The play here seems pretty evidence, if I may assume. Apple creates an interface that is generalized enough so you can easily swap models, and while Claude is preferred by Apple today, it may be any provider or even local models in the future, and the APIs the developers use remain the same, so "migration" becomes easier.
for the on-device model, yes it runs on the Neural Engine (at the moment) so a newer chip means faster, cheaper local inference. For the server side path this Claude package is about your machine is irrelevant since it's a network call. The same API covers both, so "best machine for AI" only bites when the session is actually local.
But we can imagine that the balance of what's on-device vs what's remote will move continuously towards the former as time, improved HW and improved local models keep progressing
Apple's been trying to make the marketing appeal that "Private Compute Cloud" is also a hardware project. Given it seems to rely on low level details of device Hardware Security Modules, it's maybe even at least a little bit more than just "marketing spin".
looks like it is not "Private iCloud Compute" at all.
Anthropic literally says "Requests go directly from your app to the Claude API; Apple is not in the request path and does not see prompts or responses." — Apple straight up lied
No, that post is about Claude for Foundation Models. That is not the same as Apple Intelligence.
the Swift package for Claude for Foundation Models is about sending calls to Claude. That had nothing to do with Apples models which do use local models and models on Private Cloud Compute.
Your accusation that "Apple straight up lied" is based on misunderstanding TFA.
this is a blurry line. when factual statements are so confusing (deliberately? we well never know), there is not much difference between lie and technically-turth ful misdirection. harm is done. ill-intent is likely present.
you can burry "facts" into thousands pages long T&C (apple is infamous for) nobody reads. and claim "you agreed to that!". nobody does, nobody did. technically this is correct and truthful, but harmful ill-intent against user pulling power to corporate entity as much as it can.
same here, apple would "technically" not lie, but annouce their products and build their API confusing to their advantage (upselling features that do not exit).
when you have to fight over word definitions, it is a red flag.