I'd wager that for 99.9% of "Apple Intelligence" tasks, Google's models perform just as well as other frontier labs. Google also has done more work on getting LLMs running on edge devices compared to anthropic and openAI.

The source also says > The new architecture centers on Apple Foundation Models co-developed with Google, which Apple says are adapted to run both on-device and on servers through its existing Private Cloud Compute infrastructure

Which could mean Google and Apple have trained some custom models, probably the on-device ones, specifically tailored towards Apple's hardware.

I see it differently… Apple has chosen to treat the model as a commodity. By making Gemini an implementation detail, they leave the door open to swap it out for Anthropic or OpenAI without end-users even knowing or caring. So I think they're creating leverage in any future negotiation.

Maybe they're looking for stability and trust Google to be around longer than Antrophic or OpenAI when the storm starts.

> It's strange to me that Apple would choose to disadvantage themselves by selecting Google as their provider as opposed to, say, Anthropic or even OpenAI. Doesn't this mean they'll struggle more to differentiate themselves from the assistant on Android phones? Thinking more cynically, couldn't Google, if they wanted, feed Apple an inferior version of Gemini, ensuring they stay ahead?

Is it really all that difference from Apple defaulting to Google's search engine?

At the time Apple made this decision there wasn’t as strong of a difference in model quality between Google, anthropic, and OpenAI as there is now. Also Apple definitely burnt some bridges with OpenAI on the agreement they made together a year earlier.

OpenAI and Anthropic don't make small models. Google happens to already have a billion devices that would benefit from small models, so they made one. Google basically gets 1 billion per year for free*.

Only Google was willing to do what Apple wanted for a reasonable price.

They licensed Gemini and Google infrastructure not just for use, but to accelerate the creation of the three independent Apple Foundation Models announced today:

- AFM Core

- AFM Core Advanced

- AFM Cloud

Google also worked to be able to host AFM Cloud on their infrastructure per Apple's private cloud compute architecture, including some form of independent third party review/audit.

I suspect the only two organizations with both the model and the infrastructure needed for Apple were Google and xAI - and I'm not sure Apple would touch Grok with a ten foot pole, even if xAI were willing to let it be used for training.

Gemini is better than either at multi modal, google also has their tensor processor stuff with ridiculously high T/s output they need for acceptable UX

It may be a clever move. By using the same models as android (contractually?), they can compete on the user experience which they typically handle better than android phone providers.

Google will probably eventually pay Apple to be the assistant, a la search.

Google was likely the only lab grown up enough that could handle Apple's volume and requests.

Apple was not going to hand over the keys to AI to just anyone.

Apple is a Fortune 5 company with a brand value alone worth more than any of these AI labs besides Google.

There's too much at stake for them to not play it safe. There's almost nothing to gain taking a risk

> or even OpenAI

Apple originally partnered with OpenAI. We won’t know all the details for some time, but given OpenAI’s penchant for drama (they started leaking that they might sue Apple [1]), it seems fair to sideline them as a long-term partner.

[1] https://www.macrumors.com/2026/05/14/openai-considering-lega...

> It's strange to me that Apple would choose to disadvantage themselves

How exactly are they disadvantaging themselves? Perhaps expand on that opinion a bit, and the data/assumptions you're making in forming it.

My naive assumption is that they're going to do what everyone is doing: make tooling that lets you swap in any model.

I don't think it's fair to assume incompetence, on their part. I think it's much safer to assume they're doing what's best for them, and it's very clear to them what's best (money, support, etc).

Didn’t Apple talked to Anthropic as their first choice, but they couldn’t agree on an amount, almost similar to BeOS and Next remember them?

Google are the only one of the big three who can tick the boxes on being multimodal, price / performance and having Apple-level of compute available

They tried with OpenAI and that deal fell apart. My hunch is that they're considering their own device play given they brought Jony Ive on board.

Anthropic doesn't have the spare compute laying around to do this deal. Even they're buying compute from Google.

Anthropic or OpenAI have no foothold into the mobile market. Google has integrated a shitton of AI functionality into their latest Pixel phones. That’s what would scare me if I was Apple and worried that if AI prevails this could steal some market share from me. The other two are irrelevant in this context.

Maybe openai wasn’t up to the level of customization and privacy they needed

Also openai and Jonny Ive (love from) are cooking some device — may be personal

I'm speculating, but it's likely that Google is the only provider who is willing to adhere to the inference compute requirements that Apple sets out for their foundation models. They are, after all, the only provider that will let you host their FMs in your data center.

Didn't they famously have a search deal with Google (that they were also ultimately fined for - in the EU at least)? So there's definitely precedent with Google as a "partner".

A functioning FTC would not allow this. Insane that there will be no competition for integrated smartphone AI because the existing duopoly at the OS level has agreed to team up.

Anthropic would never provide weight to anyone for local hosting

What part of using Gemini do you think is a disadvantage?

Also important to remember how immature OpenAI and Anthropic are as companies. It would be a huge technical, legal, and reputational risk to commit to using them.

Google has very good small models which can run locally on a phone - Gemma4.

OpenAI/Anthropic have nothing in this segment.

Anthropic and OpenAI are stuck on slower and more expensive nvidia hardware. It doesn’t scale like googles TPUs.

You can be pretty sure that Google will be around us in a two year timeframe. Can't say the same neither about Anthropic or OpenAI.

TPUs

The agent harness matters just as much as the AI model. Using Hermes or OpenClaw feels like night vs day when using OpenAI’s apps even when using the same exact model.

You can even see difference in agent harnesses using the same model in the same company if you compare Gemini CLI with AntiGrav. They are different experiences.

I’m pretty sure Apple’s agent harness will be drastically different from Google’s even with the same model

The differentiation is the integration, not the model itself which is mostly fungible. And afaik Apple is running these models on their own compute, so I don't think google can pull a bait and switch.