It does seem like the number one permission you might wish to choose not to grant, doesn't it?
In a privacy-first design there could also be an API for an encrypted channel that the user has access to, rather than allowing the device to send mysterious black-box data from your device on your behalf in the background whenever it wants. Though I suppose it would just turn into base64 "plaintext" payloads quickly and become normalised rather than a neon sign of fuckery afoot.
Unfortunately, apps can still connect even when they are not "launched"
There are ways to deny apps internet access completely. But this is not something that is provided by Apple or Google
Maybe I should ask Claude Code to kludge together something.
The fundamental similarity is that Apple does not protect the Apple computer owner^1 from Apple anymore than Google protects Android users from Google
Like Google, Apple collects data and profits from ad services. The Apple hardware buyer becomes the product after purchase. Apple profits from selling access to the hardware owner to myriad third parties. It's always making deals
Like the one with Google we learned about in the government's antitrust case. But I digress
There was a meme something like, "Unless you're paying, you are the product". But it's also possible to pay and be the product. For example, when someone purchases an individual Windows license from Microsoft, after purchase the company is still going to _require_ them to create an "account", connect to the internet and be subjected to data collection
Both iOS and Android have "app stores" (MS copies this, too), both expect and intend these "app stores" to earn them revenue from advertising, e.g., allowing apps to do surveillance, data collections and show ads
1. who is forced to use iOS. No "unlocked" bootloaders. No custom ROMs
I'd never defend Apple willy-nilly: they're a megacorp that defrauds the European consumer and is hostile to much I care about. But there is a world of difference between Android and iOS in terms of the protections afforded to the user. Of course most people just don't know where the toggles and settings are that protect them on iOS.
Today's Apple computers try to ping Apple servers the moment they are powered on for the first time. The devices incessantly try to "phone home". Apple's definition of "privacy" does not include privacy from Apple. That is not a coincidence
There is no "toggle" to enable this "convenience", i.e., usage of Apple servers, because it is, by design, on by default
This is not an opinion or a perspective (a "take"). It is a fact, verifiable with tcpdump or the like
One can focus on differences or one can focus on similarities. Many online commentators choose the former. But if focusing on similarities, then it is indisputably clear that Android and iOS are both designed to allow Google and Apple, respectively,^1 to conduct surveillance, data collection and provide ad services
1. Apple also allows Google to collect data from iOS users via default web search in exchange for recurring payement of several billion dollars
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/26/apples-eddy-cue-defends-defa...
One of the other facts that the court learned from the expert tetimony in this case is that defaults matter. If generally no one uses the "toggles", then Apple and Google operate as if they have "consent" to collect data, as if the computer owner voluntarily toggled "Allow surveillance, data collection and ads" to "ON"
"In-app advertising" is a growing business for Apple
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/06/global-app-store-help...
By design, in order to serve ads to iOS users, an app needs internet connectivity. Even when the app has no need for internet connectivity otherwise
Unless one is using something like GrapheneOS, Android/iOS "app permissions" do not meaningfully impede data collection
As long as apps can connect to the internet, data can be collected. By design Android/iOS does not enable users to deny internet access to specific apps. That design is not a coincidence