upvote
I feel like we’re already surrounded by devices that do this without any security whatsoever (TVs for example). So, it’s nice to see one implementation try to do it safely. Though, I do agree that normalizing overt recording could embolden the rest.
reply
TVs died. Not fully, but they went from the ubiquity of smartphones to the “oh yeah I’ve got one lying around” of VR. The shit they’ve been up to since is a response to trying to recover a much bigger industry’s profits by juicing a remainder that they’ve realized is so inert they’ll let you do anything to them. I really hope the resemblance to mainstream tech is minimal.
reply
Well, the devices were doing it in the most hidden way possible. This is plain in the open and that's how that window is moved. And yes, I absolutely believe that the overt recording is the actual moment where they expect us to actually get used to it.
reply
Hidden? Every device with a voice assistant has been advertising always-on recording for a decade plus.
reply
We're talking about LG TV style recording.

Also, the assistants are not recording, they're analyzing sound wave for the trigger word. This isn't recording, it's been explained countless times already.

This whole conversation is about taking it to next level.

reply
I do see your point, but what the assistants are doing is recording. It's only a second or two, on-device, and not stored, but it is already a recording. Apple is just changing the duration and retention.

I think as soon as the original capability launched the game was over. People don't understand technical distinctions like that and they've already accepted it.

reply
If there's nothing left and it's deleted, then it's not recorded.

I am talking about the recording that lasts. Recording people's voice without their consent, on your behalf, and transcribing the text for your later use. It's not volatile 2s analyzed by the DSP, it's an actual record of conversation.

This is not the same recording.

But yes, I see your point, too, maybe back then we got used to it at an even less intrusive level. So it progresses, slowly, but surely, like a frog in a pot.

reply
Doesn’t sound like it’s taking it to any other level, except that the wake criteria is handled a little more securely.
reply
Vouched for your dead comment - I’m still thinking about it, don’t agree nor disagree, but prob worth engaging with instead of killin’
reply
The fuck are you talking about? Doing it safely is extremely easy and already solved: have the user be root.

This is about remote control. People who think Apple/Google/Microsoft will just pass on the reigns of that remote control are dangerously naïve.

Apple has locked down whole classes of third-party utilities for its mobile system and Google is copying them as we speak. We are slowing progress at great cost by letting them lock-in and rent seek.

reply
unhinged comment lol
reply
There's an argument to be made that progress on desktop personal computers has been faster because hackers (in the good sense) can hack around and invent new stuff in ways you really cannot on mobile/tablet locked-down hardware and software.

The commenter may have sounded unhinged but the thesis is sound.

reply
Apple themselves keep assuming that they themselves can be unquestionably trusted. The same company that keeps inventing ever more elaborate ways to forcibly insert itself between users and developers to collect rent even when explicitly required by regulators to open up its devices to allow anyone to freely install anything.
reply
Apple’s agreement is that if you trust Apple, their stuff is the best in the business - if Apple is not a weak link, it’s real hard to argue with the design, and the ease of use and UX for the level of security you get is unequal anywhere else. Apple’s side of the bargain is you pay them money, and lots of it.

If you don’t trust Apple, you’re on your own - you can probably recreate all this on a FOSS stack, but you’re gonna have to do it repeatedly for everything, and you’re on the hook for explaining it to everyone you know so they can use it, too. It’s not that you _can’t_ do it yourself, it’s just a whole lot harder than if you accept the bargain and trust Apple.

Whether or not you want to do that is up to you, but I don’t think anyone’s in the dark on what the bargain is.

reply
> you can probably recreate all this on a FOSS stack, but you’re gonna have to do it repeatedly for everything

I’m honestly surprised in the age of vibe-coding we haven’t seen someone try to build out a direct “open walled garden”.

AI could solve the basic coverage on every operating system and screen shape, while the various p2p technologies have gotten really good and when combined with mDNS and maybe an encrypted byo-cloud-storage (eg drive, Dropbox, etc APIs) for async data synching. The nerd side is build a data sync layer, then a variety of apps and products can be built on top of it.

It doesn’t necessarily need to work as well as Apple, nor as rich features, it just needs to support enough devices well enough to allow heterogeneous-platform households or friends to share what they need.

reply
Yeah, so this is also why there’s a raft of stuff Apple will never support integrations with. They’ll bill it under security, and they’re not entirely wrong, but it’s also a threat to their core value prop, so you’ll never get open source iMessage, for example.
reply
Are you kidding me? The absolutely vile vitriol that the members of the open source/modding/FOSS/self-hosting communities have been spitting out for actual years now, against ai and against vibe coding and against the people who use either has been so tremendously effective. And you want to know why someone hasn't used ai to gift you an entire ecosystem? What an incredibly out of touch statement to have to read on this site, where so much of the vitriol lives even today.
reply
Vibe coding hasn't existed for years, has it?
reply
Please spend tokens recreating Homeassistant. Signed -AI companies.
reply
All the trust is just one decisions or change away from current state.
reply
That’s part of the agreement too. Ternus or next guy/gal messes up one huge thing in any significant way, trust is burned and they’re just another Google.

(They are on watchlist for Apple Maps & other ads…)

reply
And the reason to trust Apple is because they recognize this - they’re not under any illusion about why their products command a premium, and so the security and privacy angle is (or should be) one of the sacred cows inside Apple.

And you’re absolutely right - as soon as they break the value proposition, the value of their package and the price people are willing to pay for it drops in half and they’ve all the sudden gotta compete with Google and Samsung and Huaiwei and the rest of that jungle, and that market sucks.

reply
I understand the argument that the lesser of two bad options is the better one.

The massive issue in all of this is digital identity.

Everyone is a citizen of a private corporation without any rights or access points to their digital identity.

Humans rely on our digital identity (email accounts, iCloud, google, etc) for nearly everything.

In many ways, it's like the equivalent of using our license or other ID in physical spaces.

Except, humans are relying on digital identities provided as digital citizens of corporations (Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc), whereby they do no have teh same recourse that official access points of data do.

If at any given time, the majority of the identity providers are generally or ultimately not on the side of the identity holders (human) wrt to their inalienable rights.

There's no easy answer for this. Convenience has been used as a massive tradeoff for security for 10-15 years to the point that most people don't know better, or that there were and can be better options.

Downplaying the fact that the single change of a few sentences could change for worse the promises any corporation makes (it's not entitled to serve the user's needs first, after all).

Security and Privacy in Apple certainly seem to be better, but are not the best they could be.

Privacy and security, especially where it comes to protecting people from increasing threats online including AI bots, is not going to come from corporations alone, they haven't been able to build or roll them out while they learn at the expense of people.

There's no answer being pointed to, only that Apple being the only vendor with some promises isn't very good at all.

reply
There are valid arguments to owning your hardware independent of the software that runs on it.

Otherwise you don't really own your hardware.

LLMs will be able to secure (and insecure) more and more hardware as time goes on.

reply
More than one. The Apple Wallet fiasco, apple maps thing, etc have tested customer perception, before. Even some utter bullshit ones like the battery thing… they still sound like trust violations to dummies.

There’s some resilience, there.

reply
Some resilience there for sure, sometimes the products were just plain early... Apple Maps comes to mind when it first came out, it took a while for it to become more.. complete.

The new ability to add one's own passes to Apple Wallet is nice though. Long overdue.

reply
> their stuff is the best in the business

And yet, won't let me control my Nest Thermostat

(I'm not saying this is exclusively Apple's fault: the lack of Nest interop is Google's fault, but Apple isn't making it easy for third-parties to build Apple-Google bridges either)

reply
That's a Nest issue, not an apple one. Google neutered their own API as of 2019, then did even more shenanigans after that. It's a google product, assume it will be killed the moment whoever is actively working it sees a new shiny.
reply
The new nest thermostats can be controlled by Apple Home fwiw

(They support Matter protocol)

reply
I find it frustrating that I can’t drive HomeKit externally. I have a large home ecosystem, something in the order of 100 devices, from lights to outlets to motion sensors to security and locks to the garage door, some native and some bridged via HomeBridge. I have a bunch of scenes and automations.

But I have, for example, a couple of Brilliant smart wall panels (one gang sized little panels with lighting and other controls) that I have to duplicate because despite the Brilliant being able to expose devices as a bridge to HomeKit I can’t say “Run this Scene” because Apple doesn’t allow external integrations to do so.

reply
You're in the dark yourself already, as you frame the bargain in a simplistic way. You imply, this was just about having "nice stuff" and the lack of short-term alternatives was imposing merely a life-style choice upon you.

The systemic "lack of alternatives" is steering you, you confuse "not knowing alternatives" with the actual absence of alternatives and ignore possible further implications entirely.

The pattern is systemic capture, keeping you sedated about it is part of the scheme.

reply
Do I sound sedated?
reply
I’d argue this why security research versions of various devices are made and distributed to researchers. There was a big thing with private cloud compute and iPhone, I can see the same thing happening for exclaves
reply
They did firewall it from the OS, but yes, you have to trust that Apple engineered it the way they said they engineered it.
reply
Secure enclave, pcc, etc are things that get submitted for independent auditing and certification. At least for some stuff.
reply
This is true of all forms of confidential compute.
reply
That is pretty much the case with any software that you don't build and host yourself. Is it possible that they are lying? Sure.
reply
You do realize that those two goals conflict.
reply
[flagged]
reply
The issue seems like every other company is speed racing into data capture (and perhaps surveillance). There is obviously some end user advantages to all that data and continuos listening of signals, which other companies leverage as "features" rather than their entire business model.

So if everyone else has a feature that lets you use your voice all the time as an input device, you are seen behind the times if you don't offer it. But at the same time if you want to offer protection for that feature, not being able to access it outside the device is the only acceptable answer.

Consumers who are more discerning, privacy conscious and technologically literate would be best. But without that being an option, having one major company still even pretend to care about privacy is at least refreshing

reply
The issue with this particular Watch is they talk so much about the privacy of the recording from device's owner perspective, while they completely disregard the aspect of consensuality of third parties who are also being recorded.

This is the same as with the Meta glasses and that's where I believe said Overton window is being expanded to. I am not one for conspiracy theories but it's not hard to notice the sudden appearance of these devices and their "this is cool" and the implied "what is even your problem" gaslighting advertising.

reply
deleted
reply
Nah you're misreading it, it's just a creative interpretation of the famous Kent Beck comment:

"for each desired change, make the change easy, then make the easy change"

reply
That's brilliant
reply
Isn't this "just" the latest iteration of a coprocessor?
reply
It worked pretty differently. Daring fireball did a write up. https://daringfireball.net/2026/03/apple_enclaves_neo_camera...
reply
Then they'll share the information with the government under the guise of "think of the children" or "stopping racism". Anyone against the conversation collection will be pro child abuse, or in support of antisemitism.
reply
I am afraid that this is indeed being orchestrated. Apple's ad explaining why you'd want that recording working on your Watch was really pulling some very odd use cases, like the restaurant specials. Which got me thinking they had a product first and then needed to justify its existence....
reply