> The question, however, is whether what they are designed for is the future I am barreling towards, one where agentic abstraction both renders traditional interfaces relics

I think he was burying the lede but glad he finally posed the question.

I think it's a bigger risk factor for Apple than is generally assumed. If consumers get used to the freedom but endemic spying of products like Muse, Apple may have a hard time sticking to their privacy and security mandate.

From Apple's statement, they want to be sure users understand that they are handing Meta access to all of their personal data if they grant Muse (or other AI agents) the full-disk access permission.

> Some developers are using Full Disk Access in ways that could put users at risk, exposing everything on their systems—including files, mail, messages, and even browsing history—without users’ full knowledge and understanding. For communication apps, this can also compromise the privacy of the people users are communicating with.

As AI agents become increasingly capable and autonomous, the risks associated with this level of access will grow substantially. We are committed to ensuring users clearly understand these risks before granting such access, so they can make informed decisions about their own data and privacy.

It's the constant risk for Apple that its customer base voluntarily invites any company to interact with them directly, because it's Apple's prerogative to broker the access to its users.

So as always, for the sake of "privacy" Apple needs to take action to protect the users from "themselves", and make it undesirable to grant others the same access Apple has...

In that case, it will be their own dang fault. Modern MacOS is a mess of update nags, unwanted notifications, and permissions prompts. We want sandboxing and security patches but the UX around it is abominable.