An app allowing users to locate their lost AirPod wireless earbuds has been removed from Apple's app store without explanation:
Mobile app developer studio Deucks Pty released the app, called "Finder for Airpods," last week. The app used the iPhone to track the Bluetooth wireless signal emitted by the two AirPod units to help locate the lost piece, displaying a line showing whether the user was getting closer or farther away based on signal strength. Excitement about Apple's new wireless earphones has almost been matched by anxiety about how easy it could be to lose one of the two unconnected mini speakers. So there was an initial burst of enthusiasm about the new app, which quickly garnered a rating of four and a half stars.
But on Monday, the app had vanished from the Apple App Store—and developer Raajit Sharm at Deucks Pty says it's not coming back. "Apple determined the 'concept' of people finding their AirPods with the app was deemed 'not appropriate for the App Store,'" Sharm wrote in an email to Fortune. "The app will not return back."
A new pair of AirPods costs $159 and a single replacement costs just $69.
Also at The Verge.
Related Stories
It turns out that the $159 earbuds that Apple was selling weren't actually "high-end":
Apple Inc. is about to pump up the volume on its audio-device strategy, planning higher-end AirPods, a new HomePod and studio-quality over-ear headphones for as early as next year, according to people familiar with the matter.
The Cupertino, California-based company is working on new AirPods with noise-cancellation and water resistance, the people said. Apple is trying to increase the range that AirPods can work away from an iPhone or iPad, one of the people said. You won't be swimming in them though: The water resistance is mainly to protect against rain and perspiration, the people said.
Slated for 2019, the earbuds will likely cost more than the existing $159 pair, and that could push Apple to segment the product line like it does with iPhones, one of the people said. Apple is also working on a wireless charging case that's compatible with the upcoming AirPower charger.
Related: "Finder for Airpods" Not Allowed in Apple's Walled Garden
See also: Google's Pixel Buds are the company's first wireless headphones
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @11:57AM
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:03PM
"The app will not return back" even if they rename it to "Find the goddamn overpriced earbuds".
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:10PM
Well yeah, it's the one-strike-and-you're-gone-forever rule, popular among plutocrats.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by J_Darnley on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:04PM
> A new pair of AirPods costs $159 and a single replacement costs just $69.
(Score: 2) by lx on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:51PM
How do they manage pricing if two singles are cheaper than one pair?
(Score: 3, Informative) by epl on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:39PM
Two singles don't have the charging/holding unit you do get with a pair, since that's a complete set.
(Score: 2) by lx on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:28PM
Ah, that makes sense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:42PM
On a side note: assuming someone wants to buy these, why would they ever buy a pair instead of two singles at this pricing?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:14PM
Because people who care about the money and can calculate would not buy either to begin with?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @08:20PM
Maybe it could be modded funny, but the correct info was given just above... charger station for the pods.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday January 10 2017, @10:13PM
Let me guess, you must not be an Apple user to ask a question like that.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday January 11 2017, @07:46AM
Incidentally, it is also the reason for buying 2 replacement pods instead of a new pair*
*) probably won't work, can't outsmart a corporation on pricing.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 4, Funny) by WizardFusion on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:36PM
If only they had some sort of cable to keep them together.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:49PM
Or even a light headband to keep them in place...
(Score: 1) by gmrath on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:11PM
. . . and keep them tethered to the iPhone or i-whatever What an idea!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:01PM
The higher the walls get, the happier I am that I'm outside them.
Also WRT to phrasing, those aren't garden walls, those are prison walls.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Bot on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:08PM
From the ideal point of view yes. From the practical point of view, let's say that it is a walled garden, but once getting out of it becomes difficult enough, nobody has any interest to water the plants.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:26PM
Make is a separate device instead, sold over independent channels. The people who need it certainly have the money to pay for that. I guess such a device could easily be made to sell profitably even if much cheaper than an AirPod, and as an independent device, Apple can't do anything against it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:35PM
Port the finder software to Android & Windows. Then you can use a friend's phone or a laptop (many have Bluetooth) to find the airbuds.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:54PM
Don't port anything. Side load the fucker onto jailbroken iPhones and other iTarded devices.
Otherwise, it's as if, just possibly, Apple owners don't actually enjoy ownership of Apple devices......
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday January 11 2017, @11:08PM
I thought they used a proprietary protocol rather than actual Bluetooth specifically to prevent you from being able to do that....?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:37PM
Better solution, don't give your money to companies like Apple that you know damn well will only use it against you, and against humanity.
Just say no to overpriced poorly-engineered garbage.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:42PM
If you sell such a device, you do not give your money to Apple. Rather, you are getting money from people who otherwise would probably have given it to Apple for a replacement AirPod. So you make money, and Apple gets less money. Win-win, I would say.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:03PM
I'm no Apple fan, but do you have an argument for "poorly-engineered"?
In this particular case, I'd say poor design choice (don't make tiny expensive things that can be lost), but I doubt it was an engineer who decided to actually build these things; engineers just build to specifications.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Arik on Tuesday January 10 2017, @06:54PM
And I'm not just talking about these earbuds, I'm talking about Apple crap in general. There was a time they were rightly known for relatively good designs and execution but that was ages ago now. Every apple device I've set my hands on in years has been junk. Execution in terms of visible, external polish remains fairly high but the moment you pop them apart you can see they're now assembled by drunk retarded monkeys just like everyone else, worse in some cases. And the designs, in a technical sense, are utterly atrocious. The only defense I can see is everyone else sucks there too, but that doesn't make them any less crappy.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:31PM
it's too late for that, since facebook is free and costs you nothing except for the privacy given up by others to make their experience more convenient for them even if it comes at a cost to you.
social burdens are best when hidden behind the facade of everyone is doing it so you are a loser if you aren't.
The apple stuff is just what allows us to determine from a distance who has more money than the others.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday January 10 2017, @05:09PM
I don't think Apple and their ilk are "against humanity": They need a certain number of customers to be alive in order to give them hundreds of dollars for overpriced garbage.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:56PM
Doesn't Apple have some rule about not duplicating functionality they already provide? This would violate that rule because you already have a way of "finding" the lost one by buying a replacement from Apple.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:57PM
Exciting? We've had wireless Bluetooth earphones for over a decade already. The cult marketing of Apple is astounding. The mediocre becomes the extraordinary.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:11PM
Right. Wired Bluetooth earphones, that would have been novel! ;-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:53PM
Wake up with a whore...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:54PM
Walled garden == Appstore is a monopoly
If you hold a monopoly in one thing (Appstore), you a not supposed to use that monopoly to encourage a monopoly in another thing (Ear buds).
Apple probably has a good for the customer reason for doing this?
It will be interesting to hear their backpeddl^H^H^H^H^H^H^ story.
The technology here is not novel.
My brother in law has bluetooth hearing aids.
Their I-phone app has a finder which seems to work if you are in bluetooth range and the batteries have not run down.
Perhaps Apple is just embarassed that they did not include it in their headphone s/w for free.
And now that they are going to add it, they don't want somebody else to steal their thunder.
So they can show how great their s/w updates are.
It's starting to look like they scared they are only great when measured inside their walled garden.
Kind of a dumb marketing place to be in the long run.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Grishnakh on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:50PM
Apple already explained why they pulled it: it isn't "appropriate for the app store". That's a good enough explanation, and all any Apple customer needs to know.
The bottom line is that no one really needs this app. If you lose your AirPod, it's very simple: go buy another one for a mere $69. If you don't like that solution to the problem, then you aren't fit to be an Apple customer. There's absolutely no reason for Apple to include this "finding" functionality in a software update; it'll only add complexity to the software and won't benefit Apple or its customers in any way. By purchasing brand-new AirPods any time you lose yours, you'll always have nice, new, clean ones, so this is a much better solution anyway.
(Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday January 11 2017, @01:54AM
By purchasing brand-new AirPods any time you lose yours, you'll always have nice, new, clean ones, so this is a much better solution anyway.
You forgot one thing: you know those old AirPods were faulty. I mean, they got lost, didn't they? Darn AirPods! Why would you want such flawed equipment? Good, nice new shiny ones wouldn't get lost like that!
Same thing applies to all Apple products. (It's actually true that I've heard more Apple users speak of their devices as if they had "moods" and even "volition" than users of PCs or Android devices or whatever. On a PC, an error is frequently due to some identifiable fault that can be seen in a log or dialogue box or something. On a Mac, the user will just say, "My computer's cranky today.") When the computer is cranky for many days in the row, it is strongly advised by Apple to just dump it into the nearest trash can and go to an Apple store immediately to buy a replacement.
Following such logic to the AirPods, if they're lost, they must have wandered off. Best to let them go; get new ones.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday January 11 2017, @03:44PM
I would also like add that Apple has been extremely generous here, by allowing you to buy single replacement AirPods for only $69 each, instead of having to buy a full set (plus base) for $159. So anyone who loses one should be very happy to spend $69 on a replacement instead of using some app to try to find it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:59PM
It just works.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Rich on Tuesday January 10 2017, @09:35PM
So assume, one got lost. And (maybe thanks to the unavailability of the finder app) stays so. The owner of the remaining one decides to shell out $69 (we read the price above) for a replacement.
How does that get paired? Do you have to plan in a week of spiritual and bodily purification (and pilgrimage to the next large city) before you are accepted for an audience at the genius bar? I can't somehow imagine that Apple would dare to burden end users with such a daunting task....