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

671–680 of 735 posts

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

#671

Post by krzyk »

MBCook wrote: post #546
krzyk wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has anyone seen a recent LLM release that supports just one language?

Apple Intelligence supports a number of languages. They showed them on a slide in the keynote. The new Siri is limited at the moment.

old Siri was always limited in that regard.

And Apple Intelligence supports just a fraction of languages: English, Danish, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish, Swedish, Turkish, Vietnamese, Chinese (simplified), Chinese (traditional), Japanese, and Korean.

Danish, Dutch, Norwegian and Swedish have quite small populations compared Poland, while I don't see Polish there (37M). I also don't see Romanian, it is slightly bigger amount of people than Netherlands, and the rest from that list are ~Oh, well, at least I don't see Russian in that list.

With ChatGPT, or Claude.ai (or Deepseek, or local models) I can speak with languages that are outside of (traditionally) limited set of Apple. Because it all depends on what is on the web and web has magnitude larger set of languages compared to what Apple provides.

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

#672

Post by krzyk »

duskwuff wrote: post #582
krzyk wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't "DMCA", make, well, the DMCA notice a thing?

Precisely. What it replaced was rightsholders suing web services (like a forum or web host) as a first resort, which was a much more cumbersome and painful process for all parties.

If it was more painful for the suing party, it was a good thing.

Now all it needs is send some letter to github and they take down content, no questions asked, how is that better? It is for court to decide.

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

#673

Post by miroljub »

mrln wrote: post #644
miroljub wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do EU voters actually have a say in this kind of regulation? EU voters don't have any saying in any EU level regulation. The EU regime do basically what they want.

While the democratic process in the EU deserves its criticism, this is plain wrong. EU citizens can vote for the EU parliament.

And EU Parliament can't propose a new law. Or propose to change a law. How super democratic.

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

#674

Post by mikaeluman »

Apple still tries to integrate its own software deep into the phone and hope to get market share that way.

I am really glad someone is putting a stop to this behaviour. Regardless if it is Microsoft, Apple or someone else trying to force users to their products with no choice.

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

#676

Post by michelb »

redviperpt wrote: post #442
Nifty3929 wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, exactly! Also forced EU voters to consider how much they value these services, and whether the regulations are worth it not to have them, or to have watered down versions of them. I say this without judgment - I see it as a legitimate area of consideration. I think the worst is hugely impactful laws for which exceptions are constantly carved out so nobody can truly evaluate whether the law/reg is a good one or n…

EU "voters" don't get a say in any of this.

Well sort of? The more right-wing we vote, the more room corporations and their cronies get.

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

#677

Post by mr_toad »

MagnumOpus wrote: post #351
1123581321 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DMA is a not a privacy-oriented law.

But Apple’s excuse not to comply with it is privacy-related.

They don’t want third parties to be able the access all data on your phone. Do you?

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

#678

Post by tticvs »

troupo wrote: post #365
spullara wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I wouldn't want Apple to comply with this EU law and I hope that more companies refuse to release features with onerous requirements. Opening up all access to control the phone to some random app the consumer installed seems super dangerous.

"Onerous requirements": users have the right to chose, users have the right to privacy.

Correct, they can choose not to buy an iphone. Also, in this case, the EU regulations are undermining privacy.

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

#679

Post by throwaway270925 »

ebbi wrote: post #571
fundatus wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, let that be my concern. Why should I trust Apple more than let's say Proton?

Because when you open it to Proton, you have to open it to Meta. And when Meta does Meta things, the first thing the average user will complain to is Apple - "didn't you advertise to me about privacy?!"

> Because when you open it to Proton, you have to open it to Meta.

No? You dont!? Why would you "have to"?

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

#680

Post by mr_toad »

skeledrew wrote: post #262
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…

There wouldn't need to be a redo if the products had been built with compliance in mind. This law isn't something new; it's been around for years now. Not taking it into account from the beginning with the intention of operating in the jurisdiction means there's definitely intention to skirt. Particularly given the previous issues in the same department.

I wouldn’t want to try and develop a sandbox for an AI that could protect the user and yet still be useful. Having an AI act on your private data but only in the way you want is hard enough when it’s a model that you control on hardware you own. Having third parties running AI on your private data requires a level of trust that I wouldn’t want in the hands of random developers in the app store.
Post reply on HN