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/
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).