> Advanced Voice is not yet available in the EU, the UK, Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein.
That's disappointing. I wonder if it's related to legal issues, technical issues, or just doing a phased rollout?
That's disappointing. I wonder if it's related to legal issues, technical issues, or just doing a phased rollout?
>except for jurisdictions that require additional external review
It's just speculation on my part that that's the actual reason for some of those markets.
It might have to do with (old) EU specific regulations. I know the UK adopted many EU laws to expedite brexit.
1. This is just speculation
2. It could just be enough reason to cause review
Unfortunately the EU strongly encourages this sort of confusion. EU Commission staff and MEPs constantly say "Europe" when what they mean is the EU. And because most of Europe is in the EU, it's especially confusing.
During this time, I dont believe I actually had access to it, as it wouldn't hum, laugh, pick up on my voice tones etc
Got my hopes up!
(Also language reasons as well - though it seems it works with other languages)
How well does it work in the UK (and understanding its regional accents?)
edit: Sorry if privacy hurts your feelings, people who downvote me.
You're refering to the EU here, right?
Not that everything they do is good. But something being illegal in the EU is a bad indicator for sure.
AI it's harder to say, especially with the attitudes of the people making it being a split personality mix of "wow this is incredible it might kill everyone" — that's enough of a surprise to legislators that I don't know what to predict nor who has the right approach from USA (e/acc), EU (conservative), China (not sure, suspect 'harmonious' but acknowledge I'm projecting a national stereotype).
E.g. one valid use-case would be about storing your voice recording on the cloud in a tokenized format.
Because the model is now directly taking your voice, which I assume as tokens, it can't be immediately deleted as opposed to speech to text, which can be quickly used to convert to text and then deleted.
Specifically, the report called out GDPR costing small businesses 'more than' 15% of their profits.
This is indeed quite a hurdle. Privacy isn't really the issue - it's regulation that understands that complexity has a cost. We, as developers, should understand the deep, deep cost of complexity.
As a business owner that respects privacy a great deal, GDPR and regulation like it are still an immense hurdle - the cost in understanding and in doing things to the letter of the law is, I think, hard to grasp from the outside. Regulations occupy a huge amount of space in my head that was previously filled with making a better product.
PDF available here:
https://commission.europa.eu/topics/strengthening-european-c...
[0] https://www.macworld.com/article/2374452/apple-intelligence-...
If they were using your voice recording for training purposes, then of course absolutely. Which then for a good reason.
Or it could also be about the way the voice recording is transported or where it's stored, for how long it's stored etc. Because speech to text could be achieved even offline and not in cloud and be there for shorter period of time. You can delete the recording and just use the text.
If the voice recording is tokenized in an ongoing conversation then it would be stored indefinitely.
Their AI product wasn't ready for other languages, not even British English where the DMA definitely doesn't apply.
A person would have to be very naive to believe Apple directly here. They just want to generate bad press for the DMA.
My suspicion is that Apple is stomping its foot as loudly as possible about the evil European Commission while getting language/localization support in order.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if they suddenly and miraculously discovered a way to somehow still be compliant in the last minute and launch the feature as planned to not endanger their sales.