Importance Score: 62 / 100 🔴
Google’s Find My Device Network: A Year Later
When Google introduced its much-anticipated Find My Device network in April 2024, the reception was lukewarm. Initial excitement for these potential Android tracker alternatives to Apple’s AirTag was tempered by a sluggish rollout and critical feedback. However, in the ever-evolving tech landscape, Google pledged ongoing improvements to the Find My Device system following its initial launch. This raises the question: has the network substantially improved since then?
To assess the current state, I performed tests on the latest trackers from three primary manufacturers of compatible devices: Pebblebee, Chipolo, and Motorola. Google currently does not produce its own Pixel or Nest-branded trackers, and Samsung’s SmartTags operate on the proprietary SmartThings Find network. For comparative analysis, an Apple AirTag and a Tile tracker were also included to serve as benchmarks against Google’s main competitors.
My testing revealed a network that has visibly matured over the past year. Under optimal settings, such as in busy urban environments with stationary trackers, its performance equals that of Apple and Tile. However, challenges remain in more complex tracking situations, such as rural areas or with moving tags, where a difference between Google and its competitors is still apparent. Intriguingly, these limitations may be intentional.
How Find My Device Works
The Find My Device network operates similarly to Apple’s Find My network. It can locate smart tracking tags, offline phones and tablets, and certain third-party Bluetooth devices, like select Sony headphones. Trackers use Bluetooth to communicate with nearby Android devices, which then share encrypted location data with the network, allowing you to see the item’s location on a map. The next step is simply going to the location.
However, the process is not always straightforward, especially at launch. Unlike Apple, where a single nearby iPhone can establish Bluetooth contact, Google adopts a more cautious approach to location data. To protect the location privacy of individual Android users, Find My Device defaults to aggregating location data. This means the network requires multiple Bluetooth connections from different Android devices before revealing the tracker’s location. Bluetooth pings are also sporadic, increasing the number of devices needed for a correct location.
Even months after the launch, Google’s tracker network exhibited tracking deficiencies. Reviews of the Pebblebee Tag around that time highlighted periods of no location pings for a full day. Similar tests with Pebblebee and Chipolo trackers also reported multi-day delays in receiving location alerts.
Improvements Since Launch
Google has since acknowledged these issues, promising improvements to tracking speed and accuracy. According to Android product manager Angela Hsiao, internal testing indicated a fourfold increase in the speed of finding items since launch. Follow-up tests from January corroborated these improvements. What, then, contributed to the enhanced performance?
The improvements stem from two primary sources. First, Google has implemented “continuous algorithm and technical under-the-hood improvements” since the network debuted, adjusting Bluetooth scanning frequency and duration to increase connection success rates.
Second, user behavior has evolved. While default settings prioritize aggregated data for user privacy, users have the option to switch from “high-traffic areas” to “all areas.” This setting allows Google to individually use the phone’s location data to track devices. Although Hsiao did not specify the number of users who have enabled this option, she indicated that it has increased, though adoption remains limited.
Is Google exaggerating its improvements, or has the Find My Device network truly bridged the gap with Apple’s Find My?
Testing the Current Crop of Trackers
Before we delve into the testing results, let’s review the trackers that I examined. Pebblebee, Chipolo, and Motorola are the leading manufacturers of Find My Device trackers in North America and Europe.
Pebblebee
Pebblebee offers three models: the Clip, Tag, and Card. The Clip, a circular tracker slightly larger than an AirTag, has a built-in keyring attachment. It boasts a Bluetooth range of up to 500 feet and is USB-C rechargeable. The Tag is smaller with a shorter range, and the Card is wallet-compatible. All three support both Google and Apple’s networks, allowing portability across devices.
Chipolo
Chipolo has streamlined its product line to offer only the circular Chipolo Pop, also compatible with both Android and iOS. Available in a range of colors, the Chipolo Pop has a Bluetooth range of 300 feet and utilizes a replaceable CR2032 battery.
Motorola
The Moto Tag is an Android-exclusive tracker designed to mirror the AirTag’s dimensions for accessory compatibility. It matches Chipolo’s Bluetooth range with a similar replaceable battery and IP67 water resistance. This tag also includes ultra-wideband (UWB) support for nearby precision tracking, but Google has not yet enabled UWB support on the network.
What about the competition?
Apple AirTag and Tile Mate
The AirTag comes in a single form factor without a specified Bluetooth range. It also features IP67 water resistance, uses CR2032 batteries, and has active UWB support. One key advantage is separation alerts, warning users when they move away from their devices.
The Tile Mate, from the veteran tracker company, uses its unique network rather than Google’s or Apple’s. While lacking UWB, it provides four different designs: the Mate, Pro, Slim, and Sticker. The biggest drawback for the standard Tile Mate is its non-replaceable battery.
Head-to-Head Testing
I focused on evaluating the trackers’ performance in three key areas:
- Locating missing items using the network in urban and suburban areas.
- Locating items at short distances with Bluetooth, UWB, and alarms.
- Generating alerts to prevent tracking scenarios.
I left the trackers in a park across from a busy cafe in London, behind a small brick wall. I then marked each tag as lost and returned home to wait.
The Tile Mate reported its location after 15 minutes. Fifteen minutes later, the AirTag and the Google trackers reported their locations. However, there was a key difference: while Apple’s pin was almost perfect, the three Google trackers had an initial search radius. The pin became more precise after a few hours.
I also placed the trackers along a trail in the suburbs. This time, Apple reported its location after just 15 minutes. Tile reported after an hour but placed it 50 feet away from the actual location. The Google trackers never reported a location at all during that period.
What happens once you reach the approximate location? Apple has the advantage of UWB, giving approximate directions. Once you are close enough, you can activate an alarm.
The Chipolo, Pebblebee, and Motorola tags cannot match that, but they have a clever advantage: They are louder. All three Google-powered tags are much louder than the Apple version. That is all you need if the tracking network gets you close enough.
Google’s Tracking in Motion
The story was consistent across weeks of testing: Google’s network was equally fast at tracking and finding devices in busy areas. But it was often less precise. This was most true when the trackers were in motion. When my partner was traveling with my collection of devices, the Find My Device network found her at the bar. But it only provided general areas to search.
This results from Google’s emphasis on aggregated data. Unless the tracker connects to multiple devices at once, tracking depends on multiple pings over time. If the tracker is moving, each device reports a different location, and therefore a broader search area is revealed. Google is useful for backpacks that are left behind, but less useful for bags left in a taxi.
According to Google, that is intended. Hsiao said that Google’s priority is “safety over continuous, real-time tracking capabilities.” That provides safety for the location data of individual users, as well as stalking victims, since there is no live feed of the tracker’s location.
Anti-Stalking Alerts
The other facet of stalking protection are the alerts, but currently, nobody is really getting them right. Tile has no alerts at all. The issue seems to be interoperability: iPhones detected my AirTag, and Android phones detected the Find My Device tags. It was rare for either to detect the other network’s trackers. It seems that the standard to detect trackers is not working very well.
The Verdict
After 12 months, Google’s Find My Device network is not as good as Apple’s Find My. The difference is philosophical: Google does not want to offer precise tracking, so it is more private, but less effective.
Apple’s AirTag will do a better job. Google is banking on “good enough” – finding items most of the time, pretty accurately, and fairly fast. In exchange, users are willing to give up edge cases for a safer, more private network.
This choice is atypical for Google. Typically, Google does not sacrifice functionality for privacy, and it certainly does not take in less data than Apple. In any case, there is something to celebrate in its compromises.