I'm afraid apps will abuse these permissions. For example, Facebook app (or a banking app) shouldn't quit if I refuse it a permission. I can't even use the default native email app (edit: on Android) with exchange without giving the exchange server remote administration access. Makes no sense.

That is why permission state needs to be hidden / discouraged from apps. No permission just gives you empty data sets. They should be also rejected from app store if they try to cirumvent unless it's a central feature of the app, like a screenshot app or a location tracking app.

With the permission model of apps, then we can start having system apps like istat menus being sold on the app store again too.

I think you haven't used iOS that much. In practice it's fairly rare for an app to shut down without a permission unless it's central to the app.

In fact, it's against the App Store guidelines to refuse to work without a permission (unless it's central to the app).

The Exchange server requesting remote permission is a "feature" which allows you or your company's Exchange server admins to send remote wipe command to the handset if it's lost or you leave the company. Not the specific fault of the permission model of the phone, it's part of the activesync suite.

You can use the default email application on Android with services that don't want remote-wipe controls. Exchange does. That's how ActiveSync works. If you don't want that, use IMAP or POP3.

How is the Android way different? We're two major and four minor versions since individual permission request were added.

Android AFAIK shows a large laundry list of permissions you need to accept when you install an app and you can revoke after the fact. While on iOS there is no laundry list to accept and the built in annoyance of permission alerts encourages apps not to do it unless they need it.

Also android takes a while to propagate new versions onto the majority install base :)

You just replied to a post stating that this changed years ago.