That's basically what we built at Tinfoil. We run open source models inside secure enclaves (also using Intel TDX/AMD SEV-SNP + NVIDIA Confidential Computing). All the code running inside the enclave is open source and the client SDKs (also open source) automatically verify that the pinned source code matches the runtime attestation. The protocol used is TLS (terminates in the enclave) + HPKE keys generated inside the enclave on boot. Docs walk you through the verification process: https://docs.tinfoil.sh/verification/verification-in-tinfoil

Of course, we can't support Claude or Grok as they are closed source, but there is no incentive for companies that need your data to train the next generation of models to allow for private inference. One day...

Apple isn't shipping this in the EU

Funny, OP wants them to force a feature via regulation, and regulation is the reason they won’t even deliver the feature in question. Death by regulation.

The business model is the reason they won’t deliver the feature (allowing the end-user to choose the backend model).

This just means the feature has little ROI or market value

Yes, it doesn’t have enough ROI potential with the given regulation.

Apple isn’t giving up the market of neither the EU nor China.

They didn't say they aren't shipping in China, just working through regulatory issues. I assume that means they're working on a China-operated "private" cloud compute instance like every other US cloud provider

They did say that they are specifically not shipping in the EU because of the DMA, so until the DMA or the EC's interpretation of the DMA, changes, these new AI features aren't shipping there. That is not the same thing as Apple abandoning the EU.

The EC wrote the DMA. There is nothing to "interpret" for them.

My Brother in Christ, different administrations can and do "interpret" laws differently all the time. Sometimes even the same administration might change how they enforce a law.

Also, technically didn't the EU Parliament write and pass the DMA, and the EC enforces it? I'm not European so I don't know the intricate details of the incredibly Byzantine process of the EU so maybe I'm wrong there

“Let’s not indulge US regulators fantasies that they get to dictate the product design of cars from non-US countries.”

Of course governments have the ability to decide what products are sold in their countries and how.

They ultimately don't have that power. All they can do is block the sale of products. Arguably, that power gives them leverage to negotiate the availability of some products or features. But as this Apple case shows, this negotiating leverage is limited.

Why would it be ok that a monopoly business prevents free competition and consumer choice by only allowing certain or a single model provider that likely gives them kickback via some opaque business deal?

> EU regulators' fantasies that they get to dictate the product design of products from non-EU countries.

They should get to regulate the design of products from non-EU countries only those that are sold inside EU.

The fact that it is not cost effective for Apple to design two separate products(software or hardware) for EU and non-EU is an Apple problem.