Tim Cook Holds 'Constructive' Talks With EU Over Siri AI Launch

[one more]

The EU are poison...We here in the UK thought we had left 8 years ago, why should this affect us? Unless it doesn't? I'm not in the dev beta.

Siri AI works in Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, the UK and some other non-EU countries in Europe.

 

[djphat2000]

You don't think Apple is like Mafia? They just raised prices 25%, even products that have next to no storage inside, just raise the prices by 25%. WTF?

You know why. We all know why. Everything costs more (memory and storage). They delayed it as long as they could.

It shows again that companies like Apple need a strong treatment.

This has nothing to do with the topic of discussion.

Apple can't wait with their AI either, so they must come up with a good solution, as it is absolutely possible. They just don't want to. They just want money, money, money.

Show me a business that's not in it for the money. Not to mention Apple has delayed their Ai roll out till they got it the way they wanted it. If it was about the money on that end. They would have just given us whatever they had at the time, and dealt with the complaints of it not working well enough until they fixed each broken part of it. While collecting your dollars.

Because 23,000,000,000.00 PROFIT last quarter was not enough...

If you feel the profit is too high. That should be brought up to your representatives to increase taxes on profits over X amount. Which is what I have said since the beginning of all these "fees", Global turnover what not the EU has come up with for non compliance. Just tax them, and fund something to compete against it. Or provide tax credits to developers that are using the platform. Whatever.

 

[MilaM]

In the USA you can engage advanced data protection, which is end-to-end encryption.

It's exactly what the EU wants to avoid.

-

This might surprise you, but advanced data protection is available in the EU. It was deactivated in the UK though for reasons I don't quite understand.

 

[mannyvel]

The EU regulatory framework stifles innovation. It's such a common topic that you can search for it. The rules are so onerous in many areas that it's easier to cede the market to American firms than to try to implement them in the EU.

What this means, from a practical point of view, is that startups in the EU spend so much time complying with regulations that they can't make money to get to the launch phase...or they spend time meeting these regulatory hurdles instead of developing the product. That means they need substantially more cash to succeed, and they have this huge pile of compliance.

As an example, three companies I've worked for decided not to launch in the EU, because GDPR compliance is too much work - especially for a product that might fail. Too bad for the EU users.

 

[Compote]

Why couldn't Apple get an exemption for AI? They get one for taxes!!

Careful, I know if I say Apple is wrong and dastardly under a political topic, the moderation will call ME political and remove my comment.

However, such lies as "EU officials received hundreds of emails from consumers accusing Brussels of denying Europeans access to the new technology" are encouraged! r/thathappened

all this forced interoperability nonsense is just that… nonsense.

You don’t force a car manufacturer to design their car so that parts are interchangeable between different brands, so why should it be the same for phone/electronics and software?

Unfortunately the EU’s “one size fits all” mentality is literally stifling what is being offered. Rather than release new features, and risk potential regulatory actions (fines) afterward, Apple has made the smart choice of just not releasing those items that would come into conflict.

I truly think the EU Commission wants Apple to release everything so they can then come back and threaten fines for the product they released. It’s about the money.. nothing else.

No, it's not nonsense, it's the law. You respect our laws or you stay out of our territory. You're welcome to build a monopoly in the USA, not in Europe.
The car seat interoperability fallacy is what's nonsense.

It's not "one size fits all", PRECISELY, if they enforce the right to compete. Nice attempt at a gaslight, but we still support our Commission.

It's not stifling what's being offered. Does Chrome stiffle what's being offered by Safari? Apple can offer the same thing while complying with the law and letting other AIs work accross the OS.

"Rather than release new features, and risk potential regulatory actions (fines) afterward, Apple has made the smart choice of just not releasing those items that would come into conflict." >>> THIS IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what's written in the article. They demanded to be given special status, to force their way, and not pay fines. They'd rather pay fines than follow the law. They didn't make a choice to not release Siri AI, they were warned that if they did, and didn't open their OS AI overlay to competition, they would be sanctioned.

"I truly think the EU Commission wants Apple to release everything so they can then come back and threaten fines for the product they released. It’s about the money.. nothing else."
>>> AGAIN THIS IS WRONG AND THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THE REPORT. The EU said they didn't condone Siri, so the warned Apple NOT to release it. It's not about the money, it's about the law.

 

[Compote]

The EU has bureaucrats that dictate tech product design. Talk about totalitarian.

If you knew what you talked about you'd know the Commission is an elite institution made up not of technocrats but of technicians who actually know their stuff.

 

[one more]

The EU just wants to have a backdoor to the contents of all their iPhones/iPads/devices for every citizen - perhaps even people who are visiting or there illegally. For obvious reasons this is awful.

I think you overestimate the EC. Giving some access to your iPhone to a third-party AI agent ≠ creating a backdoor. Do you think Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, etc. will risk their EU business and, if so, what will they get in return?

 

[tehabe]

It is so weird, I saw a few video in which someone showed how Siri AI worked and I was like, sure, if you did it manually it would have been faster. Siri AI feels like a gimmick and not like real innovation.

I just want the option to disable and remove it.

Also, if Apple just build a secure API for Siri AI and made it a separate application, there would be no issues with the EU.

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

If Apple and the EU work out a "compromise" it will not involve third parties getting Siri-level access to the system (Apple should and will hold the line here) but Apple will likely have to launch their third party solution alongside Siri AI instead of 18 months later or whatever vague timescale they originally planned. Wonder what this means for Google, who is also fighting the EU about third party AI on Android, but unlike Apple they launched Gemini without first getting assurances on the DMA.

 

[koil]

really don’t think there is any universe where Apple lets literally everything that happens on the phone get sucked up by Grok, ChatGPT, or DeepSeek to do who knows what with it.

But it wouldn't be up to Apple, it would be up to the user... this is such a strange take...

 

[SBlue1]

About the only thing I can think of that this EU Commission has gotten right is forcing apple’s hand on things like Right To Repair & a common charging interface.. but all this forced interoperability nonsense is just that… nonsense.

You don’t force a car manufacturer to design their car so that parts are interchangeable between different brands, so why should it be the same for phone/electronics and software?

Dude, LOL, this is literally how cars work. The car manufacturers can’t force you to use their parts only. Brakes and windshield wipers and whatever parts are interchangeable! Buy whatever brakepads you want!

 

[surferfb]

But it wouldn't be up to Apple, it would be up to the user... this is such a strange take...

IMO If Apple doesn’t think something is a good idea for its customers then they shouldn’t be forced to offer it. Particularly when it’s likely that Apple’s reputation will be damaged by offering it because normal users aren’t going to understand the mechanics of how the feature works.

For example, as someone pointed out upthread, Apple advertises heavily that what’s in your iMessages stays private. Well what happens when Grok convinces a user to let its AI be the system-level one? They get access to iMessage data, and once that data is sent to Grok’s servers Apple cannot guarantee it stays private. So then, it’s entirely possible user starts getting targeted based off their iMessage data - which makes it look like Apple is lying about their privacy stance.

Most users aren’t not going to understand the difference between “Apple processes everything it can on Device and anything sent to the cloud stays entirely private” and “we process everything in the cloud”. It’ll be “Grok/Gemini/ChatGPT/Claude is much better than Siri so try it!”and then the damage is already done.

 

[jdawgnoonan]

If you knew what you talked about you'd know the Commission is an elite institution made up not of technocrats but of technicians who actually know their stuff.

Yeah, I am sure that the EU bureaucracy can easily hire folks qualified to create diktats for all cutting edge technology products. It is not like people with those qualifications could find better paying and likely more interesting work in the industry.

 

[Nekronos]

This might surprise you, but advanced data protection is available in the EU. It was deactivated in the UK though for reasons I don't quite understand.

that feature removal was related to the UK trying to force Apple to build a backdoor so the UK govt could access user information, UK citing national security, terrorism and child sexual abuse. UK isn't a fan of encryption they can't get past. Instead of making a backdoor Apple removed UK access to advanced data protection.

 

[eifelbube]

Tim should have told the EU Mafia they can kick rocks.

Tim would not do that. He wants to keep the 450 million EU market. When it comes down it, profit comes before privacy. I also wonder: How would you characterize China at tbe level of language “Mafia” represents? Anyway, it sounds like you are really upset about what tbe EU wants from Apple, so you must be European.

 

[milkrocket]

It is so weird, I saw a few video in which someone showed how Siri AI worked and I was like, sure, if you did it manually it would have been faster. Siri AI feels like a gimmick and not like real innovation.

I just want the option to disable and remove it.

Also, if Apple just build a secure API for Siri AI and made it a separate application, there would be no issues with the EU.

Right? It really is so weird. They are pushing AI so hard, while the majority of people have made it clear that they are against it.

Techies that understand what is going on, can clearly see it is just curve fitting taking to the extreme.

I think people have invested way too much into this and are now stuck, with a tech that few want.

 

[eifelbube]

This sounds to me like the EU is feeling the heat and really wants to convince everyone they’re not the problem.

Unfortunately for them, they are the problem.

It takes two to tango. It takes both to talk. Talking is better than tossing tomatoes, tangerines or tamales at each other.

 

[turbineseaplane]

The EU regulatory framework stifles innovation.

Regulations basically always do that.
Companies have never liked regulations, of any kind, even basic labor laws.

What companies want is quite rarely in the best interests of normal people or employees or competitors.

It's not a useful gauge of much to know what a company wants.

 

[eifelbube]

Good to know about this. Nice to see that they are talking. Hope it is really constructive. Looking forward to finding out what will happen to Siri AI in Europe and elsewhere in the world.

 

[AppliedMicro]

I believe it's nothing else than just another ruse devised by Cook and co.

1. Pretending to be "constructive" and engaging in talks.
2. ..whilst changing their actual stance to anything remotely complying with the rules until...
3. Blaming the EU for not agreeing to their demands and stonewalling after "constructive talks".

In other words: Malicious constructive engagement.

 

[CapitalIdea]

Yeah, no. Here's how this plays out.

Apple: Here's a new feature we are thinking about doing.

EU: Here's our DMA.

Apple: It's super vague on AI. Can you tell us if this idea could possibly be compliant or not?

EU: No. You have to commit resources to building the entire thing, implement it, then submit the finished thing to us for us to let you know if the idea was ever going to be compliant from the start. Also, you have to let everyone else ride on your work for free or close to it. And if we don't like it, we'll fine you.

Apple: What if we build a framework so that only people we both agree are trustworthy have access to some things so that it doesn't compromise our entire company's product line?

EU: Nope. You have to commit to building that out too and then maybe we'll say it's okay after you've invested a fortune. And then when we reject it anyway, you need to open things up so that everyone and their mother can do anything they want on the phones you make, and you are also responsible for cleaning up the mess that people cause on them even with software that has nothing to do with you. If you don't, we'll fine you. And since we use WhatsApp here, we also demand you let these random people directly message anyone on your messaging system, even though it's scammy, or we'll fine you for that too. We can't figure out why you don't want to be as broke as Siemens.

Apple: Okay. Well, since that's insane, and now we see why none of the top 25 firms on earth are in the EU anymore, we just won't release it there. Thanks anyway.

EU: HURRY! TELL THE WHOLE WORLD THAT APPLE IS REFUSING TO GIVE US THINGS AND ARE EVIL! WE MUST FINE THEM AGAIN!

 

[n-evo]

Leaving is the best thing we ever did; I certainly wouldn't be using the new Siri or any other features that are blocked if we were still in the EU.

Yeah for the EU. Meanwhile things in post Brexit UK have been so great a growing majority of your fellow Brits want back in or at the least think leaving was a mistake. But hey, you’ll get the new Siri a bit before the EU ultimately gets it! Take any win you can since they sure are sparse these days.

Nine years on from the Brexit vote, here’s how Brits feel about rejoining the EU

Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and the Conservative Party all blamed by voters who think Brexit has been a failure

www.independent.co.uk

Majority of Brits say they want to reverse Brexit and rejoin EU

Nearly a decade on from the Brexit vote, six in 10 (58%) people who would cast their ballot in a second referendum said they would support the UK rejoining the EU

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[Haiku_Oezu]

I’d rather have iPhone mirroring instead if I’m honest

 

[AppliedMicro]

HURRY! TELL THE WHOLE WORLD THAT APPLE IS REFUSING TO GIVE US THINGS AND ARE EVIL! WE MUST FINE THEM AGAIN!

Complete nonsense.
Apple have never been fined for not releasing products or services in the EU.
And the DMA gives the EU no legal basis to do so.

It's super vague on AI. Can you tell us if this idea could possibly be compliant or not?

It's not.
It's very simple: If Apple operates a virtual assistant service, they'll have to - on their regulated core platform services - provide third parties similar access to information and data. That's it. Not particularly hard. Apple just refuses to do so.

You have to commit to building that out too and then maybe we'll say it's okay after you've invested a fortune. And then when we reject it anyway,

Baseless. The EU is bound by their own laws. They can't just reject compliant solutions, just because they want to.

And since we use WhatsApp here, we also demand you let these random people directly message anyone on your messaging system, even though it's scammy

I don't know what non-WhatsApp-using backwater you hail from, but that's not the general perception of WhatsApp (even though it's a Meta product).

 

[koil]

IMO If Apple doesn’t think something is a good idea for its customers then they shouldn’t be forced to offer it. Particularly when it’s likely that Apple’s reputation will be damaged by offering it because normal users aren’t going to understand the mechanics of how the feature works.

For example, as someone pointed out upthread, Apple advertises heavily that what’s in your iMessages stays private. Well what happens when Grok convinces a user to let its AI be the system-level one? They get access to iMessage data, and once that data is sent to Grok’s servers Apple cannot guarantee it stays private. So then, it’s entirely possible user starts getting targeted based off their iMessage data - which makes it look like Apple is lying about their privacy stance.

Most users aren’t not going to understand the difference between “Apple processes everything it can on Device and anything sent to the cloud stays entirely private” and “we process everything in the cloud”. It’ll be “Grok/Gemini/ChatGPT/Claude is much better than Siri so try it!”and then the damage is already done.

So they make the view where you change the underlying implementation very clear about what the user is giving access to, then it’ll be up to the user if they want to opt out of their own privacy, it’s their device and their data after all.

The idea that all these giant corporations are supposed to be allowed to do whatever they want with your data without allowing you to choose an alternative way to process that data is ridiculous to me.

Governments need to do more to stop predatory business practices like these imo. Not just in cases like this but everywhere.

Might sound strange but I don’t think my local grocery store should be allowed to sell their own wares either, because if you operate the marketplace you are inherently biased against competition.

That’s an extreme case sure, but that basic principle applies here too. With software a hardline stance like that is obviously a bit problematic, OS developers should of course be allowed to build nice first party features, but when they sell a general purpose device they have to allow 3rd parties the same access, otherwise they are competing unfairly.

So I have no problem with Apple building hooks in the OS for an AI to access all of the data (should I choose to provide it), but I have a problem with them doing that and then saying I can’t then decide who gets to access it.

I won’t give my data to any of the companies you mentioned, I value my privacy, but I might want to give it to e.g. Proton in the future, if that simplifies my life in any way, why shouldn’t I be allowed to do that?