Tile bashes Apple’s new AirTag as unfair competition. It will be asking Congress on Wednesday to take a closer look into Apple

[hishnash]

8 hours ago, elfensky said:

What you can't do is charge less on your site. But you can totally ONLY sell on the site.

you can, the rule about needing to be the same price in the app store as in other places was lifted in 2011 (10 years ago)   why people still think this is the case I have no idea the rules are public anyone can go read them apples website https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ they do not have any reference to the price you use outside the app store you can price it however you want.

 

 

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, hishnash said:

Physical goods and phsycil services (like buying cheese or paying for repair) do not need to go through apples payment system even if you pay in an app on the iPhone (see the amazon app lets you buy cheese, and other goods). The issue they have here is their subscription includes software features "add friends" etc if it was just "extended warranty, free battery replacements" then apple would not ask for a cut. But what they should just do is send you an email when you create an account with your tile and get you to subscribe from there in a webpage (that is not even against apples rules). 

See my previous post regarding Apple rules...but here is the Apple rule quote

Quote

If you want to unlock features or functionality within your app, (by way of example: subscriptions, in-game currencies, game levels, access to premium content, or unlocking a full version), you must use in-app purchase

 

[Helpful Tech Witch]

14 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

See my previous post regarding Apple rules...but here is the Apple rule quote

 

thats not 100% acccurate to what they  enforce. They dont force you to use iap, they just dont let you put a link in the app or any other infor of where to signup for less.

 

 

 

 

as for this, its another reason as to why you need a free way to sideload (and keep without a renewal server) apps on ios.

[hishnash]

54 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

See my previous post regarding Apple rules...but here is the Apple rule quote

 

Subscriptions to physical goods are not covered by the rule, you can subscribe to food boxes in apps on the app store for example and that does not go through the app store payment system. As i said `unlock features or functionality` you do need to using apples system, since they are `unlock features` (it is not just a hardware warranty program) they are required to use apples system if they want to get new subscribers within the app, but sending users an email after they create an account that pushes them to subscribe is not violating these rules as it is not within the app.

[wanderingfool2]

10 minutes ago, hishnash said:

Subscriptions to physical goods are not covered by the rule, you can subscribe to food boxes in apps on the app store for example and that does not go through the app store payment system. As i said `unlock features or functionality` you do need to using apples system, since they are `unlock features` (it is not just a hardware warranty program) they are required to use apples system if they want to get new subscribers within the app, but sending users an email after they create an account that pushes them to subscribe is not violating these rules as it is not within the app.

It clearly is software services they are receiving, so trying to argue that they have ways around it is foolhardy. They are required to use Apples system.  Using a separate system would be a direct violation of that rule (as they are locking out app features via a subscription)...thus the subscription needs to be made through Apple.

 

56 minutes ago, HelpfulTechWizard said:

thats not 100% acccurate to what they  enforce. They dont force you to use iap, they just dont let you put a link in the app or any other infor of where to signup for less.

 

as for this, its another reason as to why you need a free way to sideload (and keep without a renewal server) apps on ios.

It means that they are at the whim of Apple whether it gets enforced or not.  They could be delayed in getting updates pushed through, and such if Apple decided they wanted to.

[Sauron]

9 hours ago, divito said:

Tile is even mentioned in the article "that it doesn’t want to give up the direct relationship it has with customers via its own iOS app to instead support Apple’s “Find My” users. 

Yeah, and that's a perfectly legitimate point. Even if we disregard the fee they still have to pay if they want to integrate with the native app the fact remains that they're handing control over what features their products can offer to Apple.

9 hours ago, divito said:

Essentially, they want to be hosted and listed on Apple's platform for free

More like they want to be able to distribute through other means, or at least not have to compete directly with the company that controls the platform and doesn't have to pay for it.

9 hours ago, divito said:

while still being able to be used through Apple's own software, simply because they developed a similar product. I strongly dislike Apple and will never use one of their products, but Tile is delusional in that sense. 

I don't know why people insist on this but this is pretty much the definition of an anti-trust violation. The exact details of how much Tile needs to pay are irrelevant. And even if Apple offered free integration on their native app it would still be unfair to Tile which does not have control over what goes in that app and may not want to stick to Apple's requirements for a wide variety of possible reasons.

[LAwLz]

I can see both sides and I don't think the answer is either "Apple bad" or "Tile bad".

Are Tile pissed that Apple launched a competing product that (seemingly) is better than theirs? Absolutely.

Are Tile taking this opportunity to try and make some money from Apple? Yes they are.

 

Are Apple in the wrong for taking a 30% cut from the store? In my opinion, yes. It's way too high.

Are Apple in the wrong for (allegedly) not allowing the same access to hardware and software features as they allow themselves? In my opinion, yes. There should be an equal playing field for developers.

Would allowing third party stores solve a lot of the issues me and many other have with Apple? Absolutely.

[Spindel]

Aren't a lot of you missing a big point here?

 

If Tile ditch the horrendous subscription model all they need to pay apple is $99 per year for a dev account. Witch considering Tiles yearly turnover is a couple of ppm of their income. 

[RejZoR]

22 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I can see both sides and I don't think the answer is either "Apple bad" or "Tile bad".

Are Tile pissed that Apple launched a competing product that (seemingly) is better than theirs? Absolutely.

Are Tile taking this opportunity to try and make some money from Apple? Yes they are.

 

Are Apple in the wrong for taking a 30% cut from the store? In my opinion, yes. It's way too high.

Are Apple in the wrong for (allegedly) not allowing the same access to hardware and software features as they allow themselves? In my opinion, yes. There should be an equal playing field for developers.

Would allowing third party stores solve a lot of the issues me and many other have with Apple? Absolutely.

How is 30% too high for providing all the infrastructure, delivery system and also exposure to the consumers? One may argue with no option of sideloading, but quite frankly, even on Android, if you aren't on GooglePlay, you essentially don't exist, no matter if you can sideload shit billion times. I don't think people grasp just how difficult it is to deploy, maintain and run a delivery system that has to serve hundreds of millions of customers. I'm not talking Apple here. I'm talking YOU as the company that would serve 100 million users assuming you'd have that many on your own. 70:30 is far more than any publisher offered in the past. They always took much larger cuts...

[XenosTech]

25 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

if you aren't on GooglePlay, you essentially don't exist

Due to how google geo-fences apps that are global (whatsapp and Clash of clans at one point as examples) a lot of people have other app stores like aptoide and 1mobile market to access said app. Shit my friend released an app that was supposed to be for local use in my country and guess what google did? Geo-restricted it so no one from our country could actually use it for about 6 months. So no, not being on the play store isn't detrimental to an apps existence, sometimes it really hurts to be on there and sideloading really help a lot.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

How is 30% too high for providing all the infrastructure, delivery system and also exposure to the consumers?

Well I guess it depends on how you view it.

Since Apple made over 64 billion dollars in gross profits from the App store alone I think it's hard to say they "need" to charge 30%. Whether they deserve that money, at the expensive of the developers, is a quite politically and morally charge topic that I don't think is even worth debating since it won't lead anywhere. Some people will believe one thing and another will believe another, and nobody will change their minds.

 

  

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

One may argue with no option of sideloading, but quite frankly, even on Android, if you aren't on GooglePlay, you essentially don't exist, no matter if you can sideload shit billion times.

But isn't that an argument for why Apple could allow third party stores? If Android has it and barely anyone uses it, then I don't see why Apple are so religiously not allowing it on iOS.

 

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

I don't think people grasp just how difficult it is to deploy, maintain and run a delivery system that has to serve hundreds of millions of customers.

I think most companies that are asking for third party stores do understand it. Companies like Steam, Epic, Spotify, Amazon etc.

I don't think Tile are wanting to rush out and build an entire store platform, but allowing choice and giving them more freedom on who to pick would certainly bring some needed competition to the market. 

Even if you're okay with Apple taking 30%, there are a lot of other things Apple could improve on. Allowing developers to charge more for users who sign up on iOS for example. If Apple wants to take a cut then I don't see why developers shouldn't be allowed to raise prices so that they still make the same amount as on other platforms.

 

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

70:30 is far more than any publisher offered in the past. They always took much larger cuts...

I think "it was worse before" is a poor argument. I have also not seen any indication of this actually being true.

[Bombastinator]

9 hours ago, Blancaster said:

I get that Apple is forcing Tile to pay them their share for purchases on the App Store, but at the same time, how about not having a subscription model? Try tying the cost into the cost of the device instead of creating an endless stream of money.

That used to be doable when batteries weren’t replacable.  The problem is they are now.  You could buy one and use it for 8 years instead of maybe a year and a half at the outside. 

[Arika]

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

One may argue with no option of sideloading, but quite frankly, even on Android, if you aren't on GooglePlay, you essentially don't exist, no matter if you can sideload shit billion times.

Now you're someone that has prided themselves on de-googling their life, therefore you should love that people can sideload on android, it allows you to run custom ROMS (not controlled by google) on essentially any phone you like (terms and conditions apply) and download APKs from anywhere (not controlled by google). A LOT of apps appear on both the google play store and other third party stores or mirrors, or being able to download the APK directly from the developer. So you get the best of both worlds as user; people who don't want to deal with google (like yourself) will find a way to get your app, and those that don't care, will get it from google play.

 

Now what if someone wanted to do the same but de-Apple their life? how is CHOICE bad?

[Spindel]

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

Now what if someone wanted to do the same but de-Apple their life? how is CHOICE bad?

Simple, get an Android handset

[Tenelia]

17 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

There's actually nothing inherently illegal about having a dominant position in a market when it was grown organically.   Which in the case of iOS, it was.  The app store restrictions and fees have been there since day 1 and yet no one had any problems jumping on board.  You can't have both ways where it was great profitability for the last 15 years and then claim you're just now being injured by it.  Yeah we'd all love to be able to make revenue with zero cost (30% fees)....maybe Tile should go spend a bagillion dollars making their own phone and OS and growing a customer base then and they can do it.  Oh wait, that's what Apple did.

 

Apple isn't stopping Tile from continuing on with their current business model.  In fact, Apple is expanding more options to them probably specifically to not seem anticompetitive. And Tile is still whining. -snip-

Exactly. Not to mention these products were in development for long enough that alternative sales channels and marketing channels could have been developed. To say that Apple and iOS is the ONLY viable channel is disingenuous. This also ignores the iOS ecosystem's significantly higher and tighter barrier to entry. This means the Total Cost of Ownership is also significant. To grow the ecosystem means recurring revenue must continue to surpass operational expenses.

[RejZoR]

People are forgetting 3rd party stores or sideloading just DON'T matter. Casual users and they are the majority that matters only install apps from 1st party app store. GooglePlay or App Store. Which is why I said, if you're not there, you essentially don't exist. Even Forknife, which is a massive boom only had a handful of people willing to bother with sideloading and stuff.

[pas008]

13 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

People are forgetting 3rd party stores or sideloading just DON'T matter. Casual users and they are the majority that matters only install apps from 1st party app store. GooglePlay or App Store. Which is why I said, if you're not there, you essentially don't exist. Even Forknife, which is a massive boom only had a handful of people willing to bother with sideloading and stuff.

i side load all the time but the options should be there just to show its competitiveness even if majority dont use it

if google wanted play store on ios they should be allowed for the competitive nature

same with nintendo

ecosystems to me are anti consumer

 

[Vangeli]

The App Store pricing is ridiculous, Apple needs to change that.
 

Otherwise as a casual mobile user myself, I’ve known of and actively not purchased any Tiles for years because they’re ugly and have a subscription and require much more personal information than should be necessary.

 

Suddenly Apple releases a product which has been known about for years that is cheaper, prettier, doesn’t require a subscription and leverages their stronger Find My network (that Tile could’ve used!), and Tile is just going to whine? Make a better product or die.
 

Or don’t die, Apple has less than 20% of the market and AirTags don’t work on Android. Work on that subscription model and privacy instead.

[Arika]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

People are forgetting 3rd party stores or sideloading just DON'T matter. Casual users and they are the majority that matters only install apps from 1st party app store. GooglePlay or App Store. Which is why I said, if you're not there, you essentially don't exist. Even Forknife, which is a massive boom only had a handful of people willing to bother with sideloading and stuff.

you sure have this weird habit of responding to people's posts, but not quoting them, and i really cannot figure out why.

 

Regardless of how many people sideload or use another store, it SHOULD be an option always. Why does everything need to be done based on how many people will use it? Sounds like a great way to pull to a halt all kinds of innovation.

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, Vangeli said:

The App Store pricing is ridiculous, Apple needs to change that.
 

(1)Otherwise as a casual mobile user myself, I’ve known of and actively not purchased any Tiles for years because they’re ugly and have a subscription and require much more personal information than should be necessary.

 

(2)Suddenly Apple releases a product which has been known about for years that is cheaper, prettier, doesn’t require a subscription and leverages their stronger Find My network (that Tile could’ve used!), and Tile is just going to whine? Make a better product or die.
 

(3)Or don’t die, Apple has less than 20% of the market and AirTags don’t work on Android. Work on that subscription model and privacy instead.

1) The subscription isn't required, ugly is subjective and by looking at AirTags I can see a design flaw already (given it doesn't do a direct attach if one were to sit down with multiple items in your pocket you could pop the tracker out of it's holder)

 

2) Cheaper...no, not really (4 pack Tile Pro = $99.99, 4 pack AirTag = $99.99). btw, 4 AirTags and you still need to buy a holder. (Wanted to stress that).  So that's an additional $12.95 for the ugly version of the holder.  The non-ugly holder in the stock photos starts at $35 (so that's $140 for 4 holders) (unless you want the puke yellow, then it's only a mere $116).

https://www.cnet.com/news/the-first-apple-airtag-accessories-are-here-and-the-prices-range-from-13-to-449-really/

https://www.apple.com/shop/iphone/accessories/airtag

 

So in essence, you are paying at minimum $150.80 for 4, or paying $215 at the next cheapest option or $239 at the next cheapest.  So no, it is not "cheaper"

 

 

You are registered with Apple, so it's a "free" subscription.  The Find My network was only really introduced to 3rd parties this year, and would require to tie into Apple's ecosystem more (i.e. they probably would have to agree to even more egregious terms).

 

Lets not forget that Tiles claim is that Apple hasn't given them full access to API yet short range...so how do you propose them to make a better product (when Apple uses their internal API's to make a "better" product).

 

3) Apple has over 20% market share.  Depending on the sources, Apple has close to or exceeding 50% market share at the moment.  The subscription model actually offers a decent amount of benefits compared to what other companies have done (e.g. this even includes free battery replacements...which isn't much but still something)

https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-share/

[RejZoR]

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

you sure have this weird habit of responding to people's posts, but not quoting them, and i really cannot figure out why.

 

Regardless of how many people sideload or use another store, it SHOULD be an option always. Why does everything need to be done based on how many people will use it? Sounds like a great way to pull to a halt all kinds of innovation.

What weird habit? I wasn't addressing it to you. Do you see your name anywhere? No. Then I wasn't addressing it to you.

[Vangeli]

21 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

words

 

The ultra wide-band sensor has been on the iPhone for two years and Tile hasn’t bothered to make a product with it and successfully convince Android partners to add such sensors to their devices given how useful and key to their product development it must be? They’ve just been waiting for Apple to do something more with it so they can complain. Similar to what Tim Sweeney did with Fortnite; having that counter argument campaign already prepared. Apple does need to change some of their policies but these dumb games aren’t the way to do it.

 

That market figure is current sales, not installed base. Android is behemoth.

 

Also, you don’t need to buy a holder, many bags and purses have a tiny coin pocket at the front, for instance. I don’t mind spending more on pretty things, though.

 

[pas008]

3 hours ago, Vangeli said:

 

The ultra wide-band sensor has been on the iPhone for two years and Tile hasn’t bothered to make a product with it and successfully convince Android partners to add such sensors to their devices given how useful and key to their product development it must be? They’ve just been waiting for Apple to do something more with it so they can complain. Similar to what Tim Sweeney did with Fortnite; having that counter argument campaign already prepared. Apple does need to change some of their policies but these dumb games aren’t the way to do it.

 

That market figure is current sales, not installed base. Android is behemoth.

 

Also, you don’t need to buy a holder, many bags and purses have a tiny coin pocket at the front, for instance. I don’t mind spending more on pretty things, though.

 

Would Apple even have considered stealing this if they didn't have iOS market data on this?

Ok dominant position abuse right lol

[hishnash]

16 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It clearly is software services they are receiving, so trying to argue that they have ways around it is foolhardy. They are required to use Apples system.  Using a separate system would be a direct violation of that rule (as they are locking out app features via a subscription)...thus the subscription needs to be made through Apple.

 

They only need to use the app system if they want people to be able to subscribe in the app. They can do out of app subscriptions as long as from the app they do not link to it. A link in an email is not a link in the app so it not a violation. 

[NotTheFirstDaniel]

4 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

2) Cheaper...no, not really (4 pack Tile Pro = $99.99, 4 pack AirTag = $99.99). btw, 4 AirTags and you still need to buy a holder. (Wanted to stress that).  So that's an additional $12.95 for the ugly version of the holder.  The non-ugly holder in the stock photos starts at $35 (so that's $140 for 4 holders) (unless you want the puke yellow, then it's only a mere $116).

https://www.cnet.com/news/the-first-apple-airtag-accessories-are-here-and-the-prices-range-from-13-to-449-really/

https://www.apple.com/shop/iphone/accessories/airtag

A) https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4836204 If you have a 3D printer (or know someone with one), this isn't an issue. But I understand not everyone has a 3D printer, and the overlap between people who have a 3D printer and who will get AirTags is probably pretty slim. But I'll be damned if AirTags holders don't come to places like the Dollar Store and Aliexpress within the next year.

B) I don't think it's fair to make an argument on price based off personal preference, especially when you glance over a cheaper option and bold the more expensive option. I could easily make the argument that iPhones are very expensive compared to, say Samsung phones, and say, the iPhone SE is $399, but it's ugly, and the non ugly iPhone 12 Pro Max costs an eye watering $1099. I just personally think that's misleading.

C) You also forget the scenario where you may not need a keychain, for instance, tracking a bag or an instrument case.

 

I made an argument earlier on the this post on why the "Find My" network on its own is anticompetitive, but as for AirTags alone, there are still places where I would buy a tile instead of an AirTag. For instance, the Tile sticker. I don't believe Apple priced the Tile out of the space, especially when you consider the hundreds of millions of Android devices that cannot even use AirTags for tracking.

 

It will be interesting to see if Tile only relies on arguing against AirTags as a product and that they're "stepping over their business" instead of actually arguing that Apple is effectively forcing companies to use Find My if they want to do tracking on iOS, then locking them out from doing business on any other device since Find My is only on iDevices and Macs.