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

531–540 of 735 posts

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

#531

Post by gmueckl »

happyopossum wrote: post #327
schubidubiduba wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of that happens only if the user chooses to do it though. Anybody is free to stay in the caged Apple garden. The EU just wants them to leave the door unlocked.

A door with a lock is different from a wall with no door. Same argument that gets made with government-keyed or government-breakable encryption schemes: it's better for everyone to not have the backdoor at all.

It's not a backdoor. It's a front door that can only be opened from the inside when done correctly.

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

#532

Post by inetknght »

tqwhite wrote: post #524
inetknght wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Skipping the EU makes sense in a fast-moving market (if you’re designated as a gatekeeper). Skipping the EU makes sense if the company doesn't want to comply with regulations aimed directly at it. > complying with the DMA from the outset could mean having to launch a year later everywhere. Oh no! Anyway... Once upon a time, companies delayed launches specifically so they'd launch a better product. That seems to be…

If, like me, you specifically do not want third parties inside the Apple ecosystem, Apple has done a great job. I totally hate the EU's insistence of tearing down Apple's walled garden. That is a huge reason I like their products so much.

Interoperability only requires Apple to allow third parties to have the same capabilities that Apple does on your device. It doesn't require you to purchase or use a third party service or device. It merely allows you to have that choice in the first place.

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

#533

Post by tqwhite »

ahartmetz wrote: post #216
disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At what cost? This is Apple’s second bite at AI. Giannandrea fucked up the first time. I’m honestly with Cupertino on not over complicating it the second time around. If they found the right mix of features and architecture, great, then work to port it to high-bar jurisdictions. I totally agree with you in principle here, but Apple have a pretty large vested interest in not supporting interoperability here (and in…

That lobbying move has been tried how many times? It hasn't worked once. There is no disagreement along any political lines I can think of. It's not that we particularly like the EU government here in the EU. But we do like when they make pro-consumer laws.

So, you do without. Easy Peasy.

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

#534

Post by inetknght »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #366
inetknght wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Skipping the EU makes sense in a fast-moving market (if you’re designated as a gatekeeper). Skipping the EU makes sense if the company doesn't want to comply with regulations aimed directly at it. > complying with the DMA from the outset could mean having to launch a year later everywhere. Oh no! Anyway... Once upon a time, companies delayed launches specifically so they'd launch a better product. That seems to be…

> Skipping the EU makes sense if the company doesn't want to comply with regulations aimed directly at it It makes sense if you’re prioritizing time to market and agility. Once you’ve nailed down your product, you can make it compliant for more-onerous jurisdictions. You see this in finance all the time, where the U.S. tends to have the tightest rules around e.g. betting and crypto. > Once upon a time, companies dela…

> It’s perfectly legitimate to say we’ll develop this in other markets and ship it to the EU when it’s fully baked.

It's also perfectly legitimate to legally require business to slow the fuck down and consider how the thing will be used or abused, to make the product not crash for even just basic usages, and to put real safeguards in place against problematic scenarios.

But no, move fast and break things wins the day every day in the US.

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

#536

Post by cogogo »

tonoto wrote: post #508
shykes wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also forced EU voters to consider how much they value these services It's been a while since I left Europe, and I'm rusty on that particular layer of civics. Do EU voters actually have a say in this kind of regulation? Or is it all decided on the executive side which is only accountable to member states and not to individual citizens?

It might be that we have a say, but there are a lot of decisions happening in Brussels that it "feels like" we, EU voters, don't have a say in. Such as: - Chat Control - Vehicle regulations (mandates on "eCall", disturbing audio visuals and other "safety measuers) in Regulation (EU) 2018/858 - Eventual upcoming ethanol restrictions - Ban on plastic drinking straws - Drink caps that are stuck to the bottles - Ban on p…

Have to say I love the drink cap thing. It makes a lot of sense. The caps wind up everywhere so the regulation probably/most likely does some good (have not seen any data so who knows). But once you get used to it you appreciate not being able to lose the cap. Straws seem pretty useless to me in general so why not avoid plastic? but that is probably a me problem. Plastic on fruit is annoying as hell but it is not a mutually exclusive problem.

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

#537

Post by ghaff »

yxhuvud wrote: post #452
ghaff wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. If a company in another country elects not to deliver a product or feature because of local regulations, consumers should take that up with their local legislators. That company has no obligation to sell something just because local consumers want it. And if those consumers want to bypass local regulations in some manner, that's their business.

Market pressure is a pretty strong obligation to their shareholders. I expect Apple to fold, eventually.

Possibly. At that point it becomes a cost/profit calculation. Maybe the EU is big enough to matter. Maybe it isn't.

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

#538

Post by JumpCrisscross »

overfeed wrote: post #495
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple is worried that other parties having the same level of access that Apple has today would create privacy issues But this is solvable. The problem is the work it takes to solve it isn’t worth the hit to time to market. (And possibly even the cost.)

> But this is solvable That's the crux of my point; Apple could have solved this on day zero if they had a consumer-centered threat-model and/or considered user data to be a liability rather than a hook for service subscriptions. > The problem is the work it takes to solve it isn’t worth the hit to time to market. (And possibly even the cost.) I don't consider this to be a problem, but the DMA working as intended and…

> Apple could have solved this on day zero if they had a consumer-centered threat-model

Consumer-centered threat model is perfectly well served with on-device models and Private Cloud. What isn’t is interoperability.

> the DMA working as intended and preventing gatekeepers from competing unfairly

I agree. And at the end of the day, Apple is following the law. I am sympathetic to their position, however, that this isn’t something worth building and optimizing for at launch. If we wanted to be rose tinted, EU consumers will get a fully-baked product. (EU developers get somewhat screwed, but I suppose their offshore offices could start.)

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

#539

Post by sneak »

burnte wrote: post #313
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…

> It's not as if Apple doesn't have the money to dedicate a team to matching the EU's requirements on a deadline. They just choose not to. Exactly, that's actually why I LIKE this decision so much. I'm not on Apple's side, but I REALLY like the idea that a company just says, "Fine, we'll comply by not even offering this product." It's a perfectly legitimate choice, and it FORCED Apple to evaluate the pros and cons. I…

> I want more companies to not get exemptions and thus not offer law-breaking products. I LIKE that the government is saying, "fix it or don't bring it here" and Apple just has to live with it.

The idea that there is such a thing as "law-breaking products" when consumers ACTIVELY CHOOSE TO SPEND THEIR MONEY ON THEM is insane to me. This is authoritarian nonsense.

It is not the state's place to tell people what they should or should not be allowed to buy.

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

#540

Post by JumpCrisscross »

baq wrote: post #330
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…

Then don’t deploy it for Pete’s sake if you can’t guarantee basic privacy.

> don’t deploy it for Pete’s sake if you can’t guarantee basic privacy

This isn’t about privacy. DMA is about interoperability.

Post reply on HN