←back to thread

Show HN: Undetectag, track stolen items with AirTag

(undetectag.com)
114 points pompidoo | 1 comments | 15 May 25 15:46 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source

I developed a device that turns an Airtag on and off at specific intervals. Current Airtags are detectable right away and cannot be used to track stolen property. That device allows you to hide an Airtag in your car, for example, and someone that steals your car will not be able to use some app to detect it. The Airtag will also not warn the thief of its presence. After some hours, the Airtag turns on again and you can find out its location. It’s not foolproof, as the timing has to be right, but still useful.

What do you think?

Show context
cmeacham98 ◴[15 May 25 17:34 UTC] No.43997346[source]▶
> Events outside our control, such as Apple updating the firmware in the future to prevent the device from working, will not qualify for a refund.

I fully understand why you would want to do this, but as a consumer I would never buy this product with this clause.

replies(2): >>43997456 #>>43997835 #
dudeinjapan ◴[15 May 25 17:44 UTC] No.43997456[source]▶
A reasonable solution would be to get to buy the newer model half-off if this happens. Obviously the maker can’t just have his entire biz nuked with refunds if Apple happens to update firmware.
replies(1): >>43997824 #
mulmen ◴[15 May 25 18:25 UTC] No.43997824[source]▶
I think you have your priorities wrong. Why should an unsustainable business be prioritized over consumer benefit?

Nobody has a right to a successful business but when consumers can trust their purchases they are more likely to make additional purchases.

replies(2): >>43998117 #>>43998845 #
_aavaa_ ◴[15 May 25 18:54 UTC] No.43998117[source]▶
The lack of trust in the purchase comes from Apple, not from this seller. It's apple that's reaching into your device and force updating the firmware without your consent.
replies(1): >>43998720 #
mulmen ◴[15 May 25 19:58 UTC] No.43998720{3}[source]▶
No. The product in this case relies on unintended functionality in a specific firmware version of an Apple device that is specifically designed to not be suitable for this application. In this case it is the add-on device that is not offering refunds if it stops working.
replies(2): >>43999289 #>>43999456 #
spuz ◴[15 May 25 21:21 UTC] No.43999456{4}[source]▶
Where do you get the idea that Apple specifically designed the AirTag to not be suitable for a third party device to control when it switches on and off? I can understand how they might not approve of this adaptation to their product but I don't see any reason to believe they specifically designed against it.
replies(1): >>44000057 #
mulmen ◴[15 May 25 22:35 UTC] No.44000057{5}[source]▶
The AirTag is specifically designed to not be used to track people without their knowledge.
replies(1): >>44004558 #
1. _aavaa_ ◴[16 May 25 12:22 UTC] No.44004558{6}[source]▶
Is that why it released it with built in integration in android so that android users automatically are notified of tags following them?

Or is that why the tag flashes and makes sounds frequently so that people without phones can know they’re being tracked?