HN Explorer

Ask HN: Sierra macOS 4gb download without confirmation, is this acceptable?

16 points by jasonm23 ↗ HN
I tethered my mac for a skype call a week or so ago, and when I was done my cell data usage had jumped 4.7gb or more...

This blew my cell data quota for the month. I wasn't possible that a skype call could have taken so much data, even a long one.

I didn't have time to investigate the cause I was just irritated, and assumed maybe OSX had installed a patch to El Capitan, which is annoying enough. While I'd prefer to be notified for each of these downloads, I know I'd opted in for this and I'd be warned this time to make sure I had it switched off.

Today, I figured I'd try Sierra, and of course, it was the full OS installer that had been downloaded on my cell, the date and time and size all matched.

I am sure the definition of "Update" could be twisted here, but holy expletives, this is a royal pain.

I wonder what HN thinks about this? Do we accept that a full OS update should be part of the standard opt in for "app store updates"?

Obviously for my case, it was a problem.

27 comments

[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 70.7 ms ] thread
mattkrea
If you are tethering it is on you to monitor your usage
Hydraulix989
I disagree, but playing along with that, how would you recommend users doing this? How do you monitor your usage while tethering? Have you ever caught something?

Users shouldn't have to worry about unattended OS downloads like this one happening without their permission or awareness.

raverbashing
Why wasn't it untethered after the skype call?

Or, you know, just use skype on your phone

The real question is, why did it only try to update and download Sierra then?

This is one of the reasons I don't leave any downloads to automatic.

jasonm23
Skype mobile client wasn't working.

During the Skype call I had shitty QOS too, and yes, the full download had completed by the time I'd finished the meeting, because the MacBook was closed immediately after.

I will turn off automatic download now, obviously, but I honestly believe that a OS upgrade isn't acceptable as a background download.

Simply because it's not an automatically applied update.

raverbashing
> but I honestly believe that a OS upgrade isn't acceptable as a background download.

Yeah, I totally agree. You might not even want it

jasonm23
Seems the only solution is to turn off all background downloads, and just kick them manually.

On reflection, I don't think I'm actually gaining that much (or anything at all) by letting them run automatically anyway. It's a false convenience.

tnone
Install iStat menus, watch the download bandwidth gauge, look at per process bandwidth in the drop down when it is unexpectedly high.

A computer without a network bandwidth display is like a car without a speedometer. I wish all OSes had this, would cut down on people's mystery wifi complaints.

Hydraulix989
A bunch of (ostensibly "meaningless" to non-techie) gauges would be too confusing for most people.
cjcampbell
Apple could do more in this case, or at least inform users of this risk when they are tethered. Take a look at TripMode to prevent it from happening again. I've relied on it a handful of times to limit background data transfer.
Hydraulix989
I feel like most software isn't designed with the most conservative policies in mind when it comes to data usage (Facebook does a great job though, I'll admit).

Part of the reason might be that software engineers at companies like Microsoft and Google have unlimited data as a perk with their employees' personal cell phones (even still on Verizon today when a regular Joe cannot even get unlimited data anymore).

After leaving BigCo, I never upgraded my phone again because of the perk.

damm
So go into Settings, then App Store pref panel and uncheck Download newly available updates in the background.

As far as opt-in or opt-out; we seem to be in the always on era... where computers and devices always assume it's up

ahoka
Well, on Windows 10 it's disabled by default to download updates over metered connections. I'm not sure about how accurately can it detect tethering, but theres a manual check box.
tedmiston
Mine doesn't auto download OS updates. It only sends a push notification which can be dismissed with remind me tomorrow.
jasonm23
To clarify this was an OS Upgrade. If it was an update, I wouldn't be surprised at all.
tedmiston
OS update vs upgrade — not sure if there's a difference but I'm also referring to the ~4 GB macOS Sierra installer.
BjoernKW
Yes, that's the expected behaviour if you activate automatic downloads. That said, what I find annoying is that every minor Apple OS update, iOS and macOS alike, from the download size at least seems to include the entire OS again. Minor updates should be incremental.

I suppose Windows isn't any different. Linux on the other hand is much more frugal in terms of individual upgrade download sizes because the actual OS is just the kernel while the rest of the software can be updated independently.

ksec
Same with iOS Apps. Apple doesn't seems to care about their bandwidth transfer.

May be there is a reason behind this. I would love to know why.

tedmiston
I'm not sure what the default is, but in my settings, "Use Cellular Data" for automatic updates is off.
minnowguy
He said he was tethered to the phone during the Skype call. The laptop probably doesn't know it is using a cellular connection.
andrewstuart2
That's not to say it couldn't try to guess, though. Not that I'd have thought of this unprompted, but low bandwidth, high latency, and an IP address (as seen by the update server) assigned to a mobile carrier. Seems like a good time to throw a pop-up and say "We think you might be tethered. Are you sure you want to continue downloading four gigabytes?"

As an aside, and if it doesn't already, DHCP should have some way of altering clients that they're on a metered connection.

tedmiston
The parent comment is talking about iOS though.
Tempest1981
Is that true? Read the last paragraph here:

https://developer.apple.com/library/content/qa/qa1779/_index...

"For devices running iOS 7.1 and later, the update package may include only the differences between the old and new versions of a changed file instead of the full file. This may significantly reduce the size of the update package in the case where only a small part of a large file changes"

(Not sure why it says "may")

ksec
That is the iOS itself. Not Apps. You have to download 150MB everytime there is an Facebook update.
slhck
I think this is absolutely acceptable. Automatic updates are generally useful. I guess the only aspect to improve from a usability perspective would be making users aware of the fact that something is being downloaded in the background – think of app updates in iOS with the pie chart animation on the app icon. There could be a similar notification in macOS's menu bar.

The real problem, obviously, is that the OS itself does not know if it is tethered to a data-capped mobile connection or an unlimited fixed line. If operating systems (both on mobile and desktop computers) were built to handle the first case, the user would have an option to stop any background activity or app updates. Like a “data-capped mode” for the entire OS.

I frequently use my mobile (with limited data) to give Internet access to friends who come from abroad and therefore have no data roaming enabled. Of course, once these mobiles see they're on WiFi, they assume they can download app updates. With LTE, it's easy enough to burn through a lot of data in no time.

jasonm23
Had I been answering the post myself, I'd say something similar.

I think it's simply the fact I got directly impacted that I feel differently.

That said, it's still 50/50 for me, but full OS upgrade downloads are not a simple update, and I think they should be a different opt in class.

The main reason is because these are not auto applied like a regular update, and the payload is in a different realm altogether.

rikkus
W10 lets you flag a wifi network as metered so that it knows not to transfer as much over it. Seems OS X could do with the same- or is there perhaps some non-obvious setting already perhaps?
Kanakaberaka
I think its bad, but its up for consideration. Fact. It will be. The way the market is moving, Apple/Microsoft - benefit best if they can move all users in a tide of upgrades - We are being conditioned - to accept software as a service - and even Operating Systems as a service. To do it, you have to be able to control the update/install cycle on the machine. We're close. When we are completely tethered, then on the heels of a Whiz Bang introduction, we will be told that all machines 'can only' (a nice way of saying must) - run an os issued today. Once we've gotten accustomed to that. Then we will be given the option to subscribe (pay) to the operating system, or have our devices no longer work.

The 'all' update - has to be a part of this process - similar events are happening with Win10 - its not mandatory, but it's very passive aggressive forceful. Why? the next business milestone depends on being able to move the customers to the next OS. (and then the next).