I'm reading this and finding it difficult to find the wrong-doing.
> Apple users get a small amount of free storage, but once that runs out they are encouraged to pay for iCloud to back up photos, videos, messages, contacts and other content from their devices.
> Prices range from 99p a month for 50GB to £54.99 a month for 12TB.
Dropbox charges $10/m for 50GB of data. Google charges $2/m for 100GB. Doesn't sound unreasonable on Apple's side especially if its integrated.
> Apple does not give rival storage services full access to its devices, saying this is for security reasons - although it also means iCloud has more features than non-Apple alternatives.
Why should Apple give rival storage services full access to its devices? And what does this even mean? Can you not use Dropbox (for 10x the price) on an iPhone?
> Consumers who used iCloud between November 2018 and June 2026 and were living in the UK on 8 June will be included in the claim unless they opt out.
You have to opt out of a class-action lawsuit? I imagine the lawyers get a percent of payout so it makes sense they try to loop in as many people as possible.
Is there any other way to read this verdict other than a money grab?
> Why should Apple give rival storage services full access to its devices?
The devices are not theirs, for starters. And potentially - considering there is no ruling yet - because UK law requires that a provider in a dominant position not use that positive to impose unfair trading conditions.
You might find it better to read the case rather than a BBC News article. It contains the legal details and should help answer your questions. Be sure to click into the attachments.
I pay for 6TB of iCloud storage for my family that I would be more than willing to self host if it was as frictionless as iCloud for backups and photos.
I'm reading this and finding it difficult to find the wrong-doing.
> Apple users get a small amount of free storage, but once that runs out they are encouraged to pay for iCloud to back up photos, videos, messages, contacts and other content from their devices.
> Prices range from 99p a month for 50GB to £54.99 a month for 12TB.
Dropbox charges $10/m for 50GB of data. Google charges $2/m for 100GB. Doesn't sound unreasonable on Apple's side especially if its integrated.
> Apple does not give rival storage services full access to its devices, saying this is for security reasons - although it also means iCloud has more features than non-Apple alternatives.
Why should Apple give rival storage services full access to its devices? And what does this even mean? Can you not use Dropbox (for 10x the price) on an iPhone?
> Consumers who used iCloud between November 2018 and June 2026 and were living in the UK on 8 June will be included in the claim unless they opt out.
You have to opt out of a class-action lawsuit? I imagine the lawyers get a percent of payout so it makes sense they try to loop in as many people as possible.
Is there any other way to read this verdict other than a money grab?
> Why should Apple give rival storage services full access to its devices?
The devices are not theirs, for starters. And potentially - considering there is no ruling yet - because UK law requires that a provider in a dominant position not use that positive to impose unfair trading conditions.
You might find it better to read the case rather than a BBC News article. It contains the legal details and should help answer your questions. Be sure to click into the attachments.
https://www.catribunal.org.uk/cases/16897724-consumers-assoc...
I pay for 6TB of iCloud storage for my family that I would be more than willing to self host if it was as frictionless as iCloud for backups and photos.