top of page
  • David G

Apple's AirTag: Security Compromised and Not the Best Today

In response to growing concerns about privacy and security, tech giants Google and Apple have recently collaborated on new initiatives to combat the misuse of location trackers for stalking. This partnership focuses on enhancing the security features of popular tracking devices, including Apple's AirTag. While these developments are commendable, traditional GPS trackers still hold several advantages over AirTags, particularly in specific applications and scenarios.

Recent developments between industry giants (Apple and Google) is making the AirTag more compromised in security.

Enhanced Security and Privacy

Traditional GPS trackers generally offer enhanced security features compared to AirTags. These trackers often require explicit authorization and verification processes before they can begin tracking, making unauthorized use more difficult. In contrast, AirTags were initially designed for more casual use – finding personal items like keys and wallets. Although Apple has introduced measures to prevent their misuse, traditional GPS trackers are inherently designed with stronger security protocols, which is crucial for sensitive applications like vehicle tracking and fleet management.

Longer Battery Life and Range

One of the significant advantages of traditional GPS trackers is their battery life and range. Traditional trackers are equipped with larger batteries that can last several months or even years without needing a recharge, compared to the AirTag's battery life of just over a year. Furthermore, GPS trackers utilize a broader range of satellite signals and can provide more consistent tracking capabilities in remote or less urbanized areas where AirTag’s reliance on finding nearby Apple devices (and in the future, even Android devices) might fall short.

With something like our Bolt, reliance on Bluetooth is non-existent. Bolt relies on cell tower signal to accurately pinpoint the device's location, just like your cell phone.

Robustness and Versatility

Traditional GPS trackers are typically more robust and tailored for a variety of challenging environments. They are often weatherproof, waterproof, and built to endure harsh conditions. This makes them ideal for tracking commercial vehicles, maritime vessels, and even wildlife. On the other hand, AirTags are designed primarily for everyday consumer use and might not perform as well under extreme conditions.

Regulatory Compliance

In many industries, compliance with specific regulations regarding tracking and data management is mandatory. Traditional GPS trackers are often designed with these requirements in mind, offering detailed logs and data reports that can be crucial for compliance and legal purposes. AirTags, designed for consumer use, do not naturally fit into these regulatory frameworks and may lack the necessary features to meet stringent industry standards.

Future Implications

The recent partnership between Google and Apple to enhance the privacy features of location trackers like the AirTag is a step in the right direction. However, for professional and industrial applications where security, longevity, and precision are paramount, traditional GPS trackers remain the superior choice. They offer the dependability and detailed tracking required in professional contexts that consumer-grade products like AirTags cannot match.

There's a reason why the professionals use our products (or similar) rather than consumer-grade items like the AirTag. It works in more remote settings, tracking is more discrete and our products are not at the whim of a corporation.


While AirTags and similar consumer-focused trackers offer convenience and an enhanced user experience for everyday items, traditional GPS trackers stand out in professional and specialized settings. Their advanced features, designed for rigorous use and critical tracking, underscore their superiority in scenarios where precision, longevity, and robustness are non-negotiable. As technology evolves, it will be crucial to continue assessing these tools based on the specific needs and security standards they aim to meet.

10 views0 comments


bottom of page