Fantastic. It is the asymmetry in information collection that is so frustrating as a consumer. In an ideal marketplace, information flows freely, and informed choices make the market move towards efficient transactions. When no consumers know what information is being collected or how it’s used, and it’s value is obfuscated, then deep rifts in expectations can emerge.
We need more of this sunlight in order to make good decisions about how we generate and share information about our lives.
AFAIK, you don't. An iPhone will work fine without signing in to any Apple service and you can opt out of all Apple data collection right in the device.
I've set up several testing iDevices for work with no Apple accounts.
The only thing you can't do without an Apple account is to use the Apple services like the App Store and iCloud and other paid services.
I think even software updates can be done without an account, but I'm not sure since I haven't tried this.
People bought lots of iPhones before the App Store existed. Before Cydia even existed. They were pretty good. You could send SMS messages, browse the web, take photos, and play it like an iPod even.
FWIW, before Cydia there was Installer, and before that something whose name I am not quite remembering (and don't care to look up rocky now)... and I am pretty sure it was running on over 50% of all those original iPhones, as people really found it strange to have a cell phone without even a single game (even Nokia candy bar phones had Snake). (But yeah: at least some people clearly still wanted the device. But that was in a world where there wasn't tempting reason to as everything was accessible with a web browser. In 2019, that reality no longer exists, and without access to app store on a smartphone there are many many things you are cut off from.)
I think with the advent of web apps, the need for native iOS apps will decrease, at least in some areas. Fortunately, this happens to coincide with the advancements in internet speed and coverage.
In a few years: You want to play a game? Fine, let's bing it in Safari and play right there.
"there's an app for that" soon will become "there's a web app for that".
An iPhone can do a lot without any apps installed besides the stock apps. Pictures, calling, texting, web browsing, many many services online with a web interface like banking tinder facebook and many other popular platforms. The limitations of the original iPhone had some issues but Apple has slowly integrated the best features. That brings me to another point, many features apple copied from jailbreakers and you can also jailbreak some versions of ios and run all sorts of apps not in the app store.
I agree with you. Of course, an iPhone can surf the web, make calls, take pictures, run the calculator, etc. However, lack of means to install apps without the App Store (besides sideloading), can render any phone pretty much useless.
Android has problems of its own though. Yes, you could install apps easily without access to the Play Store. But most Android apps rely upon Google's Play Services one way or another, so those apps wouldn't work properly, if at all.
You do need an app to install via the app store on a mac desktop. if you mean via external methods then jailbreak? if you’re asking for apple to allow anybody to release an ipa on a site and allow download and install then this horse is dead already
I'm suggesting that app stores (iOS, Mac, Google Play) shouldn't require users to create an account just to download free apps. Partly for privacy, and partly because it's an unnecessary hurdle for users to jump over, and partly because it causes other issues like my Purchased list being polluted with too many free apps, making it hard to find what I actually purchased.
It's my device, not Apple's or Google's, so I should be able to download a third-party app without identifying myself to the app store owner.
In my last comment, I did not ask for iDevices to be able to install apps from outside the iOS app store.
My dad does not use / allow iOS access to his location on his iPhone. I am nonplussed by this and have tried to convince him of the value and yet he will not enable it.
for specifically the tracking issues, i do my best to avoid installing an app. currently the only thing on my phone that didn’t come stock are various chat apps (discord, steam, twitch) and the kindle app.
I have not set up an iPhone from scratch in over a year (in particular I'm uncertain if I have set up a device from scratch with ios 12, I know I have upgraded one)
Does your comment apply to non-phone iOS devices, or does it include iPhones?
With the latest OS, do you have to identify yourself or create an apple id to start using an iPhone?
I'm fairly certain that you don't have to identify in any way at least where I live (Germany). You need to register your Apple account with a valid E-Mail address, which can be as fake as you want it to be. Store credits can be bought anonymously with cash at gas stations or other brick and mortar stores.
Also, the problem is biologic : an human has a limited ability to receive, process and integrate new information for a given period of time.
The data centers and CPUs are able to process magnitude more "information" than a single human, the market cannot be a free flow of information between humans and machines.
We have to define what the quantity of information an human can reasonably receive and give attention to, and put some limit into the market to not overhelm people.
It seems a bit extreme to offer apps one of two extremes: either my sub-metre location or no location at all. It seems the reasonable default for location sharing should be something like sharing the rough suburb that I'm in. This solves most use-cases such as showing closest store locations, delivery options, dating apps showing nearby matches, etc. It's only the occasional navigation app that needs to know exactly where the user is located.
I specifically get directions “home” to a neighbor’s house a bit away. Once I know where I am, I kill Google Maps. I’m sure they could, if they wanted to badly enough, figure the whole thing out, but at least my profile has a certain amount of uncertainty (though what utility that has is probably debatable).
I would love to be able to fuzz my location within a certain (randomized?) radius of my home for certain apps. Strava has a ‘privacy circle’ that essentially accomplishes this when sharing GPX tracks of runs around one’s home. An OS-level feature would be fantastic in many cases.
The wifi and cell towers your phone can see, so even without using GPS.
If you enable the location services of google, it keeps a history which is typically within 50 meters, within a few minutes accurate (at least in a city).
What google tracks if you disable location services, I don't know.
Just so you know, if you're using regular Google-infused Android, then depending on how you ‘kill’ Maps it may still be running in the background. And it may start in the background without you running the app.
I'd also bet that Google's other apps transmit your location anyway―if only because other apps use it too―and that it's not necessarily reflected in the timeline in the web profile.
I have a different maps app (Yandex) that keeps popping up in the process list despite me killing it off with ‘force stop.’ Probably not the only one, for that matter.
Flicking an app in the recent apps list doesn't close its background processes. And you won't see it there when such a process runs again. See e.g. the ‘OS Monitor’ app for the actual list of processes (for Android ≤6).
Google's apps are likely even more privileged. Play Store hogs the processor and network every time I enable wifi. On a past phone, Google Maps also ran conspicuously on boot and, iirc, when wifi was turned on.
Something might've changed in newer versions of Android, dunno. But I doubt it that Google would limit its own abilities.
> I would love to be able to fuzz my location within a certain (randomized?) radius of my home for certain apps
I'm not sure about the details of the implementation but with location you still want something reasonably accurate. So the random radius can't vary too wildly. After you collect enough data points couldn't you infer the real location from that circle?
That's a good feature but quite different, if the user is at home when they need to use the app that first time then it reveals where the user lives and possibly personally identifies them.
Your IP address when on WiFi almost certainly can be connected to a specific address by a databroker. That doesn't mean location shouldn't be limited in resolution, but there are other ways to get the same thing.
Isn’t is usually SSIDs that are used for location mapping of WiFi access points. The mapping cars gather that information when they’re doing street view stuff.
There is a difference between sharing your IP address with a data broker to maybe get your location (which may not even be possible with GDPR?), and having your exact GPS coordinates sent directly to your database.
Oh, you’re right of course, I was misremembering that they won’t be able to get the ssids of nearby wifi networks. However, a vpn is a solution to the ip address problem.
People are actually working on something very similar to this in research [1]. By applying random noise to location data the user's individual privacy can be protected while still allowing for collection of usage (or in this case location) statistics etc. This is the key idea behind local differential privacy (which Apple also uses to collect anonymous statistics on usage data [2]).
Yahoo's Fireagle was an attempt to make a "Location broker" for apps. You could allow applications as much or as little detail as you like. I think it was a product before it's time.
Would this be possible with todays phone and hardware etc?
Good gravy this would be an abysmal report on Android. In my experience many of the free utility apps and games I downloaded required location tracking for no good reason. I’m on iOS for that (and other) reasons.
LineageOS + Xposed which gives you MUCH better control than iOS. In particular there are plugins that allow you to fake certain info to apps, including returning fake IMEI and fake sensor data.
And also trips (unless you try really hard) the stupid "Safety Check" which I can see as beneficial in some cases (i.e. banking apps) but .. is frustrating in other cases (like Pokémon Go, other games/apps).
There are plugins for Xposed that let you fake these data on a per-app basis, so if you want an app to have access to real data you can allow that as well.
Android also has a terrible issue with not having good options on this front. You have to either not download the video game that needs open access to your contacts or micromanage some sketchy looking app that will help you “block” these sorts of things.
You can selectively deny permissible requests after the app is installed, but what irritates me is that granting access to my location allows the app to continually track me while it's running in the background (even if you never open the app). I've heard this will change in a future version of Android.
I discovered this when I was scrolling through the DTEK app on my BlackBerry, which shows every time an app requests sensitive data access, and saw that a bunch of apps that I hadn't opened in a while (like GasBuddy) were accessing my location every 5 minutes.
I don't think background location works anymore. My GPS logger I use for cycling gets killed after about 20 minutes if it isn't the currently open app when I turn off the screen.
This is not Android thing (yet). Just some vendors, start killing apps in the background. However this is developers nightmare, as they can't deliver consistent experience across all devices. IMO background tracking (with all restrictions, killing...) should be handled directly by AndroidOS, not by vendors. Checkout https://dontkillmyapp.com
I know. I have been a fan of Android for years, but with the privacy issues related to Google I can't help but to think that my next device will be an iPhone. My Galaxy S8+ still works perfectly fine though, so I'm not sure I'm ready to buy something I don't need.
The ones i am aware are all useless (battery saver, space cleaner etc), and at some point one or two was requesting screenshot access (forgot the name) under the false pretense of "accesibility".
I get a notification on my Galaxy S9 each time an app tries to access my location, microphone, etc. It's called permissions monitor and it appears to either be part of Android itself or a feature Samsung added to my device.
> iMessage lock-in
> SMS from desktop solution
> Animojis is probably the biggest one
Every so often I am reminded people still use SMS, and by extension, iMessage. I think a combination of being in South East Asia for a long time, and also moving around so much, and both me (and almost everyone I know) uses various messaging apps not tied to a phone number (WhatsApp, Messenger, LINE). I have a British VOIP number where SMS goes through to my email.
I wonder how much longer phone numbers, and, by association, SMS have to live.
I wish I could also give apps "coarse" information about my location. Say down to a mile, or even just the zipcode (5 digits only). I.e. if a news app wants to know what to serve to me, zipcode is quite enough. If I'm looking for pizza on yelp they don't need my exact location. That way on the one hand the apps can function, but on the other they can't really track you accurately enough for it to be terribly privacy-invasive.
Is it my idea or Apple is aggressively betting more and more in providing privacy to end users? Also it seems that the other side of the party (Android and free services) is moving fast towards the other end of the spectrum.
I am glad I shifted to iPhone a year back and was able to convince my wife to shift too last month. Why people who can afford a price of iPhone buy other brand is beyond my understanding. When apps are not even reviewed by anyone on Android then it certainly puts the user at more risk compared to iOS user.
Some people are willing to accept a small amount of risk to be able to do what they want with their device without being restricted to what the manufacturer says is OK.
Apple might end up becoming a benevolent king for whoever decides (and can afford) to use its ecosystem.
I'm in favour of that, I wish it will democratize this concept to other companies, although it's unlikely Google will since it's in competition with their core business model.
Yeah, but what if the marketing isn’t for consumers?
What if someone at Apple was smart enough to figure out that the rampant abuses perpetrated by privacy-monetizing Silicon Valley et al. were ultimately time-limited and would blow up eventually?
What if Apple’s privacy-focused marketing was aimed at regulators?
It’s a trade off between convenience and security. Consumers _do_ care, just not enough to put unusual amounts of effort in. These moves by Apple make it much easier, and could become things consumers expect from their devices, since they don’t have to give up convenience to have them.
I'd modify your idea to say "consumers generally don't make decisions based on privacy alone" -- a much milder take that leaves a lot of room for experimentation in the future.
The numbers show the company advancing privacy for consumers is reaping 90%+ of the profits in the business. While it’s not conclusive proof, I would say that the company might know something about what their customers want.
I predict apps will spam location requests to induce decision fatigue on the 'share once' users, who will switch to 'share while using' or 'share always'
According to the WWDC video [1], this can't happen. Your app has to test for permission every time you want it, and iOS decides when to show the permission dialog.
Additionally, the 'share always' option goes away. Your app has to earn it, or petition Apple directly for that permission. The 'share while using' is also now temporary, as iOS will periodically ask the user to confirm that this is what they want. iOS does this when the user is not using the app (on the home screen), which is why you must now check to see if you have permission every single time.
I've been using the location tracking permission setting from day one. But still, making it more obvious and visible is a win for users who are less aware.
I really don't understand how people can simultaneously say that Apple is anti-consumer and then ignore moves like this that not only show that Apple is committed to consumers. It would be so easy for them to gather all this info and sell it to advertisers and third-parties and yet they refuse to.
On top of that, I think it's strangely telling that most of the anti-Apple stories when it comes to the "right to repair" movement all have to misrepresent what Apple is doing or why they're taking the action they are in order to make the story interesting and fit the anti-consumer narrative. We live in a really strange time.
Not being able to repair your device is anti-consumer–in a vacuum. In the real world, there are trade offs: making devices repairable makes them thicker, more complicated, etc. Those that understand this and feel that Apple is compromising in the wrong direction have a reasonable opinion.
However, there is quite a bit of misrepresentation as you mention: often “right to repair” people forget that this compromise exists. In particularly egregious examples (YouTubers in particular) they willfully neglect to discuss this. Off the top of my head, Louis Rossmann has literally lied to people to stir up controversy: see the media outrage about “Apple confiscating batteries”, which was completely orchestrated.
Repairing an apple device is extraordinarily expensive compared to many of the other brands because apple devices tend to have everything glued and soldered together so if of one part dies you have to replace half of the laptop.
Unless the device is brand new it is almost never a cost effective idea to repair an apple device even if the actual part broken is very cheap.
That's not true at all. They're fighting to stop stores from repairing items claiming that they're using original Apple parts when they're actually refurbished.
This is the kind of misrepresentation that I'm talking about and it hurts both the "right to repair" movement and the tech industry.
there’s quite a bit of proper criticism also. parts and schematics should be available for DIY or 3rd party repair. it’s not all “apple is misunderstood “ as you are framing it.
Why should they be available for 3rd party repair? If ifixit wants to do a teardown of the devices and document them then that's fine. I think it's completely reasonable for Apple to require a certification in order to get manuals, parts, and schematics. When something like a cheap, third-party screen replacement inevitably ends in an "iPhones suck, mine misses my taps and shuts off randomly", it's Apple that looks bad, not the 3rd party kiosk that uses shit components.
The solution to this is simple, the device could cryptographically verify the parts in it and if it detects a 3rd party part then on boot it shows a message saying "An unofficial touchscreen is installed" then the user knows if the touchscreen is working shit its probably because of that and if you sell the device the buyer knows what they are getting.
This is already the case. TouchID will disable on a device with a screen that is not re-keyed. Your solution isn't simple at all because it doesn't actually address the problem.
It does. Touch ID is just disabled and a message pops up saying that the display key doesn't match the Secure Enclave and that Touch ID has been disabled.
It’s not unimaginable that Apple could be pro consumer in terms of privacy (at least relative to their competitors) and anti-consumer in terms of repairability and replacability (relative to their competitors).
Apple can both make choices and improve user security and make choices that hurt user's ability to repair their devices. They should obviously be commended for things like this app tracking, but that doesn't mean they don't do bad things.
Refer what other comments says about un-repairability of Apple hardware, or software slowdowns, or the inability to replace the battery on phones/tablets.
The answer seems to be that Apple doesn't have a monolithic pro/anti consumer opinion, but just whatever is better for their business profits.
- Do whatever they can to push people to buy more devices and more expensive ones.
- Do whatever they can to make their iOS devices seem preferable to Android.
Apple is not a special snowflake, as far as large corporations go.
Except that people are misrepresenting all 3 of those situations to make their point. Apple didn't slow down people's phones in order to get them to buy newer models. They actually slowed them down to extend their lifespans when the battery started to fail. While I do think that they could have communicated that better and that their current solution is pretty decent, it's a huge leap to say that this was an intentional move on their part to screw their customers over.
And the repairability and replacement are also 2 things that I understand because it forces users to ensure that they're using genuine Apple components that won't detract from the device or the experience of using it. When so much of your business stems from the reputation of having quality products, third-party repairability seems like a terrible trade-off if there's no quality control.
As I understand it, Apple increased the peak power usage of the 6S (as a result of making the processor faster), but chose to use the same battery (in order to avoid making the phone thicker). As a result, unexpected shutdowns became much more common - while this did happen on older models, it seems to have been much less frequent.
Strictly compared to the alternative of letting people's phone shut off, throttling seems like the right decision, but I would also argue that Apple produced a defective product, where the battery wore out much quicker than consumers expected (because even if it had sufficient capacity, it couldn't provide the peak power necessary). As a result, Apple's decision seems more like a way to cover up their design flaws, rather than to actually be helpful to consumers.
Disagreeing with Apple PR (which you're repeating here ( isn't misrepresenting the issue. It's just disagreeing that Apple's official explanation is beneficial for consumers.
It's not disagreeing with Apple PR. People are saying that Apple hid the CPU slowdown from consumers to fix a problem with the batteries so that people would be forced to upgrade to newer devices. That's not true and the only evidence needed is that the release notes, which are shown to everyone before the device is updated, said exactly what the resolution and throttling were for. The only disagreement to be had is whether or not they could have been more vocal about the change (they could have) and whether putting it in the changelog was enough (it wasn't). It was absolutely beneficial to those customers suffering from the issue but it should have been communicated better which, unfortunately, is not at all what's being argued.
I've heard plenty of arguments that don't misrepresent Apple. For example, the iPhone has never had replaceable batteries. Also, they were proven to slow down old phones without telling users why, until it became an ordeal [1].
Please don't spread misinformation. It causes real damage.
Your statement is verifiable misinformation.
I am a customer who was actually experiencing unexpected shutdowns due to voltage spikes on a naturally degraded Li-Ion battery on my iPhone 6s. This is something that happens to all Li-Ion batteries. I had experienced this on my previous Android phones too when they got old.
The change Apple made was throttling the voltage from spiking to a point that it can shut down a degraded battery when your phone estimates that it has 50% charge left. Yes, this means older phones with degraded battery health (due to normal wear/tear) would run a bit slower. This is the right thing to do because otherwise it means customers would have phones shutting down unexpectedly when they needed them the most (e.g. calling an Uber, or some other critical function). It's a serious issue that absolutely needed addressing, and I'm glad Apple addressed it (and I hope other manufacturers do too).
The mistake Apple made was not communicating this change more widely or explaining in more detail from the start. But they did communicate it in the change notes of the original update they delivered. They weren't trying to intentionally hide it like you're trying to imply.
I made the appropriate edit in my original comment.
edit - Apple did not communicate this information to users from the start...that is not misinformation. When I replied to your comment, your comment originally consisted of just your first sentence.
> they were proven to degrade old software to strong-arm users to update
I don't recall this being proven. I recall Apple stating the power consumption was limited to prevent the devices over drawing power from the battery and self-resetting. They subsequently added a battery status overview so users could judge if they could simply replace the battery.
I won't argue that they couldn't have done this sooner or handled it better, but it's quite different from software degrading old devices.
Yeah, no. That source is a complete misrepresentation: Apple didn’t intentionally slow down devices so you could buy a new one: they throttled devices with weak batteries so they wouldn’t shut down randomly. The issue was that Apple communicated this to users somewhat poorly.
I think that telling you that my 2002 PPC iBook actually had remplaçables batteries, as well as all Apple laptop of that era, is pretty much proving misrepresentation...
They were very practical (especially when video playback autonomy was limited to 2h and word processing to around 5h) but clunky. We could discuss for ages if, now a common choice across multiple manufacturers, moving for internal non-moving battery was clever or odious. But the verifiable facts remains that Apple once sold replaceable batteries out there.
That’s also making the point if you need to edit your message because you stand corrected, while very nice and very honest of you, it was misrepresentation at first shot.
Beside you can also imagine than two decade experience with replaceable batteries might also have come to play when they decided that they’re phones will never have one because of constraint on this form factor...
Most apps wouldn’t be subtle about it. They would say that you must have location on to receive discounts.
As far as I know. Apps can’t tell the difference between the user denied location access and the users location can’t be determined right now. There are iOS devices that don’t have GPS chips - some iPads and the iPod Touch. If the user isn’t near a mapped WiFi hotspot, they won’t have anyway of finding a location.
I believe the actual requirement is apps have to work without location access if it isn't essential to the basic functioning of the app. A GPS navigation app obviously needs location access to do its job, something like Twitter, not so much.
Yes, the core gameplay doesn't work, but the app still allows you to log in, manage your account mess with your existing Pokémon and items, move those Pokémon into Pokémon Let's Go's Go Park on the Nintendo Switch.
If you try to play the core game with location permission permanently disabled, the game will alert the user that the game needs the location permission enabled but it will NOT lock the user out of those other functions.
I'm not familiar with the AppStore guidelines myself, but for the most part pokemon go only needs your location while using the app. perhaps that makes a difference?
there are some pokemon go features (adventure sync) gated behind always-on location access, but it isnt required.
You can choose to "never allow" when it originally asks for location and in settings, but it's not one of the options you can choose on the "one day after 'always' tracking was enabled" popup.
You can disable any app's location access from the iOS settings, it's fairly trivial.
As for fake location, well, give it time. They seem to be willing to provide fake emails for the new Sign In With Apple service. So they might start actually obfuscating location in the future.
"By enabling Location Services for your devices, you agree and consent to the transmission, collection, maintenance, processing, and use of your location data and location search queries by Apple and its partners and licensees to provide and improve location-based and road traffic-based products and services."
Android has over half a dozen settings that must be disabled before the OS actually stops tracking your location and they are spread out to different menus. This is to say nothing of built-in apps like Google maps that have their own location tracking settings which, if changed, return all of the OS settings to their default activated setting. Manufacturers can have their own location services on top of Android’s. Updating Android or firmware means having to find all of the hidden settings again to turn off any that have been reset.
Apple’s policy is in no way unique and iOS settings cannot be implicitly overridden by app settings. The global settings are app-specific. I have location settings on and disabled for every app except Apple Maps, other apps still need explicit permission when they try to use my location.
Nonsense. Sending location data back to Google is opt in. Apple doesn't even let you opt out. It's amazing how many people Apple has fooled with their marketing.
Your own examples are for apps that send the same data on iOS and are subject to the same OS permissions on Android and iOS.
> The Google support page for managing and deleting your Location History says that once you turn it off, "the places you go are no longer stored. When you turn off Location History for your Google Account, it's off for all devices associated with that Google Account." The AP's investigation found that's not true. In fact, turning off your Location History only stops Google from creating a timeline of your location that you can view. Some apps will still track you and store time-stamped location data from your devices.[1]
> Google itself offers at least three support pages on location: Manage or delete your Location History, Turn location on or off for your Android device, and Manage location settings for Android apps. None of these makes any mention of Web & App Activity. [1]
Location history is opt-in. You can get your GPS location without enabling it. With iOS, there is no way to even opt out of sending your location to Apple.
Your article is misleading. The same apps that build a history of your location with Android Location History turned off will build a history of your location on iOS and other platforms. It is not unique to Android. The user is well aware of it — if they search, they get local results, and they know that if they have search history enabled, Google will store everything about their query and interactions with it, including where they performed it. This happens on Android and iOS, regardless of whether the user wants full Location History.
Again though, you're getting off track. We're discussing privacy provided (or in this case, not provided) by the OS, not by the apps the user installs, which are governed by OS permissions exactly the same on both platforms anyway.
> Unlike every other phone platform, iOS does not allow a user to get their GPS location without telling Apple what it was.
> apps that build a history of your location with Android Location History turned off will build a history of your location on iOS and other platforms. It is not unique to Android.
The article that I quoted was to provide background to the comment that you claimed was spreading misinformation. I don't think that anyone in this thread has acted in bad faith and I don't see any benefit to the quality of the conversation in accusing commenters of dishonesty, being sinister or otherwise attacking the individual rather than the issue. I am happy to provide the information that has informed my opinions and I am happy to hear disagreements but a flame war is neither healthy nor helpful. Mobile devices are just tools and neither platform is worthy of this level of personal investment.
> This directly contradicts your original comment.
No, it doesn't. Android lets you get your GPS location without telling anybody, including Google. This is the default behavior, even on Google-flavored Android devices. It is impossible to get your GPS location on iOS without telling Apple.
You're confusing Google apps that send location to Google on any platform when the app is configured to send location to Google (like search), with what the OS does regardless of which app is asking for location or whether the app itself sends location data anywhere.
> I don't think that anyone in this thread has acted in bad faith and I don't see any benefit to the quality of the conversation in accusing commenters of dishonesty, being sinister or otherwise attacking the individual rather than the issue.
You're confusing me with sbuk and izacus, who are the only people in this thread who have engaged in the behavior you describe. Please direct your scolding appropriately.
Dishonest may be a bit harsh, misinformed is fairer. The OP is completely disingenuous. They know what that line implies, they are choosing to convey it as sinister.
It is absolutely sinister. If I don't want to be tracked, I have no way of hiding my location from Apple aside from not using GPS on my phone. No other OS has this problem.
We need more of this sunlight in order to make good decisions about how we generate and share information about our lives.