| ▲ | e28eta 3 hours ago | |||||||
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. | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | 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? | ||||||||
| ||||||||