[HN Gopher] Siri AI
___________________________________________________________________
Siri AI
Author : 0xedb
Score : 510 points
Date : 2026-06-08 18:17 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.apple.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.apple.com)
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Associated post: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/06/apple-
| introduces-siri...
| nico wrote:
| The demo video there is so underwhelming. They show very basic
| stuff, which I assumed Siri was already capable of doing... not
| sure what the big improvement is
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Based on my experience, I assume Siri is not capable of
| anything more than setting timers or referring me to my phone
| to see the search results.
| microtonal wrote:
| If it's going to be anything like Gemini on Google Pixel,
| it'll be great at everything except for trivial tasks like
| setting timers :).
| nico wrote:
| And that's pretty much what they show in the demo, plus
| asking it for directions on Apple Maps (which it can also
| do already), and searching for pictures on the Photos app
| (which I just tried and it can't do - so it looks like
| that's the main feature)
| baggachipz wrote:
| > coming this fall
|
| I believe we also heard that a couple years ago.
| MattDamonSpace wrote:
| Went out of their way to show actual usage of these features on
| actual devices in actual people's hands
| troupo wrote:
| In a pre-recorded video after who knows how many takes.
|
| 15 years ago they had the balls to run Siri live on stage:
| https://youtu.be/6rL9EL2LlrA?is=5yMQxs0C2VAC5Lwz
| data-ottawa wrote:
| You could see jitter in the reflection on the MacBook as
| the guy typed, so that all looked great.
|
| The responses came in very fast though, so I'm sceptical
| that the latency is representative (or that they didn't
| cherry pick results, but they looked LLM generated). We
| shall see though.
| troupo wrote:
| Even for live shows they'd cherry pick specific scenarios
| that were known to work, and those would sometimes fail.
| IN a heavily produced pre-arranged pre-determined
| marketing video? It was as polished and made as smooth as
| possible.
| data-ottawa wrote:
| I think that's mostly okay, I just worry about the times.
| It was like 2-3 seconds to search and pull context then
| generate the answer.
|
| I'm writing AI apps these days, and even pulling Gemini
| 3.5 flash on Google Cloud takes longer to get a multi-
| step response.
|
| Obviously the video is not representative, and there are
| fast models on fast hardware. But if this takes 2 minutes
| it's not very compelling to users.
| losvedir wrote:
| Heh, I noticed the same thing, after the DaringFireball
| callout last year about the normal product demo progression.
| It looks "real" this time, but the question is how far along
| we are: will the journalists have a chance to play with it at
| the event?
| jdminhbg wrote:
| It's in the developer beta, people are posting videos of
| it, e.g.:
| https://x.com/iupdate/status/2064078761856037112?s=46
| r0fl wrote:
| Newest phones get latest models
|
| Genius way to sell more phones
|
| Really they are just selling on device Ai
| reconnecting wrote:
| Amazing how this time Apple found the `sweet spot` to release
| Siri AI when the letter combination A and I has fed up literally
| everyone.
| minimaxir wrote:
| Apple notably threw shade at the existing AI implementations,
| with an emphasis on making Siri AI more human-focused.
|
| The stock price definitely didn't like it though.
| hmokiguess wrote:
| I feel like the hate came more from the "Available today for
| Developers and later in Beta" than anything
| reconnecting wrote:
| I mean, seriously, AI = Apple Intelligence?
|
| It's not even funny, it's not smart. It's like if they
| released _MS Siri_ and said it 's Mac System Siri.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| > _I mean, seriously, AI = Apple Intelligence?_
|
| For pedantry's sake, they were saying "AI = Apple
| Intelligence" last year as well, so it's not like they just
| pulled it out of their butts now that popular opinion has
| turned against AI.
| reconnecting wrote:
| Exactly, I thought one year was enough to prove that
| everyone reads those letters differently nowadays.
| greedo wrote:
| The stock market is notorious for dropping on almost any
| Apple conference or announcement.
| graypegg wrote:
| Watching the keynote at our office on a big screen and everyone
| collectively sighing when they announced the name felt
| indicative haha.
|
| I think it just feels uncreative? Siri as a brand has some
| value, but if you want it to feel like a watershed moment where
| old Siri is "behind us" finally, just give it a new name.
| reconnecting wrote:
| I don't think Apple has the option to rebrand Siri at this
| stage, assuming people actually call Siri by name. However,
| turning AI into 'Apple Intelligence' doesn't feel creative
| either.
| xp84 wrote:
| > assuming people actually call Siri by name
|
| This doesn't follow for me. They can trivially allow it to
| still respond to the old wakeword. They should absolutely
| change the name in the event they can finally make it
| useful, because "Siri" is (in my mind and many others') a
| synonym for "hapless idiot." "Thanks, Siri" has been
| uttered hundreds of time in my house and my car, and 100%
| of the time it's sarcastic.
| graypegg wrote:
| Same thing in my head. I only see this going one way,
| which is tons of people hear that Siri "got better" after
| this update.
|
| Many of those people will speak a language that's not
| English, or live in the EU or China where it'll still be
| "Siri", not "Siri AI".
|
| "Do you have the new Siri?"
|
| "Yeah I updated... but she still seems so dumb"
|
| "Oh yeah... well that's Siri for you I guess"
|
| Horrifying for marketing folk, I would presume. You're
| just setting people up to confirm that Siri is always
| useless and improvements are invisible.
| spike021 wrote:
| we were doing the same thing and giggling a bit that it's
| basically "AI AI" now. realistically a lot of people thought
| of Siri as AI already.
| ryukoposting wrote:
| Or just keep calling it Siri, and announce "hey look, Siri
| does some cool new things."
|
| AI is a technology, not a product. Consumers don't care about
| technologies, they care about what the product does versus
| what they currently have.
|
| I think Jobs was an asshole, but one good thing I can say
| about him is that he understood the difference between
| technology and products. Imagine if they had called it the
| "iPod HDD."
| graypegg wrote:
| The ergonomics of "the new X" sort of fall apart when
| you're releasing it in stages. (Not in EU/only in English)
| It spawns a lot of conversations like "do you have the new
| Siri? Uh... I think so? It's still crap though." You cart
| around this bad brand image because you pitch this big
| watershed moment and 2/3rds of people are still using the
| "wrong" Siri.
|
| Siri and Voice Control were both usable during the same
| time and it feels like it could work here too.
|
| Totally agree that AI is just an implementation detail
| though. IMO that new product name should NOT have "AI" in
| it at all.
| threetonesun wrote:
| It's going to be weird though when my phone has Siri AI and
| my Homepod has Siri... "please ask on your iPhone" edition. I
| also don't quite get the distinction of Siri as an app versus
| the Siri I yell at to make my TV do something.
| amelius wrote:
| Amazing how someone again finds a meaningless thing Apple does
| better than the rest then blows it out of proportions. Makes
| you wonder if they are on Apple's PR team.
| reconnecting wrote:
| It looks bad from every perspective. I've never seen two
| apple's in one URL for product category before. apple.com/
| _apple_ -intelligence
|
| To prove my point, I opened a random date on the Apple
| website matching today's date to compare. 16 years ago, June
| 8 (1) Apple released the iPhone 4. There's still no room for
| jokes about that release, and from this perspective, calling
| their AI 'Apple Intelligence' feels weak compared to what
| they used to deliver.
|
| I agree that some years ago Apple was the strongest in
| marketing, their brand team had been setting the bar for
| tech, but I simply can't say that anymore.
|
| 1. https://web.archive.org/web/20100608073904/http://www.appl
| e....
| Danox wrote:
| So you noticed the five ecosystems being shown working
| together, not perfectly but better than everyone else.
| wilg wrote:
| More or less stuck AI in all the obvious spots, which will
| probably be fine I guess. Not super exciting!
| minimaxir wrote:
| I wonder how much of Siri AI is Apple-developed and how much of
| it is Google-developed as a result of Gemini. The a) search demos
| and b) image generation demos seem unlikely to have been done by
| Apple alone, the demos being closer to Google Search and Nano
| Banana respectively.
| thewebguyd wrote:
| It looks almost entirely like gemini. The images they showed
| are obviously nano banana, and the text responses are almost
| obviously Gemini (I say as a somewhat frequent Gemini user).
|
| I'm sure they customized some of it, but this looks basically
| like Gemini integrated with iCloud instead of Google Workspace.
| devindotcom wrote:
| I'm curious what the obvious tells were for you. I never use
| any of these tools so I do wonder what sets them apart for
| those in frequent contact.
| thewebguyd wrote:
| The images were the biggest tell, generating using a
| reference photo of a person, at least Gemini and ChatGPT
| have two distinct styles. ChatGPT is a little less uncanny
| valley than Gemini which tries to be _too_ realistic
| looking, in a bad way because it tries to preserve the
| original person in the photo, but still can 't seem to help
| altering facial features.
|
| The text responses had Gemini's verbosity. Asking ChatGPT
| to show me iconic dishes from both Brazil and Morocco
| (Apple's example), is much cleaner, less verbose. Quick
| list of dishes and links to the recipe. Gemini just spews a
| wall of text and bullet points and goes on and on with
| fluff. Tons of "What this dish is" "Why it works" Same with
| its frequent use of tables, which I see less of with
| ChatGPT.
|
| Each Siri demo they did in the keynote had that hallmark
| verbosity I typically get with Gemini without prompting it
| to not do that.
| om42 wrote:
| Yeah I noticed the same things! I've been using Gemini on
| my Pixel a lot like this and this feels like Siri skin
| for Gemini
| losvedir wrote:
| I was wondering the same. I have to imagine it's mostly Gemini,
| unless Apple has a big, secret, SotA foundation model no one
| has heard of? But if it is Gemini, how does that work with
| their Private Cloud thing? Are they able to load the Gemini
| weights into it?
| WarmWash wrote:
| IIRC Apple cut a deal to have their own version of Gemini
| that is hosted just for them.
| testfrequency wrote:
| There was not a single thing they launched that I have not seen
| Gemini already showcase capability or existing feature wise
| Danox wrote:
| The only thing you saw was phoning home, that's what's gonna
| be interesting when Apple releases their version. Is it
| phoning home 100% of the time or can you turn off the
| Internet and have it perform in the same way, there will be
| plenty of YouTubers that will give it the test a test I might
| add that they haven't done up until this point for anything
| that Google has put out?
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Is Siri any more or less than "just" an agentic harness such as
| OpenClaw? How much of what that harness does is up to the LLM
| or the harness itself?
|
| In my mind the Gemini LLM defines the bounds of capability and
| capacity, but any actual functionality or usefulness (or lack
| of) comes from Apple's Siri harness.
| timwis wrote:
| For real this time...
| seaal wrote:
| >Fix passwords with a tap.
|
| >The Passwords app alerts you to weak or compromised passwords
| and can update them on your behalf without the hassle.
|
| Finally, I hope this works well. Personally one of the worst
| things to deal with.
| avarun wrote:
| 1Password has been able to do this for five+ years. Frankly, it
| doesn't even really need agentic AI, although a talented team
| could probably make it perform better with agentic AI.
|
| I don't really believe in Apple being that quality team.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| > _I don 't really believe in Apple being that quality team._
|
| Why?
| iknowstuff wrote:
| its clear from their efforts thus far (image playground
| jesus fuck) that AI and even prompt engineering talent
| actively flocks away from them
| tomjakubowski wrote:
| Haven't you heard? Prompt engineering is dead. The cool
| kids are making Claude prompt itself. They're writing
| loops, not prompts. It's all about optimal tip-to-tip
| efficiency now.
|
| "I don't prompt Claude anymore. I have loops running that
| prompt Claude and figuring out what to do. My job is to
| write loops".--Boris Cherny
| nozzlegear wrote:
| What's wrong with image playground? I haven't used it.
| avazhi wrote:
| Maybe observing Siri for the past 10 years?
|
| They have no expertise in this area and their software
| quality as never been worse.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| Tbh I assumed the Passwords team would be handling this
| and not the Siri team. Maybe I'm wrong.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| I mean every api/app/website has a different way to do this.
| If there was a standardized api that everyone could conform
| to to allow this automation I would be all for it. I assume
| 1p does this by writing custom code/rules for dealing with
| the most popular sites out there and then erroring out for
| anything else.
|
| AI could potentially help solve those unpopular
| site/app/whatever edgecase.
| ramses0 wrote:
| https://specification.website/spec/well-known/change-
| passwor...
| sanex wrote:
| I hope they don't feed the actual password into the model.
| akmarinov wrote:
| Don't they say it runs on device? Then why not?
| willis936 wrote:
| Judgment.
| nixpulvis wrote:
| Apple Passwords reliably updates passwords in its database
| before the password is confirmed to be actually changed. I've
| been locked out of accounts many times to this. They really
| need to focus on these basic UX issues.
| lxgr wrote:
| Does it at least store the old password for a while in some
| archive, like most competitors do?
| nixpulvis wrote:
| Not at all.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| Yes it does
| vmladenov wrote:
| It goes in the "View History" section of a password entry,
| with an option in the 3-dot menu for "Clear History". Not
| sure how long this is kept
| umpalumpaaa wrote:
| 1Password gives you access to previous passwords you had for
| that reason.
|
| Unfortunately not for other fields like email, notes etc...
|
| IMHO the perfect password app could just keep all previous
| versions of any field until the user deletes the history.
| kqp wrote:
| 1Password does do full previous versions. It might be a
| newer feature, I'm only seeing passwords, not full
| versions, prior to 2018.
| s3p wrote:
| All that data is lost when you migrate accounts though. I
| went from an old to a new 1P account and did the official
| way to copy (NOT exporting it to a text file and re-
| importing that way, actually copying it from the
| interface) and no version history persisted :/
| umpalumpaaa wrote:
| I am using the latest version of their iOS app and only
| see my current version except for passwords.
| nixpulvis wrote:
| I'm (slowly) working on a version controlled local-first
| password manager for exactly this reason.
| silversmith wrote:
| Keepassxc is local first and has password history. Check
| it out before building.
| nixpulvis wrote:
| It didn't have a good sync story when I checked last.
| ramses0 wrote:
| https://www.passwordstore.org/
|
| git + somesite.com.gpg
|
| https://github.com/FiloSottile/passage (or: forked using
| AGE instead of GPG)
| bouke wrote:
| Yep. I get anxious when Safari starts to offer a new password
| for an existing account. Having access to previous passwords
| would be such great UX, but no, no such thing.
| dwaite wrote:
| At least on 26, the passwords app saves a history with
| previous passwords.
| xp84 wrote:
| I'll believe this when pigs fly.
|
| There's a 0% chance it will work. Most websites I've seen have
| one or all of:
|
| * Force you to use email or SMS as a "second factor" to unlock
| changing password even if you know the old password
|
| * A stupid idea of password complexity usually requiring _one
| of a finite set of 5-8 "special characters"_ which is often
| only revealed after you've chosen a password that doesn't have
| them. Or in some cases even banning characters other than the
| ones they check for. There's a standard for this where you put
| a regex on the password field, which a good password manager
| will always use, but the kind of idiots who think _limiting_
| the entropy of passwords to increase security is the correct
| way to do things almost NEVER implement this.
|
| * A maximum password length, even as short as 16 characters in
| many cases
|
| * CAPTCHA etc.
|
| Any effort spent on this would be better spent elsewhere,
| including even educating other companies on how passkeys should
| be used.
| charcircuit wrote:
| They may be limiting entropy to make it easier for users to
| remember their password. A user that can't log in is most
| likely one that will churn.
| xp84 wrote:
| I don't think firms like the electric company or (payroll
| company) ADP are worried that I'll churn.
|
| Also, the Venn diagram of "memorable" and "reasonably
| secure" really only intersects in the region of "Correct
| horse battery staple" phrases -- and the problematic sites
| I'm talking about nearly always limit length, which thwarts
| that type of password terribly. What is the purpose of
| maxlength on a password?? These shouldn't be stored in any
| form other than a hash, so unless long enough to pose a DoS
| threat during the hashing process, length is truly none of
| their business.
| charcircuit wrote:
| The entropy of a hashed password is limited by how many
| bits long the hash is.
| mimischi wrote:
| Some of your points are addressed by:
| https://github.com/apple/password-manager-resources
| dwaite wrote:
| > Force you to use email or SMS as a "second factor" to
| unlock changing password even if you know the old password
|
| Apple has detectors for codes sent via email or SMS, if your
| email account is one that is configured with the OS mail
| client.
|
| > A stupid idea of password complexity usually requiring one
| of a finite set of 5-8 "special characters" which is often
| only revealed after you've chosen a password that doesn't
| have them. Or in some cases even banning characters other
| than the ones they check for. There's a standard for this
| where you put a regex on the password field, which a good
| password manager will always use, but the kind of idiots who
| think limiting the entropy of passwords to increase security
| is the correct way to do things almost NEVER implement this.
|
| An AI agent can read the failure message and craft a new
| password
|
| > A maximum password length, even as short as 16 characters
| in many cases
|
| Same deal
|
| > CAPTCHA etc.
|
| While there's always the complex solution of scanning the
| image and trying to detect what is going on or slide the
| puzzle with enough of a curve to act like the motion of a
| human limb, there's also Private Access Tokens, supported by
| both Cloudflare and Google-provided captcha systems now IIRC.
| The OS uses an anonymous system to assert a single bit that
| there's proper browser chain-of-custody.
|
| > Any effort spent on this would be better spent elsewhere,
| including even educating other companies on how passkeys
| should be used.
|
| There are proposals as well to provide API to do upgrades
| from passwords to passkeys as well automatically. Nobody said
| the feature has to always use AI - but it may help the
| feature be robust enough for people to seek it out and try
| it.
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| Don't forget those sites/apps that split the sign in process
| across five screens for bow good reason or those with
| mislabeled fields that password managers can't pick up on.
|
| I don't think I've seen a single category of UX fail as hard
| and as often as auth screens do. It's like at some point
| after 2015-2017 developers were struck with mass amnesia and
| forgot how to build decent login UIs.
| fwip wrote:
| Limiting the character set is done to reduce the frequency of
| "can't enter my password" support calls, not to increase
| security directly. Same with the maximum password length.
| OberstKrueger wrote:
| > Available on iPhone 17 Pro, iPhone 17 Pro Max, iPhone Air, iPad
| models with M4 and later and at least 12GB of unified memory, and
| Mac models with M3 and later and at least 12GB of unified memory.
|
| It's really disappointing to see the on-device models being
| limited to so few devices. And this was after the iPhone 16 and
| 16 Pro were marketed so heavily with supporting their now failed
| effort at AI.
| Amorymeltzer wrote:
| That's specifically the secondary, more-powerful model. It was
| only mentioned in passing in the keynote, but on this page
| anyway, it seems to be just the improved dictation in Siri and
| ability to customize pacing, etc.
| havaloc wrote:
| The 12gb number is weird, but also telling.
|
| iPhones have 12gb, current Neo has 8gb, the next gen Neo is
| speculated to have 12gb (as it'll be based on a later iPhone
| chip).
| onesociety2022 wrote:
| Apple has pulled a Tesla here. FSD on HW3 cars is stuck on old
| software with no upgrade path as of now. Tesla is potentially
| justifying it by calling it "FSD (Supervised)" so they don't
| have to do an expensive retrofit to them even though they sold
| these cars originally with the promise of fully autonomous
| driving.
|
| All the iPhone 16/Pro owners have been waiting for Apple
| Intelligence features announced from that WWDC 2 years ago.
| They didn't get delivered and now won't ever be delivered with
| on-device intelligence due to the 8GB RAM limitation.
| josho wrote:
| > It's really disappointing to see the on-device models being
| limited to so few devices.
|
| At first I thought it was the usual planned obsolescence. Then
| I realized it may be a true technical limitation. I suspect an
| embedding model is required to run on device in order to make
| several of the features work. Embedding models are small
| compared to LLMs, but, depending on their capabilities, could
| be the memory driver.
| browningstreet wrote:
| I'm glad I've been sitting on my iPhone 15 Pro Max... I'll
| upgrade someday, if/when I need to and the software updates are
| compelling, but I'll see how things run on my M5 Macbook. But
| the 15 Pro Max isn't subpar in any other way.
| e28eta wrote:
| I've got a 2023 Mac Studio M2, and was dismayed by the M3 &
| later. So I've been trying to track down more details. That
| specific device list is only for:
|
| > Apple's most powerful on-device model and the features it
| enables, like expressive voices and more advanced dictation,
| [...]
|
| On other devices, I think there's still on device support (just
| not with the "most powerful model"), for these devices:
|
| > Apple Intelligence and Siri AI in iOS 27, iPadOS 27, macOS
| 27, watchOS 27, and visionOS 27 are available on iPhone 16
| models or later, iPhone 15 Pro, iPhone 15 Pro Max, iPad mini
| (A17 Pro), MacBook Neo (A18 Pro), iPad models with M1 or later,
| Mac with M1 or later, Apple Vision Pro, Apple Watch Series 9 or
| later, Apple Watch Ultra 2 or later, and Apple Watch SE 3 when
| paired with an Apple Intelligence-enabled iPhone nearby.
|
| This is from the footnotes on
| https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/06/apple-introduces-siri...
|
| I do wish they'd been more clear about what the "advanced
| features" are :(
| nobody_r_knows wrote:
| This whole "coming this fall", "later this year", it's annoying.
| I miss the days when Steve Jobs used to say "and it's available
| right now, you can demo it in the hall outside, we're going ot
| make a billion dollars by tonight."
| Melatonic wrote:
| To be fair this is the conference for developers - not the
| general public
| kalleboo wrote:
| So... 2001? Because by 2002 (MacOS X 10.2) Steve was already
| "previewing" the next MacOS at WWDC for a release in the fall.
| nafizh wrote:
| They should have changed the name as per branding. I hear Siri, I
| subconsciously associate it with really bad software.
| avazhi wrote:
| I hear Apple and I associate with it with laughable AI
| integration, an unserious UI, and buggy software.
|
| Apple's entire software stack has a branding problem.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| This sounds like a take that you'd probably only find on HN
| though. It seems dubious that regular Apple users see any
| issues with the software stack or with Siri, certainly not to
| the point that it'd be a branding problem for Apple.
| hbn wrote:
| Hey if they could turn Apple Maps around, why not Siri?
| arijun wrote:
| They're adding vibecoded shortcuts (the high level scripting for
| Apple devices). Hopefully that means they worked out some of the
| long-existing bugs and missing features, but I'm not optimistic.
| Still, could be a useful tool, especially for less tech-literate
| people.
| seaal wrote:
| Just updated to see if I could make a shortcut to toggle
| `Reduced White Point` accessibility shortcut.
|
| "Try describing something different for the shortcut."
|
| I guess I shouldn't be surprised that it still doesn't work.
| iknowstuff wrote:
| Lol that sucks. But FYI you can set it to a triple press of
| the power button.
| cgearhart wrote:
| I just tested this myself. I wrote "flip the reduce white
| point toggle accessibility option in the settings app" and it
| worked perfectly. Run once to set it and run again to disable
| it.
| jameshart wrote:
| It increases the value app developers might get out of offering
| shortcut actions - similar to how the advent of MCPs seems to
| have kicked a bunch of SaaS vendors into offering a clean API,
| the advent of Siri being able to tap into shortcut actions -
| and script them - might make it feel more worthwhile to app
| devs to open up deep functions.
| zzyzxd wrote:
| If they are ok with shortcuts being vibecoded, maybe it's time
| to expose a proper programming language to the end users as
| well.
|
| All my automation shortcuts can be easily explained in pseudo
| code under 5 minutes, but it took me ages to put them together
| because that weird UI/UX forcing me to drag-and-drop squares
| around to manipulate data structures. Programmers hate it, non-
| programmers can't understand it, it is not designed for
| anybody.
| bronco21016 wrote:
| 100%. It's accessible to only the truly stubborn among us who
| have no other option available to make things just work.
| kalleboo wrote:
| It's funny how they went from AppleScript -> "oh writing
| scripts is too complicated for users, let's create Automator"
| -> "Automator is too simple, let's create Shortcuts" -> now
| with shortcuts being generated by language models they need a
| structured scripting language again.
|
| AppleScript even had "dictionaries" declaring their commands
| and everything, would have been perfect way teach LLMs how to
| automate applications.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| You can write AppleScript in JavaScript, a much better
| language than applescript itself. Neither are usable outside
| of macOS ofc
| archagon wrote:
| I've never been more frustrated programming something than
| when I tried to build a non-trivial Shortcut. Things that I
| could have expressed in a quick script took me literal
| _hours_ to compose and debug using the WYSIWYG interface. And
| since there 's no version control, any mistake runs the risk
| of dislocating an element or messing up an input/output
| connection and breaking everything permanently.
| ex-aws-dude wrote:
| How long until they allow sandboxed vibecoded apps?
|
| Seems like the logical next step
| 0gs wrote:
| all the limitations of on-device with none of the benefits, it
| seems? they gotta get SOMETHING out there and soon but idk, i
| would probably feel safer running a chinese model through a 3P
| iOS app shell vs. trusting Geminiri to not snitch if i cared
| about the sanctity of my personal information.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| > _all the limitations of on-device with none of the benefits,
| it seems?_
|
| What do you mean?
| 0gs wrote:
| i think i just mean if they are using google models, then i
| believe every query is going to google no matter what apple
| claims about "keeping it local." whether google does anything
| with it, separate question i guess, but i imagine it will
| ALSO be slow to simulate the protection apple is selling. and
| sure, it's a catty comment, i'll own that. but that is my
| read on the announcements and demonstrations.
| hmokiguess wrote:
| missed opportunity to call it "VibeSiri"
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| The most notable thing here is that they finally have the
| primitives to make Siri actually useful across apps. I can't even
| use Siri to close Google Maps in my car right now.
| brailsafe wrote:
| Apple's "New Coke" moment?
| speak_plainly wrote:
| The demo Mike Rockwell gave at WWDC was interesting. He kinda
| showed off Siri as like the Star Trek computer for your phone. I
| hope this is the direction Apple is going to continue in. Having
| AI as a user interface is way more interesting than chat bots,
| image editors, or copy editing.
| crancher wrote:
| I think the key thing is that Spotlight is now creating a...
| knowledge graph? of everything on your device for Siri's
| consideration. That's potentially very useful.
| arcatech wrote:
| I think it's just storing embeddings now.
| soledades wrote:
| well there is this: https://9to5mac.com/2026/02/11/kuzu-
| database-company-joins-a...
| tanmaydesh5189 wrote:
| I suspect it is Kuzu in the backend. I had called it out
| earlier this year in my article. ".. WWDC 2026 or 2027
| introduces any "contextual intelligence" features in Siri
| that require cross-app relationship
| reasoning."https://medium.com/data-science-
| collective/i-analyzed-163k-l...
| _boffin_ wrote:
| The "knowledge graph" has been there for a long long time....
| jlhawn wrote:
| they specifically said "Splotlight Semantic Indexing" which
| means they generate embeddings of all your "personal context"
| and store it in a local vector database so they can do on-
| device RAG.
| bunher wrote:
| Will it change iOS Settings for me that are hard to find by me
| just describing what I want? Or things like: delete every app I
| haven't used in 6 months?
| vdfs wrote:
| "I delete all your apps since I've been installed this month
| and I don't have enough records to suggest otherwise, to
| comply with your request I've deleted every app and also
| deleted the backups to save space on your device."
| dhosek wrote:
| Also, just to make sure that I've done what you wanted, I
| will now brick your phone. You're welcome.
| hollowturtle wrote:
| > Having AI as a user interface is way more interesting than
| chat bots, image editors, or copy editing.
|
| What do you mean exactly? Audio conversation only? If so I
| don't see it very practical for most of the things
| SecretDreams wrote:
| Use android auto Gemini assistant for 5 mins and tell me how
| interesting it is.
| asadotzler wrote:
| I do this, and it's got some utility some of the time. It's
| hardly a must-have, and if it cost me money I wouldn't pay
| for it.
| SecretDreams wrote:
| On the initial prompt, it's okay. But it just keeps
| trying to talk after. Like, just answer my question and
| do not follow up unless I ask, please sir.
| Schiendelman wrote:
| If you are logged in, you can tell it that's your
| preference and it will remember.
| WorldPeas wrote:
| apple's highly opinionated developer strategy has a strength
| here insofar as they could use it to deconstruct existing apps
| into generative ui programs that the user may compose to their
| needs (e.g. putting a webview for cooking instructions above a
| timer) though of course app publishers would decry it, Apple's
| never really seemed keen on listening to them.
| saintfire wrote:
| Nor have they been keen on letting users OR devs customize
| the ui.
| barumrho wrote:
| This looks pretty promising to me. It will likely replace the
| need to set up OpenClaw for average personal users. The work of
| getting email, messages, and all the personal data on the phone
| as context seamlessly is not as straightforward as one might
| think.
|
| I'm curious how the pricing will work. Would it be free up to
| some limit and then some subscription pricing? I can't imagine it
| can be free unlimited usage given the price of serving these
| models.
| aurareturn wrote:
| This is why OpenAI thinks it needs to build its own physical
| devices. If Apple is only allowing its own AI to operate at the
| OS level, then that leaves OpenAI with no choice but to build
| their own.
|
| Meta also realized this and attempted multiple times to build
| their own hardware but they've given up each time. They started
| as early as a partnering with HTC in 2011 to make a Facebook
| phone.
|
| Quite frankly, I'm kind of excited to see what OpenAI can
| build. I think an AI-first phone could challenge iOS and
| Android. It's a new paradigm and if OpenAI gets it right, it'll
| be very hard for Apple and Google to pivot.
|
| I personally think chat + code is the future of apps. For
| example, I find myself wanting to do many things inside ChatGPT
| instead of traditional app because I can tell it to do things
| that are simply impossible on a static app UI. For example, I
| have some data I want to send to an app but before I do, I want
| ChatGPT to clean the data in some way first. And then after the
| data is uploaded, I want ChatGPT to pull some data off the API
| and make charts that I want to see.
|
| I imagine a world where very intelligent models run at 10k
| tokens/s, app building is extremely standardized, and it simply
| builds any app you want inside the OS. IE, if you want a
| dashboard of your health data, you ask it to build it almost
| instantly exactly how you want it. I'm already doing something
| similar today but it's slow and not easy to do for non-
| engineers.
| layer8 wrote:
| > 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.
| aurareturn wrote:
| 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?
| merlindru wrote:
| > 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"
| aurareturn wrote:
| 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.
| KawaiiCyborg wrote:
| 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.
| aurareturn wrote:
| 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.
| gumby271 wrote:
| Just make a new phone OS lol, problem solved.
| KawaiiCyborg wrote:
| 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?
| Danox wrote:
| 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.
| KawaiiCyborg wrote:
| 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.
| merlindru wrote:
| 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"
| Danox wrote:
| 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.
| merlindru wrote:
| 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
| officeplant wrote:
| >Meta also realized this and attempted multiple times to
| build their own hardware but they've given up each time. They
| started as early as a partnering with HTC in 2011 to make a
| Facebook phone.
|
| I was working in cellphone sales at the time and I can tell
| you no one wanted that phone back then even when Facebook was
| massive. An easy to hit facebook button was not a value add
| anyone was begging to exist.
|
| Although with how many phones now have stock forced installs
| of Meta apps perhaps they won their con in the long game.
|
| Similarly no one really wants a physical AI device, and
| attempts at such are pure techbro hubris on the companies
| part.
| aurareturn wrote:
| Similarly no one really wants a physical AI device, and
| attempts at such are pure techbro hubris on the companies
| part.
|
| No one serious has made one.
| yakshaving_jgt wrote:
| I think I want a physical AI device.
|
| I want an AI assistant that I can use truly hands free. I
| keep my phone in my jacket when I'm riding my motorcycle. I
| want to be able to start, stop, adjust, and check details
| in route guidance. I want to be able to ask what the
| weather is like ahead on my route. I want to be able to ask
| it to start looking for a sensible place for me to stop for
| fuel and/or food without making me do a big detour.
|
| Actually I would also quite like better driving directions,
| since I can't look at the directions on a screen.
| Danox wrote:
| OpenAI is not a hardware company or an OS company and they
| hardly have the money to pay the real cost in the long-term,
| if Amazon, Meta, Google and the Linux crowd are having
| trouble, OpenAI is not gonna get the job done.
| umpalumpaaa wrote:
| They would start on a green field though... which makes it
| pretty efficient initially
| pheewma wrote:
| Craig mentioned near the end of the keynote that compute
| intensive things (like image generation) will have rate limits
| that can be increased bundled with their iCloud + plans. I
| imagine any request that gets routed to their cloud compute
| will be subject to limits as well. He positioned it as a value-
| add to their existing subscription but I suppose that can
| change.
| emodendroket wrote:
| I doubt the average personal user knows what OpenClaw even is
| though Google is also producing competitive stuff.
| archagon wrote:
| Average personal users don't need OpenClaw at all...
| 2001zhaozhao wrote:
| > Private Cloud Compute
|
| > Your data is never stored
|
| > Used only for your requests
|
| > Verifiable privacy promise
|
| Apple is cooking. Although at that point might as well bring the
| cloud features to more devices. Yeah it costs more but also locks
| users in harder.
| jmuguy wrote:
| This is disappointing. I had hoped when Apple revisited AI that
| they would lean into agents more and give us some sort of agent
| interface between the phone and a model running locally on your
| Mac at home. More niche for sure, but much more powerful. Instead
| we're getting more generic AI tie-ins to apps and "suggestions".
| Melatonic wrote:
| Seriously - this would be a major cool thing to actually use AI
| for. Run some local AI basic stuff on phone and have it
| securely connect to your own home device for more advanced
| tasks or control your home agents. Could even reduce their own
| need to host cloud AI compute
| k2xl wrote:
| I'm honestly surprised Apple didn't retire the Siri brand.
|
| At this point, "Siri" has a pretty strong cultural association
| with being underwhelming or unhelpful. Even if the new version is
| dramatically better, convincing people to give Siri another shot
| may be harder than launching the same technology under a new
| name.
|
| Feels like a missed opportunity to reset expectations.
| thewebguyd wrote:
| Yeah missed opportunity. They could have even had a fake
| funeral for Siri like Jobs did for OS 9, or a "retirement
| party" or something. Leave the Siri brand behind and launch
| this as something brand new.
| akmarinov wrote:
| None for the EU
|
| Is it available in China at least or is this another "50% of the
| userbase gets nothing new in the OS update" year?
|
| Edit: https://x.com/wongmjane/status/2064052590992916840?s=46
|
| Lol
| nozzlegear wrote:
| One of the presenters said they're working with regulators in
| China and the EU to make it available eventually.
| akmarinov wrote:
| Nice, waiting to see what they'll market as "the feature" for
| when they run ads outside of the US
| pornel wrote:
| In the EU case, Apple weaponizes people's ignorance about
| regulation. Apple pretends that the features everyone else
| has been shipping left and right somehow need extra paperwork
| and special approvals, because (...checks notes...) pro-
| privacy EU laws let zero-privacy competitors sail through,
| but block implementations that offer more privacy!?
|
| What's really happening is Apple unilaterally withholding
| features while making vague noises about regulation as
| bargaining chips in talks with EU regulators where Apple is
| trying to weasel out of punishment for breaking anti-monopoly
| laws.
| InTheArena wrote:
| This isn't really true. AI laws in the EU mandate that
| Apple give full access to everythign on the device to third
| parties.
|
| It's legit to be skeptical on the privacy front, but giving
| deepseek access to my entire phone. Or the TrumpAI at some
| point in a dystopian future seems... not great.
| vages wrote:
| What's your source for this?
|
| Opening up an API does not mean that everything on the
| phone is accessible to anybody.
| koolala wrote:
| I think because they themselves have it access everything
| on the phone so it has to be equivalent.
| e28eta wrote:
| They're actively asking developers to index all the
| content in their apps, to provide Personal Context that
| Siri can use for user requests. And to create/index the
| actions available in the app.
|
| So, where developers comply, all of that content is now
| accessible to those alternative implementations.
|
| It's not full read/write of the phone, and it'd exclude
| obvious secrets like passwords, but it is quite far
| reaching access.
|
| I don't know what sort of restrictions they can put on
| the alternative implementations. Can I vibe code one and
| have it live in a week? or is there a minimum bar?
| Huppie wrote:
| We may have a different view of what 'giving access'
| means in this context.
|
| The way I see it: If a user willingly (1) installs
| another AI app like deepseek and (2) willingly gives it
| access to 'full phone and app data' with a warning screen
| or setting of whatever that seems... like a good thing?
|
| I may not agree with those users that it's worthwhile
| providing their full private data to [some AI startup X]
| or [Some Chinese or US AI company that will hover up as
| much for their own use] but if the EU forces Apple to
| provide this as an option, that sounds good to me.
|
| The whole point of the regulation is that the data on the
| device is _the user's_ data and if Apple can have its AI
| services work with the user's data, competitors should be
| able to do the same.
|
| From my (admittedly European) perspective it looks like
| Apple is just throwing a tantrum here.
| e28eta wrote:
| I don't have the EU perspective, which might be changed
| by things like GDPR, but I prefer Apple's stance that "no
| one should have this data, not even us".
|
| One reason is that the data on a user's phone isn't
| solely owned by them. Some of it is shared with other
| people, or "belongs" to someone else: chat, email, shared
| documents, photos of people, contact information, etc.
|
| In a corporate environment, this is more explicit: you
| have access to company information, so the IT department
| controls what apps you can install / run, because
| individual EEs won't always make the best choices.
|
| Second, I think app developers are more likely to share
| more data, if they know that the shared data doesn't
| leave the user's control. And that (presumably) makes the
| feature work better. If I'm developing an app, I'll think
| twice about indexing any sensitive data, if I don't know
| where it was going to end up.
| gumby271 wrote:
| Could the restriction not be the device owner choosing to
| use it? If some rando vibe coded an app and the os told
| me all the things it can access, I'd probably want to
| trust the developer before installing it. Why do I need
| to beg Apple's permission to use software better than
| their first party offering?
| NetMageSCW wrote:
| Because you made the choice to trust Apple when you
| bought an iPhone. And while you may make a deep study of
| who is providing your alternative AI app (is that even
| possible with openAI or Copilot or Gemini?), the average
| use will pick something shiny and lose their savings when
| it transfers their bank balance outside the country.
| gumby271 wrote:
| Just because I bought an Apple product doesn't mean I
| made the choice to trust them globally across everything
| I do on my device, when did this become a binary that the
| hardware vendor must also be the only trusted software
| and service vendor? I like my MacBook because I trusted
| Apple to build great hardware, a pretty okay os, and
| services I don't give a shit about. I won't buy an iPhone
| because Apple has removed the ability to distinguish
| between those things on that platform.
|
| Surely there's something better we can do than say "the
| average user is a dumbfuck better consolidate all control
| with Apple".
| nozzlegear wrote:
| I don't think it's unfair to say that the EU scrutinizes
| Apple (and a few other megacorps) a great deal more than
| most other companies. Some zero-privacy competitors might
| be sailing by right now simply because they aren't already
| caught up in the EU's red tape. Which isn't to say Apple
| doesn't also wield that red tape as their own bargaining
| chip, like you said.
| cromka wrote:
| They don't scrutinize brands but specific products.
| iMessage is exempt from DMA, for example, while WhatsApp
| and Messenger are not.
| dd8601fn wrote:
| It IS regulatory. The EU wants "anything Apple AI can do
| you have to let other AI providers do with equal access".
|
| Which is fucking stupid, and Apple will never, ever throw
| open the gates to something so dangerously braindead. Their
| entire reputation depends on it.
|
| And China is kinda self-explanatory.
| Danox wrote:
| China will get there first why because they're run by
| engineers. Yes, they will have some stipulations but if
| you show them a good idea, it's a good idea. They won't
| stand on ceremony and say not invented here.
| aucisson_masque wrote:
| Yeah I hate freedom too.
| dd8601fn wrote:
| You already have it. If you're a fan of the "A loaded gun
| in every crib!" style of "freedom", go buy something that
| isn't an iPhone.
| yoavm wrote:
| What is stupid about it? Sounds like (a slightly more)
| fair competition to me.
| cowsandmilk wrote:
| I'm sorry, but the DMA is mandating Cambridge Analytica-
| type access to data. That whole scandal was people on
| Facebook granting a third party access to all the data they
| had access to. And Cambridge Analytica lied about how they
| were going to use it.
|
| Facebook got roasted for this, but now the EU wants the
| same open data policy from every big tech company.
| cromka wrote:
| Oh wow... Cambridge Analitica had access to all the data
| Facebook had on you _without you knowing it_ and _without
| you knowing the extent of the data Facebook had on you_.
| EU wants you to be able to _knowingly_ install apps on
| your phone and give them access to the data _on your
| phone_ you chose to.
|
| These are the same to you?
| himata4113 wrote:
| Change your region. I've done so and haven't particulary
| noticed anything off, all the EU specific apps are weirdly
| still available in US appstore.
| lxgr wrote:
| Most of them are, some are annoyingly missing. It's possible
| to install apps from two different app store accounts, but
| it's 10 times more annoying than on Android. Additionally,
| there are some EU only features, such as third-party NFC
| payments.
|
| Apple's performative DMA outrage is getting more pathetic by
| the iOS version.
| charcircuit wrote:
| You can easily change your account region back and forth on
| iOS. Meanwhile Android has a bunch of extra checks and
| includes a 12 months delay before being able to switch it
| again.
| sooheon wrote:
| A family member lost years of irreplaceable photos and
| paid apps due to account lock, and doing this across two
| countries they were legitimately residing in triggered
| it.
| layer8 wrote:
| The OS restriction aren't merely based on the region
| settings, they are also based on Apple Account region/country
| and on the detected physical location of the device.
| Hamuko wrote:
| Wrong. It's some for the EU.
|
| > _EU users will be able to access Siri AI on macOS 27,
| visionOS 27, and watchOS 27._
|
| https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/06/due-to-dma-siri-ai-de...
| MattDamonSpace wrote:
| Both the EU and China put enormous risk on misstepping. If you
| raise the cost of distribution, even just through time-cost,
| don't be surprised when it fucking _costs_
| sleepybrett wrote:
| The one thing I've been trying to figure out / hoping will get a
| fix is that in the apple intelligence settings panel there is an
| 'extension' that allows it to use chatgpt. I would like to be
| able to have an extension for local models and/or custom apis.
| bilsbie wrote:
| It's weird it says I can ask Siri about a document in front of me
| but can I ask it about a webpage I'm currently reading?
|
| (It's been driving me crazy there's no "AI this" button to
| discuss whatever is on my screen.)
| xp84 wrote:
| Edge has had this for a long time. I can highlight a string and
| right-click, 'Send to Copilot' and click "explain" and it'll
| prompt it to 'explain this passage, particularly in the context
| of the current page.'
|
| Note: I have MS 365 personal or whatever it's called this week
| so I'm not sure how Copilot acts for a completely free user.
| jameshart wrote:
| That would be a finder feature vs a safari feature? They talked
| about safari's capabilities in a separate segment.
| browningstreet wrote:
| Today's presentation was about the things you can do in the
| next release. And the asnwer to your question is "yes", in
| Golden Gate.
| meatmanek wrote:
| I'm guessing they'll integrate with the double-tap-the-bottom-
| of-the-screen feature that pulls up siri in front of a
| screenshot. Currently it doesn't seem to hook into "visual
| intelligence", and needs to call out to ChatGPT to do anything
| with the screen contents.
| Barbing wrote:
| Tangential note on
|
| > double-tap-the-bottom-of-the-screen feature that pulls up
| siri
|
| It's disabled if not using Apple Intelligence, and can't tap
| screen while talking to Siri (it dismisses instead).
|
| Now they're gating features to the M3 I'm not convinced
| wouldn't work on expensive Apple Silicon predecessors... am
| more convinced the double tap disable is intentional.
| bilsbie wrote:
| The killer app would be a locally run Siri that learns about you
| and your preferences.
| CrzyLngPwd wrote:
| Great, as long as I can switch it off and use my phone as I
| always have, I'm happy for them.
|
| I can't wait to take a photo of a cricket ball and ask it what it
| is, ffs.
|
| These people need to get out, touch grass, watch trees swaying in
| the breeze, and put their phones down before they lose toonmany
| neurons.
| bilsbie wrote:
| Honestly I don't have much faith in Apple intelligence when it
| can't even search my settings.
| yalogin wrote:
| The chatbots(ChatGPT, Claude et al) showed Apple exactly what can
| be done, the user base is already well primed. So this is a
| product definition done for them to execute. If done well they
| will be able to provide a much stronger integration into the day
| to day use cases than the chatbots, and can siphon off user time
| from them. This time around the end to end is easier with Apple
| Intelligence and more importantly llms doing the work Apple is
| floundering at. So I am hopeful, but I still see the os/app level
| integration as not enough in terms of functionality to make it a
| hit. The primary use case for llms is still conversations and
| search. Apple should be focusing on that aspect primarily and
| also add the os/app level integration as a bonus - as something
| only they can do. If they just do the latter, it will not be as
| much of a success. Let's see how they execute.
|
| EDIT: To provide meaningful chat functionality they have to
| either eat up the cost or charge a subscription for it. This will
| be first time they charge for Siri - a product that doesn't
| garner any positive reviews. This gets even more interesting to
| watch
| manmal wrote:
| If they are using some mid model and are stingy with web
| search, I won't use it more than a couple times.
| emodendroket wrote:
| > This will be first time they charge for Siri - a product that
| doesn't garner any positive reviews.
|
| It seems like revisionist history to say that; lots of people
| were sold on iPhones years ago because of Siri. They have one
| of the few business cases for voice assistants, which are
| notoriously difficult to actually monetize, that actually makes
| any sense, since "selling iPhones" is meaningful and "selling a
| subscription" would be nice on top of that.
| ftth_finland wrote:
| Please don't suck.
| drummojg wrote:
| Right? I've been waiting a lot of years for an upgrade to my
| voice-activated timer setter/music player launcher.
| xp84 wrote:
| Can't even get that right sometimes. A few weeks ago I
| somehow accidentally activated Siri and it decided that what
| I wanted was for it to play some kind of terrifying
| industrial electronic noise music that scared my kid.
| atulvi wrote:
| How is this different from the chatgpt apple intelligence thing
| from last year?
| xp84 wrote:
| This time they _really_ promise it 'll ship
|
| But fundamentally, the real difference is they have now bought
| and white-labeled Gemini to replace all the stuff they failed
| to make 2 years ago.
| h14h wrote:
| Apple Shortcuts have felt like a blatantly obvious AI play to me
| for a while now.
|
| The interface for creating them manually has been so bad for so
| long, it feels clear to me that LLM-driven shortcut orchestration
| was always the endgame. Apple built up their ecosystem of
| composable "tools", and then trained an LLM on how to call them.
|
| The result, IMO, is the first OpenClaw/Hermes competitor that's
| feasible for use by the general public.
|
| Everyone with a paid Claude or ChatGPT that they're struggling to
| use to the fullest is going to have very little reason not to
| swap over to an upgraded iCloud+ plan (if they don't already have
| one). I suspect we're going to see mass cancellation of $20/mo
| plans very soon.
|
| OpenAI's timing for removing their temporary increased usage
| limits is looking pretty unfortunate...
| manmal wrote:
| Why do I need shortcuts though, I want that to be transparent.
| h14h wrote:
| Good point, that's probably gonna be the hardest sell.
|
| I have shortcuts set up to count the hours I log in my work
| Google calendar and copy them to my clipboard to help me
| prepare invoices.
|
| So while I've already been sold on what Shortcuts can do,
| getting the general public to see the possibilities is
| probably gonna be a challenge.
| xp84 wrote:
| I think Shortcuts has a few massive flaws that would give me
| pause enshrining it as middleware for an important thing like a
| "mainstream OpenClaw".
|
| 1 is performance. It's slow. You can run one within the app and
| literally watch execution flow from one block to the next.
| Absurd, for the CPU power at hand.
|
| 2 is reliance on developers to deliberately implement hooks and
| "intents" when the developers of at least half of apps
| including most "big company" apps do not care to bother, often
| because 95% of their app's surface is actually cross-platform
| stuff.
|
| Example: There are no shortcut actions for Google Calendar, and
| Gmail only has one real one which is a generic send email. No
| "search email" etc.
|
| I'd rather see Apple lean into "computer use" to allow it to
| use any app that displays things on the screen, but IDK how you
| make that safe.
| gilbetron wrote:
| I don't care much about Siri, and not a lot about Apple (other
| than as an investment), but Apple is generally really good about
| putting out polished tech, and so I'm curious if Siri AI will be
| up to their usual standards, because if so, it represents a
| significant usage of AI that has solved hallucination issues.
|
| But that's a big If!
| usrnm wrote:
| > I'm curious if Siri AI will be up to their usual standards
|
| You clearly never used Siri before
| Danox wrote:
| The big if is does it work on device without phoning home? For
| example, Google or Meta as a Ad/data collection company wants
| to phone home for everything because they want to collect data
| on you, what will this Apple solution do?
| hbn wrote:
| There's extensive writing about Apple's Private Cloud Compute
| architecture.
|
| It's beyond my expertise, but it's publicly available if
| you're curious.
| trhaynes wrote:
| The screenshot about pho is funny to me. Bean sprouts are not a
| good source of fiber. Noodles are not especially healthy. The
| broth base is not fish sauce, nor is fish sauce where broth gets
| most of its sodium. Slop city!
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Yeah, "Fiber: good source" when 100g of raw bean sprouts gives
| you 1.8g fiber (less than a 2" kiwi), and pho comes with much
| less than 100g of sprouts.
|
| Pho is a pretty bad source of fiber.
|
| It sucks that we're skipping over such good tools like
| cronometer.com to figure out what we're actually eating and
| going straight to hallucination, adding more confusion to
| nutrition.
| Melatonic wrote:
| Seriously - that was bizarre. Why would they not choose a
| healthier meal or something more unknown?
| andrewstuart wrote:
| I go on long walks and talk to ChatGPT in depth in its
| conversation mode about programming and computing in depth.
|
| That's what I expected from Siri but you can get in from ChatGPT
| .
| lolive wrote:
| Will I be convinced to change my iphone 6s? #suspense
| visarga wrote:
| Before they add AI they better fix the frigging search function
| in settings, it is horrible, you need to know their exact words,
| and Apple has a funny naming sense. Hierarchies nested so deep
| you never find anything. I come to use Claude or ChatGPT to tell
| me the right incantations to find a setting.
| hbn wrote:
| I don't even know that it's knowing the exact words, it just
| seems like sometimes the search decides it's just gonna give
| you no results because the vibes were off.
|
| I'm almost sure that sometimes searching the same thing will
| give you the result and sometimes it won't.
| curvaturearth wrote:
| Hey look! Here's something new that we could already do but now
| it costs more and takes more engineering and.. AI
| idontwantthis wrote:
| If this is good, I might finally ditch my 12 mini.
| wxw wrote:
| I strongly believe Apple can win the consumer AI space. They have
| incredible distribution and hardware. They just haven't executed
| at the application layer yet.
| merlindru wrote:
| what's worrisome is that they continue to fail at it. it's one
| thing to say "we're still hashing things out". it's another to
| parade around Image Generation features that are obviously
| widely not-cared-for and oftentimes actively disliked
|
| Apple cares greatly about their brand yet this has hurt their
| brand like nothing else in the past decade
| emodendroket wrote:
| I mean have they, they have an outright majority share in
| iPhones in some markets, including the US, and lots of other
| stuff that sells reliably. Granted, I'm sure they'd love to
| have another blockbuster product, but having what amounts to
| "utility" status for a $1000 device isn't too bad.
| OJFord wrote:
| Rest assured when they do have it figured out, we'll learn
| how they invented LLMs and AI chatbots.
| pgwhalen wrote:
| It's worrisome, but it's also worth pointing out that no one
| else has succeeded at it, or even gotten close. It's easy to
| forget that there are not good well-integrated person AI
| solutions yet, it's just chat bots. I think it's just harder
| than a lot of people think it is.
| merlindru wrote:
| absolutely agree.
|
| but Apple isn't known to make grand promises and then not
| keep them, is it..? usually they just deliver what they say
| they will
|
| yet i've been reading about "well they promised AI Siri two
| years ago and Siri still can't set an alarm right" in every
| thread even remotely related to the topic
|
| i don't remember reading this much about anything else. it
| seems to have soured people quite a bit, at least in my
| internet bubble
| artursapek wrote:
| I think it's fair to say that OpenAI has at least partially
| won the "consumer AI" segment.
| s3p wrote:
| Yeah but OpenAI isn't building phones. The real winning
| would be Google's deep integration of Gemini into all of
| their products.
|
| Also, even when you DO get AI into products, consumers
| might not like them. The overuse of copilot led to a
| barrage of Microslop jokes, for example
| Danox wrote:
| Apple hurt their brand so much. That the five ecosystems all
| work together better than anyone else.
|
| And the Mac Neo is a best seller. Yep they really hurt
| themselves?
|
| The only thing hurting Apple right now is memory like
| everyone else out there all because of the AI data center
| fiasco.
| davnicwil wrote:
| on the other hand failing at it or pushing it to the edges
| until they figure out where if anywhere it would actually
| make sense (which is I believe the entire crux of their
| strategy) might equally reasonably be helping their brand.
|
| I don't see strong evidence the average consumer is demanding
| 'AI features' in everything. I mean even amongst the
| technically inclined this is often bemoaned, anecdotally.
| merlindru wrote:
| thats exactly what i'm saying they should be doing, but
| aren't. we're in agreement!!
|
| why don't they just wait and not ship any AI junk at all?
| instead of promising a Siri AI rework, which then doesn't
| deliver? or Image Generation stuff that feels wildly put of
| character and generates tasteless and often downright
| creepy images?
|
| not to mention that all of the new AI stuff they announced
| won't go live in China and the EU for a while.
|
| why not do exactly what you proposed and wait it out?
| instead they seem to be _trying_ to deliver AI stuff and
| just unable to.
|
| there's also reports that apple execs held a secret
| emergency "oh shit what do we do about AI" type meeting.
|
| they very much didn't intend to be this behind
| mikestorrent wrote:
| If anything, shipping and sitting on the previous incarnation
| of Siri as a basic feature set to shut up iPhone users for a
| few years while everything else matured might be viewed as a
| very shrewd move ten years from now.
| bigyabai wrote:
| That's one way of looking at it. Alternatively; Apple had
| their pick of the litter at TSMC for half a decade, and
| Nvidia beat them to 5 trillion total valuation with their
| design chops alone.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| Image generation seems like table stakes though, i.e. if
| you're going to offer a whole ass AI integrated with your
| operating system, it'd seem like a weird omission not to have
| image generation included.
| barrenko wrote:
| Apple currently probably has a longer planning horizon than
| the catholic church.
| ninth_ant wrote:
| Apple has over-promised and under-delivered so many times in
| this space, going back to the launch of the original Siri.
|
| So while they could win, it's pretty hard to get hyped about it
| before we see real-world tests.
| Danox wrote:
| What's real world test phoning home to the server if Google
| can make a Pixel look good by phoning home what do you think
| it's gonna be different with an iPhone that six years ahead
| in the processor area? When it phones home?
| mikestorrent wrote:
| Most people don't care that Siri doesn't do very much; if
| anything, people outside of HN are already sorta sick of AI
| features being shoved in their face.
| kemayo wrote:
| Siri has always been pretty useful for the things I use it
| for: setting timers and reminders, and turning off my
| lights after I'm in bed.
| simondotau wrote:
| Agree 100% ... but it would be nice to have some softer
| edges around those things, where I don't have to be so
| prescriptive and robotic in the way I make such requests.
| For example if I set a 15 minute timer, I'd like to be
| able to follow up five minutes later with _" actually
| that 15 minute timer should have been 16 minutes"_ and
| not second guess whether it will do the correct thing.
| andsoitis wrote:
| > I strongly believe Apple can win the consumer AI space.
|
| Why? What strengths and structural advantages do you think thy
| have?
|
| What black swan situation could arise that Apple cannot
| counter?
| MattDamonSpace wrote:
| I just can't imagine another computing device from a
| competitor company that 1) threatens the smartphone 2) apple
| couldn't copy and mass produce at higher quality
|
| If there's truly an existential threat to its device
| business, Copy Well
| Danox wrote:
| The company that will challenge Apple will be one that
| possesses the capability to develop both an operating
| system and hardware at a high level right now, who is this
| company? There is one company that may one day, but that
| company isn't in the west and no, it isn't Nvidia.
| Havoc wrote:
| Well they better start executing soon
| jingw222 wrote:
| ironically they respect user privacy the most and collect the
| least amount of data that's why they lag behind ai i don't
| understand why you would expect them to win
| 1-6 wrote:
| Apple has built the strongest ecosystem of AI-capable consumer
| products in the industry. I suspect they deliberately chose not
| to compete in the AI data center race. Entering that arena
| would have cannibalized sales of their own high-margin devices,
| while further straining their already tight supply chain for
| memory and M-series processors.
|
| Apple would never willingly pay Nvidia for GPUs anyway.
|
| Why absorb supply chain pricing pressures and volatility when
| you can pass those costs directly to the consumer?
| max8539 wrote:
| Hm, second try? And Siri AI again without dates. First time it
| was also "later" but was postponed for how many years?
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| The only thing I want to know about this new Siri is how to turn
| it entirely off.
| koalalorenzo wrote:
| I agree, I am kinda disappointed by how much AI there is in
| this update, I was hoping for something different and exciting.
| matthewfcarlson wrote:
| I think it's important to note what they didn't talk about.
| They briefly scrolled a long list of performance improvements
| and mentioned a few. Personally, I am very hopeful that the
| fact that they only talked about these high level AI features
| means the other engineers got to spend time focusing on
| performance and quality.
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| Fixing the shit show that iOS 26 is and making it so my
| shiny new iPhone 17 doesn't visibly struggle rendering
| simple ui elements should be considered table stakes for
| iOS 27, I wouldn't expect them to mention that too much as
| it's like the bare minimum we expect for the update.
| fckgw wrote:
| You could just not use it.
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| Oh I'm definitely not going to use it. But apple tends to try
| to put these things in your face and get you to use them
| (seen all those purple buttons in Pages lately?). A global
| "just don't show me or try to get me to use this crap at all"
| switch would be very welcome. Bonus if it also frees up
| however many GB of space this garbage will take whether I use
| it or not.
| Danox wrote:
| You don't know what's in your face until you use Copilot.
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| No worries I would never touch anything Microsoft with a
| 10-foot pole.
| HDBaseT wrote:
| From an sysadmin perspective, assuming Apple provides full MDM
| toggles you can typically toggle these off one way or another.
| (.plist / preference keys, etc).
|
| With the most recent 'Apple Intelligence' function, it took a
| while for Apple to grant the ability to disable/enable each
| feature, then a bit of time for the respective MDM Software
| developers (Jamf, etc) to provide toggles.
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| Sounds good, where's the "just kill this" toggle in my iPhone
| settings? I ain't gonna bother with mdm etc etc I just need
| the damn thing to work and do what I need.
| pupppet wrote:
| Here's hoping they've finally fixed iOS's terrible dictation.
| hbn wrote:
| They actually released a pretty good dictation model in the OS
| 26 updates. Someone made a cli utility to play with it:
|
| https://github.com/finnvoor/yap
|
| I tried it and was pretty impressed. That said I haven't heard
| anything yet about them switching to this for the text input
| voice dictation in iOS but it would be really nice.
| simianwords wrote:
| Here's what I want: natural language interaction to achieve
| complex workflows in iPhone. Example: find the cheapest way to go
| from A to B and book it using the Deutsche Bahn Train app.
|
| I still don't think Siri can do that ::angry::
| ForOldHack wrote:
| I was at Best Buy in the Apple section, and I asked its AI "What
| is the best value in four year old MacBook pros." It pointed me
| directly at an over-under washer dryer for $3400. Quite
| obviously, it was trained, like a drooling puppy by Madison Ave.
|
| Wait... don't tell me... there is an App for that.
| jesse_dot_id wrote:
| I didn't really see anything that knocked my socks off. Mostly,
| it's the promise that Siri now works in the way in which they
| said it would work a few years ago, when it didn't. I do like the
| addition of Siri in the context menu, though. I can see that
| being useful.
| Ecstatify wrote:
| It's the same broken promise every year. All I want is for Siri
| to set an alarm and open my blinds. That's enough for me. Makes
| you wonder how much money Apple has poured into Siri over the
| years.
| ryanmcbride wrote:
| This is completely unrelated to the topic at hand, but what
| iot blinds do you use?
| Ecstatify wrote:
| I'm using Eve Blinds. They integrate really well with
| HomeKit. They're a bit on the pricey side, but the setup is
| straightforward and they've been very reliable for me.
|
| ref: https://www.evehome.com/en/eve-blinds-collection
| russellbeattie wrote:
| All I want is for iPhones to have physical keyboards. That's
| enough for me. Makes you wonder how much money Apple has
| poured into touch screens over the years.
| s3p wrote:
| Jokes aside, I have been using siri to control my smart home
| and set my alarm for nearly ten years now. I haven't really
| had problems with basic stuff like this.
| lukevp wrote:
| Not in the same request. I often want to turn off 2 lights
| and the other on, I have to build scenes to do this
| rafaelmn wrote:
| >Siri turn off the main light in children's bedroom
|
| 100% of the time turns of all the lights in children's
| bedroom. Alexa has no problem with this.
|
| Disappointing to say the least. Completely useless, I was
| going to get an Android this year on upgrade cycle. Will
| check this out first.
| bandrami wrote:
| I'm too paranoid to ever want a home snitch device, so
| I'm not their target audience, but it always struck me
| that if it took even ten minutes to debug a problem like
| that it completely destroys a year's worth of time
| allegedly saved compared to just walking over to the room
| and hitting the switch.
| imp0cat wrote:
| Amazon devices get a lot of flak for being too invasive,
| but at least they work.
| jm4 wrote:
| I don't know why they bother. Clearly, nobody using Apple
| products cares enough to jump ship. Apple is never going to
| surpass Google, especially now that they are trying to build
| their own assistant on top of Google with one hand tied
| behind their back.
|
| There's never going to be a situation where a heavy Google
| Assistant user switches over to Apple for Siri. Anyone who
| would have switched from Apple to Google for their assistant
| likely would have done so by now. Siri just isn't a very
| important feature. It doesn't bring people to Apple's
| platform nor does it steer them away. It might bother users
| that it sucks, but it doesn't bother anyone enough that it
| hurts Apple's bottom line. Frankly, continuing to pour money
| into that bottomless pit does more damage. I wonder why they
| do it.
| dhosek wrote:
| A few years ago, the ability to do anything other than a
| timed walk on my watch with Siri broke. I used to be able to
| do things like say, "start a 3 mile walk" or "start a 200
| calorie walk" and then the latter stopped working and then
| the former stopped letting me do non-integer numbers of miles
| and then nothing at all and now I cannot do anything other
| than start an unmeasured walk or a timed walk with siri and
| I'm still pissed about that. I don't want to have
| conversations with my watch or my phone, I want it to handle
| simple basic tasks reliably.
| lucaspiller wrote:
| Google did the same bullshit on Android.
|
| With Google Assistant (old assistant) I could say "Hey
| Google, play daft punk" and it would start playing Daft
| Punk on Spotify.
|
| With Gemini (new assistant) it says "sorry I cannot play
| music, but here are links to services where you can find
| Daft Punk albums".
|
| Fortunately at the moment you can still toggle between
| them. I guess not for long though.
| prathamtharwani wrote:
| I just tried "Hey Google, play daft punk" with the new
| Gemini assistant and it works as expected?
| ezst wrote:
| People having extremely opposite user experiences with
| LLMs. How could this be?
| wlesieutre wrote:
| "Shuffle playlist _____" broke a few years ago too. Now it
| consistently takes that to mean "Play other music similar
| to the playlist."
|
| If I specify "Shuffle playlist _____ in Apple Music"
| somehow that works right, even though it's still using
| Apple Music in the first example when it plays the wrong
| music.
|
| We'll see if they managed to unfuck it with the new Siri
| update, or knowing LLMs perhaps they'll make it non-
| deterministic so sometimes it works and sometimes it plays
| music you didn't ask for.
| Computer0 wrote:
| I can't even get hey siri, pause. Hey siri, play. To
| start and stop music and podcasts to work consistently
| jen729w wrote:
| > Makes you wonder how much money Apple has poured into Siri
| over the years.
|
| Orders of magnitude less than the literal trillions that
| others have?
| fragebogen wrote:
| I mean, in comparison with openclaw, etc. capabilities are ofc
| more restricted. However I don't want to accidentally delete my
| entire photo album, so I do understand the direction by
| delivering useful, but somewhat obvious features.
| dwroberts wrote:
| Requiring at least an iPhone 15 Pro also seems like a mistake,
| unless it's for actual hardware reasons. The 15 is only 3 years
| old, this requirement cuts off a lot of potential users I think
| oofbey wrote:
| It's definitely for hardware reasons. They have been
| aggressively improving the vector math capabilities in their
| chips, but as anybody who has tried to run a local LLM will
| tell you, newer hardware works better and you're always
| limited in what you can do.
| WorldPeas wrote:
| I think it's the requirement of having 4gb+ vram (for
| gemma+context) free at any one time, any phone older than
| that cannot materially satisfy that demand:
| https://iosref.com/memory-processor
| cush wrote:
| I'm excited at the idea of Siri having its own app, if nothing
| but for it to not disappear while I'm reading a response.
| himata4113 wrote:
| I read through the entire DMA rant that apple has here:
| https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/06/due-to-dma-siri-ai-de...
|
| This feels like it could be solved with a list of permissions
| that the user has to turn on when using 3rd party AI.
|
| Apple already: 1) requires developers to submit
| ID to publish an app on the appstore (at least I had to after
| ~1000 downloads to be able to publish an update) 2) has
| strong kernel enforced memory integrity and disallowes arbitrary
| code execution (unless explicitely approved for games like
| roblox, jitting not allowed tho has to be interpreted).
| 3) reviews every app update.
|
| I feel like this is nothing more than Apple being angry that they
| have to allow people to actually choose what AI they want on
| their phone. This is particulary interesting if anthropic and
| openai decided they want to add siri ai override to their apps
| allowing them to take advantage of the apple ecosystem without
| signing some kind of deal like they had to with Google. I assume
| behind closed doors Google had to make some sacrifices for them
| to be the model powering siri.
| lxgr wrote:
| > I feel like this is nothing more than Apple being angry that
| they have to allow people to actually choose what AI they want
| on their phone.
|
| It's really just Apple being angry about the EU's DMA
| endangering their golden goose (App Store revenue) and using
| any meaningful new functionality as a bargaining chip.
|
| They've done staggered geo launches for other features in the
| past many times, both before and after the DMA was passed, and
| in this case there's even another great reason to not want to
| globally launch all at once (AI inference server capacity). If
| they can at the same time market it as part of their ridiculous
| turf war against the European Commission, I guess they just
| have to take the opportunity.
| Velocifyer wrote:
| > "requires developers to submit ID to publish an app on the
| appstore (at least I had to after ~1000 downloads to be able to
| publish an update)"
|
| What is the purpose of that?
| wmf wrote:
| So there's someone to sue if the app misbehaves.
| burnerthrow008 wrote:
| > This feels like it could be solved with a list of permissions
| that the user has to turn on when using 3rd party AI.
|
| Nah, that just shifts the goal posts. If they did that,
| developers would be whining about "scare screens", as we have
| already seen when Apple put app installs behind a permission
| prompt.
|
| They're already up in arms about the requirement from Apple
| (and Google) to know who is behind the apps that slurp up all
| your data.
|
| The DMA maximalists won't be happy until Apple releases an
| anonymous service to automate setting up a Kafka topic to send
| each iOS user's PII to whoever wants to receive it.
| ipaddr wrote:
| You can downloads millions of things for your computer
| without kyc protocols. Why are phones in a special class?
| Your data is being slurped by the people who sold you the
| phone and you are worried about the small fish.
| pastel8739 wrote:
| > Given the serious risks to users, Apple designed a solution
| called Trusted System Agent -- an intermediary that would allow
| virtual assistants to safely access the same features and
| capabilities as Siri AI for devices in the EU. Apple also
| shared a plan to launch Siri AI in the EU while gradually
| rolling out this new solution over an 18-month period. The
| European Commission said no. In fact, the European Commission
| did not agree to any of Apple's proposals.
|
| I'm extrapolating (there is less detail in that press release
| than I expected from your comment), but this sounds to be like
| it would be the thing that enables such a "list of
| permissions". I would be curious to know exactly what this
| agent entailed and why the EU did not approve it.
| himata4113 wrote:
| "Trusted System Agent" imo sounds like an apple approved
| agent which would only be available to companies that accept
| apples (likely unreasonable) demands and would completely
| lock smaller companies out of the ecosystem.
| dwaite wrote:
| My limited understanding is that it would be a local model
| that exists only to determine a limited set of local
| information necessary to answer the user's request. This
| request and information would then be shared with the third
| party. Third parties would otherwise not have access into
| the local semantic model based on user personal data.
| josephg wrote:
| Does apple's own siri need to pass requests through their
| gatekeeper AI? I bet it doesn't. Personally, I'm
| generally happy with any answer apple comes up with so
| long as they're bound by the same set of restrictions as
| 3rd party companies. I feel like that's the only way to
| make sure apple won't "accidentally" hobble their
| competitors. (Like they did with their ridiculous 50c per
| app install fee for 3rd party app stores).
|
| I want Claude and OpenAI to be able to compete with Siri
| on an equal footing. Just like Apple maps has to compete
| with google maps. Competition pushes companies to make
| better products.
| pastel8739 wrote:
| Hm, I didn't even consider that it could be an "agent" in
| the AI sense. I assumed this meant a service that runs on
| the device and interposes on requests to access
| privileged resources and enforces permissions checks on
| them. That is, the classical sense of the word agent in
| computing. Perhaps you're right; in any case I don't
| think there is really enough detail here to go off of.
| tyre wrote:
| It's kind of funny that the EU's regulation here would force
| Apple to allow options that are worse for user privacy. Apple
| is the least incentivized to farm data from its users; in fact,
| that's a huge selling point. They mentioned it over and over
| and over in the WWDC keynote today.
|
| In my opinion, Apple is doing the right thing for users. It's
| not like they have a huge revenue stream here. Yes, there will
| be some features or usage that require iCloud plus or whatever
| to cover incremental cost, but I genuinely believe that they
| don't want services creeping in that break their trust with
| users or their privacy-first reputation.
|
| Apple's decision (users will have a less powerful product
| because we're not vacuuming up their data and using it for
| profit) is exactly the kind of thing the EU should want. No
| country has appropriate data privacy guidelines for AI (yet) so
| opening up choice can't provide alternatives.
|
| (To be clear, I'd be fine with Anthropic here, but am fine with
| this state. Maybe because I'm so used to Siri sucking that I've
| given up hope.)
| miohtama wrote:
| Apple ad revenue is ~10% of rev, with Google deal, and
| growing. New management is going to turn it less privacy
| focused company, because Apple needs to pursue growth.
| maximus_01 wrote:
| Yep and more like 25%+ of profits (given the google
| revenue, and most ad revenue, is close to 100% margin).
| thewebguyd wrote:
| > Apple is doing the right thing for users.
|
| The right thing for users would be to allow user choice, and
| for Apple to compete fairly.
|
| Apple allowing third party access doesn't automatically mean
| user data gets hoovered up by OpenAI, Anthropic, etc. It just
| means users now get the choice, if they want to make that
| choice. Users could stay with Siri/Apple if they care about
| what Apple is offering, or choose to accept the risks and
| terms of service with other third parties.
|
| The EU isn't saying "you must preinstall every competitors
| offering" its "you must offer the ability for others to hook
| into the same APIs to be able to offer their own assistant on
| par with the first party option."
|
| The user still remains in control by virtue of their own
| choice.
| onesociety2022 wrote:
| I never understood how any regulatory body is going to
| decide which APIs in iOS must be made available to third-
| parties to hook into. So what if I'm a third-party maker of
| TCP/IP stack and I want Apple to offer me the ability to
| sell my custom TCP/IP stack to my iOS customers as a
| replacement for the stock TCP/IP stack that ships with iOS.
| Clearly no regulatory body has cared about that because
| it's too niche of a space?
|
| So some government official will scour the entire API
| surface of iOS and decide which ones Apple needs to expose
| to third-parties? They have already decided App Store and
| Payments APIs need to be made available. Now it looks like
| they also expect off-device foundation models need to be
| made available to third-parties.
|
| What about making Apple Watch specific APIs in iOS be made
| available to all third-party watch makers so any one can
| bring any smartwatch and use it just as effectively as the
| Apple Watch with an iPhone? What about all the AirPods
| specific APIs that lets Apple offer a better experience
| with AirPods than a generic bluetooth earbuds? What about
| Apple Pencil? And so on... If you go down this path, the
| list is endless.
| manwe150 wrote:
| Replacement TCP/IP stack sounds like a VPN--which iOS
| allows
| onesociety2022 wrote:
| VPN is not a replacement TCP/IP stack. I literally meant
| the TCP/IP stack in the XNU kernel. It might be an
| esoteric example but it's not that far off. DMA already
| forced Apple to open up browser engine layer so third-
| parties can now bring in their own browser engines in the
| EU and are not restricted to using just WebKit.
| Barbing wrote:
| True. Will add, device must be supervised to use VPN
| always-on which is possibly sensible albeit annoying
| (would have to reinstall iOS and set up as new I
| believe).
| jaggederest wrote:
| > What about making Apple Watch specific APIs in iOS be
| made available to all third-party watch makers so any one
| can bring any smartwatch and use it just as effectively
| as the Apple Watch with an iPhone? What about all the
| AirPods specific APIs that lets Apple offer a better
| experience with AirPods than a generic bluetooth earbuds?
| What about Apple Pencil? And so on...
|
| Don't threaten me with a good time? All of those seem
| like great policies. The fact that I cannot use an apple
| watch with an android phone is ridiculous, and vice versa
| as well.
| onesociety2022 wrote:
| Yes I'd like some of these too but at the same time I get
| an uneasy feeling when I think that some potential idiot
| in a regulatory body in every country is now going to
| decide which API surface needs to be made available to
| third parties. If they take it too far, they could end up
| making nonsensical choices and kill innovation.
| brookst wrote:
| Should you be able to use a Samsung SoC in an Apple
| phone?
|
| At some point this is just a debate about vertical
| integration. Apple can deliver better experiences with
| it, but of course it limits user choice.
|
| Many people want fully modular, open systems, which is
| lowest common denominator.
|
| I can see both sides of the argument, but I am so
| skeptical of regulators deciding what can be integrated
| or not. If modularity is better for consumers, why don't
| they prefer modular systems?
|
| At the very least I think there should be a very clear
| tradeoff; right now the EU seems to think they can
| regulate their way to all of the benefits of vertical
| integration while outlawing vertical integration. I don't
| see how anyone could look at that with a straight face.
| Topfi wrote:
| > Should you be able to use a Samsung SoC in an Apple
| phone?
|
| How did we go in less than two comments from providing
| access to APIs that are already present, implemented and
| actively used by Apple (who in their holy wisdom deem us
| mortals not worthy to access these the way we choose) to
| a completely different hypothetical of requiring actively
| building support for another companies hardware?
|
| Such slippery slopes really aren't helpful, nor in any
| way comparable to what the DMA actually intends or
| states.
| xp84 wrote:
| > why don't they prefer modular systems?
|
| Because there aren't any to choose from?
|
| "Smartphone" has become a mandatory thing everyone is
| required to use to function in society without major
| friction.
|
| Businesses hate supporting a ton of distinct platforms,
| as proved by the developer marketplace killing Windows
| Mobile through refusing to ship apps for it.
|
| This suffocates any third entrants just like the FPTP
| voting system suffocates third political parties.
|
| So what modular OS are people supposed to choose?
| OrangeDelonge wrote:
| I think if you actually invested time into researching
| the DMA you will be able to understand why they are
| making certain decisions.
| brookst wrote:
| Oh, me, me! I spent a few years being responsible for a
| significant bit of DMA review and CYA and responses to
| regulators.
|
| I've read all of it, multiple times, and been grilled by
| EU regulators (vicariously, via corporate lawyers).
|
| It still boils down to general guidelines that it's
| impossible to know if you're violating before the fact,
| and they will not even approve/reject proposals in
| advance. It's basically "go read the act yourself, and
| ship what you think is compliant, and you'll know whether
| we interpret the words the same way by whether or not we
| fine you."
|
| Good times.
| kaibee wrote:
| > It still boils down to general guidelines that it's
| impossible to know if you're violating before the fact,
| and they will not even approve/reject proposals in
| advance. It's basically "go read the act yourself, and
| ship what you think is compliant, and you'll know whether
| we interpret the words the same way by whether or not we
| fine you."
|
| Companies want to know exactly where the line is so they
| can figure out how to comply with the letter of the law
| while doing as much as possible to get around the spirit
| of the law. This has been demonstrated over and over
| again. It isn't the job of the regulator to help
| companies with this process.
| brookst wrote:
| So you'd be cool with speed limit signs that said "hey,
| don't go too fast" and no specific limits? And the cops
| decide who to pull over on vibes, reputation, mood?
|
| I'm more of a rule of law person myself. If there's a law
| that must not be broken, and breaking it results in
| penalties, it seems insane to me to not specify it in
| advance.
|
| Sure, big tech is largely evil. Arrest 'em, find them,
| IDGAF.
|
| But pretending that DMA and related regulations provide
| enough information to ensure compliance is willfully
| ignorant. The regulations are designed to allow selective
| enforcemen.
| jltsiren wrote:
| Creating competition where it would not otherwise exist
| is the essential nature of the EU. Originally it was
| mostly about forcing protectionist member states to
| accept competition from other member states. But they
| extended the approach to breaking perceived natural
| monopolies a long time ago.
|
| The exact rules ultimately don't matter, because the EU
| is after outcomes. If the current rules don't lead to the
| desired outcomes, they will keep changing the rules,
| until they get what they wanted. (Or until their goals
| change.)
| Terretta wrote:
| Destroying competition by removing the consumer choice
| for vertical integration in service of strong security,
| privacy, reliability, etc.... is mistaken.
|
| It's competing at the wrong level.
|
| The iPhone is a toaster. Nobody's up in arms about
| whether the toaster takes other manufacturer's crumb
| tray. It's a television, and nobody's demanding QLED and
| OLED be swappable. It's a console. Xbox doesn't play PS5
| games. It's fine.
|
| There's no _real_ line between hardware / firmware /
| software / malware ... For what Apple offers consumers,
| every layer of whateverware should be trusted.
|
| Drawing imaginary lines based on the embodiment or
| substrates for logic gates is mistaken.
|
| There are lots of phones. Lot's of different
| philosophies. Stop taking away consumer right to pick a
| philosophy and design for an end to end experience. It's
| fine.
| thewebguyd wrote:
| Nothing about allowing others equal access to the OS
| means that someone can't still choose Apple's first party
| services and products.
|
| It's not an either/or thing, it's about preventing so
| called gatekeepers from anticompetitive behavior via
| favoring their own accessories and services while
| simultaneously preventing any others from possibly
| competing.
|
| There's no valid reason at all a third party smartwatch
| shouldn't be able to integrate to the same level as an
| Apple Watch. No reason third party Bluetooth earbuds
| shouldn't be able use ADWL for automatic device
| switching, etc.
|
| Want to still use only Apple? Great, nothing says you
| can't. But at least it would be user choice and there
| would be actually competition which would lead to better
| products for all.
|
| Can't believe I lived to see the day that people on HN
| start defending vendor lock in and closed platforms as a
| good thing. Have all the hackers retired?
| Terretta wrote:
| > _Want to still use only Apple? Great, nothing says you
| can't. But at least it would be user choice..._
|
| It's already user choice. The problem is too many users
| like the lineup. And too many who aren't going to use it,
| don't.
| xp84 wrote:
| > the list is endless.
|
| Good. They are making an operating system. User choice
| and competition matter. I know Apple would prefer to
| allocate more resources to Liquid Glass animations and
| burying more UI elements inside "..." menus, but I
| personally think I don't need any more innovation above
| the OS level from Apple. Especially because 80% of their
| changes to the application layer in 10 years have just
| made their platforms worse.
|
| Let them ship a stable platform that allows applications
| to do tons of useful things, even when you don't accept a
| mega-package of apps and services all from the first-
| party vendor that locks you in.
|
| If Apple built houses, you would have to jump through
| hoops every time you use a microwave or lamp you didn't
| buy from Apple.
| thewebguyd wrote:
| > What about making Apple Watch specific APIs in iOS be
| made available to all third-party watch makers so any one
| can bring any smartwatch and use it just as effectively
| as the Apple Watch with an iPhone? What about all the
| AirPods specific APIs that lets Apple offer a better
| experience with AirPods than a generic bluetooth earbuds?
|
| That's...literally the point of these regulations. Sounds
| great to me.
| elisbce wrote:
| And why is that a good thing? The average user can't even
| spell Anthropic. Why do you think they can safely pick a
| third-party model provider that could harvest the hell out
| of their conversations? The control of ecosystem is part of
| the privacy and security. My mom's Android phone has like
| 100 apps that she had no idea how they were downloaded. For
| real user choices, the vast majority of users just want a
| phone that they can trust and don't have to be a techie to
| avoid being exploited. They can choose to buy a phone that
| can be built from legos, OR they can choose to buy a phone
| from someone they trust to get the privacy and security
| taken care of for them. This is the real user choice.
| dwaite wrote:
| > Apple allowing third party access doesn't automatically
| mean user data gets hoovered up by OpenAI, Anthropic, etc.
| It just means users now get the choice, if they want to
| make that choice.
|
| Apple is also restricted in the sort of consent prompts
| they give the user. That could matter when a non-technical
| users is prompted by a third party app to effectively allow
| unfettered access to all user personal data on the device.
|
| Sometimes when you look at the functional requirements for
| a feature it turns out to be a bad idea. In the EU,
| functional requirements can come after-the-fact from
| regulator interpretation of the DMA. Until Apple determines
| what those requirements actually are going to be, releasing
| a potentially harmful feature is irresponsible.
| bnj wrote:
| There is a vast asymmetry in knowledge and capability to
| make those choices for most users. Most users will press
| agree and consent to things they don't understand to get to
| the next screen, and while that would be terrible for the
| individuals I think it's also important to look further at
| the ramifications because probably Apple would be blamed.
| rzwitserloot wrote:
| Your premise is incorrect; if apple truly wants to do the
| 'right thing for its users', it would allow choice. The fact
| that the _current crop_ of likely alternate choices include
| quite a few companies and offerings that seem far more user
| hostile than apple 's offering doesn't change that fact (it
| merely raises separate concerns that there need to be more
| laws such as the EU's DMA, not fewer).
|
| However, _even if_ your premise is correct, it does not
| matter.
|
| In the end, trying to manage such products (require massive
| investment, have network effects, offer significant
| gatekeeping and rentseeking opportunities) is extremely
| problematic.
|
| On one hand, the market cannot do it properly: There are tons
| of externalities, and, like e.g. building out rail, the
| absolutely gigantic barriers to entering the market means the
| existing players merge into a monopoly or oligopoly.
|
| On the other, the product is too complex and too dependent on
| continuous evolution to officially turn it into a state-
| controlled / state-run monopoly (the solution many countries
| have deployed to solve e.g. how rail, or medical insurance,
| or road networks, end up in a terrible state if left up to
| the market).
|
| So what is one to do?
|
| The current crop of mostly US led large companies seem to
| have gone with a 'just trust me, bro!' argument, with some
| 'AI is so important you cannot put up any roadblocks at all!'
| sprinkled in.
|
| And yet these companies time and again prove that they can't
| be trusted. Which is obvious and logical: Companies must
| conform to the law, but are otherwise amoral. Or rather,
| their 'moral' compass has nothing to do with human moral
| compasses: They must earn money for their shareholders, in
| whatever legal way they can find that is most efficient,
| paying as much attention to future company growth and health
| as its shareholders desire. That isn't just 'what they are
| incentivized to do' - that is what they are legally
| *required* to do.
|
| And yet you've gone with a motif of 'but apple is the one
| company that is doing it right so lets just trust them..
| bro'.
|
| There *is* a solution:
|
| Use the fact that the state has powers of persuasion that
| companies simply do not have. The threat of law, and the
| monopoly on violence.
|
| Essentially, a state can simply tell a company: The populace
| have spoken and they value X (say, privacy). They value it a
| lot. You will deliver. At low cost. This is not a request, it
| is a demand. If you don't want to or can't, then we shall
| write laws to regulate you and then *everybody loses*.
|
| Conceptually this works, in a weird game of chicken / madman
| theory: If the corporation in question believes that society
| will regulate them into oblivion unless they comply with
| society's demands _even if_ this means society incurs a great
| cost, then the corporation *will comply*.
|
| This has happened before. There is no actual law in the US
| that a movie gets a rating, and the movie industry pays for
| and manages the ratings of its movies entirely as an internal
| affair. And yet, in general, movie ratings are stellarly well
| run compared to what a government run institution would have
| done.
|
| The reason *is* that threat. The movie industry decided to
| police itself because it was quite clear that if they did
| not, the government would have, at great cost to the movie
| making industry (and at significant cost to society as well,
| in the form primarily of much worse films).
|
| For some reason that isn't entirely clear to me, CEOs of
| large corporations that deem themselves 'IT companies' do not
| understand this part. They will fight tooth and nail to fight
| every law, and especially in the US, perhaps due to extremely
| dire and long-term distrust by its populace in its own
| government, many of its citizens incorrectly side with its
| corporations on this idea, even though time and again
| corporations prove that they have no allegiance other than to
| the almighty dollar (which, to be clear, is not a complaint.
| That is how society has set them up. My only complaint is
| that e.g. you seem to have forgotten that this is how it
| works).
|
| Hence, given that the system works on, in essence, fear /
| coercion, the only right answer is to do an attitude
| adjustment, find a massive club, and beat a whole bunch of IT
| companies into absolute pulp until the remaining CEOs
| understand.
|
| And before you make a note about the brash, medieval nature
| of that comment - it is already clear that these CEOs who
| think they are God's Greatest Gift To This Planet, are
| already meekly running, tail between their legs, to kiss the
| pinky ring of a personalist wannabe emperor president. They
| are _clearly_ motivated by such fear and _clearly_ cannot be
| trusted to rise to the occasion and be a new form of
| benevolent leadership for the citizenry.
|
| I wish they were. It'd be so much easier.
| hashmap wrote:
| if for a second you believe that what apple says the
| regulators told them is the same thing as what the regulators
| told them, i have a cow farm under the titanic to sell you
| AgentOrange1234 wrote:
| This comment casts aspersions while making zero specific
| claims of wrongdoing. If you have something specific to say
| that goes beyond the vibes of "everything and everyone is
| corrupt and evil," that would at least be worth hearing.
| hashmap wrote:
| oh, it is worth hearing. said another way: "show me"
| xp84 wrote:
| Apple may have a _true_ argument that their version of "AI"
| is currently the least privacy-problematic, but it's not a
| _compelling_ one. First of all, it sets an awkward precedent.
| This special status is mostly based on vibes, and on how we
| know the other guys' business models will push them towards
| more data collection. But doesn't make sense to say we allow
| anticompetitive behavior depending on how nice to how "nice"
| the aspiring monopolist is to their users.
|
| Google can easily argue that if Apple gets to rule over a
| walled garden, zero-API ecosystem where no one else can
| compete, then it's right that they can too, regardless of how
| privacy-respecting they are or aren't.
| dwaite wrote:
| > This feels like it could be solved with a list of permissions
| that the user has to turn on when using 3rd party AI.
|
| The device won't be able to ask for significantly more
| permissions than Apple asks for their own model for regulatory
| reasons, nor will it be able to convey the seriousness of
| granting the permission (e.g. immediately give unrestricted
| access to the vast majority of personal information/documents
| stored on the device).
|
| But Apple also architected their system to justify not having
| constant permission prompts for access to sensitive data. And
| for regulatory reasons they also can't mandate that competing
| models have the same architecture.
|
| The regulators and Apple (along with hopefully other AI
| companies) will need to work together to determine longer-term
| stable path forward.
| himata4113 wrote:
| Apple could have the same kind of permission dialogues with
| their own models (and they actually should). Each and every
| (first-time) use of a feature should: 1) ask
| for permission explaining the scope 2) warn you about
| the dangers with a confirmation / nevermind option
|
| Putting this in practice: 1) Acme AI requires
| access to your email provider in order to execute this
| request. Grant / Deny 2) You're about to let Acme AI
| read and send emails on your behalf, this might be dangerous
| due to X and Y. Do you want to continue? / Nevermind.
|
| In this case: 1) Asks for access to a service
| 2) Asks for a specific use-case of the service
|
| 1 is access to data, you might want to give broad access to
| some applications and input data
|
| 2 is permission to act, but you might want to deny access to
| some parts such as sending email and scope to summarization
| musictubes wrote:
| Siri AI is not just a chatbot. There are deep hooks throughout
| the entire OS and across third party applications. Siri AI has
| been given wide access to the user's semantic index which will
| encompass just about everything on the device. Also remember
| that it isn't just the Apple user's privacy at stake. Any
| substitute will also have access to any interaction with other
| people. Apple is at least claiming to not keep any data people
| use with Siri AI, will Google, Anthropic, Open AI, etc. pinky
| swear they won't build a profile on me because a friend of mine
| chose their AI over Apple's?
|
| I will wait and see what people find out about it before
| passing judgement. It's quite possible that it isn't possible
| to have an API to use other companies' AI instead of Siri AI.
| Are there any equivalent API hooks on Android?
| jaredcwhite wrote:
| It's funny, I'm so thankful none of my Apple hardware is new
| enough to run much of this garbage. I'd switch off as much as I
| possibly could anyway...
| azinman2 wrote:
| Why?
| loumf wrote:
| For me, it feels like a prompt injection based security
| nightmare.
|
| Literally every file on my mac and every site I browse is
| potential malware.
|
| Edit to add: every email and text message as well.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| Interesting. I'm quite bearish on AI in general, but this will
| get me to upgrade my iPhone 14 Pro to whatever they release in
| September.
| BonoboIO wrote:
| A multi trillion dollar company not able to create open apis for
| competition ... definitely the EUs fault
| rumblefrog wrote:
| The automatically update of my compromised passwords on websites
| is very impressive, and I wonder how it's achieved.
| tanmaydesh5189 wrote:
| In Feb this year, when I analyzed KuzuDB's source code, I
| predicted Apple's reasoning to buy them was to introduce Siri
| with cross-app personal context. "..WWDC 2026 or 2027 introduces
| any "contextual intelligence" features in Siri that require
| cross-app relationship reasoning." https://medium.com/data-
| science-collective/i-analyzed-163k-l.... There is no confirmation
| on which tech is being used to achive that though
| AuthAuth wrote:
| Its wild to me that people use those apple emoji people. It looks
| so bad.
| Danox wrote:
| That's your clue that it's AI, or do you want it so realistic
| that you don't know the difference?
| AuthAuth wrote:
| Sorry, i've not had an apply device in ages. Is the AI using
| the emoji icon or are people using it? I assumed people were
| using it.
| alrtd82 wrote:
| In English!? Someone please Apple that LLMs can deal with
| multiple languages at once without the old "go to Settings to
| configure your language"
| Izmaki wrote:
| I wonder if the language support is the voice part of the
| assistant? It took a while (years) for Siri to speak my native
| language back then.
| Danox wrote:
| Not with the EU, support isn't coming the lawyers in the EU
| won't get there before the engineers in China.
| gregorygoc wrote:
| Can Apple now focus on rolling back Liquid Glass "upgrade"?
| data-ottawa wrote:
| If you watched the keynote they added transparency controls,
| adjusted the refraction, removed the different window corner
| radii into one, and cleaned up sidebars and toolbars. They also
| updated icons to have more depth to them so you get a harder
| border on key elements.
|
| I still look at older MacOS screenshots and think a lot of it
| looks better, but directionally they are improving Liquid
| Glass.
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| How many companies did they just Sherlock?
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| So Siri is basically now a Gemini agent?
|
| Our family uses Siri with a HomePod a lot, and it's already much
| better than it was a couple of years ago where it could basically
| set timers, tell you the weather. Now it answers questions ("when
| did the Knicks last win an NBA championship") with decent
| answers, instead of "I'll send the web results to your phone".
| But it's still far behind voice-chatting with Claude in the
| Claude app, so very much looking forward to this upgrade.
|
| I will say though that proper voice transcription in Claude -- or
| any of these agents -- sucks. If it can't understand the question
| properly, then it can't provide the right answer. It works okay
| for me, but not for my kids, not when speaking quickly or in
| incomplete sentences (as people tend to do), etc.
| tzm wrote:
| If that Siri orb fails to respond after this release, I'm done
| with Apple.
| xlii wrote:
| > We're deeply disappointed that our EU users won't have Siri AI
| on iPhone or iPad when we share our new software releases later
| this year
|
| I really enjoy this lag. Apple with the whole DMA made iPhone
| completely dull to my eyes. Previously? Updated yearly. Now? 3+
| years without replacement and probably will stick to it for next
| 2-3 years.
|
| Sure maybe in US Apple is fun. But in EU it's.. boring (and not
| like a Golang boring, just boring)
| aucisson_masque wrote:
| Week if its like the current apple intelligence feature,I don't
| care if we don't get in the eu.
| whh wrote:
| I wonder if they got around to the Finder date-sorting bug that's
| been around for about 10 years.
| azinman2 wrote:
| What's the bug
| jdprgm wrote:
| Apple's execution on AI is the worst of anything I can think of
| they have worked on in the past 20 years. It's embarrassing they
| announced this with a vague "coming this fall" when they
| basically have completely lost credibility in their ability to
| ship AI features considering it was initially announced YEARS
| ago.
|
| I think a lot of it is the old "perfect is the enemy of good"
| with Apple trying multiple times now to announce this big basket
| of all these AI features supposedly coming all at once instead of
| just regularly shipping new useful AI integrations every month.
| There was so much easy useful shit that was immediately apparent
| as soon at OpenAI dropped that first big voice mode years ago
| coupled with basic app integrations. Particularly in the context
| of the AI labs that are operating in that lane almost too much
| where it seems a new model or mode comes out every two weeks.
| WorldPeas wrote:
| I wonder if Apple actually posttrained or at least finetuned this
| model or if it's just standard gemma. I feel it'd be bad practice
| if they didn't at least have some training atop it for apple's
| tools. Also you don't really hear much about apple's in-housed
| private compute servers anymore, did they get outmoded? I only
| hear about them using nvidia now.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| I switched from android to iOS 7 years ago and I've actually been
| debating going back just because of how bad iOS is at AI. And
| every other facet of my life, I am finding ways for it to save my
| time on an almost daily basis. And yet on iOS, just finding
| something from a text Message is still a nightmare.
|
| Siri seems to rarely get better and sometimes actually get worse.
| CryptoBanker wrote:
| > And yet on iOS, just finding something from a text Message is
| still a nightmare
|
| This has been a problem on iOS since the dawn of time and has
| nothing to do with AI
| s3p wrote:
| Nope, it got markedly worse _since_ AI. You used to be able
| to search for string literals, so if you remembered one
| obtuse phrase from a group chat, you could pull it up
| instantly. Now this 'intent' search will try to search for
| what it thinks you want, not what you typed. AFAIK, there is
| no way to search for literals anymore, thanks to AI.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| Yeah it went from bad to worse somehow.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| AI has just made it worse, both directly (search doesn't
| function like standard search anymore but also nowhere near
| ChatGPT) and by comparison.
|
| I can go ask Gemini questions that require it to get
| information from several emails at once like "which x vendor
| had the lowest price". Im assuming it can do the same with my
| texts or, if not yet, it will soon. I had zero such faith
| with Apple.
|
| I will wait until the fall and see if this looks like the
| germ of something actually useful before deciding if I'm
| going to switch.
| stringfood wrote:
| no, you don't understand - iOS has no AI because Apple cares
| about your privacy!!
| seanssel wrote:
| It's the keyboard for me. I don't remember making as many
| typing mistakes when I was on an Android phone. It's also
| infuriating trying to "select all" for copy or move the cursor
| to beginning with the spacebar motion. I swear it's like I'm
| using a phone in a dream sometimes.
| cromka wrote:
| For me it's all the above and lack of multiple-item
| clipboard. It's incredible how much time it saves on a
| phone...
| baby_souffle wrote:
| Did iOS ever get OCR based copy/paste?
|
| Pixels have had it for years but I think it's in every
| android phone now; from the app switcher you can press and
| hold and the system will OCR the text and allow you to copy
| it.
|
| Because so many things _still_ don't make that easy to do
| on mobile.
| umpalumpaaa wrote:
| It's a system wide iOS feature and has been for a few
| years now
| zzrrt wrote:
| I don't think iOS has it from the app switcher, but
| pretty easy to take a screenshot and immediately select
| from it. (Or selecting from older screenshots or photos
| you open.)
| annzabelle wrote:
| Yup. I switched to iphone very briefly, and the typing
| experience was so bad that I returned it for a full refund.
| cush wrote:
| Siri got nerfed a few years ago. "Here's what I found on the
| web" is now the default answer. It used to pull answers from
| the search results
| skillina wrote:
| Same problems on Android. Google Assistant was better in 2016
| than it is in 2026, and the Gemini assistant is a joke. They
| can't even integrate with their own music app (YouTube Music)
| properly.
|
| I switched to iOS this year and I've been learning that the
| grass is not much greener. I do miss uBlock Origin. Maybe my
| next stop is GrapheneOS or a similar degoogled ROM...
| cocoto wrote:
| There is a uBlock Origin Lite extension for Safari available
| in the App Store. Technically not as powerful (hence the
| "lite" in the name) but it's perfectly blocking all ads for
| my usage.
| doganarif wrote:
| We heard a lot of things, but unfortunately, I'm pretty sure it
| won't work as expected.
| bilekas wrote:
| I like the idea for normal people. Day to day usage who ignore
| hallucinations is a big market.
|
| > Siri AI coming in English later this year.
|
| Strange way to phrase it, but okay.
|
| > Siri AI will be available In beta later this year and requires
| an Apple Intelligence-enabled device set to a supported language.
| Available in English to start. Siri AI will not initially be
| available in the EU on iOS and iPadOS.
|
| Ah okay, not EU enabled. The only reason for this, in my tinfoil
| hat, must be for data farming.
| cdrnsf wrote:
| I sincerely hope this can all be disabled.
| lellow wrote:
| In my opinion, this is late by almost two years. This should have
| been the v1 when they first presented Apple Intelligence.
| stingraycharles wrote:
| Wait, I got an iPhone 15 Pro Max because supposedly it was
| compatible with Apple Intelligence. But now it's not supporting
| this?
| cowsandmilk wrote:
| 15 Pro Max is supported...
| dwaite wrote:
| Apple splits processing between an on-device and cloud-hosted
| model. As time goes on, devices will be more capable of doing
| more processing locally, and it would be expected that the
| cloud-hosted model gets more sophisticated.
|
| Your 15 Pro Max supports Apple Intelligence. Newer phones can
| answer more questions without going to cloud infrastructure.
| javamelon wrote:
| It should support everything except the new voice model.
| hbn wrote:
| To be fair, the iPhone 15 line came out before Apple
| Intelligence was even announced.
|
| It's the iPhone 16 line that feels a bit shitty not getting the
| latest and greatest since it was advertised as "built for Apple
| Intelligence"
|
| Apparently the 17 Pro is the only currently released iPhone
| that will get the best local model. Which I suppose makes sense
| considering it has 12GB of RAM compared to the 16 Pro's 8GB.
| sakesun wrote:
| Microsoft cannot compete in browser race and has to adopt
| Chromium.
|
| Apple cannot compete in AI and has to adopt Gemini
|
| Google is a really amazing company.
| sleazebreeze wrote:
| Too bad Google can't compete in consumer or professional AI
| either
| Schiendelman wrote:
| In both cases, Google built a commodity that doesn't
| necessarily generate revenue for them. I don't think they're
| doing very well in this case.
| gumby271 wrote:
| Not directly, but they control the most popular portal to the
| open Internet with chromium to shape ad delivery, and
| (depending on how dramatic you want to be) the shape of
| reality presented to their users based on their AI models.
| Not directly profitable, but damn that's a scary level of
| power.
| sakesun wrote:
| And it's amazing that they are doing very well overall
| without having to do too well to generate revenue.
| yesitcan wrote:
| > Aga sent you a message about Calanthea, a plant.
|
| > Aga: have you heard of Calanthea? It's a plant.
|
| Really groundbreaking use of AI!
| Schiendelman wrote:
| That's not what that is showing, it isn't reading a text you
| just got. It's you asking about the plant she told you about,
| it finding that text message, summarizing, and also proving
| with the text that it's accurate.
| Skunkleton wrote:
| > Schiendelman sent you a message on hacker news clarifying
| what its showing. It's you asking about the plant she told
| you about, it finding that text message, summarizing, and
| also proving with the text that it's accurate.
|
| wow! we are in the future!
| Galois97 wrote:
| Why would they wait so long to launch this? With every passing
| day countless people further ingrain ChatGPT / Claude as their
| default chatbot...
| kennywinker wrote:
| The second slide on the site is... it's gotta be a troll from
| some pissed off designer, right?
|
| Screenshotted in case they change it https://imgur.com/a/n1I3z8g
| joshstrange wrote:
| I believe that is showing the results of a search, as in
| something like "What Plant was Aga telling me about the other
| day?". The website doesn't make that clear but they asked
| questions like that in the keynote (not that specific one).
| kennywinker wrote:
| Lol. That makes it _almost_ make sense. It's still showing me
| a summary of a text that uses exactly the same amount of
| space to convey exactly the same amount of information. Like,
| that's just search - i've been able to get this info by
| typing "plant" into the search bar since they added spotlight
| in iPhoneOS 3.0 back in 2009
|
| It's also a text from 9:14am the same day.
|
| If this is the second slide in your marketing slideshow, you
| clearly have nothing better to show.
| Schiendelman wrote:
| The reason it's showing you what's in the text is to show
| you a search result. The text is essentially the proof.
| When the user asks what plant she was telling you about,
| they don't have the text in front of them. It could be 200
| texts back.
| kennywinker wrote:
| > It could be 200 texts back.
|
| Ok? But if I search for something just show me the thing
| I searched for (the proof). There is literally no need to
| repeat it in a slightly different tense. Who is that
| helping?
| usef- wrote:
| If I asked you over voice what Mike said he wanted for
| his birthday, it's usually less confusing if you just
| answer the question ("he wants snow boots") rather than
| started reading out words from another person ("I love it
| here at the snow, ...")
| kennywinker wrote:
| If that's the story you're trying to tell, where is the
| query in the image? The image alone doesn't tell that
| story.
|
| But also:
|
| a) do you trust the llm to get it right 100% of the time?
| Because i'm gonna always read the original message to
| make sure.
|
| And b) just excerpt the message "mike says i love it here
| at the snow ... but i need snowboots" if you're so
| desperate to shoehorn LLMs into everything, that's just
| as easy a task for them as summarizing is.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| I don't get it, this looks like what I'd expect it to show me
| if I asked it to find a certain message. I assume tapping on
| that message would bring me straight to that point in the
| conversation.
| kennywinker wrote:
| Using AI to summarize a message by saying what the message
| says in the same amount of words as the message So helpful!
| nozzlegear wrote:
| Is your complaint that the example text message in the
| image wasn't three paragraphs long? It's just showing
| search results.
| kennywinker wrote:
| My complaint is this image is supposed to tell the story
| of how this stuff is useful or new. Finding a message
| from earlier in the same day and then paraphrasing the
| message instead of just showing it isn't useful or new. A
| simple keyword search uses infinitely fewer GPUs and
| finds me the info as fast without the risk of
| hallucinations or datacenter driven environmental
| collapse.
|
| But for whatever reason - because this stuff is mostly
| useless, because they've all got ai psychosis, or because
| of general dysfunction in the corporate structure - they
| can't come up with a better example.
| bluegatty wrote:
| They are very far behind, this doesn't feel like catch up.
| ok_dad wrote:
| My number one question is can I turn this shit off? I don't want
| AI infecting and having access to my whole fucking life. They
| don't say anything on this marketing page.
| alex_young wrote:
| Does this not work with HomePod? How is an AI voice assistant not
| compatible with the smart speaker?
| Schiendelman wrote:
| That old hardware can't handle it. HomePod, the Apple TV, and
| the watch will all get updates in the next few months to
| streamline this.
| jijji wrote:
| They are a few years late to the party
| novoreorx wrote:
| There's only one thing that matters, that Siri would become an
| independent app that can see through its calling histories, which
| should have been done since the first day it launched.
| Frannky wrote:
| Ready later this year... What I want from the phone are low-level
| APIs exposed to an agent I can talk/type to without lag. I wonder
| how long it will take or if a new AI phone will come before these
| features. I would love Siri working because Apple's design and
| hardware are good.
| chopete3 wrote:
| They better make it really good. Most kids get their facts from
| it. One has to argue with their kids when it gives wrong
| information.
|
| 87% US teenagers own an iPhone. ~35% teens own an Apple Watch.
| erickhill wrote:
| Quite possibly one of the most lackluster WWDC's I can remember.
| And I've been a fan of Apple/Mac since the late 80s.
|
| Hmph.
|
| That said, I'm THRILLED they claimed to "fix" the border radius
| snafu of Tahoe. Go ahead and push that now with the next Security
| fix. We won't mind at all.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| It's interesting how anemic the use cases seem to be - we see the
| same things recycled over and over: "reword my email", "remove
| object from picture", "add a reminder", "summarise my text
| message which was already only 20 words long" etc etc. As if
| these are the major problems in people's lives.
|
| I really feel like there's a fascinating valley of death between
| simple things that actually work and things of real value that
| are actually still beyond the horizon. They either aren't
| reliable enough, aren't accessible to the tech, or exceed the
| sophistication of our existing trust models. For example, I'm
| planning a trip. Booking a multiday holiday - there's a real
| beast that is time consuming, complex and painful. I test out the
| AI tools. They fail. Hard. Hallucinations all over the place,
| false confidence, inability to act, inability of me to trust
| their actions.
|
| It's just nowhere near practical utility yet. Not "nearly there"
| but "not nearly half way there". I got the top tier of Gemini AI.
| Can it rent me a car? "As an AI I can absolutely guide you
| through the process of renting the car, but I can't physically
| access the web site or type in the details for you".
| idle_zealot wrote:
| Even the aspirational use cases you're talking about basically
| are just "digital secretary." There's a massive problem with
| that even if the models end up being capable in the future. The
| value of a secretary is that you know them, they know you, and
| you trust them to do things right. There are stakes if they
| don't. No company can provide that as a service at scale for
| everyone without it being a disaster. Not because it's not
| technically possible, but because of the incentives. That much
| power over the details of so many people's lives is
| irresistible; there will be persistent temptation to use it.
| The presence of that possibility makes the secretary impossible
| to trust.
| cjonas wrote:
| These use cases will just be built as "open source"
| (openclawd) or even custom one off application in the future.
| I've been building apps to run the tedious parts of my life
| recently. Meal planning, personal finance, bills, tax
| organization... Why would I pay for services that will be
| enshiftified when I can build a app that does exactly what I
| want in an afternoon. Yes the code is shit and it wouldn't
| scale... But it doesn't need to
| losteric wrote:
| > Why would I pay for services that will be enshiftified
| when I can build an app that does exactly what I want in an
| afternoon.
|
| When we talk about "the market", the customer base,
| remember it's a market that typically doesn't know how to
| or care to even install an adblocker.
| cjonas wrote:
| I don't see any mention of "the market" anywhere in this
| thread. I'm just talking about the ability for a
| motivated user to solve real problems with these tools.
| Right now these solutions are available to software
| developers but over time it will become approachable to
| more users
| zmmmmm wrote:
| it's an interesting question if any of the AI companies would
| be willing to step up and absorb the risk ie: to give the AI
| agent a "stake".
|
| eg: if my booking is wrong, they will cover the cost and
| compensate me. It would sort of just come down to buying
| premium travel insurance for everyone that uses it. And
| insurance for anything else they do. It has to be one of two
| things - they either believe the risks are worth it (so then
| there should be a financial model that can absorb the cost of
| insurance to do it), or in fact, the risks are too great. At
| some point, if they keep offering the tech on a "use at your
| own risk" basis, they are implicitly communicating that they
| themselves think the risks are too great - so YOU shouldn't
| trust it either.
| teiferer wrote:
| > eg: if my booking is wrong, they will cover the cost and
| compensate me
|
| That would be nice, but it's the wrong angle. The reason
| people like real secretaries is not because somebody is
| compensated when things go wrong. It's because things don't
| go wrong. I don't use this thing if I need to fear things
| go wrong, even if I'd be compensated.
|
| Maybe it would provide the right incentives for the
| companies though.
| cootsnuck wrote:
| Yup, precisely. Turns out getting AI to be reliable at doing
| useful things is harder than we've all been led to believe by
| the dominant narratives.
|
| https://www.normaltech.ai/p/new-paper-towards-a-science-of-a...
| fruit2020 wrote:
| Booking and renting is certainly possible, they just need your
| auth credentials
| kristianc wrote:
| An alien landing on earth consuming Apple marketing content
| would be under the impression that humans did nothing but
| organise hikes to Big Sur with their friends.
| pastel8739 wrote:
| Well.. it's not the furthest thing from the truth in the bay
| brtkwr wrote:
| Siri AI is a mouthful... they should have kept it simple and
| stuck with Siri
| nomilk wrote:
| I placed eggs into boiling water and because my hands were wet I
| used voice and said "hey Siri, start a timer". It replied "you'll
| have to unlock your iPhone first", so I hovered my face over the
| bench the phone was sitting on, then the screen rattled and
| prompted for the numeric passcode. Ugh..
|
| Using Siri essentially required me to use my hands anyway, so
| what's the point of voice?
|
| I'd very seriously consider moving away from iPhone to a device
| that treats voice AI as a first class citizen (presently I mapped
| the 'double back tap' to open grok voice chat, and triple back
| tap to end it, which is a wonderful improvement over not having
| these, as you can do that pretty easily, even while driving etc).
| zombot wrote:
| Don't do back taps require hands?
| nomilk wrote:
| They do (one hand), but it doesn't require anything precise
| (like finding the app and clicking on it, which you can't
| really do while driving). If Siri could open an AI voice
| chat, that would awesome. But I'm not counting on that within
| this decade.
| bsiverly wrote:
| The ability to tap into on-device foundation models within apps
| is pretty baller. The rest is banal
| pprotas wrote:
| No mention of making my homepod mini "Truly helpful", so I'll
| stick to just sticking timers, I guess.
| jdthedisciple wrote:
| pardon me but I'm not getting it, what's new or exciting about it
| (supposedly)?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-06-09 06:00 UTC)