upvote
I believe that the issue was that the EU wanted Apple to open up their new AI agent interface (the ability to control every app on your phone so Siri can call you an Uber or whatever), and Apple thought that it was too risky of a capability to give to any random AI app right out of the gate.
reply
> Apple thought that it was too risky of a capability to give to any random AI app right out of the gate

Oh come on. Apple doesn't want to give up control. That's what this is about. The privacy thing is just to make them look good

reply
Nothing you wrote is in disagreement with the parent.
reply
It's both but the dangers are far more issue for their brand than control
reply
This doesn't have anything to do with privacy.

The DMA mandates that Apple allows for competition, which (if you believe in capitalism) is good for the market overall. It's essential to stop big tech from abusing their market dominance. However Apple would prefer to not allow competition for their digital products on any of their hardware.

reply
But that does have to do with privacy.

Apple wants to implement features that access data locally. It doesn’t want to allow competition for offering those features, but if it did, competitors may use that access to local data to exfiltrate.

So it is about both competition and, as a result of creating competition, privacy.

reply
Thats what Apple wants you to think. In reality it has nothing to do with privacy. Apple could let 3rd parties tap into these APIs but only after the user clicks away a big scary message telling the user they are leaving the comfort of the apple curated garden.

This allows competition, but also allows privacy for those who want it. See? Simple really, but Apple being Apple dont want to let 3rd parties use its AI APIs and so we have this standoff.

reply
Apple is using Cloud compute as well to enable Siri AI.

If you want to you could still use Apple or another provider you decide to trust - or even one that does everything locally. The competition would still have to follow GDPR after all.

reply
Apple PCC has been independently audited to be ultra secure.

Will the EU enforce the same for 3rd party integrations?

reply
If Apple had e.g. required competitors to undergo similar independent audits that would probably be allowed as it is quite similar to how Apple solved the third party app store issue.
reply
Are we sure the EU would allow that? Or would it be seen as a way to stifle competition?
reply
I mean, Apple's PCC audits require them to individually vet each auditor before they're allowed to see the PCC nodes.

If Apple extended that philosophy to other vendors then yeah, it would be deliberately unfair and anticompetitive.

reply
It sounds like they are whitelisting the hashes of all the Google software and OSes and stuff to ensure nothing is changed out from under them without them knowing.

Even if you could make all the other possible vendors run private cloud compute style stuff that would be a lot to manage.

And I can’t imagine the EU would like, and as a user I would certainly hate, the “OK you can use Grok but you lose all privacy too bad“ dialogue box they could make.

reply
I don't even think it offers a meaningful degree of security. It's a form of theater, you have to be hand-selected to perform the audit that Apple promised.

Most sysadmins know that hash matching only mitigates a small subset of rare upstream attacks. Apple could still be MITMing the whole thing (SSL added and removed here :)) and no auditor would get the chance to check. The offered audit is so weak that I would not trust any FAANG business to administrate it.

Apple is once again demanding arbitrary centralization to give them an undeserved veto power. None of this is for security.

reply
If they're not "hand-selected", what would be the way to select the auditors?

Just have an open house for anyone interested to come poke the hardware and software?

reply
This is mostly wrong. The DMA has a process to determine if a service provider acts a gatekeeper to the market, and let's be honest if Apple is not one, then I don't know who else besides Google.. So there is no privacy argument in there except Apple didn't want to design a interface that complies and is safe.
reply
Siri AI has the capability to read your screen and access a lot of personal stuff. I don't blame Apple for not wanting to open this up to allow any model to access it. It seems Apple proposed a number of solutions which were denied.

While I can appreciate the reason for the DMA, people don't have to buy Apple devices, they can buy any type of phone they want and just use the ecosystems provided by these phones.

reply
We already have choice - people can buy many different types of phones. Nothing about this is about choice or the free market. They want special treatment.

Apple is free to do what they want. The EU can go and try and build their own iPhone (good luck with that).

reply
> We already have choice - people can buy many different types of phones.

Do you really? The only two types of operating systems for phones that you could reasonably use are iOS and Android. So it's either Apple or Google.

Imagine a world, in which you could only consume Apple or Google services on those phones. No more Netflix or Disney+ on iPhones - only Apple TV Plus because the streaming video API is not available to third party apps. I think there are plenty of other examples to demonstrate the point.

A free market doesn't work if you have a duopoly. A free market requires the freedom to choose between different services, which Apple is trying to limit by only allowing Siri AI to access specific OS interfaces.

Not sure why some people on hackernews support more locked down operating system.

reply
There are hundreds of phone models. A smartphone is a just one type.

Apple came out of nowhere and invented the smartphone because the existing system was controlled by the telcos and horrible phone technology. The same thing can easily happen again.

It makes no sense to limit Netflix on phones and people would probably stop buying iPhones.

If the EU wants an "open" phone ecosystem, they should foster real innovation in their space and build it themselves.

reply
There are phones running alternative versions of Android with no google dependency, and there are phones running linux.

Furthermore, if we lived in a world where the two main OS's were locked down to an insane degree, we would also have plenty of alternative operating systems. The reason we don't today is because we don't really have a need for it, in the same way linux has a monopoly on servers and nobody really cares.

reply
> There are phones running alternative versions of Android with no google dependency, and there are phones running linux.

Those make up 0% of the market [1], which classifies Apple and Google as gatekeepers.

[1] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe/

reply
No, they would be gatekeepers if it wasn't possible to get a phone which didn't run their operating systems. You can, it's just that they suck and nobody wants it. You have cause and effect backwards.

If you have a market with a handful of companies producing good products, and a handful of companies producing shit products nobody wants or buys, you cannot claim that the companies producing the good products are "gatekeeping", and that's the reason why nobody buys the shit products.

reply
Them making the only phones anyone uses makes them the gatekeepers on what people do on their phones -> Apple and Google are gatekeepers under the DMA.

It doesn't matter how they became gatekeepers.

reply
If people cared they would use something else. People don't care. That doesn't make them gatekeepers.
reply
The EU is going to be China minus the technology.
reply
> EU has the right to privacy.

Sure - the DMA has nothing to do with privacy though, so that's a straw man. or is it a red herring? I always get those confused.

reply
EU does not want privacy. They actually want to get rid of privacy every so often (adding backdoors in encrypted conversations). So far it has not worked out, but I’m afraid they will succeed at one point.

To follow along that line of thoughts, the requirements they are actually asking for proper DMA compliance would probably go right in that direction tbh.

I, for one, am happy Apple is taking a stance, and, as an European would really much like my government to stop asking ridiculous things that do not profit the consumer.

reply
Why would the EU want an EU company to make a phone OS with a massive privacy flaw?
reply
Why is everyone conflating GDPR with DMA? DMA is literally the anti-thesis of GDPR in that, by design, it makes the ecosystem less secure, not more.
reply
If they can comply with China’s unreasonable demands, they can comply with the completely reasonable EU demands.

They already claim to care about your freedom and privacy. Now they can prove it.

reply
It's not launching in China either.
reply
First they are not complying in China. Second it is sheer arrogance if not outright racist crap that China's demands are unreasonable but EU's reasonable.

Seriously EU folks need to come to down to earth sometime.

reply
I would venture that Apple is going to go with something fairly different in China with Chinese partners. This is different from 3rd party access because they aren't opening up their phones, it will just be a fixed 2nd party solution (like they do with Google, except Google -> Alibaba, Google Cloud -> Shanghai Water corporation or something like that).
reply
They are not complying with China’s demand either AFAIK.
reply
deleted
reply