Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 735 posts

Re: Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption

#201

Post by Keyframe »

fnordsensei wrote: post #122
eykanal wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google eng mgr here. I've worked on a few projects related to compliance with various government policies. This isn't "assign a two-pizza team to it, will be done in a quarter"; these types of compliance efforts can mean completely redoing multiple core systems to handle privacy, wipeout, audit, reporting, per-location policies, etc etc. These efforts can involve hundreds to thousands of people for multiple years. Su…

The point isn’t that it’s easy or straightforward to do. The point is that one of the world’s wealthiest companies can spare the resources needed to comply with the regulations of one of the world’s largest markets.

Yet, they chose not to. That also speaks for itself.

Re: Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption

#202

Post by bellowsgulch »

It's all bullshit anyway. Apple could design a privacy framework around a fully integrated AI subsystem, "Do you want to allow ChatGPT access to Mail? (Developer message:) ChatGPT can read your emails to help summarize your inbox, or compose new mail."

This privilege system already exists. This is just marketing.

Re: Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption

#203

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #173
ErneX wrote: post #119

It would be nice if Europe had companies innovating at this level but it’s not happening. If you make a list of tentative companies that would integrate their stuff to the OS like Siri it’s very likely all those are major US companies, so I don’t even know at this point what the EU is trying to defend here. All I know is we are buying the same devices designed by the US but keep increasing the list of features we can…

> If you make a list of tentative companies that would integrate their stuff to the OS like Siri it’s very likely all those are major US companies Mistral. I’d bet my bottom dollar that the French are the reason the EU is holding firm on its position.

Honestly, it's probably more that Apple have been arguing about basically every single thing they are being made to do under DMA, amd the respective Directorate has basically no patience left for them at this point.

Never underestimate the power of a really, really, really irritated counterparty.

Re: Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption

#204

Post by izacus »

m3kw9 wrote: post #190
flumpcakes wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EU has some of the best consumer protection and privacy laws on the planet.

Their laws are basically the equivalent of if there is no code, there are no bugs. EU laws forces citizens to get no new tech, privacy preserved.

Man, if we had computers in EU we'd be really angry at your dumb false posts.

Re: Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption

#205

Post by theshrike79 »

FinnKuhn wrote: post #83
bnj wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that does have to do with privacy. Apple wants to implement features that access data locally. It doesn’t want to allow competition for offering those features, but if it did, competitors may use that access to local data to exfiltrate. So it is about both competition and, as a result of creating competition, privacy.

Apple is using Cloud compute as well to enable Siri AI. If you want to you could still use Apple or another provider you decide to trust - or even one that does everything locally. The competition would still have to follow GDPR after all.

Apple PCC has been independently audited to be ultra secure.

Will the EU enforce the same for 3rd party integrations?

Re: Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption

#206

Post by piyuv »

eykanal wrote: post #38
afavour wrote: post #2

Apple said "hey, can we not comply with the law", the EU said no, so it didn't launch. Seems pretty straightforward to me. I can see why Apple might want to request an 18 month exemption, there's clearly extra work required to comply with EU regulations. But on the other hand it also feels like a straightforward play for consumer sympathy: let them get used to using it every day for 18 months, then pressure the EU to…

Google eng mgr here. I've worked on a few projects related to compliance with various government policies. This isn't "assign a two-pizza team to it, will be done in a quarter"; these types of compliance efforts can mean completely redoing multiple core systems to handle privacy, wipeout, audit, reporting, per-location policies, etc etc. These efforts can involve hundreds to thousands of people for multiple years. Su…

It’s not an enormous effort if you plan for it. They clearly knew about this, and could’ve afforded to plan for it. Their whole shtick is locking users in, and DMA is their nemesis.

Re: Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption

#207

Post by JumpCrisscross »

dylan604 wrote: post #200
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you knew the restrictions day one you’d be able to engineer the system to accommodate them This slows down deploying the system globally. Particularly if the target is moving, it may make sense to build lightly so one can pivot, and then build in the compliance stuff after you know you have a winning configuration. The EU has its laws. Apple has its strategy. The only thing I fault anyone on is the public bicker…

If Apple is so pro-privacy like they claim, then they'd look for the most strict international privacy laws and abide by them. Then they could feel safe in knowing they could release the product anywhere. The fact they want to make the product available under the "rules" of the least privacy protecting countries first says a lot to me

DMA is about competition, not privacy. Apple weren’t requesting a GDPR waiver.

Re: Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption

#208

Post by MBCook »

anon7000 wrote: post #131
McDyver wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It goes to show that privacy is not a priority. And it should be.

No, this is unrelated from privacy. The issue is that the EU won’t allow the new Siri because Apple isn’t willing to open up the system enough for 3rd party AI agents to get the same functionality.

Which I would argue is HARDER to do while preserving privacy.

Re: Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption

#209

Post by gigel82 »

Good. I wish the US had some privacy regulations as well. I can't believe how much credit folks are still giving Apple after all the BS they pulled (I mean direct Ad revenue is a $9 billion (and growing) business for Apple, and that's just the stuff they make public, not including search share revenue and other such deals).

Apparently their "Verifiable Transparency" claim just means Apple invited unnamed outside security experts and independent researchers to inspect and verify the integrity of (what they claim to be) its Private Cloud Compute code... LOL :)

I'll believe it when I can run the "private cloud compute" on my own hardware that I can firewall in my rack and monitor its network outputs.

Re: Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption

#210

Post by kube-system »

gmueckl wrote: post #193
kube-system wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The exemption Apple wanted was not from a privacy law, but from the DMA. They never claimed to have an issue meeting their privacy laws when using their own product, it was other people's products that they said they couldn't guarantee the privacy of. Here's their argument in their own words: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/06/due-to-dma-siri-ai-de...

That's even worse, then. They are not responsible for other companies' products. So this is just another piece of anti-DMA propaganda then. They have been fighting it loudly and with toddler-level arguments since they became subject to it.

> They are not responsible for other companies' products.

Legally, maybe not, practically it becomes their problem.

Post reply on HN