EU Orders Google to Give Rival AI Apps the Same Android Access as Gemini

[kotaKat]

Google and Apple should both pull out of the EU.

F*ck em, they can have their weird bizarre Linux phones. Go use a Jolla phone and leave the first world alone with our iOS and Android products.

If a European can't innovate and has to buy an American product, they should accept that we built it a certain way. If they don't like it -- build one themselves.

 

[Kriss_De_Valnor]

Okay I will bite, and as I now know you love people who use AI to validate their responses, here we go:

Old people and Europeans have no idea about technology, right?

The World Wide Web: Invented in 1989 by British computer scientist Tim Berners-Lee while working at CERN in Switzerland.

The Programmable Computer: British mathematician Charles Babbage designed the first mechanical computer (the Analytical Engine) in the 1820s.

Linux: Created by Finnish student Linus Torvalds in 1991, powering 100% of the world's supercomputers and most internet servers.

ARM Architecture Software: Developed by Acorn Computers in Cambridge, UK, during the 1980s. Its instruction set now runs 99% of global smartphones.

Symbian OS: Created by a UK-based joint venture in 1998, serving as the world's dominant early smartphone operating system before Android and iOS

Python: Created by Dutch programmer Guido van Rossum in 1991. It is now the primary language for data science, AI development, and general programming.

C++: Developed by Danish computer scientist Bjarne Stroustrup in 1979 (initially as "C with Classes"). It forms the backbone of modern operating systems and video game engines.

PHP: Created by Danish-Canadian programmer Rasmus Lerdorf in 1994, running over 75% of all websites today

Electronic Code-Breaking Computer: Tommy Flowers designed the Colossus in 1943 at Bletchley Park, the world's first programmable, electronic, digital computer.

Public Key Encryption: Discovered by British intelligence (GCHQ) in the early 1970s, establishing the foundation for modern data security.

Television: Scotsman John Logie Baird demonstrated the first working television system in 1925.

The Electric Motor: Created by English scientist Michael Faraday in 1821.

World's First Mobile Network: The first commercial automated cellular network (the Nordic Mobile Telephone) was launched by a consortium of Nordic EU/European countries in 1981

Vaccines: English physician Edward Jenner pioneered the smallpox vaccine in 1798.

Penicillin: Discovered by Scottish physician Alexander Fleming in 1928.

Liquid Crystal Displays (LCD): Developed at the UK's Royal Signals and Radar Establishment in the 1970s.

Graphene: Isolated in 2004 at the University of Manchester by Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov

Good job mate but do you think Ed Miliband knows that?

 

[Abazigal]

What ever became of the famous saying:

“Apple should leave the market”?
What happened to it?
😂

Yeah, Apple could, but they probably won't. Right now, it seems they can remove features like iPhone mirroring and Siri AI while raising prices and people in the EU will still continue to buy iPhones and iPads and Macs? Ditto for any future product feature that Apple doesn't feel like it's worth their while to adhere to the DMA and ... I guess you can't really argue that Apple isn't adhering to the letter of the law here?

 

[kotaKat]

...

Old people and Europeans have no idea about technology, right?

......

Sounds like they've figured out enough stuff there they could build their own non-Google, non-Apple smartphone and its own apps and storefronts, but I guess they couldn't innovate hard enough to get enough people to buy it?

 

[JustSomebody12]

Dear peoples of the EU ....

Please stop being so stupid as to think that the EU Commission operates on your behalf.

-

Not always, but I see no problem here

 

[tcp/ip]

So when does Google pull out of the EU?

Never, it's too big a market

 

[grist44]

agreed. My concern is that the EU is focusing on equal access without giving equal weight to accountability. Not every AI provider has the same privacy standards or security track record. If Android grants deep system access to third-party AI and that access is abused, users will still hold Google responsible because it's Google's platform. Interoperability is important, but so is ensuring the company responsible for the operating system can protect its users.

The point is that is should be for the user to choose not for apple/google to gatekeep what they think is right for the consumers. A choice is surely better than no choice. Competition can be good

 

[ArtRev]

Unpopular opinion: The EU is actually fighting a proxy war for all of us


I see a lot of people here pouring buckets of hate on the EU, but if you step back and look at the macroeconomics, the regulators are actually spot on.


Let’s be real for a second: Apple and Google’s "privacy and security" defense is largely a smokescreen. The actual problem isn't that they can't build a secure, sandboxed API layer for third-party AI to access device features. The problem is what happens if they do. If they cave in the EU and prove that a secure, interoperable API is technically possible, regulators in the US and Asia will instantly demand the exact same thing. They are stalling in Europe simply to protect their Walled Garden and global monopoly for as long as possible.


But it’s a risky game to play. Europe accounts for roughly 25% of Apple's global revenue. You can't expect users to pay 100% of the premium price for an artificially crippled device. Personally, I have an iPhone 16 Pro and a 16 Pro Max, and I’m perfectly fine sitting out the next 2-3 upgrade cycles until this resolves. I’m not in the vanguard here—there is a massive crowd of professionals and tech-aware users doing exactly the same thing. Good luck to the shareholders waiting for that massive hardware "supercycle" when a quarter of the market refuses to upgrade.


Ultimately, whatever the EU manages to force out of Apple and Google in this dispute will eventually benefit other markets globally. We've seen this exact "Brussels effect" happen before in other disputes over digital markets, streaming, and standardization. The EU is basically taking the first punch, but the resulting interoperability will eventually become the global standard.

 

[pelowj]

I find it interesting how many Americans on here constantly berate the EU for protecting consumer choice, and by extension capitalism itself. Capitalism doesn't work without fair market access, and allowing gatekeepers like Google and Apple to stifle competition is about as anti-free-market as it gets.

There's no issue with Apple or Google offering AI features, and nobody is asking them not to. The issue is that they should be building on the same APIs they make available to everyone else. Giving themselves privileged access that rivals can't get is textbook abuse.

The US has similar laws on the books, but there's no enforcement. When the same firms are pouring money into lobbying and campaign donations, and regulators walk straight into industry jobs the moment they leave office, you don't get enforcement, you get a protection racket.

 

[steggerwoof]

Good job mate but do you think Ed Miliband knows that?

Honestly, I fear the damage that guy is going to do to the UK.

 

[mrochester]

Unpopular opinion: The EU is actually fighting a proxy war for all of us


I see a lot of people here pouring buckets of hate on the EU, but if you step back and look at the macroeconomics, the regulators are actually spot on.


Let’s be real for a second: Apple and Google’s "privacy and security" defense is largely a smokescreen. The actual problem isn't that they can't build a secure, sandboxed API layer for third-party AI to access device features. The problem is what happens if they do. If they cave in the EU and prove that a secure, interoperable API is technically possible, regulators in the US and Asia will instantly demand the exact same thing. They are stalling in Europe simply to protect their Walled Garden and global monopoly for as long as possible.


But it’s a risky game to play. Europe accounts for roughly 25% of Apple's global revenue. You can't expect users to pay 100% of the premium price for an artificially crippled device. Personally, I have an iPhone 16 Pro and a 16 Pro Max, and I’m perfectly fine sitting out the next 2-3 upgrade cycles until this resolves. I’m not in the vanguard here—there is a massive crowd of professionals and tech-aware users doing exactly the same thing. Good luck to the shareholders waiting for that massive hardware "supercycle" when a quarter of the market refuses to upgrade.


Ultimately, whatever the EU manages to force out of Apple and Google in this dispute will eventually benefit other markets globally. We've seen this exact "Brussels effect" happen before in other disputes over digital markets, streaming, and standardization. The EU is basically taking the first punch, but the resulting interoperability will eventually become the global standard.

Apple want to build exactly that. The trouble is the EU rejected apples proposal.

Apple did not simply withdraw from the EU market. Over the months before WWDC, the company put forward multiple technical architectures intended to resolve the interoperability problem without, in its view, turning every iPhone into an open-access system for any AI provider.

The most developed was a framework called the Trusted System Agent — a software intermediary that would broker third-party assistants' access to the same iPhone capabilities Siri AI uses. Instead of giving rival AI systems a direct connection to messages, files, and app controls, the Trusted System Agent would have acted as a gatekeeper, mediating access, enforcing user consent flows, and limiting what any single assistant could do autonomously. Apple also proposed a phased rollout: launch Siri AI for EU users immediately, then gradually deploy the Trusted System Agent over 18 months so competing assistants could reach the same capability level safely.

The European Commission rejected both proposals. According to Apple, the Commission did not accept any of the solutions put forward over several months and did not offer alternatives. Apple's statement characterized the Commission's position as requiring that any AI system receive "nearly unlimited access" to a user's device — including the ability to read and send messages, make purchases, access files, and execute actions across any installed app, without requiring ongoing user consent or visibility. The Commission has not issued a public statement in direct response to the WWDC announcement as of June 9, 2026, and a spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment outside business hours on June 8.

 

[one more]

As in there is a feature available that was marketed to them and could legitimately be claimed by a plaintiff as a contributing factor when deciding to purchase an Android device.

Similar (albeit not identical) to the class action lawsuit filed against Apple for marketing the iPhone 16 / 16 Pro with Apple Intelligence features that failed to be delivered.

This might not be a good precedent, as Apple actively advertised Apple Intelligence features, building up expectations and thus facilitating extra sales of their new hardware, and failed to deliver. That is, nobody could have access to the features advertised, which amounts to false advertising.

Google, on the contrary, has a working service (Gemini) and, if the EC (the third party) force them to open it up and Google say, “Sorry, we just cannot!”, how is this Google’s fault?

But once again, this Apple + Google vs the EC situation should be resolved quite soon, I suppose.

 

[Ax1sNXS]

I don’t see anyone complaining about Apple / Google because of apps on alternative app stores available in the eu. If user decides to use some shady ai - that’s on them. They could probably do that with jailbreak too. Your whole speech is based on some bizarre assumptions.

The "assumption" has a pretty solid track record in the real world. The average non-nerd/non-tech person—the kind of person who'd never voluntarily spend time on a forum like this—isn't filing bug reports with random developers or questioning their own setup. They blame Apple or Google, because that's who sold them the phone.

Exhibit A: the EU deciding the solution to not being able to outcompete American tech is to regulate it into submission. Colonizers gonna colonize—apparently now it's technology instead of territory.

 

[Ax1sNXS]

true.

What's also true is companies want access to markets (rewards) without dealing with any of the negative externalities

Both sides are stupid and bad for civilization.

Two things can be true at once. This is also why EU should be investing in homegrown technology so there can be a fully developed option (EU third party mobile OS) with EU users in mind…. But we know that’s not their goal.

 

[pelowj]

The European Commission rejected both proposals. According to Apple, the Commission did not accept any of the solutions put forward over several months and did not offer alternatives.

They rejected them because it would have created a two-tier system: first-class access for Apple's own Siri, and whatever Apple chose to afford third parties. That is the definition of anti-competitive behaviour. To be clear, the Commission was happy to accept the Trusted System Agent as long as Apple's own Siri had to route through it too.

 

[LFO8]

Unpopular opinion: The EU is actually fighting a proxy war for all of us


I see a lot of people here pouring buckets of hate on the EU, but if you step back and look at the macroeconomics, the regulators are actually spot on.


Let’s be real for a second: Apple and Google’s "privacy and security" defense is largely a smokescreen. The actual problem isn't that they can't build a secure, sandboxed API layer for third-party AI to access device features. The problem is what happens if they do. If they cave in the EU and prove that a secure, interoperable API is technically possible, regulators in the US and Asia will instantly demand the exact same thing. They are stalling in Europe simply to protect their Walled Garden and global monopoly for as long as possible.


But it’s a risky game to play. Europe accounts for roughly 25% of Apple's global revenue. You can't expect users to pay 100% of the premium price for an artificially crippled device. Personally, I have an iPhone 16 Pro and a 16 Pro Max, and I’m perfectly fine sitting out the next 2-3 upgrade cycles until this resolves. I’m not in the vanguard here—there is a massive crowd of professionals and tech-aware users doing exactly the same thing. Good luck to the shareholders waiting for that massive hardware "supercycle" when a quarter of the market refuses to upgrade.


Ultimately, whatever the EU manages to force out of Apple and Google in this dispute will eventually benefit other markets globally. We've seen this exact "Brussels effect" happen before in other disputes over digital markets, streaming, and standardization. The EU is basically taking the first punch, but the resulting interoperability will eventually become the global standard.

Fair points.

 

[LFO8]

Apple want to build exactly that. The trouble is the EU rejected apples proposal.

Apple did not simply withdraw from the EU market. Over the months before WWDC, the company put forward multiple technical architectures intended to resolve the interoperability problem without, in its view, turning every iPhone into an open-access system for any AI provider.

The most developed was a framework called the Trusted System Agent — a software intermediary that would broker third-party assistants' access to the same iPhone capabilities Siri AI uses. Instead of giving rival AI systems a direct connection to messages, files, and app controls, the Trusted System Agent would have acted as a gatekeeper, mediating access, enforcing user consent flows, and limiting what any single assistant could do autonomously. Apple also proposed a phased rollout: launch Siri AI for EU users immediately, then gradually deploy the Trusted System Agent over 18 months so competing assistants could reach the same capability level safely.

The European Commission rejected both proposals. According to Apple, the Commission did not accept any of the solutions put forward over several months and did not offer alternatives. Apple's statement characterized the Commission's position as requiring that any AI system receive "nearly unlimited access" to a user's device — including the ability to read and send messages, make purchases, access files, and execute actions across any installed app, without requiring ongoing user consent or visibility. The Commission has not issued a public statement in direct response to the WWDC announcement as of June 9, 2026, and a spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment outside business hours on June 8.

Also, fair points.

And so the table tennis match between the EU and the mega corps. continues.

 

[azentropy]

In other news McDonals must now allow Burger King to serve Whoppers in their restaurants. Oh and of course without charging Burger King.

 

[omenatarhuri]

Two things can be true at once. This is also why EU should be investing in homegrown technology so there can be a fully developed option (EU third party mobile OS) with EU users in mind…. But we know that’s not their goal.

EU should not be investing in anything. It's an administrative layer. If they are investing something, they collected that many in one way or the other from EU citizens. Let the people keep their moneys and free market will spur innovations.

 

[Ad47uk]

In other news McDonals must now allow Burger King to serve Whoppers in their restaurants. Oh and of course without charging Burger King.

Not really the same thing, The mucky D here is across the road from Burger King, I can go into either to get what ever I want, not that I would.
If I buy a phone considering that we have two chocies in the smartphone market, Android(Google) and IOS (Apple), I should be stuck with running what they want me to run on it. The same with computers.
That is one thing that do annoy me about phones and comp;utyers, software or apps that can't be uninstalled or it takes ages and mucking around to get other things on it.
This is nothing to with privacy or security, no matter what Apple, Microsoft or Google says, it is about trying to force you to use their services and eventually charge you for doing so. That is why they prefer you not to install any other services on their devices or OS.


The reason I went for a Mac after years with Windows is that I seem to have more control over stuff on my Mac than I did with Windows. Not being forced to have a online account for one, Ai when it came was easy to disable, not like Windows.

 

[one more]

The Commission has not issued a public statement in direct response to the WWDC announcement as of June 9, 2026, and a spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment outside business hours on June 8.

The EC did issue this statement on 9 June, though:

 

[Ad47uk]

EU should not be investing in anything. It's an administrative layer. If they are investing something, they collected that many in one way or the other from EU citizens. Let the people keep their moneys and free market will spur innovations.

Think of it as a united states of Europe, the E.U is the government of all the countries that are in it. That is why I voted for our country to get out.
Fed up with them telling us what we can and can not do.

 

[mrochester]

They rejected them because it would have created a two-tier system: first-class access for Apple's own Siri, and whatever Apple chose to afford third parties. That is the definition of anti-competitive behaviour. To be clear, the Commission was happy to accept the Trusted System Agent as long as Apple's own Siri had to route through it too.

Let’s make everyone’s products worse so no one can have good things!

 

[tonmischa]

Google and Apple should both pull out of the EU.

F*ck em, they can have their weird bizarre Linux phones. Go use a Jolla phone and leave the first world alone with our iOS and Android products.

If a European can't innovate and has to buy an American product, they should accept that we built it a certain way. If they don't like it -- build one themselves.

Luckily it does not work that way.

You want to sell on my turf? You WILL play by my rules.
Otherwise we will make you pay.

US is treating foreign companies the exact same way. Why should EU behave any different?

 

[mjs916]

A better way to describe the situation might be self-preferencing.

https://uslawexplained.com/self-preferencing

So what Microsoft did by including IE? Consumers already know how to download AI apps.

No, you can just use the apple standard Siri /AI, or no AI at all, just like apple gives you now. But Apple wouldn’t be allowed to keep every other AI out. Apple can set standards, they still can set rules, but not blanket deny access to all.
It would be much like the Apple App Store. I’m allowed to use apps not from Apple Store, but I choose not too.

Once the EU forces Apple to give these other companies access to user data who is responsible for the misuse of that data?

It’s like they are being punished for trying to implement this in a safer way. I can see the argument for the App Store, but not AI implementation. They better not fine Apple for putting up full screen warnings and multiple barriers to enabling this.