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 Claims Apple's Anticompetitive Behavior Has 'Gotten Worse, Not Better'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I’m imagining how ugly a “design by committee” iPhone would look like.
See: Ugly AF Motorola ROKR
Something can hurt competition and still not be illegal. Being anti-competitive is only illegal in certain circumstances.
i don't get how this is uncompetitive. it's f-n competitive! if someone makes a better than yours - raise the bar, don't whine. i got excited about tile when it first came out when there was absolutely no talk of appletag, then i read into what it really is and realized it's very meh. this was years ago, and from what i can tell, they haven't improved s-t - just made various sizes. very innovative. blah.
I've worked on Console games for Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft and apple's certification requirements are nowhere near video game consoles.
They still allow apps that have their own log-in services and run their own servers whereas, for example, XBOX live, requires you to use the XBOX live matchmaking etc. A lot of their services (like Game Center) are optional whereas console manufacturers require you to make use of them. iOS apps work with different hardware and have inconsistent support whereas video game consoles have strict requirements for input handling down to features like global APIs for switching the right thumb stick Y-axis.
Console manufacturers also have much higher quality requirements, with games that crash being rejected. With every single release they do a strict test of the game, unlocking all the Achievements in the game and there may not be a single crash. While apple has that in their notes, their lax approval process rarely catches crashes and thus, iOS apps crash all the time. Game Console companies even test the gameplay itself and make sure that the game is a great addition to their portfolio and doesn't drag down the overall quality perception iff their brand. Especially Nintendo is very specific about this and only slaps their Nintendo logo on games that are really awesome. I could go on an on about requirements for maximum load times/time to interactivity and other things, but the point is:
I wish, Apple had quality standards like Microsoft, Nintendo or Sony for their game consoles because it would mean more quality for everyone instead of the inconsistent and buggy Apps that we have now.
What Apple is doing is a tradeoff between strict quality control and letting just everything in the store and upsetting companies calling their quality control "anticompetitive".
The fee that Apple charges for developers is also a joke and I wish there was a $20-30k fee for EVERY update like there used to be for XBOX games because it would make developers think about what they're submitting instead off pushing barely tested updates every few days. I used to be really afraid with every update because they will monkey-test your game and if they find a single crash or other violation of their in a strict two-week test, they'll reject it and you'll need to pay the fee again to re-submit. It was hell for developers but it was also awesome because it meant you were contributing to a great ecosystem instead of to a garage sale of crap.
However, in this case I agree that there's a disadvantage for the third party developer because they don't have accesss to the same APIs as Apple to create their user experience. However, since Apple's own trackers are merely speculative at this point, there's no competitive disadvantage at the moment. (since every tile tracker company has the same problem and Apple doesn't have their own tile tracker).
I will take contrarian view here, I agree with Apple. I have used Tile since its inception, but finally gave it up due to their business plan, which is recurrent hardware sales. That combines with a limited distance of use has rendered this product fairly useless to me. I welcome Apple entering market.
No it isn't. It's not an example of anti-competitive behavior, unless you actually believe Android was a noticeably greater threat to Apple when Dark Sky was available on it. Do you really think that?
As far as the Dark Sky company is concerned, the people who owned it are pretty thrilled by being acquired by Apple. They're not complaining.
I started with Tile when they were first taking orders before the product was even developed. It has never lived up to the original hype. It has been a huge battery drain and seldom finds a misplaced article.
I for one welcome and integrated Apple solution... if it actually works in the real world.
I for one welcome and integrated Apple solution... if it actually works in the real world.
Apple wanted to stop paying IBM for access to weather data from TWC (which keeps increasing their prices by the way) - so they bought a company that provides weather data. There is literally nothing wrong with that. They never wanted the app itself and they don’t want to keep paying to maintain it on a competing platform. It will probably be pulled from iOS and rolled into the stock weather app within a year. You people act like Dark Sky is the only weather app on Android... get over it.
Apple isn't being anti-competitive because before this they never competed! They never had their own weather data provider, it all came from TWC. TWC buying Weather Underground - now that is the definition of anti-competitive.
Last edited:
I was under the impression that they were bailing on the Android version and API -- an API used for a lot of tutorials and other people? Is this not correct?
Now remember, all I care about are Apple's action. I'm not playing the whataboutism game.
Finally, what do you mean by "you people"? That wreaks of poor attitude. Why are you taking is so personal if people don't worship Apple as their Lord and Savior?
[automerge]1585879310[/automerge]
If the best way you have to make it difficult one people is to buy others out and not innovate yourself then you're not in a healthy state of a company. Remember, the Dark Sky API was open and used with a lot of beginner tutorials. So with Apple bailing on the API, like the are, they are giving the middle finger to a large batch of people.
I don't get their complaint about Always Allow being hidden in Settings. You can deep link to your app's space in Settings, I've seen other apps do this. Just do that along with a message asking the user to set it to Always Allow. Not the end of the world.
The fact is though, even if all their users have Always Allow on, their solution is never going to be as good as one built into the OS with orders of magnitude more devices involved. Apple's version can't come seen enough.
What would have been best would be if Apple and Google got together and came up with a software backend solution shared across iOS and (official) Android. That would clearly provide the best coverage possible, and they could sell their own hardware to connect to the network.
The fact is though, even if all their users have Always Allow on, their solution is never going to be as good as one built into the OS with orders of magnitude more devices involved. Apple's version can't come seen enough.
What would have been best would be if Apple and Google got together and came up with a software backend solution shared across iOS and (official) Android. That would clearly provide the best coverage possible, and they could sell their own hardware to connect to the network.
I’ve been a Tile customer for 5+ years. I have not upgraded to the newest replaceable-battery type that came out last year (mostly because I’d rather have an AirTag) but I stand by my statement that they have not added any innovation in functionality.
I also have to ask why it took them so long to release a battery replaceable product, and especially dislike their views on privacy.
Last edited:
How is it anti-competitive when I own the platform? You can create your own platform too, or sell on other platforms I am not stopping you. You cant force me to sell your product, can you? As in, can you force me to air your tv show on my channel? Or your music on my radio station? Is it considered anti-competitve when walmart sells its own napkin brands and not give shelf space to other napkin manufacturers?
I don't understand why people think that Apple is somehow obligated to keep the API open and accessible to people outside of their ecosystem, given that there is really no benefit to them doing so. Apple's business model is in offering a superior user experience through the tight integration of hardware, software and services. Allowing android app developers to continue using said API doesn't fit with this.
Likewise, I don't think Apple purposely goes out of their way to screw other people over. What likely happened is that they needed a particular app or service to round out their product (my guess is that the wearables team felt that they needed access to better weather data to make a better Apple Watch experience), and it was simply more expedient to buy the Dark Sky app than build it from the ground up.
Finally, I am guessing that Dark Sky was open to a sale to Apple as they saw that their growth had more or less saturated. It was really a marriage of convenience in a sense.
In short, it's simply another day in business.
If iPhones were open hardware, like PC's, then you'd be correct. I have a lot of unpopular opinions on this point though.
It's quite simple. I'm comparing Apple to Microsoft of the 90's. Microsoft of the 90's was known for doing this. Because keeping the API open and continuing Android support doesn't help Micro-- err.. Apple, they aren't going to do it. And, what a coincidence, it benefits them. If Apple doesn't want me to compare them to the Microsoft of the 90's then they should change their actions.
I never said I thought they were obligated to keep it open? Where did I say that?
I remember some Microsoft zealot friends of mine having the same tone you had. Microsoft could never do wrong and they could always find a way to justify their actions.
However, we, as consumers, need to demand higher quality and more. Let's use the AppStore as an example. Why is Apple so scared to let third party AppStores be a thing? Are they scared someone will do a better job? Or, more likely, one of two other reasons: a.) They will lose profit and b.) someone _will_ do a better job. With devices this expensive, it's unreasonable to say "just go to a different platform". So, as such, I judge Apple harshly on this matter. This is another area that "triggers" people, strangely.
My goal is to have the best hardware and software I can buy. Unlike 90% of the people here, I'm not loyal to any one company.
On the point about the replaceable battery. I know they added it in recent models but the point is it left a sour taste in my mouth when I stumbled on it in a store some years ago and looked up that it couldn't be replaced. Pretty much every small non-rechargeable electronic device I've ever owned has had replaceable batteries. Why go through the hoops and hurdles of replacing tiles with the added cost and inconvenience that basically negates the benefit? The problem turns from "Did I forget my wallet?" to "Did I forget to replace my tile?". In short, I'm glad to see competition here and I have no sympathy for that business model.
I will say that Apple is scared. For their users.
I go back to my earlier point about Apple’s business model revolving around creating great experiences that involve integration between hardware, software and services. And the locked-down nature of the iOS App Store is one way of Apple achieving this. By controlling what apps appear (and which don’t), Apple has managed to create a safe marketplace where consumers can purchase and download apps with a piece of mind. Developers can earn more money due to lower incidence of piracy. It’s a win-win-win situation for all parties involved.
One only needs to look towards the google play store to see the pitfalls of an open marketplace, and this is when it is being run by a company with a ton of resources at their disposal. The main draw of a third party App Store would be the lower cut and apps that got rejected by the App Store (gee, I wonder why), which means that the people running it would have even less incentive and resources to tend to it. It would also be impossible for Apple to vet and police the quality of the apps that get sold, which will likely mean a higher incidence of malware and scam apps.
Let’s not forget how fortnite forced android users to side load their app in a bid to skirt around the play store rules. On iOS, epic had no choice but to capitulate, and capitulate they did.
I don’t think I am triggered by people criticising Apple. Rather, what irritates me is when I feel that Apple is being misunderstood and that the points raised against them simply aren’t valid. At the end of the day, an argument shouldn’t only be correct, it should also be correct for the right reasons.
And I feel that Apple continues to be misunderstood by the vast majority of the public. Mainly because they often fail to see the bigger picture.
And well, here we are.
I think the major difference between Apple today and Microsoft then, is that Microsoft had complete monopoly on the computer market as in it was installed on maybe 90%+ on all computers of the world. iOS and iPhones do not have that big of a market share, in fact I believe its the minority.