4 ms·

More likely the second than the first. It’s already the case that you technically “record” the audio at one end and then transmit it to the other. I can also fo

More likely the second than the first. It’s already the case that you technically “record” the audio at one end and then transmit it to the other. I can also forward a caller to voicemail where their message is transcribed in real time, which is fundamentally the same mechanics. Or even more likely, as others have suggested, it’s Apple being petty and withholding features from EU users to put pressure on the EU.

chatmasta 1y ago
I wonder if that translation is actually powered by OpenAI and Apple doesn’t want to pay them for inferencing on behalf of app developers. Or is it powered entirely by local models?
- mcny 1y ago
  My understanding is live translations do not require an active Internet connection. > Live Translation is integrated into Messages, FaceTime, and Phone to help users communicate across languages, translating text and audio on the fly.1 Live Translation is enabled by Apple-built models that run entirely on device, so users’ personal conversations stay personal. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/06/apple-elevates-the-iphone-experience-with-ios-26/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/06/apple-elevates-the-ip...
  - chatmasta 1y ago
    If it works, that is really impressive. I’m looking forward to trying it out. I’ve always wanted a real-life babelfish for eavesdropping on conversations in foreign language :)
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
simonh 1y ago
Pressure on them to do what, if there’s nothing about this proscribed by the EU?
graeme 1y ago
>Or even more likely, as others have suggested, it’s Apple being petty and withholding features from EU users to put pressure on the EU. The EU has threatened massive fines for creating features not available to competitors. And the EU refuses to vet a feature officially in advance. Under such conditions, how would you distinguish being petty from complying with the law? The EU probably imagined the outcome would be: change your business practices entirely for the EU, and make all new features open to all, immediately, perpetually, everywhere. But that's not the norm for the vast majority of companies, for a variety of sensible reasons. Given that it's actually hard to do that, witholding new features until you're told "yes this is ok" is a rational response to the law.
- Dylan16807 1y ago
  In terms of feature availability, if the law says they need to make it available to all headsets in the EU, then... that's what they need to do. Waiting for an "ok" to violate the law is not sensible at all. Sure they don't have to allow it worldwide, but they do need to allow it in the EU. Waiting the way you describe only makes sense if they think the implementation probably follows the law, but they're not sure it will be accepted. We could make that argument for privacy rules, we can't in good faith make that argument for interoperability rules.
  - graeme 1y ago
    That's not what the law says. The law says IF they make a feature available in the EU, THEN it must be available to all competitors. The law does not say you must make all features available in the EU. Generally speaking business regulations don't force companies to offer services. They instead regulate how the service can be offered if offered. The hidden downside of regulation is a lot of stuff doesn't get built. It's just normally not so visible, but software is distributed worldwide so we can see the effect.
    - Dylan16807 1y ago
      > That's not what the law says. The law says IF they make a feature available in the EU, THEN it must be available to all competitors. You misread me. "it" in the phrase "they need to make it available to all headsets in the EU" was referring to features they release in the EU. So yes you're interpreting the law right, and so am I. > The hidden downside of regulation is a lot of stuff doesn't get built. It's just normally not so visible, but software is distributed worldwide so we can see the effect. If the deciding factor in whether something gets built is whether they can lock it to another product, it's usually okay for that thing to not be built. In this case, they obviously did build it. So now it's a matter of figuring out what the hold up is. If it's because they don't want to, even though it would make them money and make people in the EU happy, then that's pettiness.
toast0 1y ago
> I can also forward a caller to voicemail where their message is transcribed in real time, which is fundamentally the same mechanics. Voicemail greetings typically inform the caller the message will be recorded, and there'a often a beep which is an indicator of recording as well. If you don't consent to recording, you can hang up without leaving a message.
tcdent 1y ago
Isn't noise cancelling technically recording people in your environment in this sense then?
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  Why would it be? Noise cancelling is a DSP over current raw signal, no data storage.

chatmasta 1y ago

I wonder if that translation is actually powered by OpenAI and Apple doesn’t want to pay them for inferencing on behalf of app developers. Or is it powered entirely by local models?

mcny 1y ago
My understanding is live translations do not require an active Internet connection. > Live Translation is integrated into Messages, FaceTime, and Phone to help users communicate across languages, translating text and audio on the fly.1 Live Translation is enabled by Apple-built models that run entirely on device, so users’ personal conversations stay personal. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/06/apple-elevates-the-iphone-experience-with-ios-26/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/06/apple-elevates-the-ip...
- chatmasta 1y ago
  If it works, that is really impressive. I’m looking forward to trying it out. I’ve always wanted a real-life babelfish for eavesdropping on conversations in foreign language :)

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

simonh 1y ago

Pressure on them to do what, if there’s nothing about this proscribed by the EU?

graeme 1y ago

>Or even more likely, as others have suggested, it’s Apple being petty and withholding features from EU users to put pressure on the EU. The EU has threatened massive fines for creating features not available to competitors. And the EU refuses to vet a feature officially in advance. Under such conditions, how would you distinguish being petty from complying with the law? The EU probably imagined the outcome would be: change your business practices entirely for the EU, and make all new features open to all, immediately, perpetually, everywhere. But that's not the norm for the vast majority of companies, for a variety of sensible reasons. Given that it's actually hard to do that, witholding new features until you're told "yes this is ok" is a rational response to the law.

Dylan16807 1y ago
In terms of feature availability, if the law says they need to make it available to all headsets in the EU, then... that's what they need to do. Waiting for an "ok" to violate the law is not sensible at all. Sure they don't have to allow it worldwide, but they do need to allow it in the EU. Waiting the way you describe only makes sense if they think the implementation probably follows the law, but they're not sure it will be accepted. We could make that argument for privacy rules, we can't in good faith make that argument for interoperability rules.
- graeme 1y ago
  That's not what the law says. The law says IF they make a feature available in the EU, THEN it must be available to all competitors. The law does not say you must make all features available in the EU. Generally speaking business regulations don't force companies to offer services. They instead regulate how the service can be offered if offered. The hidden downside of regulation is a lot of stuff doesn't get built. It's just normally not so visible, but software is distributed worldwide so we can see the effect.
  - Dylan16807 1y ago
    > That's not what the law says. The law says IF they make a feature available in the EU, THEN it must be available to all competitors. You misread me. "it" in the phrase "they need to make it available to all headsets in the EU" was referring to features they release in the EU. So yes you're interpreting the law right, and so am I. > The hidden downside of regulation is a lot of stuff doesn't get built. It's just normally not so visible, but software is distributed worldwide so we can see the effect. If the deciding factor in whether something gets built is whether they can lock it to another product, it's usually okay for that thing to not be built. In this case, they obviously did build it. So now it's a matter of figuring out what the hold up is. If it's because they don't want to, even though it would make them money and make people in the EU happy, then that's pettiness.

toast0 1y ago

> I can also forward a caller to voicemail where their message is transcribed in real time, which is fundamentally the same mechanics. Voicemail greetings typically inform the caller the message will be recorded, and there'a often a beep which is an indicator of recording as well. If you don't consent to recording, you can hang up without leaving a message.

tcdent 1y ago

Isn't noise cancelling technically recording people in your environment in this sense then?

FirmwareBurner 1y ago
Why would it be? Noise cancelling is a DSP over current raw signal, no data storage.