←back to thread

A 10-Year Battery for AirTag

(www.elevationlab.com)
673 points dmd | 3 comments | 18 Dec 24 18:17 UTC | HN request time: 0.633s | source
Show context
TuringNYC ◴[19 Dec 24 21:42 UTC] No.42465986[source]▶
Nice solution, but the bigger problem is how AirTags can basically be turned off, which makes it poor for many use cases.

Of course, I get it from Apple's perspective, they dont want AirTags to be used to tail others. However, that precludes it from being used for theft tracking.

For example, I use an AirTag on my bicycle. If someone steals the bicycle, they are literally informed "an air tag is following you" https://support.apple.com/en-us/119874

There are a lot of things I'd love to put long-term AirTags on (luggage, snow-blower, childrens' backpacks) but if theft isnt really deterred, then the case for a bulkier AirTag is quite reduced.

replies(6): >>42466060 #>>42466306 #>>42468052 #>>42468073 #>>42471326 #>>42479082 #
unsupp0rted ◴[19 Dec 24 21:50 UTC] No.42466060[source]▶
Theft-tracking is sort of an "off-label" use for AirTags, from Apple's perspective.

They'd rather make AirTags less generally useful than make them both more generally useful + open to stalking occurrences and lawsuits.

replies(3): >>42466231 #>>42470553 #>>42472003 #
yonatan8070 ◴[20 Dec 24 12:31 UTC] No.42470553[source]▶
I don't understand why AirTags being used for stalking would open Apple to lawsuits. If I buy a hammer and use it to attack someone, the manufacturer of the hammer isn't open to a lawsuit.

Of course I'm not saying Apple shouldn't try to protect people from stalkers using their control over their products, I just don't see why it would make Appld responsible if someone misused their products.

replies(2): >>42470712 #>>42474612 #
1. 0xffff2 ◴[20 Dec 24 20:18 UTC] No.42474612[source]▶
Conversely, people have been suing gun manufacturers after shootings basically forever.
replies(1): >>42474746 #
2. jjeaff ◴[20 Dec 24 20:31 UTC] No.42474746[source]▶
Ya, but those cases have tended to get a bit more traction because the primary purpose of firearms is to kill and there are lots of things that gun makers could do to make it more difficult to kill people with them (like built in locking mechanisms). A little different than say, a hammer, which is not meant as a weapon of death.
replies(1): >>42480598 #
3. wyager ◴[21 Dec 24 16:40 UTC] No.42480598[source]▶
Gun manufacturers could add pointless and customer-hostile complications to guns just like apple can add customer-hostile complications to airtags. The case against Apple is even stronger, because at least apple's complications have a chance of doing something useful, and Apple provides an ongoing service where firearm manufacturers do not.

There's also no reasonable standard by which you can claim guns are being made to murder people but AirTags are not being made to stalk people. A vanishingly small fraction of total sales ever goes towards either of these undesirable use cases.

The smart move here is to get your risk models in order and stop worrying about either of these things.