[pornel]

In the EU case, Apple weaponizes people's ignorance about regulation. Apple pretends that the features everyone else has been shipping left and right somehow need extra paperwork and special approvals, because (…checks notes…) pro-privacy EU laws let zero-privacy competitors sail through, but block implementations that offer more privacy!?

What's really happening is Apple unilaterally withholding features while making vague noises about regulation as bargaining chips in talks with EU regulators where Apple is trying to weasel out of punishment for breaking anti-monopoly laws.

[nozzlegear]

I don't think it's unfair to say that the EU scrutinizes Apple (and a few other megacorps) a great deal more than most other companies. Some zero-privacy competitors might be sailing by right now simply because they aren't already caught up in the EU's red tape. Which isn't to say Apple doesn't also wield that red tape as their own bargaining chip, like you said.

[autuni]

Looking closer at products of megacorps is actually exactly the point of what the EU is doing - that's where the "gatekeeper" classification comes in. In order to allow a fair competition for smaller companies, dominant companies need to make sure they offer interfaces for other products. In this case, since so many people have iPhones, they are told to offer the possibility for other AI vendors to offer a replacement model instead of forcing the lock-in to Apple(Google)'s model on the device. That doesn't necessarily impact the privacy at all, unless a user would knowingly (or ignorantly) choose a less privacy-preserving alternative. Which while some users may make a wrong choice, should be their choice to make nonetheless.

[cromka]

They don't scrutinize brands but specific products. iMessage is exempt from DMA, for example, while WhatsApp and Messenger are not.

[jw14]

There is no privacy concern here. Probably monopoly concerns.

Personally I would consider withholding products or features from the EU, not because I want to "steal everyone's data", but because they're a pain in the neck for a small business to comply with.

Personally I think EU policies single handedly ruined the web. Every time I'm shown a cookie policy I am a tiny bit more angry at the EU. If I were Apple I would drag my feet way more. They probably only do it because shareholders would force them to go after the Euros if they didn't try.

[InTheArena]

This isn't really true. AI laws in the EU mandate that Apple give full access to everythign on the device to third parties.

It's legit to be skeptical on the privacy front, but giving deepseek access to my entire phone. Or the TrumpAI at some point in a dystopian future seems... not great.

[vages]

What’s your source for this?

Opening up an API does not mean that everything on the phone is accessible to anybody.

[e28eta]

They’re actively asking developers to index all the content in their apps, to provide Personal Context that Siri can use for user requests. And to create/index the actions available in the app.

So, where developers comply, all of that content is now accessible to those alternative implementations.

It’s not full read/write of the phone, and it’d exclude obvious secrets like passwords, but it is quite far reaching access.

I don’t know what sort of restrictions they can put on the alternative implementations. Can I vibe code one and have it live in a week? or is there a minimum bar?

[Huppie]

We may have a different view of what 'giving access' means in this context.

The way I see it: If a user willingly (1) installs another AI app like deepseek and (2) willingly gives it access to 'full phone and app data' with a warning screen or setting of whatever that seems... like a good thing?

I may not agree with those users that it's worthwhile providing their full private data to [some AI startup X] or [Some Chinese or US AI company that will hover up as much for their own use] but if the EU forces Apple to provide this as an option, that sounds good to me.

The whole point of the regulation is that the data on the device is _the user's_ data and if Apple can have its AI services work with the user's data, competitors should be able to do the same.

From my (admittedly European) perspective it looks like Apple is just throwing a tantrum here.

[e28eta]

I don’t have the EU perspective, which might be changed by things like GDPR, but I prefer Apple’s stance that “no one should have this data, not even us”.

One reason is that the data on a user’s phone isn’t solely owned by them. Some of it is shared with other people, or “belongs” to someone else: chat, email, shared documents, photos of people, contact information, etc.

In a corporate environment, this is more explicit: you have access to company information, so the IT department controls what apps you can install / run, because individual EEs won’t always make the best choices.

Second, I think app developers are more likely to share more data, if they know that the shared data doesn’t leave the user’s control. And that (presumably) makes the feature work better. If I’m developing an app, I’ll think twice about indexing any sensitive data, if I don’t know where it was going to end up.

[Huppie]

Maybe you missed the 'or sent to private cloud' part of the announcement, it's not just local-llm only.

Don't get me wrong, just like you I personally would also prefer LLM-integrations with a privacy-focused provider and I think Apple is a good party to get that from (assuming they're using good models and keep their privacy guarantees here...)

But in the end you're still often 'sending data to an LLM provider', and the EU enforcing them to also let that be competing LLM providers still doesn't sound like a bad thing to me.

If Mistral would give the same privacy guarantees: great! If a company wants to use their enterprise OpenAI subscription: great! Etc. etc.

Let's allow for some competition here and not force a specific LLM-provider onto users just because they like the Apple hardware and software ecosystem.

[gumby271]

Could the restriction not be the device owner choosing to use it? If some rando vibe coded an app and the os told me all the things it can access, I'd probably want to trust the developer before installing it. Why do I need to beg Apple's permission to use software better than their first party offering?

[NetMageSCW]

Because you made the choice to trust Apple when you bought an iPhone. And while you may make a deep study of who is providing your alternative AI app (is that even possible with openAI or Copilot or Gemini?), the average use will pick something shiny and lose their savings when it transfers their bank balance outside the country.

[wiseowise]

> the average use will pick something shiny and lose their savings when it transfers their bank balance outside the country.

Couldn't you make a more believable straw man, please? The "Nigerian prince wants to send you billions" is really tired. Try something more emotional! Hackers will steal your kid's photos and post them on pedophile forums or something. This will resonate better with uninitiated and allow to easier lobby monopolistic practices. Good luck!

[gumby271]

Just because I bought an Apple product doesn't mean I made the choice to trust them globally across everything I do on my device, when did this become a binary that the hardware vendor must also be the only trusted software and service vendor? I like my MacBook because I trusted Apple to build great hardware, a pretty okay os, and services I don't give a shit about. I won't buy an iPhone because Apple has removed the ability to distinguish between those things on that platform.

Surely there's something better we can do than say "the average user is a dumbfuck better consolidate all control with Apple".

[koolala]

I think because they themselves have it access everything on the phone so it has to be equivalent.

[dbbk]

Apple wrote a whole press release explaining it: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/06/due-to-dma-siri-ai-de...

[cowsandmilk]

I’m sorry, but the DMA is mandating Cambridge Analytica-type access to data. That whole scandal was people on Facebook granting a third party access to all the data they had access to. And Cambridge Analytica lied about how they were going to use it.

Facebook got roasted for this, but now the EU wants the same open data policy from every big tech company.

[cromka]

Oh wow... Cambridge Analitica had access to all the data Facebook had on you without you knowing it and without you knowing the extent of the data Facebook had on you. EU wants you to be able to knowingly install apps on your phone and give them access to the data on your phone you chose to.

These are the same to you?

[dd8601fn]

It IS regulatory. The EU wants “anything Apple AI can do you have to let other AI providers do with equal access”.

Which is fucking stupid, and Apple will never, ever throw open the gates to something so dangerously braindead. Their entire reputation depends on it.

And China is kinda self-explanatory.

[yoavm]

What is stupid about it? Sounds like (a slightly more) fair competition to me.

[aucisson_masque]

Yeah I hate freedom too.

[dd8601fn]

You already have it. If you’re a fan of the “A loaded gun in every crib!” style of “freedom”, go buy something that isn’t an iPhone.

[wiseowise]

Let's not switch the goalposts here. Me having an option to not use something doesn't exclude the said party from going against user's freedom.

[anhner]

same argument can be applied to you, if you don't want to use Claude/OpenAI/Deepseek instead of Gemini, then DON'T!

[Danox]

China will get there first why because they’re run by engineers. Yes, they will have some stipulations but if you show them a good idea, it’s a good idea. They won’t stand on ceremony and say not invented here.