Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple and OpenAI Must Face xAI Lawsuit Over Siri Integration
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
then your position is clearly never about the product so the arguments about "giving the user choice" and "doing it for the developers" were never true.
I don't see the issue here since iPhone users can download the app. Case closed. Musk is such a whiny little infant sometimes.
Oh yeah i'm not arguing it from the legal standpoint - i'm sure they'll find an erroneous point - more from the real world usability point to the guy who says he's forced to use ChatGPT.
The legal part is silly as well though.
Genuine question here. I hear versions of this argument all the time, but I’m yet to understood the actual philosophy behind it. Or at least why the concept only applies selectively.
What determines when something "should" be offered as an option?
Companies like Apple (Or Samsung, Sony, Ford, General Mills, MS, etc.) make tens of thousands of design decisions that benefit one partner over another every time they develop a product. How do we, as a society, decide which of those decisions must be mandated by law, and which are left to the designer/engineer/innovator to choose?
If we’re going to say AI partners must be selectable, then why stop there?
If I prefer a Broadcom modem over Apple’s C1, should Apple be required to offer that at checkout?
If I have a moral objection to Foxconn, should Apple be forced to provide alternate assembly options? Isn’t it “anticompetitive” to force me to use Foxconn?
What about facial-recognition libraries? If I like how Android auto-tags people in photos, should iOS be required to give me a dropdown to send that work to a different vendor?
Why is AI or search “sacred” in terms of user choice, but modems, sensors, displays, and other core integrations aren’t?
Don't get me wrong, I’m not arguing that Apple shouldn’t offer some options, if they choose to do so, great (I guess). I just don’t understand why some people believe these things should be mandatory. At the end of the day, the iPhone is a product I’m free to ignore. If I buy one, I’m buying it as it is. If I misunderstand what it does, that’s on me, unless Apple lied, in which case that’s fraud, not antitrust.
A monopoly is whatever the government says it is. The literal meaning become irrelevant somewhere between the Sherman act and the last time a politician explained why two companies with a combined 8% market share were somehow “anticompetitive.” Market definition is pretty much a mood board.
Carve the market small enough and anything becomes a monopoly. Airbnb as an example. Hotels host guests at roughly ten times the scale of Airbnb, but that’s inconvenient if you’re trying to build a case. So you just exclude hotels entirely. Call the market “residential overnight accommodations” and voilà, Airbnb is now a terrifying titan strangling competition in a market.
Meanwhile the most egregious abuses of dominance, the ones that limit innovation or put strong barriers to new products, tend to be the ones nobody touches. Cable companies, for instance, have been running little fiefdoms for decades because regulators carved the country into exclusive territories and then pretended those territories were somehow “competitive markets”.
What passes for “monopolistic” or “anticompetitive” today is mostly whatever result the loudest political narrative wants. If a company’s behavior annoys the right people, suddenly it’s an existential threat to democracy and consumer choice (or at least how you choose to define consumer choice). If it’s actually gouging consumers under the protection of government-granted exclusivity, somehow that’s “market forces.”
It’s not that monopolies don’t exist. It’s that the word stopped meaning anything objective once legislation turned it into a choose the bad guy.
AI is software, and easy enough to connect to an API. You're not comparing apples and oranges, but apples and oysters.
I don't have a dog in this fight as I don't use chatGPT, I don't use Grok, and I don't use Apple Intelligence, but I think the end-user should be able to make some decisions themselves. Same as/with search engines in Safari.
I don't think, however, believe that a court in Texas should have any part of it.
Last edited:
You might wanna read what this Federal judge in Texas has to say on this:
X lawsuit vs. Apple and OpenAI stays in Fort Worth, Texas; judge suggests they move there
The Elon Musk companies X and xAI are not based in Fort Worth. But they sued Apple and OpenAI there for some reason.
Last edited:
I understand there is a difference between hardware and software. I’m not equating chip vendors to AI models. Is that the line where a user can demand accommodation from a product developer, HW vs SW? What I'm really asking what principle determines which integrations (be it hardware or software) should be user-selectable and which are up to the product designer/inventor.
If "AI is software accessed via API, therefore users should choose" is the rule, then do you think the same should apply to:
– ad networks?
– analytics SDKs?
– spam filters?
– photo recognition engines?
All of these are software modules connected via APIs.
So where exactly is the line drawn?
At what point does a choice move from "vendor’s design decision" to "user’s legal entitlement”?
Further to that, does this forced accommodation only apply to wealthy corporations or do independent developers have to follow the same laws? If not, how many developers need to be involved before the threshold is meet, do they have to incorporate or does a partnership trigger the law? Or is it based on revenue?
Last edited:
People are so obsessed about Musk in these comments. People need to get over him.
As for the substance of this article. I think it's good that xAI is challenging OpenAI/Apple's relationship and it's allowed to move forward. They need to nip walled garden's in the bud.
As for the substance of this article. I think it's good that xAI is challenging OpenAI/Apple's relationship and it's allowed to move forward. They need to nip walled garden's in the bud.
Would this argument invalidate athletes deals with a single company? They are a brand and in many cases a platform for a company, and only one person, why couldn't Nike use the same argument against Adidas if the athlete picks only one of them to wear?
The legal system seems wacky right now all the way from local judges to the supreme court.
Hats off to the judge for knowing how the game is played (court shopping).You might wanna read what this Federal judge in Texas has to say on this:
X lawsuit vs. Apple and OpenAI stays in Fort Worth, Texas; judge suggests they move there
The Elon Musk companies X and xAI are not based in Fort Worth. But they sued Apple and OpenAI there for some reason.www.cnbc.com
Last edited:
I use Apple Intelligence all the time and I basically never use ChatGPT with it. I rarely ever use Siri though.
oh yeh, 'depriving Grok of data from billions of iPhone users' - given that it's free to throw your data at it, where do 'billions in damages' come from?
@Grok, nip garden's what?
@Grok, nip garden's what?
Where is this the ‘walled garden’? Apple said ages ago that it wasn’t an exclusive with ChatGPT, that others would come later.
Must Apple be forced to offer multiple options from day 1?
Apple does not have a monopoly in cell phones or computers. Want to try again?
Agreed - I want to use Deepseek in my Tesla
Gonna slap Musk with a lawsuit on that.Being such the powerhouse Apple is, they will forever be a target, whether the reasoning are right or not.
With that enormous war chest, soggy diaper musk could have at least sued for something useful.. like rolling back Liquid Glass!
Apple and OpenAI were not able to get a lawsuit filed by Elon Musk's xAI startup dismissed, reports Bloomberg. Texas District Judge Mark Pittman said today that Apple and OpenAI will need to continue on with the lawsuit and submit filings arguing their case.
xAI sued Apple and OpenAI in August 2025, accusing the two companies of conspiring to dominate the AI market. The lawsuit came after Musk complained that his apps X and Grok had not been featured in the App Store's "Must Have" apps section.
The lawsuit claimed that Apple was "blindsided by major innovations in AI," leading it to team up with OpenAI in a "desperate bid to protect its smartphone monopoly." It referenced Siri's ChatGPT integration, because Apple has not established deals with other companies for Siri integration. xAI said that if iPhone users want to access a generative AI chatbot, "they have no choice but to use ChatGPT, even if they would prefer to use more innovative and imaginative products like xAI's Grok."
iPhone users can, of course, download any chatbot app from the App Store, but xAI said that apps do not have the same "functionality, usability, and integration" as ChatGPT does with Siri. The lawsuit also accused Apple of "deprioritizing" the apps of competing generative AI chatbots, and depriving Grok of data from billions of iPhone users because Grok isn't integrated with Siri like ChatGPT. The lawsuit claims that xAI "sought an integration" with Apple Intelligence, and was denied.
In a filing earlier this month, Apple and OpenAI both argued that the lawsuit is flawed because there is no exclusivity deal that prevents Apple from integrating other chatbots into Siri.
xAI has asked the court to put a stop to Apple and OpenAI's "anticompetitive scheme," and help it "recover billions in damages."
Article Link: Apple and OpenAI Must Face xAI Lawsuit Over Siri Integration
Yup. That's one of the parts of the lawsuit that seems to have been written by Musk "Gimme your data!!" himself.
Apple had good reasons to choose ChatGPT at the time they decided to give iPhone users the option to hand off questions that Siri couldn't handle. ChatGPT was the LLM that was the most capable at the time (June 2024) of delivering responses that fit Apple's requirements, and Grok wasn't; OpenAI agreed not to track user's IP addresses; Apple may have been dipping their toe into the OpenAI waters to see whether future partnerships with them might make sense. Apple doesn't normally enter into multi-partner agreements in one go, especially on major things.
It seems Musk wants a set of EU DMA-like third-party interoperability requirements for device software. Maybe that would be a good thing, within limits.
It seems Musk wants a set of EU DMA-like third-party interoperability requirements for device software. Maybe that would be a good thing, within limits.