Competition between Google and Apple has intensified due to the European Commission's (EC) requirements for the future operation of their voice assistants. These companies hold a significant advantage in the artificial intelligence race due to control over billions of smartphones worldwide.
According to research firm Omdia, Google and Apple jointly control about 5 billion active Android and iPhone devices. As AI becomes increasingly widespread and specialized, both tech giants allow their assistants to perform tasks, not just answer questions. However, the European Commission insists that other virtual assistants must have the same high status on smartphones as Google's Gemini and Apple's Siri.
Under the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which came into force in the region in 2023, the EU requires Google to provide broader access to Android for other AI agents by July 2027. The Commission believes this requirement will help level the playing field in the AI sector. Omdia estimates that about 427 million iPhones and Android phones fall under EU regulation.
Nevertheless, Apple and Google argue that opening up their platforms could raise serious privacy concerns. In June, Apple announced it would not launch its new AI assistant Siri on iPhone and iPad devices in the EU due to the Digital Markets Act. Experts agree that granting external services access to Apple and Google operating systems could pose a threat to user security and privacy.
Some critics question whether privacy is Google's primary motivation for opposing EU rules. Kelly Schroeder, Senior Counsel and Director of the AI and Human Rights Program at the Electronic Privacy and Information Center, told CNN: 'I would say we should view these tech companies' arguments skeptically and examine whether they cared about privacy until the decision suddenly affected them unfavorably.'
The Commission wants Android users in the EU to have a 'broader and more functionally rich choice of options for both their AI services and search services.' According to a press release last week, EU users must be able to use other voice AI agents and apply third-party AI agents to manage applications on their behalf on Android, similar to how it is done with Gemini. Furthermore, the EU requires Google to share search data with other search engines and chatbots so that other companies can offer an experience similar to Google Search. Google is obligated to begin sharing search data in January in accordance with the new mandate.
Kent Walker, President of Global Affairs at Google and Alphabet, wrote in a statement on Thursday that changes to Android would create a serious security risk by giving external apps 'sensitive and powerful permissions on the device.' He added that sharing search data 'would weaken citizen privacy, jeopardize trade secrets, and endanger national security.' Sameer Samat, President of Android at Google, stated in an X post on Friday that the European Commission 'is moving in the wrong direction' with its rules, and that users can choose another assistant themselves since Android settings include a default change option.
Apple also raised similar privacy concerns, stating that EU requirements would force the company to 'give any virtual assistant direct access to users' private data.' Apple reported that it had proposed solutions that were rejected by the EU but would continue to cooperate with regulators. An EC representative noted that regular contact is being maintained with Apple on this matter. The representative also emphasized that large tech companies falling under the DMA, known as 'gatekeepers,' 'can implement appropriate measures to protect privacy, security, and integrity.'
The implementation of rules like the Digital Markets Act could potentially affect Apple's and Google's influence over their smartphone software. As Björhovde notes, ChatGPT is already installed on approximately 30% of smartphones in the EU, and EU rules could give OpenAI an additional advantage. Omdia analyst Runar Björhovde told CNN via email: 'The question is what the consequences are for Google or the consumer if a user can use ChatGPT to book Uber, completely bypassing the need to interact with Android.'
The new EU mandate also raises critical questions about privacy in the age of AI and the difficulties faced by tech companies and regulators. Schroeder warned that without proper safeguards built into the software, giving apps deeper access to Android or iOS could allow them to surreptitiously extract information from users' phones. There is also a risk of AI assistant failure, the consequences of which could be critical if the agent has access to the user's messages, location, screen, and microphones. Michael Stokes, Vice President of New Technologies at Veilant, noted: 'It could exercise the user's delegated authority to perform other actions that the user might not want to happen.'
Google argues that phone manufacturers such as Samsung will adopt and verify such decisions if AI agents are granted similar permissions. Historically, technological progress has always required some compromise in privacy, such as granting apps location access for more accurate recommendations. However, AI systems are often trained by collecting vast amounts of data from the internet, which may include users' personal information without their knowledge. Schroeder concluded: 'We also want to ensure that users are aware of the risks they are taking by interacting with AI systems. And I think this is where we need to catch up a bit.'
Last Friday (17), the office of the San Francisco city attorney sent formal notifications to both Apple and Google. The objective was to demand the removal of thirteen face-swapping applications linked to the creation of artificially generated nudity images without the consent of the people depicted.
The municipal action specifically targets tools that use artificial intelligence to modify individuals' photographs, resulting in sexualized material. According to the city hall, these digital platforms profit from such services through payments made within the applications themselves.
This initiative arises after investigations revealed that applications initially presented as simple image editors could be used in the production of sexually explicit deepfakes. The victims most affected by this type of content are women and girls.
The letters addressed to the two tech giants were signed by San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu. He emphasized that generating intimate images without permission constitutes an illegal and harmful practice, requiring Apple and Google to prevent the use of their digital ecosystems to facilitate abuse.
The city representative also requested that the companies terminate any business relationships with developers responsible for these types of applications. Furthermore, the demand extends to the payment systems of the virtual stores, where the companies receive part of the revenue generated by this software.
Both Apple and Google stated they have strict guidelines against pornography, harassment, and any abusive content on their respective platforms. Apple communicated that it has removed three of the applications pointed out by the city and has already begun the process of suspending the accounts of the involved developers. The company warned that other creators may also be excluded if they do not correct the detected infringements.
For its part, Google announced the removal of hundreds of applications containing 'nudification' features for violating its policies. The company also reported suspending similar tools and implementing restrictions on search terms related to this service within the app store.
The surveys cited in the municipal investigation indicated that the problem is not limited only to applications clearly labeled as artificial nudity tools. The studies discovered face-swapping programs that, despite being presented as common editing features, enabled the creation of sexualized images without effective protections.
A survey mentioned in the text identified hundreds of face-swapping applications available on the Apple and Google stores. A considerable portion of these programs allowed the creation of nude montages, even if they were not officially advertised for that purpose.
This proliferation of tools occurred parallel to the advancement of generative artificial intelligence systems, which significantly reduced the technical complexity required to produce realistic fake images. Experts cited in the article noted that just one reference photo and a few commands are enough to generate this type of content.
The City of San Francisco declared that it will continue to evaluate legal actions against companies that allow the circulation of these tools. The stated purpose of the agency is to force the platforms to improve their analysis mechanisms before making new applications available.
When submitting resumes and tailoring documents for different opportunities, candidates may notice that the responses received are often similar. An investigation conducted by Stanford University suggests that this similarity may not be a coincidence.
The researchers analyzed millions of applications and concluded that various companies may employ artificial intelligence systems that replicate the same acceptance and rejection criteria. The research, titled Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring, examined about 4 million applications submitted by over 3.4 million individuals to 156 companies across 11 economic sectors.
A crucial factor identified was that all these organizations were using algorithms provided by the same vendor. This detail allowed for the identification of the phenomenon known as 'algorithmic monoculture,' a term inspired by agriculture, where vast areas are dedicated to a single type of crop. When many companies adopt similar tools, the probability increases that they will evaluate applicants following essentially the same logic, which applies to both successes and failures inherent in the models.
Another relevant finding concerns similar candidate profiles. According to the study, individuals with analogous characteristics tend to receive consistent evaluations, even when competing for positions at different corporations. The primary results reveal that approximately 10% of candidates participating in four selection processes are rejected in all of them. Additionally, about 4% of those who apply for ten positions suffer ten consecutive rejections.
The rejections occur more frequently than expected in independently made decisions. It is notable that many resumes are eliminated before even being reviewed by a human recruiter. To confirm whether this behavior was random, the researchers compared the data with a theoretical baseline and previous studies on recruitment without algorithmic centralization, demonstrating that successive rejections reflect a common pattern across different selection processes.
According to the simulations conducted, continuing to submit resumes is still advantageous. The study points out that increasing the volume of applications improves the chances of obtaining an opportunity, although this benefit decreases when companies use identical systems. In a scenario where decisions are autonomous, about ten applications would be sufficient to achieve a high probability of receiving at least one positive recommendation. However, when processes are mediated by centralized platforms, this number rises to approximately 25 applications to ensure a 99.9% probability.
The authors also issued a warning about the concentration of the technology market focused on recruitment. Since few vendors serve many companies, any existing biases or limitations can spread rapidly. Furthermore, the lack of transparency in these platforms hinders independent research and complicates the understanding of how such tools impact employment access, especially since, for many candidates, this entire process occurs without them knowing that an algorithm performed the initial resume screening.
