This is such a shallow take. There are obvious privacy and security tradeoffs here. The EU competition framework is good in many ways, but this is actually something I don’t think we have the regulatory frameworks in place to handle yet , or social norms and understanding about why giving any Tom dick and Harry root on all your data is a bad idea.

It’s paternalistic, but I agree with Apple that free for all access to this kind of data is not a great idea. Ironically, before this could work we’d actually need much more EU style data regulation, and more consistently enforced.

▲

Maxion 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I dunno, I trust the EU regulators more than I'd trust any US based company.

▲

bigfudge 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I do too, but in this case the choice isn't between apple and the EU. It's between apple and the <random rapacious vc backed ai startup looking to hoover your data> your non-technical friends foolishly trust, without much understanding of the implications for them or society as a whole.

Ultimately I think it's important for the EU to regulate companies like apple to ensure competition. But in this instance, it doesn't seem like we have all the other pieces in place that would be necessary for a sensible rollout of that.

▲

yunwal 2 hours ago | parent [-]

what's the missing piece exactly? In every other situation where a company wants to launch an iphone app to hoover your data, Apple gives a clear message telling you what types of data you're giving access to. Why is this situation different?

	▲	bigfudge an hour ago \| parent [-]
		For me, it's real regulations about what data can reasonably be hoovered, what it's used for, for how long. And a culture where the majority don't blindly click yes to all messages like that because the only alternative is not to use the shiny new thing they have been sold. I don't think it could ever appear in the US, which is why it's a good thing apple won't be forced to open up there. But if the EU does insist, they should be careful what they wish for and plan for the negative consequences of a free for all.

▲

troupo 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There's nothing shallow about my take.

Apple uses "privacy and security" as a cudgel to prevent anyone from breaking into the vendor lock in. To the point that EU actually had to explicitly tell Apple what to do [1], as Apple delayed features, made them extremely hard or convoluted for third-parties to use, and pulled every trick out of the malicious compliance manual.

This whole virtual assistants thing will drag on for another several years.

Edit: I mean they show their models accessing and changing a password on the user's bank site at the same time as accessing and changing passwords on another random site. Which is one prompt away from exfiltrating user data. So spare me the "Apple knows best about privacy and security so they should keep any access to their platforms locked down"

[1] https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/developer-portal/in...

▲

bigfudge an hour ago | parent [-]

It's shallow because it doesn't acknowledge that there is a real tradeoff. I share a lot of your cynicism about US tech companies, but I think you need to be realistic about the state of the market and how the incentives align.

Apples incentives are not, currently, as strongly misaligned with their user interests as many other tech firms (meta, google, random startups, etc). Going slowly might not be a bad idea for most people here.

That said, I hadn't seen the demo you mention. If they do do that (bank passwords etc) they are stupider than I thought they would be.

	▲	OrangeDelonge 20 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Apple’s incentives will grow misaligned as their revenue from ads grows. (and that revenue is skyrocketing)