So what's the difference? In this particular case, the access is unwanted and unnecessary, i.e. it very much looks like spying to me.
> There's a big difference between "expanding miniscule business unit" and
Apple is a for-profit company, not a charity. They collected a ton of personal data on everyone and are continuously expanding their ad business. How naive you must be to trust that they're on the side of users forever? It's the same discussion on HN every time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39928611
If you fail to understand that holding or processing user data as part of providing a service is different from making a business out of selling and/or analyzing said user data, then there isn't much to discuss.
Does a small ad business use personal data? Sure, but there sure are differences in how and the extend. How blind you must be to not see that.
Did you read my link? The Apple's data collection is far beyond what they need to provide the service. Unlike the doctor. This is my main point.
> Does a small ad business use personal data?
Again, you are missing the point. Look at the trend, not the current state. The ad business is expanding, and you can't be sure that it stays small for long.
And once more, you're conflating access to information and spying.