Of course they do and Apple themselves did it often enough in the 80s and 90s when facing strong competition from Microsoft.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Tile CEO: 'We Welcome Competition From Apple, But We Think It Needs to Be Fair'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
there is fair competition and then there is companies wanting something for nothing. right now... it seems like Epic and Tile want the later. Apple built and maintains the ecosystem...they shouldn't have to have a "Level playing field". This would be like expecting Microsoft to allow a PlayStation controller to work on an Xbox. That being said...Apple could learn a bit from all this pushback and provide some friendlier terms, fees, and app requirements. Doing so would lessen their detractors and give Apple products more choices.
I’m not upset about the EULA, so I’ve no desire to test it. And, I wouldn’t recommend any lawyer attempt to challenge them. However, for those that ARE upset about the EULA and can find a lawyer to take them to court (be warned, the lawyer MAY ask for some cash up front), I’d say go right ahead!
Nobody but Microsoft stopped themselves from taking a decent share of the smartphone market. A huge chunk of consumers have zero brand loyalty and are there for the taking by any market participant. The fact Microsoft failed to deliver a product consumers wanted to buy, is what led to a luke-warm reception from developers.
Microsoft don't seem to have had any challenges entering the tablet market... which is equally dominated by Apple and Android.
And do game companies not pay a royalty to the distribution platform?
Is Tile and Apple both making a product for customers to choose one over the other?
I think you're supporting my argument 😄
Not so fast. Isn't that exactly what Apple did? They could've licensed the iPod UI to mobile phone manufacturers back in 2007 or earlier, but they didn't. They wanted control over the entire system, so they designed it and built it. So if other companies want to follow suit, they should.
A cartel? This is essentially a company who created the cup holder for a car complaining that all the cars now already come with cup holders.
I don’t remember you saying that a year ago (assuming you actually own a Tile product) but I am happy to be corrected if you can point me towards any of your posts criticising Tile before AirTags. It’s easy to check. Just click on your username at the top of the screen then select Your Content and scroll through all your previous posts.
I absolutely guarantee you that every tracker on the market has child safety concerns. But they flew under the radar because they were barely used.
Why should Apple allow Tile special privileges on their platform? Is Tile paying Apple for these software changes? Should Apple allow anyone else to do that? You expectation of accommodating every random technology that wants to use your platform is not reasonable for Apple. They don’t get anything out of it and have to maintain new code that doesn’t help them.
Tile could protect itself with patents. If they had none for the tech then anyone can replicate it. It’s tough out there for an innovator like Tile. No lie. Once a set of technologies exist and can be made anyone can compete just like Apple faces thousands of Bluetooth wireless headphones now.
that's nonsenseIf 30% is enough to eliminate profit, then there are other more fundamental issues with the business. They’re not charging enough, they’ve hired too many people, they’re paying the people too much, they’ve ramped up cloud costs faster than new customers are joining, the new customers are not enthused so not telling other users about the service, the new customers are actively telling users NOT to use the service, etc.
For any company making less than 1 million, it’s only 15%… and again if 15% is enough to eliminate profit, the FIRST place to look is how you’re running your business. If the expectation is that revenue=profit, then they should hire a business planner.
There are fundamental issues with a business who cannot afford to lose 30% of their revenues? did you seriously think this out before typing?
DO I need to go over business 101? I am not planning on typing out basic business all day.
Most businesses in this world do not operate at the absurd profit margins that big tech does. Nor even Apple itself.
The whole very reason why Apple doesn't have so many competitors in most of it's market space, and able to afford such massive profit margins is because of it's heavily vertically integrated monopolistic locked in business practices.
There are benefits to us for this. I am not a hater who doesn't see some of the bonuses of the integration and security they have.
But to believe that Apple forcing 30% of all revenues from companies just to be allowed to sell on the app store isn't going to seriously harm competition is delusional. Virtually any business who isn't in Apple's position will be hurt by 30%.
I'm also not going to support "0". There's fees and it should be acceptable. However, there are legit questions about the ethicalness of Apple participating in the market, while also controlling and dictating that market.
We like making anologies. so here's a loose one.
THink of Apple as the regulatory body of the government over the economy. They can pick and chose what businesses are allowed to exist. every business must pay 30% of all revenues in tax to them.
that regulatory body than comes and sets up competition to you. but it doesn't have to pay 30% tax.
if you don't see why that's ethically questionable, than i'm done.
The Microsoft tablet runs Android so no of course they didn’t have any problems. Their phone ran Windows Mobile. They had a compelling product but couldn’t persuade enough developers to port their apps across. With apps a smartphone OS is dead in the water. Developers simply didn’t want another platform to develop for. If Microsoft had taken the smartphone seriously from the beginning we could easily have three operating systems to chose from today.
Then don't build a product that relies on someone else's tech that you have no control over.
Wait, WHAT? So, your point of view is that if someone was to produce a groundbreaking phone with an amazing UI that delights customers at a reasonable price, with features that go beyond what anyone’s ever seen before… that it WOULDN’T be successful? Because I think Apple showed that if you DO do those things you’ll be successful. The bar has been raised but to assume that there’s something magical about Apple that makes it impossible for anyone to make anything better… I don’t even know what to say about that.
What stopped Microsoft was that customers didn’t want it. How badly did people NOT want it? They didn’t want it SOOO badly, that even purchasing the number one Cellphone maker of the day (Nokia) could not help it. Nokia went from top dog in smartphone sales to number nothing overnight because people did not want that OS.
Yeah, developers don’t want to develop for more than two operating systems. Let’s see
1) PC - of many varying performance levels
2) Sony Playstation
2) Microsoft Xbox
2) Nintendo Switch
Yup, by my count, that’s 2 operating systems. I was thinking that developers want to develop for whatever they think will make them money, but I think it’s that they really just want to develop for only 2 OS’s.
oh boy do you not know the can of worms this statement opens up due to it's naivety.
or Chipolo, there are two “Find My” enabled products that have been announced.
Do you really need to see people complain to believe they were unhappy with a product? You'll virtually never see me complain about anything but I have to tell you, Tile was on to something and they dropped the ball. I've actually met people who bought into Tile not knowing that it would require people to be using the app to assist in tracking their tag. Even in a major metropolitan area, you'd be lucky if anyone ever picked up the signal. Adding a subscription was really the last straw...your product is already hit or miss on functionality, and now you're trying to put features behind a pay wall? Those features would have helped to sell the product had they not cut them off.
Tile's best bet was, long ago, to offer themselves up for sale to one of the platforms their trackers depended on. This is something that needed to be baked in to the OS, not part of an app, to really reach its potential. Their second best bet was to create a standard that those companies could have adopted easily and integrated into their OS. From day one, it was obvious that Tile would never be part of the end game with the strategy they adopted.
Both Google and Apple have the unique ability to own this market, even Samsung doesn't really have a chance with their tag. Rest assured, Google Tags are on the way.
They could build a cross platform tool that worked the same way as Apple’s Find My network. They instead chose to create a tracking network that does nothing to preserve privacy.
They have every right to charge for their network if they choose. However, given their lack of privacy preservation and that (at least in the past), they reserved the right to resell that data, why would I want to opt-in to it?
No one is forced to opt-in to the Find My network. While its functionality has been expanding, it has been around for years. Given that protecting Apple Devices from loss and theft is at the core of this service, it makes sense that it should be free. Tile could absolutely charge for their service, if they offered something that Apple did/could not, for example cross platform support.
No one is forced to opt-in to the Find My network. Everyone who does so explicitly has to opt-in. Are you arguing that Apple should now be forced to charge for a service they have been providing for free so that Tile can now charge for a service they used to provide for free?
No, it is not opt-in for ad tracking, it is opt-in for third party app tracking. First parties can track to their hearts content. Second, no one is automatically enrolled, when setting up a device, users are required to consent to location services if they wish to take advantage of the service. Users may choose to participate in the service or not.
Surface runs on Android? That's new.
And bingo. So we agree, Microsoft's failure in the smartphone market was because they failed to deliver. Not the market preventing their entry.