcher and highly reckoned it) but like I said all the settings pages, where the buttons are and what they do etc, there's no good reason to mess with that and yet everyone but ios always seems to. (Even Mac OS is guilty of it so I'm not totally defending apple either)