The EU is forcing Google to give rival AI assistants the same access as Gemini on Android

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 2,029   +59
Staff
What just happened? European Union regulators are forcing Google to change how Android handles artificial intelligence, ordering the company to open up the operating system and its search data to competing AI services. Under a binding decision announced on Thursday, Google must grant rival AI assistants the same system-level access that its Gemini assistant enjoys on Android phones in the bloc. The move is intended to prevent Google from using Android's vast reach to tilt the fast-growing AI market in its favor and to ensure that competing services have a fair opportunity to reach users.

The stakes are high. Android powers about 60% of smartphones in the European Union, and AI companies see those devices as the primary gateway for turning chatbots into everyday assistants. The deeper a service is integrated into a device – reading the screen, handling messages, and interacting with other apps – the more useful it becomes. That is precisely the layer of control EU officials are now trying to open up.

Regulators said Google will have to place rival AI services on "equal footing" with Gemini. That includes access to voice commands, system search, and the ability to perform actions in other apps, such as ordering a ride, replying to a text message, or pulling up information about a place a user recently visited. The changes must be implemented by next July.

The order also extends beyond the operating system. By January, Google will have to begin sharing anonymized search data with competing services, including developers of AI chatbots. The goal is to give those rivals access to more of the behavioral signals that help improve search and assistant products without exposing individual users.

Google has not said whether it will challenge the ruling in court. Instead, the company has warned that the EU's demands could create new risks.

"Today's decisions risk undermining vital privacy and security safeguards for millions of Europeans," Kent Walker, Google's general counsel, said in a statement. Google argues that allowing third-party developers to access sensitive data stored on a person's smartphone or in their search history could weaken the protections built into its products.

European officials see it differently. The bloc has long taken a tough stance toward large technology platforms, and it views artificial intelligence as the next gateway to digital services. In their view, allowing a handful of companies to control the main AI assistants built into phones, browsers, and operating systems would entrench those players and shut out competitors.

The legal basis for the ruling is the Digital Markets Act, a competition law that applies to gatekeeper companies such as Google and Apple. The DMA requires them to make their products interoperable so that outside developers can offer competing AI assistants alongside – or instead of – built-in options such as Google's Gemini and Apple's Siri.

That requirement is already causing friction. In June, Apple said it would withhold new AI features for Siri in the European Union because it could not reach an agreement with regulators. As a result, iPhone users in the bloc will not receive the same Siri upgrades that Apple plans to roll out elsewhere, at least for now.

At the same time, some AI companies are trying to sidestep the mobile platform issue entirely by developing their own hardware. Last year, OpenAI hired Jony Ive, Apple's former chief designer, to lead work on new AI-centric devices. The goal is to create products in which an AI assistant serves as the primary interface, rather than one that operates within another company's operating system.

That partnership is now under strain. Last week, Apple sued OpenAI, accusing the company of stealing trade secrets. OpenAI has denied the allegations.

Permalink to story:

 
Great stuff. Any other ai provider wouldn't be able to compete on Android platforms if only Gemini could access the device, so even a better product from competition would be perceived as worse because use wouldn't be able to ask ai to create calendar entry or similar.

It's not like I would ever allow any ai to get access to my phone, but if anyone wants it, it is always better to have a healthy choice.
 
The most revolutionary thing about the AI Revolution is that there is no AI.
If confronted with these simple facts, they revert to philosophical justifications of why they should be able to use whatever words they want anyways. What is life, what is consciousness? That sort of thing.
 
Enforcing competition is a good thing, but on the other hand anyone can install whatever AI app they want on their phone. Allowing any app to access the phone the same way as the built-in default app is definitely a security risk. What should be demanded is the underlying OS to provide granular access control to these assistants, with very conservative defaults (basically access to everything denied) and let the user decide.
I'm not sure how anonymized search data pipelines are supposed to work in practice, if search is done through an app associated with a user account.
 
The most revolutionary thing about the AI Revolution is that there is no AI.
If confronted with these simple facts, they revert to philosophical justifications of why they should be able to use whatever words they want anyways. What is life, what is consciousness? That sort of thing.

This is an *****ic response. The term "artificial intelligence" was coined specifically to refer to said technological development. By definition, the usage within that context is correct. Arguments about consciousness, life, etc. are outside the scope of both the term and the technology (at this time).
 
I'm not sure how anonymized search data pipelines are supposed to work in practice, if search is done through an app associated with a user account.

Generally it would mean stripping identity metadata. IP address, phone number, physical address, Geo location, etc... in practice it is essentially impossible. The search itself could (and often does) contain private data.
 
Back