3 ms·

This seems reasonable to me. An automatic download that size can be an issue in certain circumstances, but why is this blogger just assuming Apple hasn’t done

by jmull 9y ago

This seems reasonable to me. An automatic download that size can be an issue in certain circumstances, but why is this blogger just assuming Apple hasn’t done anything to address that? E.g., perhaps it doesn’t automatically download if you’re low on disk space. Perhaps they’ve even done something clever to determine when it might cost you download tolls and avoid it then too. I mean, if you use the internet much at all you are very likely involuntarily downloading a lot more than that in the form of ads and their associated video/audio, images, and tracking code. At least (as the blogger mentions) it’s generally good for people to be up-to-date. It’s just reality that there are so many people who simply won’t unless it’s easy and without a little prodding. I think people manufacture outrage at Apple for the attention it get them.

sago 9y ago
They haven't. I moved house three weeks ago, and was using a short-term cellular internet connection to stay in touch with emails, update version control, etc. The automatic download blew through all my bandwidth, and I needed to top up. I was able to control other downloads, no ads no video, etc. But I had no clue what had used all my bandwidth until it was done.
- tedmiston 9y ago
  This isn't really a problem with Apple's approach here as much as using a limited cellular data plan on macOS which opens a whole can of worms since you can't easily restrict which apps, especially daemons, have network access like you (mostly) can on iOS. You also can't really restrict whether loading a simple web article these days is a 5 KB download or a 5 MB download. The desktop web is just not mindful of bandwidth costs today since most cable connections have been unlimited historically. Hopefully this is a change we see a similar simple control over in the future. You might try something like Little Snitch if you really want to lockdown network traffic not initiated by yourself, however, there are also just so many background system services trying to use network that this can be a bit time-consuming to setup.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    https://www.tripmode.ch/ https://www.tripmode.ch/ It's $8, but has saved me so many times from blowing through data quotas.
    - sago 9y ago
      Good tip. It's never been a problem before, 4Gb for a few days is way more than I would normally use. Can you block the system from connecting to the Internet?
  - sago 9y ago
    :D - My fault, of course! It has worked fine before. Most background stuff checks for updates, downloads small stuff, I figure < 500Mb a day for gmail, my git repos, checking news, messaging apps: 5.6 Gb is an obnoxious amount. Not only size, but bandwidth. If you're really saying we should all be fine with and expect multigigabyte downloads happening at arbitrary times, without our consent, then I think we have a very different model of computing ethics.
    - tedmiston 9y ago
      I didn't say it was your fault — I only clarified why the expectations you have don't align with the reality of OS X, and moreover any desktop operating system, today and over the past decade. It may be worth re-reading my comment as I'm not arguing the interpretation you described: I didn't mention ethics and only described the reality of the situation we have today and one approach for addressing it.

by jmull 9y ago

sago 9y ago

They haven't. I moved house three weeks ago, and was using a short-term cellular internet connection to stay in touch with emails, update version control, etc. The automatic download blew through all my bandwidth, and I needed to top up. I was able to control other downloads, no ads no video, etc. But I had no clue what had used all my bandwidth until it was done.

tedmiston 9y ago
This isn't really a problem with Apple's approach here as much as using a limited cellular data plan on macOS which opens a whole can of worms since you can't easily restrict which apps, especially daemons, have network access like you (mostly) can on iOS. You also can't really restrict whether loading a simple web article these days is a 5 KB download or a 5 MB download. The desktop web is just not mindful of bandwidth costs today since most cable connections have been unlimited historically. Hopefully this is a change we see a similar simple control over in the future. You might try something like Little Snitch if you really want to lockdown network traffic not initiated by yourself, however, there are also just so many background system services trying to use network that this can be a bit time-consuming to setup.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  https://www.tripmode.ch/ https://www.tripmode.ch/ It's $8, but has saved me so many times from blowing through data quotas.
  - sago 9y ago
    Good tip. It's never been a problem before, 4Gb for a few days is way more than I would normally use. Can you block the system from connecting to the Internet?
- sago 9y ago
  :D - My fault, of course! It has worked fine before. Most background stuff checks for updates, downloads small stuff, I figure < 500Mb a day for gmail, my git repos, checking news, messaging apps: 5.6 Gb is an obnoxious amount. Not only size, but bandwidth. If you're really saying we should all be fine with and expect multigigabyte downloads happening at arbitrary times, without our consent, then I think we have a very different model of computing ethics.
  - tedmiston 9y ago
    I didn't say it was your fault — I only clarified why the expectations you have don't align with the reality of OS X, and moreover any desktop operating system, today and over the past decade. It may be worth re-reading my comment as I'm not arguing the interpretation you described: I didn't mention ethics and only described the reality of the situation we have today and one approach for addressing it.