Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption
Apple has decided not to launch its new Siri AI features in the EU after regulators refused a requested 18‑month exemption from the Digital Markets Act, which would require Apple to open the same deep system access to competing AI assistants. Commenters are split between those who see this as Apple protecting its walled garden and market power, and those who argue the EU’s interoperability and competition rules are so burdensome they risk weakening privacy protections and slowing innovation. The episode is framed as part of a broader power struggle between large U.S. tech platforms and the EU’s efforts to curb gatekeeper dominance while maintaining strong consumer privacy.
Legal framing and Apple’s decision
- Commenters largely agree on the sequence: Apple asked for a temporary DMA exemption (~18 months), EU refused, Apple chose not to launch Siri AI / Apple Intelligence in the EU.
- Many frame this as “law is the law”: if a product can’t comply, the correct response is not to ship it, not to demand special treatment.
- Several see Apple’s public messaging as a pressure tactic: blame EU so EU citizens lobby to loosen rules.
DMA vs privacy: competition law dressed as privacy dispute
- Multiple comments stress this is about the Digital Markets Act (DMA), an interoperability/competition framework, not GDPR or “EU privacy law.”
- The DMA aim described: prevent gatekeepers (Apple, Google, etc.) from giving their own services privileged OS access and locking out competitors.
- Apple’s stated line (per discussion): opening Siri AI’s deep device access to third-party agents can’t yet be done in a privacy‑preserving way; thus it sought delay.
Interoperability vs privacy and security
- EU side (as described by commenters): third‑party AI assistants should be able to do what Siri AI can, with user consent, just like default browsers or messaging apps.
- Apple/defensive side: giving any third‑party agent access to messages, photos, screen contents, etc. is a huge privacy and security risk, especially with ad‑driven firms; Apple would take the reputational hit for others’ breaches.
- Critics counter that:
- Users already grant powerful permissions to apps; a permissioned API, warnings, and audits could manage risk.
- Third‑party AIs serving EU users must comply with GDPR anyway.
- Apple already designed Private Cloud Compute and could, in principle, require similar standards from others.
- Some note Apple proposed a “Trusted System Agent” intermediary and phased rollout; thread reports the Commission rejected this, but details are unclear.
Apple’s privacy posture and motives
- Supportive view: Apple is one of the few large vendors pushing on‑device processing and hardened cloud inference; DMA effectively forces them to weaken their own model by letting in less trustworthy actors.
- Skeptical view: Apple’s privacy is partly marketing; examples cited include non‑E2EE iCloud backups by default and ad business growth. Privacy is seen as a pretext to preserve lock‑in and services revenue.
Engineering and timing
- Big‑tech engineers in the thread describe DMA‑grade compliance and per‑region behavior as multi‑year, multi‑hundred‑person efforts; not easily “fixed with money.”
- Others argue DMA has been known for years; not designing for it from day one shows Apple bet on avoiding or blunting the rules, and is now late.
Impact on EU users and ecosystem
- Some EU commenters are content to forego Siri AI to uphold competition and user choice; others resent being feature‑lagged and Apple’s framing that “EU won’t let us ship.”
- A recurring split: one camp sees DMA as necessary to break duopoly power; another sees it as heavy‑handed regulation that will slow or divert innovation away from Europe.