Tell HN: Apple not letting removal of AI models on macOS 27 is outrageous

I feel like there's not enough outrage over Apple not removing their Apple Intelligence models on macOS 27 even after disabling Siri.

I have a 512 GB Mac mini but because I have so much data, I also have a 2 TB monthly iCloud subscription. I have Siri AI turned off. Yet, my storage settings show 30 GB is occupied by useless Apple Intelligence models which I don't use. And these models can't even be moved to my 2 TB iCloud subscription. It's really pissing me off.

I feel like there needs to be a lot more negative publicity about this to get Apple's attention. More tech blogs should be writing about how horrible of a decision this is. I am hoping this post does that.

29 points | by busymom0 1 hour ago

12 comments

  • lode 1 hour ago
    While I agree with you, there is an unofficial (and reversible) tool which can help you reclaim this space:

    https://github.com/omlahore/RemoveMacAI (to be complete: it seems to be based on https://github.com/4evy/pared)

    discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49957116

    [-]
  • anilgulecha 42 minutes ago
    No better time, specially with open source apps seeing a huge growth, than now, to give Linux a chance. I recommend Fedora Silverblue - hassleless, secure, fully auto updated, easy to setup.
  • aeturnum 1 hour ago
    I also do not use them - but there are lots of bits of the OS that I don't use and AI does not feel different to me. Given its many uses and that there are people who are enthusiastically adopting it I think adding it makes sense and you can't totally remove most other OS features so it feels odd to expect it here.
    [-]
    • wang_li 1 hour ago
      A fresh install of Tahoe is 15 GB. 30 GB of models is not reasonable when they are selling machines with 256 GB of non-upgradeable internal storage.
    • blauervogel 1 hour ago
      All other OS features combined do not use so much disk space
  • monkellipse 1 hour ago
    100% agreed, outrageous. Sadly I don’t know what else to say or do, feels like shouting into the wind at this point…
  • RhysU 15 minutes ago
    You're outraged that Apple is exerting control over its closed ecosystem?

    It's... Apple.

    You surrendered this control long ago. There were and are alternatives.

    [-]
    • samstress 12 minutes ago
      My thoughts too. Isn't much of the appeal of Apple to non-developers that it just sorta works without you having to think too much about it? That means that Apple necessarily just makes decisions on your behalf.

      If they'd allow for more fine-grained control of low level aspects, a lot of their plug-and-play promise would no longer apply.

      [-]
      • RhysU 6 minutes ago
        It's like the OP only watched the 1984 advertisement and has no knowledge of the intervening 42 years.
  • blauervogel 1 hour ago
    I am having the MacBook Air M1 with 256gb. I won’t upgrade until the removal is possible
  • anon48293 1 hour ago
    I personally feel that whatever storage is being advertised, ought to be actually user-usable storage.

    100gb storage, but 10gb is OS and 20gb is reserved for other nonsense? Fine, but then you ought to only be allowed to advertise as having 70gb storage.

    Same for cloud storage. And whilst we’re at it, internet speeds with “up to” speeds.

    Seems like a worthy citizen initiative to get the EU to look at.

  • Simulacra 54 minutes ago
    Downgrade. Golden Gate is a golden pile of poo. Took me two hours but now I'm happily back on Sequoia
  • dyauspitr 1 hour ago
    Hopefully this finally forces Apple to offer much higher storage on their base models. That being said, I don’t mind these on device models because it gives app developers an additional tool to do on device processing rather than pay for compute on the cloud.
  • robthebrew 1 hour ago
    does nobody read comments? https://github.com/4evy/pared
  • softsyncron 1 hour ago
    [flagged]
  • throwuxiytayq 1 hour ago
    Apple still only start treating their own users with respect once we lawfully require them to support Linux on all Apple devices. Which is what we should be doing.
    [-]
    • gruez 1 hour ago
      >once we lawfully require them to support Linux on all Apple devices

      How would that even work? The bootloader isn't even locked, so it's just driver support, in which case, why should hardware companies be mandated to write linux drivers?

      [-]
      • billev2k 43 minutes ago
        Yes. But environmental and anti-obsolence considerations might lead us to require good documentation of hardware. Then those who care would have what they need to write their own drivers. (Well, those who care and have the chops.)
      • throwuxiytayq 31 minutes ago
        Not all hardware companies, just the one with easily the world's largest (customer device count)x(closedness and ill will)x(cash in bank) volume.

        Although, now that I think about it, maybe NVIDIA should also be compelled to support an open-source, community-controlled driver stack. I mean, if AMD can do it, then so can they.

        Laws exist to make everyone's lives better. Apple can afford it, and doing this would gift the world a breathtaking amount of value. There are no downsides.