| |
| ▲ | pornel 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | cromka 12 minutes ago | parent [-] | | They don't scrutinize brands but specific products. iMessage is exempt from DMA, for example, while WhatsApp and Messenger are not. |
| |
| ▲ | cowsandmilk 23 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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 9 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | Danox 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | aucisson_masque 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah I hate freedom too. | | |
| ▲ | dd8601fn 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
| |
| ▲ | InTheArena 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | What’s your source for this? Opening up an API does not mean that everything on the phone is accessible to anybody. | | |
| ▲ | e28eta 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 an hour ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
| |
| ▲ | gumby271 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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 17 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
| |
| ▲ | koolala 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think because they themselves have it access everything on the phone so it has to be equivalent. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | akmarinov 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Nice, waiting to see what they’ll market as “the feature” for when they run ads outside of the US | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | layer8 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The OS restriction aren’t merely based on the region settings, they are also based on Apple Account region/country and on the detected physical location of the device. | |
| ▲ | lxgr 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Most of them are, some are annoyingly missing. It’s possible to install apps from two different app store accounts, but it’s 10 times more annoying than on Android. Additionally, there are some EU only features, such as third-party NFC payments. Apple’s performative DMA outrage is getting more pathetic by the iOS version. | | |
| ▲ | charcircuit 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | You can easily change your account region back and forth on iOS. Meanwhile Android has a bunch of extra checks and includes a 12 months delay before being able to switch it again. | | |
| ▲ | sooheon 8 minutes ago | parent [-] | | A family member lost years of irreplaceable photos and paid apps due to account lock, and doing this across two countries they were legitimately residing in triggered it. |
|
|
|
