pujones1

dewme said:

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

Tile's app uses the GPS location feature in the background while also scanning Bluetooth for nearby Tile products. It gets permission from the user to do this. Apple now demands repeated permissions from users for the Tile app to continue to run in the background. Apple claims it must do this because users don't realize apps that run in the background and use GPS are burning through their battery life. This is true but Apple has magically chosen to implement a solution that puts its own AirTags product in a clear advantage. Users will probably never even be asked if they want to scan for AirTags in the background just like they are never asked if they want to scan for Apple's products using WiFi, Bluetooth and GPS in the background currently (that's how Find My and WiFi location works). I see both companies as being in the wrong here. Tile should never have built their business model with such a huge dependency on Apple's SDK restrictions. Apple should never restrict what users can choose to do with their products. Users should always have a way to tell iOS that they want to enable full access to Bluetooth, WiFi and GPS in their apps. By all means make it easy and obvious which apps are using the most power and show users why when they tap on them and give them some options for limiting the power usage of those apps (like revoking GPS background permission). If Apple built its entire SDK strategy around giving information and power to their users, they would never get into situations like this one.

Your primary assertion here is that Apple is not telling users about Apple processes running in the background, e.g.. ("Users will probably never even be asked"), is pure speculation intended to paint Apple in a bad light. Such a claim is made even more egregious by the fact that Apple has not even announced a product in this category or shipped beta versions of software that would work with such an unannounced product.

Is it really fair to lambast a company for what they might do in the future and then layer on top of the speculation a bunch of violations that occur only if you assume the most pessimistic perspective? Geez, at least they should give Apple a chance to show their hand before adopting the victim persona.

Yes, these guys are scared sh**less that they are going to be crushed by a competitor. There used to be a time when smart companies dug-in and showed a little intestinal fortitude and figured out a way to beat the competition - by competing, by being innovative, and by out-engineering the slow moving megacorps with better engineering and agility. Now they'd rather whip out their always-damp victim crying towel and call their lawyers. Pathetic.  

I don't know what SDKs you are referring to, but unless a company has specifically licensed an integration mechanism into Apple's hardware or software systems, with contract terms and conditions, Apple is free to modify their SDKs in whatever way suits them. Yes, they open up SDKs to help build out their ecosystem with third-party contributions and certainly do not want to stifle growth, inhibit adoption, or piss off partners, but Apple owns the infrastructure and is fully responsible for maintaining its integrity. If they need to make changes to ensure the viability of the ecosystem for the greatest number of stakeholders, they will. Deprecation happens. It's no different than GM or Ford changing the interior layout of their vehicles in a way that disrupts third party floor mat suppliers, or changing a headlight design in a way that is no longer compatible with a group of light bulb suppliers. Owning the coat that others want to grab on to still has its privileges, as it always should.

stuke said:

This guy reminds me of the excellent court room diatribe Jack Nicholson did in the movie "A Few Good Men" when he exclaimed, "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it!"  This guy has no platform to supply apps but then complains to the company that does because they too decided to serve music.