[stouset]

Nothing at all. But they do it because it’s clearly a priority for them and something that’s currently part of their corporate ethos.

Would it be better if something forced them to? Probably so! But barring that, having them volunteer to be responsible stewards—and prevent others from acting badly here—is potentially one of the best alternatives.

[Rohansi]

That's exactly my point. It's just the reputation they've built.

> But barring that, having them volunteer to be responsible stewards—and prevent others from acting badly here—is potentially one of the best alternatives.

This is the part that bugs me. Reputations are earned. Ask yourself: would Apple allow another entity to deploy their AI assistant on iOS if they respect user privacy at least as well as Apple? I doubt it! Apple is not doing this as a kindness to its customers - it directly benefits Apple as an excuse to lock competitors out of their platform.

[stouset]

This argument would be a lot more compelling if there was literally any company out there with an interest in doing this sort of thing that had even remotely comparable a track record to Apple.

OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, Perplexity, and everyone else in this space are openly brazen about how much of your information they want to consume—however possible—to store in perpetuity and use for whatever future purpose they want.

[Rohansi]

In this space, sure. AI only exists and is improving because of extensive data collection. That's why Apple licensed models from Google. Anyone can go and download and run open-weight models, and many allow commercial use. If Apple opened it up I'm sure you would see new options which respect user privacy pop up.

Just look at Apple's stance on third-party web browsers to see what I'm talking about. There are browsers which respect user privacy, have good security, etc. but Apple uses the same excuse there: only Apple can be trusted to do it right.

[stouset]

Now the issue becomes opening the door only to the few entities that can be trusted. It is much easier and cheaper, and carries considerably less risk to simply not.

This is one of those situations where multiple overlapping incentives all point the same way. In this case, Apple’s incentives align with those of user privacy and security, and so I am willing to give them a lot of leeway. Particularly since they seem to be the only large player taking this approach.

[Rohansi]

> It is much easier and cheaper, and carries considerably less risk to simply not.

Which benefits Apple because it gets rid of competition on their platforms.

> Apple’s incentives align with those of user privacy and security, and so I am willing to give them a lot of leeway

At the cost of your freedom. Sure, it's not that bad now, but I'd be worried about the future of macOS because it's the least restrictive Apple platform right now.