>Well, totalitarian in this context means shackling developers with micro-management of basic functions of software development. This might be an interesting p

>Well, totalitarian in this context means shackling developers with micro-management of basic functions of software development. This might be an interesting philosophical/religious debate about computers to some, but it's also one we had in 2008 when the App Store launched. It's clear after 11 years that Apple was right and the rest of the world simply does not share that religion. Conversely they sure do like the practical benefits from Apple's micromanagement. >You can have every single app run in a privacy jail by-default. Let the user opt-out on a per-app basis if they choose to. Apple could also simply just run a ad-blocker or a tracking scripts blocker as a system level feature. Apps already run in a sandbox and are private by default. The user has to give consent before an app gets location or contacts data. An ad blocker for apps is silly because it's an unnecessary hack when they control the App Store policies. The difference with giving permission to an app you downloaded is that you have a first party relationship with that app. You don't have a first party relationship with any of the SDKs that developers package into their app. They disclose it in their privacy policies that no one reads, but that's certainly not informed consent.