You do make a good point, we as a collective hold different standards for different companies sometimes. Facebook catches a lot more shit for their mistakes than some other companies. Google catches a lot of shit even when they specifically outline and allow you to opt-in to their policies. When Microsoft does something it's monopolistic, when Apple does the same thing it's "value-added".
The big thing is, I don't know Path as a company. They haven't been around a long time, they don't have a huge, trusting userbase. You assume that they have the information you've given them. You assume they use it for ads or other pseudo-anonymous stuff. What you don't expect is that they will be grabbing things off your phone that you didn't explicitly allow them access to. Programs on your desktop don't hijack the information from other installed programs.
Maybe the line of thinking is faulty for mobile OSes. Maybe it's a chance to start fresh and allow full access across all apps. But the main cry in this controversy is that the users want to at least feel they are in control, even if it's just "install and accept the terms, or don't install period".
Heath Ledger said it best, I think, in The Dark Knight. "Nobody panics when things go 'according to plan.' Even if the plan is horrifying!" Request from the users all the information on their phone and permissions to everything, then present them with an intriguing product. I'll bet a great majority of those who would have installed it would still install it because, like you said, it really does enhance the awesomeness of the app. A little truth goes a long way.
At any rate, this will likely be forgotten in short notice when the next outrage begins.
The big thing is, I don't know Path as a company. They haven't been around a long time, they don't have a huge, trusting userbase. You assume that they have the information you've given them. You assume they use it for ads or other pseudo-anonymous stuff. What you don't expect is that they will be grabbing things off your phone that you didn't explicitly allow them access to. Programs on your desktop don't hijack the information from other installed programs.
Maybe the line of thinking is faulty for mobile OSes. Maybe it's a chance to start fresh and allow full access across all apps. But the main cry in this controversy is that the users want to at least feel they are in control, even if it's just "install and accept the terms, or don't install period".
Heath Ledger said it best, I think, in The Dark Knight. "Nobody panics when things go 'according to plan.' Even if the plan is horrifying!" Request from the users all the information on their phone and permissions to everything, then present them with an intriguing product. I'll bet a great majority of those who would have installed it would still install it because, like you said, it really does enhance the awesomeness of the app. A little truth goes a long way.
At any rate, this will likely be forgotten in short notice when the next outrage begins.