I tried Tile, and for a number of reasons it didn't provide real coverage.

It just crowdsourced the bluetooth range of people connected to the internet who are willing to run the app, which is a really small zone of moving flashlight cones, densely clustered near civilization.

I really needed Tile to work in the middle of nowhere. It's not an all-terrain device. And honestly, if it's not going to work in any location, it means I can't ask it where I dropped my thing, while engaging in outdoor activities. That was what I wanted it to be for.

I needed Tile to take new batteries too. That said, Apple devices are also battery hostile, and I despise Apple for pushing that trend.

I also wanted to not have to give personal details to use Tile. I can think of procedures for operation that obviate personal identification, passwords and periodic logins to accounts, and if Tile didn't offer the option, then the motive for why they left that part out is clear and user hostile.

I bought a Tile but refused to use the tracking feature because it felt very insecure.

Apple should not be penalized for offering something inherently more private than the competition.

What would you say are the reasons that Apple's implementation of this protocol is more private?

In other words, I am ignorant to how Apple's implementation is more private or feels more secure than Tile's.

Even Apple doesn't know what location was just reported. Only another of your devices can decrypt the location data.

https://www.wired.com/story/apple-find-my-cryptography-bluet...

This is pretty cool!