This feels like it could be solved with a list of permissions that the user has to turn on when using 3rd party AI.
Apple already:
1) requires developers to submit ID to publish an app on the appstore (at least I had to after ~1000 downloads to be able to publish an update)
2) has strong kernel enforced memory integrity and disallowes arbitrary code execution (unless explicitely approved for games like roblox, jitting not allowed tho has to be interpreted).
3) reviews every app update.
It's really just Apple being angry about the EU's DMA endangering their golden goose (App Store revenue) and using any meaningful new functionality as a bargaining chip.
They've done staggered geo launches for other features in the past many times, both before and after the DMA was passed, and in this case there's even another great reason to not want to globally launch all at once (AI inference server capacity). If they can at the same time market it as part of their ridiculous turf war against the European Commission, I guess they just have to take the opportunity.
I'm extrapolating (there is less detail in that press release than I expected from your comment), but this sounds to be like it would be the thing that enables such a "list of permissions". I would be curious to know exactly what this agent entailed and why the EU did not approve it.
I will wait and see what people find out about it before passing judgement. It's quite possible that it isn't possible to have an API to use other companies' AI instead of Siri AI. Are there any equivalent API hooks on Android?
In my opinion, Apple is doing the right thing for users. It’s not like they have a huge revenue stream here. Yes, there will be some features or usage that require iCloud plus or whatever to cover incremental cost, but I genuinely believe that they don’t want services creeping in that break their trust with users or their privacy-first reputation.
Apple’s decision (users will have a less powerful product because we’re not vacuuming up their data and using it for profit) is exactly the kind of thing the EU should want. No country has appropriate data privacy guidelines for AI (yet) so opening up choice can’t provide alternatives.
(To be clear, I’d be fine with Anthropic here, but am fine with this state. Maybe because I’m so used to Siri sucking that I’ve given up hope.)
Nah, that just shifts the goal posts. If they did that, developers would be whining about "scare screens", as we have already seen when Apple put app installs behind a permission prompt.
They're already up in arms about the requirement from Apple (and Google) to know who is behind the apps that slurp up all your data.
The DMA maximalists won't be happy until Apple releases an anonymous service to automate setting up a Kafka topic to send each iOS user's PII to whoever wants to receive it.
The device won't be able to ask for significantly more permissions than Apple asks for their own model for regulatory reasons, nor will it be able to convey the seriousness of granting the permission (e.g. immediately give unrestricted access to the vast majority of personal information/documents stored on the device).
But Apple also architected their system to justify not having constant permission prompts for access to sensitive data. And for regulatory reasons they also can't mandate that competing models have the same architecture.
The regulators and Apple (along with hopefully other AI companies) will need to work together to determine longer-term stable path forward.
What is the purpose of that?