You know what, I've been a bit too snipe-y in my previous comments, and it led to to discussion devolving in unproductive ways.

I'd genuinely like to understand where you're coming from more.

I think we're all in agreement that this framework is very much about letting developers swap the models easily, and treat them as commodities. That seems pretty obvious.

I do however still don't see how this has anything to do with controlling the UX (or the new Siri for that matter! The new Siri doesn't use Anthropic models, and there are no extensions point for it to do so — that's pretty much the whole reason why it won't be available in the EU).

Help me see your point of view!

▲

embedding-shape 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Thanks for the patience!

The way I see it, isn't about what is immediately there right now today, but what intent it signals, or what path Apple is planning. Yes, today it's ClaudeForFoundationModels, but the FoundationModels stuff will be used to allowed switching between models, probably without users noticing, and who knows what Apple will ultimately surface to users, tends to be in the direction of less user-control.

But there is a lot of assumptions, guesses and extrapolation from that, I think you're right if you focus only what's there right now, rather than trying to "see into the future" which harrouet basically started doing with their root comment.

▲

geodel 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't know if it helps. One way to look at it is branding product. Apple is branding the product. So they supposedly have more value to customers as it stands for quality, awareness, trust etc. As oppose to 100 little components in computer which maybe from different brands, and Apple may switch brand year to year without user noticing. So those components makers have little power over Apple.

Same is happening to Claude software package as it would stand behind branded Apple foundation models. From pure software developer thinking this is exactly what Claude offered here so where is the issue? Issue is in larger space where Apple could take steps to block Claude out of their ecosystem if they so wish at some point and there is little Claude / Anthropic would do if Apple Foundation is the only thing that Apple consumers would know about.

	▲	klausa 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That framing would make sense to me if the thing being discussed was Apple letting _end users_ somehow access Claude models white-labeled as "Apple Foundation Model", sure? Or even letting _developers_ access Apple-hosted Claude or something? But this is very much _not_ what this is. Apple showed a bunch of new APIs at WWDC last week. One of this is a way for a developers to interact with LLM's in a way that let's you easily swap out models (with a bunch of other niceties around it), including swapping between on-device and remote models. This is _Anthropic_ (not Apple!) shipping their support for that framework, so you can also switch between different Anthropic models using the same APIs you'd use to swap between a local or PCC model. I expect OpenAI will probably ship their shims in the next couple of weeks too? (You can probably vibe-code one in half an hour if you point Codex at the Anthropic one, tbh). (Apple also doesn't use "Apple Foundation Model" anywhere in the user-facing marketing materials AFAICT, this is strictly developer facing terminology, but I could be wrong?) My impression is that people are _wildly_ misunderstanding what this _actually_ is, and running wild with speculation/interpretation.