And honestly, I'll take it. I have always been OK looking at ads if it funds the tools I use and the media I consume. I have always been OK with some amount of demographic and history-based ad targeting. I have no moral objection to some company gatekeeping advertiser access to my eyeballs and selling that access at a premium, especially if I'm already going to see ads everywhere anyway unless I go off-grid. I have no moral objection to using my demographics and general interests to show me ads for hiking boots instead of kung fu lessons.
I am not OK with companies storing, collecting, selling, etc. my data without my knowledge, consent, or legitimate ability to opt out. If the data doesn't leave my phone and all of the "targeting" happens on my own device, I can think of much worse compromise outcomes.
You may want to check on this belief more thoroughly, at least with Meta/Facebook as a start.
They already do "sell", in a very similar way as Google and Facebook does - look at their app store ads for example. Only real difference between Google/FB and Apple is that they process data on device, not on their servers. Sure, it's a huge technical difference, but not that much in terms of business and end users.
Google and Facebook don't sell your data directly, as it's bad business - you want to sell access to customers as a subscription to get big bucks. They have all the initiative to protect data they gather on their servers. Same as Apple has to do that on devices.
There're details to it, but just moving where you process user data isn't that much of a difference to end users - you're still a corporation selling other people ability to show me ads for cribs, when you discover that I'm expecting a baby.