Item — HN Reader

> If Apple is only allowing its own AI to operate at the OS level

Incidentally, that’s what’s preventing Apple from rolling out their OS-privileged AI in the EU, as the EU mandates equal access for competing AI products. It will be interesting how this plays out.

2 comments

Indeed according to Apple https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/06/due-to-dma-siri-ai-de... when allowing equal access for competing AI products

> Apple would have to give any virtual assistant direct access to users’ private data — and the ability to directly control other installed applications — as soon as Siri AI is made available in the EU

I don't personally agree with EU's mandates. I think it's ok if Apple only allows their own models to run on iOS at the OS level.

If OpenAI makes their own AI-phone, do they have to let Anthropic and Deepseek run their models on it too?

> do they have to let Anthropic and Deepseek run their models on it too?

provided it gets big enough, yes. the EU's position roughly is "if this hurts an entire market just to benefit you, and lots of people use / rely on it, then you gotta allow it"

Then the EU’s not gonna get anywhere the US and China will just sail along. The lawyers in the EU are essentially cutting their throats building hardware and operating systems cost real money and time which is one of the reasons Apple is using Google’s model for $1 billion a year. (when Apple finishes their models in house, Google probably will be dropped). Like dropping Broadcom, Intel, or Qualcomm in 2027-28).

It takes real time to drag along five ecosystems. That is the main reason it’s taking Apple longer than they’re so-called competition? Noticed that Google and Microsoft only do bits and pieces. Microsoft has no mobile and Google at its heart is an ad company the processor is six years behind.

that's the most common criticism. can't say i disagree.

though monopolistic practices are unequivocally bad and used to get struck down. one may argue this is just another instance of disallowing monopolistic behavior.

the DOJ used to have sharper fangs than what the EU is doing now

Why can't Anthropic or Deepseek take the big risk to develop their own phone? It doesn't seem right that they can simply use EU laws to hop on the ride for free without taking the same risks.

As a consumer it also doesn't seem right that Apple can just use all their private APIs that no other company is allowed to use to tell me what I can and can't use on my phone. If I want Anthropic to have the same level of access that Apple grants itself on _my_ phone, I should be able to do so.

Don’t buy it you have Android which is 3/4 of the world? What’s the problem? You also have Windows which is also 3/4 of the world.

As if Android and Windows don't also use the same tactics. Windows used to not let you uninstall Edge and Android used to just default to Chrome and Google Search, now they have to prompt you what you actually want to use. If the big companies are left unchecked, of course they'll use their size to bully other players to increase their own profit, but always at the cost of the customer.

Surely there must be a phone you can buy that lets you do that right?

  If I want Anthropic to have the same level of access that Apple grants itself on _my_ phone, I should be able to do so.

I want to install my personal software on my refrigerator, washing machine, hand shaver, coffee maker. I bought them. They're mine. /s

If people want to buy open hardware, then just buy those. If they don't exist, make them yourself.

Do you rather want your refrigerator, washing machine and coffee maker send all the data it collects about you during your usage to some company you don't even know? How is it ridiculous to want to be able to make your devices do what you want to do, not what the big company behind it wants?

Those machines don’t connect to the internet but I want to run my own software on them.

Just make a new phone OS lol, problem solved.

If the demand for installing your own software is so great, a company would make it.

the EU feels like this falls under monopolistic practices, which it has deemed illegal. the buck stops with the politicians - there's no reason other than "the EU thinks it's bad for the economy and should thus not be allowed"