Report: Apple Asks Google to Run Siri on Its Servers

[Tagbert]

When we are finally convinced to settle for less in exchange of privacy protection, and then apple decides to run services in google servers 😂

companies run services on servers owned by other companies all the time. Apple currently uses a mix of AWS, Google, and other cloud providers. Doesn't mean that those cloud providers have access to and are legally prepared to snoop around.

 

[burgman]

I wouldn't be concerned at all if Gemini is running on Apple servers, with assistance from Google just to setup the infrastructure. If Google are running the show, or if the infrastructure is actually Google owned or maintained, then I have a very big problem with that because I have zero trust in Google.

Would I leave Apple? Not out of hand, no. But I would take every step possible to make sure that none of my data is going in that direction which would mean not using the new Siri services.

If it turns out that I don't have an option, and Apple forces me to start sending my data over to Google, data that I don't want Google to have, then yes, I would start considering my options. It might be painful, but I think it would be important to at least consider it.

Which choice of available options would calm your fear of an unknowable concern. Because unless you’re a network engineer with data center access it’s just a game of internet telephone. No one has commented yet on Apple using Amazon servers, mentioned in the article. Amazon, a paragon of privacy.

 

[dwaite]

Does anyone know what constitutes a “more complex AI query” and does that include requests that should be achievable with data already on your device?

Yes, the design is to determine if it can meet the need locally, and if not package up a minimized subset of your data and send it off to private compute. Private compute does not have writable storage or internet access, and the private data is ephemeral (effectively disappears once it is finished responding to your question).

What constitutes a more complex AI query is a good question - it is likely going to be phone specific as they improve specs going forward. Translation offers to either translate locally using a smaller model or run in a hybrid mode where it will use network access if available to hit a more comprehensive model in the cloud.

 

[dwaite]

This feels a lot more like risk-mitigation and cost-savings. Maybe I'm just looking at this wrong but the whole setup reads as letting Google bear the full weight and brunt of the costs in building out, maintaining, and executing on cloud/AI infrastructure while  can divert their energies and resources elsewhere. For me, it feels more like "Sure... meet our requirements... you can host everything... In fact, we'll let you do 'this' and 'that'..." --I mean, even if  is paying Google billions for this, it's a drop-in-the-proverbial-bucket if the often-named AI "bubble" bursts, then companies invested in it (e.g., Google, OpenAI, etc.) are left behind while Apple can walk away with little or no risk. Apple is ridiculously strategic about investment so this "feels" more like letting Google take all the risk(s) involved.

Now, again, I'm probably and very well could be wrong here but if I'm looking at this as , the end-user/customer base really seem to care who or what goes on behind the curtain so long as the picture is clear and the sound is terrific. The sausage-making of this matters little to Apple so long as what comes out of the proverbial screen and speakers is exactly what and how they want it to. If someone else wants to deal with the risk of it "bursting" then it leaves  in the best possible position for mitigation and recovery, not Google.

The Google/Apple deal looks to be a licensing and consulting services deal - not a deal to use Google infrastructure. Optimizing Gemini-derived models when running in Apple's infrastructure was almost certainly part of the original contract.

The amount of risk Google is taking is likely the amount of exposure they left in the contract, e.g. what happens if the Google engineers can't get Gemini running properly on apple's infrastructure and devices within the specified memory/storage constraints in the agreement.

 

[coolfactor]

All I can say is ... "hmmm".

Is this the result of executives being out of touch with where the world was headed?

I miss the Steve Jobs days where he could see a decade into the future.

 

[Brother Cavil]

Ooof. This is just more evidence of how far behind Apple is when it comes to AI. Outsourcing everything to Google is troubling for many reasons. While I get the privacy concerns, although I personally don't care that much, the real concern here is Apple putting the fate of a major feature in a third party and competitor's hands. This seems incredibly short-sighted.

I really think it's time for Tim to swing big and acquire Anthropic. They need control over the tech. It's wild that Apple has been working so hard for so many years to bring everything in house, from processors to cell modems, yet they're willing to place the fate of their AI tech in someone else's hands. It makes absolutely no sense and reeks of desperation. Spend that money, Tim. Acquire Anthropic before it's too late.

 

[Tagbert]

If that is painful for you, then I have some very, very painful news…

Apple ditches Microsoft Azure, confirms that it uses Google Cloud for iCloud

In a document updated last month, Apple confirmed that it uses Google Cloud Platform to host user data for iCloud. Interestingly, the file no longer makes a mention of Microsoft Azure.

www.neowin.net

Apple has been using Google servers to store people‘s iCloud data since at least 2018, likely earlier. They also used and or are still using Microsoft and Amazon cloud servers to power iCloud.
And there is nothing sneaky or unknown about this, Apple confirmed it almost a decade ago themselves.
Write from Apple‘s own mouth in 2018, they use Google servers to store iCloud data.

Exactly. The data is encrypted at rest and none of the cloud providers have access to your data.

 

[dwaite]

Only because Apple arbitrarily restricts some things such and imessage and FaceTime while also choosing not to implement things like full RCS 3.0 which brings encryption and in-line replies for texts

People only stick with ios due to ecosystem lock in. Majority of things like notifications for instance are just better on Android

RCS 3.0 does not have encryption. The only encryption out in production is the proprietary extensions for Google's RCS client talking to Google's RCS server product.

And this is the major problem that iMessage and FaceTime have in opening up - they rely on a single piece of infrastructure to provide centralized identity infrastructure for looking up the cryptographic keys tied to a user account. Once you have multiple companies all trying to own the same phone number/email identifier, that doesn't work.

 

[CarAnalogy]

My point is it’s not about privacy, what I'm saying is Apple should be building their own and not relying on Google’s Gemini. Apple should have has this figured out by now, they were the first with an assistant back in 2011 when Siri was announced mere months after Steve Job’s death.

I get where you’re coming from. But since they haven’t invested at all since then or apparently ever, at this point they might as well outsource it like everyone else.

Compared to other services that already run on top of the big three, Apple’s needs are probably not even relatively that high.

And Apple did this to themselves years ago by completely abandoning everything about the server market.

Being Apple they may decide they want to take that all vertical again but that will take a long time and may not even be worth it.

 

[riverguide]

Apple has asked Google to investigate setting up servers in its data centers to run a future version of Siri powered by Gemini, The Information reports.

​

But the title reads “Report: Apple Asks Google to Run Siri on Its Servers”. What if the investigation results are not favorable to Apple? And has Apple actually asked Siri?

 

[coolfactor]

Ooof. This is just more evidence of how far behind Apple is when it comes to AI. Outsourcing everything to Google is troubling for many reasons. While I get the privacy concerns, although I personally don't care that much, the real concern here is Apple putting the fate of a major feature in a third party and competitor's hands. This seems incredibly short-sighted.

I really think it's time for Tim to swing big and acquire Anthropic. They need control over the tech. It's wild that Apple has been working so hard for so many years to bring everything in house, from processors to cell modems, yet they're willing to place the fate of their AI tech in someone else's hands. It makes absolutely no sense and reeks of desperation. Spend that money, Tim. Acquire Anthropic before it's too late.

Does Anthropic own data centers, or are they leasing space in the same way that Apple would be doing?

Apple owning Anthropic doesn't solve the issue of Apple not being able to run its own models in its own hardware.

But if said hardware is sitting in warehouses, why? They are not specced for the job?

I now think Apple will take back its own crown in two years, not one.

 

[Brother Cavil]

If that is painful for you, then I have some very, very painful news…

Apple ditches Microsoft Azure, confirms that it uses Google Cloud for iCloud

In a document updated last month, Apple confirmed that it uses Google Cloud Platform to host user data for iCloud. Interestingly, the file no longer makes a mention of Microsoft Azure.

www.neowin.net

Apple has been using Google servers to store people‘s iCloud data since at least 2018, likely earlier. They also used and or are still using Microsoft and Amazon cloud servers to power iCloud.
And there is nothing sneaky or unknown about this, Apple confirmed it almost a decade ago themselves.
Write from Apple‘s own mouth in 2018, they use Google servers to store iCloud data.

While you are 100% correct, there's a big difference between storing data and AI. I'm not sure the two are comparable. The devil is in the details and, honestly, I don't think we'll ever know the details, regardless of whatever assurances Apple makes. They seem to be making this up as they go along at this point. Whether it's Apple not being honest with us or Google getting crafty, the potential for abuse here is much higher than when simply using someone else's cloud to store encrypted data.

All of this reeks of desperation to me on Apple's part and is really not a good look for Tim Cook at this point. They obviously missed the AI boat and their home-grown ML/AI efforts, while impressive in certain respects, have yielded terrible results in the AI assistant/LLM space. They obviously haven't been able to figure it out so now they're ceding even more control to a third party and competitor with a very dubious privacy track record. None of this feels good.

 

[Tagbert]

built for ... cloud based AI? What about all the marketing for AI on the phone? Is that even true?

Keep reading about this as Apple reveals more details of the AI plans. Its not just one simple thing. The plan has been for some smaller tasks to run on on-device AI but larger tasks to run on AI servers that run special server software that does not allow data to be logged and shared. Apple created their Private Cloud Computer servers for that but it sounds like they may need to use Google servers to handle the new traffic. Google has their own system called "Private AI Compute" and Apple will certainly use that for the on-server AI instances.

 

[coolfactor]

And I fully support 100% Apple distributing its infrastructure across multiple providers, so long as the implementation is rock solid and secure from prying eyes.

A distributed architecture is always superior.

 

[CarAnalogy]

My point is it’s not about privacy, what I'm saying is Apple should be building their own and not relying on Google’s Gemini. Apple should have has this figured out by now, they were the first with an assistant back in 2011 when Siri was announced mere months after Steve Job’s death.

Sorry I think I missed your original point so I’m gonna try again.

You’re completely right about this, but at this point it’s the same principle as the servers. They didn’t, and at this point they can’t at any time in the near future.

I think this article was about running their software on Google hardware, but at this point they may as well run Google software on Google server hardware because they have tried and failed to do it on their own to the point of legal liability.

I commend Apple for just this once putting aside their hubris to get the job done. Though it’s largely stock price and other factors driving it now so I’m not sure how much commendation they deserve.

 

[Tagbert]

Which is exactly why I don't use Apple's iCould services.

Why would it matter to you whose servers hold your encrypted data? That is the point of data encryption. This not some old box in a corner running Windows and with its data open to the world. Modern cloud servers run everything with encryption to precent access to the data.

 

[Brother Cavil]

Does Anthropic own data centers, or are they leasing space in the same way that Apple would be doing?

Apple owning Anthropic doesn't solve the issue of Apple not being able to run its own models in its own hardware.

But if said hardware is sitting in warehouses, why? They are not specced for the job?

I now think Apple will take back its own crown in two years, not one.

Anthropic is currently spending $50B on data center build-out, but you bring up a good point. Apple owning Anthropic brings the tech in house. Like I said, it's weird that Apple is trying to bring all aspects of hardware production, essentially a commodity, in house yet is willing to outsource a major, increasingly essential, feature to someone else. I don't just mean the data centers and compute. I mean using Gemini at all.

AI is rapidly becoming essential tech. Apple should have more control. I couldn't care less if they build their own cell modems. Modem chips are a commodity. AI is an essential differentiator. Now Apple is dependent upon Google for the development of that tech. That's a very bad move long-term I think.

 

[Tagbert]

One thing abundantly clear from all the posts in this thread is people have no idea how cloud services work or how a company could use someone else’s servers while still maintaining privacy.

These issues have already been solved.

Too many people here really don't understand cloud services and tend to mistake uninformed cynicism for wisdom.

 

[segfaultdotorg]

Rest in Peace, Siri! Long live New Siri by Gemini!

 

[triptolemus]

The data is encrypted at rest and none of the cloud providers have access to your data.

With whose key?

 

[iPhoneFan5349]

Because some people (myself included) prefer iOS to Android.

Oh that can’t possibly be true. iOS is years behind Android

 

[Tagbert]

With whose key?

iCloud? With your password.

With the Apple private AI servers and it seems also with Google’s, the AI data is not stored on the server, it is processed in memory, the response is sent and then the RAM is cleared. I know that the Apple servers don’t even have code to store data or write logs. From what I’ve read, the Google AI servers are designed the same way.

 

[jeffpeng]

You can very much use someone else's infrastructure without them having meaningful access to your data. So that's not the problem, I think.

The more revealing tell is this: While Microsoft, Google, Meta, Amazon all heavily invest in infrastructure, Apple has foregone this path, apparently intentionally. For a pretty long time Apple's game has been: own IP, manage supply, outsource production. This is the same mindset applied to data and compute services. If that turns out in their favor? I have my doubts, but in the last 20 years bets against Apple have a pretty bad track record, so what do I know.

 

[bigboy29]

Sure hope you’re right! 👍

It's kind of like this: Apple might be buying servers from Dell, or HP. Does this mean that you have to trust Dell or HP with your data? The analogy is not perfect but it communicates my point. Apple has not had a massive data center presence for many years and used various large companies to do stuff for them. And yet it was OK and their privacy commitments hold...

Now, if they change their commitments to privacy... that would be a different story (but I have not seen this).

 

[subjonas]

I bought the 16 (not Pro, but same principle) specifically because of Apple Intelligence. I had a 13 mini, and had no desire to get a larger screen. It worked fine for me, battery health was good, etc. But I traded it in because of what was promised.

I don't mean that absolutely no one bought their 16 specifically for Siri intelligence (I thought it was only a feature for the Pro, my mistake if I was wrong), but if there are a lot of people making the claim, I'm skeptical that most of them are genuine. Considering how for most people there are multiple factors that weigh into buying a new iPhone, and considering how unanimously people in these forums seem to have a lack of confidence in Apple's ability with Siri and AI--for so many to suddenly claim that they bought the iPhone specifically for that feature, or even for so many to happen to be on such a razor's edge of indecision for that feature to have enough impact to tip the scale, just seems wildly unlikely. And I'm referring to people like us on tech forums. As for regular people not on tech forums, I think most are hardly aware of what new features are added beyond a better camera, and simply upgrade when their phone dies or there's a good offer from their carrier or when there's a new color they like.

Also, to be clear, it was only the Siri part of Apple Intelligence that was not released, so I'm speaking of that specific missing feature. The rest of Apple Intelligence was delivered as far as I know.

It just seems much more likely that most of the claims in this forum are from people opportunistically trying to play the "victim of Apple", either due to a preexisting grudge (this does seem to be mostly an anti-Apple forum after all), or trying to fan the flame in the hopes of winning something out of a lawsuit settlement down the road, or maybe just because of general buyer's remorse and using the missing Siri feature as a scapegoat. It just seems much more likely that if others hadn't brought this attention to the missing feature, they would have either not cared or not noticed. Again, I mean most, not all.

And to be clear, I believe it's plainly wrong for any company to advertise a feature as "coming soon" to a product and not release the feature within a reasonable time after selling the product. But penalization should scale based on the damages actually caused. And the actual damages caused is where I'm heavily skeptical. If a lot of people in MR are claiming damages, I call bologna. Albeit there's no way to prove it.