Apple won't ship Siri AI in the EU — and the EU says that was 'Apple's and Apple's only' decision
Brussels denied Apple an exemption from the DMA's interoperability rule, which would force Apple to open its phone-controlling AI agent to rival models. Apple decided not to launch rather than comply.
The headline reads like a privacy standoff. The thread's correction: this is the Digital Markets Act, not GDPR — a competition rule about opening Apple's new agent interface to rival AI, not a data-protection fight.
A Google engineering manager pushed back on the easy 'they have the money, just comply' take: this class of compliance can mean re-architecting core systems with thousands of people over years.
And the requirement genuinely cuts both ways — handing any installed app agent-level control of your phone is a real attack surface.
Who decided Siri wouldn't ship in Europe
The Reuters report (blocked from direct fetch, but quoted at length in the thread) carries one load-bearing claim from the European Commission: the decision not to roll out Siri AI in the EU was "Apple's and Apple's only." Spokesperson Thomas Regnier said nothing in the Digital Markets Act stops Apple from introducing new products in the EU, and that Apple "was simply unable to develop interoperability solutions that meet essential EU privacy and security standards." Apple had asked for an exemption — framed in the thread as roughly 18 months — and was denied.
The substance underneath: the DMA's interoperability mandate would require Apple to open its new AI-agent interface, the layer that lets Siri act across apps and read a Spotlight semantic index of your phone, so competing models could plug into it. Apple's position is that exposing that agent-level access to arbitrary third-party apps is too dangerous. So it chose not to launch the feature in Europe at all.
The correction that reframes the whole story: this is the DMA, not GDPR
The single most repeated point in a 587-comment thread was that the privacy framing is a category error.
"This doesn't have anything to do with privacy. The DMA mandates that Apple allows for competition … However Apple would prefer to not allow competition for their digital products on any of their hardware." — a commenter correcting the privacy framing
Read that way, "Apple protecting your privacy from the EU" inverts: the rule is about competition, and Apple's reluctance is about control over its platform.
"Google eng mgr here" — why "just comply" understates the work
The popular take — Apple has the money, it just won't dedicate a team — drew a detailed rebuttal from someone who has done government-compliance work at scale.
"Google eng mgr here … these types of compliance efforts can mean completely redoing multiple core systems to handle privacy, wipeout, audit, reporting, per-location policies … These efforts can involve hundreds to thousands of people for multiple years." — eykanal, a Google engineering manager
His point isn't that Apple is right; it's that the work is real engineering, not a press-release sprint.
The asterisk: the EU's demand is genuinely double-edged
Some commenters sided with Apple on the merits, because the interoperability they're being asked to provide is a security surface.
"Opening up all access to control the phone to some random app the consumer installed seems super dangerous." — Sam Pullara, software engineer and investor
Others pointed at Apple's own track record as the rebuttal to its risk argument:
"If they can comply with China's unreasonable demands, they can comply with the completely reasonable EU demands. They already claim to care about your freedom and privacy. Now they can prove it." — a commenter on Apple's selective compliance
And one careful reader caught the Commission contradicting itself: Regnier says the DMA doesn't block product launches while simultaneously the DMA's requirements are precisely what blocked this one (the inconsistency, parsed line by line). Both Apple and Brussels would rather you read this as someone else's choice. It was a choice on both sides.
Get breakdowns like this every day
The top Hacker News stories, unpacked — by email, Telegram, or RSS.
Anthropic says its silent safety filter hits 0.03% of developers. The thread found false positives on base64
Fable 5 can be degraded mid-task without a refusal message — through prompt edits or steering vectors. A developer trying to fix security bugs in his own code kept getting blocked from the fix.