{"id":68993,"date":"2026-06-09T16:58:03","date_gmt":"2026-06-09T14:58:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/?p=68993"},"modified":"2026-06-09T17:00:13","modified_gmt":"2026-06-09T15:00:13","slug":"siri-ai-eu-commission-disagrees-with-apple","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/en\/news\/siri-ai-eu-kommission-widerspricht-apple","title":{"rendered":"Dispute over Siri AI: The EU Commission contradicts Apple"},"content":{"rendered":"

Apple blames regulation for the lack of Siri AI in Europe \u2013 the EU Commission sees things very differently. Brussels has made it clear: this decision was made solely by Apple. Thus, two accounts of the same event stand irreconcilably opposed.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following Apple's announcement that it will not be offering the new Siri on iPhones and iPads in the European Union for the time being, the EU Commission has reacted publicly \u2013 and immediately shifted the blame. While Apple justifies the move with the requirements of the Digital Markets Act, Brussels declares the decision to forgo it as a free entrepreneurial choice. The underlying mechanism that is limiting Siri AI on iPhones and iPads in the EU<\/a> thus remains the same \u2013 but a heated exchange has now erupted over who is responsible for it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Commission's view: Apple's decision alone<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Commission spokesman Thomas Regnier addressed the press in Brussels and made it<\/a> clear that the Commission places full responsibility on Apple. The company had failed to develop interoperability solutions that meet fundamental European data protection and security standards. Instead of seeking a compliant solution, Apple had simply requested to be exempt from its own interoperability obligations \u2013 and that, according to the Commission, is not a permissible option.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this interpretation, the result is self-inflicted: it was not the law that stopped Siri AI, but Apple's inability or unwillingness to provide a compliant technical implementation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How Apple describes the process<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Apple's version sounds fundamentally different. The company announced the previous day that Siri AI would not launch in the EU on iOS and iPadOS<\/a>, blaming regulators for their unwillingness to negotiate constructively on proposed solutions. Craig Federighi, Apple's chief software engineer, expressed his \"deep disappointment\" and pointed out that the authorities had not accepted any of Apple's proposals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Apple, this included a system called a Trusted System Agent, which would have allowed third-party voice assistants to securely use the same device functions as Siri AI. Apple frames the DMA requirements as a demand to grant any AI system virtually unlimited access to a user's device \u2013 a risk the company considers incompatible with its security promise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two representations, one contradiction<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The core of the conflict lies in the question of what actually happened at the negotiating table. Apple paints a picture of regulators who rejected every offer. The Commission, on the other hand, states that Apple never seriously negotiated the proposed solutions, but instead demanded a blanket exemption from interoperability obligations under the Digital Markets Act \u2013 something not provided for in the Act. Both sides thus describe not only different conclusions, but also different accounts of how the talks unfolded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What exactly are EU users missing?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Regardless of which version is closer to reality, the practical outcome is clear. When iOS 27 and Apple's other new software versions are released this fall, EU users on iPhones and iPads will be denied access to Siri AI and all its new features \u2013 including the standalone app for accessing and restarting conversations. What the revamped Siri<\/a> is supposed to do on supported platforms will, for the time being, be ineffective on the most widely used devices in Europe. Apple states that it intends to eventually bring the assistant to the EU and will continue discussions with the authorities \u2013 but the company has not specified a timeline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why the dispute extends beyond the day<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The back-and-forth is more than just PR sparring, because it exposes the central fault line of the DMA: the tension between enforced interoperability and a closed security model. Both sides are clearly arguing in their own self-interest \u2013 Apple portrays itself as the guardian of user data, the Commission as the guardian of competition. It remains remarkable, however, that a regulation intended to create more choice ultimately results in European users being denied a feature that has long been available elsewhere. Whether Apple genuinely pursued a compliant solution or whether the Brussels requirements are simply incompatible with Apple's architecture cannot be definitively assessed from the outside. What is certain is that the primary victims of this dispute are those whose protection both sides claim to be fighting for. (Image: Apple)<\/p>\n\n\n\n