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 Warns of Privacy Risks in EU's DMA Interoperability Requirements
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Source for changing the search engine in Safari changing where Siri pulls web searches?
What search engine does siri use? - GB Times
What Search Engine Does Siri Use? Siri, the virtual assistant developed by Apple, has been integrated into various Apple devices […]
gbtimes.com
What search engine does siri use? - GB Times
What Search Engine Does Siri Use? Siri, the virtual assistant developed by Apple, has been integrated into various Apple devices […]
Yeah that isn't accurate
This article from Techcrunch has a statement from Apple from when they changed it from Bing to Google.
Apple switches from Bing to Google for Siri web search results on iOS and Spotlight on Mac | TechCrunch
Apple is switching the default provider of its web searches from Siri, Search inside iOS (formerly called Spotlight) and Spotlight on the Mac. So, for
techcrunch.com
Fallacious logic especially starting the sentence with an if - which is the tell.
And while there hasn’t been a major eu kerfufel yet it’s coming as sure as @Mrkevinfinnerty will criticize apple.
Legal - Apple Privacy Policy - Apple
www.apple.com
Control what you share on iPhone
On your iPhone, control the overall level of privacy by choosing how much you want to share with apps.
support.apple.com
About privacy information on the App Store and the choices you have to control your data - Apple Support
The App Store includes detailed privacy information that helps you understand each app's data collection practices.
All the Data Apple Collects About You—and How to Limit It
Cupertino puts privacy first in a lot of its products. But the company still gathers a bunch of your information.
What Search Engine Does Siri Use? - Dan Rich
As of 2017, Google is the default search engine for Siri. Google was already the default for the Safari browser at this time and…
danrich.co
Last edited:
Microsoft has done a great job spreading FUD. Consider the EU agreement: Microsoft is required to ensure, on an ongoing basis and in a timely manner, that the APIs in both the Windows Client PC Operating System and the Windows Server Operating System—used by Microsoft’s own security software—are documented and made available for use by third-party security products running on those operating systems.It’s already affected security. They said that companies like CrowdStrike should have the same level of access to Microsoft’s security as Microsoft. It was fine for a number of years, but when it failed, it failed BIG time and all the EU regulators did was point fingers at Microsoft saying, “They didn’t tell us our stupid idea was stupid!” Which I don’t believe for one moment
It’s important to note that the agreement does not mandate kernel access, as long as Microsoft’s software, such as Windows Defender, does not leverage kernel privileges to gain an unfair competitive advantage. At the time, if third-party antivirus software did not have kernel access, it was essentially ineffective. Microsoft could have blocked third-party access, ensuring Windows Defender and its security endpoint faced minimal competition. Instead of creating a secure user-space-to-kernel-space framework with APIs that all software—including Microsoft’s—would have to use, Microsoft chose to allow kernel access. This decision also highlights how poorly Microsoft validated Crowdstrike's boot kernel driver.
Apple prohibited kernel extensions in 2020 with the transition to Apple Silicon. Linux introduced eBPF into its kernel back in 2014. Microsoft has been slow to provide a secure framework for user-to-kernel space communication and only began developing eBPF for Windows in 2022. If anything, the EU regulation is acting as a forcing function, pushing Microsoft to implement safer methods for kernel access—for both its own applications and third-party apps. In the long run, this is a win for everyone, even though it’s coming quite late.
Keep posting outdated articles to support your bashing. This one is from 2017. A little update: we are at the end of 2024Yeah that isn't accurate
This article from Techcrunch has a statement from Apple from when they changed it from Bing to Google.
Apple switches from Bing to Google for Siri web search results on iOS and Spotlight on Mac | TechCrunch
Apple is switching the default provider of its web searches from Siri, Search inside iOS (formerly called Spotlight) and Spotlight on the Mac. So, for
The Google Apple search deal has been discussed in court last year. The discovery included emails from Eddy Cue and Tim Cook for when the deal was negotiated. Cue testified in court.
I've just changed the search engine in safari on my phone to duckduckgo and them asked Siri to search the web for local weather.
Oh look it's directing me to another well known search provider.
Hope this source is recent enough for you. If not we can go back and consult some more AI generated slop from GBTimes.com
Fact of the matter is if the EU hadn’t demanded a stupid idea then Crowdstrike fiasco wouldn’t have happened. There are perfectly legitimate reasons for a company to have more and different access to its OS than third parties. But no, the EU knows better.
Maybe letting a company’s competitors decide what that company is allowed to do isn’t actually a good idea. And letting regulators who think browser choice screens and encryption back doors are good ideas decide is even stupider.
Last edited:
Again, the results ARE NOT provided by Google. You can use Google if the provided results are not satisfactory
The EU agreement was established in 2009. Microsoft has had 15 years to fix its software—a task that Linux accomplished in 2014 and Apple completed in 2020. In fact, if Microsoft had acted earlier, the CrowdStrike issue would not have affected both Microsoft's own security software and third-party security software. It's really Microsoft's own creation. Again, nothing prevented Microsoft from incorporating technologies that would allow its internal software to work fairly alongside third-party software. Instead, Microsoft chose to do almost nothing until 2022 (and still has done nothing), and then intentionally framed the issue as being regulatory.
Spin all you want, but it wouldn’t have happened if the EU wasn’t regulating things it didn’t understand.
In the midst of What If possibilities, this seams to be a pretty narrow alternative to reality.
Having said this, I think core security measures such as done by Defender should be baked into the system and not be a plugin modular consideration.
Do you happen to access the site from outside the EU?
I just checked, and I see three equally large buttons on the consent pop-up:
1. Decline all
2. Settings
3. I agree
Clicking the first one brings me straight to the site.
It’s as simple as:
How was CrowdStrike able to cause 5.4 billion dollars in damages?
Their deep level of access to Microsoft Windows.
Why did they have that level of access?
Because the EU demanded in 2009 that CrowdStrike have that level access (that Microsoft give third-party security apps developers the same level of access to its Windows OS as Microsoft itself).
So, if the EU didn’t demand that, CrowdStrike wouldn’t have had that access and there wouldn’t have been 5.4 billon dollars in damages?
No, there wouldn’t.
No one has to read anything that Microsoft has written to come to that conclusion. If I was running the Root Cause Analysis, one of the outcomes would be that the EU should do better with their mandates that impact tech companies. If their mandate can be read as “Do something incredibly irresponsible and that will resolve the anti-competition complaint”, then they’ve come to the wrong solution.
If the “level of access” is “kernel” and the EU’s mandate was on the “level of access”, then they were mandating “kernel” access. That they didn’t understand that and mandated it anyway is the problem. And, if something gets screwed up from them mandating “interoperability” without understanding what “interoperability” means, I’m sure they’ll say that wasn’t their fault either.
The agreement between the EU and Microsoft happens to be public. I won't link to it here (it's a doc file), but you can find a direct link in a good article on Neowin about the topic.
I'll just quote the relevant paragraph from the agreement:
There is nothing in the document about kernel level access. It only stipulates, that third parties should have equivalent access as Microsoft tools do. That Microsoft decided (was too lazy) to not implement a safe API for endpoint security and let third-party software run with the same privileges as the kernel, is completely their fault.
Wikipedia has also pretty clear paragraph about Microsoft's silly excuse.
The agreement never mandated kernel access. Just the same access that Microsoft tools use.
Apple has endpoint security APIs, Linux has it, there is no reason why Microsoft could not have them by now.
Last edited:
I can’t believe I’m having to defend Microsoft here.
The idea that third parties deserve the same access as the OS developer is insane. Full stop. That insane idea led to a massive outage that literally wouldn’t have happened if the EU hadn’t required something insane.
Could Microsoft had worked harder to prevent the EU’s insane idea from causing a massive outage? Sure. But again it literally would not have happened without the EU demanding something insane.
You haven't read what I wrote earlier, or did not understand it. The EU did not demand the same access as the OS developer, just the same access that Microsofts own security products use. That's a huge difference from a technical perspective.
I also think it's insane to take Microsofts side in this argument, considering that many subject matter experts have debunked Microsofts excuse and EU blaming many times.
Microsoft makes the OS. They deserve whatever access for their security products they want BECAUSE THEY MAKE THE OS. Crowdstrike/MacAfee/Kapersky don’t make the OS, so their products shouldn’t get the same access.
If the EU hadn’t demanded it, it wouldn’t have happened. Full stop. It’s not a debatable point. You can say “the massive outage we caused was worth it for increased competition in the scammy anti-virus software market” but you can’t argue the EU isn’t directly responsible for the outage because it literally wouldn’t have happened if the EU didn’t demand something ridiculous.
I wonder what disaster have they signed us up for now that any third party who wants access to anything in iOS gets it?
Last edited:
Microsoft competes directly with other security vendors and endpoint security solutions. By restricting kernel access for third-party developers, these companies are effectively forced out of the market, stifling innovation and competition. Over the past 15 years, Microsoft had ample opportunity to create an equitable and secure framework that allows safe kernel access for all developers, including themselves, yet they did not do so. This suggests that locking out third-party vendors from kernel access was primarily intended to eliminate competition rather than to enhance security.
In contrast, Linux implemented secure mechanisms like eBPF in 2014, allowing third-party modules to be loaded securely while maintaining system integrity. Similarly, macOS introduced System Extensions in 2020, providing a secure way for third-party developers to extend system capabilities without compromising kernel security. Despite having the same amount of time and resources, Microsoft has failed to develop a comparable solution. This is purely of Microsoft's own creation and problem.