Most customers do want it this way, but Apple still allows to exchange comfort for privacy, if you want to. I actually think it's a pretty sensible approach to capture both the big segment of people who don't care, and those who do and know which knobs to tweak.
You can still turn everything compromising off and end up with a device secured to paranoid levels. That's definitely more than an empty promise, or what other vendors provide.
> Most customers do want it this way, but Apple still allows to exchange comfort for privacy […] more than an empty promise, or what other vendors provide.
That’s pretty much exactly what all the other vendors in the market provide: insecure and spying by default.
I don’t really understand why Apple should somehow get good points for their stance on privacy when they are actually doing pretty much the same thing than everyone else.
While I'm not on the Apple bandwagon, there is a difference between insecure by default and active spying. Even as a Pixel user, I'm fairly confident that my data would be (ab)used less on the Apple side.
Users want convenience, and security always brings inconveniences (e.g., inter-client sync, no chat data before a client logged in first time, etc.).
Some vendors might provide convenience because they want to have your data. Others might provide you the convenience because you as a user want it, but see the resulting data as nothing but a liability.
Some providers are known to have the majority of their business be based around such data, whereas others might have little to no presence in that field.
> that my data would be (ab)used less on the Apple side.
Honest question, apart for the marketing, why?
Does Apple collect your data? Yes.
Does Apple operate an advertising platform and give itself a large amount of rights on your data for advertisement purpose? Yes.
Is Apple an American company and therefore subject to the non sensical and draconian USA spying laws? Yes.
I don’t really see how Apple is better than Google here. Both are pretty much equally bad.
None of your points is about whether or not the company spies or not. You also conflate the malice of the country they are in with the malice of the company itself.
Google's primary business is and have always been ads, and they practically invented the kind of global tracking we have all come to know and hate. Google actively tries to expand tracking and ad exposure to their own benefit. See the Google TV Streamer home screen as an example of their ad behaviors.
Apple has a miniscule ad business, and from the estimates I can find, the money in that is just a fraction of the Google search sponsorship they get (which counts towards the revenue of the same "services" bracket as their own ads). Apple actively tries to limit tracking, pissing other ad companies like Meta off. See the Apple TV home screen as an example of their ad behaviors.
In general, having access to data and using it are entirely orthogonal, and many companies that have your data consider it a liability they would much rather be without - it's just sometimes hard to provide a service without data passing through, and not everything can reasonably be E2E (either for technical or UX reasons).
> many companies that have your data consider it a liability they would much rather be without - it's just sometimes hard to provide a service without data passing through
Apple collects much more data than needed for the service. They also make it practically impossible to use the phones without giving a ton of personal information:
There's a big difference between "expanding miniscule business unit" and company whose entire identity is that, so much so they're willing to pay the first company several time the revenue of their ad business every year just to decide a default setting that might boost their ad business.
And once more, you're conflating access to information and spying.
> you're conflating access to information and spying
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
That you don't want anyone to see any data doesn't make people you give your data spies. Your doctor knows a lot of personal details about you (i.e., has your data), but that doesn't make them a spy - they'd probably prefer not knowing, but they couldn't do their for-profit job otherwise.
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.
> holding or processing user data as part of providing a service
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. See also: enshittification, https://pluralistic.net/2025/02/26/ursula-franklin/
> Most customers do want it this way, but Apple still allows
I don't believe this is the case. Apple generally prefers to diminish the importance and risks of specific actions unless they have some monetary advantage. e.g. Apple is happy to warn you (multiple times) that an alternative marketplace is "dangerous" and yet iMessage iCloud Backups are just a click away with a friendly "so your messages are available everywhere".
Another example is Photos - Apple has no problem activating features that collect "anonymized" information from my pictures. Yes, there is an opt-out, but having all that on by default is not in the spirit of a privacy-minded operation.
And about the choice - someone already pointed out in other comments, there really is no way to replace iCloud with anything else for backups and app data sync. So the choice is not really a choice.
You can still turn everything compromising off and end up with a device secured to paranoid levels. That's definitely more than an empty promise, or what other vendors provide.